158 Comments

1. Laura
   Posted November 4, 2009 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

   THANKS MAINE! THANKS NOM! THANKS TO ALL WHO MADE THIS VICTORY POSSIBLE!

2. Hey
   Posted November 4, 2009 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

   Glad you didn't break your arm from patting yourself on your homophobic back.

3. Pat Anderson
   Posted November 4, 2009 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

   Thank you for all the hard work you have been putting into this critical issue for so long. We are trememdously greatful to you and to the many many unseen that contributed in ANY way to this amazing effort. God is Great and Greatly to be Praised !!

4. Mike Brooks
   Posted November 4, 2009 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

   Thanks for all of your hard work, Brian. This vote in Maine has motivated me to become involved in the fight to protect marriage.

5. Mark Arsenault
   Posted November 4, 2009 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

   I would like to know how many members of NOM are acquainted with a homosexual couple with adopted children. Given that your argument is based on the idea that these families create an inferior environments in which to raise children, you may want to study some of these families. I know several, and ALL of them are in happy, healthy relationships with wonderful children. You argue that this is not discrimination, but depriving people of the right to parent based on sexual orientation IS discrimination. Speaking as a scientist, any social experiment seeking to determine the efficacy of a homosexual couple's parenting style would be inherently flawed until society as a whole accepts the practice. So, as long as you folks keep it up, any preconceived notions you may have will endure. Congratulations!

6. Sean
   Posted November 4, 2009 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

   I find it disgusting how people can feel such joy at the expense of others.

7. Amy
   Posted November 4, 2009 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

   Mark, self reporting stories don't hold up to scientific scrutiny. For me, this isn't an experiment that I want to put this nation's posterity through just to "see" if someone's theory holds. Thanks, but no thanks!

8. Linda
   Posted November 4, 2009 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

   "I find it disgusting how people can feel such joy at the expense of others."

   yet if you had won Sean, you would have had joy at the expense of children and families. Ironic eh?

9. DJ
   Posted November 4, 2009 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

   Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Proud of the hard work you have done. Keep up the great work, what a statement for the country, especially the state of Maine.

10. Andrew
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    RE: LInda ... "You would have had joy at the expense of children and families..."

    PLEASE! Your side has NEVER shown how treating all married couples equally under the law has any negative effect whatsover on straight people and their children.

    Your campaign is one based on a narrow interpretation of the requirements of one world religion out of many. And in this country, we don't promote one religion over the others, and we don't force everyone to follow the same religion.

    It is WRONG of you to legislate your religious beliefs.

    It is WRONG to put the civil rights of a minority group up for a vote by the majority.

    Where would we be if we had let the majority rule on women's right to vote, former slaves' right to own property, interracial couples' right to be married ... or any other once-controversial rights issue that faced stiff opposition from the majority?

    And when do I get to go to the polls to vote to take away the rights of hetero Christians?

11. Denise
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    "Your campaign is one based on a narrow interpretation of the requirements of one world religion out of many."

    wait, which religion is it that supports neutering marriage? Most religions stand for children and families. I'm not aware of any who don't. Anyway, not any that have lasted very long.

12. Andrew
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    DENISE: You know what I'm talking about.

    Right-wing Christianists seize upon 8 verses out of their dusty Bibles and bray them constantly to "prove" that "God" doesn't approve of gay relationships.

    Newsflash: We don't make public policy in this country based on people's interpretations of their Bibles.

    Again: If we did that, we'd still have slaves.

13. Mary
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    This is such wonderful news!
    Here in NJ we are very hopeful with Governor elect Christie that marriage will remain between 1 man and 1 woman.

14. Denise
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    Andrew, Why would you single out Christians as supporting natural marriage? Axe to grind? Which world religion supports SSM?

15. Nick Ardman
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    What does it hurt to support homosexual marriage? I'd love to see one scientific article in a peer reviewed journal that says Homosexual marriage is worse then Heterosexual Marriage.

    In fact, Homosexual Marriages have a lower divorce rate then Heterosexual Marriages.

    The bible says, Love everyone at your neighbor, What happened?

    The bible says, Do not judge, Lest ye be judged. What happened?

    Why do you pick and choose from a book that has been twisted and corrupted by many evil men? Can you not think for yourself? Do you need instructions on how to live? You can't tell right from wrong? Then I feel pitty for you.

    This isn't Iran. We don't make laws from religion. We don't all pray to the same god.

    I don't know why you would refuse two loving people from marrying, They won't stop loving or fucking each other, and you can't stop them. All your doing is making sure that when one gets sick, the other will be left in the dark.

    Thanks.

16. the pomegranate apple
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

    Nick, can you send a link to the study with the compared divorce rates?

    Are you saying your criteria for marriage is love? Would you say any two people can be married (related or not?)? would you say more than two people can get married? and why?

17. the pomegranate apple
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    P.S. Dear Andrew, the civil rights movement and the anti-slavery movement both used God and the bible for its justification.

18. Nubia
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    I hope one day we succeed in winning the hearts of those who suffer from SSA
    I do not understand why so much hatred and resentment in the gay community ?

19. L. Marie
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    Nick

    There are so many bits of disinformation in there, I hardly know where to begin. First off, children are best off in loving committed families who are married, committed for life, and who can provide a mom and a dad. There is no one out there who disputes that.

    Second, religion is moot. The reason why someone believes what they believe is not an issue. Proving that you believe something better is. The onus is on gay activists to prove why normalizing homosexuality is beneficial for society, when social science says otherwise.

20. Andrew
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    RE: "Dear Andrew, the civil rights movement and the anti-slavery movement both used God and the bible for its justification."

    Yes, no doubt.

    In fact, BOTH sides of the slavery debate used the Bible to justify their positions -- much like both sides of the marriage debate use the Bible today.

    The pro-marriage side uses the verses about loving your neigbhor and not judging others (as Nick Ardman notes above), while those who struck down marriage for gay Mainers yesterday tend to rely on the verse in Leviticus about stoning gay people to death.

    History vindicated the "love your neighbor" side of the debate over the question of slavery, and eventually, history will vindicate the "love your neighbor" side in this fight as well.

21. L. Marie
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    Love your neighbor, even if they believe differently than you do. The advice goes both ways Andrew.

22. L. Marie
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    The question remains how loving your neighbor means letting him walk all over you, society and society's children. You are my neighbor. What you do is something else. I don't have to approve of what you do to love who you are.

23. Andrew
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    Oh, good gravy, "L. Marie," who do you think is "walking all over you?"

    Nobody. You didn't get YOUR rights trampled at the ballot box yesterday. You didn't demonstrate the Golden Rule yesterday. Your gay neighbors' marriages have no effect on you. None.

24. awsum quote
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    Remember (the) Maine! [Thomas Peters]

    Guilty confession: My favorite part of last night’s election coverage was watching Rachel Maddow’s demeanor go from exuberant, to smug, to infuriated over the results of the marriage referendum in Maine. And then she seemed to lose interest.

    It now appears highly likely that, when all the votes are counted, Maine will join every other state in the union (which has had a popular vote on the issue) in rejecting gay marriage.

    This result comes despite Maine being a liberal state, despite a 2-1 funding disadvantage, despite aggressive legal action against traditional-marriage defenders, despite unusually high voter turn out, and despite Rachel Maddow and the elite press running interference.

    Proponents of same-sex marriage, unlike in California’s Prop 8, can’t blame Maine on Mormons, on African Americans who turned out for Barack Obama, or on confusing ballot wording. Their issue loses when the people decide. And it loses every time.

    No doubt proponents of same-sex marriage will take this loss as a rallying cry to throw even more money into the basket, and to put more pressure on the White House.

    The battle will move next to D.C., while harassment will escalate against ordinary folks who have voted against same-sex marriage (especially in California and Washington).

    But for those who support traditional marriage, as they move forward into the next chapter, let them never forget, but rather, let them Remember (the) Maine! Bully for them.

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjVkMTlhZWE5NzUxN2YzNGNiNmQ0NmI1ODVjN2UzMzQ=

25. L. Marie
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    Andrew, there is harm in the idea that those who disagree with the normalization of homosexuality being called haters and bigots. Especially when laws are being enacted to curb so-called "hate".

    The result is not only devastating through homosexuality's negative effects on society and the disintegration of the family, but the effects on stifling free speech, freedom of conscience etc is absolutely fascist in nature. Talk to the Mendell family in Maine. They're experiencing that first hand for standing up for their beliefs.

    It is ignorant and arrogant to assume that there are no consequences to your actions.

26. Amber Thibeau
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    I am so grateful for another victory in keeping the "sacred" act of marriage between a man and a woman. Heavenly Father gave us this beautiful sacred act to unite two (a son and a daughter of His) as one being, no longer is he a brother to her until they marry. Thank you Father, continue to bless us with keeping this sacred act holy.

27. Marnie
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    Seeing people so happy at the expense of others' rights is disgusting.

    Love is love regardless of gender.

28. Samantha
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

    Parenting Issues
    Homosexual Parenting: Is it Time for Change?

    Are children reared by two individuals of the same gender as well adjusted as children reared in families with a mother and a father? Until recently the unequivocal answer to this question was "no." Within the last decade, however, professional health organizations1, academics, social policymakers and the media have begun asserting that prohibitions on parenting by homosexual couples should be lifted. In making such far-reaching, generation-changing assertions, any responsible advocate would rely upon supporting evidence that is comprehensive and conclusive. Not only is this not the situation, but also there is sound evidence that children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle may be at increased risk for emotional, mental, and even physical harm.

    Biology matters
    Over thirty years of research confirms that children fare best when reared by their two biological parents in a loving low conflict marriage. Children navigate developmental stages more easily, are more solid in their gender identity, perform better academically, have fewer emotional disorders, and become better functioning adults when reared within their natural family.2,3,4,5,6,7,8 This is, in part, because biology contributes to parent child bonding."9

    While single parenthood, adoption, and remarriage are each loving responses to failure of the natural family, children reared in these settings face unique challenges. 9,10 Single parents face greater financial challenges and time constraints. Consequently, children of single mothers often spend significantly less time with both biological parents. Children within stepfamilies can experience difficulties forging a relationship with the stepparent, and be faced with a sense of divided loyalties. Every adopted child must come to terms with a sense of rejection from her biological parents and a longing to know her roots. While not insurmountable, these challenges can have a negative impact on a child's development.9,10 Clearly, apart from rare situations, depriving a child of one or both biological parents - as homosexual parenting requires in every case, is unhealthy.

