We need more people like you too, Gus.

You said, “Who am I or anybody else to get in the way of two people who want to live their lives together?”
So you also are for allowing marriages between committed groups? Why just two people?
It’s amazing that we always think people have integrity…… if they believe the ideals we believe in.

churchmouse – what’s with the slippery slope argument when that isn’t even part of the discussion or under consideration?
I hope that someday, I will find Mr. Right and will be married…well, handfasted. As a gay man, the concern I have is for the legal benefits and protections that ‘marriage’ gives to a couple. I’ve known of a few instances were there was a death of one of the men. Their family, who never liked the fact that their son was gay, came in, changed all locks and refused to allow the companion in to get anything. They had bought the house together but in the end, he lost everything and to add insult to injury, was not allowed to attend the visit or funeral.
Civil union doesn’t offer the same protection nor does the government recognize it. Marriage is a civil union that is given its benefits from the government, not any church or religion.
I’ve found that the religious arguments against SSM can be shot down rather easily.
What concerns and bothers me, personally, is the fact that people think they should have the right to “vote” on others civil rights. Civil rights should never be something that is voted on and should never be a popularity contest.

Indeed! Why NOT groups?
No one should meddle in the affairs of consenting adults.

@churchmouse:
“So you also are for allowing marriages between committed groups? Why just two people?”
This is an entirely different issue and debate on its own. There are plenty of valid reasons to deny polygamous/polyandrous marriages and comparing it to the issue of same-sex marriage is merely an attempt to deflect from the main points of the discussion.
First and foremost, a gay person is not seeking to marry more than one person. A gay person is in fact seeking to marry just ONE person, just like a non-gay person is. In the case of today’s situation, a non-gay person with gay marriage banned can still marry a single person naturally desirable to them. A gay person cannot marry even one person naturally desirable to them. What is at-issue here is whether or not we should invoke gender and sex discrimination here. The driving force behind the anti-gay ideology is the same driving force behind sexism that has kept women in a status that is less equal than men, which is precisely why the anti-gay crowd has repeatedly cited sex differences as being the main reason they are opposed to same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage would in essence have the effect of making marriage gender-neutral and eliminating gender disparities in marriage and divorce laws.
Second, polygamy/polyandry seems like a simple idea until we look at divorce, alimony and child custody questions. A case could be made that it is not within the public interest to complicate our laws of divorce and separation any further. Same-sex couples fit perfectly within the context of modern legal constructs the same way as Opposite-sex couples do. Interracial couples do as well. Multi-partnered couplings do not. If you want to argue the case for polygamous/polyandrous couples, you’re going to have to make the case for them on their own and propose legal solutions that will make them draw appeal to the public.
Third, it could also be argued that same-sex couples will give more strength to the institution of marriage, while polygamous/polyandrous couplings will further de-stabilize marriage, leave room for spousal jealousy, etc. When presented with marriage, gay couples have shown divorce rate of less than one percent in the U.S. as of yet. In countries where same-sex marriage was legalized, rates of divorce has actually dropped.

Also, those who base their arguments against gay marriage on the grounds of procreation cannot also argue against polygamy, or even promiscuity. They should in fact be arguing for polygamy and encouraging promiscuity, since that would in fact further their end of procreation.
Heterosexual monogamy and homosexuality are inherently structured in such a way as to be the least efficient means of growing society. A single woman can only carry usually one child at a time (and rarely more than three or four). Two men can carry zero. But, a man married to twelve wives can twelve or more children in nine months.

Greling, regarding objections on the “grounds of procreation”, I’m a woman who’s been married three times (divorced once, then remarried, then widowed, then remarried again). I desired no children and had my fallopian tubes cut and cauterized when I was 26 to ensure that I would not become a mother.
No one has ever asked whether or not I intended to procreate when applying for the marriage licenses. It’s no one’s damned business — and that’s entirely the point! The “gay marriage is wrong” crowd flails around trying to latch onto anything to use as an objection.
“It’s against God! It will destroy Society! Won’t someone please think of the children!”
It is a pathetic sight. What they’re really saying is — it goes against THEIR religion, so everyone needs to conform because THEIR religion is the real holy-roller bible-blessed one. All the other religions/belief systems out there are falsehoods perpetrated by “Satan”.
Regarding divorce/alimony/child support for polygamous relationships – lawyers could certainly sort that out. It’s a simple issue now to determine who’s fathered which child and bears the responsibility. The other issues could be handled in a pre-nup or however the group desires. If a group of consenting adults wants to be in a group marriage, why should anyone have the right to interfere with their happiness?

