Will My Marriage Last?

NEWSWEEK

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Suttonhoo @ 10/31/2008 5:45:28 PM

    Jeff,

    Marriage is important for one reason that you fail to mention: it is fundamentally about children???s needs, not adult desires. Yes, marriage begins with love between two people, but more importantly, it focuses on a mutual desire between those two people to raise and nurture their future children. When the California Supreme Court redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, the law of marriage was changed for everyone. With that redefinition, the law now promotes three ideas: (1) men and women are essentially interchangeable, (2) children do not need a mother and father, and (3) those who believe otherwise are bigoted.

    Strangely, your argument for your right to marry includes arguments that denigrate marriage in general. Despite what you say, however, every healthy civilization has had some kind of marriage institution to encourage those who might create children to take responsibility for them. This is because society owes children the opportunity, whenever possible, to know and develop a meaningful bond with their own mother and father. And marriage between a man and a woman is the best way any society has developed to provide that opportunity. But when marriage is redefined, as it has been in California, it sends the message that there is no difference between mothers and fathers, and that one or the other is not essential. The law now creates families that are intentionally motherless or fatherless and where children will not experience the unique contributions of one of their parents.

    So the California Court???s decision adversely affects us all. Marriage, the best means of raising the next generation, no longer focuses on children and a family led by the two adults who gave them life. With one judge???s vote, marriage has become, instead, no more than a legal formality for adult relationships. And that, Jeff, lowers the value of marriage for all of us, as well as for future generations.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 10/31/2008 8:47:10 PM

      Sttonhoo,

      "Marriage is important for one reason that you fail to mention: it is fundamentally about children???s needs, not adult desires."

      Actually is it not "fundamentally" about children's needs. It was always first and foremost about property rights.

      "Yes, marriage begins with love between two people, but more importantly, it focuses on a mutual desire between those two people to raise and nurture their future children."

      Not true. There have always been people who had no desire to have children but who did diesire the legal protections that government sanctioned marriage entailed.

      "When the California Supreme Court redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, the law of marriage was changed for everyone."
      Not so. It did not redefine marriage. It finally acknowleged that, from the state's perspective, (the religious perspective is of no consequence in the law), marriage is ONLY about legal contractural issues and not about family or "sacredness", or the like.

      "With that redefinition, the law now promotes three ideas: (1) men and women are essentially interchangeable, (2) children do not need a mother and father, and (3) those who believe otherwise are bigoted."

      That is so absurd it is not worhty of decontructing.

      "Strangely, your argument for your right to marry includes arguments that denigrate marriage in general. Despite what you say, however, every healthy civilization has had some kind of marriage institution to encourage those who might create children to take responsibility for them. This is because society owes children the opportunity, whenever possible, to know and develop a meaningful bond with their own mother and father. And marriage between a man and a woman is the best way any society has developed to provide that opportunity. But when marriage is redefined, as it has been in California, it sends the message that there is no difference between mothers and fathers, and that one or the other is not essential. The law now creates families that are intentionally motherless or fatherless and where children will not experience the unique contributions of one of their parents.

      So the California Court???s decision adversely affects us all. Marriage, the best means of raising the next generation, no longer focuses on children and a family led by the two adults who gave them life. With one judge???s vote, marriage has become, instead, no more than a legal formality for adult relationships. And that, Jeff, lowers the value of marriage for all of us, as well as for future generations."

      Since marriage is not primarily about chidren or procreation these two paragraphs are not worth debunking. ( although they are so laden with falsehoods it would be easy to do so.)

      • Posted By: Suttonhoo @ 10/31/2008 11:54:30 PM

        ghostmasseur,

        You are mistaken.

        The marriage institution is not ???always first and foremost about property rights.??? Some laws, for example the English common law, linked property rights of women to marriage, but marriage was never a prerequisite for a man to acquire or hold property. The best examples for this are those societies that do not recognize property rights, but which nevertheless recognize the obligation of parents to care for and nurture their children.

        Further, although as you say, there have always been people with no desire for children but who nonetheless desire marriage, such couples are the exception to the rule. Laws such as tax laws that benefit married couples, do so with the well being of children their primary purpose.

        Moreover, the California court did indeed redefine marriage. Before its decision, the only marriages California recognized were those between a man and a woman. After its decision, marriage became a relationship between any two consenting adults. What more can the law do to redefine marriage?

        Finally, merely stating that an argument is ???absurd??? or ???laden with falsehoods??? without further explanation is not rebuttal. Try again. Won???t you put some thought into it?

        The facts are that every healthy civilization has had some kind of marriage institution to encourage those who might create children to take responsibility for them; that society owes to its next generation the opportunity, when at all possible, to know and to be nurtured by their mothers and fathers; that marriage between a man and a woman is the best way any society has developed to provide that opportunity; and, sadly, the decision of the California court sends society the message that there is no difference between mothers and fathers, that one or the other is not essential. So, although people like Jeff think nothing of redefining marriage for the rest of us, this new definition of marriage, if left to stand, will adversely affect us all, the reason being that marriage California-style no longer focuses on children; it now is merely a legal formality for adult relationships.

        • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/01/2008 10:48:08 AM

          "The facts are that every healthy civilization has had some kind of marriage institution to encourage those who might create children to take responsibility for them; that society owes to its next generation the opportunity, when at all possible, to know and to be nurtured by their mothers and fathers; that marriage between a man and a woman is the best way any society has developed to provide that opportunity;"

          That is not why marriage was created. Marriage was never needed for those who created children to take responsiblity for thier progeny.

          "and, sadly, the decision of the California court sends society the message that there is no difference between mothers and fathers, that one or the other is not essential."

          Actually society had already made that determination. That is why there are some many single parents (especially single mothers.) The court simply realized that children was nto a valid reason to grant equal rights.

          "So, although people like Jeff think nothing of redefining marriage for the rest of us, this new definition of marriage, if left to stand, will adversely affect us all,"

          Not at all. There is no eveidence of that. There were single parents and unwed mothers long before there was any talk about same-sex marraige. If you are so weak and foolish to allow this law to affect your sense of responsbility to the children you create, that is your problem and says reams about your ethics.

          "the reason being that marriage California-style no longer focuses on children; it now is merely a legal formality for adult relationships."

          As it always was.

        • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/01/2008 10:47:09 AM

          "Some laws, for example the English common law, linked property rights of women to marriage, but marriage was never a prerequisite for a man to acquire or hold property."

          You just proved my point. Property rights required marraige for women.

          "The best examples for this are those societies that do not recognize property rights, but which nevertheless recognize the obligation of parents to care for and nurture their children."

          But those do not always require legal marriage (or even marriage in any form.)

          "Further, although as you say, there have always been people with no desire for children but who nonetheless desire marriage, such couples are the exception to the rule. Laws such as tax laws that benefit married couples, do so with the well being of children their primary purpose."

          Actuallly no they do not. The added deductions for children are the ones that are for the primary benefit of children and those are allowed for unmarried parents too. IF you were correct about the tax benenfots for married couples being primarily about children then the laws would revoke those benefits if there were not children or once thoe children were no longer in the household.

          "Moreover, the California court did indeed redefine marriage. Before its decision, the only marriages California recognized were those between a man and a woman. After its decision, marriage became a relationship between any two consenting adults. What more can the law do to redefine marriage?"

          Since marriage is a human construct is well within the rights of the courts to say what marraige is. Before the courts ruled, there were many places where marriage could not exist between different races. Marraige under the law is primarily about a relationship between two consenting adults.

        • Posted By: Kyon @ 11/01/2008 12:51:54 AM

          You have forgotten one detail in this matter. People who are infertile are still allowed to get married. If the person is infertile they are obviously not getting birth so how is the marriage of someone who can produce children to someone who can't promoting childbirth and raising. Besides we have 7 billion people on this Earth; we could stand to have a number less, not more.

  • Posted By: Dr. A. @ 11/01/2008 9:00:12 AM

    Although I generally favor the liberal side of issues, this is one where I respectfully disagree with the author's well reasoned arguement. Giving legal sanction to gay marriage opens a very slippery slope of what society views as acceptable legal relationships. Why not allow brother and sister? Why stop there? Why not brother and uncle and another cousin and add the neighbor down the block as part of "the marriage".? I think the current trend of civil unions is probably the way to go, and if a particular state wants to expand that with the consent of its' citizens, ok, but look out for Harriet and Aunt Jessie and Sherita and her sister Betina joining in the party.

    • Posted By: rogerhall @ 11/01/2008 10:39:04 AM

      Please show me one example of "a brother and uncle and another cousin and add the neighbor down the block" who are suing for marriage rights, then allow me to show you tens of millions of examples of actual people who simply want to commit to the person they love.

      And how is that "marriage" is a slippery slope of relationships but "civil unions" aren't?

      Incidentally, if my state had "civil unions" my wife and I would have opted for that instead, and then still considered ourselves "married" as we faced the world together daily.

      Words mean little. Respect means a lot.

  • Posted By: sunnjae @ 10/31/2008 12:36:52 PM

    An article EVERYONE should be required to read.
    I am a straight, 53 year old Christian mother of 3, grandmother of 1.
    Not sure why love never seemed inappropriate to me - regardless of who loved whom.
    Guess I'm just odd that way :-)
    It makes me crazy when I see people who claim to be Christians serving up hatred in the name of religion.
    Thanks for an excellent article, well written & heartfelt. I'll be passing it on to all of my friends & saving a printed copy for my beautiful 17 month old granddaughter.
    Hopefully by the time she is old enough to digest it, this topic will have gone the way of civil rights & suffrage - but God forbid, if we haven???t learned anything by then, maybe she can pass it on to her friends too.
    Congratulation to you & your husband Mr Murr ??? I know God is smiling on you each day of your life together

    • Posted By: HAL--- @ 10/31/2008 4:41:10 PM

      Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

      Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

      • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 10/31/2008 5:38:44 PM

        HAL,

        Those quotes have no relevance to US law. They are just man-made stuff of no universal importance or value. They only have meaning to those who choose to grant them meaning. US law grants them no meaning.