    Children need a mother and a father
    There are significant innate differences between male and female that are mediated by genes and hormones and go well beyond basic anatomy. These biochemical differences are evident in the development of male and female brain anatomy, psyche, and even learning styles.11 Consequently, mothers and fathers parent differently and make unique contributions to the overall development of the child.11,12,13 Psychological theory of child development has always recognized the critical importance that mothers play in the healthy development of children. Recent research reveals that when fathers are absent, children suffer as well. Girls without fathers perform poorly in school, are more likely to be sexually active and become pregnant as teenagers. Boys without fathers have higher rates of delinquency, violence, and aggression.12,13

    Gender-linked differences in child rearing styles between parents are complementary and protective for children. Erik Erikson was among the first to note that mother-love and father-love are qualitatively different. Mothers are nurturing, expressive, and more unconditional in their love for their children. Father-love, by contrast, often comes with certain expectations of achievement. 13 Subsequent research has consistently revealed that parenting is most effective when it is both highly expressive and highly demanding. This approach to parenting "provides children with a kind of communion characterized by inclusiveness and connectedness, as well as the drive for independence and individuality [which is] virtually impossible for a man or woman alone to combine effectively."13

    Gender differences are also reflected in the way mothers and fathers use touch with their children. Mothers frequently soothe, calm, and comfort with touch. Fathers are more likely to use touch to stimulate or excite their children during play. Mothers tend to engage with children on their level providing opportunities for children to take charge and proceed at their own pace. As fathers engage in rough and tumble play, they take on a teaching role like that of a coach. Roughhousing between fathers and sons is associated with the development of greater self-control in adolescent boys.13

    Gender-linked diversity is also observed in parental approaches to discipline. "The disciplinary approaches of fathers tend toward firmness, relying on rules and principles. The approach of mothers tends toward more responsiveness, involving more bargaining, more adjustment toward the child's mood and context, and is more often based on an intuitive understanding of the child's needs and emotions of the moment."13 Consequently, being reared by a mother and a father helps sons and daughters moderate their own gender-linked inclinations. Boys generally embrace reason over emotion, rules over relationships, risk-taking over caution, and standards over compassion. Girls generally place greater emphasis on emotional ties, relationships, caution, and compassion. Over time opposite-sexed parents demonstrate to their children the value of opposing tendencies.

    Research on homosexual parenting
    Studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable child outcomes from homosexual parenting have critical design flaws. These include non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, failure to account for confounding variables, and perhaps most problematic - all claim to affirm the null hypothesis.14,15,16 Therefore, it is impossible for these studies to provide any support for the alleged safety or potential benefits to children from same-sex parenting.

    Data on the long-term outcomes of children placed in homosexual households is sparse and gives reason for concern.17 This research has revealed that children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, engage in risky sexual experimentation, and later adopt a homosexual identity.18,19,20,21,22 This is concerning since adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, are at increased risk for mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorders, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.23

    Risks of the homosexual lifestyle to children
    Finally, research has demonstrated considerable risks to children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle. Violence between homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples.24,25,26,27,28 Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. 29,30,31 Homosexual men and women are reported to be promiscuous, with serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed "committed relationships."32,33,34,35,36 Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness,37,38,39 substance abuse,40 suicidal tendencies,41,42 and shortened life spans.43 Although some would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures where the practice is more widely accepted.44

    Conclusion
    In summary, tradition, and science agree that biological ties and dual gender parenting are protective for children. The family environment in which children are reared plays a critical role in forming a secure gender identity, positive emotional well-being, and optimal academic achievement. Decades of social science research documents that children develop optimally when reared by their two biological parents in a low conflict marriage. The limited research advocating childrearing by homosexual parents has severe methodological limitations. There is significant risk of harm inherent in exposing a child to the homosexual lifestyle. Given the current body of evidence, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.

    Originally posted January 22, 2004
    Revised April 13, 2009

    Related Links:
    Marriage Rights for Homosexual Couples: Not Best for Children

    Homosexuality, Gender Disorders, and Children

    The American College of Pediatricians is a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents. The mission of the College is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being. More information is available at http://www.BestforChildren.org
    .

    REFERENCES

    1American Academy of Pediatrics, "Co parent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents," Pediatrics.109(2002): 339-340.

    2Heuveline, Patrick, et.al. "Shifting childrearing to single mothers: results from 17 western countries," Population and development review 29, no.1 (March 2003) p.48.

    3Kristen Andersen Moore, et.al. "Marriage from a child's perspective: how does family structure affect children and what can we do about it?" (Washington, D.C.: Child Trends, Research Brief, June 2002) pp.1-2.

    4Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandfeur, Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what helps (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 45.

    5Sotirios Sarantakos, "Children in three contexts: family, education, and social development," Children Australia, vol. 21 (1996): 23-31.

    6Jeanne M. Hilton and Esther L. Devall, "Comparison of parenting and children's behavior in single-mother, single-father, and intact families," Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 29 (1998): 23-54.

    7Elizabeth Thomson et al., "Family structure and child well-being: economic resources vs. parental behaviors," Social Forces 73 (1994): 221-42.

    8David Popenoe, Life without father (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), pp. 144, 146.

    9Glenn Stanton. Why marriage matters (Colorado Springs: Pinon Press, 1997) p. 97-153.

    10Schneider B, Atteberry A, Owens A. Family matters: family structure and child outcomes. Birmingham, AL: Alabama Policy Institute; 2005:1-42.Available at http://www.alabamapolicyinstitute.org/PDFs/currentfamilystucture.pdf. March 23, 2009.

    11Sax, Leonard. Why gender matters: what Parents and teachers need to know about the emerging science of sex differences (New York: Doubleday, 2005).

    12Blankenhorn, David. Fatherless america. (New York: Basic books, 1995).

    13Byrd, Dean. "Gender complementarity and child-rearing: where tradition and science agree," Journal of Law & Family Studies, University of Utah, Vol. 6 no. 2, 2005. >”Gender complementarity and child-rearing: where tradition and science agree” (March 23, 2009)

    14Robert Lerner, Ph.D., Althea Nagai, Ph.D. No basis: what the studies don't tell us about same sex parenting, Washington DC; Marriage Law Project/Ethics and Public Policy Center, 2001.

    15P. Morgan, Children as trophies? examining the evidence on same-sex parenting, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Christian Institute, 2002.

    16J. Paul Guiliani and Dwight G. Duncan, "Brief of amici curiae Massachusetts Family Institute and National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality," appeal to the supreme court of Vermont, docket No. S1009-97CnC.

    17American Academy of Pediatrics, Perrin, EC, and the committee on psychosocial aspects of child and family health. "Technical report: co parent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents," Pediatrics. 109(2002): 343. The Academy acknowledges that the "small, non-representative samples ... and the relatively young age of the children suggest some reserve."

    18F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Adults raised as children in lesbian families," American Journal of Orthopsychiatric Association, 65 (1995): 213.

    19J. Michael Bailey et al., "Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers," Developmental Psychology 31 (1995): 124-129.

    20Ibid., pp. 127, 128.

    21F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Do parents influence the sexual orientation of their children?" Developmental Psychology 32 (1996): 7.

    22Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, "(How) Does the sexual orientation of parents matter," American Sociological Review 66 (2001): 174, 179.

    23D. Fergusson et al., "Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people?" Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (October 1999).

    24Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate violence in lesbian relationships: discussion of survey findings and practice implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59.

    24D. Island and P. Letellier, Men who beat the men who love them: battered gay men and domestic violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991), p. 14.

    25Lettie L. Lockhart et al., "Letting out the secret: violence in lesbian relationships," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994): 469-492.

    27"Violence between intimates," Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, November 1994, p. 2.

    28Health implications associated with homosexuality (Austin: The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 1999), p. 79.

    29David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The male couple: how relationships develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252-253.

    30M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and female homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1973), p. 225; L.A. Peplau and H. Amaro, "Understanding lesbian relationships," in homosexuality: social, psychological, and biological issues, ed. J. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982).

    31M. Pollak, "Male homosexuality," in western sexuality: practice and precept in past and present times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985), pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), pp. 124, 125.

    32A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: a study of diversity among men and women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309; See also A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).

    33Paul Van de Ven et al., "A comparative demographic and sexual profile of older homosexually active men," Journal of Sex Research34 (1997): 354.

    34A. A. Deenen, "Intimacy and sexuality in gay male couples," Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23 (1994): 421-431.

    35"Sex survey results," Genre (October 1996), quoted in "Survey finds 40 percent of gay men have had more than 40 sex partners," Lambda Report, January 1998, p. 20.

    36Marie Xiridoui, et al., "The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam," AIDS 17 (2003): 1029-1038. [Note: one of the findings of this recent study is that those classified as being in "steady relationships" reported an average of 8 casual partners a year in addition to their partner (p. 1032)]

    37J. Bradford et al., "National lesbian health care survey: implications for mental health care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81.

    38Theo G. M. Sandfort, et al., “Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders,” Archives of General Psychiatry 58 (January 2001): 85-91.

    39Bailey, J. M. Commentary: homosexuality and mental illness. Archives of General Psychiatry. 56 (1999): 876-880. Author states, "These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at substantially higher risk =for some form of emotional problems; including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence..."

    40Joanne Hall, "Lesbians recovering from alcoholic problems: an ethnographic study of health care expectations," Nursing Research 43 (1994): 238-244.

    41R. Herrell et al., "Sexual orientation and suicidality, co-twin study in adult men," Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-874.

    42Vickie M. Mays, et al., "Risk of psychiatric disorders among individuals reporting same-sex sexual partners in the National Comorbidity Survey," American Journal of Public Health vol. 91 (June 2001): 933-939.

    43Robert S. Hogg et al., "Modeling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men," International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657.

    44Sandfort, T.G.M.; de Graaf, R.; Bijl, R.V.; Schnabel. Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry. 58 (2001): 85-91.

29. Michael Shumake
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    Hmmm, there are actually people that are proud of stripping civil rights away from their fellow Americans? That is tough to swallow. I think discriminating against same-sex marriage is un-American and un-Christian. If God didn't want people to be gay they wouldn't exist in the first place, that is of course unless you believe that in some instances God has made some mistakes, I don't buy that. God created homosexuality.

