Gay Marriage Moves Forward in Two States

Gay marriage laws moved forward in legislative bodies in Illinois and Colorado this week.

Colorado’s civil partnership bill and Illinois’ bill that would legalize same sex marriage passed the senate in each state.

Both of these still still have to go before the respective state’s Houses of Representatives and be signed by the governors. In both states, the governors have said that they will sign the bills, if they get them.

The move to legalize gay marriage is moving rapidly on a state by state basis. I don’t agree with changing marriage, but I do agree with doing it in this manner. By going state by state rather than using a judicial fiat, the supporters of gay marriage are avoiding a fiasco similar to what happened with Roe v Wade.

However, I, for one, will not give up on traditional marriage.

I don’t expect to deal with the issue directly as a legislator. Oklahoma has a Constitutional provision, passed by a vote of the people, stating that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, so I won’t be voting on whether or not to change the law itself. There is also no groundswell for gay marriage in Oklahoma, so I doubt that I will vote on an attempt to amend the Constitution to remove this provision.

It would, for these reasons, be easy enough for me to have dodged the whole question. There is no requirement for me to write about marriage on this blog as I have. However, I think that the assaults on marriage are a special sort of challenge for today’s Christians.

That is why I have written and will continue to write about marriage. Marriage is the basic building block of society. It is how we provide a stable and nurturing environment for society’s children. The destruction of marriage is suicide on a societal scale.

I will be writing about marriage quite a bit in the future. I honestly feel I would be failing in my calling if I didn’t.

CNN has a good article summarizing where the push to legalize gay marriage stands. It says in part:

(CNN) —The Illinois Senate passed a measure Thursday to legalize same-sex marriage, voting 34-21.

The state House will consider it next. Gov. Pat Quinn, a Democrat, has indicated that he would sign the bill.

Illinois would be the 10th state, plus the District of Columbia, to legalize same-sex marriage, according to Lambda Legal, a gay rights organization.

Three other states are considering similar legalization, said Camilla Taylor, marriage project director for Lambda Legal. A bill has passed the Rhode Island House and been sent to the Senate. A proposal has been introduced in the Hawaii legislature, and another is expected in Delaware, Taylor said.

Five states, including Illinois, have civil union laws, according to Lambda Legal and the National Conference of State Legislatures. The others are Hawaii, Delaware, New Jersey and Rhode Island.

Read more: http://www.koat.com/news/national/Illinois-Senate-passes-gay-marriage-bill/-/9153826/18551552/-/wyru62z/-/index.html#ixzz2KyveGn9R

 

  • http://todayiprayed.wordpress.com todayiprayed

    In Cali, we have voted 2 or 3 times on this same issue and yet they keep reframing the legislation and putting it back to the people. I wish our legislators would just let the vote remain and drop it. It’s like marriage in California is constantly in battle.
    Keep speaking out Rebecca, we are listening and supporting you, even if we’re not your constituents.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Thank you. This is a standard tactic of the supporters of gay marriage. No matter how many times it’s voted down, they keep demanding another vote.

      • Will

        Those pernicious gays, why won’t they just accept their second-class status?!

      • abb3w

        One of the reasons ballots keep getting sent back is because attitudes keep shifting; the legal status quo does not reflect underlying attitudes.

        In particular, California’s Proposition 8 voted in the ban 52:48 — that is, only 4.5 point opposition when nationally the support gap was closer to 10 points. Since that 2008 vote, the national polling has massively shifted to nearer 15 points net supporting; so, if California remains approximately as liberal relative to the US as a whole, an amendment would likely pass with almost 20 points of support, circa 60:40.

      • DZ

        Sounds like the abortion issue.

        • abb3w

          Somewhat; but abortion attitudes have been near stagnant in the US over the last four decades, while attitude on gay marriage has been shifting steadily and rapidly in the last decade.

