HawaiiStories: Same-Sex Marriage

Comments

Posted by Albert on February 25, 2004 9:47 AM:

This was one topic of conversation on NPR's almost-always amusing "Left Right and Center" last evening. I agreed with the speaker who said government should just get out of the marriage game.

"Civil union" is a nice concept. Let people (of any sexual combination) go to a Justice of the Peace and formalize a civil union.

If they want "marriage", take it to religion.

Personally, I think "gay marriage" is a very silly idea, but I do realize such associations should, as a civil rights matter, have the same legal protections (and benefits, if any) as a heterosexual one.

Posted by Linkmeister on February 25, 2004 3:27 PM:

My thoughts.

Posted by Glen Miyashiro on February 26, 2004 8:27 AM:

I just have to shake my head when I listen to GW and his buddies (to keep myself from knocking it against the nearest brick wal). Which part of "equal rights for all citizens" do these people not understand?

Posted by Linkmeister on February 26, 2004 10:09 AM:

Glen, they understand the preposition in the sentence(not the prOposition), but the rest of it is obviously not something they get. In fact, if you look at tax policy, you could argue they think the whole idea is farcical.

Posted by cheyne on February 26, 2004 3:03 PM:

I wholeheartedly agree that the government should keep their paws out of Gay or Straight marriages. I'm not up on my policies, but whatever happened to the "Church and State are separate" theory?

It just brings me back to the all-important question of "why should the government care who is marrying who?". If anyone who supports Bush's proposal can answer that question without blowing things out of proportion (ie: he's trying to save the world from those pillow-biters who want to destroy our sacred tradition, etc) then I'd love to hear about it.

Posted by helen on February 26, 2004 8:59 PM:

It just brings me back to the all-important question of "why should the government care who is marrying who?"

Mainly because part of the government's job at the state level is to record who marries who. Births, deaths, marriages, end of marriages, that is one of the functions that I guess needs to be done.

Aside from biological siblings marrying one another, parents marrying their offspring, first cousin relationship and age restrictions I don't think there is that much restrictions in one person marrying another. There was no rule that limited marriage to one man to one woman and if you think about it now with all this talk about banning "same sex marriage" it seems to be legal for same sex couples to marry now!

And even if some state decided to limit marriage to one man to one woman, they gotta define the man and woman part first (do you use gender at birth or current gender) otherwise all you gotta do is throw a transgendered person into the relationship and *poof* same sex marriage that is legal.

Posted by Dori on February 28, 2004 4:52 PM:

Check out Margaret Cho's Love is love is love page, and sign her petition, if you've not already done so. (I love the Bay Area almost as much as I love Hawai'i!)

Posted by Vince on February 28, 2004 7:14 PM:

The thing I find most dispiriting about debates like this is how easy it is for proponents of an unpopular idea (and, let’s all be honest, the majority of Americans do not favor same sex marriages) to paint themselves as victims of another Bush/Republican/Religious Right plan to crush them into oblivion.

From a purely personal standpoint, I favor civil unions that are defined in a manner that makes it clear that same-sex couples have similar rights to traditional couples. Similar, but not identical. These partners would be recognized as spouses, have medical coverage, divorce rights, and inheritance. And that’s where it ends for me.

The manner in which people are throwing around the word discrimination – as if somehow protecting a social institution like marriage was discriminatory – reminds me very, very much of Alexis De Tocqueville’s Tyranny of the Majority argument.

While the fundamental concepts behind the Tyranny of the Majority are valid, the American political and social paradigm has changed to such a degree that it is no longer the majority that needs to be feared, but the elite minority. That is, progressives should understand that they are fostering a Tyranny of the Minority by a) flouting existing law by performing these same-sex marriages and b) pushing for codified recognition of something that the majority of the people don’t want.

The Defense of Marriage Act (which, incidentally for all the Bush-bashers out there, was signed into law by President Clinton) was enacted to protect states that chose not to recognize same-sex marriages from those who did. The DMA also defined marriage based on what the Supreme Court stated more than a century ago when it spoke of the “union for life of one man and one woman in the state of matrimony.” (Murphy v Ramsey, 114 U.S.

So, as a law and order advocate, I find it disturbing that those who are calling the President’s proposal for a constitutional amendment as “catering to his political base” or that those who are against same-sex marriage are zealots of the religious right. The fact is that these principalities in San Francisco and in New York are flouting recognition of the federal definition of marriage contained in the DMA. And if what this is all building to is a challenge at the Supreme Court level, then progressives could very well be disappointed. There is no legal precedent at the highest federal level for extending the equal protection clause to gay marriage, and it’s unlikely that the court would contradict it’s own earlier definition of what marriage is. What recourse will they have at that point if the highest legal authority states that same-sex couples cannot be married? Rather than pushing for an all-or-nothing solution, wouldn’t it be more sensible to seek recognition of their status by some other means?

Times may change, but standards must remain in order for us to have an orderly civilization. As I said, I’m an order over chaos kind of guy and this tyranny of the minority stuff, where folks whose sole line of reasoning is that anything which doesn’t fall in line with their lifestyle is “discriminatory,” is unsettling. Bush may be getting political points by doing this but he is also obviously taking a lot of political heat as people use it (once again) to bash him for something.

So for those who are in favor of it, stop telling me why protecting marriage by constitutional amendment is evil, stop bashing the President in this “everything Bush does is fricken stupid” mentality, and start telling us all why same-sex “marriage” is sensible. Tell me how I am equally protected for having the government recognize and reward a gay marriage in the same way that my marriage is. Give us the sound, logical, consistent reasoning about why it should be allowed based on existing laws and, just as important, our social mores.

I don’t have any gay associates or friends, so maybe I just don’t understand their position well enough. Why isn’t a civil union that recognizes partnership rights good enough? Why does it have to be marriage?

Posted by Jen on February 28, 2004 8:30 PM:

Oh, puh-leeese. Just stop with the "stop picking on us Republicans" bullcrap. Because you know as well as I do that if it were a Democratic president in favor of, say, banning SUV's, none of y'all would not hesitate to call him every name you could come up with. We're bashing Bush because he's made really, really unwise decisions; this being the latest in a long, long line of them.

Just riddle me this, Batman. How is it EVER a good idea to change the freaking Constitution? Isn't one of the things conservatives are always cramming down people's throats is the idea of "small" government? Staying out of the way? Minding their own damn business? At least, isn't that what they claim when someone comes along and tries to make environmental regulations? So why is it okay now to change the consitution? Oh, that's right. It serves your purpose now.

Posted by Ryan on February 28, 2004 8:38 PM:

Why isn’t a civil union that recognizes partnership rights good enough? Why does it have to be marriage?

The concept of "separate but equal" has long ago been found to be inherently unequal.

