 |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Gay marriage decisions ripe in Calif., Conn.
By Christine Vestal, Stateline.org Staff Writer
|
|
Click here to read or comment on an updated version of this "backgrounder."
(Updated March 6, 2008)
More than four years after its historic court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, Massachusetts stands alone in blessing gay marriages — more than 10,000 to date. Its example has spurred no imitators, but lots of backlash. Following the festive scenes of gay and lesbian brides and grooms waiting in long lines to wed in the Bay State on May 17, 2004, 23 states fortified their state constitutions to withstand judicial edicts like the one in Massachusetts, joining four other states that already had constitutional prohibitions. Florida voters will decide on a similar constitutional ban in November 2008 when they go to the polls to pick a new president. In addition to bans, high courts in three states have ruled that same-sex couples do not have a constitutional right to marriage. Maryland in September 2007 joined New York and Washington in rejecting gay couples’ claims that matrimony is a state constitutional right. Even in Massachusetts, a swell of opposition nearly forced a 2008 statewide vote on a constitutional gay marriage ban. But after three-and-a-half years of rancorous debate and a change in administrations, Bay State lawmakers on June 14, 2007, narrowly upheld the court-imposed gay marriage law – protecting it from a constitutional ban for at least five more years. Despite these actions, gay-rights groups can point to recent progress in expanding legal acceptance of gay and lesbian relationships in several other states: New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch (D) signed a law in May 2007 calling for same-sex civil unions, making the state the fourth to grant gay couples all state-level rights and benefits of marriage, but without the title. New Jersey began issuing civil union licenses to same-sex couples in February 2007, joining Vermont and Connecticut in pioneering the marriage alternative. In April and May 2007, Washington and Oregon joined California, Hawaii and Maine in allowing same-sex couples to register as domestic partners, bestowing certain spousal privileges such as rights to hospital visits, approval of organ donations and inheritance without a will. Also in April 2007, New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D) proposed a bill that would permit same-sex couples in the Empire State to wed. Although the legislature has not yet approved the measure, Eliot is the first governor to propose a same-sex marriage law.
While most moves to liberalize marriage laws have occurred on the nation’s coasts , a county trial judge in Iowa ruled in August 2007 that the state’s legislative ban on same-sex marriage violated equal rights protections in the state’s constitution. The case is now pending before the Iowa Supreme Court.
All eyes now are on the highest courts in California and Connecticut, where decisions are eminent on whether civil unions and domestic partnerships are adequate substitutes for matrimony. Connecticut’s case is ripe for a decision; California heard oral arguments March 4, 2008 and is scheduled to decide the case within 90 days. Even if the number of gay weddings in the United States is minimal so far, the uproar over same-sex marriage has been deafening. The issue has rocked every state capital and inflamed passions in Congress and presidential campaigns, as advocates of equal rights for gays and lesbians are pitted against religious and other socially conservative groups committed to protecting traditional marriage.
National polls indicate a majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage. However, a poll released in August 2006 by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life indicates 54 percent approve of civil unions as an alternative to same-sex marriage.
Outside the United States, same-sex marriage is slowly gaining ground. The Netherlands legalized gay marriage in 2001, followed by Belgium and the Canadian provinces of Ontario and British Columbia in 2003; Quebec, Canada, in 2004; Spain and all other Canadian provinces in 2005; and South Africa in 2006.
As with many U.S. civil rights issues, courts have held the keys to marriage rights for homosexual couples. Only one state legislature not under court order — California in 2005 — has passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) vetoed the measure.
While the Massachusetts ruling touched off the latest frenzy of action on gay marriage, a Hawaiian circuit court judge in 1996 was the first in the nation to side with a same-sex couple denied a marriage license. Rather than risk a state Supreme Court decision in favor of gay unions, Hawaiian voters in 1998 rewrote their state constitution to give lawmakers, not the courts, the right to define marriage, and lawmakers subsequently voted to prohibit gay nuptials.
The Hawaii case sparked similar action in Congress, resulting in then-President Bill Clinton signing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996. DOMA codified states’ right to decide whether to allow or ban same-sex marriage and defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman for federal purposes such as claiming tax breaks for spouses and receiving deceased partners’ Social Security benefits.
Between 1973 and 2005, 42 states enacted statutes similar to the federal DOMA. But statutory bans were seen as providing limited protection that could be trumped if the courts found — as in Massachusetts — that denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple violated a right granted by a state constitution.
The first states to enshrine bans on same-sex marriage in their constitutions acted before 2004: Alaska, Nebraska and Nevada. Hawaii voters in 1998 also used their constitution to block gay marriage, though its amendment differs from those now passed in 26 other states. It cuts judges out of deciding gay-marriage rights but doesn’t include a definition of marriage as a union between a man and woman.
After Massachusetts issued the first marriage licenses to same-sex couples, voters in 13 states in 2004 rushed to rewrite their constitutions to limit marriage to heterosexuals. Two more states passed constitutional bans on gay marriage in 2005 and eight more in 2006. Arizona in 2006 became the first and only state so far to reject a ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage.
Only three states have no laws either condoning or prohibiting same-sex marriage: New Mexico, New York and Rhode Island.
Federal attempts to change the U.S. Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage nationwide have faltered. In 2004, President Bush announced his support for an amendment to ban gay marriage, but the Republican-controlled Congress in both 2004 and 2006 was unable to muster the two-thirds majority needed to send the issue on for ratification by 38 state legislatures. In 2007, the new Democratic-led Congress kept the issue off its agenda.
State courts that have considered challenges from gay and lesbian couples have delivered conflicting verdicts on whether same-sex partners have a right under their state constitutions to wed. The highest court in Massachusetts found it unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, requiring legislators to pass a law legalizing marriage. High courts in Vermont (1999) and New Jersey (2006) required lawmakers to extend the rights and benefits of marriage, but stopped short of requiring the title of marriage. In contrast, the highest courts in Washington and New York found no constitutional guarantee to marriage or its benefits. Instead, the justices in both states ruled in 2006 that only the legislature could decide whether marriage should be extended to same-sex couples.
The same-sex marriage controversy also is breeding a host of legal issues beyond the question of whether gays should be granted marriage licenses.
Cases in Michigan and Ohio question whether those states’ constitutional same-sex marriage bans might have unintended consequences.
In February 2007, a Michigan appeals court held that the state’s ban prohibited public universities, state agencies and local governments from offering health insurance to partners of gay and lesbian employees. The case is now on appeal to the state Supreme court. In Ohio, two lower courts cited the state’s gay marriage ban in denying protection under domestic violence laws to unmarried couples. The state Supreme Court decided in July 2007 that the constitutional marriage prohibition did not affect the state’s domestic violence statutes.
Michigan and Ohio are among 17 states whose constitutional gay-marriage bans are written broadly and go beyond defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman to potentially prohibiting other spousal rights.
As with traditional marriages, not all same-sex marriages and civil unions have lasted until “death do us part.” As a result, state courts also are beginning to deal with divorce, child custody and probate cases involving same-sex couples.
In 2006, a Virginia judge gave sole custody of a child to a biological mother who is separated from her partner in a Vermont civil union. The case is now before the Virginia Supreme Court. In Vermont, the Supreme Court ruled that the non-biological parent may have visitation rights. In Rhode Island, Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch broke new ground in February 2007 with a legal opinion making the Ocean State the first to recognize same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts. In December 2007, however, the state Supreme Court ruled that couples marrying in Massachusetts could not divorce in Rhode Island. Taking a different approach a New York trial court in February 2008 recognized the Canadian marriage of two New York women and ruled the state did have authority to grant them a divorce.
New Jersey’s attorney general concluded in February 2007 that the state would honor civil unions from Vermont and Connecticut, and give civil-union status to couples married in Massachusetts or Canada and those registered as domestic partners in California. New Hampshire’s new civil union law includes a provision recognizing civil unions performed in other states. Click the image below to learn more about same-sex policies in all 50 states:
 | | PDF (252KB) | You can find a great deal of information on same-sex marriage on these websites: The nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislatures offers background information; The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights advocacy group, has a Marriage Center webpage; DomaWatch.org, a project of Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian organization based in Scottsdale, Ariz., tracks same-sex marriage litigation and legislation. The Washington D.C.-based Family Research Council, a conservative lobbying group opposed to same-sex marriage, has a Marriage and Family webpage; and Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia, offers background and state-by-state timelines. Stateline.org will list other helpful resources as we find them. This "Backgrounder" is a work in progress and will be updated as warranted. Here are some facts at a glance in FAQ form:
What states allow same-sex couples to marry?
