I share your thoughts, worries, and concerns, Molly. Wonderful letter.

I applaud you, Molly, for your insight on this most controversial topic. Your letter makes perfect sense in a discussion that normally brings out only knee-jerk reactions and hypocritcal allusions to the so-called "sanctity" of marriage.

First and foremost, the fact remains that arguing the "sanctity" of anything has no place in our civic functions, marriage being one of them. What is unfortunate is that people have confused the religious aspects of marriage with the civil. It is my own opinion that the word marriage should be reserved for the churches, synagogues, mosques, etc., and the word civil union be substituted when you're at the register of deeds applying for that marriage license. This should apply to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

When it comes to those "sanctity" issues, let the religious bodies decide for themselves whether they will recognize the marriages from a religious standpoint. The legal union would serve its purpose giving EVERYONE the same rights Molly outlined in her column, while the clergy, etc. would still guard the "sanctity" of marriage on their end. This sort of thing already happens everyday, but for some reason it goes unnoticed and unmentioned. It seems to me that remarriage after a divorce (while the ex is still alive) is in direct opposition to what religious teaching and tradition teaches as being the "sanctity" of marriage. Yet, we still allow these marriages to occur on a civil level while letting the priests, rabbis and the like determine whether their particular religious institutions are going to recognize these marriages. Can this same system not apply to same-sex unions? After this example is presented, answering "no" to my question becomes less a question of ignorance or bigotry and more just a plain ol' double standard. At this point, any argument against these unions between committed people who want to share their lives becomes absolutely moot.

Enjoy your posts, SBS. Very rational and intelligent. Thanks for sharing.

Molly,
Great letter!
What is really too bad, is that some see Gay marriage as the great dividing tool whereby they can split America into two parts. Radical right wing Christians portray homosexuals as deviants and that does nothing to advance Christianity.

I believe the current nutjobs who feel threatened by gay people will be looked at as poorly as we look at the race baiters of the 1950's and 1960's. No doubt both the racial and the sexual discrimination camps share the same common thread---fear. What they are afraid of, I have no clue. I guess they are afraid that some homosexuals might break into their trailer, rearranging furniture, wall hangings, and transforming cluttered space into usable storage etc. Homosexuals do not threaten me or my family, but ignorant people seem to make the world less livable for all of us.

Ms. Haile, thanks for a well presented position on same sex/gay marriage. I appreciate those who can state my feelings on this issue. For me, it is far too personal to be able to continually present my position as well as you have done here.

SBSW, I concur with Carol.

And basically, Molly speaks my mind!

Shalom

Thank you folks for your comments regarding my posts. I'm beginning to wonder if my example of the remarrying divorcees has hit a nerve, being that I have yet to see any attacks from the right on this issue.

SBSW, Buz and I debate that issue all the time. I ask why it is OK to disregard the passages which state that divorcing and remarrying is committing adultery, and they are very clear and in many verses, but they use the few references to homosexuals (not actually a word used in the Bible) as being an abomination and condemn them all to hell (wait a minute, they love the sinner but hate the sin and if homosexuals will repent for being born homosexual they are OK).

Let's see what comments this brings out. Buz is really a good guy and if I can just convince to look at the gay issue with an open mind, he will be awesome. (awesome=you see it my way) :-)

Carol,
Remember this analogy?

"Minds are like Parachutes,
they only work when open"

The dictionary definition of "liberal" incorporates the open mind approach. Too bad some of the more vocal critics of "liberals" don't even realize how they are making themselves appear.

Molly,

I thought your letter was well written and you made some very thoughtful points.

I respectfully disagree with you.

I think gay marriage is wrong. From both a religious standpoint and a societal one.

Here's one thing you said:

"What the government offers is rights and privileges to married couples such as to be with a spouse in the hospital, help make end of life decisions, benefit from shared health and life insurance, and have parental rights as well as alimony in the event of a divorce. Marriage expands rights in the above ways and gay couples don't have them"

I disagree with this. Gay people do have the same rights as all single people do. A simple power of attorney and a living will can help when it comes to making end of life decisions and being with loved ones at the hospital.

Secondly, shared health and life insurance ain't really what it is made out to be. An iron-clad will and filling out that beneficiary form should help on the life insurance.

I don't agree with parental rights for gay couples so I'm not going to bother replying to that. I think if God wanted gay people to be parents, he would let men procreate with men.

Just because someone disagrees with someone else, it doesn't make it hate. I disagree when my child decides he can hit daddy. I don't allow him to do it. I end up putting him in time-out. But that isn't hate. It's love.

Molly, I disagree but once again think you wrote a good letter.