Should Gay Marriage Be Legal in the Entire United States?

Reader Comments
Back to article

Words have meaning. Marriage has traditionally and legally meant one man, one woman. There is no reason to mandate that one size fit all in the name of p.c. inclusivity and sensitivity. Uh... homosexuality is an "alternate Lifestyle", so let it have an alternate name. Lumping heterosexual and homosexual unions together under "marriage" does nothing more than dilute and obscure the meaning of the word.
Civil Unions can have the same rights as marriage and could be made available to any couple that wishes. This would fulfill any Constitutional requirement, as there is no Constitutional mandate to change the definitions of words in order to validate personal choices, feelings or lifestyles.
Further, I note that there are no Constitutional guarantees or protections regarding, polygamy, incest, beastiality or the "sex in the street" festivals denizens of San Francisco glory in... Well, at least until 5 whimsical Supreme Court judges decide otherwise.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 6:15PM July 07, 2011

Do you want the US to be more like a religious theocracy, Iran etc or a democracy, more in line with our neighbor Canada, where marriage is open to same-sex couples. You choose. Just like abortion, if you don't want one, don't have one!

Mike of OH 6:10PM July 07, 2011

I am an American citizen who has paid taxes, have a mortgage, volunteer, take care of my mother for part of the year. I am also gay. I deserve the same rights as my fellow citizens.
The bogus "science" promoted by this other commentator? Never met a straight man who obsessed about homosexuals. Does anyone honestly believe that straight men actually care about this issue enough to write this sort of fantastical garbage?

Homer of AZ 6:10PM July 07, 2011

We as a nation are at a unique moment in history where we can rethink the role of marriage. I say: Marriage as we understand it as a religious expression that two people in a committed partnership enjoy in relation to the laws of a society. The same laws ought to apply to all citizens equally. People who want their relationship recognized and protected by the state ought to file an agreement for civil union along with a prenuptial agreement with the proper state authorities. When they want to divorce, they ought to file a divorce agreement with the authorities that nullifies the civil union and puts their divorce agreement on record. This ought to be the beginning and the end of state involvement. The state cannot and ought not to dictate the disciplines and doctrines of a particular faith community. Thus, religious communities ought to remain free to marry or not to marry whomever that community chooses. The Catholic Church ought not to be forced by the state to facilitate the adoption of children by same-sex couples. At the same time, any individual who offers goods and services to the general public ought to be prohibited from discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation or because they are members of a same-sex union. Landlords are obligated to rent to same sex couples on the same basis as they would to heterosexual couples. People who provide services to people planning weddings or who rent out their property for weddings ought to be required by law to provide these goods and services on a nondiscriminatory basis. Time passed, and changes in the economic, political and social status of single people, especially women, have changed the meaning of marriage. Marriage is no longer primarily an economic contract to help people meet their basic needs, but now marriage is a loving commitment to help people live a fulfilling life. It is no longer only about sustenance of life, but it is also about the joy of life. She also reminds us that laws for the protection of children, both inside and outside of marriage, has made marriage less of a necessity for the sake of “legitimacy.” Yet, marriage is still an important social institution. And society has a clear set of rules for how everyone else should and should not relate to each partner.” In sum: When two people are married, they make an important statement to the world that other members of society are obligated to respect in custom and in law. We as a nation all deserve to be equal. And not discriminated against for our sexual orientation!

Adam Hoover of OH 6:04PM July 07, 2011

2 of 2
...Here, besides finding a more detailed discussion of the list, above, you’ll also find citations to the scientific references (mainstream, respected, and apolitical references) on which the essay is based (on pages 4 and 5). After considering what I've written here and/or in the essay, I would urge supporters of same-sex marriage to reconsider it. If you can't offer a fact-based rebuttal to what I've written, then proponents of same-sex marriage have no right to demand that our government recognize same-sex marriage and subsidize it with tax and legal incentives, like it rightfully does for heterosexual marriage.
The reason, of course, is because all good law is based on facts - not on the whims of one individual or even a few - a condition that our forefathers fought to erase more than 200 years ago. Clearly, as I've shown here, the facts clearly oppose government-recognition of same-sex marriage.

