The civil rights comparison with gay marriage deserves scrutiny

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 20, 2013 3:47 p.m.

    "the guy that was re-elected President [but who has since abandoned his moral stance]"

    He supported it long before running for president, he just buried the view (in the closet I suppose) because it wasn't popular enough at the time for him to openly take that view politically. That's why his "evolving" explanations never made any sense.

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    Aug. 20, 2013 12:32 p.m.

    A previous poat included the following:

    "It denies them the 1,138 Federal "effects that flow from marriage". This causes actual, real harm to not only the couple but to their children as well."

    I imagine that only a few of these effects would have been at the Federal level if DOMA had not been put into law. I don't support DOMA because it is an abuse of Federal power; marriage should regulated at the State level.

    Without DOMA, the main Federal effects would have been in the Federal Income Tax and Social Security tax laws. Theis labyrithian collection of contradictions favor groups based on their political clout. For example, they favor Environmental purchases, simply because that fits the "flavor of the month" club. Without DOMA, the same sex marriage group could petition changes in their behalf that could be added to the tax law with little fan fare.

    Were it not for the ACA, insurance equality would have been controlled by state law, like it should be. Outside of Federal Inheritance Tax laws, inheritance issues likewise are controlled at the state level.

    By and large, the Federal government should get out of the marriage business altogether.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 20, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    @ Tekaka: The birth-rate in the Netherlands was declining before same-sex marriage was allowed.

    The failure of same-sex marriage to stop an existing trend proves nothing about marriage or families.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Aug. 20, 2013 10:56 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi --

    "When the Netherlands allowed gay marriage, the number of first born children being born to wedded mothers dropper from 40 to 25% in the following ten years."

    Here's the facts, in contrast to the fiction:

    1. unwed mothers in the Netherlands have actually been increasing on a smooth parabolic curve since the 1970s -- looooong before registered partnerships. There's a graph of this trend at the procon webiste, if you want to look it up.

    2. the change in unwed mothers before and after partnerships was actually **the same** in other European countries that did **not** at that time have partnerships.

    3. Scandinavian countries that have partnerships already had **higher** rates of unmarried cohabitation than other European countries **before** the partnership laws.

    4. heterosexual marriage rates actually **increased** after partnerships in those Scandinavian countries. As of 2004 (the date of the original article that contains Tekaka's claim), Denmark had its highest marriage rate since the 1970s. Other Scandinavian countries with partnerships also had higher marriages rates than before the partnership laws.

    Stop gobbling up all the baloney that people like Kurtz (the author) keep shoveling out. Try thinking for yourself once in a while.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Aug. 20, 2013 8:50 a.m.

    When the Netherlands allowed gay marriage, the number of first born children being born to wedded mothers dropper from 40 to 25% in the following ten years. Correlation does not prove cause but it shows that diluting the importance of marriage by trying to define it in ways that it is not, does not help and may be hurting.

  • Hossman Orem, UT
    Aug. 19, 2013 9:21 p.m.

    You're going to be on the wrong side of history and I think you know it. The winds of change are blowing and blowing strong when it comes to treatment of homosexuals. I dream of a world where heterosexuals and homosexuals alike are treated with love and kindness in schools and communities. You may say that you "love" them but in the end what you think they're doing is wrong, and so wrong that they shouldn't be allowed to raise children. All this rhetoric does is reinforce groups who want to marginalize and discriminate against homosexuals. In 50 years, your children's children will look back on you with shame.

  • OldDaveJersey Trenton, NJ
    Aug. 19, 2013 6:28 p.m.

    @procuradorfiscal -- The only fact that you have presented is that you were able to find two people who agree with your point of view. That's really not much of an argument. (Note that, contrary to an earlier statement of yours, the President Obama has never said it was about the children; he has always supported equal rights for same-gender couples but was, until recently, under the misguided impression it could be achieved through things like civil unions.) Your fact is not an argument.

    There has been a number of substantive arguments made in support of same-gender marriage here. Your only response appears to be to label it all as sophistry. That also is not an argument.

