Allow Gay Marriage

TX is Getting There!

Hey TX, I think we're making some progress with you. The reason the CA gay community is so upset with Prop 8 is that we don't think this issue should have ever been on any ballot. This really was a chance for the majority to vote on the rights of a minority. Would we ever have a vote to remove the right to free speech only for African Americans, to remove the right to vote only from people over 65? Of course not! The CA Supreme court already ruled that marriage is a right and that gays and lesbians were entitled to that right under the equal protection clause of the CA constitution. So, it was horribly wrong for Prop 8 to ever be put to a vote. Can you even imagine a public vote on the merits of YOUR marriage?

I think we're going to have to live with the distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage. The state confers one and a church confers the other. You can get either or both, assuming you have a church that's willing to do the religious ceremony. Separate but equal is never truly equal and I don't see many straight people being willing to give up their marriage licenses or even their right to one.

Many are missing the key subtleties

I think many are missing some key points in this debate.

First, gay people aren't tryin gto undermine marriage. They're honoring it. IF gay people argued that since they weren't allowed to marry, no one should be allowed, they'd be undermining it. But that's not what's happening here. They're saying that marriage as a social institution is so important, so valuable, and so good, they want in. They're not disrespecting marriage. They're honoring it. It's a tribute to marriage.

Second, if the Church doesn't want to sanction and perform gay marriages they won't have to. Gays can get married by a judge, or in a civil ceremony. This doesn't diminish a church wedding. And it gives homosexuals the respect and legitimacy they deserve.

Third as far as I can tell there is no compelling state interest in prohibiting gay marriage. Where is the actual state harm? How does this act undermine the state? Where is the actual harm? There isn't any. Ok, you might not like it. Or you're personally grossed out by it. So you want to make a law that bans it. But I don't like joggers and vegans freak me out. But I don't think we should have a law against them simply because I don't like it. Objectively they don't harm or hurt me. Or society. So get over it.

Question for Rachel

Rachel,

How do you define bigot?

Am I a bigot because I am straight? Am I a bigot because I go to church? Am I a bigot because I exercise my right to vote? Or am I a bigot only because my opinion is different than yours? If the latter is the case then who is intolerant?

After reading some of the above personal experiences I will concede that civil unions are not a good solution. Is there another way? Could we fix civil unions so they are a solution? I am opposed to redefining marriage, is there an alternative that could be agreed upon by a majority?

Stop already

It is all wrong, premarital sex, same sex, any abortions, and liars and cheaters etc...the desire to do wrong..we are ALL flawed. There is only one person's sacrifice who makes us pure

in the presence of God.

God Help us ALL!!!

Where is the balance media?

I find it very revealing the incessant coverage the media has heaped on the Anti-Prop 8 gay protests. How about the coverage about the reasons most people voted FOR the proposition? 2000 years of human history merits some attention. Family and morality deserve attention. Not jumping on a PC bandwagon deserves attention. For those in the media, likely on the left, here is a starling fact for you. Are you listening? Being loud is not the same as being RIGHT.

Marriage is a man and a woman, always has been. There are many good reasons for that, most of which are quite obvious.

Another question those in the media should ask, before another pro gay rally is painted as a 'right and noble human struggle' is: How would you cover similar rallies by abortion opponents, gun rights advocates, or persons who opposed Obama (half the country)? I think it would be painted a 'fringe' or 'misguided'. An yet so much sympathy for the losing side of a proposition? Most Americans do not support the gay agenda for America, sorry. 3-4 percent of a population which is defined by sexual habits do not have a right to change civilization for the worse for the other 96 percent. Get over it.

Being loud is frequently a substitute for being RIGHT.

Perhaps the media (USN&WR are you listening?)should investigate the fascist methods the gay community is using to try to suppress dissent? Or is it more important to be politically correct? Thank goodness many citizens actually have backbone to do the right thing. Thank goodness the media do not control the country. Is there any surprise how media outlets have hit bottom on the trust scale??

Another word of advice for the media on this issue and others: No one cares about your opinion, report facts and we will make up our on minds! Otherwise, plan on us continuing to not buy your product.

In Exile Because of the Defense of Marriage Act

Two years ago, my 100% monogamous partner or 6 years flew to Madrid Spain to meet with the U.S. Consulate. Tomas was armed with a two inch thick binder requesting that I be authorized to sponsor him for a green card. The meeting took about two minutes: the Consul glanced through the paperwork and said "Your application is denied. U.S. Immigration does not recognize domestic partnerships. Next in line, please." The "Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) specifically provides that you must be married to sponsor your spouse for immigration!

Tomas holds a BS degree in Computer Science; he is in perfect health, has strong character/integrity and no police record. The application also clearly showed my financial resources could support both of us for a lifetime. Our application was summarily rejected ONLY because we are a gay couple.

His Visa almost expired, Tomas returned permanently to Spain. Broken hearted, I began monthly trips from California to Barcelona for a visit. After six months, I realized that my life would never be complete unless we were together again; I sold my home, gave away my furniture, closed my business, abandoned my two grown children/first grandchild and moved to Barcelona. It hasn't been easy: I am now 68 years old, but I have NO regrets.

We have met three other American/Spanish couples that moved to Barcelona for precisely the same reason; an American fell in love with a Spaniard; spent thousands of dollars trying to get an immigration exception, gave up and moved to Spain, exiled forever from the USA. One of the Spaniards in this group studied Physics at Harvard. My partner Tomas is a Software Architect. But nobody cares: we are gay, so we can't legally live together in the USA. America is losing many talented people as a consequence of DOMA inspired immigration policies..

Eventually, the clearly discriminatory DOMA will be judged as unconstitutional. Among many other things, the act provides that only a spouse of a federal employee is eligible for enrollment in government sponsored healthcare programs for employees

I am certain many so called Christians are delighted that I live in exile. They are delighted that there are 40,000 bi-national couples (many with young children) that are prevented from living in the USA. What I cannot understand is how making us live in exile does anything to protect the institution of marriage in the USA (where 50% of all marriages end in divorce). The law is completely and utterly ridiculous.

When gay marriage becomes law of the land (and it clearly will), the horrendous Defense of Marriage Act will be dismantled. That will be cause for celebration.

WEBSTER DIC says:

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

Defining marriage

Let's really define marriage. It is a celebration of the love between two people who choose to live together. Period.

Marriage. You can have it.

There is no way the conservative Christians are going to budge on this because Homosexuality is a sin in their eyes (they probably haven't tried it or they are doing it wrong). The parts do fit if you do it right.

Blacks think it's a chosen lifestyle not something born into people.

Gays want and deserve equal rights.

Solution: Make all marriages civil unions or domestic partnerships. Give the marriage word to the church. Get your partnership at the courthouse and your marriage at the church.

And don't worry, Mr/Mrs Evangelical, Catholic or Mormon, I'm not going to go to your church to get married. I believe in love.

History of Genocide No Reason For Continued Exclusion

For thousands of years countless heterosexuals have used religious mythologies to commit genocide against gay people and their allies - that is why marriage is traditionally defined the way it is. Anyone standing up for human rights was killed. Most religious zealots cannot admit they have committed atrocities against other groups for centuries - whether against gay people, against Native Americans, against blacks, against women, against other religious sects, etc. Mass-murdering people through the Ages and then claiming "tradition" demands continued exclusion is the most appalling rationality for evil discrimination ever concocted.