166 Comments

1. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Cynthia Yockey
RE: Stop Me If…..

The time for marriage equality for homosexuals is now. — Cynthia Yockey

….you’ve heard this one before….

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. — some Wag, around 2000 years ago

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[If your parents didn't have any children, the odds are that you won't either.]

Jun 23, 2009 - 2:25 am 2. Boris:

Touching story. Full marriage rights are inevitable, but I fear it will be a decade before much progress is made.

I’m just going to pre-cringe at the rabid comments your article is going to get here. Hope I’m wrong.

Jun 23, 2009 - 3:48 am 3. Don:

IF the goal is to foment loyalty, obligation and responsible long term relationships in a community where that is often not the norm that is one thing (civil union?), but if the idea is that a non-reproductive relationship is identical to one that generates progeny . . . that is something quite different. When government defines “relationships” who is to stop that same government from obligating clergy who do not perform such ceremonies (on religious grounds) to perform them?

I feel for you, your impassioned remembrance does both of you great honor, but the “right” to marriage seems to more and more mean very little (like freedom), and by disregarding the “right” of civil union (denigrating it) and demanding change in the definition of what marriage is, we accomplish what? The only accomplishment of such will be to broaden the definition so wide that it will shortly mean nothing. Who is to say that any group can’t marry amongst their “own kind”? I won’t go line by line, but the number of different tangents of psychosexual definitions is wide and broadening daily (Gene Wilder in “Everything you ever wanted to know about Sex and . . .”).

So just as in the 1st paragraph, it’s about the goals and second and third order effects. If the endstate desired is a restriction on reproduction and eventual population shrinkage . . . this is a means (along with voluntary physical/pharmaceutical sterilization, abortions and the encouraged suicide of the aged and infirm). So what seems a perfectly logical step, is (for some) a means to an end.

Jun 23, 2009 - 3:54 am 4. Gary Ogletree:

Trouble is, marriage is between a man and a woman. Just because you want to change this does not make it right. If you can’t be happy without it, too damn bad.

Jun 23, 2009 - 4:11 am 5. Ozzie:

Sounds fine. But if a strong marriage of any definition improves society, then the following marriages also need to be allowed to provide all sexual deviants with equal protection under the law:

1. Any number of individuals of legal age of consent per marriage.
2. No restrictions on any familial relation.
3. No restrictions on preexisting diseases.
4. No restrictions at all, other than being the age of legal consent.

This is the point where people get absurd to demonstrate absurdity by mentioning children, animals and office equipment as participants. I am not suggesting that. But if we have to lower the bar to fit homosexual relationships into the marriage definition, the bar must be lowered enough to fit it without discriminating against others with the same concerns. We cannot create a law that says; Steve Jones and Bob Smith may get married, but not Larry, Edith, Emily and Denise. If you want to destroy the whole system by doing so, fine. Break it. The normal majority will create a the new standard with the lesson in tow, even if it takes decades.

Jun 23, 2009 - 4:22 am 6. EgregiousCharles:

I am glad your relationship was such a good one. But I think marriage equality should be provided in a different way; the government should recognize only civil unions, including for heterosexual Christians like me. Marriage is a religious ceremony in every religion I know of, it should be left up to the church. Any government definition of marriage, even one matching my religion, is a First Amendment violation (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion). Easy government divorce has done enough harm to Christian marriage already, further government definition will only lead to more harm in the long run, even if it looks favorable now.

Cross-posting at David Solway’s essay
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/same-sex-miscarriage/2/

Jun 23, 2009 - 4:28 am 7. MaryAnn:

My religion teaches me that marriage is a sacrement to bless the union of a man and a woman. That’s why I support civil unions for Gay and Lesbian couples to protect their legal and financial rights, and not because I’m homophobic. I have known many Gay couples who have long and stable relationships, and they should have the same access to health care coverage and financial guarantees that any couple should have.

Jun 23, 2009 - 5:12 am 8. Telly:

I agree with “EgregiousCharles” in comment #7.

I’d rather end all state sanctioned marriage. Let the government do civil unions or contracts for whoever wants one. Let churches do marriage, and let each church decide who it wants to marry instead of being told by the government.

Jun 23, 2009 - 5:15 am 9. chris in Toronto:

I’m with #7 EgregiousCharles

Jun 23, 2009 - 5:22 am 10. RE:

Gay marriage is about diluting and destroying traditional institutions – in this case, the nuclear family. Were it otherwise, gays would exercise power of attorney , and be pursuing civil unions and not so obsessed with ‘marriage’.

The malicious attacks by the ‘Be tolerant or we will destroy you’ crowd on Carrie Prejean and Proposition 8 supporters were quite revealing. They have demonstrated that they are coming from a very bad place.

I stand against these people and their malice and in support of the traditions of virtually all cultures across all of history. Marriage is a male/female bond and commitment.

Jun 23, 2009 - 5:30 am 11. Chuck Pelto:

TO: MaryAnn, et al.
RE: No Qualms….

….they should have the same access to health care coverage and financial guarantees that any couple should have. — MaryAnn

….about that. BUT….

…what about children?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[There are advantages and disadvantages to every position you find or put yourself in. -- CBPelto]

Jun 23, 2009 - 5:35 am 12. Banned by Huffpo:

I’m with #6 Ozzie.

Jun 23, 2009 - 5:43 am 13. Barbara:

I have no problem at all with your loving and caring for a friend. Just do NOT tell me I have to teach my children that marriage can be between a man and a woman, a man and man, a woman and a man, a man who had a sex change and a woman who had a sex change. That slope is way too slippery. When a society gets so open-minded that nothing at all is shameful everything becomes shameful. We are on the way.

Jun 23, 2009 - 5:44 am 14. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: [slightly OT] Hey!

Am I mistaken or will all of these ‘negative’ comments be considered ‘hate speech’ under this new ‘hate crimes’ bill being pushed through Congress?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[I am an escapee of a political correction facility.]

Jun 23, 2009 - 5:59 am 15. Aureliano:

Touching story.

Indeed. The more touching, the more valid, I always say. It’s the very foundation of logic, and on what public policy should be based.

Full marriage rights are inevitable, but I fear it will be a decade before much progress is made.

But that emptiness inside and the sense of not belonging will never go away, no matter how hard one tries, no matter how many movies or television shows one watches. No matter what one does, nothing changes the fact that 96-97% of society is not homosexual (and without external influence never will be), that on some instinctual level this super-majority is repulsed by the thought of sexual acts with someone of the same sex. Not in a mean way, mind you, just in a visceral “that’s gross” and “I’d rather not think about it” kind of way.

Argue around the corners all you want, but the latter is fundamentally the core issue for gays. Always has been; always will be. And this issue will never resolve itself to the satisfaction of the gay ‘community’ because that kind of resolution is simply not possible.

Put another way, same-sex marriage is not a social issue for them, it is a psycho-social issue, which is why there is so much wailing and gnashing of teeth and silly drama queenesque acting out, even though almost no gays were thinking of marriage just 20 years ago.

Then again, some activist gays believe that things will become somewhat more comfortable if that 3-4% could be raised to 10% or more, or if homosexual acts could be incorporated into the normal sexual ‘repertoire’ of heterosexuals (prior to marriage, or even after) ….

It’s called ‘normalizing’, and the elites who conjured the ‘gay marriage’ movement out of thin air in the 1990s are exactly the sort of folks who think in these terms, and their goals are rather more broad than the sweet babooshkas who think same-sex marriage has somehow been on everybody’s radars, waiting for a chance to resolve itself, for eons (or even a few generations). These folks are the lemmings.

Besides, the true marriage radicals are the ones who seek to eliminate it altogether, not the sillies who want to expand its definition to mean whatever anybody wants it to mean, which is a sure-fired way to make marriage meaningless.

How unimaginative is that?

Jun 23, 2009 - 6:06 am 16. rocketeer:

These stories are always touching, but they miss the main point. Those in favor of gay “marriage” want to redefine a word to mean something other then what it means. You can call a rose by any other name, but it’s still a rose.

I think most conservatives appreciate that gay/lesbians want to have privileged relationships that are like marriage, and we would all encourage any gay/lesbian to find that special other person and make a lifetime commitment to them, to possibly adopt and raise children, do whatever they want to do to have a happy, meaningful life. However, we draw the line at redefining the word, because you are calling this special relationship something other then what it is.

My sympathies to the author for her loss, it’s tragic to lose a loved one.

Jun 23, 2009 - 6:06 am 17. Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian:

There is more to this story, along with photos of Margaret and me throughout our 20+ years together, at this post at my blog:
Gay Marriage

Also, I wonder if it would improve anyone’s manners if they knew that the publisher of this site, Roger Simon, has a gay son and supports gay marriage. You really should buy his book, Blacklisting Myself, it’s excellent.

Jun 23, 2009 - 6:19 am 18. Lynn:

You can sprinkle it with sugar and present it to the world as the best relationship ever, but it is still two women having a relationship not a marriage.

Marriage is between a man and a woman and attempts to redefine it by pulling on people’s emotional heart strings is in my opinion disingenuous.

Their are many loving relationships that have occurred in the past and are taking place as we speak between two people who care for each other deeply and endure great trials and joys especially if one person is gravely ill. They are valuable relationships but not a reason to redefine marriage to include other than a man and woman.

Jun 23, 2009 - 6:19 am 19. David W. Lincoln:

Equality? Ha! What you seek is hegemony.

This is a zero-sum matter, and it can be settled this way: The objective is two-fold, First to communicate the reality that men and women are different, and then how it came to be, namely that
there is more involved than men and women.

Heterosexuality leaves homosexuality in the dust
when these are the standards.

There is also the element of fear, for those who
want the easier standard of experience, are loathe to hold themselves to a higher standard. The standard that is eternal, and inflexible.

As long as the same sex crowd continues to second
guess the good things about the gender they were
born as, they simply make life more miserable for
themselves and ultimately for everyone.

Well, I am prepared now for the shrieking and screeching from those who conclude differently.

I am not expecting dispassionate discourse.

Jun 23, 2009 - 6:22 am 20. Chuck Pelto:

TO: rocketeer, et al.
RE: I Prefer….

You can call a rose by any other name, but it’s still a rose. — rocketeer

Merde by any other name still smells. — Shakespeare (paraphrased)

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I understand that ACORN is changing THEIR ‘name’. So be it….they still stink…..

Jun 23, 2009 - 6:23 am 21. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Lynn
RE: TARGET!!!!

Marriage is between a man and a woman and attempts to redefine it by pulling on people’s emotional heart strings is in my opinion disingenuous. — Lynn

I KNEW there was something ‘odd’ about the title, the sub-title and the narrative. It felt ‘funky’.

You just identified it. It’s all propaganda that has nothing to do with the sub-title.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Good shooting!

Jun 23, 2009 - 6:26 am 22. Adina Kutnicki,Israel:

Few would argue that same sex partners can’t experience the same happiness as heterosexual married couples.

But to conflate same sex partners with the institution of marriage is to turn reality upside its head.In many ways that is exactly the point of those pushing for the gay marriage agenda-a total revamping of society in general.

Now, if all things are considered equal; if there are NO differences between men and women; if black really is white & white really is black, then anything is possible.

Simply put, placing same sex partnerships as equal to heterosexual marriage (regardless of who is happier) is to state that the institution of traditional marriage is a non-important construct of society.

Dangerous territory……

Jun 23, 2009 - 6:30 am 23. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Cynthia Yockey [A conservative Lesbian]
RE: Roger Simon

….I wonder if it would improve anyone’s manners if they knew that the publisher of this site, Roger Simon, has a gay son and supports gay marriage. — Cynthia Yockey

No change in my opinion about homosexuality and marriage.

RE: Manners?

Please show US where you consider someone to have been ‘ill-mannered’ on this thread.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people... -- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, c. 1835]

Jun 23, 2009 - 6:35 am 24. Barbara:

15. Aureliano:
You hit the nail on the head. Thank you.

Chuck(le)
P.S. I understand that ACORN is changing THEIR ‘name’. So be it….they still stink…..

Please say it isn’t so? I am just coming to terms with how quickly we all gathered round the term “climate change” instead of “global warming.”

Cynthia, I found the responses to be quite mannerly.

Jun 23, 2009 - 6:44 am 25. Sapwolf:

Gay marriage further erodes the country.

It will weaken us as a nation, not strengthen us.

What’s to stop poligamy?

Jun 23, 2009 - 6:49 am 26. sheesh:

If gay people are born gay, and I believe they are, then there is no argument against gay marriage.

