Your idea of an ideal marriage includes children. That may be true for you, but it is by no means univesal. Nor is having children a requirement of marriage – for anyone.
“Does it matter whether the gay people getting married are Christians or not?”
What a strange (i.e absurd, imo) question. Just replace the word “gay” with the word “heterosexual” and you’ll see just how absurd it is. Marriage is not limited to Christians – anywhere in the world that I know of. Nor, for that matter, to people of any other faith, or of no faith.
Perhaps you are confusing the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony with civil marriage. Sorry, but your atheist example just piled more absurdity on the heap.
“Does gay marriage ultimately hinge on questions of religion and morality?”
Only to moralistic religionists. What it actually ‘hinges’ on is the Constitution and its guarantees of equal treatment before the law – for ALL people.
Sorry, but you seem to have ignored your own call for “respect” on this matter.

“If there is an ideal for marriage (which includes bearing children), and gay couples fall outside of that ideal (as do couples who don’t bear children, or couples who divorce, or couples who fall into any other number of categories), does that ideal trump the experience and emotions of people in gay relationships?”
Huh? What does this have to do with the idea of legal, civil marriage? It’s not the government’s role to dictate to individuals what their marriages should be like.
“Does it matter whether the gay people getting married are Christians or not? Which is to say, if heterosexual atheists get married, and don’t recognize marriage as a sacramental union, should homosexual atheists also have the right to marry?”
You have to be kidding me. Last time I checked, you don’t have to be Christian to get married. We don’t live in a theocracy.
“Does gay marriage ultimately hinge on questions of religion and morality?”
No. This, along with other legal questions, are not, and should not, hinge on religion and morality.
These questions illustrate EXACTLY why we need a strong separation of church and state. It is more than obvious by now that given the chance, Christians will not hesitate to impose their religious views on the rest of us. Even more frightening is the complete lack of understanding–and respect–for the constitution and the rule of law. The fact that there is even a “debate” about gay marriage just goes to show you how high and wide that separation of church and state must be.

Separation of Church and state, exactly.
SO: don’t call a gay union (or any other union outside the Church for that matter) a Marriage or Holy Matrimony.
Go to City Hall and stipulate and sign that contract that allows you to benefit of all the state and constitutional rights that married couples benefit from but leave God out of it once and for all!
Gays or atheists or non-Christians are always complaining about how inconsiderate the rest of the world is towards their rights and believes.
When is our turn as Christians and more specifically Catholics to get offended?
I am sick to turn the other chick! My chicks can’t take it anymore!

Q: “If there is an ideal for marriage … does that ideal trump the experience and emotions of people in gay relationships?”
A: No, it does not.
Q: “Does it matter whether the gay people getting married are Christians or not?”
A: No, it does not. You should know this already! Does it matter if ANYONE who wants to get married is Christian or not? No, it doesn’t! Further, this question seems to assume that Christians monolithically are against same-sex marriage … but they’re not! There are plenty of Christian churches that will marry same-sex partners RIGHT NOW!
Q: “Does gay marriage ultimately hinge on questions of religion and morality?”
A: On questions of religion, no. On questions of morality, yes. But it must be realized that “morality” does not require any particular religion, or any religion at all! Atheists are moral, too. In fact, in matters of law in the USA, any argument against anything must be based on non-religious reasoning to be valid.

There are thousands of children in the foster system nationwide that need good parents. I was one of them…in foster care for 7 years before finally being adopted.
The evidence shows that 2 parents can be better than 1, but it does not show that a straight couple are better parents than a gay one (all else equal). I was put into foster care because of my lousy straight, married parents. I think the equation is just a little more complicated than merely a heterosexual requirement.
And a lot of gay couples DO have their own biological kids, too (from previous relationships, insemination et cetera). Good gay parents are an answer to a real, present problem. Perhaps, also, it’s good to have a group that does not easily procreate…the world is quickly becoming over-populated.

Alessandra: “Separation of Church and state, exactly. SO: don’t call a gay union (or any other union outside the Church for that matter) a Marriage or Holy Matrimony.”
Surely you realize that there are ALREADY many churches that will perform same-sex marriages?! SO: If my church is willing to marry me with a same-sex partner, what right does the state have in saying that we’re not allowed to do that? It cuts both ways, really …

Alessandra-
Two years ago, my husband and I were married. In our state, one does not need a registered officiant (clergy or otherwise) to perform the ceremony. Rather, if a couple chooses, they are allowed to sign their own marriage certificate. As an atheist and an agnostic, we decided to take this option. Therefore, we were legally married, outside of the church. Therefore, our “marriage” is legally recognized. Why couldn’t gay couples do the same? Why couldn’t they sign their own marriage certificate (assuming religious officials were unwilling, which may or may not be the case) and have a legal marriage just like my husband and I did? Marriage is not necessarily religious.

