Everyone Is Wrong On Gay Marriage

You make some good points...

barleycorn (Diary) Monday, June 27th at 2:12PM EDT (link)

But your reasoning bumps up against reality.

Our laws are essentially based on the 10 Commandments. As we have added laws and turned them into the 10 Million Commandments, we have contorted and tied our collective self in knots.

If government is going to make and enforce laws that say you can’t have three wives then legal marriage has to be defined.

If the government is going to make and enforce laws that say you can’t marry or have sex with children, then by necessity government has to define who you can marry and what the age of consent is.

Marriage is one of those areas where our “separation of church and state” dogma rubs against the teachings of the “church” that formed the underpinnings of our “state”.

There are many inequities in life and government can’t make them all go away. The utter folly of the attempts to make everyone and everything equal, becomes clearer each time we hear about a male with gender confusion who demands to use the Ladies Room because he considers himself to be a woman.

The institution of marriage should be between one man and one woman. Any other contractual arrangements between two or more people should fall under some other category.

Well stated.

runner12 (Diary) Monday, June 27th at 3:46PM EDT (link)

While I do think the diarist makes some good points, namely that the “gay rights” movement is all about acceptance. I think you also bring up some of the problems with his/her reasoning that naturally arise.

I think in reality, the solution lies somewhere in the middle. The diarist makes a good point that we have allowed too much government involvement into marriage, namely with tax laws, property, etc. It is through this arena that the gay community is pushing their cause. As a result, we now have state sanctioned gay marriage. Do not be surprised if in a couple of years a pastor is sued for not performing a same sex marriage as a result.

On the other hand, the state must intervene with regards to polygamy and pedophilia, so it cannot be totally cut out of the promotion of a moral
society. The solution seems to be a reduction in government involvement in the “business” side of marriage, while maintaining a small role in maintaining some sense of morality ( ie laws against polygamy and pedophilia).

pedophiliais illegal

shoutbits (Diary) Monday, June 27th at 4:19PM EDT (link)

runner12:

Thank you for the thoughtful comment. I just want to point out, however, that pedophilia is already illegal.

With regard to polygamy, I have often wondered what the difference is between Hef living with 3 women, or Scotty Pippen fathering untold numbers of children with various women and polygamy. The only difference I see is a marriage liscense. Indeed, whenever a polygamist is busted, it is never for that, but for pedophilia.

Shoutbits, I know pedophilia is illegal :).

runner12 (Diary) Monday, June 27th at 5:35PM EDT (link)

My point was that it should continue to be so, as well as polygamy. To a greater extent, I was expounding upon barleycorn’s point that the government does have some role in maintaing a moral society. The question is, how much and to what extent?

My position is and always will be that marriage should be between one man and one woman, end of story. i also believe that the government should protect it from assault.

However, we may need to change our strategy in order to win the fight. The best way we can do that is to remove the government from marriage as much as possible without sanctioning civil unions directly. This removes the false “equality” meme purported by the gay community. In other words, it would force them to show their true intention, which is forced acceptance.

We must also fight in the courts for DOMA and other marriage-protecting laws.

Marriage need not be involved at the federal level

aesthete (Diary) Monday, June 27th at 6:50PM EDT (link)

for there to be problems enforcing anti-pedophilia laws. Anti-pedophilia laws predate laws regulating marriage by a long shot, and are currently enforced against singles and married pedophiliacs who act on their impulses.

Polyamorous relationships (group marriages and polygamous relationships) are a different story, but not one that makes much of a difference in the real world, IMO. Heck, I’d say that open marriages and casual sex are far worse for the institution of marriage than a relationship that at least has some level of protection for the persons involved. That’s at least somewhat better than Hugh Hefnering it through life. (That’s not at all an endorsement of polyamorous relations, btw!)

I actually have very little problem with a minimal state role in having and enforcing a common contract of marriage that is between a man and a woman, at least in theory. However, the state has been an incredibly poor protector of marriage over the years: no-fault marriage was several orders of magnitude worse than gay marriage could ever hope to be. I’m honestly not too excited about the issue, but while we’re on the topic it would serve us well to acknowledge this repeated failure and to recover marriage as best we can, even if that means withdrawing government support for the institution.

“It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”
-P.J. O’Rourke

Aesthete, the only reason DOMA was passed

runner12 (Diary) Monday, June 27th at 10:51PM EDT (link)

at the federal level was to protect the traditional view of marriage and to a greater extent prevent groups from forcing states to accept gay marriages.

It was a defensive move, not an offensive one. Therefore, I support its defense and existence. That does not, however, mean that I don’t agree with the notion that the government needa to reduce its role in the insitution of marriage. As I said in my above post, I think it would effectively take away the meme that the pro gay marriage crowd espouses. It cannot be just through civil unions though, as often that is just a springboard to gay marriage. Maybe some variation?

Civil Unions For All

exitsfunnel Monday, June 27th at 4:12PM EDT (link)

I agree that for a whole host of practical reasons the state has to codify a certain class of committed, adult relationships. But there is no particular reason that they have to call any of those relationships ‘marriage’ especially since most of us agree that marriage per se is essentially a religious construct. So the solution that makes the most sense to me is for the state to recognize civil unions for everybody and leave the matter of marriage up the individuals’ churches.

-exits

civil for all

shoutbits (Diary) Monday, June 27th at 4:24PM EDT (link)

existsfunnel:

I agree, but the government does not have to force people into a single contract. For example, today’s marriages often have rider clauses called pre-nuptuals. The government might have a sample contract, or set certain minimum terms of a contract for it to be recognized. Other than that, the government should just record the contract like it does any number of other types of agreements between adults.

I've made this argument before, shoutbits.

acat (Diary) Monday, June 27th at 4:49PM EDT (link)

I remain of the opinion that if the Church do not take back and refurbish the image of their sacrament, that it will continue to be degraded by the government.