  • Mike

    Ok does anybody think this is really really weird: So apparently the gay marriage bill that will soon become law in England and Wales is not really equal in that there are different provisions for different couples. There are some that continue to apply to men and women and at least one that has been removed for people of the same sex. Check out this interview with 2 guys. The guy on the right points this out. Apparently adultery, legally speaking, won’t apply to same sex couples. I’ve also read on a blog called the Cathecism of Caroline that consummation has also been struck for same sex couples. If this is true, which it seems it is from the clip, wouldn’t still make the entire re-definition pointless? And does anybody else think this super weird (not gay marriage, just the different provisions).

    Here’s a clip of 2 guys one of whom points this out: http://www.channel4.com/news/same-sex-marriage-vote-reaction-from-soho

  • Bill S

    I’ve argued for gay marriage too many times. So I won’t get into it again except to say that state laws that define marriage as well as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) may eventually be found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. A state cannot make a law that deprives people of their constitutional rights. It could be argued that assigning too narrow a definition of marriage would result in a violation of gays’ rights under the Constitution. I’m not well versed in constitutional law but the judges on the Supreme Court are.

    • Oregon Catholic

      I wish I could get you a ride in a time machine so you could go back and talk to the framers of the Constitution. I’m pretty sure they would set you straight on whether they saw same sex marriage as a constitutional right. In fact, if they knew it would come up 200 yrs later they might have put a clause in to prevent it. But I’m sure the concept was far too bizarre to even come up in discussion. It is always the province of the progressive mind to think that new and novel and feel-good approaches are always better than the traditional, even if the traditional have been around for millenia and are based on something so basic as our shared biology. Heck, why shouldn’t we toss out the realities of millenia and biology in 20 years or so. Makes perfect sense – to a progressive that is.

      • Sus

        When our founding fathers created the Constitution, they made it so that it could be changed. They recognized that the world wouldn’t be the same in 200 years.

        The concept was bizarre then. It isn’t bizarre now.

        • pagansister

          Well said, Sus.

        • Oregon Catholic

          “The concept was bizarre then. It isn’t bizarre now”

          And why is that? Isn’t that precisely the problem? That the progressive and moral relativist mind can turn what has been accepted as wrong and abnormal for millenia, and is objectively proven so by our reproductive biology, into a protected right in less than 20 years is what is bizarre.

          • Josh Lyman

            Yeah.. those pesky women and their pesky voting.

      • pagansister

        The framers of the Constitution also thought owing slaves was OK , since many of them did. Did they predict a time when no one would own slaves? Or a time when women would be able to vote? (after fighting very hard) What happened 200 plus years ago was wonderful—the men and women who founded this country would not have been able to predict many things. Just because the Founders didn’t write anything about 2 same gender consenting adults wanting to marry means that in the 21st century (not the 18th century) it shouldn’t be allowed?

      • Kenneth

        It’s very easy to use the framers as sock puppets to project what we suppose they would have said. It’s also pointless. They were not gods and we are not beholden to the limits of their own 18th Century cultural and legal understandings. As it has been pointed out, they had some blind spots in their moral reasoning, ie slavery.

        They did not intend to create a republic that would forever mirror the world in which they lived. They created a wonderful expansive vision of liberty in which we are presumed to have equal rights before the law and presumed free to do a thing unless the state can show very good reason why not. They also created an excellent system of checks and balances which balance the majority will against certain rights which transcend even that.

        The 18th Century was not the founder’s lasting gift to us. The lasting gift was a process and rule of law and philosophy of governance. It is working exactly as it was supposed to on this issue.

        • Rebecca Hamilton

          Actually Kenneth I don’t think slavery was so much a moral lapse on the Founder’s part as it was a compromise they worked out in order to create a country out of what had been 13 independent colonies, each with its separate governance and unique legal system. They had very spirited debates on this subject at the time they were working out the Constitution, debates which continued up to the Civil War.

      • Will

        Heck, why shouldn’t we toss out the realities of millenia and biology in 20 years or so. Makes perfect sense – to a progressive that is.

        I’m not sure “a progressive” would know what you’re attempting to articulate here. What are “the realities of millenia and biology?” Don’t worry, you have at least a few more years to figure out what you mean by your arguments before the cultural zeitgeist has moved on and you’re left (further) behind.