I believe marriage should become what a bris or christening or any other religious ceremony is … I believe all couples afforded equality through civil unions – I want (and deserve) the protections that marriage currently affords only straight couples who choose to marry (in most places) – I want this for myself – For my partner and for our children – If folks (gay or straight) choose to have this union also sancitoned in their house of faith then more power to them – But the legal protections should not be tangeled with faith when it is afforded to those without faith …

To Grumpy Old Person, and others–
I have amended my original post in order to clear up some confusion:
Andrew Sullivan (whose blog post I mentioned above), a Catholic gay man with a lifelong partner, is the one who defined marriage in the “ideal” terms I outline below. He writes from the perspective of a Catholic and a gay man, which is why I find his ideas thought-provoking as I try to clarify my own perspective. Furthermore, these are all questions surrounding the distinction between civil unions and marriage, which is why questions of religion and morality come up.

Alessandra on August 12, 2010 3:24 PM posted: “Separation of Church and state, exactly. SO: don’t call a gay union (or any other union outside the Church for that matter) a Marriage or Holy Matrimony.”
Since when did the Roman Catholic Church have a monopoly on marriage? There are many religions that call it marriage.

Amy Julia,
Even after reading your clarification, I am still not sure I understand your dilemma. While I respect your reluctance to articulate your thoughts (I know that whenever I try to explain my thoughts on abortion, they come out remarkably hypocritical), I am failing to understand exactly what you are getting at. Does the problem lie in the word “marriage?” Is calling a homosexual union “marriage” the problem? Would it be ok if it were called a “civil union” instead, even though the same rights would be afforded? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet…no? My union with my husband is called “marriage” even though it was done outside of the church. Under that same line of reasoning, should my husbands and my legal partnership be called a “civil union” instead of a “marriage” because it was not a Christian union?
Is the problem, perhaps, that you dislike the notion of approving of a law that allows homosexual unions when your religion does not? Do you believe that people who are not Christian should have to obey the same moral code as Christians do?
Given your thoughtfulness on the subject, I am sure these are questions you have considered. Just thought I’d throw them out there anyways.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NASB)
or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals,nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

If you are the kind of person who thinks heterosexual marriages are deserving of special distinction, I challenge you to watch this documentary and reflect a little on the nature of commitment.
http://www.excludedthemovie.com
For some of us, our lives will be in turmoil until the day that marriage equality exists. I am an American and my partner is German. We have been together for 17 years and because gay Americans cannot marry and therefore sponsor their partners for a Greencard, there is no way for us to live in the U.S. near my family who we are very close to. We have given up everything to stay together: education, successful careers, family, and stability. Would you do the same for your partner?

Erick, am I to understand from this line of Scripture that the Kingdom of God has been inherited by someone? Or is it still up for grabs? Does it happen when we die, or is there some indication while we are alive like wealth, winning a grammy, or having healthy offspring… ? Perhaps you are ‘righteous’ enough to avoid this particular list of transgressions, but since none of us is without sin I imagine that, as hard as you may try, you will be subject to the same final reckoning as the rest of us. Since we are no longer living in the Dark Ages and reliant on Priests to mediate and interpret the will of God, perhaps you can let the rest of us read and interpret the entirety of the Bible for ourselves. Perhaps, you can let the rest of us develop and nourish our own relationship with God.

Mommy, what’s a ‘reviler’?

Dear Erik,
The word “homosexual” was probably coined in 1869 (first time it appeared in print!), and was popularized in von Krafft-Ebing’s etremely popular 1886 book “Psychopathia Sexualis.” So how the NASB translators can use this word for “arsenokoit?s” is beyond my comprehension – unless, of course, it has something to do with reading contemporary Christian mores back into the text. The philosopher Philo wrote in 35 AD that arsenokoit?s referred to temple prostitution – who am I to argue? More to the point, who are the NASB translators to argue?
And for a reading of another so-called “clobber” passage, Romans 1, from the Catholic tradition, I would recommend the analysis (entitled “But the Bible says…”? A Catholic reading of Romans 1) by the eminent Catholic theologian Fr James Alison over at http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng15.html .

