One reoccurring comment I hear from some regarding the same sex marriage issue is, "why can't people who love each other get married?" While that seems like a simple question it creates even more questions on marriage limits. Isn't it very possible, if carried to the full extent, why couldn't brothers marry each other -or sisters? Or if 'people are in love' then why couldn't 2,3,4 people 'marry' each other? I realize this sounds far-fetched but same sex 'marriage' was far-fetched in America not too many years ago.

If same sex marriages become accepted by the courts - what/how will other definitions of marriage take place??

Your thoughts? (please, let's keep this civil!)

I wouldn't worry about same sex marriage evolving into a variety of marriages, since it hasn't turned out that way in the Scandinavian countries where same sex marriage has been allowed or the equivalent for a long time.

I disagree that polygamy is farfetched as compared to same sex marriage. Polygamy has a long history and is still practiced in parts of the world.

Historically, quite a few cultures allowed marital incest although it was frequently confined to royalty.

I am personally unaware of any culture that actively practiced same sex marriage on a wide scale or for a long period of time. Some Native Americans were fairly tolerant, seems like I read, but generally, even the ancient Greeks didn't formalize a same sex relationship as marriage.

Logically, I honestly don't know how a culture that changes the traditional definition of marriage to include same sex marriages would have a leg to stand on to keep these others forms from also being recognized. Traditionally and historically, they have a much better argument. Other than culture or religion, I don't see the problem with polygamy. As for incest, the fear of bad genes, while understandable, isn't nearly as iffy with persons who aren't afflicted with a strong negative family gene - farmers and other animal breeders breed close family members all the time to improve a line. Moreover, with genetic testing and the choice of not having children, that particular fear isn't nearly as unmanageable as it once was. The bigger problem is that with the acceptance of close family members as potential mates, it opens the door to increase the likelihood of childhood abuse in a family. There are some inate things going on, chemically, that sometimes discourage close family members from breeding but that obviously is no guarantee that it won't happen or that the genetic inclination is much of a deterent.

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

These issues are considered completely individually and there is absolutely zero talk about legalizing polygamy or close marriage. If and when those issues are raised, then as a society we will debate them in the same exhaustive manor as gay marriage, but as it is they have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

If you are against gay marriage, that's your right but the continual association with polygamy, pedophilia and other things that aren't even on the table is silly.


I'm not aiming these comments at any one person, just the consistent use of this spurious debate tactic.

If it was illegal for Catholics to marry you could make the same argument. That should tell you something.

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

These issues are considered completely individually and there is absolutely zero talk about legalizing polygamy or close marriage. If and when those issues are raised, then as a society we will debate them in the same exhaustive manor as gay marriage, but as it is they have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

If you are against gay marriage, that's your right but the continual association with polygamy, pedophilia and other things that aren't even on the table is silly.


I'm not aiming these comments at any one person, just the consistent use of this spurious debate tactic.

I agree and I have to laugh when people say's it goes against the sanctity of marriage but when you look at the divorce rate, the marriages that last a week, etc.... You don't hear people saying those are against the sanctity of marriage.

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

These issues are considered completely individually and there is absolutely zero talk about legalizing polygamy or close marriage. If and when those issues are raised, then as a society we will debate them in the same exhaustive manor as gay marriage, but as it is they have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

If you are against gay marriage, that's your right but the continual association with polygamy, pedophilia and other things that aren't even on the table is silly.


I'm not aiming these comments at any one person, just the consistent use of this spurious debate tactic.

There was zero talk of same sex marriage well into my adulthood. Just because it hasn't been pressed, before, doesn't mean it won't in the future but my point was not so much whether it would or would not happen, but that logically and legally, if it did, that the arguments against it would be relatively weak. I mean, if it comes down to marrying who you love and that is all that really matters - forget religion, tradition, history, need for a stable home for children, etc., what's left?

And just to be clear, I never suggested pedophilia would be in the same boat - I agree that is silly. Moreover, it has nothing to do, other than sometimes coincidentally, with homosexuality or polygamy.

As for the destruction of traditional marriage by heterosexuals, I think we all see that. As time goes by, we see fewer marriages that actually resemble traditional marriage other than in conservative christian communities (I don't know about about other religions so I don't mean to short them). I personally think we should do civil unions and call it good.

I disagree that polygamy is farfetched as compared to same sex marriage. Polygamy has a long history and is still practiced in parts of the world.


Maybe so...but right now no one in the USA is advocating for polygamy. After same sex marriage is legalized it's possible that it could come up but I highly doubt it will in my lifetime. Even if it does we'll have debate etc just like we are now...It's really a non issue to me.

But it doesn't come down to just marrying who you love. The fact that gay men and women want to marry the person they love does not mean that ANYONE who loves ANYONE should be able to marry, and nobody has ever said this. Hence another debate fallacy: The strawman.

This is about gay marriage and only gay marriage and it should be debated on it's own merits. There is absolutely no link between polygamy and gay marriage. Some vague similarities may exist, but they are easily distinguishable and completely separate issues.


The reason this bothers me so much is that this slippery slope stuff is nothing but a diversion and the fact it is raised almost every time gay marriage comes up tells me the people against this don't really have much else to say, which is telling in itself.

The only other argument I've seen is "tradition" which is an even weaker stance.


Whatever happens with gay marriage doesn't impact me personally, I just hate to see politicians and others constantly dredge up these tactics that wouldn't pass muster in a bad high school debate competition.

If there is a concern that same-sex marriage being lawful open a gateway to other forms of marriages, it might be worth taking a look at those states were same-sex marriages are already legal.

Are there folks petitioning their law makers? Are there petitions on street corners for new laws?
No? Yes?

Just seems to me those states might be ground zero for a modern real time testing laboratory regarding such notions.

One reoccurring comment I hear from some regarding the same sex marriage issue is, "why can't people who love each other get married?" While that seems like a simple question it creates even more questions on marriage limits. Isn't it very possible, if carried to the full extent, why couldn't brothers marry each other -or sisters? Or if 'people are in love' then why couldn't 2,3,4 people 'marry' each other? I realize this sounds far-fetched but same sex 'marriage' was far-fetched in America not too many years ago.

If same sex marriages become accepted by the courts - what/how will other definitions of marriage take place??

Your thoughts? (please, let's keep this civil!)

Aside from the valid slippery slope comments which are perfectly valid, there's nothing particularly wrong with polygamy so long as folks are limited on their tax advantages. What I wouldn't want to see is plural marriage becoming some kind of tax shelter. Aside from that, plural marriage has a lot going for it in many cases and in some cases has been nothing more than systematic repression of women. That said, traditional marriage has been a system of systematic oppression of women since ancient times and only in recent times has the concept of women being chattel been dropped.

As far as close marriages, we generally find these to be forbidden because such unions tend to increase the rate of birth defects exponentially. That's at least a rational reason, i.e., we don't want flipper babies, public health, etc. That's a rational reason or even a substantial government interest to justify discrimination.

Usually, the next place such slippery slope arguments go is towards bestiality and child marriage. Obviously, neither your sheep nor goats (sorry OSU folks) have the capacity to enter into a contract, which marriage is, nor do children. So obviously, we have some pretty good reasons to discriminate there.

These same tired questions were brought up in the debates against interracial marriage... they had no place/value then, nor do they now.

