So what is your take on Gay Marriage??

[rauchman]

I'm sure this will generate some spriited debate. My perspective. First off I'm not gay. I married my wife last Oct and we've been together for a good 10 years prior to that. My religion, and my wife's, would best be defined as paganism. What this means in it's most basic definition is that I do not believe in the concept of God as defined by the Judeo/Christian bible. It is a more natue oriented polytheistic concept, is most definitely NOT satanism, and the big rule in the religion is basically do unto others as you would want to do to you. I am paraphrasing from the bible, but the golden rule is in many religious philosophies. Following through on this philosophy I don't see how 2 folks who love each other, and in some cases have been together for decades, should be denied getting legally married. I do not think that the government should be defining what a marriage constitutes based on tradition and the philosophy of popular religion. Doesn't this go against the First Ammendment....freedom of religion. As I'm sure most folks on this board are very Ammendment aware ( as in the Second Ammendment), I would think that this would be a serious sticking point with a lot folks around here regardless of your religious view point.

Ok, the flame is fitted and ready to go

 

[antoniov218]

I am not heterosexually challenged either, but if two people wish to get married, let them. Who cares as long as they dont bother you. Its not like by stopping them from getting married you make them not gay....

 

[cdbeaver]

A state legislator said during debate in the statehouse this week:

Gays should also be allowed to enjoy the thrill of marriage and the agony of divorce.

 

[Yanus]

I don't have a dog in this hunt, either.

However, the issue will make "Jungle" John (D-Hotel Carousel) toast in the South and that is not a bad thing.............


Yanus

 

[Sindawe]

IMAO, the only business that government has in the business of marriage is as a nuetral recorder of record of the event, and as referee should the relationship decay into a legal dispute. For a .gov to legislate that only a union between one man and one woman is a marriage is just plain wrong.

As far as a constitutional amendment defining what is and what is not marrage, well that is abuse of the intent of the constitution and the proper role of any government into peoples lives.

 

[dischord]

Or to take it in the other direction: Why is it the state's business at all to "allow and certify" marriages -- heterosexual, homosexual, polygamous, bestial or otherwise? (Yeah, I'm aware of the keeping track of children and patrimony arguments. They don't convince me, especially given that the state has a proven inability to force children to be born within marriage anyway, as is pretty obvious.)

State permission to marry is a relatively new development culture-wise (as in the past hundred to two hundred years).

 

[Gary H]

Government should stay out of this and provide the compromise of civil unions with the same rights. This fight was lost by the fundamentalist years ago.

Why is the states business.. that one is easy.. they collect fees and taxes.. The one function that is reliably exercised by government.

 

[Zeke Menuar]

I could care less. Lowering taxes, moving jobs back to the USA and RKBA are much more important issues to me. Any legislator that makes gay marriage an issue loses my vote.

ZM

 

[MeekandMild]

I tend to believe that the State should stay out of family issues. OTOH, calling a fish a frog doesn't make sense either.

 

[Augustwest]

There are 2 main elements to marriage as I see it:

1. A civil contract.

2. (And not in every case) A spritual union.

Gov't has zero business interfering with a contract between two people.

Religious institutions have a right to decide whether or not they wish to bless a spiritual union between any two people, which is none of the gov'ts business either.

Those that would amend the Constitution to interfere with the rights of contract makers and religions have no concept of what freedom is about. None (Though they may throw the word around alot)

 

[Zak Smith]

The government should not be involved in marriages at all, except to the extent that the public courts are used as a venue for civil disputes. I.e. any number of consenting adults should be able to enter into private contracts, a subset of which may end up looking like marriages. What you do with your own relationships and religion is none of my nor the State's business.

-z

 

[lycanthrope]

Anything that gives more freedom to the public is a good thing. I can't see any major problems with gay marriage and the moral ones shouldn't be considered in terms of legality.

 

[J Jones]

Put me down for not believing that marriage is the purview of the state. Also put me down for believing that any attempt to make an amendment of this issue (or flag burning, disrespectful as it may be) is an attempt by legislators to get the numbskull vote.

 

[Helio]

A happy marrage is a good marrage as far as I'm concerned, that's my take.