That said, it would be a rather huge rewrite of the laws of not just the Fed but also State, County, Muni, and a whole host of Human Resources and healthcare provider regulations. (although .. last time I filled ‘em out, it looked like the HR and healthcare providers were moving this way already…)

Making the government effectively blind to the contents of a marriage (instead making the government aware only that “two people of legal age are entering a civil partnership”) seems like the best defense the Church has for this sacrament…

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

doesn't fix a thing, but changes the battle lines slightly

bogornes Monday, June 27th at 5:08PM EDT (link)

making marriage a “purely religious” term doesn’t work, because there are plenty of mainstream churches willing to marry a gay couple. Moreover, lots of married couples who don’t care at all if a gay couple gets married (because it doesn’t directly affect them) would be annoyed by a set of laws which “unmarries” them (count my wife and me in that group). As more and more churches accept gay couples, this option makes less sense.

Why would you attend a church

aesthete (Diary) Monday, June 27th at 5:17PM EDT (link)

that marries gay couples? (Speaking in the hypothetical, of course; I assume that the church that you currently attend does not marry gays.) For myself, I have no interest in attending a church which abandons its role as a witness to what God has ordained in favor of looking trendy on the gay marriage issue; I know for a fact that my pastor would never allow a gay marriage to take place under his auspices. Is this really an issue, if the marriage is being performed by a denomination or church with which you have no lot, and which you have a better chance of changing than you do government’s stance on marriage?

“It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”
-P.J. O’Rourke

Let the Churches Fight It Out

exitsfunnel Monday, June 27th at 5:27PM EDT (link)

If marriage is a religious construct then the churches should be in the business of deciding which relationships they want to recognize. That’s the proper place to have this fight; not at the secular ballot box. In practice I’m sure you’re right that some churches would recognize same sex marriages and other wouldn’t but I don’t see how this is a bad outcome since we’re all free to attend whichever church we want (or none).

You mean, let the churches lose

bogornes Monday, June 27th at 6:14PM EDT (link)

As I said, this doesn’t really solve ANY of our present debates. By changing all non-religious marriages to “civil unions” you take away the primary argument against gays getting “civil unioned.” Therefore, more gay couples will get the legal benefits formerly given to married couples. By allowing any church to define their own “marriage,” any gay coupele (in any state) can get “married” at a local church. By “unmarrying” most non-religious married couples, you diminish the status of their committed relationship. In the end, gays get much of what they want (freedom to marry in all states, and full legal rights), and religious conservatives would gain nothing.

There's still some straw man in your argument here...

acat (Diary) Monday, June 27th at 6:20PM EDT (link)

Nobody is saying “unmarried” except .. you.

You’ll be just as married if this were to happen as you are now. So will every other couple in your church.

Being blunt, those religious “committed relationships” don’t statistically appear to be any more durable than the non-religious ones so .. I gotta ask, what’s the difference?

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

That individual married couples fail and that same is relevant is the straw man

Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Monday, June 27th at 7:18PM EDT (link)

The institution has survived for thousands of years and has been the linchpin building block of civilization because of its understood importance in raising the next generation. Changing its definition is quite significant. Maybe the decline in quality among the population that has preceded the definition change is more significant than the change. That couple X will still be just as married is quite a short term view. as an argument.

Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Missing the forest for wanting to argue about the leaves, GC....

acat (Diary) Monday, June 27th at 9:05PM EDT (link)

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve written here, but .. it’s not exactly germane.

My point is that marriage has been re-defined by the government through, among other things, no-fault divorce – and that, at this point, the government is going to go on changing the definition. Gays will be able to marry, and polygamists won’t be far behind. Once a marriage is two women, adding a man is a smaller bump.

My point in citing divorce rate is to illustrate that the church has done a shoddy job of presenting the sacrament of marriage to its’ own membership as anything more than the common cultural definition. Y’all run the risk of the very word being debased .. just as church has gone from “community of christians” to “building”.

Just an outsider perspective. I’ve no dog in this fight.

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

You've hit on something here, cat.

Melody Warbington (rwm52) (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 1:37AM EDT (link)

The redefining of marriage by government through divorce, etc., is a bad thing which is why we want to define marriage once and for all as being the union of a man and a woman so there is no further erosion. I support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to do just that, but barring same, support the states’ rights to do so themselves as many have already done.

The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things. (John 4:25)

The problem I see, RWM52, is that you're still playing defense. [nt]

acat (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 8:48AM EDT (link)

.

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

But Acat

PowerToThePeople (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 1:34PM EDT (link)

your insight on how to accomplish the task of protecting marriage assumes that everything works as the constitution meant for it to work. Since it does not, our back are against the wall and we have to protect marriage at the federal level. Until states are given back their constitutional rights, it is the way it is for now.

States have no power to define marriage although they should. They have no more power to define marriage then they do to protect their states from illegal invasions. Someone sues, states lose. Until this stops, you know someone from CA suing SC for a law that does not affect them and winning their suit, we have to set laws at a fed level.

What if nobody at any level of government gets to define it?

acat (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 2:47PM EDT (link)

What if the definition becomes entirely outside of government?

I’m not saying “make it an issue for the states”, I’m saying “make government at all levels blind to anything other than a civil union”.

The word “marriage” refers, originally, to a sacrament of the church. Why is it so hard to imagine returning it to that definition?

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

On the face of the argument

PowerToThePeople (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 4:23PM EDT (link)

I agree. If we were to all of a sudden become dolts and actually believe the agenda of the gay community is simply to be allowed to have a piece of paper stating they are entwined legally, I would agree. Problem is that is a dream world.

I learned very quickly about the agenda of the gay community after the vote in Hawaii where they were to be given full marriage benefits with the wording being civil union and they themselves were the reason the bill was beaten by vote. They, for the most part, could care less about getting married, it is all about denying straight folks their own “marriage.”