The fact is that these principalities in San Francisco and in New York are flouting recognition of the federal definition of marriage contained in the DMA.

IANAL, but I thought the DMA concerned itself primarily with the "full faith and credit" portion of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution. San Fran and New York can do what they like, in other words, they just can't make other states recognize what they've done. Of course, a lot of people think the DMA's days are numbered as a result of this conflict.

I still say the "Tyranny of the Majority" needs to be kept in check more than the "elite minority." I find the phrases "activist judges" and other "left-wing extremists" to be laugable. Why aren't the courts a legitimate venue to advance social justice? Most people, the supposed faultless majority, by far were against equal rights for blacks and against striking down laws against interracial marriages... but the courts moved anyway, knowing what was right can trump what the masses want.

That said, civil marriages, state-by-state debates, and probably state-by-state constitutional conventions all seem like reasonable steps to take from here. Amending our Constitution specifically to restrict rights of a specific constituency is just horrible. It flies in the face of what the Constitution was created for.

Posted by helen on February 28, 2004 9:08 PM:

My question then would be what kind of benfits a married couple would have that a civil union couple would not have?

Posted by Vincent on February 28, 2004 11:55 PM:

Notice how the first response to my post was exactly what was to be expected - an emotional tirade against Bush and conservatives. My point was precisely that; this country is so polarized - and has been for at least a decade - that everything is painted in colors of right versus left instead of right versus wrong. I asked that someone define the argument in terms of something other than anti-Bush but instead got more of the same. The loudest, most aggressive voices in favor of this issue just can’t seem to do that and instead haul out the old “SUV-loving-environment-trashing-small-government-tax-cut-loving-welfare-destroying-Bush-is-sending-us-to-hell-in-a-handbasket” mantra.

I said I favored civil unions to allow gays to have equivalent legal recognition. My overarching point was that people conveniently forgot that Clinton passed the DMA, the challenge of which is now making a high court or US constitutional showdown a reality. That simply blaming Bush isn’t a good enough argument.

I guess I’m not as eloquent as some folk and didn’t make that clear. I apologize for that.

The concept of "separate but equal" has long ago been found to be inherently unequal…to restrict rights of a specific constituency is just horrible. It flies in the face of what the Constitution was created for. I’m no lawyer, either, but it occurs to me that the constitution specifically restricted rights for women and blacks until it was amended. So a) the constitution isn’t an infallible document, and b) the amendment proposed also would affirm rights of heterosexuals, wouldn’t it?

I find the phrases "activist judges" and other "left-wing extremists" to be laugable (sic). Why aren't the courts a legitimate venue to advance social justice? I’m quite sure I never stooped to the name-calling others around here have (except for that dreaded “tyranny of the minority” comment). And yes, if this issue has to be taken to the courts, then so be it. But here’s the scenario: Someone gets married in San Fran, challenges the DMA in order to get it recognized federally, and it gets appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court affirms not only the DMA definition, but also its own one-man-one-woman definition written a century ago. What then? The only way to get federal recognition will be to what? Change the constitution to say that two men = one man one woman = two women. And if that ground must be breached, then so be it.

But as I asked before, can someone explain why a same-sex union needs to be called a marriage even if it has the same legal protections? Why would a two-man civil union even need equal protection if they had the same healthcare, survivorship, and divorce rights? Can someone explain that in a way that’s rational instead of the typical inflammatory BS that gets tossed around here?

My question then would be what kind of benfits (sic) a married couple would have that a civil union couple would not have? The only benefit that I would be against is for same-sex civil unions to be treated the same as married couples for federal tax purposes. In the same way that Head of Household is different from Married Filing Separately. And before I get attacked about how a variation in taxation is unfair, take a look at the tax code as it stands today before you start.

I hope that clears up my position, that some of us Republicans can be socially progressive and economically conservative, despite what certain people here would have you believe.

Posted by kane on February 29, 2004 5:15 AM:

Same-sex marriage is not a left versus right issue, although it's obvious that some would like to make it as such. Rather, when the onion is peeled, what is found at the core of the issue is the question of equality.

It may very well be true that the majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage. However, a much larger majority of Americans oppose discrimination. As the Massachusetts Supreme Court recently ruled, civil unions are not the constitutional equivalent of civil marriage. They found that ordering a separate but equal civil union status would have the effect of maintaining and fostering a stigma of exclusion.

Vincent asks, Why would a civil union even need equal protection if they had the same healthcare, survivorship, and divorce rights? Can someone explain that in a way that’s rational?

I will make an attempt to try. For example, let's say that two individuals of the same-sex are joined in a civil union, rather than a marriage. One of these individuals applies for a loan, a job, or some place where such applications are necessary and in-depth information is required. If such an individual were to state that he or she is married, then it could be argued that a lie was commited on the application. If one states that they are joined in a civil union, then it gives those in a position of power to discriminate on the basis of one's sexual preference. Classifying all married couples as married regardless of sexual orientation prevents such possible discriminatory and prejudicial scenarios from occuring.

Because of knee-jerk political sensitivity, I would have prefered not to evoke the Bush name into my original post. However, considering that Bush inserted himself into the issue, I would be remiss if I failed to make mention of it. After all, it was Bush in 2000 that campaigned against such a constitutional amendment, thus his flip-flop on the issue should and must be pointed out. Mentioning the President's change in policy is a valid point, and one should not consider it as Bush-bashing.

There are those that claim that the social institution of marriage and all its sanctity must be protected from same-sex marriage. With all of the recent same-sex couples tying the knot, how has any heterosexual marriage been damaged? If a heterosexual marriage can actually be damaged by a same-sex marriage, and it's sanctity hurt by a same-sex couple using the M-word, then I would suggest that the damaged heterosexual marriage is not worth the paper that it is printed on.

As I stated above, this issue is really about equality. Same-sex couples aren't asking for anything extra, nor do they desire special treatment, they just want fairness with the same considerations that heterosexual couples now enjoy. As a heterosexual male, same-sex marriage in of itself serves me no purpose. But in the broader scope of things, I believe that none of us are truely free unless all of us are considered equal under the law. In the end, the question is not why a same-sex union needs to be called a marriage, but rather why not?

Posted by Jen on February 29, 2004 7:25 AM:

some of us Republicans can be socially progressive and economically conservative

{looks around} Really? Who? Oh, you meant you. That's funny, because I think you just said you were against equal rights. If you don't call it the same thing, it ain't the same thing, no matter what kind of doublespeak you attach to it. A civil union is not the same thing as a marriage. End of story.

And again with "oh poor poor us, victims of a big bad evil liberal conspiracy!". Nobody was offering anything remotely resembling a "tirade" until you evoked the republican vs. democrat argument. Everybody in here, as Kane posted above, posed it as an issue of civil rights and the unwillingness of Bush to grant a group its civil rights. Which part of that equation is so difficult to understand?

