I think it’s disgraceful taking away a right that has already been granted by the Court. These are taxpaying citizens, and their fellow citizens will be voting to take away their rights. Lovely.

Some of us think it’s just as disgraceful that the court would overrule the people’s vote on a social issue.
Or…the liberals should stop whining about the court’s decision in Florida following Bush’s election.

I really believe that the long-term effect of banning gay marriage will be to lower the status of traditional marriage. I don’t want this to happen. I just believe it’s the natural drift of the body politic.
And I’ve never understood (1) why gays and lesbians need to be “married” if they can have civil unions or (2) why Christians look to the state to uphold the institution of marriage. Isn’t that Christians’ job?

In California, they already had “civil unions” but those unions are only recognized in the state where they are registered.
Personally, I think the government should be out of the marriage business. If a couple wants a “civil union”, that is a legal contract with the state(government).
Why do Christians look to the state? I don’t know. But if Christians opt out of getting a marriage license, how many people would consider them “in sin” and “not married”? In my state, if a pastor “marries” a couple in the eyes of God and the couple’s family and friends – that pastor is breaking the law.
So it is the state who encroached on what was traditionally the church’s job – and if the state took the job, should we be able to look to them to uphold it?
If I am forced by the state to have a marriage license that does not use the term “husband” and “wife”, but rather partner 1 and partner 2 – and is the same license as gay couples use, I would be very tempted to opt out of the state’s system.
Let my marriage be between God and us, not the state and us.

This is the text of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Most states that have adopted this use similar language:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
Do you see the words that I highlighted? I will type it here again, just to make sure:
UNMARRIED COUPLES
Okay, if gays and lesbians have a civil union, according to the wording of the law, they are unionized, not married, which means they are still an unmarried couple. Words mean things, people. Personally, I would have no problem with civil unions. The reason why gays and lesbians have to have marriage is because it is illegal in these states to give us the rights of MARRIAGE, including things like visiting loved ones in a hospital, joint taxes, even benefits at their place of employment. It is not our fault that we have to call it marriage – it’s the conservatives who painted themselves into this corner.

Are you saying that in California, where they had legal civil unions to start with (along with the benefits you mentioned), that you would have been okay with that? Obviously, a lot of people are not.
I would not have a problem with “civil unions” being recognized nation-wide.
I would think that the gay community might be better off advocating for nation-wide civil-union recognition with the benefits you mentioned. If we end up with a patchwork of state laws where marriage is recognized in one state, but not another, that will be difficult and the feds will end up superseding state laws (again) and there is too much of that already.

Neither candidate has flip-flopped. They don’t support same-sex marriage. But that doesn’t mean they support the idea of writing discrimination into the state constitution. In the case of California, the Supreme Court says same-sex marriage is constitutional. Warren and his ilk want to strip gay people of this constitutional right. Of course Obama and Biden are opposed–on civil liberties grounds–of stripping people of constitutional rights based on mob rule.

There is no Constitutional right to gay marriage.
In fact, there is no Constitutional basis for requiring a marriage certificate for anybody
The government should be ousted from the “marriage” business.

I believe that gays absolutely should have the right to marry just as straights do…to a person of the opposite sex.

“I believe that gays absolutely should have the right to marry just as straights do…to a person of the opposite sex.”
Would you tell that to an African American who wanted to marry a white person in 1960? You can get married, just marry another African American?
MizEllen, since you think that gays should enter sham marriages in order to get legal protections, would you be willing to offer one of your children or a relative as the spouse to a gay person in one of these loveless, sham marriages?

Ah…yes. Give it the racial twist.
Here is the thing. Race is a not a behavior. Being gay is.
An African-American male is still a male and a gay male is still male.
The DNA of an African American male will indicate that he is male. The DNA of a gay male will indicate that he is male.
Ditto with females.
Race is not “sexual orientation”.
The entry of the race card usually ends up in an attempt to put religious freedom at odds with “civil rights” in regards to gay marriage.