 

[Eskimo Jim]

August,
I think that you made two very good observations about marriage. The civil contract between two people is something that the government does have an interest in regarding property rights, wills, etc. Whether the government wants to medle in these affairs or not, doesn't really matter because sooner or later a court is going to have make a decision in these matters. For example, say a person dies without a will, where does the property go to, the spouse or children etc.

I have to agree with MeeknMild on this one though.

-Jim

 

[erikm]

Well,
I'm one of the not too many THR members who live somewhere where gay marriage is totally legal, so I'll weigh in on the subject. The dutch government legalized gay marriage after a time of allowing registered partnerships. The IMO only distasteful part of the process was the unseemly haste by some couples to be first married gay couple. In fairly typical dutch fashion the subject was more or less talked to death, with action being taken only when a consensus had been reached.

To quote cdbeaver's post:

Gays should also be allowed to enjoy the thrill of marriage and the agony of divorce.

And this is what is happening here.

All the hoopla in the US about gay marriage is reenforcing some peoples' belief that the US is a country inhabited by religious zealots and wackos. Maybe it's the result of america being a haven for religious hardcases down the centuries yet not having seen a major religious war.

I'm not one to complement CNN all that much, but http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/04/world.gaymarriage.ap/index.html sums things up more or less correctly.

Cheers,
ErikM

 

[dpsychs]

Sensibility, at last!

Thank God for this thread! I am a Pink Pistol, and I was becoming very disillusioned by other posters who think it's great that we're in the 2A fight, but don't think that we should be allowed the same rights as other folks. Nice to hear from a bunch of people who have (IMO) a sensible attitude about such things!

 

[Gunfyter]

As we move into the 21st century and even more into the "Age of Tolerence", everyone seems to be saying they don't care what others do as long as : 1. They are happy and 2. They aren't harming anyone. My question is how will you feel when the gays want their lifestyle taught in the schools as an "alternate" choice?

 

[PATH]

Interesting topic. Is there any relationship to the firearms issue here?

 

[Boats]

Relation to firearms? Yep, you betcha, it is about the selective abuse of the political apparatus by leftists against our cause but for theirs.

In Oregon, we have this "battle" being played out right in our faces.

As to the underlying battle, I could care less about gay marriage, except for the fact that when you redefine marriage beyond its traditional definition, you tend to make it meaningless. Nothing in "marriage" precludes its application to groups for instance.

That said, I do have a huge issue with how the leftists have sprung this issue into the limelight. In California and New York the issue has been promulgated through the breaking of the law of the respective lands. Here in Oregon, where the legalisms are a little more indefinite, what we have are four flaming liberal county commissioners in the most liberal county in Oregon, sneaking around the process of the open meetings laws, public discourse through testimony, and freezing out political opponents who might have thrown the issue into the courts, where it belongs, and have instead highhanded it onto the rest of us peons. in the name of "unconstitutional discrimination." Leftists touting Constitutional inviolation? INCONCEIVABLE! But, not when one is a shameless hypocrite.

The commissioners behind the short circuiting of the political process were so proud of their decision that the chairwoman was in Washington DC and unavailable for comment on the day of the announcement by the county and when the "Fab Four" came back and held a "press conference" they uniformally looked as if they wanted to bolt and suspended the conference after taking five entire questions, three of which were rather softball-ish.

Only in Vermont and apparently in Massachusetts has this issue been handled in a way that comports with the rules of the process as it is formulated. When the outcome of that process is final, people may or may not like the end result, but they can't complain of having been frozen out.

That is singularly not the case in San Francisco California, New York, or now in Oregon. I'm afraid all of these illegal tactics are going to only result in a powerful backlash that a frank and open discussion might have prevented.

Stupid liberals are so into instant gratification that when they are not violating the law and constitution against us, they are doing so on behalf of their "friends." I think the inherent hypocrisy of their approach is going to catch up to them, sooner rather than later.

 

[Cosmoline]

I am for abolition of all state licensing of marriage. Here's why:

--Child custody matters have for decades been distinct from marital matters. Thus in a divorce the child custody aspect is controlled by a different set of rules than those which govern property distribution.

--Property division after the end of a relationship should be made a matter of contract. If no express contract is made, a couple of longstanding partnership should be divided up according to rules of partnership, just as you would wind up any GP.