        • Posted By: ernestt @ 11/01/2008 2:57:09 AM

          Well, well, well.....US law has no effect....When the values in the Bible are involved???? When Utah was being debated for admission to the Union, whose values determined and prevailed in marriage of the polygamists??? The Mormon Church or what???? Rights can be granted and rights can be denied. So in the issue of same sex marriage rights were "granted" over the issue of domestic partnership and over Prop 22 by a one man majority. The same "rights" can be denied by the same majority on Prop 22. At that time the gays were "okay" with domestic partnership. This push for marrigage rights has been a well funded and deliberate positioning by the gay agenda many years ago. Always presenting the stance of a victim to gain rights. Always covering up their true intentions. Always softening up the culture through the media in making their life style "normal" and in your face. Always exposing the most vulnerable (our children) and impressionable to assure success if not now then in the future of guaranteed success in finally securing NO opposition of your life style. Always seeking ways to muzzle any criticism or oppostion of your lifestyle as abberant or abnormal and labeling those as bigotted and "hate speech". Always seeking to confront oppostion or criticism as intolerant, ignorant, unable to love as Christ love, using Christ love to say if Christ loves me why can't you?????......Failing to remember the connecting words.....Go and sin no more.....conveniently.......So, don't try to hide your true motives in presenting your lifestyle as innocuous and 'normal"......Your progression of your gay agenda has matched what was written down in print years ago......It is only coming to fruition.....

          • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/01/2008 10:32:21 AM

            "Well, well, well.....US law has no effect....When the values in the Bible are involved????"
            The bible is of no real relevance in US law. Espaecially since there are so many differnt interpretations of what it means.

            "Always seeking ways to muzzle any criticism or oppostion of your lifestyle as abberant or abnormal and labeling those as bigotted and "hate speech"."

            Well it is not my personal lifestyle, as I am very heterosexual. And given how SOME people talk about homosexuality they are very much showing bigotry and espousing hate speech. Others are simply parroting religious ideas whcih are of no universal value. They may be important to those who believe in them but are not allowed to be made US law.

  • Posted By: Nanzilla @ 10/31/2008 5:03:15 PM

    This is an absolutely beautiful piece. And to the right winger, do you stone your childeren for misbehaving? Those words are all about pro-creation. As if today, 2008 there are not enough people in this god forsaken world!! Lets keep having children in poverty to idiots who have no business raising a human, or a goldfish for that matter. Natural for gay person is means just that, God punishishing a gay person for who they love, would be just the same as punishing you for being born with skin. But then again, according to those who believe as you do, god placed different races on different continents, so the person who invented boats, planes and trains are CLEARLY BURING IN HELL AS WE SPEAK, if it werent for them we wouldnt have inner racial marriage either. The bible is a history book, and a bad one at that. Sorry for your ignorance. With Love, a straight, married woman.

    • Posted By: HAL--- @ 10/31/2008 5:08:34 PM

      Sorry for your lack of vision. Unfortunately you are the kind of person that says the emperor's new clothes look "great." See things for what they are...and you'll go far.
      Gay marriage is messed up.

      • Posted By: kshortSD @ 10/31/2008 5:17:00 PM

        Hal, has it ever occurred to you that not everyone shares your beliefs? You should refrain from trying to push your beliefs on others. This article speaks for love and acceptance. If these values are unappealing to you, then good luck to you.

        • Posted By: HAL--- @ 10/31/2008 5:20:59 PM

          Of course. I understand that, but just like people beleive it is right, I beleive it is wrong...that's all I'm saying. it's up to the individual to decide for themselves. I quote from my religious beliefs because that is what guides my value system and my "rights" from "wrongs." I just dont make up morals as I go along....like many people do. I was raised in a gay household. Have associated with gay people. But began to realize and see first hand, that it is a dysfunctional lifestyle.

          • Posted By: kshortSD @ 10/31/2008 5:26:06 PM

            Marriage is an institute of the state, not the church, technically. So I guess I have a hard time accepting that some folks will vote to deny people this opportunity because they don't approve. You don't have to like it, but do you have to actively seek to discriminate against others?

            • Posted By: HAL--- @ 10/31/2008 5:33:17 PM

              That is a very good point. Are people hurt by denying them the right to marry...whether gay or not? I dont want to see anyone hurt or denied their rights...so it is a dilemma (for me anyway). I'm not as hardcore as may come across. So I have no satisfactory answer for you.

              • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 10/31/2008 9:07:27 PM

                "That is a very good point. Are people hurt by denying them the right to marry...whether gay or not?"

                Actually yes they are. Since certain legal rights are automatically granted once two people are married and some of those rights are extremely difficult if not impossible to get without marriage (and some states or institutions will not grant them even after the couple has jumped through the legal hoops to secure them), denying gays the right to marry does harm them.

                For example, estate rights, pension rights, end-of-life decisions rights, health decision rights, health insurance rights are ALL granted to spouses upon state granted/licensed marriage. I have known many same sex couples who have even gone through the very expensive and time-consuming processes to get the legal documention that SHOULD have granted them end-of-life rights, general power-of-attorney rights, medical pwoer-of-attorney rights and the like, only to be told when their spouses were ill, injured in accidents or dying that since they were not "family" or spouses that the medical facilites would not listen to them not let them be with thier love=d ones, and the like. Had they been married, that would not have happened.

