I Now Pronounce You Husband And Husband
Hmmm…I feel like stirring the embers of debate. Let’s talk about the lift on California’s ban on gay marriage. How will this affect the rest of the country? Do you think it will start a wave of ban lifts? For those of you who live in the Bible belt, what is the general consensus there?
How will this affect parenting and the attitude towards children of same sex marriages, in California? Even with the desegregation of the US, it took a long time for attitudes to change. Some have yet to ditch their racist views. Will same sex marriage follow suit? How long do you think it will take for the whole United States to acknowledge same sex unions?
Let’s discuss!
Related Stories
POSTED IN: Catch All
49 opinions for I Now Pronounce You Husband And Husband
Fashion Paramedic
May 15, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Kadi–from now on, I shall call you K-Spoon. Because you like to stir it up.
Where do I begin?
I remember back in high school telling a friend (who I knew to be gay but hadn’t come out yet), “You know how people today look back on racism in the Sixties and frown at how we treated black people? I think in ten years [1999], they’ll be doing that with gays.” I remember that she laughed, shook her head, and replied, “that would be nice.”
But it hasn’t happened yet. In fact, we’re nine years past my “invisible line” of a deadline, and the subject of gay marriage is still being debated. Why?
Not everyone reads or believes in the Bible, so we can’t say “Because the Bible says it’s wrong.”
And, we can’t say “because it’s bad for the kids” when every day, every hour, and every three minutes, a man is beating his wife or girlfriend in front of their child[ren] (or BEATING the children). THAT is bad for kids.
Having two parents who love and encourage them is NOT–even if they happen to be husband and husband.
Children of same-sex marriages are just that: children. They shouldn’t be treated any differently because they’re parents are gay.
What cracks me up is the whole “family movement.” Can anyone tell me what the definition of family is?
Go to your local elementary, junior, or high school. Ask around for a definition. The answers will be as different as salt vs. pepper. You might get, “Well, I’ve got two moms (one is my real mom, but dad divorced her for mom #2, but we call her Pam around my real mom) and a brother and a sister.” Or it could be “I have one daddy because mommy left and never came back.” Or it could be two daddies because mom re-married.
Can anyone tell me why we can accept multiple parents and multiple houses due to mulitple divorces, but not “These are my parents: Karen and Cindy . . . they love me very much.”
Oh! And I’m not saying that gays don’t have their fair share of fights. They can argue and hold grudges like nobody’s business.
It just doesn’t seem fair to me to say that we’re “protecting the institution of marriage” by not letting gays marry, while other families disintegrate into “arranged visits” and “yours/his/her weekends with the kids.”
Gays are not the problem. The ones that can’t accept gays–THEY’RE the ones with real issues. Dig deep. What are they so afraid of?
PS: Chemono & Jim–that one was for you.
Kskott
May 15, 2008 at 2:42 pm
I support same-sex marriage because sex is far more complicated then simply male/female. The decision in California to allow same-sex marriage is a step forward in allowing all people the right to marry, not just those defined as a man and a woman. Because the genetic factors involved in sex determination are vastly complex, it is possible to have XY females, XX males, and all sorts of situations where sex may be difficult to differentiate. The story of Maria Patino is an excellent example of the problems in determining sex. Maria was an exceptional athlete who competed in many international women’s competitions. However, when genetic tests were established to ensure that all female competitors were in fact female, Maria was found to have XY chromosomes, making her in the eyes of the judges to be a man. I recommend looking up her story, as it is an interesting one that shows how many possible ways a person’s sex can be defined.
Gayla McCord
May 15, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Even if I never went to church a day in my life. Even if I never believed in the Bible or it’s teachings, I would still feel that homosexuality is wrong.
I believe in procreation, not coming out of the closet - heading to the sperm bank, getting a contribution or surrogate and having a family.
I believe in Sam Kinnison said it best - “how can any man look at another mans hairy ass and find love?”
On a more serious note, I do have a very dear friend who is gay. I have asked him all those millions of questions we want to ask gays but are afraid to. I have gone to gay men’s bars with him - I love him to death. Doesn’t mean I think what he does is right - but it does mean it’s not for me.
I had a lesbian hit on me once and it PISSED me off. I didn’t find it funny - flattering - amusing or anything but rude and intrusive. I won’t tell them what to do with their life other than keep it the hell away from me. It makes me uncomfortable. Period.
marye
May 15, 2008 at 3:04 pm
I am with Gayla on this. I have had homosexual friends, and the lifestyle would never keep me from friendship. I find it laughable that it is called GAY, however..most of the people i have known that are homosexual are far from GAY or HAPPY……HOWEVER I will never believe that it is right, that it s just a choice, or one moral choice is as good as another. Same sex marriage is not a marriage, can never be a marriage, and shouldn’t be accepted as such. We can’t just twist definitions to suit our society.
Ashley
May 15, 2008 at 3:08 pm
I don’t hate homosexuals - but I don’t think it’s right either. The marriage thing is silly to me. The whole point of getting married (for most) is to be binded together and blessed by God.. I don’t think any laws are going to make it okay in God’s eyes. I know someone’s going to take this and run so let me just say right now - I don’t think any of us are without sinful temptation.. I also want to say the bible says people who are perfect should throw the first stone, so I certainly don’t think it’s my place to judge and I would NEVER blame or shame a child for anything a parent had done or was doing.. but my opinion on the gay marriage is that it’s wrong..
kadi
May 15, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Well, thank you, Fashion Paramedic! I’ve never been blessed with a nickname (besides sweet cheeks, but that’s another story!)