Posted by Vincent on February 29, 2004 9:48 AM:

Nobody was offering anything remotely resembling a "tirade" until you evoked the republican vs. democrat argument. Based on what I read from those posts – including the linked posts – that’s precisely the way it looked to me.

But thank you, Jen, for once again proving my point about the level of discourse. I’d go on trying to explain that my initial post was a call for some argument other than “there Bush goes again,” that I wasn’t bemoaning a liberal conspiracy, and that I was just sharing my opinion about why I felt existing law is what’s at issue. Clearly you just don’t get that. Since all arguments are crafted by language, and I obviously can only communicate in my doublespeak, I’ll just defer to your commentary and say that you’re correct.

Thanks, Jeff, for your explanation. Like I said, I’m not close enough to the same-sex community to see through the normal froth that gets tossed about by their more fervid proponents. I understand your specific Bush reference, but I’m going to leave the President out of it so I don’t get sniped at again and just talk about the discrimination issue.

Those who argue that same-sex marriage threatens heterosexual marriages are clearly using a very thin argument because you’re right, Jeff, in that traditional marriages should not be affected by same-sex couples tying the knot. In fact, traditional marriages have been under siege from greater societal problems over the last thirty years than this, and our high divorce rate is testament to that.

I understand your job or bank loan example and I see that without the ability to say that they are “married” versus in a civil union, they put themselves in the position of being discriminated against by someone with the power to do so. I would think, though, that once a person (let’s call her Janice) listed herself as married and that her spouse’s name was Deborah, she’d be putting herself in the same position to be discriminated against, despite her married status. So I think if the issue is more about discrimination, equal protection and equal rights, then we should be addressing it at a far more fundamental and broad-based level.

You’re right, Jeff, why not just call it marriage instead of same-sex marriage? You can’t expect people – who react to things instead of thinking them through – to see each other as equal if the primary ways we describe each other are already discriminatory. That would extend beyond sexuality to race as well.

It seems to me that if you want true equality (and not separation), then you have to start at the very beginning. And I said before, though some ignored it for obvious reasons, if what it takes is a constitutional amendment to codify that all forms of marriage are equal, then so be it.

Posted by Jen on February 29, 2004 12:08 PM:

I "get" plenty of things. I "get" that a real progressive conservative would say that it is a bad idea to change the constitution in any way, shape, or form, especially when it is meant to further a political agenda. I "get" that said conservatives bring up the 2nd amendment in gun control debates. I'm fine with that. We don't fuck with the constitution. I "get" that.

I'll say it again, real slow, so you understand this time: Bush wants this amendment. Some of this don't like this amendment. Hence, the "Bush is an ass" sentiment. He's the one who turned it into a political issue, and he's being called on it. If anti-Bush rhetoric bothers you so much, maybe you ought to examine what's behind it. I don't like thinking the leader of the free world is an idiot any more than you like hearing it. But he wants to limit someone's rights by (I'll say it again) amending the constitution. I "get" that not all conservatives are evil, and I also "get" that they don't like this idea, either. I don't think you can convince them that it's a good idea any more than you can convince any of us.

Posted by Albert on February 29, 2004 2:37 PM:

It's entirely possible that a "majority of Americans" didn't want black people to sit on a bus seat next to them, but fortunately that didn't stop the courts.

Bush doesn't give a s**t about this proposed amendment, he just wants to make his conservative Christian constituency happy.

He's going to need every note he can get this time around (that Nader doesn't steal from him) and he thinks the redneck vote will be bigger than the fag vote.

And he's probably right.

Posted by Patrick on February 29, 2004 8:36 PM:

I will not comment directly on gay marriage. I will try to keep my comments directed towards traditional, heterosexual marriage, and the benefits our society, or more specifically, our children, receives from it.

Before anyone jumps on me, I am not saying that gay people cannot be good parents. I know they can. I have children in my pediatric practice who have gay parents, so I know it can be done, and done well.

What I want to speak about is how heterosexual marriage has changed. It is no longer valued, but rather (I may be overly paranoid here) it has been attacked. It has been attacked by divorce, it has been attacked by feminism, it has been attacked by the secularism, it is attacked by the acceptance of out of wedlock birth, attacked by the acceptance of teen pregnancy, and, probably most severely, it has been attacked the “me, myself and I generation” that values self much more than family, spouse, children, and anything that is not remotely self centered.

Throughout these discussions, be it on this board or elsewhere, no one speaks about children. It is always about the adults, their rights, and what they want. Can I ask, who is looking out for the kids?

As a pediatrician, I see the children everyday in my office. Gay marriage—is it good or bad? I don’t know. Heterosexual marriage under attack and seen as having little value is bad—and its terrible effect on children is hard to dispute. Adults, be they gay or straight, religious or atheist, black, white, yellow, green or pink—in my opinion, see less and less benefit in the traditional heterosexual marriage. The results on children have been devastating.

Let me share some facts about the health of children over the last 40 years.

In 1960, the out of wedlock birthrate was 5.3%.

In 1999, the out of wedlock birthrate for all children was 33%.

In 1999, 43% of Hispanic children were born out of wedlock

In 1999, 67% of black children were born out of wedlock.

More than 50% of all first born children are conceived or born out of wedlock.

At my hospital, a poor, rural community, 82% of the births over a 3-month period of time were to unwed mothers.

In 1960, 4 million children were born to married women.

In 1999, 2.6 million children were born to married women.

In 1960, 224,300 children were born out of wedlock.

In 1999, more than 1.3 million children were born out of wedlock. 29% percent of these births were to teenager mothers. 55% of these unwed births were to mothers in their twenties. Only 4% of these unwed mothers had a college education.

Of women who live above the poverty line, 94% of them have children while married.

The median income for a two-parent home is just $52,553, median income for a divorced mother, $21,316. For a single mother, never married, $12,064.

6% of children raised by married parents live in poverty. 31% of children raised in a home with two unmarried parents live in poverty. 45% of children raised by a single mom live in poverty.

The child poverty rate in the US is among the highest of industrialized nations. Of all industrialized nations, the US has the highest number of homes headed by a single parent.

37% of children born out of wedlock will drop out of high school. (My county’s high school dropout rate hovers at 50%.) 31% of children whose parents divorce will drop out of high school. 15% of children whose parents married, but the father dies, drop out of high school. If the parents remain married, the high school drop out rate is 13%.

Even more disturbing…

Daughters of single parents are 164% more likely to have a child out of wedlock, 111% more likely to give birth as a teen, and 92% more likely to divorce if they were to marry. The cycle repeats itself, generation after generation.

72% of adolescents who commit murder come from fatherless homes. 70% of long-term prison inmates come from fatherless homes. 60% of rapists come from fatherless homes.

