The Same People

This dumb broad sounds like she has alzheimer's.

Anyone who can't understand this is stupid. It's not about being gay or straight. I'm all for my ass *** homo friends putting cream pies in their lovers asses. But this is about the US constitution, and state rights. When the US constitution doesn't have explicit language about a subject (marriage) then it is up to states to make their own rights.

In this case the US constitution doesn't mention marriage anywhere! It doesn't say that it's a "basic civil right". So it was up to the state of California to make their own legislation. Which they did. When the California Supreme Court said that it is a basic civil right, they can't base this on the US constitiution, because according to the US constitution it was never mentioned. Hence the California legislation banning it. When this goes to the US Supreme Court it will get overturned.

Sorry fags.

I agree with many of the comments, this was a usurping of power that directely contradicted the democratic process. I don't support gay marriage, but it would be a lot less infuriating if they accommodation were worked out in debate in a legislature. This is nothing more than social experimentation imposed by a liberal court - against the stated democratic will of the voters of California. This is the problem with the left....they work democratically when it suits them, but shove it in your face when it doesn't. Anna does not address either the politics of the change of the DSM II, III, and IV, which basically was the first step in this direction - by the new standard, a pedophile's actions would still be considered normative if s/he can function normally without regret/affect in the rest of their lives. I happen to believe that gay behavior is neither normal, healthy, nor socially normative...and doesn't mean that they are not otherwise great people. We've had the wool pulled over our eyes, and courts are happy to assist.

This issue is far more complicated then simply allowing ???love to win.??? This is about the state sanctioning contrail obligations that deal with social issues. Essentially, within the aspect of marriage, the state is a party. In the case of California the court moved to extend the franchise of marriage to a group of people explicitly to improve general happiness, a dangerous business for the state to get involved in.

One important aspect has been missed by the debate: homosexuals and heterosexuals in the United States are utterly and completely equal under the law. Let me restate this in case there is any confusion, there is no inequality of law concerning gays and straights. In every state homosexuals have the same right to marry as any heterosexual. The California court is extending the franchise of marriage to a particular group for their inherent happiness with no historical cause or justification. This is not the purpose or the place of the government, and it sets a dangerous precedent for government intrusion into other areas.

In addition, while some may see me as arguing simple word meanings, yet it is important for the true understanding of the issue to classify marriage as it is. Marriage is not a ???right??? it never has been and most likely never will. There is absolutely no historical justification for a claim of a ???right to marry.???

The social implications of gay marriage will be debate long into the future, the debate is far from being ???over.??? Yet, regardless of one???s opinion on the issue of gay marriage it must remain clear that that California???s high court ruling is legally and philosophically absurd.

The people haven't decided anything on gay marriage, but the courts in the most liberal parts of the country have. Big surprise! There is not and will never be such a thing as gay marriage. It is impossible for two men or two women to "marry," because marriage is, by definition, a union between a man and his wife. Gay marriage is simply civil unions dressed up for the gay community (about 5% of the country) to feel good.

The complementarity of marriage can only exist between man and wife, who together form a whole, man and wife, that when blessed bears fruit in children and in the love that improves our communities and society. There is not that type of complementarity between partners in gay relationships, only the desire for complementarity. What is the capacity for fruitfulness of love in gay marriage if there can be no children? Do the civil unions of gay men and women really make society a place for families? Or, is this just a political sham, meant to please a well-educated, influential, organized, but small section of society? It seems to me that "gay marriage" is really just another name for the civil union of friends who are trying to love one another and have society accept their attempt to love one another and say that it is what it is not, a marriage that creates a family and makes society a better, more stable, loving place.

Let us not forget, that marriage is rooted in the Bible, it is between a man and a woman, it must be complementary and able to be fruitful (not necessarily, but ordinarily, by the blessing of children). The human family is the image of the Trinity and the love of Christ for the Church.

So, Anne Quindlen, well-meaning people in society can pretend that there is "gay marriage," but pretending, or convincing yourself of something, in order to fell good, doesn't make it so. "Gay marriage" is simply civil unions that the court is trying to say are as normal as real marriage. But we all know that they are not the same. One is a family and the other is simply "friends with benefits."