Andrew Sullivan quite directly answers this question in the same post you cite. A religious or moral belief that fertile, monogamous, lifelong heterosexual couples are “the ideal” is a private view. The state cannot adopt that private view and use it as a basis for conducting discrimination in civil institutions. Religious denominations that do not sanctify gay marriages are free to continue not doing so, but to then demand that civil, non-religious institutions comply with their religious codes is to establish religion in the law. Gay marriage is unfamiliar to many people, which may be why many still believe it is permissible to deny equal rights to marriage on the basis of some kind of unspoken moral discomfort. But law in this country demands more than that.
The only reason the state could justify discrimination is if it served some rational purpose irrespective of outside groups’ moral disapproval. In this case, it does not. Gay relationships are no different from straight relationships in their qualities and motivations. Children in gay households are no different from those in other households in their development or lifelong success. (The evidence is longstanding and overwhelming, but one need only take a look at the documents presented by the defense–the anti-gay marriage side–in the recent Proposition 8 trial.) Heterosexuals are free to consider their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters of lesser quality as spouses or parents, but the state cannot belong only to heterosexuals. It belongs to all of us, and that includes gays.
It’s worth considering the change in the debate over gay rights over the past three decades. In the 80s and 90s–certainly in the 80s–gays were attacked as promiscuous, as unstable partners, as pedophiles. Now gays are fighting to become a full part of an institution that represents the opposite of all those falsehoods. They are fighting–showing far more passion than most heterosexuals ever would on the matter–for access to an institution intended to nurture unity, family, and stable, long-term relationships. If the anti-gay crowd truly was concerned that gays posed a threat due to their different “lifestyle,” here is the obvious answer! An entire gay movement dedicated to making gays no different from their straight counterparts! To see the opposition that remains in the anti-gay crowd suggests that perhaps the issue never was the various lies spread about their “lifestyle,” but rather just a reflexive disdain, rooted in unfamiliarity. Fortunately this is changing for younger people who know gay peers. It is difficult to deny the equal humanity of men and women you know share all the same dreams and struggles as you.

I started writing a comment to this and it turned into a blog post.
http://thefivedollars.blogspot.com/2010/08/im-probably-going-to-regret-this-but.html

The way I think of it is this: I love my children for whatever they are, it is unconditional, similar to God’s love for us. Whether my children were gay or not, I would most definitely want them to have the choice of marriage should they meet the right person. Therefore, I am for gay marriage.

So let’s redefine what we once believed
and valued as a sacred bond between a
man and his wife.
Does that not cheapen and diminish its
worth ?? If we do not value marriage
as sacred; then what do we value??
GOD intended marriage to be sacred,
and intended the union of a man and
his wife to be the strength of a
family!!

This columnist has an interesting perspective on this subject:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/lack_of_intellectualism_is_los.html

Ellen and Bob, Thanks so much for your thorough and thoughtful responses. I think the reason I still have questions about the legality of gay marriage is because I wonder if I’m missing something. I understand the arguments within the church, and I’m with Ellen as far as respecting a wide range of opinions there. And I know that much opposition to gay marriage outside the church has to do with homophobia and fear, and I certainly don’t want to join that bandwagon. I’m just trying to discern whether there are compelling legal (not religious) reasons to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.
Aimee, to a somewhat similar point, I wonder whether every legal union should be called a civil union, and then churches and other religious institutions are the ones that can confer the title of “married.” In other words, you and I are just as married in the eyes of the state, and yet we are not just as married in the eyes of the church. Perhaps that’s a distinction that should be more formally recognized? And then gay civil unions would be on the same legal playing field as heterosexual ones. But, again, I wonder if I’m missing something, which is why I continue to say these are my questions…

Amy,
I find myself sympathetic to the plight of men and women who consider themselves gay and have no intention of every entering a heterosexual relationship. Obviously they feel excluded, and none of us like that. However, I don’t believe that the exclusion rises to the level that required redefining marriage. And that is what we would be doing by sanctioning gay marriages.
I come from a background, as a Christian, of having struggled for many years with same-sex attraction, despite the fact I have been married to my wife (a woman) for 34 years and raised five children. We are still happily married. Part of what I have learned is that we do not automatically qualify for everything we want . . . just because we want it. As Christians, we have to determine God’s intent and do our best to live up to it. That means we have to resist a lot of temptations, endure some doubts and count some losses. That’s what the presence of the Holy Spirit is for. That is why we have an abundance of grace. It helps us endure.
I cannot speak for atheists. However, we have along history of creating laws and rules based on Christian principles. Atheists — with or without grace — have had to endure that.
I blog specifically to help people who struggle with same-sex attraction and find it difficult to rationalize it with their Biblical understanding . . . which should trump all.
God Bless,
Thom

Amy Julia-
I appreciate your open-mindedness in supporting equal rights to gay couples. However, I am not really sure what distinguishing “marriage” from “civil union” would do except give Christians reason to think that their unions are elevated among all others. All non-Christians and homosexuals would have to acknowledge that superiority as well (my marriage with my husband would be demoted to civil union). Why is a changing the name so significant to you? Is your marriage worth less if gay people and atheists are also married?

