To me this is an issue of semantics in legal terms. To me, my "marriage" license is a piece of paper that legally binds me to my wife (ie- the "civil union"). My real marriage took place in front of family and friends in a religious ceremony. I certainly feel that it should be up to individual religions to choose whether or not they marry same-sex couples. However, why the state would deny people certain rights because of their choice of sexual partner is beyond me.

Kyle-Right, I think that is my overall point here. There is no reason to deny the same rights to same sex couples, it would seem that a civil union offers those rights. If I am wrong about that, then that DOES change my mind again. It is basically the religious figure caught in the middle and FORCED against their beliefs that I am most concerned about. Other than that, let the couples be together, why not?

Dear Chris: I'm trying not to be angry, really.

The ceremony of marriage was not based at all in religion when it began - it was a civil contract and handoff of property (the woman). The religious ceremony came much later, when "religious" leaders decided they needed to control their flocks more closely - and generate revenue for their churches.

At one time, in this country, bi-racial marriages were illegal - for ridiculous reasons put forth by ignorant, frightened, bigots. Fortunately, we've managed to move past that neanderthal thinking.

Now, the frightened, ignorant bigots are back, cloaking themselves in religious tenets that have no basis in reality - or religion.

As the mother of a beautiful, intelligent, funny, articulate, successful gay woman, I want for her the same things I want for my son. I want her to find love, settle down, get married, raise a family and live a happy, fulfilled life. I want her to be secure in knowing that her marriage is strong, that she is as "married" as all of her straight friends, and that generations will remember her and her spouse as a married couple. That her children and grandchildren will remember her as a "real" part of the family.

I have to ask you, Chris - what are you so afraid of? What do you think will happen if we allow gay and lesbian men and women to marry? The sky will not fall. We'll get over it and move on. Open your mind just a little - it's not a religious issue, really - it's a fear issue.

In reading the comments, I can certainly see why people are upset about the semantics of the issue. It occurs to me now that while I think of marriage as a religious ceremony- the very word "marriage" implies something more. Those joined together at a courthouse are considered married- not civilly unioned. The very word marriage carries with it a whole set of feelings and characteristics. While I still say it is up to religious groups to determine who they marry in their churches, I agree that a marriage license should be offered to same sex couples.

As someone who couldn't care less either way, I think the entire idea of the state having a say in who I decide to share a home and my taxable income with is absurd. The state shouldn't have any say in marriage whatsoever, gay, straight, or otherwise. If I want whatever god I may or may not believe in to recognize me and my wife, that's my business, not the governments. By attaching a set of rules to marriage, they are by default accepting that particular religion's view of it.

In other countries, civil unions are the norm. In Italy, for example, many men have one with their own mothers, since they are taking care of them in their old age and it affords them the rights that are required in certain situations.

Let's face it: we're still a country of racists and homophobes, regardless of how many "gay and black friends" we all claim to have when trying to justify our prejudice.

I'm not convinced that the religious figure would be forced or pressured into performing ceremonies that don't abide by their teachings. There are plenty of religious leaders that have requisites for marrying people. Many priests rabbis and pastors require church membership or a statement of beliefs before agreeing to marry people (which may include all sorts of taboo subjects).

And there are several officiates (some religious) who advertise that they will perform gay marriages. Most of my gay friends would only want to be married by someone who will openly support their decision.

Gays should have the right to choose the preferred union in our culture: marriage. They just won't be able to get married in my church or by my pastor. I try to help people see the truth in my belifs, not force them to obey its rules. I think a lot of religious people (conservatives, moderates, and liberals) feel the same way.

It's separate-but-not-equal all over again.

I don't think I should be denied full equality because a clergyman might feel "pressured" to do something he or she does not want to do.

The crux of your argument seems to suggest we should be unfair to GLBT people in their personal lives because that's better than being unfair to religious officials in their professional lives? Am I missing something?

Question for everyone - I am trying to decipher several of these comments... Do the majority of people think a priest (all Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc... religious figures included) should be forced (or obligated) to perform a marriage for a gay couple if gay marriage is legal?

PS, In sweden, ministers have been jailed for saying homosexuality is immoral. In Canada, as we speak, Mark Styen is on trial for saying Islam is a threat to the West. It is only a matter of time before the constitution is so muddled that so called hate speech will be illegal here - as it already is on many campuses

What is hate speech? Our groovy globalist society says all religions, 'orientations' and peoples are equal and anyone who deviates from that view is a modern heretic.

Gays will use this law to push and cajole groups into accepting their lifestyle. So rather than bring more 'tolerance' as main stream media claims it will, it will require more and more conformity to multiculti orthodoxy.

Of course we all know the trinity of exceptions: white, christian male.

@me- That may be your point, but it certainly was not mine. I actually found your comments to be extremely out in left field

Thanks Ben, I agree, I just was confused if that was the point of some commenter's.

Chris,

There are a couple of important points that you are missing in your argument:

1. You are mixing up civil marriage with religious marriage. Civil marriage is the legal documentation that you need to prove that you are married. Even if you are "married" within a church, if you don't have the legal document, you are not married in this country.