Massachusetts on May 17, 2004, became the first and only state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples who are residents. Massachusetts state law blocks out-of-state couples from marrying there. As of May 2007, more than 9,000 marriage licenses had been issued to same-sex partners. Gay-marriage opponents attempted to force a statewide vote in 2008 to forbid such unions, but the legislature voted to reject the measure at a June 14, 2007, Constitutional Convention.
For a period of time in 2004, marriage licenses were issued to same-sex couples in violation of state law in San Francisco, Sandoval County, N.M., New Paltz, N.Y., and Multnomah County, Ore. Courts intervened and invalidated these marriages.
On May 10, 2007, the Suffolk County Superior Court in Boston approved the legality of Massachusetts marriage licenses issued to some 170 gay couples from New York. At issue was a 2004 decision by then-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) prohibiting out-of-state gay couples to marry in the Bay State if their home state prohibited same-sex marriage. The Suffolk County court upheld Romney’s ruling on July 6, 2006, but ruled this year that gay New Yorkers who wed in Massachusetts before that date had valid licenses.
Where are same-sex couples currently suing for the right to marry?Legal challenges seeking permission for gays and lesbians to marry are pending in three states: California, Connecticut, and Iowa. A lower court in Connecticut ruled in July 2006 that excluding gay couples from marriage does not violate the state constitution because the state’s civil union policy provides equal access to state spousal benefits. The case was appealed in November 2006 to the state Supreme Court, which is expected to make a decision in early 2008. On appeal to California's highest court is a case testing whether the state’s statutory ban on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional rights of gay couples, even though the state already grants spousal benefits to same-sex couples who register as domestic partners. A circuit court judge found the law unconstitutional in March 2005, although it was upheld on appeal. The California Supreme Court is scheduled to decide the case by June 2008. In Iowa, a county judge ruled August 31, 2007, that equal protections in the state constitution guarantee gay and lesbian couples the right to marry. The case, filed in December 2005, is now pending before the state Supreme Court.
What is the difference between civil unions, domestic partnerships and marriage?Vermont created civil unions in response to a 1999 ruling by the state's Supreme Court ordering the Legislature to provide same-sex couples "the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law." Connecticut in April 2005 voluntarily became the second state to adopt civil unions. New Jersey in February 2007 began issuing licenses for civil unions after its Legislature — within weeks of an October 2006 state high court ruling similar to Vermont's — opted to adopt civil unions rather than marriage for same-sex couples. New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch (D) signed a law in May 2007 approving civil unions. Civil union laws in both New Jersey and New Hampshire recognize civil unions performed in other states.
California and Oregon have nearly identical schemes that allow couples to register as domestic partners and claim all of the state benefits conferred on husbands and wives. California’s law was enacted in 1999 and extended to include all benefits in 2005.Oregon’s law was enacted in 2007. Washington has a domestic partnership law – adopted in 2007 and expanded in 2008 -- that includes most, but not all marital benefits. In a third category, Hawaii (1997) and Maine (2004) have registries that convey only a handful of benefits, including hospital visitation rights and inheritance without a will.
Unlike traditional marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships are invalid outside the state in which they are granted – except in states that expressly accept them -- and do not provide any federal marriage benefits. Federal protections conferred by marriage include 1,138 laws and policies, such as Social Security, family medical leave, federal taxation and immigration policy.
What is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)?
Between 1973 and 2005, 42 states passed so-called Defense of Marriage statutes, which define marriage as solely a heterosexual union. Most of these laws are modeled after the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed by Congress in 1996 and signed by President Bill Clinton. It bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows states to ignore gay marriages performed elsewhere.
What about states without same-sex marriage bans? Only three states now have no laws either condoning or prohibiting same-sex marriage: New Mexico, New York and Rhode Island. Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch broke new ground in February 2007 with a legal opinion making the Ocean Sate the first to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in Massachusetts. Later that year, however, the Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled the state could not divorce a couple married in Massachusetts. In contrast, a New York trial court in February 2008 recognized a same-sex marriage performed in Canada and ruled the state did have authority to grant the couple a divorce.
Why enshrine same-sex marriage bans in state constitutions?
Constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage are seen as the best way to prevent courts from ruling that statutory same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional and to forbid legal recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states. Twenty-six states have changed their state constitutions to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. In addition, Hawaii has a constitutional amendment prohibiting state courts from legalizing same-sex marriage, instead leaving the decision to the Legislature, which currently prohibits same-sex marriage.
Are all constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage alike?
No. In nine states, amendments simply define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. But in 17 states — Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin — constitutional amendments go beyond defining marriage. In two of the 17 states — South Dakota and Nebraska — amendments specifically prohibit civil unions and domestic partnerships. Amendments in the other 15 states contain broad language interpreted as prohibiting any type of spousal rights.
How do same-sex marriage bans affect employee benefits?
Courts and attorneys general in several states have concluded that prohibitions on same-sex marriage are not intended to prevent same-sex couples from sharing health benefits.
But gay-rights advocates are concerned that some broadly written same-sex marriage constitutional bans can be interpreted as prohibiting businesses and governments from extending benefits to employees' same-sex partners. An appeals court in Michigan ruled in February 2007, affirming the state attorney general’s finding that local and state governments, including state universities, cannot offer employee benefits to same-sex partners because of the state's same-sex marriage ban.
Are there legal challenges against the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)?
In May 2006 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit dismissed an appeal brought by two men who challenged the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider the case in October. A 2004 federal court DOMA case – Bishop v. Oklahoma – is on hold pending an appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals of a partial denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
What is the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA)?
President Bush in 2004 gave his support to the idea of a federal marriage amendment (FMA) to the U.S. Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage nationwide. Several versions of an FMA were introduced and voted on in Congress between 2004 and 2006, but none came close to receiving the required two-thirds support needed to pass. Federal amendments also would require majority approval in 38 of the states’ legislatures to be ratified into the U.S. Constitution. The president can offer his opinion but is not involved in the amendment process.
|
Comment on this story in the space below by registering with Stateline.org.
|
|
|
|
|
| Issues: |
Welfare & Social Policy
|
|
-
Most Recent Comments
-
Whats Up?
By Jimmie hardin on Sep 27, 2008 6:39:09 PM
I dont understand this gay thing, If gay couples want to have children,I know they adopt or there were already childen involved,or if a womem, artificial insemination or whatever. I know that but,like if its two men, which one is the mother and who is suspose to be the father,two women same thing.I always thought of a family has a Father, Mother and their children. dont have to have kids to be a family,I know that to. It just seems to be a unnatural way of life to have same sex parents,Not anything to do with the Bible,I know the Bible says though as the Coming Of Christ grows near, people will be as they were in Sodom and Gomorrah, Man laying with Man,women with women, and those who say the Bible is not true,what if they are wrong!!Its not just the gay thing either,its a world of things happening that even an atheist has to admit dont
look to good,People are acting really different now,Apathy is rampant!, Do your own thing! If it feels good it must be ok!!,No pride in our jobs,cant get a human for help on the telephone no more , Go to a store and try to get waited on. Road Rage,Could get shot at school, movies,McDonalds,Church,driving down the road.,in our homes,Anywhere. Parents torturing and killing their kids,kids killing their parents,Schools no longer safe, Drugs everywhere,legal and illegal..Our politicans ,police,officials,preachers,priest,Church, clergyman,government leaders are getting more corrupt everyday,Our economic health is failing,The United States is fast becoming a socialist country, Four Letter words used as everyday lanaguage because parents used the same lanaguage, didnt care,so kids didnt learn how to use the english language.and teachers gave up on kids in school starting in kindergarten ,just a job for most of them,and if they did truly care about trying to teach and correct the children they could get fired or sued.And I know I am not doing a good job here with my grammer either.I was a dummy and quit school in the tenth grade 48 years ago!!!. We are running out of food,water and fuel,not only in other countries but right here in the States also.Our weathers gone crazy,Even the planet cant take no more,and the list goes on and on..This is what we see with our own eyes,dont take my word for it Just Look Around
Report as Offensive
A PLAUSIBLE ANSWER FOR THE INHERENT NATURE OF HOMOSEXUALITY:
By Ivan Erickson on Jun 19, 2008 7:18:20 PM
I am the author of a 3-volume religious/fiction novel entitled, "Song of the Storm Winds". I am also writing religious discourses on current religious topics, and which are posted on my web site, www.ivan-erickson.com, where visitors may read and comment. My latest discourse of which will be of interest to people of all faiths and ethnicities and sexual preferences is entitled: Part Two: May 31, 2008: "Discourse on Gay and Lesbian Marriage: On the Truth and the Light Regarding: The Establishment on the Sinfulness of Homosexuality, Gay Unions, and Other Deadly Sins; A Plausible Answer for the Inherent Nature of Homosexuality; And on the Hope for Overcoming the Plight of the Sinfulness of Mankind and for Salvation Through Faith in Jesus Christ". Please understand that I love all mankind whom God loves, and that I write for the benefit of all of those of whom have not as yet repented, changed and been saved in the Love and Grace of Jesus Christ. Whether you are pro or anti gay rights, and no matter what your sexual preference may be, and no matter what deadly sin Satan may have you ensnared in, you will find my discourse to be not only innovative and extremely helpful for your prudent well being, but also very difficult to refute! May the Beloved Lord bless each of you, and may you be guided to the Truth and the Light in Jesus Christ.
