News-Record.com

Our society is fraught with man's inhumanity to man cloaked in the name of christianity. If one does not fit a particular mold, look or way of thinking, they are ostracized and therefore not worthy of recognition as equal human beings. Men have decided for everyone for centuries who is worthy of equality. Blacks, women and gays have had to fight for every right they currently have.

The laws have changed but minds have been slow to follow suit. This is evident, not only pertaining to gay marriage, but also to equality in general. Just listen to the way men still speak of women in power.

I could care less what gay couples do in the privacy of their own homes but they have started this war on traditional marriage and that does concern me and society as a whole.You want to change the definition of an ancient institution that has always meant the union of 1 man and 1 women to suit your own needs.Marriage is rooted in religion.Why not create your own institution rather than trying to warp the meaning of marriage into something it was never meant to be?The people who believe in traditional marriage will not back down on this issue and will fight you tooth and nail until our dying breath!!!!!!!!!

Everyone should be treated equal. OK, I all for us be taxed at the same rate.

"war on traditional marriage"

"threat to the sanctity of marriage"

I question these reasons to oppose gay marriage. As was said, it is not a religious matter, it is a legal matter.

I suggest to those who use the terms in quotes to propose a ban on divorce, make adultery punishable by prison, put spousal abusers in prison for life. Only the couple involved can threaten the "sanctity of traditional marriage."

"an ancient institution that has always meant the union of 1 man and 1 women"

False.

"It is morally and logically impossible to claim love and respect for gay people and at the same time oppose their basic human right to form families."

I guess you could blame either God, Mother Nature or whoever created us as we were not designed with hermaphroditic plumbing.

Geez,thanks for that nitpicking rahrah.Of course some societies have had polygamy but marriage has always been the union between opposite sexes and that doesn't diminish the point at all.

"Our society is fraught with man's inhumanity to man cloaked in the name of christianity. If one does not fit a particular mold, look or way of thinking, they are ostracized and therefore not worthy of recognition as equal human beings. Men have decided for everyone for centuries who is worthy of equality. Blacks, women and gays have had to fight for every right they currently have."
That seems a bit harsh, Yvonne. Institutions like the church are not infallible, as they are made up of human beings. They make wrong decisions from time to time. You ostracize them just as critically as you claim they ostracize you for not thinking the same way you do. I would suggest, however, that much that ails society today is rooted in turning away from biblical teachings. Or is there some other reason for it? Can you expound on that?

I agree with everything in this Counterpoint and don't think it will change a single mind because it doesn't actually address conservative objections. Its sole value is in pointing out that there is support withing this community for gay marriage. That value is serious, but it's alone.

"Gay marriage threatens/weakens traditional marriage." How? I fail to see how allowing gays to marry would affect my traditional marriage at all. No one has ever been able to explain this to me.

"This goes against my religion." Fine, then what's your problem with civil unions? And, if we're separating church and state here, why aren't courthouses restricted to performing civil unions for everyone and leaving "marriage" as a religious institution?

"This isn't an environment in which to raise children." There is ZERO evidence that gay parents are more likely to raise gay children and, until that evidence is produced, there is nothing to back up this statement. The evidence that exists suggests that loving families are the best places for children to grow up - I doubt anyone disagrees with that. Provide some evidence that gay families do a worse job at raising kids and you have a right to this argument.

"Gays can't reproduce." Neither can old couples who get married or marriages with a sterile partner. The assertion above that marriage is essentially about plumbing is simply too silly to address.

You could go on to addressing religious objections if you want to, but I think this letter is about delegitimizing the relevance of religious objections in a civil setting, so I guess that's irrelevant.

Still, if you want to do something other than waving the flag, go after the people who actually disagree with you. This letter doesn't accomplish that.

I agree with everything in this Counterpoint and don't think it will change a single mind because it doesn't actually address conservative objections. Its sole value is in pointing out that there is support withing this community for gay marriage. That value is serious, but it's alone.