  • Mike

    Yes, technically Bill you are correct. IF the US constitution includes a right to re-define marriage to include 2 people of the same sex, then yes laws counter to that would obviously be unconstitutional and therefore invalid. That’s a massive IF but you already know that.

    BTW in case you’re interested. Both the French “supreme court” and the European high court, both, ruled that the re-definition of marriage was NOT a basic/constitutional right and left the judgement up to the legislative bodies of each member state. I would be VERY surprised if the US court did not come to a similar conclusion.

    Also, don’t worry you folks are winning the battles, the last thing you want is for the court to impose something that would divide and create resentment and antipathy for generations. Live and let live.

    • abb3w

      The seeming likely result of the current SCOTUS cases would be rulings with very limited impact. They’re not likely to call gay marriage inherently unconstitutional. In the California case, the SCOTUS might let Prop 8 stand until legislatively overturned — which, given that national attitude polls have shifted by more than four times the Prop 8 victory margin, seems likely to be before 2016 regardless. In the Massachusetts case, the SCOTUS might say that the Federal Government can recognize state marriages or not as it chooses, and compel other states to such co-recognition or not… which will simply shift the fight to the Legislative, pushing to replace DOMA with a federal law requiring states to recognize marriages recognized by the other states, and to get Nevada to add Gay Marriage to the existing Reno/Vegas options.

      Seems likely not much difference to the historical trajectory.

  • pagansister

    Yea! Hope my birth state, Illinois and Colorado continue to do what is necessary to legalize gay marriage. IMO, it will not have any effect on heterosexual marriage. I often wonder why it bothers heterosexuals so much. Guess it is all involved with the religious point of view that only heterosexuals should use the word “marriage” for a lasting commitment between 2 consenting adults.

    • Mike

      Sorry I don’t mean to goad you but I always find it funny when people make certain to include the word “consenting” with out any hint of irony :). It’s like tolerant, because afterall, as you know, you are only “tolerant” of something you think wrong and by adding “consenting” you’re really implying that without “consent” it would be somehow wrong as well. BTW lots of non-religous people think re-defining marriage is not a good idea. Look at Russia, where most are still atheists but homosexuality is totally officially withoutstanding. Also look at most of the former communist countries, they are no where near re-defining marriage. It just so happens that religious people tend to be more outspoken.

      • pagansister

        Mike, perhaps I should use the term “of legal age” instead of “consenting”. Is that better? I’m sure that “lots of non-religious people think re-defining marriage is not a good idea”. I just don’t happen to be one of them.

        • pagansister

          Just thought, forget legal age, and consenting, just 2 adults—-? :-)

          • Oregon Catholic

            and when the NAMBLA people and their sympathizers are successful at re-defining the age for adulthood for sexual consent to early teens are you also going to imply that we were just too backward in 2013 to realize how normal it is for men and women, let’s say in their 40s and 50s for example, to have sex with young boys and girls – as sexual mentors perhaps?

            I know this is coming when we see efforts to teach early primary school children about sex and contraception. The courts, in their efforts to deal with young offenders, have become unwitting defenders of it too when they start trying and sentencing young teens as adults. How long will it be before some ephebophile or some 20 yr old accused of statutory rape will argue in a court that if a child can be tried as an adult for a crime committed at 13 or 14 then a 13 or 14 yr old is capable of making a decision to have sex? How will anyone argue against that logic? And we know that once it’s legal it will be moral in most people’s minds and then the desensitization starts for younger and younger ages.

            I know this is off topic and you will probably say it will never happen but I think it will precisely because this is the trajectory of a society and a legislative judicial system that has no moral grounding but only a relativist interpretation and responds to whatever happens to be PC at the time.

