Mr Moto,
just out of curiosity, what do you think gay people should do? What kind of arrangements should they live in. You don’t like cohabitation and you don’t like gay marriage, so what are they supposed to do?
Well, fatherlessness IS a big problem in lesbian couples. Then again, it’s not likely to be a problem in gay marriages!
It’s a give-and-take. 
Exactly how does this work? How do domestic partnerships work against traditional marriage? What is the damage done and who’s doing it?
I keep hearing this from the Religious Right and others but that’s all. They never explain exactly what harm is being done and by what mechanism and who’s doing it.
**
So, heterosexuals are weakening the family structure, so to keep further damage being done, let’s make it illegal for homosexuals to get married? Color me confused! 
I must have missed something - exactly what is Dr. Frist proposing? anyone got a link?
He has gone on record as supporting a proposed constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriages. Link (Yahoo)
I think friend GoHeels has it exactly right, as well as nuanced. The Pubbies want to keep thier increasingly restive “Moral Majority” troglodytes in line and energized. But GeeDubya doesn’t dare come out of the closet on this issue and offend the moderate conservatives (who are, for the most part, sane and reasonable people).
President Rove carefully selected Mr. Frist to “come out” on this issue: he’s big enough to impress, but not directly connected to the White House. They haven’t a chance in Hell of passing such an amendment, and they know it. This is purely an act of political masturbation by the Right Wankers.
I think people should have the freedom to live as they wish. However, I also believe that government policy should favor traditional marriage through the tax code, immigration policy and other areas where the government’s policies impact the family.
I’m a live-and-let-live kind of guy. I don’t want people arrested for sodomy or cohabitation. I just want families to be stronger because I think it’s best for children.
What about the children who currently live in gay or lesbian households? Seems like those children are getting the raw end of the deal with your plan.
I have to agree with Mr. Moto on this one. Before you flame me (no pun intended) hear me out.
I have been following this subject, and reading everyone’s point of view on it. I’m a very open minded individual, and weigh both sides. My opinion is that the Pro’s and the Con’s are actually debating two different subjects.
Here’s the Con’s argument: The institution of Marriage has been around since there was such a thing as Religion. It was Religion that had invented the whole concept of Marriage, and it was Religion that set the rules. Our laws, since they are a throw-back to Puritan times, simply reflect that. To truly be a Marriage, you have to change the basic definition of the word, rewrite every dictionary, and then convince the Church that you plan to have recognize your Marriage as to this change. And all for what? “Acceptance”? “Recognition”? Taking your venom out on the Government is simply shooting the messenger.
Justices Of The Peace do marry people together into a Union, but that is mostly for tax and citizenship reasons, and as an alternative for those who don’t believe in religion (so this isn’t truly a Marriage either), and isn’t recognized by most churches.
Here’s the Pro’s argument: This is the Land Of The Free. Why aren’t you letting me do something that I want to do?
So I am siding with Mr. Moto’s well stated point of view. It’s not the goverment who is putting these restrictions on the gay community, it’s the very same Church that the gay community wants to recognize their marriage who is restricting them. You cannot say you are married, in the formal definition, simply by saying so. A priest (or equivalent religious ambassador) has to deem it so.
As to a point on how this applies directly to me, both my wife an I are Atheists. We sat through the Pre-Canna classes, listened intently to the priests who spoke to us about the wife’s place in the church and the lack of birth control. We said our vows in a church in front of all of our relatives and friends. Why did we bend our views in order to do this? Because all of our respective surviving Grandparents were chastizing us for living together, and would have all dropped dead of a heart attack if we did not get married in a church. Am I a hypocrite? No, I am realistic and didn’t want to cause any more waves than I already had, out of respect for my family and their views. It is unfortunate that one’s sexual disposition is something that cannot be bent far enough to get married, but that is just the way that it is.
You are being wrongly deprived of your Constitutionally guaranteed right to enjoy schadenfreude.
Chicago, I’m not sure where you get the idea that it is the Church (which church, certainly not mine) that is the arbitrar of who is married or not. In US society, marriage is a civil contract, completely unrelated to religion or creed. The exact same rights are granted by the state, legal authorities, HMOs, companies, etc regardless of the church you were married in, or if you just had a civil cerimony.
What you did was all well and good, getting married in a church for your own personal reasons, but as far as the state and society is concerned, none of that mattered. Heck, some states recognize common law marriage.
I don’t think any gay rights organizations are insisting that all religions must perform gay marriages, although some groups are working within those religions to make that happen. It is completely irrellivant to the the discussion. This is about state recognition.
In short, I think your Con argument doesn’t hold water. You are making the assumption that people are looking for Church approval, when that is not part of the problem. It’s State recognition people are looking for, and the State defines marriage. The question is should the State descriminate.
Oops, forgot one thing.
This is demonstrably false. There are both civil cerimonies and common law marriages.
