Marriage: Sacred Rite or Civil Right?

Kert1,

Your refusal to separate civil marriage laws from cultural or religious marriage (what you called "natural law") is telling.

You prefer a discriminatory, theocratic marriage law, while I prefer a secular law with full equality. Fair enough. Our difference is clear.

Fortunately, marriage equality is steadily advancing despite opinions like yours.

Did you hear the latest news? Wisconsin just fell!

There is no reason to have the institution of marriage. Relationships between people should exist for as long as they want them to exist. Relatedly, the social structure of the nuclear family should be de-emphasized. Children should be raised by a combination of social nursery and parental involvment. This arrangement allows for more personal freedom and much less stress on everyone involved.

Freestinker,

You seem to be under the impression that laws relate to all people the same way, which is clearly not true. There are many laws that relate to people according to age, disability, and gender. It is actually much more unfair to not view the differences of humans when creating laws. It is clearly unfair to treat a 2 year-old like a 35 year-old or 75 year-old. This isn't discrimination, it is common sense.

You comment about marriage being simply a contract is very telling. I really don't think you understand marriage to the fullest extent. It is clearly more than a legal contract. In truth our government doesn't have to recognize it, but the fact it does is good.

It isn't like our founders decided to create a marriage contract because they felt like it. They recognized marriage is the foundation of society and any lawful country must recognize it. Marriage predates all governments or history. To try to create society without recognizing marriage would be unfruitful and possibly harmful.

My stand has always been to recognize marriage as it was intended to be, as a natural law. Playing around with the definition of marriage will only confuse what marraige is and what humans long for. Of course, humans can "marry" in whatever way they want but the government should recognize only those marraiges that are true.

KERT1,

Unless (of course) I am of the wrong gender!

I didn't say marriage was a Constitutional "right" per se, although the Courts have said it is on many occassions.

My point is that civil marriage laws should not discriminate against people merely on the basis of their gender.

If the law says I can't marry Jane only because I am a woman, that's not equal protection under the law and we all have a Constitutional right to equal protection.

Why should civil marriage laws (as they do in Virginia) discriminate against people just because of their gender? Why shouldn't same-sex couples and their families be entitled to the same legal protections that civil marriage contracts provide for opposite-sex couples and their families? Why should their gender alone disqualify them from equal protection?

After all, it's just a legal contract between two consenting adults. Their gender is completely irrelevant to the terms of the legal contract so I really don't see how or why gender is even an issue here at all.

All marriage in this nation is a civil contract. It's only 'blessing' are the state or Federal laws covering it's creation, execution and dissolution. Just as in Florida, a Notary Public may execute the civil contract as provided in the state issued license, or a Captain of a Vessel may execute the Federal version of the contract, so are preachers granted rights in most state to act as executors of the civil contract provided for in the marriage license by the state. All marriage in this nation is and always has been a civil union. Marriage DOES NOT EXIST ON THE AUTHORITY OF ANY CHURCH OR FAITH BASED SYSTEM.

Preachers should be allowed to determine whom they will execute the contract for. All gov't employees such as judges do not have that right.

That is why almost every court in the land has decided that the cannot proscribe same sex marriage in the US and any law to do so is most probably unconstitutional.

"I would also point out that you are not treated any differently when you go for a marriage license. I can pretty much guarantee that clerk will not ask you your race, religion, sex-orientation, favorite color or anything else. They will look at your birth certificates, take your money, and if you comply with state and local law, give you a marriage certificate to sign."

KERT1,

Unless (of course) I am of the wrong gender!

I didn't say marriage was a Constitutional "right" per se, although the Courts have said it is on many occassions.

My point is that civil marriage laws should not discriminate against people merely on the basis of their gender.

If the law says I can't marry Jane only because I am a woman, that's not equal protection under the law and we all have a Constitutional right to equal protection.

Why should civil marriage laws (as they do in Virginia) discriminate against people just because of their gender? Why shouldn't same-sex couples and their families be entitled to the same legal protections that civil marriage contracts provide for opposite-sex couples and their families? Why should their gender alone disqualify them from equal protection?

After all, it's just a legal contract between two consenting adults. Their gender is completely irrelevant to the terms of the legal contract so I really don't see how or why gender is even an issue here at all.

I am now older and unmarried. I don't miss being married. My children, all happily married, have all decided not to have children, but to support and be kind to the ones already here. It is OK with me. For true happiness, buy a Steinway!!!

The following article, written by an honest, admirable and courageous homosexual is enough to topple Homintern myths, break your heart, and revolutionize government policies. Here's a clip:
'(The money) was used to purchase a commodity that is more precious than gold to the gay rights establishment. Respectability. Respectability and the appearance of normalcy. Without that investment, we would not now be engaged in a serious debate about the legalization of same-sex "marriage"'.
by Ronald G. Lee
New Oxford Review. February 2006.
Volume LXXIII Number 2.

The following article, written by an honest, admirable and courageous homosexual is enough to topple Homintern myths, break your heart, and revolutionize government policies. Here's a clip:
'(The money) was used to purchase a commodity that is more precious than gold to the gay rights establishment. Respectability. Respectability and the appearance of normalcy. Without that investment, we would not now be engaged in a serious debate about the legalization of same-sex "marriage"'.
by Ronald G. Lee
New Oxford Review. February 2006.
Volume LXXIII Number 2.

This discussion is headed with the title “Marriage: Sacred Rite or Civil Right?”

I became aware of this discussion through the article on page C-2 of today’s (Saturday’s) Washington Post. At the bottom of the same column there is an article which states that support for same-sex marriage in a given state is related to the percentage of the Catholic population: the more Catholics, the more support for same-sex marriage. No doubt there are a number of reasons for this, and I think I might be able to identify one of them. And in so doing it will become apparent that the Church’s take on marriage, if I've got it right, is in fact very different than most of the views being presented in this discussion.

With regard to the choice between sacred rite and civil right, I would also like to posit that for Roman Catholics, it’s neither.

But before I get too far into this, allow me to ask the support of those more in touch with contemporary Church teaching on these issues. The argument I’m going to develop is based on my understanding of Confraternity of Christian Doctrine classes I took fifty-year-old as a teenager. That’s a long time ago, and perhaps I’ve forgotten some critical details.

As I recall, the sacraments of the Catholic Church can be grouped into two main groups for discussions such as this. Those two groups are, on the one hand, the sacraments which require the mediation of a priest, and on the other hand the sacraments which are believed to be received directly from God. The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is an example of the former: a priest is required to consecrate the host. The Sacrament of Matrimony, on the other hand, is one received directly from God. In other words, the priest, the vows, the church building and the ceremony are all non-essential events.

As I understand it, this is, in part, why the Church recognizes the validity of common law marriages (at least in some cases) and presumably recognizes the validity of marriages performed by other religions. This is also presumably in part the basis for the authority of the Church to nullify marriages: if the evidence emerges that one of the partners in the marriage was coerced or in some other way unwilling or mentally incapable of making a decision, the marriage, in the sacramental sense, never took place (even if the ceremony with vows did).

