Homosexual Marriage – Why? (Part 1)

When I first started making notes for this book, I hadn’t planned on addressing the homosexual marriage issue.  Just a few years ago, it was quite an inconceivable concept; it never would have occurred to me that I needed to defend marriage and explain why homosexual unions don’t fall into the category of ‘marriage’.

 

I slightly understand their perspective.  One day I tried to imagine how I would feel if the government had told me that I couldn’t marry my husband.  I tried to imagine how hurt and lost I would feel if I was told I couldn’t build my life with the person I loved so much that a life without him would have been inconceivable.  Because I can’t picture a life where we aren’t together, we would have moved somewhere else, where we could be married.  The thought of someone else dictating whether or not I could be with my husband helps me to sympathize with what some of these homosexual couples are experiencing.

There are obvious differences, however.  My husband and I didn’t live together before we were married; and without marriage that wouldn’t have been an option.  That is what marriage symbolizes to me; living together, being physically intimate, raising children together, sharing a bank account and a housing loan, knowing that our lives are inexorably intertwined.  Without being married I wouldn’t have taken any of these things; not being married would have meant sacrificing a life together.  But that is not the case for the proponents of gay marriage.  Most gay couples who want to be married are already living together, sharing everything, putting both their names on purchases and accounts, and some have children.  Are there any gay couples out there who are saving sex for marriage?  If they can have everything marriage used to stand for without being married, why are they so determined to push the legal status?  They say that laws defining marriage as between a man and woman are discriminatory.  This is not true; laws against homosexual marriage do not take benefits away from homosexuals, it simply does not provide them benefits others are eligible to receive, if they choose not to marry a member of the opposite sex.  People who choose not to marry at all are also ‘denied’ these benefits, but single people do not typically complain that current marriage laws are discriminatory to them.   They claim they are being treated unequally.  This is also not true; the same laws apply to them as apply to everyone else.  Homosexuals can marry, they just can’t marry someone of the same sex.  Heterosexuals also cannot marry someone of the same sex.  They also can’t marry more than one person or someone they are closely related to.  The same laws apply to everyone, which means they are not being treated unequally.

 

Homosexual couples can live together, buy houses together, have children, set up retirement funds and legal documents benefitting each other, and otherwise act like they are married.  So why are they so adamant about being legally married?

 

Why should homosexual couples be allowed to marry?

 

I looked at groups opposing Proposition 8 in the 2008 California election.  ‘No on Prop 8’ said it is “wrong and unfair”.  They didn’t go into any reasoning, but the opening paragraph on their website said, “Every Californian should have the choice to marry the person they love. It’s a personal and fundamental freedom guaranteed by the California Constitution.”

It is unfortunate that is the best argument they could come up with for legalizing gay marriage, because not a word of that particular statement is true.  There are many laws in place that don’t allow people to marry whomever they love.  Cousins, siblings, parents and children cannot marry.  The reasons for these laws were to prevent children being born with defects; but these days, even with sterilization readily available, they remain against the law because they are unnatural.  Is there an argument against a father marrying his daughter that doesn’t come down to; it’s just wrong?  I actually can’t think of one.  If a father and daughter fell in love when she was 20 and he was 38, and they were both willing to take measures assuring they wouldn’t produce a child, why shouldn’t they be allowed to marry?   Saying that everyone should have the right to marry the person they love is also wrong because marriage involves two parties.  How many people fall in love with someone who has no interest in them?  Obviously, they don’t have the ‘right’ to marry that person.   There are many requirements for couples intending to marry.  Sometimes they need to provide proof of immunity or vaccination to certain diseases.  Is that discrimination?  What if the consenting adults don’t mind if one or the other has a certain disease?  The law still says they can’t marry.  There are laws, of course, concerning blood relatives.  Some states do allow first cousins to marry, some allow cousins to marry if one is sterile.  So, why not sterile siblings?  Why not two brothers, inherently sterile?

 

Many states require you provide proof of divorce from any previous marriages.  Why?  Isn’t that an infringement on my personal rights?  If I’m already married to my husband, and fall in love with another man, why don’t I have the right to marry him?  At one point in my life I was in love with two men at once.  I was engaged to my husband, and he left for a couple of years.  While he was gone I became very good friends with someone, and eventually fell in love with him.  I knew that I would never be able to marry him, because I was marrying my husband.  But I loved him, and I had to choose not to be with him.  Leaving him was one of the most painful experiences of my life.  Why did I have to make that choice?  After all, according to the gay lobby, all consenting adults have the right to marry the person they love.  I loved them, they both loved me.  We should have had the right to marry.  What about a bisexual?  The homosexual lobby is convinced that they have the right to be married to someone of the same sex, because they are sexually attracted to people of the same sex.  Bisexuals are sexually aroused by both sexes, so the homosexual lobby should support their right to have a spouse of each sex.  They shouldn’t have to choose to deny their natural sexual urges their entire life because they can only marry a spouse of one sex.  That’s what this is all about, after all.  Homosexuals can’t be required to deny their natural sexual urges by marrying someone of the opposite sex.  So allowing just heterosexual and homosexual marriage would immediately discriminate against bisexuals.  What about two couples?  My husband and I have some very good friends.  What if we fell in love with another couple?  I think people occasionally have sex like this; couples who engage in  ‘swinging’.  What if two couples got together and kept spending time together, and eventually fell in love and wanted to be together?  They wanted to live together, raise their children together, visit each other in hospitals, and be recognized as married.  Swinging is not illegal.  They could even choose to live together.  They could raise their children as a group.  They could write up legal documents giving the others inheritance rights.  They could all sleep in the same bed every night, or have a couple of beds and choose who they want to sleep with on a daily basis.  None of that is illegal.  But it is not marriage.  So, every adult does not have the right to marry the person they love.

 

Next they claim that, “It’s a personal and fundamental freedom guaranteed by the California Constitution.”  I don’t know if any of them have read the California Constitution, but I have been through parts of it, specifically the ‘Declaration of Rights’, since if gay marriage was a constitutional right, it would probably be found declared among the rights.  (Interestingly, the Preamble is, “We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.”  Just a shout-out to all the atheists who swear that the government has nothing to do with God.)  The ‘Declaration of Rights’ only references marriage when talking about property rights.  Marriage is again mentioned in Article 13 and 13a, about taxation (and tax limitation, as though such a thing existed).  It does not detail who has the right to marry.  So, the California Constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to marry whomever they choose.  They may be assuming the right because nothing in the California Constitution specifically forbids it.  There are many things the constitution does not forbid, but ‘constitutionally protected by omission’ is not a valid argument for homosexual marriage.  If there is some deeper reasoning for claiming that homosexual marriage is a constitutionally guaranteed freedom, I haven’t found it.  If it is just a catch phrase, it sounds good, but it’s completely false.

 

Many people say that homosexuality is natural, and so keeping homosexual marriage illegal is akin to discriminating against someone based on their race.  People are born black, if they are also born homosexual then they can’t help it.  Some studies have been done which claim to prove that homosexuality is an inherent, genetic trait, which would lend credibility to the claim that they can’t choose the way they are.  There is also reason to believe that these studies are biased, since many of the researchers involved were homosexual, and so had a vested interest in a specific outcome.  But, for the sake of argument, let us allow that homosexual attractions are natural.  There are many natural urges that people simply choose not to act upon.  That’s the great thing about being human; we’re all capable of exercising self control.  It is quite natural for men to want to have sex, and they often find themselves attracted to women around them.  Some of them choose not to have sex with everyone they are attracted too.  Maybe they don’t want to risk pregnancy, maybe they don’t want to get a disease, maybe they want to wait until they are married.  If they are married, sometimes they choose not to have sex with other women.  They are naturally, inherently, physically attracted to women they aren’t married to.  Does the fact that it is a natural urge make it good to act on it?  Many men like pornography, some men just like to masturbate.  Both natural urges.  Some men choose to avoid those activities.  Maybe it hurts the women they are with.  Maybe they just want to control themselves.  Whatever the reason; they are strong, natural urges that don’t have to be acted on.  Some people are naturally turned on in an BDSM setting.  That’s how they like to have sex, that’s how they were born, that’s what turns them on.  Some of them choose to participate in BDSM sex.  Some choose not to.

 

My point, of course, is that being a natural tendency does not automatically make it something wonderful or something to be celebrated.  And it certainly does not automatically make it something to be given legal benefits.

 

What is the difference?  The only difference I can see is that society has grown comfortable with homosexuality.  As long as there are two willing partners, it doesn’t matter.  So people have grown used to not denying that particular urge, and now they want to move what used to be considered a perversion to a legally protected union.  What, exactly, is the difference between being born with an attraction to children and being born with an attraction to members of the opposite sex?  If homosexuality is a natural urge, which I’m sure it is, then so is pedophilia.  Why is one a perversion, even when not acted on, and one lobbying for equal rights with married couples?  They are both born with those urges, they can both choose not to act on them.  The only difference I see is the object of their attraction.  Giving one sexual perversion a legally elevated status seems like a very bad road to begin traveling.

Advertisements

About whyimconservative

I'm a stay-at-home, homeschooling mom with a Biochemistry degree living in Austin. I love my kids, my husband and my country. I want to explain why I'm conservative.

Posted on June 20, 2011, in Homosexual Marriage and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 61 Comments.

  1. you make an interesting point
    “laws against homosexual marriage do not take benefits away from homosexuals”, which is in fact not a true statement. Gays that are unmarried don’t have mutual property rights, can be forced to testify against each other in a court of law (unlike you and your husband) don’t receive survivor benefits from Social Security, often can’t get on their partner’s health care (i could go on if you’d like)
    while you seem to miss a fundamental point
    Laws that enable same sex marriage don’t take away rights or benefits from heterosexuals.

    • I address all this in my post. Those are benefits given to married couples because marriage has been shown to provide benefits to society. Singles, roommates, siblings and such do not receive these benefits, and do not claim they have those benefits ‘taken away from them’. Additional benefits granted from the government at the expense of others need to be merited, they are simply a fundamental right. Your claim that laws enabling same sex marriage do not take away rights is also addressed. The free expression of religion is a constitutional right, and the progress made by the GLBT lobby has already resulted in individuals and foundations losing those rights, and will continue to do so as more rights are granted to this group.

      • Cons,

        You haven’t once considered that allowing gay couples the full chance to participate in American culture via marriage equality – and allowing them the rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities afforded to straight couples WILL, in fact, benefit society.

        You’ve listed generic “ways” gay couples can “reproduce” these benefits. I might cite that these reproductions are very, very expensive and not accessible to your average gay couple due to the cost. Furthermore, there is little in the way of protection should a gay couple, perhaps living together for quite a few years, be separated by death to protect them. Family members of the deceased can and do contest inheritance and wills and often win in courts – particularly in more conservative states.

        Take for example the lesbian couple who, with their children (biological of one partner, adopted in the home-state by the other) who were unmarried because their state did not allow it. They established legal medical proxy in their home state, but traveled to Florida where the adoptive mother of the children suffered a brain aneurysm. The nearest hospital was a private hospital. Initially, they denied BOTH visitation and medical proxy to this woman’s partner. Her and her children were not even allowed in to visit her dying partner – their mother – even with legal papers in order in another state.

        You cite individual foundations “losing their rights”. I assume one example you cite is the church in New Jersey who lost a tax incentive on a property they opened up for public use. They received money from the state to allow public use of the land. They lost said monetary gain when they denied use to a gay couple who wanted to hold a commitment ceremony there. They lost money, not rights.

        You might also cite Catholic adoption agencies who closed their doors because they wanted to violate the law by not considering gay couples for placement of children, whether in a foster or adopting household setting. The right to believe and express said belief was never infringed upon. Instead, they were rightfully told by the state that they could not operate an adoption service while violating the law and willfully chose to abandon said service instead of adhere to the law.

        There is another story I am aware of where an elderly gay couple who had been together for decades did not consider the actions of long-estranged family members who contested the last will and testament of the deceased and WON in court, taking away surviving partner’s home of three decades having won in court.

        I digress. It is shown that the average gay couple can spend upwards of 144k more in their lifetime in added taxes, cost of a second medical insurance plans, cost of second vehicle insurance plans, and reproduction of legal protections for their household. Let’s call this the gay tax. Now this money, more often than not taken advantage of by straight couples, would go a long way in helping said gay couple improve their home value, provide for their children, repay existing educational debt, or simply spending in the open market. This is a huge boon to communities that gay couples live in through the increase in property values, increase in wealth for local businesses, reduction in crime, etc. etc. Currently, it’s simply wasted money, a tax for being gay meant to “reproduce” standard household protections that can be contested by hostile and estranged family at any point in time.

        You then cited irrelevant and silly “comparisons”. Two consenting, unrelated adults of the same gender is not the same as two related adults, an adult and a child, two children, one partner in love and another person not in love, a rapist and his victim, a group of people, etc. etc. Those are topics of a different nature specifically BECAUSE they transcend sexual orientation. In forbidding a type/composition of a relationship marriage recognition, you are forbidding a type of relationship, not all valid relationships. In forbidding marriage equality to gay couples, you are forbidding all types of valid relationships – those built on love, trust, and a mutual emotional and physical attraction.

        You then say “it isn’t what marriage is”. Marriage, as a word, does not originate in Christian or Jewish culture. Your dialogue suggests you are Christian – correct me if I am wrong. I need not point out that the original template of marriage in Jewish/Christian culture was never monogamous. It was always polygynous – one man, many women. It was not called “marriage”. In fact, the etymological origin is in Roman/Greek culture where, particularly among Plebeians, marriage was both monogamous AND gender neutral. I’ll cut the history lesson short.

        Either way, your last paragraph goes on to describe sexual urges and choice vs. innate. You made two errors in judgment here: First is your suggestion that if a gay man or woman researches a topic of sexual orientation, he or she must be biased. This is not how science operates. Bias, in this case, can most often be easily shown. Your second mistake was your fixation on only the physical, without recognizing that sexual orientation has only a little to do with sex and much more to do with emotion and feeling. Homosexuality, in this case, is the innate (not necessarily inborn) physical, emotional, and romantic attraction to the same gender. Sure. One can decide to not have sex. One cannot, however, decide to forsake emotional and physical attraction.

        I can tell you this: when I met my partner, the attraction and the feelings I had towards him were more than an “urge”. It was much more than simply a desire to have sex and get off. It was not, as you suggested, akin to Fetishism or objectification. I can guarantee you that the emotions, sensations, and feelings that I felt were more or less identical to those you felt when you met your spouse.