You may have already surmised that I don’t think gay marriage is ideal. This is nothing personal. I also do not feel that divorce, childbirth out of wedlock, and single parents are ideal. These things may be ideal for the adults involved, but not for the children.

I hope that my opinions are based on facts, and on my work and experience as a pediatrician. I do not feel that I am a bigot, or insensitive. In my work everyday, I work to support and care for single parents and gay parents. I welcome them into my practice, -- the majority of my practice is to single parents with a few gay parents mixed in—and yes, there are some married heterosexuals.

Ultimately, I hope that I am pro-child and I see the horror that has been dealt to our children as the traditional marriage, and all the benefits children reap from it, has been destroyed. It has been under attack for over a generation now. The loss of this institution, the traditional heterosexual marriage, will have irreversible, negative consequences on our society.

What is lost in all these discussions--be it divorce, single parenting, childbirth out of wedlock, gay marriage--is that the arguments usually center on the adults, and their rights. No one speaks for the children; it is always about the adults.

If there was anyone marching on Washington in support of the DMA, I think it would be a bunch of diaper wearing kids, shouting, “where are the parents, who is raising us”.

Ever since the dawn of history, I suspect that mankind has known, understood and supported the traditional, heterosexual marriage. Initially the bond was natural, instinctual—the only way a child could be produced was by a man and a woman—banding together as a unit, a couple improved the chance that the child would survive to adulthood. Then society, and yes religions, realized the importance of marriage, and laws and customs came about to support the heterosexual marriage. Again, the marriage idea, in my opinion, was not for the benefit of the adults, but for the children, and society.

Now that we have become more “enlightened and tolerant”, we want to throw away thousands of years of knowledge and experience; experience that has worked to society’s benefit. Instead, we adults want to pursue our own, selfish desires.

The results are depressing.

In conclusion, should gay marriage be supported or not? I am not certain, but I think it is more important for heterosexual marriage to be supported, because it is the children who suffer.

Come spend a day in my office and witness it first hand. You all can visit the beaches here in North Carolina…not as pretty as Hawaii, but they will have to do for now.

Please don’t blame men and women for the dismal state of marriage in this county. You and I are those men and women, and we as a society have de-valued it, and it is the children who are paying. Don’t pass the buck.

Don’t tell me gay marriage and adoption can take care of these kids, either. There are 1.3 million kids born every year to single mothers. These single mom’s don’t want to give them up for adoption.

(My data can all be verified from US census data and other sources. Anyone wanting the references specifically can email me and I will forward it onto you.)

Posted by Glen Miyashiro on February 29, 2004 9:07 PM:

Patrick: your comments are well-taken. But I don't think that "support heterosexual marriage" and "allow homosexual marriage" are mutually exclusive goals. In fact, what your statistics are all about is the disintegration of the traditional nuclear American family, and we have to ask, why has this happened over the last few decades? It's not because of same-sex marriages, considring that none existed until only this year or so, so don't point your finger in that direction.

Posted by sin on March 1, 2004 12:55 AM:

Oooohhhh,I was wondering when our little group was going to get involved in this debate. Can you hear me licking my chops yet? Here we go:

First off, yes Patrick, if marriage worked the way it was supposed to people and society in general would be a lot happier. There's nothing healthier for a child than to have two happy parents who raise him or her in a loving environment. No one is going to argue that. But thanks for the statistics anyway.

Anyway, let's get down to the nitty gritty here. People are against gay marriages, civil unions, etc, etc, because it just plain BOTHERS THE HELL OF OUT THEM. It's outside their comfort zone, offends them, freaks them out, whatever.

But the biggest bag of B.S. comes from those who say "It's offensive before the eyes of God!" I tell you what's offensive, the fact that people use the Bible to hide their bigotry, that's what's offensive.

Now, for a guy who calls himself "Sin", I'd just like to let you know I am a strong believer in Christ and God and a lecturer at my old church, and even an altar boy for years. Wanna know which verse homo-haters - sorry, traditional marriage supporters - like to throw around? Let's check out the Book of Leviticus.
"You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination."
That's pretty cut and dry I guess. So is "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed." But...what else written here? Hey look,it also says "Anyone who curses his father and mother shall be put to death." Also, "if a man lies in sexual intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period, both of them shall be cut off from their people." And then there's "Do not eat meat with the blood still in it." and "Do not clip your hair at the temples, nor trim the edges of your beard."

There are all sorts of rules and regulations in this particular book of the Bible and it's funny how no one goes after gillete for making razor blades that have trimmed many man's beard out there. Also it says here that a priest may marry, except it has to be virgin who has never been divorced. Funny how that got turned into an act of celibacy over the ages.

If it seems that I'm ridiculing the Good Book I'm not. I'm just saying that sometime people pick and choose parts of the Bible that will further their own personal beliefs in order to oppress the rights of others under the disguise of religious righteousness or decency. For example, here's one to further my righteous crusade, "Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condeming and you will not be condemned. Forgive and be forgiven." New Testament, The Gospel according to Luke. Let's just let people live their lives - so long as their actions do no harm to you or your loved ones - and let God do the judging. Okay?

And before anyone responds with the old, "The devil can quote scripture for his own purposes" quote, just remember, you're quoting scripture as well.

Peace be with all of you,

Sin

Posted by NemesisVex on March 1, 2004 5:12 AM:

Why should this proposed amendment stop at marriage? It should specify the act of sexual intercourse as one between a man and a woman.

Posted by Linkmeister on March 1, 2004 2:39 PM:

Nemesis, you're getting into Rick Santorum territory there. ;)

Posted by Glen Miyashiro on March 1, 2004 3:29 PM:

Snort! I'm sorry, but every time I hear about Sen. Rick Santorum, I think of Dan Savage's campaign to add the word "santorum" to the English language, and I have to laugh. Google only if you're curious; it's rather vulgar.

Posted by Patrick on March 1, 2004 7:58 PM:

In response to "sin":

I never quoted scripture, nor do I think I invoked religion at all, except to speculate that marriage evolved as a way to raise children, with the support or societal and religious institutions.

You state "if marriage worked the way it is supposed to people in society in general would be a lot happier". I think you, the children and I would agree, and the statistics support us.

Glen--you state that my "statistics are all about is the disintegration of the traditional nuclear American family, and we have to ask, why has this happened over the last few decades?"

Glen, contrary to what you said, I am not “pointing my finger at“ or suggesting that homosexual marriage has caused the decline of the nuclear family.

I did suggest, and I speculate that the "me, myself and I" attitude of adults--busy pursuing their interests and no one is taking care of the kids.

As I stated, if they could, I think the diaper wearing children of this country would march on Washington—the million baby march—in support of the nuclear family—shouting “who is raising us, where are our parents?”