Aimee, Thanks for continuing this dialogue. I see what you mean that calling your marriage a “civil union” could seem denigrating to the vows you took, and that was not at all what I intended. Rather, I wonder about leveling the playing field by calling all of our unions, in the eyes of the state, civil ones. In other words, both you and I, legally, would be participants in civil unions. And then–be it Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, or otherwise–a religious ceremony would construe a distinct understanding of what that union meant before God. In the Christian case, it would be a covenant made in the presence of God rather than a mutual legal agreement. I am now curious about the etymology of the word marriage… Does it have religious denotations or origins?
Really, what I’m getting as is a desire for people who are lifelong partners to have the legal rights to care for one another, live together, raise a family, etc. (see, for instance, the comment here about a partner not able to get a Greencard). But this debate has made me realize that I see a distinction between Christian marriage (perhaps I should be calling it something else–holy matrimony?) and secular marriage.
Finally, no–my marriage is not threatened or devalued by gay people or atheists being married, and yet I think that as a Christian I understand marriage differently than I would were I an atheist (but not necessarily different than if I were gay). I hope this makes some sense, and again, thanks for the dialogue.

Thom, Thanks so much for sharing from your experience. There is such a wide spectrum of Christian approaches to same-sex attraction–everything from embracing your gay identity to being healed of it, to celibacy, to the struggle you describe. I think that disparity of experience leads to my confusion. I’m grateful for the witness of Scripture and the tradition of the church in light of changing cultural mores, and yet I’m also uncomfortable with the hurt felt by many gay people. I don’t know how Jesus would respond. The gospel breaks through barriers–which barriers need to be broken here? Again, thanks for your thoughts.

Tony–Sorry I missed your comment yesterday. I was rereading them today and just wanted to thank you for sharing your experience. I’m sorry to hear about your plight. Would a civil union give you the legal right to sponsor your partner or only marriage? Do you see a meaningful distinction between the two?

@ Allessandra,
“Separation of Church and state, exactly.
SO: don’t call a gay union (or any other union outside the Church for that matter) a Marriage or Holy Matrimony.
Go to City Hall and stipulate and sign that contract that allows you to benefit of all the state and constitutional rights that married couples benefit from but leave God out of it once and for all!”
Nope. No can do. You, too, are confusing civil marriage and Holy Matrimony. SO, we will continue to call our “unions” marriage, for that is exactly what they are, even if you don’t happen to like it. Some of us marry at City Halls, others of us marry in our Churches and Synagogues (again, even if you don’t happen to like it). The “contract” we sign is a marriage license. Unfortunately, it does NOT allow us “to benefit of all the state and constitutional rights that married couples benefit from”; we get NONE (i.e ZERO) of the FEDERAL benefits that you betterosexual couples “benefit from”. That is the injustice we are trying to rectify. That, and not being covered by the Constitution’s Equal Protections Clause.
“Gays or atheists or non-Christians are always complaining about how inconsiderate the rest of the world is towards their rights and believes. When is our turn as Christians and more specifically Catholics to get offended?”
When you are denied YOUR freedom to worship as you choose, when you are denied equal treatment before the law, when you are denied 1,176 Federal benefits, when your inheritance is taken away, when your children are taken from you, when you are denied your husband’s pension, when his family steps in and takes your home away when he dies and then denies you access to visit him in either the hosptial or the funeral home, when you are denied health coverage because your spouse isn’t recognized as a spouse.
Et cetera.
Besides, you religionists are always “offended” about something – usually other people’s lives.
“I am sick to turn the other chick! My chicks can’t take it anymore!”
Um, they’re “cheeks”, not “chicks”, and Christ said you were to turn your cheeks seventy times seven. Seems you’ve still got far to go.
P.S. I was married within my faith. God was surely present. (And my pastor was my best man!) Do NOT presume to tell me to “leave God out of it”.