I also have a hard time believing you believe that somehow the church could define their own marriage rules as you alluded to above. We both know the moment gay marriage becomes a reality, the first church to deny a homosexual couple a marriage ceremony, they will have their holy asses dragged into court and will end up losing based on discrimination, will have to perform that and any other gay marriage, and will pay the plaintiffs a large sum of money for hurting their feelings.

I would agree the best way for things to be is to have civil unions done outside a church and marriages done within. It would be best that states define who can be married and churches as well. But that is not how it will happen unless marriage is defined constitutionally one way or the other. Way too many activist judges and way to many activist willing to use the courts to push their agenda.

We have got to protect two things in areas who want it protected. Traditional marriage and the right of churches to prohibit marriages of any kind that violate their beliefs. Once marriage is sent to the states without any kind of constitutional protection at the fed level, both are lost. While no where near a similar comparison, years ago racist churches could deny a mixed couple marriage vows. Now, I believe this to be dead wrong as I hate racism from anyone or any side, but once segregation ended and blacks were given full rights, even racist states own churches could no longer deny blacks being married. If they did, they were successfully sued. The same thing applies to gays who want our way of life ended. Once the fed government washes their hands of the whole thing, states who desire to protect traditional marriage and churches who believe gay marriage to be wrong will end up losing all rights to deny that type of marriage. It will no longer matter how the church defines marriage, it will be decided by some activist scumbag judge.

Your premise hangs on the idea that a private organization would lose in court.

acat (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 4:41PM EDT (link)

Would it, though?

A church is private. Like the Boy Scouts, the church has the right to say who is and who is not entitled to its’ benefits.

It’d be a much, much harder case for the gays to win – especially as the church would no longer be encumbered by the governments’ thumb on the scale.

Keep in mind that, had the government not been involved in the definition of marriage during the civil rights era, the cases you point out may have gone differently.

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

Reminder

PowerToThePeople (Diary) Wednesday, June 29th at 3:45PM EDT (link)

private in itself has little bearing on lawsuits or the success of lawsuits. The boy scouts have been sued quite a few times over banning gay troop leaders. Granted, while they lost at every level but came out victorious at the SC level, the situation will eventually change.

They won at the SC level because of nothing more than the continued stigmata of gay men being alone with children. We can claim the BS won because they are private, but that has no bearing. Plenty of cases where private institutes and business have been successfully sued for discrimination or exclusion.

Like I stated above, in a perfect world I would like for marriage to remain in the church protected and for states to decide who can utilize civil unions. States have tried even in CA. The activist simply have disdain for the vote and run to an activist court. We either have to end the activist courts and protect voter opinion or we have to enact a federal law protecting traditional marriage. Can not have it both ways and quite frankly I do not trust courts to do the right thing ever.

Hmmm. Could a pastor counter-sue for restraint of trade...

acat (Diary) Wednesday, June 29th at 11:37PM EDT (link)

when his church refuses to let him marry anyone for fear of a lawsuit?

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

Really??

bogornes Tuesday, June 28th at 4:52PM EDT (link)

Have black couples ever successfully sued a church for refusing to marry them? (perhaps you are talking about mixed marriages, and I still think that you are misinformed). I had never heard of that. Could you please back that up with a citation?

your quote:
“once segregation ended and blacks were given full rights, even racist states’ own churches could no longer deny blacks being married. If they did, they were successfully sued.”

I will try to look up cases this weekend

PowerToThePeople (Diary) Wednesday, June 29th at 3:49PM EDT (link)

but I do not have the time right now.

I am referring to mix raced marriages, wish I could remember the legal name for that and the 1920′s ruling enacting the ban.

Church’s have more leeway in refusing to marry someone such as:

Christian church refusing to marry non believers or a believer to a non believer.

Catholics refusing to marry a non catholic

Reason like the above are not color bans, they are across the board regardless of color bans. To refuse to marry someone based solely on color would not fly.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

bogornes Thursday, June 30th at 12:21AM EDT (link)

I am still very skeptical. Churches have much more leeway than corporations or other private groups. This may seem a bit off-topic, but one of the primary arguments for this effort has been the likelihood that a church would be forced to perform same-sex marriages. Whether a race-based lawsuit had succeeded against a church would have a direct bearing on the likelihood of gay marriages begin required by a church. Does anyone else here have any info?

Sometimes a good defense is the best offense.

Melody Warbington (rwm52) (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 2:23PM EDT (link)

I’ve seen some pretty good games that were clearly won because of defense, but I think I’ll keep on playing both anyway. Defending traditional marriage against the progressive attacks, while at the same time demonstrating the benefits of a traditional marriage to myself, my family, and society.

I do appreciate that you make me stop and think.

The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things. (John 4:25)

Good points, but genitalia

Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 1:22PM EDT (link)

is fundamental! smile

Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

I agree, acat

darcdante (Diary) Wednesday, June 29th at 3:26PM EDT (link)

The Christian Church has done a terrible job defending marriage. Christians cheat and divorce at absurd rates, then blame gays for the decline of marriage and the lack of social and familial stability that comes from that. It’s largely our fault.

5 x 5, DeVine GC.

Melody Warbington (rwm52) (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 1:31AM EDT (link)

I keep saying that just because we (society) fall short of the standard via divorce doesn’t change the fact that the standard (marriage between a man and a woman) is right and good and has proven to be the best for children and society.

The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things. (John 4:25)

thx rightwing', and I like that construction of

Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 2:50PM EDT (link)

my name and may start identifying myself as “DeVine, GC”!

Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

What legal benefits?

aesthete (Diary) Monday, June 27th at 6:33PM EDT (link)

Most of the marriage contract concerns restrictions on freedom between two partners. The other legal aspects of marriage that that I can think of generally also make sense for gays (spousal immunity for a legal case, for example), don’t make sense for either gays or straights (tax cuts and government goodies), or can be resolved in other ways. The most problematic of these arrangements in a civil union world would probably be adoption rights; even so, I believe that it’s worth it to find a solution to that within the context of civil unions rather than allow the slow bleed of marriage as a functional institution in this country.