Churchmouse in the past has failed to enter into good faith dialogue with people on this list. I wonder whether he/she will act similarly today, My guess is “yes.”
And if Churchmouse does in fact decide to enter into dialogue perhaps s/he can enlighten us as to why those states that have outlawed gay marriage in their constitutions have rising divorce rates and those which have allowed gay marriage have falling divorce rates? For example, Alaska was the first state to ban gay marriage constitutionally and has the highest rate of increase in divorce from 2003 to 2008 (+17.2 percent) while Massachusetts which legalized gay marriage in 2004 has had a -21 percent decline in divorces, the nation’s fastest drop.
Seems to me Churchmouse and those like him or her would be better off attending to the obvious failure of love and fidelity in their own communities rather than worrying about it in other peoples’.

Anent the “why not polygamy” argument—first, as has been rightly pointed out, slippery-slope arguments are dicey at best. Second, I can’t see that there is anything intrinsically wrong with polygamy/polyamory. Greling raises a couple of cost-benefit considerations that may be worth considering; but, again, I don’t see any grounds on which intimate group relationships are intrinsically wrong.
Nor can I see any grounds on which same-sex relationships are intrinsically wrong; and any cost-benefit arguments that I’ve come across have been totally ridiculous and indefensible.

I also rarely see arguments against homosexuality that aren’t in some way really about a person’s private religious objections. Sometimes a person will appear to have a secular argument, but when you pull them aside and ask them, they’ll usually tell you that they have personal religious objections that are the basis behind their beliefs.
I find that the religious argument is weak. In fact, since the anti-gay crowd wants to make “freedom of religion” their big background shrill, then why aren’t they pushing for the state to get out of marriage entirely? Surely, there are already some churches that permit same-sex marriages (and not just predominantly gay ones either). There are even some churches, like the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, which permit and encourage polygamy. The real truth is that they are not truly for everybody’s freedom of religion, just their own.

‘church’mouse,
“So you also are for allowing marriages between committed groups? Why just two people?”
Looks like you don’t understand the meaninng of “committment” – as in “I choose YOU, not a bunch of people.” To commit to a person means, to use a quote, “forsaking ALL others”, not just some of them.
No one, not even you betterosexuals, has the ‘right’ to group marriage in America.
Besides, America doesn’t really seem to have a problem with polygamy. Heck, even George W(armonger) Bush welcomed the (very) polygamous Crown Prince (now King) Abdullah into the Rose Garden.
“It’s amazing that we always think people have integrity”
No, I’ve never thought that of you – mainly because of what you post.

Why not just privatize it?
http://privatizemarriage.org/

We are free will beings. Let those who harm not, do what they will, no matter my feelings on the matter, if they matter at all, in the larger scope of things

John, I agree with you. Trouble is, the fundamentalists believe that same-sex marriages DO cause harm. By allowing SSMs, we would be going against their bible and pulling people away from “the will of their god” as they believe was written in it. They believe this will cause more people to be condemned to hell and royally cheese off their god, who will then rain down gloom, doom and disaster upon the earth.
You’re trying to use a rational argument to reason with people who aren’t rational. One might as well try to reason with a sheep.

I want to put in a plug here for the former mayor of my city (Chicago), the late Eugene Sawyer. Not only did he support our gay rights ordinance, he CHANGED HIS MIND about gay rights, and he ADMITTED that he had changed his mind (“I used to be against gay rights, but I’ve been educating myself, and now I really believe this ordinance is the right thing to do,” or words to that effect.) This is so rare among politicians as to be utterly unheard-of. Not that politicians don’t change their minds, but when they do, they also claim that this new position is what they’ve ALWAYS believed. Sound may you sleep, Gene Sawyer.