Amy Julia Becker,
“I have amended my original post in order to clear up some confusion: …”
No offense, Amy, but it didn’t clear up any confusion, but merely added to it. Sullivan’s “ideal” may include children; that is not the case for everyone. And, it really doesn’t matter who’s “ideal” it is – it simply does not apply to all.
“Please also note that when we use the term “marriage,” we use it in two distinct ways. One, as a definition of a set of legal rights granted to (in our culture) a man and a woman.”
Sorry Amy, but in “our” culture (gays are part of it, no?), that “set of legal rights” are granted to gay couples as well – in 6, soon to be 7 again, jurisdictions. It is NOT just granted to a man and a woman. You are about 6 years behind the times on that. And then there’s that gaping hole that is FEDERAL recognition of legally married same-sex couples that isn’t granted to all citizens equally – yet. Speak to us of “liberty and justice – for ALL”.
“Two, as a religious term that designates a covenant before God.”
Um, that would be Holy Matrimony. And many faiths recognize and celebrate that same “covenant before God” for LGBT couples, too.
“These two thoughts are interrelated, but they aren’t identical. So when I make reference to Sullivan’s sense of “ideal” marriage, he means that from a Christian perspective (I think) and not a legal one.”
UM, again, Christian marriages ARE also legal marriages – if the couple have gone the way of obtaining a marriage license (from the, ahem, State). And, in several jurisdictions, the ancient rite of Publication of the Banns is also used – as was the case for all three of my heterosexual sisters and for my own marriage. Yours is a ‘distinction’ without a ‘difference’.
“Similarly, the reason morality and religion come into these questions are because of the Christian definition of marriage.”
Sorry, but I am a Christian, and my faith defines marriage as the union of two people. Yours is NOT the only (Christian)religion in town, so you don’t have a monopoly on “the Christian definition of marriage”.
“I’m trying to sort out if there is any legal reason to deny gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples.”
There isn’t! At least not according to the Constitution. Stop wasting your time.
“After that, I’m trying to sort out how the church should respond.”
You DO mean “how YOUR church should respond”, no? “The Church” (TM, all rights reserved) is NOT of one accord on this matter. And, the answer is – with justice, and with love. But, even if those terms do not couch your church’s response, it doesn’t matter. America promises freedom of religion to ALL its citizens.
“Furthermore, these are all questions surrounding the distinction between civil unions and marriage, which is why questions of religion and morality come up.”
“Civil” unions are a made up, non-equal institution invented to try and placate gay citizens who want to be treated equally before the law AND to appease “Christians’ so they’ll think, ‘Well, at least they’re not getting marriage.’ Separate but ‘equal’ is NEVER equal. And religionists are not the only people who have morals, btw.
So to answer your questions, “should that ideal trump the experience and emotions of people in gay relationships?”
No! Heterosexuals do not ‘lose’ anything/have not lost anything since gay people have been allowed to marry. And “TRUMP”??? This is not a ‘competition’.
“Does it matter whether the gay people getting married are Christians or not?”
Of course not. What an absurd notion. Christians do not own marriage. I hear that some civilized countries let Jews marry – heterosexual OR homosexual. Most non-Christian (i.e. non-religious) gays opt for the civil marriage route at City Hall anyway. Why does this bother you so?
“should homosexual atheists also have the right to marry?”
Should heterosexual atheists also have the right to marry? Oh, wait, they ALREADY DO.
In fact, just replace the word “gay” with the word “heterosexual” and you’ll see just how absurd your questions sound in general.
“Does gay marriage ultimately hinge on questions of religion and morality?”
No. Non-religious, immoral heterosexuals get married every day, I hear. What it “ultimately hinge[s] on” is equal treatment before the law.
Really, Amy, re-read this piece, and then maybe re-think it. It sounds very much like an “us” vs. “them” scenario that is made up by the ‘religious’.

Odd that Erick chose to quote the NASB, and not the QJV, or the RSV, or the NRSV, or the LB, or the PMEB, or the NIV, or the NEB, or the JB, or the … well, the list of versios of the Bible is long indeed, so who knows if the NASB is the correct version to quote from at all?
Then there’s the problem of the fact that the word “homosexual” was only coined approximately 100 years ago, so none of the versions that appeared before then even contains the word.
Then the’s “the list” of those excluded from the kingdom of heaven – neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God, apparently. Too bad that ‘inheriting the kingdom of God’ isn’t the topic at hand. Seems that every single one in that problematic list CAN get legally married in America. Except the queers, ‘of course’.
Glad you “Christians” have an official list of people to hate, and that you can ignore some on the list so readily.