“It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”
-P.J. O’Rourke

Civil Unions

exitsfunnel Monday, June 27th at 6:50PM EDT (link)

If I’m understanding your objection, it’s that you are opposed to extending even civil unions (ie, legal rights) to gay people. If that’s the case then your position is in the minority and I don’t know what to tell you except that as you’ve drawn the battle lines, you’re going to lose. (you’ve mostly lost already)

I am not religious and I have no objection to gay, committed relationships by whatever name. I do though have a genuine interest in and commitment to religious liberty (as a subset of liberty in general) and I really do believe that in the long run what I suggest is your best chance to at least maintain some sort of distinction between gay unions and straight ones, even if the distinction is limited to your own religious denomination.

Wrong. Civil unions and legal rights are two very

runner12 (Diary) Monday, June 27th at 11:35PM EDT (link)

different things. I would also add that you are extremely naive if you think that the pro gay marriage crowd would be happy with civil unions and that all of the push for gay marriage would magically go away. You are under the mistaken presumption that the pro marriage crowd are the only ones taking a hard line here. I can tell you that they are not. The pro gay marriage crowd exibits a hatred for those who dare disagree with them runs deep and their desire to make everyone believe as they do is almost insatiable.

The reality is that civil unions, in their current form, are merely springboards to gay marriage. They will not solve the issue. I think the only solution is to remove as much government involvement as possible ( ie health care benefits, tax exemptions, etc) while still defending
traditional marriage.

Partial agreement here, runner.

acat (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 8:53AM EDT (link)

Obviously the gay activists aren’t interested in “separate but equal”. Why should they be?

The question then becomes “who defines what marriage means?” and the two possible answers are “the church” and “the state”….

Let the state define it, and soon it’ll be as debased as the word “church”… which used to mean a body of believers and now means a building.

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

Can I just interject...

Frederick (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 1:06PM EDT (link)

…that the only original purpose behind government being involved in marriage was for the purposes of registration and in dealing with cases of divorce and/or the disposition of heirs. The ideas listed in the arguments above would merely return the State to this level of involvement, while still giving gay couples their “civil union”.

Personally, I don’t care if you want to marry your ballpeen hammer, as long as it’s mentally competent, 18 years old and can sign its own name on the registration document (though I might question your competency). But that’s a decision between you and your church/temple/mosque/humanist society, not the State.

Marriage simply shouldn’t be a construct of law. It’s wrong for the government to give special priviledges to people simply because they take a blood test and say, “I do.” There should be no penalty or priviledge for deciding to marry. And if you take all of that away, then yes, then entire purpose behind any future gay marriage initiatives will be simply and entirely forced acceptance. Which is what I believe, as the author does, is the primary motivator behind them now.

Follow Me on Twitter

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
– - Thomas Jefferson, to Archibald Stuart, 1791

Which denominations are shrinking fastest, bogornes?

acat (Diary) Monday, June 27th at 5:51PM EDT (link)

Last I checked, the ones growing are the more socially conservative “evangelical” ones…. oh, and the Mormons. (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints)

Also, you would not be “unmarried”. If you were married in your church, then you are still married in your church. Your relationship there does not change.

Does it really bother you that, when you fill out your 1040, you check “civil partnership”, not “marriage” ?

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

Mainline churches are shrinkng, but...

bogornes Monday, June 27th at 8:45PM EDT (link)

They still have millions of followers. Also the number of churches which recognize same sex marriages is skyrocketing as mainline churches change their bylaws (I guess Presbyterians (PCUSA) will be next). It doesn’t really matter, as I said before, the marginally religious and non-religious won’t accept it. In the short term, every state would have a large number of churches performing same sex marriages, which would lead to a large-scale growth in the number of gay marriages. Finally, making marriage solely a religious institition would have the unintended consequence of causing a proliferation of “churches” whose sole ministry is to mount weddings (think Las Vegas, but more expensive and tackier). It really solves nothing, IMHO

So, the church is powerless to dictate what her sacraments mean?

acat (Diary) Monday, June 27th at 8:59PM EDT (link)

And worse, the only “savior” you can see is government?

Thank you very much for making my case for me … the religious right are going about this battle in completely the wrong way.

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

Of course not.

bogornes Monday, June 27th at 11:58PM EDT (link)

A Catholic wedding means what it meant yesterday (and previously). There are churches that perform same sex marriages. If you are trying to protect a particular religion from a future date when they might be forced to perform a same sex marriage, I don’t think that your approach succeeds, or that it is viable. Furthermore, it would almost definitely result in a far quicker dissolution and fragmentation of the cultural definition of marriage.

Please show your work.

acat (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 12:02AM EDT (link)

You are asserting this in absence of evidence, at least that I can see.

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

Okay, I'll try

bogornes Tuesday, June 28th at 8:09AM EDT (link)

There are so many points in this thread, that I’m not sure which you disagree with, but here goes:

Regarding the likelihood of government getting out of the marriage biz, color me skeptical. Who supports such a goal (outside of some libertarians)? Certainly not any liberals (religious oor non-religious), not non-religious independents, or folks who gain freedoms/protections from the present situation (most people). I don’t even think that most religious conservatives would support such a move UNTIL the government actually tries to force a particular religion to perform a same sex marriage, and then only as a last resort. You don’t spend decades arguing about the singular importance of marriage, push for a constitutional amendment defining marriage, and then turn on a dime and say that government has never had any business being involved in marriage. I don’t think there is popular support for that type of extreme flip-flop.