If the definition of marriage is changed to mean anything other than the union of one man/one woman then anyone can marry anyone and anything. If it is simply about equal rights and “love”, then who are you to tell me I can’t marry my dog. I love her. Who are you to tell me that I can’t marry Jim, Jane, John, Joan…I love them all.

Otaybanky, I think you SHOULD be able to marry Jim, Jane, John and Joan if they are adults who consent to marry *you*.
Your dog isn’t a consenting adult. But I’m betting you knew that.

Okay now that I have a free moment to continue …. anyone notice the poster above me to whom I responded? “Otaybanky”?
A perfect example of the “gay marriage is wrong” crowd.
Note the moronic objection: “If we allow anything other than one man/one woman – we can marry anyone and anyTHING! Dogs!” (rocks, trees, cows…..)
THAT is an example of what I meant in my previous post of someone who flails around trying to latch onto anything to use as an objection.
“It’s against God! It will destroy Society! Won’t someone please think of the children!”
Utterly pathetic. These people REALLY need to get some new material.

Broad shot post-
@Gwyddion9: “What concerns and bothers me, personally, is the fact that people think they should have the right to “vote” on others civil rights. Civil rights should never be something that is voted on and should never be a popularity contest.”
Tell that to the Supreme Court, who voted to desegregate schools. Voting is what we do in America to settle issues- if there’s no carved-in-stone laws to guide us, we look to see what the people say (be they people in the Court or in the streets). American voting is the way for the American voice to be heard. If we don’t vote on issues like this, who then is fit to impose a will or viewpoint? If the majority of our country does not believe we should have gay marriage, who are you to tell them they are wrong? All gods aside, those FOR gay marriage in our country are in the minority. 38 of the 50 states (76%) have voted to not recognize gay marriage within their borders. Only 10% (5 states) have voted the opposite way. If this issue’s as big as everyone hear treats it, we must examine the bigger picture; and in that bigger picture, 76% > 10%.
@Cheryl Hill: “It is a pathetic sight. What they’re really saying is — it goes against THEIR religion, so everyone needs to conform because THEIR religion is the real holy-roller bible-blessed one.”
Ok. That might work with the Evangelical types. But talk to members of the rest of the “Big Five”, and see what they say…
Judaism- “A man shall not lie with another man as with a woman; it is an abomination.” -Leviticus 18:22
Christianity- “Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” -Romans 1:27
Islam- “We also sent Lut: He said to his people: Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.” -Qur’an 7:80-81
Buddhism- “When the Dalai Lama has been asked whether homosexuality is a sin, for instance, he has explained that according to the holy writings, it is. He doesn’t go for revisionism. But then he is likely to add that we all have sins, and in the eyes of Buddhism, all sins are equal”. (1)
Hinduism- “O son of Kunti, the pleasures that are born out of sensory contacts are sources of pain. They certainly are transient, having a beginning and an end. The intelligent man is wise enough not to indulge in them.” (Bhagavad Gita 5.22)
If you add up the numbers, members of the Big Five in our country very much outnumber atheists and pagans, making them the majority. If you want to see a basic graph of how the majority of that majority feel on the issue with regards to their religion, go here (2). Perhaps instead of lambasting every Christian for the outspokenness of some, you should look at the issue from a different angle. The views of sexual ORIENTATION sometimes differ from the views of homosexual ACTS in mainstream religions, and that could be why members of the Big Five are against legalizing gay marriage; by legalizing it, homosexual conduct moves from something left to the discretion of privacy-behind-closed-doors to something openly endorsed by the state. Endorsed and allowed are two different things, so no arguments about gay night clubs, gay pride parades, etc. should be drawn.
@gus diZerega: “And if Churchmouse does in fact decide to enter into dialogue perhaps s/he can enlighten us as to why those states that have outlawed gay marriage in their constitutions have rising divorce rates and those which have allowed gay marriage have falling divorce rates?”
You’re a political scientist. Can you prove causation here, and not simply correlation? Massachusetts also has 9.44 times the population of Alaska; 6,593,587 to 698,473, based on 2009 estimates (3). There could be many factors.
