Meanwhile, Nielsen shows that Behar’s HLN show does no better than the show she replaced “Issues w/ Jane Velez-Mitchell”. It’s gotta hurt to be equal to the show your employer axed… maybe that’s why Joy Behar is doing the Bill Maher “Outrage a Day” schtick? Ratings?

You really should visit fly over country sometime and meet the millions and millions of people who are married who do not fit your description.

It is not surprising to me that someone with your take on society would know a bunch of straight losers who have crippled their marriage. Just because your crowd may be into wife swapping or aiming to be the Manson Family Part II, it does not mean that you have an insight into America.

Still, you should be happy with the status quo. After all, the supreme court has ruled that laws limiting marriage do not violate the constitution. since you hold that the Supreme court gets to decide which parts of the constitution are more important than others you shouldn’t disagree with that.

But the issue is equality. It doesn’t have to be marriage, it could be getting a driver’s license, or using public drinking fountains. If a government doesn’t allow you to do something based purely on a particular group of religions’ beliefs – that is wrong, duh.

And who cares about promoting the institution of marriage? That’s not why people get married.

Given that marriage is based on sexual exclusivity, to call a nonmonogamous union “marriage” is indeed to subvert the meaning of the institution.

Lots of straight married people have sex with people outside their relationship, and again, whose meaning you trying to force everyone to go by here? People don’t get married because they want to continue a tradition, generally it’s more local than that – they just want to promise to commit to each other.

And all this talk about the ‘institution of marriage’ is ridiculous in this day and age. Fifty percent of marriages end in divorce. You can get married at the Circus Circus to a stripper you’ve known for less than half a day. Maybe for some people marriage is a big deal, but the rest of us aren’t obligated to let them set the rules for how it works and who can take part.

as it lifts the burden for care from the state.

It does? There’s no married couples receiving welfare? food stamps? medicaid? There’s no widows or widowers on welfare? No per-child tax credits? No social security survivorship rights?

If thats a purpose of marriage, then I demand a law! No more government aid to married people! After all, we certainly cant be subsidizing marriage if it exists so that we wont have to subsidize people!

And we are currently subsidizing the hell out of it!

As such, it should be celebrated and encouraged – as it lifts the burden for care from the state. And becomes an argument FOR gay marriage. . .

PHILIP CHANDLER

Did Ms. Behar not consider the possibility that those gay couples to whom marriage equality is very important may also be those gay couples who most strongly embrace such core marital concepts as monogamy? In other words, did Ms. Behar not take into consideration the strong likelihood that those gay persons to whom the issue of marriage equality is extremely important may also be those gay persons who attach greater value to monogamy than that entertained by other gay persons? It is entirely possible that those gay men and lesbians who are pushing for marriage equality may also be those gay men and lesbians to whom concepts such as monogamy and fidelity are very important. On the other hand, it is entirely possible that those gay couples who do not attach great significance to marriage equality may also be more likely to accept open relationships.

Ms. Behar has fallen into a pitfall against which all researchers in social attitudes have to be constantly on guard. Did she try to establish whether those gay couples in the sample of 556 gay couples were all activists for gay marriage? Did she conduct any form of research to determine their attitudes of those gay male couples before arriving at her conclusions?

Also, Ms. Behar is commenting about a study that expressly excludes half of the gay population, by focusing only on gay males. Why did this study not include lesbian couples?

The problem here is that the sample in question was not selected to determine whether or not the gay couples in question were interested in this issue. In other words, the study accepted the premise that all gay couples are strongly supportive of gay marriage – and this may well be not true at all.

In short, the fact that there was little outcry from these organizations may reflect the fact that they do not represent the attitudes of those gay persons who most strongly believe in marriage equality.

PHILIP CHANDLER

I have often wondered if little Mormon children who grow up in one of those multi-wives homes aspire to be a collector of wives (for the boys) or one of a man’s many wives (for the girls.) I am not sure that custom can overwhelm human nature.

John Edwards got caught in a wild oats infidelity. Gays are exempt from creating bastard children, so perhaps some gays take extra comfort in sexual license.

I have no compulsion to defend Joy Behar on anything. I fail to understand her practical utility. Her intellectual power could not ring a doorbell and her wit is elitist snark when she is being on her best behavior. Perhaps she can out perform Bette Midler and I have missed it. What little I have bothered to watch of her convinces me that she is nothing more than a prized cookie jar in a world that operates pretty much without cookie jars.

