Edit: the board attacked my cussing and censored a huge block of this message... Look at the next message for the more delicately hand-censored version

Wow did that overzealously censor my post. I'll try again here:

I'm sure this will stir things up a bit, but I keep seeing these stories popping up on my Yahoo Most Emailed RSS feed, and it's really pissing me off:

This attempt at a constitutional ban on gay marriage ...

What the heck?

I'm only 26, so I haven't seen a lot, but I've never seen such a blatant violation of the civil rights of a minority group in my lifetime. It makes me embarrassed.
I don't care if the majority of people in the US are Christian and desire their morals to be forced on other people -- there's such a thing as the Separation of Church and State. And
that's all that is going on here. It's a bunch of religious people who feel that they somehow own the concept of marriage and that if your relationship doesn't match what their
religious books say, then it's invalid. Not to mention, with so much ridiculous crap going on in the world, that people would choose to fight against people caring about eachother ...
It disgusts me. And Kerry's not much better wIth this Civil Union crap. Get a backbone and level the playing field. There is no difference between Gay Marriage and Interracial Marriage -- both were discriminated
against, and hopefully most people today believe they should be allowed (of course, I'm sure there are a bunch of people -- probably the same crazy ones -- who disagree). Civil Unions sound to me
to be no different than Separate But Equal. It was unconstitutional then and it's unconstitutional now.

Sigh. OK. Back to your regularly scheduled programming ...

I appreciate your zeal but your throwing an awful lot of people into the same category. Opposing gay marriage doesn't make someone a gay bashing fundamentalist. Lets take a few of the above statements and I'll show you what I mean.

1. Religion has a pretty good claim as definer of marriage. Marriage is documented as a religious institution far before organized government comes on the scene. Then you also have to deal with the fact that overwhelmingly people still turn to religion to conduct marriage services. Notice I've said nothing of Christianity... only religion. Most of the dominant world religions forbid homosexuality. If the US was predominantly Muslim the same arguments would be raised against homosexual marriage.
2. Civil Unions don't upset most religious people. I have no desire to keep people from getting proper health care. I also recognize the need of the state to protect the rights of individuals taken advantage of in the dissolution of relationships even if I don't agree with the relationships to begin with. Civil Union statutes could easily deal with these issues.
3. Separate but Equal references fall bitterly short. If I was a black man and I heard a homosexual make the comparison, I would be livid. The two populations have almost nothing in common. Homosexuals have never been counted as 1/8th of a person in the census. Homosexuals have never been forced to pick someone elses food. Homosexuals have never been forced into separate schools by the government and then forced to integrate through busing and picket lines. Homosexuals in short have no claim to that sort of rhetoric and should be ashamed of any claims of similarity between their position and the plight of African Americans prior to the 1960's.

I do not for a moment mean to say that all Christian or even religious people are as open minded as I am. There will always be those that desire homosexuals to be berated and treated as second rate citizens. However using the term "marriage" forces me to disagree with any legistaltion that I might otherwise support. If homosexual rights groups used any term other than marriage it would take nearly all the wind out of the sails of there opposition.

Much has been said in previous threads, but mwest's post pretty much outlines my views as well.

1. Marriage has a huge amount of legal meaning also. The ceremony one enjoys in his/her church has emotional meaning only. It's the marriage certificate granted by the government that has meaning. In that respect, religion CANNOT claim marriage as its own. I agree this is not just a Christianity issue -- I'm talking religion in general also.

2. Most of the religious people that I've heard that have spoken out have been against Civil Unions also, but maybe they're just the vocal minority. It seems to me to be a bunch of linguistic games. Either get rid of the legal meaning of marriage in general and call them all "civil unions", or call current civil unions "marriage". Having the two confusingly similar, yet legally unequal, terms seems to me to open the doors for defining the distinction = discrimination. Why shouldn't a gay couple have 100% of the rights of my wife and me?

