San Francisco Issuing Gay Marriages

I don't agree with it, however what others do is their
one business

I for one am very happy that these people are now allowed to be treated as a married couple. IMO I believe they deserve this....because really think about it, people my age don't take marriage seriously, that is why there is a %50 divorce rate here. Yet two people that love each other can't be married because of their sexual preference? I just think that they deserve the same rights we get.

I think it's a shame that legal status has become a moral issue. IMO, the problem stems from semantics. Christians have staked a claim on the word "marriage" because, to them, it is associated with the Biblical sacrament. My question is, why is it OK to them for non-Christians to be(and enjoy the legal benefits of being) married if it is SO WRONG for loving couples who happen to be the same sex to do the same? I've never heard complaints of atheists or Buddhists or pagans or Muslims being married, even though it is considered by Christians to be a sacred vow between a man and a woman and their Christian God.

The problem is that the legal ramifications of being "married", i.e. insurance coverage, tax status, "divorce" settlements, adoption, child support, etc., are being denied to these people because of their sexual preference. Don't we also have a Separation of Church and State clause in there somewhere? If so, then WHY and HOW can the religious beliefs and morals of the majority religion dictate the LEGAL status of a group of people, who in all other ways cannot be discriminated against?

This isn't about the Christian Sacrament of Marriage. (Well, it shouldn't be in the courts and legislatures, but unfortunately that's what it has become.) It is about having the same rights as other citizens of this country.

I appluad you as well. It is just like saying that since I am not christian, I can not get married to a man. They are trying to make it sound like marriage=christian and man&woman. so anyone from another religion are "legally" married, but not religiously. I though marriage was where you devote the rest of your life to someone you love, someone you want to be with forever. Things sure are changing though. I just wish we could change the constitution so gay couples can be married and not have to worry about the courts taking everything back.

valanhb I believe you said it quite well, if only the rest of the country thought like you but then if that happened we would never have to worry about people neglecting animals....that doesn't sound so bad after all! ok I am going smily crazy now...heh

Heidi...you gave the perfect summary of my thoughts on this issue.

now, if I could just figure out a way to convince you not to vote republican....we Democrats need more smart and well spoken folks like you!....

Heidi, how about sending that as a letter to some editors? What really gets me is that the majority of the states are passing laws to "protect" marriage - as if the institution of marriage were so jeopardized by the 1%+ (I've heard estimates running from 1% to 10%, and believe the true number is somewhere in between) of the population who are gay. Even if every gay person in the U.S. were to enter a same-sex marriage - how is society threatened by such small numbers?

I'm Canadian, and I think it's a shame that Americans have to travel out of their own country to get married. I hope you guys can catch up to us soon with gay marriage laws, however with the current U.S. goverment, I can't see it happening any time soon unfortunately.

It is the "land of the free" but it seems to also be "the land of the judgmental"

That is what is so hard, there aren't enough of us that believe everyone deserves the same rights. But we have made great progress so far!

I should add that same-sex marriages are now legal in Germany. Unfortunately, the "land"(state) I live in will only allow homosexuals to enter this bond before a notary public! I "witnessed" the marriage of two gay friends who have been together for over 20 years. They didn't necessarily have to have the "blessings" of any church, but as they jointly own both a home and a business (architects' office), the civil ceremony and attached legal rights have made life a bit less worrisome for them. They have a far more harmonious relationship than my husband and I, although we went through both a civil ceremony (required by law here), a church wedding here in Germany, and a "blessing" from my PA parish. I'm very concerned about the state and federal governments not observing the "separation of church and state" doctrine, because it was one of the main reasons for emigration to North America during the colonial period, and the basis for many of our liberties as U.S. citizens, e.g., lack of a church tax, the 24-7-365 rule which applies to retailers in most regions, and the absence of religious indoctrination in schools that many Americans decry in Middle Eastern/Arab countries. I become very upset when members of the NRA cite the Bill of Rights when fighting gun control, but completely ignore the "Freedom of Religion" amendment when opposing "gay marriages". Unfortunately, many government officials, who supposedly represent all of their constituents, do the same.

I'm not saying it's wrong because that's not my place to say, but I don't agree with it, but that's just my opinion. I've just always felt that a marraige between a man and a woman was sacred and shouldn't be messed with. But, like I said, what I think doesn't really matter, it's just my opinion. I don't want to offend anyone and if I did, I'm sorry - didn't mean to. What other people do is their own business.

My sentiments exactly georgiagirl.
I don't care what 2 consenting adults do behind closed doors, but I do not think they should get special laws or priveleges. There is already enough of that in this country.