@Makarois- “[Again] the “why not polygamy” argument—first, as has been rightly pointed out, slippery-slope arguments are dicey at best.”
Go visit http://www.beyondmarriage.org and read what’s written. While you’re there, check out the signatories page. It’s pretty impressive…and it’s 4 years old. Imagine how many others support the BM views since then. Here’s an excerpt:
“To have our government define as ‘legitimate families’ only those households with COUPLES in conjugal relationships does a tremendous disservice to the many other ways in which people actually construct their families, kinship networks, households, and relationships. For example, who among us seriously will argue that the following kinds of households are less socially, economically, and spiritually worthy?”
Among the following is “Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner”. MORE THAN ONE. If you redefine marriage from “one man and one woman” to “two people who love each other”, why should we think that someone won’t challenge the new definition in court to expand upon “two”?…
@Grumpy Old Person: “Looks like you don’t understand the meaning of “commitment” – as in “I choose YOU, not a bunch of people.” To commit to a person means, to use a quote, “forsaking ALL others”, not just some of them.”
Who are you to tell others whether or not to use “you” as a singular or plural? Can’t someone choose to be committed to “you” as in “you two women”? Here’s a polyamorous pagan who, given the chance, could if he would.
“I want it to be a group marriage…” (4)
@John: “We are free will beings. Let those who harm not, do what they will, no matter my feelings on the matter, if they matter at all, in the larger scope of things.”
I agree. With you, though, not with Cheryl Hill’s snide comment following yours. Unfortunately this doesn’t work- and I’m talking both sides. With prayer removed from schools, and some people trying to remove the pledge of allegiance for “religious issues” too, why shouldn’t religious parents shout when homosexual acceptance curriculum shows up in grade schools should gay marriage become legalized? It offended the atheists that there was prayer in schools, and their “rights” were recognized. What then of religious parents who don’t want their kindergartners taught that it’s ok for Billy to have two dads? You can’t tell them to suck it up or leave for a private school, for that would be violating their rights to “public service” for religious reasons (5).
I don’t want to argue the gay marriage issue on a religious base, because I don’t see it as a religious issue. I see it as a move to legislate change in our social constructs. I say “our” because the gay marriage issue in America cannot and should not be compared to the issue in Europe because we are not Europeans. We have different views, different mores, different values than the Europeans do. Being an American from Belgium, and having lived in Italy and Germany, I would know. People cry “But look at Europe!”. Only 11% of European countries allow gay marriage. 34% don’t recognize it. 18% have it constitutionally banned. See (6).
Because it is a redefining of an American social norm that is the issue, I say we turn to the people. I’ll even (for the sake of argument) overlook the fact that a Democratic administration signed federal legislation into act 14 years ago defining marriage as “one man and one woman” and says that no state needs to treat marriage as anything else (7). If it’s going to happen, leave it to the states and respect their decision. I think it’s cowardly for those against proposition 8 to take the decision to court. It started in the courts, and the people overturned it by a 52% vote (the same percentage that gave Pres. Obama his “mandate” of the people). If they can’t win it in the popular vote, then they ignore the popular outcome and complain to the courts. Should the anti-8 folks win, they would essentially be telling the people of the State of California that the majority voice doesn’t matter; that the minority opinion does. I bet all of you my bottom dollar that had Maine and California voted in favor of gay marriage, and the pro-8 folks took it to court, all of you would be shouting in the streets that the people have spoken and we need to honor the majority opinion.
(1)- http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=22,1708,0,0,1,0
(2)- http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/comparison_chart.htm
(3)- http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html
(4)- http://davensjournal.com/interesting-times
(5)- http://www.justice.gov/crt/housing/housing_title2.php
(6)- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Same_sex_marriage_map_Europe_detailed.svg
(7)- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act#cite_note-0