3. I disagree. Just because there's not an exact 1:1 correspondence between the black civil rights movement and the gay civil rights movement doesn't make the basic philosophy different. Right now gay people can't even marry eachother. So in that sense they have a huge loss of rights. From the census perspective, their relationships are not being counted AT ALL when you look at the tallies of married people. While I do agree that the level of discrimination against blacks was FAR worse than what exists against homosexuals, it's all just a matter of degrees. If I "just sorta'" discriminate against you, it's still wrong.

ms

It's definately interesting to hear the different views on this issue *especially* since the state of GA will be voting on the ban of GM in November; it's actually informative to hear the opposing views. Although I personally agree with mwest 100% (no I'm definately not a gay basher or "religious" for that matter) Neal Boortz had an interesting view on this issue as well.
COME ON FOLKS .... LET'S REMEMBER WHAT'S IMPORTANT THIS YEAR

Two people should be allowed to marry regardless of race, religion or sex. Having children is not the only reason for marriage and if two people of the same sex decide they want to spend their lives together then let them have the benefits of marriage, if they so desire.

Why stop there? Why does it have to be -=2=- people? Or why people at all?

I would personaly like to see Civil Union anyway. Not from a gay/strait perspective, but a better separation of what I consider a religious marrige union, (holy matramony?)

My girlfriend and I would probably apply for a Civil Union if it existed, we've been together for 2 years, and have no marrige plans, mostly becuase of the religious connotations.

I also have a good friend who said he would glady get a divorce if he could get a civil union with his wife.

The one thing that really buged me was a talk I had with the HR department at the university where I work. They offer bennefits for "life partners", but that only applies to same-sex partners. I personaly feel it's sex discrimination to exclude strait couples. Their excuse was "get married".

You can use the take-it-to-the-extreme argument against just about everything, but it usually doesn't work out. There are limitations on everything, it's all a matter of where we as a society decide to draw the line. That line needs to be drawn in a place that balances the beliefs of the majority with the rights of the minority. I think a Human/Dog marriage is a pretty reasonable place to draw that line -- mainly because marriage (from a legal standpoint) doesn't really make sense with a non-human on the receiving end. I honesty have not decided how I feel about polygamy though (it's a much more complicated situation legally). On the one hand, with consenting adults that are all aware of the polygamous situation, I personally couldn't care less. On the other hand, the rewriting of the tax laws to actually handle that situation and the cost of retooling who-knows-how-many forms and systems that track marriage as a two person entity definitely seem like a feat. But like I said, I haven't thought through this one much.

ms

This issue is one that I find very interesting and always imprefectly solvable. Personally, I don't get all riled up about gay marriage and would probably opt on balance to allow it if it was up to me alone. At the same time there are aspects of gay rights (if you can lump all of this under that umbrella) that I guess I am not completely at peace with. There was a piece on NPR a week or so ago that featured a guy who decided to that he wanted to be a dad and paid ~$100K to hire surrogates and now has twins. There was something I found almost creepy about the story -- a sense of self indulgence that made me say "Hey, who says you have a right to trade $$$ for kids?" -- 'course then I have to remind myself that lots and lots of heterosexual couples go through similar exercises paying for fertility services, surrogates, etc....

....I also have to remind myself that I know a couple of lesbian couples who have the nicest and most well-adjusted kids that I know of, so it seems like their efforts with respect to child-rearing didn't go to waste. I don't happen to know any gay male parents. Happenstance, that, so no anecdotall informaltion there.

I am interested to read mwest's comments:

1. Religion has a pretty good claim as definer of marriage. Marriage is documented as a religious institution far before organized government comes on the scene. Then you also have to deal with the fact that overwhelmingly people still turn to religion to conduct marriage services.

I'm no expert, but it would seem that whether we are talking about Puritan New England or Spain or Italy or England (or wherever) religion injected itself into formative governments and helped define many laws including those around marriage.

Notice I've said nothing of Christianity... only religion. Most of the dominant world religions forbid homosexuality. If the US was predominantly Muslim the same arguments would be raised against homosexual marriage.

But using various divinely-inspired religious concensuses (what *is* the plural of concensus?) as a yardstick -- as a norm -- doesn't seem very trustworthy to some of us. Sodomites in Saudi are beheaded based on that particular religious yardstick. For some of us, the persistence of various irreconcilable religions is a puzzle and the fact that some of them frown on gay marriage or other things seems immaterial. I *really* don't mean to taunt you, but it is extremely interesting to hear you cite what seems like ecumenical anti-homosexual-marriagism at a time when Christian and Muslim worlds seem to be engaged in a huge cultural and political collision.