30. L. Marie
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    God also made alcoholics, fat people, drug addicts, pedophiles and harlots. He didn't make mistakes, he gave us challenges to overcome.

31. Bonnie Eisenman
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

    There is a reason why we protect rights in the Constitution, instead of putting them to popular vote. This is a clear case of tyranny by the majority--in this case, a narrow majority, which was heavily influenced by campaigns like this one pouring money into their "cause."

    We have no right to discriminate against gays. They're people too, and last time I checked, all people ought to be equal in the land o' the free. Flame me all you want; legalizing gay marriage would hurt nobody except for groups like this one that thrive by causing the suffering of others.

32. L. Marie
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

    Bonnie, I agree, rights should never be up for vote. Luckily there is no right to marry indiscriminately. There have always been limitations on marriage. There are purposes for marriage that same sex unions can't fill. Talk to mother nature about that. Darwin too.

33. LaSalle
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

    True! Go Marie! Marriage is between a man and a woman because that is the relationship that has the power to create life.

34. niealove13
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    This organization is horrible.

35. Dale Miller
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    L. Marie quote "First off, children are best off in loving committed families who are married, committed for life, and who can provide a mom and a dad. There is no one out there who disputes that. "
    Do you have ANY evidence for that statement????

    I would like you travel to Lancaster, PA and tell my brother who is raising his two children alone after their mother died in a car accident 3 years ago that he isn't capable of providing a loving stable environment for his kids. I DARE you tell any widow/widower of a member of the US Armed Forces they are unfit to provide a loving environment for their children. Face it Marie YOU are a bigot! Any questions?

36. L. Marie
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    niealove13,

    I'm sorry you dislike this organization, fortunately we are all free to disagree here. There is no one who will call you a hateful bigot for your sentiments. Doesn't that freedom feel nice?

    We can agree to disagree. Freely.

37. L. Marie
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

    "I would like you travel to Lancaster, PA and tell my brother who is raising his two children alone after their mother died in a car accident 3 years ago that he isn’t capable of providing a loving stable environment for his kids. I DARE you tell any widow/widower of a member of the US Armed Forces they are unfit to provide a loving environment for their children."

    Dale, would you tell any of these children that their deceased mother or father was unnecessary? That the hole left in their lives was just imagination?

    Sure other adults can step in to assist, but I'm sure these kids will agree, they'd rather have been raised by their mom and dad, together.

38. L. Marie
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

    Motherlessness and fatherlessness is ALWAYS a tragedy. SSM seeks to create that situation by design. How is that equal for kids?

39. L. Marie
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

    Do we hold single mothers up as societal ideals? No. Why? Single moms are less likely to be able to provide what children need. Why would we hold same-sex unions up as ideal when they have the same basic flaw?

40. Edie
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

    You know, if your homosexual-hating God is so all-powerful, why does he need the American government to enforce His laws? Why can't Christians fight homosexuality on their own? I feel like you guys are taking the easy way out by pretending the government is based on the Bible, instead of the constitution. You've used misinformation and bigotry to trick the population of Maine into voting against individual liberties. Why not put more of your effort into spreading God's word and love instead of trying to force a secular government into doing that work for you? It's just lazy.

41. L. Marie
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

    Edie, How do you know God hates homosexuals? Did he say that? or is it personal revelation?

42. L. Marie
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

    Is the government based on the bible? Or is it based on ideas you just don't like?

43. L. Marie
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

    "You’ve used misinformation and bigotry to trick the population of Maine into voting against individual liberties. "

    Edie, ---And you sir have nothing but your ignorance of the issues. Take a minute to study social science and familial relationships before you go around assuming that two guys can provide everything a mother can for her children. You talk about individual liberties, but all I see from you is your selfish desires pushing the needs of children from societal focus.

    Your personal wants and desires will never come before children's rights.

44. Mike
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

    the government is based on "ideas" of liberty and freedom. Freedom OF and freedom FROM religion is included.

45. L. Marie
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

    Mike, If I am religious, does that mean I cannot participate in the national conversation? If you disagree with my ideas, should I be prevented from speaking like Don Mendell was in Maine?

    There is no freedom from religion. You have the right to subscribe to whatever ideas you wish, but you do not have the right to silence me from voicing mine.

    Come to the table in the arena of ideas with your best and see how far it gets you. Don't snivel and complain because some ideas are religious and some are not. Balance them on the scales of merit, same as everyone else does.

46. Sally
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

    "Why can’t Christians fight homosexuality on their own?"

    LOL. DANGIT. God keeps helping them!!!!!

47. Dale Miller
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 8:04 pm | Permalink

    quote L.Marie
    "Do we hold single mothers up as societal ideals? No. Why? Single moms are less likely to be able to provide what children need"

    and you don't like being called a bigot???? If you truly believe this then I will pray for you so much that the good Lord forgives you and your errors.

48. L. Marie
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

    Name call away all you like, it doesn't improve your position or your logic.

    What can a mom and dad provide that a single mom can't? Isn't it obvious? Do fathers matter to a child? You say they don't. Show me the studies. I'm calling you on your blatant display of ignorance.

49. Dale Miller
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

    L. Marie Do fathers matter to a child? You say they don’t.
    Please post my quote where I say "fathers don't matter to a child"

    Single parents are fully capable of providing a stable, loving enviroment. Are you really going to continue to deny this fact?

    It probably isn't as easy as a two parent household, I will concede that since I have witnessed it personally myself.

50. Marty
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

    Still waiting for someone to show me a single situation where a child is left fatherless that isn't tragic.

    Is "I'm sorry hunny, he was killed by a drunk driver" any more tragic than "You don't need no father -- men are pigs!"?

51. Marty
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

    "Freedom OF and freedom FROM religion is included."

    Yeah, but not freedom FROM your neighbors, whose vote is just as valid as your own, whether they're religious or not.

    Get. Over. It. Nobody's buying what you're selling -- can't you SEE that yet?

52. Marty
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

    Lets talk about bigotry:

    "Mommy, why don't I have a father like everyone else?"

    "Now Johnny, your Nana and I love you very much. We just don't love boys. Now go and play"

    "Okay mom..."

53. L. Marie
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

    Still waiting for those studies Dale. If you want to say that single parenting is an ideal society should strive for, then dads must not matter to kids.

    Where's the proof?

54. Erin
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 9:38 pm | Permalink

    Gay marriage is legal in the US and other countries!
    Gay people get married all of the time..and the definition of marriage is "two people of the opposite sex" as well as "two people of the same sex." Look it up! Gay marriage isn't going anywhere. This was just a small set back. SSM is about to be legal in another state very sooon!

55. John
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 9:48 pm | Permalink

    Of course a single parenting isnt ideal for raising kids (and I dont think Dale is suggesting that it is). Kids have a right to two parents. But how often does that really work. People split, move on, or die. What do we do. We have to deal. We have to keep moving, and do the best we can do with what we are dealt.

    And how often does this country really count on ideals to get them through the day. If ideals were made fact for everybody, life would just be perfect for everyone, but then again, they wouldnt be ideals at all would they. They would be fact and truth, not an Idea.

    Now two men and/or two women is not really the ideal either for raising kids. I'll give you that! But its not impossible. All kids need is a stable relationship to look up to. Marriage can provide that to people who want it. gay or straight. You want to know the reason homosexuals split and have very low averages for stable relationships. Its because they have nothing that binds them to another other than love.
    When your partner goes to the hospital and in the emergency room or after surgery, you cant see him/her. Because you arent recognized as a couple. You are left in the dark. And that person, that one person that means so much to you could be dying, or suffering, and you wouldnt be able to see them, to comfort them in their pain.
    And what are we supposed to do, fight an apparent losing battle for the rest of our lives (with Losses all over the country). Or move on and make due with what is dealt.
    I say we havent even been given the chance to be an ideal family. and if you truly want your child to have both a mom and a dad in a stable relationship where two men are raising him/her, then for God's sake, let them know that they have a mom and TWO dads. because they obviously do. the biological parents could keep a solid relationship for the child. Why not. That much should be apparent. and the child would grow up knowing that he was brought into this world by and woman, and a man.

56. L. Marie
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

    Erin, being "legal" is not synonymous with being "good" or being "right". People enact foolish laws all the time.

    John, if you admit that SSM by definition can never compete with the ideal, how can it truly be equal? And why should society be asked to treat it as equal when by merit it is not and never will be?

57. Karen
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 11:25 pm | Permalink

    I still don't understand why people cannot see that homosexuality is unnatural, deviate and perverted because the parts don't fit. God is all about creation. That is why God created a man and a woman. He intended for them to create life. He wants us to love and worship him. That is the only reason he created us. Homosexuality goes against everything God intended. When you accept him as your Lord and Savior he then wants us to "go and sin no more". We are not here to satisfy our own sexual desires. The devil made and developed homosexuality. The devil loves it. Because he knows when a person is in that thought mode then you do not have your eyes on our creator "God".

58. Erin
    Posted November 4, 2009 at 11:52 pm | Permalink

    L. Marie - That's simply your opinion of which I gladly disagree! Remember LMarie, opinions are not facts. (simple, isn't it?) Homosexual marriage is as "good" and as is "right" as Heterosexual marriage.
    If you choose not to believe that, then fine.
    Regardless of your opinion, gay marriage is still legal (fact), and will always be legal (fact). There is simply nothing you can do about it (Fact).

59. Benjamin Chang
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 12:18 am | Permalink

    The Equal Protection Clause should serve as a constitutional guarantee of the right to marriage.

    I'd like to go through each of the arguments thus far presented.

    The argument that there have always been limits to marriage is silly. Sure, you can't marry a tree, for example. But there is a logical, rational distinction between limits on the absurd, and a limit on two human beings to have their relationship recognized as a marriage by the state, and thus be able to actually do things like see one's partner in the emergency room.

    You could make the same argument back in the times when interracial marriage was prohibited - "sure, blacks can't marry whites, but of course there have always been limits to marriage! we aren't denying them anything; they can just marry other blacks!"

    The Mendell example is pretty completely demolished here: http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2009/10/a-closer-look-at-donald-mendell-stand-for-marriage-maines-latest-talking-point.html.

    Freedom of speech is not an argument against gay marriage. I have no idea why allowing same sex couples to marry would somehow destroy the ability of those who disagree to express their opinions.

    You can't cite the Bible, either. The Bible also condemns figs (Jeremiah 29:17). We are also not a theocracy.