Anyway, how about this blanket statement:
You were asked for your opinions. There never going to be a sure answer to the question, “Is gay marriage and homosexuality right or wrong?” It is all a matter of opinion. Just like everything else is life. We are entitled to our own. We will argue our points, share our views, then walk away with a hand shake and a respect for our differences.
Now for my 2 cents:
Is hate crime against gays okay? No.
Is discrimination against gays okay? No.
Is treating a gay person like anything other than the human being that they are okay? No way.
But…there will always be people who do these things. There will always be gay jokes (I think they are funny.) There will always be dissenters. All because it is taboo, it is a grey area and we will never ever have any way of knowing if it is right or wrong, until we meet our maker. Yes, the Bible speaks out against it. Most Christians, including myself do not agree with it. That does not make us hate mongers any more than it makes a homosexual a hate monger for not being attracted to the opposite sex.
My dad is gay. I have had so many conversations with him on the subject of homosexuality. I am no closer to understanding it now, than I was thirteen years ago. But I love my dad dearly. He is an awesome man. We agree to disagree on certain things. Like his thought that I should not have had so many kids.
As far as homosexual couples raising a child, I ride the fence. Can a male mommy have the same nurturing instinct that a woman mommy has? Likewise, can a woman provide her sons with the guidance that only a male can provide from his own personal experience? Do these things even matter? Do they effect the child’s well being and identity as an adult? I wish I knew.
Fashion Paramedic
May 15, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Sharing a comment from my sister–who has deep faith in God, studies scripture, and attends bible study regularly:
Funny, I was just sharing my opinion with a co-worker. The Chief Supreme Court Justice said:
“…(R)etaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise - now emphatically rejected by this state - that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples,” the opinion authored by Chief Justice Ronald M. George said.
VERY well said.
Two things:
Marriage is a union of two people in the eyes of God. It is a ‘holy’ sacrament. But how many people do you know get married for that reason. I didn’t, but I will be renewing my vows with that intent. The thing is, marriage isn’t sacred anymore.
And to complicate things further, ‘the people’ used the state of being ‘married’ for the purpose of designating eligibility for benefits. So we not only ace them out of getting married, we ace them out of benefits they are entitled to.
And further, the bible says that you should not engage in ‘immoral sex’. Men should not lie with men and/or women should not have immoral sex with other women. I want to know ‘who’ made the interpretation IN THE BIBLE that immoral sex means ‘homosexual’. At that time, the Romans were big into orgies, and we all know the story of Mary Magdeline, the prostitute. ‘Immoral sex’ (in my Christian opinion) is having sex out of wedlock; without love. It may be hard to believe that there are actually Christian gays and lesbians out there despite being aced out of society. It must feel awful to know sex out of wedlock is immoral, but there is nothing they can do about it. I guess if you’re a true Christian, you know how (‘in the eyes of God’). You don’t need a Pastor to tell you you’re married. That’s just if you want the benefits that you’re entitled to.
My friend Jim shared a story with me on a conversation with a previous (Christian) co-worker about the thought of adopting a child some years ago. The response was, “Why do you want to raise a gay child?” DOH! This is the mentality! And [Fashion Paramedic], you are exactly right to ask, “What are they so afraid of?”
I’m stepping down off the soapbox now…
Ashley
May 15, 2008 at 3:55 pm
My issue with homosexual couples raising a child is not that one gender is better or worse at anything - I just feel deep down in me that if God had wanted that - he would have made it possible.. I don’t know, it’s such a sticky subject.
Gayla McCord
May 15, 2008 at 4:16 pm
There’s an opinion on my head that I can’t seem to put into words properly.
Ultimately I just think the gay lifestyle is just not natural.
I believe our justice system is too busy trying to keep everyone happy and being bought that they are forgetting what it’s like to stand for values and in doing so they are creating a world full of chaos and upheaval. I could care less what the Supreme Court Justice says about gay marriage - I don’t, won’t and can’t ever recognize gay marriage as being anything other than the circus it is.
My mother’s ex husband was raised by two gay women and he’s about as twisted as a twizzler and he will tell you it’s from having been raised by gays. He resents the hell out of it and I don’t blame him.
BMS
May 15, 2008 at 4:25 pm
My Catholic church has a very active gay and lesbian community. We’re those liberal Catholics everyone hates. I can quote the Bible too: “Love one another as I have loved you.” and “Judge not, lest you be judged”
There is a gay couple at my church who adopted two boys. One was adopted at age 12, after spending 7 years in foster care. I didn’t see any straight couples lining up to take a chance with this kid. This kid is awesome - went through the process of becoming a Catholic with the adult converts, is a Eucharistic minister, and a leader in the high school youth group now. His little brother thinks he walks on water. Who are you to deny this family the chance to exist? Who are you to condemn this kid to never having a permanent home?
We’ve had gay marriage here in Massachusetts for a few years. The sky has not fallen. What has happened is that some perfectly wonderful families have gotten the chance to say “I’d like you to meet my spouse”
CanadianMom
May 15, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Well now, I was not going to post a comment, but this eats away at me. It drives me nuts that religious individuals think they are allowed to force their rules and laws on people who do not follow that same religion.
First off, I am straight. So same sex marriage means nothing to me on a personal level. I am also Canadian, and we have same sex marriage here. Not a big deal there either. I also follow no god.
What is disturbing to me, is that Christians or Catholics -or whatever- seem to think that since *their* God says same sex marriage is a sin, EVERYONE else is supposed to agree? I mean, there are some religions that say you can’t eat meat, but people all over the world are eating meat RIGHT NOW, and that does not doesn’t raise a stink.