            • pagansister

              OG, NAMBLA is not an organization I agree with or would endorse under an circumstances. Where is that organization attempting to change the rules to early teens as the age of consent?? Or are you projecting? Also where have you seen children in “early primary school” being taught birth control methods? Who is attempting to do this? I would need your definition of “early primary school” to know whether I would object or not. If you mean 4th grade (USA grades) I have no problem with early sex ed. Kids know A LOT by that age, and done correctly with the right teacher, just information facts, could be introduced—if no one at home has done so. In the RC elementary school, I taught in the sex ed classes began in 6th grade. As to sentencing “young teens” as adults? I can think of one case in the city I left 1 1/2 years ago, where the 13 year old had murdered the mother and child who were his neighbors. He was found guilty, sentenced, and did his time in a correctional facility for “children”. However, he was never released at 18 because of his behavior there—and is now in an adult facility, and hopefully will never see the light of day. The murder was brutal, and apparently not being sentenced as a adult originally was a mistake. So, I really have no problem with some teens being tried as adults, depending on the crime. IMO, the fact some teens can be tried as adults has nothing to do with the age of consent for sex being changed. No connection.

              • Oregon Catholic

                re: condoms for first graders and BCPs for 6th graders. A couple of quick google results – there’s more
                http://www.wcvb.com/Condoms-For-Elementary-Students-Yes-Says-Mass-Town/-/9849586/11288760/-/qqj1w/-/index.html
                http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303058,00.html
                I have yet to figure out the logic that says a 6th grader is mature enough to consent to birth control without their parents knowledge or permission but they can’t legally consent to sex. The school has acted because there MAY be parents who MAY be failing to help their children with their sexual needs. And you ask me if I’m projecting – what about the school?

                How can you not see the legal slippery slope between being declared an adult at 13 for a crime you committed that means you will serve an adult sentence (until 18 in a juvie hall then on to prison after) and the short step from there to declaring a 13 yr old an adult for making sexual decisions? It will simply take the right case before the right judge for someone (probably a man accused of statutory rape with a little over-sexualized girlfriend of 13 going on 21 on school distributed BCP’s no doubt) to argue the law is outdated and the definition of adult is unequally applied we’ll be off and running. I’m surprised it hasn’t happened yet.

                • pagansister

                  I suspect that what you fear, a man accused of statutory rape claiming that the law is outdated, is a long way off, if indeed going to happen at all. Just my opinion. I don’t think I will live to see it, but time will tell. As to the distribution of condoms etc. by schools—-it appears to have already happened in the places you gave me the sites for. How successful it has been in MA (near my old stomping grounds of RI) we don’t know, as that was in 2010, and who knows if it is still valid. I have no problem with children in middle school being able, after going thru the proper channels etc. to obtain prevention. It doesn’t mean they will have sex, just that if it happens, they will be prepared. Hopefully the parents will educate their children on sexual matters, but in some situations (depending on home circumstances) children already know details from “just watching” the behavior of the adults in their homes—the boyfriends or girlfriends of their mother or father. As for condoms in 1st grade? I don’t think they’d fit yet! Seriously, I do think it is a little young for the intro to them, but as for simple sex ed, I don’t have a problem. Age appropriate information. In my experience, some 5 year old kindergarten children, were very “wise” as to sex. I had the experience in my teaching of one boy in particular who was “wise” beyond his years, and exhibited it as he went thru our Catholic school halls—the things he said and a couple of things he did (when I had him in K) were a little frightening. His parents, of course, didn’t seem to understand why we were calling them in on a couple of instances. Fortunately they changed Catholic schools, but after a year, his mother wanted to bring him back to ours. The principal said “no”.

                • pagansister

                  OC I suspect that what you fear, a man accused of statutory rape claiming that the law is outdated, is a long way off, if indeed going to happen at all. Just my opinion. I don’t think I will live to see it, but time will tell. As to the distribution of condoms etc. by schools—-it appears to have already happened in the places you gave me the sites for. How successful it has been in MA (near my old stomping grounds of RI) we don’t know, as that was in 2010, and who knows if it is still valid. I have no problem with children in middle school being able, after going thru the proper channels etc. to obtain prevention. It doesn’t mean they will have sex, just that if it happens, they will be prepared. Hopefully the parents will educate their children on sexual matters, but in some situations (depending on home circumstances) children already know details from “just watching” the behavior of the adults in their homes—the boyfriends or girlfriends of their mother or father. As for condoms in 1st grade? I don’t think they’d fit yet! Seriously, I do think it is a little young for the intro to them, but as for simple sex ed, I don’t have a problem. Age appropriate information. In my experience, some 5 year old kindergarten children, were very “wise” as to sex. I had the experience in my teaching of one boy in particular who was “wise” beyond his years, and exhibited it as he went thru our Catholic school halls—the things he said and a couple of things he did (when I had him in K) were a little frightening. His parents, of course, didn’t seem to understand why we were calling them in on a couple of instances. Fortunately they changed Catholic schools, but after a year, his mother wanted to bring him back to ours. The principal said “no”. She reminded the mother that all she did was complain about “how her son was treated” when he was in our school and she (the principal) felt that he would still be unhappy if he returned. The boy had caused problems in the new Catholic school also—-