Now, as for polygamy/polyandry/group marriages, except for tax/contract/abuse reasons, I see no reason it should be illegal. I've known several people who've been in healthy, long term, committed, polyamorous relationships.

If people are so concerned about plural marriage, why not concentrate the lobbying effort there? How about a constitutional amendment against that?

The reason you don't see any real action on this is because nobody really sees it as a realistic concern.


Polygamy and the slippery slope are just scare tactics used by those who are against gay marriage for personal and/or religious reasons.

One reoccurring comment I hear from some regarding the same sex marriage issue is, "why can't people who love each other get married?" While that seems like a simple question it creates even more questions on marriage limits. Isn't it very possible, if carried to the full extent, why couldn't brothers marry each other -or sisters? Or if 'people are in love' then why couldn't 2,3,4 people 'marry' each other? I realize this sounds far-fetched but same sex 'marriage' was far-fetched in America not too many years ago.

If same sex marriages become accepted by the courts - what/how will other definitions of marriage take place??

Your thoughts? (please, let's keep this civil!)

The other problem with this line, is you're misframing the question/argument. The question/comment isn't "why can't people who love each other get married" (although it is the emotional appeal that is being made). The question is "why does one person not deserve to have the same legal rights as another?"

Well, notwithstanding the merits, do you guys have to use the description of a "tired" slippery slope argument? Honestly, I answered in the spirit requested and if you think that is a stupid argument or that I am stupid, I can't stop you - but I'd ask that you be as respectful as I was and as was requested when this thread was begun.

Moreover, to be clear - I never argued that same sex marriage was a gateway institution to other forms of marriage, Kevin - I said the the legal opposition to other forms of union would be weakened if same sex marriage is adopted. If no one wants to go down that road to polygamy or whatever - the law really isn't called into play. And there might not be a big push in that direction. But if there was - in answer to the original question asked in this thread, in my opinion - adoption of same sex marriage makes it much harder, legally, to oppose it. But, in fairness, the same argument could be made for civil unions. Once you get past childbearing as the traditional reason for marriage, the gender and number of members of the institution don't really seem to matter much, seems to me.

And Pete, help me to understand this:

But it doesn't come down to just marrying who you love. The fact that gay men and women want to marry the person they love does not mean that ANYONE who loves ANYONE should be able to marry, and nobody has ever said this. Hence another debate fallacy: The strawman.
I don't follow the logic or maybe I simply haven't considered what you are looking at. If it isn't about the right to marry the one you love, then what is the basis? That is pretty much the only argument I've ever heard since all the legal benefits could be conferred via a civil union. Why would people be able to marry one person but not more than one? Adoption of same sex marriage pretty much tosses out the traditional definition so why limit it to two? Two is traditional, too.

Polygamy and the slippery slope are just scare tactics used by those who are against gay marriage for personal and/or religious reasons.

Oh, come on, Pete. That's a generalized statement and, IMO, pretty unfair. I made the argument, in good faith because as a lawyer, that's how I see it. It had nothing to do with personal or religious reasons. How come we can't talk about this without that being charged? You know, and I know, that the instant people start accusing someone of saying something for religious or personal reasons, the conversation shuts down. I'm trying to be open minded and fair. Let's not start defining others so we don't have to talk about it. Yes?

Penny, nobody is calling you out.


I don't follow the logic or maybe I simply haven't considered what you are looking at. If it isn't about the right to marry the one you love, then what is the basis? That is pretty much the only argument I've ever heard since all the legal benefits could be conferred via a civil union. Why would people be able to marry one person but not more than one? Adoption of same sex marriage pretty much tosses out the traditional definition so why limit it to two? Two is traditional, too.

The issue is having the same RIGHTS as straight couples, plain and simple. It's about rights, and not just the financial ones. There are many, many ramifications here, both present and future.

And certainly we don't need to discuss the "separate but equal" implications.

Oh, come on, Pete. That's a generalized statement and, IMO, pretty unfair. I made the argument, in good faith because as a lawyer, that's how I see it. It had nothing to do with personal or religious reasons. How come we can't talk about this without that being charged? You know, and I know, that the instant people start accusing someone of saying something for religious or personal reasons, the conversation shuts down. I'm trying to be open minded and fair. Let's not start defining others so we don't have to talk about it. Yes?

The reason I made that point is because I don't believe people are sincerely concerned about plural marriage and that is evidenced by absolutely zero attempts to target that issue in any way.

Does anybody really believe that if there was a hypothetical law that expressly allowed gay marriage without any possibility for plural marriage that that would convert anyone on this subject?

I'm glad to see this question raised. I'm interested in legalizing plural marriage...very interested. It would be the ideal way to continue the commune lifestyle I had in the 60s.

In my mind it works like this in a nutshell:

I believe everyone has the right to be happy so long as their pursuit of happiness doesn't readily impact me or society in general in a negative way. For example...if someone needs to murder and steal to be happy...that affects people negatively and shouldn't be allowed. As far as same sex marriage goes...there's nothing wrong with being gay, and these people can't help that they are gay. Gay people have just as much a right to happiness as I do. Gay people want to be able to marry because it makes them happy. Gay people getting married does nothing at all that affects me negatively at all. So I say let 'em do it.

Then there's the whole argument that they don't have the same rights under the law that I have (taxation etc)...which is also a valid argument.

This pretty much sums it up for me. If we are going to debate the traditional notions of marriage then I want those people to account for all of the traditions. The concept that traditions don't change and that somehow the changing of these traditions leads to the complete destruction of our society is the omniscient slippery-slope that never materialized. If you want to have a debate on bestiality, fine let's have one. If we want to debate gay marriage, I'm good with that. But lumping the status quo under some guise of "tradition" is simply being dishonest.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m80awqPk0Y1qkdvl3o1_1280.jpg

Per a poster in another thread on almost the same topic:
just wanted to point out that this chart is inaccurate in several places:
man+woman
true... one woman plus one man. this is the only form of marriage jesus quotes in the new testament.

man+brother's widow
true... however, the scripture cited is an anecdote rather than the actual command that is found in deuteronomy 25. however, by stating that the woman "must submit sexually to her new husband" the graphic implies that the woman is compelled to marry which isn't found in the command. either way, the woman was considered technically to still be married to the first husband and the son born out of this relationship is considered to be the son of the deceased. the primary purpose was to ensure that the widow was provided for and that the deceased's lineage was preserved.

man+wife+concubines
false... not a form of marriage and not a command. the man is only married to the wife and not to the concubines. furthermore, just because something happened in scripture doesn't mean that people were commanded to do so nor does it imply that the behavior was endorsed. there are instances of idol worship in scripture. that doesn't mean that scripture therefore considers it to be a legitimate form of worship.

rapist + victim
false... not a form of marriage. odd that only part of this is quoted. if a man rapes a virgin who is pledged to be married then the rapist is put to death. if the victim is not pledged to be married then he must marry her and pay a dowry. this was done to protect the woman as it would be unlikely that anyone else would marry her. still, it is a marriage between one man and one woman. this isn't another form of marriage just because the circumstances are unique.

man + woman + woman's property
false... not a form of marriage and not a command. the evidence presented here falls into the same category as man+wife+concubines. it seems that the authors are trying to pad this list as it tries to list hagar both as "concubine" and as "woman's property."

male soldier + prisoner of war
false... not a form of marriage. while the circumstances are unique, this is still just a marriage between a man and a woman. again, the graph is a bit disingenuous in stating that the women "must submit sexually to their new owners." this implies that the marriage was performed under duress whereas neither passage reflects this. in fact, the passage from deuternomy suggests that the woman should not treated as a slave and is free to go if the marriage does not work out.

man+woman+woman+woman
false... not a command. while this is a form of marriage it was neither commanded nor endorsed by scripture. see man+wife+concubines.

male slave + female slave
false... not a form of marriage. while the circumstances are unique, this is just a marriage between a man and a woman. it should probably be noted that this isn't slavery in the sense that it existed in the united states. the context here is a hebrew slave, that is someone who typically sold himself into slavery for no more than seven years to pay some form of debt. the previous verse to the one quoted states that a married slave should not be separated from his wife. also, the graph uses the word "assign" implying compulsion when the verse actually states that a slaveowner could "give" a spouse to an unmarried slave.

so... at best, two forms of marriage endorsed by old testament scripture.

