Comments about ‘Marriage definitions vary widely throughout the U.S.’

Yes, marriage varies widely over place and time. We humans have defined relationships in a myriad of ways and we will continue to do so. "Traditional" marriage is merely relative. If we all had this perspective the protracted wars over civil law definitions might be a little less heated.

Heck, even within hetrosexual marriages the definition varies. In my marriage, my wife is the boss. Oh wait, that's no different than anyone elses. :)

In some countries 'traditonal' marriage means a man may have as many wives as he can afford...and those wives must be covered head to toe in public, cannot drive, cannot vote, and have almost no freedom. Its a question of tolerance and equal rights and protections under the law...right? The same people spouting off about protecting our so-called 'freedom' always seem to be the first to want to dreprive others of the same 'freedom' they enjoy. If it's a religious thing...who do you think Jesus would be hanging out with? Answer: the persecuted, the outcasts, and those shunned by 'polite' society. I think Jesus would be on the side of love-whatever it looked like.

legalizing marriage for the gays will end up being a plague upon them. Old gay sugar daddies will find themselves with alimony payments to their boy toys. What a new entertainment, the squalling will provide then.

Traditional views are changing. Marriage syno is Joined. It doesn't mean owned. Pronouns many times denote "ownership" or Control of/over. Marriage does incompass the term; "partnership". In that sense one can be a partner without a marriage. Within the confines of Marriage one should also experience Freedom without manipulation.

Jesus said, "And for this cause shall a man leave his father ad mother,and shall cleave to his wife(not wives)and they twain(two) shall be one flesh"
(Matthew 19:5); Then after pentecost,the gift of the endwilling of the Holy Spirt,(hagious pnuema) or Holy Ghost. Saint Paul said, "...and ordain elders in every city,as I had appointed thee: "If any be blameless,the husband of one wife,having faithful children not acused of riot or unruly." (Titus 1:5,6)

This country was founded on men who wanted to be free to practice thier own religion, not marriage, it was based on God and God's definition and therefore the ONLY definition of marriage is between a MAN and WOMAN ONLY! the bible states that if any lay with the same sex they will be condemned.

I've never understood why governments have gotten involved in marriage. Marriage is a social contract between people, and I don't think regulation of marriage is a proper function of government. Government should, of course, be involved in the protection of civil rights, but it should withdraw from all regulation of "marriage". Let social groups who deem marriage important define "marriage" as they will. That means that we can, then, seek out membership in social groups that make available the type of marriage we want for ourselves and our families.

That's a helpful map.

You should color WY differently, since they recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

So I can buy a house in VT, a farm in IA, and a vacation spot in WY.

Marriage has never, in any society since the beginning of time, been defined as between same sex couples. There are reasons for that....1)children are most likely to grow to be happy adults when raised in a monogamous heterosexual relationship and 2)same sex couples cannot have children. 3)God has made it clear that sex outside of marriage (any sex outside of marriage - between a man and a woman) is wrong. This country continues to attempt to deny the Christian values that we were founded on - the values that define our laws. We do so at our own peril. The disintegration of the family is tearing this country apart, and formalizing the acceptance of same sex "families" by making it legal will further perpetuate that destructive trend. We can all point to individual exceptions on all sides of the discussion, but on the whole, our society will survive and thrive best on the basis of heterosexual, family oriented institutions that emphasize strong moral values, and any other path will destroy us.

If we all had this perspective - that marriage is not necessarily between a man and a woman only but can be extended to virtually any two living creatures by your convoluted logic - the world would fall into chaos. Those of you who would allow people to define themselves by their sexual urges and then expect legislation to be passed to legalize those sentiments are short-sighted and selfish. There is no justification - none whatsoever - for even thinking that same-sex relationships could ever be termed acceptable just because a political entity (in this case, a State) chose, by the vouce of the people, to regocnize them. A world without moral lines in the sand is a very very scary place. Tell me - where will it stop?

every state that lets its residents has shot down gay marriage. I think that is powerful.

I just wish people would stop calling opposition to :nontraditional" marriage "conservative". The true conservative position would be that regulating interpersonal relationships in which no coercive activity is involved is NONE of the government's business. The attempt to regulate marriage per DOMA and similar laws is an act of an interventionist government, which is properly defined as "liberal" or even "socialist".

Support freedom. Limit government to the things it is necessary for, and keep it out of everything else.

The whole debate is pointless, as are the efforts to "protect" marriage and to define it as having to look a certain way. Marriage is just one of many types of relationships that people have created to formalize and provide some kind of framework for their interactions, and its significance is only based on what the people in it decide to give it, i.e., marriage has no definition or meaning outside of the couple itself. So trying to define it and control it is senseless.

Until we have a discussion on the "prupose of marriage" the definition will continue to drift. The purpose of marriage is to create and nurture the next generation so that they will become responsible, virtuous citizens, a prerequisite for self government. That is the purpose. Homosexuals cannot create children. Neither can they provide children with a father and a mother. And to assert that homosexual marriage is an acceptable alternative to traditional marriage is to assert that fatherhood and motherhood are pointless and archaic roles. It is to assert that a woman brings nothing uniquely important to a marriage and that fathers are completely unnecesary. It is to deny all exprerience and to make war on the family, on social order and hence, on self government.

The Savior has already stated in the book of Matthew that marriage was between man and woman. I'm sure He would hnag out with the outcasts of society, and show them love and mercy... but He also wouldn't approve of their behavior, and would tell them to go and sin no more, the same as He would do for all of us sinners.

So you know the mind of Jesus? When asked why he "hung" out with the publicans and sinners, his answer was that a doctor goes to the sick. (paraphrased) not that he approved of thier "lifestyle".

Racheal,since you bring up religious freedom.. what if someone's religious belief is that marriage is between man and man? Who are you to say that the bible is the only way?

Finally the someone brings the real issue to the headlines. It is not an issue lifestyles, it is an issue about definition. Just because someone is on one side or the other on this issue doesn't mean they are gay bashers or religion haters (although some are). There is already definitions to describe these relationships. It is marriage, gay and lesbian. That makes it pretty clear to me what kind of relationship exists. It makes as much sense as calling a motor cycle an automobile

Rachel, you're right. This country was indeed founded by men who wanted the rights and freedoms to practice their own religion. They didn't want to be forced to believe or not believe a certain way, which is why I find your comment to be so amusing.

In this country we have freedom of religion, but we also have freedom FROM religion. Don't think it's appropriate to mix religion and government. It's no different than the religiously-influenced laws over in the Middle East when you think that basis for laws should come from the Bible, or any other religious material. Common sense and the need to protect should be the basis of our laws.

Your Bible has no place in our government or in our laws!! Because if I don't believe in your Bible, then I am being forced to follow laws that were created because of your religion.

I'm asking you to see a bit of logic here, but I know that is hard for some to do when it comes to religion.