    The posted study makes essentially two arguments.
    1.) Child-rearing - the statistical question of family ability to raise a child is answered here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-n-cohen/same-sex-marriage-and-chi_b_184761.html.

    Additionally, if the argument is that one needs a "proper family," it isn't as if the existence of a gay marriage takes a child away from a straight couple. Those in a same-sex marriage are likely to adopt, being unable to biologically produce children on their own. So even if you're right, the situation can still only be for the better. Those who are put up for adoption and then fail to find any sort of family are not in an optimal situation.

    2.) "Homosexual lifestyle leads to bad stuff." This argument conflates correlation and causality. It's kind of like the old studies that say Native Americans are more likely to abuse alcohol - well, sure - but you /did it to them/; you slaughtered them and hoarded them into tiny spaces and starved them and oppressed them. The burden lies on the other side to prove an || intrinsic || link between homosexuality and abusing drugs, or whatever other quality. A society containing homophobia will inevitably deny life opportunities, thus manifesting the correlation with such things as substance abuse. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you oppress a group of people, they do worse. That is not proof of that group's inferiority.

    The marriage = power to create life argument is pretty dumb. Should we force all those looking to marry to test for fertility? This would exclude broad swaths of the population. You also aren't qualified to determine a grand telos to marriage.

    I'm not sure Marty is making an argument, insomuch as displaying his own bigotry. I have no idea why being in a gay marriage means one has to hate the opposite gender. There is nothing to answer here, because there is no argument.

60. Adam
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 12:49 am | Permalink

    Being legal doesn't mean something is :"good". Being legal means that it passed through a legislature or court that stamped it seal of approval. Is it "good" that Traditional Marriage is legal in 31 states? In your opinion, no. In L. Marie yes it is good. Is it good that gay marriage is legal in 5 states? Yes it is in your opinion. No in L. Marie. I think that is what she is getting at. Being legal is not necesary a fact that something is "good", however it is a fact as you state, Legal does not = good it = someones opinion backed by law.

61. L. Marie
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 12:49 am | Permalink

    Erin, love your "fact"oids, but they're simply opinion. You subscribe to a different world view than I do. That's ok, you are free to do so. I will give you two real facts for your collection. California. (fact) Maine. (ROCKIN' AWESOME FACT!!!)

    And that's only the beginning.

62. L. Marie
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 1:02 am | Permalink

    "The Equal Protection Clause should serve as a constitutional guarantee of the right to marriage."

    Benjamin, the equal protection clause means we should all be treated equally. That's easy. You and I have the same right to marry the opposite sex. Equal. No special protection, no extra rights, no special rights, just equal.

    You want to talk more about equal? Marriage between a man and a woman is as equal as it can possibly get because no gender is excluded, no rights are denied---not even the rights of the innocent.

63. L. Marie
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 1:04 am | Permalink

    "I have no idea why allowing same sex couples to marry would somehow destroy the ability of those who disagree to express their opinions."

    Benjamin, again, just because you are ignorant of the issues does not mean they do not exist or are not valid.

64. L. Marie
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 1:11 am | Permalink

    "The Mendell example is pretty completely demolished here:"

    Benjamin, The Mendell case was not "demolished" as you assert, but bolstered by the fact that other gay activists STILL do not recognize his right to speak freely as a citizen of Maine. This illustrates my point precisely. One school employee is allowed to speak her politically correct opinion, while the other has his job threatened for speaking his.

    Why would I support the normalization of homosexuality with the fascist restraints that groupthink espouses?

65. Joe B.
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 1:13 am | Permalink

    Erin - if you make an objective list of the "good" things brought into being by traditional marriage, you simply cannot match that with homosexual partnerhips. It is possible to evaluate those 2 different relationship types in an objective way, and in fact there is really no logical way homosexual partnerships can measure up. HPs are not the same thing as marriage, they do not make even a comparable contribution to society, and so it is illogical and untruthful to refer to them as "marriage", no matter what erroneous laws get enacted.

66. L. Marie
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 1:18 am | Permalink

    "You can’t cite the Bible, either. The Bible also condemns figs (Jeremiah 29:17). We are also not a theocracy."

    I have not cited the bible, however I do admire that book very much and I'm sorry you do not value it's insights into human nature and behavior. Much of the enlightenment of the modern world comes through teachings of tolerance and kindness that originated from that book.

    If you choose to be intolerant of Christian and Jewish belief, that is your choice, but I fail to see the relevance to this conversation.

67. Joe B.
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 1:18 am | Permalink

    Benjamin, the 14th Amendment refers to individuals, it does not define relationships or grant "rights" which vainly try to circumvent the unavoidable and immutable attributes of gender.

    Also, can you make your posts shorter please?

68. L. Marie
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 1:20 am | Permalink

    "The posted study makes essentially two arguments."

    To which study are you referring?

69. Erin
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 1:31 am | Permalink

    L. Marie - I think you are over looking the simplicity of all this. Gay marriage is here to stay. There is nothing you can do about it. Your baseless posts on this site, do nothing to further your cause. It doesn't matter who you disagree with, or how much delight you get when batteling people with your keyboard, the fact still remains that Gay marriage is here! It's taken a long time, but Gay marriage is legal in the US!!! It's awesome and there is more to come!!

70. L. Marie
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 1:32 am | Permalink

    "If you oppress a group of people, they do worse."

    Curious then, why are not the Jews, historically some of the most oppressed people, plagued with rampant promiscuity and other degraded behavior?

71. L. Marie
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 1:35 am | Permalink

    Also, on the vein of "gay oppression" victimness, why is it that gays are not impoverished societal outcasts and pariahs? Your "I behave badly because I'm just a poor helpless victim" story doesn't pass the smell test.

72. Adam
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 1:57 am | Permalink

    Gay Marriage is here to stay. By here you mean MA, CT, VT. I see it not staying in Iowa. Didin't stay in CA and it didn't stay in Maine. So Iam not disputing that gay marriage is in 4 states actually, but it will probably remain in only about a handful of states. It is good to think positive. We can say Traditional Marriage is here to stay just as easily as you say Gay Marriage is here to stay. But on our side we have the people. It was the people who created the government. it was the people who created the constituion. People can change the constition. But so far the people have voted against gay marriage in 31 states. So Gay Marriage isn't necessarily here to stay. It is your hope that it is here to stay just as it is our hope that marriage is here to stay.

73. Erin
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    Adam - this is true. It is only in 4 states as of now, but by the end of the year you will see it expand into atleast one more state if not two. NOM is area of this as well.
    I tend to have a positive attitude in most situations, however you can look at this as "only a handful of states" or you can look at it as "Gay marriage is legal in the US." Both those statement are true. Should we lose Iowa, then so be it. The other states will remain and it will either stay that way or grow. Gay marriage will not cease to exist here in the US.

74. Kevinn
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 10:29 am | Permalink

    I wouldn't discount Maine quite yet. The legislature and governor may bring it back. I think New York's on tap for next week by the way.

75. Ventura
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    Homosexual marriage is an empty pretense that lacks the fundamental sexual complementariness of male and female. And like all counterfeits, it cheapens and degrades the real thing. The destructive effects may not be immediately apparent, but the cumulative damage is inescapable. The eminent Harvard sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, analyzed cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents, and found that virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as traditionally defined, and survived.

    Thank GOD the good and sensible people of Maine stood up for traditional values and voted NO on the sham known as SSM. 31-0. Can't get better than that.

76. Ventura
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    Gay marriage is at its lowest level of support in years. We have seen the ugly intolerance of the militant homosexuals displayed for all to see all throughout this year. If the tyrants in black robes want to relegate this counterfeit marriage to a few liberal states, while holding the citizens hostage and not letting them vote, then so be it but sham marriage will never be the law of the entire country.

77. Ventura
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    Any comparison with interracial marriage is phony.
    The militants need new talking points.

    Laws against interracial marriage sought to add a requirement to marriage that is not intrinsic to the institution of marriage. Allowing a black man to marry a white woman, or vice versa, does not change the fundamental definition of marriage, which requires a man and a woman. Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, is the radical attempt to discard this most basic requirement for marriage. Those who claim that some churches held interracial marriage to be morally wrong fail to point out that such "moral objection" to interracial marriage stemmed from cultural factors rather than historic and widely-accepted biblical teaching.

78. Bill
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    All the money the homosexual agenda spent in Maine to buy the election, failed miserably. Think of the millions that could have set up treatment and homosexual counseling centers so they could diminish their same sex attractions. What a travesty and waste of money, that could have really made a difference. Appalling.

79. Michael
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

    L. Marie,

    Again, you contradict yourself. First, you imply that being a victim of oppression doesn't necessarily keep you down (i.e., by citing the example of successful Jews). Second, you imply that gays aren't oppressed beause they aren't "impovervished"?

    Which is it? Can you be a victim and successful (ala your Jews example) or not?

    Anyway, it's a myth among the anti-gay movement that all gay people are rich, white city dwellers with nice condos and toy dogs. Some of us are not white. Some of us are not rich. Some of us don't live in cities. Some of us do feel the impact of our being gay. Did you know that in many states you can be fired from your job just for being gay (or perceived as gay)?

80. Kevin
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

    LMarie,

    God doesn't exist. You are a fool and a bigot. I respectfully wish you nothing but ill.

81. KC
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    I will not belittle you for standing up in what you believe in, after all, that is what we are all shooting for. Though I doubt that my opinion matter much at all at his moment i still feel as if i need to give it. I commend you on your victory in Maine, though the devices used were incorrect and hurtful to some. As a gay student at a Christian school i understand the view points of both sides of the argument. I know what the support and the opposition of gay marriage stand for and use as defenses. I only ask that you stick to using devises that are TRUE, and not an outrageous exaggeration. All i can say is this one simple scripture, "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." 1 Corinthians 13:13. Do everything that you do in love. I'm not pushing and saying what you are doing is out of hate, but i am saying that what is being used to cripple the gay community is not being dealt out in love, which as we all know is the greatest of all things in this world of ours.

82. L. Marie
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    I agree with Ventura. Gay marriage has seen its day. Wherever the people are allowed to have a voice, they will continue to fight against it. You may choose to close your eyes and believe the pro-marriage side is all about hate, but you'd only be deluding yourselves. As long as the issues of free speech, freedom of choice and conscience and children's rights are not addressed, there will continue to be strong opposition to the gay agenda in the U.S.