Report as Offensive
In response to an older comment
By Andrew Holder on May 20, 2008 3:28:14 PM
"It is also not a good enough reason to redefine an institiution which is thousands of years old for your own selfish gain because a two hundred year old document (The Constitution) gives you the right to pursue happiness."
Does pure age give a practice validity? Slavery is one of the oldest practices in the world, does that make it right? By not allowing gay and lesbian couples to have the same rights as straight couples you spread hate, ignorance, and fear. It truly astounds me that some many people oppose gay marriage so much when all they are asking for is the same rights as everyone else. Its nice to know that if I chose too me and my girlfriend could go to the court house and get married now. Why should a gay man or woman not have similar rights?
Report as Offensive
all i have to say about gay marriage
By ashley rollo on May 17, 2008 5:24:40 PM
I am a straight woman but like that matters. gay people do not choose to be the way they are. they are born that way. and the hole thing about what the bible says. on question you have to ask yourself is do you ever make a desion and then change it? well could god not do it too? i mean they are born that way and god is the one that makes us all is he not. and even it that is not the case and you still want to go by the bible. ok it is a sin and it is equal to some one killing someone. they can ask for forgiveness just like the person did that killed someone. and why should it matter to you where they go when they die they are not you. another thing, our men and women are fighting and dieing for our freedom. they have freedom too. let them be free to marriage and live their life the way they want to. why are they being punished for the way they are born. it is not killing anyone or harming anyone in any way. give them FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ashley
p.s. aunt lisa & lil 1, and my best friend carla i love ya
Report as Offensive
SEPERATE STATE AND CHURCH!
By Chase Browning on May 13, 2008 2:28:56 PM
By law we are supposed to be protected under the seperation of state and church, meaning that our basic rights should not be imposed upon by any religious values. I myself am not even Christian/Catholic and I do not share most of their beliefs. It is WRONG to say that the bible is the base of our legal rights. We are all people who come from difforent backgrounds and upbringings. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to put a basic right such as marriage to vote. Besides the legal facts, the bible was not written by God. It was written by HUMANS and it was the INSPIRED WORD OF GOD. Moral, social, and sexual issues were talked about in the bible. Yet most of these opinions are no longer held today. According to the bible, slavery is acceptable, those who divorce should be condemned to hell, certain food are unnaceptable to eat such as shellfish, and homosexuality is "an abomination unto God". People may argue that those are being pulled out of context, but if it is not important to pay attention to those other passages on morallity, why is it important to pay attention to the sexuality passeges? For those who argue that the parts don't fit, all I can say is 'Yes they do'. If the part's DIDN'T fit, people obviously would not be able to have same gender sexual activies. For those who say that it is un-natural, there is the counter argument that homosexuality has been recorded in over 1,000 difforent animal species(not to justify that we should even base our morality on animals). Sexual orientation is predetermined either befor birth, or at the latest by the age of seven. People can't "choose" their sexual orientation because they know and feel what they are attracted to most. It is an unfair thing and unconstitutional thing to not give basic rights that should be available to EVERYONE despite their age, sex, race, religion, social standings, or sexual orientation.
Report as Offensive
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 | Stateline.org has put together a list of state public policy resources organized by issue. Here, you will find useful links to essential information from government, academia, and think tanks. If you have a link to add, please email us.
|
| |
|
|
Powered by
By Jimmie hardin on Sep 27, 2008 6:39:09 PM
I dont understand this gay thing, If gay couples want to have children,I know they adopt or there were already childen involved,or if a womem, artificial insemination or whatever. I know that but,like if its two men, which one is the mother and who is suspose to be the father,two women same thing.I always thought of a family has a Father, Mother and their children. dont have to have kids to be a family,I know that to. It just seems to be a unnatural way of life to have same sex parents,Not anything to do with the Bible,I know the Bible says though as the Coming Of Christ grows near, people will be as they were in Sodom and Gomorrah, Man laying with Man,women with women, and those who say the Bible is not true,what if they are wrong!!Its not just the gay thing either,its a world of things happening that even an atheist has to admit dont
look to good,People are acting really different now,Apathy is rampant!, Do your own thing! If it feels good it must be ok!!,No pride in our jobs,cant get a human for help on the telephone no more , Go to a store and try to get waited on. Road Rage,Could get shot at school, movies,McDonalds,Church,driving down the road.,in our homes,Anywhere. Parents torturing and killing their kids,kids killing their parents,Schools no longer safe, Drugs everywhere,legal and illegal..Our politicans ,police,officials,preachers,priest,Church, clergyman,government leaders are getting more corrupt everyday,Our economic health is failing,The United States is fast becoming a socialist country, Four Letter words used as everyday lanaguage because parents used the same lanaguage, didnt care,so kids didnt learn how to use the english language.and teachers gave up on kids in school starting in kindergarten ,just a job for most of them,and if they did truly care about trying to teach and correct the children they could get fired or sued.And I know I am not doing a good job here with my grammer either.I was a dummy and quit school in the tenth grade 48 years ago!!!. We are running out of food,water and fuel,not only in other countries but right here in the States also.Our weathers gone crazy,Even the planet cant take no more,and the list goes on and on..This is what we see with our own eyes,dont take my word for it Just Look Around
Report as Offensive
A PLAUSIBLE ANSWER FOR THE INHERENT NATURE OF HOMOSEXUALITY:
By Ivan Erickson on Jun 19, 2008 7:18:20 PM
I am the author of a 3-volume religious/fiction novel entitled, "Song of the Storm Winds". I am also writing religious discourses on current religious topics, and which are posted on my web site, www.ivan-erickson.com, where visitors may read and comment. My latest discourse of which will be of interest to people of all faiths and ethnicities and sexual preferences is entitled: Part Two: May 31, 2008: "Discourse on Gay and Lesbian Marriage: On the Truth and the Light Regarding: The Establishment on the Sinfulness of Homosexuality, Gay Unions, and Other Deadly Sins; A Plausible Answer for the Inherent Nature of Homosexuality; And on the Hope for Overcoming the Plight of the Sinfulness of Mankind and for Salvation Through Faith in Jesus Christ". Please understand that I love all mankind whom God loves, and that I write for the benefit of all of those of whom have not as yet repented, changed and been saved in the Love and Grace of Jesus Christ. Whether you are pro or anti gay rights, and no matter what your sexual preference may be, and no matter what deadly sin Satan may have you ensnared in, you will find my discourse to be not only innovative and extremely helpful for your prudent well being, but also very difficult to refute! May the Beloved Lord bless each of you, and may you be guided to the Truth and the Light in Jesus Christ.
Report as Offensive
In response to an older comment
By Andrew Holder on May 20, 2008 3:28:14 PM
"It is also not a good enough reason to redefine an institiution which is thousands of years old for your own selfish gain because a two hundred year old document (The Constitution) gives you the right to pursue happiness."
Does pure age give a practice validity? Slavery is one of the oldest practices in the world, does that make it right? By not allowing gay and lesbian couples to have the same rights as straight couples you spread hate, ignorance, and fear. It truly astounds me that some many people oppose gay marriage so much when all they are asking for is the same rights as everyone else. Its nice to know that if I chose too me and my girlfriend could go to the court house and get married now. Why should a gay man or woman not have similar rights?