You are quite mistaken. You can get married by a Justice of the Peace who can be an atheist. No mention of God or religion is necessary. In the eyes of the law, which is what counts, that marriage is just as valid as the one conducted by a Priest. In fact, the one presided over by a Cleric still requires a legal marriage license - a secular document - to be a valid marriage. I don’t give a rat’s ass what the church says about gay marriage. I’m concerned with the secular aspects.
Gay people should be allowed to marry, as should polyandrous and polygynous groups for that matter.
Why should the misery be limited to “one man and one woman” arrangements? By all means let the other folks blow thousands of dollars on marriage ceremonies so they too can experience all their relatives and the state turning their private relationship into something that’s about everyone else instead?
More seriously, my only worry on this score is that if gay marriage is legalized, we deliberately-nonmarried hets will lose a lot of benefits for “domestic partnership” that are currently extended as an often hard-won courtesy to gay couples. Companies that currently offer benefits to nonmarried “spousal equivalents” & etc. as a way of being decently fair to gay employees may cease to do so once gay people can get married if they wish.
Unless, you know, those of us who don’t want marriage actually get off our butts and get politically active on the subject or something.
Here’s hoping that Bill Frist and his stupid amendment disappear in speedy ignominy nevertheless.
Recently, my fiancee, with whom I am living, quit her job. I tried to get her put on my health insurance at work, and was told that it was not possible unless we were married. We’re getting married, but there is simply no way my company’s insurance carrier would put her on prior to marriage.
Being heterosexual, we will legally solve this problem in a few months. But two of my openly gay co-workers apparently never will be able to resolve it.
What is the logic in that? How will heterosexual marriages collapse if these two men, both of whom are in committed relationships, want to cover their partner on their health insurance?
I have yet to hear a non-fearmongering response that explains how affording homosexuals the legal benefits of marriage (e.g. right to make medical decisions, right to inherit property) impairs heterosexual marriage. No one is saying that the Catholic Church or the Southern Baptists have to perform gay marriage ceremonies. But why shouldn’t the state sanction legal unions that give the benefits of marriage.
I often wonder what would happen if, instead of taking a poll on whether committed gay partners should be allowed to marry, a pollster was to take a poll breaking down the individual legal benefits of marriage and asking for each one whether committed gay partners should be allowed to enjoy those benefits. I bet it would be a much closer call.
I believe Telemark is putting the cart before the horse.
In order for the state to recognize your Marriage, your marriage must first be recognized by a church, which is where it originates from. That is why, when you go to get a Marriage License from the state (for tax reasons) you must first present various personal religious information about yourself, including the denomination and the church are getting married by. I will show you mine if you like. Common Law and Civil Marriages are for those who want to get married without having to be religious. But this is only recognized by the state, again, for administrative reasons. Any offspring from those marriages would be considered to be bastards, in the eyes of the church. In the case of Common Law, it is the state that forces the two people to get married so that they can collect more taxes based on the marriage penalties (recently corrected). So, again, don’t shoot the messenger, shoot the church.
I understand the point you are trying to make, so ask yourself exactly what getting married by the state would accomplish? What are you trying to achieve? I cannot imagine a reason except for a shallow victory over the government.
Instead of trying to swim against the current and change institutions that have been in existence since the beginning of existence, why don’t a group of gays collect together and found their own church, with full tax-free benefits, which would then legitimately recognize their marriages?
Jeevmon, your petpeeve is with your company’s insurance. They are the one’s who have put that stipulation against your health insurance, not the state, nor the church.
And, of course you can get married by a Justice Of The Peace who is Atheist. There is no religious binding in those marriages. And the church does not recognize those marriages. Again, that is just for administrative and tax purposes by the state.
Um, no. You don’t need to get a church involved at all. You can be married by a Justice of the Peace, a town hall clerk, etc and the marriage is completely legal and recognized in all 50 states. I have no idea where you get the notion that a church or religious body needs to be involved at all.
Sorry, my last reply was incomplete. I’ve never seen a requirement on a marriage certificate to fill out any religious information. There could be something on the form in some states, but I’m sure you could leave it blank, since clearly no one needs to go to a church.
You keep saying that the state part of the marriage license is just about taxes and administrative stuff. Guess what? That’s what marriage legally is all about. The church recognition is a red herring, no one campaigning for legal rights cares about what any specific church does or is required to do.
You somehow have the notion that gay marriages are about churches, but it’s not. The tax and administration stuff that you dismiss so quickly is much more important. There are literally thousands of laws on the books that take into account your legal marriage status. Add to that rules and regulations at institutions like insurance, hospitals, etc and it’s a huge factor in people’s lives.
Regardless of the origins of marriage (which I’m sure predates the Christian Church or western thought), in US society it is a civil issue. That is where this needs to be addressed.
I couldn’t care less abou the religious aspects of marriage. I don’t care if the church (and which church do you mean - some would) recognizes the marriage. Your assertion that a marriage must first be recognized by a church before it is recognized by the state is WRONG.