        There is nothing about my capacity and my love for him that can be summarized by perversion. To suggest that is to drive a proverbial knife right into my heart. For my government to treat us as legal strangers feels like both religious persecution and apartheid law, a foreigner in the country I was born in and have come to love.

        Don’t you see? We’re not asking for special rights. We’re not asking to redefine anything. We’re simply asking to fully participate in the culture, the society, and the nation that we all know and love. And you, because of your pseudo-religious beliefs, tell us no.

  2. FriendlyNeighborhoodLibertarian

    What an incredibly simplistic view. Your parents ought to be ashamed that they brought up someone with such a profound lack of critical thinking skills.

    Why does it matter whether you think gays should be allowed to marry? What effect does it have on you? This is purely a case of the majority thinking that it “knows better” than the minority – a belief that a TRUE conservative would abhor.

    Further, there is documented evidence that, on average, gay marriages are more stable and longer-lasting than hetero marriages. They produce (through adoption, previous hetero relations, or artificial fertilization) normal, healthy children. They are willing and able to participate in the community in the exact same way as a married couple. Your point that gay marriage has no social benefit acknowledges exactly none of this, and is therefore invalid.

    Ideally, a TRUE conservative would call for the abolishment of legal benefits for marriage. Those benefits would become contracts that any pair of people could enter into. If I have a friend, regardless of sex or gender, with whom I wish to enter into a contract enabling, for instance, shared property, I would be able to do so. There are plenty of reasons why this might benefit society (keeping us both afloat and off welfare, for instance), and it encourages a sense of community in a way that restricting such rights to only heterosexual couples who intend to remain together “forever” does not.

    And finally, consider the fact (yes, fact) that marriage originated as a contract for binding two separate families together for mutual economic benefit. Nothing about my above proposal suggests anything contrary. The conflation of religion and law that we call modern marriage occurred because people were superstitious, and it is in direct violation of the First Amendment. As a conservative, this should outrage you. Instead, you choose to believe that the Constitution only need be interpreted in such a way that it protect your way of life, and screw everyone else’s.

    Please, don’t call yourself a “conservative” until you’ve abandoned your restrictive, nanny-statist, anti-Constitution beliefs.

    • “What effect does it have on you?” I listed several instances in which the government interferes with individuals privacy and religious rights as a result of laws furthering these causes. I would like the freedom to choose whom I work for, whether it be at a marriage ceremony I find immoral, or a Ku Klux Klan gathering, which I would also find immoral. I should have the individual freedom to make that choice, without fear of being sued and found at fault by the government. There are studies that show that heterosexual unions are more stable and produce more emotionally healthy children, as well as studies that show homosexual unions have higher instances of abuse and that homosexual men have higher instances of child abuse. If that were true, it would be a good reason to avoid placing children for adoption with male homosexuals. This is a choice that religious charitable foundations have made, and as a result have been shut down by the government. You have to choose which studies you put higher stock in. You’re welcome to think that my prioritizing of freedoms is simplistic. Obviously, I disagree.

      • Cons,

        These examples are nothing more than evidence of violation of law. You state there are studies that show gay men to be more prone to child abuse. This is an outright lie. Members of a minority group throughout history have often been stereotyped as being dangerous and predatory to the majorities most vulnerable members. In WWII, Jews were “found” to have been murdering Christian babies. Black men during the 1960’s civil rights movement were “found” to have been raping white women. Anita Bryant in the 70’s spread the outright lie that gay teachers would have a significantly high chance of molesting and abusing students.

        If there are studies stating that gay men have a higher chance of molesting children, said study is not peer reviewed and found to be inaccurate in many ways:

        1. They fail to adhere to the classification of the predator, where sexual predators, particularly of minors, act in a way where their victim is one of availability, not gender. After careful analysis, it was found that older men who victimized younger boys identified as heterosexual and showed no indication of having adult same-gender sexual and emotional relationships.

        2. One study you refer to does not pull from a statistically accurate group. It finds male children and then takes measurements on the gender of the predator rather than doing a statistical analysis of the entire population as a whole.

        3. I know of one study that included actual gay couples, an 18 year old young man and his 16 year old boyfriend who, because of the disapproval of conservative parents, were tried and found guilty of statutory rape. Surely a 2 year age difference doesn’t constitute predatory behavior?

        4. Confusion in terminology: male-male child abuse is not homosexual abuse. Most child molesters, in this case, do not have an adult sexual orientation and have never developed a mature capacity for romantic and sexual relationships with adults. It has been found that in this regard, child molesters cannot be identified as homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual since theirs is a disorder of fixation, not one of sexual/emotional attraction.

        5. When actually looking at the studies themselves or conducting analysis of potentially developed adult sexual orientation, it has been found that only 2% of cases involve children molested or abused by gay men, zero evidence of molestation by gay women, and 98% or greater molestation by heterosexual men. Homosexual adults, like heterosexual adults, are no more or less attracted to children.

        In this example, you are simply wrong. Not only that, you are being degrading and insulting, perpetuating a stereotype that gay men are a danger to children when we are, in fact, not.

        Your prioritization of freedoms is misleading and unethical. Your examples make it clear that religious belief (your religious belief, in fact) is enough to merit enshrining segregation and discrimination into law.

        At one point you had sympathy – imagining what it would be like to be told you couldn’t marry the person you love. Take that a step further. Imagine that you were to live in a nation where you pay more (on average, 144k more) to be treated as a second class citizen by your government and as a less-than by other citizens simply because you don’t fit the mold of the norm, because you do not conform with what most people are (that is white, middle class, Christian).

    • “Further, there is documented evidence that, on average, gay marriages are more stable and longer-lasting than hetero marriages.”

      That surprises me. Could I see some?

  3. has the recent gay marriages in california and other states personally affected you? do you feel that your marriage is less sound? Are you and your husband more likely to divorce, are you more likely to commit adultery than when gay marriage was not allowed anywhere in this country.

  4. Your argument is flawed on the premise alone. Legalizing ‘gay marriage’ is like legalizing the ‘square wheel’ it does not exist. You can’t legislate through government a redefinition of a religious thing. Marriage is a RELIGIOUS sacrament. Government should have NO SAY at all whom you marry. So until you oppose the sanctioning of all government interference of marriage you stand on a hypocritical premise.

    The legalization of CIVIL UNIONS for ALL couples, straight or gay is the argument. You have been duped by a red herring; either that, or you enjoy the government sanctioning of those religious entreaties of which you only agree with, and disapprove of those that you personally object based on nothing more than your ‘feelings’.

    Civil Unions would allow tax benefits, etc (government jurisdiction) to any couple. and it would necessarily be as difficult and expensive as the current day divorce to dissolve.

    Marriage would be a solely religious sacrament, wherein if you find a church that approves and sanctions that union of which you seek, it would then be ratified in the eyes of God and have no legal ramifications at all.

    Then suddenly you will see no gays wanting to redefine marriage. But I suspect that you would still oppose civil unions. Therefore making my point that it is two people, who in no way whatsoever co-habitating affect you, that you oppose only because they are gay.

    Keep your government out of MY church.

    • I think I’m late to the party, but…

      Yes! I’d agree to civil unions for all and marriage only as a religious institution; otherwise, I see no reason to restrict people’s individual freedom by limiting marriage to between a man and a woman. But, for that matter, I think that marriage should be allowed for most of the other relationships mentioned in the original post; if a brother and a sister agree not to have biological children and want to get married (although I doubt that this will be common any time in the near future), then that’s fine with me—that’s their business. That said, I DO think that marriage should be consensual: this would prevent adults from marrying children under the age of consent, and adults from marrying unwilling partners.

      • Welcome to the “party” I suppose. There is one flaw that I foresee as being potentially disastrous with the situation you mentioned – that being an incestuous relationship between direct relatives:

        In the case of unrelated gay couples or unrelated straight couples, you witness two individuals who build a new relationship from the ground up. They add and add and add to the definition of their relationship with no detriment. If successful, it lasts a lifetime. If unsuccessful, both move on and begin the search anew.

        In the case of related individuals – siblings for example – an already present kinship relationship that is present since the birth of the youngest. A kin relationship is replaced by an erotic one. If the erotic relationship fails, the sacrifice is clear as both cannot easily go their separate ways without causing very real emotional damage to the family in question. They are siblings and children. They cannot move on and begin the search anew.

        There are other flaws and shortcomings. To place the two side by side, however, is to error. Sexual orientation is at the base of innate, human sexual behavior – determining the gender that you can have a valid and potent physical, emotional, and romantic relationship. Incest, polygamy, etc. etc. are simply structures of relationships that transcend sexual orientation.

  5. A TV can insult your intelligence, but nothing rubs it in like a computer.

  6. I agree: there is clearly a difference between innate sexual orientation and different relationship structures; this is a separate issue from that of same-sex marriage. I also see that there are clearly downsides to getting romantically involved with a family member. That said, I think getting involved with a family member is just an extreme on a continuum: those challenges are similar to the ones you might face while transforming a relationship from a working relationship to a romantic one, or from a friendship relationship to romance. I agree that the risks involved in becoming romantically involved with a family member would be much greater, but I do think they are on the same spectrum, and that they are not completely dissimilar to those found other types of relationships.

    That said, I don’t think any of this really matters; I still don’t see any reason to limit the types of relationships between consenting adults that are recognized by law. Of course there will be benefits and downsides to any type of relationship, but I think we can trust adults to make their own decisions about these things, and I don’t really see the point in elevating one particular relationship structure over any other.

    • Janies,

      I believe that you and I might agree on one thing: marriage as a human construct has, for a significant amount of time, remained an exclusively private mechanism. Although there were a small number of regulations re: divorce and inheritance in Roman culture, for quite some time marriage (absent the presence of arrangement and exchange of property, gifts, money, or prima nocta) involved a private agreement followed by some public announcement. There were no licenses. There were no rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities as we see in such numbers today (1000+ between the state and federal level). It meant that you announced who you were married to and everyone understood that – a formation of a kinship relationship. Signed wills for inheritance were seldom questioned.

      Now, however, we exist in a nation where the last wishes of a dying person can always be challenged in the court of law, especially when it comes to gay couples with estranged families.

      Society has endured quite well for thousands of years without government interference. “Somehow” straight couples have always decided to live together, have babies, support said children. Gay couples have also existed in the exact same family structures for quite some time, some fully accepted by society and some fully rejected by society depending on the nation, culture, and period of history.

      Government should back out of the marriage business, dismantle restrictive laws, and privatize marriage again as more of a private/social union instead of an inflated, legal one.

      At the same time, it is important that individual protections be implemented so that the last wishes of a dying person in a relationship are not challenged unless causing harm through the intentional disregard of financially dependent children and spouses. That would mean if a gay (or straight) couple arranged to have the surviving partner inherit all, have medical proxy, etc. etc., estranged family couldn’t dismantle those wishes through the court of law.

      • I completely agree. My husband, who is studying law, agrees that the government should have nothing to do with marriage. It’s too much of a mess, and nothing to do with the government. I think that medical wishes and wills should be respected no matter the circumstances. It’s not only homosexuals that suffer; people have been challenging wills for as long as they have existed. My mother’s family lost about $60,000 from an uncle because a Catholic ‘charity’ contested his will. It it definitely wrong.

      • “My mother’s family lost about $60,000 from an uncle because a Catholic ‘charity’ contested his will. It it definitely wrong.”

        Even more so, I know a gay couple who were in their 70’s. They unfortunately had to go to an assisted living facility and couldn’t afford the cost of two simultaneously (estranged family refused to be involved). They were both separated because the state did not consider them married even after being together for 40 years. One passed away and the family inherited everything, leaving the other partner in squalor and unable to afford even the most basic of things. He’s still in assisted living, but 100% of his social security check goes to expenses. If he were to leave, he’d have no home to go back to.

        I know a straight couple. The husband gave a house to his mother, who lived there with her grandson from the husband’s sister. Instead of the house returning to the husband, who bought and paid for it, inheriting the house from his own mother, the grandson (husbands nephew) challenged in court and was given the house since he lived there and helped pay the bills. This is despite the husband having no problem with his nephew continuing to live there as long as he wanted to. The nephew got the house and sold it for a profit.

        The government, which is logically an extension of us, is way too involved in private, family matters, many of which are extensions of civil marriage.

        As long as civil marriage exists, gay couples as tax paying citizens have a right to marry the person they love without interference from other citizens. There is no society wide “redefinition”. There are no negative effects, only positive for gay couples, their households, and their families.

        Still, I’d rather see government get out of our lives. Until (mostly) Republican interference in the lives of gay men and women in America ceases, that won’t happen. Since discrimination against gay couples is an extension of religious animus, the government that is an extension of us is aiding in religious persecution of gay men and women. This is not the government’s role, which guarantees all citizens not only freedom OF religion, but freedom FROM religion. To protect and serve is the role of our government, not to control and interfere.

      • The Constitution, guaranteeing the right to the free practice of religion, does not in any way guarantee the right to freedom from religion. Any more than the freedom of speech guarantees freedom from speech I disagree with. No one is forcing anyone to practice any religion; all of the examples of clashes here stem from same sex couples trying to force religious people or institutions to conform to their desires.

      • Yes, I agree with this: provided that the kinship relationship is recognized by courts (ie. in the case of last wishes of dying people, or medical proxies), I think that the government should really get out of the marriage business.

      • “The Constitution, guaranteeing the right to the free practice of religion, does not in any way guarantee the right to freedom from religion. Any more than the freedom of speech guarantees freedom from speech I disagree with. No one is forcing anyone to practice any religion; all of the examples of clashes here stem from same sex couples trying to force religious people or institutions to conform to their desires.”

        Our constitution most certainly guarantees both the freedom of (to practice) religion and the freedom from (to protect from being forced to practice) religion. To understand that, you need to look at where we came from and how religious minorities came to America to escape the very precise form of religious persecution manifested when they were forced to live by religious laws of different denominations.

        You cannot have freedom of without also possessing freedom from. I am not a Christian. I am a Buddhist. If I were forced to live under Christian laws, morals, and behaviors, that does most definitely subtract from my free, religious expression.

        No gay couple is trying to force religious people or religious institutions to conform to “our desires”. Instead, we’re simply trying to protect ourselves and rid ourselves of the religious persecution wrought in living under civil laws inspired by majority religious belief.