My impression is that in most other religions, marriage is more of a legalistic, contractual matter. But if I’ve got it right, in Catholic teaching it’s a matter of sincere commitment between the married pair. The profoundly sacred and personal nature of the Sacrament of Matrimony is such that the Church takes the role of witnessing and shepherding; but the Church itself does not marry the couple in the sense of conferring the Sacrament of Marriage. If that ( the conferring of the Sacrament of Matrimony) is to happen, the Church’s belief is that it happens directly between the couple and God.

Have I got it right?

With these things in mind, should it surprise us that a lay population which recognizes the uniquely personal and voluntary nature of marriage would oppose marriage for any committed couple ?

Everyone does have a right to a marriage contract. The fact that it is limited to one male and one female does not deny anyone the same right. They must simply find a partner of the opposite sex. Marriage has been defined thus for millennia. While involving the legal system of law making and law deciding may give it a novel definition, there is obviously no inherent right unless you want to posit that we have just become bright enough to see it where it previously was hidden. I find the evidence for a gain in overall intelligence of the population questionable.

Freestinker,
Well indeed, we are entitled to equal protection under the law but that is far from granting everyone the “right” of marriage.
In fact no one is guaranteed the right of marriage. You must actually find a spouse and conform to the laws of your state and the country. I can’t demand to marry anyone as a right. If no one wants to marry me then I can’t marry. If marriage were a right then they state would guarantee it as much as it could.
This line of thinking is popular these days. People come up with rights all the time. Unfortunately we don’t know where are rights come from or what they are. Rights are not laws and are generally very basic. We have heard about our right to health care, free education, a job, others people’s money and others. Certainly there are laws regarding these issues but they aren’t rights. Rights are something the country can guarantee with some validity and these are not possible.
I would also point out that you are not treated any differently when you go for a marriage license. I can pretty much guarantee that clerk will not ask you your race, religion, sex-orientation, favorite color or anything else. They will look at your birth certificates, take your money, and if you comply with state and local law, give you a marriage certificate to sign.

I know the marriage right is probably the best argument on the other side, but it is very weak. We can’t just make up rights for people because they don’t like what others get. There are still consequences for actions. While I can’t stop people from doing things that are wrong, I don’t have to endorse them and the government doesn’t either. Congress and the courts have generally held up marriage for years and likely will continue to do so if they properly understand law.

KERT1: So the main question is whether we should change the definition of marriage so that others can marry in their own way.
>>>Actually, it's so that others can marry in exactly the same way - legally, with all the attendant rights and responsibilities.

KERT1: This would take a change in the laws, but would that be beneficial to us? If it is beneficial then we can change the law but if not, we would be stupid to do so. I don’t find it beneficial since Gay marriage would not accomplish what traditional marriage does.
1. It isn’t a natural relationship. Men and women are supposed to be attracted and they complete each other. The same can’t be said for same-sex couples and the relationships don’t generally last long. Marriage is about permanent relationship and not about rights of individuals.

>>>>>The fact that the majority of men are attracted to women and vice versa doesn't mean that those who aren't attracted to the opposite sex are "wrong." More people are right-handed than left-handed, but that doesn't mean that left-handed people should be denied rights based on which hand they write with.
We heteros have our share of one-night stands too. We have our share of supposedly monogamous relationships where one or the other party breaks the monogamy agreement.
We have no-fault divorce, so permanence is not a given.
I personally know several same-sex couples who have been together for decades.

KERT1: 2. Marriage is supposed to produce children in a nurturing environment. Gay marriage doesn’t produce children and when they do get children they lack the environment of mother and father. This is not a pleasant experience for children and has been shown.

>>>Not all who marry WANT children. Many who marry take careful precautions to ensure that they DON'T produce children - birth control pills, condoms, vasectomies, tubal ligations, etc.
Children do best when they are brought up in a home where they know they are loved and wanted. Number and gender of parents is negotaible.

KERT1: 3. Redefining marriage will weaken the already hurting institution. We have made marriage more about the individual than each other and this continues that trend. Marriage is supposed to benefit all but has degraded over the past decades because we are changing marriage to what we want it to be. This change will just hurt marriage more. Who will want to get married when the institution means little and has no permanence?

>>>Funny, I haven't noticed any detrimental changes to my marraige since several of my gay and lesbian friends have gotten married. I don't recall thinking when we got married, "This is SO special because gay people can't do it!" I do recall thinking "This is SO special because I am joining myself to the person I love."

KERT1: The truth is people can marry however they want, it’s just the government only acknowledges those whom follow its guidelines. Others just want the “privileges” that come with marriage. Unfortunately people also forget about the responsibilities of marriage and I doubt people are really looking to have the government force them to stay committed. Again, I see this as people turning marriage into a selfish motive. This is surely not beneficial.

>>>The only documentation our court system required for issuing our license was picture ID and exact cash. They didn't ask if we were really committed to each other or if we just wanted benefits. They didn't ask about our plans for children, or require that we sign a pledge to remain monogamous upon pain of death.

KERT1: In the end, I don’t think the majority of Americans want marriage to be whatever someone chooses it to be (aka. Same-sex, multiple spouses, humans and animals , etc), which is the basis for redefining marriage. Do we really want people teaching our kids how to have a same-sex relationship or advising our kids how to be gay and that it’s a good thing. I think we would rather vote to keep marriage as it is and continue the good this country has done.

>>>Dearest, who "taught" you "how to be straight?" Did you require tutoring in order to make wood when a pretty girl walked by? Or when those hormones started kicking in, did you just find that girls weren't so icky after all, and that getting "cooties" if you kissed a girl was a risk you were only too willing to take? Could you "learn" to find other men sexually attractive?
Gay people don't have to "learn" how to be attracted to people of their own sex - they just are. And they can't "learn" to be straight - it just ain't there.

And enough with the poly/child/animal/inanimate object marriage red herring. Poly marriage isn't on the horizon because it would create a book-keeping nightmare for the IRS and other governemnt agencies. Children are not allowed to enter into legal contracts, and laws are already in place that allow parents to give permission for minors to marry, but do not allow parents to force minors to marry against their will. And there is a limit to how young the minor can be, even with the parents' permission.
Animals cannot enter into legal agreements, as they do not have the capacity to give informed consent, therefore you can't marry your cat, dog, horse, goldfish, canary, iguana, boa constrictor, tarantula, squid, or any other non-human species.
Inanimate objects cannot give consent, so you can't marry your toaster, lawn chair, toothbrush, piano, Corvette, or anything else that doesn't have a pulse.

Hmmm, the NT says nothing about gay sex? Au Contraire!!! Thou shalt Not Commit Adultery and Thou Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbors Wife/Husband/Partner with the corollary of Thou Shalt Not Fornicate pertain not only to heterosexual couples but also homosexual couples. This probably is no concern to non-Christians or non-Jews but it should be a major concern to those religious types that believe in the teachings of the OT, NT, the Commandments and all of its corollaries.

So we have a Christian God who supposedly created all of us to include homosexuals. Said God is therefore responsible for the defective gene/mind-set that causes homosexuality? One might conclude from this that the Christian God would therefore approve same-sex marriages since that is the only sin-free state where any type of couple-sex can be performed.