@ MARTIN S.
“So let’s redefine what we once believed and valued as a sacred bond between a man and his wife.”
Why on earth do you no longer “value” such a relationship? Why does my marriage make yours somehow less sacred? Sorry, I don’t get it.
“Does that not cheapen and diminish its worth ??”
No. Not in my opinion, not in the opinion of any of my 3 heterosexual sisters. Not in the eyes of my Church. Not in the eyes of the law, either, apparently. Needless worries, if you ask me.
I’m not sure how you know what God intended – for me. Or for any other person besides yourself. When I grew up, we called it a “personal relationship with Christ”. Not sure how or why you think you get a say in MY personal relationships.
“If we do not value marriage as sacred; then what do we value??”
Well, I DO value MY marriage as sacred. Yours does not diminish that – for ME, so I’m not sure why you feel MY marriage somehow makes YOURS less sacred or valued.

Amy,
“I’m just trying to discern whether there are compelling legal (not religious) reasons to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.”
The anti-gay side came up with none. The Judge came up with none. The Constitution has none to offer.
“I see what you mean that calling your marriage a “civil union” could seem denigrating to the vows you took, and that was not at all what I intended. Rather, I wonder about leveling the playing field by calling all of our unions, in the eyes of the state, civil ones.”
This is simply further confusing the issue. The similarities between what we have – namely, civil marriage – and “civil” unions is purposely vague. Civil marriage bestows all the you wish to all citizens. “Civil” unions do not, which is why the pejorative connotation. It also confuses the rite of Holy Matrimony, which the state graciously accepts as the equivalent of civil marriage – for religious folk who will almost always and only think of marriage as a sacred institution instead of a secular one. (As in, “By the powers vested in me by the State … ” – N.B. it isn’t the other way around. The Church does not vest any powers in secular authorities.)
“In other words, both you and I, legally, would be participants in civil unions. And then–be it Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, or otherwise–a religious ceremony would construe a distinct understanding of what that union meant before God.”
Sorry, but it won’t be “distinct”, since every faith will get to decide what marriage means to them. Some will continue to exclude inter-racial couples, others will continue to exclude inter-faith couples, yet others will continue to exclude the divorced and people not ‘of the faith’, and still others will continue to exclude gays. Heck, some Christians don’t believe gay people can even be Christian, so what our marriages mean “before God” will continue to be varied, depending on the ‘god’ in question.
“In the Christian case, it would be a covenant made in the presence of God rather than a mutual legal agreement.”
It already is that.
“And then gay civil unions would be on the same legal playing field as heterosexual ones.”
Sorry, but taking marriage away from the state in no way assures that “civil” unions will be elevated to the status of marriage – most specifically not same-sex “civil” unions. This slight-of-handery ignores the fact that some 30 states have changed their Constitutions expressly in order to prevent what you suggest from happening. It also ignores the Federal government’s unfair, unjust and UN-Constitutional refusal to grant federal benefits (heck, they won’t even give them to those many thousands of LGBT couples who are already legally married). And, of course, it also ignores that heterosexuals won’t agree to the ‘downgrade’ either.
This “same legal playing field” you tout is easily achieved by marriage – letting all citizens participate in one of society’s most valued institutions.
Thom Hunter (inadvertently) puts some spin on it with his remarks, “As Christians, we have to determine God’s intent and do our best to live up to it. That means we have to resist a lot of temptations”. He ignores the non-Christian citizens. Do non-/other-believers also “have to determine God’s intent”? Is marriage to be reduced to “resist[ing] a lot of temptations”? And you wonder why we take offense.
And lastly, to answer your question to Tony, “Would a civil union give you the legal right to sponsor your partner or only marriage?”, “civil” unions certainly would not – they aren’t recognized equally among states currently, are not transportable across state lines, and are expressly forbidden by some 30 states anyway. Then there’s the problem that immigration is a Federal matter. As for marriage, the DOMA would need to be repealed before the Federal government would/could consider allowing sponsoring of a same-sex spouse. DOMA forbids the Federal government from delivering 1,176 benefits that are bestowed on heterosexual couples, even to those who are already currently legally married.
Sorry to be so wordy, but there is mass confusion on the legal issues, as evidenced by what you wrote and the subsequent comments. Equal marriage solves all of it.