“I would think that the gay community might be better off advocating for nation-wide civil-union recognition with the benefits you mentioned. If we end up with a patchwork of state laws where marriage is recognized in one state, but not another, that will be difficult and the feds will end up superseding state laws (again) and there is too much of that already.”
Beyond the whole separate but equal segregation of it all, I’d point out that marriage and its benefits are strictly a state matter. The federal government doesn’t have a role in marriage or even in civil unions, beyond giving certain benefits. Just because the far right wants to drag marriage into the federal sphere–so much for federalism and local control–that’s just not the way our legal system works.

“The entry of the race card usually ends up in an attempt to put religious freedom at odds with “civil rights” in regards to gay marriage.”
Religious freedom is often at odds with civil rights. Ask the people at Bob Jones University. As the Catholic church and its ban on women priests. The state can accommodate prejudice cloaked in religious belief while still acknowledging the basic of civil rights of citizens. It does it with women all the time.

Here’s the thing. Freedom of religion IS in the Constitution. Gay marriage is not.

“I believe that gays absolutely should have the right to marry just as straights do…to a person of the opposite sex.”
That is such a moronic statement and beneath you. You have demonstrated decent use of brainpower.
Gay people don’t WANT to marry people of the opposite sex. They want to marry people of the SAME sex. That is how they are WIRED. If you think that’s incorrect, why don’t you go and have sex with another woman and tell us how easy it was for you.
I thought Xians weren’t supposed to be of this world. Well, why don’t you people stay out of it then and stop inflicting your beliefs on those of us who want to live by civil law.

I’d point out that marriage and its benefits are strictly a state matter
Historically, a marriage has been between a man and a woman with the church overseeing. George Washington didn’t have a marriage licence.
Government should get out of the marriage business. Period. Civil contracts should be a contract between two individuals that bind them together for legal purposes.

Scott R, historically, that is how marriage has been defined. Between two people of the opposite sex. That’s history.
Frankly, if the gay activists showed any interest in letting us “stay out of it”, I’d be a little more interested in supporting gay “marriage”.
But the reality is, gay activists want to trample religious freedoms of Christians.
That shows when a gay couple sues a Christian photographer for declining to participate in their “commitment ceremony”.
That shows when a lesbian couple sues a Christian doctor and gets him fired because he referred them to another doctor in the same building rather than artificially inseminate one of them himself.
That shows when a Christian psychologist is sued in court for referring a lesbian couple to a different psychologist rather than do “marriage counseling” with them.
THE GAY AGENDA IS TO DESTROY THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS OF CHRISTIANS.

Well, why don’t you people stay out of it then and stop inflicting your beliefs on those of us who want to live by civil law.
Here’s the thing. The gay agenda really doesn’t want us to “stay out of it”. IF that’s where it ended (but it doesn’t) I’d have way less trouble with the concept.
The gay agenda is not to stop at “equal rights”. The gay agenda wants to trample the religious freedoms of Christians.
That shows when a gay couple sues a Christian photographer for declining to photograph their “commitment ceremony”.
That shows when a Christian doctor is sued and fired for referring a lesbian couple to a different doctor in the same practice for artificial insemination (NOTE: he helped them find a doctor who would treat them.)
That shows when a Christian psychologist is sued and fired for referring a lesbian couple for “marital counseling”.
I see that gay activists are seeking to destroy Christian religious freedoms in favor of gay rights. They could exist side-by-side, but as long as Christian get sued for declining to participate in the gay lifestyle (gay people are not letting Christians “stay out of it”), these rights cannot exist side-by-side.
I will fight for my religious freedom that is in the Constitution. If safegaurding that means fighting “gay marriage”, then so be it.

oops…that last one was me. I’m in IE and it doesn’t remember my name. I’m usually in firefox and I’m used it my browser remembering my name…

In everything you mentioned, Ellen, the Christianity of those people was second to their professions. They were doctors and photographers and counselors first, Christians second. That’s why they got sued. They were involved in secular professions.
As a Jew, if refused to treat an 80-year old German because of questionable activity during the war, how fast do you think I would get sued.
Same applies here.
Either you are in the world, or you are out of it. If you are in just a little, you are in all the way.