Webster has this definition of "marriage": an intimate or close union, as "the marriage of painting and poetry" ??? J. T. Shawcross. Though it is the third definition of three, it is the more generic, and it demonstrates that "marriage" is a term that can be applied beyond its most usual usage - in which Webster actually includes several sections: "a: (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage." The fact that an adjective can be used to indicate that there are various kinds of "marriage" indicates that the term is a social construct rather than a term that has one absolute and unchangeable meaning. When people such as John C. say that "there is no gay marriage, only the real marriage between a man and a woman that is the image of Christ's relationship with the Church...", he is really arguing not about an absolute truth but about wanting his - and others' like him - definition of marriage to prevail in the social sphere in which he - and I and others like me that differ with him on this issue - lives. All our attempts to define words and, thereby, to control reality and what happens when people violate rules established by such definitions, are folly, since ultimately, life is not about having power to control one's environment and others in it, but it is about how we live as persons who are guests in a cosmos in whose making we took no part and yet in which we have a certain measure of power to build up or to destroy. The more we spend our energies establishing and enforcing rules against one another, as though we could know for certain the mind of the One who created the cosmos in which we are but temporary residents, the less energy we have to help others find a way to live as gracious guests, and the less we resemble gracious guests ourselves. (Who would want to be in a home in which the guests try to make the rules, often to the irritation of the host?) As for me, one of the best rules to follow is "do to others as you would have them do to you," though I'm still working on perfecting my practice of that. I hope John C. and others will take some time off from making and trying to enforce their rules and will help me and others like me learn to follow that 'golden' one.

Intolerance is a perversionl

I find it so amazing that those liberals in the media with heterosexual children can sit back and say it's ok. To say it is of no significance like "pass the mac n' cheese" is absolutely ludicrous. If it were your only child or simply one of your children, I beg to say that your opinion would be far different. No parent looks at their child and thinks it's ok if he's gay or it's ok if she's a lesbian. It just doesn't matter. It so does matter. You tell me how you would feel seeing your son passionately kiss another man or your daughter passionately kiss another woman. You wouldn't think thank goodness for love. It would turn your stomach. It so does matter! It is a loss of everything that should have been. It is a loss of everything that would have been. It is a life style that is nor normal. It is behavior that is vile and disturbing. It is the death of hopes and dreams. It is a loss that can not be filled with other things and activities. It is a sorrow that runs so deep. It is envy of friends whose adult children are living normal lives. It is praying every day that a young woman will enter your son's life and that things would change. It is crying in the car. It is crying yourself to sleep. It is crying in the shower. It is more painful than the death of your own parents. It is seeing a therapist for two years and being in the same pain. It is the forever painful reality of what will never be. It has tremendously more significance than "pass the mac n' cheese".

It's not that simple, Anna. Logic and human appetites will take you further. If "love" is the only criterion, why not legalize polyagmy? Group marriage? Consensual incest? Marriage to consenting minors? If you think this is far-fetched, consider their are civil rights lawyers for all the above groups working hard and using gay marriage as their template.

And why stop there? Why can't I marry my same-sex friend even if we are homosexual? We just want the benefits.

The legal and sociological nightmare will cause financial complications, and the emotional and spiritual damage will be enormous. That's what happens when you break the limits on the gift of sexuality given by nature and God.

All of you gay marriage bashers will just have to get over it. Anna is 100% right. in 10-15 years gay mnarriage won't even be a topic of discussion, let alone a political issue. And for those of you who say that gay marriage supporters "don't understand how disgusting it would be to see your son kiss another man' I have news for you - I am the proud father of a gay son in a committed relationship. I only wish that he lived in CAL or MASS and could get his union recognized. But that day is coming, all you bigots will die off.

The war against Christianity is on.

Only people who do not believe in the Bible, and that is the direct word of God, will think it is right for two gay people to marry. Period. The Bible speaks against homosexuality. God created Adam and Eve...not Adam and Glenn, or Eve and Cindy. God also doesn't promise us worldly happiness. Never does. He does promise us eternal salvation and happiness IF we worship and honor him, accept that Jesus was his son and believe with all our hearts, and are baptised for remission of our sins. Just because being gay makes you "happy", and "wouldn't God want me to be happy" is what every gay person I've ever talked to has said, does NOT make it a fact. The fact is, homosexuality is wrong, and homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

Only people who do not believe in the Bible, and that is the direct word of God, will think it is right for anyone to eat shellfish. It is an abomination. Leviticus 11:11. If we as a culture can give up all shellfish, like shrimp, clams, and delicious mussels, in order to be in perfect accord with ancient documents, then surely gay people can make a small sacrifice like having to resist their desire for love their entire life. Wait--you do eat shrimp? Man alive, I bet you are the kind of heathen who would call the police if you saw your neighbors stoning their disobedient son to death instead of helping them, in direct defiance of Deuteronomy 21:18-21 and Leviticus 20:9.

