Well said.

Let the games begin....

There was a time, not too long ago, when laws prohibiting marriage between people from different racial groups existed in this country. These were finally ruled as unconstitutional and illegal. California overturned it anti-miscegenation laws in 1948; Utah finally saw the light in 1962.

Fortunately, the same will happen for same-sex marriage as the irrational fears of the public begin to see the rightness of the California Supreme Court decision.

give an argument against gay marriage that doesnt invoke the bible (which I dont believe in) or some vague concept of hurting straight marriage (which it doesnt do)?

There is a natural right and wrong in life and nature. Natures laws are for every species to reproduce in the manner it was fashioned. As humans we were designed as male and female. Why? To perpetuate the species. Two males can't do it and two females can't do it. Do I believe a man is as good a perent as a women? Of course and visa versa. But those of us who have rased children have watched as a child grows it tends to be pulled at times to one parent more then the other. Why? Because sometimes a child needs more of what a women can give and at times it needs more of what a man can give.

It is symple, but we as enlitened 21st century humans believe we have more knowledge then God. Or if you wish, then the natural designe of nature.

Do I believe some people are born with same sex attraction? Yes. I also believe some people are born predisposed to be addicted to alcohal, drugs or pron, or even sexually attracted to children. Should we then change everything we know to be wrong to suit those who have these challanges? NO!!!

I just want to be free to share my life with my partner. I'm not trying to mess up life for straight people.

It's really way past time for the church to get over its fear of gays. It's losing a lot of energetic people by making us into second-class citizens.

Wow, how open minded, and you live in Utah county. Let's hope the rest of the state, particularly Utah county doesn't agree with you. Marriage is and should be between a man and a woman.

The church was not mentioned in the article so it seems as if you are feeling some guilt. The church will not ever change what the Lord wants so you are the one who needs to get over it. You chose your destiny so why don't you go and start your own church and make it exactly how you like it.

Steve Taylor:

Thank you for your letter.

The word is freedom. This country was/is suppose to be about freedom. Im told that there are no gays in Iran so perhaps those of you who are so scared of the gays should go there.

@ can anyone give an argument..... yes, I can. In the Countries where gay marriage has been legalized the number of out of wedlock births has skyrocketed while birth rates have declined. Coincidence? I don't think so.
tolerance... the virtue of a man with no convictions

what is stopping you from sharing your life with your partner? Have at it dude! You don't need state sanctioned marriage to show your 'pard' how much you love him or her.

"One would think that in the 21st century, archaic, unfounded fears wouldn't be a reason to deny equal treatment to a minority group."

Hopefully, laws against those who practice plural marriage will now finally be ruled unconstitutional. No one has the right to say how many spouses a person can have.

When self-interest rules, all logic is lost. Same sex "couples" want to play house and pretend that redefining the word "marriage" to include everyone or anything is going to make a difference. Marriage is exactly what it has always been, a union between a man and a woman with the purpose of raising children honorably and uprightly before God.

Pouting and crying and demanding will make absolutely no difference. Almost everyone can spot counterfeit money and nobody wants it except a thief, who will use it for his own purpose, thinking that he is rich, when, in fact, he is just a thief with worthless money in his pocket.

For those who honor God, marriage will be honorable and noble and sacred. For those who think that silly judges can change anything by redefining a word, then let them live counterfeit lives and play house, because that is all that they will ever do - play house and pretend.

You're wrong Steve.

For the past 30 years or so, the homosexual lobby has had the agenda of pushing the idea that homosexuality is normal and something to be accepted with open arms by the larger society. Simultaneously and as another part of the agenda, there has been a concerted and also effective effort to stigmatize and condemn any opposing opinion. Particularly with people born during that time, it has been extremely effective.

I stand in opposition to both aspects of that agenda.

I am of the opinion that homosexuality is not normal and therefore should not be considered such.

I am also of the opinion that not being normal is no reason for not being accepted as a fellow human being with all the rights and obligations that accompany that status.

I believe marriage is a concept developed over millennia with the primary purpose of encouraging a stable relationship wherein children are produced and fostered. For that reason, at least, the norm has been and should remain that marriage is between men and women.

Homosexual adults are free to form practically any contractual relationship they choose. Including all those now sanctioned by society through marriage.