        The examples used by organizations like NOM are:

        1. Catholic adoption agencies halting adoption services because they will not adopt or foster children to gay couples
        2. A Church in New Jersey losing a tax incentive because they would not allow a gay couple to host a civil union/wedding ceremony on land they lease for public use.
        3. A photographer in New Mexico for refusing to provide services for a wedding ceremony to a gay couple.
        4. Civil marriage license clerks stepping down from their jobs because they would not provide licenses to gay couples in New York.
        5. A Christian inn operator sued for not allowing a gay couple use of their property for a wedding reception in CT.
        6. Children being taught in states with marriage equality that there are gay men and women and sometimes, we fall in love and marry one another (one example in MA).
        7. Children being brought to the wedding of a female teacher and her wife in California.

        That’s about it. Those seven examples. I will break down why they are all fluff, fear-mongering, and ignorant:

        1. Adoption and foster care services, even by religious organizations, do not fall under the realm of religious practice anymore than a soup kitchen falls under the realm of religious practice or expression. They are public services and, more often than not, are publicly funded. Because of this, these organizations cannot violate public law. A homeless shelter, for example, cannot deny entrance to a gay man or woman on the basis of sexual orientation unless they can prove that doing so is dangerous to the person being denied or persons within. In the same manner, child services agencies are required to place a large number of children into a small number of homes. By denying gay couples the chance to foster or adopt children, Catholic Charities is creating a situation where more and more children age out of the system without any support from any type of family. If denying gay couples, they are using public funding to violate public law. This cannot be done.
        2. The NJ Church had an agreement that they would receive a tax incentive (money) to provide open and public use to a pavilion that the church owned. In this, they received public funds and were cited for violating state anti-discrimination laws. The did not lose their tax-exempt status. Instead, they simply lost the tax incentive.
        3. The photographer in NJ was personally bogus in my opinion. I’m not sure why this gay couple wanted a photographer who would not enjoy shooting their wedding ceremony to be at their wedding ceremony. It makes absolutely no sense, but again, it was found to be in violation of the state’s Human Rights Act. Would I have sued? Most certainly not… unless I already paid for the service and was told at the very last minute that I would not receive the service and would not receive a refund. This was not last minute and from what I heard, the photographer provided names for other companies that would provide service. It was a silly blip in the system where the cause is not marriage equality for gay couples, but how lawsuit happy the American people truly are.
        4. The marriage license clerks in NYS are interesting… it is funny how this was a non-issue in MA, CT, VT, NH, IA, and D.C. Again: these clerks hold a public position that they are paid to perform. In some cases, they may be the only marriage license clerk within 60 to 100 miles in some rural counties in upstate NY. They cannot violate state law because of personal religious belief. To issue civil marriage licenses to gay couples does not stand in violation of their religious freedom because their jobs have nothing to do with their religion. They cannot, for example, deny a marriage license to a straight, unrelated, unmarried couple because the couple currently cohabitates or had premarital sex. To do so is a gross abuse and misuse of the power of their positions funded by tax payers.
        5. The inn operator being sued in CT denied a gay couple use of their facility for a wedding reception. Under state law, they could very well deny use IF they had no more than (I believe) 10 rooms. As they had more than 10 rooms, they were not a privately run bed and breakfast, but an inn and were required to follow state anti-discrimination laws when it came to who they offered their services to. It is important to note that they are being sued by the gay couple for $1 (ONE dollar). This is not a greed-based lawsuit. It is a lawsuit to make a point: businesses cannot violate state law because of the personal religious beliefs of the business owners.
        6. Some controversy has cropped up over the reading of two books in MA: “King & King” (a book about two princes who fall in love and get married) and “What’s in a Family” (a book about different types of family structures, including grandparents raising children, a couple without children, single parents with children, foster parents, gay parents, etc. etc.). Both books are accurate representations of reality and are not in any way, shape, or form “propaganda”. They most certainly do not violate religious freedoms since parents always have a choice in their child’s education (public school, private school, or homeschooling). Unfortunately for some anti-gay, Christian parents, learning about reality and the fact that gay men and women exist in this world is hardly a violation of religious freedom or parental rights.
        7. The all-famous Lesbian wedding in San Francisco. This was a gross misrepresentation of facts. The children that attended did so with full parental permission. Furthermore, it really was an educational moment in reality. How many kids are going to grow up to say that they were there on the day California passed marriage equality… and also there when for the first time in American history, the people used the democratic process to take already existing rights away? Sure, kids passively remember the lessons they learned, but in our active memory are the experiences we had – those experiences that shed light on how much is really going on in the world. It’s funny, though, that the only people to complain about this are not the parents of the kids who were given parental permission to attend.

        When push comes to shove, none of these examples above involved what you called “same sex couples trying to force religious people or institutions to conform to their desires”.

        Instead, it is the other way around. Religious people (primarily Jewish/Christian/Muslim) are trying to force through law or process things that require gay people conform to their desires – from anti-gay sodomy laws, presence of conversion therapy centers that are often “home” to a number of gay youths who are forced to attend by their parents, repealing anti-discrimination laws, using primarily religiously-influenced rhetoric to pass amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman (in essence… redefining or attempting to absolve the marriages of gay couples at a legal level – Rev./Senator Ruben Diaz of NYS made it is personal goal to “annul” the marriages of gay couples in New York State).

        After all of this, one thing stands true: We LGBT men and women in America who are citizens of equal merit, value, and worth, can’t wait for the day when conservatives stop politicizing our lives.

        I don’t think you know how it feels: to have your household, your relationship with your partner, or your family force-transformed into a political issue… to live in a country where most state governments and the federal government treats you as legal strangers… to live in a place where even your friends and family perceive your relationships as temporary because you’re not married (even if you do have a civil union or domestic partnership).

        When gay couples marry, all that happens at a social level is people begin to see your relationship as permanent. This violates NO ONES religious freedom.

      • You go through almost every example and say, “It was okay for them to do this, because it was the law.” Laws infringing on the free practice of religion are unconstitutional, that’s why they are being fought. You can’t say Chicago’s gun laws were okay. They were unconstitutional, and eventually the Supreme Court declared them so. If a gay couple wants to get married, don’t try to do it in a church that doesn’t support gay marriage. If they want to adopt, do so at a public agency. It’s so circular to say, “It affects no one,” then say, “Oh, those examples don’t count,” then go back to saying, “It affects no one.” Living together affects no one, writing wills affects no one, saying you’re married affects no one. Forcing others to let you marry on their land (which is obviously tax exempt, because religious organizations are tax exempt) is forcing other churches to conform to you. You can make the choice to marry somewhere else.
        Are sodomy laws and conversion therapy centers parents choose to utilize the only examples of a country forcing religion on you? Because sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional years ago, and (since sodomy includes oral sex) I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone trying to reinstate them. And the existence of therapy centers that parents choose to use is the government forcing religion on you? I think that’s not accurate. I think anti-descrimination laws should be repealed because I support freedom, that has nothing to do with religion. And you simply assume that laws defining marriage as one man and one woman are religiously influenced. In my multiple posts on the topic I listed many reasons why I support such laws, the only ones of which relate to religion in any way are simply in relation to the Constitutional rights I have demonstrated are being infringed. None of these examples force religion on you in any way. You are not guaranteed freedom from religion. The state can not establish a religion. And it can not force a religion to treat you a certain way if that it against the religion’s tenants.

  7. “Laws infringing on the free practice of religion are unconstitutional”

    No, what I’m saying is that the examples I cited (the only ones that are really known) do not involve the free practice of or exercise of religion. If you hold a public service job, that job has nothing to do with your religion. It is akin to a Muslim working in a hot dog factory. Some of the product may require he touch pork – a violation of his religion – but that doesn’t mean the owner must find him a job that prevents him from touching pork.

    Take it a step further. To actively discriminate against gay couples (in violation of state law) for personal reasons (whether religious or not) is directly resulting in the gay couple in question being forced to make a change in order to accommodate the religious beliefs of others. If my partner and I are traveling to a rural area with only one hotel and the hotel owner denies us service because we’re gay, the owner is turning us out of a public service because of his or her own personal, religious beliefs. This is very real and very direct religious persecution.

    Notice NONE of these examples involve a gay couple forcing an individual religious organization to perform a marriage ceremony for them. That hasn’t happened and – I agree with you – CANNOT happen. I do agree with you on another point: lawsuits such as those against the photographer or the CT inn keeper are foolish. I would not want to have something as intimate as my wedding reception hosted by an unfriendly business.

    Adoption is another story, since Catholic Adoption agencies, while run by the Catholic Church, are publicly funded and are performing a public service. In a nation were thousands upon thousands of kids age out of the child services system and are sent out into the streets, we really can’t afford to discriminate in placement of children into loving and secure homes. In doing so, the Church is saying it is better that children reach adulthood as orphans than be placed in the secure home of a gay couple. That causes a massive amount of harm to children.

    “Forcing others to let you marry on their land (which is obviously tax exempt, because religious organizations are tax exempt)”

    It hasn’t occurred that a Church has been forced to hold a marriage ceremony in a property exclusively belonging to the Church. The only two situations, as mentioned, was the CT inn keeper who denied fair use to a gay couple for a wedding reception (not a religious organization) and a church in NJ that denied a gay couple use of a pavilion that they leased to the public in exchange for PUBLIC money. This means that the pavilion was not exclusively under the church’s control. If the gay couple sued because they wanted to hold the service in the church itself, that would be a different story entirely (and I would side with you on the decision that the gay couple is in error here).

    “Because sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional years ago, and (since sodomy includes oral sex) I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone trying to reinstate them.”

    You’re correct. By years ago, the remaining anti-sodomy laws in the United States were ruled unconstitutional in 2003 in Lawrence V. Texas. Interesting note: the language of most of the country’s anti-sodomy laws worded it to target only two men, not a man and a woman or two women.

    “And the existence of therapy centers that parents choose to use is the government forcing religion on you?”

    You’re not following me. Freedom of and freedom from religion means that the government has a mutual responsibility to enforce both: the government is as responsible in not establishing religion as it is responsible in protecting individuals from the actions of those of other religions. Should a parent be able to force a child into ex-gay therapy against the will of the child? In my opinion, absolutely not. Hell, a few decades ago gay adults were pushed into mental institutions where they underwent very damaging or even deadly “conversion therapy” techniques in state-run institutions. There are a number of reports of this type of thing happening back in the day at BYU, many resulting in suicide of those involved.

    “I think anti-descrimination laws should be repealed because I support freedom”

    The very laws you want repealed protect from discrimination based on a number of factors: gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, disability. We’re working on adding to that list to include sexual orientation and gender identity at a national level.

    “You are not guaranteed freedom from religion.”

    And I am saying that you are wrong. The very premise of the establishment of religious freedom in this country was in response to original settlers not being free FROM religion.

    Look at any legislative debate in any of the states that had passed constitutional amendments banning gay couples from marrying someone of the same gender: You will see that the arguments for are fundamentally Christian. They are presented by Christians, invoking the names of Jesus and God, referring to the biblical language of ‘abomination’ and claiming that they need to enforce “God’s law”. This is occurring TODAY in state legislatures around the country. This is fundamentally using religion as a reason to establish a construct of religion into law. In doing so, the government is failing to protect ALL citizens from religious laws of religions they do not belong to.

    You may have provided non-religious reasons earlier. I read and responded to those, each on their own merits.

    The truth, however, is plain and simple: When a gay couple gets married, no straight couple is impacted and no one is denied religious freedom. In fact, the religious freedom of the gay couples marrying are respected.

    There is no harm minus a very, VERY small number of lawsuits brought on by people who are lawsuit happy (the American public in general is very lawsuit happy). There is only the benefit of the celebration of permanence relationships of gay couples, the strengthening of their families and households, and the assurance by our government that we will be treated as more than legal strangers.

    Sure… wills and legal documents can be drafted, but none of those are binding in the court of law. In fact, many estranged families have challenged last will and testament AND WON, leaving the surviving partner with little, if anything, that he (or she) and his (or her) spouse have built because they were not “legally married”.

    I’ll repeat:

    I live in Massachusetts. One day in the future, I am going to marry a man I love and he will be my husband. I can guarantee you that you will not be invited. In no measurable way, shape, or form, are your religious beliefs or those of others infringed upon by the fact that we will be married according to our religious beliefs.

    • I want to say that I appreciate your sticking to the points and not inserting any insults or snide comments. It’s definitely easier to have an actual discussion on the topic, and I want you to know I respect you for your patience and rationality.
      Your example of clerks not wanting to grant marriage licenses being like Muslims would be valid if they took those jobs knowing that was part of the description. I don’t know why the small inconvenience of moving to a different clerk is such a big deal. You are correct that anti-descrimination laws affect women, race, religion, etc. I am against them all. If some bigot doesn’t want to hire black people, that’s his right. It’s my right to boycott his company, and it’s some other bigots right to support his company. If someone doesn’t want to serve me because of the color of my skin, that’s their right. They can turn me away, and I can frequent some other business that values my money more than being racist, and I can get online and complain about the racist business. Plenty of homosexuals boycotted religious businesses in California as a result of Prop-8. That’s what freedom is all about. Anti-descrimination laws are a ridiculous infringement on our rights, and result in quotas and lawsuits. You think that no tax funds should be used to support institutions that teach something against your moral code (rehabilitation homes); I agree (since I don’t like federal tax dollars being used for anything not outlined in the Constitution), and think that consistency would demand that federally funded abortion clinics also be shut down, and that public schools can not teach that homosexuality is good.
      We seem to agree on many of the instances that are the result of ridiculous people suing for ridiculous reasons. (I certainly agree that wills should be respected, and think any instance in which they are not is horrific.) My concern is not when some couple sues a photographer; my concern is when the photographer loses. You may be rational and recognize that these situations are wrong, but as SSM becomes more and more common, and there are more and more laws passed protecting it, the more innocent people simply trying to live by their religious beliefs will find themselves on the wrong side of the law. You may just live your life in peace, not trying to force any religious group or organization to work for you, but that doesn’t change the fact that others will and the more laws protecting SSM, the harder it will be for others who are also just trying to live by their moral code. Obviously, you think that your right to marry trumps their right to be protected from such lawsuits and government intrusion. I will always disagree. I also think that it’s significant that a Supreme Court Justice has said that laws allowing SSM also allow for polygamy. Most homosexuals seem to brush this off as insignificant, but I don’t.

      • “Your example of clerks not wanting to grant marriage licenses being like Muslims would be valid if they took those jobs knowing that was part of the description. I don’t know why the small inconvenience of moving to a different clerk is such a big deal.”