Jun 23, 2009 - 6:51 am 27. sheesh:

Here’s one for you Chuck H. Pelto . . . I’m sure you’ve read these tales somewhere before

http://www.bettybowers.com/

click on the “traditional marriage” video . . . “Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else”

Jun 23, 2009 - 6:56 am 28. sheesh:

Me, I’m more aligned with “Promise Keepers.” I especially like these tenets:

PROMISE 3: A Promise Keeper is committed to practicing spiritual, moral, ethical, and sexual purity.

PROMISE 4: A Promise Keeper is committed to building strong marriages and families through love, protection and biblical values.

Yeah, that’s the ticket! And if they’re good enough for John Ensign, they’re good enough for me.

Jun 23, 2009 - 7:02 am 29. WJ:

First, I am very sorry for your loss. May she be with the angels now.

On to the gay marriage topic. Marriage is between one man and one woman

No one is discriminating against you right now. You can marry any adult male of any religon, creed, color, whatever, you want that is not a direct blood relative of yours. This is the EXACT same right every other adult female has in the United States.

What you are asking for is SPECIAL rights to marry someone of the same gender. If you are granted these SPECIAL rights, then there is no logic to stop what commenter Ozzie (#5) wrote about there would be NO block between any 3,4,5, 10 adults being able to enter into one “marriage”. I could have 50 “wives and husbands”.
No logic could be kept from family members “marrying” as long as everybody is an adult.

Could anyone tell me how the “logic” / emotion that would allow “gay marriage” would somehow keep polygamy, polyamory, etc from happening?

Jun 23, 2009 - 7:04 am 30. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: sheesh vs. Reality

If gay people are born gay, and I believe they are…. — sheesh

As has been determined often enough in the past in this part of the blogosphere, the difference between what sheesh thinks and reality is on a par with several parsecs.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Reality. What a concept.... -- Robin Williams]

Jun 23, 2009 - 7:06 am 31. HalifaxCB:

Cynthia;
Could you do me a favour and fully describe how you see the difference between marriage, and civil union? I’m all in favour of extending to gays whatever rights/privileges/responsibilities/protocols the state sets up for heterosexuals under the rubric of civil union; but AFAICS marriage should be a sacrament, and hence out of state control for both gays and straights (i.e. a matter between the couple and their church). (Which means of course that civil union, not marriage, would be the appropriate institution for straights like myself who are not affiliated with any religious denomination. It’s not a big deal).

Jun 23, 2009 - 7:10 am 32. sheesh:

28 Chuck . . . don’t hide . . . come out . . . say it . . . you think homosexuality is a choice, is that right?

Jun 23, 2009 - 7:12 am 33. HalifaxCB:

BTW – just wanted to add that here in Canada we’ve had gay marriage for awhile now. Even our (big C) Conservative PM – originally an ardent opponent – realized that it was both acceptable to the majority of Canadians, and pointlessly divisive to oppose. The world didn’t fall apart; frankly, it’s relieved a lot of destructive tension between the two communities (the sort that parasites like Perez Hilton thrives upon).

Jun 23, 2009 - 7:18 am 34. syn:

“If gay people are born gay, and I believe they are, then there is no argument against gay marriage.”

If this were true how is it possible former Gov McGreevy married TWICE, said vows of love TWICE and had sex with two different females for years?

Also explain the ‘faux Lesbian’ stuff I saw 20-something blonds chicks in the theater would pretend themselves to be? If they are ‘born Gay’ why do they pretend to ‘be Gay’?

My guess is that it’s all the fashion.

Jun 23, 2009 - 7:21 am 35. Self-hating Boomer:

There’s gap in your logic, to wit, you are implicitly attributing the bliss to the government sanction. So let me ask explicitly: leaving practical considerations aside, would the relationship be any less blissful without the government sanction?

FWIW, I’m coming at this question for the direction that I don’t think that the government should be sanctioning hetero marriages, either.

Jun 23, 2009 - 7:25 am 36. Terbreugghen:

Ms Yockey:

First the positives: Thanks for your vivid portrait of a relationship to which we all could aspire. Also, I’m glad to have you in the conservative tent, and I’m sad to see some conservatives who can’t seem to let go of their own negative stuff to deal with an important social issue.

But while your essay is heartwarming and heart wrenching, it does not address the issue before us, the culture. The things you did for your partner can still be done by others. The relationship you shared can still be shared by others. The absence or presence of the social status that traditional marriage is meant to confer wouldn’t change your commitments or your actions. Your statement essentially asserts that from start to finish. Nothing will get in the way, and that’s worthy of admiration as well, but it is simply not the issue. I am convinced that the real purpose for the institution of traditional marriage is the support and stability of heterosexual bonding pairs, and not for the benefit of those pairs, but for the benefit of their nearly inevitable offspring. Traditional marriage just makes no sense without that at its center.

Again, you are to be well-regarded for your selfless giving and congratulated on your finding a person with whom you could share that deep emotional bond. You’re luckier than many in that regard. And I, for one, welcome your badly needed point of view under the conservative tent.

But none of that is an argument for the redefinition of traditional marriage.

Jun 23, 2009 - 7:29 am 37. sheesh:

33 HalifaxCB . . . The Dickens you say . . . I thought that studies showed gay marriage destroyed countries. Don’t take my word for it. I heard it from none other than Bill O’Reilly, and his stats are irrefutable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo8K4YPi-v0

Jun 23, 2009 - 7:30 am 38. syn:

As a former liberal mugged by 9/11 reality, when I converted to Conservatism I found the the ideals are strong enough to stand without me placing qualifiers ie I am not a ‘Hetero-Conservative’ or a ‘Single Conservative’ or a ‘Female Conservative’; rather I am a Conservative.

One reason why I am a Conservative is to get away from hideous Identity Politics meant to divide and conquer the ideals founded in individual Liberty; this ‘grouping’ just creates exclusivity and from my personal experience Gay is the most exclusive group out there; Gay never, ever accepts anyone into their inner circle who is not Gay.

Gay Marriage? How about Abstinence Marriage where everyone can marry anyone and anything for one another’s monetary benefits.

Jun 23, 2009 - 7:33 am 39. wildman:

Last time i checked, the purpose of life was to create more life. Gays by their very nature do not contribute to this. Once the powers that be determine that gays have the right to “Marriage” you can expect a flood of awareness and propaganda classes to be created in the schools on the joys and beauty of the homosexual lifestyle. Forget the premise that most if not all of the targeted children are the product of heterosexual couples. Our Children are too precious to be bombarded with this in our schools. When the schools graduate children that can read, write and do math at a 12′th grade level, then perhaps we can look at including the latest version of the elites opinion. Until that day happens, Be happy with who you are, Just dont tell me i have to accept it. I have rights too. One of the most precious to me is the ability to think and draw conclusions on my own.

Jun 23, 2009 - 8:05 am 40. Clayton E. Cramer:

It’s a touching story, but the only compelling reason that the state remains interested in marriage is dealing with questions of biological child custody, support, and inheritance. No gay couple is ever going to have biological children. (Childless straight couples are free riders on the system.)

With the exception of income tax status and adoption in Florida, everything that a married couple has, an unmarried couple can have with durable power of attorney, a will, and a little bit of care in organizing their finances.

In addition, the evidence that homosexuals are born that way is simply not present. Even the American Psychological Association admits that. There is evidence that homosexuality (at least for some) is a response to childhood sexual abuse. If this is the cause, then it isn’t really a choice–but neither is it necessarily something that we have restructure our society around. And it does explain why about half of homosexuals who go into reparative therapy (both religious and secular forms) are successful in changing not just their behavior, but their romantic and sexual orientation.

Jun 23, 2009 - 8:07 am 41. David W. Lincoln:

As one who is not threatened by the invoking of truth that is inflexible, as
opposed to subjective truth, I maintain that life is more than the definable.

Jun 23, 2009 - 8:19 am 42. Meryl:

God smote your car? Interesting.

Your perspective plainly shows that you actually have no interest in God’s involvement or point of view…but “God smote” your car.

Once again, observe the specific points where those who deny everything known about God still choose to involve, blame or use God. (And that is certainly not limited to homosexuals’ thinking.)

Years ago, a male relative left his wife of many years and ran off with his secretary. Then, some years later, he sent out formally printed announcements of their marriage, including the line that “God had told them” to be together and get married (those 4 kids were on their own in their teen years).

And THEN, about 15 years later, well, whoop-de-do…if we didn’t all get ANOTHER formally printed announcement saying that NOW God had told them to be apart–so they were getting divorced.

God really is not available to any of us, including me, to be used, abused, twisted, ignored or lied about.

Jun 23, 2009 - 8:20 am 43. amanda:

That was a very touching story and I feel for your loss, Cynthia. I must say that I don’t think that having “Gay marriage” would have changed your story in any way or made it less painful for you to lose your friend.

I’m sure we all know of many women who have had similar stories to yours minus the sexual relationship factor. Women build close bonds with their friends and the fact that you decided to add a sexual component to your relationship does not make the loss of those who have intimate yet familial relationships any less.

You have used the occasion of your friend’s death to push a political ideology that I believe you do not understand the full impact of.

Will you express the deep sympathy for those good people whose houses of worship have their doors chained shut because they refuse to perform “gay marriages”? Will you feel sympathy for the children of Catholic orphanages who are legally forced to close (as has happened UK) for not offering adoption to gay couples? Can we expect a blog post here lamenting the fate of a family that is torn apart as children are instructed in school that their parents are bigots for excluding gays from the now legal definition of marriage? Will I see you protesting the pastor who gets fined and gagged (as has happened in Canada) for preaching what his religion has understood for over two millennia?

Why do so many gay people feel so insecure about their relationships that they would bring heartache and misery on so many others just so they can get a government-stamped piece of paper in support of their sexual practices.

Jun 23, 2009 - 8:36 am 44. Delia:

What about the bi-sexuals? Where are their ‘rights’? They didn’t ‘choose’ to be ‘bi-sexual’…right…right…right?

Jun 23, 2009 - 8:42 am 45. Frank:

Cynthia,
Lovely story told lovingly, but I have to go along with #36; nothing there offers a good argument for redefining traditional marriage.

The only conservative solution to this conundrum is NOT to create and bestow more legally sanctioned “rights” on yet another politcal group but to remove the favortism it grants the existing ones, i.e. heteros. Equality achieved – - problem solved.

For the Sheeshes of the world it might be fun to watch self-proclaimed anti-intrusive government conservatives sputter arguments for conditional intrusion based strictly on their partnering choices.

No constitutional purist could make that case. In fact, to do so is to lend credence to accusations that we want to replace the constitution with the new testement. My religious brethren on the right cross from patriot to zealot when they condone that stance. Imposing your religious beliefs on fellow citizens is about as anti-constutional as it gets and in doing so you give up any claims of conservatism.

Besides, at a roughly 50%+ failure rate lord knows all those “rights” favoring we heteros have done nothing to shore up the family unit anyway. Bottom line: social engineering does not work and more social engineering will not help.

The worst angels of the redefine movement simply want in on the favortism booty, which can and should be arranged contractually. The better and more sincere angels simply long for complete and total cultural embracement, a perfectly valid goal that, unfortunately, is equally unrealistic.

When you are only 2 of 100, and a signifigant majority of the majority find your lifestyle repugnant, whether by nature or nurture is irrelevent, the best you can hope for is tolerence, and there has been giant strides in that regard.

Civil unions might be the final compromise but it wouldn’t be as fast or as fair as eliminating the discriminatory favortism heteros, the root cause of this mess.

Jun 23, 2009 - 8:44 am 46. Delia:

Sorry but the idea of ‘gay marriage’ is not my biggest ‘concern’ in life and it shouldn’t be yours either. If that’s your biggest gripe, then good grief, your life must be pretty darned rosy.

Jun 23, 2009 - 8:45 am 47. Bill Perron:

I worked a suicide hotline for two years, from that experience I have come to the conclusion that there is very little real gaiety in gay relationships. Confusion, distrust, jealousy, selfishness, much more the norm.

Jun 23, 2009 - 8:56 am 48. IP 727:

censorship is a wonderful thing. this blog is a fraud.

Jun 23, 2009 - 9:00 am 49. ding:

Let them marry. If they can find a church that subscribes to their belief system then I’m ok with that.

I’m saving my ire for demands that Christian churches perform these ceremonies against their will (I have a feeling they wont ask Omar at the local masque to tie the knot for them).

We all know that’s next.

