Leah, thanks for your response. First of all, I don’t believe that marriage between a man and a woman existed since the beginning of time, but it’s obviously existed for thousands of years in one form or another. I do believe its necessary to make the comparison. You don’t have to accept it, but it has to be talked about sometime if we want to get the ball rolling. The goal here is to eventually have the same expectations that parents would have for all their children I would hope, marriage vs. shacking up.

The situation is very different for gays, the idea of marriage is maybe 10 years old.

Exactly. Eventually the idea will be more than 10 years old. Heck, not having slavery is a relatively new idea. No, I am not saying banning same sex marriage is the same as having slavery. They are two completely separate issues. My point here is that because an idea is new does not, in and of itself, invalidate it.

This idea of ‘equality’ and everybody is exactly the same, is a liberal farce.

I can’t speak for all liberals about what equality is supposed to mean. For me it’s about equality of opportunity. I don’t view everybody as exactly the same. I don’t view all marriages the same, they are all different. However, your straight children have equality of opportunity when it comes to marriage, your gay son doesn’t. But I do understand why you would honor a non-state sanctioned commitment from your son, and not from your other children.

Since Americans have overwhelmingly been moving over to accepting civil unions, why not go with that. Why the temper tantrum that it’s all or nothing.

Maybe you weren’t talking to me specifically, but to be clear, there is no temper tantrum from my end. I accept civil unions. In fact, I entered one. And that’s fine for now. When NJ has same sex marriage, we’ll do that as well.

Yes, the word marriage carries a lot of baggage for many people. So maybe instead of fighting over that word, we focused on getting equal rights for gay couples, on the federal level. Than maybe when people see that society hasn’t fallen apart, in 20 or 30 years no one will care if the word marriage is attached to it.

I completely agree with you here.

I have this crazy idea that actions are more important than words. Gay Inc. really doesn’t seem to care what’s good for people, it’s so much sexier to fight over words and of course never ever compromise, even if it hurts more gays than it helps.

Yes, this is a problem. While I don’t agree with the strategy, I understand it somewhat. I think we all have some principles that we are not willing to compromise on. Sometimes we simply will not accept anything below a certain level. But in terms of same sex marriage, we do have to step back and see what we really want and/or should have, and really find the best way to attain that.

Anyway, thanks for your response. I really appreciate it.

Viva La Fred!

The situation is very different for gays, the idea of marriage is maybe 10 years old. So if my gay son wants to make a statement and a commitment to another man, than I will respect that commitment just like marriage. I will encourage them to take every step possible to protect the relationship legally. This idea of ‘equality’ and everybody is exactly the same, is a liberal farce.

Since Americans have overwhelmingly been moving over to accepting civil unions, why not go with that. Why the temper tantrum that it’s all or nothing. Cuz what we are seeing is nothing.

Yes, the word marriage carries a lot of baggage for many people. So maybe instead of fighting over that word, we focused on getting equal rights for gay couples, on the federal level. Than maybe when people see that society hasn’t fallen apart, in 20 or 30 years no one will care if the word marriage is attached to it.

I have this crazy idea that actions are more important than words. Gay Inc. really doesn’t seem to care what’s good for people, it’s so much sexier to fight over words and of course never ever compromise, even if it hurts more gays than it helps.

Leah, how would you feel if one of your straight children decided to get “married” without the piece of paper? If you would be perfectly okay with that, then you are consistent with your position. My guess is most parents would not be happy with their child’s decision. And further, would not recognize their child as married.

In a defiant speech to several hundred lingering supporters, No on 1 campaign manager Jesse Connolly pledged that his side “will not quit until we know where every single one of these votes lives.”

Why? So you can vandalize their houses and businesses? Demand that they be fired from their jobs? Harass gay people who work with them or know them?

I think the growing understanding of what it means to be gay has a lot more to do with the support for gay marriage than anything you just listed. If being gay was still considered by the majority of society to nothing but a choice or perversion, then we probably wouldn’t be at this point. The evolving opinion of what makes us who are, is a critical factor. More and more people understand now that we didn’t chose it and its a rather natural occurrence. I think you could still have had a strong marriage institution and we would still be considering gay marriage now. Straight, young people have such support for gay marriage because they believe we are just like them, and not abominations or freaks of nature or just perverts.

I am not bashing anyone, thank you. Bashing implies I am calling them hate filled bigots and what not, and thats where I am going with it. I just think its a little unfair for their to be a double standard on the issue. I don’t see why anything I brought is considered bashing either, those all valid options. They could focus on changing divorce laws and passing covenant marriage laws, and they don’t. I don’t get how pointing that out is bashing anyone.

And its like I was talking about before, we shouldn’t have to have separate institutions. America is not about separating groups, it suppose to be about uniting people of different backgrounds, religions, races and so on under common ideals. We hard this argument back in the civil rights era and it was a long and hard ordeal but the country got through.

I agree that excluding gay and lesbian couples from State marriage licenses is silly or behind the times. It’s not the right thing to do. I support gay marriage. But I recognize that the People have the right to legislate differently from how I would, and it is up to me (and others) to bring people around and persuade them, if we want a change. If the People decide they want to legislate civil unions (instead of explicit gay marriage explicitly), then fine, I’ll take it as progress. Whatever happens, getting gay marriage through the courts is wrong because it’s cheating – since it’s not really a question of rights. That in turn breeds backlash – as we have seen in State after State.

