Gay Marriages

[Azyael]

There has been alot of talk about Gay Marriages in the past week with the decision by the high court of Massachusetts. Here's an excerpt from Bill O'Reilly:

But first, the high court in Massachusetts says yes to gay marriage. First in the nation. That is the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo.

By a four to three vote, the Commonwealth's highest judges ruled the state's ban on same sex marriages as unconstitutional. Apparently the wording of the ban does not include a marriage description that mentions men and women.

So four judges used that to OK gay marriage. And the court has ordered the legislature to fill out a way to allow gays to wed. Ironically, one of the judges is a lesbian. She voted against gay marriage, saying the court didn't have the right to make such a law.

Now here's what's going to happen. The legislature will draft an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. If that passes, the court's decision will be overturned.

Personally I couldn't care less about gay marriage. If Tommy and Vinny or Joanie and Samantha want to get married, I don't see it as a threat to me or anybody else. But according to a poll by the Pew Research Center (search), only 32 percent of Americans favor gay marriage. And the will of the people must be taken into account here.

We simply can't allow this country to be run by ideological judges. Marriage is not a right, neither is driving a car. Both are privileges granted by the state. Just 100 years ago, most Americans even didn't bother getting married. They shacked up, but marriage has been defined as a union between a man and woman ever since the Catholic Church (search) made it a sacrament in the year 1215.

Now the secularists want to redefine marriage against the will of the majority of Americans. They are defining it as a rights issue. But again, it's not a rights issue. Anyone can form a partnership that will protect assets and allow access to personal endeavors. The state issues a marriage license. And the state is entitled to set the rules.

If the good people of Massachusetts want a secular approach to marriage, let them vote on it. But judges have no right to find loopholes in the law and impose their views on everybody else. That's happening all over America. And if it continues, the core values of this country will be changed dramatically. Another secular victory today, this Massachusetts marriage deal.

Comments? Opinions?

I'm not gay, however I am in full support of Gay Marriages. My thought on it: To each their own. If a gay couple want to get married then thats hardly the buisness of me or anybody else.

I've read a number of protests saying that changing the definition of marrage from man and woman will be the nail in the coffin for our soceity. And/or our values. However, it never went any deeper then that statement.

Would anyone who holds this view explain/argue it abit further?

[Solmyr]

Personally, I couldn't care either way. However, it's a touchy topic for Christians, and I think that a Christian priest should be able to refuse to marry gays without being called all sorts of names. Civil marriage is fine, but marriage in a church using Christian rites is a privilege, not a right.

[Kianier]

Marriage is a gift given by God between a man and a woman... Marriage is God's design, not mans... so therefore marriage should only be between man and woman. This is a very controversial issue though.

Kian

[Minraed]

Having come from an abusive family (let's just use that broad term and leave it at that) I can say that there is nothing sacred or innately right about a man/woman coupling.

Being in a man/woman relationship doesn't mean shit in the grand scheme of human rights and rightness. What matters is that the two people come together for the right reasons, love, humanity, whatever.. And that their offspring, be it genetically their own, adopted or arising from some other method, are raised well, provided for, and loved.

Whether god created marriage or not ? Marriage is a human creation, it takes on different forms in every culture. It is a social device. Love is an emotion, and if god created us,he created our emotions. They are not something we can just choose. When we love, it is largely out of our control. If a woman finds she loves a woman, or a man a man, and this is driven by something deeper than the immediate prospect of getting laid, it is a greater emotion, and if it happens that we as beings and all about us was created by god, isn't this true and real love not also then created by "god".

I'd rather have been raised in a caring, loving, safe home by two men or two woman.

[Kianier]

That's where we happen to disagree... I'm not saying homosexuals are "bad" people or anything, I have quite a few friends that are homosexual, all I'm saying is God created marriage for man and woman, so therefore it should stay man and woman. If two men want to get together that's fine, just don't call it marriage because a "true marriage" *is* between a man and a woman.

Kian

[Minraed]

oh , on a side note

I was not married in a house of god, or in god's name so my marriage then is not in fact a gift of god. My husband was not baptized as a child either. If it is a gift of god, then would this not mean that my marriage and the love and all we share is thus invalid?

In my view, my marriage was a gift from my husband.