                Additionally, a man and woman can be married a year and the IRS and most state treasury departments automatically grant certain rights, and they are entitled to pensions or fdaeath benefits, but a gay or lesbian couple who has been monogamously together over 25 years has no such right.

                And those are only some of the inequalities that same-sex couples are subject to simply because they are denied the right to marry.

                Also, even though it is irrelevant to US or state law, consider that not all Christain or Jewish denominations have religious problems with same-sex marriage.

                Lastly, there has been discussion in the Jewish religious world for years that the Leviticus line you meniton actually is not referring to what we now know about homosexual relationships (that they can be loving caring and monogamous long-term relationships). The discussion is that what that verse is referring to is about a specific hedonist act that the high priests of certain Cannanite idol-worshipping sects engaged in as part of their religious rituals. They engaged in sex with everything, liing dead, human and aniinmal, including incest and rape. That is why other prohibittted sexual acts surround the verse you mentioned. The sort of relatioships we see today were all but unheard of in biblical times. It is the sort of uncaring hedonism that is an abomination, not loving same-sex realtionshipsthat those who wnat to get married ar part of.

                • Posted By: thedon @ 10/31/2008 11:18:37 PM

                  Well ghostmasseur. Why don't you take up your "interpretation" of Leviticus when you stand before God. We'll all find out one day, won't we?

                  • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/01/2008 10:26:18 AM

                    Since there is no god that is a moot issue. And what is written in that man-made book does not really matter to me.

                    I was just pointing out what has been discussed among Jewish scholars/rabbis have been saying. Since they are the ones who first created the monotheistic god and wrote the text you quoted their ideas carry more weight.

      • Posted By: Nanzilla @ 10/31/2008 5:27:14 PM

        Back at you on that comment Shallow Hal, see things for what they really are. God does not condone fear or hate. Perhaps you need to dig a little deeper to understand what love is. You only see love and marriage as SEX. How sad for you and your kind.

        • Posted By: HAL--- @ 10/31/2008 5:41:53 PM

          ...Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

          Love never fails....And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is Love."

          1 Corinthians 13:1-13

          That is how i see love.
          But right is right and wrong is wrong and you can wrap it up in your interpretation of "love" all you want, it doesnt make it any better.

  • Posted By: joe 6pack @ 11/01/2008 10:25:33 AM

    Democrats love this sexual depravity.

    So,

    VOTING FOR A DEMOCRAT IS GAY

    DON'T BE GAY

    unless you want to see more of this depravity.

  • Posted By: Libricrat @ 11/01/2008 8:33:31 AM

    I am a hetero sexual male. I can't say that I understand how a dude can be attracted to another dude. That said, The relationships that two consenting adults engage in is nobody's business but, their own. I don't care if it's across town or across the street. (A) What business is it of mine? (B) How does it affect me? (C) The government shouldn't recognize Marriages anyway. It's none of Uncle Sam's business either! If there's no freedom to be an idividual then, there's no freedom at all !

  • Posted By: Mikeroscope @ 10/30/2008 8:09:25 PM

    The arguments against gay marriage are the same they made against interracial marriage. As for anatomy of males and females.... Lets just say the part of the male anatomy fits perfectly into the place where you are too afraid to put it on a man or woman. Thats a very weak argument to deny someone equal rights. Thats like saying since women's bodies are different so they deserve less rights.

    As for opting to not having to teach your children about gays? WTF! Homosexuality exists! You can't keep your kids in the dark. Your breeding another generation of ignorant bigots like yourself. Give your Kids a chance to decide if they want to blindly hate someone. And yes you hate them if you don't think they deserve the same rights you do.

    • Posted By: jstark99 @ 10/30/2008 10:33:55 PM

      As far as interracial marriage is concerned, the opposition was bigoted and stupid, the opposition to
      homosexual marriage' is just common sense. The sexual organ of a male is complimentary to a female. The sexual act between a male and a female is also neccessary for society to continue, not so for homosexual acts.
      Because of the difference in anatomy, a woman is called a 'woman' and a man a 'man'. To call someone a man and another a woman is not discriminating against them, it is describing them accurately.

      • Posted By: slaxx @ 10/31/2008 1:42:53 AM

        you're clueless.

        guess what - GAY PEOPLE ARE GAY and they can't reproduce with one another whether they're married or not. so what's your point?

        plus, plenty of gays still have kids and adopt. allowing them to marry or not won't change that. why shouldn't their families and children deserve the same protections as you?

        also, marriage is a civil institiution and as such it grants marrried couples civil rights. because of this, it's illegal and unconstituional not to let gays marry, no matter what the original purpose of marriage was (to build wealth). so either gays marry or people will eventually have to lose the benefits and protections that the government gives married couples.

        it will simply be a religious ceremony with no civil consequences whatsoever.

        • Posted By: ernestt @ 11/01/2008 5:27:47 AM

          So anything goes???? Expose kids to porn???? Expose kids to any and all sexual pervesion because S & M, Bondage, Bestiality, Prostitution, Child Porn, Bestiality....etc all exists????? Are we trying to expose our children to the lowest common denominator just because they exist???? Where is the sense of right and wrong? Where are the sense of good and wholesome versus evil and degrading??? Where is the sense of encouraging uplifting and enobling behavior???? Why do we have laws to protect children from offensive things like cigarettes, alcohol, illegal drugs, exposure to lewd and lascivious behavior, to strip joints???? These things exist! are you going to keep YOUR kids in the dark???? or expose them because they exist????

  • Posted By: Mikeroscope @ 10/30/2008 8:10:40 PM

    The arguments against gay marriage are the same they made against interracial marriage. As for anatomy of males and females.... Lets just say the part of the male anatomy fits perfectly into the place where you are too afraid to put it on a man or woman. Thats a very weak argument to deny someone equal rights. Thats like saying since women's bodies are different so they deserve less rights.

    As for opting to not having to teach your children about gays? WTF! Homosexuality exists! You can't keep your kids in the dark. Your breeding another generation of ignorant bigots like yourself. Give your Kids a chance to decide if they want to blindly hate someone. And yes you hate them if you don't think they deserve the same rights you do.

    This story was wonderful and I wish you and your Husband the best.

    • Posted By: HAL--- @ 10/30/2008 9:23:19 PM

      The argument against interracial marriage is based on bigotry. The argument against gay marriage is based on morality. Not the same thing.

      • Posted By: TheVigil @ 10/30/2008 9:30:31 PM

        The "morality" argument was used against interracial marriage as well. It was considered "immoral". It looks like the same kind of thing to me.

        • Posted By: HAL--- @ 10/30/2008 9:46:30 PM

          I have yet to see any religious text that says a black man can not marry a white woman or vice versa. There is plenty of "religious" text on homosexual behavior, let alone marriage.

          • Posted By: BobC44 @ 10/30/2008 10:04:44 PM

            Who cares about religious text? There were civil laws against whites marrying blacks, Japanese marrying Caucasions, even Armenians were forbidden to own property in California !!) -- there was nothing in the Bible about those either. Keep it rational, and keep the scripture and all that Bible mumbo-jumbo nonsense out of a civil matter like gay marriage. We're Americans and Americans give rights, we don't take them away.

            • Posted By: ernestt @ 11/01/2008 5:10:51 AM

              What do you mean we haven't taken away rights? We abolished alcohol in the constituion and we repealed the abolishment. We sanctrioned slavery and we freed the slaves. We stuck the Japanese Americans in relocation camps and then apologized and paid reparations. We gave amnesty to illegals and now we are deporting a lot of them. We had freedoms of travel and now we go through metal detectors, take off our shoes, We have abortion rights and now society is whittling this down bit by bit. We have strict laws on illegal drugs and there are some calls for legalization. There was open laws against porn and now it is ho hum. Child port was available and now it is hunted down. It used to be easy to set up bank accounts and withdraw funds and now you have strict rules with identification required. Rights can be granted and rights can be denied. Our history has many examples of taking away rightrs.

            • Posted By: Andrew Delo @ 11/01/2008 3:01:59 AM

              Hal, you haven't seen any religious text since the New Testament began.

  • Posted By: ernestt @ 11/01/2008 4:40:23 AM

    sh I could agree with some of the comments that feel that gays are not forcing their values on the American culture and that all they express is love

    Never in my years in voting and enduring the political campaigning of canditdates and issues and propositions have I ever experienced negative situations in front of my own home. I am a supporter of Prop 8. My neighber had two Yes on 8 lawn signs on his yard. I had seen No on 8 signs on various yard and when a new mall was being opened, there was a lot of No on 8 supporters on the sidewalk corners with banners and signs. Well, in a couple of days my neighbor's two signs were GONE!!! So, he got another sign up and in two days that LONE sign was gone!!! All this talk of "love and tolerance" is just that talk For the supporters of the gay life style it is MY WAY and to HELL with you!!!!

    From Diane Fienstein ad stating it is "discrimination" and "not the children" she conveniently ignores what is happening in Massachursetts.

    For those who persist or are in the lifestyle of gay situation....they put blinders on and see the rest of the world as a challenge to FORCE their values and consider everything that opposes them as bigots and hate speech.

    They conveniently refuse to present anything that might look negative about what has happened.

    Well, let us consider and look what is happening and what has happened.....

    There is Robb and Robin Wirthlin's Story about what happened to their son in Massachusettes Public School System when they objected to the indoctrination of their son...www.protectmarriage.com

    Religious adoption agencies were challenged to give up their long held right to place children in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston was forced to stop providing adoption services in Massachusettes

    The LGBT Legal Issues for School Attorneys agues that calssroom instruction that covers same sex marriage without explicitly discussing "human reproductive organs and their functions" is not subject to California's parental notice and opt-out laws.