What I want to say is that just because you personally don’t beleive in same sex marriage, or eating meat, or wearing a turban for that matter, does not give you the right to force others to follow your rules. You subscribe, you obey. If someone else chooses not to subscribe, they do not have to obey. We all should be free to follow our own rules, within the limits of law.
Now don’t get me wrong. I am not against Christians or Catholics -or whatever-, you are all free to beleive and follow and pay a pile of money to anyone you please. But with all due respect, not everyone is like you. And it’s wrong to try and force people to be like you.
Thank you, that is all.
Olivia
May 15, 2008 at 5:57 pm
I don’t think the issue is whether or not people believe gay marriage is right or wrong. Obviously everyone wont agree on that. I think the issue is that if a person thinks it is wrong, that does not give them the right to make their personal, religious based convictions, into law. If you feel homosexuality is wrong then don’t be homosexual. Don’t force your ideals on everyone else. Every American has the right to make that decision for themselves. If they choose to love someone of the same-sex, they should be entitled to all of the same benefits any other couple in love would have. I just don’t see any legal precedence for separating gay from straight marriage. All of the literature against homosexuality is based on religion, and we have a separation of church and state. Also as mentioned earlier, in this sorry state of straight marriage, how can they possibly throw stones at gay marriage?
Gayla McCord
May 15, 2008 at 6:03 pm
I don’t base my opinion on religion really - it’s just common sense. ONLY a man and a woman can procreate. It just makes sense.
There HAS to be lines drawn somewhere. There HAS to be boundaries. Otherwise this chaos would just keep going.
What next? Brothers and sisters or first cousins being allowed to wed?
Human and animal being allowed to wed?
There are some religions and cultures that say it’s ok to kill your spouse for cheating too - doesn’t make it right.
Sometimes you just have to follow what is natural because it’s natural
Most of this argument is about health benefits and financial security anyway - why not just allow people to name whomever they wish as their “partner” portion of benefits and let it at that. IF that were possible, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
Gay’s are wanting to be married in a “Biblical” sense, so why is it so wrong for people to voice their “religious” beliefs in response?
Fashion Paramedic
May 15, 2008 at 6:16 pm
I know this is an “agree to disagree” issue.
But, Gayla . . . Gays don’t want to be married in the “Biblical” sense. They want to be married in the LEGAL sense. Marriage between gays is not LEGAL in most states because the “Biblicals” don’t allow it. Big difference.
If naming a partner for benefits or finances were that easy, then it would be that easy. But it isn’t. Tell that to “Mason,” a man who had to drive halfway across the state to get “certification” that he was the domestic partner to a man “Tony” who was gravely injured in a car accident. Tony was dying in the hospital and the nurses would not allow Mason to see him because, technically, he was not “next of kin.”
Can you imagine getting into a car accident, then having to drive 220 miles afterward to get your marriage license because the nurses wouldn’t let you see your husband, who was gravely injured in the same accident? The “getting married in the LEGAL sense” changes that.
Bringing up marriage between human and animal is just a cop out, really.
Sorry–I totally let this stuff get to me.
So I digress. I gotta get home to my boys.
Gayla McCord
May 15, 2008 at 6:30 pm
It really is an agree to disagree topic. I won’t change my opinion and will keep voting for those who support my personal beliefs.
To me marriage is a union that’s recognized by church and state. I suppose that’s why I stand so strong in my position.
I can understand the position of everyone else, but I certainly don’t agree with it.
And the human/animal connection is not a cop out, there are some twisted F’s in this world that would pursue it if a very solid line isn’t drawn somewhere.
Lovelywife
May 15, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Im with BMS. I belong to the Episcopal Church, and everyone knows their stand. For those of you that are saying you need to follow the laws of the bible I would like to ask you: when was the last time that you had your hair cut? What are your clothes made out of? And for you females, when you are on your period do you go out into public? Check the laws in your bible on those, I would wager to say that you break those laws all the time. The bible says “I have sheep that you don’t know”. Maybe it is time we all put our personal agendas behind us and concentrate on sharing the love of Christ with one another, come together and worship our Lord. Debate whatever you want, but remember the one important thing–Jesus Christ is our Savior. He died for everyone. He doesn’t see someone as Gay, Heterosexual, prostitute, tax collector, or righteous citizen. He sees us all as people. That having been said what is wrong with two people who want to commit their lives to one another and have it honored by the State that they live in? As far as raising kids, I believe that if they do it in a loving environment with the right attitude they can be just as good at it as any other heterosexual couple. As a heterosexual couple raising a kid (now a teen) I can verify that it takes more than the couple to raise the kid. It takes extended family, church family, friends, neighbors, etc to help along the way, the parents never have all the answers. The child doesn’t come with a manual for anyone to follow.
Thrifty Karen
May 15, 2008 at 9:01 pm
It is only natural that man and woman should be together. There is a reason why two men can’t reproduce and why two women can’t reproduce. God made woman for the man. It’s unnatural. Period.
Thrifty Karen
May 15, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Kadi: Yes, you do know how to stir the pot. I’m getting ready to stir the pot on one of my other blogs though. http://balanceindiet.com
The topic will be universal healthcare.
Bridget
May 15, 2008 at 9:22 pm
It’s sad to see what this world is coming too. Common sense tells you men and men/women and women are not meant to be together. It doesn’t work, and yes, the line needs to be drawn somewhere.
Gayla McCord
May 16, 2008 at 5:49 am
You know, my husband did have a very valid point. If law would permit gays to marry - politicians would have one less stumping point - they’d shut the hell up about it and more people would be covered under benefits.
Just because they can legally marry doesn’t mean we have to agree or that it’s recognized in the Biblical sense. It is just a piece of paper - really.
