Today there is an assault on the rights of the majority to maintain the sanctity of marriage.  I am a Christian, and God's word in the Bible forbids the union of LGBT.  He destroyed Sodom and Gamorrah for that reason, and the book of Romans reinforces God's point of view.  You cannot view His word any other way, or you would discount the entire Bible.  The movement to force religious groups to recognize marriage as a union of two people is an effort to tear down the religion and Christianity primarily.  That is the reason people came out to vote to protect the sanctity of marriage.

Ensure this includes immigration, tax rights and all of the 1000 federal rights that come with marriage.

One of the most beautiful weddings I ever attended was the wedding of my friends Rick and Chris. Love does not need a contract. But as American citizens we should insist that basic civil rights are granted to all individuals, and that all citizens have the right to enact the romantic script.

I agree that the option to marry should not be dependent on the sex or race (because miscegenation was once illegal) of the couple involved.   For this country to be truly progressive we have to exemplify this thoughout all of our policies.  We simply can not pick and choose when to be liberal and when to be conservative, ie the bailouts.

Lets live and let live, finally.

oh, just great! How do you vote against something on this site? I accidentily clicked the button and it added a number. Anyway, I'm against it, just as biology is.

yes

Poor T.J. Lol It only said "vote"
:rolleyes:

Yes, either civil marriage for all or civil marriage for none

I like the idea of civil marriage granted by the state and a "religious" marriage granted by the church of your choice. 

I don't care if my marriage is in a church or by the state, I just care that we're partnered up in a way legally recognized.  Whatever we choose to do beyond that (concerning our own religion or church) is our own business, whether we're opposite or same sex. 

I'm against it just as God is. I'm for the rights of people with disabilities. It amazes me how people could spend so much money to fight for the right of gays, but yet don't care how people with disabilities are treated, they don't have the right to attend college, get a job or even attend school in there own neighborhoods. I think gays have more rights then most people. What has this world come to.

Many Christians are for marriage equality.  Many Christians believe Love is the standard, spreading more LIFE, and LIFE abundantly is paramount.  Most Christians who quote the Bible know the story of the woman at the well:  Jesus offered the woman EVERYTHING, violating the religious laws of the day -- she wasn't a the right religion, she was a woman, she was living with a man she wasn't married to, all reasons why the religious leadership would reject her and rebuke Jesus for offering such grace.  What would Jesus do at a same-sex wedding?  He'd turn the water into wine. 

If a civil union gives the same legal rights as a christian marriage what does it matter.  To force christians or any other religion to except a gay marraige or require them to perform one is wrong.  This is nothing about rights but more about forcing one group of folks of imposing thier lifestyle on others.  I say again, if civil unions provide the same rights then to force through marraige that the bible clearly states is between a man and women....no one has the right to change that word but god himself.  Nothing is stopping gay couples from having a mariage ceremony.  When I got married I went to a justice of the peace then a month latter we held a traditional marraige ceremony for friends and family.  Same principle folks.  There is alot more important issues to deal with in this country that effects all Americain's.  When the gay community trys to force it's will on the majority that have voted in an open and fair election, then it makes for more divison and rather then support for them. 

The moment the issue is framed as a metter of "civil rights", the trouble begins.  Marriage is a state sanctioned CONTRACT.  The state sets forth the preconditions (blood test, waiting period, etc.) to enter into the contract and also specifies what conditions must be met to absolve said contract.

A reigous figure "officiates at a ceremony" which has no legal validity until that religous figure signs the contract form and validates the signatures of the persons entering into the contract.  Remember, the religous figure speaks the words, "By the power vested in me by the state of XXX, I now pronounce you husband and wife."  There's no diety involved in that event, and the only authority to validate that contract is the state.

It's a matter of contract law, not civil rights, which grants the power to the state to place limitations on who can enter into such a contract, BUT, the state can't discriminate about who can enter into a contract, UNLESS the state has a "compelling reason".  And the courts have found on numerous occasions that religous tradition can't be a compelling reason because that would clearly be a violation of the First Amendment to the Constition.

If this bothers the religous, then let them give their ceremonies a new term.  "blessed union", godly arriage", any other number of terms could be used to describe a distinction.  But marriage is a secular term in this country to identify a type of contract.