I'm glad to see this question raised. I'm interested in legalizing plural marriage...very interested. It would be the ideal way to continue the commune lifestyle I had in the 60s.

Oh, pshaw, Frisky!! I don't believe for one second you've managed to scare up a harem. Are you thinking of joining one? :)

Admitting two entities into a publicly institutionalized and incentivized union on the count that they love each other is nothing short of asinine.

And yes, legalizing homosexual marriage on the argument of two people loving each other DOES set precedent. No it's not a slippery slope for admission into a future debate over pedophilia/polygamy/etc. It's just a question of whether or not, in the discussion of pedophilia et al., there are reasons which supersede "two entities loving one another" for denial of that institution.

The LGBT community and its allies need to shift their rhetorical focus from how the country is oppressing LGBTs and denying them "rights" to why allowing them to marry will benefit the country as a whole.

The LGBT community and its allies need to shift their rhetorical focus from how the country is oppressing LGBTs and denying them "rights" to why allowing them to marry will benefit the country as a whole.

I completely agree.

So I need some help understanding some of your views here. For this discussion let's just focus in on the religious argument.

I'm a fairly libertarian person. I consider myself part of a mainstream denomination that bills themselves as being open and that they just don't care about this issue, or that they do care and think it is a human right. They'll allow whatever marriage. So that is their religious conviction.

Why do you have the right to interfere with my church's right to worship as it pleases? What gives you the right to set law that says who the church clergy can and cannot marry? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." How can passing a law that requires all churches everywhere to never follow one of their religious convictions be anything but repressive? How can any of you be for that? Why should anyone have to "prove" or "show benefit" to anyone else why they should be granted their inalienable First Amendment right to religious worship?

"The LGBT community and its allies need to shift their rhetorical focus from how the country is oppressing LGBTs and denying them "rights" to why allowing them to marry will benefit the country as a whole"

But is this possible? I'd like to see statistics as to the divorce rate among same sex couples in comparison to 'traditional' couples...

So I need some help understanding some of your views here. For this discussion let's just focus in on the religious argument.

I'm a fairly libertarian person. I consider myself part of a mainstream denomination that bills themselves as being open and that they just don't care about this issue, or that they do care and think it is a human right. They'll allow whatever marriage. So that is their religious conviction.

Why do you have the right to interfere with my church's right to worship as it pleases? What gives you the right to set law that says who the church clergy can and cannot marry? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." How can passing a law that requires all churches everywhere to never follow one of their religious convictions be anything but repressive? How can any of you be for that? Why should anyone have to "prove" or "show benefit" to anyone else why they should be granted their inalienable First Amendment right to religious worship?

I don't think ANYONE would argue that a clergy member has to perform a marriage ceremony. Just like I, as a non-catholic, can't get married in a Catholic church. Any church is more than welcome not to perform ceremonies they don't want to. The problem is, right now, churches in Oklahoma (for example) couldn't perform a gay marriage if they wanted to. So the problem isn't that folks might get forced to do something, but rather than they are being restricted, and are not being allowed to perform a ceremony they might disire to. So this would expand religious freedoms.

I don't think ANYONE would argue that a clergy member has to perform a marriage ceremony. Just like I, as a non-catholic, can't get married in a Catholic church. Any church is more than welcome not to perform ceremonies they don't want to.

You're absolutely correct and it obviously still happens.

http://news.yahoo.com/mississippi-churchs-refusal-host-black-wedding-sparks-anger-225115526.html

I have no problem with gay marriage but I think where this issue becomes so volotile is not the legality aspects but the religious aspects. In multiple states, voters have voted that "gay marriage" should not be allowed. If the issue was brought up using a different term such as "legal partnership" or some more palatable term that comes complete with all the same rights as a "marriage," I believe the issue would pass. Consenting same-sex partners should have the same rights to become a legal couple. I think the hitch is the term "marriage" and the fact the bible does not allow for it.

While I support gay unions (of some terminology), I also respect the religious opinions on this issue which should not be trampled and equated with 'hate.' A religious edict is not 'hate' but a prohibition a relgious group feels is wrong on multiple fronts. Those who equate the anti gay-marriage side to hate-mongers are simply hate-mongerers of a different stripe. Its like those on the other side who equate homosexuals to pedophiles.

Force anything on people and there will be resistance. Force something on people that is against a deeply-held religious conviction and they will fight you until their dying breath and be happy to die. See abortion. See invasions of Muslim nations.

I don't think ANYONE would argue that a clergy member has to perform a marriage ceremony. Just like I, as a non-catholic, can't get married in a Catholic church. Any church is more than welcome not to perform ceremonies they don't want to. The problem is, right now, churches in Oklahoma (for example) couldn't perform a gay marriage if they wanted to. So the problem isn't that folks might get forced to do something, but rather than they are being restricted, and are not being allowed to perform a ceremony they might disire to. So this would expand religious freedoms.

Yes, they can - it happens all the time. It won't be recognized by the government but a church can perform a religious ceremony and that is just as good on a spiritual level as any other marriage. Catholics might or might not accept what the Methodists are doing but that is nothing new. Which goes back to my broken record point - let the government restrict itself to civil unions and leave "marriage" to the churches. A gay couple aren't going to be able to be wed by a priest or a southern baptist preacher but chances are the Lutherans will let 'em in if it really that important to them. Let's face it, though - this isn't about wanting the church to accept them. It is about demanding the society change their attitude towards them and marriage - rather than civil union - is just a principle of the thing. If they could be married by the government and the catholics still wouldn't let 'em in, they'd be able to deal with it. It isn't about a spiritual marriage - it is about trying to force acceptance.

Oh - and you probably wouldn't have any problem getting married in the Catholic church so long as you agreed to certain stipulations. But if you won't want to agree to them, why would you want to be married there, anyway?

Which goes back to my broken record point - let the government restrict itself to civil unions and leave "marriage" to the churches.

Yes!

Yes, they can - it happens all the time. It won't be recognized by the government but a church can perform a religious ceremony and that is just as good on a spiritual level as any other marriage. Catholics might or might not accept what the Methodists are doing but that is nothing new. Which goes back to my broken record point - let the government restrict itself to civil unions and leave "marriage" to the churches. A gay couple aren't going to be able to be wed by a priest or a southern baptist preacher but chances are the Lutherans will let 'em in if it really that important to them. Let's face it, though - this isn't about wanting the church to accept them. It is about demanding the society change their attitude towards them and marriage - rather than civil union - is just a principle of the thing. If they could be married by the government and the catholics still wouldn't let 'em in, they'd be able to deal with it. It isn't about a spiritual marriage - it is about trying to force acceptance.