We accept every and any type of life style—and I believe tolerance is a good thing. But the traditional nuclear family seems to be ridiculed, mocked and denigrated in our popular culture. We tolerate divorce, co-habitation, out of wedlock births, teen pregnancy—and do not recognize the real value of the heterosexual marriage. I do not think I would be wrong to say that to voice support for it, as I am here, opens me up for charges of intolerance and insensitivity to alternative lifestyles.

Glen, you ask, why has the traditional nuclear family been destroyed? May I suggest that we as a society, in our effort to tolerate all and never judge will not accept that the divorces, teen pregnancy, unwed births and co-habitation, among others, are the things that have destroyed the nuclear family? Maybe too much tolerance can be a bad thing? (Now I now that is a dangerous statement to make in today’s PC climate.)

Homosexual marriage, and this is the harshest I may get, in my opinion, is just another step away from the nuclear family, and it probably isn’t too far of a step away. If I thought about it, I would probably consider a teen unwed mother further away from the nuclear family.

I just want to say that we all are engrossed with what we as adults want, what our rights are and how we feel. No one seems to give a damn about the children, and they are the ones who are really suffering.

To close---

I have a 14-year-old girl in the hospital right now. She is in because of her asthma. She is pretty sick, but getting better. Her mom smokes. The child doesn’t take her medicine to control her asthma. This is her 5th hospital admission in 1 year. They never come to the office to follow up after discharge from the hospital. The mother blames her daughter for not taking the medicine—saying that it her responsibility and as her mother she can’t make her take it. (How many 14 years old do you know who do not need adult supervision?)

The girl obviously needed supervision, as she is 30 weeks pregnant, due to deliver the end of April. This is her second asthma hospitalization during this pregnancy.

This girl is lost. I don’t care if a republican or democrat, pro-gay marriage or anti-gay marriage candidate is elected president. I don’t care how much social welfare programs are given to this child-mother and her soon to be born child. She is lost, doomed to a life of poverty and despair. I see this story every day, over and over, thousands of kids just like her.

The issue I am, and our country, should be dealing with is bigger than whether two gay men can marry and visit one another in the hospital when the other is sick. Is that an important issue? Yes, I believe it is, and I want them to be able to visit one another.

The trouble our children are having right now, due to the destruction of the traditional, heterosexual marriage is a greater problem than any adult may be facing, be they straight or gay. We adults just don’t recognize it, and that was the point behind the statistics.

If we spent more time worrying about the weakest amongst us and less about the me, myself and I, we may actually be a more loving, caring and gentle society. I just see a lot of adults, be they gay or straight, looking out for good old number one. Sorry to end on such a low note…

Posted by sin on March 2, 2004 1:07 AM:

Patrick: I did not address those religious comments towards you, if you thought so I apologize. My only comments towards you involved the paragraph that uttered your name. Believe me, my rant and rave was in general and not directed towards anyone in particular except those with the last name Gabbard. Oops, did I say that? Now then, Patrick makes many good points in my view, that children are often overlooked in our modern day society. Then again, is it so different in this decade, century, millenium than any other? We often say that children are our future but then after the commercial is pau we go on with making ourselves happy instead of looking towards their well being.

Personally, I think we're getting off the subject. The topic was same sex marriage. For it or against it and why? Let's see some logic or at least some passionate ranting.

Oh by the way, the Good Book says nothing about women lying with women. Does that mean lesbians are okay but gay men are not?

Sorry, forgot to mention this during my last post.

Sin

Posted by NemesisVex on March 2, 2004 2:45 AM:

I was channel surfing Sunday morning and caught a bit of Face the Nation on CBS. Santorum was there, and man -- dude can't debate for crap. Then again, I'm predisposed not to put much stock into his ideas anyway.

But in my rush for the quick, sarcastic glib, I have to ask -- if the moral conservatives are so squicked about gay marriage, why not address the Supreme Court decision that struck down sodomy laws?

SCOTUS says sodomy laws are unconstitutional, so amend the constitution to allow sodomy laws again. It would make a marriage amendment obsolete.

The marriage debate has been going on for a long time, but that decision, more than anything, has given leverage to gay people.

I'm surprised the conservatives haven't been more Machiavellian about taking that away.

Posted by Ryan on March 2, 2004 9:37 AM:

Sin, your comment reminded me that I particularly enjoyed the argument put forth by one opponent of same-sex marriage who said, "Gay men have a higher risk of AIDS and STDs, and that's why they shouldn't marry." Leaving the promiscuous and prostitutes aside for a moment (and really, in all these cases, wouldn't marriage encourage healthier monogamy?), what I liked most about this angle was that, clearly then, lesbian marriages are the best unions of all!

Posted by Linkmeister on March 3, 2004 11:52 AM:

Ryan, that comment was based on a study which has been cited by Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council. To my knowledge, no one has yet suggested that to him, although some have done what you have and pointed out the obvious. Grins...

Posted by Patrick on March 3, 2004 6:14 PM:

I do not feel I am taking us off the subject. The importance of traditional heterosexual marriage, and its effect on society, is not getting off the subject. After all, the initial post was asking about Bush’s proposed amendment to the constitution—and that amendment address traditional heterosexual marriage.

My opinion is that traditional heterosexual marriage is not valued in our society. It is not acknowledged as being of paramount importance to children.

Some would argue, and I am one of those, that the traditional heterosexual marriage is the very basis and foundation upon which most societies are built.

It is clear that with the deterioration of the nuclear family, and the deterioration of the traditional heterosexual marriage, are directly related. The children, and some would expand it to say, the society, is suffering.

Now, many would call me intolerant for espousing those views. My opinion, some would say, is not inclusive. They are wrong. I am tolerant of gays and divorce and single parents and teen parents—I believe my previous comments and my life’s work, strongly suggest that I am tolerant, and even supportive, of these “alternative” lifestyles--although I often feel like there is very little I can do to help the kids I encounter.

Tolerance does not mean equality though, and that is where the whole “tolerance movement”, our whole PC culture, is wrong, and where I have to take a stand.

Gay marriage is not, and never could be, equal to heterosexual marriage. It cannot, period. To call it “gay marriage” is an attempt at equality, not tolerence, and that is wrong. Yes, a gay couple can be good, or even great parents, but there are millions, yes, tens of millions (1.3 million children born each year out of wedlock) of children who are suffering because traditional heterosexual marriage is under attack.

Is gay marriage an attack on traditional marriage? Is teen birth an attack on marriage? Is out of wedlock birth an attack on marriage? Is divorce an attack on marriage? Is much of our current “popular society” -- embracing the violence in “Kill Bill” while we condemn “The Passion” for it’s violence -- an attack on marriage, and, aren’t all of these things an attack on “traditional society”?

