Hmmm, so we're comparing the Nazis' fixation with racial purity with the conservative Christian fixation with cultural purity?
Either way, that remark about dog owners as traitors is a great example of the kind of crazy-almost-sense the fascists' policies made. And the thoroughness of it, the leaving-no-domestic-stone-unturned mania...!

I must confess to being of two minds on this issue. On the one hand I have this general sense that "marriage" is a traditional relationship between a man and a woman. Thus would exclude same sex relationships as being a marriage. On the other hand, my political philosophy says that we shouldn't elevate one group of individuals over another group.

Then I waffle a little: If we allow same sex marriages because they are comprised of two citizens possessed of free will who aren't hurting anyone, what then is the distinction between other consentual, but otherwise illegal, activities? For example, why would we then not similarly condone the marriage of two first cousins, or of siblings? (I'm not arguing that they should, but just how do we distinguish between the situations. Nor do I think that this should necessarily prevent us from, at the end of the day, allowing same sex relationships.)

I think that I understand the basis for the homosexual desire for a marital status because it's desire for acceptance by the wider society. Inasmuch as the San Francisco mayor has provoked this issue, I believe that he's done the gay community a disservice. Why? Because he's accellerated a legal battle that was gradually making it's way through the court system. Massachusetts' Supreme Court decision brought the issue to the forefront, but it also gave MA some time to sort out the issue. That gave the rest of the nation some time to have a national discussion on the issue. With the events occurring in SF it is clear that the nation does not have time to think about the issue and come to a reasoned decision about it. Instead, we get a knee jerk reaction that says "Amend the Constitution". That doesn't seem like the best move, especially not when we're in an election year.

The problem with this approach (forcing same sex marriage through court fights) is that it will not work. Certainly there may be victories like in MA, however, the legal battles are really just proxy fights for what the true issue is: acceptance. For those people who are against same sex marriages they're going to be against them no matter what the MA Supreme Court says. Those people will never accept same sex marriages no matter whether the law "technically" allows it or not.

I was talking about this with a friend of mine and she said, 'What about the civil rights laws that were passed? Didn't that improve the issue?' To that I answered, no. The civil rights laws merely recognized that there was going to be a change regardless and offered a less destructive avenue for that change. In other words, it channelled that change in a way that did less damage to the status quo by adopting procedures for that change. Legal remedies and rights that could be enforced in the courtroom rather than the street. But that impetus for change in racial issues does yet exist in America for the issue of homosexuality. Everyone can understand that one doesn't choose their race (Michael Jackson not withstanding). It is not commonly accepted that homosexuality is similarly not a lifestyle choice.

There is another option, however, that goes beyond allow "gay marriages" or not, or let homosexuals have "civil unions" while the remainder of society gets "real marriages". Specifically, if the legal basis for the current debate is whether people are treated equally, then let's do what we should've done a long time ago. Recognize that "marriage" as we understand it is a fundamentally religious institution and leave it to the various religions to make up their own mind on whether to marry specific people. Then eliminate references to marriage in our laws. In other words, eliminate the debate and shift it into the chuches, mosques and synagogues where it belongs. If you want God to sanctify your relationship, then pick a god who will do so. If it is a religious ceremony, however, I don't believe that the state should have any obligation to provide you with any special status as a result of that ceremony any more than it should provide you with special status because you went through catechism or took communion on Sunday or prayed to Allah five times a day.

But what about the people who want to have the state recognize their committment to each other? And what about all those "benefits" that married people enjoy (like divorces, the marriage penalty, alimony, etc.) Let's do what has been proposed for same sex couples, but do it for everyone. Make everyone eligible for civil unions. If we want the state to provide advantages to committed couples, or "spousal benefits", let's do it on the basis of whether the individuals have participated in a civil union contract. If you want the state to provide you with special breaks, then sign up for the special breaks and let everyone sign up for them.

I fear, however, that this solution, while logically consistent, will not meet with the approval of the Bush Administration. Then again, I did like a quote on one of the sites that JD linked to above. An email from someone who'd been married for 26 years said, "... you aren't missing anything."

Siblings are not allowed to marry because the limited gene pool would put any possible children at greater risk of defects. The risks of limited gene pool are NOT present in first cousins (the gene pool has enough genes) and hence most states have dropped their laws making it illegal for first cousins to marry.

I spend enough time dealing with the public and driving on the highways and byways of our great nation to know that having siblings reproduce with each other (which is different than marriage) couldn't possibly damage our gene pool more than it already has been.

The one question that I wish to see answered is: "How on earth is this a Constitutional issue?" Seriously. Can somebody please explain, in simple terms, why our President — or anyone else, for that matter — believes that anything related to marriage needs to be incorporated into the Constitution?

Johnny Doe ...the legal battles are really just proxy fights for what the true issue is: acceptance.

Yup. This is the meat of the whole issue.