No. We are identified first in Christ. Our professions should never get in the way of our identity in Christ.
You have it backward. I am a Christian first, foremost and always.
My job should not interfere with that.
You have just admitted that you believe that gay rights should trump religious beliefs. And that I will fight.

Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. You may think your religion comes first. But when you practice in the secular arena, it comes second.
If you can’t do that, you don’t belong in the secular arena. Because when you practice there, you agree to serve anyone who comes your way.
So, given what you said, no, I do not believe that gay rights should trump religious beliefs. I believe the civil rights of gay people should be equal with the rights of others.
If you don’t want gay people to have religious rights, keep them out of your churches, which is entirely your rights (and why a gay person would want to cross the thresh hold of a church that belittles their status as human beings is beyond me. Kind of like why would someone like me walk into a church – period).

If there are protections from lawsuits regarding religious freedom from having to participate in the gay lifestyle (and you would appose), I’d be more inclined to support the gay agenda.
If you can’t do that, you don’t belong in the secular arena. Because when you practice there, you agree to serve anyone who comes your way.
Show me that in the Constitution.

I totally agree with Ellen.
The gay community is not content with simple equal rights, they demand we condone or treat their lifestyle choice as normal. It is the normalization of homosexuality in our society that I think they are after. They can try and legislate it all they want, and may even succeed, but according to God’s Word-it will never be normal.

They don’t have equal rights Susie, so they have nothing to be content with. Yes, it is normalization they are after, and I totally support them. “God’s Word” does not have a say over the public arena (and, besides, I’m fairly certain you and I have separate gods).

“they can try and legislate it all they want, and may even succeed, but according to God’s Word-it will never be normal.”
Fortunately for us, we don’t live in a Christian version of Saudi Arabia where what the state religion thinks is “normal” matters. Throughout history, courts and legislatures have given rights and benefits to people that Christians objected to. Users of contraception, interracial couples, people who wanted divorce, opponents of slavery, people who believed women should have the right to vote.

Scott, what you have told us here is that in order to live with the gay agenda, we will not be able to give up our faith in order to keep jobs.
We have said, this is what we believe will happen and you pretty much said, “Right.” Why would we not oppose that?
Do you want to be forced back into the closet? (not that we don’t all have our own closets)
Then why would you seek to put Christians into one?
If the gay rights and the right to live out our faith can’t live side-by-side (and you’ve said that they can’t), then the most politically powerful will win.
It would be fairly easy to put protections into place, but that is not what the gay agenda is after, is it?

“Here is the thing. Race is a not a behavior. Being gay is.” — MzEllen
Here, all, is a perfect specimen of the ignorant right-wing who truly believe that being gay is a choice. These are people who live in isolation and only interact with gays through television or through driving them out of their backwoods towns because of some stone age religious commandment.
News flash: many men are against gay rights because they are secretly gay themselves and can’t stand it. This is the explanation for all closeted, self-hating conservatives who cannot accept that they don’t fit in with the idyllic, “normal” stories of the Bible, so they spend their entire lives fighting against gay rights. People like Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, Bob Allen, Glenn Murphy Jr., Jim West, Ken Mehlman, Jeff Gannon, Armstrong Williams, David Dreir, Charlie Crist, Mary Cheney, etc etc etc… It’s an epidemic.
These people were taught their entire lives that homosexuality is inherently wrong, yet their natural inhibitions are at odds with that. So, they think that naturally, what they’re doing is their fault, their mistake, their devil, and that they must defeat the “illness”. Sadly, folks like this who remain in their extreme hard-right religious circles never get a chance to meet other gay people to understand that it’s anything but a choice, let alone a disease. They also never expose themselves to biological science which has proven again and again that homosexuality occurs all throughout nature.
I think it’s amazing when people say things like “Gay Agenda” and “keep it away from my kids” as though it’s contagious. Speak for yourself. If you truly believe gay rights poses any threat to anybody’s sexuality (or your freedom), then I’m afraid you are either completely stupid, or you’re already gay. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.) You need to visit places New York City, San Francisco, LA… It will take you less than a half hour to understand that, no, it isn’t a choice. Realize it. You’re living in denial.

