Same Sex Marriage - Not

The title of your piece is "Same-sex Marriage-Not" How are we to deduce from your words that you are for equality?


Too late now, but the title was my mistake. What I meant was "not the way gays and lesbians are going about it." I never realized it because I thought the content of the article was clear enough. Maybe a lot of the vitiolic comments are coming from people who only read the title. That happens.

We, in the gay community have had all kinds of negatives lobbed at us, pedophilia, bestiality, burglary, polygamy, and now, thanks to your creative mind, "ants at a picnic" and "Astrologist in an Astronomer's world". It's so nice to be "loved" by you Christians!

So let's just remove any and all 'benefits' that a couple derives from the government(local, state, province or national)solely because they are 'married'...then we have a level field. Then everyone pays taxes on everything, no one passes property to anyone else, no one receives survivor benefits, everyone must have some proof that they can legally make decisions for someone else, etc.

I didn't have that much respect for your warped sense of justice, but now I loath how cowardice it is to post an article and clip out those that counter it. Censorship is the tool of the weak mind. Good luck with your one sided debate and( writing?) career.

Thanks for your good wishes.

College kids who are straight are joining National Boycott on Marriage and refusing to partake in the 1300 rights afforded to hets, not until everyone can be married. Straights are starting to join in this fight for equality. The tide is turning on this bigotry. I would be willing to bet that the republicans allow thumpers to do their damage in order to remain fiscally free of the burden of equality.

I think it's is the height of cowardice to post an article online and then censor anyone countering your posts.

To reiterate: not a single word in any post has been censored. But on the point of "cowardice". How about being afraid to use your real name? If you have one. Daniel

Censorship, is this a Canadian ideal?

This guy is censoring very valid points. Anything that refutes his opinions gets censored! It's so chicken!

I would be willing to bet that the republicans allow thumpers to do their damage in order to remain fiscally free of the burden of equality. To answer your gimmicky, "If it's the "dumbest" editorial, why are religious fundamentalists and Republicans (they're not always the same) so opposed to it?" Censor this too?


Not a single word in any comment has been altered or deleted. If you read all the comments you will see all the emotion brought up on this topic, because many of the commenters do not see the "reasonableness" of my argument. If they saw that, they could respond equally reasonably and perhaps refute my point of view (which is all it is). Using words like "stupid" and "dumbest" do not advance an argument. Daniel

Daniel Johnson says, "But you and the other commenters are getting bogged down in irrelevant details. You’re talking about equality and civil rights that didn’t exist even a few decades ago and even now are only tenuously held in some locales." If laws were set in stone, women would still not have rights to vote, interracial marriage would still be banned, slavery would still be enacted. These are argumentative and stupid retorts. The law has always been there, the oppression is what has kept gay people from finally saying, "enough!". You likely won't print this post either, because it refutes your bigoted point of view. Go ahead, censor away. It's the only way you can win this argument


I won't censor your post because you don't even understand the argument. I am not against gays and lesbians having relationships and equal rights in our society. I just argue that I think they are going about it the wrong way. The law has not "always" been there. If it had been there never would have been slavery, bans on interracial marriage and women would "always" have been able to vote. What other laws are there that have "always" been around that only you seem to know about?" Daniel

Studies have shown that couples fare better than single people, when it comes to health, wealth, stability, and fidelity. If pairing is so good for people, denying gays the right to pair off in contractual unions seems counterintuitive, even cruel. If marriage is good for couples, it's good for society as a whole. Should those born gay be ineligible for such a healthy, stabilizing, happy relationship? Equal means equal. Damage done to the sanctity of marriage has been done long before gays opted for equality. If NOM really was concerned about the sanctity of marriage, more emphasis would be placed on protection of women from abuse, infidelity, spur of the moment marriages from youngsters with no impulse control, divorce, and on and on. Most of the gay couples I know have been together for years and years. They don't stray. They work hard, pay for college, pay taxes, vote, buy houses, start businesses, create art, save lives, and genuinely enjoy their pursuit of happiness. Who has the right to say that these American citizens are not worthy of committed marriages? Will the rancor subside when it is proven, beyond a doubt, that there is a genetic component, a biological component to one's orientation? Will the judgmental finger pointing and painful rhetoric cease? Who has the right to say which families will have benefits and which will not? Who has the right to say that the children of same sex parents deserve fewer stabilizing protections? People are gay and that is not going to change. Would you rather people stayed in the closet and lived an outward lie? That's dishonest. It's possible, but dishonest. Be yourself, your truthful self, just as God made you and don't let someone else's discomfort about your difference make you lie to the world. Be honest and treat others well. Have integrity and show patience when angry, homophobic people taunt. Fear is their weapon of choice. Disprove it with civility.The General Accounting Office has identified 1,138 federal benefits and rights to civil marriage, none of which gays and lesbians have. Logically, how is continuing to ban gay families from equal rights going to stop them from having children? They will have children whether or not they are covered by protections enjoyed by the heterosexual couples. All you do when you ban gays from these protections is make it unsafe for "these" children. Is that your desire? Is that what you hope to achieve? Hypocrites! If you really cared about children, you would care for all children.