                  • pagansister

                    Sorry for the double post! The first post wouldn’t go in, told me it was a 503 time out or something so I altered it, and posted and it went in. Obviously, Rebecca, you can delete one if necessary—perhaps the first one.

    • http://coalitionforclarity.blogspot.com/ Robert King

      For me, and for many Catholics I know, it has nothing to do with the religious point of view. We’ve already accepted that the civil definition of marriage (which includes no-fault divorce and infinite re-marriage) is radically different from our religious sacramental notion of marriage.

      Rather, my opposition to same-sex marriage is based in the biology of reproduction and the sociology of how best to rear the next generation of our community. A sexual relationship which normally produces children is different from a sexual relationship which does not produce children. Children are, generally speaking, best raised by their parents, and should not be removed from their natural parents without very good reasons. Children raised by single parents or in unstable households are at much higher risk for psychological and criminal problems throughout life, leading in the aggregate to a more unstable and criminal society in general. Therefore, it is reasonable for society as a whole, and the State in particular, to take an interest in promoting public stability among heterosexual mates, i.e., marriage. In non-procreative sexual relationships, such interest would just be the government (or our neighbors) nosing about our bedrooms for no good reason.

      Note: none of these reasons are based in any doctrine other than the that it is good to have a stable, civilized society, nor on any revelation other than that heterosexual intercourse naturally leads to babies while homosexual intercourse does not. This is not discrimination “against” same-sex people; it is recognizing that the relationship is different. It is not judging the quality of love of one group of people versus another; it is is recognizing the difference in public and social ramifications of different kinds of acts. It is not abrogating anyone’s “rights”; it is recognizing a certain responsibility that arises in some circumstances and not in others.

      We can disagree and argue about the biology, and the sociology, and the legality of this argument. But please do not dismiss it as a “religious” argument. Christian doctrines (and those of other religions as well) may come to similar conclusions, but this argument would remain even if all Christianity came out in favor of same-sex unions.

    • Rick

      The reason gay marriage bothers me is because it takes one more step toward making marriage and family solely about individual happiness instead of the welfare of society. Many other steps have been taken that have damaged marriage and family as a social institution: easy divorce, increased rates of premarital sex, living together, and birth control. Marriage has become about what makes individual adults happy, not about what is good for children and society as a whole. The incidence of depression, school drop-out, teen pregnancy, gang affiliation and a host of other problems have been correlated with the crisis in marriage. Gay marriage, in and of itself, may not hurt our society but the trend toward individual selfishness in marriage has hurt society. Gay marriage only takes us further down a road that has been highly destructive.

      • Oregon Catholic

        Thank you for putting my thoughts into words better than I could have. This further focus on self-centeredness and impermanence of marriage is precisely why I think SSM hurts both society and heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual couples have done more than enough damage already. I hope our society will wake up to the social harm traditional marriage and family has suffered and focus on repairing that instead of adding more ways to weaken it. It’s like asking more people to line up to get infected with an illness so everyone is equally sick instead of trying to heal the illness in the first place so all can be healthy.