Jun 23, 2009 - 9:19 am 50. Gay Specht:

The scriptures say ….. there will be a day when evil will be called good.
It is to God Almighty will judge us all in the end times.
People can live and do as they please.

Jun 23, 2009 - 9:26 am 51. Amphipolis:

Two men or two women are not the same as a man and a woman. The equality you seek is a fantasy.

Jun 23, 2009 - 9:44 am 52. garyj:

Homosexuals have come a long way. Not to many years ago homosexual acts were called sodomy and buggery. These acts were severely punished with prison sentences and often the lash. Then with the ascendancy of the “social sciences” instead of being considered a crime it was regarded as a mental illness that could be cured by treatment, particularly expensive treatment at the hands of psychiatrists who were the ones responsible for reclassifying it. Now with the push from the progressives, Hollywood and the media it is regarded as normal and all taboos have been removed. Now they are pushing for a politically correct legal bubble where any criticism is considered hate speech. In my humble opinion it is a common human perversion that has existed since the beginning but must not be accepted and definately not sanctioned in marriage.

Jun 23, 2009 - 9:44 am 53. blotto:

What a load of crap. No PC allowed here. Why is it that the Left thinks it has license to use tradedy for political gain? Like Daniel Pearl’s father railing against Pres. Bush instead of the jihadits, or the widows of 911 using their husbands murder against Pres. Bush. Why is the Left allowed to use intolerance, bigotry, intimidation, legal system and force to get what they want against the wishes and votes of the majority of the American public?

Amanda #43 among others refutes whatever logic and argument you made for religions recognizing gay marriage. And we all know, as you do, you can go to Unitarian and some Methodist churches and they will marry you. So the agenda is not about marriage: It is about destroying religion-Catholicism primiarily but the conservative Baptists and Protestant demoninations as well. It is about, as was said earlier, normalizing your behavior so that it can be more freely accepted in primary education.

This may be simplistic but if gay behavior is normal then is heterosexual behavior abnormal? What gene is the gay gene? How come we are not all gay? Have we been doing this all wrong for all these millennia?

Jun 23, 2009 - 10:01 am 54. Ms. Attitude:

The government should have no say so in marriage. Marriage is a religious matter and we have seperation of Church and State for a reason. If a church refuses to marry a couple that is their right as a religious organization.

If our government stays involved in marriage then they should be for life…no divorce no matter what! That would make a lot of us think twice about it whether gay or straight!

Jun 23, 2009 - 10:08 am 55. Roland:

So she has a great gay relationship; good for her. What the heck does that have to do with changing the definition of the word, “marriage?” Nothing. Just like the definition should not be changed if you could find a lousy relationship between a married heterosexual couple. So what? Oh, I guess I’m missing the whole ‘tug at my heartstrings, and I’ll give you anything you want’ liberal approach to decision making!

Jun 23, 2009 - 10:39 am 56. Joe Bison:

Churches for marriages and the state for
unions/legal implications. There are many
flavors of church and I’m sure there is
one right for everyone. Yours may not be
my cup of tea and vice versa, so be it,
I’m not forced to marry you.

Government usurped marriage in another
era and that era has ended. Time to
move on. Also time for Conservatives to
quit fighting over this issue and
capitalize with the many conservative
gay/lesbians out there.

Jun 23, 2009 - 10:50 am 57. Mary Madigan:

Why is it that the Left thinks it has license to use tradedy for political gain? Like Daniel Pearl’s father railing against Pres. Bush instead of the jihadits…

blotto – What on earth are you talking about?? Since his son was murdered, Judea Pearl has campaigned against tolerance of terrorism and anti-semitism. One of his best essays, “Daniel Pearl and the Normalization of Evil”, specifically targeted Hamas-loving Jimmy Carter.

Facts are obviously irrelevant to your argument, as they are to the more-than-slightly-peculiar clown, Chuck(le). As usual, the right and the left are using issues like gay marriage as poo in their constant shrieking monkey wars. Partisan baboons aren’t interested in solving actual problems, and they’re rarely interested in caring about or improving people’s lives – all that matters is scoring some sort of messy ‘hit’.

Jun 23, 2009 - 11:02 am 58. Clayton E. Cramer:

Homosexuals have come a long way. Not to many years ago homosexual acts were called sodomy and buggery. These acts were severely punished with prison sentences and often the lash.

Actually, it was a capital crime in nearly every colony. Thomas Jefferson, being something of a liberal, proposed to reduce the penalty to castration.

Buggery is an older term term from when Henry VIII had Parliament criminalize sex with animals as well as all non-vaginal sexual intercourse with humans. See here for a collection of Colonial laws on the subject.

Jun 23, 2009 - 11:02 am 59. AST:

Marriage is not a right. It’s a contract, a mutual undertaking, given special legal status by law. It generally begins with love, but it need not. What matters most is that it is for the purpose of bearing and raising children.

The fact that governments have sanctioned marriage is an acknowledgment of the service to society provided by families who bear and nurture and bring up new citizens. It is not licensed because governments are romantic entities, who always cry at weddings.

The fact that society has weakened marriage by allowing easy divorces, by fathers failing to support their children and by people engaging in serial polygamy and adultery–none of these justifies mangling marriage further.

I don’t denigrate Ms. Yockey’s feelings toward her partner, nor the strength of her bond with Margaret, but marriage does not exist to strengthen couples and committed couples alone don’t really strengthen society. Marriage is the means by which society replenishes itself, and rears new citizens. You can say that gay couples can fill this function by adoption, but how many gay couples are rearing children?

The family as an institution is becoming weak, as we adopt the sophistries of the sexual revolution, “open marriage,” and “gay marriage.” Because of the sad shape marriage is already in, I see little hope that “gay marriages” will prove to be as wonderful as most of the advocates think they will.

Generally, I see “gay marriage” as a quest for validation of gay sex as the same as heterosexual sex. The problem with that is that no matter what pretenses we adopt, the fact remains that only a small minority of us are homosexual. We can be as kind and accepting as can be, but the numbers will always make gays realize that they’re not part of the main stream of life. That’s a difficulty they will always have to struggle with, no matter what concessions the rest of us make to help them feel more accepted.

They propose to perform marriage ceremonies between members of the same sex and call it marriage, but that doesn’t make it marriage any more than having them marry opposite sex partners and calling it a “gay marriage.”

Jun 23, 2009 - 11:05 am 60. garyj:

Just to add to my comments, my current boss is gay as well as my previous boss. Both have been excellent people to work for. Many of my co-workers are gay. They are nice people and fine to work with. What they do in privacy is none of my business. I am just against the gay agenda which is shoving their agenda down our throats. School children shouldn’t be exposed to text books legitamizing same sex families and encouraging it.It seems many kids are engaging in homosexual behavior because it is trendy and fashionable and encouraged by our popular culture. Previously there was a clandestine gay sub-culture now it has become the culture. It seems to me it would be better as it was.

Jun 23, 2009 - 11:06 am 61. Clayton E. Cramer:

When you are only 2 of 100, and a signifigant majority of the majority find your lifestyle repugnant, whether by nature or nurture is irrelevent, the best you can hope for is tolerence, and there has been giant strides in that regard.

It’s important to understand that tolerance does not mean full social equality; it means that the majority is prepared to not punish you for your choices. When English Enlightenment thinkers argued for religious tolerance, they weren’t arguing for full social or legal equality; they were simply proposing that non-Anglicans would no longer be punished for non-attendance.

When I was young, homosexuals argued that it wasn’t the government’s business what consenting adults did in private. I found that a very attractive idea. I still do. Demanding that a majority which has serious misgivings about homosexuality should give an official governmental stamp of approval to homosexuality is hardly “what consenting adults do in private.”

Homosexuals are best off strengthening this idea of privacy. One of these days, Islam may possibly be the majority religion in America (since much of Christianity is intent on theological suicide, with its enthusiasm for gay marriage), and you better not be bringing unnecessary attention to yourselves.

Jun 23, 2009 - 11:08 am 62. Delia:

Look at how many people are absofekkinlutely MISERABLE when they are ‘married’? Look at the divorce rate! Is ‘marriage’ really the end all be all to happiness?

I’m thinkin’ NOT.

I’ve grown over the past 23 years to truly appreciate how much I love and care for my husband [through all the anger, fights, anguish and pains] but, ‘marriage’ didn’t keep us together. We almost never wear our wedding rings but to ‘look at us’ it’s quite obvious we are ‘partners’.

Jun 23, 2009 - 11:23 am 63. rnw1964:

Ms. Attitude,

“Gay Marriage” is first and foremost an issue of FORCED acceptance.

Once “Gay Marriage” is recognized by the state, it will have all the force of the State supporting it and all the police powers attached to it.

Here are some real life examples.

1. “Gay Couple” wants to rent a hall for their reception, religous organization doesn’t want to because it violates a major tenent of their beliefs. State uses it police powers to coerce organization because they are discriminating against a legal union.

2. Employee of a religious organization demands benefits for his “Gay Spouse”. State demands that the organization make benefits available since they are legally “married”.

3. Religious organization is told by the State that it must either place foster children in “Gay Families” or it will violate State Law.

4. Religious leader is indicted and convicted for “hate speech” when he preached that homosexuality is an sin.

“Gay Rights” advocates are using “Gay Marriage” as a club to force us all to accept and validate their activites, whether you like it or not.

Jun 23, 2009 - 11:24 am 64. arhooley:

I need to pose a question that’s embarrassingly crude — but, surprisingly, I’ve never seen it asked or answered and I’m too dumb to know what the stock answer is, so here goes:

TO THE MARRIAGE-IS-ALL-ABOUT-PROCREATION CROWD: How do you defend, say, the marriage of two old people, like in their 50s and beyond, who have no capability of reproducing? Or maybe a heterosexual couple in which at least one partner is known to be sterile? (She’s had a life-saving hysterectomy, he has zero sperm count, whatever.) In the first case, the marriage is undertaken with NO INTENTION of ever producing kids. In the second, kids would have to be imported into the relationship via adoption or sperm donation to create a family, same as gay marriage.

Please note I’ve already used the adjectives “crude,” “embarrassing,” and “dumb,” so there’s no need for further beating.

Jun 23, 2009 - 11:26 am 65. zanne:

If I lost my partner of 25+years I would not need to marry again. I always thought that marriage was for making a family. Gay or straight. After that it is just a ton of paperwork to wed again later in life. Companionship does not need a license.

Jun 23, 2009 - 11:49 am 66. Clayton E. Cramer:

TO THE MARRIAGE-IS-ALL-ABOUT-PROCREATION CROWD: How do you defend, say, the marriage of two old people, like in their 50s and beyond, who have no capability of reproducing? Or maybe a heterosexual couple in which at least one partner is known to be sterile? (She’s had a life-saving hysterectomy, he has zero sperm count, whatever.)

I didn’t say that it was all about procreation–but the government’s interest in marriage has dwindled down to issues related to biological children. Those who can’t have children, or do not intend to have children, are free riders. (Of course, there are couples that do not intend to have children, and “whoops!” it happens.) If you argued that the government shouldn’t recognize such marriages, I would not argue the point. There’s no strong reason for the government to do so. But remember that for the government to know for sure that there will be no biological children from these marriages will often require a level of intrusion into privacy that seems hard to justify.

By contrast, I can absolutely guarantee that no homosexual couple will ever have biological children. If someone manages to figure out a way to make that happen, we’ll have to revisit this question.

Jun 23, 2009 - 11:54 am 67. Frank:

#61
Clayton,
Thank you for the distinction on tolerence and the example cited was exquistiely pertinent. However, I take issue with your use of “social equality” becuase it is a loaded, even self-contradictory, term. To acknowledge individuality is to accept that there is not nor will ever be social equality. The concepts are mutually incompatible. The best we can hope to achive is equality under the law which leads back to my main point; heterosexuals are favored with legal inequality. You eliminate that and more than half the pro redefinition crowd, the louder half I might add, has no argument. Speaking personally I would gladly give up any and all of my unfair hetero tax advantages just to shut them up.

Jun 23, 2009 - 11:54 am 68. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Mary Madigan
RE: Projection, Babe?

Facts are obviously irrelevant to your argument, as they are to the more-than-slightly-peculiar clown, Chuck(le). — Mary Madigan

I’ve got ‘facts’. What have YOU got?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[When facts do not conform to theory, they must be done away with. -- 'Progressive' credo]

Jun 23, 2009 - 11:54 am 69. Delia:

64. arhooley,

I’ve got another one for ya:

Why do people ’stay married’ well beyond their reproductive years? Boredom? Viagra didn’t work?

