Same sex marriage is a sick idea promoted by even sicker people!!!!!
LS

Civil unions would be a fairly easy sell. Many who object to same sex marriage would support the same rights defined as civil unions. If homosexual activists insist on the “marriage” terminology they will meet the same resistance as the extremists of the feminist movement a generation back. Is the true goal partner’s rights or offending those who don’t embrace the definition change?

Recognition of marriage is a privilege extending by individual states to couples. It should be up to the people of each state how they want to define marriage. The courts should not be involved. If there is some mythical Right to Marriage than there is no argument allowing gay marriage and not multiple partner marriage. This, like abortion should be, is a states rights issue.

The way I look at it, and I’ve commented this way before, most recently in the ‘civil religion’ forum, there should be a complete separation between the LEGAL issue of civil union and the religious issue of marriage.

Marriage is, at it’s root, a religious ceremony. It, in itself, does not involve law in any way. Each religious group should be free to marry, or not marry, anyone they like.

On the other hand, there is a whole body of legal items that are involved in what we might call the marriage contract. Everything from automatic survivor rights, assumption of debt, and different tax treatment are there.

It’s my opinion that the legal contract of marriage should be available to any two adults who want to create it. Period. Call it civil union, or a covenant of joining, or whatever you like.

Marriage, on the other hand, is properly the act of a religious group. If a particular church wants to bless homosexual unions, so what? It has no LEGAL weight. If another church wants to refuse to bless biracial unions, again, so what? It’s all covered under the free exercise clause. Besides, isn’t a minister, priest, rabbi, imam, or celebrant in a church marriage acting as an agent of the state when he or she signs the dotted line on a marriage license? Isn’t THAT a violation of the principle of church/state separation?

RCJ-marriage has legal definitions recognized in our law granting certain rights, privileges, and responsibilities. Such as but not limited to the right to make decisions if one’s partner is in a hospital unconscious, or the ability to claim one’s spouse as a dependent on income tax. Regardless of how it is worded gays want those same rights, privileges, and responsibilities. Call it civil union, or marriage who cares? If you are bent out of shape because of sexual orientation that’s YOUR problem. I’m married, if gays want to get married who are you to stop them? It is not any more a states rights issue than Jim Crow and Slavery laws were. Interstate contracts (and marriage is a contract) are supposed to recognized by the ICC, contracts are often adjudicated so your court argument is a red herring.

I know you didn’t say this in your post RCJ so I’m not addressing this to you. I’m always perplexed by the people who say that gay marriage is violating a sacred institution and will ruin it. First of all several other countries have already sanctioned it and my marriage has not been affected one whit. Second divorce is a bigger problem for the sanctity of marriage. Third if people want to have multiple marriage partners, I have no problem with that either, as long as they are consenting adults. I would worry that multiple marriage might complicate the legal picture in its dissolution, but hey they took the risk when they made the commitment.

David,

There’s too many questions re same-sex marriages to go forward:

Who gets to be the “bride”?

What happens to the definition of “groomsman” and/or “bridesmaid”?

How does the person officiating the ceremony finalize the event? Obviously “I now pronounce you husband and wife” is out.

A person can be gay if they want to, but I still don’t want to see dudes in taffetta gowns!

Which person gets to be the honoree at the bridal shower?

Who’s Dad dances with who during the First Dance at the reception?

Sorry, Dave. There are just too many unanswered questions.

MercMan, those are all silly questions that don’t mean a hoot. Marriage is not a ceremony. It’s way, way more than that.

Unless, of course, you’re trying to be sarcastic.

I am completely against same-sex marriage. It should always be traditional between one man and one woman.

hs,

You want to talk about silly? We’ve got David claiming that gay marriage is the equivalent of the Civil Rights era. Can’t you just imagine Dr King marching in Selma chanting “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it!”? Neither can I.

The whole argument has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with a militant political agenda that wants to make everything normal appear abnormal, and everything abnormal appear normal.

If you stand for traditional mores, you’re labeled a homophobe and a hate-monger. Our Constitution is made a mockery by activists who claim “rights” that don’t exist. Today it’s gay marriage. Tomorrow, it will be polygamy, beastiality, or goodness knows what.

If gays want legal protection for property rights of co-habitors, fine. If they want to destroy a social institution by way of judicial fiat, hell no!

By the way, I WAS being sarcastic in my first blog. Thanks for noticing.

Every time I see an article written by her I cringe with disgust but even still I can’t wait to read it for the comedic value. This woman needs to step out of the 50’s and recognize discrimination and oppression for what it is. I personally can’t stand the sight of gay guys together. Most of them are usually pretty nice guys and fairly passive, just wanting to live their lives as happy as anyone else would expect to. So who is anyone to tell them differently in this great free nation we always boast it to be? The opposition to gays getting married comes purely from the bible thumpers, and picked up along the way with people who would also just like to see gays be mistreated because disagree with their lifestyles. We as a society can reason what is acceptable behavior and what isn’t without the help of any holy books or prejudice. Anyone who says that gay marriage is a threat to their own standard marriage should also step out of the 50’s and likewise, with the opinion that they should not be able to raise children. In the not so distant future, they will have the technology, if they don’t have it perfected already, to take cells from two humans regaurdless of sex, and make a child using both of their genes. It’s gonna happen. So for all of you who are against this sort of thing, it’s only gonna get worse for ya. Sleep well.