Personally, I have to say that I agree with Jim Daly (Focus on the Family President) “We’ve probably lost this one.”Moreover, we lost this one a long time ago (when homosexuality became acceptable in this society). All the arguments against gay marriage have become weaker. In the end our primary argument now seems to be “the government will force us to preform gay marriages in our churches,” an assertion that is equally in absence of evidence (at this point).

That sounds absolutely absurd

aesthete (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 1:52AM EDT (link)

Exactly how many gay people do you know? How many practicing ministers do you know? Believe me, the vast majority of ministers don’t see it as their life’s passion to gay marry everyone within arms’ reach, and the number of gays who want to get “married” in the first place are a tiny minority of a tiny minority. The idea that churches with dedicated to Las Vegas-style gay weddings will sprout up is so laughable, that it does not merit discussion. The fact is, that doesn’t happen today despite the fact that gays can declare themselves married, have the ceremony, etc and be well within their legal rights.

Even if it did happen, are you so insecure that the mere thought of such a thing potentially occurring necessitates using government force to stop it? If so, then that’s just as pathetic and nannyish as progressives who ban McDonalds’ Happy Meals because they can’t stand the thought of people they don’t know enjoying a food that they don’t eat.

“It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”
-P.J. O’Rourke

I think that you misinterpreted my point

bogornes Tuesday, June 28th at 7:47AM EDT (link)

I wasn’t speaking about gay marriages, I was saying that if civil marriages no longer existed (government gets out of the marriage biz), LOTS of marginally religious or non-religious heterosexual couples would still get married. They aren’t religious, so they would form all sorts of “churches” for the sole purpose of getting “married.” That doesn’t seem absurd at all, it happens now (lots of folks only go to church to get “married and buried”). Sorry if I was unclear.

Not following your logic.

acat (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 8:29AM EDT (link)

What exitsfunnel and others have proposed, in simplified form is:

The government will recognize “civil unions”.
Any two adults can enter into or disolve a civil union.

The government will no longer use the term “marriage” or “married”.

I do not see how you’re arriving at .. “marriage parlors” .. but I suppose it’s a possibility. Plenty of “marginally religious or non-religious” couples get married in parks or in hotel ballrooms today.

What I don’t see is why this is a major concern for you.

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

They already do that now

aesthete (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 5:21PM EDT (link)

All of that is 100% legal right now. It is, at best, a non-sequitur, and a poor one at that: even those churches which allow gay marriage (which I strongly oppose) do not see it as their raison d’etre. I don’t see a gay marriage as any worse than a shotgun marriage powered by alcohol at Vegas, or an abusive coupling.

“It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”
-P.J. O’Rourke

This Is More Or Less My View

qsclues (Diary) Monday, June 27th at 4:50PM EDT (link)

I just posted my own diary on the topic, but this is pretty much where I stand. My main disagreement with this diary is that the ability to naturally procreate is still a fairly big thing, and what really defines “marriage”. I have no problem with same-sex couples having access to a legal construct similar to marriage, but I oppose calling it “marriage”, because to make marriage equivalent for a same-sex couple would require redefining it and stripping the most important facet of marriage out of it.

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
3 : term used by a liberal to concede an argument

Not just "acceptance" but

Melody Warbington (rwm52) (Diary) Monday, June 27th at 5:04PM EDT (link)

forced acceptance is the real gay-rights goal. Not just to stop any discrimination, but to force acceptance of the lifestyle as normal and even promote said lifestyle by legally changing the definition of marriage, indoctrinating their agenda through the liberal education system, criminalizing the speech and behavior of those who disagree (i.e., “hate speech”), and obtaining special treatment for homosexuals.

The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things. (John 4:25)

The response to this has, thus far, been ineffective, RWM52.

acat (Diary) Monday, June 27th at 5:37PM EDT (link)

I agree regarding the goal.

What I have seen, so far, is the church leaning on the government to save its’ sacrament, while the gay lobby have been leaning on the governemnt to give them the impossible.

I find both sides ironically misguided.

Gays, as Goldwater put it, should be libertarian-republicans – emphasizing the personal liberty issue. By making themselves into another minority-dem-bloc, they reduce their future options…

On the other paw, for the church (that existed before most countries and will likely outlast most countries – generally speaking) to depend on a deliberately malleable government (the constitution provides rules to update itself) to protect one of its’ sacraments appears, to this outsider, to be utterly wrong-headed.

It would appear more sensible to better innoculate and defend church marriages, requiring something like a denomination-specific “Marriage Encounter*” requirement. That kind of peer-driven marriage counseling would help bring the in-church divorce rate down to where there’s a noticeable difference. (I cited a Barna study last time this was discussed – googling something like “acat barna site:redstate.com” ought to find it)

The point is, while the term marriage got sucked into government at some point in the age of kings, there’s no reason I can see to leave it there, and it both noticably blunts the gay “sword” while sharpening the churchs’ to remove the term from the governments’ future meddling.

Mew

* I’ve only see the Catholic version, and then – like A.A. – the success rate depends largely on the honesty of the participants….

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

cat, had things not gone this far,

Melody Warbington (rwm52) (Diary) Monday, June 27th at 6:41PM EDT (link)

it might work to leave government out of the equation, but gays will never leave this alone, so we have to fight in the government arena.

We already have hate speech defined, special treatment for gays, and the mandating acceptance through schools. In response to TN’s “Don’t Say Gay Bill” which restricts teachers from teaching any pro or anti homosexual material before 9th grade, gays sent a video to TN state legisators entitled “FCKH8″ in which they use kids spouting profanity to make their case.

I laid out my case in another comment which is linked here:

http://www.redstate.com/davenj1/2011/05/17/weakening-the-democratic-base-part-7-gay-activism/#comment-670

I’ll search the study you noted later. Gotta go for now.