You cannot deny two consenting adults the right to marry simply because they have the same body type.

You can’t deny their right to make promises to each other, sure. Promises are actions that reside in the freedom of the individual. But State licenses for things do *not* reside in the freedom of the individual; they put obligations on third parties, they are not rights, they must be legislated. I have no idea why or how that part of the “debate” has been lost on the Gay Left.

What we are doing is denying one group the same rights that another group has.

No, Jennifer. A license from the State for marriage or anything else is not a fundamental right, it’s a privilege. The People get to set the qualifications for it (excluding ever having racial qualifications, per the 14th amendment / Loving decision).

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/cwinecoff/2009/11/05/note-to-andrew-sullivan-dont-blame-breitbart-for-my-thought-crimes/

Straight People have hurt the institution of marriage more than we have, they are the ones that have created no fault divorce, drive thru wedding chapels, annulments and the like

I don’t think you understand that it is exactly those changes that make it possible for ‘gay marriage’ to now be considered.
Do you really think that back in the 40′s before rampant divorce, multiple step parents and all these notions that any couple that lives together for 5 minutes is ‘married’, that any one would even consider the idea of gay marriage??

It is exactly that breakdown of marriage which has allowed this topic to surface. So before you go bashing all those evil straight people you should be thanking them for diminishing marriage to the point that it is so meaningless that marriage = equality.

And btw, if you want to invite your friends to a big lovely wedding bash – go ahead and do so, will they all look at you with scorn because the State didn’t issue the marriage certificate? If that is the case, I think you need new friends.

No, it doesn’t necessarily follow that because hetero marriage stinks (if that’s true), that gay marriage should happen. They are two separate issues. In fact, I don’t believe that same-sex marriage would corrupt the institution.

In fact, same-sex marriage (or a civil union equivalent) would strengthen the institution, making the statement that marriage is so good and important that even gays should be expected to do it.

But that’s indirect. A more direct and important way to strengthen the insitution of marriage would be to abolish no-fault divorce, at least where there are minor children. As someone pointed out recently, marriage presently the only contract that one party can abrogate without penalty.

I have no problem with the notion of a civil union which is the same as a common law heterosexual relationship.

I don’t understand the distinction. The point of a common-law marriage is that, after the couple is together X years, the law treats them as married.

Heliotrope, the point is that if the goal is to strengthen marriage, the focus of certain groups need to change. No, it doesn’t necessarily follow that because hetero marriage stinks (if that’s true), that gay marriage should happen. They are two separate issues. In fact, I don’t believe that same-sex marriage would corrupt the institution.

It’s interesting that the same liberals who deride “tea parties” and pro-life rallies as being stupid wastes of time somehow think that Pride parades and Prop 8 protests are effective.

Speaking for myself, Ashpenaz, I have no problem with people rallying or protesting for their cause or whatever, even when I don’t agree with the cause.

Once you have come to the simple realization that tea parties and Pride parties simply cause the opposition to retrench, then maybe a little light bulb should come on over your head: Let’s stop doing that! You know, I think that’s making things worse! Let’s try something else!

Not always. Pride has increased visibility, and encouraged people to come out. As such, people have become more accepting of gay persons. Yes, there are things about pride parades I don’t like. But overall, it has helped where it matters. As for the tea parties, time will tell how effective they are.

I have no problem with the notion of a civil union which is the same as a common law heterosexual relationship. I draw the line at “marriage”. After all, there are many heterosexual couples who are committed to each other and they never marry by getting that piece of paper.

StraightAussie, I obviously have no problem if a couple doesn’t want to get the piece of paper. I’m not sure how commonlaw marriage is in Australia, but I find that an unacceptable solution here. No, I don’t view it as equivalent. I can accept civil unions (though not optimal), which are equivalent, but different in name only.

I can imagine, even today, a daughter telling her parents that she’s not going to marry her boyfriend. They’ll just live together and have a civil union. Or even better. Just go under the stars and proclaim their commitment with each other, because they don’t need that piece of paper. Yeah, the parents will love that one, I’m sure.

I just don’t agree with you, I don’t think letting gays marry would somehow bring ruin to the institution. People are fighting for what a vast majority take for granted, they aren’t doing it so they can just destroy it. I know I personally would take it very seriously, and I don’t think your accusation is fair.

If you read more than just line of my post, you would see I didn’t lay blame on all straight people. I specifically talked about opponents of gay marriage, which in Maine turn of 53%, they were half of that..so about a quarter of the entire Main voter pool. I was speaking more to their motives behind this, because if their goal is to protect traditional marriage…they have to do a lot more than keep gays out. They would have to get rid of no fault divorce, and limit divorce itself to very specific cases.

I refuse to paint the paint the entire gay community as hedonistic and sex crazed, which is what you seem to be implying. I think a lot of gay couples are committed and would help to further the cause of marriage. I think having stand out married couples as role models for the community would go a long way. I just cannot see how letting gay couples marry, letting more committed couples marry, weakens the institution.