Stage set for possible showdown on gay marriage
 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas..._sjc_go_ahead/

There is a joint session of the Massachusetts House and Senate today, so the timing of this ruling could mean a showdown today.

I can't wait until some of these couples start to visit some red states and assert their rights under the full faith and credit clause. Watching all of our politicians posture will be pure entertainment.

Would somebody please provide a compelling argument opposing gay marriage that is not based on religion?

I haven't seen one myself. I don't have a problem with my church not marrying gays, but the state shouldn't get involved in a religious fight.

I don't like the term marriage. In and of itself. I feel like this b/c marriage as a term is one of the sacraments of roman catholic church, and since I was never catholic, what I will have with my future wife will differ from a ceremony blessed by the pope, or his rep. So, just in general, I don't care what people call their releationship, because they're probably wrong about the terminology anyway.

The thing is civil marriage has been recognized for years, so it's hard to get upset about the term now. I'd be all for having civil unions and religious marriages... For EVERYONE.

Yup.

Valkyrie, you could ask that question about an awful lot of issues these days.

[ This space intentionally left blank ]

Compelling argument, sure, the rights of states to act as they wish. I think it should be left to the states, but there will be a problem with the FFC clause. Of course, the last time a group of states significantly argued for states rights we saw what happened...

Come on Mitt!
Romney for President, 2008

I agree that it should be left to the states, I don't think the FFC clause truly hurts state's rights. The clause is not exactly new.

I'm not sure I like how my state will handle it, but as they fell short of their little petition I'm not complaining, yet.

A constitutional admendment to ban gay marriage is stupid as is one to ban flag burning, but that's a whole other kettle o' fish

Provide a compelling argument in support of a state law banning gay marriage that is not based on religion.

States rights is a completely compelling argument. Just as the Supreme Court has ruled several times that localities should be able to decide what is should/should not be allowed in the public arena, I believe states should be allowed to do the same based on their constituents beliefs. Why do localities ban obscenity? For several reasons, such as degradation of women, the idea that it misinforms children about how relationships should be, etc... I believe that state sponsored gay marriage would put a governmental stamp of approval on homosexual relationships, relationships that logic and nature tell us are counterproductive to the future of the human race. My personal wish would be that marriage had remained entirely church sponsored, but as it is, I think states and their citizens should be allowed to decide whether or not they think gay marriage is appropriate in their state.

So you don't think people of any other religion should be able to get married?

I think that this statement is based on your religious views.

Being counterproductive for the human race isn't religious, it's fact. Two women or two men can't reproduce. That would scientifically be considered counterproductive. I still don't think it's a good enough reason to ban gay marriage, however, as there will be plenty of other people to reproduce and humans are far from being an endangered species.

Mu AGD, I'm not sure what you're talking about. What I said was that marriage should be left to religious institutions. Thus, it would not be regulated other than by the church. Therefore, if you were an atheist, you could participate in a ceremony, it just wouldnt be "accredited" by any religious body.

Valk,
My views are religious based yes, but there are other motives as well. Evidence has shown that a man and woman provide the best family environment. Before you point out exceptions, there are exceptions, but that doesn't overcome the fact that in the majority of situations, children with a mother and father present do best. The majority of people who marry are fertile and within ages which could bear children. Thus, they are likely to eventually produce children, and if the family remains intact, those children have a much better chance at educational success, mental health, etc. If gay marriage is permitted in every state, then the question will become why would they not be allowed to raise and adopt children? I think that issue has the potential of becoming more hostile and even more devisive than the one at hand.

You said marriage should be "Church sponsored." I am Jewish and therefore don't go to Church, so how could I get married under your view?

No its not, that assumption wasn't a part of my argument. I did question what would happen regarding children. I'm perfectly aware that some will marry without any desire for kids. That being said, what does it tell my children, who see the State of Georgia saying that two men being in a married relationship is ok? I would prefer my children not be overly exposed to homosexual relationships to begin with (I want them to know what it is, but not to the point where they assume it is a viable life option), but with gay marriage being provided for, it is their state government saying that two males or females being in a relationship is just as legitimate as a male and a female. I'm sure many disagree with my take, but that is how I believe.

Mu AGD, marriage is a church creation. If you want to get married under my "system" you could either go to a Jewish faith's ceremony, if you desired, or you could simply have a private ceremony. Under such a system the government would recognize no marriage or lack there of, and thus if you believe that your ceremony is valid, then it would be to you. Those who choose to have the Church's validation, would have that option as well.