Semyon Suslov of CA 5:58PM July 07, 2011

1 of 2
Demanding government-recognition of same-sex marriage has no factual or constitutional basis. For one, homosexuality bears no resemblence to race or gender to which it erroneously compared on a consistent basis. Unlike the former condition, the latter two traits are purely genetic and are not subject to any form of human control. As such, people of all sexes and races, no matter their sexual orientation, are entitled to the basic individual rights and liberties, which no one can remove by vote or legislation.
However, human behavior is an entirely separate issue. For no matter the outcome, human behavior begins with a behavioral urge. In most cases, the person may have no recollection of when they first experienced the urge or of choosing to have it. Nor do many feel they can stop having the urge. However, what all people can do is to decide whether they'll act on the urge and engage in the behavior or not.
Consequently, the Constitution clearly permits us to pass laws governing human behavior for the benefit of individuals and society. (1) Because some behaviors are beneficial, we pass laws to encourage them. Examples include buying a home, going to college, or starting a business. (2) Other behaviors have the potential for harm but prohibiting them would be undue burden on liberty. So for these behaviors we pass laws limiting them to consenting adults. Examples in this category are smoking, gambling, or drinking to excess. (3) Finally some behaviors are so egregiously harmful that we pass laws banning them and instituting harsh penalties if they're broken. Examples in this category would be the taking of life or property.
Marriage between one man and one woman has consistently shown that it belongs in the first category of human behavior. In comparison, same-sex behavior, whether it occurs in a committed setting or not, clearly falls in the second behavioral category and, therefore, should not be encouraged with government-recognized marriage. The reasons are as follows:
1. Unlike race or gender, homosexuality can be triggered though social and cultural influences.
2. In comparison to heterosexuals, homosexuals are far more prone to bodily damage and disease, much of which is serious and life threatening.
3. Even in “committed” relationships, homosexuals, primarily men, are notoriously non-monogamous.
4. In areas that permit SSM, homosexuals are far more likely to divorce than heterosexuals.
5. Homosexuals experience more emotional and mental illness, than heterorsexuals.
6. Domestic violence is much more prevalent in male same-sex relationships than in heterosexual ones.
I would urge the readers of this article to read the essay on which this post is based. Entitled “The Case for Limiting Government Recognition to Traditional Relationships,” it consists of an essay that I placed at,
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_HTB4W4CSYDBWN6R2D5ESTASCUQ/blog/articles/270046?listPage=index.

Semyon Suslov of CA 5:55PM July 07, 2011

Marriages between men and women tend to fail a lot anyways. Marriage should be about love and the intent to live happily. No one should have the right to take that freedom away from you. With the many wars that are going on right now the war for love and marriage between same-sex couples should not be one of our many worries. Im all for euqality for every one. If men and women have the right to turn down marriage for their future, same-sex couples should have the right to have marriage. Im religious and a part of the average comunity, which now a days includes same-sex couples. Though I hear critisism I do not blame the discriminitory way of thinking on a group of people but instead the individuals way of thinking. Racism is frowned upon but this situation is much like that battle, though instead the discrimination is tword who you diside to love. I say everyone has the right to be married.

Mariah of ID 5:44PM July 07, 2011

People that feel Gay marriage is not in the best interest of families and must remain between one man and one woman have twisted the facts (see NOM output or the Spectator article) the reality is that sound scientific reseach does demonstrate that children raised with same sex parents do as well across all measures as do their peers raised by heterosexual couples. Further, it the detractors of Gay marriage have it right, then heterosexual couples who do not want to have children or older couples wishing to marry who are to old to bear children should also not be allowed to get married. of course that is all nonsence and the real issue that is just under the surface is strcly homophobia or out right prjudice. Further, the amount of children born to unmarried women not in a committed relationship is above 50%. One would think that if the detractors of gay marriage were really honest and concerned about the welfare of children and families then they would invest their money on decreasing divorce and decreasing pregnancy amongst single females instead of spending millions on anti gay marriage referendums In addition, the number of children born to single females through insemination or to single fathers through egg doners is increasing and many are not gay parents. The world is changing and the antagonists are not adapting to change but instead are lashing out with outragous prejudice.

P. jacobs of MI 4:57PM July 07, 2011

Problems:
--The term "marriage" has long (since before the existence of the U.S.) been a religious term.
--To deprive some pairs of adult U.S. citizens the same legal rights as some other pairs is un-American. (note, this statement applies to both sides, as both freedom of religion and basic legal rights are both under attack in the current modes of thinking)
Simple solution:
--The word "marriage" belongs to the churches and carries NO legal or government-recognized rights/responsibilities/etc. A marriage should be between you and the deity you choose, in accordance with your faith's specific guidelines, and the marriage will have NO legally binding definition.
--There should be a term available to ALL the pairs of individuals that want the rights AND the responsibilities of a government-recognized long-term relationship. I suggest "Civil Union" as it is self-descriptive, as well as is already defined by some state laws. This term shall have NO enforceable meaning in any religious context.
As a person whose political philosophy leans heavily 'constitutionalist', I can assure this solution would be both constitutionally legal, as well as effectively give each side in the argument what they are asking for.

Tai of CO 4:54PM July 07, 2011

Humans have sub-grouped each other in every way that is imaginable...in order to identify each other and express human characteristics. However, A Human is a Human. A gay person, a black person, a poor person, a fat person, a boy, a girl, or a transgendered person. We can use religion or way we were brought up as excuses..but hate is hate. Gay people should be allowed to marry. love is love. And beyond everything else. America is suppose to be the land of equality, justice, and all men created equal. ???? How can some one deny a person marriage based on their sexual orientation. Where is the Separation between church and state. And Also...it is not a legal question of State rights vs. Federal Rights...because denying a gay person marriage is unconstitutional and discriminatory. The real problem..is the haters and crazy religion people...need to either evolve/ get educated to become citizens of a country that is all about equality and justice or move to North Korea or Iran! Everyone is entitled to their opinion..but if you oppose it that much..and you are that vile...then perhaps you have the freedom to move somewhere else.

alex of VA 4:51PM July 07, 2011