        Job descriptions change all the time, but one part of this public job is that they must adhere to state law.regardless of what they think of said laws. The point still stands: simply objecting to a task of your job on religious grounds is not enough to merit you avoiding said task. If one finds it violates his or her ability to practice his/her religion (such as a doctor in a public hospital who refuses to participate in abortions) the option is to either reconcile the objection with your employer or leave your job. According to my own religious beliefs, I would like to be afforded more chance for meditation, reflection, and prayer. My job interferes with that, but I select to forgo spiritual development in order to perform my duties. It would be unethical for me to subtract from my job responsibilities in order to accommodate my religious life.

        As for “moving onto the next clerk”, this can be a massive inconvenience on the part of the couple seeking a marriage license. New York State isn’t a small state From NYS to Buffalo is 7 hours, from NYS to Plattsburg is 6 hours. This is on highway time.

        My hometown, for example, is in the Adirondacks. There is one clerk who issues marriage licenses and performs secular weddings. If that clerk were to decide, for religious reasons, to not issue marriage licenses or perform secular wedding ceremonies for gay couples, the next clerk is a 45 minute drive away in the summer – longer in the winter (IF the road is passable in the winter). Since these clerks are only open during business hours, you’re looking at work lost by one partner in the relationship, which means that the religious beliefs of one individual is costing someone of another religion/religious belief unnecessary time and money. From this, one can deduce that religious freedom when fully enforced, results in ALL individuals in society unburdened by the religious beliefs of others.

        Unlike you, I stand firm against any and all forms of outright discrimination. It is simply not a human characteristic that I feel we should tolerate and is counterproductive to forward movement and human evolution.

        Discrimination causes divide, which inevitably results in unrest, war, and violence. Whether refusing to service someone because of the color of their skin, preventing mature adults the opportunity to vote because of their gender, denying a couple housing because of their sexual orientation, enslaving a certain type of people, exterminating another type of people, etc. etc. discrimination is never a good, just, moral or productive thing. In my opinion, the moment one person’s religious beliefs causes me unjust harm or inconvenience is the moment that person steps beyond their freedoms to abridge mine. As it stands, we must first and foremost create a society where the freedoms of one individual ends where the freedoms of another individual begins.

        Back to the photographer. Would I have sued this individual? Only under one circumstance: If this photographer had agreed to provide services at my function, took money for said services, and then backed out under the following circumstances ->

        1. Backed out at the last minute and caused an inability for me to find a replacement service.
        2. Backed out and refused to provide a full, monetary refund

        If the photographer initially denied me for whatever reason (especially if it was because he or she didn’t want to be a part of a celebration of love between me and my partner) I would not want that person involved and would find someone who wants to be there (and get paid for being there). I do, however, understand requiring government to fight discrimination in all forms. I recall family stories citing “No Irish Need Apply” or “No Italians Need Apply”. I recall my mother who was dating a black man and was ostracized by her family and society. And now I know the sting one feels in being turned away from eating establishments or being given the worst service because I am there with my same-gender partner, or having pejoratives (or projectile objects) thrown at us as we walk down the street.

        I find it absolutely essential that we live in a society where no one individual is protected from prosecution by way of a lawsuit for any reason. It is essential that people be able to be held accountable for the maltreatment of others.

        Everyone has the right to exercise their religious beliefs in whatever form is appropriate: in church, in their homes, in open forums (protected by freedom of speech). It must end there.

        How is it that you can see one way (marriage clerks not wanting to issue marriage licenses for gay couples), but not the other (gay couples who are denied what is entitled to them by law)?

        My religious beliefs are so that does not distinguish between a married straight couple and a married gay couple. They are both the same. Now I plan to marry my partner in NYS. For the better part of 22 years, I paid taxes in NYS. I will be paying significant taxes to host the wedding there. A small segment of those go to pay the salary of our area’s marriage clerk (the only one within a 45 minute drive).

        You’re saying that as a citizen, I cannot do something that is well within my ability to do under the law… because of the religious beliefs of another citizen?

        Furthermore, whether or not other couples/households are polygamous is irrelevant to my marrying my partner in NYS. Can the findings in Lawrence V. Texas be used to dismantle anti-bigamy laws? Of course. In fact, they should. It should not be illegal in some states for a man to live with multiple women or a man to live with a woman other than his wife. That is excessive government intrusion. It is still irrelevant.

        If I go to a town clerk’s office to get a marriage license with money (and fiance) in hand, it is unethical and a violation of my religious freedoms AND legal rights for said town clerk to deny us. The clerk is working for the government, not her religious organization. Her job is not to enforce her religious beliefs, but to enforce the law of the land. Give unto Caesar and all that.

  8. Oh my god this is just so ridiculous. You talk about how gays dont save anything until marriage, ITS BECAUSE THEY’RE NOT ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED! Did you think at all before writing this? I also noticed that you equate gay marriage to incest. How does that make any sense to you?
    Pretty please respond to this, I really want to have this debate. You need to get some sense into your head so that you don’t raise your kids to be as close-minded and hateful as you are.

    • So, you know gay people who were virgins until they performed a civil ceremony and have since lived monogamously? If not, you don’t have a point. I equate the redefining of marriage to incest because if marriage is not a union between one man and one woman it can be anything. This is quite logical. Marriage is something specific. If you want it to be any group of people who want special privileges and recognition for their relationship, that’s what it will be. You can’t change marriage, then say, “Sorry, I didn’t mean you who happens to love two men at once. Everyone ELSE can marry who they love, but not you. And not you, who happens to love your nephew, and he loves you. YOU can’t get married.”

  9. Cons,

    The “virgins until they performed a civil ceremony” statement is moot. Monogamy before marriage/civil ceremonies is a very religious ideal, derived from a religion that has historically separated any form of physical pleasure from spiritual ‘salvation’ (crude explanation): one not currently practiced by the majority of Americans.

    Your “marriage equality will open the door to incestuous marriage” argument is, as I pointed out before, very flawed. Familial relationships already guarantee very solid rights, benefits, and protections.

    “This is quite logical”. No, it isn’t. As I pointed out above, your argument is falling apart both left and right. It is overly simplistic.

    • My statement is relevant in the context that I used it in my article. I was laying the groundwork for the reasons for marriage; to some people marriage has symbolic importance, to homosexuals it is simply a means of garnering legal rights.
      If you want to talk about opening the doors to other marriages, explain to me why I could not marry the men that I loved? They both loved me. I loved them. I HAD to choose which to marry. It was hard, and very, very painful knowing that one of them could never be a part of my life. Homosexuals don’t have to make that choice; they can be with the person they love. I could go on about how I ‘felt’ and how it was ‘deeper than simply a physical attraction’ as homosexuals have done describing their relationships in these comments. I don’t need to, though. I loved two men, and I had to choose one to marry. If I have the fundamental right to marry whomever I love, why am I legally not allowed to marry whomever I love?

      • You’re correct. To some people, marriage does have symbolic/spiritual importance. This includes straight couples and gay couples who marry for any number of reasons.

        “To homosexuals, it is simply a means of garnering legal rights” is a grotesquely inaccurate statement.

        To me, for example, marriage is the single way that my partner and I could unite together in love to convey a sense of permanence and celebration with friends, family, and the community around us. While the legal rights are nice – like the ability to co-file on health insurance and guarantee spousal inheritance – it is a very personal and very spiritual union that relays permanence to others.

        “I loved two men, and I had to choose one to marry”. This is an argument that must stand on its own (as I have pointed out before). Poly-amorous marriage transcends innate sexual orientation. As I mentioned before, in denying polygamous marriage, one is denying only one type of valid relationship composition. In denying gay couples the ability to marry, one is denying all types of valid relationship compositions – valid being defined as a relationship built on mutual, adult physical, emotional, and romantic attraction.

        For the record, I am fine with polygamous marriage. It does not impact me in any way, shape, or form and as long as it is legalized in such a way as to protect both men and women involved (avoiding the ‘ownership’ model of wives that was historically found in polygamous marriages), I don’t see a problem.

        As for incestuous marriage: I clearly explained why I was against this. In the case of related heterosexuals, it involves a narrowing of the gene pool in such a way that can cause irreversible harm to any child born. In the case of all couples: being in a romantic relationship with someone you are closely related automatically results in the replacement of a familial relationship with a sexual relationship. This involves loss and can result in a significant amount of instability in the entire family unit.

        I must state again, though, that incest is an issue that transcends sexual orientation. We’re not fighting for polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage. We’re fighting for the ability to marry the person we love whoso happens to be unrelated and of the same gender (the only valid relationship structure that exists for gay couples).

        In all states and countries, you can marry someone you love.
        In most states and countries, I cannot marry someone I love.

        The playing field is not even.

        This is what it all boils down to.

      • Your opinion on the matter is fine, but it is fact that a supreme court justice has said that allowing homosexual marriage also allows for polygamous marriage, and that the same argument is being used in Canada to fight for polygamy. It is also fine that you are not bothered by polygamous marriage. The fact is that most people are, and that is one of many reasons why we fight against broadening the definition of marriage.
        May I say that mentioning the irreversible harm done to children as an argument against incest probably isn’t the best thing for you to bring up. Reading any number of books or studies done by child psychologists will reveal that children need both a mother and a father. Men and women are different, and children need the example to learn how to develop themselves. If you don’t believe the experts, just look at the recent examples of the poor tween boy raised by lesbians who wants to cut off his penis and is now taking hormone suppressants. Irreversible harm? Or the boy that was raised genderless by two women, who declared cargo pants too masculine for him to choose to wear, but sparkly pink bikinis okay. This is the kind of thing that traditional ‘bigots’ want to protect children from. I don’t want my children to go to school and have homosexual pornography recommended to them by the teachers. I don’t want my boy to be taught that he is a girl. He’s not; children are not born genderless. You can say, “Oh, these are extreme examples, that’s not what I stand for,” but you’re refusing to see that this is the effect acceptance of homosexuality has.
        Legalizing homosexual marriage means there are no rules of decency, there are no morals, there are no boundaries, sexuality and gender are transient and meaningless and whatever you feel like. I, and the majority of Americans, disagree. There are rules. There are boundaries. Gender means something. There are basic, standard levels of decency. Gay pride parades are revolting. You think it doesn’t affect anyone else, and when I lay out how it affects the schools and children you say, ‘that doesn’t count,’ or, ‘that’s okay; children should be taught about homosexuality and options and shouldn’t be burdened with morals and outdated religious superstition.’ You think that your right to a ceremony that expresses your commitment, as well as a few legal perks, transcends the rights of children to have a mother and father. That’s fine. But no amount of intricately disputing every example I give, no amount of spinning around in circles saying that your rights trump and equality for gays is more important than anything else will change anything. I know that marriage is the most stable unit of society, the best place for children to be raised, the most important relationship and thus worth protecting. It is logical, it is substantiated by research, it is apparent from the effects that have already been seen in children and schools across the world. Legalizing homosexual marriage is destroying that; it is hurting children, it is hurting societies that support traditional marriage. It is leading a new generation of children to believe that this stable, important, safe relationship is meaningless. Homosexual marriage is not the only thing to blame; promiscuity, cohabitation and no-fault divorce laws have also made marriage less than it used to be. But we fight the battles we can. I can’t stop promiscuity, I can’t reverse no-fault divorce. I can and will fight what I see to be a current threat to marriage.

  10. “May I say that mentioning the irreversible harm done to children as an argument against incest probably isn’t the best thing for you to bring up. Reading any number of books or studies done by child psychologists will reveal that children need both a mother and a father. Men and women are different, and children need the example to learn how to develop themselves.”

    Really? In the recent Walker prop 8 trial, a special witness for the side of the defense was unable to raise a single, peer-reviewed study on the matter. The studies you cite, most often cited by the National Organization for Marriage, draw from samples on single parenting where a father or mother is absent for one reason or another. They then use that to claim that a parent of both gender is an absolute must. Whereas studies of children raised by gay and lesbian couples always show that the children are well adjusted and doing just fine.

    “If you don’t believe the experts, just look at the recent examples of the poor tween boy raised by lesbians who wants to cut off his penis and is now taking hormone suppressants.”

    You’re talking about the Lobel family. Funny… how you reduce it to “parents wanting to cut their boy’s penis off” when right now, the only treatment the parents have authorized at the request of their 14 year old daughter is hormone blocking treatments (completely reversible) after a sound diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder.

    “I don’t want my children to go to school and have homosexual pornography recommended to them by the teachers.” What kind of school district is this? Where did this happen? I must have missed the memo.

    “I don’t want my boy to be taught that he is a girl. He’s not; children are not born genderless. You can say, “Oh, these are extreme examples, that’s not what I stand for,” but you’re refusing to see that this is the effect acceptance of homosexuality has.”

    Umm… you totally jumped ship. You went from arguing about sexual orientation to a purely baseless argument about gender identity. Do you not realize that transgendered individuals, while being a small, small, small percentage of the world’s population, do have Gender Identity Disorder? No child has ever been taught that he or she is not the gender they identify as, but the opposite gender. Stop making stuff up.

    “Legalizing homosexual marriage is destroying that; it is hurting children, it is hurting societies that support traditional marriage.”

    No. It’s not.

    “It is leading a new generation of children to believe that this stable, important, safe relationship is meaningless.”

    No. It’s not. There is no logical jump from gay couples being able to marry to the creation of a sense of meaningless for straight couples. This has never happened. This A leads to 5 argument is silly and horribly unsubstantiated. Allowing gay couples to legally marry does not in any way, shape, or form, prevent or deter straight couples from marrying.

    “I can and will fight what I see to be a current threat to marriage.”

    You do realize that you actually believe my marrying the man I love “threatens marriage”… right? Is your marriage threatened or weakened when a gay couple marries? If so, please explain to me how it is. If your marriage is weakened because of gay couples marrying in the US or abroad… perhaps you married for the wrong reasons.

  11. “It is leading a new generation of children to believe that this stable, important, safe relationship is meaningless.”

    This statement, obviously extreme hyperbole, is very, very gross.

    To say that allowing gay couples to legally marry makes marriage less stable, less important, or less safe is very degrading and very, very insulting.

    You should be ashamed of yourself. I cannot comprehend how someone can be so incredibly cold.

    • I showed this article to my theatre class, and we tried to write a decent response to this properly explaining all of the points which are completely wrong…then we got to the comments and realized you had beat us to it. Congrats, and also on having the patience to not just mindlessly call names and bash whyimconservative.
      p.s. Here are some chocolate cookies, on behalf of the theatre class. Stay awesome.