--The current system interferes with religion by giving the seal of approval to unions which many religions find improper. This includes marriages of non-Orthodox Christians to Orthodox, or marriages of Jews and non-Jews. The state cannot issue licensing without trodding on some toes.

--Domestic violence issues are now governed by provisions independent from questions of marriage.

--No test, not even a blood test, is given by the clerk. The state simply collects a fee. For all it knows the couple could be brother and sister.

--Marriage is a religious matter, not a state matter.

--Marriage should be tax-neutral. Couples should be encourage to utilize a number of partnership forms in order to obtain benefits from their union. But those partnerships will be treated as a business matter as they should be.

 

[rick_reno]

So what is your take on gay marriage?

Who cares what they do. This is being used as a smokescreen to hide real problems facing this country. Gay marriage isn't one of them.
When our public servants start using Consitutional Amendments to address non-existing problems, you know something is seriously wrong with the Republic.

 

[fix]

I was becoming very disillusioned by other posters who think it's great that we're in the 2A fight, but don't think that we should be allowed the same rights as other folks.

You already have the same rights as other folks. There have always been restrictions on marriage. I can't marry my sister, for instance. I am restricted to marrying a person of the opposite sex who is not already married and is not an immediate relative. So are you. I believe that the sole purpose of marriage is to legitimize a sexual relationship between a man and a women (on religious grounds) for the purpose of procreating and raising children. Now where I take your side is on the benefits issue. There should be no advantages to being married. None! It's wrong, and it's what got us to where we are today. The .gov has it's grubby paws all over something that is nothing more than a religious ceremony. Had government not stuck it's nose in the issue in the first place, we wouldn't be debating the issue. We'd all be alot better off if the government just stopped issuing "Marriage Licenses" and started issuing "Notorized Social Contracts". There is no reason to define a household as a married couple for tax purposes. A brother and sister who are roommates are certainly sharing the expenses of maintaining their household together. Why shouldn't they be elligible for the same benefits. Same goes for gay couples and everyone else who shares a household. Both sides are essentially fighting for the same thing, but just don't realize it. The proper solution is for government to get out of the "marriage" business altogether. I believe that many gays are simply interested in the legal aspects, and I support those folks fully. However, there is a a small segment who views this as a source of gaining some form of legitimacy. Those folks need to take a good hard look at their lifestyle and ask themselves why they feel the need for that. An even smaller segment is doing it as a sort of "neener neener, we can get married too!!!" thumb in the eye of religious people who don't agree with their lifestyle. It is that segment that I oppose, vehemently. Unfortunately for the rest of the gay community, a member of that segment lives close to me (and occasionally shoots with me ), so he and his boyfriend have essentially poisoned the water for the rest of you. Squash this segment, and stop using the word "marriage" (I know, I know, it's really semantics) specifically, and you'll be surprised at how many conservative Christians join your fight passively. They (and I) will most likely not actively support you...but most (including me) will certainly stop actively opposing you.

Christians are not the evil, unreasonable people the media makes us out to be...much like gunowners. I'd argue that Christianity (Protestant) is the most tolerant of all major religions. Feel free to post a rebuttal, but don't expect me to debate the issue further. I'm pretty much settled on this whole thing, although I hope you can understand my point of view. We could be on the same side...with a little dialogue, but it's going to have to be on the national level rather than person to person online discussion.

 

[mrtgbnkr]

The thing that worries me the most is the idea of a Constitutional Amendment to BAN gay marriages. I've always thought of the Constitution as a document which protects our rights...not one which prohibits or restricts freedoms. Of course, there was Prohibition, so we do have an example of how well using the Constitution to ban something works.

 

[stevelyn]

They should be allowed to do as they wish as long as like anything else the people involved are in agreement. Why should the goverment or anyone else for that matter, care who another person marries? It's none of government's business nor ours as individuals.
If you have a problem with gay marriages/civil unions, don't marry a gay person. If you have a problem with abortions, don't get one. If you have a problem with guns, don't get one. If you have a problem with hunting, eating meat, science experments on lab animals, drinking, drugs, prostitution, etc. don't participate in these activities. In other words don't be telling others how they should live and mind your own effing bidness.