J/K

I’m afraid it goes back to the ‘normal’ word. Whether ’some’ people like it or not, hetero IS the norm.

Jun 23, 2009 - 11:55 am 70. Clayton E. Cramer:

“Gay Marriage” is first and foremost an issue of FORCED acceptance.

And that’s really the issue, at least for many of the activists pushing this. The Goodridges, whose suit in Massachusetts caused the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to require the legislature to recognize same-sex marriage? They’re already divorced. Another of the early SSMs in Massachusetts moved to Rhode Island and filed for divorce–as part of an effort to force Rhode Island to recognize out of state SSM. Hey, maybe these marriages failed for the same reason that straight marriages failed–but you will forgive my cynicism if I wonder if these were strictly to force state approval, and were strictly sham marriages.

And what of this early SSM in Massachusetts? By their own admission, it was an “open marriage”–no obligation to be faithful to each other.

“You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it means.”

Jun 23, 2009 - 12:00 pm 71. momof3:

“If gay people are born gay, and I believe they are, then there is no argument against gay marriage.”

So, if pedophiles are born that way, it’s ok? If rapists are born that way, they’re ok? That’s the weakest argument I’ve ever heard from anyone.

There is no right to marriage. In countries where gay marriage is allowed, traditional marriage does take a nosedive (scandanavia, anyone?) As does the population. Europe as we know it will be gone in a generation.

Jun 23, 2009 - 12:03 pm 72. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Mary Madigan
RE: Fortunately….

Partisan baboons aren’t interested in solving actual problems, and they’re rarely interested in caring about or improving people’s lives – all that matters is scoring some sort of messy ‘hit’. — Mary Madigan

….I’m a bit more ‘advanced’ than a “baboon”.

Baboons don’t do well on keyboards.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Monkey: An arboreal animal that makes itself at home in genealogical trees.]

Jun 23, 2009 - 12:05 pm 73. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. You want ’solutions’?

I mean REALLY?

I got a Good Book for you to refer to…..if you have the courage to read it.

Jun 23, 2009 - 12:05 pm 74. seven:

Homosexuals have proven that it is not marriage they want. 28% of homosexuals tell us they have had over 1,000 sexual partners in their lifetime. This doesn’t change when marriage comes along.
Another research I found was that in the first 5 years of a commited or legally confirmed marriage, 95% of the ones that lasted 5 years had had sex with a different partner within the first year of that 5 year period. When they make the strawman argument that we disallow their right to happiness, it is really a farce. Marriage will not make unhappy people happy. They are unhappy and think they will be happy when married. It just doesn’t happen. Also doesn’t happen for all straight and newly married.

Jun 23, 2009 - 12:12 pm 75. Clayton E. Cramer:

However, I take issue with your use of “social equality” becuase it is a loaded, even self-contradictory, term.

No, it is an accurate description of the fact that in any society, there are going to be values and behaviors that are broadly shared as okay and those that aren’t–but aren’t necessarily a source of legal inequality. Adultery is, in most states, legal. (It’s still a crime here in Idaho, although seldom enforced.) But most Americans look down on it. I suspect that some employers would fire someone that they knew was engaged in an adulterous relationship. And that’s why homosexuals keep insisting on non-discrimination laws: they know that most of the population doesn’t approve of what they do, and in a few cases, it is likely to create employment problems.

The best we can hope to achive is equality under the law which leads back to my main point; heterosexuals are favored with legal inequality. You eliminate that and more than half the pro redefinition crowd, the louder half I might add, has no argument. Speaking personally I would gladly give up any and all of my unfair hetero tax advantages just to shut them up.

Could you please explain this unfair tax advantage?

The fact is that only SOME heterosexuals have legal inequality. Polygamists don’t enjoy it. Siblings can’t marry. First cousins, in many states. There are age limitations as well.

The one thing that I am sure of is that the redefinition crowd will never shut up. When they discover that calling it “marriage” doesn’t make every smile stupidly and say, “We love that you are gay,” the next step is going to be laws to make it illegal to disparage homosexual marriage. We’ve already seen that in Canada and some European countries. The reason is simple: homosexuality is a form of damage, and there is simply no way to solve the underlying misery. Legal equality won’t do it. And the social equality will only happen if a lot of people start to lie.

Jun 23, 2009 - 12:20 pm 76. Chuck Pelto:

TO: seven
RE: Really?

28% of homosexuals tell us they have had over 1,000 sexual partners in their lifetime. — seven

Interesting report. What I’ve heard from other sources, albeit those sources buried their primary research data so no one could see it.

Do you have a url supporting that report?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]

Jun 23, 2009 - 12:20 pm 77. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. Mary Madigan might ‘benefit’ from such ‘facts’…..

Then again…..maybe not…..

Jun 23, 2009 - 12:22 pm 78. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Clayton E. Cramer, et al.
RE: Indeed

the next step is going to be laws to make it illegal to disparage homosexual marriage. — Clayton E. Cramer

There’s a bill making its way through Congress to make that a reality.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The 'Plan' progresses apace.....]

Jun 23, 2009 - 12:30 pm 79. tanstaafl:

You never say that you were formally married, Cynthia.

Your liaison sounds like one of the heart and not one of the legal system.

I’ve inquired of a gay friend whether or not he wants to be married to the guy he has spent about 30 very happy years with. “lord, no” he replies

Which, in my view of the world, says he’s focused on the relationship and not the trappings of relationship or seeking the patina of legitimacy that (supposedly) comes with a marriage contract.

The US is now a country, unlike very many countries of the world, where such relationships can happen without a great deal of social stigma attached. What stigma there is, I don’t think is influenced by a legal process or lack of a legal process, i.e., marriage.

Jun 23, 2009 - 12:40 pm 80. Clayton E. Cramer:

Interesting report. What I’ve heard from other sources, albeit those sources buried their primary research data so no one could see it.

I recognize that as data that came out of a study of urban homosexuals in the early 1970s–before AIDS put a bit of a damper on the party. While it’s clear that male homosexuals are more promiscuous than straight men (and lesbians more than straight women), the difference isn’t quite as large as that study would suggest. I’ve seen data indicating that male homosexuals average about 2.5x as many sexual partners as straight men. (A relatively small number of extremely promiscuous gay men probably play a large part in running up the average.)

This may not sound like much, but all else being equal, STDs transmit through a society with the square of the increase in the number of sexual partners per period. An STD infected man with twice the number of partners will spread the disease to four times as many partners. Part of why AIDS ran through the gay community like wildfire is that along with a more promiscuous population (in some segments, 90 different partners a month), male to male anal sex is especially effective at spreading the disease.

Jun 23, 2009 - 12:44 pm 81. Clayton E. Cramer:

the next step is going to be laws to make it illegal to disparage homosexual marriage. — Clayton E. Cramer

There’s a bill making its way through Congress to make that a reality.

Huh? There’s a lot wrong with the grossly misnamed Matthew Shepard hate crimes law, but it seems pretty narrowly written so that it doesn’t make it illegal to disparage gay marriage, unless you are doing the disparaging while committing a violent crime.

Jun 23, 2009 - 12:52 pm 82. The Shadow:

Chuckie – you said that baboons don’t do well with keyboards Well, how do you explain why you so so well?

Jun 23, 2009 - 1:02 pm 83. 8 My Foot:

So your “marriage” works and that qualifies you to try to force it on everyone else.
You remind me of a life time alcoholic who finally quits the booze. They go around and tell anyone who will listen their life story and how it’s better now and that everyone should stop drinking booze period. And how they’re the authority on the subject.
There is no such thing as a marriage between homosexuals.

Jun 23, 2009 - 1:04 pm 84. Brother John:

The time for equality is already here. If you wish to get married, simply pick someone of the opposite sex, as I would have to do. The rules already apply equally.

Jun 23, 2009 - 1:07 pm 85. Clayton E. Cramer:

If you wish to get married, simply pick someone of the opposite sex, as I would have to do.

Or simply do what you are going to do anyway, and stop insisting that the rest of the society express approval. This isn’t like when some states prohibited interracial marriage. The Lovings were threatened with prison if they returned to Virginia together, after marrying in D.C. If you and your partner want to run off to Mass. and get married, the response when you return to your home state will be….crickets chirping.

Jun 23, 2009 - 1:16 pm 86. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Clayton E. Cramer
RE: My Data Source….

I recognize that as data that came out of a study of urban homosexuals in the early 1970s–before AIDS put a bit of a damper on the party. — Clayton E. Cramer

….is from a federally funded research project from the late 80s-early 90s about The Sexual Behavior of Men in the United States. Conducted by the Battelle Human Affairs Research Center in Seattle. Conducted by John O.G. Billy, Koray Tanfer, William R. Grady and Daniel H. Klepinger. Published in Family Planning Perspectives in a series of articles in 1993.

They published ALL KINDS of data on heterosexual males: partners, activities, frequency, etc. But when it came to the homosexual males……nada(s) much….by a LONG shot.

I called them up and asked them about that and they refused to release the information.

Three guesses…..first two don’t count…..

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]

Jun 23, 2009 - 1:29 pm 87. Delia:

82. The Shadow:

“Chuckie – you said that baboons don’t do well with keyboards Well, how do you explain why you so so well?”

Shad, did you just make a typo when trying to tell Chuck that he doesn’t ‘work well’ with keyboard?

Jun 23, 2009 - 1:32 pm 88. Van Norris:

It is easy to wrap ourselves in the emotion, passion, dedication and self-sacrifice of given instances of same sex marriage. As always, it is helpful to look at who we are – Americans – and the ideals that made our nation great and properous. Our Declaration of Independence spoke of the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God and those truths and universal Rights to all men everywhere that were endowed by our Creator. The basis of this was from Cicero, a Roman philosopher who died in 43 BC pre-dating modern Christianity, but reflected in Christianity, Jewish and Anglo-Saxon history. If we conform our laws and society to those natural laws, the theory was, our society would prosper. If we instituted contrary law our society and system of government would suffer malaise and failure. No religion condones same sex marriage, it is contrary to promoting a strong social fabric and lends confusion to the Laws of Nature. While some accomodations probably should be made on a civil basis, marriage is at the core of all societies and cultural fabric, and should not be cheapened. Marriage is a union recognized and condoned by God. It is God given, as the heathen Cicero professed, and transcends the State’s power to alter because it transcends the State’s power to grant. If you ask for the equality of marriage, you ask for what the Laws of Nature cannot condone, and you add to the deterioration of our social fabric.

Jun 23, 2009 - 1:45 pm 89. Frank:

Mr Cramer,
Child tax credit gives advantages to heterosexuals, the most obvious example I could think of. Gays can’t have children so are ipso facto disadvantaged on that score. The tax code has devolved into nothing more than a 90,000 page social engineering manual run amok.

The vocal proponents of gay marriage, of course, like to blather on about “1000 rights” heteros enjoy but they are denied. Try as I may I haven’t seen anyone come up with the complete list, and if it were to surface I am quite confident the definition of rights would be contorted beyond recognition. But that’s just par for the liberal argument course, make stuff up so long as you got the open mike.

“No, it (social equality) is an accurate description of the fact that in any society, there are going to be values and behaviors that are broadly shared as okay and those that aren’t–but aren’t necessarily a source of legal inequality.”

We’ll have to agree to disagree here. I assumed you meant social equality literally as in equal in society. Your definition above allows for something other than that. My point, when reduced to their literal traditional meaning, social equality and individualism cannot co-exist. Put in terms of political physics; the strengthening of one necessarily weakens the other. Me? I’m all for individualism. Social equality smacks of the liberal ideal that man is perfectable. While in itself might be a noble goal, believing it is attainable will never be more than wishful thinking. Show me someone who believes otherwise and I’ll show you someone who believed Obama was qualified to be President.

Jun 23, 2009 - 2:08 pm 90. Tristan:

Most of us will not call a same-sex domestic partnership “marriage” and will never consider it “normal”, because it isn’t. It’s a perversion by definition, i.e. abnormal sexual behavior and repulses most people. And it is net anti-family – many people who “come out of the closet” and “discover themselves” are married with kids, after all. Homosexuals who are so open about their sex life tend to gloss over the reality that there’s a wake of family destruction and broken promises left behind them.

But bottom line is that homosexuals have every right they need under the Constitution, as do heterosexuals, whites, minorities, christians, atheists, etc, and these rights include political representation but not mandatory integration and acceptance. Traditional marriage has a privileged position in our legal system because it is the institution that makes the family possible, and the family is the most important unit in society. We’ve seen what happens when families break down in the African American community thanks to a negative culture and pro-welfare policies and its disastrous.