Let's just cut to the chase. The majority of Americans believe in a code of morality that comes from Judeo-Christian belief. Homosexuality to the majority of us is an immoral aberration of our society. These people are not to be persecuted but the life style is not to be accepted or legalized. This is a free country and what you do in your own bedroom is your own thing but when you throw it in the public's face and try to force acceptance you are in the wrong. What is really wrong in California is that 4 activist judges have overridden the wishes and votes of millions of Americans who object to this law. That is unconstitutional and wrong. I hope the "people" will rise up and put these four anarchists in their place during their next elections.

It has nothing to do with morals and everything to do with personal FREEDOM and legal rights to property.
Repugs just dont get it.

It seems to me society is doing fine in "perpetuating the species". There is no fear at all that our species is going to become extinct in the near future due to lack of procreation. Thus, that fear is not an argument against gay marriage.

And, if we as a society only want to sanction marriage to those couples that can procreate, we need to deny marriage licenses to those that are physically incapable of having children due to age or other factors.

The bottom line for rejecting gay marriage is religious and nothing else.

Then neither do you.

Look neocons,
You're not going to overturn California law.
You're not going to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
You're never going to see a world that is exactly like YOU.

Why not try minding your own (blanking) business and see it that makes you any happier?

We've got much, MUCH bigger fish to fry.

Endless, pointless war in Iraq, health care, national infrastructure, falling dollar, rising fuel prices, etc.

Whether or not gays marry doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Leave 'em alone and let's focus on what's really hurting the country.

John C:

What does prepetuating the species have to do with granting marriage priviliges to two loving people. Marriage is about two people legalizing their union and being granted priviliges by the government because of that legal union. If it were only about "perpetuation of the species," any couple that did not produce offspring would not be allowed these priviliges.

Actually the church has had to make change a few of its stances after the prevailing winds dictated so.

1890 and 1978 are two that quickly come to mind.

Why should we allow same sex marriage? Marriage is between a man and a women; that is the way God meant for it to be. so leave traditional marriage alone. if same-sex couples don't like it, they can form their own country.

The same book of the old testament that calls homosexuality an abomination also says that eating shellfish is an abomination. It says that anyone working on the sabbath should be killed. Who decided which parts of this book are still relevant today and must be followed, and which parts are quaint anachronism that can be disregarded with impunity?

I have no doubt that same-sex marriage will one day be legal in all 50 states. I also believe that once that happens, gays will push hard to force churches to allow gay marriage. No doubt you will see Catholic masses, Baptist meetings, and LDS sacrament meetings and stake conferences interuptted by gay groups shouting "HOMOPHOBE" to anyone who disagress with them on anything.

I also believe that within a short period of time, people who are attracted to young children will become the next minority group in America, demanding rights. And just like other groups, they will be portrayed in the media as loving, caring people, who simply want nothing more than the right to live the lifestyle they want to live.

Just wait and find out.

Can you provide any examples? I can't figure out why allowing same sex marriage would result in more unmarried pregnancies.

The writer said it best -"unfounded fears". New Yorker, Buck Wild, Mike, samhill, Chuck - let go of your unfounded fears, for God's sake! None of you have a rational reason for denying gay couples the right to marry - because there isn't one. Most of you write from a religious perspective, but arguments from this perspective get us nowhere (I, too, know what Jesus would do.) Please recognize the irrationalility of the argument that attempts to deny others basic rights that you enjoy. No one is hurt by gay marriage, and many are better for it.

To "try this on for size - 8:27"

Actually, the issue gay marriage is my business, especially when I see gay rights groups forcing people to support their agenda.

My younger brother attends West High School, and has been frequently harrassed by gay-straight alliance members, simply because he made the CHOICE of not joining thier group. When my parents complained, they were told that they shouldn't have raised such a homophobic son.

A friend of mine, working in West Valley City, learned his company was going to force all employees to wear gay ribbons during pride week. My friend knew he couldn't object, or he would get fired.

Several years ago, straight fire fighters in Providence, RI were told they had to march in the gay pride parade, or they would be fired. The gays in RI demanded stronger participation by city officials, so they were able to enact the rule.

No one can convince me that this whole same-sex marriage thing is "none of my business" since it is quite clear that gays want to force their agenda into all aspects of society.