Tom: If it's the "dumbest" editorial, why are religious fundamentalists and Republicans (they're not always the same) so opposed to it?

Ant: You say that gays “want their relationships, families and households to be recognized and protected equally under the LAW; it's CIVIL marriage, not religious marriage, that gay couples are fighting for. It's also misleading to make a distinction between gay people and religious people, as if no gay people are religious”. You need to put on your reading glasses. I did say that gay people have religious beliefs just like everyone else.

But you and the other commenters are getting bogged down in irrelevant details. You’re talking about equality and civil rights that didn’t exist even a few decades ago and even now are only tenuously held in some locales.

Marriage has been a religious institution since the 13th century. Things are not going to change quickly. My analogy is clear: Astronomers and astrologers both have stars as subject matter in their fields. Ergo, why can’t they both belong to the American Astronomical Association? Two couples, a man and a woman, and two men, both want to live the rest of their lives together. Ergo, why can’t they be wedded in holy matrimony?

Marriage as a societal institution has been dominated by religion until about the 1960s when “long-haired freaky people” started practising alternatives. None of that, however, changed the underlying society. Marriage was still, and still is today, almost entirely a religious phenomena. Now, in some locales, gays and lesbians can also partake of civil ceremonies. But, lest we forget—those “rights” can disappear as quickly as they were given. In the 1950s Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren offered the opinion that if the Bill of Rights were presented for ratification, it would not pass. I fear it would encounter even greater opposition today.

TB: You need to understand what an analogy is. Using your Catholic example would be meaningless if no one has ever heard of it. I’ve never heard of it and I doubt that many others have either. More to the point, even those who have probably say “Who cares?” I’ll stay with my own example.

Steve: I hope you get the analogy, now.

This editorial is about the dumbest editorial I have ever read on the topic of same sex marriage (and I've read many). Regardless of whether or not marriage is a concept born out of religion, it is something that the state has gotten involved with and with that, provide benefits for married couples. Gay people who want to get married couldn't care less whether or not their marriages are recognized by religious people or institutions. They want the state to recognize it so that they can be entitled to the same benefits and rights as opposite-sex couples.

Let's create a board game and name it, "Referendum". With just one roll of the dice, rights could be stripped away, NOM-skulls could land in a prized square, a "Family Values" Republican could go down in flames, or an "activist judge" could be appointed to the bench. Oh! You landed on a slippery slope! Guess it's bestiality for you! Put that sheep down! Roll the dice, win a beauty pageant. Roll the dice, your crown gets taken away! Slippery slope, oh!, polygamy, who knew? Roll the dice, the Bishops and priests line up to form a wall, ohhhh, another scandal! Get out of Jail free card. Procure property in Iowa and marry your partner, oh! Nom-skulls show up dressed as Pilgrims breathing fire and beating their sanctimonious breasts on your lawn. When is this game going to be over? Sincerely, 1EqualityUSA

Jesus never talked about gays, nor are gays mentioned in the Ten Commandments, nor in the Summary of the Law. No prophet expounds upon gays. It really wasn’t that concerning in early churches. Being judgmental is the worse offense. That’s spoken of so often that it would seem to be the more important lesson for us. I question the faith of any Church leader who wallows in politics in order to plant spiritual seeds. It’s futility. It’s striving for the wind and feeding on it. It’s time to teach transformative Word, let Wisdom prevail, and leave politics to the world. You’ll honor the God for whom you so often speak, changing hearts in a more permanent fashion. People are being driven away from the message. Is that wise? For the religious minded, bear in mind that the dollars donated to church coiffures, is being thrown down a political rat hole. Even if NOM or any church leader succeeds in changing the laws, those laws stand to be overturned in a matter of years. All of this effort and money and time will have been futile. For those really wanting to transform hearts, spread the Gospel, and Glorify their Father, they would be wiser to take these donated dollars and humbly emulate Christ Jesus. The Lord did not use politics to heal and spread the Word of His Father. Jesus didn’t run to Herod and ask him to impose His Father’s Laws onto the people for Him. Our Saviour, Jesus, taught, transformed, and healed. Even Herod Antipas was moved by John the Baptist’s words, though not enough to refuse Salome’s request for his head. Every person breathing has a chance to be moved by the Spirit and these concepts, if even for a fleeting moment.

Religion is beautiful when taught properly with love. When it is used to dig up cash from the people, it's ugly. The only halfway decent minds that emerged from the Catholic Church were Juan De La Cruz (John of the Cross), Teresa of Avila, and Fulton Sheen. Bellicose, quarrelsome, angry priests filled with anti-gay wrath should direct their disdain towards their own fellow priests, who have disgraced the Catholic Church with rampant pedophilia, child rape. It’s difficult to point out weeds in another’s garden when weeds in one's own are so out of control. A lot of money donated to these men has gone to pay off the victims of molestation, child rape. The highest authority, the Pope, dragged his Papal heels, a scratch likely heard all the way to Heaven. Churches need to stay out of politics and tend to their own gardens. The Catholic Church is a disgrace. Church is no longer a place of healing, but rather a fear-mongering, money generator getting people to dig deeply into their pockets, by focusing on people with genetically predisposed sexual orientations. The shame in that is that the Church is driving some people away from the Word of God. Jesus didn’t say to go out and find perfect people for My flock. All people are called, irrespective of their spiritual realities and then, it is the Word of God that transforms those in contact with the Spirit of God. For Church leaders to draw a line in the sand and reject thousands of people based on sexual orientation is short sighted. It’s likely a test for those in power. No man has the last say over who will be accepted into the Kingdom. The Reader of hearts has the capacity to understand people on levels that man cannot even fathom. It would be unwise to hold brothers and sisters in judgement, just to win an earthly debate.

0 Minutes did a piece about gays in which twins were featured. (Google video 60 Minutes, Gay, twins.) This segment, headed by Leslie Stahl, spoke of physiological components to one's sexual orientation. Studies are being conducted about orientation being influenced by the mother's own immune system. The more boys a mother has, the greater the chances that one of her youngest will be gay. (Population control? I wonder.) The mother's immune system, subjected to the "y" chromosome, sees it as a foreign substance, so that by the 3rd or 4th male, physiological responses are often set into motion, a combination of genetics, hormones, and immunological systems are being studied, as to why some turn out gay. There's so much we have yet to learn about this. I would like to know what modern day Christians think about this research and how that effects their opinions on those of us born gay. These boys are so young and innocent and natural. I cannot comprehend anyone being able to point a judgmental finger at these youngsters. Back in Biblical times, had they known, what we are just now beginning to comprehend, perhaps Paul (Saul) would have had a deeper understanding. Perhaps any religion that discriminates against gays would benefit from this research. Christ Jesus must have known, as He stayed so silent on the subject of gays. Google video this segment. It's fascinating.

Would God rather we hide who we are, outwardly lie about our sexual identities, enter into empty marriages with these secrets, and not be truthful? Gays are lumped into one, big, amorphous category of sin by others who sin on a daily basis. Women don't want to be solely defined by their sexuality, a very small part of a being's personhood. What makes you think that gays want to be defined solely by this very small aspect of our being? God knows the truth about every person breathing, so to "pull off" a fake heterosexual life for the sake of being loved and accepted by humans (of this day) is not only dishonest, but pathetic. It is dehumanizing to sum up people based on this very small aspect of their personhood. Have integrity and don't let anyone tell you that God hates you. God will likely consider that the worse offense. Be honest and truthful.

This article is a perfect example of one of the biggest misunderstandings concerning the gay marriage issue. Gay couples don't want to force "religious people" to recognize their relationships. They want their relationships, families and households to be recognized and protected equally under the LAW; it's CIVIL marriage, not religious marriage, that gay couples are fighting for. It's also misleading to make a distinction between gay people and religious people, as if no gay people are religious. Many gay people are religious and many churches, temples, and synagogues have been performing gay marriages for decades, so there are plenty of places for them to go where "religious people" welcome them with open arms. Gay couples aren't trying to rain on your parade or be ants at your picnic. They are a part of your community; they pay their taxes and contribute to society; they teach your kids, bag your groceries, perform your surgeries, fight your wars and, yes, even attend your churches. They deserve to have their relationships equally protected under the law. This is a very different thing from "forcing" anything on anyone, which is why no church in Massachusetts, where gay marriage has been legal for five years now, has been forced to recognize any marriage it doesn't want to.

This article is ridiculous. It's not about receiving recognition from religions or religious individuals, it's about receiving equal treatment under the law. Catholics still don't consider many marriages that are legal in the US to be real marriages... and I don't think many people are really trying to push that the Catholic church must recognize those marriages. Maybe THAT would have been a better analogy.

"This is true and has been for thousands of years." Christianity took ownership of marriage and began sanctioning in the 1200s. There was a means of controlling their members and at that time same sex marriage was not uncommon. As their reign of tyranny ensued, same marriages were supposed to have been removed from history. Christians have not been marrying for thousands of years. If someone is not christian does that mean their marriage isn't valid? Perhaps a new christian initiative is on its way.

Daniel. Sorry to say a poorly written piece with a difficult to understand analogy, which fails to grasp a number of the basic issues regarding the struggle for equal rights.

Marriage is firstly a civil matter, as marriage licenses are issued by town halls not church halls, or mosques or temples in America. And all summer long couples have been coming to CT to wed from all around the country. And many of them have been together for many years. Congrats to all. Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace, Washington, Connecticut, USA. None my couples expressed any interest in a religious marriage. They clearly wanted a civil marriage.