      • I hope your theater class isn’t at a public school, or you will be very succinctly making a very important point for me; you take your theater class and as an assignment require them to list why homosexual marriage, a practice that the majority of Americans are against, is okay. (Don’t bother disputing that; you’ll need a few states to get a majority vote for homosexual marriage before you can pretend you’re beliefs aren’t in the minority.) And a theater class learning about the virtues of homosexual marriage… have you read my section on education? Did you bother showing the class the additional posts on marriage, or just the very first introductory post? It’s a lot easier to tear apart someone’s opinion on ‘why’ homosexuals would want to get married than it is to explain away the unconstitutionality of the homosexuals impact on individuals’ freedoms. But, constitutionality is probably an advanced topic for a theater class.

      • Cons, You assumed that Kelli wrote this as a teacher. Kelli could very well be a student having this discussion with classmates.

        “you take your theater class and as an assignment require them to list why homosexual marriage, a practice that the majority of Americans are against, is okay.”

        “Homosexual marriage” is not a practice. Gay couples do get married. That doesn’t make their marriages “gay”. Also, the May 20, 2011 gallup poll has returned results pointing out that 53% of Americans favor allowing gay couples to marry. This is over a majority. Every year, more people of voting age or higher support marriage equality for gay couples AND more opposition inevitably die of old age. Pointing to initiative/referendum votes in all of these states is foolish. You cannot assume public support for an issue at the voting booths, particularly for a social issue where there exist a large number of passive supporters: those who favor allowing gay couples to marry, but are not directly impacted so do not show up to vote.

        “It’s a lot easier to tear apart someone’s opinion on ‘why’ homosexuals would want to get married than it is to explain away the unconstitutionality of the homosexuals impact on individuals’ freedoms”

        Because there are none. My being in a relationship with another man and securing a marriage license from my state (Massachusetts) and asking the federal government to honor that state contract DOES NOT violate your constitutional freedoms.

        You are always free to hold whatever beliefs you want. When gay couples marry, you are still free to hold those beliefs. I repeat: your constitutional freedoms have never been violated because of marriage equality laws in the various states + D.C. that have been implemented over the years.

        I cite the examples you’re most likely thinking of:

        1. Wedding photographer sued for refusal of service of lesbian couple in commitment ceremony: While I will agree with you that the lawsuit is foolish (I would personally find another photographer), it is important that all businesses that serve the open public not be in the business of being able to legally deny service to an unpopular group of individuals. We have seen what social harm this can cause. Hopefully, anti-discrimination laws in the future will be unnecessary and can be abandoned. I know you are against these anti-discrimination laws. I’m not sure whether or not that extends to racial, ethnic, gender, or religious discrimination, however.

        2. NJ Church that lost tax-bonus after denying use of open pavilion to gay couple for civil union: This did not violate the church’s first amendment rights. The church received a monetary incentive to allow public use of an open pavilion that was separate from the church building. They lost this monetary incentive after denying a portion of the public open use.

        3. CT Bed and Breakfast owner sued after denying use of facilities for gay couple’s wedding reception. Same as the first point: denial of public service standing in violation of state’s anti-discrimination laws. They would have been exempt from this law IF they had fewer than 10 units in their bed and breakfast, but they had 25 units.

        I can cite one or two more examples. Out of the 100,000+ gay couples who are either legally married or in a civil union/domestic partnership, the fact that there are only a handful of instances of accused civil rights violations of those against marriage of gay couples points only to the fact that it really doesn’t exist. A woman once sued McDonald’s because she burned herself after spilling her own coffee on her hand. Petty lawsuits happen because people are greedy. For the most part, all gay couples who have married have wanted to marry for the same reasons and by using facilities and services that support their union. Who wants to have a wedding reception at a location where the owners do not think the couple in question should be married? The answer is people who are looking for a quick buck by sueing the business in question. It is, as I cited, an issue of greed: not one of the ability to legally marry.

      • Right, I apologize for being vague. I am a 14-year-old freshman in high school. I may not be as old as you, but I have to say I do consider myself to be smarter, based on the fact that I always try to keep an open mind; as opposed to close-minded bigots like you, who refuse to listen to straight reason which clearly and absolutely has refuted most, if not all, of your points.
        I found this blog as part of my research for a Government project in which we find a highly contested issue and find as much information as possible, supporting both sides, in order to fully understand it. We will later choose a side and debate the issue for a final grade. The project, and I’m reading this directly off the assignment paper, “serves two purposes: the first, to teach future voters how to find information on contested issues, and second, to show students the importance of forming their own opinions using all the facts available.” I chose gay marriage as my “highly contested issue,” and asked my parents about sites. They helpfully pointed me towards this blog. I was totally going with it, and I understood your perspective, until I came to the line, “Are there any gay couples out there who are saving sex for marriage?”
        Hoping this was a brief moment of mistaken reasoning (chastity until marriage is a mostly religious ideal, and religion should have no bearing on the American government, seeing as America celebrates freedom of religion), I continued reading. Sadly, it wasn’t just a brief moment. Shortly after, I came to this: “If I’m already married to my husband, and fall in love with another man, why don’t I have the right to marry him? At one point in my life I was in love with two men at once.” Now this made me angry. Marriage, at least in my mind, is defined as a civil and romantic union between two consenting adults. Not three. And you being in love with someone you’re not married to? That has nothing to do with this argument. That’s your personal domestic situation. Does your husband know that you want to marry another man?
        I kept reading, desperately hoping that you would make a point that I could use in my project. I finally gave up here: “What about a bisexual? The homosexual lobby is convinced that they have the right to be married to someone of the same sex, because they are sexually attracted to people of the same sex. Bisexuals are sexually aroused by both sexes, so the homosexual lobby should support their right to have a spouse of each sex.”
        Clearly, madam, you do not understand bisexuality. Being bisexual does not mean that they want to have sex with everyone. It means that they can be sexually aroused by people of both sex. In layman’s terms: I am attracted to both blondes and brunets. But I am not going to form a loving relationship with both a blonde and a brunet, I’m going to fall in love with whoever I happen to fall in love with. Humans as a species generally form romantic connections with only one person at a time. (I don’t know what’s up with you and your dreams of polyandry, but most of us are inherently monogamous.) So back to the point, bisexuals are attracted to both genders. but they aren’t going to want to marry everyone; they, like the rest of us, are going to find one person with whom they have a romantic relationship and marry them.
        But not if you have a say in it, huh? You seem to be so stuck to your beliefs that you don’t even listen to the very valid points raised by RJ and others. All you can do is restate your incorrectness. (By the way, if all you do in response to this is fault me on inconsequential technicalities, then you will be very succinctly making a very important point for me; you have a brand of bigotry the likes of which I have never before seen.)
        Most freshmen I know would just leave this alone and find a better source, but I have always been kind of stubborn. I have a need to help everyone know as much as they can. I am ashamed of the ignorance of most of the people in public school, both teachers and students. (I suppose I’ll save those comments for your section on Education.) Anyway, your aforementioned “brand of bigotry” inspired me to spread the anti-ignorance word to my peers. My first class the next day was Theatre, and the movie we were supposed to be watching wasn’t working, so we were supposed to be reading a section from the script. Myself and a group of friends had read the script before, so we went to one side of the room and started talking. Someone raised a point about opinions being like a penis- it’s fine to have one and be proud of it, but don’t try to force it on other people, especially children. I linked that to this blog, and read aloud from it to my friends. After a few minutes, someone asked, “Does this ridiculous woman have kids?”
        I responded, “I think so, I’m not sure.”
        She said, “Because I hope she doesn’t raise them as terribly close-minded as she is.”
        (Her name’s Miranda, I see she’s already commented. I apologize for her rudeness, but I must say I support the sentiment.)
        Anyway, I finished the article, and my classmates were shocked. They wanted to write a comment, and that’s when we discovered RJ. I read his first comment and they actually started cheering, which upset the teacher. They loved his form of calm redirection as opposed to the violent torrent of hatred that we were spewing, because it made us realize that we, in our ranting without fully formed, factual points of our own, were sounding like you. That’s why we decided not to comment then. At that time, we were so infuriated by the general wrongness that we couldn’t form proper sentences. We left the above message to RJ as something of a form of encouragement. I came back today, just to see what had happened, and I found this…(Thanks again RJ 🙂 ) and had to explain.

        I leave with one final question, that is honestly very important in my mind to this discussion. If you think it too personal, feel free to ignore it. My question: What would you do if your son came home from high school one day and told you that he was gay? Seriously, think about it. When thinking about decisions that affect others, imagine them affecting your loved ones. Then perhaps you won’t be quite so rude.

      • So, you did not read the other posts? If you can’t find anything to use in your project, this is only the first of about five related to the topic. Constitutional infringement is a very important portion of the discussion. I’m sorry you find all these points so ridiculous. I do think it’s interesting that you call me close minded, then declare me a bigot. Labels are not open-minded. I have studied both sides and have come to my conclusions because that is what I think is best for society. Marriage means something to me, a lot of the things I described in this post. It does not mean the same thing to homosexuals. Marriage describes a specific relationship, and homosexual relationships are different. If you truly believe that homosexuals can not be happy in their relationships if they can not be married, then I can see why you would so adamantly fight for it.

        I have children. I teach them the things I think will make them happy, which are the same things that have made me happy. I think you should not assume that anyone who believes differently than you do is close minded. We value different things. I value the first amendment. You place higher value on the yet undetermined protection of sexuality. If a movement is actively infringing on first amendment rights I will fight it. Your responses to each point I make reveal a shallow level of understanding of the legalities involved in this movement. A supreme court justice has said that legalizing homosexual marriage will set the precedent for polygamous marriage. You may brush that off; I don’t. You may brush off the many examples of the government actively forcing religious individuals to act against their beliefs to accommodate homosexual marriage. I don’t.

        If one of my sons decided he was gay, I would be sad because I think he will not be happy living that kind of life. I don’t know what exactly you are asking. I certainly wouldn’t change my stance and fight for his ‘right’ to marry. If it mattered to him he could choose to move somewhere it is legal. I wouldn’t mind knowing exactly where in my post I am rude.

  12. Great job Pamela if that is you who contributes to the NOM site. This is an excellent article and you answered the rebukes greatly. I would like to add a few more points.

    (1) It is puzzling that more conservatives cannot see how the homosexuals are infringing on our civil liberties and freedoms. When they demand that we have to accomondate them, they are violating our own morals and judgements. Thomas Sowell said this brillantly. When you demand that I accept your behavior then you have violated my civil right to make my own moral judgement.

    (2) The other side always uses the word rights and deceives the public in not knowing the difference between rights and priviledges. No one ever had a right to a marriage license, if they did then their would be no restrictions. All licenses granted by the state are priviledges and not rights.

    (3) The other side ignores the effect this has had on single people. It is this group of people who are getting screwed by all this. The state granted these licenses and benefits not avialable to single people to promote procreation. It is a slap in the face to do this to single people.

    My only minor disagreement is with your wanting the state out of the marriage business. I respectfully disagree. The state did the right thing in being involved, it simply is wrong and evil to impose SSM. Here is why.
    We all benefit including single people from man/woman marriages. The offspring pays the Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid taxes that we all depend on. The offspring fund the entitlements. SSM does not do this so it does not benefit society at all..

    • 1. I’m sorry that you feel your own morals and judgments have been violated by our request to be treated equally. I’m sorry that it is so hard for you to ‘accommodate’ us in places like employment, housing, hospitals, and public services. It must be so very hard for you. We don’t have a “behavior”. This is more than “behavior” to us. This is our lives, our relationships, our households, our families. We don’t demand that you, as a private citizen, accept anything. We’re simply pointing out that you cannot use your beliefs to support and implement laws that result in the government treating us and our significant others as legal strangers.

      2. You are incorrect. As cited in the ruling opinion in Loving V. Virginia, marriage is a civil right. Our argument extends upon that ruling by limiting gay couples from the legal and social benefits of marriage amounts to nothing more than discrimination and/or religious persecution of a minority and serves no valid purpose. In fact, our argument goes even further in recognizing that denying marriage licenses to gay couples is, in fact, unconstitutional in that it only lessens the status and human dignity of gay and lesbian Americans.

      3. Single people do not need the rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities afforded to married couples. To suggest that allowing gay couples to marry harms single individuals is beyond foolish. In fact, it makes no sense at all. The rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities afforded to married individuals is not a limited pool. It’s not like gay couples will marry and straight couples won’t be able to. Last I checked, a straight couple has never been denied a marriage license, even if said straight couple has only known one another for less than a few hours and got married in some drunken spree on Vegas.

      Your last statement after “wrong and evil” is simply incorrect. Take adoption, for example. As of the 2000 census, the National Survey of Family Growth, and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System, there are an estimated two million gay Americans interested in adoption. Among those, an estimated 65,000 children are being raised by gay couples and 4% of all adopted children in the country are being raised by gay couples. Adding in biological children and children since those studies in 2002/2004, it is estimated that 8 million children are currently being raised in households where parents are of the same gender, many of whom are foreign-born, but not adopted as infants (those that are a part of the 330 million orphans in the world group).

      Recognize that this is all coming from LGB Americans, who constitute roughly 5-7% of the US population.

      Are you ignoring these children? Your argument is that since gay couples do not have or raise children, they should not be married. In fact, there are many children being raised by gay couples. These children do grow up and get jobs, paying taxes and buying into Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

      The only things your opinion accomplishes is the following:

      1. More children go from birth to maturity in the foster care system or in orphanages, reaching 18, being sent on their merry way with little in the way of social support, specialized training, or money – having never known or had parents to support and love them the rest of their lives.

      2. Children currently being raised by gay couples are being raised by two parents who are absent the security and protection available to them by marriage.

      3. Ensuring the continued maltreatment of LGB Americans.

      I’ll end with this: We don’t seek to change society. We simply want the chance to participate fully in it. For you to treat us as though we’re a burden is degrading. To suggest that including us prevents you from having your own personal beliefs is simply insulting. We are just as valid as you are when it comes to our contributions to society. It’s sad that you are incapable of seeing this.