The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things. (John 4:25)

I do not believe you can win in that arena, RWM52.

acat (Diary) Monday, June 27th at 7:02PM EDT (link)

Sun Tzu offers advice here – you are choosing to fight on terrain that offers advantages to your enemy, but not to you…

If government were blind to the very idea of marriage, the church would be free to return the definition to a more historically valid one, with the ability to silence any whining from the left with “it’s our religious right”. Currently, that defense is not available.

The point is, I don’t see gays ever giving up their demand for acceptance – it’s a requirement to their world view – but I am concerned that the damage to church, if they continue to wait for the government to save their sacrament instead of playing to their own inherent advantages, will be worse. In short, the term marriage will become as debased as the terms commune and … church.

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

Interesting study, cat.

Melody Warbington (rwm52) (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 1:21AM EDT (link)

I just don’t see how you take government out of marriage, and there’s simply not enough of a libertarian streak in me to convince me otherwise. I’ve read a lot of articles at heritage on this lately, and they make this argument much better than I, so I’ve linked to a couple below (as well as to a previous discussion here at redstate that covered a lot of this). Just as fiercely as I believe we must win the fiscal crisis to save our country, I believe we must win the battle for morality, and I see abortion and gay marriage at the forefront of this war. Since it’s founding, America has been committed to Christian morality. That commitment has certainly eroded, and if we lose it altogether, I do not believe our country will continue to enjoy the freedom and prosperity we have had (see the warning in 2 Chronicles 7:19-22).

As for the study, in particular, Barna’s comment that “There no longer seems to be much of a stigma attached to divorce…” struck me as what I think is at the core of many ills facing society today. We have been beaten down with the baton of tolerance to the point that we are afraid to oppose anything on religious or moral grounds. We don’t want to be called judgmental, so we have allowed our schools, our churches to some extent, and our government to be taken over by the liberal agenda. Our kids have been brainwashed into believing that as long as nobody gets hurt, it’s okay.

As with abortion, my views on marriage and homosexuality are thoroughly based on Biblical teaching. Acceptance of divorce and gay marriage each hurt the “church” (and I use that term to encompass Christendom) and families. The church has done a poor job of extolling the virtues of marriage, monogamy and family, and its failure to excoriate divorce (and pre-marital sex, living together, etc.) has led to the acceptance that divorce has become the norm for many. I see the same thing happening with gay marriage which will further erode not just marriage, but our society. The U.S. Supreme Court asserted long ago that marriage has “more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution,” and I believe that to be the case. I’m not sitting around waiting on government to save marriage. I think the church had better get busy and help, and I’m doing my part.

http://www.redstate.com/davenj1/2011/05/17/weakening-the-democratic-base-part-7-gay-activism/#comment-673

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2002/02/Governments-Interest-in-Saving-Marriages

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/05/Winning-DOMA-on-the-Merits-of-Marriage

Forgive me if I’ve rambled a bit. I’m having some issues with my vision which has really caused trouble with my concentration. Hopefully, nothing a new pair of contacts and glasses can’t resolve in the next day or two.

The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things. (John 4:25)

I have to repeat what ACAT says

kyle8 (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 6:59AM EDT (link)

I hate that our traditions and the definition of marriage is being rewritten, But nearly all of the younger generation have been brainwashed about this. So it is pretty much a done deal.

On the other hand, although I hate it, it is just not that important to me when you think about all the other things that are about to destroy our country. You have to pick your fights.

In fact, it is an axiom of why I have always been a fiscal first and “values” conservative second. It isn’t because I don’t share those values, it is because if we let the whole country go to hell in a handbasket, then none of the values issues have any meaning.

In fact when everyone is dependent on government then the left can force any of their social agenda on us. Whereas if Republicans would have done a better job on the economy and not drug us into so many wars over the years, then we would be trusted more and have control of the government, Then we could enact some of the social agenda.

“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle

We must multitask, however

BA Cyclone (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 12:15PM EDT (link)

My personal take on it is pretty much what RWM is saying.

However my thrust in public politics and policy is to focus upon the fiscal side. My support for the social angles is hardly any less. I am not “declaring a truce” on social issues in any way.

However I am choosing to wage that battle on a more personal and local level, in my personal relationships and in my community. I guess it is rarely an advocacy campaign for me other than being an advocate where I have the opportunity to personally impact people.

While I am encouraged that some recent polls show growing public support for limiting abortion and supporting traditional marriage, I personally don’t take that as opportunity to force policies top-down. That is what the left does. Our campaign on the social side must do more of the harder work of back-to-basics civil instruction that has largely been lost or forgotten or taken for granted in society at large today.

I think if we push too hard a top-down dictatorial mandate for conservative values, I fear we are not much better off (or much different than) the left. I think we have lost our position not because ours is less admirable, but as a society we have failed to defend it. Maybe we had too much faith in the morally upright winning the day without our active defense.

All that said, i would vote today for some kind of Constitutional amendment to place protections upon the right to life for children and for protecting marriage — at least some kind of DOMA provision.

But for today my public policy focus would remain wholly upon restructuring government to something far more limited in nature — and also something that broadens and flattens the tax revenue structure where every voting age person has “skin in the game” as to the real cost of government.

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” — James Madison

“Electing Republicans who don’t have the courage of their convictions may be easier in some circumstances, but it won’t save our country.” — Jim DeMint

BA Cyclone’s blog

BA Cyclone on Twitter

5, Cyclone. Well said.

acat (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 12:24PM EDT (link)

I would point out that, in fact, the places where values-issues are winning are the places where they’re being driven bottom-up.

This is a universal truth, not just a political one… and many of the classic examples have religious roots.

The church cannot win this issue – and as a country, we cannot afford for the church to lose it – without engaging at a local, personal level.

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

Agreed, Rightwingmom

barleycorn (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 9:42AM EDT (link)

The biggest problem we face on the marriage front is the disintegration of male-female unions. And its been a problem and getting worse for at least 75 years.