So no, if two friends live together, two brothers live together, or two same-sex sexual partners live together, they do *not* get the same legal benefits that a married couple does, because it does not provide the same benefit to the community of having a nuclear family. That’s just how it is – your choices have consequences for you, and for society.

Jun 23, 2009 - 2:12 pm 91. The Shadow:

Delia – typo yes but I guess you missed my point as ususal

Jun 23, 2009 - 2:15 pm 92. aloysiusmiller:

It takes a man and a woman to make a marriage. Call your relationship anything you like but please don’t call it a marriage.

Jun 23, 2009 - 2:31 pm 93. Scott:

A very touching story and I’m glad you found someone whom you felt was your soul mate.

However…

Even in ancient societies that did not frown upon (or even encouraged a certain life stages) homosexual practices Marriage was considered to be between “man & woman”. This is not something that is restricted to the Abrahamic religions or their cultures, its universal, even in cultures that practice polygamy or polyandry.

Also if you assume homosexuality is a genetic trait, then without the intervention of modern science or a homosexual forcing themselves to accept sexual encounters with the opposite sex, homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end. Now why would humanity if it wants to survive encourage such a genetic trait through the use of modern science? It is only because of the the Abrahamic religions aversion to homosexuality and Asian cultural Familial obligations that there are even homosexuals today.

Marriage is about procreation, and couples who cannot or choose not to have children do not provide an equivocating argument for same sex marriage. The percentages of marriages that these represent is minuscule, and it is emotionally devastating for a heterosexual man or woman to find out that they are infertile. This is generally true even if they don’t want kids, and I’d even bet homosexuals who are told that they are incapable of reproducing (assuming an encounter with the opposite sex) would probably find it at least emotionally uncomfortable if not just as devastating.

All the legal protections, rights, etc are available with just a little more legal paperwork, AND its easier to dissolve said arrangements when you decide to move on to another partner.

Jun 23, 2009 - 2:40 pm 94. ehunter:

So if homosexuality is just as natural and normal as heterosexuality..why is that the history of
homosexual activists for the past 40 years has been,
1. To invent bogus research showing a biological
basis for homosexuality.
2. Destroy and defame any attempt to expose so called “scientific” studies as fraudulent.
3. Bully and intimidate psychologists who refuse to toe the party line of the gay dominated American Psychological Asspciation.
4. Bully and intimidate politicians, voters, and Federal judges by non stop labeling of all dissenting voices as “racist” and “fascist” etc.

Jun 23, 2009 - 2:44 pm 95. Ken:

Marriage is between one man and one woman.

I’m glad you two are there for each other. You could be there just the same “married” or not, however.

Jun 23, 2009 - 2:53 pm 96. Delia:

Egg and sperm require man and woman.

You’re welcome.

Jun 23, 2009 - 2:58 pm 97. AtheistConservative:

Contrary to what the hateful ‘tolerance’ crowd preach, people can disagree with you and not be ‘mean’.

That said, just because you want something doesn’t mean it needs to happen … ever … and certainly not ‘now’.

The same arguments you make can be made for incestuous marriages, polygamy, and on and on and on. You have no special entitlement to changing marriage. The person who needs to change now is YOU. Realize that when you decide to deviate from social norms you voluntarily surrender some privileges.

Jun 23, 2009 - 3:00 pm 98. Allisonian:

If it were me, I’d want government as far away from my love life as I want them from my health care: Cynthia and Margaret (and Ted and Chuck and Dave, Sally, Ursula and Connie), are free to: draw up legal documents to have their estates disposed as they wish, notify hospitals as to who has access, “marry” in a field by a priestess with all their friends and family around them, buy a house, adopt a child — all without government’s interference. Be GRATEFUL to be under government’s radar!!!

I’m sorry for your loss.

Jun 23, 2009 - 3:06 pm 99. Leigh Thelmadatter:

The two most frequent objections to gay marriage are the weakest. First, it redefines marriage (from the Christian definition). Marriage has been defined and redefined over the course of history. With no state church, any definition of marriage by any religious belief can be argued for in the U.S. and most western countries. Some cultures/religions accept certain forms of marriage, such as polygamy, and some dont. I see no proof that redefining it to include gay couples would necessarily cause harm to the social fabric of Western society.

The second is that gays want to make it “normal” and but they are in an overwhelming minority and always will be, therefore should not be seen as equal to to heterosexuals. That makes as much sense as applying the logic to left-handed individuals, which we used to force to be right-handed so that they wouldnt need “special privileges” such as left-handed scissors. I loved the argument that gays are discriminated against because they are free to enter heterosexual marriages… so then having gay marriage would mean that heteros could enter gay marriages too… so no “special” privilege here either.

I have yet to find someone opposed to gay marriage that didnt have a religious basis to it. My religion (Wicca) generally has no problem with it, so I fail to see the big deal between calling it a “marriage” or a “civil union” Word definitions are not made by law (except for legal terms), they are made by society. What allowing for gay legal marriage will do socially is end the higher legal and social status that of the traditional Judeo-Christian term. So who is looking for special rights?

However, out of these weak arguments are two concerns that need to be addressed, which have been mentioned but not sufficiently discussed. The first is the possible problem of forcing religious institutions to accept/perform a union that is against their tenents. While I am not a member of a such a religion, any push to have government interfere in religion beyond what is necesary to prevent physical harm and fraud is very dangerous territory indeed. But the real problem is that performing marriages is one of the few ways religion and state mix… and separation of the two is needed. Civil unions for all is what must eventually come to sever this last problematic knot.

Government sanctioning of civil unions only has another plus. Civil/secular standards would apply to how such should be defined (whether such are called marriages or not colloquially) and not religious ones. The slippery slope argument is usually presented with red herrings such as marriages of humans and animals and whatnot…. However, the real issue is poligamy (while polyandry could theorticaly be included it is not likely to be pushed for and the same objectiosn would apply). Poligamy IS sanctioned by at least one major religion, Islam, so if religion is the base for defining marriage, we must accept poligamy. Most in the West would never do such and the reason is as much (if not more) secular than religious. Poligamous unions are inherently unequal. The man has rights (union with more than one) that the female does not. While “group marriage” could be among equals theorectially, Ill bet you dollars to donuts it devolves into some form of poligamy. Only with two, can equally be reasonably assured. Come to think of it, this standard also takes care of the human/animal marriage red herring argument.

Jun 23, 2009 - 3:13 pm 100. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: I Notice….

….that neither MaryAnn nor Cynthia nor any other proponent addresses the aspect of children in homosexual relationships.

Why IS that?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Think of the children! -- favorite credo of certain 'progressive' types]

Jun 23, 2009 - 3:23 pm 101. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Leigh Thelmadatter
RE: Heh

Marriage has been defined and redefined over the course of history. — Leigh Thelmadatter

Please show us where it has been ‘redefined over the course of history’. I mean in manners generally accepted as being man and man or woman and woman or men and women or men and lower animals.

Please…..

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]

Jun 23, 2009 - 3:39 pm 102. Delia:

100. Chuck Pelto,

The ‘egg and sperm’ thing kinda ’scrambles’ the whole arg about ‘children’.

Jun 23, 2009 - 3:47 pm 103. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Delia
RE: Cute….

The ‘egg and sperm’ thing kinda ’scrambles’ the whole arg about ‘children’. —

….But Not Really.

My point is about showing children how NOT to behave as being ‘normal’.

As I said over on that opposing-side thread, this is a society based on ‘death’ and ’selfishness’. Nothing else…..when you look at the ‘long run’…..

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Some people may have trouble recognizing the ’selfishness’ aspect….but that’s more than likely because they hate God…..

Jun 23, 2009 - 3:55 pm 104. aaron:

Many so-called “homosexuals” have married someone of the opposite sex. Many have had children. So, apparently there is choice in the matter. Go ahead and make your choices, but don’t force everyone else to agree. We want to be free too.

Jun 23, 2009 - 4:08 pm 105. Sarah:

Even if it were law, there will always be a qualifier in parenthesis before it: “Gay” marriage. As such, why not have and enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage in a civil union, without taking on the word marriage? I took a look at your site, and I don’t understand how that qualifies as separate but equal. To me it’s different but equal, and that’s what counts.

Jun 23, 2009 - 4:20 pm 106. Mary Madigan:

I’ve got ‘facts’. What have YOU got?

Chuck – I have the fact that Judea Pearl is not a ‘lefty’ and he was never “railing against Pres. Bush instead of the jihadits…” as ‘blotto’ claimed.

I also have read a long string of comments from you that appear to be a form of argument, many citing the Bible, which is not a factual text.

Like the subject of gay marriage, people can endlessly debate the factual nature of the bible, but those arguments, like the subject of gay marriage, are entirely grey-area because they are not based on fact. What we call social science and psychology is, compared to any other form of medical science, still in the bearskins-and-knives stage. We know how to fix broken legs, but we don’t know how to cure depression, explain the appeal of religious/spiritual belief or predict the influence of laws on the behavior of large groups of people. There is no provable research on the subject.

Any arguments we make would be based on purely personal experience and personal biases. Everything about these sorts of discussions is subjective. Cynthia Yockey is telling us about her personal experience. Many peculiar, oddly structured comments claiming that faith-based texts are ‘fact’ contributes nothing to that general discussion.

Jun 23, 2009 - 4:21 pm 107. DavidN:

I’ve had several opinions about the issue of marriage, separation of church and state, and the possibility of gay marriage, floating around in my head for decades, and frankly I’ve come to some conclusions that are different, I think, from most.

First, the state’s definition of marriage hasn’t, traditionally anyway, been the same as religion’s, going back some years. My father-in-law (deceased a few years ago) returned from WW2 and almost immediately married a woman, and then divorced her, because she forgot to mention little details about her life like her actual age (she was older than he) and a teenaged daughter (he was in his early 20s at the time). Since he was a Catholic, when he remarried the woman who became my mother-in-law, the marriage wasn’t (of course) sanctified by the Catholic church. Until my wife was in her 20s, Joe couldn’t receive the sacraments at his church, because he’d married a woman while the church still thought him married to his first wife. The marriage was eventually annulled, and he married my mother-in-law about 25 years after they originally got married; my wife baked the wedding cake and was the maid of honor. Just because an individual church doesn’t sanctify a marriage isn’t justification for the government prohibiting it. For years after the laws against interracial marriage were abolished, the Mormons frowned on the practice. The one instance where the government forced a religion to change its rules with regards to marriage also involves the Mormons: the U.S. government sent a small army to invade Utah (then Deseret) in 1857, and made them change their view of the practice. Does anyone think this legitimate, now?

Second, no one opposed to gay marriage has been able to show me how it would cause any of the other things predicted to happen. Laws can be written to allow one thing, and not allow others; any fool can see that. When the issue of interracial marriage came up (I’m not saying the two issues are identical, they aren’t; but in some ways the one can tell us things about the other) opponents predicted all sorts of doom and gloom scenarios foreshadowing the end of the world, collapse of society, etc. None of those things happened, so of course the opposition predicts them if gay marriage becomes a reality. Silly, you’d think people would catch on, but apparently not.

Third, there’s this little technicality in the Constitution called the 10th Amendment. Frankly, this is where I tell my gay friends they should be glad George W. Bush was a strict constructionist, regarding the Constitution. If he’d used the tactics of the Democrats, a law would have passed both houses and he’d have signed it, and then they’d have shopped around for a friendly Federal judge to somehow twist the Constitution to allow the Federal government jurisdiction over this issue, when there’s nothing in the Constitution actually doing so. This means it’s an issue for the states to decide, one by one.

Fourth, I’ve been an agnostic for years, but I have in the past and still do associate with people more religious than I. I have always wanted to ask a religious person opposed to gay marriage two questions, both simple but never asked (as far as I know) in public anyway. The first is simple: Do you really want to grant the government the right to decide which religious sacraments, practices, and rites are legitimate, and which ones aren’t? If you establish the precedent, what happens if (not that I’m saying he is, but for the sake of argument) Barack Obama turns out to be the Muslim that the far-right nutjobs say he is, and he declares all marriages between Christians null and void? You’ve established the principle that the government is the arbiter of which marriages are legitimate, and which ones aren’t…has anyone considered the possibility that in the future things could be turned on their head? Second, regarding the threat to the “institution of marriage” that gay marriage supposedly poses. How does it affect your relationship with your spouse, if a couple of people you’ve never met have a piece of paper legalizing, legitimizing, recognizing, whatever you wish to call it, their partnership? If your marriage is so shaky that you have to prevent other people having relationships to shore it up, you’re in more trouble than you think, and the country can’t do anything for you.