83. Corey
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

    The incessantly religious character of the pro-ban comments on this blog make it clear what a travesty this anti-marriage movement is.

    This is NOT a Christian nation. We do NOT make public policy based on the Bible, and yet a solid majority of the arguments presented here are Biblical in nature.

    Make no mistake: This country was founded on freedom from religious tyrrany. We will not stand for its resurgence in the form of the twisted “Religious Right.” You give your hated “activist judges” no choice when you commit unconstitutional acts like denying your fellow citizens equal protection under the law by enacting majority/mob rule through the ballot box. Your tyranny-of-the-majority rightly deserves to be struck down by the courts, and I look forward to the day it will be.

    By the way: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

    You haters claim to be so pious and religious and love “god” and blah blah blah, but how would you like it if the majority banded together and banned YOU? Hmmm? Banned your ridiculous churches… banned your mouth-breathing worship of a mythical, bloodied, suicide/human-sacrifice ghost? Banned your collection of ancient nonsense codes (no shrimp! no cotton-poly blends! beat your slaves! no gays! etc.)?

    You wouldn’t like it much would you, god-lovers?

    And yet we’ll never do that, because we have FREEDOM in this country. And I don’t get to tramp all over your freedoms any more than you get to tramp all over mine.

    You just DID tramp all over mine on Tuesday though, and let me tell you what… I am mad as HELL. We’re not taking it from you people any more. No more. No more. The end.

84. L. Marie
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

    KC, Thank you for your kind words, I hope everything you do is in love as well. It's a standard we would all do well to aspire to.

    The other part of your comment about distortions I would have to disagree with. There was no "outrageous distortion" used, those truly ARE the concerns. You may not choose to see them, but they are very real concerns based on very real experiences. You do yourself and your movement a disservice if you choose to simply dismiss them as insincere political sophistry. The campaign here in Maine was every bit as sincere and heartfelt as yours was, and I can truly say with all my heart that I thank God that question 1 passed. Had the election gone the other way many freedoms would have been threatened even further than they are currently. Illustration 1, Kevin's comment just before yours. There are some people, perhaps yourself included that believe that those who disagree with homosexuality or ssm should not be allowed to speak or to act in accordance with our beliefs. Kevin's comment is just one of many that illustrates this.

85. L. Marie
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    "This is NOT a Christian nation. We do NOT make public policy based on the Bible, and yet a solid majority of the arguments presented here are Biblical in nature."

    wait. Let's flip that around and see how it sounds.

    Corey! This is NOT a Homosexual nation. We do NOT make public policy based on "After the Ball", and yet a solid majority of the arguments presented here are straight out of the gay agenda!"

    Man up Corey. Just because a bit of philosophy on personal governance shows up in the Bible doesn't mean it's not valid or a good idea, just like some bit of philosophy straight from the gay agenda doesn't make it a good idea or bad idea either. You're going to have to do better than that. Your disapproval of religious people is not an excuse for lack of arguments. If you want to say that homosexuality should be publicly accepted, lay out your case. Don't just whine about something being in the bible.

86. L. Marie
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    "I am mad as HELL. We’re not taking it from you people any more."

    You people? Nice. How would you like to be referred to as "you people"? Aren't we all people Corey? Or are you in Kevin's camp where he shows such tolerance that he actually wishes harm to come to people he disagrees with?

    Those on my side of the argument allow you your thoughts and expressions of free speech, what is so hard about allowing us ours? Isn't that the mark of tolerance?

    By the way. I love you too.

87. two cents
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

    a marriage license is like a driver's license, you need to meet certain criteria to get one. The problem with marriage is the criteria was not codeified, as it was assumed. Homosexuals demanding marriage licenses is like 12 year-olds demanding driver's licenses, they don't meet the criteria.

88. Tam
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    Congrats. I'm very happy with the outcome. Hope NOM can build on this momentum.

89. Adam
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

    Good Point. There are a lot things to compare it to. Not everyone can go to college. Not everyone can get a masters degree. Not everyone can joins the boys club. Not everyone can be a girl scout. Girls can't play in some sports etc. etc. etc.

90. two cents
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    What does GLBT mean? Does it stand for Gays & Lesbians Became Tyrants?

91. Kevinn
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    "Those on my side of the argument allow you your thoughts and expressions of free speech, what is so hard about allowing us ours? Isn’t that the mark of tolerance?"

    One should never tolerate hate-based social policy, especially when it hurts children.

92. L. Marie
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

    "One should never tolerate hate-based social policy"

    So that's your ace in the hole then Kevin? Just call everyone else a hater to manipulate them into giving you what you want?

    Your self serving assumption of motive is less than convincing. Weren't you the one who was just a second ago wishing bad things on everyone you disagree with? Sounds like you've got a serious lack of tolerance problem.

93. Tam
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

    You know what's funny Corey? You pro-gay types fall in to 2 categories: Case in point is this board. Either you attack the Bible as a fallacious work of fiction and make rabid attacks on Christianity, OR you actually use the Bible and misinterpret/twist passages in a way that suits you. You can't have it both ways. I see you fall into the first category -- rabid anti-Christian. Fine. So why don't you talk to the "Christian" gays and convince them the Bible is all a work of fiction, so they really shouldn't use it to bolster their specious arguments about how the Bible defends or celebrates a gay lifestyle.

94. L. Marie
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    Good Point there.

95. Adam
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

    Kevin, lets point out also that "hate" was the invention of proposition 8. Before then there wasn't even any talk of hate. Also if gays marriage is a right where was all the talk of it in the early 1990's?

96. two cents
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

    The Left is only tolerant of dissent when they are the ones dissenting.

97. Steve
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 12:33 am | Permalink

    So the No on 1 side spent $5M on the campaign. The Yes side spent $3M. Can someone explain why the no side was trying to "buy" the campaign yet the Yes side was not? If you're going to say things to discredit your opponents, at least try to make them somewhat logical. I guess when you spend spend money on a campaign it's democracy at work. When your opponents do, they're buying votes. Sort of like when a judge rules the way you want them to, they're doing their job. When you don't like their dcision, they're an activist.

98. Erin
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 12:59 am | Permalink

    "We must remember that one determined person can make a significant difference, and that a small group of determined people can change the course of history.”

    This is a great quote stated by a very well known woman who fought for equal rights.
    I think this sums this fight up nicely. We, as a minority, will change AND are changing the course of History!
    Gay marriage will always be legal here and other places in the world. Gay marriage WILL NEVER GO AWAY no matter what your opinion is about homosexuality.
    You can talk about how we can't raise proper families. You can state that we are sinners (lord knows we've heard that since we were young) You can leave us as friends, as family members and confidants. None of this is new to us.
    Post away..as much as you want. Think what you will! Have fun doing it as well. The fact is, Gay Marriage is here! There is simply nothing you can do about it.

99. Erin
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 1:02 am | Permalink

    Oh and the quote is Sonia Johnson - a lesbian.
    I saw the quote posted on L. Marie's webpage. LOL ...Niiiice one L. Marie

100. two cents
     Posted November 6, 2009 at 2:30 am | Permalink

     Good quote! Erin! Do you have a problem with lesbians? Of all people Erin I would think you'd be one who values insight regardless of sexual orientation.

101. Sandra
     Posted November 6, 2009 at 2:35 am | Permalink

     Marie, wonderful comments.

     Interesting note: going through various websites that have discussions like this one on marriage, I found over and over again the hate-filled speech of the supporters of SSM. Yet we are the ones accused of hating. Go figure.

102. two cents
     Posted November 6, 2009 at 2:36 am | Permalink

     Steve, the mark of a good judiciary is its adherence to the constitution. Iowa's supreme court? Separation of powers FAIL. Constitutionality FAIL. Common sense FAIL.

     Go ahead, string'em up as your heroes, but don't try to pretend they have proven themselves to be anything but partisan hacks who think legislating from the bench is their perogative.

103. two cents
     Posted November 6, 2009 at 2:38 am | Permalink

     "Gay Marriage is here! There is simply nothing you can do about it."

     An interesting comment considering the post. Thank You Maine!!!!

104. L. Marie
     Posted November 6, 2009 at 2:46 am | Permalink

     Thank you Erin, Sandra and 2cents. I'm glad you've found insight in that quote as well Erin. I quite liked it myself. If you visited my site you no doubt noticed that others have also tried to give me a hard time about the quotes I value. To no avail. I value beauty wherever it comes from.

105. Wes
     Posted November 6, 2009 at 6:37 am | Permalink

     “Gay Marriage is here! There is simply nothing you can do about it.”

     One positive thing about SSM being legal in some states in the union is that it will continue to produce examples on how bad an idea it is like this guy in Massachusetts who got fired for his belief in traditional marriage.

     http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09d/vadala/index.html

106. Guess Who
     Posted November 6, 2009 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

     I wish all NOM supporter would would stop for one second and forget how much you hate gay people and think of the children many of them are raising. Whether you agree they should be raising them or not, they are and always will be. These are the people your organization that claims to act on their behalf are hurting.

107. Amy
     Posted November 6, 2009 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

     Guess, does calling supporting a child's right to a mom and a dad hate ease your conscience in denying them that right?

108. Sally
     Posted November 6, 2009 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

     How important was Maine's vote? Consider these facts:

     • National gay marriage groups saw Maine as their opportunity to, in their words, "break" the growing national movement to protect marriage. Winning at the ballot box would have shifted the momentum in their direction after our victory in Proposition 8. They made Maine their rallying cry, and truly believed that they were going to win.

     • Maine gay marriage groups spent four years building a sophisticated grassroots organization unlike anything that we have seen. In a state with a population of only 1.3 million, No on 1 had 8,000 (yes 8,000!) volunteers in the field knocking on tens of thousands of doors and making hundreds of thousands of phone calls.

     • Maine is a deep blue New England state. At the same time Maine voters rejected same-sex marriage, they approved extending the legalization of marijuana by a 59%-41% margin, and rejected a tax-limiting scheme 60% to 40%.

     • We were grossly outspent by nearly two to one.

     Yet we won in Maine by an even larger margin than we won in California.

     And understand this: If we can win in Maine, WE CAN WIN ANYWHERE!

     Amen to that!

109. J.D.
     Posted November 6, 2009 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

     So many christians...so few lions.