  13. Alright, so I’m not going to sit here and get into some long-winded, no victor argument about what’s right and what’s wrong. It’s love. And for some reason people are having to explain why they should have the right to love who they want? It’s hard to apply logic to love, as those two ideals never go hand in hand but I’m going to try anyway. How do you think you would feel if you were deeply in love with someone, and some strangers thousands of miles away decided: It goes against my morals, therefore you shouldn’t be allowed to marry the person you love. And PLEASE don’t counter with an incest argument. PLEASE.
    Fine, whatever it goes against your morals. As in one. Singular. But if thousands, millions of people want to be happy, don’t you think that’s worth it? And before anyone argues that everyone should have the right to belief firmly in what the country chooses to do about this issue think about this. If Gay marriage is finally accepted nationally then gay couples everywhere could go about their lives, be deeply and love and no longer feel like their relationship is wrong. Think how you would feel if society argued on and on about what you feel inside in your gut. So if what, it’s not passed then the people who for some reason are against love win and are temporarily satiated until they find another protest that goes against their own unshakable ideals. While gay couples have to live with it for life. Knowing they don’t have full and equal rights, carrying that burden around forever.

    P.S
    I’m fourteen and in Kelli’s theater class, now please proceed to explain how the public education system is flawed simply because those who you call “children” know about serious issues and aren’t off catching butterflies. Please. Because I have no idea.

    • Why do you equate marriage so inseparably with happiness? Is it your belief that two people who love each other, live together, and build their lives together can not possibly be happy if they do not force everyone around them to recognize them as married? You base a lot of your conclusions on that; you conclude that I am forcing other people to be unhappy because of my morals. This is not true. I encourage you read the other posts, because they explain the effects of homosexual marriage on society in much more detail. It is those effects that I am trying to prevent. Homosexuals can have everything that married people have, except the label. They have full and equal rights. There is nothing illegal about living together, getting a mortgage together, getting legal power of attorney (which grants hospital visitation rights, financial decisions, health decisions, etc.), writing wills. It’s a bit more straightforward to simply get married, but they can have all those things if they want them.
      I don’t understand your ps. I didn’t say that the system is flawed because you know about serious issues. If you have a question, though, I will answer it.

      • So, cons, because of YOUR personal beliefs, we have to fork out thousands and thousands of dollars to arrange legal arrangements that can very easily be disregarded in different communities or state or challenged by estranged family?

        Here is a short list of things that cannot be legally secured by gay couples without a civil marriage license:

        In most states and at the federal level, gay couples cannot form one household. We can live together, but we cannot simultaneously own without filing separate taxes.

        In most states, I could not, even if I wanted to, share my health insurance with my partner without a civil marriage license since, in all circumstances, private insurers do not have to honor civil unions or domestic partnerships.

        I cannot, without a civil marriage license, refrain from testifying against my partner in the court of law without being in contempt of court.

        Gay men and women with foreign born partners cannot under any circumstance sponsor their partner as a pathway to American citizenship.

        Elderly gay couples cannot, even if they wanted to, secure the same medicare-funded assisted living facilities. They are legally unmarried and, as a result, are not given preferential treatment in shared assisted living facilities.

        Gay couples in every state cannot benefit from social security inheritance, leaving a situation where a surviving partner could receive substantially less in the way of retirement income.

        Gay couples, while being able to establish wills designating an unmarried partner, are often challenged in court by estranged family. Unlike legally inferred spousal inheritance, wills are very insecure in the court of law and can result in the surviving partner spending a small fortune in legal fees to defend the will of a deceased partner.

        Gay couples in some states who are raising children cannot co-adopt, resulting in a situation where estranged family of the biological or adopting parent can legally take guardianship of the surviving partner’s children in the situation of accidental death.

        Even with legally documented medical proxy, private hospitals often disregard visitation and medical decision rights in critical situations. By the time the legal documents are honored, it is often too late – leaving medical decisions in control of family members or the hospital itself.

        Gay couples must, in most states and at the federal level, file separate income taxes and, as a result, often pay much more over the course of their lifetimes.

        Gay couples cannot legally divide business income among family members without paying double in the way of income taxes.

        Gay couples cannot receive exemptions for estate taxes or gift taxes.

        Gay couples cannot create life estate trusts that are limited to married couples.

        A gay person cannot grant veteran or military benefits to a partner.

        In most states, gay couples cannot file as a family when being considered for public assistance.

        In most states, a gay person cannot invoke the Family Medical Leave Act or a state equivalent to care for a sick partner.

        In many states, a gay person cannot make after-death decisions when it comes to examinations, autopsy, body redemption, or funeral planning.

        If a gay couple were to separate, the poorer partner is not protected through equitable division of assets, including but not limited to child support, child visitation, or child custody.

        Gay couples in many states cannot reside in ‘family-zoned’ areas.

        Gay couples, without a civil marriage license, cannot benefit from the automatic renewal of leases should the partner signing the lease die.

        Gay couples, without a civil marriage license, cannot benefit from family rates on health insurance, auto insurance, life insurance, renters insurance, or homeowners insurance.

        Gay couples without a civil marriage license cannot sue a third-party for wrongful death of one partner.

        Gay couples without a civil marriage license cannot receive crime victim’s recovery benefits.

        It isn’t a bit more straightforward. It is MUCH more straightforward. All of these things listed above cannot be had without a $35 marriage license after a 20 minute trip to your local city hall.

        “Why do you equate marriage so inseparably with happiness? Is it your belief that two people who love each other, live together, and build their lives together can not possibly be happy if they do not force everyone around them to recognize them as married?”

        Happiness for couples comes with security of their household. In the case of gay couples in most states and at the federal level, their households are significantly less secure. Marriage for a gay couple serves a social purpose that everyone understands: where they come together with friends and family to celebrate the solidification of a permanent union. This permanence is not implied in a civil union or domestic partnership, resulting in a situation where they are considered temporary by both governments and society.

        Face it. Marriage equality for gay couples has only positive effects for gay couples and the society around them. There are no rational or valid negative effects.

      • Everyone has been scoffing because I said that taxes would be affected, and you list a couple of dozen benefits you want at the expense of the taxpayer. That simplifies my job. Your assumption, though, is that because two men are in love they just merit all these benefits. I don’t. You think that homosexuals getting married benefit society. I don’t. You think that two men in love is the same as a man and woman creating a family. I don’t. You think that you have a right to these things, and that right is more important than religious freedom. I don’t.

      • “Everyone has been scoffing because I said that taxes would be affected, and you list a couple of dozen benefits you want at the expense of the taxpayer. That simplifies my job. Your assumption, though, is that because two men are in love they just merit all these benefits.”
        Not “at the expense of the taxpayer”. As a taxpayer. It isn’t exclusively about love. If two straight people are in love, they don’t merit those benefits until they decide to build and form one household. The same is true for gay couples -> through marriage.

        “You think that homosexuals getting married benefit society. I don’t.”

        Then you are blind. Gay couples adopt or foster children in need who are without homes and parents, taking the burden for care off of the state. Gay couples purchase and renovate homes. Marriage benefits would make this more secure and stable. It would improve the health of the couple in question. On top of that, most of the things I listed above are not benefits that are tax-payer funded. They are rights and protections that don’t cost taxpayers a dime. It’s foolish to assume every single right, benefit, protection, and responsibility afforded through civil marriage costs taxpayers money.

        “You think that you have a right to these things, and that right is more important than religious freedom. I don’t.”

        Have you ever heard the common saying “Your rights end where another persons’ rights begin”? Affording gay couples the opportunity to legally marry does not amount to the violation of the religious freedoms of individuals who are against marriage equality for gay couples because of religious reasons. It simply doesn’t. At all.

      • 1) Marriage is equated with happiness, just generally, because it is a symbol of togetherness. The title “spouse” just sounds a lot more solid that “significant other.”
        2) It’s not necessary for “everyone around them to recognize them as married.” They just want the legal rights that come with marriage. It’s not like they’re going to run around, sticking their rings in everyone’s faces going “LOOK AT US, WE’RE GAY AND MARRIED” and then skip away laughing maniacally.
        3) (And this is the first thing that I noticed when I read the original post) “Homosexuals can have everything that married people have, except the label.” Why, exactly? What is it about a title that is so offensive to you? If they’re allowed the legalities, and they’re allowed the relationship, why aren’t they allowed the label? It just doesn’t make logical sense.

        And last, to explain Olivia’s p.s.:
        Why did you call the education system flawed just because children are learning about issues like this?
        And before you say it:
        Olivia, I suggest checking the posts on Education. I’m sure she explains it in detail.

  14. So, I have decided to go through your essay point by point, to make sure I don’t miss anything I want to address.

    Point number one: You say that marriage symbolizes, to you, when two people start to live together and share and fornicate and such. But you say that because gay people do that already, they shouldn’t be able to get married. And since they have the same life as married couples, they shouldn’t be able to get married, because they have all the same benefits. 1. So, if a man and a woman live like that, they shouldn’t be able to get married, because they’re living as if they are married? 2. You’re generalizing the gay population as a whole by saying they live like that. 3. Maybe more gay people would save those things for marriage if they were allowed to get married. 4. Even if someone is life-partners with a person, they still don’t get the same rights a spouse does. A 78 year old man died alone because the man who he’d spent his life with was not legally married to him, and didn’t have the rights to a bedside visit. They also don’t get healthcare or tax deductions.

    Point number two: The marriage laws aren’t discriminatory because gay people could still marry someone of the opposite gender. Say the situation was reversed. Say you could legally only marry women. Would you say that it wasn’t discriminatory that you couldn’t marry someone you were romantically and physically attracted to?

    Point number three: Straight single people don’t complain that they’re being denied these rights to marry. Straight single people also don’t have someone who they’re in a relationship with and want to marry. That’s what being single is.

    Point number four: Comparing homosexuality to incest. This comes down to the fact that incest is a choice. Homosexuality is not. Incest is chosen by at least one, if not both, of the participating parties. Sexual orientation is not a choice. It’s like, how choosing to steal something is a choice, and having something put in your pocket by someone else in the store is not a choice.

    Point number five: By saying that someone has no right to marry someone who isn’t into them is just playing with the phrase: “I should be able to marry who I love,”. Perhaps a better wording would be “Two people in love should be able to get married.”

    Point number six: What laws require you to prove you don’t have any diseases before marriage? I don’t mean to discredit you, but I think you just made that up.

    Point number seven: …Does your husband know about this other man? Anyways, the movement is to be able to marry the PERSON you love, not the PEOPLE you love. It has the same concept of heterosexual marriage, you find someone, fall in love, and get married. SomeONE.

    Point number eight: At this point, I slammed my head into my desk repeatedly. Just because bisexuals are attracted to both genders, doesn’t mean that they want a spouse of both genders. That’s like saying, “Oh, I’m attracted to redheads and blondes, I should be able to have a redhead husband and a blonde husband!” Doesn’t work like that. Bisexuals believe they have the rights to find someone they love, regardless of gender, and marry them. (Please note, someONE).

    Point number nine: Once again, I must impress upon you the importance of the term someONE. The homosexual movement supports two loving people entering a relationship, not four people who decide to join families. The movement is to have the right to marry the PERSON (Please note the SINGULAR TENSE) you love, regardless of gender.

    Point number ten: The California Constitution may not specifically state anything about gay marriage, but the USA Constitution does. “Life, liberty, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS”.

    Point number eleven: I use this quote because it has several words in it that I want to address specifically. “Some of them choose to participate in BDSM sex. Some choose not to.” The point being, they CHOOSE. There are no laws saying someone can’t engage in BDSM sex, even if they are able to choose not to. The laws against homosexual marriage ARE discriminatory, because they take the choice of marriage away.

    Point number twelve: You’re pulling the old, “Compare homosexuality to pedophilia” card? Really? The difference is, if two girls or two guys have sex, it, like all other forms of sex, is only legal if they are both above consenting age. Pedophilia is illegal because it takes place with a party who is legally unable to consent.

    I hope I managed to give your readers the other side of the story with these points. I look forward to doing the same to your other essays.

    • Just a couple of things quickly; I don’t think homosexuals shouldn’t be married because they live together without being married. I think homosexuals shouldn’t be married for the reasons I list, and ask why they want to get married if they are already acting like they are married.
      It’s so funny that you think you can define marriage as the union of two people, and think that I’m bigoted for defining it as the marriage of a man and woman. There are actual families of dedicated polygamous people, and they think marriage is the union of people who love each other. You say ‘someONE’ like you’re being completely rational and inclusive, but scoff that I would say, “A man and woman.”
      The US Constitution does not say “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
      And, do you think it should be illegal for two 15 year olds to have sex? Because everyone is so appalled that I mention pedophilia, but I think it’s unlikely you actually believe that 14-17 year olds should not legally be allowed to consent to sex.

      • 1) “the reasons you list,” at least the ones in this post, have all been already found to be illogical.
        2) once again, why shouldn’t they be allowed the title if they are allowed the legal rights?
        3) “It’s so funny” Oh look, you’re condescending. I find that rather rude, don’t you, Sarah?
        4) you define marriage as “the marriage between a man and a woman?” That’s interesting. The public school system (the one you don’t like) has taught us not to have the word that is being defined within the definition.
        5) She doesn’t think you’re bigoted for defining marriage as the marriage between a man and a woman. In fact, she didn’t even use the word “bigot” anywhere in her comment. (But the sentiment is there, I suppose.) Your “brand of bigotry” is not in your definition of marriage, but your staunch support of your points even after people have found holes in your logic, and the fact that you’re so vehemently opposed to gay marriage.
        6) “There are actual families of dedicated polygamous people, and they think marriage is the union of people who love each other.” You don’t have the ability to know what they think, unless you’re psychic, which I doubt. Have you met these families? If so, did you tell the police, because I’m pretty sure that’s illegal. From what I understand about polygamous marriages, both/all of the wives are generally not thrilled to be in a polygamous relationship. Also, there is a religious factor in polygamous marriages, so they believe that they are doing this for the sake of their eternal soul or whatever the case may be. One example is Mormon fundamentalism, which believes “celestial marriages” (they don’t like the term “polygamy”) to be necessary to reach the highest degree of exaltation in heaven- which is the only reason the women were okay with it in the first place. How would you feel if you had to share your husband with another woman?
        7) “You say ‘someONE’ like you’re being completely rational and inclusive, but scoff that I would say, “A man and woman.” ” To what are you referring?
        8) Don’t get your panties in a bunch. She meant to say Declaration of Independence instead of US Constitution. Just like you meant to say union instead of marriage in your definition of marriage. “Errare humanum est.” Jeez.
        9) Yes, yes I do. 15-year-olds should not have sex. “Because everyone is so appalled that I mention pedophilia, but I think it’s unlikely you actually believe that 14-17 year olds should not legally be allowed to consent to sex.” First, we’re not “appalled.” Do what you like, whatever; we just think that pedophilia has no business in an discussion about gay marriage. Second, why on earth would you assume that teenagers would NOT believe that 14-17 year olds should not be allowed to consent to sex? We may be riddled with hormones, but we still have brains. Sex should wait, at least until the sea of raging hormones has ebbed and we are able to make that sort of decision based on love, not lust.