"Gay marriage threatens/weakens traditional marriage." How? I fail to see how allowing gays to marry would affect my traditional marriage at all. No one has ever been able to explain this to me.

"This goes against my religion." Fine, then what's your problem with civil unions? And, if we're separating church and state here, why aren't courthouses restricted to performing civil unions for everyone and leaving "marriage" as a religious institution?

"This isn't an environment in which to raise children." There is ZERO evidence that gay parents are more likely to raise gay children and, until that evidence is produced, there is nothing to back up this statement. The evidence that exists suggests that loving families are the best places for children to grow up - I doubt anyone disagrees with that. Provide some evidence that gay families do a worse job at raising kids and you have a right to this argument.

"Gays can't reproduce." Neither can old couples who get married or marriages with a sterile partner. The assertion above that marriage is essentially about plumbing is simply too silly to address.

You could go on to addressing religious objections if you want to, but I think this letter is about delegitimizing the relevance of religious objections in a civil setting, so I guess that's irrelevant.

Still, if you want to do something other than waving the flag, go after the people who actually disagree with you. This letter doesn't accomplish that.

EXCELLENT EXCELLENT LETTER, Chris. Your points were direct and accurate. Yet it appears the very first argument against your letter dealt with religion.

It is very difficult for me to understand why even people who feel opposition to this matter due to religious beliefs can't understand the equality factor.

Gay marriage will not affect the 'sanctity' of marriage in general. In the words of the immortal Frank Burns- "marriage is the chief cause of divorce".

Perhaps the easiest solution is for churches to sanction only marriage, and the government to sanction only civil unions. Only civil unions should then receive all of the current benefits given to married couples to ensure the separation of church and state continues. But I don't see our government doing that therefore, legalizing gay marriage is the ONLY thing that makes sense when you are considering equality for all.

I know already, that neo will argue about the gay militants. However, if there was equality- would there be a need for militants? They would still exist- just as the Fred Phelps exist on the side of the religious rite. But there would be no need.

Tim,

I have not declared war on anyone. Do not assume I am fighting for the right to marry anyone. I simply believe people should be treated equally in the eyes of the law and that religion should not be used to bludgeon those who think differently into submission.

I think marriage is fine for some and am happy when people can find that one love and commit to that person wholly, in mind, body, spirit, legally. I tried it, found it was not for me and have no desire to marry again, man or woman!

On a personal basis, what is your real objection to gay people getting married? I don't buy that BS about the "sanctity of marriage" as the joining of any other couple in marriage does not affect you.

Chicken Little,

If you follow along in these blogs, how can you not know what I mean about man's inhumanity to man and using the Bible to justify their beliefs? I cannot recall God performing a marriage between Adam and Eve. Even if He did, what does that have to do with the legality of equality?

Life is harsh sometimes without self-proclaimed Christians, who are really crushtians, inflicting their skewered interpretations of the Scriptures onto everyone else.

Clearly stated opinion, Cris

Marriage already is a civic procedure - you can't get married until you register with the state (get a license) and pay a fee, no matter whether the Pope himself performs the ceremony. So, what's the beef with letting same-sex couples go through that procedure? Exactly who does it hurt/threaten? I think Christ said something about rendering unto Caesar......

And religious institutions already exercise their rights to allow ceremonies....a christian couple can't just wander into a synagogue and expect permission to have their ceremony there (and vice-versa).

It IS an issue of equal and civil rights, period. Maybe it's time to brush off the old ERA and add 'gender' to this simple statement:

"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."

I see this ban on gay marriage as just another control tactic on the behalf of christians, their main argument is that in the bible it is the marriage of man and woman.