2. A state-sponsored civil union - like the ones they have in CT - does not come with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. The federal government does not recognize civil unions on any level, therefore all of the federal obligations (marriage penalty) and right (avoidance of estate tax) are NOT covered.

3. Civil marriage in no way would obligate officiants to perform gay marriages. It is, and will continue to be, up to each church to determine who can get married within their religious tenets. The legal status is a completely separate issue.

4. I think that you are right that no one expects a religious leader to change their position because of popularity or P.R. But I think that you are wrong that anyone would feel the pressure to do so. I have spoken with several religious leaders who pray and study on these matters often, and they do NOT feel pressured by P.R. concerns - they are interested in the correct way of living, as seen through their religion.

5. Your gay friend who thinks that people who demand marriage are attention seekers is not alone. There is a lot of diversity of thought within the gay community about whether gays should get married.

But, so what if they are attention seekers? That does not negate the valid legal claims that they have on their right to get married.

This is a classical logical fallacy (petitio principii - begging the question - to be specific).

Your friend says: "Because gays who want to get married are attention seekers, they do not deserve to marry".

But the real question should be: "Do gays deserve to marry, whether or not they are attention seekers?".

Finally, one suggestion for your writing style: talking about the "gay lifestyle" is difficult, because so many different gays live so many different ways.

"3. Civil marriage in no way would obligate officiants to perform gay marriages. It is, and will continue to be, up to each church to determine who can get married within their religious tenets. The legal status is a completely separate issue."

Simply not true. It will lead to forced indoctrination...

"Christian foster couple forced to give up son over gay equality laws"
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/christian.foster.couple.forced.to....

Catholic adaption services in MA had to stop because they would seek hetrosexual couples for adaption. The state gave them a choice, accept our orthodoxy or lose your adaption license ...i can easily see the same thing happening with a minister who refuses to perform a gay marriage.

@Jamie- If what you say is true, that the government does not recognize through the tax system and other rights, a civil union, then I agree with you that something needs to change.

A civil union, or if it was also called a marriage, held all the same rights and responsibilities like tax breaks then that would be the best route to take.

I agree with the secondary argument about my friend and his "attention seeker" argument, no where in my arguments did I say I am against same gender couples being together. I also agree that it is not fair to generalize about their lifestyle when they can lead so many different types just as any straight couple can, it would have maybe made a lot longer of a post though.

@me-If I am sheepish for laying my cards on the table, openly saying what I am for and against AND attaching a name a picture to the post, then I think you have a few problems going on of your own.

@me-

Also, the couple had a problem with homosexual acts because of the bible's condemnation of sex outside of marriage. Therefore, it would seem that allowing gay marriage would resolve this concern for them.

@Chris

Unfortunately in the real world civil unions do not carry the same legal weight as marriages. I personally think gov't should give civil unions to all couples (straight and gay), but until they do I want the exact same rights as straight.

However, what I think is even more important than marriage rights is the fact that in many states it is perfectly legal to fire an employee for being GBLT. We need nondiscrimination protections for sexual orientation and gender identity.

@AJ - have you ever heard of the right of free association? It is one of the mainstays of a truly free society, one which is rapidly diminishing along with out freedoms. Should the boy scouts be forced to accept gays? Should a christian publisher be forced to accept LBTG or whatever the term is? If this conversation that we're having were at a workplace would i be fired for creating a 'hostile' environment?

@Chris

For more info, check out the Wikipedia page on the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others....
@AJ
Oh yes, just what we need, another 'equality' law to provide a never ending stream of revenue for trial lawyers, more extortion rackets, and arbitrary enforcement....maybe someone gay could team up with AL sharpton.

@me-

The state is looking out for the best interests of the foster child. That is the role of the foster care system. Foster parents, in every foster care situation, are not the concern of the system. The children are the concern.

The state is not discriminating against these parents. The state is standing up for these children. The foster care system is obligated to provide the best possible home for foster children if they cannot live with their biological parents.

The foster parents have the right to believe and practice what they want, but this necessarily must affect their foster parent status. In this situation, they have to live with the consequences of their belief system.

Also, I think your blanket statement that "the church (Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican et al) has maintained homosexuality is immoral". There are plently of Christian and non-Christian sects that have maintained that homosexuality is moral and consistent with their religious teachings.

It is always dangerous to create a false monolith of "the church". There are many different churches within Christianity. And yours doesn't have a monopoly on morality.

@holly
you said "I agree with Ben in a sense. Because of the nature of most religions, rooted & archaic traditions must be challenged by secular society to bring it along. Otherwise we’d all still be in arranged marriages determined by the number of oxen in her dowery."

these blanket sweeping statements about religion reflect, I think, the multicultural indoctrination that most of you have grown up with.

Holly, has it occurred to you that it is perhaps the opposite? The American Revolution, The Glorious Revolution of 1688 both were based on the idea that our rights are given from God, not Kings (we are endowed by our creator, with certain inalienable rights) the slave trade, despite Steven Speilberg's fantasies, was eliminated by "Fundementalists" Christian abolitionists- Wilberfloos, John Newton (who wrote amazing grace) Stowe, et al.