Dear Grumpy Old Person,
Two thoughts in response:
One, thank you. Thank you for taking the time to offer both personal and general information to better educate me about the myriad issues at stake here. You’ve exposed many places where I am ignorant–whether about the law (federal vs. state in particular) or about the language involved. Your comments are very helpful here.
Two, I’m sure it is hard to be patient with people who don’t know as much as you do, and who haven’t experienced the discrimination you’ve experienced, but please try. I don’t think you believed me when I said these are my questions about gay marriage. I was never trying to construct an argument. Rather, I’m trying to figure out what the arguments are–legally and ethically–and then I’m trying to figure out where I stand in the midst of it all. While, again, your information was instructive and helpful, your tone was hurtful and made me want to run for cover. As a brother and sister in Christ, I think we share a common belief that we need God’s grace, and that we ought to extend the same to one another.
Thanks again,
Amy Julia

Grumpy, et. al.,
I think part the confusion between you and Amy Julia stems from a question about authority–for both the church and the state. The question to ask is what would keep the church (for one) and the state (for the other) from extending thr definition of marriage to more than two people. Or to a minor and an adult? Are these just specious asked by those scared of gay marriage? It just isn’t clear to me that there are any sources of authority to which we can appeal any longer that would say, “No, three people cannot be in a relationship recognized as a ‘marriage’ with the attendant benefits from the state.”

Ah, the old “slippery slope” argument. Well, I’m quite sure that extending marriage to include people of the same sex does NOT mean that we are headed toward polygamy. The fact of the matter is that a significant number of people in our country are being denied the right to have their relationship recognized by the state and all of the rights that go with that. These people suffer greatly for many reasons already mentioned in this discussion.
My question to you: is it worth it to deny these individuals marriage because what we really don’t want is polygamy? Doesn’t make much sense to me. How about we don’t legalize polygamy instead?

Aimee,
I agree–let’s not not legalize same sex marriage because it may lead to polygamy. We should legalize (or not) same sex marriage on its own merits. My question is, after the same sex marriage issue is settled, on what authority would we be able to argue that polygamy shouldn’t be legal too? Regarding religious communities, we can find churches (and relgious institutions outside Christianity) that grant marriages to same sex couples–some people consider that a problem, others don’t. Regardless, on what authority would the churches that bless same sex marriages decide not to bless a polygamous union?
I don’t ask these questions to be obnoxious. I sincerely don’t know whether the logic that supports same sex marriage–in both the civil and religious arenas–ends there or continues indefinitely.

Amy Julia,
Thank you for your most gracious post. I am glad that my information has been helpful to you. Most of the anti-gay religionists not only are as ignorant of the issue as you were, but they seem to wallow in that ignorance. You, otoh, seem open and willing to listen and learn, for which I am both humbled and grateful.
I also regret that you found that my “tone was hurtful and made me want to run for cover”. (I’ve re-read them all, and disagree that they were hurtful. That was not my intent. My words may have been brusque, but they were at least factual. When people hurl lies at and about me, I tend to get that way. If there was something specific you found hurtful, please elaborate and I will make a specific apology.)
However, the anti-gay comments that abound here on Beliefnet are waaay more hurtful and make me want to hurl first, then run for cover. “God hates fags” anyone? My relationship has been compared to beastiality, murder, child-molestation, rape, “marrying a plant”, “marrying a bicycle” marrying a rock”, etc., right here on B’net, by people calling themselves Christian. Or being told I should “leave God out of” my marriage!!!? I will “extend God’s grace” when the anti-gay crowd who call themselves “Christian” extend it to God’s gay and lesbian children.

Peter,
“The question to ask is what would keep the church (for one) and the state (for the other) from extending thr definition of marriage to more than two people. Or to a minor and an adult?”
Many faiths and many governments around the world embrace polygamy. I’m not as afraid of it as you seem to be. I don’t understand polygamy, and I don’t understand the legalities of it in those countries and faiths, but somehow it does seem to work for them. And, it certainly ‘worked’ in the Bible. I think it is an inherently unfair, unjust arrangement, specifically for women who are not equal partners in most instances (and, in some of those polygamous countries, women are still chattel, just like they were in the Bronze Age when the Bible was composed).
So, to answer your question, there really isn’t anything “keeping [either] the church [or] the state” from extending marriage to include polygamous relationships. But, polygamy is simply a separate issue, and anyone seeking it as a goal will have to make their own case with their own legal arguments. Currently, it is illegal in America; same-sex marriage is not.
(A somewhat amusing aside: George W. Bush welcomed then Crown Prince [now King] Abdullah into the Rose Garden, despite the fact that the Prince has 5 wives. I’m not sure how the many wives of polygamous heads of state are treated during state visits, but clearly there’s not quite the revulsion for it that you seem to fear.)
As to marriage between a minor and an adult, we DO have age of consent laws, no? And boy are they strange. Some states girls as young as 13 can get married, and in others there’s NO minimum age, so long as the parents consent to the marriage. So that, too, is a slipperys slope/red herring as well as also being a separate issue. Those that want it will have to argue the merits on their own, just like the ‘struggle for polygamy’ (just typing that made me laugh) – the minor/adult situation is simply not what we are discussing.
“Are these just specious [questions] asked by those scared of gay marriage?”
Specious? Perhaps. Irrelevant? Most definitely.