On the other hand it is a number of so called christians (before you get all in a tizzy, I'll admit there are probably a few that aren't christian too that are involved) that have created an environment of promiscuity, sex, sex, sex, lack of scruples, and open mindedness with their risqu'e television shows depicting gays living together, mixed couples, young sex, killing, stealing, the list goes on of acts that were unacceptable just a few years ago, but now are in nearly every tv show, (this is on standard networks this does not include, history channel, discovery channel etc.) or advertisement that is bombarded at us every time we turn on the boob tube.

What do they expect people to behave like when this is the roll model that many of today's kids are raised with. It makes a great baby sitter but not a good influence.

My point being, I am not against gay marriage, as a matter of fact, I think they should have the same rights as a hetrosexual couple. Although, society has allowed all the inconsistancies by sitting their children in front of that useless crap and then cry foul when their children and society want to emulate what they see of that useless crap.

I have only one comment to make, if the government insist on taxing us, then protect us and treat us equally. Don't expect to treat us as second class citizens, only to be taxed as first class citizens.
Equal treatment for all. Regardless of whom we are.

PS. had the government intended for Prop 8 to pass they would have not worded it so that it confused the mass.

Church and State are two, until the Government wants what it wants.

Mr. Elkins, I am not sure who your god is, but the God of the bible loves people and hates sin. that is the standard of "religion". Doing what is right, and the golden rule is all well and good, but following Gods commands is what makes the difference in your life.
Where should we stop? Recognition of what one does in the privacy of their home does not necessitate a change in social policy. The rights that are afforded to you by the governing bodies of this country are not based on personal preferences. Again I ask, where do we stop? Will there be other personal preferences that will seek governmental recognition?

There is a point, Mr. Tribbet and it's less nitpicky than you might think.

Traditional Marriage is a myth. The institution is in practically constant refinement.

As you seem to know, it used to be quite common for a man to take many wives, and if rich enough, concubines as well.

The most recent redefinition? The 'and obey' portion of the wife's wedding vow is practically never used anymore. Here ends a long, long 'traditional' part of marriage.

Paul said that it is better to marry than burn with passion. Knowing what we know today, it takes a special kind of ignorance to argue that homosexuality isn't innate. What would Paul have these people do?

---------------------
"I guess you could blame either God, Mother Nature or whoever created us as we were not designed with hermaphroditic plumbing."

As you well know, Dan, there's more than the old-fashioned way to form a family--from Science to adoption.
----------------------------------------

Just as an interesting hypothetical, I've often wondered if conservatives would accept a trade.

The Legalization of Gay Marriage for an almost-complete blanket ban on abortion.

What do you think?

"As you well know, Dan, there's more than the old-fashioned way to form a family--from Science to adoption."

I do know well rahrah, just trying to employ a bit of humor as you oft do, I liked the term "hermaphroditic plumbing."

**************************************************

Frankly I don't mind if gays have their civil unions or even church weddings in churches that approve of these marriages.

My beef however is that this will STILL not be good enough. Some gays will sue churches that do not support gay marriage or unions. There was already a case in NJ where two lesbians sued a Methodist church for not allowing them to perform a civil union on church property.

Look at England:

"Church leaders expressed fears last night that Christians could be sued under proposed new laws to protect gays from harassment.

The Government is proposing to introduce the laws to protect individuals from hostile or humiliating “environments” as part of an overhaul of discrimination legislation.

But Christian lawyers and the Church of England warned that Christians could face legal action if they offended gays by expressing the traditional teaching that homosexual sex was immoral.

The row follows the bitter battle last year over the Sexual Orientation Regulations, which many Christians fear will erode religious freedom and are part of a growing secularisation of society.

The Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship said that the new proposals, which may be included in a Single Equality Bill, could allow gays to sue if they heard a sermon that condemned homosexuality.

It added that while a church could “gently refuse membership” to an unrepentant, practising homosexual, “that person, if they felt that they had been put in a 'humiliating position’, could sue the Church.”"

http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=26168&sec=59&con=55

The same will happen here.

"recognition of what one does in the privacy of their homes does not necessitate a change in social policy. " they don't necessarily want recognition for what they do in the privacy of their own homes, just the legal rights that all married couples are allowed, if they love each other and want to spend their lives together and want that assurance of committment and security it should be allowed.

"the rights that are afforded to you by the governing bodies of this country are not based on personal preference. " I beg to differ with you there all rights are based on personal preference, freedom of religion is the first one that comes to mind.

sure there will be people suing and if they don't sue for that they will find something else to sue over. As for hostile and humiliating environment, surely that will protect more than just gays. As a matter of fact that can be turned around upon gays for there are those in the gay community that want to put others in a hostile and humiliating situation because of their bigotry towards straights.

I think it was perverse sexual behaviour that brought AIDS to the world . . . wasn't it . . . (BTW thanks for all the human suffering from then til now)

. . . I can't wait to see what else the gay folks will conjour up in the next 20 years . . .

I can't wait to see what finger pointing, bible thumping, christians will conjour up in the next 20 years either.

"The Constitution, not the Bible or any other sacred text or faith system, is the foundation of our government."

Oh really?

Well I will take James Madison's word over the misguided ramblings of the writer of the LTE.

James Madison said
"The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded."

By the way, for those who do not know history (and it is obvious that many on this blog do not), James Madison was the 4th President and one of the framers of the Constitution. As a matter of fact: Many called him "The Father of the Constitution".

As to the infallibility of the Constitutional writers...their work has had to be amended many times in order to insure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all, slaves, blacks, and women. I don't really care what their religious leanings were. Christian, Deist, Atheist, Agnostic...they wrote a document which was the FOUNDATION of our government, not the final word.

Also don't forget the proposed AMENDMENT to ban gay marriage...that didn't pass with a Republican President and Congress.

Also find that most who oppose abortion don't oppose the death penalty or the war in Iraq. An innocent fetus is guaranteed a place in Heaven. While the "sinners" shall burn in hell. Looks like those concerned with the souls of others would refocus their thinking.

Beachy,

Franklin and Jefferson were atheist, John Adams was a Unitarian (most Christians call this another faith). Jefferson created the concept of "separation of church and state". Dickinson was a quaker and would have been appalled at using the "god" argument. Now Hamilton was a Christian, but he had much to confess about! Obviously you are short on history. Discussing "god" does not make one a Christian. There have been too many politicians seeking votes using "god" claims who have obviously failed.

The Greeks knew the laws of gods, but they were pagons and philosophers.

So what is your point, Beachy?

Hey doggy
You are sadly mistaken
Jefferson quote
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Benjamin Franklin, was actually considered a deist by many, said, "He who shall introduce into the public affairs the principles of a primitive Christianity, will change the face of the world."

Hardly words from Atheist

Now let me get your blood really boiling.

Patrick Henry, the great orator who said on the floor of the House of Burgesses in Virginia, "Give me liberty or give me death" also said,
It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

You can try to rewrite history all yoiu want. I'll just quote it.

You people who say religion should not be interjected into this discussion are being absurd.How could you not?Marriage is a religious institution!Have you never been to a normal weeding and heard all the mentions od God?Without religion marriage is just a meaningless social contract between two people with no higher significance.It is only in recent times that government has become involved in marriage because the state found it in it's interest to promote it.Make no mistake that marriage is and always was a primarily religious institution.You may say I have no right to force my religious beliefs on others but that I am not.It is liberals that are trying to redefine our most sacred religious institution(the very foundation of our society) to mean something that it was never meant to be.How could any religious person accept this!I feel that it is religion that being attacked by the liberal extremists and not the other way around.If homosexuals want to create their own union tradition more power to them but leave marriage alone and do not try to redefine something as old as civilation for your own shortsighted selfish goals.

You people who say religion should not be interjected into this discussion are being absurd.How could you not?Marriage is a religious institution!Have you never been to a normal wedding and heard all the mentions of God?Without religion marriage is just a meaningless social contract between two people with no higher significance.It is only in recent times that government has become involved in marriage because the state found it in it's interest to promote it.Make no mistake that marriage is and always was a primarily religious institution.You may say I have no right to force my religious beliefs on others but I am not.It is liberals that are trying to redefine our most sacred religious institution(the very foundation of our society) to mean something that it was never meant to be.How could any religious person accept this!I feel that it is religion that being attacked by the liberal extremists and not the other way around.If homosexuals want to create their own union tradition more power to them but leave marriage alone and do not try to redefine something as old as civilation for your own shortsighted selfish goals.

And by the way, Can you show me any Offical document that says anything about "seperation of church and state.
Here's a little hint. There is none.
Those words have been taken out of context by people just like you who want to rewrite history. Those words were from a letter that Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Assoc. Since when does a phrase from a personal letter become law? And you would still need to take it out of context to get it to mean what you want it to.

"It is liberals that are trying to redefine our most sacred religious institution(the very foundation of our society) to mean something that it was never meant to be."

After searching several sites on origin of marriage, Tim Tribbett, it seems that you are the one trying to redefine marriage to suit your own agenda.

Do a little reading yourself and you will discover there is nothing "sacred" about marriage.

"the origin of marriage predates recorded history. It is highly unlikely that the basic concept of holding a ceremony to commemorate a life partnership began in any one culture. For instance, marriage existed amongst tribes native to the Americas long before Europeans reached their shores (and, naturally, also before they were named Americas). This, and other such examples, indicates that marriage developed in different ways in different cultures before those cultures were able to interact with each other, ergo eliminating the possibility of a single origin of marriage. Marriage has played a variety of roles in a variety of cultures ranging from the mundane purposes of alliances or selling daughters as currency to the more romantic purposes of raising a family or for love."

"It is liberals that are trying to redefine our most sacred religious institution(the very foundation of our society) to mean something that it was never meant to be."

After searching several sites on origin of marriage, Tim Tribbett, it seems that you are the one trying to redefine marriage to suit your own agenda.

Do a little reading yourself and you will discover there is nothing "sacred" about marriage.

"the origin of marriage predates recorded history. It is highly unlikely that the basic concept of holding a ceremony to commemorate a life partnership began in any one culture. For instance, marriage existed amongst tribes native to the Americas long before Europeans reached their shores (and, naturally, also before they were named Americas). This, and other such examples, indicates that marriage developed in different ways in different cultures before those cultures were able to interact with each other, ergo eliminating the possibility of a single origin of marriage. Marriage has played a variety of roles in a variety of cultures ranging from the mundane purposes of alliances or selling daughters as currency to the more romantic purposes of raising a family or for love."

Yvonne
Did you very in depth comprehensive study (over the last few long minutes) say anything about marriage being anything other than between a male and female?

I've read through the various comments about the nature of marriage, equality before the eyes of the law, Constitutional law, Biblical morality, and the rest with great interest. Some interesting arguments made.

However, I am going to be politically incorrect and point at the white elephant in the corner that we all see, but no one wants to look at.

Mr. Tribbett and others who support gay marriage:

The reason your cause meets with resistance is really because open homosexuality makes people uncomfortable. Society does not want to see it or acknowledge it exists. A great many live and let live people would be far happier if it just went back into the closet.

When gay activists try to force society to allow marriage between gays, it forces the existence of homosexuality into public view. We have to see it. We have to deal with it. People don't like being uncomfortable. They don't want to deal with it.

Now, the counter point could rightfully be made, "It's not my fault if someone else is uncomfortable." A true statement.

Reality is what it is. Society doesn't want to be uncomfortable.

BTW, let no one construe this to be my point of view one way or the other. I'm not saying.

I'm just giving the reason that I see and hear when I listen to people argue against gay marriage.

For me, it's got to be either all or nothing. All unions between two consenting adults should be able to be legally called marriage, or none of them.

Panacea
I appreciate the tone of your post. But to say those who oppose homosexuality oppose it because it makes them "uncomfortable" is being a little simplistic. It is far much deeper than that. Many (both Christian and non-Christian alike) see making marriage legal between two of the same sex, as a very large crack in the foundation of the institution of marriage. Now because I am a Christian, I will speak from that point of view (not to say I speak for all Christian's). The Bible says that God see homosexuality as an "abomination". There is not another sin in the Bible (that I know of), that God views this way. I know God hates all sin. But as far as I know there is no other sin that is described in those words. Asking Christians NOT to take a stand on this issue is like asking a kangaroo not to jump. As Christians, we have to oppose sin. There is a lot more to this issue than just being "uncomfortable".

Its no secret I am for gay marriage. To me its about equality. I respect people of faith and am not asking them to partake in homosexual relationships. I feel people of faith deserve every right to feel how they feel. A problem we have, is that although many of our founding fathers founded this country on the Christian faith, they also recognized that freedom of religion was an important factor. So to force all people to abide by the Christian faith in the aspect of marriage is absurd at best. We all know its discriminatory regardless of your faith. Some one in this blog trail mentioned that homosexuality is the only abomination mentioned in the bible. But what I personally find striking, what really hist home to me is there is not one place in the bible where Jesus mentions homosexuality. Nor is it mentioned in the 10 commandments. Why then, is homosexuality the abomination?

There was also a biblical history documentary on over the weekend. Apparently the bible says that effeminate men are destined to hell. But what does that mean? I know many staright men who are effeminate.

I don't personally feel the bible should be taken literally. There are way too many contradictions. GOD did not write the bible....man wrote the bible based on observations they made. As humans, we have evolved over the years. That is a plain and simple truth.

If marriage is nothing without GOD, then I stand by my view that civil unions should be performed by courts, judges, etc. to gay and straight couple, and churches should perform marriages to who they feel deserves the privilege. Government should step out completely. However, if the government refuses to do that, we continue to have discrimination which is wrong, regardless of your religious point of view.

Beachwalker,

So, based on your logic, we should be tying Wiccans to bonfires. Suffer not a witch to live.

Very well said, Cris.

For what it's worth, Panacea, there are other abominations in the Bible. One big one is certain violations of dietary law, such as eating shellfish. If you eat a shrimp cocktail, you are committing another abomination that is condemned in basically the same language as male homosexual relations.

The fact that these abominations are given such different levels of priority, some screaming bloody murder about one while utterly ignoring the other, shows that the "abomination" label is, for those people, not a reason at all but a justification after the fact.

The bottom line for me Yvonne is I see homosexuality as a sinful act and I do not want to see it condoned by our government and I certainly don't want to see it put on equal footing with traditional marriage.I don't hate those that are homosexual I simply believe what they are doing is wrong.You cannot be a Christian and believe otherwise.Your point about marriage predating recorded time is irrelevant.Modern marriage has deep religious roots and I repeat it cannot be seperated from religion.I thing the government had no place regulating marriage in the first place because doing so has given them the misplaced idea that they can change the definition as they see fit.No one has that authority!Liberals tend to love the courts when it advances their own agenda despite the will of the people but beware because it can just as easily turn the other way.Courts are made to interpret laws and constitutions ,not to advance their own personal agendas.No sane person can say that the constitution of mass. written over 200 years ago includes the right to gay marriage.The writers of that document would be apalled.We have a very complicated and laborious process to change our constitutions and it was made that way on purpose to prevent short sighted change.The issue of gay marriage has been resoundly defeated anytime it has been placed on the ballot but proponents of it want to disregard the will of the people and cram it down our throats.People of faith will not back down on this issue ever!If you want to see the best defense of traditional marriage ever written go to the rhino times web site and look under archived columns for Orson Scott Card.I believe it was written about 2 years ago.