Again, I see the posters here accusing 'my side' of being inherently bigoted...I can see you having this point of view, since you probably have never seriously been challenged or read a contrarian viewpoint. Its kind of sad.

oxen, sheep??? In romeo and juliet, who is it that marries the couple in a LOVE marriage? Yes it is a play but it reflected norms of the times.

@Holly- The only problem I have with your comment is that you reference me as saying that either all GLBT are the same or that they all do those situations I talked about. I figured it would be acceptable to mention that I put myself in those situations so that I was not close minded and to move past the old society belief that such behavior is wrong. By going to that club with my friends I became a lot more comfortable and open with them about the discussion. I think those of you who believe I talk about that situation and referring to a gay friend believe that I am shielding myself but to the contrary I am showing that the lifestyles that people live have no effect on the outcome of my decision here and that I, unlike extremists, actually open myself to the opportunities to learn instead of just sitting back and critisizing. My point about being forced is the exact opposite of the situation in California, I am saying that if it becomes legal that is one thing, but if LAW becomes that churches MUST marry, I don't think that is right.

Many churches require you to be a certain religion if you want to be married there. And some churches require you to be a member. Some churches are racist. Some churches are sexist. And it is ok, because of freedome of speech. Churches have a lot of freedom on all topics. I'll use employment, my personal "specialty": Church organizations are allowed to limit those they employ to members of a particular relgion, and are allowed to restrict the beahvior of their employees significantly in ways that are forbidden to non-religious employers. Believe it or not, a church organization can require its employees to abstain from use of alcohol, pre-maritial sex, or even to dress a certain way (women wearing skirts come to mind). So this argument doesn't hold that much weight. There are churches that I, as a heterosexual Black female, could not marry my heterosexual Black male boyfriend in. And I cannot do anything about it. The state has never forced any relgious group to, quite frankly, do anything but not abuse illegal chemical substances during their services. So this argument, my dear, has very little weight in the legal sense.

And I also cannot buy the backlash argument, because a church that will not marry a homosexual couple could not be very inviting to begin with. Christian religions, in general, embrace the tenents of the scripture which include a prohibition of same sex relationships. So this would not be a suprise. The Catholic church will not ordain women are priest. Very little backlash. When you join a particular church, you get an idea of its tenents and you decide if you want to accept them. That is how religion works.

Why not let everyone who is of consenting age get married? We let 40 year old men marry 16 year old women. Why not let two consenting people of the same sex commit their lives to one another. In the forum that allows it, as we have always done this with hetero-sexual couples.

And FYI, marriage is a creation of the state. If you read in the Bible, a man and woman were married when they had sex. The idea of a marriage license, and etc. was a creation of a time period when marriages were seen as a source of revenue for the church.

This article is vague, meandering, and unkind, as well as obviously un-researched. A perfect example of the worst kinds of blogs. Stupidist post I've ever seen on this otherwise very good website.

Yvette - Have some class maybe support your argument here. It appears that Chris made an opinion peace, from his own experience and observations. He never tried to come of as more. If you want well researched pieces on topics try your traditional news sites.. then again..

To everyone again - What about the slippery slope arguement... In particular polygamy. You can take out the word "gay" and in its place put polygamy in most situations. I.e. we not should discriminate against the polygamy lifestyle etc... Will that be the next path in 20 years?

I don't think that you can compel Catholic priests to perform a gay marriage anymore than you can compel a Catholic hospital to perform abortions. That being said I don't think forbidding gay marriage can be upheld. There are plenty of religious figures that would like to perform the ceremony just as there were religious figures that wanted to officiate interracial marriages when those were illegal.

@me The word you are looking for is adoption. As for your assertion that marriage is a building block of society, that misconstrues the historical intent of marriage. Marriage, both in history and the eyes of the law, is a legal contract. As such, the law as the power to define it and redefine it. The cultural meaning attached to marriage is independent of this contract. The cultural meaning of marriage in Western society at least has changed over time. Check out <ahref="http://www.amazon.com/Marriage-History-How-Love-Conquered/dp/014303667X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213811921&sr=8-1" Marriage, a History. It's supposed to be a good resource.

Gays want the same rights and privileges associated with marriage that blacks did before the Court legalized interracial marriage. Surely there were religious figures that were opposed to interracial marriages then and now. The state does not force them to perform marriages because marriage is a legal contract that must be recognized by the state and has nothing to do with the religious ceremony that you can choose to participate in.

As for your argument regarding free association, I think that it works both ways. The same way that you view homosexuality as being forced upon you is likely the same way that gays feel that the state is forcing heterosexuality as the only union to be recognized by the state. (I personally dispute that perspective.) As gays are the ones suffering the legal harm (being that they are being deprived of the rights and privileges associated with marriage), their case does have legal merit. Please explain to me legally why gay marriage infringes upon your rights as a citizen.

haha, I love getting info fromfictional TV shows! Good points though. I agree with you but I think the solution to stopping that would be strong and deliberate wording in whatever amendment was made.