      • It is your opinion that flaws have been found in my logic. I list numerous examples of instances in which the allowance of homosexual marriage has infringed on individuals rights, and as far as I can tell all the commentators in disagreement with me are in outright denial of these instances. Open, blatant denial that these individuals are having their freedoms infringed, or denial that it is a result of the homosexual marriage lobby, I cannot tell. But you think it is so black and white, that you are right and I am simply blindly, obstinantly wrong. Your opinions are different, and I will maintain my defence of the first admendment. It is nothing to do with bigotry. If you want to find a good material for your speech look into the instances in which individual’s religious rights have been violated, explain why it is okay to violate their first admendment rights, and then propose that there should be a constitutional admendment that will grant greater protections to homosexual couples, and why their sexual proclivities have greater weight than religious rights.
        I do not assume that you think young people should be having sex. I’m assuming that you do not think underage sex should be a criminal offense. If you do, you will be the first person I have ever heard say that 17 year olds having sex should be illegal. It would never pass, of course. In other countries, where they are much more liberal in their sexuality, the opposite is happening and the age of consent is being lowered to 16 and 14.
        You may do the research on polygamous families. I have seen news interviews with these families, and they say what I said. I ‘think’ they believe these things because that’s what they said. It shouldn’t be hard for you to find, but you can hardly discount these facts simply because you have studied the topic less than I have.
        I never called the educational system flawed because you are learning about topics like this. In order to have a structured debate you need to respond what is said, not what you think is said.
        The location of the phrase, “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is extremely relevent, because the Constitution is what we base our laws on, and to believe there are phrases there that aren’t, well, that’s what the homosexual lobby is doing. Your feelings about what is right and wrong, what should or should not be allowed, are irrelevent. This country has a system of deciding the laws that are in place, and right now homosexual marriage is infringing on declared Constitutional rights. You disagree, so you are welcome to lobby to change the Constitution. I am lobbying to protect the Constitution, and I know you think that makes me a bigot. I am not. You may, of course, continue insulting me. But I would prefer you read the information I have gathered and respond to the legal issues surrounding the topic.

  15. Why won’t the site allow me to respond to the comments in green?

  16. On March 5th I made brillant posts supporting Pamela and as usual the homosexuals spewed their lies on the very next post. This post proves the absurb position of the post that followed mine.

    I said the following:

    (1) It is puzzling that more conservatives cannot see how the homosexuals are infringing on our civil liberties and freedoms. When they demand that we have to accomondate them, they are violating our own morals and judgements. Thomas Sowell said this brillantly. When you demand that I accept your behavior then you have violated my civil right to make my own moral judgement.

    To which the next post said:

    1. I’m sorry that you feel your own morals and judgments have been violated by our request to be treated equally. We don’t have a “behavior”.

    Any phony apology from this person or their organization is unsincere. Facts are facts. There is no Constitutional right to have your conduct and behavior treated equally. There is no civil right to demand that someone else accomondate your behavior and no civil right that I or anyone else must praise, condone, agree, and accept your behavior. This is how you violate our civil rights to make our own moral judgements about what is right and wrong. Since when did a moral wrong become a civil right. You do have a behavior freely practiced. Constitition applies to people not behavior or conduct. Constitution does not honor equallity of circumstances otherwise I would have the right to make the same money as Tiger Woods when I play golf. By the way you are making demands on us private citizens.

    I stated this in my post.

    2) The other side always uses the word rights and deceives the public in not knowing the difference between rights and priviledges. No one ever had a right to a marriage license, if they did then their would be no restrictions. All licenses granted by the state are priviledges and not rights.

    To which the opponent gave this false reply:

    You are incorrect. As cited in the ruling opinion in Loving V. Virginia, marriage is a civil right.

    No I am correct. The right from Loving versus Virginia of marriage is a civil right does not constitute a right to make up your own rules. We the people can and do define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. You wish to exercise the right to get married then you may obey the law equally like everyone else. No other group of Americans has the right to make up their own rules neither should you.
    You also evaded my correct post in stating that government recognition of any relationship is a priviledge and not a right. The benefits and government recognition is a priviledge and are in fact not rights.

    Finally in the third post they as always showed their greed, selfishness, and arrogance. These benefits were justified to single people as incentives to procreate thus the reason they are not available to singles. Since homosexuals do not procreate they also should not get the incentive to procreate. By the way I never said that by giving you these benefits it harms single people, it is simply totally unfair. The benefits are incentives to procreate so you do not deserve them.

    His last statement was totally absurb:

    I’ll end with this: We don’t seek to change society. We simply want the chance to participate fully in it. For you to treat us as though we’re a burden is degrading. To suggest that including us prevents you from having your own personal beliefs is simply insulting. We are just as valid as you are when it comes to our contributions to society. It’s sad that you are incapable of seeing this.

    Oh you do seek to change and harm society. You had your tolerance to parcipate fully in it years ago, now comes your greed, You are seeking special rights and trying to alter and impose your views on all of us. In a democracy the less than 5% of the population does not call the shots.
    You people are a burden on society. I have done the medical and insurance cost research. Your unhealthy behavior is fiscal strain on the rest of us. You want the right to practice your sex as long as the rest of us pay for it.

    • “You wish to exercise the right to get married then you may obey the law equally like everyone else.”

      You’re correct, and we’re exercising our rights in petitioning the government to grant us marriage equality on the premise of Constitutional definitions of fair and equal treatment under the law.

      We are saying that denying access to the rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities afforded through a marriage license on the basis of sexual orientation and gender of one’s romantic partner is, in fact, unconstitutional.

      “You are seeking special rights and trying to alter and impose your views on all of us. In a democracy the less than 5% of the population does not call the shots.”

      No, we are not. We are not seeking special rights. When marriage equality is implemented, no special rights are created. This is a particularly gross lie, insinuating that marriage equality grants gay couples something straight couples do not have. Furthermore, there is no imposition of our views anymore than there is imposition of yours when you marry according to your own personal or religious reasons.

      If we were to say “You cannot marry a partner of the opposite gender whom you love now that gay couples than marry”, I would understand. That is not and will never be the case.

      “In a democracy the less than 5% of the population does not call the shots.”

      We are not a pure democracy. This is a constitutional republic where the democratic process fundamentally serves only to elect representatives.

      “You people are a burden on society. I have done the medical and insurance cost research. Your unhealthy behavior is fiscal strain on the rest of us. You want the right to practice your sex as long as the rest of us pay for it.”

      Don’t you see? HIV/AIDS isn’t a punishment from above. It isn’t a symptom of “unhealthy behavior”. Disease is not and never has been a punishment. Disease is simply a disease. I’m astounded that you can’t see that encouraging gay couples to pursue monogamy and marriage has a positive effect on this: the more monogamous one is, the more healthy he is. My partner and I, for example. We are both HIV negative. We have no STD’s. We are in a monogamous relationship. We are just as healthy as any heterosexual couple. Unfortunately, we are in a situation where, were we to live in another state, our medical costs would be higher because we would have to pay for an additional insurance plan, given that he is without medical insurance because I couldn’t share it with him at a cost to my private company.

      I will say this one last thing:

      No one is a burden on society. People who are left without or who need assistance are most often in that position because of symptoms or causes outside of their control. Individuals who become HIV positive often contract this disease because of poor education, because of social rejection, and because they are driven into hiding and don’t know where they can seek happiness and fulfillment. They are made to feel ashamed of their innate capacity to love and often turn to promiscuity, drugs, and alcohol. These people have been made broken by society, by people like you who see them as nothing more than a burden.

      Adopting marriage equality for gay couples will reverse that negative social stigma. Gay people, particularly young people, will begin to pursue the template of monogamy taught to them by their parents openly, honestly, and without fear of rejection. They will look forward to marrying someone they love and building a household together.

      As long as this stigma exists, as long as there are still people disgusting enough as you who will treat people with such disregard and cold hostility, there will never truly be equality in this country.

      Marriage Equality for gay couples is inevitable. Those opposed to it are dying of old age. Once it is implemented at a federal level, nothing bad will happen and everyone will go back to living their lives. Straight kids will still get married and have babies. Gay couples will also marry and form households of their own, some deciding to have children through surrogacy or, in most cases, adoption of children without parents. Like in MA, CT, NH, VT, IA, and D.C (and soon enough, WA, MD, and ME), life will go on unobstructed. Husbands won’t be ripped out of their homes and forced to attend circuit parties. Wives won’t reject the gender they are attracted to for lesbian sex. Children won’t be “converted”. It is our side that rightfully recognizes sexual orientation as innate. Society will become just a little bit stronger and all families will be supported by the government WE ALL pay into.

  17. Olivia, Sarah, and Kelli all miss the point. It is not about who you love or just wanting to marry the person you love. If that was it then their is no justification for the state to be in the marriage business and no justification for the benefits. The state is not involved for this reason.

    The state is involved and gives out benefits as incentives to procreate. Thus the reason for the state involvement in marriage.

  18. “You wish to exercise the right to get married then you may obey the law equally like everyone else.”

    That law as we the people have made it when we voted in all of the states that allowed us to vote is marriage is to be defined as the union of one man and one woman. No one is denied marriage based on gender or sexual desires when they obey this law. This is a big homosexual lie. In any state you may marry a person of the opposite sex regardless of your sexual behavior. You could even boast to the clerk that you are homosexual and they still have to grant you the license.

    You’re correct, and we’re exercising our rights in petitioning the government to grant us marriage equality on the premise of Constitutional definitions of fair and equal treatment under the law.

    You are already treated equally and fairly in all 50 states. You are demanding special rights available only to homosexuals. You are demanding a special intrepretation of the Constitution that no other American may have.

    We are saying that denying access to the rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities afforded through a marriage license on the basis of sexual orientation and gender of one’s romantic partner is, in fact, unconstitutional.

    No one is denied the access to marriage based upon their sexual behavior as long as one marries the opposite sex. The marriage license as well as all licenses are in fact priviledges of the state and are not rights. Thus it is Constitutional. The right to travel does not entail a right to a drivers license as that is a priviledge of the state. The benefits that were granted by the state are also priviledges and not rights. It is perfectly Constitutional to grant priviledges to one group and not another. This is done all of the time. For example in the state of Massachusetts good drivers get the priviledges of lower insurance rates while bad drivers pay surcharges. Is this equal? No it is not. However it is Constitutional as these are priviledges granted by the state.
    Once again in a democracy we the people have the right to define marriage and restrict access to the license to only those who obey the law. A brother cannot marry his sister even though they are of the opposite sex. Perfectly Constitutional. Only in the selfish views of the homosexuals who demand an intrepretation of the Constitution not available to any other American do we see these claims.

    No, we are not. We are not seeking special rights. When marriage equality is implemented, no special rights are created. This is a particularly gross lie.

    This has already been answered. You are seeking special rights and are not seeking equallity but inequallity in your favor.couples do not have.

    Furthermore, there is no imposition of our views anymore than there is imposition of yours when you marry according to your own personal or religious reasons.

    This blog as well as others over at NOM and other sites has well documented that you are in fact seeking to impose your views on everyone else. The loss of religious freedom has been proven many times over. As far as personal or religious reasons that is a cheap shot as there is a public purpose in civil marriage. Since it involves the state and is a public purpose then we the people have every right to determine who is eligible for the benefits and the recognition.

    We are not a pure democracy. This is a constitutional republic where the democratic process fundamentally serves only to elect representatives.

    Part of this constitutional republic is where we the people get to set the laws. We the people do in fact get to set the laws on marriage. This is why your side is looking for corrupt leftis activist judges to impose your views from the bench. You have been unable to win fair and square in this Constitutional republic at the ballot box so you bribe politicians and cheat by looking for activists judges.

    Don’t you see? HIV/AIDS isn’t a punishment from above. It isn’t a symptom of “unhealthy behavior”. Disease is not and never has been a punishment. Disease is simply a disease. I’m astounded that you can’t see that encouraging gay couples to pursue monogamy and marriage has a positive effect on this: the more monogamous one is, the more healthy he is.

    This is by far the biggest bunch of crap from the homosexuals and shows the arrogance of their lies. There is no safe sex when it comes to anal sex. I would encourage anyone reading this post to do google searches on the medical consequences and dangers of homosexual behavior. Watch the Youtube video ” Dangers of the Gay Lifestyle” and then see the evidence over at the CDC. Anal sex is dangerous, unhealthy, leads to disease, and premature death regardless of monogamy or not. Simply encouraging anal sex monogamy will not change things. Those who engage is this perverted practice do so at their own peril. As I stated in my earlier post I have done the biological and medical and fiscal research on the subject. The facts speak for themselves.

    • Your point is moot, JR. In states where marriage equality exists for gay couples – that is where they can marry someone that they share romantic AND physical attraction with – there are no special rights created for gay couples.

      In Massachusetts, for example, it isn’t just gay men and women who can marry someone of the same gender. Nothing is stopping two straight men from marrying. No extra rights are created. We are simply recognizing that people in Western culture marry first and foremost for love – ask that of any person on their wedding day and that will be the near-universal answer.

      “No one is denied the access to marriage based upon their sexual behavior as long as one marries the opposite sex.”

      That is not what I said. I clearly wrote:

      “We are saying that denying access to the rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities afforded through a marriage license on the basis of sexual orientation and gender of one’s romantic partner is, in fact, unconstitutional.”

      “It is perfectly Constitutional to grant priviledges to one group and not another.”

      No. It is not.

      Section 1 of the 14th Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ”

      See that? Privileges. As clear as day.

      Furthermore, there is Article 4, section 1:

      “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

      Article 4, Section 2:

      The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

      The First Amendment:

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      One could rationally argue that since the vast majority of opposition to marriage equality for gay couples is fueled by religious belief, that Congress is making laws respecting an establishment of religion – codifying religious persecution into law and forcing citizens to live by the religious rules and regulations of a religion not their own. The recent Prop 8 trial put it perfectly. There is no rationale or justification.

      “We the people do in fact get to set the laws on marriage.”

      You will find that you do not. It is only a matter of time before science and truth prevail: When the courts rule that gay men and women are, in fact, a suspect class and protected under some form of the Human Rights Act. The Supreme Court will inevitably rule in favor of marriage equality for gay couples. Society, as well, will inevitably overwhelmingly support marriage equality for gay couples as opposition slowly dies of old age.

      It will be determined that the majority does not have the right to vote on the rights and privileges afforded to the minority.