    The Anti-Defamation League, the Human Rights Campaign, and the ACLU had urged the courts in Massachusettes to reject the parents claim to opt out and excuse their children from offensive instruction. They are paying for ads in CA assuring parents that legalized same sex marriage will not result in their children being taught about same sex marriage in public schools. (bait and switch)

  • Posted By: sophia8898 @ 10/31/2008 11:21:47 AM

    As a Christian, I don't think it's the churchs right to judge or tell gays what to do. God is the only one who should be judging. I am so tired of these so called Christians quoting bible scriptures to prove their point. I am tired of the silly rallys. Kids standing on the corner with signs. It's annoying! My other concern is once we start telling gays what to do, what's next. By the way, it seems that gays marriages last longer than most straights. I voted No on 8!!! Oh and "TheVigil" The Bible says let the person without sin cast the first stone. Think twice before you judge someone, especially if you have never walked in their shoes..

    • Posted By: ernestt @ 11/01/2008 3:32:28 AM

      How very convenient to pick and choose what verses to use to bolster your belief system!!! It is very easy to condone for you to condone lifestyle in this American culture and say that the church has NO right to condemn or judge and use the words of Jesus and say He didn't condemn the person, he only loved the person.....and very conveniently "forget" or "ignore" HIS parting words.....Go and sin no more.......If the Church can't use their scriptures as their guide for their members as what is right and wrong.......then what can they use?????? ;;;;;;the value system and beliefs of the secular society that says anything goes.....if it feels good it must be okay and do it...... And don't say that the church has NO role in society and progression for civil rights......churches played an important part in American history in ending slavery and nearly a 100 years later in the civil rights movement.......it is unfortunate and predictable in the scriptures....that society has decsendent lower and lower in their morals and the current church's role model for encouraging moral behavior has been declining.....but it was predicted that men would be lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God and that right and wrong would be confused.....what was right would not be wrong and vise versa....Woe unto our current society.......We haven't seen how low our society can descend into yet ;;;;;;;

    • Posted By: HAL--- @ 10/31/2008 4:42:01 PM

      Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

      Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

    • Posted By: TheVigil @ 10/31/2008 11:48:41 AM

      Huh?

      Are you talking about the Bible passages I posted? I was trying to make the point that so many Biblical provisions have fallen by the wayside that the scriptural arguments against homosexuality have been weakened.

      I think this is all a moot point. Those fundamentalist Christians who are trying to pass this law because the Bible says it's a sin are in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. YOU CANNOT MAKE a law in the United States on religious grounds. You just can't do it, legally. And I think that regardless of whether or not this passes, it's going to be challenged on those Constitutional grounds and possibly overturned.

  • Posted By: Barons of Dudley @ 11/01/2008 3:24:11 AM

    When I think of "The pursuit of happiness" , I can't help but think of how sad I'd be if I couldn't be with the one I love. With the uphill battle that a homosexual person would have to endure in their life we are assured that nobody wakes up and makes a choice to be gay, they are born gay. Not influenced by a teacher etc as Reagan stated in '78 and allowed the teachers who were gay to keep their jobs. Who is anyone else to take away a person's happiness and condemn them to a life of feeling incomplete. I think love should be celebrated no matter who it is. I'm lucky enough to have found it and glad to see other's in love regardless of race or sexual orientation. Love makes better people out of us. The comment earlier from the "Harvard White Guy" ... I have to wonder why he identified himself as white and male. That to me stated prejudice and homophobic right from the start. I identify myself as a Med Student and a Grandmother! I haven't met any "jerks" in the gay community yet, and I've met jerks in every other group including my own! Says something. I hope that gay marriage becomes legal in all states and that more make the commitment given in a marriage. Their marriages would be stronger for it.

  • Posted By: Barons of Dudley @ 11/01/2008 3:01:53 AM

    Understanding that humankind has involved homosexuality since the dawn should be enough to teach the harvard white guy that it isn't a choice made. I have to wonder why he included the word white and guy to describe himself. I see complete prejudice and homophobia in his statement. I describe myself as a Med Student and Grandmother among many other hats including ex-police officer. Why would anyone "wish" to be homosexual with all the anti-gay battles to endure and fears to overcome. With the uphill battle toward a happy life as a homosexual it's something that must be endured by those who are "BORN" gay and at some point in their life face this reality. Good people wouldn't wish that anyone endure the terrors cast upon the gay community. Doesn't the "persuit of happiness" include being happy? If I couldn't be with my love, I know that I wouldn't be very happy.

  • Posted By: ernestt @ 11/01/2008 2:22:47 AM

    It is unfortunate that gay rights activists are thinking only of their rights and feeling that they are a persecuted minority. We have had a lot of investigations and prosecutions against another class of marriages---polygamy in the rural areas of the west and southwest recently. I haven't heard of ONE gay activist come to the aid of THAT persecuted class of marriages.

    The gay activists bemoan that their marriage rights are now being treathen and taken away from them. What do they think when Utah wanted to be admitted to the Union? The Mormon church had promoted and accepted the practice of polygamy? Were their rights treathened when Congress admitted Utah after the church officially abolished polygamy???? Why hasn't the gay movement been supportive of polygamy??? It is practiced in the Middle East and in Africa.