Report as Offensive
all i have to say about gay marriage
By ashley rollo on May 17, 2008 5:24:40 PM
I am a straight woman but like that matters. gay people do not choose to be the way they are. they are born that way. and the hole thing about what the bible says. on question you have to ask yourself is do you ever make a desion and then change it? well could god not do it too? i mean they are born that way and god is the one that makes us all is he not. and even it that is not the case and you still want to go by the bible. ok it is a sin and it is equal to some one killing someone. they can ask for forgiveness just like the person did that killed someone. and why should it matter to you where they go when they die they are not you. another thing, our men and women are fighting and dieing for our freedom. they have freedom too. let them be free to marriage and live their life the way they want to. why are they being punished for the way they are born. it is not killing anyone or harming anyone in any way. give them FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ashley
p.s. aunt lisa & lil 1, and my best friend carla i love ya
Report as Offensive
SEPERATE STATE AND CHURCH!
By Chase Browning on May 13, 2008 2:28:56 PM
By law we are supposed to be protected under the seperation of state and church, meaning that our basic rights should not be imposed upon by any religious values. I myself am not even Christian/Catholic and I do not share most of their beliefs. It is WRONG to say that the bible is the base of our legal rights. We are all people who come from difforent backgrounds and upbringings. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to put a basic right such as marriage to vote. Besides the legal facts, the bible was not written by God. It was written by HUMANS and it was the INSPIRED WORD OF GOD. Moral, social, and sexual issues were talked about in the bible. Yet most of these opinions are no longer held today. According to the bible, slavery is acceptable, those who divorce should be condemned to hell, certain food are unnaceptable to eat such as shellfish, and homosexuality is "an abomination unto God". People may argue that those are being pulled out of context, but if it is not important to pay attention to those other passages on morallity, why is it important to pay attention to the sexuality passeges? For those who argue that the parts don't fit, all I can say is 'Yes they do'. If the part's DIDN'T fit, people obviously would not be able to have same gender sexual activies. For those who say that it is un-natural, there is the counter argument that homosexuality has been recorded in over 1,000 difforent animal species(not to justify that we should even base our morality on animals). Sexual orientation is predetermined either befor birth, or at the latest by the age of seven. People can't "choose" their sexual orientation because they know and feel what they are attracted to most. It is an unfair thing and unconstitutional thing to not give basic rights that should be available to EVERYONE despite their age, sex, race, religion, social standings, or sexual orientation.
Report as Offensive
By Emma Bobro on Apr 27, 2008 10:45:43 PM
By the way, i am just about as straight as one can get.
Report as Offensive
In response to a lot of people...
By Emma Bobro on Apr 27, 2008 10:44:11 PM
WOW. okay CHIP, well so then, according to you, there should be a check before you get married to see if you can have children? plenty of heterosexual couples get married that can't have kids but still love each other. Do you think that when a straight woman gets old enough so that she can't have children she should be discarded and her husband take a younger wife? Is that all marriage is? The legal proof of child-bearing? NO! Marriage is a declaration of love between people who love each other!!!!! that is so cruel to deprive anyone of that basic right. married couples ADOPT children, and i must say that if gay couples were allowed to wed each other, it would solve a lot of problems with orphans. and BRAVO mr. John Harriss, you brought up a lot of good points.
NO CHOICE. Do you think gay people WANT to be different and be pushed out of society and have to fight for basic rights?????? HELLLLL NOOOOOOO.
And to K S on Dec 21st, YOU ARE STUPID AND IGNORANT AND LAZY.
Report as Offensive
The act of becoming one flesh is the act of marriage
By Chip Browne on Apr 19, 2008 9:24:24 AM
The act of intercourse constitutes a marriage ceremony, and since gays can't mate, they do not have the power to marry. Legal issues for a husband and wife are resolved by providing evidence that a mating had occurred.
Our species is represented by this mated combination. It is not represented by only the male gender or only the female gender. Each are exactly one half of the whole that represents our species. Marriage is the creation of the whole or the "one flesh" that fully represents the human species.
It is this one flesh that has the power to then create a new member of the species, the embryo from one half and the sperm from the other.
Report as Offensive
Nature not government owns marriage. The power to mate is the power to marry.
By Chip Browne on Apr 19, 2008 9:01:38 AM
I believe that the power to create a marriage does not reside with government officials (i.e. Marriage licenses or certificates) nor do I believe that the power to create a marriage resides with religious officials (i.e. religious ceremonies). I believe that the power to create a marriage belongs to nature. The power to marry is the power to mate.
Both government and religion want you to believe that they hold the authority to create the marriage; however, they only have the power to recognize a marriage (or not) that has been created by a man and a woman.
The ultimate authorities are the man and the woman in determining if they are husband and wife. All you need to do is ask them if they are married, and their unanimous word is what is to be honored.
Government has an interest in knowing who is officially married but they cannot usurp the authority from man and woman their power to become husband and wife. Because government does not own this power, it cannot give it to two men or to two women. It is determined by nature. The power to mate is the power to marry. The government cannot change this fact of nature.
Report as Offensive
Gay Marriage
By Bree Rszuko on Apr 17, 2008 8:54:21 AM
Gay marriage. "It's ungodly...it's not the natural way of life...it's unnatural.' PUH-LEASE!!! All these things I've been hearing ab out gay marriage, how it is not the way of life, that this is not God's way...that's all a bunch of crap! Garbage! I am not going to press religion on anyone, because I am far from religioius as a human being cn possibly get. I am not going to talk about homosexuality being against God's will or any of that bull. I am going to speak the truth about homosexuality. That is not a choice. It's just the way people are. That does not make them criminals..that does not make them inhuman. That doesn't make them anything except a human who has a different take on life. I, for one, am straight, 100%. So DO NOT, whatsoever, tell me that I am only saying this because I am gay. I'm not. And I have no issue with gay people. Three of my BEST FRIENDS are gay. I can not stand to see them unhappy. Taking away their rights will make them unhappy, you can bet your ass. Telling someone they can not marry the ONLY ONE they've ever loved is the inhuman thing to do. Being homosexual is not the inhuman thing to do. They can't help it! Just like we straight people can not help being straight. IT'S THE SAME THING! Imagine...put yourself in a gay person's shoes: You just met someone. You started dating and you both have fallen deeply in love. They propose to you and you say yes. You go to get married six months later and BAM! The court says no. The government. Our stupid president! Think about it. You were just denied marriage with the only one you wnt to spend your life with. I HIGHLY doubt you will be running up and down the street doing the happy dance, saying this is the best thing that ever happened to you. No. You will be really upset. You will feel betrayed. You will feel like you are being denied something STUPID! To be denied the one you love is losing the other half of your life, is it not? Why on earth would you be happy? Seriously. People need to grow up. "Homosexuality is not thew way of life." What if the homosexuals formed a union and tried to outrule heterosexual marriage? Isn't that the same thing?
Anyone who is against homosexuals is homophobic, whether they admit to it or not. Sure, everyone has a phobia of some sort, but to be against it is childish! I mean, I am deathly afraid of spiders, but I do not want people to go around getting rid of all the spiders on the planet. That's unrealistic! They are a natural part of life and the planet, as are homosexuals.
As stated in the Declaration of Independence, âall men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.â? All men are created equal. EQUAL. This means that they should have the smae rights as anyone.
Just think about it: how would you feel if you were denined marriage to YOUR true love?
Report as Offensive
The Bible
By Jazmyn Morgan on Apr 7, 2008 3:29:53 PM
Since everyone uses the arguement that the Bible says that Gay Marriage is wrong, I'd like to know where the Catholic Bible says that it is ok for Priests to molest little boys??? Can anyone point that one out to me?? Yeah, I know, a lot of you guys are going to be extremely offended by that, but oh well. It needs to be said and besides, I'm offended at how closed minded some people are and their inability to accept others for the way they are!
Report as Offensive
Who are you to judge?
By Jazmyn Morgan on Apr 7, 2008 3:20:56 PM
In response to LC's comment, who are you to say who can or cannot get married. No one has the right to judge, and if you believe so much in God and his word, then you wouldn't judge people that are gay. You would leave whatever judging, that is to be done about anyone, to God. And besides, who do you think created gay people??? If God created everyone, then obviously He created gays as well and He meant for them to be that way. Just like He chose to make you the way you are. Plus, if being gay is "wrong" and "a sin", and yet God is forgiving, then he will forgive them. He's not going to create humans just to condemn them to hell. And if He does, well then send me to hell too, because I don't want to go to a Heaven where God is like that. If two people are in love, no matter what their sexual orientation, age, sex, skin color, nationality, religion, height, weight or diasbility may be, let them enjoy their lives together and be married. We as human beings cannot control who we fall in love with and we have every right to do this without being judged by others.