As long as they are not trying to change the worlds perspective - I say let them marry and shut up about it already.
Ashley
May 16, 2008 at 7:17 am
This is one situation where church and state are intermingled. I certainly don’t think the sky will fall if it happens - but to most of America, marriage IS a religious thing given by God and hopefully blessed by God. Yes, heterosexual marriage is in a terrible state in this country, and most of the reason for that is that we have traded God’s word and morals in general for this philosophy that many of you are talking about in which EVERYTHING and ANYTHING is okay as long as it is a personal choice, it’s what you FEEL like doing and it’s lawful..at the same time we’ve tried to weed out any actual laws that are ‘religious’..we’re becoming something as a nation that I’m not really comfortable with or proud of. And I’m tired of anyone going against the grain hollering to the hills that they shouldn’t be FORCED to go with the grain. I don’t think anyone is trying to force anyone to do a damn thing. I think through frivilous lawsuits, and a few yahoos trying to see if they could get their way we have begun to cater to the minority instead of the majority…why is majority rules evil? or bad? or unfair? Isn’t that a democracy? If the majority of Americans are uncomfortable with something - no matter what it is, shouldn’t they have the right to vote for laws to stop it? Of course everyone has the right to say what they want, the right to believe whatever they want and the right o personal safety - but should they have the right to irradicate morals and beliefs that most of us hold dear? We are civil rights-ing ourselves into disaster if you ask me..
That judgemental mouthful being said - I don’t believe that gay sex is any more or less immoral than premarital sex, or adulterous sex..the first of which I was certainly guilty of many occasions..
Sarah
May 16, 2008 at 8:15 am
I’m with those who believe that we should just let people believe and do what they personally choose to believe and do.
But I have to ask those who say “I believe in procreation, not coming out of the closet - heading to the sperm bank, getting a contribution or surrogate and having a family.” do you feel the same way when talking about infertile couples? Heterosexual infertile couples? God made them infertile, so should they not persue the medical advancements that may give them their biggest dream? No right? Because God said so?
I don’t think lines need to be drawn here. We’ve progressed as people and if homosexual couples are getting married and having kids it’s not going to change who YOU are. It’s not hurting ANYONE. I don’t think resurrecting the Berlin Wall is going to solve anything.
Gayla McCord
May 16, 2008 at 9:03 am
There is a big difference between trying the conventional way to have children and not being able to - for those, I agree adoption and science is a great answer.
Two women could not ever create a child together nor could two men. It’s not natural!
I’m at the point now where I don’t care if gays marry or not, but I certainly don’t want it around me.
I know it’s not resurrecting the Berlin Wall - but it sure feels like we’re channeling sodom and gomorrah and that to me is SC-AIR-EEE.
Brooke
May 16, 2008 at 9:08 am
What a great topic to debate. I thought it was interresting the first person right away compared being gay being bad for kids not quite as bad as wives being beat in front of the children. It might not have the same results, but through their own example they realize that there are bad results. Just like the first person was saying…it’s not the childrens fault. If homosexuals want to be together…they shouldn’t put children in the middle of that. And it shouldn’t be considered a marriage. It shouldn’t be a debate of if homosexuality is right or wrong…it just isn’t considered a marriage.
Thrifty Karen
May 16, 2008 at 9:23 am
Yes, I agree. Sodom and Gomorrah. It is scary.
Thrifty Karen
May 16, 2008 at 9:53 am
Legalizing same-sex marriage undermines marriage.
What’s next? Next they’ll be asking for us to legalize group marriage. “It’s not hurting anyone.”
“It’s not hurting ANYONE” is a lie though. If same sex marriage is legalized then it will be taught in schools as an acceptable lifestyle. It doesn’t matter to them that the majority of Americans don’t believe homosexual marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage. Also, research has shown that children are negatively affected by homosexual unions.
BMS
May 16, 2008 at 11:46 am
This is one of those topics that I find I cannot square any arguments against it with the evidence I see with my own eyes. I personally am friends with about 10 gay couples that I can think of off the top of my head. About half of them have kids. They are loving, caring families, whose kids are no better or worse than anyone else’s, who work jobs, pay taxes, volunteer at school, etc. They are not pushing any agenda on anyone. They are not proselytizing. They love each other, they love their kids, and they want some legal protection so their loved ones don’t get screwed if God forbid one of them dies.
My uncle and his partner were together for 35 years until his partner dropped dead of a heart attack. Is their devotion less real? Was the survivor’s grief less because they were gay? Is their love somehow worth less than, oh, Brittney Spear’s “marriages” that lasted about 15 minutes?
I would buy the ‘we need to protect marriage’ argument if the same people wanted to say, eliminate divorce, raise the legal age for marriage, require some sort of screening or classes, etc. But no one wants to seriously suggest that the state should get involved in straight marriage to that degree. Encouraging stable relationships, however ‘unnatural’ they seem to you, benefits everyone.
Kelsey
May 16, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I think I should start with saying that I’m Canadian as well, and we have had same sex marriage here for a bit so maybe this dulls what seems to me as a bit of a knee jerk reaction. I will say this, I believe that the church has a complete right to refuse to marry a same sex couple. If it is against your church’s doctirine, then no one should be able to force that. But as a legal move, I firmly believe that if two people have a deep love that they want to make legal in the eyes of the state then they should have that opportunity. As for adopting children, it’s a little touchier for me. But I think that they should have to go through the same rigourous qualifications as every other adoptive parent. There are so many kids out there just wanting to be loved, so many children (out of a heterosexual union) who have been damaged by their parents that to deny a loving couple the opportunity to help these children find love and acceptance in the world is bordering on criminal, but as with all societies, we try to protect that which we value most, our children so I can understand that this may take a while.