Agreed, this issue deals with legal recognition of a union, not a moral standard being forced on everyone. Go Cali!

Now Cali can work on trailblazing recognition of those that choose a responsable union with more than one spouse. We must be unfair not allowing poligamists to live as they choose, like the author said

"Expecting those feelings to change is unrealistic and unfair."

Mike Richards,
I am married to a member of the opposite sex. I have two children. I do not believe in God. God was not invited to my wedding. I do not raise my children for God nor do we respect God in my household. Should I, like the homosexuals, not be allowed to be married?

This kind of moralizing is what the conservatives used to get the existing administration into power.
I see they are "staying the course" again.
Moralizing is all they have left (no pun intended).

Imagine a world where its inhabitants minded their own business.

Ahhhhhhhh!

Will gays be happy to just have government recognized same-sex marriage? Not on your life

I think it is sad that you think it is sad that people have an opinion. Grow up!

Not to sound crazy, but opening up the door to normalizing same sex marriage, helps to open the door of polygamy and polyandry. The arguements are nearly the same, except that they can produce children. Then, once you have multiple marriages normalized, who is to say that a group of bi-sexual people can't get married?

What is being said, with out saying it, is that there has to be a limit, and beyond that limit is not acceptable.

The Lord changed the rules for polygamy and blacks and the priesthood, the law of moses, etc etc etc

Why not declare EVERYTHING an abomination and start over from there?

To "try this on for size | 8:27 a.m." funny that you say "Why not try minding your own (blanking) business and see it that makes you any happier?" because according to a study that Jack Cafferty from CNN reviewed, conservatives are happier than liberals.

I've asked teh same question and have NEVER gotten a response. Good Luck.

So a quick question for this forum.

If the US "approves" same-sex marriages, then how can it "disapprove" of plural-marriages?

If I can be a swinger and sleep with whomever I want, why can't I be married to 3,4, or 5 people (men or women).

It is the same old rehash of the same old argument. Every poster spouts their opinion as if it is the fact and everyone else is just giving opinion. So here is my "opinion". Gays want marriage because they have been told they can not have it. Just like little kids who just can't stand to stay behind the velvet ropes. There is nothing (legally) preventing them from sharing their lives, their love or their personal property. If they want to talk about rights of inheritance, community property, power of attorney etc., then that is what they should fight for. As long as "marriage" continues to be what they demand, I will believe it is strictly about seeking political victory.

Some see the world as portrayed in the film "Pleasantville."

Others see it the way it really is.

Oh Clark: We homosexuals really do believe in the constitution of the United States including the bill of rights. We will ALWAYS allow you to worship any way you want. We do not want the way you worship to affect our rights and thus we want to be able to marry with all the priviliges attached. There are plenty of churches who will join two same sex individuals if we really want a church wedding too. It will not affect YOUR church or the way you want to worship. This is a false alarm and is not consistant with what is going on in MA, CA or the other states that now have civil unions for gays.

Whether you are for gay marriage or not, isn't it wrong that four judges can overturn what 61% of the California voters wanted.

@Ernest T. Bass-What freedoms and legal rights are withheld from homosexuals? Last I checked, they had the exact same freedoms I do and same legal rights.

I wish I could believe you. We'll just have to wait and see who ends up being the true arm twister.

As a gay man, I agree that it is wrong to force people to celebrate or participate in ANY event under the threat of punishment. And I am sorry for those who were denied their rights to believe however thy wanted. It would be akin to forcing people to celebrate say Guy Fawkes day or get fired. Those businesses and organizations who use threats to gain support cause more damage than do any good.

Just realize that as in any group of people, there are good and bad, and try not to lump all of us in the same category.

Just because a judge overturns the will of the people on an issue doesn't inherently mean the judge's decision is wrong.

For example, if 80% of residents of a state want to exterminate a group of people belonging to a certain religion, would it be wrong for a judge to go against their will and declare that action to be unconstitutional?

Or, if 70% of residents of a state want to make it illegal to attend church, would it be wrong for a judge to declare that unconstitutional?

No, sometimes judicial action is right when it goes contrary to the majority's opinion if it ensures the constitutional rights of the minority.

I'm not saying the CA judges were right or wrong here. I'm saying that it isn't inherently wrong to go contrary to the majority.