Those dominoes are not ruled by gravity alone, eh?

I'm certain I wouldn't want our government to be a theocracy but it sure wouldn't hurt if many politicians as INDIVIDUALS suddenly developed a sense of morality instead of personal expediency?

Oh, Good Lord. You can't find something a bit newer and less of a worn-out cliche, Clay?

Actually, either one of those two can formalize a marriage.

Now if you changed it to "MARRIAGE = MAN + MAN + COURT" you might be on to something...still a worn-out cliche and a rapidly dying issue, but a more accurate one [except for the Calif Supreme Court [bitterly] obeying the peoples' demands in Prop 8. They no doubt smelled a recall in the wind.]

Leave it California voters to again show us how it is done.

===================

Nice retort, SCOTTYM.

Clara, you surprise me...pleasantly, I might add. [for what that's worth.] We can agree, after all.

I sometimes wonder when our politicians, in general, lost their morality and personal conviction and instead listened to the loud-mouths.

Church + State equals disfunction,and a divorce rate of 50%

In a perfect world, I am told it is said, this would be the melding of the best each had to offer.
However, there is no perfect world (on this side of the clouds, anyway) because each would have to have the 'upper hand', get in the 'last word', and come out 'on top' at the end of each day.
But those are the cards we have been dealt,in the game of life we play, and all we can hope for is to, "...know when to hold them and know when to fold them...."
Oh, and a big 'tip of the hat' to the California State Supreme Court for seemingly raising the overall intellect level of the "Big Bear State" with their recent decision.
Thank you for your time and attention,
Woody

If you don't think the religious community should dictate marriage, then at least let nature guide the way. You don't see two female robin birds building an empty nest do you? No, marriage was made for a male and female for the purpose of offspring to continue the species.

In this country we have the freedom to choose who to live with, male with male or female with female if they choose. But don't expect the government to break the laws of nature or religion and sanctify it as marriage.

What's 'worn out' about this cliché, rolando. I've NEVER seen a cartoon drawn around this ridiculous bumper sticker. Perhaps something is 'worn out' in your eyes if it hits the nail right on the head.

I'll tell you what's 'worn out'- laws based on religious dogma. The Supreme Court of the radical state of Iowa realized that and ruled unanimously to overturn a state law restricting marriage to heterosexual couples. The legislature of the state of Vermont realized that and mustered enough votes to override the Governor's veto. New Hampshire has since followed suit, and New York is pushing for similar legislation now.

That doesn't sound like a "rapidly dying issue" to me.

The voters of California had no business establishing civil rights law for the state of California. I'm sure if we had left the desegregation of public schools to the will of the citizens of Arkansas, or Mississippi, or Alabama, we would have waited thirty more years for that to happened.

Well, we won't have to wait thirty years for this either. These archaic laws will fall in every state in this country. Get used to it.

There are many examples of homosexuality occurring in nature. You're usually so insightful, EaTn. Why are you so conservative on this issue?

Perfectly stated, EaTn.

But will the others here see the truth and beauty in it?

California's Constitution gives the people the right to amend its constitution however it chooses, OllieH. Civil rights are and were left unchanged...for you see, marriage is NOT a civil right in that state or any other. Prop 8 did NOT revise the constitution, in any case...it amended it -- or so say the CSC Justices in a 6-to-1 decision. [Three of those judges reversed their own decision of March 08 granting same-sex marriage. It is said they feared a voter backlash against them.]

Separation of Church and State relative to marriage is a worn-out cliche. None of the factors is dependent on the concurrence of any or all...each is separate, none are necessary for the others to act.

Neither the State nor the Church make reference to the other regarding marriage. Churches do not require licenses to perform a wedding; the State does not require a statement or anything else from the Church regarding a marriage. Attempts to make a connection between the two, however ephemeral or reaching, are simply ridiculous.

It is time to drop that comparison, along with equating the '60s civil rights fight to the same-sex marriage argument. There is no "equating" same-sex marriage to that fight or the Church/State falsity.

Well, aae1049, if you include all "married" households without a husband or wife living full time in the home as same-sex marriage proponents do, that "divorce" figure is probably accurate.

You DO know that they consider husbands [and wives] deployed overseas as "divorced", don't you? As well as still-single widows/widowers? And anyone else separated from their spouse for reasons other than a troubled marriage? Work in another state or country, for instance? These are the methods they use to skew the numbers and they are significant.