    The ball is now in your court. Please say something substantive and valid in response to any of the points others have made here in support of same-gender civil marriage.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Aug. 19, 2013 6:06 p.m.

    Re: "Tell us the facts."

    The President, the LGBT activist, and the gay person raised by a gay couple -- all cited in the article -- gave us the facts.

    But, some people don't like facts. It hurts their argument. So they engage in the usual liberal sophistry, the usual liberal argumentum ad hominem, in vain attempts to hide or camouflage the facts.

    Real, traditional marriage supporters are not the ones attempting to revolutionize that estate. As much as liberals would love to turn the process on its head, the burden of persuasion is on them and their activist handlers, to prove their brave new world is somehow better than Mother Natures'.

    Theirs' is the burden of proving we should overturn and replace a regime that's been in effect, and, time and time again, has demonstrated its efficacy, over the last several hundred thousand years, at least.

    Theirs' is the burden of proving their brave-new-world proposals will not turn ours into a brave new world.

    Good luck with that.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 19, 2013 5:54 p.m.

    procuradorfiscal: "[G]ay-marriage proponents... have turned out to disparage, as usual, not the concepts or arguments of the article, but rather, as usual, the character, intelligence, and morality of the writer..."

    Examples, please.

    In reviewing the comments prior to yours, I see little disparagement of the author's character (other than a reference to him being an attorney and thus prone to cherry pick data supporting his case). To the contrary, there are comments noting that the author's examples are taken out context, rendering his conclusions suspect, and others addressing the specifics of the author's three central arguments. The great majority of the comments are civil, on topic, and to the point (OldDaveJersey, especially-- thanks). One might even say the majority are thoughtful and analytical.

    I always enjoy your Menckenesque ripostes on these boards and your witty curmudgeonliness, but there is really only one post in this thread so far that qualifies as disparagement of a writer's character rather than a logical rebuttal of arguments presented. There is only one that approaches sophistry and blather. I'll let you decide which one it is.

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 19, 2013 2:27 p.m.

    @procuradorfiscal - let's examine Erickson's arguments.

    One: Erickson doesn't mention, intended or not, laws banning same sex marriage harm same sex couples.

    Two: Erickson's argument about deep seated faith is irrelevant. A civil rights movement doesn't need to be based on faith to be valid.

    If proponents of gay marriage are hostile toward religion, that doesn't happen in a vacuum. In a recent Pew poll, 70% or more of glbt persons identified Islam, Catholicism, Evangelical Protestantism and Mormonism as hostile to gay persons. Pluralities identified Judaism and Mainline Protestants as hostile toward gay persons. Ask almost any gay person who grew up going to church where they first heard negative comments about gays and they'll say, "In church."

    Three: Erickson begs the question. How does banning same sex marriage stregnthen families? What reason should gay persons be denied the right to create legally protected families in the name of protecting families? Why does strengthening families require banning same sex marriage? Erickson assumes these things are true, but current research indicates they are assumptions not truths.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Aug. 19, 2013 2:07 p.m.

    @ procur: "So, as usual, all the usual gay-marriage proponents, spouting all the usual wrong-headed gay-marriage sophistry, have turned out to disparage, as usual, not the concepts or arguments of the article, but rather, as usual, the character, intelligence, and morality of the writer and of anyone who would dare to espouse such concepts or arguments."


    Name three posters on this thread who disparage the author without addressing the concepts they disagree with. (Out of 27 comments, I have found 1 - which hardly supports your conclusion.)

    And, by the way, I noticed you do a great job of disparaging those with whom you disagree, but I see little to refute the statements made in the comments by those who support same-sex marriage. Perhaps you should practice what you preach?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 19, 2013 2:03 p.m.

    "Give us the facts of how keeping gays from using the benefits of marriage harm children. "

    EDIT: Give us the facts of how keeping gays from using the benefits of marriage HELP children.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 19, 2013 1:43 p.m.