Ashpenaz, it’s not a silly question. The only thing is that, in this country alone, there will be at least 300 million different answers to that question. For all we know, some people may believe that God wants them to have an open relationship, and can justify it using Scripture.

We need a solution that we believe will be beneficial to gay couples, and society as a whole, while allowing for the freedom of those, including gay people, who still don’t want to marry a person of the same sex.

There is nothing so sad and at the same time ridiculous as someone promoting “open” marriage. I guess that David Letterman, John Edwards, Gov. Sanford, et. al. just can’t pull it off like Bill and Hillary.

Heliotrope, except for possibly the Clintons, the other three married couples did not have open relationships. In those cases, the husband cheated, most likely, without seeking permission from their wives. My guess is that, at some point, Bill had a tacit approval from Hillary to have extramarital affairs, but wanted him to be discreet about it. Anyway, that’s only a guess.

The thing is, whether we call a relationship that is nonmonogamous a marriage or not, there are plenty of married people that do not live up to that ideal. These persons are legally married, even if we don’t wish to call such relationships a marriage. And despite the many examples of infidelity, straight marriage still exists. It’s because we still want that to be the ideal for straight relationships. And while it is true that there are plenty of examples of “committed” gay couples who play around, shouldn’t we also still encourage gay couples to the same ideal of a monogamous relationship as marriage? Yes, I know a gay couple doesn’t need marriage to be monogamous. But the same would be true for straight couples.

I agree with you that it is best if we talk about why same sex marriage would be beneficial to gay people, and everyone else, instead of just focusing on the equality angle. But keep in mind that we don’t put the same litmus test on every single straight couple that decides to marry, who may end up marrying for reasons that have nothing to do with what marriage is about (for money, position, nonromantic alliance, getting married only for the sake of getting married). Should we hold all couples to the same scrutiny that is being insisted upon for gay couples?

As for Joy Behar, I don’t know the exact circumstances in which she made her claim, but if I take her words at face value, I obviously disagree with it. Any person, gay or straight is capable of monogamy. It’s a question of whether the person wishes to remain monogamous while in a committed relationship. One of the differences now between gay and straight relationships is that there has been a long standing expectation that married couples remain monogamous. However, up until very recently, there has never been any expectation of gay relationships, because such relationships were either prohibited, shunned, regarded as sinful, etc. So there shouldn’t too much of a surprise that there should be monogamy, or anything else that you would expect from a straight married couple. And while we are finally entering the first generation of gay children growing up with same sex marriage and civil unions in some places in the U.S., it will be a while when we have a generation of children growing up where gay children will be raised and encouraged to have the same kind of expectations of relationships that we currently have for our straight children.

Perhaps Behar comment was tongue in cheek. Perhaps Behar was only repeating something that some of her gay friends have told her. Yes, unfortunately too many gay people believe that. It’s going to take time for this change in attitude to occur. Frankly, I believe same sex marriage is a good first step for such a change in attitude.

I too was a little surprised that no group, esp. GLAAD, felt the need to weigh in on this. I know for a fact that they were aware, and were even asked to say something.

There is nothing so sad and at the same time ridiculous as someone promoting “open” marriage. I guess that David Letterman, John Edwards, Gov. Sanford, et. al. just can’t pull it off like Bill and Hillary. (This is not to imply that anyone else would have Hillary.)

Yes, there are examples of people violating their marital vows for about as long as we have evidence of marital vows, but the fact that they’re violations indicates that they (those doing the violations) have run afoul of the ideals of the institution.

Monogamy is and has been an essential aspect of marriage. That’s a fact, not an opinion. Says who? Just go read any serious study of marriage, consider the words of marital vows. Check the Bible and any other religious institution which has sanctioned matrimony.

All that said, while I’m skeptical that a nonmonogamous couple can achieve any depth of intimacy in their union, it is not for me to set the standards for their relationship. Even if it is a “healthy” relationship, by the long-standing definition of the term, it’s not a marriage.

Please appreciate the distinction.

I believe that several mainline denominations are in the process of serious discernment of what God wants for gays, and the answers have all been that gays are called, like straights, to relationships which are lifelong, sexually exclusive, and publicly accountable.

If gays are not willing to play by the same rules as straights, if gays are not willing to even participate in the process of discerning God’s will for gays, then I don’t see why I should support gay marriage (which I would call a “covenant” since I think marriage is for heterosexuals). I don’t want legal rights for open relationships or multiple partners. I, as a gay man, want my relationship to enhance tradition, not undermine it.