I’ll agree that gay marriage isn’t a right, at least one specifically granted by the Constitution. I’ll also agree that the gay community can survive without it. They’ve been doing pretty well for a number of years. But since when do we prohibit anything not threatening the public welfare or safety, merely because we *can*? No one will be threatened if I don’t walk the dog tonight; that doesn’t give the government the right, or need, to prohibit me from doing so. Government exists to protect the citizens from things that threaten them, not to prohibit them from doing things that others disapprove of.

Oh, and as for the issue of children in gay relationships. Not as many gays have children as do heterosexuals, for obvious reasons. I have, however, known some who *did* have children, and the kids were fine. In the one instance, the more…how to put it?…masculine of the two lesbians, was one of the tougher, more resolute individuals I’ve ever known. Kids were well-adjusted from what I saw, though I didn’t know them that well.

Oh, and by the way, to those of you who insist that marriage should only be for procreation: three of my uncles (one a former minister, two of them very religious) married after it was too late to have children (one of them twice) and myself, my grandmother, and my grandfather on the other side of my family, married too late to have kids. Are you saying we shouldn’t have been allowed to marry either? Or is this argument only applicable to gays?

Jun 23, 2009 - 4:24 pm 108. Sarah:

To clarify my previous post, I took a look at some further thoughts/writings on your site talking about why civil unions are not enough.
My only other thought is that a lot of the ‘hostility’ to gay marriage comes from people being FORCED to accept a situation they find distasteful through the COURT system. Aggression begets aggression.
The idea that gay marriage has to be pushed through RIGHT NOW (as you say on your site) exacerbates this. There are means to have equitable treatment through the legal system, such as the medical directives that you mentioned on your site. This takes the urgent need out of the equation.
Perhaps the gay community could be more proactive in helping gay couples acquire legal help with their medical directives, instead of inflaming opposition with their clenched fists.

Jun 23, 2009 - 4:34 pm 109. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Mary Madigan
RE: [OT] Not True?

I also have read a long string of comments from you that appear to be a form of argument, many citing the Bible, which is not a factual text. — Mary Madigan

Only to those who refuse to have a truly ‘open mind’. Like you.

Case in point….

….please explain how a man of the First Century would describe to his contemporaries a runaway nuclear reactor.

And then give the proper noun name of where such an event takes place.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Looking forward to your answer…..if you have the courage and wherewithall to reply…..

Jun 23, 2009 - 5:13 pm 110. Meryl:

Chuck Pelto,

Your self-discipline, focused use of resources and persistent fearlessness are truly fine to behold.

A student am I!

Jun 23, 2009 - 6:06 pm 111. sheesh:

109 I’ll answer . . .

(Psa 75:5 NNAS) Do not lift up your horn on high, Do not speak with insolent pride.

Chuck, you just don’t seem to embrace the Bible for anything beyond exclusivity. I really think you’re missing the point of the whole God thing, let alone the Jesus deal. Neither are weapons. Neither are get-out-of -jail-free cards. But that’s how you treat them. And it’s shameful. You should go visit a pastor or minister or preacher or deacon or whatever you call them in your neck of the faith. You need a check-up from the neck up – ha ha ha ha – You need a new soul for your blow hole – ha ha ha ha – I made that one up all by myself . . . you believe that don’t you Chuck.

Wait, wait, no hold on just a doggone minute . . .

(Isa 2:17 NNAS) The pride of man will be humbled And the loftiness of men will be abased; And the LORD alone will be exalted in that day.

Don’t go off all bent out of shape there, mister. As Jesus said, “Life ain’t all 1s and 0s folks. There are numbers in heavens that no man can fathom. Like 2.”

Jun 23, 2009 - 6:09 pm 112. juliet:

What I don’t understand if marriage is such a wonderful thing & a civil right, why did the femminist movement of the 60’s & 70’s equate marriage to slavery for women. And again if it is a civil right then should the government out law living together as being against the civil right of people. Please someone explain

Jun 23, 2009 - 6:21 pm 113. Allan:

Your experience is certainly touching, emotionally, but that is not the basis upon which to determine public policy.

I do not subscribe to the idea that most gays are just born that way. If so, that has to be one might tricky recessive gene that goes undetected for centuries, and then suddenly pops to life in certain kinds of culture here and there. What if we discover genes that predispose to avarice, violence, or dishonesty? Do we just throw the doors open to such behavior? Would we accept gene therapy in order to cure it? Or is “gayness” somehow given a pass because of the old libido?

We work all kinds of mischief when we seek to redefine entire moral categories through vocabulary modification. First, tolerance meant I had to not subscribe to the criminalization of sodomy and crimes against nature. Now it means I have to affirm and celebrate what remains a perversion. The “gay community” seems to exercise little tolerance toward those who do not give into its every whim.

Which brings us back around to the beginning, the emotion-laden story of two people. The gay community acts like a little child that will push and push and push on whatever generates a negative response. As soon as it gets its way there, it finds somewhere else to push, because the silly parent cannot wise up to the fact that it is dealing with emotion, not logic.

I’m sure you had a very loving relationship, and that you miss her. But it was not a marriage.

Jun 23, 2009 - 6:37 pm 114. SenSen:

In case you are wondering about the recent increase in hateful comments, your post has been posted among the collectivists in FreeRepublic, that’s why.

Collectivists, because they clearly do not believe in private individuals doing legal transactions in mutual consent, towards the pursuit of profit (eg: happiness).

Collectivists because they wish they could control it with a mob. Just see prop 8.
The same ideology would have us say that if a lot of muslims “voted” for veils on women, then that’s ok.

Jun 23, 2009 - 6:55 pm 115. gary:

Oh please!!. Gay marriage is a liberal stance no matter what you are registered as. It is not, and does not belong in a conservative agenda.

The reason being conservatives are “traditional” not “dogmatic” as sometimes accused. That means retaining values based on Judeo / Anglo Christian beliefs and other similar conservative religious and social outlooks.

I come from New York and lived in the Bay Area most of my life so I have been exposed to your culture from childhood.

You may have a social contract,a civil union, or whatever else you aspire to call it in most states already. You can even get married in a civil ceremony by a gay priest, priestess, minister, ministeress, whatever.You can call your significant other “my wife”, “my husband” anything you want.

But no, that ain’t good enough, you want to destroy the sanctity of a traditional word, which in turn destroys it’s value for those who cherish such definition and religious significance.

And that is really what its all about destroying religion as others want to practice it. You believe the word should become secular rather than religious.

So for the sake of your secular beliefs my traditional family and religious values and those of my children must change.

I could truly care less as to who you want to sleep with, live with, or do anything else with, that’s your private right!

But you people (there I’ve said it) want to make sure you tare down the entire system before you are done with it, don’t you!

You know that you are not revealing that many many gay people, do not feel the same way you do, and are quite content with the social arrangements that they already have.

Many close associates and friends I have experienced over the years are gay, and this has never effected a healthy relationship developing between us, because we have mutual respect for each others individualism.

Some things must remain the same and this is what sets us apart as individuals with individual beliefs.

One of those beliefs being religion and how it is taught, practiced and understood by some of us.

It is those of you who are in denial of your human difference be it explained as biological or psychological, who have this great need to feel special by destroying all other human perspectives.

To subtly draw attention under the guise of equality that emanates from your social cause. Which is the destruction of religiosity as it has been for millenniums.

You are no better than the Mullah’s who seek the destruction of Israel as a Jewish religious state. I imagine you believe it to should share its homeland with its enemies as well.

Jun 23, 2009 - 7:04 pm 116. arhooley:

>>Please show us where it has been ‘redefined over the course of history’.

Chuck: It was once considered a union unbreakable except by death. Now, doubtless to the great relief of any number of Republican legislators, it’s only permanent until you want to trade your old gray mare in for a frisky young filly.

Jun 23, 2009 - 7:05 pm 117. arhooley:

>>goes undetected for centuries, and then suddenly pops to life in certain kinds of culture here and there.

Whuh? If so, you probably won’t believe me if I tell you about Alexander the Great, so I’ll provide an actual quote from Plato: “Homosexuality is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce.”

I don’t care how Plato judges homosexuality; the mere fact that he discusses it shows that it goes back a loooooong way.

Forgive me if that’s not what you meant.

Jun 23, 2009 - 7:12 pm 118. arhooley:

112. juliet:

What I don’t understand if marriage is such a wonderful thing & a civil right, why did the femminist movement of the 60’s & 70’s equate marriage to slavery for women. And again if it is a civil right then should the government out law living together as being against the civil right of people. Please someone explain

————————–

Juliet, it’s simple: It’s not marriage, it’s you — little, disingenuous You. The feminist movement was protesting the legal terms of marriage and the status of women in those days. I’ll give you an example: My mother, who worked hard all her life, saved her money, and advised my father on many investments, decided to buy some land of her own in the 1970s. Guess what? She needed my father’s “permission.” She needed his name on the escrow papers. If he had said No, it would have been No. Got that? She couldn’t use the fruit of her own labor to make a purchase for which she was perfectly qualified unless her husband allowed it.

Next item: please look at the author of this article. It is Cynthia Yockey, not “the femminist movement of the 60’s & 70’s.” Don’t make Cynthia responsible for “the feminist movement,” however dubiously interpreted.

Finally, what? If marriage is a civil right then should we outlaw living together as being against a civil right? juliet, rights — such as free speech and freedom to assemble — are things we exercise freely, not things we exercise by coercion. If you choose to skip a Tea Party or decide not to write to your congressperson today, that’s not illegal.

Jun 23, 2009 - 7:33 pm 119. Mark:

Welcome…..good luck…..stick it out…..you are in the right place….

Jun 23, 2009 - 7:52 pm 120. bikerken:

I have no problem with giving equal benefits to gay partners if that is what the majority of people vote for, because it is going to come out of their pocket. But I don’t think that is what this is about. Gays have always resented the way straight people viewed their relationships and what they are bent on doing is making it illegal for people to even voice their opinion if it doesn’t agree with theirs. Gay marriage would mean marriage really doesn’t mean anything. In the Nordic states where they accepted gay marriage, they pretty much just threw off marriage altogether. Now they have as high as 80 percent of children born without two married parents and it is having a devastating effect on their culture. This is why we had marriage to begin with. Plus, the outright hatred and hostility, ie perez hilton, the nasty little ass who should have his head punched in for hours, is a perfect example of the tolerance of gay people. As far as I’m concerned, if you want to make a war out of it, fine, bring it on.

Jun 23, 2009 - 7:53 pm 121. Delia:

Can I marry my vibrator? Because it has gotten me off way more than any man, woman or mammal that likes Jif or Skippy.

Jun 23, 2009 - 7:55 pm 122. blotto:

Mary Madigan: Here is at least one reference:

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2009/02/seven_years_lat.html

And I forgot about Nick Berg’s father: http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=13002

both used the deaths of their sons to advance a leftist ideology. I know it is off the topic of gay marriage but it conforms to what the author here was trying to do: use tragedy to advance her cause.

So where are your facts to back up your position that gays are tolerant of us who oppose gay marriage-and begin with Perez Hilton, riots and the vandalizing of churches, that the cause is not to redefine marriage, that the cause is not to normalize the gay lifestyle, that the cause is not to destroy religion and marginalize religious people, and that gays do not want to indoctrinate the young to their lifestyle and finally that being gay is not a choice..

Jun 23, 2009 - 8:09 pm 123. MikeD:

I am so tired of this topic and issue. If you folks, or anyone else, wants to screw chickens that is OK by me but I draw the line when you insist on giving them the right to vote.

Jun 23, 2009 - 8:21 pm 124. jill:

It’s so strange to me. I still don’t understand how my two married (yes, they got married in California) gay neighbors will destroy anyone’s marriage. Nothing terrible has happened, as far as I know . I guess I am biased as I have known many gay couples -and with children. And I honestly have to say, they have fared better as a family unit than most of my straight divorced friends. I just wonder how many of you actually know any “gays”.

I also have seen the gay community become conservative (lifestyle) as they are given equal rights. Rather than having to rely on subculture bar culture, you are seeing much more monogamy and stability. That can only be good for society.

As I said, it all is so strange that people care if two men or women marry. I think, and I bet you all, that in 20 years your kids or grandkids will look at this like separate water fountains.