pharoahdux-
The only correlation that shows at this point is a very strong one signifying that states regardless of population that have outlawed gay marriage in their constitutions have higher rates of divorce than other states, and the most gay friendly states have the lowest, with a fairly clear trend showing a similar correlation in states in between. MA is the most gay friendly and has the biggest decline in the rate of divorce, AK the other way around. I suspect the real reason divorce shows this pattern has a lot to do with the dominant religious/moral cultures of the various states.
Given that, I’d say the burden of proof lies with those who object to gay marriage. There appears to be NO evidence to back up the claim and what evidence does exist suggests people who don’t care so much about who their neighbor loves are better at loving than are those for whom it is a big issue. If you haven’t, go read the link I provided in the original post.

Having read more of pharoahdux’s post, with which I am in agreement to some degree, I have one more point to make.
I think the move to get gay marriage abolished in constitutions is usually a bad faith effort by the leaders of the anti-gay crowd to head off the impact of a very interesting shift in voting patterns. The younger the voter the more tolerant they are of gay marriage, and it’s a big difference between generations. This is true even in the most conservative Southern states. (I don’t have time to search for the links, but they are there.)
In a fairly short while a majority of Americans will no longer oppose gay marriage, given demographic shifts. By getting this stuff into the constitutions of various states the anti-gay marriage crowd is seeking to circumvent future majorities for many years.
In California’s case this will NOT happen because initiatives can change the constitution by simple majority vote. So I suspect within 10 years this amendment will be repealed as voters my age and older die off and younger voters take their place. If that is what happens, the repeal will be as significant as Americans electing a nonwhite person President. So I have mixed feelings about a court challenge, in California and am drawn in both directions. But in other states change will often come with greater difficulty.

pharoahdux-
This is why one will find the phrase, “Tyranny of the majority”. The thought that because a majority of people do not approve of a right for a minority, it shouldn’t be allowed, which is why the idea of a Republic is so important. With this in mind, it is the duty of the courts to protect the minority and make sure that ‘all’ citizens have the same and equal right, in this case marriage.
Regardless of what the five ‘major’ religions may think or hold, it still should not have or be allowed to dictate what right a minority should have.
Besides, when you get to most of those of the various religions on the subject of SSM, there is NO consensus of what is right as they disagree within their own religious communities. Besides, as a Wiccan, why should I or any other religious group that supports SSM be told that we have no right to marry a couple and in this give them the same legal rights that others have? Besides, when you get to the brass tacks of the issue, it doesn’t matter where a person is married or by whom, it is the government that extends these legal benefits to these couples in question, not a church or any religion, the government. So based on this, it is pure discrimination and must be over turned.

@Gwyddion9: “This is why one will find the phrase, “Tyranny of the majority”. The thought that because a majority of people do not approve of a right for a minority, it shouldn’t be allowed”
How, then, would one define tyranny? If every instance where the minority, be it an individual or a group, disagrees with the opinion of the majority it can be called tyranny then you have the tyranny of the minority; or, the will of the minority imposed on the majority.
Madison recognized that we needed rule of the majority:
“In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule;
the power would be transferred to the minority.
….a practice which leads more directly to public convulsions,
and the ruin of popular governments.” (1)
Even FDR, a liberal and a progressive, said that “Majority rule must be preserved as the safeguard of both liberty and civilization” (2).
Our country was built on the principles of guidance by majority opinion- not court regulated safeguards for the wants of minorities.
You say this is why the idea of a Republic is so important- but a Republic, by definition, is a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote (2). The will of such a body, through majority decision, becomes the law of the Republic. On the federal level, we are more of a constitutional oligarchy (to quote Dimnet); on the state level, we are more of a Republic. It is on the state level that the issue is being contested, since the DOMA clearly states the federal government’s view of the situation.
I can’t say exactly for Buddhism or Hinduism, but I do believe that if one sought a consensus (and was successful) from Islam, Christianity, and Judaism that the consensus would be against SSM. The issue is broad enough that it, I would argue, would garner consensus among the faiths.
You said “it is the government that extends these legal benefits to these couples in question”, and you are right. But the governments that have the power to do so are of the people, by the people, and must be for the people. Congress and the Executive branch have made their stance clear; the Supreme Court has made no point on the matter (though, judging by the way it voted on the McCain-Feingold act, I would wager it would vote to keep the decision on the state level). That leaves state governments, which under the DOMA are entitled to treat the issue as they see fit.
Yes, it is discrimination, but marriage is a discriminating institution already. I cannot marry the 16 year old next door, my first cousin (regardless of gender), a person with a sever case of Down Syndrome, or a felon in prison; the law already limits who one may or may not marry.
As an honest question (no sincere offense intended) why is it so important to redefine marriage? Are those few specific legal benefits allowed to marriage but denied to civil unions worth changing a cultural norm that’s been around longer than any of us? Your “death of one of the men” story, though touching as it was, is but a small fraction of a percentage of the unfortunate end in civil union cases: and for each one you give me I’ll find you two where a heterosexual spouse suffered similar loss to grandparents or siblings of the deceased due to alcoholism, felonies, abuse, or even just family drama. Changing the definition of marriage isn’t going to solve all the problems because they exist on the other side of the fence too.
When does want for recognition become more important than the traditions of others?
(1)- Federalist No. 58
(2)- Roanoke NC, August 18, 1937
(3)- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

Your deontological question, while interesting, fall flat in the face of what they actually do. The consequences are not seen, or if they are, are seen as the wrongs they do to a great number of people, as paltry.
My position is one of Consequentialism, specifically Act-Utilitarianism. The legislation as proposed seems to cause the most amount of happiness for the most amount of people now. If we were to simply use ‘now’ as the predicate for the argument, this would be simple, done and over with, and I would have no point. However, if we look to the future, this legislation in the future can cause a great amount of pain to a great many people if we allow it to stand, not just because of legal reasons, but economic, social, environmental (for kids and adults in and out of gay or lesbian-partnered relationships or with LGBTQ parents), and religious reasons.
Economic: benefits to gay/lesbian couples denied is money lost out of their pocket come tax return time which could be used to turn around and help families out of a tight squeeze, help prevent bankruptcy, keep a kid in school, food on the table, etc.
Social: the ability to marry in the same manner, though perhaps not the same religious rituals or institutions as heterosexuals will advance better outlooks, and reactions to homosexuals because they will be looked on less and less as societal “others” and more as included in the rest of society. The stigma attached with being gay could very-well be greatly lessened just by allowing them into the definitions of marriage.
Environmental: as the lack of stigma attached by social groups and/or norms in society fade, stress on the family could be greatly reduced, suicide rates due to persecution and/or bullying could drop significantly, homicides and/or hate crimes could see significant drops, the status of gays and lesbians as married could improve relationships across familial/social/religious bounds and bring people closer, resulting in families that stay together longer, the preservation of the home and assuring the safety of the next generation.
Religious: the religious rights of minority religions being respected could help ease tensions in pluralistic communities, provide a community or set of communities in which gay/lesbian married couples can raise families without discrimination or at least with as much of it, and the mutual respect of different communities’ rights to perform marriage according to their spiritual traditions could raise or lower church/temple/circle attendance, causing a shift in the foundation of the society, perhaps towards the better in more acceptance of a wider range of ideas of marriage. With this shift there can still be respect for the individual church/temple/circle’s decision to marry as they see fit, but the allowance of gay marriage is provided to those churches/temples/circles who wish to engage in it.
Taking issue with this by another way, especially your point of “American voting is the way for the American voice to be heard.” Perhaps, but sometimes the American voice is wrong in regards to personal and societal freedoms.
A prime example: “The first Gallup poll conducted on the issue of interracial marriage was in 1958 and showed that 94% of whites opposed such unions” (PBS.org). In using the 1950 Census Data from the University of Virginia Library lookup system, we can see what teh demographics of this time were. The total population of the U.S. was 149,895,183. Of that, 61,676,560 were Native Male Whites, 5,125,772 were Foreign-born White Males, 61,691,595 were Native White Females, 4,964,028 were Foreign-born White Females. All told, Whites numbered
133,457,955. How about what the census terms “Negroes”? 7,155,608 Males, 7,595,670 Females. 14,751,278 total “Negroes”.
Even if only a fraction of whites voted for legislation banning interracial marriage, the ratio of whites to black was 19:2 in favor of whites. This would be tyranny by majority. Were we to apply the logic you gave above, anti-miscegenation laws would still be in effect. Gay marriage laws rest on the same shaky foundation as these ones did, including “we just don’t allow it because why should change such an institution”. Perhaps we should go back to the old adages that were plastered on picket signs back then, screaming “Race Mixing is Communism” (AndrewSullivan.theAtlantic.com), just replace Communism with Socialism for modern-day scare quotes.
Well, the Supreme Court eventually destroyed anti-miscegenation laws in 1967 with the Loving v. Virginia case. Here is hoping they do the same with gay marriage bans soon too.
Source:
PBS Article
http://www.pbs.org/weblab/lovestories/digdeeper/pressinfo6.shtml
University of Virginia Library Census Data
http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/censusbin/census/cen.pl
Andrew Sullivan’s The Atlantic Blog
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/the-latest-insanity.html

pharaodux,
I understand what you are saying and will try to explain my thoughts on this matter, though I’ve never been good at expressing myself on print.
“As an honest question (no sincere offense intended) why is it so important to redefine marriage?”
None taken. Marriage has been and is an evolving institution. A few hundred years ago, women were essentially property to tie treaties and agreements for men. The concept of blacks marrying whites was unheard of in the early part of the 20th century. It was challenged as redefining or even destroying marriage. Many of the same reasons used to challenge bi-racial marriages are being used again with SSM.
Please see “The History of Marriage as an Institution” by Larry R. Peterson, Ph.D
Source: http://www.pflagsanjose.org/advocacy/hist.html
I don’t see SSM marriage as redefining marriage but rather adding an addition to its understanding. For those gay and lesbians who wish to be married, it is important to have the same protections that heterosexual couples have. The idea isn’t seen as something additional or special but rather the same benefits granted and guaranteed by marriage.
“Are those few specific legal benefits allowed to marriage but denied to civil unions worth changing a cultural norm that’s been around longer than any of us?”
There are over 1,400 legal protections given to those who are married by their state and by the government. Civil unions offer none of these protections.
Please see “The Difference Between Marriage and Civil Unions”
Source: http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm
Without having to write down the all the differences, let simply say that there is little to no protection given to civil unions. As far as gay civil unions, there are absolutely no protections, granted either by state or government.
Please see: Legal and economic benefits of marriage:
Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm
Please see: Marriage Rights and Benefits
Source: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30190.html
Please see: Legal Benefits of Marriage
Source: http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/Validity_3.htm
“Your “death of one of the men” story, though touching as it was, is but a small fraction of a percentage of the unfortunate end in civil union cases: and for each one you give me I’ll find you two where a heterosexual spouse suffered similar loss to grandparents or siblings of the deceased due to alcoholism, felonies, abuse, or even just family drama.”
Honestly, my point was show what had happened to this gay couple. I have no doubt that it has happened to many people but the point is, IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE. No one should have to go through this scenario, regardless if they are gay or straight. To take a relationship after some tragic event takes place and have a family or its members walk in and destroy what was built is unconscionable.
“When does want for recognition become more important than the traditions of others?”
I would have to say when the traditions of others deny gays and lesbians the same right to be married, with all the legal protections and benefits, that they have. Why should anyone, in this country, be bound the beliefs and traditions of others religions?
There is absolutely nothing to force ministers, priests, etc., who do not want SSM to marry a SS couple. The constitution protects them from this, in spite of those individuals who ‘claim’ that they will be ‘forced’ to marry SS couples. Fear mongering, a tool constantly used by some religions to create panic and ‘what if’ scenarios.
More importantly, imo, where ever a SS couple is married, be it a religious ceremony or done by a Justice of the Peace, it is not the religious institution that grants the legal protections, it is the government that grants said benefits to a married couple.
As it stands there are plenty of Christian, Jewish, Pagan, etc., groups that would perform a same sex marriage ceremony. There is no reason, imo, that a group of people, minority or majority, should have the right to tell another group in the U.S. that they do not deserve something, because it goes against their religious beliefs. The claim that “it will harm marriage, as an institution” has never been proven and no specific reasons have ever been given by those against SSM, other than slippery slope arguments regarding the situation.