Is marriage in trouble? Is the me-first attitude in the country fostered by the liberal left from cradle through college primarily at fault? Does a bear use the woods?

You confuse the cause with the effect.

Rolando, I believe I remember from waaaaaaay back that I was required to have permission by the state, and to take a blood test before I was married in a church. We had to supply this to the pastor or priest before the ceremony.

I beleive there were a lot of common-law marriages taking place to protect the individual's income.

I also know that the church fostered life-time commitment, no matter how dreadful the conditions in the marriage were.
Women were bonded to their husbands, (and sometimes visa versa,) no matter how badly the physical and emotional problems were.

I freely admit that not having been married for a VERY long time, I do not know if the state rules have changed.

I hate to think you are a proponant of the old "rule" of not beating your wife with anything thicker than your thumb.

personally if you ask me I am all for same-sex marriages. Yes I am sure Tennessee will be the very last state to approve if they even do- but you see I dont even care. I am gay and have a partner of 6 years. To be honest- our relationship is far better than many straight one. So we dont need a certificate- not at all-- you see we are committed to each other-- something that many couples do not have

rolando stated, "It is time to drop that comparison, along with equating the '60s civil rights fight to the same-sex marriage argument. There is no "equating" same-sex marriage to that fight or the Church/State falsity."

Why- because you say so?

Marriage laws, as they currently exist, will be overturned, and it will be done because they violate the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

I have debated this issue in my mind many times. In the end, for ME, it comes down to the fact that this country was founded under God. God's word is in the Bible, and the Bible seems to state that marriage is for a man and a woman. I realize that in this country now, there are people of many differing religions, and that's fine, but the country itself is a country of God.

Thank you, maj. You just made a great case for overturning a religiously based law.

Toonfan, this may be an especially hot topic for you for whatever reason-- you certainly seemed impassioned about it. But, like I said, I gave MY opinion, which I am certainly entitled to.

It's easy to see why the churches would want to be consulted before legislation is enacted. When it comes to taxes, they claim separation, but they line up to declare themselves "the official religion" of the United States.

In this first part of the battle, we see Christians demanding favor over Buddism and Islam. They lobby legislators individually for power and assert themselves into the process the same way the NRA and MADD would... by offering them a voting bloc.

Eventually down this road we could see the next heat in this contest as Catholics, Evangelicals, Baptists, and the other sects each vie for ultimate control over our congress.

Clay's cartoon shows the real goal behind such issues as gay marriage, Terry Schiavo, and abortion.

There is nothing wrong with same-sex marriages expect a bunch of church binding people who think they know the entire bible or people that just hate gays-- Actually teh ones that hate gays are in the closet and will not come out for fear. So let well enough alone-- If a state passes same-sex marriages-- great -- if not so be it. I can bet you one thing if Tennessee ever tries to get same-sex marriages like other states-- a lot of these curches will get huge donations to block the passage. So it just goes to so you people that go to these churches think they know all the answers- have read the entire bible front and back--when in reality-- they don't they go to church to gossip and to make a show is all. Remember God loves everyone- gay, straight, bi black white -- he shows no partically to anyone everyone is equal.

Wow! All that from one little bumper-snicker, JR.

And to think the folks here accuse ME of seeing conspiracies everywhere...

chatt31 --

Congrats on your views, preferences, partnership, and free expression. May they long continue.

You DO have the necessary legal paperwork completed to cover medical and other emergencies to allow your partner visitation and access to your info and vice versa, I hope?

The Privacy Act can be a real killer without it.

Yada Yada Rolando, live and let live. In some cases a single parent household is better than a durg using or abusive spouse, and sometimes love just happens, so just recognise love for the emotion it is, and stop trying to say who can and cannot be a couple.

Clara --

That last sentence got an out-loud laugh. Thanks, but no I do NOT believe in beating a woman, period. For any reason. I'm old-school but not THAT old school. I actually enjoy holding doors, pulling chairs back, walking on the street-side, etc.

In Indiana 30 years ago I enjoyed a same-day wedding. I was active duty at the time on a 3-day pass from out-of-state; the state routinely waived the blood test and 3-day wait for military members...for the obvious reason of time. The church could marry us without a license but could not record it at the courthouse although it would be in the church register. I had the license [the ink was still wet] so it wasn't a problem.

That was when the military required pre-marriage counseling with the base chaplain. Imagine that! Failure to get it meant forfeiture of all married benefits.