Ellen,
Why would I go into the closet? I’m straight. I’m the supposed majority, and I’m speaking out for civil rights for all.
Though if the Christianists had their way, I would certainly have to go into the closet as a Jew – but I would expect that possibility to go farther and farther away with the defeat of McCain and Palin (as I have said repeatedly, if they win, I will seriously have to think about getting my family out of this country. And I’m sure there are many that will see it the same way).
You want to see others lose their civil rights so that you can practice your religion. That’s righteous? That should be allowed? That’s what you’re asking for.

To borrow again from NPR, as I’m sure Michael got his 1960 interracial marriage story from the life of Sammy Davis, Jr., recently featured …
The DNA of an African American male will indicate that he is male. The DNA of a gay male will indicate that he is male.
The gender testing at the Olympics in Beijing drew criticism from Jennifer Finney Boylan (her NYT Op-Ed: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/opinion/03boylan.html?ref=opinion ) because gender is a spectrum!
Here’s the Talk of the Nation interview – http://www.npr.org/blogs/talk/2008/08/is_gender_testing_fair.html

You want to see others lose their civil rights so that you can practice your religion. That’s righteous? That should be allowed? That’s what you’re asking for.
No, I said that if protections were in place, I’d be a lot more favorable toward gay “marriage”.
But the gay agenda is not interested in that.
Gillian, you are a perfect example of a person who writes without asking. I do have gay friends and they know where I stand. One of the coworkers I get along best with is lesbian, another is bisexual.
I’ve lost friends to AIDS. It is a terrible death. I want it stopped. But I also want religious freedoms protected.
There can be both – civil unions for all, marriage in the hands of the church, religious protection from lawsuits for all.
You, Gillian, are as ignorant as you call me. And as hypocritical.

our constitution does not deny the right for homosexuals to marry. maybe some might interpret the bible as doing so.
the good news is that this country is not a theocracy. i’m not about to let right-wing xians turn it into one.
i’m sick of the christian agenda. maybe it’s time for homosexuals to start their own religion so they can have their own religious protection of gay marriage and finally these intolerant xians will shut their blabbing mouths.
once and for all xians need to understand that they this is not a christian nation, this is not a theocracy, this is not a country governed by the bible.

No, but it should be governed by the Constitution, not by ideological judges.
i’m sick of the christian agenda. maybe it’s time for homosexuals to start their own religion so they can have their own religious protection of gay marriage
That actually falls into line with what I’ve said right here.
Get the government out of the marriage business. For “business” purposes, have civil unions that any two people can enter into (my old maid aunts for example, could have saved tons of money while living into their old age together).

no… no “civil unions” is that what hindu couples call their relationship? is that what christians couples call their relationship? is that what atheist and agnostic couples call their relationships? no, marriage is not a word that applies only to christians, and it isn’t only a religious term.
homosexuals have the same right to marry, and i refuse to stand idle while christian fundamentalists try to turn this country into a christian theocracy. you have no argument against same-sex marriage except that you think the bible says that it’s not normal. so what?
it is governed by the constitution. the constitution protects equal rights to all u.s. citizens regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual preference. it would be nice if bigots and racists and religious fundamentalists would realize that. judges who recognize that basic fact are not ideological judges, or “activist judges.” you show us where the constitution denies marriage rights, mzellen.
treating such relationships between same-sex couples as “business” issues is demeaning and pathetic. and by the way, simply claiming that you have a few gays and lesbians around you doesn’t boost your “gay cred” a single bit.
and what does AIDS have to do with this? AIDS isn’t some sort of “gay disease.” jeez. you people really do live in the precambrian age.
if you want your religious freedom and your priest/pastor/whatever will only marry heterosexuals, then i suggest you exercise your religious freedom and marry someone of the opposite sex. GLBT aren’t out to stop you from doing so. and they certainly aren’t out to make you marry someone of the same sex.