    Erickson: "Marriage, however, is about more than civil rights for individuals. Marriage has profound implications for... children."

    Marriage as a social policy may be primarily about parental responsibility to children, but that is not the ONLY reason. Perhaps he would like to refer to a section of Utah family law [UCA 30-1-1(f)], which makes the INABILITY to bear children a MANDATORY precondition for certain marriages. The indisputably pro-traditional family Utah legislature saw that it is within the legitimate scope of government simply to support relationships based on love and affection as a means of promoting social stability and individual happiness. There is room for multiple social policy goals within the institution of marriage. That fostering stable family environments for rearing children is a primary policy objective of marriage law does not preclude other objectives, nor does it preclude other family structures.

    The "marriage is for the children" gambit also fails because, as others have pointed out here, it ignores the many, many thousands of children in gay households. Does Mr. Erickson really want to condemn them to the well-documented negative social outcomes borne by children of unmarried parents?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 19, 2013 1:43 p.m.

    procuradorfiscal: "Sure it does."

    So prove it. You certainly did not wsrite anything in your post that proves that banning gay marriage helps children. You do know that even in Utah, a gay person is allowed to adopt a child, don't you? They just must be single! Honest! That is our law.

    Instead of disparaging the people who have commented on this article and taken a different view than the author...follow your own advise and SHOW US how it helps the children - especially those children that are being raised by a gay couple. Give us the facts of how keeping gays from using the benefits of marriage harm children.

    Tell us the facts.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Aug. 19, 2013 12:23 p.m.

    Re: "The old 'think of the children' excuse doesn't work here."

    Sure it does.

    And, as pointed out in the article, no less an authority than a gay man raised by same sex parents, the guy that was re-elected President [but who has since abandoned his moral stance], and an LGBT activist all agree.

    So, as usual, all the usual gay-marriage proponents, spouting all the usual wrong-headed gay-marriage sophistry, have turned out to disparage, as usual, not the concepts or arguments of the article, but rather, as usual, the character, intelligence, and morality of the writer and of anyone who would dare to espouse such concepts or arguments.

    Such is the blather that passes for liberal "thought" and "analysis," these days.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Aug. 19, 2013 11:41 a.m.

    Enough already. Prohibition of gay marriage does not strengthen families! If this made any sense, where is the evidence, the correlation, that we have strong families right now because we prohibit SS marriage in Utah?

    As the adage goes: Good people do good things, while bad people do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion.

    You really have to be blinded by religion to not see this as a civil rights issue.

  • OldDaveJersey Trenton, NJ
    Aug. 19, 2013 10:36 a.m.

    continuing ... There is currently nothing to prevent a polygamist from marrying one of his beloved partners, getting benefits commensurate with any other married couple, and living happily with his remaining partners. So are they really being discriminated against in terms of the benefits and protections (which is what the 14th Amendment is primarily concerned about)?

    I'm also not aware of any research that suggests that there are some people that can enter into healthy marital relationships ONLY with multiple partners. I do think there are still also concerns by a significant number of social scientists over the inherent stability of such relationships, but that is probably a matter of continuing research.

    These days, polygamists are primarily prosecuted for (1 being involved w/ minors and/or (2) trying to claim state benefits for more than one partner at once. If a group of people want to have a private marriage ceremony and then live together, I doubt they could be successfully prosecuted just for that. It really comes down to the benefits and protections, and the considerations for polygamy are very different from those for same-gender marriage.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Aug. 19, 2013 10:30 a.m.

    @Nwanda --

    "an analysis of why that model ultimately lost in the Supreme Court of the 19th century while the same-sex model is currently winning in the same forum 150 years later."

    I am very much NOT an expert on the 1800s polygamy battles, so take my historical opinion with a grain of salt -- IMHO, the Mormon polygamy struggles at the time lost mostly because of the religious convictions of "mainstream" Americans in power at that time.