But getting back to the idea of legalizing same sex unions, I think that the key to that sentance is legalizing. For everyone who’s saying that marriage is in the eyes of God, do you believe that say a Hindu marriage is less legal then your own? or lets hit a little closer to home and say you’re an atheist, is your marriage less legal then? Or what if you’ve lost your faith since marrying, is your marriage null and void? I was raised Christian in a very religious family, but I had lost touch with God when I was married and as such had kept the more religious aspect out of my wedding, but I was still crying my eyes out during my vows, touched beyond what I could ever think possible as I pledged my life and heart to the love of my life and made it official in the eyes of the state. Having experienced that, can I honestly look at a couple who is the same sex and devoted to each other and say “your love is not worthy of being compared to mine.”
A few people have raised an excellent point in saying, well do you follow all religious laws like a woman needs to keep her head covered in chuch because she is unworthy to be looked upon by God, but that’s not the real question, because following this law or that because it’s become outdated in our current world is irrelevant. The question is do you follow the main teaching of “Love thy neighbor” and if you do, how can you judge? Deny them marriage in your church because it is against your teachings, but to deny it legally, denying people the right to attend a loved one in sickness, or make the funeral arrangments that will help your grief as you bury the person you spent the past 30 years loving and caring for, is not loving them, it is imposing your beliefs on them, stating that you know better then them and that you feel their decision making is that of a child that you need to correct. It’s just wrong.
P.S. Gayle, honestly I think that you comparing same sex unions to that of bestiality is incredibally insulting and to me at least, shows a bit of an error in your moral compass, and just in case my post brings to question my sexuality, no I’m not gay, I just think insulting an entire demographic to make a point is mean spirited.
Fashion Paramedic
May 16, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Hey everyone–I thought I’d circle back and shed light on one perspective that is not represented here: The gay voice.
The full post is over at my blog (http://fashionparamedic.com/?p=279). Here is what my [gay] brother says–when he uses the term “us,” it is meant for gays, lesbians, and transgendered people:
Good Morning Sisters …
And what an overwhelming and emotional 24 hours it has been! Many of ‘us’ knew the ruling was to be announced yesterday; and in anticipation and anxiety - I still held my breath. It wasn’t until this morning when I picked up the paper and read it all over again that it set in. It’s going to be one of those life changing questions - Where were you when the ruling was announced? Opponents will still want to argue and push their stigmatic views, but the people have spoken. Why don’t we ban divorce since they are so pushy about their precious morals? You two are so correct when you say marriage should be about love, not gender. Ignorance and bigotry is stomach-turning … love is not!
This is a decision that points in the right direction. It’s time to chill out, unite and move forward. This decision gives all of us an equal opportunity when it comes to health, life, and most decisions others take for granted. To those who are angry at this decision, hold your anger (and your breath). It comes at a late time for some of us who have personal losses, and that would make me a widower in reading between the rulings lines. There is more goodness - if you spread fairness.
Below is a quote from Kate Kendall who is the Executive Director of the National Center of Lesbian Rights:
“The sunshine here today will extend to everywhere in this country where it has been hard to be a gay person.”
And she’s so right! Our people are sometimes late in coming to change, but we always seem to do it. Hopefully the other side will discover that for themselves someday. I too need to get off my soap box now – my fingers hurt! :)
Thank you for always standing with me. Thank you for being my sisters.
XO urbiggaybrother OX
Gayla McCord
May 16, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Kelsy, that was not a comparison, it was merely an observation on what’s to come next.
People could wage the argument on marrying a 14-year-old like they have with the recent LDS compound raid in Texas -
People could wage the same argument when wanting to legally marry a 1st cousin.
People could wage the same argument in a number of situations - where exactly is it that the line should be drawn.
That’s all I’m trying to say.
Frankly, I could care less - in fact, the more I think about it, I think it’s a good idea for gays to marry - it would remove one solid stumping point for many politicians. But then again, they would just pick up that they’d overturn the decision like they do every election with Roe v. Wade.
I’m over this topic - really. I don’t agree with homosexuality - never have, never will. But that is my opinion - right or wrong, it’s mine and that’s that.
I say it’s time to let the people vote and stop letting Judges make these types of decisions. Here we are in an election year - perfect time to take a vote.
marye
May 16, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Interesting debate.
Why is it, though, when I say: “I don’t agree with this it is wrong ” I am bigoted and intolerant yet anyone say to me: ” The Bible is wrong” and they are enlightened?
Why is it that I cannot tell someone that sin will land them in hell, without being accused of a hate crime, but I can be told I am intolerant, hateful, ignorant, and forced accept gay marriage?
Why I am automatically wrong for my beliefs? If we are truly looking at tolerance then the gay community would be as tolerant of my beliefs as they want me to be of theirs. And yet they are not. If I say, I do not want gays working with the youth in my church, I am subject to condoms being thrown at the altar and filthy things being scrawled across my building. Is that the enlightened tolerance I am supposed to learn?
I am intolerant. I was intolerant of the Berlin wall. It was wrong. I was intolerant of Ayatollah Khomeni, and Idi Amin. They were beasts. They also believed that anyone speaking against them had no right to do so. I am intolerant of child abuse, of crime, of many many things that are really only my opinion and very subjective.
Once we say that all morality is merely based on choice and interpretation we open doors that really shouldn’t be opened. A national pediophile group is working to have the age of consent completely removed, freedom of choice you know. Subjective morality.