Report as Offensive
Using the Bible as Justification
By Catherine Davidson on Mar 26, 2008 4:00:44 PM
This is 2008. Whoever thinks this country should rely on statutes and "commandments" created and written in primitives times for primitive people as a basis for the justification of inequality is insane or misguided. By the way, if anyone is going to go to the trouble of flipping through the gigantic book that is the Bible to search for a couple of lines written in miniscule text to point a fat finger on and show your mom, or senator, you must be at loss of other valid support. So that's too bad.
Report as Offensive
Gay Marriage
By Ed Goodfield on Mar 4, 2008 9:09:29 PM
Oh Well here it is again! It's the old GOD created Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve. I'll admit I'm an born again Christian, and proud of it. If a gay, lesbian couple want to be together, fine, be together, but leave our founding Fathers laws the way they intended it to be. In short Marriage is intended to be between 1 man and 1 woman. Say what you may, that is what I believe how our laws were meant to be interpreted. If there are those of you out there who believe it is a religious foundation of beliefs,fine, I'll have to agree, but the Laws are the Laws, and they are the Laws of the Land. So why are those who feel they are being discriminated against by being gay or lesbian, want to have the laws changed? It's been commented on by many of those who openly admitted they were gay, that they were content and happy just to be with there partner, So be it. Be happy with your partner, but please leave our Laws to be carried on in a noble manner.
Report as Offensive
Gay Marriage
By amie g on Feb 8, 2008 11:39:38 AM
Okay... so there is alot of differences going on between some heterosexual and homosexual people. I am seventeen years old and I am a lesbian. What I have come to understand is that no one will ever have the full rights that they deserve. It is difficult to come to conclusions that everyone can be pleased by. Marriage of homosexual couples should be allowed. Religion should not be imposed upon the entire people. Our government is based upon this and should be honored. But we can fight for the right to get married but it may not happen for some time. Maybe instead of fighting so hard for this piece of paper we should keep with the domestic partnership rights and create our own ceromonies for our friends and families. Leave the marriage certificates to the biggoted people who oppose our marriage so much,even though it has absolutely nothing to do with them.
We all deserve our rights.
I will always fight for them.
PRIDE.
Amie
Report as Offensive
Gay Marriage According to the Declaration of Independence
By Greg McGinnon on Feb 6, 2008 8:40:59 PM
One thing I would like to ask all the people against gay marriage is this:
Do you believe in the bible or the government papers created by some of our greatest leader?
If you believe in those leaders, you might find something in the Declaration of Independence that states:
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That last part catches me. "...and the pursuit of happiness." I believe that means that everyone (as it says at the beginning of the phrase) has the right to do what makes them happy. For most people, their partner makes them happy. Just looking at someone you love can make you happy. I don't really care if everyone here is against gay marriage, but no matter what anyone says, I will stick with my beliefs and hope that you will realize that gay marriage isn't a bad thing!!!
Report as Offensive
To L C
By Daniel Wang on Dec 21, 2007 7:52:59 AM
God this and god that, in the end it doesn't matter. Separation between church and state is in the amendments. Which puts your Adam and Adam thing out of commission. By the way, there is a such thing as fossils, so quit trying to use the largest fiction book as a source.
Report as Offensive
Same Sex Marriage
By Audrey Huckabee on Dec 7, 2007 7:33:37 PM
In Regards to multiple posts on this topic: Choice, Religion, Children, Influence, And STDS! Here is a little insight on my experience.
I am a 36-year-old mother of 4 beautiful girls. I was taught about morals and God all through my younger years, the golden rule! âTreat others as you would like to be treatedâ? I was taught that mixing races was wrong, but not to put others down for it. I was raised to believe that same sex relationships was a sin, but not to put others down or snob them for it. Never cheat, never steal, never kill, and that I am no better than anyone else in this world. I thank my mom for providing me the sources of that knowledge every day, She never sheltered me, instead she guided me. I think I have turned out to be a pretty good person in life. I do not do drugs, I do not drink, and I do not disbelieve in God.
I do not believe God will forgive a rapist or a murderer but not forgive someone loving another no matter what the circumstances are, itâs been said more than once on these posts that God is love and I believe that very much. I believe God has a plan for each one of us and have come to realize he does work in mysterious ways, every thing happens for a reason. I used to drive to and from work everyday doing 90mph plus on twisty and curvy roads and those times someone pulled out in front of me going real slow I really believe was the times God was with me and keeping me safe. What slowed me down ultimately is when I met my girl and heard how she wrecked so bad she had died 3 times. It is a miracle she is alive. That to me was a reality check and I believe life is a lesson you learn as you live.
I used to believe I knew myself better than anyone. I had my beliefs and I stood my ground on them and yes I pushed them on others around me just like all of you that are against this post are doing. Until one day at the age of 34, Happily married to a kind and loving husband I discovered I was attracted to a woman. 34 years I lived a straight life and never in a million years did I believe I would ever look at a woman in that way. Never say never hit home with me suddenly. So NO Itâs not a choice a person makes, it is within a person. And as freaked out as I was that I never really knew myself at all, I also felt a sense of finally finding my self and feeling free to be me. The only choice there is in this matter is to either continue living your life as it is â?In my case as a lieâ? Or be honest with yourself and others and let all that are involved live happily. My husband at the time, unlike most other men, fully understood what had happened and that it could not be reversed and supported me in every decision I made. We remain friends today.
As for Influence on children, my two oldest confessed their experiences well before I ever acted on my curiosity. My oldest is now married to a man and has given me my first grandson. The second oldest still chooses to have a boyfriend. As for my youngest two, I teach them to be who they are not what they see others do. âThe only way to be freeâ¦. Is to be meâ? They also currently have boyfriends at school. I donât believe this comes from influence or how and what you see while being raised. My mother is straight, but I am not! I have seen people having to drink to have a good time when I was younger, I donât! I want to remember the fun the next day. I have seen many people cheat on their spouses, but that is not for me! If anything I formed my own opinion on the wrongs I saw as a child and made sure I did not live a life for people to see me as I saw them at that time. Since I became Lesbian I have discovered that I have aunts and uncles on both sides of my family that are Gay and Lesbians, So in the genes maybe, but a CHOICE, I have to beg to differ.
I have been with my girl for 17 months, I am the happiest Iâve ever been, and being with her is the purest love and most sacred bond I have ever experienced in a relationship. I never knew two people could be so connected. What took me years and years to find in a man, only took one woman to beat them all. Donât get me wrong I am not a man basher now. Itâs just something a person has to experience to understand.
As for the STDâs being rapidly spread. I think a huge factor in that lies in drug usage. People using and sharing needles. This is a real evil in our world today and even if you are drug free, you are still subjected to it. All it takes is a son, daughter, or a loved one to get addicted to suck you in. Why? It is because you love them and want to help them. You want to fight a war? Fight that one! Let same sex couples get married. They pay their dues as everyone else. They deserve their rights. What happened to separation of church and state!
In regards to: In response to the previous comment By Ryan Huban on Nov 2, 2006 12:49:36 PM
Excellent post Ryan and very well put!
Report as Offensive
Same Sex Marriage
By Audrey Huckabee on Dec 7, 2007 5:00:51 PM
In Regards to:
NO to gay marriages
By L C on Oct 25, 2006 10:11:07 PM
The last time I got married there was no PUBLIC that attended my wedding, It was all friends and family..The rest of the world had no clue..Same as you wouldn't if I married my girl today. Yes God created Adam and Eve to reproduce which is why we are here today. God has a plan for us all when we are born and that was His plan for them. How do you know for sure that this plan applied to everyone on earth? Did God make us all unique or are all men Adam and all women Eve? If so then why don't we all look the same and why are we all different as an Individual. As far as being Publicly Recognized..It does not have to be legal to be recognized as a couple..Trust me I have had these moments of confrontation...I mean You do have to talk to your doctors and such, we just don't get the benefits a husband and wife do. You gave your opinion based on your Religion and I respect that. I believe in God very much and I feel closer to Him now than ever before! But since you lack the experience of this topic, You just will never understand. Yes I am in Love with a woman and I share my life with her as a couple, but no, when that day comes I will not be taking the mark of the beast Nor will she, so I pray one day your mind will open up and see everyone has the right to their own life and happiness, and that the Bible was written to preach God's Word, not to be used as a weapon against something you yourself don't believe in. The Bible also says not to Judge others..Have you sinned today?