Johnny Doe An email from someone who'd been married for 26 years said, "... you aren't missing anything."

That's missing the point altogether. It's assuming that no gay people are in committed long term relationships because there isn't a socially sanctioned institution. It's also why 'civil union' isn't equal to 'marriage'.

Gay people who want marriage aren't asking for the creation of their relationship with one another -- gay couples define themselves as being married or in committed relationships all the time, some for more than 26 years. The difference is, as you said the first time, acceptance.

They want to be treated just like any other married couple. The legal framework of marriage does not create a relationship, it is an institutional recognition (both civilly, in terms of laws and rights, and religiously) of something that already exists between two people.

Johnny Doe's civil union vs. religion split is indeed an internally consistent and good way to approach the idea, but it's a solution to the wrong problem. The problem isn't specifically that gay couples can't get married, it's that gay couples are institutionally discriminated against by many of the current laws. The real 'problem' with Gay Marriage is exactly what the conservatives say it is -- that it legitimizes gay relationships on a national scale, making gay couples legally EQUAL to straight couples, at least in some ways. By declaring that to be the case from a legal point of view, it becomes much harder (but not impossible) to legitimately and legally discriminate against such people over the long run.

People who are against gay marriage (and related parts of the "gay agenda") want to be able to keep treating GLBT people as second class citizens. Civil Unions are acceptable to them because a Civil Union is a "seperate and unequal" thing distinct from a marriage. It can still be seen as 'not as good' as a 'real marriage'. If it was really just as good, then people who are for the continued discrimination against GLBT people wouldn't find it an acceptable compromise.

Which is more important -- that a person is gay, or that a person is a person? There's no question that being GLBT carries a certain amount of stigma in US culture. The real question before us is, "Is that just?" Is being GLBT a legitimate reason for institutional discrimination?

I don't think so. Lots of other people do. It's going to be a nasty bitter fight.

Mayor Newsom may not have been wise to push the issue in this way at this time, but it's an issue that was going to get pushed eventually somewhere, and the results probably wouldn't have been any prettier. At some point you have to act on your principals, no matter what the consequences. It may not be politically wise, but standing up for what you believe is morally respectable, in my opinion, even if I disagree with those beliefs.

On the other topic, the parallels between the rise to power and tactics of the GW Bush regime and the Nazi regime is chilling.

Spying on your own population for 'protection'? Check.

Concentration camps whose detainees have no legal recourse? Check.

Treating foreigners as second class citizens with few or no rights? Check.

Premptive attack and invasion as a means of 'protection'? Check.

Demonization of dissent? Check.

Advocating and promoting a State Religion? Check.

Disregard for the checks and balances of government? Check.

Militarization of police forces? Check.

Disregard and disparagment of forums for international diplomacy? Check.

Careful control of the press and mass-media to limit coverage of political dissent because, after all, such coverage might be 'encouraging of destructive displays'? Check.

Special police whose job it is to root out 'enemies' from among the nation's population who accomplish their job through wide-ranging search and seizure, as well as privacy invasion, all in the name of 'security'? Check. (Gestapo translates roughly to "Office of Homeland Security.")

I could go on. It's chilling.

The ends may be different, but the means are the same.

JD Can somebody please explain, in simple terms, why our President — or anyone else, for that matter — believes that anything related to marriage needs to be incorporated into the Constitution?

Simple.

It's fairly easy to pass discriminatory laws against anybody you want. But such laws don't generally stick because the judiciary will declare them unconstitutional. One of the foundational bedrocks of the US Constitution is that people are equal and, therefore, should get equal treatment.

So, the only way to insure that something which is demonstrably unconstitutional becomes an institutionalized rule is by changing the document causing you the trouble -- make the constition explicit in supporting your otherwise-constitutionally-incompatible point of view.

It's not a legal argument so much as it is an argument of control. "I want things this way, and these other people want things another way. I keep passing laws so that their way is illegal, but the courts keep overturning me. What can I do to simultaneously protect my rules from being overturned in court, and also to make their way illegal? Ammend the constitution. 'Nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.'"

Oh the things I could say....!

Tammy Oh the things I could say....!

So say them. This kind of a tease is silly. If you want to disagree, disagree. We might not agree with you, but that shouldn't keep you from having your say, Tammy. But sticking this in is kind of a condescending way of saying we're wrong without going into why and about what...

Shrug. At least, that's what I think. Others surely don't.

JD-

The real reason for an amendment to the Federal Constitution is two fold. First, one of the challenges to the current marriage laws is based upon the Equal Protection Clause, which essentially says that you need to treat all of your citizens the same, or have a really good reason for treating them differently. Second, since marriages are viewed as a contract a marriage in one state is required to be recognized in another state by the full faith and credit clause of the Federal constitution. This is how my marriage to Karen is valid in Oregon even through we were married in Pennsylvania. If Massachusetts legallized same sex marriages, then a "gay" marriage performed in Massachusetts would be valid in Oregon, California, etc. by virtue of the Federal Constitution.