And just a reminder, reiteration is a fundamental learning method.

And we see James210 of the local world of probability waves has joined in!!

"We have no “right” to marriage that I know of. Not mentioned in the constitution or such, so let’s keep the courts out of this as much as possible. Marriage is a matter of law, and we should keep it that way."

=================

KERT1,

Civil marriage is indeed a matter of law and we do have a Contitutional right to equal protection under the law. And we can't leave the courts out of it because that's where matters of law are decided in the U.S.

There is no good reason for civil marriage law to discriminate against people merely on the basis of their gender.

The law should provide for civil unions for all, regardless of gender and leave marriage to the private sector where it belongs.

Why shouldn't same-sex couples and their families be entitled to the same legal protections that civil marriage contracts provide for opposite-sex couples and their families? Why should their gender alone disqualify them from equal protection?

You seem to think that same-sex couples should be second class citizens, undeserving of equal treatment under the law that our Constitution guarantees.

Would you just sit quietly if you were being denied equal protection merely because of your gender?

Well I would certainly welcome civility to any debate. I’m not sure if the question is perfectly phrased. I don’t believe marriage is a civil right. It was established long before our country and no one has a right to be married; people decide to be married when they act accordingly. I do believe there is a sacred side to marriage, since it is condoned by basically all major religions but there is more to it. Non-religious people get married too and religions have slightly different views of it. I think it is basically written in our natural laws, like gravity, that people desire and generally marry someone of the opposite sex for life. We can either embrace or ignore these laws.
I think that the US has done the correct thing by acknowledging and enforcing marriage as a institution. This is because marriage is good and is actually the foundation of all society. Countries will all come and go, but marriage has been around since the beginning and will be around to the end. So our laws aren’t the main issue but our laws should reflect what is good. By acknowledging and encouraging marriage, we encourage good in our society. In fact, it is hard to imagine good or any type of society without marriage and the family. Imagine growing up without a father, mother, siblings and grandparents. Personally, I can’t imagine. It is great that our country has chosen to encourage and protect this institution throughout our history. We have no “right” to marriage that I know of. Not mentioned in the constitution or such, so let’s keep the courts out of this as much as possible. Marriage is a matter of law, and we should keep it that way.

part 2:
So the main question is whether we should change the definition of marriage so that others can marry in their own way. This would take a change in the laws, but would that be beneficial to us? If it is beneficial then we can change the law but if not, we would be stupid to do so. I don’t find it beneficial since Gay marriage would not accomplish what traditional marriage does.
1. It isn’t a natural relationship. Men and women are supposed to be attracted and they complete each other. The same can’t be said for same-sex couples and the relationships don’t generally last long. Marriage is about permanent relationship and not about rights of individuals.
2. Marriage is supposed to produce children in a nurturing environment. Gay marriage doesn’t produce children and when they do get children they lack the environment of mother and father. This is not a pleasant experience for children and has been shown.
3. Redefining marriage will weaken the already hurting institution. We have made marriage more about the individual than each other and this continues that trend. Marriage is supposed to benefit all but has degraded over the past decades because we are changing marriage to what we want it to be. This change will just hurt marriage more. Who will want to get married when the institution means little and has no permanence?
The truth is people can marry however they want, it’s just the government only acknowledges those whom follow its guidelines. Others just want the “privileges” that come with marriage. Unfortunately people also forget about the responsibilities of marriage and I doubt people are really looking to have the government force them to stay committed. Again, I see this as people turning marriage into a selfish motive. This is surely not beneficial.
In the end, I don’t think the majority of Americans want marriage to be whatever someone chooses it to be (aka. Same-sex, multiple spouses, humans and animals , etc), which is the basis for redefining marriage. Do we really want people teaching our kids how to have a same-sex relationship or advising our kids how to be gay and that it’s a good thing. I think we would rather vote to keep marriage as it is and continue the good this country has done.

Hmmm, James210 has blessed us with another commentary. Is he/she not a former member of a probability wave??

Civil Union sure. Asking God to bless a sin... no so much.

Finding a common Spirit and Love with another, is a blessing from the Lord.

Ceremonies are an act of celebration, not blessing or approval.

Paths are Mainstream, it's the path that we make ourselves, that defines us.

Modern marriage...an institution more civil than religious, a contract between any combination of sexes,--any number of people?--and with substantial financial rewards. And no one caring much if marriage is annulled. And no one really thinking about the future, about having children, raising them.

With the decline of religion we have yet to be certain of the superiority of marriage as a civil institution. With the decline of religion we have yet to see marriage as a civil institution be a better guarantee of the future. At least with religion some type of future was aimed at in marriage: children--and raised in the image of Christ.

The modern age however speaks of simply raising the children (whatever that means) if thinking of children at all. Modern marriage so far: a piece of narcissism. Enter this relationship, exit that one. Satisfy these sexual impulses, satisfy those. Jockey for these financial rewards, jockey for those.

We can speak of it being a type of play rather than a serious contract, its apotheosis homosexuals dressing up and wanting to get married--having a gay old time. (Thanks by the way, homosexuals, for ruining the beautiful word "gay", having it now forever associated with penises in anuses. Heterosexuals are perfectly content with heterosexual--heterosexuals do not call themselves "divine" or anything like that--so why ruin the word "gay"? Answer: a repellent piece of narcissism).

When we reflect that so much of marriage now is play acting it might be best to call it "doing the Las Vegas", the bride in stripper outfit and the groom dressed as Elvis. The show must go on. Try to insert fifteen minutes of fame into every aspect of life. But by far the slimiest people of all in the marriage as civil institution business are the heterosexuals. All that expectation of puppy love going on for a lifetime, and at the slightest marriage difficulty, divorce. And all those custody fights over the children.

When we reflect on the repellent behavior of the heterosexuals we have to ask ourselves whether gay people deserve to be called "gay" after all. It certainly is gay that when gay people split there are rarely children pulled this way and that in the custody battle. Marriage as a civil institution superior to marriage as a religious institution? Not a chance so far. We know that the religious age with its conception of marriage brought us to where we are now. We do not know if marriage as a civil institution will guarantee the future.

Modern marriage is quite strange. It seems more a cypher than anything else--a cypher we fill out with this type of sex and that, this number of individuals and that,--and always financial rewards, a welfare state rather than marriage. But modern marriage is nothing if it cannot be an improvement on the religious age in raising children. That is the benchmark. And I have yet to hear of a single person articulating this obvious idea.

Apparently with all the improvements going on around us in the modern life--improvements on the past--marriage is not required to be improved. Or perhaps vanity is considered improvement--for it seems so far vanity institutionalized is marriage as a civil institution. And if vanity institutionalized is marriage as a civil institution, then how vain the rest of society? In fact can we not say that if marriage is vanity all society is vain because marriage is still the only real method of raising children--and vain marriage equals vain children?