      • pagansister

        Rick, you feel individual happiness isn’t important? Do you actually think that same gender couples are unable raise a child? At one time on another site, a commenter and his partner were raising 2 boys that were older when they adopted them—older children are harder to fine permanent homes for. Are they hurting society by giving those boys a home, security, and love? Would it have been better for those 2 children (who happened to be brothers) to go through the state system until they were 18 then “bye”? Single women have raised children for centuries—-not always by choice. I had a great- grandmother who did that with 4 children. (I’m in my 60′s) She didn’t remarry as she didn’t want any other man raising her children after their father died. It has always been possible for single parents to raise children (not easy, I will admit) and the children turn out just fine. BTW , what has birth control have to do with anything? Divorce is usually not easy on either party, but is it better to stay married “for the kids” so they can be affected by the parents not getting along, etc? Just a few questions to counter your bleak outlook on society and same gender marriage.

        • Oregon Catholic

          I’m not Rick but permit me to respond to your questions. These are not easy, black and white topics but there is certainly more than one way to look at them.

          “you feel individual happiness isn’t important? ”
          I don’t believe he said that at all. What I think he said is that it’s not the primary purpose of marriage although that is what marriage seems to have become to it’s detriment.

          “Do you actually think that same gender couples are unable raise a child?”
          I personally think that almost anything is better than the mess our foster care system has become. However, I don’t think it’s a good model for raising children and for that reason I don’t think it should be normalized. I also think, as a rule, a single biological mother or father is preferable to a ss couple although there are always exceptions.

          “what has birth control have to do with anything?”
          birth control has led to the first issue of marriage being more about making people happy than about creating families. It has also made marriage less necessary, it has pushed back the age of marriage and childbearing, and we are seeing all kinds of social and demographic problems as a result just to give a few examples. There are many more.

          “Divorce is usually not easy on either party, but is it better to stay married “for the kids” so they can be affected by the parents not getting along, etc? ”
          I don’t think even the Church suggests that people should remain together if they are fighting so badly that it is damaging their children. However, no-fault divorce has made it too easy to get out of a marriage that simply doesn’t make one ‘happy’. When it’s so easy people don’t try as hard to get along and give up too easily and too soon. Too many enter into marriage with one foot already out the door. This leads to more selfishness in the relationship and selfishness is a relationship destroyer. Of course the real victims are the children who get bounced around and end up subjected to all the boyfriends and girlfriends of their parents as they try to find more ‘happiness’.

          • pagansister

            OC, I have no problem with your responding to my comments to Rick. :-) Where to start to answer your comments: Birth control has allowed married couples to decide when to have children, if they wish to have any at all. (a decision that should be discussed before marriage, IMO). Not all couples welcome children into their lives. I see no reason why happiness can’t be the main purpose of marriage. I have a happily married (18 years) niece who married for happiness as neither she or her husband want children and have succeeded in not having any. I know you do not approve of SS marriage as a rule, but was happy to see that in some circumstances it is better for a child/children to be adopted out of the system into a loving permanent home. Yes, a single bio mother or single bio father is preferable, but not always possible. And yes, in a divorce, the children are the ones who, in some cases, are bounced about and sometimes have a boyfriend or girlfriend of their mother or father to contend with. (or a step-parent). Then there are some cases where the best thing that happens is the divorce of the parents because the children are removed from a caustic situation.

            • Rick

              Several days late–Pagansister, traditional marriage, in my opinion, has been in trouble for a long, long time. It did not start with gay marriage. I think it started with easy divorce, remarriage, easy abortion and living together. I am a marriage counselor and I can show you reams of research about how couples overly focused on their own happiness are more likely to be depressed in the long-run and are more likely to have children with emotional problems. I’m really not the bleak person you paint me to be.

              Individual happiness is important, but when it is the primary criteria for a decision there can be a lot of problems. It needs to be balanced with the common good and the good of the family.

            • Rick

              Pagansister, the clinical research does not support the folk wisdom that divorce is best for children when there is a lot of conflict between parents. Adults raised in families affected by divorce have a wide range of emotional and relationship problems that children raised in angry, bitter environments do not have. Please note that in my previous comment about individual happiness I modified the phrase by SOLELY. I’m not the enemy of happiness, but do think that as we make decisions we need to think about what is good for the rest of the family and for society as a whole.