My answer to those questions is yes. Ask the children if they think these alternate arrangements are equally effective. Consult the statistics and ask yourself if the children are better off now that we have fully embraced all of these “alternative child rearing” arrangements. As we embrace more and more alternatives, traditional marriage will only get weaker and weaker. The last forty years have proven that.

If you say that this is not about the kids, then I am indeed off the subject. Children really is the subject though. My premise from the beginning was that traditional heterosexual marriage has never been about the adults. It was always about the children, and it is an institution that society had (note the past tense) elevated to a special status because of what it did—it civilized men, protected women and helped raise children. (If “protect women” seems to be a bit much for you, look at the statistics on how teen births, single parenthood and birth out of wedlock essentially condemns women to poverty. It is the men, who want the sex but not the commitment and responsibility, that actually condemn the women to poverty. Society "imposed" marriage on the men, to keep us in line. Please don' t read this as women can't succeed without a man. Women can, especailly if they are without children--but divorced or unwed with a child equals poverty--see the data above. This is not my opinion--it is fact, maybe not fair, but fact. I dare you to find a man willing to raise the baby. Or even less likely, find a women willing to give her child to the man who won't marry her. The cooperation of the man and women in raising the children is ancient, and its benefits are still true in today's society. We haven't evolved than much.)

Gay marriage, divorce, single parenting, out of wedlock births, teen pregnancy—those “alternatives” are, I contest, all about the adults, not the children.

Do two gay men, or women, want to be tolerated in their relationship, or do they want to be accepted as equal? In my opinion, the gay marriage movement is about equality, not tolerance. If it were about tolerance, formal recognition by society via civil unions, conveying the same rights without changing the definition of marriage, would be satisfactory. That is not acceptable to the movement.

Gay marriage can never be equal, from the children's point of view, to traditional heterosexual marriage, if my arguments and the statistics are true. If so, the only way to achieve equality, which, again, I think is the ultimate goal of this movement, is for the continued deterioration of the nuclear family, and heterosexual marriage. As heterosexual marriage becomes rarer and rarer, and alternatives more and more accepted, its benefits get diluted, and less recognizable. Are we already at that point?

Heterosexual marriage is already in terrible shape. Will a constitutional amendment fix the lowly state and the little respect that heterosexual marriage has in our society. I will support the amendment, for the reason I have expressed, but I doubt it will help. As long as the adults in this society think first and foremost about “me, myself and I” and don’t want to recognize and admit that traditional heterosexual marriage is vital to our children, any amendment won’t be worth the paper it is printed on.

Adults won’t do that. Most of us are either gay, divorced, children of divorce, single parents, or some other category that would require some self searching and recognition that we are not "equal"--whatever that means (maybe "equivalent" is the better word?). We are unwilling to accept heterosexual marriage is better for the children -- admitting that might make us inadequate. How is that for lack of tolerance on our part? If it doesn't make me feel good, elevating heterosexual marraige to a special place in society, I don't support it.

The behavior of the adults needs to change, and an amendment won’t do that. The children, as the statistics speak, will continue to suffer, and get the raw end of the deal. I bet the majority of children in my clinic would suport the marriage admendment. They have no voice.

To paraphrase someone else, if our ancestors, going back hundreds and hundreds of years, could come back and listen to this debate, they would be amazed, and shocked, and ask “why are the adults, be they straight or gay, so consumed with themselves and their wants? Why aren’t you looking out for the children?”

Now, I have really put my foot in it, but I hope I have injected "some logic or at least some passionate ranting" as Sin requested.

Posted by kane on March 3, 2004 8:29 PM:

Patrick, I think we all agree that a family with two parents benefits the life of a child. I don't see anyone arguing against that point.

And of course all societies were built on heterosexual relationships, at least the ones that desired to have offspring. Again, no one agrguing against that point either.

And yes, there has been a deterioration of the nuclear family. But the causes for this phenomena are many. With the social acceptance of divorce, it was only a matter of time before more marriages ended, and with that many family would be seperated.

In reality, your arguement seems to be based on a fear that in accepting gay marriage as equal, it will somehow lessen heterosexual marriage. These fears are understandable, but they are also wrong. You make the assumption that to provide equality for one group, one must diminish the rights of others. That's not the definition of equality, nor is it the desire of those seeking equality.

You say that this subject isn't about equality, but rather it's about the children. Ah yes, the children. If you truely believed that, then your statement of "a gay couple can be good, or even great parents" would be enough for you to not only accept the fact that there can be equality found from gay marriages in our society, but it would be cause for you to embrace it as well. After all, it's about the children, right? Right? And if children can benefit from a loving family, it makes little difference whether the parents of that family are gay or straight.

And if it is all about the children, then surely you can see how the children can benefit in knowing that they live in a society that is based on equality, rather than exclusion, seperation, and prejudice. In truth, I think you are very much a part of that "me, myself and I" society that you describe. I encourage you to think of the children first. Think of the world that we are creating and leaving for them, a world of equality for all. Think of the children, Patrick! The children.

Posted by Sin on March 3, 2004 10:06 PM:

By all means marry. If you get a good wife you will become happy, and if you get a bad one you will become a philosopher.
--Socrates (470-399 B.C.)

Patrick, believe it or not we share many of the same values and beliefs.

However, I must point out, that if a gay or lesbian couple decide to have a child, one of their options is to ADOPT. (Since they can't reproduce unless it's a child from previous heterosexual relationship). That means they would be taking in a child who would otherwise be cast into the bowels of foster homes and well-meaning but dysfunctional child protective agencies out there and giving them a home, an alternative home to the traditional family you are referring to but still a home.

And yes Patrick, children being born out of wedlock and raised by single parents or couples not commited to their offspring will likely result in kids more likely to do drugs, commit crimes, go to jail, not learn to read, drop out of school. I think we all can agree upon that.

But will traditional marriage save us? If all the married couples in the world decided to stay together and be true to each other no matter what, will that solve all our problems? I don't know. What I DO know is that gay marriage won't hurt me as a heterosexual male nor whether I choose to marry or not. Gay marriage will not affect whether my potential future wife and I stay together or whether we get divorced. Gay marriage will not affect how I raise my children or the values I choose to pass on to them. That being the case I have no problem with it and don't see why others do.

Posted by NemesisVex on March 4, 2004 5:29 AM:

I don't buy the idea that a traditional marriage is good for children, but I have only my personal experience on which to base that opinion.

My parents stuck together for the sake of my brother, sisters and me, and to call us a "family" would require a leap of the imagination the size of the Grand Canyon. Keeping my father in the picture after the crap he put my mother through only made us hate him even more.

You hear all sorts of stories about children fantasizing that their parents would get back together. My fantasy was that mine would get divorced.

If I'm in the statistical minority in this perception, oh well. But argue the numbers all you like -- I'm a product of a failed marriage, one that persists to this day.