For those having a problem about who has the power to define marriage.  There are two people, a man and a woman, who wish to marry.  Both have syphilis.  Now, no number of priests, ministers, rabbis or what have you can marry those two.  Why?  It's not because some diety forbids it.  It is because the state will not grant these two the right to marry.  And the state has a compelling reason not to allow that marriage to take place.  The offspring of such a union will be diseased before they are born.

Now, what would be the counter-argument??

Fine, grant civil union status to gays, bi's, transexuals...etc. Please, leave no one out. Now any two persons can form a civil union and avail themselves of the 'union' tax benefits, insurance benefits, etc, etc. However, now it is not an exception. It is a new tax code. Any two entities can form a civil contract and get the 'marriage' benefits. Great, when everyone has it, is it worth nothing? I digress.

Now that we've solved that problem, why are we limited to two people in the 'civil union' contract? Why not 3 or 4 or 15?

This all started when we allowed Supreme Courts to legislate. If you want the law changed, get your elected officials to change it. If you can get enough support, oh- like a majority or something- you can get the law changed.

If not, then probably the ethical/moral opinion of the current majority will prevail. I'm sorry. Did the word moral bother some of you? We all possess ideals which form our ethical and moral convictions. We vote those convictions. Our representitives vote their constituents convictions. That is the 'represent' part of representative.

This is not a separation of Church and State issue. Separation of Church and State is about the Government not establishing a State Church, Doctrine or laws which require you to adhere to a State religion. The founding fathers, you know the ones who invented separation of Church and State, also included references to God in the Declaration of Independence and almost every other document they created. And, if you haven't noticed its on the currency too. That's because THEIR moral beliefs do not violate separation of Church and State. They, as citizens, have the right to express their beliefs as they see fit. If the 'moral majority' becomes the 'gay majority', I would expect to see a change in the nomenclature. But, that hasn't happened as yet.

So, gay persons, get organized, become the majority and then have your elected officials change the law. But quit trying to sneek in the back door (no pun intended) by claiming this is a violation of Church and State.

>>But quit trying to sneek in the back door (no pun intended) by >>claiming this is a violation of Church and State.

I think that is one of the rudest insults I've read on this site.

Not intended, really. I should have re-written instead of adding the parenthetical.

...like 'sneek in the back door of the house..' which is closer to my generations interpretation of the phrase.

I'm so sick of fairy-tale-worshipping freaks trying to shove their shameful religion down the throats of every other man, woman and child in this country.  If you don't think the union of gays & lesbians is right, then I would heartily suggest that you not be homosexual, and therefore refrain from marrying another homosexual.  End of story.  I don't happen to like brussel sprouts but if you'd like to eat them, good luck to you, buddy.  (Just a warning, though:  last I heard, Jesus didn't approve of brussel sprouts, either.)

Shameful religion???? I don't worship religion, I worship God.

I'm not.

I didn't.

Also, I was not present at any legislative session which defined the term 'marriage'. But, a whole lot of other people were and they thought it was a good idea and represented the values and beliefs of their constiuency.

Please provide the source for your assertion that Jesus didn't approve of brussel sprouts and I'll consider the elimination of them from my diet.

And, please enlighten me on how it is you know my God is a fairy tail?

>>...like 'sneek in the back door of the house..' which is closer to my generations interpretation of the phrase.

I know the phrase.... but just be careful...

Just for starters, if you want some respect, learn to spell.

Religion is a matter of faith, which means that it cannot be proven. Just as my religion, Paganism, cannot be proven. So yes, for many in this country, your religion IS a fairy tale, one which has been and is used to deny people civil rights.

Same-sex marriage has NOTHING to do with syphlis...fine, have the blood tests (though Cananda seems to do nicely without them) and if someone is shown to have an STD, they cannot marry until that issue has been settled. I really resent that my spouse and I are compared to a venereal disease.

As someone else said, the "moral police" don't want us even at the back of the bus...they want us UNDER it.

I've been thinking about the syphilis example for a few days now... so, the blood test they give is to prevent people from marrying because if they have this disease they would endanger the health of any babies that might be born from the union?  What if those people don't want kids?  The marriage is denied because of the "possibility" of children?  It's assumed that all married couples will have babies and their legal union can be denied because of the expectation that they will have children??

What's that all about?  I think we just discovered another "angle" in the "marriage rights for everyone" argument. 

loan Lightoller:

When you vote, do you vote for candidates which share your pagan views? Are you interested in causes, bills and laws which align with your pagan outlook? Do you contribute to candidates and causes which agree with your outlook, values and beliefs? So, you too are the 'moral police'. Just different morals.