    • Posted By: rogerhall @ 11/01/2008 2:31:23 AM

      Polygamy exists today in America and is generally not prosecuted unless children are involved. IMHO, your plea for polygamy protections is cynical. I don't believe you really care about polygamists at all.

      However, I do. I think "freedom" should include actual "freedom", and consenting adults should be left alone.

      <snark> But you got me - I was lazy and waited to be born 92 years after Utah became a state, so I clearly don't really care about fighting fascism. Oh the egg on my face! </snark>

      Why would gays think they are persecuted? Perhaps because they are: we have kicked over 900 Arabic translators out of the military and intelligence services because they happen to be gay. When we are perfectly happy to shoot ourselves in the foot to make sure that "those people" can't do the things that the rest of us can, we create the very definition of persecution.

      It's not about "feelings". It's about being able to "go" and "do" like everyone else.

      And now YOU have heard from one. Your welcome.

  • Posted By: neeka @ 10/31/2008 9:07:45 AM

    A lot of people on here who want homosexual marriage to stay legalized are arguing that it is a personal decision and no one has a right to tell anyone who they can marry. The problem with that argument is where do you stop? So, what if a brother wants to marry his sister and they argue they really love each other? Would it be trampling on their "civil rights" to stop their marriage esp. when "love" is involved?

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 10/31/2008 9:19:59 AM

      Brothers and sisters can't be married because of the genetic defects that would occur with any children. Incest increases the chances of retardation, physical abnormalities, genetic diseases, etc. Gays can't procreate. They can adopt, but it is physically impossible for same sex couples to have a child.

      • Posted By: ernestt @ 11/01/2008 2:12:45 AM

        I don't know where you are coming from??? Ever heard of a sperm bank or a sperm donor and a turkey baster??? It happens all the time among lesbians.

  • Posted By: FrVladimir @ 11/01/2008 1:43:34 AM

    We are free to live in this life at own discretion because to me all is possible, but not all is useful. And each of us acts so, how much to it the eternity is opened.

  • Posted By: peony310 @ 11/01/2008 12:09:29 AM

    I'm a straight woman, engaged to be married, and a resident of California. I'll tell you how gay marriage has negatively affected my relationship and upcoming marriage: IT HASN'T. What we've seen over the past months in California are thousands of loving, committed couples pledging their love and finally gaining access to the many benefits married couples enjoy, even if it is just the pleasure of introducing someone to your husband or wife. We've heard family members, friends, neighbors, and our favorite talk show host describe to us the happiest day of their lives. As someone making wedding plans with the person I love, I think it's long overdue that everyone have this opportunity.

    I'm not suggesting that if you disagree with me you're a bigot. You don't have to think gay marriage is right--but certainly you can agree that singling out a group of people and treating them differently under the law is wrong.

    • Posted By: sheebe @ 11/01/2008 12:30:11 AM

      You wrote very well. But, they have all the rights that we do as married already. That is what I don't get. I am just tired of a Supreme Court thinking they can change laws that were not suppose to be messed with. And I don't want my grand children to learn this in grade school. Jr. high yes. But not grade school. This law will have to be redone. Jerry Brown wrote that law in a messed up way. When someone can write it decent. And assure us that grade schools won't be taught this. Then I would say no.

      • Posted By: svdoodles @ 11/01/2008 1:00:21 AM

        But the Supreme Court (almost all of which were placed on the bench by Republicans and are NOT considered a liberal court throughout the country) ruled only that Prop 22 was not constitutional and that the law could not provide "seperate but equal" treatment to one section of the population. Namely that the state couldn't give heterosexuals a right that they denied gays simply because they were gay.

        What Prop 8 does is to place into law a particular set of religious beliefs, in the process denying a right that the court recognized in their decision. I think that Prop 8 is not only wrong on its face but I also believe it sets a terrible precedent. What religious belief should we incorporate into our constitution next? Shall we stone adulterers? Will we make women follow only what men say? What other religious tenet will be placed in an arena that is by definition not supposed to be a part of our government?

        I firmly believe that everyone has their right to believe what they will, whatever that may be. We are fortunate to live in a country that gives us that freedom. But it is precisely this freedom that is at the heart of this matter. Seperation of Church and State is a doctrine that preserves everyone's freedom and ensures that the religious majority (or the most vocal) do not infringe on the minority in civil matters. The court decision was civil not religious. Prop 8 is about religious belief and that is why I believe you should vote no on 11/4.

        • Posted By: sheebe @ 11/01/2008 1:08:24 AM

          Don't care about religion. I don't go to church. I am agnostic. I don't want my grand kids learning that in grade school that is all that I don't like about it. Other wise I would vote no.

          • Posted By: sheebe @ 11/01/2008 1:15:13 AM

            svdoodles, Would have been nice if the news would have explained that about the Supreme Court. I work a lot and didn't research it. So, when I read your post. I went and read about it. That I can acdept. Sounds like they made a great decision. To bad that idiot Jerry Brown didn't write the law without grade school kids learning about gays in grade school. Is only reason that I don't like about it. Not that kids shouldn't be taught about gays. They do. When they are older.