Report as Offensive
gay marriage
By erin cecilia on Dec 6, 2007 9:43:55 PM
i am a 19 year old lesbian.
i have been out for 4 years
and with my girlfriend for 2
I have never seen people in terms of race or sexual orientation. they are all human to me.
i feel as though all humans should be able to marry the other human of their choice. If i want to marry my girlfriend some day i should be afforded that right. I should have the right to have my partner on my life insurance plan, covered with medical benefits, i should be able to see her in the hospital should she be there, i should be treated like anyone else who is in a legally recognized relationship because mine should be. I'm just like you, only the person i love happens to be of the same sex.
we are happily in love
just like everyone else.
Report as Offensive
religon
By heather az on Dec 4, 2007 1:18:05 PM
religious people you know that judging somebody is a sin right well your judging gay people thats a sin so maby you should practce what you prech
Report as Offensive
yes to gay rights
By heather az on Dec 4, 2007 1:11:18 PM
im 17 years old im a lesbian i have been wit my girlfriend for two years im very happy with who i am i dont understand why religon is brought into this we were created equaly we should be treated equaly just because were gay doesnt mean were against god we do not choose to be gay we are who we are and we can not change that im not saying every body has to be all for gay marrige but we are normal people just like you we are no diff from the rest just because we like the same sex can you honestly ask youself what makes us diff we put our pants on the same way you do. we have have the same body parts as you. as far as personality go's we are very diff but thats what makes us very unique in our own way. i think we should be able to be happy just like straigt married couples we are all human beings we are no different
Report as Offensive
16 year old lesbian
By ev gon on Dec 3, 2007 1:14:03 AM
well, first of all i would like to say i respect everyone's thoughts on gay marriage. even the ones that oppose my thoughts. i would love to get married one day to a girl i absolutely love. in fact i'm in love already heh young love indeed but non the less i have thought about in fact being with her the rest of my life and having the most beautiful wedding to express my love towards her.
i would like to look at this issue not on religion or the fact that we are the same sex but based on love and respect towards one another
marriage is the ultimate way to express your love towards someone
a way to honor the love you have for that person
if it's before god or if it's before every single person you love in your life or BOTH
weddings are a way to celebrate the ultimate union of two people in love
can we truly take that most wonderful moment away from someone?
i know the religious followers will debate this is against god's will and i would like to tell you all that you are right because that is what you believe and i respect that
we are in America and i would like to believe that everyone has a right to their own beliefs
in fact i would die in order to defend those rights
i would fight and die for every single person's right to express themselves religiously, to express their thoughts
i would like for everyone to understand that we are all human beings living on the SAME WORLD. we must live together. we must understand one another whether we agree with each other or not we must all agree to co exist with one another and respect each other
what i'm trying to get at is if we could all just stop judging each other, if we could just understand instead of force our thoughts/beliefs on each other
then maybe this wouldn't be an issue
you don't have to like it
but you can understand it or at least try to
and know that what YOU are doing is the right thing
that whatever belief you carry, that you are following it
that you are being loyal to your own belief
i'm a lesbian whom would love to marry one day, i believe in god, in fact i love him
i make good grade (i attend a vanguard high school), i read the bible, i don't steal, cheat, kill, judge, disobey
i'm true to myself and i will always be true to myself
and i hope you respect that about me
because even though i don't even know who you are...i in turn respect everything about you.
Report as Offensive
Morality and gay marriage?
By John Harriss on Dec 1, 2007 2:23:51 AM
For everyone quoting the "morality" of Jesus and the Bible. Here's what the Bible says about slavery:
Leviticus 25
44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
Also see Exodus 21:7-11 and 1 Timothy 6:1-4
The Bible is in direct confliction with the Thirteenth Amendment that is the most non-controversial topic in America. President Lincoln had the moral sense to abolish slavery but God's views on slavery are consistent between the Old Testament and the New in encouraging it. Jesus, your beacon of compassion, collaborates with Mosaic Law in this verse:
Matthew 5:18-19
18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Also 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9 confirms the âdivinityâ? of the Law.
Now for all of you who state that you believe in the infallacy of the bible but are homosexual men here are some verses for your attention:
Leviticus 20:13
13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Leviticus 18:22
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
These passages do not make any insight into female homosexuality however and I have not found anything on that part of the subject in the bible. Given that Hebrew culture sanctions polygamy I can imagine that men would have had their multiple wives perform sexual acts on one another. As Jesus fully endorses all the laws in the Leviticus, including the ones above that gay men should die, he should not be described by anyone as being pro-gay marriage. Since he also endorses the appalling horrors of slavery I don't think anyone should describe him as moral either. God, the Bible, and Jesus fully support slavery which is not condoned by our Constitution or the entire civilized world so I would venture to say that the before mentioned are un-American, un-civilized and immoral. Since they are immoral they should have no precedence in an argument of morality. I would also say that if you agree with them on topics such as enslaving your fellow human beings and murdering people for imaginary crimes like homosexuality that you are also immoral. Inflicting any kind of suffering upon a homosexual based on the ideas in the Bible, namely disallowing them marriage rights is also immoral. Same sex marriage is opposed only because Judeo-Christian theology persecutes gays as imaginary criminals. In a society founded on freedom, equality, and secularism it is shameful that this is even being debated especially given what the Constitution says about this kind of persecution. I believe the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth amendment is more than sufficient to grant gays the right to marry. Even more so when you look at cases like Lawrence v. Texas, Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird. How can you say that a state cannot make a law illegalizing homosexual sodomy and not heterosexual sodomy because it discriminates gays but it's okay for the same state to allow heterosexual but not homosexual marriage? How is a woman having the right to marry a man but not a man the right to marry a man, and vise versa, gender discrimination? What about what Griswold v. Conn. says about marital privacy? Or what Eisenstadt v. Baird says about equality between married and un-married persons? All of these based on the Equal Protection Clause and someday so will the equality of marriage. After that the religious persecution of gays and all of the legislation mentioned in the article above banning gay marriage will be viewed as something closely resembling the "black codes" of the latter 19th century. Gays deserve equality now. Right now and anything less is un-American. One last thing, for all the Christians talking about the spread of AIDS/HIV via homosexuals I have to point out that around four million people die every year in sub-Saharan Africa where Christians preach about the imaginary immorality of condom use from the same disease. For your own religion's record on the spread of disease you shouldn't point a finger at anyone on the subject.
Report as Offensive
Gay Marriage
By Greg McGinnon on Nov 28, 2007 8:43:03 PM
I would also like to say that I, coming from a gay family, divorced family, am no different from anyone I know. I have constantly talked to my friends about same-sex marriage and each and every one has agreed with me about same-sex marriage. Also, I would like to point out that even though gay couples can't reproduce. The still can raise children. I think that's a commitment that is very hard. Raising a child (in my case 4 children) is a commitment. STOP ANNOYING GAYS AND LESBIANS AND DEAL WITH YOUR OWN ISSUES. THEY ALREADY HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS WITHOUT YOU! That only goes for people who appose same-sex marriage.
Report as Offensive
Gay Marriage
By Greg McGinnon on Nov 28, 2007 8:25:52 PM
My parents are gay, in fact I have a total of 4 mothers (two got divorced and then remarried) and I feel it is absurd to think they are any different than anyone else. If you were denied the right to love, how would you like it? I think that same-sex marriage is too talked about. Just leave gays and lesbians to themselves, but give them the right to marry.
Report as Offensive
Why does religion have to be brought into this?
By Matt Morgano on Oct 26, 2007 12:20:24 PM
Let me start by saying I'm gay and do not fully support gay marriage. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman; however, I do believe that gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples (in favor of civil unions). A problem I have with people quoting the bible as evidence is the fact that the bible was written by man. Also, picking and choosing which verses to use does not sit well with me.
To interpet the bible literally is nonsense. One would have to take into account the historical context. The difference between the New Testament and the Old almost polar opposite. If one took the bible literally, women would have to offer up sacrafices during their periods and men after seminal discharge. Would we even consider this today? Of course not.