Posted by Sin on March 11, 2004 10:30 PM:

I wasn't going to post anything else about this, but then I ran across this website:

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

Posted by Linkmeister on March 12, 2004 2:31 PM:

Sin, I do love a good parody. ;)

Posted by Sin on March 16, 2004 8:18 AM:

Okay, just to prove that I can take it as well as dish it out, here's a recent joke a friend of mine just sent me via email:

>( A scene at City Hall in San Francisco )

"Next."

Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."

""Names?"

"Tim and Jim Jones."

"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."

"Yes, we're brothers."

"Brothers? You can't get married."

"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"

"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"

"Incest?" No, we are not gay."

"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"

"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other.
Besides, we don't have any other prospects."

"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been
denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."

"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us
just because we are not gay?"

"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."

"Hi. We are here to get married."

"Names?"

"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."

"Who wants to marry whom?"

"We all want to marry each other."

"But there are four of you!"

"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert,
Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."

"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."

"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"

"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that
it's just for couples."

"Since when are you standing on tradition?"

"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."

"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"

"All right, all right. Next."

"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."

"In what names?"

"David Deets."

"And the other man?"

"That's all. I want to marry myself."

"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"

"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to
marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."

"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"

Posted by Rusty on July 12, 2004 7:56 AM:

I think the People who oppose the marriage admendment are either of the homosexual class or are un-educated. What people don't realize is that if the government deny the admendent, it would force our children's school's to teach that being Gay is ok, talk about confusing our youth. It would also force Religious schools to have to teach it also or face serious fines. There are so many consquences that people are blind to. I would recommend those opposed to this admendent to read the book by James Dobson "Marriage Under Fire". Also, statistics show that the majority of homosexuals don't even want to be married. This abilty of same sex marriage will dimish the meaning of marriage between a man and a woman. Why when people opposed this admendent not have the interest of children at heart? What child should grow up fatherless or without a mother? People don't think this far into this issue because the majority of America's are uneducated and do not care.

Posted by Jen on July 12, 2004 3:22 PM:

"Uneducated"? Wow, that's rich, coming from a bigot.

Seriously, where do you get off calling someone "uneducated"?

Posted by Pedro on July 12, 2004 4:38 PM:

I agree with Sin. Whats to stop me (married) from marrying my best friends wife. We have a "special" relationship and if two men can get married why can't I have two wives and my wives have two husbands. It will be financially better for all of us and provide a much more stable family life for our children...Now whos insurance will this family be under??

Posted by kane on July 13, 2004 3:23 AM:

Like cockroaches that scurry when the light is turned on, the republican leadership waves the marriage amendment about and their trolls scurry around the web.

It's sad when you consider how leadership of the republican party plays their own constituency. Despite having the majority in both houses and Bush in the White House, how is it that they still can't pass this amendment? The leadership knows full well that the amendment wont get the votes needed to pass. And even if they could get those votes, they certainly don't want this issue to be solved, as it is the one issue that they have so many of their loyal followers tied to. Still, the republicans act as if they are sincere, pretending to debate what is essentially a non-issue.

Bringing the issue to the floor at this time, with all the other issues on our plate, only shows how out of touch the national republican party is.

It is perfectly clear why the issue is being waved around at this time. It helps to satisfy the Neocons-for-God members of the party, provides a wedge issue in the upcoming election, and takes a little attention off all the mess Bush & Co have gotten us into.

Posted by Robin on July 24, 2004 9:45 PM:

This is in reference to the "joke" that Sin posted and to Pedro's post.

As it stands now, the federal government recognizes "marriage" as between ONE man and ONE woman. It has been this way for centuries in THIS country. Now taking other countries into consideration such as some areas in Africa and Egypt, men are able to marry as many wives as they can afford. Now THAT is traditional for those countries.

I'm not an authority to say if marriage between more than two people is plain right or wrong but I can say that it goes against MY belief system. Does my belief system matter to the rest of the world? Probably not but that is just the fundamental basis of the point that I am trying to make.

My belief system says that a marriage that includes more than TWO people is a mockery. Additionally, the US Government's definition of marriage is limited to A man and A woman. Okay, so now we know my belief system and the US Government's position has been reiterated but neither position matters at this point for this discussion is related to the the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages (marriage as in TWO individuals within a union) and Bush's handling of this issue. Let's stay on track please!

The original question was if a constitutional amendment is necessary to ban same-sex marriages--meaning TWO individuals of the same sex.

The argument that is being made by the homosexual community is that US marriage law as it stands now is discriminatory--with the exception of Massachussetts. Comparatively, interracial couples (which also included two people in a union) had a similar struggle before the ruling of the Loving vs. Virginia case so what makes the same-sex marriage movement any different? I say nothing. It's just a different type of struggle.

Yes, I strongly believe that a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages is just like writing discrimination into our constitution--the SAME constitution that was amended to free slaves and ban discriminatory practices based on race, color, gender, etc.

I say, why is it the government's business of what TWO people marry? Bush is a puppet that is being strung along by his conservative base and I say THANK GOD that the attempt at the amendment FAILED. There are much bigger fish to fry such as his handling of the Iraq war and the high number of soldiers AND civilians that were killed in that war.

Posted by Rusty on January 19, 2005 7:59 AM:

Jen, nice response seeing how you had nothing to say about my uneducated reference to homosexuality affecting children. Does anyone not try to link together the fact that the more the US seperates itself church and state, the worse our country/world gets? Anyone that has been around for more than 15 years knows that it was not this bad..why? No pray in schools, trying to take "under God" out of the pledge, legalize homosexual marriage? It amazes me how over 70% of the US votes against having gay marriage legaled in there state but yet don't think it should be an admendment to the constitution? I refer back to my earlier comments about being uneducated. If anyone know anything about federal law, it states that the federal government can rule and state law unconstitutional at any time. So this "lets the individual state decide" arguement is an uneducated arguement raised by the democrats.
KANE
Why do you thank God that we did not pass this admendment? Do you think that same God appreciates same sex marriage? Our Government is involved because of George Bush knowing what God's definition of marriage is. Do you? Apparently not. I feel sorry for you. You can email me if you have any questions.

Posted by Amy Bo Bamy on January 20, 2005 8:55 AM:

My $0.02:

- The federal government should get out of the marriage business altogether -- back to the whole separation of church and state. For "legal" purposes, grant TWO consenting individuals of legal age who wish to marry/whatever a civil union, let the people's respective churches decide whether they want to recognize the marriage or not. End of story.

- For people who want to make the marriage debate a "religious" issue, I ask you this: why is it that we're currently able to grant legal marriages to atheists, pagans, wiccans, etc?

- Many people fail to realize that "back in the day," women married for protection, and they were considered their husband's "property." Obviously, times have changed, and so has marriage. There is a lot less pressure on women to get married today because more and more women are able to work and live for themselves, and that is perfectly fine if they wish to do as such. Marriage and children are not for everybody. Speaking of "the children..."