I have no problem with homosexuals doing whatever it is they do. I just do not want their parts theoretically shoved down my throat because someone decided that it is a valid lifestyle choice.
ah..and Biblical translation. The only place we see the word homosexual in the Bible is in 1 Cor 6:9 (interesting coincidence THERE, don’t you think?) The word in the original is malakov which means of uncertain affinity..or an effeminiate male. The Word of God does have a strong stand on immoral sex of any sort..and truly homosexuality is not worse than premarital sex or adultery..or lying…gossip..or stealing…. But in my home NONE of those things are acceptable behavior.
As to if it is a “natural” behavior that is in the genes and not the jeans…many species of animals have committed mating behaviors. Gorillas, chimps, certain types of Geese, Eagles..these mate for life. There is love of a sort involved .. if you have ever seen a goose mourning it’s dead mate you know that there is. In the wild mated horses often have sexual relations for pure pleasure and commitment..even when the mare is not in heat. Yet in the entire earth man is the only being that chooses to be with a member of it’s own gender sexually. Odd isn’t it?
These are of course, only my thoughts. I thank you for the opportunity to express them knowing that I will not be judged for them but that they will be recieved with tolerance.
Thrifty Karen
May 16, 2008 at 8:34 pm
It seems as though homosexuals don’t care that this was not done in the proper way, so long as they got what they wanted. I am not going to surrender my sovereign right to vote to four black-robed oppressive tyrants who’ve ignored the will of the American people and perverted the constitution. I hope that Californians will initiate a recall vote for George, Kennard, Werdegar, and Moreno and send them packing as they did to former California Supreme Court Chief Justice Rose Bird and company. All Americans who respect the rule of law should demand that Congress pass a constitutional amendment preserving traditional marriage, and send it to the states for ratification. It’s the only way to protect state sovereignty and the will of the people from judicial tyranny.
Fashion Paramedic
May 17, 2008 at 7:41 am
Hmm, Thrifty Karen. I’m confused now. What was it about Rose Bird that you didn’t like? She was mostly well-known for reversing death penalty convictions. I live CA and am old enough to remember the entire recall . . . Anyway, I was just curious.
Russel
May 17, 2008 at 8:05 am
Olivia
Why is that everytime that people of faith have an opinion, then the opinion is always given that they are trying to push their beliefs on others. Is that any differant then people without religion having an opnion that does not align with the beliefs of believers. And yet you don’t have a problem with this being forced on believers. Such as gay marriages. After all this is a country founded on christian beliefs. If You don’t like the way the country was founded I’m sure another non faith believing country will welcome you and all gays with open arms. What you and many others have forgotten is people of faith have rights and opinions also. There is no way that laws can be changed to keep from hurting someones feelings no matter what, someone is going to be offended. That’s life, grow up get over yourself. If we used your method of deciding what is right or wrong of letting the individual decide what is best for him or her then child pornograhpy would become legal. As far as seperation of church and state the original intent of our founding fathers was to keep the government out of the churches business not the other way around. When this country was founded that is exactly why folks left England to start this country. 200 years later Americans are doing it to themselves or letting the government do it to us because of liberal minded individuals forcing our governments to change laws to satisfy their particular agendas.
Olivia
May 17, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Gays are not forcing their beliefs on anybody, all they want are equal rights. If homosexual marriage is allowed what does that do to you personally? We are a civilized country, do you actually see bestiality and pedophilia becoming legal? If you do you don’t live in the same country I do. Thats a completely baseless argument that goes for nothing but shock value and has no foundation.
All this nonsense about the poor little Christians having intolerance thrown at them is ridiculous. Name one other group in America who tries to force themselves on everyone else as much as Christian’s do? Buddhists don’t believe in drinking, do they lobby to ban it?
I am so tired of people claiming the founding fathers based the constitution on Christianity, and to “get out” if we don’t like it. In the constitutional times most educated men were into Enlightenment, not Christianity. Look it up…
As for whoever claimed above that no animals have homosexual tendencies, please don’t just state things that are untrue. MANY animals show homosexual tendencies. Again, look it up…
BTW Someone answer for me, What Would Jesus Do?
Heather
May 17, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Way to stir the pot Kadi!!
Although the founding Fathers of this country intended the “perks” of being married to only apply to straight couples, the world HAS changed. Not everyone will agree on the same point and that’s what makes our lives so interesting.
For those on the God side: Did Jesus not sit with the prostitutes? If he did sit with them, then why would God shun his back on his son’s and daughters who are LOVING each other? If God is compassionate and understanding as I was taught in Church, then I would think he would have love for the “Gay” couples that love him. I would think God would be thankful that many of these couples are adopting kids and raising them in loving stable homes.
For those who think marriage should only be for procreating: What about the Husband & Wife “families” that don’t want kids? Under this thinking they should not get the the “perks” of being married either…they did not/have not/will not produce children. What about the people who can’t have kids? What about the families that adopt…the parents in that family did not “create” the child, just the loving home. So under this thinking they to should not get the “perks” of being married.
There are flaws no matter how one looks at. As a society it’s easier to embrace overall and move forward. As a believer in God “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Let the people in love love, and let those looking for love follow their hearts where ever it may lead them.
We are not to judge. We can give our thoughts and feelings to our kids, friends, and family, but once they have stated what they choose to do, all we can do is accept and love them for who they are.
No matter how religious you are you can’t make someone change.
I don’t think being gay is an option, the option comes when any of us choose to act on our attraction to someone else…same sex or not.
Having an attraction to someone else is a normal animal instinct. We can not deny someone their feelings just because we don’t approve.
I have rambled long enough.
Kelsey
May 17, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Marye - actually you’re incorrect, there are animals that will have same sex relationships, I do believe that the dolphin is one of them.
