Path Clear for Same-Sex Marriages in Mass. - page 2
May 15, 10:25 AM (ET) By DENISE LAVOIE BOSTON (AP) - With the U.S. Supreme Court refusing to step in and block gay marriages in Massachusetts, same-sex couples planning to marry can be... Read More
May 17, '04I think that a big part of the conflict about same-sex marriages comes from the blurring of the distinctions between marriage as a religious institution and marriage as a civil institution. Some churches choose to support same-sex unions, and some are strongly opposed to them. Many people object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds. They are welcome to do so! However, CIVIL government has chosen to recognize marriage as an institution and attach certain privileges, rights, benefits, and responsibilities to that institution. I don't see how civil government, esp. in those states which have equal protection clauses in their state constitutions, can justify offering civil marriage to some citizens and not others ...
It might make it clearer and easier to swallow for some if we changed the language, and referred to all civil marriages as "civil unions," gay or str8, to distinguish it from "religious" marriage. It seems to be the word "marriage" that a lot of people get hung up on ...
Ironic, isn't it, that today is the inauguration of same-sex marriage in MA and also the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. I was thinking earlier today that most of the arguments I've heard against same-sex marriage are the same arguments that were offered against segregating the 50 years ago ... "Separate and unequal" is just as wrong now as it was then, and "segregating" civil marriage by excluding gays is just as wrong (and indefensible) as segregated schools were in 1954.
HOORAY FOR MASSACHUSETTS!!!!! :hatparty:
May 17, '04being a native of massachusetts, i am pleasantly surprised and quite proud of this law being passed, especially knowing how conservative mass. has always been. jason, i'm not going to lose my temper as i did w/you a few days ago re: the same subject but let me say this- every single human being on the face of this earth has the right to love and be loved. imposing restrictions on this goes against a human being's fundamental and civil rights in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. you certainly don't have to agree with it as i don't have to agree with extramarital affairs amongst heterosexual couples and its' related immoral hypocrisy. as others have already expressed, live and let live.
May 17, '04WOOOOOOHOOOOOO
cause it ain't about who you love.......it's a matter of do you love...
Michael Fronte' Spearhead.
hetero mama to 3 boys....Last edit by nurseunderwater on May 17, '04
May 17, '04My only hope is that all 50 states will pass laws favoring marriage for any loving and committed couple. It is a matter of civil liberty. Remember that there are certain legal advantages that married couples enjoy. Any couple who decide that marriage is for them should enjoy these legal advantages.
May 17, '04[QUOTE=donmurray]Help! Help! The sky is Fall(well)ing! :chuckle
LOL... I couldn't agree more. I really think Jerry Falwell must be a latent homosexual; it just isn't rational to spend so much of one's time obssessing over other people's sexual practices.
May 17, '04Quote from efiebkeThis is what I think matters most to people who love each other. They want to be able to care for one another just as any married couple has the rights and privileges to do and now this allows them to do so.My only hope is that all 50 states will pass laws favoring marriage for any loving and committed couple. It is a matter of civil liberty. Remember that there are certain legal advantages that married couples enjoy. Any couple who decide that marriage is for them should enjoy these legal advantages.
May 17, '04Quote from kmchughJaaman
I know that you personally against this, but as Rusty pointed out, there have been many times in the past when the same arguments were used in denying people their rights. The arguments are old and tired, and it's high time as a people we stop using them. Just a few examples: When women were given the right to vote (thanks to Rusty). When some states tried to outlaw marriage between people of different "races." (As false a construct as I can think of.) Any of the hundreds of times during the civil rights movement for blacks when laws were proposed or passed to prevent unequal treatment. This is just one more example.
In its simplest terms, the attitude comes down to "if we allow gays to marry, we will as a nation fall out of favor with God, and will be struck down." I have no doubt that if things in Iraq go to hell, Jerry Falwell and his ilk will come on TV and tell us that we lost Iraq as a judgement from God for allowing this blaspheme. Nonsense. The sky isn't falling.
I have yet to hear a clear, cogent argument against gay marriage that is based on anything other than outright prejudice or fear. The fact is that if gays get married, that will in no way cheapen, degrade or in any other way harm my marriage, or yours for that matter. It is time that our government got out of the business of approving or disapproving who loves who, unless there can be a clear, demonstrable harm to either of the parties involved, or to society as a whole. (This is what would prevent NAMBLA from getting legal approval for their weird ways, as well as what would prevent incestuous relationships. Both are demonstrably harmful.) The same simply cannot be said for gay marriage.
If you think gay marriage is morally wrong, then certainly you should not marry anyone that is your gender. But if you think that the government should ban gay marriage because Leviticus tells us that it is wrong, how far different would our government be from the Taliban? Or from the fundamentalist Islamic government in Iran? The difference would only be a matter of degree.
The government should not be in the business of approving or disapproving moral beliefs.
Great post, Kevin. I couldn't have said it better.
May 18, '04My sister is a radical christian, while one of my other sisters is a lesbian. My christian sister would not let my lesbian sister in her home, but would open her doors wide open for me and my live-in boyfriend. My main problem with the gay/lesbian issues is the fact it is always the forefront for christian debates. I am able to become a member of our church, and so is my live-in boyfriend, but my sister and her live-in girlfriend are shunned.