- For those who want to invoke the "marriage is for procreation, it's for the children damnit!" argument, I ask: why is it that we're currently able to grant legal marriages to men and women who are sterile? Senior citizens can get married, and they're well past the child-rearing stage of their lives.

If two loving, committed adults want to marry each other and spend the rest of their lives together, who am I to say they shouldn't? Who am I to tell someone who they should and shouldn't love? It wouldn't have any affects on my relationship at all, as it shouldn't.

Allowing homosexuals to marry would hold them up to the same standards of fidelity we expect of heterosexual married couples. It would embrace the idea of a loving, supportive, caring family. The list goes on.

Posted by Rusty on January 21, 2005 6:52 AM:

Marriage was defined by God between a Man and a woman, that is who says. He has done it for a reason. You allow same sex marriage, which if you would take a poll for these folks on if they want to be marriage, well over 60% will respond no they just want the "right too". Why do they not want to marry? They prefer multiple partners. That is such a better morale standard to live by isn't it? *notice sarcastic tone. Would some Americans who are persusing this actually do some research on countries that have legaled it and the "benefits" from it? Be hard pressed to find any. As a matter of fact, if anyone does research, they would find crime is up, divorce is up, etc etc.
There are many other ways that homosexuality affects children. For instance, you can look no further then Canada. it has been legalized. Did you know that since they legalized it, no one is allowed to teach that it is wrong in schools? As a matter of fact, it is taught that it is ok. Also, Churches, Christian insitutions are getting fined for teaching that homosexuality is wrong. But this no affect on our youth right?

"For people who want to make the marriage debate a "religious" issue, I ask you this: why is it that we're currently able to grant legal marriages to atheists, pagans, wiccans, etc? "

--Are they changing the definition of marriage between man and woman?

"For those who want to invoke the "marriage is for procreation, it's for the children damnit!" argument, I ask: why is it that we're currently able to grant legal marriages to men and women who are sterile? Senior citizens can get married, and they're well past the child-rearing stage of their lives."

Maybe God created some people to be sterile because he knew the children that are orphans, for whatever reason, would need someone to take care of them...?

You are right, it's not all about procreation, and never argued that point, personally.

My list can go on as well, just read the book I recommended earlier, it has all the answers to this subject. Just read it. Why not? Are you scared to be proven wrong or hear the truth behind the numbers?

Posted by Jen on January 28, 2005 3:25 PM:

Some of us don't read "the book" because some of us are not christians, you twit. And I'll argue with you some more when you can back up your "facts" with a reference that's not Fox news or a Bush administration mouthpiece.

Posted by Rusty on February 21, 2005 8:08 AM:

Sure. Here is a link to view comments on the percentage of people voting against gay Marriage..but the recent election results should be as far as you need to look
http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=106

Here is one that I didn't even know about. Florida upheld banned Gay marriage adoption
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116723.pdf

Here is a link where the gay marriage is eroding other laws in the Countries that approve http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.19299,filter.social/news_detail.aspthem

Are you reading all these articles? You wanted facts beyond the Bush and Fox News..
This what you are expecting? Do you want more? I can easily find them. They aren't hiding, you just aren't looking...

Posted by Robin on August 26, 2005 9:47 AM:

Well, check out these articles:

http://wcbs880.com/topstories/topstories_story_132182619.html Voter-approved initiative to ban same-sex marriages in Nebraska was struck down by a Federal Judge.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/08/22/BAsamesex22.DTL&type=gaylesbian Same-sex couples were ruled to be treated in the same way as hetero couples when it comes to parenting children in California.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-01-25-couples_x.htm For your reading and education: Words from an individual who is NOT gay or lesbian but has been through a similar struggle.

http://www.wjla.com/headlines/0405/222371.html Civil Unions Are Approved in Connecticut

The point of me addressing these articles is to show you that regardless of what the majority of the people want, the courts are acting on the rights of INDIVIDUAL families. In other words, the courts in general believe that people have a right to take care of their families, regardless of the design, and that it's NO ONE's business how they run their household.

Yes, there are religious conservatives and others who oppose same-sex marriages but there are also MANY that agree that it's okay. What both sides have in common is that neither of them have the right or the business to decide the parameters of someone else's household. This include those who believe that homosexuality is against the bible. God did not put ANYONE on this earth to make judgements. That's HIS job. NOT YOURS!!!

Also, referring to the article about Loving vs. Virginia. If voters would have had their way back then, HETEROSEXUAL interracial couples STILL would not be able to marry. I repeat, what people do in their own homes in none of other people's concern. If we all lived our own lives and stopped worrying about everyone else's this world would be a MUCH BETTER PLACE!!!

Matthew 7:1 JUDGE NOT, that ye be not judged.

Posted by nata on September 18, 2005 8:33 PM:

Hi. May be this is BAD, but is something different:

beastiality girls http://zooold.enosusa.org/ bestiality story http://zooold.enosusa.org/bestialitystory.html 9ay animals3x http://zooold.enosusa.org/9ayanimals3x.html animals3x stories http://zooold.enosusa.org/animals3xstories.html animal s3x t00ns http://zooold.enosusa.org/animals3xt00ns.html animal s3x trailers http://zooold.enosusa.org/animals3xtrailers.html p0Rn animal http://zooold.enosusa.org/p0Rnanimal.html animal s3x free p0Rn http://zooold.enosusa.org/animals3xfreep0Rn.html andy private live, bestiality http://zooold.enosusa.org/andyprivatelivebestiality.html bestiality laws http://zooold.enosusa.org/bestialitylaws.html free animal s3x mpegs http://zooold.enosusa.org/freeanimals3xmpegs.html hardcore cumshot bestiality with cjayc http://zooold.enosusa.org/hardcorecumshotbestialitywithcjayc.html beastiality animal s3x http://zooold.enosusa.org/beastialityanimals3x.html beastiality male http://zooold.enosusa.org/beastialitymale.html relatos zoofilia http://zooold.enosusa.org/relatoszoofilia.html all male beastiality http://zooold.enosusa.org/allmalebeastiality.html animal s3x library http://zooold.enosusa.org/animals3xlibrary.html beastiality film clips http://zooold.enosusa.org/beastialityfilmclips.html beastiality chat rooms http://zooold.enosusa.org/beastialitychatrooms.html animal s3x chat http://zooold.enosusa.org/animals3xchat.html pig beastiality http://zooold.enosusa.org/pigbeastiality.html

Posted by Robin on November 26, 2005 9:20 PM:

Okay. And you posted all of this because??????

April 2009
Sa	M	T	W	R	F	Su
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30

Same-Sex Marriage

Comments

Post a Comment