110. Sally
     Posted November 6, 2009 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

     J.D. How tolerant of you. If I were to intimate that you ought to be killed for your positions, it would perhaps be a hate crime. Interesting how one side is allowed to speak but not the other.....

111. Kevin
     Posted November 6, 2009 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

     Get real!

     “Maine is a deep blue New England state”

     Hardly. Maine and New Hampshire are the most conservative of the New England states.

     “At the same time Maine voters rejected same-sex marriage”

     By a much smaller margin than the vote against taxes or for marijuana distribution. I wouldn’t call 53/47 percent a decisive victory, especially since the legislature and governor can simply overturn it.

     “We were grossly outspent by nearly two to one”

     And you grossly outlied the No on 1! Campaign four to one!

     “Yet we won in Maine by an even larger margin than we won in California.”

     Given California’s more liberal bent, and sizeable gay population, it’s surprising the vote in Maine wasn’t far more lobsided!

     “If we can win in Maine, WE CAN WIN ANYWHERE!”

     What did you win? A popular vote of bigots what will be found unconstitutional eventually? You know who won? Maggie Gallagher, who’s making a fortune off of hurting gay couples and their children.

112. Amy
     Posted November 6, 2009 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

     sour grapes Kevin?

113. G.
     Posted November 6, 2009 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

     Amy,

     Comments like "sour grapes" shows that you don't get the scope and magnitude of how the tyranny of the majority affects the minority.

     If your side lost, it would be easy not to be sour: Your life would not change! For gay people, it actually matters. Gay people's lives are ACTUALLY involved. It's not just propaganda like the "YES" people spread.

     When you say "sour grapes" you imply that this was a sporting match or some boardgame. It's not. It's people's lives your messing with and it's about time people realize that.

114. Amy
     Posted November 6, 2009 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

     G.,

     Kevinn wasn't opining on those more serious effects, he was quibbling about details of the campaign. There is a difference.

     BTW, You're absolutely right about the magnitude of the consequences involved in the normalization of homosexuality. However, I do find it interesting that your side is only willing to see how it affects them personally, and not the lives of other families and children throughout the state.

115. Kevinn
     Posted November 6, 2009 at 8:04 pm | Permalink

     Amy,

     Homosexuality has already been “normalized.” The US Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that homosexuality is legal. State sex ed curriculums already teach that homosexuality is normal. Same-sex marriage is a separate issue, but I guess teaching kids that homosexuality is a normal form of human sexuality will help speed acceptance of same-sex marriage.

116. G.
     Posted November 6, 2009 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

     Amy,

     That's becuase it doesn't affect "the lives of other families and children throughout the state." That's a clever marketing scheme invented by groups like NOM.

     But assume, for a moment, that it's true -- gay marriage will be taught in schools or whatever else. Assume that you are a Christian, too.

     Now. Do schools teach about Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism? Are your Christian-reared children going to suddenly adopt those religions (which, I'm guessing Christian parents would prefer they didn't). Of course not!

     Kids are smart. They can learn about things without adopting them as their own ("turning gay") or even thinking that things are right ("believing gay marriages are legitimate").

     As far as I can tell from some of these videos involving children, the people involved think that children are very stupid, that teachers are going to force their opinions (or, I guess, the government's opinions) down kids' throats, and that parents are powerless to instill values at home. It's a picture of a world I certainly don't live in.

     In all seriouness, Amy, people you don't know getting married doesn't affect you -- whether those people are gay or straight. It just doesn't.

117. Amy
     Posted November 6, 2009 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

     "That’s becuase it doesn’t affect “the lives of other families and children throughout the state.” That’s a clever marketing scheme invented by groups like NOM."

     G, and how do you explain Kevinn's happy admissions?

118. Kevinn
     Posted November 6, 2009 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

     Lying helps!

     The punch-to-the gut claim has emerged as the latest tool in the ever-evolving playbook of same-sex marriage opponents, and the Achilles' heel of the gay-marriage movement. Voters seem to be swayed by the notion that gay marriage will be a corrupting force among children, even though critics blasted the message as a blatantly misleading case of fear-mongering.

     "It was very effective. It's drawing on the fears of the unknown," said Sandy Maisel, director of the Goldfarb Center for Public Affairs and Civic Engagement at Maine's Colby College. "There's no evidence that it's going to happen, but there's very clear evidence that it's an effective campaign tactic."

119. Raynd
     Posted November 6, 2009 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

     I guess my question is, how would we know for sure until it was too late? Are you willing to run the experiment with YOUR kids?

     I'm not. It's enough for me to be able to look around and see what other degrading influences there are out in society, and what they've done to the moral fabric of our nation. Our kids are already exposed to so much, there's no need to expose them to the twisted rantings of people like Kevinn as well.

     Does anyone really think that's the best use of school time?

120. Raynd
     Posted November 6, 2009 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

     My final thoughts for the day... If Elton John gets it, why can't everyone else?

     "In December 2005, John and Furnish tied the knot in a civil partnership ceremony in Windsor, England. But, clarified the singer, "We're not married. Let's get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage."

     John and Furnish, and their two cocker spaniels, Marilyn and Arthur, were in town for Tuesday's annual benefit for the Elton John AIDS Foundation.

     "I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," John says. "The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off.

     "You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

     sounds like a good idea to me.

121. G.
     Posted November 6, 2009 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

     Raynd: Just because you found a gay person who agrees with your point of view doesn't make that point of view valid. My feeling is that Elton John (a Brit, no less) lives a very different life than American, non-famous gays.

     Also, the very people who oppose same-sex marriage ALSO oppose civil partnerships/civil unions/domestic partnerships. Hello, Washington State anyone? That measure didn't oppose itself.

     Notably, at the same time Prop 8 was put on the ballot, there was a (failed) attempt to put a measure on the ballot to oppose domestic partnerships.

     So who's not being honest with whom?

122. Noel
     Posted November 6, 2009 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

     "Just because you found a gay person who agrees with your point of view doesn’t make that point of view valid."

     G, just because you are a gay person who disagrees with his point of view doesn't make your view valid either.

123. America
     Posted November 6, 2009 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

     Just like the anti-Prop. 8 mob in California, the left-wing mafioso in Maine are targeting Americans who oppose gay marriage.

     Where are all the civility police to decry the climate of hate?

     Voters on Tuesday repealed the state’s same sex marriage law after an emotionally charged campaign that drew large numbers to the polls and focused national attention on Maine.

     …”In a defiant speech to several hundred lingering supporters, No on 1 campaign manager Jesse Connolly pledged that his side “will not quit
     until we know where every single one of these votes lives.””

     “We’re not short-timers; we are here for the long haul,” Connolly told the crowd, some of whom wiped away tears as he spoke. “Whether it’s just all night and into the morning, or next week or next month or next year, we will be here. We’ll be fighting, we’ll be working. We will regroup.”

124. Raynd
     Posted November 6, 2009 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

     "…In a defiant speech to several hundred lingering supporters, No on 1 campaign manager Jesse Connolly pledged that his side “will not quit until we know where every single one of these votes lives.”

     wow. That's tolerant.

125. Nicholas
     Posted November 7, 2009 at 12:07 am | Permalink

     Kevin,

     Homosexuality normal because it was decriminalized by the US Supreme Court? Really? So, then, if say, the US Supreme Court, for no reason, declared apples to be oranges, would they be? Or men women? The logic doesn't follow. Wherein does personal choice/responsibility factor into equation? I guess we are past that now in this post-modern world we live in, where seemingly, everything is permissible.

126. Chairm
     Posted November 7, 2009 at 3:58 am | Permalink

     G referred to "civil partnerships/ civil unions/ domestic partnerships".

     G, what are those things if not localized mergers of nonmarriage and marriage in all but name?

     These are used as stepping stones which are subsequently picked up and used like bludgeons to attack the very notion of compromise that these things were marketed as being. Blame the SSM campaign for discrediting such a notion.

     Under whatever name, the merger would be unjust.

     The provison for designated beneficiaries has long-existed and well-utilized. It is not designed to be a merger with marriage. It is based on ameliorating the disadvantages of families in the nonmarriage category. And such disadvantages are not defined by gayness. Rather, these arise from the lack of (or diminishment of) sex integration and responsible procreation; this makes these families vulnerable. The provisons for designated beneficiaries are based on a different core meaning than marriage.

     Whatever SSM may be claimed to be, it is a subset of nonmarriage because it is a sex-segregative arrangement and cannot provide for the solidarity of fatherhood and motherhood, for starters.

     Call SSM by some other name but don't fail to recognize that the claims made in the name of gay identity politics are no more valid under different labels. It is the same argumentation with a name-change to provide barely a fig leaf as "compromise".

127. Lynn Smith
     Posted November 7, 2009 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

     What is wrong with everyone? Does it mean nothing that court justices and legislators and governors are the ones putting these gay marriage bills through in the first place? Do you think it's because they're bored? NO! It's because they know the law, and respect the Constitution, and they are trying to stand up for the Civil Rights of the minority!!! It should be illegal for a civil rights issue to be put to a popular vote, after it is enacted by a State Government. You guys shouldn't get to used to being able to do this, because someone is going to realize this injustice, and prohibit this manner of voting.

     Whether you are religious or not, have very strong family values or not, it all comes down to ONE point: Opponents of gay marriage believe that homosexuality is a choice. Advocates for it KNOW that it is not. What if I gathered the necessary signatures, and put a question on the ballot to take away your rights? Would you want someone fighting for you? It is wrong to show people these commercials, appealing to their paternal instincts and raving about how gay marriage will be taught to our children. SO WHAT IF IT IS? My niece's mother has had many conversations with her about women marrying women and men marrying men. She understands that there are many different families, and she also understands that she likes boys. Gay marriage will not force children to be gay. It will hopefully stop the suicides of young teens who feel like there is something wrong with them, and it will help them to be themselves. No one is forcing it on anyone, just like no one should be forcing their religion on anyone. These commercials about how it will affect our children are just an indication that parents are scared to death to actually have to teach them something!

128. Amy
     Posted November 7, 2009 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

     Lynn, the issue has been through many courts and many legislatures. There is by no means a consensus on the legal issues, however, if you were to try to weigh how many court cases favored the rhetoric of the gay lobbyists, you wouldn't find very many. The overwhelming bulk of courts in this nation have upheld traditional marriage. Why? Most courts respect the connection of marriage to children and the responsibility adults have to look after the needs of children regardless of our own personal wants and desires. Children have the right to be raised as responsibly as possible, with both a mom and a dad.