But knowing lawmakers they never want anything to be forever or deliberate because they never know how public opinion will change. Then again this keeps them busy and gives us something to talk about when we should be working!

On the mother jones blog this morning, blame it on the gays
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY

Chris,
Sexual "preference/lifestyle" implies choice. The evidence is increasingly showing the "gayness" is in a person's genes; it's not a psychological condition.

This week, reports on a study that shows that brains of gays are similar to those of the opposite heterosexual sex.

Kate,
I agree that religion and marriage are/and should be different issues because of separation of church and state (a condition I'm thankful for as a pro-choice woman)

According, no one who works for the government should be allowed to discriminate against any individual because of race, gender, sexual orientation, or age.

In California, two counties have decided to refuse marriage ceremonies to all couples, gay or straight, which many see as a way of getting around refusing to marry gay couples. It's absurd!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/10/MN2V1172KL.DTL

To all against gay marriage:
How does the marriage of 2 gay men or women damage your marriage or prospects of marriage? 7% of Americans admit to being someone/knowing someone who has married for health insurance benefits. Doesn't that reason bastardize marriage more than two homosexuals in love?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-health29apr29,1,791...

@vanessa, actually here in NY the state IS going to compel catholic hospitals to perform abortions. Which again, only proves my point. Are any of you willing to at least recognize the draconian measures already in place to enforce 'equality' between the ethnic groups? And that 'equality' has resulted in gross discrimination and indoctrination.

@andyw, its a long complicated subject, I sincerely doubt most of you here have are really as 'open minded' as you like to think of yourselves, in fact you're quite close minded to any view that challenges your orthodoxy, which is PC.. i suggest you read up on the Entruscans, Moorish Spain, Late Roman Empire and Weimer Republic. Libertine societies don't remain free or societies for long.

1) Homosexuality was only declassified as a mental disease because of protest, not science
2) People afflicted with mental diseases often protest the diagnosis
3) Significant funding is allocated towards a cure for schizophrenia, despite the fact that many of those afflicted believe they're "ok"
4) Homosexuality itself is a risk factor for many other diseases; in this respect it's like AIDS itself, in that it increases disease susceptibility
5) We have altered sexual behavior deterministically in complex metazoans (namely flies).
6) Flies are a model organism for many neurological diseases and the conclusions are often extensible to mammals
7) Research on even more closely related sheep has occasioned protests by gays. Andrew Sullivan thinks it is "right" to pass laws against fetal treatments for homosexuality, and Navratilova and co. want the research to be ended. Many portray a cure for homosexuality as "genocide".

Point: due to the results of activism rather than science, research into possible cures for homosexuality has been diverted and attacked. One can calculate the numbers, but we're talking at least 3-4 orders of magnitude and likely more in terms of funding for AIDS cures (= distal symptoms) rather than funding for whole genome and biochemical studies of homosexuality *as a curable disease* and proximal cause.

Chris:
Your blog post says:

"So honestly, I am interested, what do you all have to say about what I am pointing out?"

I don't think you really are interested, or you wouldn't be so defensive with everyone who disagrees with you.

@AJ, or what? what exactly would you do? You're only proving my point - rational discussion, facts, scientific studies, are met with threats and intimidation.

Chris, I have the same word choice issues when I post. Words have connotations, not just denotations. We can't ever assume everyone is going to interpret our words the same way because we all bring a different background to the table.

Why would i be "one of the types" that assumes things about you. Can you define these types? You chose to use the words "lifestyle" and "preference" when writing your post. Words that connote choice in a person's sexual orientation, when science is increasing proving that homosexuality is genetically based.

me: if you're so strongly behind your convictions, you'd have trouble telling us exactly who you are, because you'd have nothing to hide.

Also, homosexuality is actually a regular enough occurence across the kingdom that it's not a freak abnomaly, but a regular variation in the gene pool

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/05/duh-of-day.html

@me

Stop talking out your ass. First, you make unsupported assertions about us being more "disease prone", then you pretend that your argument was any more factual than AJ's. I hope someone puts you down like a diseased animal!

In fact, if it were not for the gay thought police anal intercourse would probably be declared and extremely dangerous act- it is one of the easiest ways to transmit disease - the easy access to the blood stream is why suppositories are so effective. But of course the gay police don't want those facts to be known.

@chris
Wow. I didn't expect to get blasted by the author of the post, seeing as I was admiring (past tense) your ability not to snipe back. All I wanted to point out was that I'm not comfortable with "us-them" rhetoric. It only further serves to separate people when we're trying to bring them together. I think it's our duty as bloggers to show what we do know - in this case, that there is more to being gay than "gay culture."

Besides, why would I go after you when there's that "me" posting on here. Where is that guy from anyways? Remind me to never visit.

@me - anal sex is not restricted to homosexuals, all kinds of people do it. What are you going to do, invade everyone's bedroom on a nightly basis? And AIDS is not a "gay" disease. I just watched a great BBC special hosted by Stephen Fry on AIDS around the world and how many people are infected heterosexually, or through birth transmission, and so forth.