How do gay marriages or civil unions convey a special privilege? Right now, it's married heterosexuals who are entitled to a variety of considerations/accommodations that gay couples do not have. I can't in good conscience (or logic) come up with a reason why someone's longterm gay partner should not be able to have input on the other's health care (without power of attorney) if they are admitted to a hospital, or why one shouldn't be able to collect the pension benefit that the other person worked for. That is however the current situation.

50% of all marriages in the US already wind up in divorce. I don't think that allowing gays to marry will worsen that average significantly.

Thats what I was trying to say as well Lucia! They aren't getting anything special, they are getting what everyone else already has.

Bravo valanhb!! That's exactly the problem. People are stuck on the word "marriage". If you are willing to take another person into your life and promise to be with them forever, you should be afforded the same rights (and penalties - like legal divorce) as everyone else.

My husband was watching me write this, and he huffed out of the room. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree!

You can also bet your bottom dollar that this issue isn't so much about morals as it is economics. Legalizing gay marriages does put these people up for tax breaks, health insurance, and other benefits. I'll wager that money is behind the whole thing.

It seems that land of the free only applies to ppl that are white and christian , I am not Christian , and I have often wondered why they lay claim to marriage , there was marriage before the christian faith . It feels alot like the main stream religions are trying to make their religions part of everything example , around the holidays my son came home and said "Mumma why didnt you tell me Christ is my Lord" I looked at him and said what are you talking about , he told me they were singing a song in school for the holday presentation , and that the song had a line in it talking about how "Christ is our Lord " he even showed me the paper the school gave him to learn the song from .

not only is that illegal , it take away from my right to raise my children in the faith of my choosing.

I think all religions should stay out of our relationships , our wombs , and our classrooms.

Unless WE choose to bring them in to our own situations , I would never presume to tell someone else what moral code to live by.

Bravo! I couldnt have said it better , my mothers brother and my grandmothers brother were Gay , and Ill tell ya both of those relationships out lasted all of my mothers marriages and boyfriends.

As a heterosexual female, I am a recipient of the special laws and privileges allowed for married couples. I don't think it's fair to discriminate against homosexuals, no more than I would wish to discriminate against ethnic minorities or women. I have personal difficulties dealing with intolerance in any form. If you choose to discriminate against a group of people with a physiological basis for their sexual preference, you could just as easily discriminate against blue-eyed blondes. What's the difference?

Personally, I don't believe in Marriage, period. However, since people have this "need", to share their lives, and become a Union, then I believe gay people have every bit as much a right to marry as heterosexual people.

It's not legal here which is why a radio station recently had a competiton that took four homosexual couples to Hawaii to get married, I think if Hetrosexuals can get married why can't homosexuals? It's discrimination. I have no problems with Gay people, it sounds as though some people have.

In actuality, marriage is entering into a legal contract. In times past, marriages among aristocracy and royalty included a formally executed contract, much like today's prenuptial agreements.

I believe that any competent person, of legal age is allowed to enter into a contract.

Originally, marriage was a social custom. When people began to settle and acquire property, the legal aspects came into play and marriage became formalized and codified. This was to protect heirs and ensure that women and children did not become a burden on society or that subsequent spouses and children did not supplant earlier ones. It also prevented spouses from cavalierly disposing of unwanted spouses and claiming that children weren't theirs.

Or at least plays a very big role!

Well I don't agree with it at all, but as long as they keep to themselves I guess I shouldn't have to worry about it.
The only problem I have is on "pride week" at the University Ill be attending, they put up completely unecessary(sp?)signs. Signs like "are you gay?" or "1 out of 5 of your friends is gay"
Thats just going to far IMO.

Peace,
Brandon

"As long as they keep to themselves" ??? That sounded very discriminatory to me.

In this day and age nobody should have to hide anything about themselves- sexual preference, religious beliefs, political stance etc.

Do you have a problem with demonstrations like the Million Man March as well?

Yeah well I don't want to know about their sexuality. They can go ahead and tell you all their lives stories, but not me. Personal preference.
Seems like everything I say these days is discriminatory

Oh and on another subject "In this day and age nobody should have to hide anything about themselves- sexual preference, religious beliefs, political stance etc." Are you saying that the world should always be accepting of everything about a person?

PS. Im not familiar with the million man march. What is it?

Peace,
Brandon

Is it really necessary for ANYONE to identify themselves by their sexual preference? I don't walk the steets, wearing a T-shirt that reads "Straight Female" and don't care for excessive public displays of affection (groping, simulated sex acts) gay OR straight.

There is more to me, than my sexual preference.