To Linus, who said this "is about hijacking the sacred sacrament, covenant
and institution of marriage and perverting it to diminish its value in
society." However, when asked, NO ONE thinks THEIR OWN MARRIAGE
has in any way been diminished in the countries and states that have legal
equality. This belies the logical fallacy of Linus and other fear mongers. No straight marriages will be negatively effected; many gay couples and
their children will be positively effected; thus marriage equality can only be a
social good. Only unjustified fear and prejudice prevent our country from
becoming a more perfect union.
I am a person of faith. My partner of many years and I were married, by a rabbi,
in a mainstream Temple, before God and our families. It was wonderful. It gave
social and religious standing to what was already, for many years, the most
important aspect of our shared lives. As the rabbi himself noted, he’d
married many couples before, but never one that already felt as married as we
clearly were.People are free not to believe in God the way we do, of
course. And their religions may carry out different rites, and may set their
own conditions for those rites. That's about faith, though, and I think we
have to respectfully acknowledge that we may all never agree, nor do we have
to.Now we are looking to protect our most important relationship
legally, civilly, so that we are not legal strangers to one another. We share a house, a car, a mortgage, bills, decisions about what to have for
dinner and decisions about life and death.Heterosexual couples get
to protect their most important relationship with a single marriage contract.
We need to protect ours as well.
Well if you all think it's just about marriage then maybe you should be
advocating getting gov't out of the marriage business and giving gay and
straight couples civil unions with the rights marriage currently gives out.
For some time gays and lesbians have had the freedom to pursue the lifestyle of
their choice. This isn't about denying anyone the freedom of choosing
their lifestyle. It is about hijacking the sacred sacrament, covenant and
institution of marriage and perverting it to diminish its value in society. In
this way the irreligious are able to subvert that which the religious hold most
dear. This is a trend. Some of you are glad, but the day will come when you
will reap what you sew.
RE: SchwaIF want gay marriage then take it out of the
government's hand. and make it purely a church thing.What business is it of the government to be involved and be giving privileges
and rights based on marriage?Take [power away from the government
and you get what you want.As long government is involved and more
than half the people do not want you will not get it.Let churches
solely define marriage and then gays can go to whatever church supports it.Freedom doesn't come from government power and control nor the
courts.When one group (like the gays) forces another group's
hand politically you will always have this "loss" of freedom for some
The idea of prohibiting same-sex marriage is counter to what conservatives claim
to love, and that is freedom. This is one group trying to force another group
to live a certain lifestyle through force of law.
Matthew Brown has written a very balanced article which is a refreshing change
from much of what has been written over the years about this issue. While I am not gay, I do favor gay marriage. Most of the arguments against it
are very similar to those that favored a ban on interracial marriage a
generation ago. Nobody would think to make those arguments today. Likewise,
studies clearly show that children that come from affluent homes do better than
those who come from lower income homes. Nobody would ever consider restricting
child rearing based on income. The same could be said for any number of other
factors we could chose from as well. At the end of the day this is
about acceptance. Those who drove the 2004 campaign against gay marriage have
caused everything they hoped to avoid. People are coming to know gay neighbors,
co-workers, and relatives. They are changing their opinions dramatically. The
cast majority of those thirty years old and younger have no trouble with gay
marriage. That is the future.
Is having same-sex parents ideal? No. Few opposite-sex parents are ideal.
They may subject their kids to second hand smoke, belittle education, are
criminals, don't provide a well balanced diet, etc...Why are such couples
allowed to marry and raise children, but a lesbian couple, both with graduate
degrees in Marriage, Family and Human Development from BYU, who are active in a
church, who are actively involved in the child's local school, who live in
a safe neighborhood, who have one parent stay home and make nutritious well
balanced meals and raises the child with no day care, where neither parent
smokes, drinks, does drugs, etc...are NOT allowed to marry? Voltaire
stated, "The best is the enemy of the good". Denying same-sex couples
the right of civil marriage leaves their kids with nothing, when they could have
had something good. Does that make any sense at all? The lesbian couple
mentioned above may not provide the "best" child-rearing environment,
but they do provide a very "good" environment. Why are gay
couples who are too old or unable to have kid denied marriage when kids
aren’t a factor?