2. Civil Unions don't upset most religious people.

Now here's a place where I could be totally wrong because I don't hang out with a lot of people I would consider religious.... but I really have the sense that if you put a plain thumbs up/down referendum in front of the strata of folks I might characterize as "really religious" -- one question that asked "Do you approve of civil unions between gay people?" -- I was thinking that the vote would be 9 to 1 opposed. That was just my impression. Where did that come from? Well, I didn't exactly see many of the nation's religious out there collecting signatures or otherwise fighting for civil unions in places like Vermont. It seemed like they were too busy fighting against them. Maybe this perception is a result of skewed perception of who is "religious".

I have no desire to keep people from getting proper health care. I also recognize the need of the state to protect the rights of individuals taken advantage of in the dissolution of relationships even if I don't agree with the relationships to begin with. Civil Union statutes could easily deal with these issues.

I think I mostly agree with you here. It might be considered gross heresy by some of our gay readers, but in the vein of separation of church and state, I would be pleased if we just gave "marriage", whatever that is, back to churches and dealt with legal issues of partnerships strictly on a civil (union) basis. That's just Jim the atheist talking.

I heard a radio news report some weeks back about a gay (Methodist?) minister who was being tried by a church court and I remember readng about Catholic tribunals having to do with annulments. I always have to think "Hey, if you want to recognize and submit yourself to such things, that's great." but, boy amd I ever glad that our political systems (mostly, in some places) have evolved to where those types of things are separate and optional. If marriage went that way, I think it would be swell. That way, religions can make up any sort of extra rules they want (like no sex on Fridays) without weighing down the legal system.

3. Separate but Equal references fall bitterly short. If I was a black man and I heard a homosexual make the comparison, I would be livid. The two populations have almost nothing in common. Homosexuals have never been counted as 1/8th of a person in the census. Homosexuals have never been forced to pick someone elses food. Homosexuals have never been forced into separate schools by the government and then forced to integrate through busing and picket lines. Homosexuals in short have no claim to that sort of rhetoric and should be ashamed of any claims of similarity between their position and the plight of African Americans prior to the 1960's.

While people have been killed for being queer in this country, they haven't been lynched that I am aware of or sent systematically to gas chambers, so I'll admit your point. But, but, but, even if you are a bit offended at what you perceive to be some folks strained comparisons of oppression, what bearing does that have on what people's right's should be?

I remember taking care of a guy in 1979 who had Guillian-Barre syndrome --- pretty completely paralyzed, cause unknown (though GB was thought to be preciptated by various viral illnesses). He was in his 30s. This was a Catholic hospital. It was not at all obvious that the gent was gay. His parents came to visit. ICU rules, family only. Nice folks, terribly concerned. After a few weeks, they brought with them "a friend...really part of the family" who we slowly figured out was the patient's partner of 10+ years.

In at least a few respects, I'm glad it is not 1979 anymore.

Anyhow, what I don't get is why religious folks get so riled up about this and want to pass constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. OK, BBS Canadians: You have gay marriage. Has Canada suffered as a result and how?

I think the unfortunate root cause in a lot of this is the duality of the word "marriage". It has completely separate legal and religious meanings that are (obviously) not necessarily in check. If you replace any reference to legal "marriage" with "marriage-legal" and religiou marriage with "marriage-religious", then I think this resolves your concern. They are different words with different meanings and different restrictions in each context. I think fukinjim is right that things would probably be a lot easier if the government just abandoned the word "marriage" in all contexts and just renamed the whole thing Civil Unions.

Here's my question: why do you care if two gay people get married?

Does anyone honestly think that if marriage was removed from the government and replaced with civil unions (regardless of sex of partners) and marriage was deemed strictly a religious term that homosexuals would cease to want to be married?

I'm truly asking the question to get your opinion. Personally, for many people, I think the issue goes much deeper than just equallity under the government.

Michael,

You say you support the concept of civil unions, but want to reserve the right for religious institutions to control the concept of marriage. What you don't say is whether you expect that those religious institutions would all adopt the same policies, which I think they would not. I can think of several groups, such as the ELCA Lutherans, Unitarian Universalists, certain reformed branches of Judaism, etc that do support and perform gay union ceremonies.

So, in your world, I could go to the county courthouse and get a civil union to my partner, and I could go to the church of my choice and get a marriage ceremony. How does that really differ, legally, from what Massachussets is doing today? I guess I don't get it.

I also would point out that the Federal Marriage Amendment would make your vision an impossibility. Do you support the FMA?

--Dan.