We do not choose to be like this. Why would we want to be minorities in such a harsh society? Do mentally challanged people choose to be mentally challenged? We cannot explain why we like the same sex just as heterosexuals cannot explain why they like the opposite sex. We just do.
Anyways, I do believe that gay marriage should be kept out of the church, however, the constitution does give us our rights as human beings to pursue our own happiness.
And if i may pick and choose a bible verse: Mark 12:28-31.
Report as Offensive
YES to gay marriage
By laura belden on Sep 20, 2007 9:54:11 AM
marriage is about love. it should not matter what the gender is and people who say its wrong and unnatural they have no understanding of whats right or natural. gay marriage should be legalized and should be put in the constitution as legal.
Report as Offensive
Gay Marriage is Already Lost-Let's Move On to What Is Possible
By Leland Traiman on Sep 9, 2007 12:03:17 AM
Same-sex marriage with all of the rights, benefits and obligations of marriage cannot exist in the United States in the near future. Here is why: Forty-five states have laws or constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Source: Human Rights Campaign) There has been over 48 million votes cast on this issue in 29 states and almost 32 million, almost two-thirds, voted against same-sex marriage. As the noted gay historian and professor at the University of Illinois, John D'Emilio, observed in his 2006 article, The Marriage Fight Is Setting Us Back, "The campaign for same-sex marriage has been an unmitigated disaster. It has created a vast body of new anti-gay laws." There has already been, in effect, a national referendum and we have lost......BIG.
Despite the title, "marriage", same-sex marriage with all of the rights, benefits and obligations of marriage does not even exist in Massachusetts. Massachusetts's same-sex marriage, California's domestic partners, and Vermont and New Jersey's civil unions all have the same federal benefits of marriage: zero.
In poll after poll, a clear majority of voters say they would support civil unions with all the same rights, benefits and obligations of marriage but they would not support same-sex marriage. Illogical? Yes! But it is a fact we must live with.
There have been no successful direct challenges to statewide domestic partner or civil union policies. Domestic partners and civil unions have been overturned only when they were included in ballot propositions whose primary purpose was to ban same-sex marriage.
All of the rights, benefits and obligations of marriage are attainable, with public support, under the title civil unions or domestic partners. Same-sex marriage is not. We may not like that fact, however, it is none-the-less a fact. Why the leaders of our community do not see the obvious is beyond my understanding. It is time that someone in the lesbian and gay community tell our leaders that their strategy on same-sex marriage has failed. We must return to the successful strategy of attaining our rights through civil unions and domestic partners which has worked well for over 20 years. Who among us will be brave enough to say, "The emperor has no clothes" before we are all stripped naked of our rights.
Report as Offensive
YES to gay marriage!
By Samantha Strickland on Aug 24, 2007 1:40:12 PM
i am a lesbian and i feel strongly for allowing gay marriage.Lesbians and gays should be allowed the same rights as man and woman couples.we are apart of this country,which the declaration of independence gladly discusses.
"we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights:that among these rights are life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness."
all people should have a right to love anyone,love honestly,and have a right to get married.we are all humans with the same color of blood.we are all equal and we should not be judged on our orientation,but only that we are human and we live in the united states.hint...united.we all should be able to live in peace together even if we are different that other people.allow gay marriage.
Report as Offensive
A side note on certain arguments against gay marriage
By Kimberly LaFragola on Jul 30, 2007 5:45:23 PM
This response is to one particular post; however, we will all benefit from reading this. One person has posted that states have laws prohibiting cousins from getting married. Approximately half the states in the U.S do ban cousins from getting married. However, what are their reasons? The main reasoning behind these bans was because, as once believed, that marrying cousins would lead to mentally handicapped children. This theory has been disproved time and time again. If it were true, half the people that have ancestors that owned plantations and quite a large portion of royalty around the world would all be retarded. Albert Einstein would also have been retarded. In fact, the risk factors for cousins to have children with a birth defect are only marginal, in fact, it's about as likely for cousins under the age of 40 to have children with birth defects than a non-related couple over 40 to have children with a birth defect. Yet, we don't prohibit couples over 40 to get married? Nor do we prohibit them from having children.
Also, gay parents have no more of a likelihood of producing gay children as straight people do. Homosexuals had to come from somewhere. It's a matter of genetics (yes genetics, not some "choice"), like whether you have brown, green, or blue eyes. People do not choose to be ostracized from their community and relentlessly tormented by their peers and told that they cannot do something, just because it's fun for them. So, for all of you who claim that homosexuality is a choice, let me ask you one question: did you CHOOSE to be attracted to your significant other? More than likely, no. Everyone is attracted to a different type of person, you are in no more control over that than you are in control over what your blood type is.
I am quite tired of hearing these strawman fallacies against the gay community. All this means is that you are too lazy to actually research and discover the actual reasons you don't like the idea of gay marriage that you have to create arguments that are very easy for you to utilize and raze for your own gain.
In fact, one study has shown that children raised by heterosexual mothers had a HIGHER rate of psychiatric disorders and psychiatric referrals than those raised by lesbians. Another study found that those raised by heterosexuals were more domineering and more often engaged in power struggles. Other studies found that children of lesbian parents showed greater tolerance for diversity and that daughters of lesbians chose to play with opposite sex partners more often than daughters of heterosexual mothers. There are even studies that show that children brought up by homosexuals are no more likely to grow up to be gay than children in heterosexual households.
Psychologists, counselors and religious therapy and support groups have all attempted to "change sexual orientations", and they have all failed. The studies that have been done of these attempts of "therapeutic" intervention have never been shown to have any statistically significant results in the manner intended, and most often have been shown to have emotionally damaging consequences.
Also, gay people do not "recruit." That is a notion that is laughable, at the very least. It is ludicrous to think that that is even feasible. How often has a gay person actually walked up to you and said, "how would you know, if you've never tried it?" And you actually thought about it and said, "you know, you're right!" Chances are, never. It doesn't happen.
Just some food for thought. Maybe some of your anti-gay sentiment actually stems from your own inherent homophobia, fearing that if you get too close you'll catch it, like a cold. Or maybe you fear that they will hit on you (trust me, it's no worse than having the ugly person hit on you).
Report as Offensive
Ban Gay Marriage
By Adam Smotherman on Jul 24, 2007 12:11:02 AM
Whether the liberals like to admit it or not, the United States of America is a country whose foundation and beginning is Christianity. Yes, there is separation of church and state legally, but not in reality. The conservative leaders of our nation, whom I obviously support, implement Christian beliefs into politics. That's the way things should be. Even those opposed to Christian beliefs can not deny that men and women are biologically meant to be together: to wed, to reproduce, etc. Men and men, or women and women, are obviously not designed to share life together and are not capable of reproduction. Therefore, marriage should be defined in the United States' Constitution as the legal and holy joining of one man and one woman.
Report as Offensive
Gay Marriage
By Ingrid Plaza on Jun 26, 2007 11:51:42 PM
I was opposed to same sex marriage beacuse I thought it was not right. I believed that marriage was between a man and woman only. That all changed when I watched a documentary called Tying the Knot. The gay couples that they followed truely loved one another. Just like ordainary straight couples. So why should they not have the right marry? Just because they are gay does not mean that there rights should be stripped away. I believe they should be treated as equally as anybody else.
Report as Offensive
gay marriage
By M. Leavey on May 19, 2007 5:21:35 PM
I hope people who are opposed gay marriage are going to realize it's not their choice to make. You find it ungodly? All the power to you, but don't deny us our right to be together. Everybody has a right to their opinion, but your rights end where the rights of others start. People should have freedom of religion, as well as freedom of lifestyle. When two adult people want to be joined in marriage, they should have the right to do so, even if other people don't agree. And for your information.... gay people ARE born that way. It is not a choice. Do you really think we find it FUN being "different" and having to fight for basic rights? All we want is to live our life somewhat happy with the ones we love. Want to make a difference? Write a letter to your representative to support the UAFA (www.immigrationequality.org) Live and let live.
Report as Offensive
No to Gay Marriage
By Iam Straight on Apr 17, 2007 1:24:38 AM
Great reasons for gay marriage to be wrong:
The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one's spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.
I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse's social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse's health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between to unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage.
-Adam Kolasinksi
Report as Offensive
The 1st Amendment is secondary to this argument.
By Patrick Fitzgerald on Mar 6, 2007 1:03:04 PM
Would anyone claim the same about precepts like "thou shalt not steal"
No- its laugable
I quote....
"To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.