    These days, the same-sex model is winning because nobody has been able to prove that same-sex marriage actually causes any concrete harms to either individuals or society. In contrast, we have a large research literature showing harms caused by polygamy across the world -- especially to women and children. Therefore, using the harm principle, it is easy for governments and courts to separate the two issues.

  • OldDaveJersey Trenton, NJ
    Aug. 19, 2013 10:28 a.m.

    @Nwanda -- Civil marriage in the US exists, in the form of certain benefits and protections granted to couples, to foster the health and stability of families, be they composed of just the couples themselves, the couples plus any biological children, or the couples plus kids from adoption, previous relationships, surrogacy, etc. Those reasons apply just as strongly to families built around same-gender couples as to those built around straight couples. Further, it has been well established that homosexuals can enter into healthy, successful marital relationships, but ONLY with people of the same gender. Current traditionalist marriage laws fundamentally preclude homosexuals from ever entering into a successful civil marriage.

    Polygamy differs in several regards. First, there is a key question of what equal treatment, in terms of marriage benefits and protections, even means for polygamists. Is it really equal to require employers that provide spousal health coverage to also provide health coverage to ALL the spouses of a polygamist? Extending social-security survivor benefits to ALL the spouses of a polygamist would, on average, extend the payout periods by the government. Is that really equal?

  • Nwanda Los Angeles, CA
    Aug. 19, 2013 9:27 a.m.

    The author is correct that the comparison between the struggle for racial equality and the gay rights struggle is not an exact one, but the three examples given are uninteresting. The author talks about civil rights leaders' religious convictions, but many gay rights proponents base their position on an underlying conviction that 'all men and women are created equal'; whether one interprets 'creation' in a religious sense or simply in the sense of 'being born' is not terribly important. The underlying belief in equality is the same, whether its source is a chapel or not.

    A political comparison far more interesting to a Utah audience would be between the marriage equality struggle and the early Mormon struggle to defend their own non-traditional marriage views. I'd be interested to see a thoughtful comparison of the arguments used by the early Utah settlers to defend their one-man-multiple-woman model in the federal court system, and an analysis of why that model ultimately lost in the Supreme Court of the 19th century while the same-sex model is currently winning in the same forum 150 years later.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 18, 2013 8:16 p.m.

    If children were only born once a couple was married, and if parents of children stayed married until death, and if people without children were never married, than this article might have a point.

    However, the truth is that many children are born to parents that are not married - heck, some children are conceived and born with only one "parent" such as when single women choose artificial insemination.

    Many parents with children divorce - some remarry and have more children - some have more children with someone other than their spouse while still married to their spouse.

    Many married people have no children - some because they choose not to, some because they can't.

    Nothing in this article reflects real life - which invalidates every point the author tries to make.

    Which is why these very same arguments failed in the Prop 8 trial.

    (As for the whole "religious foundation for support" argument - this is about civil, i.e. not religious, rights - a religious reason is not needed.)

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 18, 2013 6:47 p.m.

    The problem for conservatives is that they have been so dismally wrong on so many issues: Jim Crow laws, segregation, the Civil Rights Act, interracial marriage, etc. But now, presumably they've got it right on gay marriage. Somehow I don't think so. Gay marriages will be recognized in Utah within five years. Is it better for kids to have two parents of different genders? Yes, I think so. But can gay marriage work for kids? Yes to that also.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 18, 2013 4:01 p.m.

    Most gay parents I know, have children from their previous heterosexual "marriages".

    They are THEIR children, regardless how you slice, dice, and skew hypothetical situations.

    Tell me how one accounts for denying them their rights as biological parents?

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 18, 2013 3:23 p.m.

    Why should straight couples have more legal rights and gay couples?
    That is why it's a Civil Rights issue.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Aug. 18, 2013 2:06 p.m.

    This article was written by an attorney, not a scholar. Does he cherry-pick evidence, to present his side most convincingly. Of course he does. But I do sense good will in his comments.
    But he's wrong. If one of the main functions of marriage is to provide a stable environment for child rearing, then obviously gay couples are as capable as straight couples of providing such an environment. And reasons for discrimination disappear.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Aug. 18, 2013 1:45 p.m.