Oh - and you probably wouldn't have any problem getting married in the Catholic church so long as you agreed to certain stipulations. But if you won't want to agree to them, why would you want to be married there, anyway?

Sooo... seperate but equal, is what you're saying?

Just getting this clear.

Let's make a simple question...

3 Choices..

1) Government tells Churches who they HAVE to marry.
2) Government tells Churches who they CAN't marry.
3) Government says nothing, and churches decide who they want to marry.

Now which choice is freedom of religion, and which 2 choices are government controlling religion?

It's a tough quiz I know, so take your time.

I'm wondering if I'll get a straight answer, but I'm sure, rather than answering the question, I'll get a post accusing me of comparing lynching to gay marrage, and saying that I hate poodles.

Let's make a simple question...

3 Choices..

1) Government tells Churches who they HAVE to marry.
2) Government tells Churches who they CAN't marry.
3) Government says nothing, and churches decide who they want to marry.

Now which choice is freedom of religion, and which 2 choices are government controlling religion?

It's a tough quiz I know, so take your time.

I'm wondering if I'll get a straight answer, but I'm sure, rather than answering the question, I'll get a post accusing me of comparing lynching to gay marrage, and saying that I hate poodles.

I personally don't have any earthly idea what you are getting at, Wallbreaker. The government can't tell the churches who they can and can't marry under the constitution. That's bedrock and has nothing to do with the debate. I'm trying to understand your point. The whole gay marriage thing isn't about the churches. It is about the government. All the churches do, as a courtesy, is file the paperwork for civil marriage when they've performed a religious ceremony. People who are certified to perform civil marriages can do the same thing and it is common. Right now, in Oklahoma, churches can marry LGBT if they want to and often do. It isn't "legal" because the government doesn't accept it as a legal civil marriage but that doesn't mean it isn't a religious marriage if that is the spirit it is undertaken. Some states don't recognize common law marriages and require a civil marriage to be registered. In a state like that, you could have a great, big blow out religious wedding with all the trimmings including a priest and a mass with a honeymoon in Paris and if the paperwork isn't turned in - and you never meant it to be - in the eyes of the law, the marriage didn't take place. But it would still be considered a valid religious marriage, which is why people get married in the church in the first place. If that wasn't important to them, they could go to city hall. I am not a canon lawyer so I don't know specific Catholic law on the subject so they may require that the documentation be filed - but that would be a church law, not a civil one.

Sooo... seperate but equal, is what you're saying?

Just getting this clear.

I still am not following you. A civil union would be equal across the board.

Religious weddings aren't regulated and are left to the conscience and traditions of the church members. Since they aren't legally binding it is simply a personal/religious matter. As I just posted, churches often file the paperwork for a civil marriage but that is either a church requirement or a courtesy. The government requires proof of a civil marriage and a license but a religious wedding is not the same thing.

Let's look at it, this way. When you get engaged to marry, in some religions that actually means something spiritual. Personally, the parties may end up arguing about it if it doesn't work out but that is typically a personal matter between themselves, even if they bring court action. But beyond that, an engagement means nothing to the government. They don't get involved in that, at all. They don't engage in licensing it, granting it, regulating it, etc. Religious marriage is the same way - the government isn't involved. Doesn't matter your orientation - if you can find a spiritual leader to marry you, you can get married in terms of a religious marriage. Plenty of churches or pastors marry gay folk. And it isn't unheard of for pastors to refuse to marry heterosexual folk they don't believe are ready or able to commit to religious marriage.

That feels like destroying the institution of marriage just to keep homosexual couples from joining it. If that suggestion had been done as a way to remove controversy over interracial marriage don't you think that interracial couples would have felt insulted by it? It's like throwing out the baby with the bath water, but in this case you're accusing minorities of being the bath water. It feels wrong to me.

That feels like destroying the institution of marriage just to keep homosexual couples from joining it. If that suggestion had been done as a way to remove controversy over interracial marriage don't you think that interracial couples would have felt insulted by it? It's like throwing out the baby with the bath water, but in this case you're accusing minorities of being the bath water. It feels wrong to me.

That doesn't destroy the institution of marriage - has nothing to do with it. This controvery, primarily, is just about what the government is going to call it and, in any event, the "it" they are talking about really isn't marriage - it's just a civil union, anyway.

Religious/cultural marriage is the important thing for most people who care about traditional marriage. Civil marriage merely confers legal rights and a civil union could do exactly the same thing as a civil marriage. By demanding civil marriage, LGBT are just picking a fight over semantics to prove a point and try to force people to respect them. And same sex kissing in chick fil a's is liable to accomplish that - yeah, right.

If marriage really is important, just go get married by a spirtual advisor, push for civil unions to protect your legal rights and don't worry that some people don't think you should be married. Some people will never accept the LGBT community or think they should be married but who cares? Married or unmarried, that won't change. Anyone who thinks they are a second class citizen because they have traditional marriage and a civil union, rather than a traditional marriage and a civil marriage must have no real worries on their mind.

This conflict/controversy is what happens when people become so distant from the notion of marriage that they have no idea what it is. They put way too much stock in what the government calls it and have forgotten that "traditional marriage," at least in this country, is typically a christian sacrament but if not christian, generally has a religious/cultural connotation concerning the relationship of two souls with their community and includes as an essential element a formal and heartfelt commitment to the community to become a family unit. Marriage affects the community, especially when children are involved. Important in the marriage contract is the giving of acceptance and support by the community in exchange for the sincere commitment by the spouses to support the community and avoid being a burden. That's exactly what is meant when we talk about the family being the basic unit in society.

"Marriage" isn't about government benefits and legal recognition - it is a cultural/religious contract between spouses and their communities. Unfortunately, all that has broken down - where a couple used to exchange acceptance by the community for the promise to take care of their own and try not to be a burden - and implicit with that agreement was that the community, including the churches would be a safety net - we now have couples willy nilly shacking up, marrying with no understanding of their responsiblity to their communities and the government stepping in and replacing the traditional safety nets and cultural institutions that once gave us stability. The most unstable families in the country are those where traditional marriage is very low (and I don't mean civil marriage - I mean traditional marriage), where children are raised without fathers, where people turn to the government for assistance rather than their friends and families. It's a free for all and it comes from losing track of what it means to be married. It isn't what the government calls it - it is a relationship.

Too many people think that marriage is all about hearts floating in the air and "marrying the one you love." Well, that is part of it but mainly the courting, wedding and honeymoon parts. The long tradition of marriage didn't come into being to recognize that people were in love. People fall in and out of love all the time. Traditional marriage, I repeat, is a relationship not just between spouses, but between the spouses, traditionally their church, and especially their community. The government, no matter what it calls it, just keeps records and writes checks. At the end of the day, the marriage clerk doesn't give a flip if the couple divorces, if they are lousy parents or if they treat their community like a cash cow that is forced to support them if they'd rather lay around and do meth. People who go to the trouble of getting married (as opposed to a civil union that passes for marriage, these days) do it to tell the world they are in it, together, for the long haul and that they recognize they are part of a community. If that weren't it, they'd just throw a party and go their merry way. That contract between the couple and the community is what makes traditional marriage different than a civil union. And gay or straight, anyone can have a traditional marriage - the government has nothing to do with it.