Really, if you want to not support homosexuality, if it's against your religion, that is fine. But if we are to create an ECONOMIC institution (my favorite part of marriage has been the tax rebates) it should apply equally to all couples. Religion is free to discriminate, the state is not.

The one thing I can't stand about discussing Gay marriage is that nobody acts more civil than a tween on a sugar rush. That's why I don't even bother.

The comments have shifted to a totally new subject, but what struck me was that many of you believe that religion should conform to the changes of society. I really think that is the biggest problem with our society. We want everything to change with our reality, but how could you stake your eternal faith in something that is constantly changing and evolving? Logically and Philosophically, that doesn't make sense to me.

I think the debate is between Traditionalism vs. Progressivism. Traditionalists look to the past and the founding fathers or a country or a religion for guidance. Progressivist believe that society will shape the values and principles of a religion, country, or organization. I guess I'm a traditionalist. I don't think this country is that bad off so Obama's "change" campaign doesn't appeal to me. I don't think Christianity needs to change either. The principles, morals, and values are not time sensitive.

Also, speaking as a Christian, I just want to add one thing. I think that one of the biggest problems with the media is that they portray Christians as haters just because we disagree with gay marriage. Just because I disagree with the gay/lesbian lifestyle, doesn't mean I hate gays and lesbians. That is an extremely lazy way to think. Just because my wife hates guns doesn't mean she hates everyone who owns a gun. Granted, I understand there are idiots out there that parade around stupid picket signs full of hate speech against gays, but those are not sincere Christians and they represent about 1/10 of 1% of the people out there that disagree with gay marriage. I disagree with gay marriage, because my belief is that marriage is a divine institution ordained and created by God to establish a covenant relationship between a man and a woman. He created Eve to be a partner for Adam. Giving them governmental "rights" is not the reason that sincere Christians oppose gay marriage. What's the big deal about giving them tax advantages? it's not a big deal, and they should get it if they truly want to be with each other. But, sincere Christians oppose it because they feel that it is undermining the role of the traditional family. I understand that many of you say that tradition has changed, but I'm just trying to explain where the Bible-belt type Christians are coming from. It's not that we hate gays or lesbians or think they are so dirty and vile that we can't be in contact with them. We just think that a family should be one man and one woman, because that's how we think humanity started.

@Angela-Not that I should have to explain this but the secret service person I met was a woman, she was protecting Hillary during her husband's term. I did not get a name because I was too interested in the stories she was telling AND her Hillary comment was in passing among all the other stories about the White House not even involving the Clintons but her experiences. As for Obama, I have written other blogs that extensively break down who he is and what he stands for, you can read them if you want. I can actually update those with his newest incidents with Jim Johnson, the slumlord references and his newest stunt with not allowing muslim women and asking for MORE white people behind his podium for the camera views....I'm just saying.

@Holly-I didn't blast you, I just wanted to clear something up...and yes, this "me" character is pretty extreme and out there, that being said, I do have to agree that even if this subject was completely different it is astounding that the very people that spout free speech rhetoric and open mindedness are the same people that during an open discussion will use name calling and negative blasting toward people with different opinions, in that sense "me" is right, but that is about where our agreement ends.

@ me - you asked how a woman is perceived as "property" - Picture a traditional wedding: the bride is "given away" by her father - the priest (officiator) pronounces them "man and wife" - she then forgoes her name and takes her husband's name (indicating that her identity is directly linked to either her father or husband, not herself). Also - again in tradition - the bride's family pays a dowry to the groom's family.

Also @ me - by your reasoning, the only people with AIDS would be gay. So, again by your reasoning, a huge percentage of Africans would therefore be gay. I don't follow your logic since everyone that I have met who is HIV positive is heterosexual. Plus, the segment of the population in North America with the highest rate of STD's and HIV is actually girls aged 18 - 24.

Religion aside, I view marriage as a right. A basic human right in fact. I don't believe that a government, church, or other religion has any right to deny basic human rights to anyone. If someone chooses to get married - gay or straight - in what way will that affect you in a negative way? It won't.

Obviously since I apparently am in a civil union not a "marriage" (I did not have a religious wedding) I agree that there should not be a distinction. Both should be referred to as marriages.

Kimberley,

"Both should be referred to as marriages."

By whom? Your rights don't include dictating other's terminology.

I think what you're speaking of already largely exists - in Canada.

The Canadian approach to this issue is that all couples, regardless of their gender makeup, have the legal recognitions of marriage.

However, and this is important, NO spiritual group, religion or church is forced to perform weddings. This was implemented for exactly the reasons you describe - it allows that religious group to decide what its level of participation (or lack thereof) is.

This is mindnumbingly simple, and yet the US seems reluctant to adopt it.

I can vaguely see what you're getting at here, though much of what you're saying is erroneous, unresearched, and completely belittling. It's a common mistake many people make who know little to nothing about the issue, nor the other side of the argument relating to religion. You should really consider learning more about the differences between civil unions and marriage.