    Rep John Lewis:

    ""I've heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry." This made gay marriage the kind of issue most political candidates dread--not because they don't know where they stand, but because no one likes being branded a hater."

    “In President Obama's interview with Robin Roberts, he described the kind of steps many Americans have taken on the issue of same sex marriage. Once people begin to see the similarities between themselves and others, instead of focusing on differences, they come to recognize that equality is essentially a matter of human rights and human dignity. The President's growth reflects the growth of many Americans on this issue. I am glad to see more Americans, including President Obama, empathize with the struggles of same sex couples and express willingness in state after state to give their unions the same legal rights as other married couples.”

  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    Aug. 18, 2013 1:11 p.m.

    From the article: "... as one gay-marriage advocate acknowledges, 'Unlike racial segregation, to which anti-gay laws are often compared, the traditional restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples was not designed, in and of itself, to denigrate or harm same-sex couples.'"

    The "gay-marriage advocate" mentioned goes on to say: "Today's ruling [striking down DOMA] reflects the growing public understanding that DOMA and other laws that treat gay people unequally, while they may echo long-standing beliefs, now simply lash out at one group for no good reason: 'DOMA's avowed purpose and practical effect are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.'"

    From the article: "... it's hard to imagine prominent gay-marriage advocates describing their movement as 'built upon deep-seated religious convictions.' Indeed, it has often been hostile to religion. To be sure, some of that hostility stems from perceived, and sometimes very real, denigration by some religious adherents."

    It's no wonder, then, is it, if they don't build their movement upon the convictions of those who denigrate them.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Aug. 18, 2013 12:32 p.m.

    @Michael --

    You're misrepresenting the views cited in your article references.

    For instance -- in that article in which you claim that gay people are opposing gay marriage, that's not actually what most of them are saying at all.

    One of the sources is actually saying that he cares about the *legal* rights of marriage and not the religious rights.

    Another is saying that he's more worried about being murdered by homophobes than about getting married. (A very telling statement, btw.)

    Yet another is saying that he opposes all marriage in general because it leads to divorce. (It doesn't have to make sense -- that's what he said.)

    That's a far cry from your claims.

    And as yet another source in that article states:

    "So when I hear LGBT people saying the same thing: 'I don't think gay and lesbian people should get married', is it different from slaves saying: 'I don't think slaves should have the ability to get married'? It is internalised hatred, bred by oppression. Why would you want to deny someone of your own sexual orientation the ability to get married? No one [will be] forcing you to get married."

  • vesmir Riverside, CA
    Aug. 18, 2013 12:30 p.m.

    Holding true to his profession's stereotype, the writer argues only one side of the discussion, conveniently overlooking the full context of the issue; and, through his intellectual dishonesty, he attempts to shift the historical reality that SCOTUS has affirmed a number of times that marriage is a basic, fundamental right "necessary for the pursuit of happiness" IRRESPECTIVE of procreation. Even worse, his stance lacks any substantive evidence that the one father and one mother ideal holds true and is upheld when considering the current context of marriage as it stands for ALL families (with and without non-biologically related individuals) - his position against same sex parented families being wholly inconsistent with the anthropological evidence as reflected in the Am. Anthropological Association's position statement on marriage. Naturally, we see his words being in direct contrast to NAACP's stance on this issue. Adhering to the stereotype, we witness a grand hypocrisy and utter lack of intellectual honestly in this writer's "arguments."

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 18, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    "I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice, But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."

    - Coretta Scott King

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 18, 2013 11:23 a.m.

    Laws promoting marriage as only one man/one woman are designed to promote heterosexual supremacy. These laws have "no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious sexual discrimination."

    "But it's hard to imagine prominent gay-marriage advocates describing their movement as "built upon deep-seated religious convictions."

    -- But it isn't hard to imagine them based upon deep seated Constitutional convictions. (Hint: The USA is NOT a theocracy).