That's why Bush wants to amend the constitution. If the federal constitution says "marriage=man+woman" then for federal issues, taxes, medicaid, etc, then marriage would be that regardless of what a state did. It would also override the Full Faith and Credit clause and disallow (or at least not require) states recognizing same sex marriages from other states. I suspect that it would remain to be seen whether the Federal Constitution could prohibit a state from legalizing a same sex union, at least within the confines of that state, but who knows? Maybe it would.

For pity sake Dana! Everyone on this forum knows exactly where I stand on this issue. How can that be construed as a tease? It's basicaly just saying, "I'm reading this and I hear ya all but my opinions have not changed."

For anyone who may agree with Dana let me say this: I think there should be a Constitutional Ammendment stating Gays cannot be married!

There now is anyone surprised? To go further would just be ridiculous because it would be the same old arguement that we have engaged in many times before.

I just wan tyou all to know that I'm reading and I hear ya but I am vehemently disagreeing.

This is NOT a Constitutional issue.

Perhaps it ought not be, but it is, like it or not.

I used to agree with dowingba, who hates it when people compare Bush with Hitler. The trouble is, the more I research the origins of Nazi Germany, the more similarities I find between the two.

Both were poor students. Both had questionable military careers. Both came to power legally, but without popular support. Both believed they were called by God to lead their people. Both seized upon crisis to abridge citizens' freedoms. Both attempted to codify their personal beliefs as national policy. Both instigated foreign wars on flimsy pretenses. Then there's the list that Dana proffered above.

Perhaps these similarities are merely superficial, created by a mind that wants to see them. I'll grant that's possible. But what if the similarities are there?

One of the big questions asked of the German people after World War II is "Couldn't you see what was happening? Why didn't you stop it?" There's no easy answer of course (as the film Judgment at Nuremberg ably demonstrates), but there are some basic explanations. When you put a crab in a pot of water and turn on the heat, it doesn't try to escape right away. The temperature rises, but because the change is gradual, the crab doesn't notice until it's too late. This is similar to what happened with the German people. Things didn't go from normal one day to totalitarian nightmare the next. Things changed gradually. Freedoms were abridged slowly, in barely noticeable increments. It wasn't until it was too late that the true magnitude of the Nazi agenda was realized. (This same concept applies to the experience of the Jews; their freedoms were gradually abridged until there was no escape: they were carted off to concentration camps and gassed.)

My point is this: we may not currently live in a society equivalent to Nazi Germany of 1943, at the height of Hitler's power. There are, however, striking similarities between Nazi Germany of 1933 and the United States of today.

Fortunately, there are vast differences between Bush and Hitler — and their eras and countries — and these differences are enough to assuage my fears. Bush comes from a wealthy family (one which helped finance Hitler's regime, but that's beside the point); Hitler came from a poor one. Hitler, and his Nazi party, killed ten million people (or more!); Bush's administration has only killed thousands. Hitler had a anti-Semitic agenda that informed his every move, leading to the Final Solution. As much as Bush dislikes gays and atheists and leftists of all stripes, I think that he's a well-meaning — if misguided — man who would never condone the sort of terror Hitler wreaked upon Europe.

Bush may be similar to the Hitler of 1933, but I don't think he could ever become like the Hitler of 1943.

Tammy I think there should be a Constitutional Ammendment stating Gays cannot be married!

Well, no, Tammy, I'm not surprised. But I am still curious as to why you support such an ammendment. Is it solely because of your belief that homosexuality is against God's teaching, or are there other larger social issues that you see as needing protection?

Do you see gay marriage as a threat to straight marriage? How and why?

Are there other behaviors that should be proscribed (or encouraged) through ammendments to the constitution, or is an anti-gay marriage ammendment the only one?

I'm serious. I am not asking to draw you into an argument. I really am curious as to your reasons and your reasoning.

In answer to Dana:Is it solely because of your belief that homosexuality is against God's teaching, or are there other larger social issues that you see as needing protection..

My opinion is based soley on my belief that it is against Gods teaching. Of course I'm concerned about the larger social issues but I'm concerned about the larger issues on a lot of things not just a gay persons right to marry.

Do you see gay marriage as a threat to straight marriage? How and why?

No I don't really see it as threat so to speak. Be using the term threat one is implying that there may eventually be a chance that traditional marriage would no longer exist. And of course I do not believe this to be true. I just think that to allow gay marriages really leaves no stopping point. Why then can't two people who have just roomed together for years just decide that they need the rights of the married people. It makes no sense. Just because two people decide to engage in sinful acts of sodomy and twisted sexual practices then suddenly they need to think that they should be counted as married? That's bizarre!

Marriage has always been defined as the union of man and wife. It's not even debateable.

For gays to insist on this right is ridiculous! So why then can't my girlfriend and I who both enjoy sewing appeal to the laws of the land to give us tax breaks because we like to sew. Another girlfriend likes to come over and garden with me. Should we appeal to the state for the legal right to be recognized as two people who like to garden? That's just how absurd it all is.

Just because two people like sex with the same sex does not mean they have any right to appeal to anybody for anything. They're just two people who like to have sex with each other for some depraved reason unknown to normal people.

It's stupid to even begin to think it's a marriage and it makes me very angry that anyone even entertains the thought!

Getting back to the Nazi comparison...I think at this point it may belittle the nightmare that fascism is by comparing the recent actions of the Bush Administration to the Nazi Regime. There are definite similarities: The Enabling Act of Hitler and the USA Patriot Act display a definite parallel no doubt. But Bush is no Hitler...at least not yet. He is however, off to a fair start. Now all he has to do is tell the people what's right and wrong, condemn everyone who disagrees with his agenda as an enemy of the state, or "terrorist," and detain detractors indefinitely without cause or trial. And it would really help if he could use a national tragedy to seize the rights of citizens for their own protection.

JD Bush may be similar to the Hitler of 1933, but I don't think he could ever become like the Hitler of 1943.

"I say this calls for action, now. Nip it in the bud."

T: I think that many gay/lesbian couples would disagree that the reason they are choosing to marry is simply so they can engage in sexual activity. It seems to me that this is what you're suggesting with your latest comments. Gay or straight sex can happen outside or regardless of marriage, as we all know. This issue is clearly about more than just having sex; it is about the legal recognition of a lifetime commitment. Just like heterosexual couples, homosexual couples experience love (outside of sex) and some choose to express that love in a public ceremony. These recent acts of 'civil disobedience' are about recognizing love and family, and are not government or religious stamp of approval for gay sex.

Nice comments, Aimee Rose. Also: more about those gay penguins.

If you're not reading about this issue on Andrew Sullivan's weblog, you really should. Here's a typical e-mail from one of his readers:

I organized my life around four institutions: my family, the Presbyterian Church, the Boy Scouts and the Republican Party. They summed up what seemed to me a sensible view of life and the world, embodying loyalty, unconditional love, a quiet, thoughtful exercise of faith, a commitment to ethical behavior, and a limited government that did the things it needed for the public good but otherwise left people alone to be all they could become and savor the victory of having done so.

Then I came out, and one by one those four institutions turned their backs on me.

My parents were embarrassed by me and stopped nearly all communication, though they said they loved me and in some way considered me part of the family.

Then my church got a new minister who had hardly arrived before he started preaching on the marriage issue and rooting out gay staff members. Commissioned a Stephen Minister, I was told I would never be assigned anyone to walk with in their troubles. But of course the church loves me and in some way considers me part of the family still.

Then the Boy Scouts went to court and said that even though I am an Eagle Scout, people like me are not good role models for the program and cannot be leaders. But of course they consider me a Scout still and are happy to ask me for my money.

And now the head of the party I've stuck with through thick and thin for 36 years says the prospect of my being able to marry is so threatening to society they have to ban it in the constitution. But the president says God loves me and I got an email from him today telling me about his campaign kickoff speech. So I guess in their compassionate conservative way the administration still thinks of me as sort of a Republican.

I don't. You can only feel the love of people and institutions who fend you off with a barge pole for so long. Today I changed my registration from Republican to independent.

Also check out today's column at Andrew Tobias's site (scroll down).

That may be so but that don't mean they need to be a part of an institution that does not involve them. Let them start their own thing; name it what they will. Whatever you name it and however you look at it it is not marriage! To try to wiggle their way into the ranks of the married is just ludicrous. I have a life time committment to a lot of things. That doesn't give me a right to pick an institution that supports a life time committment and become a part of it so I can enjoy their rights. If you want to enjoy the rights of a married person then go marry the opposite sex. Thats what marriage is! It's just not complicated.

Most likely a lot of you are thinking I'm debating this on a naive, simple, and unintellectual level. In some ways I am. I can't see any intellect behind a gay person feeling like they need to join our ranks. Why should we let them call it a marriage?

And to begin to say it's discrimination is just as ludicrous. To access any closed area on the web one must check that they agree to the terms of that site. Should I check the No box and say that I do not agree to abide by the rules and then go around crying discrimination that they didn't let me in? If I love to bake and I want to enter my baking into the sewing exhibits at the state fair and they do not allow me to do so should I cry discrimination and tell them how God loves all people why can't they be the same and love and accept me cake and all?

Of course not! Then why should we allow people who are not abiding by the laws and the rules for marriage in this land to become a part of us?

They don't belong in the ranks of the married just as a baker does not belong in the ranks of the tailors.

I just can't see what the furor is all about. It's black and white to me.

Tammy says: I just think that to allow gay marriages really leaves no stopping point. Why then can't two people who have just roomed together for years just decide that they need the rights of the married people. It makes no sense. Just because two people decide to engage in sinful acts of sodomy and twisted sexual practices then suddenly they need to think that they should be counted as married? That's bizarre!

Where to start?

To amplify on Aimee's comments, you seem to be saying:

• Gay Marriage is about sex only
• People being gay is equivalent to people having an interest in gardening
• If you allow a gay relationship to be called marriage, then you are obliged to grant similar married status to people who garden together

Replace 'gardening' with any so-called normal activity that two people can share.

Have I summarized your position accurately? Because my understanding of Gay Marriage is much as Aimee suggests -- it's all about loving long term relationships that have all of the trappings of any straight relationship. That is, they share aging together, they live together, they care for one another, and dedicate themselves to being monogamous and the whole ball of wax.

The only differences I've ever seen between a straight marriage and a gay marriage are:

• The straight marriage was accompanied by a host of legal benefits and accomodations
• Most sex the gay marriage had would be by definition various kinds of sodomy
• The gay marriage was 'illegal'

So it sounds to me like you are advocating special priviledges for people who are straight, above and beyond what everybody just gets automatically for being a member of society.

The sinfulness of sodomy and being gay is only really coming into the question of gay marriage because some people insist that sodomy is against their religion, and because it's against their religion, it ought to be made criminal for anybody to do it.

An illustrative quote from Marriage Equality:

In denying the appeal of this type of couple that had tried unsuccessfully to marry, a Georgia court wrote that such unions are “not only unnatural, but … always productive of deplorable results,” such as increased effeminate behavior in the population. “They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good (in accordance with) the God of nature.”

This quote has nothing to do with gay marriage. It's referring to an attempt at an interracial marriage.

If that sort of language is not just with respect to interracial marriage, why is it considered just with respect to gay marriage?

Get real. What makes a person gay. Is a person gay because that person is comitted to another individual? No. Is that person gay because they want to grow old with someone? Is that person gay because they live together? No no and no.

You don't say, " Oh look at those sweet old sisters. They've been comitted to each other for 80 years now. Neither of them has married anyone else. They have spent their lives in total dedication to each other. Herein lies the true definition of gay! ( a life long commitment)

And look at the brother and sister. they have shared aging together and they have lived together their entire lives. How sweet and how gay!

I don't think so! When we say the word gay in the English language it either means , Happy or same sex individuals having sex with each other.

You cannot refer to someone as gay if they just share a life long committment or if they live and age together. They are gay if they love and angage in sex with the same sex! That's it! thats what makes you gay! Nothing more nothing less. And that my friend is not marriage!

Tammy said:That may be so but that don't mean they need to be a part of an institution that does not involve them. Let them start their own thing; name it what they will. Whatever you name it and however you look at it it is not marriage!

...And to begin to say it's discrimination is just as ludicrous.

...If I love to bake and I want to enter my baking into the sewing exhibits at the state fair and they do not allow me to do so should I cry discrimination and tell them how God loves all people why can't they be the same and love and accept me cake and all?

I think this is the center of the tootsie-pop.

You see a gay relationship and a straight relationship as being about as similar as baking and sewing. Since they're obviously different, they obviously should go into different categories.

I (and most of the GLBT people I know) see a gay and straight relationship a lot more like two different sewing techniques. If you went to the state fair and they excluded your sewing project because of the kind of stitch you used, that wouldn't be fair.

Part of the constitution says that we as a society aren't allowed to treat people unequally unless there's a really good reason, but it doesn't say what those reasons are. If we remove the terms gay and straight, and look at just the relationship in it's most generic terms, you have two couples in front of you. They both love each other. They live together, have joint finances, and maybe even both have adopted kids. What is the good reason for allowing one couple to marry and disallowing the other?

Hair color? No. Race? No. Eye color? No. Height? No. Weight? No. Criminal status? No. Employment status? No.

Familial relation (ie, siblings)? Yes, sometimes, depending on what that relationship is. Age? Yes, sometimes, if one or both are under the age of consent.

And sex. If one couple is mixed sex, and the other couple has two members with the same sex, then the mixed sex couple is allowed to marry.

All of these are a form of discrimination. Age discrimination, discrimination against couples who belong to families, and discrimination against those couples who both have the same sex.

What this debate is all about is whether giving mixed-sex couples special privileges in comparison to those available to same-sex couples is a legal and acceptable basis for discrimination.

Age discrimination in marriage is legalized because there is a fundamental understanding that people can't make certain kinds of decisions until they've matured, and we've made an arbitrary ruling as to generally how much time that takes.

Family discrimination in marriage is legalized because of health concerns centered around birth defects.

Sex discrimination in marriage is apparently justified because some religions see the kind of intercourse a same-sex couple can have as being a sin.

There are other arguments against same-sex marriage, but none which have really worked, being either logically inconsistent or having been overturned as unconstitutional. The sin-based reasoning seems to be the reason that's priming the pump. Kind of like how the Temperance League pushed through Prohibition because drinking was Sinful and lead to other Sins.

I've never heard a convincing argument as to why the Sin of Gay is worse than the Sin of Drink or the Sin of Adultery or the Sin of Murder, and yet nobody seems anxious to keep drunkards, cheaters and divorcees, or murderers from marrying by amending the constitution. Heck, half the economy of Las Vegas is about encouraging drunk people to get married.

Tammy, I know sex is an important part of your marriage, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't say it's what defines your relationship with your husband.

Tammy saidWhen we say the word gay in the English language it either means , Happy or same sex individuals having sex with each other... You cannot refer to someone as gay if they just share a life long committment or if they live and age together. They are gay if they love and angage in sex with the same sex!

Actually, that's not what most people I know mean by 'gay'. Being 'gay' doesn't mean 'having intercourse with people of the same sex as you'. That's frequently a side-effect of being gay, but that's not the definition of gay as I understand it.

Being gay is being romantically and sexually ATTRACTED to people who are the same sex as you are. Gay sex is something that usually does happens when two gay people are attracted to each other and act on that attraction, but the sex is no more a necessary condition of two people being gay or in a loving relationship with one another than it is for any married couple.

You can be straight independently of having sex. You can also be gay independently of having sex.

Same thing. Straight and celibate or gay and celibate is still straight or gay. Attraction is the key, not action.

Just for grins, Mirriam-Webster says:

gay: homosexual.

homosexual: 1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex

Of course, Webster is not God, but it's still useful to check definitions.

Tammy, it sounds like you are maybe feeling a little ganged up on. I'm sorry, as I really didn't want to draw you out just to get yelled down by everybody. Believe it or not, I like this kind of discussion. I think it's healthy and mind expanding to talk with people whom I disagree with and to examine why we each have the opinions we do.

Anyway, I'm glad you've posted how you feel about this stuff, and answered my questions. I hope you will continue to do so not because I agree with you, but because you have just as much right to post your opinions and feelings here as I (or any of us) do. I pretty much figure that no matter what I post, you're probably going to disagree with it, but I post anyway because it's what I think and the reasons why.

I've never heard a convincing argument as to why the Sin of Gay is worse than the Sin of Drink or the Sin of Adultery or the Sin of Murder, and yet nobody seems anxious to keep drunkards, cheaters and divorcees, or murderers from marrying by amending the constitution

The sin of being gay may not be any worse than the sin of drink or murder. But if the alcholic decided he needed a legal paper stating his everlasting love and allegiance to the bottle and the murdererer demanded a paper stating his life long commitment to killing people and thought that paper should earn them a tax deduction and allow them to be called married to said bottle or said dead body then we would have a problem.

Joel said:
Tammy, I know sex is an important part of your marriage, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't say it's what defines your relationship with your husband.

I don't think marriage is marriage unless it has been defined by a sexual relationship. Maybe that is the yawning chasm in all this. If two people hold a legal paper but never consumated their union then Biblically speaking they are not married!

Curious: Dana are you from around here and are you going to be at JD's noodle fest? And if you are, are you going to be a boy or a girl?

Tammy,

I went to college out there and I visit on occasion (my parents currently live in the Seatle metro area), but I currently live in Minnesota. If I was out there, I would go to the noodle fest and I would be a girl (I'm a girl pretty much all the time outside of work, and the current plan is to be a girl at work, too, starting in May or June), but barring a miracle, I won't be able to make it.

Hmmmm! Too bad. I was wondering what it would actually be like if we met face to face. Would we be like to opposing magnets or would we somehow find common ground? Guess I'll never know.

That would almost be worth taking up a collection to fund Dana's trip just to see the fur fly!

Aha! And you, Johnny Doe, will you be there and if so will we know you are there?

Alas my friends, if I were able to make the journey to be there I would not be able to tell you so. This would be due to the presence of She Who Must Be Obeyed, no doubt hanging on every pearl of wisdom to drop from my lips. Either that or she just keeps me on a really short leash and knows better than to let me out of her sight. ;)

Noodle Fest - be there or be square!

Well now we could devise a little secret clue before hand. Like I will be the one wearing such and such or I will stare you down at some point and then you will know or something to that effect. Your wife hangng on every word is a big excuse. There are a million ways around that! I personally think you should use this chance for the big unshrouding, so to speak!

I for one like Johnny anonymous...it takes all the guess work out of it:

Me: Who is Johnny, anyway?
JD: No one actually knows.
Me: Ok, good, at least I'm not the only one.

See, much easier if he is just Johnny.

"And he will wear a flower in his lapel, and you will be carrying a copy of Anna Karenina with a rose in it."

Ahh, my favorite movie...

It's stupid to even begin to think it's a marriage and it makes me very angry that anyone even entertains the thought!

See, that's where you're wrong. I've known some very committed gay couples over the years. Their relationships are not all about deviant sex. In some cases, they're not about sex at all! I know more gay and lesbian couples who have lasting relationships, people who have been together 10, 20 years, more.

If your *church* does not want to recognize gay couples as being married, that's one thing. But to amend the US Constitution? The only interest the *state* should have in the matter of marriage is how and whether the license is bought and paid for, and how and when the taxes are paid.

First, I just want to say "Amen, Dana!"

Second, why is it that "marriage has always been defined as the union of man and wife" as Tammy suggests? Same-sex marriage aside, why not man and woman? Or woman and husband? Or husband and wife?

Third, with the divorce rate somewhere around 50%, clearly heterosexuals are not all that successful when it comes to marriage. Perhaps allowing same-sex marriages would lower the divorce rate!!!

...and let us look at the heterosexuals that are not married in a church. There are many couples that get married by a Judge or a Ship Captain, or some other individual that can legally perform a marriage that is not religious. Are they any less married because it was not performed by a Man of God or the union was not recognized by the Church? No one seems to have a problem with that.

If two people want to make a commitment to each other, they should be allowed to do so, and reap in the same benefits as any other legally married couple. It's not about religion, it's about recognizing that these couples deserve the same rights and privileges that heterosexual couples have (like allowing your spouse to be on your medical plan, getting a higher tax deduction, or in a worse case scenario, protecting the other person's rights if someone should die).

Uh Denise that comparison of heterosexuals married outside a church buidling really doesn't apply. Where you're married or who married you has never been an issue in the fundamental Bible believing churches.

You are correct, Tammy. My argument does not apply to your argument, but who's to say that I was attacking fundamental Bible-believing churches? Being agnostic, I am not even going to jump into my opinons of churches and religions. I have not the time nor the energy to debate with you the fact that churches are a man-made institution designed to make money - oh, yes, and to worship God with a very close-minded attitude.

It's interesting how we choose our battles. We allow murderers and rapists to be set loose for technicalities within the legal system. But that's just a problem with the system...there's nothing we can do about that I guess. ??? Why isn't there an uproar about this? Why isn't there a president who will address this? Won't our society be punished by God for these crimes? It seems to me that people turn a blind eye to these types of offenses, but by God they won't allow any homosexuals to get married.

My bible issues stem from the fact that it's been translated so many times, how do we know if it's accurate? And why does a story like "Noah's Ark" appear a thousand years earlier in the form of "The Epic of Gilgamesh?" I think the bible is a great tool...it's full of myths, stories, and parables to teach the good way to live. But when it's followed word for word, the point is missed. My Comparative Religions teacher once told of a story about a church in a little town in Italy. There was a noisy dog outside that always disrupted Sunday's church service. So at the beginning of every service, someone would tie the dog up in the shed so they couldn't hear it bark. They did this for years until the dog died. By now there is a new pastor and some new congregation members. When the dog dies, they go out and get a new one so that they can lock it up in the shed before the beginning of Sunday service. This is what they've always done, so they continue to do it. The context has been lost. Whether it's true or not, is not the point. The point is that, well, the point is that you need to know the point or, franky, it's, well, pointless! I'm getting frustrated.
I do believe in God. But I don't believe in Organized religion. I do not see how a person who is born as a Buddhist or Hindu and knows know other way, can be banished to hell. I believe that our life choices are what speak of the type of life we've led, not the way in which we choose to worship God. I also think that accepting Jesus Christ as your savior doesn't cut it. If I'm on death row for multiple murders and suddenly I accept a savior? Not good enough. I think the true test is what have you done for others? How did you try to help the world and its people become better?

I have gotten off topic. The point (of which I speak fondly but fail to reach) is that there is a danger in not doing your own thinking, but instead choosing to follow a previously set agenda. God gave us free will. We must make the choices. He didn't give us the bible...man created the bible.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, take -em or leave -em!

Lynn says: I also think that accepting Jesus Christ as your savior doesn't cut it.
Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 10:13

I think the true test is what have you done for others? How did you try to help the world and its people become better?
For by grace are ye saved through faith;and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.Ephesians 2:8,9

He didn't give us the bible...man created the bible. All scripture is given by inspiration of God...II Timothy 3:16

You say you believe in God? It's impossible to believe in God without believing in Jesus and to believe in Jesus means you believe Him when He says, I am the Way the Truth and the Life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me!

Anyway, those are my thoughts, take -em or leave -em! Since they are totally unscriptural I will kindly leave them.

Tammy-
The fact that my thoughts are unscriptural are entirely my point. I guess I came to a point after all...

is...is my point. argghh.

Nobody has said you didn't come to your point.

Quick comments. I promise!

Tammy: It's impossible to believe in God without believing in Jesus...

I think there are an awful lot of muslim, jewish, hindus, and buddhists out there who would have an issue with this statement. Of course, you could say that they are believing in different gods, and you probably believe they are false gods. But that doesn't make their beliefs any less real than yours.

Tammy:

• Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 10:13
• All scripture is given by inspiration of God...II Timothy 3:16
• For by grace are ye saved through faith;and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.Ephesians 2:8,9

To which I would add:

Luke 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

Luke 6:37-42 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch? The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

Matthew 5:10-11 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

Matthew 5:38-39 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matthew 6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Matthew 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Luke 6:22-23 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.

Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.

I think this is also relevant...

Tammy said: The sin of being gay may not be any worse than the sin of drink or murder. But if the alcholic decided he needed a legal paper stating his everlasting love and allegiance to the bottle and the murdererer demanded a paper stating his life long commitment to killing people and thought that paper should earn them a tax deduction and allow them to be called married to said bottle or said dead body then we would have a problem.

Again, I think we're running into a definition issue here, Tammy.

• Straight Marriage Two people want to be married because they love each other.
• Gay marriage Two people want to be married because they love each other

On the other hand:

• Murderer One person wants to be allowed kill one or more people
• Drunk One person wants to engage in substance abuse to the point where it may affect both the abuser's and other people's health and welfare

The first two things seem pretty similar. The second two things don't seem particularly similar to each other, nor similar to the first two.

And Gay Marriage doesn't necessarily mean that the gay couples have to be given a tax break. It just means that if the straight couple gets one, then the gay couple should, too. That's it. What one kind of couple is allowed to do, the other couple should be allowed to do. Nothing more complicated or insidious than that.

Kind of like how women are allowed to do what men are (ie, vote), and black people can do what white people can do (ie, vote, get equal pay, sit anywhere on the bus, eat in the same restaurants, etc, etc). Equality just means treating everybody the same.

Isn't that fair? Or do straight people deserve more out of life because they're better people?

And one more relevant link before I shuffle off to bed...

In my original post, I expressed concern that I hadn't adequately reached my point.

Dave said: The problem with this approach (forcing same sex marriage through court fights) is that it will not work. Certainly there may be victories like in MA, however, the legal battles are really just proxy fights for what the true issue is: acceptance. For those people who are against same sex marriages they're going to be against them no matter what the MA Supreme Court says. Those people will never accept same sex marriages no matter whether the law "technically" allows it or not.

I was talking about this with a friend of mine and she said, 'What about the civil rights laws that were passed? Didn't that improve the issue?' To that I answered, no. The civil rights laws merely recognized that there was going to be a change regardless and offered a less destructive avenue for that change.

If I understand your point here, Dave, you're saying that the GLBTQ civil rights issue is different from the black civil rights issues because the black civil rights movement and those that agreed with them either encompassed a majority or a sizeable enough minority that the legal cases provided a comparatively safer mechanism for change than whole-scale rioting and the general breakdown of the state?

If that is your point, I suppose I have to agree with you -- the social context and situation around GLBTQ civil rights and ethnic civil rights are quite different, particularly when you take into account figures like percentages of population and whatnot.

However, I think if you look at the two struggles purely from a Justice and Fairness point of view, I feel there is a pretty clear similarity. While the actions in San Francisco (not to mention New York and New Mexico) may bring the issue to an uncomfortable head that many people aren't ready to face, I think that in the long run history will see this as the GLBTQ equivalent of Rosa Parks. Someone took a stand on principal and forced an issue, and it resulted in a spirited and necessary public debate. Everybody is in the process of putting their cards on the table. I do not, alas, expect a victory with this particular group of players with the hands we've been dealt.

We may not win, but we're still in the game. And we're not in the hole yet.

Oops. That was Johnny Doe, there, not Dave. D'oh!

Ouch!! Please do not confuse me with someone who apparently feels their wife is an anathema and regrets his marriage. I happen to be quite attached to Karen, in apparent contrast to Mr. Doe and his wife.

Speaking of Mr. Doe, we've all assumed that Mr. Doe is a he, but we don't really know that. It would be a hoot if Mr. Doe was actually Kris or Amy Jo offering their interpretation of the male perspective. Well, Mr. Doe? If Mr. thou be...

"Mr." enough that I'm not letting She Who Must Be Obeyed do a Mexican hat dance in the tub while I'm sitting in it, that's for sure.

I just want to make it clear that I wasn't trying to imply that Dave was Johnny's Secret Identity or anything. I just didn't check the attribution of Johnny's post.

(Mexican hat dance!!?! Now there's an image...)

Well said, Johnny. Well said.

Maybe if you let her do a Mexican hat dance you would rediscover the joy of marriage! Good marriages are filled with "hat dances"!

Hmmm... Johnny Doe drives an Acura... Dave drives an Acura...

But, the actual writing reminds me more of Joel... but I don't know what kind of car he drives...

Who are you Johnny Doe?!?!?

[all together now]
Where did you come from, where did you go; where did you come from, cotton-eyed Doe?
[/all together now]

At 61 comments jd now has to move this under greatest hits on his side bar. It's amazing how we can rack up the comments around here!