First of all, for someone who likes to point out how down he is with the gay and lesbian crowd, and what great memories he has of partying with a drag queen, you're quick to decide they sure are fun to hang with but don't deserve the same rights as you do. I would think any of your gay friends googling your name or coming to see your blog would be very hurt and confused by your declaration of your "one" problem with gay marriage -- and overall trivializing the issue. You don't seem to have any empathy or insight to the struggle against discrimination.

There are many religious figures including pastors, priests, and rabbis who do not believe gay unions of any kind (including marriage) are 'wrong'. There is evidence that there was actually no Hebrew word for 'gay' or 'homosexual' when the Bible was written, nor exists anywhere in the original texts. Generally speaking, the school of thought is that a word meaning 'soft of the flesh' was interpreted over several centuries to mean gay. So your argument that it would be VERY unethical for any religious figure to marry a gay couple is presumptuous and wrong. There are also many religious leaders out there who are openly gay, so I doubt they have a problem with it either.

Further, I'll go out on a limb and say that any religious figure reading your post would be offended that you think PR is going to effect how they practice their beliefs. You must think they're quite terrible at their jobs and seem to have little understanding of what devout discipline even is.

There are many straight men and women who are attention seekers and want to be the star of the hour. That's why there is a television show out there (and countless websites) devoted to the topic of Bridezillas. It shouldn't matter what the reason is, a legal adult with sound mind should have the option and right to marry. Your post just lobbies for the right to selectively discriminate.

... And I don't really see what your one, little, tiny problem with gay marriage has to do with Hillary and your encounter with a supposed secret service agent compromising his/her job or connections in government by talking about what derogatory names H. Clinton calls her staff.

I don't care that you go to gay bars or even had a lap dance. I'm a gay male in my 20's and will never do some of those things. But I do feel love and strive for equality. I was born to married parents- who are still married- proud loving and supportive. I have 6 "straight" friends I can think of now- who have been married and divorced within the first 5 years of marrying. However, I have am close with two older gay couples who have been together longer than 30 years- without the right or NEED for marriage. Have you taken time before writing this article to meet members of the older gay community- or were they not at the gay "clubs" you attended on a Friday night? I don't need a religious ceremony, let alone to invite those who criticized my homosexuality to my own "ceremony." That's not even in the question of most gay people due to the criticism WE have faced. We are Americans and all deserve equal rights. Your article angered me.

Being bisexual and in a relationship with another girl, I am very strong when it comes down to gay/lesbian rights and marriages. I know how those who are religious feel strongly that it is wrong for the same sex to marry but I also think that they should learn to just live their own lives and not try to control another persons. Gays and lesbians are not different people, in fact it has been proven in multiple ways that we care more about people then those who are against us, so I think is just funny how some are so uptight about the issue. I say just live your own life, ignore things you dislike and don't agree with, and let others be happy. So I say, let lesbians and gays marry, it's their choice. It's not like the ones who are super religious are getting married. Right?

I will try to stay on point. You disagree with gay marriage because it is unfair to expect a clergy person to perform a marriage if it goes against their religious teachings. A simple fact that you are missing: marriage can be civil or religious. Civil marriage ceremonies do not require clergy--think of judges or the mayor of SF.

My heterosexual friends (in San Francisco, granted) had me, a completely lay non-religious person, conduct their marriage ceremony last year. Here, at least, anyone can conduct a marriage ceremony if they fill out the paperwork at city hall and pay about $100. (I hear in Pennsylvania it is at least as easy to get to conduct marriages.) My paperwork specifically said I could not mention God in the ceremony, so it was just a civil and not a religious ceremony. If they had wanted a religious marriage, I could have become a representative of a religion (e.g. the Universal Church of Life regularly makes people priests by email for this purpose) and save myself $100. Then, I could have mentioned God in the ceremony, but it still would have been legal in that I would have had the couple and witnesses sign the same marriage license at the ceremony as I did.

That is just not a good enough reason to ban gay marriage. Usually, people seek out clergy with whom they have a friendship, anyway. So why should you even be worried about it? It's so not any of your business!

That's like trying to ban Catholic marriage because a priest might not want to marry a non-Catholic and a Catholic. Oh, wait, doesn't that happen, anyway? And doesn't it lead to backlash? And hasn't this been going on for centuries?

Choose love. Our society benefits when people are encouraged to create positive, nurturing support systems. The U.S.A. was founded on the idea of religious freedom and tolerance for beliefs outside of religion. I'm not gay, but I sure as hell would rather have my gay neighbor have his gay partner watching over him, with the legal rights, and HR benefits that all married couples have. Because you know what? If we deny gay people those rights, guess who pays? You and me. We leave people out in the cold. And we cut them off from the people who know them best when they're at their most vulnerable - in the hospital. People who don't have support systems end up on public assistance and that leaves you and me footing the bill.

So you see, anytime we choose to punish rather than extend a helping hand, or simply TOLERANCE, we all suffer.

Being a gay male who was denied access to my partner of 8 years as he lay dying in a hospital emergency room should make those of you who feel discriminated by equality measures some reflective thought about your humanity.