Well said, RWM.

runner12 (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 3:10PM EDT (link)

I completely agree with you. I would also beg the question that since when did marriage become a “right”? It is more of a choice than anything else. People who are gay should not lose their rights as American citizens, but I cannot in good conscience support even a civil union.

I would rather the government not be the ones to recognize any such contract. But that is not the way things are now. The Left has chosen to attack us in this arena, and we have no choice but to fight back or see our nation ruined. I wish we could redraw the battle lines, so to speak, but that would take the cooperation of the Left which is unlikely to happen.

I would also add that if one does not think that immorality contributes to the ruin of a nation, they need to go back and study the fall of the Roman empire.

"When did marriage become a right"?

aesthete (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 5:29PM EDT (link)

If you’re merely talking about the right to have a religious ceremony where a religious authority of his own volition declares you married, then marriage is a combination of the rights to freedom of association, freedom of religion, and freedom of contract (the first two Constitutionally protected, and the latter both protected in common law and a fundament for property rights). If you’re talking about the goodie bag that federal and state government has bestowed upon marriage, then I’d agree that none of that is a right, but it is redistributionary in nature, and should be opposed by conservatives. Lastly, if you’re talking about preference for adoptions, spousal immunity, and some of the other “best practices” regarding children, I would agree that there is in theory a government role that could be played preferring married couples.

“It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”
-P.J. O’Rourke

I meant that marriage is not a "right" in the

runner12 (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 8:52PM EDT (link)

way Rand Paul argued that healthcare is not a right. In your words, i is in reference to the goodie bag that the government doles out.

Oh, then we're in total agreement

aesthete (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 10:16PM EDT (link)

I’ll note that, while there are many in the gay community who are basically looking to force acceptance, there are some others (and some hetero simpaticos) who simply want for gays to have access to a legal status that makes more sense: one that provides visitation rights and the like. Personally, I think this debate is far less important than the debate that we lost over no-fault divorce. That, IMO, was where we lost the fight over marriage, not gay marriage. The instance that marriage was seen in the public consciousness as a public affirmation of love, rather than an institution designed to provide a stable environment for children, it was undeniable to me that one day, we’d have to allow non-heteros to gain access to it.

“It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”
-P.J. O’Rourke

V. Good Point

shoutbits (Diary) Monday, June 27th at 8:16PM EDT (link)

“Sun Tzu offers advice here – you are choosing to fight on terrain that offers advantages to your enemy, but not to you…”

I think that sums up my criticism of the traditionalist battle plan nicely.

You mean acceptance of their lifestyle

lineholder (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 2:39AM EDT (link)

rather than acceptance of the individual? I daresay that they are looking for the acceptance that you’ve mentioned. Not only that, but by pursuing having gay marriage legalized, they probably believe that they are establishing a basis on which they can develop expectations of acceptance from our society as a whole, even from Christians.

Those expectations are unrealistic. As a Christian, I have no intention of passing judgment on other people. But I do not and can not forget the Biblical admonition, “Be ye not conformed to this world…”

If and when I believe it to be best to keep a certain distance away from people whose outlook on life may be world-centered rather than God-centered, then that is exactly what I will do, regardless of any expectations of acceptance that they might have.

It isn’t their choice to make, and it isn’t the government’s choice to make…it’s mine.

I think you are right on

BA Cyclone (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 12:00PM EDT (link)

…my impression of the whole drive for “legalization” is the equating of government “acceptance” as the same as societal or cultural acceptance.

My approach mirrors yours. My personal, spiritual drive would remain to bring as many people as I can to the understanding of the Spirit that I have, through the love of Christ.

Regardless of the laws that men might pass, it will not change how God looks upon the relationships of these people. This might be their folly, but it is not mine.

Ultimately I think it can affect society as a whole in a negative way — but in that we and I can work my small part to educate and move hearts what little I can.

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” — James Madison

“Electing Republicans who don’t have the courage of their convictions may be easier in some circumstances, but it won’t save our country.” — Jim DeMint

BA Cyclone’s blog

BA Cyclone on Twitter

As with so much of the progressive agenda this has nothing to do with marriage

ssshannon1026 (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 1:10PM EDT (link)

or gay rights. It is about centralizing how social norms are defined so that we are no longer free to do that for ourselves in our own communites. Progressives attack the fundamental institutions of a self governing society precisely because they provide social stability and harmony. No matter what you do, they are going to attack and continue to attack until they have throughly disrupted our culture and made our society dysfunctional and thereby making it entirely dependent on control from a centralized political ruling elite – which our course they intend to be in charge of .

Wrong (nt)

Neil Stevens (Diary) Tuesday, June 28th at 1:10PM EDT (link)

.

RS contributing editor and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules

Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.

“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder

So I'm a wedding photographer, and...

rocketeer (Diary) Wednesday, June 29th at 11:43AM EDT (link)

Suppose the gov’t is out of the “defining marriage” business, as you ask. And suppose I film weddings. And you have this man-man spectacle for me to record for posterity.

I say “because for me a marriage is man/woman, you don’t have a wedding for me to film. I refuse your business”.

This means I can refuse business to you. Because the government acknowledges freedom of religion, this is OK.

But wait! You say you’re discriminated against? On what grounds, civil rights? Equal rights? Sorry, gov’t is out of that business…

–
Never buy a dog and bark for yourself: ‘Slippery’ Jim DiGriz

Individuals have a right to refuse to do business...

acat (Diary) Wednesday, June 29th at 11:52AM EDT (link)

although I would suggest that you find a conflict on your calendar instead of making a whole issue of it…

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

The conflict is the point of the thread

rocketeer (Diary) Wednesday, June 29th at 12:16PM EDT (link)

I’m trying to get to the ‘reduction to absurdity’ point with the original poster’s argument.

A society exists for its members to live in, and perpetuate itself. The way they relate to themselves must be reflected in the government they choose.

The problem here is when out-of-bounds people come in. Does the tail wag the dog?