    "Do it for the children, do it for the children" -- What about the children of gays and lesbians? They just don't count, do they (what hypocrisy).

    I guess we are going to have to ban marriage between heterosexual couples who refuse to, or can't have children too. If marriage is solely about "the children", then those who don't have them don't need it either.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Aug. 18, 2013 11:12 a.m.

    I remember a couple of years back when I participated in a letter writing campaign. A black woman at the University of Eastern Michigan stated her view that the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement are not the same. She was forced out of her job. So she sought and gained employment in a city in Michigan. The local gay rights group tried to bully the city that gave her job offer to rescind the offer. Fortunately, they stood up to the bullies.

    Well, it is a little like the civil rights movement. At the beginning of Jim Crow laws blacks were bullied into leaving jobs so whites could take over their jobs.

    This was a good, well thought out peace.

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    Aug. 18, 2013 11:01 a.m.

    My question is this: why is government involved at all in deciding who can and who can't be married? Could it be greed and control on their part?

  • 2 tell the truth Clearwater, FL
    Aug. 18, 2013 10:52 a.m.

    Re: "First, laws prohibiting interracial marriage were designed to promote white supremacy. That's why a unanimous Supreme Court invalidated these laws for having "no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination."

    Um, neither do anti-gay laws have any "legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious [anti-gay] discrimination."

    Re: "Unlike racial segregation, to which anti-gay laws are often compared, the traditional restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples was not designed, in and of itself, to denigrate or harm same-sex couples."

    And yet it does. It makes gay people 2nd class citizens by not treating them equally under the law. It denies them the 1,138 Federal "effects that flow from marriage". This causes actual, real harm to not only the couple but to their children as well.

  • 2 tell the truth Clearwater, FL
    Aug. 18, 2013 10:47 a.m.

    Re: "What goes unsaid is that the most influential civil-rights leaders, "citing God and the Bible," opposed discrimination and segregation on religious grounds."


  • OldDaveJersey Trenton, NJ
    Aug. 18, 2013 10:28 a.m.

    The three points made in the piece each totally avoid any and all of the strong legal parallels between interracial and same-gender marriage, which renders the piece largely irrelevant. Also, it is hard to take any piece seriously when it supports the conclusion "it's hard to imagine prominent gay-marriage advocates describing their movement as 'built upon deep-seated religious convictions'" by beginning with words of John Lewis, who is just one of a great many public figures who has done just that. The cherry-picking of songs, slogans and historical facts is also ridiculous. The assertion that denying civil marriage rights/benefits to same-gender couples is somehow necessary to protect children is completely unsubstantiated ... and in fact, contrary to most of the scientific evidence and views of the major mental health organizations. The desire to "preserve and strengthen families" applies to couples without children ... straight or gay, as well as couples with children ... again, straight or gay.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Aug. 18, 2013 9:38 a.m.

    Preserving marriage as only between a man and a woman does nothing to ensure the surest foundation for children. The old 'think of the children' excuse doesn't work here, and indeed if it were true then the opportunity to allow one more option to create a stable family, gay marriage in this case, is something you should be arguing for to ensure a foundation for children. Man/Woman marriage does what it does for children (I would argue it doesn't actually do much for them these days) and it is in our best interest if we can add to that.

  • 2 tell the truth Clearwater, FL
    Aug. 18, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    Your "view" is worth precisely what I paid to read it, Michael. Which is ... absolutely nothing.

    Thanks anyway.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 18, 2013 8:26 a.m.

    The only way the in which the marriage issue is the same as the racial issue is that they are both economic issues. The both have their root motivation based in greed. However, since almost every issue of difference in our society is based upon greed this is to be expected.

    Behind all the propaganda, words and smoke, the object of the religious people is to defend and protect their favored position in the economy and the world in general. Gay people seem to want in on the favored position and to make it easier for people to be gay.

    The best way to resolve this and other discrimination issues is to remove the favoritism given to groups and treat all people as Americans.