If someone banned you from marrying simply because of a physical characteristic you wouldn't think that you were just picking a fight by seeking that right. Your view on marriage is very jaded. What the hell does marriage have to do with welfare? lol...

One reoccurring comment I hear from some regarding the same sex marriage issue is, "why can't people who love each other get married?" While that seems like a simple question it creates even more questions on marriage limits. Isn't it very possible, if carried to the full extent, why couldn't brothers marry each other -or sisters? Or if 'people are in love' then why couldn't 2,3,4 people 'marry' each other? I realize this sounds far-fetched but same sex 'marriage' was far-fetched in America not too many years ago.

If same sex marriages become accepted by the courts - what/how will other definitions of marriage take place??

Your thoughts? (please, let's keep this civil!)

Why can't you marry the one you love? Because conservatives want to be the only ones who can **** up the traditional marriage.

I agree and I have to laugh when people say's it goes against the sanctity of marriage but when you look at the divorce rate, the marriages that last a week, etc.... You don't hear people saying those are against the sanctity of marriage.

Notice how the conservatives on here don't mention divorce? It hits too close to home. It's easier for them to go after gays.

Notice how the conservatives on here don't mention divorce? It hits too close to home. It's easier for them to go after gays.

How many times has Rush been married? Doesn't that go against the sanctity of marriage? Hell, look at Newt and he spouts off like he's the torch bearer of morality.

"The LGBT community and its allies need to shift their rhetorical focus from how the country is oppressing LGBTs and denying them "rights" to why allowing them to marry will benefit the country as a whole"

But is this possible? I'd like to see statistics as to the divorce rate among same sex couples in comparison to 'traditional' couples...

It's not about divorce rates. On that count, we ought to disallow all marriage. And it would be hard to quantify anyway because when same-sex couples can't marry, they can't divorce.

They need to really push the angle of getting at-risk kids into homes. There are too many kids that need to be adopted, and, lo and behold, it's the only standard way for same-sex couples to have children.

They need to quantify why allowing them to marry will be economically advantageous for the United States and why allowing them to marry will ease the court system from unnecessary legal filings that same-sex couples must go through to combine their financial lives.

But to be honest, it is pretty much guaranteed to be legalized in the next 10-20 years. By then, the oldest baby boomers will be moving on from this life while the Millennials will all be voting, and evangelicals will be more split than ever on the issue.

As the joke goes why not allow same sex couple the chance to be as miserable as the rest of us.

Teo9969, with respect, the notion that there will be an adequate dying off of the antis and an adequate coming of age of the it'll be just fine folk to bring about wide scale same sex legalized marriage in the next 10-20 years is a tad short sighted. I see and hear many strongly opposed to the notion who are in no danger of dying away that soon, indeed are still bearing children and rearing them up with their belief systems.

I think the day will come as well, but I don't expect that it will arrive anywhere near that soon.

Oh, I don't know. There's been very rapid changes in public opinion, even over the past few years. My father, who's in his 60s, a church elder, and a staunch republican (and listener to Rush and such) has changed his views in the past year. I know my viewpoints are significantly different than they were even 4-5 years ago.

Since all states are required by the constitution to recognize marriages performed in other states, same sex marriage is already essentially legal in the US, and that won't go away. We'll see more and more states issuing same sex licenses each year, and it will be like dominos. There may be states that will hold out for 10-20 years, but those last few states will be laughingstocks of the next 100 years. They'll be seen in the same light as the states that drug their feet on integration and other civil rights.

The most unstable families in the country are those where traditional marriage is very low (and I don't mean civil marriage - I mean traditional marriage), where children are raised without fathers, where people turn to the government for assistance rather than their friends and families.

I doubt many friends and relatives appreciate others constantly coming to them for handouts. It helps explain why we have government welfare. As much as conservatives so dearly hate it, let government worry about the needy.

Why can't you marry the one you love? Because conservatives want to be the only ones who can **** up the traditional marriage.

Famous evangelist Pat Robertson insists that gays only make up 2% of the population. I don't see how such a tiny group of people is big and destructive enough to screw up marriage worse than it already is or endanger society's ability to procreate.

Teo9969, with respect, the notion that there will be an adequate dying off of the antis and an adequate coming of age of the it'll be just fine folk to bring about wide scale same sex legalized marriage in the next 10-20 years is a tad short sighted. I see and hear many strongly opposed to the notion who are in no danger of dying away that soon, indeed are still bearing children and rearing them up with their belief systems.

I think the day will come as well, but I don't expect that it will arrive anywhere near that soon.

I intend no disrespect, but I don't know how to say this other than I'm firmly convinced that you're wrong.

1 - The US is becoming anti-fundamentalist (thank you Westboro etc. and particularly crazy Muslims) and less evangelical on the whole, so the language games are starting to tip in favor of the pro-legalization argument.

2 - More people are going to college, which frequently leads to at least a more open and ambivalent mindset to legalization.

3 - It's simply more acceptable to the younger generation, and with what seems like a higher percentage than ever before of young people <20 coming out, their friends and family grow more sympathetic to the cause of gay marriage.

4 - Not only is the stuck-in-their-ways crowd going to be dying off...their children are going to become less mobile and less interested in politics. I would not be surprised if the <30 crowd overwhelmingly supported gay marriage (65%+)

I honestly think we're dead-locked at this point and the only reason it's going to take more than 10 years for same-sex marriage to be legalized is because the Baby Boomers outnumber both Gen. X and the Millennials.

I doubt many friends and relatives appreciate others constantly coming to them for handouts. It helps explain why we have government welfare. As much as conservatives so dearly hate it, let government worry about the needy.

Friends and Relatives will only give out handouts for so long before they demand accountability. The government will never require that you get your act together, in part because they can't qualify what getting your act together means.

Had someone share this on my facebook:

A very articulate, emotional and thought provoking stance on the chic-fil-a issue from a former student of mine...very proud of him and Peter!
[Fraternity Brother] --

I love you like a brother, and I’m really truly happy that as an owner-operator of a Chick-fil-A franchise, you enjoyed amazingly stellar sales yesterday due to circumstances that had nothing to do with what I’m sure is quality food and service that your business provides your community. But as a gay man who is in a loving, supportive, fulfilling relationship with my partner of 13 years who I met at the fraternity that you personally convinced me to join, I am obviously and very painfully conflicted. Unfortunately, your success today was due to the outpouring of support in your local community for the opposition to same-sex marriage. My inability to marry my loved one is a denial of a basic civil right that you and all opposite-gender couples enjoy.

According to the Chick-fil-A website, the Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in its restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect – regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender. Despite this noble viewpoint, Chick-fil-A’s CEO Truett Cathy has been very vocal about his commitment to supporting groups that oppose marriage equality.

Chick-fil-A’s very noble public equality statement obviously does not take account of how destructive it is to American society for gays and lesbians to be regarded as second-class citizens by denying them the basic right to marry. This “basic” right is not as basic as it seems though, because the definition of marriage in federal law includes provisions for well over 1,400 rights and privileges that are difficult, if not impossible, and prohibitively costly to engineer and or contract for outside of a basic marriage license.