129. Cat
     Posted November 7, 2009 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

     So, is interracial marriage wrong too???

130. Chairm
     Posted November 7, 2009 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

     Lynn, what's wrong with your remarks is that you have given not one good reason to accord gay identity with special status in our laws, customs, and traditions.

     Marital status is a special status for a special reason.

     You complain about discrimination, but society may legitimately discriminate between marriage and nonmarriage.

     Perhaps you can do your own thinking rather than rely on someone else to tell you what to think. Please think it through and plainly state the special reason for special status -- and for society issuing a license -- for gayness.

     If it is not for gayness, then, why do you emphasize it? Afterall, the nonmarriage category is not defined by gayness and there are many millions more families and relationships outside of marriage than just those you'd imagine to be definitively gay. Are you okay with discriminating against those arrangements, too, and denying them the special status you hope for gay arrangements?

     Think for yourself.

131. L. Marie
     Posted November 7, 2009 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

     Cat, it says something about you if you have to even ask that question. LOL. Isn't this site pretty clearly explanatory on the man/woman marriage front? "Man/Woman" no qualifiers. Free to all. Equally.

132. Lynn Smith
     Posted November 8, 2009 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

     What do you mean, "think for yourself." I am thinking for myself. The one good reason to accord gay identity with special status is because denying me the right to the special status of marriage would be the same as denying someone marriage because they have blonde hair, or blue eyes. As I attempted to state, being gay is not a choice. Therefore, when you are told you cannot partake in something simply based on who you are, that is discrimination. And if the sanctity of marriage is reserved for the people who can appropriately rear children, then why not deny people who cannot physically conceive children the right to marry? Tell me, Chairm, why YOU deserve "special status," because you happen to be attracted to the opposite sex? How does that make you more special than me, when God made me too?

133. Lynn Smith
     Posted November 8, 2009 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

     One additional note. If all it comes down to is that children deserve to be raised by a man and a woman, then you are fighting the wrong battle. Denying gay marriage isn't stopping that from happening. Gay couples are raising children, and have been for decades. These children are perfectly normal. If that is truly your issue, why not go after the laws that allow a gay woman to conceive a baby through artificial means with her life partner? Oh, that's right, you can't, because that is unconstitutional. So instead, you pick something easier to go after, and you appeal to the fears of the average, everyday parents, and tell them that our children will suffer, when you dont know anything about it. Make some gay friends. It will be good for your hatred.

134. George Lee
     Posted November 8, 2009 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

     "The one good reason to accord gay identity with special status is because denying me the right to the special status of marriage would be the same as denying someone marriage because they have blonde hair, or blue eyes."

     huh? Did you read what you wrote before you posted it? You deserve special status just because you do? That is not a reason, that's a wish. Is it too much to ask that you set aside the canned responses and actually answer the question?

135. Chairm
     Posted November 8, 2009 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

     Lynn asked: "What do you mean, “think for yourself.” I am thinking for myself."

     Not according to the first paragraph in your comment @ November 7, 2009 at 6:55 pm. What did you mean by that paragraph if not that you don't think for yourself since others have told you what to think about SSM? And, of course, that we should not think for ourselves and just do as we are told?

     Maybe you were trying to be more nuanced and might do better by restating what you really mean to say.

     * * *

     I asked a question. You replied by emphasizing gayness, again, but not justifying special status.

     You haven't justified special status but you did re-emphasize gayness.

     * * *

     Please be explicit. What did you mean by -- "why not deny people who cannot physically conceive children the right to marry?"

     Did you mean to say that if something is not compulsory, then, that something is not relevant to eligibility to marry?

     If so, please justify special status based on gayness.

     Or, rather, supposed gayness since gayness is not compulsory for people who show up for a license to SSM anyplace it is available. Indeed the SSM side has offered no argument and no proposal that gayness be made compulsory. Not gay identity. Not same-sex sexual activity. Not same-sex sexual attraction. None of that is compulsory. Yet you keep emphasizing gayness as the special reason for special status of some subset of arrangements that are in the nonmarriage category.

     If you cannot justify it, then, the discrimination you demand in favor of gayness is unjust.

     The discrimination I favor is not against gayness but for the core meaning of marriage: the integration of the sexes, the provision for responsible procreation, and these combined as a coherent whole (i.e. a social institution). Marriage is first and foremost a foundational social institution of civil society. It has a core that has remained constant even when it has also had variable features. The boundaries of eligibility are drawn around this core meaning. Those boundaries have varied, but they are drawn around universal features which provide the special reason for special status.

     You'd discriminate in favor of gay identity politics. And against the core of marriage. Have you thought of that? Or have you depended on others telling you what to think about that?

     Special reason for special status, Lynn, is what you are missing. If it is gayness, and that's it, then, please reconcile that reason with the lack of making it compulsory for a license to SSM.

136. Marcia
     Posted November 8, 2009 at 10:58 pm | Permalink

     Wow! This is the first time I've joined a blog. But I've been obsessing about this for a few days, now. For Kevin, Lynn, and others on the SSM side, have you read the talking points offered on the NOM website? You'll see that a lot of postings on this blog are sticking pretty closely to the talking points. I'm pretty impressed. But I wanted to share my thoughts. There are some people whose minds you cannot change. Those are the NOM people I've met on this blog. I imagine most of NOM people have never met anyone openly gay. Let me share an experience I had many years ago. I was dating someone who characterized himself as "bisexual". He told me he used to go to gay bars where he met a number of married men. Well, that surprised me. What were married men doing in gay bars? Well, duh. But what was really interesting was that some men had come out to their wives, and their wives were OK with this, and wanted to stay married because of the children and because they loved their husbands. Other men had wives who had no idea they were gay. So, what is best for the children in this matter? I always thought honesty was best, and that is what SSM is all about. There are a number of gay people in my life, and I admire them and am really fond of some of them. I myself have been married and divorced twice, and gays having the right to marry or not had nothing to do with it. And anyone who thinks that being gay is a piece of cake, and is a choice, is crazy. It's not an easy life. And one more thing. Raising children is not easy. My two beautiful children always seemed a few steps ahead of me, but they came out just fine. But everyone has a story. Who are you who feel that marriage is for them alone and don't want to share in the good, and the not-so -good parts of it? Are you basically good, tolerant people? Are you happy? Generous? Did you have difficulties in your early lives? And why do you think about other people's sex lives? Isn't that supposed to be kind of private? If I thought about other people having sex, gay or straight, I'd definitely be grossed out. Well, I hope this was helpful in some way. I stand ready to be picked apart.

137. L. Marie
     Posted November 8, 2009 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

     "I imagine most of NOM people have never met anyone openly gay."

     Why would you imagine that? Because if we knew people who were openly gay we'd feel differently about their moral behavior? I know people who are immoral in many ways as well as openly gay people. It doesn't matter the immorality. The people are still loved. That's what tolerance is, making room for people even when you disagree.

     I hope you will be one of those people Marcia. Welcome.

138. Raynd
     Posted November 8, 2009 at 11:12 pm | Permalink

     "So, what is best for the children in this matter? I always thought honesty was best, and that is what SSM is all about. "

     The best thing for the children IMHO is to have their parents stay together, by hook or by crook if they possibly can. I know ssa is not an easy thing to deal with, but there are choices. The choices are in your actions. Some people choose to be celibate, some choose to try to marry. Whatever the case, those who make the committment to marry, should try to fill that committment the best they can, even if it means sacrificing those desires (if not for yourself, then for your family and your children.)

     Parenting isn't easy as you've stated. Parenting alone or apart is even harder. For many reasons, it makes sense to stay together. It isn't a unique situation with gay/straight couples either. Everyone has difficulty in marriage. It's one of the most difficult, but also most rewarding experiences to be in a family and to have the joy of raising children. I can see why those who struggle with ssa would choose to try that path.

     I followed a blog a while back of a couple who married, openly knowing they would be a straight/gay monogamous couple. It was a difficult choice, but both were committed for the long haul, and they were great friends besides.

     There are lots of crosses to bear in this life, regardless of orientation.

139. Raynd
     Posted November 8, 2009 at 11:19 pm | Permalink

     "And why do you think about other people’s sex lives? Isn’t that supposed to be kind of private? If I thought about other people having sex, gay or straight, I’d definitely be grossed out."

     Marcia, the reason for the debate has nothing to do with thinking about other people's sex lives. If we were to go back to a live and let live scenario, I doubt many of us would be interested in the topic. However, gay activists have chosen to try to normalize these private behaviors and change political and social policy in the process. Those changes have consequences and force people to take a stand on the issue.

     That is why I am involved in this conversation.

140. Chairm
     Posted November 9, 2009 at 12:52 am | Permalink

     Marcia, good of you to speak-up.

     You asked a question that should be put to the pro-SSM people who comment here. They emphasize gayness as a way to favor a small subset of the nonmarriage category of relationship types and arrangements.

     You asked readers in general the following:

     "And why do you think about other people’s sex lives? Isn’t that supposed to be kind of private?"

     Why should society issue licenses based on gay sex lives? What is the societal interest or significance or special reason to accord a special status based on what an all-male or an all-female arrangements does in private?

     For marriage the societal concern includes the marital presumption of paternity, which is vigorously enforced in our legal system and to which consent is entailed in the requirement that people freely give their consent when they enter the social institution of marriage. Also see the sexual basis for consumation, provisions for annulment, grounds for divorce, and so on.

     None of that societal concern with sexual behavior and consequences can apply to the one-sexed arrangement.

     So what is the societal interest in issusing licenses that accord a special status for gayness ... or for what Marcia has described as a private, rather than public or societal, concern?

     * * *

     I hope the responses will not be a rerun of the whining of Janet on the Brady Bunch.

141. Bobby
     Posted November 9, 2009 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

     Wow! I wonder if Maine will go bankrupt now gays will stop paying taxes in that state.