The 'moral police' are citizens just like you who express and support people and issues which align with their beliefs. You cannot legislate away peoples values in a Democratic society. The people have a voice.  It doesn't matter if the values are based in paganism, Christianity or horse sense- fairy tale or not.

People want to be governed in line with their personal beliefs and you are no exception. So, since the 'majority' belief isn't aligned with you, I understand your frustration. But, it is what it is.

Personally, I think you will have better luck lobbying to get the 'marriage' tax credits voided and 'co-dependent' status for insurance benefits available by law. The result would be the same, equality for all, without anybody being concerned with whom you engage carnally. Which, I feel, is none of the Governments business anyway.

The concept of tax breaks for 'Married' people is discriminitory to 'Single' people. A weak link which should be a fairly attackable constitutional issue. Take the gay issue out of the equation and pursue equality for all citizens and you avoid the moral police.

Actually, I do not vote for candidates based on religion. If I did, there would be few people to vote for.

My frustration is at people who seem to think their brand of hatred is acceptable simply because they worship a given way. Maybe we should see how some of these people would feel if some of the freedoms they have voted away by someone else. On second thought, let's not. Civil rights are not negotiable.

Syphillis is a communicable disease, idiot, gay is not.  And I never took a blood test when I was married, in the United States, before a judge.  The whole notion of "protecting marriage" is based on elitism.  You need something to tell you that you are better than all those immoral gays, just like you need your Jewish zombie to tell you that you are better than all of us irreligous, diests, Muslims, Jews, Jains, Buddhists, Scientologists, Sikhs, Pagans, Unitarians, et. al.  By the way, did you ever stop to think exactly what part of the zombie you were eating during communion?  Odds are, especially if you are Catholic, that you've nibbled on a manly naughty bit at some point in your life.  Oh my, does that make you....gay?

I still think your 'hate' perception is a bit over generalized.

There are whites who 'hate' blacks, blacks that 'hate' whites and hispanics and jews. The fringe element for gays et al isn't any different.

Focus off the religion, whatever your beliefs and how to attained them is the basis of your value system. If you don't vote your value system, why are you voting.

The anger of the gay community isn't any different from the anger of the bashing community. But, both are not a majority.

I still think, as I've stated before, the solution is disolving preferential treatment for marriages. Problem solved, end of story.

I vote for this and strongly support equal marriage rights and equal rights for all.

Communion is symbolism, not cannibalism.

It is really scary that you don't know that.

The *point* of the "syphilis" post is that marriage is, and has always been, a LEGAL term, not a religious one.  A religious institution blessing or solemnizing a marriage is no different than a Roman Catholic priest blessing a Notre Dame football game.  A Notre Dame football game is still just a game, not a religious event (though I know plenty of people who would argue otherwise).

Apparently those of you responding to that post thought the poster was suggesting that if the state can prevent folks from marrying one another because of a disease, then they can prevent them from marrying one another because of gender.  That is not the way I read it.

I didn't read it that way, I read it as a legalusm...I was in a straight marriage in the early 1970s in Michigan which required a test for syphlis to have the license granted.

I guess I was just looking at it from the point of view that they can prevent people from getting the "legal" union just because they may pass a disease along to hypothetical children.  Not having a state sanctioned legally contracted marriage will not stop them from being a "couple" or prevent unplanned pregnancies.

Also, thanks for calling me an idiot.  You made my day.

I strongly and whole-heartedly support this cause, gay rights, and equality for ALL.

Thank you, Eddie Joe.  I really didn't think my example of the type of situation where the state does have a compelling right to prevent granting a marriage lcense would be so completely mis-understood.  The important point is that there are reams of case law which clearly have determinedthat the State CANNOT use an argument based upon a religous tradition to deny a citizen a right which they would otherwise be entitled to.

Our country was founded as a secular state, no matter how hard some folks scream to deny that unambiguous fact.  And no one can be denied the right to enter into a contract, except if the state can define a compelling reason which is legally defensible.  And religous tradition, or any other faith based construction, has been found not to e a compelling reason.

Now, please construct your objections upon the legal framework of the USA, or acknowledge your arguments are unconstitutional.

Thank you, Eddie Joe.  I really didn't think my example of the type of situation where the state does have a compelling right to prevent granting a marriage lcense would be so completely mis-understood.  The important point is that there are reams of case law which clearly have determinedthat the State CANNOT use an argument based upon a religous tradition to deny a citizen a right which they would otherwise be entitled to.