The argument that there is no genetic benefit to being gay isn't quite true. There seems to be evidence supporting the idea that the gay uncle (so to speak) helped raise the children, so that more people could hunt and gather. Same thing for grandparents. We live much longer, relatively speaking, than other mammals. Long past our reproductive age.

This is all anthropological theory of course, but it isn't entirely baseless.

I want to understand this, because I've heard it before. Do you think that the morals/lessons/values you'll teach your children will be so fragile that if the state allowed gay marriage your kids would think it's okay despite what you've taught them? I'm not trying to be argumentative here -- I just want somebody to explain this.

Unless you're also arguing for an amendment to eliminate divorce, I must disagree with this point.

Also, I'd like a citation if possible - I'm unaware of comprehensive studies comparing 2-parent households 'apples to apples' with regard to gay/straight parenting viability.

Besides this, gay people can adopt on their own, and that's not illegal. Marriage and children are not intertwined . . .

. . . which leads to this. Denying someone adoption based on their sexuality is a separate issue, one that I doubt you'll find much support for outside extreme religious groups, and this is NOT a contingent or conflated issue to gay marriage.


-----------------


To add to this post, there are numerous examples of homosexuality within other mammal species. This is not a human-only phenomenon; thus, within nature, it must not be THAT detrimental (you know, survival of the fittest and all that). It's a baseless argument.

The question shinerbock, is do you believe homosexuality is a choice or is innate?

I go with the innate for many reasons, but mostly that I myself never chose to be attracted to anyone, just found myself attracted to my boyfriend.

If innate, you may disagree with it, but how can it be wrong (outside of a religious belief). Gay rights has often been compared to civil rights, and while I disagree that such a broad comparison is accurate, the gay marriage/interracial marriage comparison seems right to me.

No one complains about a straight couple holding hands while walking down the street, but if it's a gay couple, all of a sudden they're "forcing their views on me" and "making my children think it's ok"

Your children are going to witness many things that are "wrong" in life. You will have to teach them whether things are wrong or right. That's a parent's job. Trying to put them in a bubble from the "wrongs" isn't going to work, and will probably make them rebel. Be prepared to have a talk with your children about WHY you disapprove of gay marriage when they see two men together. I still won't agree with you, but you'll be doing everything right.

Free thinking? Naturally at some point my children will have the decision of what religion to practice, who they want to be in a long term relationship with, etc. What I don't appreciate is a school, or a government telling them that being gay is alright, or that abortion is ok, or that evolution is the only way the earth could have been created. However, until they reach the point of young adulthood, do you think I should let them consort with whoever they want, watch whatever they want, not go to school, not go to church? Also, if your liberal ideology is one of "freethinking" and you obviously exclude my way of thinking, then your ideology isn't quite sound is it?

That is your job, to fill in where the government leaves off. The government teaches the science of evolution, they do not teach religion. When the kid comes home from school you teach them about Genesis. (I learned evolution in my Catholic school and I, like most Catholics, have no problem reconciling the two)

The government shouldn't be saying that those things are bad either, they're not around to make moral judgements. You are the one to teach your children morals. If you don't think can be done with gay marriage than I'm sorry for your kids, they will need a lot of help.

Let's take the example of a woman who wants to have an abortion. Would you argue that she should not be able to have a legal abortion because you don't want your (potential) children to interpret that as the state's approval of abortion?

That's pretty jacked.

I think it is probably a little bit of both. I believe homosexuality is a sin, as a Christian. Because of this, I don't believe God created anyone to "be gay." That being said, I do believe there are people who have natural attraction to the same sex. Obviously, as a person who is straight, I'll never know how this attraction manifests itself, or the strength of it (which I imagine varies). I do believe there are societal influences. I think kids today grow up in a culture where they may not fully act out their gender role, and thus assume they are homosexuals. I personally knew 2 young men from my hometown who at one point claimed to be gay, but have since married women. I don't believe it was out of societal pressure, as they both openly discuss the period in their life, and it was never a secret for them. I think they used it as both a rebellion against the church and their parents, and assumed that this was natural because of their more feminine nature. I'm sure some gay people would claim that they simply conformed and went against their natural feelings, but to ask them they did not. There was no reform here, like the far left often accuses the far right of doing, but the 2 guys simply claim they changed a lot as they approached adulthood. Now this is obviously a particular case involving only 2 individuals, but I think it may be indicative of a certain subsection of homosexuals. People usually use the defense "why would anyone choose to be gay?" and to a degree that makes sense. However, in the world of growing up as a teenager, teens often choose to act in a way in which to join a small subsection of our culture. I think perhaps the difference in those who truly have strong feelings and those who simply have placed themselves in the homosexual catagory are whether they act out their role or not. Many homosexuals I know (generally younger) do not act, nor express any desire to really act out upon their desires. But as I said earlier, seeing as I'll never have true insight into the mind of someone claiming to be gay, I'll probably never have a fully made up mind on the subject.

Where's Rudey with his, "reading comprehension isn't your strong suit" comments when we need him? He's a lot funnier than I am. :(

I'm clearly against abortion, and especially any government funding going towards abortion. Obviously, seeing as abortion involves another living thing, I have problems beyond what my future children will interpret from it. That being said, I don't want my future children to feel the government condones abortion.

Regarding Drole...
You're right, I do not at all depend on the government to teach my children morals (or most of their education, for that matter). However, I do have a problem with schools not presenting the alternative. Frankly, I could care less if they teach creationism in schools, but I think they should give the counter side to evolution. There is much about macro-evolution which defies logic and is currently in question, and I think schools should question that. It should be presented as merely one option for our existance. Likewise, with homosexuality, I don't wish for schools to teach that being gay is a sin. It is not their role, nor do I trust schools to religiously train my future kids. However, I think presenting it as a viable option is also wrong. I believe they should explain both sides of the issue, that some people feel it is innate and others that it is acquired, the safety issues, the child rearing issues, etc.

Well I'm not sure that reading comprehension is my strong suit, but the LSAT disagrees with you. Logic games, however, are a different story...

The point is that the government allowing gay marriage does nothing to indoctrinate your children. In reality it doesn't affect you. If Bob and Joe want to get married, it does not harm nor help your life. Why then, would you hinder them?

How would it not, it is giving a stamp of approval to that way of life. As I said before I don't like the situation we're in. If I were around when the government started recognizing and regulating marriage, I'd have probably claimed that to be a violation of church and state. Unfortunately we are now in the position that the two are too intertwined to be realistically seperated, and a government recognition of gay marriage would send a message that I and a large amount of Americans are uncomfortable with. Thus my only solution would be to leave it to the states.

Even something like civil unions? What message does it send? The same one that was sent when ruled it was ok for a black man to marry a white woman without being lynched? This does not influence religious marriages whatsoever. In fact I'd prefer to have all civil marriages be called civil unions and leave the word marriage to religions.

It isn't "approval" You can watch an interracial couple walk down the street and disapprove, that doesn't mean you should make it illegal.

Whatever my feelings regarding interracial marriage, it is still a man and a woman. Now I would be more open to civil unions, something that gave them them the benefits they desired without the traditional term of marriage. Now, I don't know that I would vote for it, but I would be more comfortable with it.

So it's just the term you can't live with? What if you and your wife signed a Civil Union certificate while getting your church wedding? Would that be wrong?

AXI, well you're right, I don't know that it does, but it does provide it with legitimacy.

Drole, yes, it mainly is the terminology. But it is also the term and tradition combined with the government display of approval, or acceptance. As I've stated earlier, I wish we were in a country that simply did civil unions, leaving recognition of marriage up to the church. However, we're not in that situation.

I'm sorry I can't take the time at the moment to read the entire thread, so apologies are offered it this has been mentioned before, but it seems to me that marriage is not a religious institution in total -- otherwise, why do we recognize marriages performed by judges or justices of the peace?

It seems to me that the issue of gay marriage is somewhat of a smokescreen hiding a prejudice in some religions against gay people -- not them being married.

If not, why would any church be against a gay couple being married in a civil ceremony -- one not performed by the church?

I think the problem they, and I, have is that there is no modern day difference between a church performed marriage and that of the state. Just as modern Christians are discouraged because of the high divorce rate, they also do not like the idea of gay marriage. They feel it cheapens a sacred vow they take very seriously.

The issue is not a religious issue. Gay couples can be joined together in religious ceremonies in certain churches/denominations. So the issue is a secular/government/legality issue...whether or not gay unions (whatever name you want to give them) should be legally recognized and carry with them the benefits that straight couples take for granted...such as knowing that if you die, your children and your house and your life insurance benefits will not be taken away from your spouse and given to your "closest" relative (even if that relative is someone who hates you, beat you up, disowned you, kicked you out, etc. for your orientation).

Oh yes, and Michael Jackson's two sham marriages, Britney Spears' 55-hour "Ooops" Vegas wedding, and Anna Nicole's golddigger marriage didn't cheapen the sacredness of marriage at all.