I ultimately was able to get into intensive care and hold his hand as they turned off the machine but before that time I had to lie and indicate I was a cousin of his to be let in (the irony is that I'm asian and he was white). I did not expect that he would have sudden heart failure nor did I think that even though he was part of my insurance the hospital still would not take that into account and listed him as a homeless person. I did not get a call that he had slipped into a coma until 4 hours after the fact.

As for the comment on gay people wanting "attention" to get marriage passed, shame on you for not knowing all the facts and enjoy being locked in the closet. I am bitter; my own closet led me to this place 3 years ago and I refuse to let others march and sit back to ride their coattails because I do not want to be considered "like them".

everything you say already makes pissed off with your view on this issue, clearly you are not human. sure I might not be gay but the fact is gays and lesbians should have the same right as heterosexuals, all they want is to be happy and have the same experience of marriage who are we to tell them that they cant have that right and to take it away from California is outrageous. how are they hurting traditional marriage, they arnt hurting any one. why is it that people continue to think it is affecting them in anyway. let them be happy let them be happy to in America knowing they can be free.

One more thing to you Chris Ford, what you wrote about this topic was beyond stupid, talking about how you dont have a problem with gays but have the problem with them getting married. what is this crap on civil union clearly people have given you crap, gays dont have the same rights as someone who has been married. all they want is to recognize as a married couple. if you are for prop 8, im truly am sorry for America for being ignorant closed minded people.

traditional marriage also changed when blacks could finally be able to marry another black person, we still have a lot to learn and mature about. the government it self would profit out of all this, how i see it we all win.

I want gays and lesbians to experience they joy of marriage like i did.

thank you for taking your time to read this.

Let me get this straight, your only objection to gay marriage is that a religious leader might feel undue pressure to marry gay people. Is that right? Is that reason enough to deny basic civil rights to a sizable minority?

As you stated in your post:

"Basically the couples receive the same rights, benefits and responsibilities in both situations."

Wasn't very similar language employed to defend Jim Crow in the US? (I presume you're against separate facilities for whites and blacks.) What can be made to seem like subtle distinctions can be very meaningful. Although straight people may not be in the same position to deny gays the same MATERIAL rights that whites have been able to systematically deny people of color throughout our history, inequality under the law is still inequality, even if it's only in symbolic language and ceremony. That's not to say that bigotry will somehow be abolished by allowing gay marriage, but what we CAN do is eliminate the state's tacit sponsorship of bigoted viewpoints.

As someone had commented earlier, your religion isn't the only religion and your church (if you're indeed a Christian) isn't the only church. I think most religious leaders deal with the pressure of defending their faith EVERY DAY. To think they can't handle a theological debate...well, it's a pretty odd stance to take. Maybe you'll reconsider.

I know. I even quoted your original post where you say the same thing. I was simply pointing out that in order to give equal rights, we need to allow the ceremony and official recognition of marriage. By proposing that we give the same material benefits of marriage without giving them actual marriage is--in my opinion--quite similar to saying that blacks should have access to the same quality drinking fountain as whites, but without the right to actually drink from a "white" fountain.

I don't see how I was twisting your words. I was speaking to the idea of denying gay marriage itself, not the ancillary benefits that both marriage and civil unions provide. I'm glad we can agree on extending those rights, but I think it falls short of giving gays and lesbians the respect they deserve as human beings.

Well Reverend Kenneth, congrats on your CHOICE, I am talking about a "What if it was FORCED" situation, I don't know how many times I have to bring that up with people that refuse to read before the spout about things. Apparently there are more than enough people on this site that feel the title is enough to go on with an emotional response before reading through the post and comments for follow ups.

I think the real point is that, as an atheist, I can be denied participation in a marriage ceremony (in some demonstrations, even as a bridesmaid or other participant) on religious grounds, at the whim of a minister/pastor/priest/rabbi. Just making it legal doesn't force religious institutions to perform a ceremony against their beliefs. A Conservative (to say nothing of Orthodox) Jew who wants to marry a non-Jew doesn't get to do it in his synagogue, unless the non-Jew converts. The law doesn't force the rabbi to ignore his religious doctrine; but it DOES give the couple a LEGAL safety net outside the scope of any religion's authority. And what is truly objectionable is the idea that being straight somehow automatically grants you keys to a club-house that being gay precludes you from entering. There are plenty of churches that will conduct same-sex ceremonies (hell, for years they have been the ONLY ones willing to conduct them!). The ones that don't want to, shouldn't have to. But the ones that are willing to shouldn't have to put gay couples in the back of the matrimonial bus simply because someone has a bug up their ass about who gets to lay claim to the word "marriage."

Just about everything has been said that will be said at this point to this posting.

Two things though:

#1. Some people will argue about marriage making people happy, just kinda funny

#2. You are right, people have the right to PURSUE happiness and it was written just so with that word. If they had the right to happiness itself, that word wouldn't have been used. That would be one hellova government bailout for people right now. All the same, yes, you can PURSUE your happiness but you are not guaranteed it.