Look, there are plenty, plenty of things in the Bible that are not followed and should not be. You cannot cherrypick the verses that fit with your side of one issue and ignore or interpret away those that contradict your views. This is using the Bible as an argumentative bludgeon, and it is unfair and disrespectful. I could quote "Thou Shalt Not Kill" to support my opposition to the death penalty, but since I don't take Leviticus as literal and authoritative, I feel it would be cheating to try to end arguments and discussions about the death penalty by quoting a different part of the Bible.

This is not a matter of a war on Christianity or Islam or any other religion that teaches discrimiantion cased on what it considers deviant behavior. This is simply people educated outside of religious intollerance coming forward "again" to say that discrimination is wrong. We did it with slavery. We did it with women's rights. We did it with segregation. We did it with "choice". We have done it with homosexuality. The debate is over because as she the author illustrates her children and the millions of others educated since the early eighties we taught to accept difference as normal and equal. While the "silent majority" was arguing about the 10 commandments in schools and flag burning the "loud minority" were educating our children to look at people with an open mind and heart and not reject someone because they are different.

Gee, big suprise. A God hating, America hating liberal moron is for *** marriage and against all that the Bible stands for. Morals are something that liberals have never allowed themselves to be hindered by. You libs hate the death penalty unless it is for the unborn, you put dictators and murderers up on pedistals (kim jong ill and tookie williams) and you claim to be tolerant and understanding unless it is a Christian that is talking. If a lib speaks out about something it is freedom of speech but if a Conservative speaks out about something it is decried as intolerant and hate speech. The only comforting thing about the hate you libs spout is that you will be judged one day and it will not go well for any of you. I as a Christian can only pray that your hate for all that is good is broken by God and that you allow Him into your life and you stop your mudering sinful ways. Hell is not going to be fun and I hope you all change so none of you have to go there. You may say it is love but God calls homosexuality an abomination and He does not call many things an abomination, that is a very serious thing for Him to call a sin. Change or burn, you get to choose. I only hope that you chooses wisely.

How best to show love and respect to homosexuals and others in a society that is forcing its population to "like homosexuality or shut up"? The truth. Which includes:

* Rates of physical and emotional health are far worse for the gay community than the national average.
* This happens, per capita, where homosexuality is most affirmed: L.A., San Francisco, New York City, etc.
* Life expectancy for homosexuals in these gay-affirming places is low.

Yet now, which homosexual marriage, our children will be taught that they MUST affirm homosexuality, despite what their parents or religion teach. This makes no sense.

Just as violence against homosexuals should not be condoned, neither should we force people to affirm and accept a behavior which they--with good reason--deem harmful and immoral.

Simply chanting, "It's inevitable" is morally irresponsible and intellectually AWOL.

All of you that have condemned gays and gay marriage quit using God as your excuse. Take responsibility for yourself and just admit it. You don't like gay people. Tell the truth. This love the sinner, hate the sin does not hide you real feelings.

Well I sure am glad everyone here reads the bible. You obviously paid more attention in Sunday school than High school because not a single soul has bothered to quote the basis of our great nation;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Your Saints my weep but they cannot be heard over the wails of the Founding Fathers.

Anna:

Once again, I agree 100%. I think the gay marriage issue, like slavery, women voting, etc. will be one of those things most people look back upon, and say, "why didn't we right that wrong earlier?"

I think it will be my children's generation, as my parent's generation passes on, that will finally embrace the rights of all people to enter into marriage, and to have that marriage recognized legally along with all the rights and responsibilities.

Another great column.

Anna, thank you. Hopefully, many young people will be free of the nonsense that has clouded their elder's perspectives. In our case it is David and Scott for 31 loving years together and one year of "legal" marriage. With supportive parents on both sides, and wonderful siblings, nephews and nieces we live in Massachusetts.

I am a heterosexual woman who was rasied by two homosexual mothers. I'm none the worse for wear for having two mothers and no father. I'm happy and proud of where I come from. Neither of my mom's ever tried to push me to be anything I wasn't. I was never under any pressure to become a lesbian and neither were my two sisters. Out this household came 4 heterosexual children! People do not choose their sexual orientation any more than they choose their race. Let the gays and lesbians have the rights the rest of us get without having to beg and plead.