What exactly is civil so far in marriage as a civil institution? At the least religious ages aspired to making marriage divine. What does marriage as a civil institution aspire to? Stupid question? I have yet to hear of a person speaking of it aspiring to something. Unless it be: "I want to get married". Well and good--make yourself complete. And if you fail, try again. Marriage primarily the satisfaction of identity crisis. Identity crisis growing larger seeking to have its cure institutionalized, bypassing the psychiatrist, psychologist. Marriage as mental health plan, financial discounts of course provided for by the government--and all stress on that marriage rather than having costs, asking responsibility of a person, instead removing cost from a person's life to provide peace of mind.

We can obviously see that marriage is a nexus by which we can sense emotional and intellectual winds of society--society which seems more and more to not be thinking about children because it feels itself far from complete--in fact feels fragmentary, needing to become whole. Vanity as the desperate sign of attempts at self-healing. Marriage so many things today. Would that it would be at least a piece of happiness.

ccnl1 :

Definitions are important!!!

Hmmm, Marriage defined as mutual and exclusive intercoursing: Sacred Rite
or Civil Right?

Both!!! (if you are heterosexual).
**************************************************************************************
Funny - I don't define my marriage by what happens when we decide to get nekkid. That's the least important aspect of marriage.
The stuff that counts, that makes it work, happens when our clothes are on.

Definitions are important!!!

Hmmm, Marriage defined as mutual and exclusive intercoursing: Sacred Rite
or Civil Right?

Both!!! (if you are heterosexual).

There is another rite/right for homosexuals defined as Mutual Masturbation or exclusive outercoursing (as noted by a simple Google/Bing search).

End of discussion!!!

Simple. The government should not get tangled up in religious mumbo-jumbo. All marriages, from the government's point of view, should be civil unions: contracts between people who want to live together in a domestic situation, sharing property and income and children and the civic obligations that go with them.

The government has a legitimate interest in your your property, your money, the health and welfare of your family, and your use of government services. It absolutely does NOT have an interest in making God or some specific community of believers happy. From the government's point of view, it shouldn't matter whether two people had words mumbled over them by a priest, a minister, a rabbi, or a ship's captain; or if they jumped over a broom or went to Vegas and got hitched by a guy dressed as Elvis. Those rituals should mean nothing to government unless the people involved go down to city hall and file the required domestic partnership paperwork. Then, and only then, should the government consider two people LEGALLY "married." And if two people want to fill out the forms and become civilly-unioned without any ceremony or blessing at all - then that should be an option, too. By the same token, if two people go through the ceremonies required by their particular sect but don't feel the need for government approval, more power to them - but they shouldn't expect to get marriage benefits from the government.

And, most importantly in the context of this debate, the government should not care about the sex, gender, race, or other circumstances of the people filing civil union papers. It's a business contract - a special one, certainly, but ultimately a business contract.

I would say the same principles should apply to businesses offering retirement benefits and insurance plans.

This is one area in which the wall between church and state is clear. Recognizing and maintaining that wall will make the marriage issue much simpler for government and more equitable for people who want to spend their lives together.

Marriage has two meanings. One is religious: the uniting of two people in a sacred relationship that is defined by the doctrines of each religious belief system. Under our Constitution, the state has no business or authority in establishing the conditions of these marrigages.

The second meanng of marriage is a state recognized legal contractual relationship between two (or in some cultures more than two) people. The governing authority can and does establish the conditions required to enter into this contractual relationship, including the privileges and responsibilities that are attendant to it.

The gay marriage debate is the result of conflating the religiosly sanctioned marriage with the state contractual union or marriage. We should get the state out of the "marriage" business and limit it to setting the legal requirements for a state sanctioned contractual relationship that is, in common parlance, also called "marriage."

Enough already.
To those who decry government intervention in our daily lives, but are perfectly happy trying to have government decide who I can and cannot marry, enough already. Marriage is more than a religious ceremony, a Sacrament of the Church, or a social more. It is a legally binding contract between two people that carries with it certain rights and responsibilities. It is, to be honest, one that can be entered into after a night of drinking (see “Britney Spears”). It is one that is intended to strengthen a relationship between two equals, designed to make the whole greater than the sum of its parts. Over 1100 rights and responsibilities have been recognized by virtue of the marriage contract, from hospital visitation and end of life decisions to testimony in court to automatic inheritance. While some of these rights can be obtained through civil contracts (at great expense to the parties involved), not all of them can be.
To those who insist marriage is for the benefit of children, enough already. You are probably right – the best environment for a child to grow up is with a mom and a dad who love him or her. However, there are a couple of issues with this argument: first, we allow people well past child-bearing age to get married, we allow those who are infertile to get married, and we allow single women to bear children. The frank reality is that a child does best in a home with parents who love him or her – two men, two women or man and woman. And single people are doing a pretty good job of raising kids too (see “Barack Obama”).
To those who claim that gay marriage would damage heterosexual marriage, enough already. No one has explained this with any sort of clarity – kind of like the Sotomayor hearings, but without the legitimate experience to back it up. If you can make a cogent, reasonable argument for this, I’m eager to hear it. Just making the statement does not make it so. Please come prepared with facts to back up your statement. Until then, the policy of the US has always been to expand personal rights rather than contract them (see “US Constitution”).
To those who claim that homosexuality is a sin, and must not be legally condoned, enough already. I’m a Christian (Catholic, to be exact) and have probably done more Scripture study and theological work on this topic than you have. There are 6 verses that appear to deal with homosexuality (a word that is not found in Scripture, since it wasn’t coined until the 19th century). However, there are a whole lot of verses dealing with adultery, fornication, straight lust, etc. According to the joke, that just means straight people need more instruction and correction. One of the founding principles of this country is religious liberty (US Constitution, Amend. 1; also see “Roger Williams” and “William Penn”). Please keep your theological niceties to yourself, and I shall do the same. Should you wish to discuss them in a theological forum, I’m happy to attend. The legal code, however, is not a place where religion should come into play. The legal code is there to ensure the rights of people to life, property and safety, and to punish those who violate those rights.
Finally, to those who say that gay men or lesbians can’t and won’t have lasting relationships, enough already. My brother and his partner have been together for 16 years. Other friends of ours have been together for years – some for 2 or 3 years, others for 15, 20, or longer. When the divorce rate among straight couples comes down, you might have an argument. Until then, you really don’t. Not when half of all straight marriages end in divorce.

Here in Japan, a secularized Buddhist/Shinto country, marriage is defined in law as between one man and one woman. It is believed that common sense and normal thinking make this an obvious fact; because of nature it could not be otherwise. To speak to any Japanese person of homosexuality would leave them in psychic shock, and a same sex marriage movement regarded as hideous social re-engineering. Homosexuality is regarded here as a dreadful perversion or sickness, not an identity. This was so in the west, before activists/researchers got busy. Here it is believed that, apart from a rare few people who are born hermaphrodite, the condition stems from confusion and exploitation. Man-woman marriage in modern day Japan has little to do with religion, nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with normal, healthy relations between the sexes, usually resulting in marriage and children.
Regarding marital breakdown, it is true, as critics here say, that gays are not responsible for it. Couples themselves have honored their own selfishness rather than their marriages, social breakdown has been the result and all sorts of sick, chaotic politics has come to fill the space. Plummeting educational and research standards have aided the increasing confusion and acceptance of propaganda disguised as science.
It might be wise to look to Japan for some direction, rather than be bullied by activists, though there does seem to be a softening of their stance in favor of cunning. How would a homosexual or a person be dealt with who, for example, has a great desire for sex with children under five or ten or fifteen? What should he do with his feelings? He thinks he was born that way. What should he do? Deny his feelings, crush, destroy, re-educate them, with all the sympathetic help available to him? Or should he devote himself to changing his society, the great majority, to accommodate his desires and consequent actions, denying their rights to live and raise their children in what they regard as normal straight society?
In Japan it would be clear that with such a conflict of interests, the wishes and needs of the majority should prevail. This would not be out of hatred for that unfortunate minority, but the simple necessity to preserve established normality. The Japanese have not bought the idea of breaking up natural family-based society by social engineering, in order to emancipate a tiny unhappy minority with abnormal attractions. Here, I know gays themselves try to re-educate their feelings and where they cannot, make the best of it without trying to disturb others. In turn they are not hated but regarded personally with pity, but their condition with disgust. The idea of gay as an identity is preposterous here.
Having lived here for some decades I can attest with many as to the degree of peace, civility, orderliness, goodness and sheer mental healthiness of people, while the west, especially Europe, thinking itself to be advancing, is most notable for confusion, mental and emotional disintegration and degeneracy, giving rise to many strange and unhealthy -isms.
MARKDF posts important information here.
In Japan, the opposite of straight is, twisted. Their refreshing point of view is certainly worthy of note.

FORREST3 - I guess I do no see the idea of "gay marriage" as revolutionary. If you get rid of the "gay", it's a marriage; two people who love each other and want to celebrate their lifetime bond. It is also, though, a legal contract, recognized by the state that grants the married couple shared property, inheritance rights, visitation rights in case of illness, dependency rights in case of health insurance, etc. I think nearly everyone would agree that basic fairness and equality requires us to extend this to gay couples with stable relationships. The only trick is, do we do it by "marriage" or by some form of legal partnership. Offhand, and this changes all the time in my mind, I lean towards just plain marriage. Domestic partnerships are a pseudo-marriage, a sort of separate but equal legal entity that leads to segregation and a whole host of other evils. On the other hand, if marriage isn't considered seriously, if it is just something new to do, it undermines the institution. And I don't even want to think about the cultural wars with good, well meaning people on either side of the issue getting polarized and spewing hatred at each other. So, I lean towards simply allowing for gay and lesbian couples to be married. Traditional marriage with all of the accompanying rights and responsibilities and not even allowing "domestic partnerships". Again, though, that is just me and reflects where I am coming from right now. Hearing from very thoughtful people like RICKLINGUIST makes me think that just plain marriage is the right track, though. We will jut need to be very sensitive to the feelings of thoughtful conservatives, many of them good and decent people, who disagree.

I think it is absurd to define marriage as a sacred rite. Diverse religions may have sacred rites pertaining to marriage, but marriage is essentially a civil, social contract. Marriage is about uniting individuals, uniting families, and structuring social communities. Marriage is a contract, between the individuals and also with their community. Beyond emotion and desire, the marriage contract is about property rights and obligations. If individuals choose to recognize a deity or religious doctrine as part of their marriage contract, that is fine, but makes their marriage no more or less valid or binding than any other marriage.

mibrooks27: Thank you for your very thoughtful post. I actually tend to agree.

I want to state that, as a gay man, I didn't BEGIN from the position of marriage equality for gay couples.

I grew up in the same society as everyone else. Indeed, I spent much of my life deeply closeted, terrified of anyone finding out my deep, dark secret. It was hell.

One of my goals in life is to make this a better world for the next generation of gay youth so that they never, ever have to go through the psychological and social torture that young gay people like me routinely went through in the past.

The first record (remember vinyl records?!) that I ever bought, or actually, made my parents buy for me, was "Love and Marriage", sung by Frank Sinatra. This was noteworthy both for the fact that my usual musical taste ran more toward Puccini or Mozart ;-) but also because it shows just how much a part of mainstream beliefs and values I was, even at the ripe old age of...6.

It was a real shocker to me as I grew to realize I was gay (I didn't have a word for it or know there were others like me in the world). It was devastating. in many ways to me, prototypical 'best little boy in the world' who strove to please and was anything but a radical. It has always struck me as odd that people think being gay is some sort of 'rebellion' or, even stranger, a philosophy. It's not. It's more like finding out you are color blind. Or that most people can't 'smell' colors, but you can.

It took me decades to come to accept myself as I was/am. And even longer to realize that gay people, like non-gay people, fall in love and form meaningful, loving, committed relationships. I now know it's possible: I have been in one for many years.

So something that took me, a gay man, DECADES to figure out, might not come automatically to others who aren't gay and really have no direct stake in all this. It takes time--and it takes some effort to become aware of what this is all about.

I give others a LOT of slack when it comes to things like consciousness raising--given how slow I myself can be. ;-)

The point of all of this is that I believe it's going to take some time. But I truly believe that, in the long run, trying to be fair, most of my fellow citizens will reach precisely the same conclusions that I have.

In the meantime, I'll engage fair-minded individuals like you in discussions. And we'll just have to see where that all leads us.

With respect,
Ricklinguist

How about all of the Fundies who are against gay marriage stop having affairs? If you want to "protect marriage", start with your own!

I don't see why two people who fit the "qualifications" of marriage other than one of each gender can't get married. There are laws against marrying relatives, just as there are laws against marrying a minor. (Insert WV/TN/KY/AR joke here...) Like it or not, homosexuals are taxpaying citizens of America. A homosexual man was one of the heroes of Flight 93. Why are we denying these people the same rights that any other U.S. citizen has - to marry the person of their choice, and to serve in the military? If we are banning them on the basis of religion, then what about religions that accept homosexuals?

My husband and I were married by the Justice of the Peace four months before our Catholic wedding ceremony. Why? Because he had no health care, and needed to have a minor procedure done. The priest, once he understood our situation, didn't freak out or reject our marriage. He understood. A civil ceremony is just as valid as a religious one. Why can't this be the same for GLBT citizens?

I wish everyone would just stop the bitterness and hatred. I don't think Evangelicals are evil and I don't think all gas are screaming fanatics bent on undermining the church. People of good will are pretty easy to find and most of us don't have the slightest of where we stand.

Begin with the idea that homosexual are people who deserve to have legal rights and privilege, deserve to have certain rights about inheriting property, co-ownership of property, visitation in case of illness. There may be a few things I have forgotten, but these are the mains ones. How be do we grant these very basic rights. I see four ways: marriage, domestic partnership, contract law, and something like the Swedish "Sammy".

Now, we do not have the cultural or legal underpinning for "sammy". The legal rod is so complicated and expensive that it is unworkable, not to mention being an affront. That leaves us with domestic partnership laws or marriage. If I choose marriage, I spark all sorts of cultural wars. But, if I pick domestic partnership is create some new legal pseudo-marriage, a "separate but equal" sort of marriage that undermines "real" marriage and might be demeaning. So, offhand I am leaning towards legalizing gay marriage and not even allowing domestic partnership laws, but that changes from day to day. And I AM still deeply concerned about the cultural wars and about undermining the institution of marriage. I suspect, strongly suspect, that thoughtful people all over the country are undergoing the same internal debate.

My partner and I were married. By a rabbi. In a very mainstream Jewish temple. In the South. Before our friends, family and before God. We have our ketubah (religious marriage contract) framed and hanging on a wall in our bedroom. We are married religiously. We have been in a committed, monogamous relationship for many years.

Now we seek to have the same rights and responsibilities under civil law as any married couple does. Our lives are intrinsically intertwined. We share a home, a mortgage, car payments, bills, medical and financial and legal decisions. It is nonsensical for the state to treat us as legal strangers when everything about our lives speaks to our committed relationship. Our relationship isn't just similar to that of heterosexual couples--it is identical. Period.

I grew up assuming I would be heterosexual (everyone did back then) and would marry someone of the opposite sex (everyone did back then). As I grew and began to realize I was "different", it became increasingly clear to me that society had no template for people like me other than shunning.

Times have changed. While the concept of "Equal Protection" under the law has pretty much been with us from the beginning of this great country, the concept of who fell under its protection has changed dramatically. So has our understanding of biology, psychology, and such basic notions of how a fair and just society includes those who are different in its institutions, including marriage.

I am no radical. My relationship is noteworthy not for the gender of the two of us but rather for its stability and commitment and for its....normalcy.

And it is simply time that the law catch up both with our religious institution and the reality of our lives.

Peace,
Ricklinguist

I think supporters of gay and lesbian marriage are a little too dismissive of traditional views of marriage.

The most wide-eyed radical still holds to some traditional views of marriage. Everyone agrees that sister cannot "marry" brother, mother cannot "marry" son, two birth brothers cannot "marry." Why do we instinctively share this belief? These are all loving relationships between two people, but we all agree they are not marriage.

Marriage is not simply a bond between two loving persons. That is too simplistic and reductionist view of a more complex thing.

Ever society recognizes marriage. But until perhaps the last two decades, no society ever recognized gay and lesbian "marriages" in the manner it recognized traditional marriages. That is a lot of human experience, history, and culture to just toss out in one fell swoop. By the way, most societies did recognize inter-racial and inter-faith marriages so the analogy to those types of marriages is not persuasive.

Let's be honest with ourselves. Gay marriage is a revolution. But slow change is often the most lasting change. I say stick with civil unions for a few decades. It provides a gay couple with the legal rights and obligations of marriage -- the substance should be enough when breaking revolutionary ground.

The only way to assess it as a sacred right is to apply meaning to "sacred," which is possible only by choosing a specific religion. If you believe it should be protected as sacred under Christianity, you're assuming this is a Christian nation. That is wholly contrary to the First Amendment, because it would favor one religion over another. Consequently, if marriage is to be controlled by the laws of this country, it can't be judged as a sacred right, it must be a civil right. Religious biases about gays, therefore, are irrelevant.

PART II!

And attacking courts who have supported the right of gay men and women to participate in the marriage contract as 'activist' judges is a related absurdity. These rights have been supported by courts inasmuch as the LAW dictates that decision. The reference to 'activist' judges has come more to mean those who refuse to be swayed by narrow religious arguments or predetermined social agendas and abide by their own oath to uphold and interpret the law in a consistently fair and objective manner.

In the court room, it is the rule of law that holds relevance as opposed to so many 'debates' couched in religious soundbites. In fact, it is exactly because individuals more often pursue their own self interests and beliefs that government and the judiciary came to exist in the first place. And based on the rule of law, an increasing number of judges cannot find a basis to deliberately discriminate against the gay population with regards to access to the marriage social contract.

These legal outcomes are a statement neither for or against any religious belief structure but for the strength of the American Constitution and legal system. Attacks on 'activist' judges, on the other hand, might also be construed as challenges to the American constitutional, legal, and judicial system.

More ignorance fluffed with pretty and coherent words. It is still ignorance.

Homosexuality has been around for millenia. If that is not natural, than what is? Animals can be homosexual, there is research proving that as well. So, when you say that it is unnatural, perhaps you should do your research. And to say that gay sex is unhealthy because of the spread of diseases...it is laughable. Any straight person can get any sexually transmitted disease from any other straight person and they have plenty of indiscriminate sex outside of marriage...as anyone who has been to college can attest to. Just because the disease isn't AIDS doesn't mean it couldn't be syphilis, crabs, scabies, ghonnera, etc. (please forgive spelling) Have you ever considered that the other side to you Unhealthy coin could be that by allowing gay marriage you are therefore encouraging a safe sexual commitment between two people? By saying that gays can marry you are not saying "ships ahoy, every man to the disco!", you are saying we believe that your love is as equal as straight love, your commitment is as valuable, and the respect of a commited relationship is important to both straights and gays. So by disallowing or banning same sex marriage you may as well be saying "You can not have a monogomous and commited relationship."
Oh, and God does not have the rights to marriage my friends. Humans have formed committed relationships long before there was Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhamed, Buddha..you name it. Marriage is and always has been legal. It is a CIVIL UNION. Ever wonder why marriages are still valid when NOT performed inside a religion? Oh right!

The fundamental flaw to this whole 'debate' is that religious views, no matter how honest or deeply felt, should have absolutely no relevance what-so-ever towards public policy or legislative decision making processes. Each person, whether the larger electorate or elected legislator, should call upon his or her belief structures and knowledge base as they make individual decisions and cast their own votes. At the same time, to use a specific religious belief structure to impose social outcomes or models on the rest of us is a flagrant violation of both social accountability and constitutional law.

I respect the honest opinions of others and expect them to respect mine. Presuming to tell me how to live or what to believe, however, is a problem. Other beliefs have no right to impose their solution on me or to demean me when we don't agree. This has nothing to do with Satan or other such fear based beliefs. If anything, 'Satan' is probably amused by the hatred and intolerance being spewed on this issue by those who consider themselves 'believers.'

Marriage is simply a state of shared responsibility and accountability between two people who have the mutual love necessary to commit to one another. The formal act of marriage has been how society has evolved that relationship. Claims that allowing gay persons to share in the notion of the marriage 'contract' will 'damage' the family is nonsensical. Committed, monogamous relationships are the backbone of a family and sound social infrastructure and hardly a threat. The threat here is not in allowing gay men and women this economic right known as 'marriage' but the use of religious dogma to drive legislation and broader social mandates.

Trambusto has identified the central issue here. Marriage is legally favored by the government in any number of ways. A married couple has rights of inheritance, favorable tax treatment and certain other rights too numerous to mention. These rights are available to any married couple, no matter how many times they marry. These issues are separate from the more commonly cited issues involving intimate relations and the presumed direction that said intimacies are taking us as a polity, (down the road to perdition). Why some folks are so bothered by this has always been a mystery to me and is a question probably best left to those learned in psychology. I'm writing from Massachusetts where, after some years of gay marriage being legal, the sky has not fallen. I'm a straight male who has been married for 37 years. I was married in the Roman Catholic Church and I accept that "...until death do you part..." means exactly what it says. What I find far more disturbing than marriage between gay couples is the temporary nature of many contemporary marriages. Mel Brooks once noted that "...sometimes it's good to be the king...". Perhaps, as king, I'll mandate that all americans adopt the marriage model as set forth in Holy Mother Church. You get one bite at the apple of legal marriage. Now this being America there's not much that you can do should someone decide that it's time to start dating again. And if you should decide to change marriages, so be it. But the king decrees that the automatic web of legal favor that applies in initial marriages would no longer apply in the case of subsequent marriages. No joint returns. No automatic rights of inheritance, including pensions and social security. All of the things that accrue to married couples would not apply.
This, of course, is nonsense and is intended as such. All marriages should be civil unions, regardless of the genetic makeup of the participants. The package of rights and obligations should follow the civil union, not the marriage. Should you decide that you want to be married in a church, that's grand. But the laws governing marriage should be entirely secular and subject to the equal rights provisions of the federal and several state constitutions. The fact that one may find gay sex troubling should not be the edifice upon which laws pertaining to marriage should be built.

as i said elsewhere:
if you're against tutti-fruity ice cream, don't eat it, and if you're against gay marriages, DON'T HAVE ONE.

The gay marriages aren't a problem but the unhappy marriages across the country sure are!

The definition of marriage originates in the created order and comes from natural law. It does not originate in religious law or civil law. Natural law is embedded in peoples’ minds and hearts.

Interestingly, France following the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child (1989)opted not to legalize Same-Sex Marriage or the adoption of children by Same-sex couples because it does not serve the rights of children as outlined in the Convention of the Rights of the Child. Most mainline churches would agree with this position.

Marriage between men and men and between women and women should be or remain outlawed for religious *and* civil reasons. There is hardly an established religion in the world that allows same-sex marriage. But let's focus on the civil. Government should respect the beliefs of the vast majority of its citizens on such an important issue, one that deals with their physical and moral health and future.

But Government should disallow "gay" marriage entirely for civil reasons: Government has a right to protect the health of its citizenry. Allowing gay marriage gives tacit approval to gay sex. Gay sex, at least between men (who make up 2/3 of self-identified "gays"), is notoriously promiscuous. This is evidenced by research such as the exhaustive study Sex in America. As such, it spreads STDs, as research also makes clear. To take one example, HIV was incubated to epidemic strength in the gay bathhouses and clubs of New York City and San Francisco in the 1980s, and nowhere else. It is normal for a gay man to have more than a thousand sex partners in a life-time. The vast majority of gay men and women are not interested in marriage; it is a ruse to attain approval for the lifestyle itself. As Sex in America makes clear, male couples in monogamous relationships have found it impossible to be faithful for even 5 years, in contrast to heterosexual monogamous couples. It is fair to say that male gay monogamy, at least, cannot be legally validated because it does not exist. And gay men themselves know this.

By allowing gay marriage, government also gives tacit approval to "gay" as an identifiable, immutable people group, such as Caucasians or Hispanics. But this also is contrary to the scientific research. Men and women with unwanted homosexual compulsions have found relief and gone on to live heterosexual lives, contrary to what media outlets such as the Washington Post have said. There is not a scrap of evidence that homosexuality has its main causes in genetics or intrauterine biochemistry. There is plenty of evidence that its main causes are psychological. This does not mean homosexuals must be considered "sick." But society has the right to protect the health of its members.

The research evidence for all the above can be found at sites such as www.narth.com, for anyone open-minded enough to read it. I especially recommend Dr. Jeffrey Satinover's article, "The Trojan Couch," to read how the mental health associations themselves have lied about the research and been co-opted by gay activist politics. We should not condone intolerance or violence against people who wish to continue their homosexual lives. But any society would be suicidal to give tacit or explicit approval to gay sexual unions.

If marriage is owned by the mythology-based belief systems, then government should step back from the marriage license business and disenfranchise the concept from inheritance laws and the like. If marriage is a civil contract created by civil law, which it is in the US, then any mythology-based rules and limits should be kept on a parallel track that does not affect whatever rules and definitions are established by civil law.

ccnl1 :

Hmmm, Marriage: Sacred Rite
or Civil Right?

Both!!! (if you are heterosexual). There is another rite/right for homosexuals i.e. Mutual Masturbation (as noted by a simple Google/Bing search).
**************************************************************************************
Or, in your case, mental masturbation.

I don't understand why people don't get this - the only reason the Church was ever involved in marriage was because back when it started they were the only group that had the abilities (writing, record-keeping) to record these unions.

At the very beginning marriage was always a business deal - a way to increase a family's wealth and/or standing. It was always a contract, not a religious matter, at its very heart. It had nothing to do with love.

So we need to get over this idea that religion - any religion - has any say in how we as a species view marriage. They don't have a copyright on it. Anyone should be able to get married if they want.

I am not saying that all churches should have to perform marriages for everyone - they don't now, often restricting who they perform them for base on the faith of the participants. But if a church chooses to perform marriages for gay couples then the rest of the world should have to recognize it as official and legal.

Also, we tried the whole "separate but equal" thing a while ago (referring to having civil unions). That didn't go so well. If we are not all equal then we all suffer for it.

My 2 cents.

For people who think marriage is a rarified and exclusive religious institution, let them take their religious vows and forego signing the license/contract with the government. That will prevent them from being hypocrites, and let them see how we feel, since they love us so much. After all, that's what Christ calls for. As a matter of fact, Christ said that loving your neighbor is tantamount to loving God. And Christ despised hypocrites.

Society's mores and traditions have developed over thousands of years. Those traditions and mores developed to solve societies problems and to promote societies wellfare. Our laws are based upon those developed traditions.
Now we have persons who wish to persuade us that these are only useless fabrications of unthinking and bigotted persons, that should be overturned, because this generation has an insight that has apparently eluded the thousands of generations whose shoulders we stand upon.
This change should not happen this fast, if ever.

This argument never made any sense to me because all marriages are in fact civil unions since you can't get married in this country without a marriage license. I don't think any church will perform the ceremony without said license.

I think the best thing we could do is change the name of the process. Call all marriages civil unions and if a church wants to perform the ceremony then we would call it a marriage.

Hmmm, Marriage: Sacred Rite
or Civil Right?

Both!!! (if you are heterosexual). There is another rite/right for homosexuals i.e. Mutual Masturbation (as noted by a simple Google/Bing search).

And we ssee "pgipson" has returned from the land of probability waves!!!

Seems On Faith has been over this ground before, and the Gods know rehashing it won't move partisans on any side of the question from their fixed opinions, but for my part:

Civil Marriage in the US is a secular contract, licensed and monitored by the state. As such it should be available to free adult citizens without undue restriction by the state. I myself would prefer to see the gender of the couple removed from the list of restrictions - that is, yes, let gay citizens avail themselves of marriage.

