The Loving Decision

Thank you C. MacLean.

This is the very reason why our nation's judicial branch, the US Supreme Court, will in due time hear the civil lawsuit in support of gay marriage, and decide the outcome of our nation's next historic civil rights advancement case. Our nation's founding fathers never wanted our federal government to define sacred entities such as when "life begins", and "love and the act of marriage". Other nation's and a few states have recognized the significance of the Separation of Church & State when it comes to successfully executing non-discriminatory government policies and legislation. Unfortunately, America has not always been the beacon of hope when it comes to civil rights. for African-Americans, women, and most recently gay and lesbian Americans. These propositions/referendums and federal/state legislation that ihave been passed or enacted iae all subject to review by our nation's judicial system and interpretation by our state supreme courts and subsequently appealed to the highest court in the land, the US Supreme Court, for review and judgment with regards to its constitutionality. The outgoing GOP administration's opinion that our nation's judicial branch was acting out of line by its interpretation and subsequent overturning of laws which it deemed to be unconstitutional was just one of many political viewpoints (whether they be economic, military, or civil rights) that this President was wrong about during his term in office. God Bless America.

Our American forefathers created a government to PROTECT the rights of minorities. Their intention was not a government run by the majority to slaughter the minority. If you woke up tomorrow and 51% of America was Gay, would it be ok for the Gay majority to outlaw hetero marriages? Of course not. So everyone, JUST BE FAIR.

If money did talk like Quindlen said, then the anti Prop 8 people spoke louder since they outspent the Yes-On-8 people $49 M to $29 M. Yet, Truth was uttered softly and it was heard all over. Same sex practice rebels against truth and tries to deceive nature. Its head will be crushed by heel of truth.

Hit the nail on the head... we will gain victory for our lives and smoke out all the religious, bigots and married hypocrites that exist in this country. What part of land of the free do they not understand. When will I get to vote on there marriage. I would vote no for heterosexual marriage, it goes against my beliefs and its un-american, turn the tables and think!

The gay marriage issue should not be one at all. There is no compelling reason why two people of the same sex should not be allowed to marry. They are harming no one. Those who fear gay marriage are the people with deep anxiety concerns that should be addressed. If "reproducing" is the key criterion for opposing gay marriage, then that argument should be laid to rest like bustles and buggies. Three days ago, my husband and I celebrated our 43rd wedding anniversary -- still happily childfree. When we wed, we already knew we did not want to be parents. We didn't need to marry, but as citizens, we had that choice. Basing marriage on the tenuous variable of reproduction is ludicrous, indeed. The human race is in no danger of extinction anytime in foreseeable centuries. Those who have too many children are a much greater threat. Perhaps we should question men and women planning to marry about the number of children they intend to add to the polluted, overpopulated world and deny a marriage license to those who intend to breed more than twice. To deny gay marriage based on the presence of children, or lack thereof, is beyond the pale. I suppose that until opponents of legal gay unions can come up with something more substantial and logical, the tired old, scary bogeyman of "kids and the gay lifestyle" will continue to be marched out by rabid fanatics. Whose rights will they vote to extinguish next?

I would like to correct the author about her assertion that the indoctrination of children with a pro-gay agenda is a myth. She conveniently forgot abouth the kindergarten class in SF that went on a "field trip" to see their lesbian teacher get married. Or the case of the second grade class that was made to read "King and King" without notifying the parents. What was particularly galling was that the courts said that the parents had NO authority to prevent that garbage from being taught to their second grader. All these protests about Prop. 8 seek to do is bully and subvert the will of the people through P.C. intimidation or the liberal courts. The people have spoken in California, twice in fact. Power to the people.

I am about as conservative as they come. I vote Republican and spent 12 years in Catholic schools. And I just don't see what the problem with gay marriage is. To my knowledge, the whole debate is about allowing gay couples to enjoy the same LEGAL rights as straight couples. Nobody is saying churches have to accept it.

I was raised to believe that one of God's greatest gifts to us is free will. So who are we to infuse religion into a legal issue? Obstruct the right of gay couples to enter a legal partnership because God would object? Really, do we think we have been empowered to make decisions on his behalf? I'm pretty sure God is opposed to smoking - so why don't we outlaw it? I'm pretty sure he's opposed to swearing - so how 'bout we arrest everyone who's ever dropped an F-bomb?