            • Posted By: svdoodles @ 11/01/2008 1:26:13 AM

              But Jerry Brown didn't "write the law". The state only began allowing what the court said it must do-give the same rights to everyone. As to schools, I really have issues with that claim. The big story about kids going to a wedding in SF-if you read about it the kids were outside congratulating their teacher after they got married. The parents organized the event because they wanted to do it (so the parents did make the choice here) and it was a private charter school. I don't know of any kindergarten that teaches about marriage (straight or gay). Marriage is really something that comes up (if at all) in later years around health and sex ed classes. The last I checked that was in high school and parents could still opt out for their kids.

              I read elsewhere that you said your son is gay. I find it really hard to believe you would want someone to take away your son's rights. The concept that we can vote to remove rights is just so appalling to me.

              • Posted By: sheebe @ 11/01/2008 1:31:24 AM

                You are right. My son gay. He has been with a man for several years. They don't want to marry. He is happy. If he did that would be cool. But, I am going to research right now. Is great talking to a person with intelligence. And explain this to me. Will check back in a while. Some of these posts are to heated and the religion quotes just get to me. Life isn't a quote from a Bible. That has been re written to suit others.

                • Posted By: svdoodles @ 11/01/2008 1:39:07 AM

                  That is probably the saddest thing about this whole issue. I am amazed and disheartened by the justification (sadly on both sides) people are using for the most hateful things they are saying. What ever happened to civil discourse? I have been trying to teach my kids-No I don't agree with this proposition but No you cannot remove someone's signs (or vandalize them as has happened several times to our No on 8 sign). I want my children to understand that we can respect one another and disagree without being hateful. Sometimes that is hard when they see other adults acting so inappropriately.

  • Posted By: msdiva2005 @ 10/30/2008 10:43:26 PM

    its really saddens me that this whole marriage right has gone to far!!!! no takes serious marriage anymore...marriage is sacreda and i dont hate gays or anything i love them through the eyes of GOD, but i will not tolerate that marriage is between two same sex couple...just like you want right to get married...i have a the right as a citizen to vote NO on PROP 8!!!

    • Posted By: Kyon @ 11/01/2008 1:18:10 AM

      If marriage is sacred then how come two atheists can be married and receive the same rights as christains

  • Posted By: arachne 646 @ 10/31/2008 2:23:38 PM

    God Bless You, David and Jeff, may you enjoy many long and happy years together. I'm a Christian woman, married for 28 years, and the ruling a few years back by our Supreme Court, on human rights grounds, extending equal marriage rights to same-sex couples has not harmed our marriage in the least. As always, churches have their own religious standards as to whom they will marry, and society at large has not been compromised. I think if there were more love and less judgemental and legalistic, punitive talk from certain people, then the forgiving, loving life of Jesus, who ate and drank with everyone, didn't lecture, and talked a LOT more about the poor than about sex, would be better shown.

    • Posted By: HAL--- @ 10/31/2008 4:40:36 PM

      Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

      Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

      • Posted By: Kyon @ 11/01/2008 1:00:50 AM

        If std's and the like are a result of homosexuality then tell me this; why do so many hetersosexual people have sex and get std's.

    • Posted By: Nanzilla @ 10/31/2008 5:09:11 PM

      Nice to hear from a Christian, someone who in my humble opinion clearly gets it.

  • Posted By: thedon @ 10/31/2008 11:13:20 PM

    Let's get one thing straight, David. Your so-called "right" to get married was afforded to you by 4 activist judges. Marriage has always been a man and a woman, and to top it off, California VOTED to define it as that a few years ago. What right do YOU have to redefine something so precious to me?

    • Posted By: rogerhall @ 11/01/2008 12:59:41 AM

      So the *definition* of marriage is what is precious to you? Not marriage itself - a lifelong commitment to the person you love - just the definition.

      Any chance your real name is Merriam Webster? If not, don't you think that's pretty silly?

      In either case, if you ever go to Europe, be sure not to buy any tickets to "football" games. Just trying to help.

    • Posted By: pgsmock @ 10/31/2008 11:24:59 PM

      Amen! This proposition is a joke and a waste of money. The people already defined marriage when they voted the last time -- that between a man and a woman. There is no other definition. Why are we voting on this issue again?? Are the 4 activist judges gay?

  • Posted By: white trash @ 11/01/2008 12:56:35 AM

    I live in California, and in no way do I want to cause harm to anyone's happiness. Most assuredly, as a joyously married hetro, why would I wish to refuse happiness and joy to anyone, hetro or gay. After all, we are all human beings and in this thing called life, altogether. Happiness and joy are as fleeting as a butterfly; we all have to grasp it when we can. I wish David and his partner all the joy life can bring. To insure, their rights to happiness, I will most assuredly vote NO on 8. May the Great Spirit rejoice in your union, and your lives filled with joy, happiness and love because love is the only thing that matters in the great whole. After all, it is all about love, and whom am I to define love or set its limits when I only know its joys and rapture. May the GS bless all the rest of your lives, together. Rejoice!

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse