Gay marriage

I support equal rights for gays. I wonder if the following suggestion could help some feel more comfortable with the idea:

Stop using the word marriage outside of the church. The government can describe BOTH hetero and homo sexual partnerships as something like "civil unions".

This way, the church can define requirements for being labeled "married". These requirements would be owned, maintained and couples would be certified by the church of their choice. There should be no relation between the label marriage and the government.

If anyone wants a certified "marriage", they can do it through the church. The government would have nothing to do with it. If they wanted to be thought of as life partners by the government, they would have to get certified as a civil union with the government outside of church.

What do you think?

I think that would be a good way to satisfy both sides but this issue is really deeper than it appears on the surface. Should the government have the right to dictate the definition of marriage in the first place? The reason some people don't want to allow gay marriage is because they don't believe in it because of religious reasons which have no place in politics. You can believe whatever you want. If you think it's wrong, don't engage in homosexual behavior. What no one has the right to do, is use their religious beliefs to jusify laws which in turn weakens personal freedom. The Pilgrims came here to get away from an oppressive government that wouldn't let them worship the way they wanted; that's why we established a seperation of church and state, to ensure that everyone would get the right to life and the pursuit of happiness.

The homosexual community thinks it has the right to define itself as normal. Fine. They have the right to be wrong. They may not like having to hear it, but the vast majority of Americans do not affirm the homosexual lifestyle. And at present the vast majority of Americans are not in favor of homosexual marriage. What of civil unions? Irrelevant. Nothing less than a weak attempt to obtain by law what they can not obtain by general acceptance. That such a position has been the practice of many european nations simply illustrates its failure. Old europe is no guide to any sort of success.
As far as rights, the homosexual men and women are fully equal before the law and are in no way limited. But marriage is a relationship of a man and a woman, not a man with a man or a woman with a woman. Regardless of religious beliefs, homosexuality is a dead end. It produces nothing. It contributes nothing to the national good. It is at best like a benign tumor. At worst it is a cancer.
Compromise is for those who can not obtain what they want by winning. If the homosexual community is to make any progress, it will be by compromise as they are not able to command sufficent support among voters. They will continue to try back door efforts such as the courts. On the local, state and national level voters will need to continue to cast their ballots in such a way as to support those candidates who will not surrender to militant homosexuals by compromise and accomidation to their demands.
As I stated earlier, I fully support the right of advocates for the homosexual lifestyle to have an opinion. I fully support their right to be wrong. I will not at all accept or tolerate their lifestyle. Sincerely. Brad.

Hellocop - this is just a testing, don't worry about it

I agree partly with Brad of his opinion that people should be allowed to have their wrong views. Gays should have equal access to society's benefits i.e. equal taxation, liberties and happiness. Here is Canada 51% of Canadians have advanced understanding that humanity is just that HUMANITY. In Brad's world str8 couples who can not bare fruit are a dead end and should not be allowed to be married.
Personally I would have accepted "union" rather than a str8 version of Marriage. My partner and I have not choose to get "married" now, but we are glad we have a choice to do so. I am afraid Brad might not be tolerant of anything different other than what he see in the mirror, which is a shame because life is way too short to care what I do in my bedroom and nor do I care what he does in his bedroom alone or with other living things. Frankly it concerns me that it bothers him so much... best wishes to all who live to learn from their misguided past. p.s normality only means majority. San Fran im sure is a majority.

I want to be just like you! Why can't I live with the equal rights under God and state? What makes your life so different than mine. I sleep, eat, bleed, work, shop, some of us can give birth, some of us go to war becuz of lies etc. We are all the same and nature knows that it is doing.
We are your Doctors, lawyers, brothers, sisters, judges, store clerks, millionairs, we are the poor, we are politicians, we are church leaders, we are mothers and fathers, we are who we are and there nothing you can do about it. I have been spat at, beaten up, chased. threatened, scared both emotionally and mentally, I have been ridiculed, disowned, and my God will protect me from people like Brad.

divert your energy to stop hate and war bring back our boys and girls from Oil-Land......

Shouldn't all marrage be gay? If it isn't, then get some help.

As far as same-sex marrage goes, everyone who is married knows it is the same sex.

NOT!

"As far as rights, the homosexual men and women are fully equal before the law and are in no way limited."

This is a lie of the devil. In the U.S. there are 1,176 benefits bestowed on legally married couples that do NOT accrue to gay citizens. There are 34 States in which a person can be LEGALLY fired JUST for being gay. They cannot serve in their country' military. They cannot adopt children. They cannot pass on inheritances. They cannot visit their beloved in the hospital. They can be kicked out of housing.

No wonder your side is losing ground. You base your "arguments" on lies. Bearing false witness is a sin.

"But marriage is a relationship of a man and a woman, not a man with a man or a woman with a woman."

Not in Massachusetts. Not in Canada. Not in Spain. Not in the Netherlands. Not in Belgium. And coming later this year, not in South Africa (!), and not in Israel. I urge you to leave the 19th century and enter the 21st. It really is nice here.

"Regardless of religious beliefs, homosexuality is a dead end. It produces nothing. It contributes nothing to the national good. It is at best like a benign tumor. At worst it is a cancer."

Ah yes, that "loving" "Christian" "charity" - NOT! I will pray for the healing of your homophobia. IT is the TRUE cancer. It denies the "promise" of the Constitution of being treated equally before the law. It does say that "ALL men [and presumably women too, though lately I have my doubts] are created EQUAL", not all heterosexuals. Whetever happened to "liberty and JUSTICE for ALL", not just for str8 people. Whatever happened to the right to life liberty and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS? It ain't just forr bigots anymore, ya know.

Meanwhile, seek help. You clearly need it.

Brad also has the "right to be wrong" - and he IS!

From a March 15, 2007 Angus Reid poll:

"Many adults in the United States believe same-sex partners should be legally recognized, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 32 per cent of respondents think gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions, while 28 per cent support same-sex marriage."

That's a total of 60% in favour of some kind of legal recognition of gay unions, Brad. so much for your contention that "the vast majority of Americans do not affirm the homosexual lifestyle" (first hint: it AIN't a "lifestyle"; gay people have lives - until the homophobes snuff them out, that is).

More from the poll:

"Conversely, 35 per cent of respondents think there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship, down six points since February 2005."

"Civil union and domestic partnership laws in Vermont, Connecticut, California and New Jersey grant same-sex couples all state-level rights and obligations of marriage—in areas such as inheritance, income tax, insurance and hospital visitation. Other forms of domestic partnership exist in the District of Columbia, Hawaii and Maine. There are more than 1,000 federal-level rights of marriage that cannot be granted by states."

Gues that proves you were lieing, eh Brad? So much for your false witness that "As far as rights, the homosexual men and women are fully equal before the law and are in no way limited."

No wonder you're gonna lose.

The "religious" "right" will never concede to this. They wilfully ignore the fact that the "Christian" Church does not speak with one accord in the matter. Many gay people ARE getting married in their Churches. And our gay jewish brethren (and sistern???) are getting married in their synagogues. Heck, even the Quakers have been marrying same-sex couples for more than a decade, and the Unitarians have been since the mid 1970s.

If they make this concession, they will lose. In fact, they have already lost.

Not to forget to mention, this "compromise" ignores the fact that not all people are religious, not all people would be willing to marry in a place of worship. Marriage is a CIVIL right, not merely a religious rite.

Why should the religious tenets of some people get to trump the religious beliefs (or lack thereeof) of other people?

WHAT???

What about those oh-so-sacrosanct Las Vegas marriages in the wedding factories done by Elvis impersonators? Those (usually) drunken fools are still legally married ALREADY even though they never went near a Church.

The "president" says he wants to "protect the sanctity of marriage". That Britney Spears 55 hour marriage was 'sanctified'??? Darva Conger and Rick Rockwell reduced marriage to a TV game show prize on "Who Wants to Marry, um, That Guy Over There?" and WHERE was the outcry from the self-described "Christian" "right"?

And since when are rights doled out based on the 'sanctifiability' of one's relationships? I keep hearing "It's a SIN!" Well, so's adultery (looking at most Congressmen) - and THEY are still allowed to marry. (Or should I type "marry"?) Murderers, thieves, liars, adulterers, BEARERS OF FALSE WITNESS - ALL "sinners" and ALL still allowed to marry - provided they're str8. It sickens me, the hypocrisy from the self-righteous.

The uncharitable remark from Brad about gays not producing "anything" wouldn't be so hollow if he were campaigning to prevent sterile heterosexuals from marrying. But I don't EVER see it from the likes of him.

Puke-making hypocrisy of the right - BLEAGGGH!

It saddens me that there are so many people in the United States that still thrive and blindly believe that people, regardless of their race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation are not equal. History has shown that these beliefs are wrong. It took many years, many lives, and millions of tax dollars tied up in the court systems for us to finally admit that we were wrong and white males and black males are equal and should be treated equally. Then, we (society, courts, and legislatures) decide that woman are not equal to men. So we start the same old fight all over again spending millions of tax dollars and hearings tied up in courts to finally admit that we were wrong and men and woman are in fact equal. Here we are again, putting ourselves higher than another group of people and saying that homosexuals are not equal citizens to the heterosexuals. This time we have gone one step further by trying to change the Constitution. For the first time in history we have so called intelligent people who run our courts, lead our country and these same people are trying to Amend the constitution to take rights away from the people. The preamble to the constitution says, "We the People" which meant "We the White Males" until black men were granted their rights. Then, "We the People" meant "We the White and Black Men". We moved forward and "We the People" became to mean "We the White Men, Black Men and all Women". Am I the only person to see a pattern here? "We the People" is just that, all of the people not just the ones that have been placed in the group of "Haves" while leaving out the group of "Have Nots". We are not happy unless we have a group of people that we can say, we are better than you, we have more rights than you, and you are not equal to us. What is even worse is that we have people in our court system and legislature that should know better. Here is a simple guideline that our Judges and elected officials can follow. If a bill or an amendment that you are trying to pass takes rights away or denies rights to any person in this country, it is unconstitutional. The founding fathers created the constitution to protect rights not deny them. If educated Court Judges and elected politicians really believe that legally recognizing gay marriages takes away from heterosexual marriages than they are not qualified to be in their positions and should be removed immediately. The only one effected by gay marriages are the gay and lesbian people getting married. They tried this same argument when inter-racial marriages were frowned upon. This is stupid and a complete waste of our tax dollars and time that should be spent on real issues. My only true opinion about marriages between same sex couples is that if you do not believe in same sex marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex...period. Stop using tax dollars to deny rights. Something to think about, if you deny rights to gay people than you forfeit your right to collect taxes from them. What will be the next ban, gay people don't have the right to vote because they are gay? Or better yet, maybe you can force all gay people to wear a symbol on their clothing like Hitler forced upon the Jews. That way, you would know where all the gay people are and can discretely illiminate them in large numbers. These examples are as rediculous as the ban on gay marriages. Don't use the majority of Americans feel statement because that was also true when Lincoln freed the slaves. Sometimes as elected officials and Court Judges you need to simply do what is right and not what the majority thinks. Predjudice societies don't see their prejudices and it is up to the courts and the legislatures to open their eyes.