Opposition to gay marriage on the basis of Judeo-Christian ethic is a non-starter. We seperate church and state in this country. At least I thought we did. If there is no threat to life, limb, or property (and there isn't), then per our Constitution, the government has no right to forbid it!

If gay marriage is immoral, let God be the judge. We don't have that kind of moxie. Personally, I believe God views love as just good ol' love, irrespective of who is loving whom.

As usual, the liberal left as demonstrated by Ms. Quindlen, just doesn't get it and the media miss the point. The gay community says they want acceptance. What the really want is acceptance and money, i.e. access to their partners health insurance, social security/retirement benefits, etc. All of the rest of the stuff is just chaff meant to deflect the argument.
A careful study of both US history and the Constitution would show that the People have both the Right and Obligation to determine what is acceptable and what is not. We define what the age of consent is and at what age people can be allowed to do certain things, i.e. vote, drink, drive, serve in the military, legally wed, etc. No thought is given as to whether we might be impinging on their rights. A person can vote to change the direction of the country and die for it, yet he/she can't legally drink. Why? Because the People via their elected officials, determined that was best for our society. As a country, the People decided to protect the rights of disabled people, minorities (both racial and orientation) so that they have fair and equal access to employment and basic services (entertainment, restaurants, travel, government buildings,etc.) All good things.

Yet, specifically, on the subject of marriage, people across our country have lost sight of what "marriage" was about. Both religiously and secularly, marriage has always been about family, i.e. husband, wife, and kids. Historically, the husband made the money and the wife raised the kids. The societal advances that brought vast numbers of women into the workplace changed the ratio of earning, but the intent was still the same: husband, wife, kids. As more and more couples have chosen careers over kids, the percentage of childless couples has increased, but is still statistically insignificant. As such, marriage is still more about family than anything else. The People of this country decided a long time ago that marriage is a union between a single woman and a single man. Love has nothing to do with it. Race has nothing to do with it. It is simply the law. That is why plural marriages aren't allowed. There is love and there is family, but the people decided that supporting multiple marriages wasn't in the best interest of our society. Just as the People have voted that gay marriage isn't in the best interest of our society.

FAITHFUL HARP I loved the way you stated your view you are DOPE!!! And now to the gay community and proponents of Gay marriage Please stop using Loving VS. VA as well as the struggle of African Americans in this country to prop 8 it hold no merit. LOVING VS.VIRGINA still holds no merit as to way the ban should be over turned.You stated that in 1967 the Supreme Court struck down a law basically stating that a Black WOMAN who wanted to marry a white MAN was unconstitutional based on the fact that "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man," because it is "FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR VERY EXISTENCE AND SURVIVAL "

Well, how is gay marriage "FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR EXISTENCE AND SURVIVAL"? it seems to me that the Supreme Court felt that Marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN regardless of RACE was "FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR VERY EXISTENCE AND SURVIVAL " not marriage of two people of the same sex who cannot huh say uh... breed,multiply, reproduce, give birth to" the human race. Being able reproduce the HUMAN RACE is "FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR VERY EXISTENCE AND SURVIVAL"

well in 2008 Prop 8 was put to the MAJORITY of the people and the MAJORITY of the people voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman because in CA we still believe that "Marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN regardless of race is "FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR VERY EXISTENCE AND SURVIVAL"

And to the gay community that thinks BLACK is the new gay ( I live in CA and it was on a sign at a no on 8 protest today)...uh yeah noooo. That's very insulting-

*** to go back into the closet where they belong. The article was written by a libtard who's probably a lesbian herself...

I must respectfully disagree with Ms. Quindlen. I feel she took a rather narrow view of the subject, focusing on inter-racial marriage and misapplying the theories that supported that correct legal interpretation to gay marriage. I simply don't think gay marriage will pass muster in the courts. It would require a fundamental change that differs wildly from the vast majority of human history. Across all human civilizations on all continents marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

For those of you who think homosexuality is a choice, let me tell you the following. I'm a gay man in a committed relationship. Both my parents are hard-core Christians who think homosexuality is a sin. I would never have chosen homosexuality on my own because of the difficulty of being gay in a bigoted society. Now I have a long-term partner & am happy. Those of you who would relegate gay people to being 3rd-class citizens need to be more careful; you have gay people in your families too. How long will you let your bigotry deny your gay brothers and sisters their rights as human beings?

There is no marriage without consummation. Hence, homosexual marriage is impossible.