      “There is no safe sex when it comes to anal sex. I would encourage anyone reading this post to do google searches on the medical consequences and dangers of homosexual behavior. ”

      This is pointless. First: anal sex is not homosexual behavior. Straight men and women engage in anal sex. Gay men engage in anal sex. Gay women, absent sexual aids, do not. Gay women are the lowest risk-bracket for STD’s/HIV.

      Lastly, absent HIV/STD’s, anal sex cannot result in the contraction of an STD or HIV. The bacteria/virus involved doesn’t just magically appear. Furthermore, not all gay men engage in anal sex. For the most part, most men and women do not enjoy anal penetration. It is known that most gay men in long term, monogamous relationships exclusively engage in oral stimulation and mutual masturbation. In fact, it might surprise you that only half of gay men engage in anal sex, and of that half, only 25% are bottoms.

      My original point does stand, however. Driving both same-gender and opposite-gender couples to marriage and monogamy with social support does wonders for better health. People are healthier and happier when married. Denying same-gender couples the chance to marry due to your own personal beliefs and biases does nothing more than decrease both their health and happiness.

      As for your ‘research’: I would take some time and actually review your sources, dig up some fact, and understand that this research is intended not to persecute individuals who contract a disease, but to better understand how to combat it.

      As an example: denying same-gender couples the opportunity to marry while spending billions in abstinence only education (no sex until marriage) does not work. Getting all sexually active men and women, gay and straight, to get tested for HIV, giving people who are HIV positive ample resources for reliable medication to drive down their viral loads (lower viral loads == lower chance to pass the virus on), and informing everyone that monogamy and protected sex always trumps unprotected sex in the way of sexual health is key.

      Finding a vaccine will also work.

      As for the other topics on your mind (whether it’s incontinence, rectal prolapse, time-lapsed statistics on anal cancer – which has more to do with HPV and other infections common in the 70’s and 80’s – etc. etc.): I would advice you not subject yourself to hyperbole. These conditions impact a small, small percentage of the American population. I’m talking .00001% of the American population. It is gross for you to make a mountain out of a mole hill (or ant hill, for that matter).

  19. Unfortunately, we are in a situation where, were we to live in another state, our medical costs would be higher because we would have to pay for an additional insurance plan, given that he is without medical insurance because I couldn’t share it with him at a cost to my private company.

    You just proved my point about why you are a burden on society. It does cost us more to accomondate homosexual behavior. Thanks to your conduct insurance rates and health care costs are higher. It is the people like me who do not engage in this perverted conduct who now are forced to subsidize the homosexuals. There is no place in the Constitution where it is mandated that the cost of your healthcare must come out of mine or an employers pocket. Again I ask anyone who is open minded to read and do the medical and biological research and you will see that the homosexuals are indeed a burdon on society.
    The science to understand this is not complicated. AIDS is caused by semen entering into the blood stream through a broken vessel. Simple physics tell you that when you thrust an erect penis into soft tissue of the anus this is how the semen gets in. You are born male and female and so you were born heteroxexual. It is all in the biology.
    The persons next paragraph again has the homosexual lies. There are countries and states that have already given them their tolerance and acceptance. They are still depressed and there has been no change in the suicide rate. Changing the laws on marriage will have no effect on this whatsoever.

    Marriage Equality for gay couples is inevitable. Those opposed to it are dying of old age.

    The fact of the matter is you have lost in every state where we the people have voted. That is some optimism for a group that has never won an election. The Communists said it was inevitable and we all know what happened with that. We are educating our young people to the truth and so it does not matter if some of us die off. Our educated children wil pick up the slack.

    Gay couples will also marry and form households of their own, some deciding to have children through surrogacy or, in most cases, adoption of children without parents.

    Sadly this should be outlawed in the name of childrens rights. They have a right to a mother and father. Unfortunately they cannot vote and have no political power so selfish, greedy, adult sexual desires trumps what is best for children.

    Children won’t be “converted”. It is our side that rightfully recognizes sexual orientation as innate.

    It is your side that makes the false claim of being innate. You have no proof of this whatsoever and cannot do so when challenged. The burdon of proof is on the group making the claim yet you refuse to bring any proof. Your behavior is freely chosen and voluntary, you need the orientation lie to win in the courts. The Constitution does not grant equallity to behavior, conduct, actions, or human circumstances. So you make the big lie of a homosexual race in your effort to hijack the civil rights laws. Besides if it was innate your group would not be in the public school system recruiting and converting our children.

    “It is perfectly Constitutional to grant priviledges to one group and not another.”

    No. It is not. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

    I have already proved this in my previous posts. Your side has for years been taking the 14th amendment and twisting it to say something that it does not. As already stated to buy into your hogwash one has to accept two different intrepretations of the Constitution. The one for your group and the one for everybody else. The rest of your mumble jumble is the same old phony intrepretations of the Constitution that your side claims that is not available to everybody else. Your gruop is always twisting the laws and the Bill of Rights to suit your agenda even though they are not true.
    As far as the First Amendment goes civil marriage is not based on religion. There are even more stronger and better secular and public purpose reasons for supporting man/woman marriage. Your religious cheap shot argument is nothing but a red herring.

    “We the people do in fact get to set the laws on marriage.”

    You will find that you do not. It is only a matter of time before science and truth prevail:

    The way the laws were written, we the people do in fact get to define marriage and set the laws on marriage. There is no place in the Constituion that because of sexual conduct that group gets to tell we the people what the laws will be. As far as science and truth prevailing, the biological science is on our side and any open minded person will see that we are presenting the truth.

  20. It will be determined that the majority does not have the right to vote on the rights and privileges afforded to the minority.

    Your side has been proven to be wrong on that many times over. In MA where your group won the court even said the voters could vote on marriage. It was the rich homosexuals ability to bribe the state Legislature that stopped the vote.
    In Florida that Supreme Court ruled with no dissent that the people of FL could vote on marriage. In CA we voted on Prop 8 fair and sqaure and exercised our Constitutional rights to amend our own state Constitution. It is not unconstitutional to amend your own constitution.
    But it is in Maine where the lies of your group really shows itself. While claiming that we the people cannot vote it is your group that is getting the signatures required to put marriage back on the ballot again. So we cannot vote on marriage unless of course your side loses then of course we get to vote on marriage.

    As for your ‘research’: I would take some time and actually review your sources, dig up some fact, and understand that this research is intended not to persecute individuals who contract a disease, but to better understand how to combat it.

    Thanks but I have already done the research. It is not hard. On an internet search simply put in health and homosexuality along with costs of, dangers of, and threats to society. One organization I got my information from was from the CDC. Ever heard of them?

    The rest of your post is just your denial of reality. The open minded and independent person will clearly see that we are right in regards to the medical facts. Your whole side is relying on the corrupt courts to grant you the victory. Your group has already proven that your cannot win fair and square when we the people do in fact vote. In the elections the truth comes out. This is why your side is endlessly crybabying its way down to the courthouse. Only leftist and activist judges who do not care about the Constituion or the Bill of Rights will rule in your favor. The left in fact wants control of the courts so that their agenda can be legislated without the consent of the people. You are trying to impose your view of marriage on all fifty states and trying to supercede and bypass the will of the people.

  21. “Your group has already proven that your cannot win fair and square when we the people do in fact vote. In the elections the truth comes out. This is why your side is endlessly crybabying its way down to the courthouse”

    Again, this does not matter. Opposition to marriage equality for gay couples is dying of old age. We use the courts like any other citizen can use the courts. You surely wouldn’t deny our constitutionally protected right to do so?

    Either way, you’re going so very far to make sure you have a say in how my household is run and how the government treats my household. In the long run, I might suggest that you tend to your own affairs and leave us alone. History is on our side. You are in the wrong. Time has only proven that over and over again in many states and countries where gay couples can legally marry and everyone goes about their business.

    You’re fighting against this because you harbor ill will, animus, or simple disregard for me and mine.

    “In CA we voted on Prop 8 fair and sqaure and exercised our Constitutional rights to amend our own state Constitution. It is not unconstitutional to amend your own constitution.”

    Time will show that even amendments to the state or federal constitution can violate certain aspects of the constitution. You’re fighting the same, tired old fight that minorities have faced for centuries from majorities who wish to oppress them or remove them from society.

    That is all I have to say tonight. There’s nothing I can say that hasn’t already been said. You are simply missing the ears to listen, the mind to understand, and the heart to truly comprehend.

  22. Either way, you’re going so very far to make sure you have a say in how my household is run and how the government treats my household. In the long run, I might suggest that you tend to your own affairs and leave us alone

    We are not in this battle in regards to your household. Their is a public purpose to marriage where the state is involved. Benefits were given to married people that are not available to single people because the state wished to create procreation incentives. The singles community understood this and did not fight it. The singles understood that we all benefit from the marriages of others as their offspring pay the entitlement taxes that funds Social Security and Medicare. Sadly although these marriages benefited the homosexuals as well they have decided to be selfish and greedy and demand benefits that they do not deserve. The gays have decided to stab the singles in the back. Because their is a public purpose in marriage we have a right to have a say in the process.
    If your side really wanted to be left alone you would be fighting for no marriage licenses for anybody and to make it a private affair. Then we all get left alone. But always the same homosexual lies, claim we are sniffing our nose into their household while they in fact are taking the behavior in their bedrooms out into the public and corrupting our defenseless and naive children in the public schools.

    You’re fighting against this because you harbor ill will, animus, or simple disregard for me and mine.

    No we are fighting because we have seen the effects on us and our children. In Massachusetts where this all started thanks to the effforts of the gays they are sniffing their noses into the public schools and going after our children. The marriage forms no longer say husband and wife but now say Party A and Party B. My niece is getting married in MA and I have encouraged her not to get a MA marriage license because of this. While claiming the government should not interfere with private affairs thanks to the homosexuals private businesses have been hampered with restrictive and oppresive new regualtions dealing with homosexuals. Two homosexuals wish to participate in this dangerous sexual activity but do not deal with the consequences or responsibilities of their actions. So they are seeking to impose the responsibilities to us.

    You’re fighting the same, tired old fight that minorities have faced for centuries from majorities who wish to oppress them or remove them from society.

    Besides trying to redefine marriage and what defines equallity your side is also making a mockery of the term minorities. The constitutional protection of minorities applies to people and not human behavior, conduct, actions, or consequences. Just because you participate in a minority form of human conduct does not mean that the civil rights laws in regards to minorities applies to you.

    That is all I have to say tonight. There’s nothing I can say that hasn’t already been said. You are simply missing the ears to listen, the mind to understand, and the heart to truly comprehend.

  23. “We are not in this battle in regards to your household. Their is a public purpose to marriage where the state is involved. Benefits were given to married people that are not available to single people because the state wished to create procreation incentives. The singles community understood this and did not fight it.”

    Ahh, but you are. You know full well that not a single straight, married couple has been denied the very same rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities afforded to them in states where gay couples could now marry. You know this. You know that no straight couple has been denied a marriage license because gay couples could marry. Additionally, you know that the state can handle the minor increase in needed revenue in the way of providing these very essential household protections to gay couples.

    We are not talking about single people. We are talking about monogamous, unrelated couples who want to form a single household in the eyes of society around them and in the eyes of the law.

    We’re not talking about a piece of finite pie. We’re talking about rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities that don’t really cost the state all that much – many of which cost the state absolutely nothing. You know this. Stop pretending that you don’t.

    “In Massachusetts where this all started thanks to the effforts of the gays they are sniffing their noses into the public schools and going after our children.” This is hyperbole at its finest. You’re talking about schools where gay parents send their children as well. You’re talking about a book that discusses many types of families, where children are raised by their biological parents, adoptive parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents, foster parents, or same-gender parents, or an innocent book about a prince who realized he didn’t love princesses, but loved other princes instead: books that affirm diversity and teach kids that you shouldn’t be mean to or reject those who are different from you.

    “The marriage forms no longer say husband and wife but now say Party A and Party B. My niece is getting married in MA and I have encouraged her not to get a MA marriage license because of this.”

    Oh. Wow. Shallow much? A legal document referring to individuals signing it as Party A and Party B or Spouse 1 and Spouse 2 instead of “Husband” and “Wife”? It’s more right that a gay man need be considered a “wife” or a gay woman considered a “husband”, leading up to potential legal confusion in the future because the legal document captures their names next to an opposite-gender term? Society must have fallen apart on that one. All families surely must have been destroyed when a legal document that costs $35 suddenly started referring to a “wife” or “husband” as a “spouse”… Mountain, meet mole-hill.

    “While claiming the government should not interfere with private affairs thanks to the homosexuals private businesses have been hampered with restrictive and oppresive new regualtions dealing with homosexuals.”

    Surely you’re referring to laws that prevent secular companies from firing gay men and women on the basis of sexual orientation? Or a large number of restaurants who have, both past and present, denied service to gay couples? Or hotel owners who deny service to gay couples? Or land lords who refuse to rent to gay couples? Or bus drivers who kick gay men and women off of their bus? Or town clerks who refuse to do their job and sign legal documents for gay couples? Or private hospitals who refuse visitation and medical proxy, even in the case where it is clearly documented, to gay couples? Or city morgues who refuse to release the remains of a deceased person to his or her same-gender partner? It’s good to know that you obviously support open segregation, where it is acceptable for businesses to put up signs that say “heterosexual only” or “no gays need apply”.

    “Two homosexuals wish to participate in this dangerous sexual activity but do not deal with the consequences or responsibilities of their actions. So they are seeking to impose the responsibilities to us.”

    And, as I’ve cited earlier, what of homosexuals who do not engage in “dangerous sexual activity”? Lesbians, for example, are the lowest risk group for all STD’s and HIV. Gay men who do not engage in anal sex are another example. We exist, believe me. In fact, there are more gay men who do not enjoy anal sex than there are who do enjoy it.

    “Just because you participate in a minority form of human conduct does not mean that the civil rights laws in regards to minorities applies to you.”

    Fortunately for us and for the whole of the human race, social trends, science, and truth are on my side. It is very clear that you really don’t get it. Even a celibate gay person is still a gay person. This is because it is more than actions and “behavior”. If you had even an ounce of true insight or compassion, you would clearly recognize this.

    Anyhow, I hope that you have health and happiness in your life. I hope you are granted many, many happy and healthy children. I also hope that a few of them turn out to be gay. Maybe then, your love for your children will force you to understand how incredibly wrong and backwards you are.

  1. Pingback: About hate. « Chaotic Awesome

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: