Massachusetts Attorney General Coakley Sues US Over Same Sex Marriage

On a personal level, I don't think it makes any sense to deny the many legal benefits to two consenting adults. I've heard there are some 2,000 legal benefits that are specific to the state of "marriage"

However, whether or not a particular church chooses to perform a religious ceremony effectively blessing the union, should remain up to the individual church in question. Saying "two people may legally marry" should not imply "any religious organization must bless the union" That is part of the separation of church and state.

So, how do we separate the legal state of marriage from the religious ceremony many use to publicly declare entry into that state?

I feel there is an important distinction, but saying "marriage is between a man and a woman" explicitly takes away that distinction--it enforces a particular religious definition upon those who may receive the legal benefits.

Unfortunately, I don't believe the US government will separate these two distinctions, since there are many in the US for whom a same sex marriage is a "mortal sin".

I've always said that the state and federal governments should strike the word marriage from the books, and anyone who wants to join together with another person will be joined in a civil union (or some other, easier-to-say term), and "marriage" should strictly be a religious term. If the argument was about what conservatives claim it's about, they really shouldn't have any problem with this solution; for the church, marriage remains marriage, and for the government, everyone has equal rights. Unfortunately, it's not really about keeping marriage between a man and a woman or having respect for marriage; it's really about preventing gay couples from being equal with straight couples in the eyes of the law, and it's really silly that no one's pointed out this (I think) fairly obvious solution to the whole problem, as it would make very clear the type bullshit that the conservatives have gotten very good at spewing.

jsw25b
Re: Same Sex Marriage Massachusetts Attorney General

I see no point in repeating the valid and wonderful points the author of this article and the commentors regarding this article have already made. I do want to reiterate that the word "marriage" should be reserved for relligious institutions so that each of us can choose, or choose not to choose, a religious institution that upholds beliefs similiar to our own and so that religion does not enter into the union of two consenting adults in what is known as "marriage" now. No rights offered to partners of the opposite gender should be denied to those of the same gender.

How appropriate that the issue of how similar this issue is to the issues faced by the African-Americans in this country for centuries. I sincerely hope that in the not-to-distant future we will all be standing around, shaking our heads and wondering what the heck the big fuss was all about. The reason behind denying rights to a group of human beings that is no danger to anyone a complete mystery to me.

Thank you, Attourney General Coakley!
Thank you, fellow commenters!
. I agree with those who question the involvement of government in the marriage business. Why? Why does government virually discriminate against singles by charging higher taxes, for example?
. What is it to anyone if two people love each other and choose to share their lives together?
. Why is it that people blame religions for this? It's the religious people who are doing it. The Bible says nothing of the subject, except that God (or the scribe who wrote it) feels one specific sex act between men is disgusting. I think so too, but that does not proclude anyone else from that. And that has nothing to do with Love!
To me, that this is even an issue is obsurd. Like people said, it's the same as inter-racial, inter-faith, or inter-hair-color marriage.
. Let me start a new consciousness here: Self-marriage. What if someone wants to marry themselves? What about those who marry God, such as priests and nuns? Why are those not an issue? Wouldn't you rather require the people who work with your children to have stable sex lives, even if they are homo- or hetero-sexual?
. What about abusive hetero-sexual marriages? Our society is set up to make it extremely difficult to remove one's self and children from a government-regulated hetero-sexual contract.
...How about if we put our focus on some real issues, and let good folks who are truly in love be together, and let those who are not in love quit footing the bill.

What if someone wanted to marry a goat. Who are we to say that that is any less a marriage than one between a man and a woman? Take it a step forward, one of them nambla freaks wants to marry a small boy, is that okay too? Strider wants self marriage, thank God that is a unity that wont create future freaks.

To be a homosexual is an abnormality, which is not to say they aren't decent human beings, but it is against nature and God's will. Humans are one of the few if not the only species that have homosexuals which should tell you something. That we as a predominately Christian society subvert our belief to allow homosexuality to be recognized as anything more than the abnormality that it is very disturbing.

I'm not taking a side either way here, only pointing out the fact that 31 states (that is, all of the states in which it was introduced as a referendum, decided by the people, not a court action), when it was put to a vote banned same-sex marriage or repealed court and legislative action allowing SSM.

Maybe it's time to change strategy to patience. Eventually, it will probably swing back around, and the bans will be rescinded. But for the time being, a majority of the people don't seem to care for it. Patient attention to making it more acceptable in society by various means will eventually change the minds of enough people to allow it, something court action and legislation, currently, cannot.