No, toonfan, because those who fought the fight to gain those equal rights say so. And they say so where it counts...in the voting booths.

maj-

Good posts. Thanks.

JohnnyRingo says,
"Clay's cartoon shows the real goal behind such issues as gay marriage, Terry Schiavo, and abortion."

I'd just like to point out that two of these things involve the murder of a human being. I don't see how gay marriage is anything like that, however if a majority of the electorate decided to start killing gays, I'll be wearing the rainbow flag and fighting on the side of the gays.

People do not always fit the stereotype. The hate is not helping anyone's case.

aai1049 -- I will keep it short. I never said that single parent homes are always worse than those with both parents; abusive parents need locked up. Nor have I ever anything against two consenting adults living together regardless of gender; I just don't care. They can do as they please as long as it is not in front of kids.

Just don't demand social acceptance or legitimacy for their peculiar habits through marriage -- civil unions provide equal protection under the law. Which is what they claim they want.

This cartoon is brilliant, but....

... if I do the math, Church + Church is a gay marriage.

So is State + State!

Since we're the United States, are we all part of a gay marriage?

No! We're part of a Union!

Oh, my God! A Civil Union!!

Someone stop the world and let me off!

The U.S. is gay?

Then why do the French hate us so much?

moonpie,
Thanks for the laugh!

Who cares what the French think? :)

Well Ollie, old girl, how about citing a few examples of homosexuality in nature? I'm sure you're talking about extinct species, right?

If we redefine marriage for one group, who/what will be next? One man and three women, 2 men and a horse, 1 woman and 3 teenage boys, 3 pygmie goats and transgendered she/male? Someone will always have their marriage rights violated. Where will it end?

Oz:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

moonpie:

http://www.livescience.com/animals/07111...

Oz:

Funny. Point taken. But no one is talking about killing here.

Unless you consider gay marriage a kind of death.... which apparently a lot of people do.

I liked the rant in the hard copy of the paper this weekend. It said something like, "Let gay people get married. They have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us."

Moonpie: I'm glad you have a sense of humor. That is the way I meant it.
I'm just afraid if we change the definition of marriage for one group it will be the spring board for every other group.

Rolando, I do not believe that the gay community has any expectation of social acceptance, especially in the core of the bible belt. That goal is not obtainable now, but maybe in the future.

A gay couple wants the same rights and benefits as married couples, to have their spouse on medical insurance through employment, and other benefits through employment, social security, medicare, etc. They should have. A gay couples love is no different than hetros that get married.

the people who are on the wrong side of the gay marriage issue are the same people that were on the wrong side of the civil rights debate in the 60s. It's the same closed-minded, anti-every-minority, christian wackos that seem to be the root of all of the racism, sexism, xenophobia, and homophobia in this country. And we're supposed to believe these are the good guys? lol. In 30 years, we'll look back at the anti-gay people the same way we look back on the anti-civil rights people of the 60s- as evil and hateful. It's also interesting that the anti-gay rednecks claim that they are "protecting marriage" by being a homophobe. But if they were truly interested in protecting marriage, they'd be doing what it takes to reduce the divorce rate, which just happens to be the highest in the southern states- the very states that are the most anti-gay. Ah, gotta love irony and hypocrisy. But when it comes to jesus freaks, hypocrisy rules.

It is ridiculous to assume that someone against gay marriage is a racist, "anti-every-minority" xenophobe. Would you consider Barack Obama to be all of those things? Because he's also against gay marriage.

Forget the whole religious thing. That's a personal issue and has no place in a public policy debate. A couple is just as married whether the ceremony is performed by a minister, judge, or captain of a ship. It is, first and foremost, a contractual arrangement providing legal protections . Marriage has always been defined by society as being between a woman and a man. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with the civil union position that provides all the same legal benefits as secular marriage? Where that isn't law, it should be. Is it simply that gays will never feel legitimate until they call it "married"? On the other hand, discrimination to whatever level it exists, is a problem and there are sufficient laws on the books to deal with it. And it should be dealt with each and every time it occurs. More specialized legislation just sets up another "protected class" to feed the lawyers.

And cave demon - you're every bit as bad as those you castigate. You're just the mirror image.

Rolando- although there are civil rights activists who seem to resent the gay rights movement comparing its struggle to theirs, it doesn't mean that they are right to do so. The two causes are similar in nature and legal underpinning. There are, however, many from that struggle who aren't blinded by their own prejudices and can see the commonality of the two movements. Here's a few examples: http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/030109/mlk...
http://www.clintonherald.com/local/local...

To redbearded: I noticed Moonpie posted an article on this, but as for homosexuality occurring in nature, here's another one of countless articles on the subject: http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10...

To Oz: Comparing a gay relationship to bestiality is really insulting and frankly kind of childish. It gives me great insight into your understanding of this issue. As for the legal status of other marriages, I would say yes to polygamy or polyandry, and most definitely yes to equal rights for transgendered people. We are talking about a contract between consenting adults (not animals or children). I don't really care if it's two, three, or twelve adults as long as there is no coercion.

And lastly to chatt31: I'm glad you're happy in your relationship, and that you need no piece of paper to validate your love. But what if you change your mind? Shouldn't you be entitled to the same rights and privileges as other adults in a committed relationship?

What about my Social Security? If I had a wife for the past 25 years, she would be entitled to benefits in the event of my death. What are my partner's rights? He has none.

What about health coverage for my spouse from my employer? Sorry, it's not extended to gays or lesbians.

I don't know how old you are chatt31, but I remember when coming out could easily cost you your job, or get you evicted from your apartment.

In a very real way, I understand your attitude. Why should we fight for acceptance from a society that has mistreated us so? It's because with every step we progress, it makes it easier for everybody who will face what you and I have faced- the fear of being being treated differently, the fear of being rejected.

We are treated differently and therefore we are treated unfairly. We don't just want these rights, we deserve these rights.

aae1049 --

Social acceptance and legitimacy has been the ultimate goal of homosexuals and lesbians for decades. Not all of them, of course.

Why do you think homosexuals are dissatisfied with civil unions that give them all the benefits bestowed on hetero marriages -- those same benefits you say they are now denied? Because they want their sexual behavior to be considered normal just like everyone else's, that's why. Even though their behavior sharply differs from roughly 98% of the US, they still demand the courts order everyone to accept their [to some] immoral or deviant sexual behavior.

A few same-sex couples are quite satisfied with all the benefits of marriage and none of the bad parts; e.g., health insurance for the first and divorce for the second. Those same-sex marriages must go through divorce court just like real ones, or so I understand.

A curious thing...civil unions are for same-sex couples only...normal couples need not apply. Same-sexers have no problem with that -- they are quite intolerant, if you haven't noticed. So cohabitants must have separate insurance, etc. No spousal benefits for them.

How selfish of the homosexuals/lesbians to be so non-inclusive.

Sailorman. Thank you for the post.

If the state issued a 'civil union' license to every couple, straight or gay, that would be fine. But if there are different designations (a marriage license vs a civil union license) that's a case of separate but equal. As the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education- separate but equal is inherently unequal.

I will repeat it yet again, toonfan. The civil rights battles to which you refer are based on rights specifically recognized in the US Constitution and apply to race and gender only. Sexual orientation, preference or transgendered status are NOY specifically mentioned or even implied.

It cannot be expressed any simpler than to say there is no constitutional basis for homosexual or lesbian marriage rights. It takes an activist judge to make that into whole cloth.

And you wonder why civil rights fighters object to same-sexers comparing the two efforts. They aren't even similar.

more hypocrisy- those that want smaller, less intrusive government are the ones that want government to say that gay people can't get married. Truly sad.

Just to complicate things...

We all have forgotten there are an awful lot of people who enjoy and can handle a sexual relaionship with both sexes...not that it helps a heterosexual marriage and that marriage usually ends if it is brought to light.

At 6-1, the Calif Supremes found there was no discrimination or "separate but equal" issue in Prop 8, toonfan. Coming from Calif, that's saying a lot. Marriage is a privilege, not a right. Laws covering the two are different. Exercising a right does not require a license for legal recognition.

Sigh. And just when we thought it was safe to go in the water. Thanks, Clara. : ]

what exactly are conservatives afraid of that they feel so compelled to go out of their way to see rights denied to a segment of society? Why do they feel the need to spend millions of dollars in ad campaigns to try to ensure that gay people cannot have the right to get married? why can't right-wingers just let people be, let them live their own lives, without hatemongers and the government getting in their way of happiness? what drives their anti-gay feelings?

The concept of what is a right has come up numerous times in debates in this section.

People for gay marriage argue that they are seeking equal rights.

Some opponents of gay marriage argue that there is no right to marriage in the constitution.

I would submit that there is a constitutional argument for gay marriage. The 14th Ammendment says neither the United States government or any state deny a person equal protection under the law.

Gay people do not have equal protection under the law because they are not allowed to marry.

toonfan - you have a point even though I think it's semantic hair splitting. You say tomato I say tomahto. They have equal protection under the law where civil unions are legal. People for gay marriage don't seem to want just legal protection. They appear determined to use that hallowed for whatever reason term "marriage". Maybe we should let the church folks call it marriage if they want and restrict the secular legal phrase to "union". I wonder if the lgbt community would accept that? Or how about people just refer to it however they please regardless of the legalese? Maybe by the time all the kids in kindergarten grow up thinking two daddies (or two mommies - pc)is the norm, society will no longer consider marriage to be between a man and a woman. Assuming our economy lasts that long.

toonfan.....This guy might want to marry his car and is the reason why marriage should not be redefined.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/05/27/tailp...

Oz, the car can't consent! It would be like marrying someone who is passed out. I don't think it would be legal.

Not even the Japanese cars are this sophisticated.

Moonpie:

"Hahahahahahahahahahaaha!"

Your depth of humor is absolutely boundless.

As I said a while back ...

The fundamental problem leading to all this dissension is allowing government to define and license marriage. As soon as government gets involved, one group (pro-gay-marriage vs. anti-gay-marriage) is always going to try to manipulate things in its favor politically, to the exclusion of the other group.

If government continues to license marriage, then either some people (in the past, interracial couples; nowadays, homosexual couples; no telling who is next) will be prevented from marrying ... or some other folks will be forced to recognize unions as marriages in conflict with their beliefs. Either way, a lot of people will be unhappy.

The only logical and fair solution is to eliminate government from the marriage equation. Stop issuing marriage licenses! That way the gay people in 44 states won't be able to complain that they can't get a marriage license, because the straight people won't have them either. And the straight people in the other 6 states won't be able to complain that the gay people are "destroying traditional marriage" because they won't have a paper from the government officially legitimizing their union.

(Actually with the current heterosexual divorce rate, couples living together outside of marriage, unwed pregnancy rates, etc. it appears that straight people are doing a much better job of destroying traditional marriage than gay people ever could.)

A radical solution? Hardly. Marriage licenses did not exist for most of history. None of our forefathers (Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, ...) had licenses to marry our foremothers. The concept of needing a license, i.e. government permission, to marry would never have occurred to them. Marriage was a covenant between two (sometimes more) people; to believers, it was a religious sacrament; to non-believers, it was merely a contract for mutual support. But no one, up until a few decades ago, saw marriage as a privilege to be granted or withheld by politicians and bureaucrats.

Fix this, solve the problem ... easy! No more debate, we can all go do something more productive. But, unfortunately my advice is far too logical for our politicians to ever listen.

Rolando states: The civil rights battles to which you refer are based on rights specifically recognized in the US Constitution and apply to race and gender only.

There is no mention of race or gender in the constitution either (Well, voting rights for women has its own amendment, but that's a different issue). The Amendment on which the struggle for civil rights struggle and equal rights for women is the 14th (as Moonpie stated earlier).

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The last pledge of 'equal protection of the laws' would apply to gay people as well anyone else who might be singled out for discriminatory treatment.

Sailorman- You're right, it is all semantics. But a semantic difference is still a difference... and being treated differently (even on a semantic level) is wrong.

But, I'm with you here. You seemed to come to the conclusion that churches alone would perform marriage ceremonies, and the state would deal exclusively in civil unions for all cases.

Like I said earlier, if everyone is treated the same by the state, I'm fine with that. I'm not hung up on the word 'marriage', I'm hung up on the word 'equality'.

toonfan - well I suppose an inequality perceived is an inequality suffered. I don't think I concluded only churches should perform marriages. I meant people could call it whatever they want. Whether you call it a "civil union" or "marriage", legally the end result is the same - divorce - jk. Having said that, I don't have a problem with it either since it seems that the vast majority of the complaints come from the religious community. Maybe that would satisfy them. I do agree that equality is the goal.

But before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. So that the law is become our tutor [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But now faith that is come, we are no longer under a tutor. For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one [man] in Christ Jesus. And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise. (Galatians 3:24-29)

59 comments! That's got to be a record.
I'm LMAO because it's an issue that no one can fight.
I know several same-sex couples that are better partners and better parents than many heterosexual couples. So the argument is lost on me.
I recommend not talking about something you know nothing about - it just shows your ignorance.