Why, with so many people opting to live together, divorce and remarry, lie, cheat, steal, murder, why is homosexuality discussed so often, shunned upon from society, how did it make it to the top of the list of Ten Commandments when it isn't even one?
Leviticus also teaches us not to lay with a woman while she is menstrating, I do this every month with my live-in boyfriend. :angryfire Sinner here, but that is why Jesus died on the cross for me and all of you. JMHO
May 18, '04Jaaaman
I have some questions, and please understand, I mean them with respect. No flames here, I am really trying to understand your viewpoint. You have told us all that you believe in the bible. (As do I, but not nearly as literally as you do.) You believe that the bible tells us that marriage is a sanctified union between a man and a woman, and that alone would prohibit a union of marriage between a same sex couple. Am I correct so far? My question here is should our government be in the position of enforcing laws based solely on the bible? Should we enact laws that reflect nothing more than religious beliefs? And if so, which religion do we use? And how do we pick which parts of that religion we should enforce as laws? I understand you are a Christian, but not everyone believes as you do. Should we then force those who don't accept the Christian bible to live by a set of beliefs because we believe in the bible, their beliefs notwithstanding? Or what if they accept the Christian bible, but their interpretation of what it tells us is different from ours? Do we force them to live by our interpretation? In short, in writing laws how do we decide whose interpretation is correct? And in making that decision, how are we different from the Taliban?
I know you believe that allowing same sex marriages will cheapen the institution of marriage. You beleive that allowing homosexual marriage will damage what should be a beautiful union. But, in all honesty, I don't understand why. Allow me to use myself as an example. Without getting too sloppy (which is easy when I talk about my wife), I love my wife deeply. So much so that I made a committment to her. I promised to love her and no one else. We have children together, and we love those children and are raising them to be good people, we hope. Now, I could easily cheapen and damage my marriage, simply by having an affair. I choose not to do so, because of my deep belief in our partnership. But, if John and Joe, or Mary and Sue are allowed to get married, how does that damage my union with my wife? Surely, we are the only ones who can damage that union, true?
Kevin McHughLast edit by kmchugh on May 18, '04 : Reason: I've edited this thing 8 times for clarity. I still don't know if I have it right.
May 18, '04Kevin, you took the words right out of my mouth. If we were to go back to the ways of interpreting the bible literally the only people who wouldn't go to jail would be kosher jews. And that's just based on diatary laws.
I believe that any commitment a person makes is in their heart and before their god first. My DH and I almost didn't get married based on personal beliefs related to this issue. IF others who were just as committed as he and I could not marry perhaps we should take a stand and not marry either? Then some things came up and for legal reason and legal protection of our unborn child we did marry.
Who am I to deny that to anyone else.
The bible also says "Judge not lest you be judged" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
May 19, '04efiebke: My only hope is that all 50 states will pass laws favoring marriage for any loving and committed couple.
Quite frankly, this may turn out to be one of the low points in the entire history of our nation. The beginning of the end of the relevance of marriage, the building block of our society.
Today, gays are getting married, soon polygamy will follow. Heck, if you ask me, you can make a better case for polygamy than you can for gay marriage. In fact, if Andrew Sullivan wanted to marry three wives instead of another man, we'd probably be complaining about Utah legalizing Polygamy today instead of Massachusetts putting their stamp of approval on gay marriage.
But, give it a couple of decades and we'll have people marrying the dead as they do in France, animals as they do in India, and you might as well throw adult siblings into the mix because that won't be far behind. Of course, advocates of gay marriage, most of them at least, will deny that. But, hasn't that always been what Americans have been told as they were dragged kicking and screaming down the slippery slope towards gay marriage?
Eventually, as marriage becomes totally debased and meaningless except as a method to get gov't benefits or insurance, most people won't bother to get married and we'll see skyrocketing crime and drug use, single mothers mired in poverty raising their kids, and all the other ills befall our society that go along with illegitimacy.
If all these things happened overnight, it would be easy to get people to understand what the problem is with gay marriage. However, because all of these events will take time, years, and in some cases decades to manifest, it's difficult to impress how urgent it is to fight against gay marriage right now.
We have a fairly limited window in which to act. In all likelihood, what's going to happen next is that some gay couple that gets married will move to a state that has the Federal Marriage Amendment in place. They will challenge it, the case will work it's way up to the Supreme Court level, and it will lose because of the "full faith and credit" clause which will then lead to gay marriage being imposed on the entire United States. Most people simply do not understand that gay marriage will probably become the law of the land without ever winning at the ballot box.....unless, we get a Federal Marriage Amendment enacted to stop the courts from imposing their will on the people of the United States.
May 19, '04Quote from JaaamanYes, just as they did with desegregation, and arguably just as they did with the last presidential election. The courts are part of the balance of power along with the legislature and the executive, remember?Even though Massachusetts is one of the most liberal states in the union, gay marriage couldn't win at the ballot box or in the legislature. No, it won in the courts, where four Massachusetts Supreme Court Justices overrode the will of the people and ignored thousands and thousands of years worth of human history and tradition that says marriage is between a man and a woman.
Quote from JaaamanThe slippery slope argument is hackneyed and tiresome. Shall we roll back to a situation where divorce is illegal? Where marriages are arranged?Quite frankly, this may turn out to be one of the low points in the entire history of our nation. The beginning of the end of the relevance of marriage, the building block of our society.