–
Never buy a dog and bark for yourself: ‘Slippery’ Jim DiGriz

Um... no

aesthete (Diary) Thursday, June 30th at 6:45PM EDT (link)

You have the right to refuse to do business with anyone — why would you want to restrict that right for yourself, or assume that conservatives would have problems with you asserting that right in the face of a government that oversteps its bounds?

A society’s members have the absolute right to deal with one another as they choose, as long as it’s in a voluntary, non-coercive fashion. Actions such as shunning, boycotts, and refusal to do business are perfectly consistent with this. Using government (i.e., legalized force) to resolve societal conflicts is not.

“It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”
-P.J. O’Rourke

The corollary to gay marriage

danielhill2008 (Diary) Wednesday, June 29th at 2:34PM EDT (link)

is gay divorce. To me it is evident that one of, it not the main, driving factor in the push for gay marriage is universal acceptance. That will never happen, as it seems most commenters here agree. You simply can’t change people’s opinions by legislation.

I believe, however, that the bloom will quickly fade once gay “married” couples begin to realize that breaking up is suddenly harder to do. It’s all well and good to have a pretty ceremony, write-up in the paper, toaster, blender, all the nice gifts, just like any other couple. But when the realities set in, just like every married person knows, maybe this husband or wife is not so perfect after all.

I’ve known many gay “couples” in my time, and It has always been easy for them to just change partners when the thrill was gone. Perhaps having to go through a messy divorce (and have you ever seen a gay couple fight? It can get ugly), will convince some, now eager for legal and societal recognition, that marriage is not going to make their lives suddenly perfect, and the quest for “equality” in all things may cool down a bit.

Why marriage is tied to government

nepanyrush Wednesday, June 29th at 4:24PM EDT (link)

The American government supported and sanctioned marriage because it is the best thing for the nation. Stable marriages are best for the children, best for the couples, best for society. This has always been known, but now is borne out by studies. With the breakdown of marriage comes the breakdown of society.

I don’t think anyone could foresee at the start of the nation that marriage would not necessarily be between one man and one woman. Nor, could people foresee even at the end of the 19th century that so many children would be borne out of wedlock or so many divorces would occur. Husband and wife used to almost invariable stay together.

So to decry that religion tied its institution of marriage to government sanction ignores the reality at the time the institution was sanctioned by the nation.

Why does a State recognize marriage?

BA Cyclone (Diary) Wednesday, June 29th at 4:44PM EDT (link)

I agree with your sentiment there.

The statist meme is that “marriage” is recognized in one way because of some theocratic, quaint and outdated societal standard. Thus true “progress” would be to all “equal rights” for other arrangements.

In truth I believe the state recognizes a particular type of marriage arrangement because the state’s interest is moved forward by propagation of the subjects. A healthy population is maintained by the healthy maintenance of a family unit that successfully bears and raises children according to accepted norms of civil society.

This last part might be an area of subjective judgement; however it is hard for me to objectively look at this from a view of 50,000 feet and see how family units other than man/woman marriage fulfill the best interests of the State.

If I throw away all of my personal, religious beliefs on this topic and look at this completely from a value-added calculation, it comes out with much the same answer as the religiously-based argument. I don’t think the correlation is much of an accident.

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” — James Madison

“Electing Republicans who don’t have the courage of their convictions may be easier in some circumstances, but it won’t save our country.” — Jim DeMint

BA Cyclone’s blog

BA Cyclone on Twitter

Shoutbits Wrong on Gay Marriage and Reality

kipling (Diary) Thursday, June 30th at 3:39PM EDT (link)

The author’s diary suffers from some major problems that render it little more than an exercise in libertarian fantasy. I will mention just a few.

1. The author plays intellectual slight of hand with the definition of marriage. He states that traditionalists view marriage a between a man and a woman. Secularists, according to him, see it only as a contract between two people. The assumption is that secularist don’t really care if the two people are of the same sex. The assumption is a lie. Most people – traditionalist or secularist – are not okay with same-sex marriage. It is a libertarian fantasy to think so.

2. The author’s use of “traditionalist” and “secularists” does nothing but muddle the waters further. Can a secularist not also be a traditionalists? Can opposition to same-sex marriage not come from non-traditionalists? Elton John opposes same sex marriage. Is he therefore a traditionalist?

3. The author is ahistorical at best in his argument. At worst, he makes up his own reality. Marriage in the United States has always been defined as between a man and a woman. The same in Great Britain and the entire western tradition. It has never been mainstream to support gay marriage. The gay rights movement is a rather recent invention yet the author would have us believe it a larger movement supported by all secularists.

4. At which point did those who oppose gay marriage entrust it to government. I must have missed that treaty. Did we lose a war? I assume the author is referring to the DOMA. If so then he needs to read his history. DOMA was a defense of marriage against an attack by gays seeking to use the government to push their agenda upon society – hence the name. I find it extremely odd that libertarians support the government redefining the oldest institution known to man and then claim to be for limited government. The defenders of marriage did not place it in the realm of government. The fight was already there. They just joined it.

In short the whole article is libertarian fantasy and an attack on conservatives who dare to defend an institution that is the bulwark of western civilization.

I did not have time to read all 73 posts on this thread so...

kyle8 (Diary) Thursday, June 30th at 4:08PM EDT (link)

I might be repeating something, But I think that the position we should have taken from the start was to guarantee all people, including gays to the same rights as everyone else, through some sort of civil union,

But, now we are faced with the elimination of our several millennia old tradition of marriage. I don’t see any way we can win this. I say we should still insist that civil unions not be called marriage because it is a simply wrong definition of terms.

Howerver, we will not be able to stop this. The younger generation, which is very suspicious of government, is none the less very libertarian on this and some other issues.

“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle

Comment title:
Your thoughts: (smaller size larger size)
	Be respectful, or be banned. No Profanity.