Thrifty Karen
May 17, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Heather: Jesus did hang out with sinners, but he didn’t approve of their sin. Instead, He loved them and encouraged them to turn from their ways and follow Him. I’m not saying that homosexuals shouldn’t be loved. I am saying that what they are doing is wrong. There will be consequences for their actions, consequences that won’t just affect them.
marye
May 17, 2008 at 9:33 pm
I stand corrected. Amazing. My thoughts, though, stubbornly remain the same.
:)
Ashley
May 19, 2008 at 7:41 am
“We are a civilized country, do you actually see bestiality and pedophilia becoming legal?”
Olivia, for all of us ‘crazies’ who truly believe in the bible homosexual marriage is just as perverted as that. Like it or not - that’s how we see it. Also, if Buddists, or muslims were the majority in this country you can bet our laws would be different..I think that’s called a DEMOCRACY in which the MAJORITY rules..
“In the constitutional times most educated men were into Enlightenment, not Christianity. Look it up…” Read up on your history sister. That’s not even close to fact. Our founding fathers were absolutely Christians, but not the evil, hateful type you like to think of.. They were good Christian men who wanted America to be a place where noone was ever persecuted for their religious beliefs. And they wanted it to be a place where the majority could vote for what they wanted. Just because you don’t agree with the majority doesn’t make them evil.
Ashley
May 19, 2008 at 7:46 am
Heather, your reasoning is also flawed..
“Having an attraction to someone else is a normal animal instinct. We can not deny someone their feelings just because we don’t approve.”
There are old men that have instincts for children. Should we approve of that? I’m sure my children will be sexually attracted to other children when they are teenagers - should I approve of 14yr olds having sex?
What I’m saying is where’s the line?
Kelsey
May 20, 2008 at 8:46 am
Personally, I would say the line is at two consenting ADULTS. Trying to run other adults lives for them according to your beliefs is treating them like children. It’s kinda funny with all this majority rules talk and changing everything to a Christian nation etc…if it had been only majority rules in the past, well, let’s just say being christian was not a happy thing (something about being fed to lions) until one ruler saw fit to become christian against the majority and allow christianity to flourish. And actually, the founding fathers and the original colonies had different religions (generally all variations but each variation intolerant of the others) and came to america to avoid religious persecution from the majority. It’s kinda funny that now we’re advocating the same for others. I fairly sure that the seperation of church and state was meant so that the majority didn’t have the power to advocate the religion to the rest of the country, allowing people to worship as the wished, even if that choice was not to worship.
Ashley S.
May 20, 2008 at 9:34 am
Come back here- you took what I said and ran way the heck out in left field. You’re fish tailing now - what I said and mean is: Our founding fathers came here to establish a country in which all of their different brands of CHRISIANITY could coexist. I believe all religions should be allowed to exsist. Even non-Chrisian ones, but that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about changing the definition of marriage and most Americans don’t want that - when they do, you’ll have it.
If anyone was trying to run their lives for them or “persecute” them, they wouldn’t be allowed to do what they do in public, on tv, in their bedrooms, and everywhere else. That is so NOT what’s going on here.
And by the way, not having demands met from the government is not exactly the same as the persecution our founding fathers were trying to escape..
Fashion Paramedic
May 20, 2008 at 9:42 am
Ashley–just as an FYI: You probably shouldn’t be using the Founding Fathers as examples of men who wanted to escape persecution. Most (if not all) were slave owners who practiced whipping and traded them as if they were animals. Not exactly poster boys for freedom’s cause, even though they did manage to write the declaration of independence and the bill of rights. But that’s a whole other can of worms.
Ashley S.
May 20, 2008 at 10:44 am
Again - you’re trying to circumvent what I’m saying and what is historical fact. Religious zealots (the real kind - not what you would call a zealot) rose and fell in Europe for centuries trying to kill off or forcefully convert any variation of their religion they didn’t agree with..THAT is what I mean by religious persecution and THAT is what our founding fathers meant by it.
And that is certainly a far cry from not being legally allowed to “Marry.”
Russel
May 22, 2008 at 7:39 am
An e mail I just recieved this morning.
Our real roots…A history lesson that needs to be told….
OUR REAL ROOTS:
This is one e-mail that needs to be shared. But then, we may already be too late. God help us.
Did you know that 52 of the 55 signers of The Declaration of Independence were orthodox, deeply committed Christians? The other three all believed in the Bible as the divine truth, the God of scripture, and His personal intervention.
It is the same congress that formed the American Bible Society. Immediately after creating the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress voted to purchase and import 20,000 copies of scripture for the people of this nation.
Patrick Henry, who is called the firebrand of the American Revolution, is still remembered for his words, “Give me liberty or give me death.” But in current textbooks the context of these words is deleted. Here is what he said: “An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death.”
These sentences have been erased from our textbooks.
Was Patrick Henry a Christian? The following year, 1776, he wrote this “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.”
Consider these words that Thomas Jefferson wrote on the front of his well- worn Bible: “I am a Christian, that is to say a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator and, I hope, to the pure doctrine of Jesus, also.”
Consider these words from George Washington, the Father of our Nation, in his farewell speech on September 19, 1796:
“It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
Was George Washington a Christian? Consider these words from his personal prayer book: “Oh, eternal and everlasting God, direct my thoughts, words and work. Wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the lamb and purge my heart by the Holy Spirit. Daily, frame me more and more in the likeness of thy son, Jesus Christ, that living in thy fear, and dying in thy favor, I may in thy appointed time obtain the resurrection of the justified unto eternal life. Bless, O Lord, the whole race of mankind and let the world be filled with the knowledge of thy son, Jesus Christ.”