Liberal judges get caught up in the emotion of the issue. Many have friends that are gay and can't find a reason why ANY TWO loving individuals can't get access to all the same benefits. The liberal media gets caught up with the celebrity spokespersons for the movement. On the surface, it all sounds so good: two loving individuals freely joining each other for life. Any argument against gay marriage is immediately categorized as homophobia by the left. Yet all of the rhetoric changes when we say plural marriage. Why? Because the Women's Movement, lead by many gay women, and the liberal left feel that only a subjugated, enslaved woman could agree to sharing a man with someone else. What happened to all of the talk about the love? The fact of the matter is that, worldwide, more countries support plural marriage than gay marriage. More western countries accept extramarital arrangements (mistresses, boy toys) than gay marriage.

Most of the rights the gay community wants access to are available through civil unions or other legal arrangements. If the gay community wants access to the other state/federal benefits, have elected officials change the rules regarding those benefits. But leave marriage alone. The People have spoken and, like plural marriage, we have decided that marriage should be kept between a Single Man and a Single Woman.

Gays can have rights, but not make a mockery out of marriage. So if I love my dog can I marry him? interracial marriage and same-sex marriage and not the same in any way, shape, or form. Interracial marriages have the propensity to procreate and racism was created by man, not by God. They can argue that they're born that way all they want. Lot's of people are born with disabilities. Don't go around trying to change how families have formed since time began. Any agenda that uses threats, bigotry, vandalism, and all of the reprehensible and hypocritical techniques I've seen since Prop 8 has passed is evidence enough that they're pushing an frightening and immoral agenda.

Anna - thanks you for a great write-up. It is a point that I've been trying to make for some time, but no one seemed to be listening. I am a gay man, who lost his partner over 12 years ago. We were registered as Domestic Partners in San Francisco, before it really meant much in the rest of the state. The only reason that I was able to help make medical decisions in his final days, was because I was his primary Powers of Atty for Health Care.

All that said - I believe that I really have the solution. Every argument that I see stating that Prop 8 should stand (and also arguments from other states, upholding their ban on gay/same-sex marriage) all use the "Almighty God" or religious reasoning in their arguments. I believe the problem lies with the inclusion of religion in the argument. There is a separation of church and state in this country. From the Merriam-Webster dictionary defining such:

separation of church and state
: the separation of religion and government mandated under the establishment clause and the free exercise clause of the U.S. Constitution that forbids governmental establishment or preference of a religion and that preserves religious freedom from governmental intrusion.

Here is the definition of marriage from dictionary.com:
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.

It is important to remember that although the name marriage is used (which I see as more of a religious ceremony), what we are really talking about is the "social" institution recognized by the state. It is possible to be "married" outside a church or without a clergy officiating, but it is not legal to be "married" without a state generated document (marriage license). In essence, everyone has a civil ceremony and if desired, it can also be a religious ceremony, but the civil ceremony is what really makes it "official", it's just that sometimes they happen simultaneously.

I know that there will then be the argument of "OK - fine, let gays/lesbians have civil unions and men/women can still marry" - think Jim Crowe - separate but equal - not really.....

Let's do like many European countries. Everyone has a civil union, which really is the issuance of the license and a quick ceremony to finalize it - every signs it - and if one wants - go to a church and have a religions " wedding". But don't to the religious part without the civil part - the state would not see you as being in a union.

Solves the problem. Gives everyone the same rights. Keeps religion out of i

Ms. Quindlan. I've loved your work for a long time and wish you were still at the Times. However, I am dissapointed that you dropped the ball on this one. I'm an African-American man who sees no problem with gay marriage. Simply put if people are devoted to each other then they should have the right marry, period. But, I do not see why the press and politicians continue to equate gay marriage with racial injustice. It simply is not the same. The cultural, policial, and social histories of African Americans in this country and our struggle for equal rights and justice is just too different from gay rights. If you are going to make the argument for equating gay rights with African-American struggles you must do a much better job and produce a coherent argument. Perhaps you really mean to address civil rights.

Regarding gay marriage I used to be firmly against. Then I had to ask myself - does it hurt me? No. Does it hurt my community? No. Does it hurt my nation? No. It was only my early (taught to me) fear that it threatens. In addition, I believe both the Mormon church, the KOC and any other religious group that funnels money into political issues should have their tax-exempt status removed post-haste!

You'll fail for three reasons.
1) No one outside of your peculiar group cares, by and large.
2) When you force your issues into the public eye you annoy us
3) When you analogize homosexuality with race, you aggravate minorities and those who try to help them