While you may feel that your value system and religious beliefs are in line with the “blocks long” swarms of customers that have demonstrated their support for Chick-fil-A’s opposition to same-sex marriage, and while you may feel that you and your beautiful family are far removed from the struggle for marriage equality because you have traditional Christian beliefs and a “traditional” family structure yourself, I don’t think you realize how involved in the struggle for same-sex marriage you and [Fraternity Brother's Wife] actually are.

When I rushed our fraternity on a cold September evening back in 1996, I met you and a handful of other mutual friends of ours that night at the chapter house, and I was hooked. There was nothing particularly amazing, special, unique, or outstanding about the fraternity house or any of the guys that I met.

But I never would have stuck around the fraternity after that first night if I hadn’t met you and [Fraternity Brother #2] and [Fraternity Brother #3]. I never would have had the two years of bonding with you that I got to enjoy serving together on the executive committee and doing our best to promote and grow our chapter together. I never would have gone on to continue being actively involved after you eventually graduated and moved on if I had not had such a worthwhile time bonding with you and the 100+ brothers that came along after you during my four years of active membership. And I never would have met my Peter at the beginning of my fourth year had I not been there in the first place because of special friends like you.

I DID NOT realize I was gay prior to having met you at the age of 18. It did not occur to me until I was 21 and met my Peter. I just realized that it is what I always had been. It was not easy for me to come to terms with, mostly because I had to spend a few years coming to terms with it and waiting for my friends and family and loved ones to come to terms with it, all over different periods of time. Most of the fraternity brothers that I still keep in touch with have basically found out via Facebook if they cared to look at my profile, and the ones I have chatted with about it have been supportive as far as I can tell.

I certainly did not choose to be gay. It can’t possibly be a choice. Why would anyone choose to be regarded as a second-class citizen and have to plan travel itineraries around gay-friendly versus gay-hostile cities and towns? Why would anyone choose to disappoint family members who most likely expected children from me by my mid-20s and are still waiting and will have to keep waiting until I can muster the funds to either adopt or conceive through egg donors and surrogacy?

I don’t know how you and [Fraternity Brother's Wife] feel about me being gay, but your opinions, which you have every right to, are not any more relevant to me than my opinion on where you should vacation this year should be to you. We all live our separate lives, and most of the time, we can celebrate each others’ lives together either passively or actively or not at all using social media like Facebook and Twitter during the long stretches of time that we go between actually visiting each other in person. It is rare that our personal views on a topic can actually have far-reaching and destructive effects on others.

I sincerely hope that I never ever have a chance to benefit financially from your misfortune. More specifically, I hope I never have an opportunity to celebrate a banner day for my own small business while at the same time supporting or expressing appreciation for or agreement with any cause that restricts, revokes, withholds, or otherwise undermines any of the civil rights that you or your loved ones enjoy or hope to enjoy in the future.

What exactly is gay marriage or same-sex marriage? What is marriage itself? Marriage establishes a legal kinship between a person and his or her spouse. It is a relationship that is recognized across cultures, countries and religions. Civil unions and domestic partnerships address only some of the legal rights inherent with marriage, and these legal designations are only recognized within the borders of the state that granted them. Only marriage itself is recognized across state lines, by the federal government, and even across national borders.

You may not realize it, but there are more than 1,400 legal rights that are automatically conferred upon heterosexual married couples by virtue of a simple marriage license in the United States. By not being allowed to marry, gays and lesbians are denied these rights. Even in the state of Massachusetts, one of a handful of U.S. states with legalized gay marriage, most of the benefits of marriage do not apply, because the Defense of Marriage Act states that the federal government only recognizes marriage as "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife".

Here are some of the legal rights that married couples have and gays and lesbians are denied:

1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

These are just a few of the 1,400 state and federal benefits that gays and lesbians are denied by not being able to marry. Most of these benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for within the legal system, and those that can be privately arranged or contracted for will cost me a hell of lot more than the $60 it costs to get a marriage license here in Clark County, Nevada. Much like an extremely complicated general partnership in business or even a standard franchise agreement with Chick-fil-A, it would undoubtedly cost me thousands of dollars in attorney consultations to have any of these benefits privately arranged or contracted for.

For a more exhaustive list of areas of federal law that apply unequally between married couples and couples who cannot legally marry, please reference a pretty comprehensive 1997 letter from the General Accounting Office to the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee discussing the matter which you can find at http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf.

There are six predominant arguments AGAINST gay marriage that I’m sure you are keeping one or more of fresh in your mind as a retort as you are reading this letter. Here’s what they are and also why they fail:

Gay marriage violates tradition.

Yes, most cultures have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. But tradition is a mixed bag. It includes slavery and grotesque exploitation of workers. It also includes the denial of rights to women and the execution of those who committed thought and property crimes. Traditionally, we have cast aside the disabled and righteously persecuted those with differing religious views. Integrating a society and expanding human rights has always shattered tradition, and we have consistently been better off for it. Many of the same biblical arguments used to oppose same-sex marriage were also used in earlier modern history to deny interracial marriage.

Gay couples can't produce children.

Marriage provides a legal framework that strengthens that union for the benefit of all. But that's not all marriage is, by any means, which is why the law generally allows prisoners to marry even when they're likely never to be released, has no bar against elderly couples getting married, imposes no fertility requirements on prospective marriage partners and considers long-term childless marriages equal to others.

Further, lesbian couples often get pregnant (with outside help, admittedly, but many heterosexual couples get outside help as well) and their families could benefit as well from the legal framework of marriage.

Having a mom and a dad is better for children than having two moms or two dads.

Making that case won't be easy. Studies show little developmental or social difference between children raised by heterosexual parents and children raised by homosexual parents. In fact, a 2010 study in the journal Pediatrics found that children of lesbians scored better in such areas as self esteem, behavior and academic performance than children of straight parents.

Second, even if we concede for the sake of discussion that a stable, loving opposite-gender couple is the gold standard for parenting, it's otherwise offensive to deny those who fall short of the gold standard the right to marry.

I think it is safe to say that having two parents that are drug-free, gainfully employed, debt-free, and certifiably sane is better for children than having even one parent lacking one or more of these virtues, but none of these attributes has ever been used as a legal or moral standard for those who should have the right to marry and/or bear children.

Legalizing same-sex marriage will put us on the slippery slope toward legalizing polygamy.

The practical and philosophical arguments both for and against multiple-partner marriages are largely distinct from the arguments both for and against marriage equality. Historians find that it destabilizes a society when some men take many wives and leave large numbers of other men without the opportunity to mate. Despite this finding by historians, polygamy is evident in multiple places in the Bible, even though you and I probably agree that it should not be legalized.

Same-sex marriage does not fundamentally alter the basic idea of two people agreeing to unite for life and taking on the responsibilities and privileges of that agreement.

Proposals to legalize multiple-partner marriages, should they ever seriously arise in the legislatures and the courts, would be considered separately from laws regarding single-partner marriages, just as the law now considers alcohol separately from crack cocaine, and hasn't slid helplessly down the slope to legalize them both.

Same-sex marriage trivializes and therefore weakens the institution of heterosexual marriage.

This argument almost seems irrelevant now that we have seen state after state allow same-sex couples to marry with no documented repercussions to straight marriage or conventional families.