Report as Offensive
I believe in the first amendment
By Gary L on Mar 1, 2007 9:03:56 PM
The first amendment makes clear that Congress shall make no law against free exercise and non-establishment, which collectively are the separation of church and state.
I would find the complete inanity of the opponents of equal marriage rights/rites for same sex couple laughable if these people were not so hate-filled.
Every one of their arguments are one of three "It's traditional do discriminate against same sex attraction" or "I just don't like Gay people and neither does my God." or "Gay people can have children."
None of these reason has any logic or legal basis, if the courts would suppress their own anti-Gay prejudices.
Tradition is not a basis to continue a policy. THe state must show a compelling interest to deny equal protection.
Dislike is even less defensible, as the Supreme Court made clear in Romer v Evans when overturning Colorado's measure 2.
The child argument is the most offensive. The courts for decades have made clear that marriage and child bearing are independent of each other. The huge numbers of children with one or more Gay parenets are being harmed by denying thier parents and families the protections of Civil Marriage.
To the Oppenents of fairness: Go back to the middle ages and look for heretics to burn at the stake, but get out of my legal system.
Report as Offensive
Same sex Marriage
By Amber Murray on Feb 21, 2007 3:53:05 PM
I find it quite interesting that America is banning same sex marriage in many states. Its awesome that the states are starting to accept same sex marriages. I just find it funny that a country that prides them selves on FREEDOM won't allow some people to marry. Isn't that a little contradicting? I mean I'm only an 18 year old college student so I may not know anything. But I find it offensive for someone like the person below me to be so rude about this topic or problem. Aren't Christians supposed to love everyone no matter who they are? And why bring God into this problem what is he/she going to do? If God feels that there should be no such thing as a same sex marriage or people being in a same sex relationship don't you think he would have done something about it already? Look at the Romans back when they were in power. Didn't they have some same sex things going on? I believe so unless history is wrong. But honestly if you are for or against same sex marriage who cares? If you want one then go get one if you don't then don't its that simple. I don't think the governement should be telling a "free" country who they can and can't marry. If anything it should be the minister, preist, or whatever religion you do or don't belong to. Don't be a racists, it only makes you ugly. =) Have a great day!
Report as Offensive
All for Gay Marriages
By Tabetha Hancock on Jan 14, 2007 7:03:40 AM
Personally I am all for gay marriages. If people would look at it like this than there would be no reason for fighting or arguing about the topic because we all the the right of life liberty and the persuit of happiness if I am correct in saying that. And if i am also not mistaken we all have the right to be happy too. That is what everyone is trying to do and the way everyone that is against it is taking the whole religious side. No I am not trying to say that the ones taking the religious saide are wrong and I am not saying that the ones for gay marriages are wrong either I am simply stating that if you just let the issue go its way and let people live their lives we would have a much happier society because who are we to say what is right and what is wrong when everything is based on an opinion. Yes we all have one and some use theirs more so than other but if you also take a huge step back and look at those homosexuals have sucessfully gotten married, they are happy and it is my belief that it might actually reduce the divorce rate. I mean really it would make me so happy if me and my partner could do it but unfortunatly we are bound by a society that doesn't recognize it and it takes away from out time with each other to be happy. So instead of bickering about it all just let those of us in the homosexual world be happy and in turn we will let you have your happiness. Because after all we all have that right!
Report as Offensive
Gay Marriage
By Richard Franks on Dec 29, 2006 8:30:15 PM
If you recognoze traditional or regular marriage being matrimony between one man and one woman, What are the reasons that Gay Marriage has to be banned in the process and the reasons need not to be religious reasons, they should be regular reasons, Even though Massachusetts is the only state to legalize gay marriage, I have a few questions: Why does Massachusetts have a low divorce rate and how come no one in that state has complained about it? If homosexuality isn't a crime, why should it be a crime for gays to marry? What can Gay marriage do to the rest of us? Even though I am neutral on this subject religious reasons shouldn't be the only reasons.
Report as Offensive
Gay Marriage
By K S on Dec 21, 2006 11:49:43 AM
I feel compelled to respond to the supporters of gay marriage and their previous comments. What I find most perplexing is that each repsondent only uses God to their advantage. I would hope that the person who feels it is arrogant to know what the Creator wants would take a look in the mirror. Isn't that exactly what you are doing? People who choose to follow the Bible do just that. We don't twist it to fit our lifestyle we twist our lifestyle to fit the Bible. And yes, the Bible absolutely condemns homosexuality and since "all scriptue is given by inspiriation of God..." (II Timothy 3:16) you can stop using the baseless argument that "Jesus never said it so he must approve". It is also not a good enough reason to redefine an institiution which is thousands of years old for your own selfish gain because a two hundred year old document (The Constitution) gives you the right to pursue happiness. That is a very broad term and I think a leap over the grand canyone to suggest in any way that it meant rights for homosexuals. Christians don't HATE gay people we just oppose homosexuality. Who is judging who? You can't badger people who are trying to live their lives in a godly way into accepting something that is clearly ungodly. The Bible commands us to speak the truth in love. The first part of that is that we have to speak the truth. The trouble is no matter how it is said it is considered hateful.
In conclusion I want to say that it is a shame that the understanding of homosexuality has been so misconstrued. So much time and money has been spent trying to prove something that is just not true. You were not born that way. You CHOSE to be a homosexual, you are just not being honest about it. The Constitution acknowledges my right to happiness as well. Unfortunately, when it comes to this issue someone is going to be unhappy.
Report as Offensive
YES to Gay Rights!
By Daniel Martin on Nov 6, 2006 8:26:44 AM
It is absolutely rediculous to me that religious books and stories (which are just that - stories and not factual by any means other than the "faith" that they actually happened) can be cited, twisted, and conformed to argue points that essentially deem one human being less important or unworthy of the same rights as others. And how pompus is it to actually believe that we could possibly know what "the Creator" wants for our happiness? Gay men and women deserve the same rights that everyone else does. Humans fear what they don't understand. And sometimes are even willing to judge a person(s) out of their life, before being willing to get to know the person(s) behind the prejudice. And THAT, to me, is ungodly. The least common denominator of most wordly religions is that "God is Love". Only humans could be so naive as to misuse "God" to uphold hatred. My wish for all those out there who share a disgusting view on gay persons and/or their rights: is to have a son/daughter, grandson/granddaughter, etc... with whom they are close, come out as being gay to them one day. Where will you stand then? Push someone out of your life that you have loved up until you found out they were gay? Or maybe, just maybe see how unwilling you have been, up until that point, to Love someone because of something you don't understand. Maybe then you can find God in becoming willing to understand that person and love them regardless of who they are. Because after all, isn't that the ultimate expression of what love is?
Report as Offensive
In response to the previous comment
By Ryan Huban on Nov 2, 2006 12:49:36 PM
For a human to suggest that he or she knows what God wants for His people is ignorant and disgraces The Lord. We all live on this planet together, and must constantly work to spread peace and happiness to each other (Especially during this time of international war and hate). Same-sex marriage will only bring more love to our country; Any person who opposes such a union is discriminatory and brings further shame to our race.
Report as Offensive
Same-sex marriage
By Donald Scott on Nov 2, 2006 10:20:04 AM
I understand that the religious institution of marriage is between one man and one woman, but civil marriage is different from that institution. It is an institution that grants rights and benefits to "legally married" individuals. I feel that same-sex couples are entitled to all of the rights and benefits of civil marriage, and if it has to lead to same-sex civil marriage, I would support the legalization of same-sex civil marriage.
Report as Offensive
Gay marriage
By jeffrey davis on Oct 30, 2006 5:24:13 PM
Hooray for the progress being made across the country to ensure the rights of gay adults to marry! It shows that, even with a sticky issue like this one, our systems of laws is working. We must not let ourselves use personal bias or hate, or religion to deny our citizens their legal right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Since Jesus was silent on this issue (unlike many others for which He gave us instructions), we must assume he approves!
Report as Offensive
NO to gay marriages
By L C on Oct 25, 2006 10:11:07 PM
It is a dirty and ungodly business to allow public display of gay marriages. God created Adam and Eve and not Adam and Adam. People moved so far away from God and His Word that they forgot that is not what the Creator wants for our happiness. Its terrible that gay marriage is even a consideration and that they may be publically recognized and encouraged to go one and send a wrong message to others. I am totally against it!!! I pray that the Lord would not gay marriage to go on.
Report as Offensive