The Loving Decision

If it's "truer that money talks" than the ballot measure Proposition 8 in California should have been defeated. The NO on 8 campaign raised more than the YES on 8 campaign. The unofficial estimates put NO on 8 at $37.6 million and YES on 8 at $35.8 million. Supporters of Prop. 8 exercised their right to vote on an issue that concerned them, donated to a cause they believed in and voted to support a definitional proposition that
every civilization has recognized for thousands of years.

The real issue here is not about marriage at all....it is about destroying marriage as an institution, simply because one group wants to power play itself into something it will never get. Legitimacy. If I can find several million people to vigorously protest for the right to have sex with 15 year olds, in time, it will get the same run as this particular lifestyle. Lifestyle legitimacy is what this argument is about, and the problem therein lies with the fact that this is a moving target if there is no objective moral basis. Today, a 15 year old is off limits. 100 years ago, marriage at 15 or younger was common. Unless there are objective moral standards, rather than your proposed lassie faire attitude toward private sexual conduct, we will soon find ourselves upon a slippery slop, with no bottom that anyone could agree upon.

Whether you want to deal with it or not, the homosexual lifestyle is viewed as an immoral lifestyle, and totally unacceptable to those who see Biblical truths and agree that an objective morality exists...that is, certain truths outside the limits of popular opinion. Granting marriage, or any other of legal measures is never going to change that view. Christian morality as applied in Biblical principals to the issue of homosexuality is something that will outlast our temporal legal institutions. God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow...and His word leaves no room for misunderstanding that the homosexual lifestyle is an immoral, sinful lifestyle, and unacceptable. That does not mean that God does not love the sinner, but the sin itself is not acceptable. A society that deems otherwise is at war with God. That is the crux of the argument.

In short, if everyone can get a Harvard diploma, it becomes worthless. The same with marriage. If sex, or the number, become useless variables, than the institution itself becomes nothing of valuable....

You fail to mention in your piece that the anti proposition 8 crowd outraised and outspent the pros. Therefore, "money" did not talk, the people did. Gay activists while accusing those of us who voted for these propopositions (I voted for Amendment 2 in Florida) of being intolerant and bigotted, are making absolute fools of themselves by showing their intolerance towards Mormons and blacks. Their actions wil hurt their cause with people like me, who would be OK with civil unions, but who will oppose their attempt to force us to accept (nor tolerate) calling their unions marriage. Marriage is between one man and one woman.

If this is a "civil rights" issue, which I do not believe it is, then are we prepared to allow polygamists to marry? if the "rights" of gays include the right to marry someone of your own gender, why is the "right" of polygamists to marry more than one person any less valid?

At no time in history, in no culture or society EVER, without exception, has marriage been defined as other than between man and woman. Until now. This is not about rights. It's about the definition of a word. Just because the party says 2 +2 =5 doesn't make it so. I'm so glad to realize that all of humanity from the beginning of the world until now were just a bunch of bigots, unitl Ms. Quindlen and her liberal friends arrived to enlighten us.

This is Newsweek at it's finest; Push the liberal Democratic Party agenda.

Same-sex marriage is only inevitable if we let it become that way. It is not a "civil right". If the country wants to trend towards diluted marriage norms, such as polygamy, man-boy marriage, then same-sex marriage is the next logical step... if not... then put a stop to it now.

If money talks then proposition 8 should have failed. I understand that they raised MORE money than those FOR proposition 8. I know for a fact that a prominent Utahn who is Gay personally gave over a million dollars to the NO for proposition 8. It is reported that he would "match" any donations by Utahns who donated to help pass the proposition. We are all standing up for what we believe is right - on both sides. shoud

For all the hoopla, there has been a pitifully small percentage of gay marriages in the states where it has been allowed. Either most gays don't really want it or there are a heck of a lot less gays than are regularly claimed.

This is why I hate liberalism. A liberal or "progressive" (what ever that means) will have you believe that same sex marriage is just like interracial marriage or that a US-Mexico border fence is just like the Berlin Wall. It's all based on irrational emotion and short on logic or reasoning.

The fact is that gay people can get married. A gay man can marry a gay woman just like a straight man can marry a straight woman. No discrimination! Marriage is the legislation of procreation and the fact is that two gay men can not make a child no matter how hard they try.

As a society we also legislate that male and female cousins can not get married because as a society we don't want children born with the a higher possibility of birth defects.

Over in India brothers and sisters in certain castes have sex, does this mean that they should be allowed to get married over here in the US because it would be discriminatory otherwise?

Marriage is the legislation of procreation based upon how our (Christian ) culture interprets the best way to have and raise children. It's that simple.

The leftist writer here is desperate to sell Americans on the "inevitability" of homosexual marriage. She doesn't have to be right. If Americans can find their backbones and stand up against the left, then nothing they push for is inevitable. Marriage is a sacrament, a holy union between a man and a woman. A homosexual union is just that, a homosexual union. There is nothing sacred about that and we don't have to accept that it is unless we decide to throw thousands of years of human history into the trash can. I'll sign my name to this: Joe Turner, Santa Fe, NM.

This is not a civil rights issue. It is definitional. Marriage for thousands of years has been between one man and one woman, and that's how the majority of people think it should be. Three men can't marry (yet). Two sisers can't marry. A sister and a brother can't even marry. We make our own culture and we pass it down to the next generation. It's not hate of gays and lesbians; it's respect for what marriage is. To those who are gay and lesbian I say: live, love, laugh, and get the legal arrangements you need to be secure.

I'll take a moment to replay to "hrob27" below: Why take the lame way out when you argue for homosexual marriage by saying that anyone who opposes you "hates?" That is such lazy argumentation! The left so typically adopts this strategy. Ignore any reasoned argument and just start shouting that the other side is motivated by "hatred and racism." The fact is that citizens can oppose homosexual marriage for the reasons I listed or others WITHOUT hating homosexuals or anyone else. You need to come up with a more advanced argumentation technique.

Eventually China will overtake the US as the world's superpower. Why doesn't the US and Europe just hand the world over to them right now. If the people do not want gay marriage, why must it be forced on them? Why not try to make equal rights thru civil unions for everyone (gays and straights)? I see plenty of arguments against people of faith, but little respect for them.