Jun 23, 2009 - 9:51 pm 125. Realist:

I suggest that Gays be allowed their civil unions but that it should never be allowed to be called Marriage which is of course a religiously mandated union for progeneration between men and women.Gays are incapable of progenerating naturally so they do not deserve the marriage title. My suggestion for their alternative name for their civil Union is GARAGE sounds the similar and the word fits their sexual preferences and need for frequent oil changes LOL

Jun 23, 2009 - 11:35 pm 126. Rachel Peepers:

Cynthia,

Your story is moving. And your love, obviously, was real.

I can respect your views, and feel sorrow for your loss.
But my world will never sanctify or offer tacit approval of same sex marriage. It’s not going to happen.

At the same time, I will always condemn the killing of the unborn. If you believe that you and Margaret had a right to marriage, then I must ask if you and Margaret also believed in the right of the unborn to life. I suspect you did.

For me, now and forever, I seek for all Americans the blessedness of liberty.

The sanctity of the first ten amendments.

I believe in the holiness of the ten commandments.

My unease these days has much to do with a President who believes, I fear, in none of these. Who couldn’t care less about the Cynthias and Margarets of the world. Whose core being craves money and power. And is trying to visit upon the land of the free and the home of the brave a sword though the heartland; a horrific end to the ideals brave men and women are willing to die for.

Cynthia, it’s not for me to judge you. You sound like a loving, compassionate woman. I’m here to unseat the evil that has endangered this great nation from sea to shining sea. When you’re up to it, I ask you to join me in this crusade to see to it that this nation breathes only the air of freedom. With kindest regards, Rachel

Jun 23, 2009 - 11:40 pm 127. David:

Points to ponder:
1) Some (probably most) people who are gay, are born that way. If you don’t believe it, stop reading, since it would take Jesus to convince you otherwise.
2) If two (or more) adults want to get together for love, sex, or coffee, I say go ahead. If they decided they want to spend the rest of their lives together (like for hospital visits or shared health plans) that seems okay too. However, if it’s “more than two”, I think we need to have new laws – maybe we need to create the concept of a “family corporation”, since that organization could live forever with new members replacing the old.
4) “Marriage”. Historically, say 500 years ago, if two people wanted to get married, they just said it, and it was done – no priest required. In modern times, it has religious implications. I say pox on both your houses about what “marriage” means. However, since it is currently a more of a religious construct, and gays say they need access to marriage for the legal advantages, please be happy with “civil union”, which provides all the benefits, but doesn’t agitate the religious (unless you want more than just the legal benefits, which I suspect is true for some members of the gay community).
5) Kids. Here’s possibly the one exception to the whole “civil union” vs. “marriage” thing.
-I think gays are born that way, BUT …
-I also thing some people are on the border and susceptible to external influence.
-This implies (and is backed up by a recent study), that it is possible that children of gay parents are more likely to be gay themselves (actually about 10 times more likely according to that study).
-Given choice between dysfunctional heterosexual parents, and loving, awesome gay parents, I would probably choose gay. However, all other things being equal, school was tough enough on my psyche that I didn’t need to be teased (or beaten up) about having two dads or moms (or looked at suspiciously in the locker room as being too influenced).
-There is perspective to be learned from both a male and a female parent – again, all other things being equal – that you just aren’t going to get with same sex parents.
-”normal”. Say what you will. I don’t believe I am homophobic, but at the same time, you will never get me to call gay people “normal” any more (or less) than I would call a person with 6 toes “normal”. They may walk and talk and be nice or mean and do a job just like anyone else, but they still aren’t “normal” in the sense that they are only 3% of the population – a population that they are born from, and would in fact not be here if everyone acted like them.

Jun 24, 2009 - 1:35 am 128. WhyamInotsurprised?:

“I believe my gay marriage was one of the happiest marriages any couple has ever had …”

What a preposterous statement to open with. Why not be honest and say that you were very happy/lucky/blessed in your relationship and hope that others would have at least similar fortune. But you can’t possibly know that yours was “one of the happiest.”

I find it also interesting that gays make their relationships sound like they are better than most heterosexual relationships because of rampant divorce, etc. But people are people, sin is sin, and the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. I don’t usually hear straight couples promoting their relationship as better than anyone else’s. What you do hear is them saying they are just lucky to have found the one they love or how they have worked hard to make it work because of commitment. Gays sure are trying hard to convince others that “theirs” are successful relationships and therefore, deserving of the marriage mantle.

Jun 24, 2009 - 4:01 am 129. Boris:

“So, if pedophiles are born that way, it’s ok? If rapists are born that way, they’re ok? That’s the weakest argument I’ve ever heard from anyone.”

I think this might be a totally new type of stupid. Congrats, momof3!

“There is no right to marriage.”

So I suppose no one would complain if we banned Republican marriage, right?

Jun 24, 2009 - 5:18 am 130. Allan:

@ #117: I did not argue that homosexuality did not exist until recently, but rather that it seems to occur here and there sporadically in history, usually in conjunction with other developments in society, all of which seems to indicate something other than genetics. After all, the prohibitions of the Mosaic law would hardly make sense if no homosexual behavior even existed.

But of all the arguments used for gay marriage, I find the “I was born that way” the least viable, for at least two reasons: First, the jury is still out on whether it is even true or not. Even Peter Tatchell, who helped found OutRage!, admits there’s no such thing as the gay gene. Second, even if it were proved beyond any doubt whatsoever that gay behavior WAS gentically based, that still leaves us with the question about whether the accept it. It certainly would not settle the debate as to whether public policy should celebrate homosexuality via gay marriage. As noted, some people believe there is a genetic basis in predispositions toward undesirable behaviors such as violence, theft, and dishonesty. If we discovered a liar gene, would we re-write our laws so that people who are genetic liars are no longer in danger of perjury if they lie on the witness stand? Or would we hope that some kind of gene therapy could correct gayness AND dishonesty? We would still be left with a debate that cannot be settled “scientifically.”

Jun 24, 2009 - 6:37 am 131. Aureliano:

I suggest that Gays be allowed their civil unions but that it should never be allowed to be called Marriage which is of course a religiously mandated union for progeneration between men and women.

Marriage is not ‘religiously mandated’, or rather, it has not been for a long, long time.

Marriage is better described as an institution built around the natural inclination of men and women to pair-bond, and the inevitable children who are the result (which is in fact why pair-bonding occurs in the first place). The religious mandate is built on top of this, and in our modern society marriage must be legally certified by the state, meaning that religion is actually a minor concern, a ‘middle’ concern, if you will, if indeed it is any concern at all.

As per gays, their sexual orientation is essentially an outlier, and of little consequence since it results in nothing more than ‘alternatively’ generated orgasms and sweaty sheets. No one cares about anybody else’s orgasms, not really — not any more, at least, paranoid Hollywood movies and doddering baby boomer sensibilities notwithstanding.

But the pair-bonding instinct is what is misdirected in gay relationships. We are instinctively driven to pair-bond with our sexual partners because human babies are hugely difficult to raise — more so than any other species on the planet. Strictly speaking, pair-bonding in homosexual relationships isn’t necessary, since the only result of a homosexual relationship — defined as a SEXUAL relationship — is nothing more than silly little orgasms nobody else cares about (and a few dirty towels in the hamper). In the long view, homosexual relationships are meaningless to our society, and to the species.

That’s the brutal truth. The evolutionary biological truth, for those who believe DNA is central to one’s gayness.

But the instinct to pair-bond, misdirected as it may be, can still be beneficial to the individuals involved, and to society in that it leads to stability. It’s why I, too, support civil unions.

I also believe, however, that no relationship can be defined as marriage without children — hetero or otherwise. If we’re going to redefine marriage, then I believe that any two individuals must first enter into a civil union, and if they have children, only THEN are they married, and only then do they receive tax breaks and other benefits. The next generation is the greatest concern of society, not a couple of knuckleheads making goo-goo eyes at each other.

In short, civil unions are for couples committed to each other; marriages are for couples committed to raising a family.

Otherwise, eliminate marriage altogether. Strictly speaking, single people are in greater need to society’s support, anyway. Couples with children have their children to look out for them, as well as their spouse/partner. Single people have nobody.

And just to deflect any accusations: I’m married. To someone of the opposite sex.

Jun 24, 2009 - 6:41 am 132. Broadsword:

Asserting “The time for marriage equality for homosexuals is now…” I would ask, what does time have to do with it? This is the fallacy of historicism, the idea that something(in this case, morality) advances and changes over time and moves toward some utopia. If this is so, then, taking a different example, (I am making no comparison in specifics), was there a ‘time’ when slavery was right, and then a time came when it was wrong, because a consensus dictated it so? Obviously not. Homosexual marriage will never be Holy Matrimony, despite howsoever many believe it is, and irrespective of how many politicians want to think themselves virtuous and special by declaring and legislating it so. Legislate equality under the law, but Holiness cannot be legislated.

Jun 24, 2009 - 6:43 am 133. Clayton E. Cramer:

1) Some (probably most) people who are gay, are born that way. If you don’t believe it, stop reading, since it would take Jesus to convince you otherwise.

And your evidence for this claim is, what? Remember that even such pro-gay groups as the American Psychological Association admit that there is no evidence that clearly established that homosexuals are born that way. And there are multiple studies that show that homosexuals are disproportionately survivors of childhood sexual abuse.

Jun 24, 2009 - 7:17 am 134. Self-hating Boomer:

Some (probably most) people who are gay, are born that way. If you don’t believe it, stop reading, since it would take Jesus to convince you otherwise.

Good job, creating a double self-referencing tautology pair. That’s kinda…groovy.

And yes, I stopped reading, because I don’t “believe” anything on faith; I require evidence.

Jun 24, 2009 - 7:34 am 135. spindok:

For this libertarian anyway I cant understand what all the fuss is about.

Who decided that the government gets to decide what marriage is anyway? If marriage is a religious or personal matter then let it be the province of individuals or religious bodies to define in their own way. People do that anyway in real life. These folks were married in their own eyes and in the eyes of whatever community mattered to them and nobody else can take that away from them.

All government needs to do is to define a civil union, or whatever you want to call it for reasons of property rights and children.

Having a government definition of marriage is like have a government definition of what constitutes a legitimate bar-mitzvah or whom is a real muslim.

Problem solved.

Spindok

Jun 24, 2009 - 9:33 am 136. Self-hating Boomer:

136, You’re most of the way there. They also need to decide what the objective of various goodies (such as filing jointly) is. Is it to give a break to people with children? If so, then write the law that way. If not, then give it to people based on living arrangement. Then the IRS auditor gets to make you prove that you were living with the person with whom you filed the joint return.

I got a better idea. Get rid of all of the legal privileging of married status. Keep (and maybe enhance) the tax deductions for dependents, but lose the rest of the nonsense.

Jun 24, 2009 - 10:12 am 137. Jimmyjames:

#2 Boris, did that pre-cringe help you? Maybe you should pre-cringe again, those “rabid comments” are surely coming. On the up-side, your hope to be wrong has been granted. Congratulations. Those mean ‘ol conservatives failed to show up. I will guess this to be as mean as it gets.

Jun 24, 2009 - 11:05 am 138. blackwell:

Silly debate. Pursuit of happiness. Equal protection. All opposition is religious. “Marrigae is gor having kids?” Lots of married people do not. “Destroy marriage?” Get real: divorce laws have done that. Get off the religious stance. This is the US not the vatican or mecca

Jun 24, 2009 - 11:20 am 139. Adopted:

I understand why people “feel” attracted to the same sex. My only caution to gay couples as well as infertile straight couples would be this: Children DESERVE to know their biological identity. Don’t think that biology doesn’t matter. It makes my skin cringe when I hear of people “ordering up” children through anonymous sperm or egg donors. Children are not going to function well with “no mommy” and two daddies, or two mommies and “no daddy.” They are not OBJECTS for your pleasure.

Love is great and all. But children deserve a mother and a father.

I see being gay as a handicap, and I feel for those who are unable to feel attracted to the opposite sex, because I think that everyone YEARNS at a deep level to be able to REPRODUCE, and know the joy of parenthood.

As someone who was adopted into a closed adoption (hetero marriage), I just want to advocate for children. Being with a non-biological relative is NOT the same as being with your biological family. There will be psychologcial damage!

Jun 24, 2009 - 11:56 am 140. Jimmyjames:

This is the US not the vatican or mecca

As if there were any chance the opposite were true? Silly statement. Having a firm grasp of the obvious does not strengthen ones arguement.