Philosophically, the fervor with which same-sex couples demand to be granted the dignity and respect of legal marriage underscores the value of marriage and ought to remind straight couples not to take it lightly or for granted.

The ease and frivolity with which opposite-gender couples are allowed to marry and also divorce in this country are the REAL threats to the institution of heterosexual marriage. Allowing for more loving couples to marry and serve as a beacon of hope for those heterosexuals and homosexuals who have yet to find their soulmate or life partner would indeed strengthen the institution of marriage rather than weaken it.

Homosexual behavior is immoral and ought not be encouraged.

What is the meaning of immoral? The definition of moral is “concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.” Immoral is understandably the opposite of this. Who are we to judge what is right and wrong behavior between two consenting adults?

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

Leviticus 20:13 seems to be the crutch that is leaned on by opponents to same-sex marriage as the standard bearer for what is moral and immoral. But the Bible is ignored by most of modern American society when it comes to the following pretty clear biblical laws:

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

It is a crime in the United States to kill your kid because he or she mouths off to you.

"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people." (Leviticus 20:18)

No one is prosecuted or excommunicated in the United States over having sex during menstruation, and this is probably because what happens in the bedroom is largely considered to be private and none of anyone’s business.

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)

This part of the Bible was largely responsible for the “moral” justification for slavery in America until (and, unfortunately, for many years after) the Emancipation Proclamation in the 1860s. It’s amazing how time heals all “moral” arguments. Can’t we just skip all the decades of bridging understanding between same-sex marriage opponents and proponents and just cut to the chase with regard to allowing for equal rights for all? Hopefully it won’t take another civil war for America to work out its differences on this one before it’s all over.

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)

This reference to shaving and trimming sideburns has certainly been disregarded for all of the modern era. It would be quite the job killer for all the barber shops in America (including the ones in Walmarts) to have to close up shop because some nutjob decides to pick up this “moral” issue and run with it in order to get elected to public office in Minnesota or something. Who is the “moral” authority that gets to pick and choose which parts of Leviticus are relevant? And if some are no longer relevant to society and largely disregarded by American society and even Christians in general, why not bite the bullet and allow same-sex marriage to be included on that list?

"At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts." (Deuteronomy 15:1)

This Bible verse can’t even be understood or comprehended in the current context of American society, which is why it is and should be disregarded. But this verse is no more relevant to modern American society than Leviticus 20:13.

Here are a few more disregarded gems from the Bible:

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of the town. They shall say to the elders, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.' Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death..." (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)

I think you get the picture. I understand and appreciate if your religious tradition does not want to bless same-sex marriage or celebrate it or even like it. There is a fine line between personal morality and judgment in the eyes of the law. There are matters of the heart and of personal conduct that are your business and those that are none of your business.

Homosexual conduct itself has been legal since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws in 2003. And if anything, encouraging same-sex couples to commit to one another for life will decrease promiscuous behavior among gay people, should that be of particular concern.

It was not your decision for your franchisor, Chick-fil-A, to come out in opposition to marriage equality. But please don’t celebrate or endorse it without recognizing how deeply and how irreparably it harms and affects the lives of real people that are actually in your life. I’m sure there are many more gay people in your life than just me. You may not even realize it. They might not even realize it (yet). Would you deny these rights to your own children or a beloved family member if they ever came to you one day with a revelation that they are gay?

This is way more than just politics that same-sex marriage opponents are expounding their views on so publicly and so virulently. You and I can agree or disagree on tax policy, economic policy, states rights, military funding, education funding, healthcare mandates, or hundreds of other issues. Those are political discussions and both sides of each argument are partially right. What will prevail in most cases is some legislative compromise that throws each side a bone.

This is NOT the case with regard to same-sex marriage. Denying me and Peter any of the 1,400 federal rights and privileges that any two opposite-gender people can enjoy for the cost of a $60 marriage license is wrong. It is unfair. It makes me effectively a second-class citizen despite contributing to society just as much or as little as you do. If you disagree that I should be denied these rights and that no one should be relegated to second-class citizen status just for loving someone who is of the same gender, then please consider expressing your support for marriage equality, much like Anthony Piccola is doing in Nashua, New Hampshire. http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2012/08/01/chick_fil_a_manager_in_nh_to_help_gay_pride_fest/

I hope you can take my comments to heart and reconsider any overt or covert endorsement or support for the positions that have been made clear by your franchisor and also many of your customers and friends. I wish nothing but the best for you, your beautiful family, and your business. I hope you feel the same about me.

Cordially, Sincerely, and Fraternally,

Dave
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf
www.gao.gov

Midtowner, a very well stated post. Thanks.

I cut and pasted it. All the credit to "Dave."

Here are some of the legal rights that married couples have and gays and lesbians are denied:

1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans



And this is why the SCOTUS will rule in favor of marriage equality (or in the very least, civil unions), and IMHO they will do it within my lifetime.

Great post Mid

The LGBT community and its allies need to shift their rhetorical focus from how the country is oppressing LGBTs and denying them "rights" to why allowing them to marry will benefit the country as a whole.

I disagree. Of all of the influences that lead to a change in opinion on issues like gay rights, I've found that the development of real awareness of how the status quo is harmful to individual Americans to be be among the most moving and powerful. Especially since people who enjoy privileges that come with being straight are often largely blind to the extent of what's afforded to them because they're allowed to get married. There are many important legal privileges that are often incredibly difficult, sometimes even impossible, for gay couples to fully replicate that the rest of us take for granted. I think that's important information to share as it does move a lot of people who are either ambivalent about gay rights in general or just don't understand why it's unjust to drag our heels on this.

I don't know if anyone's seen the 2004 documentary Tying The Knot, but it's a great movie to show to people who don't see what the big deal is about being denied the right to marry your partner. One of the stories they feature is set here in Oklahoma, following Bristow area rancher Sam Beaumont (http://towleroad.typepad.com/towleroad/2006/01/a_real_life_bro.html) as our court system took away the ranch he and his deceased husband had built together for 24 years. Those kind of stories are powerful, and they should have a prominent place in any equality movement.


I still am not following you. A civil union would be equal across the board.

But it's still separate, and there's little in American history that shows that "separate" ever provides for something truly equal. If you're straight and you get married by a justice of the peace your union is considered no different than the union of someone married by a priest, rabbi, minister, etc. No one calls for legal distinctions to be made so that those married by a church are set apart from those married by the state. If marriage already exists as a separate, stand alone entity from religious belief and practice with no need for additional distinction, what rationale is there for setting up a second separate system just to accommodate same sex couples? It's ridiculous. Individual religious traditions should not be able to set policy just because of their own beliefs about marriage. If you want to pass a law that explicitly protects Churches from discrimination lawsuits should they refuse to marry couples, that's fine. Largely redundant, but fine. But trying to set up a separate "civil marriage" category when the current legal framework already allows for such a thing is as stupid and insulting as all-white country clubs and other relics of segregation. I'd like to think we've grown enough as a country realize why that sort of thing is wrong.

