Off hand I think there should be a small paradigm shift. Churches marry people. But the people still must explicitly enter into a civil union contract, all people, even those who stand up in church to get a church marriage. The state recognizes the civil union contract. The church recognizes marriages for its own purposes. Different churches can have different rules. But the state has a one size fits all contract for any two people who wish to join their lives together. Leave the church the name “marriage”. Leave each church and church leader determine who may and may not be married in that church by any given church leader. Then nobody is bound to do something they feel is odious, however small their minds.

And in the process call the bluff of those who insist gays can have a civil union that is the same as marriage but cannot call it a marriage. Officially NOBODY can call the state recognition of their state as a marriage. And anybody who can find a church that will “marry” them can satisfy their need to be “married”.

{^_^}

What am I, the married father of 2, giving up? Is my commitment to my wife lessened simply because the gay dude I used to work with made someone a wonderful husband?

You brought up the notion that if not enough people take advantage of something, then it shouldn’t be government sanctioned.

Zoroastrians shouldn’t get any sort of religious protection in the USA because there are, like, 12 of ‘em. Or should they?

Krydor on May 22, 2008 at 11:02 PM

Not good enough for them, they are not willing to give up anything they think they are being forced to give up.

Even something so simple as seeing our neighbor, who happens to be gay, happy.

right2bright

What am I, the married father of 2, giving up? Is my commitment to my wife lessened simply because the gay dude I used to work with made someone a wonderful husband?

You brought up the notion that if not enough people take advantage of something, then it shouldn’t be government sanctioned.

Zoroastrians shouldn’t get any sort of religious protection in the USA because there are, like, 12 of ‘em. Or should they?

Hey AprilOrit
Trollin, trollin, trollin…….

RobCon on May 22, 2008 at 5:53 PM

Hmmm, I’m not the loon defending Man Coulter. Talk about real trollin’ I bet you think she’s hot, adams apple and all.

As far as I know, they simply challenged the unconstitutionality of the law – maintaining that the legislature has no authority to define “marriage”. I am unaware of any subsequent asserted redefinition from the judges. You are free to consider “marriage” any way you choose, without fear of legal penalty.

LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 8:16 PM

So how was marriage defined before? Are you really going to try to claim that marriage is not being redefined with same-sex “marriage?”

I would hope not.

Bottom line: Marriage is not gender-neutral. All your arguments are based on the presumption that it is or should be. Your arguments start from a false presumption, and have no weight. It doesn’t matter if you devise an internally-consistent rationalization: you start wrong, so you end wrong.

No they imposed a new definition, that’s the rub

I don’t see where they accomplished what you claim. As far as I know, they simply challenged the unconstitutionality of the law – maintaining that the legislature has no authority to define “marriage”. I am unaware of any subsequent asserted redefinition from the judges. You are free to consider “marriage” any way you choose, without fear of legal penalty.

No they imposed a new definition, that’s the rub. I guess we should be like McCain and Ellen agree to disagree….we’ve come full circle!!

LOL….there aren’t many of us here that couldn’t say the same thing…me included!

Gotta run….nice chatting with you today. I’m sure we will talk again :)

But those judges just imposed their authority on the religious definition (btw, not just a Christian one) of marriage

I don’t see it that way. You remain free to consider “marriage” as “one man, one woman”, they simply denied the possibility of using the law to impose that definition on others that think differently.

I wonder what the first court case is going to look like when a gay Muslim couple sues a Mosque because it refused to perform a marriage ceremony

I wouldn’t put anything past muslims right now. However, I doubt there’s any grounds for a lawsuit – nobody has any claim or right to a religious service.

I wonder what the first court case is going to look like when a gay Muslim couple sues a Mosque because it refused to perform a marriage ceremony. You think they get mad when cartoons are drawn……

It seems to be some sort of ‘mission creep’, but I don’t know how it started.

You sound like a dictator, albeit a humble one!!

sheryl on May 22, 2008 at 6:54 PM

I assure you I am the antithesis of dictator. I want government to stop intruding where it has no authority to.

If anything, I’m more aligned with an anarchical philosophy than anything else – in the correct sense of the word, not the shaved head, chaos & mayhem dimwitted sense. Yet another term that has been usurped ;-)

There is nothing in the Constitution granting authority what marriage is or is not.

Correct. Which is why no law may be crafted to that effect.

Plus what these judges have done is blurred the separation of church and state by defining what is marriage

Incorrect. These judges have maintained the separation of church and state by preventing a law that attempted to unconstitutionally foist a (subliminally) Christian definition upon us.

The irony is that this decision gives more weight to a Constitutional Amendment.

I’m not picking up any irony, but it is true that an amendment is the legitimate way to go. It would destroy the underpinnings of our constitutional republic though…and make us look like a bunch of Salem webfeet IMNSHO ;-)

Both McCain and Ellen deserve credit for discussing the subject in a civil way.

McCain was visibly uncomfortable, but all Ellen wanted to do was to bring up the subject of gay marriage for discussion. In the end Maverick agrees-to-disagree. But I give…

Disagree. There is nothing in the Constitution granting authority what marriage is or is not. Plus what these judges have done is blurred the separation of church and state by defining what is marriage. And on top of that, they have messed with the balance of power and have given the judiciary too much. The irony is that this decision gives more weight to a Constitutional Amendment.

Getting a marriage license is no more a right than getting a drivers license is.

Dollayo on May 22, 2008 at 7:12 PM

No, but if a state government said that it wouldn’t issue a drivers license to anyone who was gay, they’d have a federal problem.

As for the ‘dumb masses’ thing, I’m a life member ;-)”

You sound like a dictator, albeit a humble one!!

This squirming has been going on for a decade. Remember the Chris Matthews forum where McCain said he thought it would be OK if gays married and then 10 minutes later said he thought gay marriage should be illegal?

Right now gays have equal rights as I do: I can marry a member of the opposite sex, and they can marry a member of the opposite sex. To call both the same thing is changing the definition.

DavidM on May 22, 2008 at 6:11 PM

This week a U.S. district court ordered the U.S. Treasury to change the way they print money since blind people can’t distinguish between the denominations. One could have argued that the blind had the same opportunity to see the numbers as sighted people, but the court didn’t accept that.

About 3.1 million Americans are blind or severely visually impaired. Though they are only 1% of the population, we’ll be spending taxpayer money to subject all Americans to redesigned bills with special features to help this 1%.

The changes are costly but important to help the blind fully participate in society. By comparison allowing gays to marry seems less expensive but similarly reasonable.

right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 5:44 PM

Even if I was the only person to hold the opinion, I would still be right, and Constitutionally righteous. This is what separates men from sheep.

As for the ‘dumb masses’ thing, I’m a life member ;-)

Right now gays have equal rights as I do: I can marry a member of the opposite sex, and they can marry a member of the opposite sex. To call both the same thing is changing the definition.

Its very telling that they can’t live with civil unions or some other term-no they *must* have the term marriage which was a religious term since the beginning of recorded history.

When you are inventing new morals as you go, its easy to justify changing things to suit yourselves.

crr6 on May 22, 2008 at 3:38 PM

And we have laws that protect all the citizens. The gays can have a contract between them that give them everything they need. Give them a civil ceremony (or religious) and call it a gayliage, or couple contract, it just isn’t a marriage.
They have their gay pride parades, call it gay pride contract. Like most liberal, fascists organizations (not gays, but the organizations that represent them), they want to take what isn’t theirs to take, and when denied, they whine and carry on.
They have what they need, a contract with each other.