Our country was founded as a secular state, no matter how hard some folks scream to deny that unambiguous fact.  And no one can be denied the right to enter into a contract, except if the state can define a compelling reason which is legally defensible.  And religous tradition, or any other faith based construction, has been found not to e a compelling reason.

Now, please construct your objections upon the legal framework of the USA, or acknowledge your arguments are unconstitutional.

Please excuse the double post.  Ihave a tremor in my hands and it causes trouble at times.  I'm sorry.

Religious people are warped out of there mind. Unless your living like the Duggar family attempting to live righteously, you're a pick and choose god believer that is full of bull. You'll never know what it means to be denied the simple right of marriage. There's a reason for seperation of church and state. Whether it's right or wrong by your religious beliefs , thats great go ahead and believe what ever you want to believe in, but don't let the government control people's lives and tell them who they can't get married to. It was only 40 years ago—on June 12, 1967—that the U.S. Supreme Court knocked down a Virginia statute barring whites from marrying nonwhites.
Those same religious "God is great" claiming people did not like this idea either. I love christian claiming people that are racist, prejudice, and also homophobic.
If we're going to live by the bible, there are a lot more things that should be illegal, adultery, divorce, -hate-.

Good lord, Johnny. I await the day people live their lives by using their brain rather than the world's best-selling book of fiction.

Mr. Bussani:

The current SCIENTIFIC explanation for the origin of the Universe is the Big Bang theory.

Genesis, of the Bible, explains that God said "Let there be Light".

If it turns out this Light was the Big Bang, will you still be so certain the Book was fiction? Maybe SCIENCE is just slow.

The people of this great nation have spoken loud and clear in three different states this past election. Marriage should be between one man and one woman only. Please do not tie up our court systems with the attempt to overturn the will of the people.

For those who cited religious reasons for opposing gay marriage/unions/etc, I ask you this:Have you ever eaten shellfish?If we are going to legislate based on what is in the Bible, I ask everyone here against gay marriage for religious reasons to also ask your congressmen and congresswomen to legislate anti-shellfish legislation.  These are in the same passages in which homosexuality is called an abomination.  So please, tell me that you've never eaten any sort of shellfish and that you are for a constitutional amendment prohibiting the consumption of shellfish.

For all the people with religious beliefs that force you to believe that gay marriage/unions/etc is wrong, please read the Bible and ask yourself if you observe every rule and regulation put forth (mainly in the Old Testament).  If so, I give you my congratulations and I wholeheartedly support you being morally against gay marriage, but please make sure you are equally against all the other moral codes within the Bible.

For the majority of Christians, Muslims, and Jews I have spoken to, they don't observe hardly any of these moral codes I discussed above.  For these people, I ask you why you feel as though you may disregard some rules put forth in the same book admonishing men and women for being homosexual.

I am not trying to berate you for being Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, but I truly wish to know if anyone who has posted in this thread does have an answer for me.Also, the question of "Where does it end?" comes up often in this debate.  Some ask "Would people try to enter into marital agreements with animals or inanimate objects?"  Some say that animals do not practice homosexual acts, so this is "unnatural."  To the first and second question, it ends when all humans are allowed to enter into equal, legal agreements with other consenting adults.  At no point in time have animals or inanimate objects had a legal standing equal to a human, nor have they ever been a consenting adult.  To the "unnatural" statement, I ask at what point have we as human beings ever taken our moral standards from animals?

For anyone who has an answer or argument for me, please, I welcome all questions/comments/concerns.

Mark Sullivan -

The Big Bang Theory does not explain the origin of the universe, nor does it intend to. Maybe you should read about things before using them in an argument.