But it's still separate, and there's little in American history that shows that "separate" ever provides for something truly equal. If you're straight and you get married by a justice of the peace your union is considered no different than the union of someone married by a priest, rabbi, minister, etc. No one calls for legal distinctions to be made so that those married by a church are set apart from those married by the state. If marriage already exists as a separate, stand alone entity from religious belief and practice with no need for additional distinction, what rationale is there for setting up a second separate system just to accommodate same sex couples? It's ridiculous. Individual religious traditions should not be able to set policy just because of their own beliefs about marriage. If you want to pass a law that explicitly protects Churches from discrimination lawsuits should they refuse to marry couples, that's fine. Largely redundant, but fine. But trying to set up a separate "civil marriage" category when the current legal framework already allows for such a thing is as stupid and insulting as all-white country clubs and other relics of segregation. I'd like to think we've grown enough as a country realize why that sort of thing is wrong.

Great post.

The problem with marriage is that initially and for the longest time, there was almost no distinction between the religious sacrament of marriage and the legal aspects. Marriage WAS a religious rite and it wasn't long ago that virtually everyone got married in a church, even if they weren't religious.

Therefore, it's no surprise that the only groups campaigning against gay marriage are religious in nature. They see marriage as a Christian bond, something pledged before God and since many of them also believe that homosexuality is a sin, the line is clearly drawn in their minds. And BTW, I don't see Jewish, Muslim or atheist groups bankrolling anti gay marriage legislation, so this really does seem to be a Christian issue.


When this country was founded, there should have been a distinction made between the religious sacrament of marriage and the legal contract of marriage. But because there wasn't these two concepts are completely intertwined in a way they shouldn't be, and that's the primary reason for this controversy.

But trying to set up a separate "civil marriage" category when the current legal framework already allows for such a thing is as stupid and insulting as all-white country clubs and other relics of segregation. I'd like to think we've grown enough as a country realize why that sort of thing is wrong.

Well said.

And BTW, I don't see Jewish, Muslim or atheist groups bankrolling anti gay marriage legislation, so this really does seem to be a Christian issue.

At least in terms of Islam, I suspect Christian dominance in the movement against marriage equality has more to do with demographics and friction between American Christians and Muslims than theology. *There is only*one Muslim-majority nation in the world (Albania) where there has been any serious proposals to make gay marriage legal, compared to the many Muslim-majority nations where just being gay can get you thrown into jail or executed.

Jewish culture does seem to be more open to the possibility of LGBT equality. Public polling of the attitudes of American Jews on the subject show much higher support for gay marriage than any other group polled apart from atheists. The state of Israel also is more progressive on the subject of gay marriage than the US. Gay marriages are not performed there (mostly because marriages and divorced are handled by religious authorities rather than by the state), but they do recognize gay common law marriages and gay marriages performed elsewhere.

But it's still separate, and there's little in American history that shows that "separate" ever provides for something truly equal. If you're straight and you get married by a justice of the peace your union is considered no different than the union of someone married by a priest, rabbi, minister, etc. No one calls for legal distinctions to be made so that those married by a church are set apart from those married by the state. If marriage already exists as a separate, stand alone entity from religious belief and practice with no need for additional distinction, what rationale is there for setting up a second separate system just to accommodate same sex couples?

When think about this possibility, I don't think of it as a system that would be a separate system for same-sex couples but a system for non-religious marriage resulting in a "Civil Union" (or some such legal term). What might change is that when one gets married in a church, the result is the exact same "Civil Union" in legal terms. If those who are married in a church want to call it a marriage then call it a marriage. The legal term is what is recorded in the law.


It's ridiculous. Individual religious traditions should not be able to set policy just because of their own beliefs about marriage. If you want to pass a law that explicitly protects Churches from discrimination lawsuits should they refuse to marry couples, that's fine. Largely redundant, but fine. But trying to set up a separate "civil marriage" category when the current legal framework already allows for such a thing is as stupid and insulting as all-white country clubs and other relics of segregation. I'd like to think we've grown enough as a country realize why that sort of thing is wrong.

You forget that this country's laws were based on religious beliefs. As the years have gone by, we have gradually separated our laws from specific credit to religion. The problem is that it's nearly to the point where we MUST pass a specific law protecting religious organizations from discrimination because even under Obamacare, religious organizations are being forced to pay for medical insurance that requires abortion be included - obviously a very clear violation of morals to many religious organizations. I can see very easily that someone would be inclined to sue a Minister, Priest or Rabbie because he/she refuses to "marry" someone in a religious ceremony.

The fact that tens of millions of American's are against gay marriage is based on their interpretation of religious edict. You can't argue away this belief by callnig them names or trying to equate the subject with racial discrimination. To them, it's a totally different train of thought. You might as well tell them Jesus didn't die on the cross.

You forget that this country's laws were based on religious beliefs. As the years have gone by, we have gradually separated our laws from specific credit to religion. The problem is that it's nearly to the point where we MUST pass a specific law protecting religious organizations from discrimination because even under Obamacare, religious organizations are being forced to pay for medical insurance that requires abortion be included - obviously a very clear violation of morals to many religious organizations. I can see very easily that someone would be inclined to sue a Minister, Priest or Rabbie because he/she refuses to "marry" someone in a religious ceremony.

The fact that tens of millions of American's are against gay marriage is based on their interpretation of religious edict. You can't argue away this belief by callnig them names or trying to equate the subject with racial discrimination. To them, it's a totally different train of thought. You might as well tell them Jesus didn't die on the cross.

Our laws had many sources, only one of them being religious norms of the time. To claim that our laws are religiously based is to ignore the rich fabric of inspiration the founders drew from when the drafted the Constitution and the later Federalist papers, like the Constitution of the Iroquois League (which has far more in common with our law than the Bible) or the Magna Carta. And it's not time that has separated God from the law. Many (though obviously not all) of the framers were distancing themselves from faith-based construction themselves, as was common among the educated class during the Age of Enlightenment. There's very little reference to religion in any of our founding documents. It's basically just the first amendment, a prohibition against religious qualifications for office found in Article VI and a very vague reference to a "the creator" in the Declaration of Independence. If our laws in the beginning were as based in faith as some would have us believe, there wouldn't be such obvious, conscious avoidance of using religious language or Biblical reference in our framework. And we wouldn't have waited until the 1950s to add God to our national anthem or to our national motto. "In God We Trust" wasn't even printed on our currency until after the Civil War.



The fact that tens of millions of American's are against gay marriage is based on their interpretation of religious edict. You can't argue away this belief by callnig them names or trying to equate the subject with racial discrimination. To them, it's a totally different train of thought. You might as well tell them Jesus didn't die on the cross.

But that's the thing. I don't have to argue with them on that point. This issue is not about whether or not theological doctrine regarding homosexuality is valid, it's over whether such beliefs should be allowed to shape the lives of everyone who doesn't share them. Catholicism believes the use of birth control is a serious sin, yet it's legal. We still employ the death penalty even though many believe that execution violates God's commandment not to murder. Alcohol is sold in mass quantities despite its prohibition in many faiths. Clearly we don't let dogma write policy for us, so why here? There are growing number of faith communities who embrace the idea of marrying gay couples. If the movement against gay marriage is really about respecting the beliefs of some, why should their beliefs be prioritized over them?

Marriage doesn't belong to any one faith tradition. The institution predates every faith still practiced on the planet, and as such, does not belong to any one set of beliefs. It makes no sense to let it be controlled on a secular/federal level by belief. Especially not when the number of people who reject such teachings are increasing at an astonishingly rapid pace, even from within the religions that so adamantly oppose same sex marriage.