              • pagansister

                I had a whole post written to answer you Rick, then hit the wrong button and all was gone! I will try again. Yes, having reread your post, I see the word solely. As a marriage counselor, I’m sure you have seen many situations. I agree that traditional marriages have been “in trouble” for a while, but I do think that in the “good old days” many marriages stayed together because women were less able to work outside the home for many reasons, so were dependent on the husband for support. My 2 children (now married adults) told me several years ago that they were the only ones in their group of friends who had parents that were still married to each other. My son-in-law has his “original parents”, but my daughter-in-law is another story. She had a step-father from a young age, who molested her. Yes, her mother knew about it, and did nothing and those 2 are still married. Happily? Who knows! ? He was never arrested for his deeds. My daughter-in-law finally married at 17 to get out of the house, and had a child. That didn’t last. So, marriages staying together under some circumstances are not always better for the children. She had 3 siblings that he never touched—she was the youngest and the object of his “attention!” I do find it interesting that you say children do better when parents stay together even when there is conflict between them, than children of divorce do. As to making decisions —-yes, hopefully they will be made for the good of all involved. I do not believe you to be the enemy of happiness. And if I made you appear to be “bleak” it was not intentional. However, happiness is subjective, everyone has a different definition. As to gay marriage, many same gender couples have been together for more years than many heterosexual couples—what is the harm in allowing them to be married too?

  • Sus

    “I, for one, will not give up on traditional marriage.”

    Gays being married doesn’t mean we have to give up on traditional marriage.

    The problem I see with state by state laws regarding gay marriage is that gay people will be stuck in states that recognize it. If my family moves somewhere in the United States, nothing changes as far as my marriage being recognized. The same should be true for gay marriage.

    • Mike

      Also don’t forget other countries. If a same sex couple from Canada moves to Italy their “marriage” is not recognized. It would also not be recognized in Germany or Austria or Switzerland.

    • abb3w

      That’s a question of the “effect thereof” part of the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV. Once the point is reached where a majority of states allow gay marriage (as well as the present majority of the electorate), it shouldn’t take long before a Federal “Co-recognition of Marriage” act is passed.

  • Bill S

    “Gay marriage, in and of itself, may not hurt our society but the trend toward individual selfishness in marriage has hurt society”

    That is not enough reason to make gay marriage illegal. There’s no law against selfishness and many great contributions to society have been made by people who might be considered selfish.

  • Bill S

    “There is also no groundswell for gay marriage in Oklahoma”.

    Does that mean that the drill sergeant in An Officer and a Gentleman was wrong?

    Oklahoma and Massachusetts are worlds apart on many issues. They have Rebecca Hamilton; we had Barney Frank. We have gay marriage; they hardly have any gays looking to marry. It’s kind of like when Iran says it doesn’t have any gays.

    Our kids are learning acceptance of gays. Their kids are probably being taught to look at them as sinners.

    I don’t think it is right to allow some states to deny gays their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. California tried it with Proposition 8 and, so far, the courts have ruled it to be unconstitutional. The same is likely to happen to states that restrict marriage to opposite sex couples only.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ the Old Adam

    Whoopie!

    We want what we want. And we will have it. No matter what anyone says.

    Just like in the Garden.

  • pagansister

    Darn right, the Old Adam, Darn right! :-) Why not?

  • Bill S

    The argument I don’t get against gay marriage is this one:

    Gay marriage poses a threat to traditional marriage. Traditional marriage is all messed up even without gay marriage. We can’t allow gay marriage because it will affect traditional marriage and traditional marriage is messed up enough already.

    How much more would gay marriage really mess up traditional marriage?

  • pagansister

    Bill S., I have had the same question —and have asked a few of the opponents on several posts that question and the only answer I seem to get (if they answer at all) is that it is against God’s rules or something like that. Same gender couples being married will not have any effect of “traditional marriages”. My heterosexual marriage will be just the same, as will all the others in this world. :-)

  • Bill S

    “In his recently released annual peace message, Benedict said gay marriage, like abortion and euthanasia, was a threat to world peace.”

    You can look it up yourself. It’s not only a threat to traditional marriage but to world peace.

    There is a White House petition to list the Catholic Church as a hate group. I wouldn’t go that far.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X