(why is it that these emotional arguments tend to take you on tangents? ok, that's my rant)

[Enosekel]

Marriage is an institution invented by men and sanctioned by most organized religions, each of which applies their own rules and taboos to marriage. Since it is something mankind controls, we (including those of us who happen to be gay) should be able to define it how we like. If someone wants to define marriage as the union of two men or two women...fine. *shrugs* I really don't see what the big deal is.

I've seen a good many straight marriages which were legally sanctioned by society and I believe they should have never gone through for other reasons, for example if it is an abusive relationship. No one puts up such a fuss about those people being allowed the privilege to get married, though they obviously don't appreciate the sanctity of marriage in any sense, religious, legal, or otherwise.

As I understand it the issue is about marriage between homosexual couples being *legal*. Since we supposedly have separation of church and state, I do not think any religious arguments should be taken into account.

If certain religions, or sects of religions, want to declare that their religion won't recognize gay marriages, who cares? All that means is that potential members of that religion who support gay marriages will probably find a better way to spend their spiritual time and money.

[Pyrosama]

I don't understand at all. People get married for a different number of reasons - love, arranged marriages, business coupling with a mixture of young with old, black with white, christian with pagan. So, I really don't understand the problem when it comes to the sex of a person. I'm not gay, but I think gay people should have the same opportunities as anyone else.

If you love someone and want to join hands in marriage to have the law recognize you as a legal spouse, then I think you should have that right like anyone else. The law grants specific rights to legal spouses and for that reason by disallowing someone a marriage license because they are the same sex, well...to me it's just discriminatory and it violates the equal protection clause to the 14th Amendment which says that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'

The part I don't understand is why they don't change the stupid wording and make it "join two people" and not "man and woman". So what if Christians or any other religions don't like it. There's a good reason for the need for separation of Church and State...like what was already stated above. Sorry, this took so long to write that I noticed another post after posting.

[Kharum]

However, it's a touchy topic for Christians, and I think that a Christian priest should be able to refuse to marry gays without being called all sorts of names.

Unfortunately, this argument is often used as a red herring by conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage and who try to argue that legalizing it would force churches into performing same-sex marriage ceremonies (not that I think you are making this argument, of course). In the United States, at least, same-sex marriage would have absolutely no impact on the churches whatsoever, as the separation of church and state protects the churches from having to conduct marriages for anyone that they feel should not receive their blessings.

Now here's what's going to happen. The legislature will draft an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. If that passes, the court's decision will be overturned.

O'Reilly probably shouldn't start celebrating yet. As of last year, support in the Mass legislature for such an amendment was soft, and even if it did receive enough support, it wouldn't be eligible to go up for approval until 2006 (Massachusetts takes changes to its constitution pretty seriously). But some form of same-sex marriage or civil union will have to be made available within the next 180 days.

The state issues a marriage license. And the state is entitled to set the rules.

The state (in this case, Massachusetts) is also bound by its own constitution to provide equal protection of its laws (including those laws concerning property ownership within a marriage) to all individuals regardless of, among other things, their sex. Despite O'Reilly's claims to the contrary, in Massachusetts there is currently no way for couples to gain all the rights and benefits granted to married couples unless they are in a partnership that is sealed by a marriage license. In Massachusetts, at least, this is an issue of rights, not merely privileges.

...but marriage has been defined as a union between a man and woman ever since the Catholic Church made it a sacrament in the year 1215.

Yeah. God forbid we should ever try to break with tradition. Next thing you know people will be wanting to abolish slavery and to make it illegal for husbands to beat their wives.

[aelyn]

Originally posted by Enosekel
If certain religions, or sects of religions, want to declare that their religion won't recognize gay marriages, who cares?

Exactly.

There are two levels of marriage basically. There's the legal part and the religious part. A great number of marriages between a man and a woman don't qualify as "official" marriages within the religious part, so why should between same genders be any different. Legally, why restrain it? A gay marraige should be allowed in the eyes of the law, in the eyes of whatever religions have no constraints against it, etc. Who cares? Laws are made by man.

Now, if a gay marriage within, say, the Catholic church, was desired - that's a different thing, as that touches on people's beliefs in what Kianier said. A marriage within the church according to their catechism would be considered wrong... and so are plenty other things. Just like a divorcee from a non annulled marriage cannot get married within the Catholic church - i see it as no different. Those are the laws of the church as handed down by the catechism, and to their beliefs, God. Let each religion keep their beliefs - if a religion believes Bob and julie can't get married within the church because Julie has blue eyes and Bob has brown, then Julie and Bob can still get married legally (and quite likely within another religion)