Consider these words by John Adams, our second president, who also served as chairman of the American Bible Society.
In an address to military leaders he said, “We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
How about our first Court Justice, John Jay?
He stated that when we select our national leaders, if we are to preserve our Nation, we must select Christians. “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, was the sixth U.S. President.
He was also the chairman of the American Bible Society, which he considered his highest and most important role. On July 4, 1821, President Adams said, “The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”
Calvin Coolidge, our 30th President of the United States reaffirmed this truth when he wrote, “The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country.”
In 1782, the United States Congress voted this resolution: “The congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.”
William Holmes McGuffey is the author of the McGuffey Reader, which was used for over 100 years in our public schools with over 125 million copies sold until it was stopped in 1963. President Lincoln called him the “Schoolmaster of the Nation.”
Listen to these words of Mr. McGuffey: “The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it are derived our notions on character of God, on the great moral Governor of the universe. On its doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free institutions. From no source has the author drawn more conspicuously than from the sacred Scriptures. From all these extracts from the Bible I make no apology.”
Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian, including the first.
Harvard University, chartered in 1636. In the original Harvard Student Handbook rule number 1 was that students seeking entrance must know Latin and Greek so that they could study the scriptures:
“Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, let everyone seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of him (Proverbs 2:3).”
For over 100 years, more than 50% of all Harvard graduates were pastors!
It is clear from history that the Bible and the Christian faith, were foundational in our educational and judicial system. However in 1947, there was a radical change of direction in the Supreme Court.
Here is the prayer that was banished:
“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee. We beg Thy blessings upon us and our parents and our teachers and our country.
Amen.”
In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled that Bible reading was outlawed as unconstitutional in the public school system. The court offered this justification: “If portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could and have been psychologically harmful to children.”
Bible reading was now unconstitutional , though the Bible was quoted 94 percent of the time by those who wrote our constitution and shaped our Nation and its system of education and justice and government.
In 1965, the Courts denied as unconstitutional the rights of a student in the public school cafeteria to bow his head and pray audibly for his food.
In 1980, Stone vs. Graham outlawed the Ten Commandments in our public schools.
The Supreme Court said this: “If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments were to have any effect at all, it would be to induce school children to read them. And if they read them, meditated upon them, and perhaps venerated and observed them, this is not a permissible objective.”
Is it not a permissible objective to allow our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments?
James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution of the United States, said this: “We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.”
Today we are asking God to bless America. But how can He bless a Nation that has departed so far from Him?
Most of what you read in this article has been erased from our textbooks. Revisionists have rewritten history to remove the truth about our country’s Christian roots. I, Mary Jones, the designer of this web page, encourage all who read and agree with the words herein, to share it with others, so that the truth of our nation’s history may be told.
Ashley S.
May 22, 2008 at 8:11 am
I think part of why this is such a hot issue with Christians is that most of us feel immense pressure to suppress our beliefs while having other beliefs shouted from the rooftops. It is not politically correct to be a Christian. It is only acceptable and respectable to be a muslim, a Buddist, or society’s favorite - the almighty Athiest. We feel that even though we are the majority of Americans our beliefs don’t count anymore and aren’t being fought for. We are seeing small groups of non-believers push out any form of religion from every corner of our government and society. Although there are a small percentage of Christians that would love to forcefully convert the world, the majority of Christians understand free will to be a fundamental principle of our religion.. We also understand that every nation in the bible that pushed God to the side fell hard. Maybe that’s our big fear. Same sex marriage is only a part of a bigger issue for us.
bicerc
May 26, 2008 at 12:39 am
Of course two consenting adults who love each other should be allowed to marry (perhaps even more than two people, but I don’t know to much about polyamory, so I’ll not comment on that any further). Anything short of that is discriminatory and un-American.
I am simultaneously amused and depressed that so many of my fellow Americans feel the need to push mandates from their Great Sky Fairy onto others, showing that they, the pushers, clearly have no idea that equality for all means equality for all. Treating the GLBT community like second-class citizens will not be tolerated forever, and the history books will look down on those who continued to hold out, basing their abuse of their fellow citizens of this secular nation on outdated mythology. Of course Christianity has contributed, but it is not the state religion because the U.S. doesn’t have one.
I’m also amused that people forget that marriage was not traditionally a sacrament and has not been interpreted as such until relatively recently in human history; it was a business interaction, a way to secure relations with other people, a way to conduct trade. Regardless, it is now a union recognized by the State as something non-religious, with many state and federal benefits. Those who want religious marriage that’s safe in its candle-and-hymn bastion away from same-sex marriage can have their religious marriages and then just not sign up for any of those state or federal benefits; otherwise, they have no reason to complain about other loving couples receiving the same benefits they receive as equal American citizens. Furthermore, trying to forbid same-sex marriages infringes on those religious traditions who do perform same-sex marriages, Christian and non-Christian alike.
And that whole marriage-is-about-procreation crowd? Like some of the other commenters have said, the heterosexual child-free, elderly, and barren couples are pretty much out of the question.
And homosexuality/bisexuality aren’t natural? Go ask farmers about the gay animals they sometimes get and the setbacks they get when there’s no breeding. Go ask zoologists about the many animals, vertebrate and invertebrate, that have homosexual and bisexual members (hell, just Google it).
Also, it doesn’t matter what the majority of Americans want; the country is set up in a way to (try to) ensure justice and equality despite the mob rule of popular opinion. Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, not a way to prove something is the right course of action. Besides, go read the constitution or some well written civics books: America is not a democracy; it is a federal republic.
Karen
May 30, 2008 at 7:07 pm
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=121816
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: