Gloria,

Freedom means whatever Bush, the republican party and the Moral Majority says it means. They are all one and the same and have taken over this country. The far right are all about control. They will not stop until the US is a dictatorial society. And guess who will be making all the rules!

Nah Gloria...we don't want the govt. dictating whom we should marry. I don't want anyone impinging on my freedoms.

I think I'll go marry the next door neighbor's eight year old daughter. Maybe I'll go marry my cousin at our family reunion next month, I always thought she was pretty cute.

If you think I am joking, yes I personally am. But there are people out there who would like to do this stuff. You say you don't want the govt. impinging upon freedom to marriage. Using your logic, I should be able to marry the 8 year old neighbor (with her parents consent) or my cousin with her consent. Right?

Dan,

Can you elaborate your argument please? Because I don't see how a consensual relationship between adults involves incest or pedofilia.

Incest could result in offspring that is deformed or mentally challenged as well as other diseases by inbreeding (though I am sure Adam and Eve's family managed it somehow).

Pedofilia involves children who are not mature enough to make decisions for themselves. I guess if their parent gives their consent maybe they were a product of incest as mentioned above and unable to think or act clearly.

Gay marriage involves two adults whon love each other and consent to spend their lives together.

Please don't think I am trying to influence your beliefs. If you believe it is morally wrong for gays to be together that is totally within your right. I personally don't feel that way.

But please use more valid arguements than incest and pedofilia. They simply aren't the same!

As Dan implies in his post, freedom is a relative term. Democratic governments must ensure freedom of its citizens, but that freedom must have some reasonable limits as otherwise it becomes an anarchy. If everyone is free to do exactly as they choose with total freedom, the country becomes chaos, with one person's freedom clashing with another's.

As he also implies in his post, absolute freedom in marriage would mean that strange and unusual situations would be sanctioned. Adults marrying children or groups being married, all to each other. Before you say that is rediculous, no it isn't. If there is absolute freedom to choose, this type of chaotic situation would be the result. Is this what we want in our civilized society? The answer is that no civilized society ever has absolute freedom, because that absolute freedom results in chaos.

Finally, the writer and Yvonne unfairly impune President Bush and the Moral Majority. It is fair to disagree with others, but it is not fair to smear them while disagreeing. Isn't it possible to have a difference of opinion in this country anymore without demonizing those that disagree with you?

Gaytony, thanks for stating your point so well. I'm with you in saying that people make their own decisions about what is right and wrong. The problem comes with those who wish to make decisions for others. Comparing adult actions to child abuse is a poor example.

Again....if protecting the sanctity of marriage is your goal, let's have an ammendment to the constitution banning divorce.

Please tell me what you fear from the legal union of two consenting adults.

Gay Tony:

Dan is merely pointing that the writer's argument that the government (or you and I for that matter) shouldn't define marriage, is flawed.

In fact, you just defined it as the consensual relationship between adults. Why can you define marriage and not Dan?

The key question is marriage defined by describing something that is already exists (in other words it's already been defined by nature)or can we define marriage any way we want to?

I am not a fan of GW but i do aggree with making marriage a union between a man and a woman. This is not a law sanctioned by man. It is a law given to Moses from God. If the gay community wants to be joined laet them call it something else. Until God speaks to us directly and tells us it is ok then his law stands. Sodom and Gamora was destroyed because of this same thinking. How can you want to be married in a church when the bible does not support your union. Just create some other type of designation for tax purposes. You can't justify marriage when it is not sanctioned by the one who created it.

Thank you ORR & Ecu. I'm not saying marriage between two consenting adults and marriage to a child or relative are the exact same.

My point is the LTE writer doesn't want the govt. impinging on one's freedom to marry, period.

That being said, some folks will take it upon themselves to stretch this anyway they please.

Your response cited pedophilia. There are cultures where child marriage is practiced and deemed acceptable. If someone from such a culture comes here and we don't want to impinge on one's freedom to marry, then what's the problem? After all, we should be tolerant of other's cultures right?

Your other example cited birth defects from marrying within one's family. How about if my brother and I wanted to marry? No risk of birth defects with that arrangement. Ok with you, since we are two consenting adults? What do you think Carol? You said people make their own decisions what is right and wrong. So if my brother and I think it is right, should we be able to marry?

Carol, you cited a legal union of two consenting adults. How about if my wife and I and the two couples across the street decide it's right to marry? Why do you limit it to two? What's the matter with six consenting adults? After all, the six of us decided it was right.

Before you guys dismiss this as pie in the sky, go look at some polygamy sites on the web.

Dan,

Your questions are thought provoking. But polygamy is against the law. Have been for years. To the question of somebody coming here from a country where it is acceptable to marry children under 18, the answer would be no. We don't accept it because it is against the law. Gay marriage is a different issue. We're talking TWO consenting adults who want to be with each other. Just like you and your wife did.

In my personal opinion, marriage is a religious institution that the government should not be involved with. Churches should decide who to marry and who to not marry. But if we do need the government to intervene for the best interest of society, how about an amendment banning out of wedlock births, or one banning interfaith marriages. I know, how about one banning inter-racial marriages. Where does it stop?? For a President who talked about smaller government during the election, he sure isn't following it.

Dan, for the record, Congress decided the polygamy issue before Utah was admitted to the Union in 1896 (see http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/s/STATEHOOD.html).

As for the right to marry one's cousin, that is beginning to happen more and more. I have heard of cases in the very near past of this happening.

Yet, as Carol has noted, it is not the joining together of two people of the same gender that is the problem. The problem deals with the break-up "traditional" marriages (hovering just under 50%, see http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm).

What GLBT people are seeking does not ask for approval of/by any religious body, church, denomination, faith tradition, or belief structure. What is being sought is the rights given to two people of opposite gender. What is worse is that the aforementioned can gain this through "common law marriage" in many areas. Whereas, two people of same-gender are not granted this right.

So people, what is being sought are just basic Civil Rights; nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

Shalom

For those who quote the Bible, How can you get a divorce when Jesus is quoted as saying it is adultery. Moses said Thou Shall Not Commit Adultery. If you are going to quote the Bible to prove points, use all the quotes.

Again, I do not judge those who divorce, that's their business and not mine. I also do not judge those who are not heterosexual. Neither should any of us.

Mark, same sex marriage is against the law except in MA, so your comparison with illegal polygamy is the same, both are illegal.

You also mention TWO consenting adults. How about me and my brother marrying if we are both consenting? That's TWO consenting adults no?

You nor Carol answered why marriage should be limited to two people. There are polygamists riding on the gay marriage debate. This is an interesting article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031601312.html

If we shouldn't discriminate against two gay people then why SHOULD we discriminate against three gay people?

Those of you pointing out that polygamy and marriage to minors is illegal, my first comment is "DUH"! So is gay marriage!

If you advocate changing the law based on freedom or privacy, then that same argument that you use to make gay marriage legal can be used to make other types of unions legal.

Dang ECUMAN, quit being so logical.

Ah, were it but for sarcasm, what would we find to laugh about?

How do any expect to be taken seriously in this discussion when seriousness is thrown out for childlike sillyness?

Just musing along!

Shalom

Dan,

It makes no difference to me what you do with your brother. You're wife might have a problem with it, though.
I can't give you a good answer as to why marriage should be limited to two people. Obviously it was acceptable in biblical times for men to have more than one wife. But someone, somewhere decided that there should be a law against it, so there is. Discrimination?? Civil rights violations? I guess I would have to say yes. But like I said earlier, let's take marriage out of the government's hands and leave it to the churches. But we definitely don't need to amend the Constitution in regards to these issues.

Mark:

Would you rather the people of the US decide what marriage is or a judge? That's the situation we now have.

Mark, you only state what I have, yet using differing wording. I stated, "What GLBT people are seeking does not ask for approval of/by any religious body, church, denomination, faith tradition, or belief structure."

I agree with your wording, "...let's take marriage out of the government's hands and leave it to the churches." That way, if one's religious group/faith tradition does not believe in uniting two people of same gender, then so be it. However, if one's faith tradition believes it it fine to unite two people of same gender, then so be it. Anyone who has a problem with either of these does not have to affiliate with any one religious group/faith tradition.

Government has far too much to deal with at this point in our history than to worry about who be marrying who or who be sleeping with who!

Musing along!

Shalom

Mark, I know it doesn't make any difference to you if I marry my brother. But should it be legal?

Darryl, your argument is to let the churches handle it. How about two gay atheists? Or three?

I remember also the scathing comments in LTEs past about Baptists not allowing gays as members. Now you have turned face and say let the churches decide if they want gays or not. Which is it?

Carol,

Moses added a provision for divorcing due to pressure from the Irealites. So he created means of putting away your spouse. I am not saying it is right or wrong. Jesus says all are forgiven to those that believe in him. All sin is the same none greater than the other. We have all commited sin and come short. All I am saying is that God himself created the union between man and woman as a marriage. Let man find some other title to designated the union between the same sex and leave the church out of it. We don't go to the church to get divorced. And we shouldn't be using the marriage vows and Gods name to unite what he hasn't bless. Blessed is a man who finds himself a wife.

What should really be disturbing to both conservatives (because their agenda is being ill-served) and liberals (because this is another chance to point out the hypocrisy of the Bush administration) is the timing of this bill.

Bush gives lip-service to the right when he says he wants a bill defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but he (or more importantly) Dick Cheney, doesn't really believe that. They brought this bill up and have forced the congress to vote on it when they know it has no chance of passing. They get to pander to their constituents and protect their agenda at the same time. Remember, Cheney's daughter is gay. Do you think he'd let shrub successfully push a gay-marriage ban? Not on your life.

Even if they left it up to the churches the argument of the government allowing same sex couples to marry wouldn't solve the problem. It is not about religion it is about a tax break and the legal ownership of ones partner in times when decisions had to be made such as the right to terminate death in certain cases, tax status and inheritance. There are already churches that unite same sex couples but they are not legal according to the law. That's why I say create another term for same sex couples and leave marriage out of it. Marriage is ordained by God. Then the government could make the legal decisions they chose because the government does not rule on religous matters.

Contrary to Dan's and others thoughts,

this is NOT worth arguing about.

Bush has done what he wanted to do. He stirred

up Dan, neoCON, Hugh and others to fall for his

divisive drivel.

Oh, and the flag burners-----they are really a

big threat too!

Flag Burning has become too prevalent in Guilford County and we must stop it now!
What a joke.

People, this is nice discussion, but the reality is that in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into federal law by President Clinton. This federal law provided a federal definition of marriage. Below is a summary of the law.

H.R.3396
Title: To define and protect the institution of marriage.
Sponsor: Rep Barr, Bob [GA-7] (introduced 5/7/1996) Cosponsors (117)
Related Bills: H.RES.474, S.1740, S.1999
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 104-199 [GPO: Text, PDF]
House Reports: 104-664
Jump to: Summary, Major Actions, All Actions, Titles, Cosponsors, Committees, Related Bill Details, Amendments
SUMMARY AS OF:
5/7/1996--Introduced.

Defense of Marriage Act - Amends the Federal judicial code to provide that no State, territory, or possession of the United States or Indian tribe shall be required to give effect to any marriage between persons of the same sex under the laws of any other such jurisdiction or to any right or claim arising from such relationship.

Establishes a Federal definition of: (1) "marriage" as only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife; and (2) "spouse" as only a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.
MAJOR ACTIONS:

5/7/1996 Introduced/originated in House
7/9/1996 Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 104-664.
7/12/1996 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 342 - 67, 2 Present (Roll No. 316).
9/10/1996 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 85-14. Record Vote No: 280.
9/21/1996 Signed by President.
9/21/1996 Became Public Law No: 104-199 [Text, PDF]

Marriage definition clear-cut
By: Ben Hawken
Issue date: 10/7/04

"There. That's it. The law has been defined. The word has been clarified. Marriage includes "one man and one woman" and that's it. Period.

Does this mean that two consenting adults can't be in love? Does this mean two adults can't live together? Does this mean that two adults can't engage in whatever creative variations of sex they can think of? Of course not.

This does not mean that gay people are doomed to some kind of substandard existence. If homosexuals want their relationships to enjoy legal recognition or if two adults want to inherit things from one another and have the right to visit one another while in the hospital, that's fantastic. Any of these things are OK, but what cannot be done is to call that relationship a "marriage." The definition does not fit the law.

Call it anything you want, but don't call it a marriage.

This issue is not something for un-elected judges to resolve. The matter is already decided. The DOMA does not leave room for interpretation. If a federal law - which was signed by a champion of liberals everywhere - is not enough for some activists, then perhaps it is time for a Constitutional amendment to reaffirm the fact.

It is not anyone's business what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms. But it is the business of the law to ensure that a voluble minority does not impose its own personal morals and fuzzy semantics in ways that compromise the integrity and value of something so simple, and yet so enormously important, as the word "marriage.""

Yeah, I know, Demon Deacon, when the heat gets too high on Bush, right wingers chnage the subject to Clinton. In this case, it is appropriate. He signed the law into effect. It stands now as federal law, whether people like it or not: (1) "marriage" as only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife; and (2) "spouse" as only a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.

It's the law. You can debate it all you like unless it is changed.

ECUMAN,

I'd have to say the people.

Dan, Honestly, I'd have to say no. But at the same time, I haven't seen anybody in the news lately wanting to do that.

I do agree with TugOWar. This is more about the legal side of things. I think that's why the government is involved in the first place is because gays and lesbians want the same rights as married couples. I think they should have them, too. If they want to call it something other than marriage, that's fine. I say again, though, we do not need to amend the Constitution for this.

Tug,

I agree 100%. It is offensive to me that ANYONE would use God's name in a gay ceremony.

I think this issue is important. However, I would agree with others that Bush is just playing politics. I'd also say that many democrats are playing politics out of fear of offending their gay constituents and those sympathetic of gays.

Phillipa,

I've heard the argument regarding Cheney and how he could never be against gay marriage because his daughter is gay. I'm not saying Cheney is or isn't. But that argument is pretty weak, IMO. That's almost like saying that just because your child does something (right or wrong), it should be legal.

Hypothetical:

My son smokes crack (or whatever). I'm not happy about it, but I still love him and will never turn my back on him. Does that mean I want everyone to smoke crack?

ORR.

I read the DOMA you provided. I think there are some important words in there at the beginning.

"No State shall be REQUIRED to give effect to any marriage between persons of the same sex"

Required by whom?

What it doesn't say is that "No state shall be ALLOWED to give effect to any marriage between persons of the same sex"

I think that is THE big difference between DOMA and a constitutional amendment.

BTW, I have nothing against gays, I have no problem with gays having civil rights to insurance, benefits, taxes, etc. It just isn't marriage. One man one woman.

My main point is if gays are going get legally married, then why not any other configuration of marriage that one feels is right?

Read this and it proves my point:

http://www.pro-polygamy.com/

Yellowdog, you're right. The fact that the VP has a gay daughter isn't proof that Cheney is in favor of gay marriage. However, the fact that Cheney is shrewd and has a talent for maneuvering things to suit his agenda and the fact that they've brought this in front of congress at a time when everyone is saying it's a doomed effort strongly suggests to me that the Bushies don't really want it to pass.

For the record, I think gay couples should be given the same rights as straight couples when it comes to civil, legal stuff like health-care decisions and inheritance, etc, but don't call it marriage. Nothing over the span of recorded history (not including the present) could ever be interpreted as a society's definition of marriage to be other than man/woman.

And yes, if gay-marriage is legalized then polygamy is next. Polygamists are watching the gay marriage debate very closely. They want to begin to move the plural marriage idea into the mainstream. It'll take years, probably decades, but it'll happen. After that, child-marriage. You don't think anyone will push that? Do a search online of the North American Man/Boy Love Association. Chilling!

With folks like Dan out here arguing about polygamy, dogs and cats sleeping together, there is no doubt Bush's line was swallowed hook, line and sinker by the far right.

Bottom line: War, terrorism, illegal immigration, pollution, etc. and these clowns are wasting our time arguing about an issue that is designed to bring out the worst in society. Oh, make that "issues" as Flag Desecration is the next.
What a crock!

Dan,

That's a pretty scary website.

Polygamy is something I can't understand. I love my wife, but I can't imagine living with 2 wives. It's bad enough when my wife and my mom are in the same house together.

Ain't that the truth, yd!!

Yellowdog, a friend of mine can't understand the attraction of polygamy. He says: "I can't afford the wife I have now!"

Deacon, I don't let my cat and dog sleep together. It is strictly forbidden as it doesn't provide a good example for our children. Hint: stupid response to your stupid statement.

I agree there are other issues out there more important, but does that mean we cannot have a discussion about it? After all you seemed to think an aquatic center in Greensboro was mighty important. There more important issues in Greensboro, so should we table the discussion of the aquatic center? So please add something useful to the discussion instead of launching your usual gay marriage and flag burning bombs. You are so predicatable and boring.

By the way Deacon, Bush decided to have Al-Zarqawi killed this week to improve his poll numbers. Look for bin Laden to get nailed around late October before the elections.

YD, Mark, I couldn't afford two wives!!

phillipa,

point taken.

Since legal rights seem to be the arguement for gays marrying, I agree with all those who have suggested making "unions" legal and forgetting about the word marriage. It's all semantics anyway. Given the bad reputation marriage carries, why should anyone object to "holy union" or "commitment ceremony" instead?

As someone has already pointed out, we definitely do NOT need a constitutional amendment to make gay marriages illegal. Just make unions legal.

I cannot, as a woman, imagine passing an amendment to make gay marriages illegal since the Equal Rights Amendment was never radified.

Yellowdog,

"No State shall be REQUIRED to give effect to any marriage between persons of the same sex"

Required by whom?

The purpose of this law is to make it clear that no state must recognize as legal a marriage legally performed in another state that is other than the federal definition. That is, North Carolina does not have to recognize a gay marriage performed in Mass.

You are right that the law does not grant the right to any state to recognize gay marriage, but what it intended to do was to ensure that individual states could make laws satisfactory to its citizens. DOMA is different than a constitutional amendment, as the latter, if approved, would make the federal definition the law in all states. That is what the debate is now about. Gay Marriage advocates fear this mightily. As indicted in my post, two people can live together and do what they choose in their own home, but confering the legal status of marriage is not necesarily guaranteed or confered.

Marriage began as a religious institution, and in this country we have largely changed it into a governmental instituition, granting legal rights to spouses as has been discussed here before.

Very good discussion. Lots of good points made from all sides.

"So people, what is being sought are just basic Civil Rights; nothing more, nothing less, nothing else."

Not according to those who have been working on civil rights issues for MANY years.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/285fhdqe.asp

Excerpt:

"It is precisely the indiscriminate promotion of various social groups' desires and preferences as "rights" that has drained the moral authority from the civil rights industry."

Big Question:

Why are you right wingers so threatened by Gay couples wanting the same benefits of a married heterosexual couple? This isn't rocket science, and for right now, it is NOT even important!

Why don't those of you who are "Scared" of gay people think about what is going on in the world and try to work on things that matter: Nuclear proliferation, illegal immigration, terrorism??
Oh I guess Gay weddings are really a bigger threat.

This has been one of the more civilized blogs I have been a part of for a while...Thanks for the good points of view from everyone.

To me, this just comes down to a matter of personal belief. I don't degrade anyone who is of the faith that gay marriage is wrong. I don't agree with their point of view, but thats ok.

To me, equal rights are important. Sometimes I feel the 'civil union' title is fine, and other times I feel 'marriage' is the needed definition. I have already stated my views regarding the incest and pedophilia arguements, so now I guess here are my feelings on polygamy.

In my opinion, if multiple couples want to join, who am I to judge? I don't have to agree with that anymore than people having to agree with the gay marriage issue. But to be a devil's advocate here lets think of all of the marriages that fall apart because of an affair where the man or woman says I just couldn't help it. I loved both of my partners. If the trio or quad can make it work within their 4 walls, what does it matter to the rest of us? Does it infringe on our rights or are we upset only because it does not fall within our moral viewpoint?

Each person, imo should live within their moral limits and live a life they are comfortable with. If we invoke a law as a society to ensure equal rights, it is the right thing to do. If on judgment day, we discover we were wrong, then we only have ourselves to blame. I don't feel it is right to force ones morals onto another.

I thought the Republican President and Congress campaigned on "LIMITED" government intrusion???
Now it's Gay marriage, abortion, wiretapping----what happened????

DD, you have to ask?

Shalom