Gwyddion9-
Well said.
As a final thought…
“Why should anyone, in this country, be bound [to] the beliefs and traditions of others religions?”
The same could be said in defense of those against SSM as well. Why should they be bound to (or forced to accept) the beliefs of the people who are for SSM? Why should those who want to keep marriage hetero be forced to accept and allow that it be defined to include homo?
I believe that they should be bound to accept the SSM viewpoint- if, and only if, those FOR SSM become the majority. Though when that should happen, I duly expect SSM supporters to entertain the “tyranny of the majority” argument which would be fielded by the religiously motivated minority. Sounds fair, based on previous arguments made in this post- don’t you think?
It seems as though we’re looking at two sides of a coin when what would be more beneficial would be a six sided die.

The above post is mine. Apologies for forgetting the name.

pharaohdux, so I can better understand your mindset, when in your estimation is it acceptable for a majority of people to treat a minority group of people as both separate and unequal?

Pharaohdux,
Does SSM and allowing gay men and women the same legal rights and benefits harm the heterosexual community in anyway? Does it harm them physically, or mentally, or spiritually, or emotionally that a group of people have the same rights that so many take for granted? All one has to do is look at the divorce rate to see the answer to that question. And as Gus has pointed out, those who live in those parts of the country who appose SSM have the largest divorce rate, so apparently not.
Another point, you said,
“I believe that they should be bound to accept the SSM viewpoint- if, and only if, those FOR SSM become the majority.”
Why, by the Gods, should anyone have to wait to until they’re a part of a “majority” before they are given equal rights? I’m sorry but to me, that’s a sick response. It denies both equality and a persons humanity, “IF” one has to wait before they become a part of the majority. That doesn’t honestly say much for the ‘majority’.
When there is an injustice in the world, my hopes are that people address the injustice rather than waiting because it’s the right thing to do. Politics and religion, are too often used to make others inhuman and of no worth.

Gwyddion9, you are exactly right. No group should have to wait until they are a majority, or until they have been deemed “worthy” by the current majority, to be granted equal rights. An interesting sidenote – Wicca would have been denied status as a religion if people had been allowed to vote on whether or not it should be recognized as a legitimate religion. And even after that recognition, discrimination forced the families of our fallen soldiers to fight for almost 10 years to have Pentacles inscribed on the grave markers issued to deceased veterans. It took a federal lawsuit to make it happen.
This is a battle that will eventually be won in our country, and maybe others as well. But it won’t be an easy victory. Just as Jim Crow laws often blocked the right for African Americans to vote for almost 100 years, there will be “Family Value” laws that will attempt to block the right for homosexuals to be assured the same freedom afforded to heterosexuals – the freedom to be treated as human beings.

By your logic, Blacks would still be slaves, people would still be allowed to have indentured servants from places like Ireland, Japanese would still be rounded up regularly and put into internment camps, etc. This country has a definitive history of oppressing minorities of every stripe.
No one is ‘bound’ to accept the views of SSM, and to allow its legality does NOT impinge upon the rights of heterosexual couples whatsoever, except, one could argue, in their exclusivity to the rights, benefits, responsibilities and pitfalls within the institution of marriage.

To someone who reads French – is this spam? I suspect so, but do not know.

Gus, it’s not spam per se, but it doesn’t make sense. It’s supposed to be from a 45-year old woman from Montreal who has 2 kids. Her birth language is Arabic, and she wants to show appreciation for all the nice information she received here.
And I’m thinking if she could READ this blog – which is pretty much all in English – she wouldn’t be posting in French. The url goes nowhere. So I don’t know what to make of it.

Thanks Cheryl- I’ll delete it.