Just so ya know

chris, let me introduce myself. i am a 20yr old female and whom myself is a lesbian.
i do not agree with your reasoning of being against gay marriages. As you put it the "THIRD PARTY" neither you or I can control what people are going to do. If the person marrying us wants to do it thats their desicion, who are you to judge what other people want to do. This is realy starting to get on my nerves. If he/she is in a comfortable state with their religion then what is the big deal?
I understand where you are coming from of not agreeing with going against the bible and so forth but if you where to put yourself outside the box and see how we feel as a whole and maybe things will look and seem different. I appreciate you not having a main problem with gays/lesbians in general but to have a problem with the person marrying us is like a cop out. Like you wanna have a problem with something of the gay nature but you dont want to pin point us, you rather point the finger at the one representing us. Its still having somewhat of a discriminating factor to do with us. And the whole civil union thing, yea its another option, but some of us gay/lesbian want to be married just like every one else in this counrty because we are all suppose to equal. And people such as you or anyone else who has made a big deal of this, are either bored with their lives and are desperatley trying to point out a problem when there isnt a problem to began with.
Soon gays will have rights just the same as straights. I have a question for you how would you take it if obama was legalize gay marriage all around the u.s? Are you going to point the finger at him and say he is wrong for making everyone equal. We are suppose to be a country of freedom and peace and unity and all i have to say about that is where is it? As we speak our country is divided in so many aspects not only as gay,straights, but by race and orgin, language its all fucked up if you ask me.
Chris i respect you as a person for this article but i ask of you to respect me for my views of this.

Ed,

I'll forgo the specious nonsense and just say two words: fairness and rights.

OK, ok. I don't want to start a war of clever word-turning.

The problem is that for all the previous generations of human history, marriage, when stripped of all cultural, social and religious accretions, always required a man and a woman. Why? Because human reproduction involves a man and a woman, and their offspring are deemed important enough to compel a serious, lifelong, exclusive, formal, public commitment, for their well-being and security and the stability of society.

More recently, Western culture began romanticizing marriage, and now we are at the point where "love" trumps all other considerations, and marriage is treated more like formalized romance, a super-sized version of "going steady". The problem with that is because romance is all about feelings, once feelings fade, the marriage is threatened, and with it, the stability and well-being of any offspring, the next generation of society.

So, as badly abused (scorned, mocked, ridiculed, demeaned, degraded, overlooked, undervalued, you name it) as marriage has been, at its core it is still about a man and a woman, for the reasons mentioned above. To strip it of that last distinction and say it no longer matters is to say the institution created for the benefit of the next generation doesn't matter either.

I'm not sure how much simpler I can state it.

I'm not sure how Lillian Hellman's crass quip adds anything to the topic, but I'm seriously considering a different brand of mayo.

>"Straight people will continue to enter into whatever form of matrimony they choose..."

Whatever "form" they choose? That makes no sense.

>"In a way I do share your pessimism with regard to the type of marriage you champion (heterosexual and reproductive)."

It's not a type of marriage, it IS marriage.

>"What does this have to do with allowing gays to marry?"

Given that marriage (all through history, not just now - we didn't just invent it, we are only carrying on what has been done since the dawn of humanity) requires one each of the opposite sex, I think it has everything to do with it.

>You clearly have your own view of what marriage is, but I would like to know why that means we shouldn't allow gays to marry.

Hard to call it "my own view" since it's the historical view of marriage. This "gay marriage" thing is a contemporary construct and inconsistent with historical marriage, and so far I don't buy it.

I will address your other questions, but clarify something for me first. I really don't know what you mean by "deny people equal protection under law".

What are you talking about? What law? Protection? Protection from what? Please explain.

Um, ok.

"I can understand why a religious official would not want to marry a gay couple."

Really? Why?

"So in reality, I think the term 'marriage' has a different meaning now than it did say, 50 years ago."

It does? What is it now?

Jennie,

Thank you for your input and thoroughly reading what I have written. Understanding that this is a third party issue and not about the straight or GLBT couple is something that most people have missed in my writing.

Best of luck in your relationship.

"Now, I realize that these figures can refuse or "turn down" the opportunity BUT this can create a backlash and lead to unfavorable PR for that person and their church and that is basically unfair."

My guess is that you haven't been married before, but pretty much all pastors, priests, whatever have requirements for marrying people. They have to be a member or take classes and be the same religion or whatever. They are NOT AFRAID of the bad PR of rejecting people.

How is it unfair to offer them one more option that they can use to deny people marriage?

thanks chris.. some ppl just need to realize what u were trying to stay instead of turning this into an entire different opinion..

It's an argument that has been used for "Marriage refers the Catholic/Christian/Jewish marriage whereas we can use a 'Civil Union' or whatever for gay people". Here's the problem with that: marriage is already something given to non-Catholic/Christian/Jewish couples. My husband is Indian and we had a Hindu ceremony that legally married us. This happens all the time. Furthermore, there are plenty of religious gay people out there with tolerant (or also gay) pastors who would be happy to marry them. Who are you to say that religion is not valid? So this is not about protecting the religious marriage, it's just a convenient way for prejudices people to segregate the gay/lesbian couples from the "regular" ones.