After Iowa, Vermont, What's Next for Gay Marriage?

Reader Comments
Back to article

but how do u believe that this teis into religion . are they not scared for their own humble per say SOUL. gays are an abomination and should be punished by the man up stairs.

honey of TN 7:30PM July 30, 2009

It's interesting that when all the so called arguments against marriage equality are exhausted, some people say, why not three wives, or my sister, or my dog? Well, marrying three people is a choice, sexual orientation is not. Nobody has demonstrated that polygamy benefits society, whearas allowing all people the right to marry does. If you want to say orientation is a choice, then the burden is on YOU to prove it, and every socialogical or biological study has shown that it is not. It has been proven that incestous relationships cause birth defects, and you don't see people wanting to marry their brothers or sisters, so there is no need for that, either. As for marrying your dog, marriage is a legal constract. No animal can enter into a legal contract because it is beyond their intelligence. Not to mention the fact that an animal can never consent to sex in the first place, which is why it is wrong. I guess the anti-gay people are gonna have to find another argument. Hmmm. Does same sex marriage cause global warming?

chris hogan of MO 3:26PM April 23, 2009

That Gay couples seek to marry is not an attack on marriage. If anything it is an ENDORSEMENT of marriage, an acknowledgment that it far better to encourage couples toward monogamy and commitment, rather than relegating them to lives of loneliness and promiscuity.
Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, "We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!" That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.
No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration, before friends and family members, that they wish to make a commitment to one another's happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.
THAT'S what makes marriage a good thing. Gay couples recognize that and support that. And I suspect those who want to prohibit Gay couples from marrying do so only because they don't want to allow Gay couples the opportunity to PROVE that they are up to the task.
For those who suggest that the issue of marriage is best left up to the states, it's important to remember that the federal government has a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of income taxes and Social Security benefits. From the fed's point of view, it wouldn't do for a couple to be considered married (in Iowa, for example), then magically "UN-married" once they decide to move somewhere else.
Now, as someone who prides himself on being nothing if not diplomatic, I believe compromise is possible. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Supreme Court ruled that there was no Constitutional justification for denying Gay couples the same legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted, but that those benefits and responsibilities could be granted to Gay couples under a different term ... such as "civil unions." The rights under tax law, Social Security, etc. would be EXACTLY the same for Gay and Straight couples; only the terminology would be different. Opposite-sex couples would be allow the option to "marry," and same-sex couples would be allowed the option to enter into "civil unions."
Frankly, I could live with that. How about YOU?

Chuck Anziulewicz of WV 12:16PM April 16, 2009

Well, shouldn't there be a line in the sand somewhere? What if three people want to marry? What if two men and two women want to all marry. What if brothers want to marry his sister? What if one man wants to marry fifteen women? The line must be drawn somewhere and for centuries it's been right where it is. It should stay that way. Besides, no matter what you do, if you are homosexual you will probably never be totally accepted. I think humans have an instinct that makes them recoil from it. It's probably evolutionary, a preservation of the species thing. Homosexuals used to just ask for tolerance. They pretty much have that and now they want society to say what they are doing is normal. It is not normal because that would imply it is the "norm" which it is not. I think if they push this thing homosexuals are going to create a lot of ill will from otherwise tolerant people and it could make them lose ground. I'm not extremely religious so my veiws are not guided by that. It just seems like a common sense viewpoint to me.

Diane Gregg of NC 12:10AM April 10, 2009

Wow, I didn't know that having your skin be darker or lighter was the same thing as two men or two women having sex. That's what the gay agenda folks believe and it makes no sense. The color of people's skin has absolutely nothing to do with gay sex, so the Gay Marriage Agenda = Ending Racism talking point is pure bull crap.
That being said, if you want to talk about where the gay agenda is going, well Nate Silver (who is fairly brilliant IMO, even though I do not agree with his support of the gay agenda) says that eventually the entire country will recognize gay marraige. I don't agree. I think that the blue states will accept it first, but I would say take a look at the 2004 electoral map. The red states that went Bush will not be accepting gay marriage in the forseeable future or ever.

Smooth Jazz of NY 10:52PM April 09, 2009

This is an issue of civil rights and not any thing else. For the voters in California to put an amendment in the California Constitution eliminating a civil right for a minority is wrong. Just as Jim Crow Laws were wrong. The religious issue should be kept in the church and not influence politics. How would the religious citizens feel if their church's tax exempt status was eliminated and they were no longer subsidized by every citizen of the US who has to pay higher taxes because the religious organizations do not have to pay taxes on their property and profits. All Americans should have the same rights before the law. All Americans should have the same opportunities to find happiness, work, and living conditions that are able to help meet the individuals fundamental needs, Safety, Sustenance, Love, Dignity and Respect.

Douglas Mitten of CA 6:45PM April 09, 2009

I think it is amazing that anyone can be against gay marriage and still expect homosexual citizens to contribute to society like everyone else.
Remember "no taxation without representation"? If I am not allowed to legally marry whom I choose, then I should be exempt from having to pay anything to any federal, state or local Government. And even stop contributing altogether to society.
It is quite sad that this debate is not seen from a legal or judicial point of view and is instead clouded by religious arguments.
This is useless and unnecessary. Especially in the XXI century!
PS: This is not, by far, the first time the US lags behind other countries in civil liberties. Capital punishment has been done away with in most advanced democracies. On this issue, we are keeping company with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. I find it embarrasing.

Ynot 5:07PM April 09, 2009

Of all the states in question on this topic, I feel most comfortable with the legalizing of gay marriage in VT; it was a decision of the peoples' representatives, not a judge.

Brad of TX 2:52PM April 09, 2009

For years, Anti-Homosexual legislation have been overturned in Europe. For the first time in a long time the United States is behind on some social issues already addressed and passed in European countries. Previously, I was content with a Social Union and the benefits that came with it; but after reading deeply into it, there are just so many things that can be fixed with the right to Marry. Those who oppose the decisions of Vermont and Idaho should really think, even for a second. If something were to happen to your spouse, be them the same sex or not, would you not want to see them in the hospital? We have to walk the fine line between supporting the rights of a citizen and supporting Homosexuality as a whole. If we can take a general agreement in the idea that as a citizen, they have the same rights we should, and not a stance of if we accept it or not, we can finally pull ourselves above this social 'issue' and finally come up to the same stance as European nations.
This mirrors the long-held law that African Americans and Caucasion Americans could not marry; and that was an issue resolved LONG ago. This is simply an old issue in a new light that we simply have to accept as the rights of a person, but not take a stance on if it is right or not. It is time to shed our stance on if it is moral or not, and simply decide if it is a right as a citizen or not; I believe it is a right as a citizen to marry who we wish.

Andrew of OH 2:34PM April 09, 2009