Peter,
In all honesty, I think that the logic that supports gay marriage could probably be successfully applied to other kinds of relationships, such as polygamous ones. However, having never really heard the hardships faced by polygamists in this country, I think its hard for me to make a judgment as to whether or not polygamy should become legal. If there are compelling reasons to legalize polygamy, I haven’t heard them (although they certainly may exist). On the other hand, I have heard countless stories of hardships and heartbreak from people in homosexual relationships who are not allowed to marry. For this reason, I support legalizing gay marriage but not necessarily polygamy. However, my thoughts in polygamy could change in light of hearing the specific stories of polygamists. It would depend. Does that make sense?

GOP, Thanks for your response. It’s funny–when I wrote this post, I knew it would provoke controversy, but I expected it from the other side, from conservative Christians who think I’m “going too far” in my willingness to even ask the questions. I’m glad it went the way it did, as I said before, because you (and others) have given me a lot to think about. As for wanting to “run for cover,” no further apology necessary. I think it was the tone of things that got me. I hate the thoughts of my words contributing to your sense of alienation. With that said, I hope my questions were not “hurling lies at you.” I know they demonstrate my ignorance, but it pains me to think they might participate in the vilification you’ve received from others. I don’t know if you’ve poked around on this blog or not, but much of what I write about is related to our daughter Penny who has Down syndrome. Her “disability” has caused me to rethink much of what I once assumed about what it means to be created “in God’s image.” I’m going to post a link in a minute to an article I wrote for Christianity Today that questions some typical Christian assumptions about human perfection. I think it relates to our conversation here as well. Again, thanks for engaging and blessings to you. Amy Julia

Okay–here’s the link: “Considering ‘Curing’ Down Syndrome with Caution”: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/februaryweb-only/16-51.0.html

Amy Julia,
I originally took offense at the assumptions in both your post and in several of the comments. Your words simply confused me – because they were confusing. They were only glancingly ‘hurtful’ (nothing I haven’t heard – in much worse terms – from many calling themselves Christian. We’re pretty used to being vilified), and did not contribute to any sense of alienation (for me,anyway).
An aside: many people of faith don’t think gays would make good parents. I have 3 sisters, the middle of whom has an adult daughter with Down Syndrome. My sister chose me and my husband to be her caretaker should she die while my niece is alive, over 2 other (heterosexual) sisters. I can relate to the issues you must face.
Please feel free to go back to the top and re-exaamine the original “questions” you had. Then tell me if you would still ask them, knowing a bit more about the issues gay citizens face….
“Does it matter whether the gay people getting married are Christians or not?”
“I’m trying to sort out if there is any legal reason to deny gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples.”
“Does it matter whether the gay people getting married are Christians or not?”
“should homosexual atheists also have the right to marry?”
These seem not so much hurtful as simply naive and uninformed. Now that you have more complete information, whould you still ask these questions?

GOP, Sorry for the slow response–we’ve been on vacation. Thanks so much for sharing about your niece. I’d love to hear more about her if you ever want to write more. I’m sure you and your husband would be wonderful surrogate parents for her if the need ever arises.
As for my questions, I would rephrase the first one to read, “If you are a Christian who thinks that gay marriage should not be sanctioned by the church, can you distinguish the legal battle for gay marriage from the conflict within the church? If not, why not?” All three of those questions were trying to differentiate between the wider legal marriage conversation and the more localized, church by church, conversations. I have a better grasp on the arguments–both pro and con–within the church than I do from the legal perspective, and I’m still learning how those two intersect.
Does that make sense?
Thanks, Amy Julia

i have a question:why are the husband or wife called a partner insted? i mean is i was gay i would wand to call the person i mary my wife not my partner

Grace, Good question, but unfortunately I don’t know the answer or the preferred terminology within the gay community.

God is the lord an savior
some people think gay marriage is ok but it is not
God says in the bible the marriage is made by joining a man and a woman together not two people of the same gender it is gross and disturbing.

I also will say this that when you love someone that is a guy and you are a girl the guy would be the best thing that has happen to you.

I only know this because i had found a guy i like and thought he was the but nope he was not but he was the best thing that had ever happened to me i just wish he had not dumped me on valentines day for another girl.

A little advice to all the girls out there that are age ten to 18.

If you find a guy that you think is the one but is not stay friends with him he will come back eventually.

Marriage is the way god intended it to be bettween a man and woman leave it that way.