Sacramental marriage is a matter of doctrine within a given church, and at the least, of spiritual (or psychological, or social) comfort to members of the congregation.

Roman Catholics, for example, can avail themselves of civil marriage (and civil divorce) without any legal hindrance from their church. They cannot so easily receive the sacrament of marriage within that communion, which is entirely up to the Catholic church. Same applies to professing, orthodox Jews, who can civilly divorce and remarry without a "get" (rabbinically sanctioned bill of divorcement) but whose position in their religious community is deeply affected by the rules of marriage in that community.

It is unconscionable, to my mind, to limit access to a civil contract based on religious doctrines. It would equally be unconscionable to try and force a given religion to administer a sacrament which its doctrine forbids.

Both rights - the right to civil marriage and the right to offer or refuse sacraments based on doctrine - are Constitutionally protected. They can and should co-exist.

A gay (or civilly divorced) Catholic who wants a civil marriage should be able to get one (as the divorcee can today, assuming he or she is marrying someone of the opposite sex). Any barriers (legal divorce, legally obtained license, etc.) are matters of civil law and can and should be changed if necessary to minimize government interference in private matters.

A gay or civilly divorced Catholic has no legal right to a nuptial Mass (or even a simple ceremony), or even to receive the Eucharist or receive absolution for living in a marriage that is nor recognized by that church (don't know if that is still at issue for divorced and remarried Catholics). Changes there are matters for the leadership of the church in question.

It's interesting that in setting up this debate, the authors (or perhaps website designer) chose to contrast a calm picture of a hands with a wedding ring and a single, white male protester apparently screaming.

Why not depict one of the thousands of actually married same-sex couples from Massachusetts, Iowa, California, etc., including women and people of color?

The picture sets an inaccurate tone for the debate that follows.

it is (incorrectly) arrogant, small-minded and preposterous to assert that laws about murder, theft etc...are "from the bible". these ideas existed long before the bible was written. the fact that they are IN the bible is commendable, but they are not FROM the bible. further, our laws are not FROM the bible either - if they were we'd have laws about how to cook goats, what to wear and most importantly to whom (and how) to pray.

thank god the founders ignored the bible when making our laws.

Marriage is a civil contract (that is why you have to get a civil license) and as such has nothing to do with religion or sanctity. The main reason there is confusion about its civil vs. religious implications is because for many years the civil authorities were primarily religious authorities (the Catholic Church). As a civil contract, unless there is some provision that prohibits two people of the same sex from entering into a civil contract, a civil marriage between two people of the same sex is inevitable. All the smoke screens that are being thrown up by the DOMA types is just smoke.

At the same time, there is nothing in law that says a religious organization has to perform a marriage that they choose not to perform. For example, many religions refuse to perform marriages between a "believer" and a "non-believer" unless there is some religious instruction and agreements on the raising of the children.

Bobdog3/Nanook -- Rarin. Thank you, thank you for the outstanding, perfectly said post. (Applause, applause).

although the rite is considered one of Catholicism's bigtime sacraments - they typically ignore the little comment at the end of it, "till death do us part", or does it go "what God has joined, let no man put asunder".

Yeah, despite your self-proclaimed "Holiness" the clear and indisputable truth is that there is a sense that even they cherry-pick what they want to beleive, and the divorce rate among Catholics is really no different than that of the general population at large; talk about baloney.

You're not all that holy, after all, niether is your sacrament - you've compromised it already - and you don't seem to think it's all that important a sacrament at all, given how often you men and women put it asunder.

You routinely break that vow with God, and therefore you have no claim to exclusivity when it comes to rules of marriage.

It has, after you've tossed the Holy sacrament out of your "belief system" for whatever reason, and let others basically take the sacrament and make it thier own.

In the case of Catholics at least, don't go back to Jarusalem after you abandoned it and expect it to still be yours. (duh) you seem to favor either Rome or, once upon a time, Byzantium, but not a region in the Mid-East called Jarusalem.

It's called "sacrifice", and you did it with Jarusalem, as well as the sacrament of Marriage. Catholics made the ultimate sacrifice by not obeying the very God who you claim is all-powerful.

Religious folk end up often exercising Free Will against the sacrament, and perhaps, these current events are God's way of telling you to be more credible followers, and not just sheep.

The sacrament has lost its weight because you basically decided it wasn't all that important to your faith, after all.

And that is how it goes, as pagans take over something you cast aside.

Nanook here, from Canada, where we have had gay marriage for the last five years. And guess what? The sky has not fallen, the family unit is as strong as it has ever been, not one single religious person has been forced to perform a gay marriage ceremony, and organized religion is alive and hating everyone who isn't exactly like them each and every Sunday morning in chrches all around us (We even have a gay church because we also believe that God loves everybody. Radical, eh?). Not one of the religious right's prophesized disasters has come to pass. The lord has not brought fire and brimstone upon our sinning heads, nor have we been plagued by locusts or any other insects. We're doing just fine thank you. Gay marriage is about equality, folks, not religion. Once you make it about religion, then religion makes it about hatred, because as we have seen on these very pages and many, many others, hatred is what religious people do best. Heading back to the 'gloo for a little seal snack. See ya, eh?

Hypocrites, one and all. In Ohio we have 'no-fault' divorce. Adulterers can not only get ANOTHER marriage license but they can get one to the person they committed adultery with! There are no limits on the number of divorces and marriages a male-female couple can get. No one has EVER been held to show how same-sex bonded-pairs marriages would affect the marriage of an opposite sex couple. Just because someone says 'it's against THEIR religion' people say it's OK, well it is NOT OK! In Ohio at least it is all about DISCRIMINATION, our constitutional amendment doesn't protect anyone, it doesn't expand protected rights, quite the opposite, it denies legal protection under the law to same-sex couples for no other reason than the so-called religious don't 'like' it. As usual, it's easier to focus on other people than to live your supposed beliefs in your own life.

RobertH commented:"Satan has won a great victory here". Really? People opposed to same-sex marriage ought to pause and take a look around them. America is no longer a Judeo-Christian nation. No matter what the Bible thumpers say and do in the name of their God,they cannot turn the clock back. And God, if he is up there, must be sick and tired of the hypocrites.

It's raining here so there is lots of mud today. I planned on cutting grass. That plan is lawn gone. A good day to sell umbrellas or umbrellas with ads. Give away I meant.

The lack of commitment of marriage in America is having an adverse effect on the family so that society as a whole is moving in a negative direction. America’s eventual downfall will come as a result of the weakening of a God sanctioned marriage relationship. Why is it that we can’t learn from history? Satan has won a great victory here. Too bad people can’t see what’s really happening.

What is marriage? Hopefully happy. Wedding cake, birthday cake it's all the same thing.

The fact that this is featured in the On Faith column only muddies the issue.

The LGBT community has no quarrel with the religious community over access to marriage. On the contrary.

It is the religious community that has a quarrel with the LGBT community over access to civil rights.

When the religious stop viewing marriage as a holy institution and start to understand that there are a plethora of civil rights that come with marriage, then they can begin to have a healthy conversation about the issue.

But by keeping the views pinned in to the column of faith... you'll never move forward.