Jun 24, 2009 - 12:01 pm 141. kenny komodo:

This whole piece is a fraud meant to play on your emotions and somehow make you sympathetic to the poor helpless lesbians who are so desperately in love and are being discriminated against by the evil and oppressive government.Marriage is the term for the union of one man and one woman and when we start to allow that term to be abused to have it mean the union of two men, or two women then why not just let anyone and everyone marry anyone and anything. Want to marry your mom? Sure, why not. How about one man and two women. Or three women two men and a german shepherd. Sure, why not. This doesn’t make me homophobic by the way I don’t give a rats ass what two homosexuals want to do with each other. I just simply believe that a MARRIAGE is between one man and one woman.

Jun 24, 2009 - 12:09 pm 142. Clayton E. Cramer:

All opposition is religious.

I notice that someone calling himself Atheist Conservative has also been expressing his disapproval. And there are more than a few non-religious sorts that I have run into over the years who simply don’t see any point to having the government recognize gay marriage.

Jun 24, 2009 - 2:17 pm 143. Chris:

A very touching story, and thats all it is. Where is the logic? It tugs the heart strings of people but is that grounds to change the stance people have had on marriage for thousands of years? Whenever one minority is given special rights superceding those of others, then people are no longer equal. By giving homosexuals a special right to marriage we are opening a doorway that I fear will be difficult nigh impossible to close. Where would the special rights end?

Jun 24, 2009 - 3:13 pm 144. Paul D.:

Sorry Cynthia but God defined marriage and no matter how much you desire for your same sex relationship to be given that distinction it will not happen simply because it does not fit the definition.

Jun 24, 2009 - 4:03 pm 145. Self-hating Boomer:

And here we have a tale of a not-so-blissful union:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1195164/Martina-Navratilova-sued-millions-wife-seven-years-dumped-warning.html

Draw your own conclusions.

Jun 24, 2009 - 5:54 pm 146. Michelle:

A very loving story and one that illustrates why people who are in committed lifelong relationships should have those relationships established in law. (Longer post at Cynthia’s website)

Jun 24, 2009 - 6:53 pm 147. John the Libertarian:

Self-Hating Boomer said:
“And yes, I stopped reading, because I don’t “believe” anything on faith; I require evidence.”

What a dork. Evidence requires no faith. Think before you open your mouth. You’re embarrassing yourself.

Jun 24, 2009 - 6:58 pm 148. Leatherneck:

We have been heading down the road of doing away with G-d’s laws for 40 years. Murder your unborn children, loss of respect and spoiling children in schools, living on the government sugar tit, sex outside marriage, not making men be Fathers to their children, Homosexual marriage, etc…

Doing away with morality has it’s rewards. Look around the world and see secular humanism for what it really is. The destruction of G-d’s laws.

Now, comes the wrath that we deserve, and have earned. The wrath comes in increased murder rate, hatered, earthquakes, volcanos, starvation, massive illness, and increased storms. All of which to get the earth to repent of it’s sins in Christ’s name.

But, the majority of earths’ population will do not such thing. The people of earth will not accept the gift of Love from that which created it.

It is written, in the Holy Book secular humanists call hate speech, we will pay.

Jun 24, 2009 - 7:37 pm 149. Self-hating Boomer:

John the “libertarian” apparently doesn’t know how to parse English. He is embarrassing libertarians. Probably on purpose.

Jun 24, 2009 - 7:50 pm 150. Blackwell:

142 Clayton Cramer:

the bottom line is that all opposition to gay marriage is either (1) “it nauseates me so you can’t have it”, or (2) “some god i’ve never seen didn’t like it 2000 years ago, and my pastor/preist/rabbi whatever agrees now, and i think the US Constitution must be construed through their views, so end of story.”

i’m not gay and it does nauseate me, but i cannot think of nay principled basis to support opposition to it. Nor can i see any reason that i can marry and lesbian freinds of mine cannot. Marriage is no longer about kids; there is no requirement to have kids if you marry and lots of married couples don’t. The issues are fairness. Equal protection. Pursuit of happiness.

Jill above has it right; 20 years from now, this baseless oppposition to gay marriage will look like the old right not to sell your house to “anyone not of the caucasian race.”

Jun 24, 2009 - 8:12 pm 151. Setphanie Screamer:

Hey hey hey people, come on, one comment, ok? Then move on, get a life, walk your dog, mow the lawn, do a couple of bong hits, something. But jeez just one comment, ok? Really.

Jun 25, 2009 - 12:40 am 152. friedfish2718:

Advocating same-sex “marriage” (SSM) by invoking cute and cuddly stories is not the way to go.

Substitute a person with 2 or more (polyamory), or with a sibling (incest), or with an animal (zoophilia), or with a tree (druidism) and the story still remains cute and cuddly and thus equally advocating polyamory, incest, zoophilia and other paraphilias.

Jun 25, 2009 - 6:46 am 153. M. Fox:

While this story is, indeed, touching…it fails to pass the logic test. Gay marriage should be recognized simply because this woman had a very nice and stable relationship with another woman who had a rather tragic life? This is not logic. Furthermore, if we’re going to base the legitimacy of gay marriage on the stability and sweetness of its defenders we need not look any further than most studies that say violence is far more likely to occur in lesbian relationships than in heterosexual ones! Not to mention the studies done that show the gay community has a dismal record of monogamy. What does a community with no real penchant for staying together really need “marriage” for? This story is not the rule…it’s the exception. But we don’t even need to use that as an argument against gay marriage, for heterosexual relationships also fall apart and I still support heterosexual marriage. What this is about is children. The traditional family is the best support system for raising children. That some choose not to is not the point (please do not say–what about people who don’t have them!) Don’t be obtuse. The government only recognizes marriage because of the system in place to raise children without interference (thus money and irritation) by the state. We KNOW children thrive with both a mother and a father. This is the best scenario. We KNOW children suffer when faced with divorce. We KNOW children suffer without father-figures. We need to all grow up and start thinking of our children before ourselves. While a gay home may be better than a broken home, nothing is better than a traditional home for the raising of children into well-adjusted, law-abiding, adults. No one has any problem affording the tax breaks and benefits of marriage to gay couples. The objection lies in equating gay relationships with that of the traditional family. It is not equal and never will be to the benefit of children. Let’s all stop being so damned selfish and actually think of the children for once. And I also must say I have as much disdain for divorce as I do for gay marriage. You people out there with children need to suck it up and stop being so childish and keep your families together for your children that you made and have no right to wreck because you can’t keep it in your pants or you just can’t stop arguing. Grow up. You made them…give them 18 years of undivided attention and then do your own thing. Stay together. Nothing, except abuse, is a legitimate reason to leave your spouse and your children. And to the gay families out there…STOP using surrogates to have children and adopt ones who are languishing in foster care. The selfishness involved in creating a child artificially because you are incapable of procreating with your partner is staggering. Give an unwanted child a good home instead and that might go a ways with convincing the rest of us that you truly have good intentions and it’s not just all about you, you, you.

Jun 25, 2009 - 8:48 am 154. Cybergeezer:

10. RE:
“Gay marriage is about diluting and destroying traditional institutions”; Right on, right on, right on!

Jun 25, 2009 - 2:33 pm 155. Cybergeezer:

18. Lynn:
“You can sprinkle it with sugar and present it to the world as the best relationship ever, but it is still two women having a relationship not a marriage;”

Jun 25, 2009 - 2:37 pm 156. Cybergeezer:

Moderate this too
25. Sapwolf:
“Gay marriage further erodes the country.

It will weaken us as a nation, not strengthen us.

What’s to stop poligamy?”

Jun 25, 2009 - 2:40 pm 157. Cybergeezer:

Moderate and censor this, too!
34. syn:
“If gay people are born gay, and I believe they are, then there is no argument against gay marriage.”

If this were true how is it possible former Gov McGreevy married TWICE, said vows of love TWICE and had sex with two different females for years?

Also explain the ‘faux Lesbian’ stuff I saw 20-something blonds chicks in the theater would pretend themselves to be? If they are ‘born Gay’ why do they pretend to ‘be Gay’?

My guess is that it’s all the fashion.

Jun 25, 2009 - 2:44 pm 158. Cybergeezer:

And here’s another to censor and moderate!
43. amanda:
“Why do so many gay people feel so insecure about their relationships that they would bring heartache and misery on so many others just so they can get a government-stamped piece of paper in support of their sexual practices.”

Jun 25, 2009 - 2:54 pm 159. Cybergeezer:

Oh, by the way; Make sure to moderate and censor ALL DISSENSION!

Jun 25, 2009 - 3:05 pm 160. Juliet:

Dear 118 it all depends on the state you lived in. A married women could & did buy property in Louisiana through out it’s history. I bought my propert (my name only) when I was (still am) married. A married woman could not borrow money to buy property but she could pay cash. Eventhough I will celeberate my gay child relationship it is still is and never will be a marriage. We as a country did make divorce easy in the long more women & children live in poverty then every before. Gay marriage is a one more way to desroyed tradional marriage

Jun 25, 2009 - 4:53 pm 161. misanthropicus:

“… yogic flyers…” – man, I’m so inferior!

Jun 25, 2009 - 7:56 pm 162. Mike K.:

Since liberal statists love education so much, here choke on this… A nice piece from a Harvard Professor years ago.

http://huron2.aaps.k12.mi.us/smitha/HUM/PDF/rome-decline.pdf

Facts are fun to learn from and to see where we are headed towards as a nation. Thanks to the homosexuals and media drowning out morals that work and keep us blessed as a nation.

Jun 26, 2009 - 9:05 pm 163. Mike K.:

And for those in support of a civil union… Civil unions do not restrict unions just to human beings. Human to animal, human to toaster, human to car/truck.. the list can go on. That’s why civil unions are not the answer, it is a farce.

Jun 26, 2009 - 9:19 pm 164. ehunter:

CINDY POO IS LYING..GOT IT?
How many people honestly describe any of their
relationships as “blissful”? It just doesnt describe the complexity of any REAL human relationship. That choice of wording indicates
that Cindy Poo is smoking some serious ideological hashish and is offering others the same. Gay Marriage is a best a ideological laced and very forced political/social “statement” not a reality
In truth gay relationships are massively unstable. Gay mens notorious promiscuity (1500 encounters) continues on despite those flashy “wedding day” poses for the media. And Gay females never stop the endless bouts of self doubt, jealousy, quasi hysteria that make Lesbian “blissful” relationships seem like a 24/7 ride on The Cyclone at MAgic Mountain.
“Blissful”? Another of the massive lies the whole Gay movement is built on.

Jun 28, 2009 - 7:35 am 165. Melissa:

Just want to clear up one little false tidbit that is repeatedly parroted in these comments…

Constitutionally speaking, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in numerous landmark cases, is very much a fundamental right. That said, gay marriage has consistently not been included in the court’s definition of marriage, though admittedly on fairly shaky logic.

Another false tidbit that is parroted way too frequently in these comments: the debate really isn’t about forcing religious institutions to endorse gay marriages. The debate is about the ability of a same-sex couple to walk into city hall, get a marriage certificate, and be married by a justice of the peace. All the paranoia about the effect on religious institutions is just unnecessary, inflammatory and, well, misplaced. “Marriage” is both a legal status with the state and a religious institution, which many on this board seem to conveniently forget when they need to justify their positions.

Many people get married because they want to have children. Many don’t. Many get married knowing they are infertile, or knowing that they never plan to have children. Society grants these heterosexual couples a marriage because it is a fundamental right, as clearly established in Supreme Court jurisprudence (I’ll spare you the explanation of strict scrutiny – you ought to be able to look that up yourselves), and the ability to marry, legalistically speaking, outweighs whatever interest the state has in ensuring a steady flow of babies into the population (something that, realistically, we have no need to be concerned about, given current population rates – we ain’t even close to extinct, nor endangered, fellas).

I have yet to hear even a minimally convincing argument against gay civil marriage (yes, I said civil marriage, not the misleading civil union). The slippery slope argument is unavailing, unless you think legislators are entirely incapable of drafting legislation with requisite restrictions. Just because you allow two adult males to marry at civil hall does NOT mean that you can’t simultaneously prevent another adult male marrying a llama, or five adult women marrying a minor boy and his pet turtle. That’s a desperate argument, and it has no place in the debate. Slopes are never that slippery, because any possible wiggle room is drafted out of the law before it’s enacted. That’s what makes laws so hard to read, remember? The legalese?

Given the state of marriage and divorce in this country, people should spend more time worrying about their own relationships and the glass houses they’re living in before they throw stones.

Jun 29, 2009 - 5:01 am 166. bobbcat:

107. DavidN. Very thougtful, well-reasoned post. Kudos.

Jul 3, 2009 - 12:08 pm