At the risk of sounding like a jerk, well some kreestians that have responded don't seem to have a problem with sounding stupid.
There is a difference between LEGAL right and RELIGIOUS rite.
As a citizen I am sick unto death of so called Christian ignorance of the difference and confusing the two. You can have all the sanctity you want in your church or home. NOT in My home. I have had my home and other property vandalised, even to some kkkreestians that tried to coerce me into their church. When I declined , every Saturday for 6 months at 7 am, they decided it was time to burn a cross and my home with it. Thank the Founding Fathers for the second amendment, it took a 12g shotgun to get them to leave me and my partner alone, one of the congregants tried to get me to marry her retarded granddaughter. To Savvve me from seein.
I don't give a crap what your Krist said , Christ on the other hand said love one another, for all of my adult life I have had you people shoving your opinion at me and like most a_____s it stinks.
You seem to ignore or forget the separation of church and state.
YOU are really a pia.
When I was deathly ill my partner was not allowed to see me in hospital, and since we were in a new place and I did not have a local dr ,he knew more about my health issues than anyone on site did.
I have had friends that were together for decades , one dies and the so called real family threw the other out of the home they had built together.
Even when there were wills and both names on the deed.
The kreestians were the worst about it, even some who were sick or disabled they threw them out on the street by using the state against them.
Getting a judge to overturn legal documents stating the wishes of both parties.
One couple who had been together about 25 years, who worked hard and happened  to be well off. When one died and left his mother, sister and father 3 million$, but that was not enough, mum, sis and dad had the other thrown out of the home they had paid for together even taking the damn dishes and the survivors clothes.
Another couple one died the other had cancer and only a few months to go, and his partners family had the will and his name removed from the deed and served eviction on him. He in desperation poured gasoline around and burnt himself up with the house.  Those are only two examples, I know of 15 or so off hand.
YOU are the monsters in this scenario and I am tired of it.
If you are an example of who I meet in heaven..forget it I sure don't want to go there, that is if there is such a place.
Most of us try to make the best of life while we are here, it is people like you self righteous........ make life hard for us.
If you were anything like Christ you would wilt in shame for your hard heartedness and spite.
I appologize for the anger in this, I have reached the end of my patience with these maroons who think that their superstitions outweigh my right to live in peace with my chosen partner. We have a better relationship and it has lasted longer than most "straight" marriages.

Alex Klein:

The unnatural part comes from the fact that same sex partners cannot procreate. They are not Biologically equipt. This would imply, BIOLOGICALLY speaking, the 'marriage' is not one intended by nature.

Please note: There is no religious, spiritual or moral statement contained in this post.

Jacob Quintero:

I just read this: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

What did you read?

So, by the unnatural argument, sex is only meant to procreate.  So are you, by this argument, suggesting that no condoms be used?  Are you suggesting that anal sex be banned?  Are you suggesting that oral sex not be allowed?  What about kissing?  Kissing sure doesn't make kids.  And what about vasectomies?  Should men not have them?  Or should women not have their tubes tied?  I'm just saying, BIOLOGICALLY SPEAKING, these 'acts' are not intended by nature.  So by your BIOLOGICAL facts, these should also be against the law.

I'm just saying.

"The unnatural part comes from the fact that same sex partners cannot procreate. They are not Biologically equipt. This would imply, BIOLOGICALLY speaking, the 'marriage' is not one intended by nature."

If we want to talk extremes, then: I've had many health problems & cannot have children, either.  Is my marriage "not one intended by nature" now?

There is a difference between cannot 'naturally' ever and cannot because....

I never said sex was only for procreation. I said sex between gay couples CANNOT result in procreation.

I don't care if you live with 16 gay people and have orgies all night long. It is your choice.

Equity in the law will on come when we remove the 'marriage' labels altogether for everyone.

I not homophobic or a crazed religious zealot. I am trying to engage in a productive discussion which will be beneficial to those who desire to be treated equitably.

You seem not to want 'equity' as much as you desire 'moral acceptance'. Sorry, I am not everyone. You'll have to deal with peoples opinions as you encounter them. So, your antecdotes have nothing to do with me. Just as I have never owned a slave, I have never treated a gay person with anything other that the respect which I expect to be treated.

Please reference any post where you feel this statement is not accurate.

Mark,

I apologize if any of my posts have come off as attacking you or calling you any names.

As to your question, I do not care about moral acceptance, I care about equal protection and equal rights.  I don't care what a "marriage" is called (see my first post) I want the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive merely for signing a contract.

There is an argument out there (somewhere earlier) that said that if gay marriage was legalized, then everyone would get married to friends and there would no longer be benefits.  To those people, I ask them to check out Canada.  Canada hasn't seen a rush of people getting married for the benefits.  When states in the U.S. legalized it, there wasn't a rush of people in those states.  Maybe it's a stigma attatched to it, maybe it's that people are reasonable, maybe I'm wrong.  However, the same argument could be used in which I, as a homosexual male, marry a female and receive the benefits.  As we have seen, this hasn't happened, nor would there be a huge amount of people rushing out to get married for the benefits that weren't already in a relationship.

I'm just saying.