142. Lynn Smith
     Posted November 11, 2009 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

     Firstly, someone please explain to me why marriage is considered "special status," when it is the ONE thing that anyone in the world can participate in, regardless or religion or personal beliefs, as long as you marry someone of the opposite sex? L. Marie even said, "no qualifiers. Free to all. Equally." It is my opinion that the institution of marriage is not only not "special," but it has been crumbling and changing since the sexual revolution. The divorce rate is over half, people are waiting longer and longer, some people do not wish to marry at all, and some married couples do not wish to have children. This is what's so great about change, and freedom to choose how you intend to live your life, and with whom.
     Chairm: I am not citing "gayness" as a reason why I should be awarded "special status." I did not say that I deserve special status just because I do. I was trying to make the point that I deserve marriage because I am human, and because everyone else gets to partake in marriage. Gayness just happens to be one of many inherent traits that I posses, as well as having red hair and brown eyes. I was born with these things, created by God, and I cannot control them. My point was, that you do not believe this. The opposition to SSM believes that being gay is a choice. That is simply not true. WE CANNOT CONTROL IT. I dated men when I was a teenager and all the way up to age 25. I kept looking for the right person to marry, who I would be happy spending a life with, even though I could not love any of them. I suppressed who I was for the good of society, and only when I matured did I realize that entering into a loveless marriage would NOT be good for society. I denied who I was long enough, to fit in, and I made the hardest decision of my life and did not take the easy way out. Now that I have found someone that I truly love and wish to have a life with, I cannot be legally married to her because it is another woman. This is the whole basis of my argument. Why should I be denied the right to legalize my union, when everyone else can just because they happen to love the opposite sex? I am no different than them. God created some women to love men, and he created some women to love women.
     Has anyone ever considered that God does everything for a reason, and maybe he created homosexuality as a way to control the overwhelming population that is destroying our Earth? The opposition is so focused on the rearing of children as the purpose of life, but what if that has changed? The Earth has been changing for millions of years, and some of the things we learned from the bible have turned out to be wrong. We have to open our minds to the fact that gay people may exist for a reason, and embrace this new world.

143. Nicholas
     Posted November 12, 2009 at 3:31 am | Permalink

     Lynn,

     "Gayness just happens to be one of many inherent traits that I posses, as well as having red hair and brown eyes. I was born with these things, created by God, and I cannot control them. "

     Wherein is the proof that "gayness" is innate? Because you are attracted to a member of the same sex? Or is it just that, in order to justify yourself, you put the onus on God? If so, then I am going to "blame" God for me not being a patient person.

     "Has anyone ever considered that God does everything for a reason, and maybe he created homosexuality as a way to control the overwhelming population that is destroying our Earth?"

     So why would God resort to homosexuality as a means to thwart the out-of-control population when He already has murder, abortion, disease, war, famine, poverty, pestilence, neglect, natural disasters, suicide, natural causes, and the such like, at His disposal to take care of the ever increasing population? The logic doesn't follow.

     "The Earth has been changing for millions of years, and some of the things we learned from the bible have turned out to be wrong."

     What specifically in the Bible has been proven "wrong?" If one account in the Bible can be proven "wrong," then what does that say about the need for Jesus Christ, God's Only Begotten Son, "Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification (Romans 4:25)."? Could this too be a hoax perpetrated by God Almighty nonetheless?

144. Lynn Smith
     Posted November 12, 2009 at 10:58 am | Permalink

     The problem is that I cannot prove my gayness is innate, because others cannot feel the way that I feel. If you could live inside a gay person's head, this debate would be much easier. We are talking about something very intangible, and objective. I know it because I feel it. I live with it. I have felt different from a very young age, and there is proof that rehabilitation and counseling does not work.
     When I said there are things in the bible that have been proven wrong, I meant that there are many abominations mentioned in Leviticus besides "man shall not lie with man." We as a society do not take them literally because social issues have changed. I'm supposed to offer a lamb for a burnt offering when I have a child, because it is unclean. Adulterers are to be put to death. People who get divorced shall be put to death. According to the Bible, God was obviously a fan of capital punishment. There are many religious people who find it wrong, because only God may give and take life. The Bible also speaks freely of slaves, as if there was nothing wrong with it. As a society, we have realized that is wrong, and we have abolished slavery. The Bible details events that occured a very long time ago, and I am sure God understands that people are evolving differently. And if he doesn't understand, then he will deal with us one by one when our judgment day comes. It is not up to everyone else to worry about what you consider to be our sins. And as for the sanctity of marriage, that has been broken a long time ago. If you let more people in, people who are happy in their relationships because they are with who they need to be with, marriage as a whole could only get better!

145. Lynn Smith
     Posted November 12, 2009 at 11:04 am | Permalink

     Two points to answer your questions: Blaming God for not being a patient person is not the same as blaming God for being gay. Patience is something that can be controlled. You can choose to relax yourself and be calm in situations. I cannot shut off my gayness.
     Maybe God resorted to homosexuality as a way to control the population because murder, abortion, disease, war, famine, povery, pestilence, neglect, natural disasters, suicide and natural causes have all existed since the beginning of time, and it hasn't done enough. We are still overpopulated with all of those things. Maybe homosexuality won't work either, maybe something else will come along. It is not for me to question God. It is for me to embrace how he has made me, and try to be happy in a world that does not fully accept me.

146. Amy
     Posted November 12, 2009 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

     "Maybe God resorted to homosexuality as a way to control the population because murder, abortion, disease, war, famine, povery, pestilence, neglect, natural disasters, suicide and natural causes have all existed since the beginning of time, and it hasn’t done enough."

     Wow. That's a pretty dark view of homosexuality. It's pretty much as anti-family, anti-society as you can get. If you really think that then why do you want to promote homosexuality and normalize it in society Lynn? Do you really think homosexuality is the cure to the human plague on the face of the earth? If only we embraced it, we could annihilate humanity and do the job war, disease and poverty have failed to do?

     In a worst case scenario, I might agree that homosexuality is detrimental to society and promotes its decline, but to embrace that decline as part of a world solution is new to me.

147. chairm
     Posted November 12, 2009 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

     Lynn said:

     "please explain to me why marriage is considered 'special status,'"

     The "why" in your request has already been answered -- in my comments and in those of others.

     But it appears to me that you now intend to challenge the fact that marriage is a special status, as your way of dodging the need for YOU to answer the "why" question.

     Read the pro-SSM opinion of the Goodridge court in Massachusetts. Read the court opinions and the arguments from the plaintiffs in all cases where SSMers challenged the marriage law. Read the SSM argumentation put out there by the leaders of campaigns against the 31 state marriage measures. Read the marriage statutes and the laws and policies that treat marriage with a preferential status -- which SSMers have been demanding for SSM.

     If, after all of that consideration by your fellow SSMers you are still in the dark regarding the special status of marriage in our laws, customs, and traditions, then, you might better represent yourself as one who OBJECTS to society showing preference for the social institution into which people enter when they consent to forming the conjugal relationship of husband and wife.

     Such a stance in opposition to the special status of marriage might be reasonably defended, but not out of ignorance of that special status, Lynn.

     Do you oppose special status for marriage in our society?

148. chairm
     Posted November 12, 2009 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

     Lynn said:

     "The opposition to SSM believes that being gay is a choice. That is simply not true. WE CANNOT CONTROL IT."

     "It" is not gay, Lynn, but rather "It" is same-sex sexual attraction or feelings. While homosexuality may, or may not, be inborn, no socio-political identity is inborn. Gay identity is no exception. That the identity is promoted as one and the same as the feelings is no surprise since the identity is reinforced by "the community", as gay activists refer to it. Not all who experience the feelings, or who might meet the highly subjective criteria of same-sex sexual attraction, are gay, Lynn. The conflation is itself a hallmark of identity politics -- which leands heavily on placing the group identity above even the individual's choices of behavior and belief.

     You may have constructed your identity around the notion of gayness, but that does not relieve you of choices, as your own comments indicated. You may judge these choices positively and others may disagree, but choices they were (and are) nonetheless.

     Since SSM argumentation places such over-riding emphasis on gayness, you should not complain that marriage defenders respond forthrightly to that emphasis. Also, when it comes to identity politics, marriage defenders can fairly point out that pressing identity politics into marriage law is unjust -- it was repudiated, for example, in the case of racialist identity politics that produced the laws against inter-racial unions of husband and wife.

     If you depend on identity politics to over-ride the marriage law, you will need to refute that repudiation. No SSMer has done so, that I know of, but maybe you will surprise. Most SSMers -- well, virtually all SSMers -- instead choose to hide behind the racialist analogy that has been fabricated by the SSM campaign to disparage marraige defenders. However, the racialist analogy, sadly, fits the SSM side very closely.

149. chairm
     Posted November 12, 2009 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

     Lynn, your personal experiences with love and sex are valid, of course, and I am not disputing that. But you have moved from the personal to the public and political and the social when you asserted that SSM is just another kind of marriage. Marriage is not merely a private romantic relationship.

     You said:

     "Why should I be denied the right to legalize my union, when everyone else can just because they happen to love the opposite sex?"

     I think you are stuck on the false dichotomy of gay-straight.

     The marriage law has always included boundaries governing eligibility. Not all opposite-sexed combinations are eligible. The boundaries are drawn around the core of marriage. Love is not a requirement -- as per you previous comment insisting upon making things compulsory.

     Indeed, what kind of love do you have in mind? How would the law of eligibility determine who meets and who falls short?

     There are opposite-sexed combinations which are ineligible even if the would-be-spouses declare themselves to be sexually and romantically in love. They don't get a pass based on such a declaration.

     Think about the boundaries and ask yourself what is the core around which those boundaries are drawn. It is not arbitrary. Each society -- for millennia -- has dealt with that core one way or another, in marriage.

     Put it another way: what is the core meaning of the relationship type you have in mind -- i.e. the type of arrangement you mean when you refer to the notion of "same-sex marriage"? Justify the boundaries, if any, that would be drawn around that core.

     This you might consider as you consider whether or not you favor preferential or special status for SSM.

     Afterall, you'd be attempting to differentiate SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category -- the ineligible types of relationships and the ineligible kinds of arrangements. That category includes SSM, but not in your viewpoint, so you will need to explain how ineligibilty in "this new world" should be altered ONLY for gayness, if that is where your considerations lead you.

150. chairm
     Posted November 12, 2009 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

     Lynne, you have expressed a profoundly flawed understanding of Leviticus. If you wish to discuss Scripture in the context of making a theological argument, that's one thing, but you need to become better informed to do that. As it stands, the discussion of theology weighs against SSM but the discussion of the injustice of the proposed SSM-merger does not rely solely on theology.

     Your remarks amount to a "God is on our side" claim that is not supported by Scripture. Your remark about Leviticus, on its face, expresses a desire to discredit the authority of Scripture. So, that kind of throws out Scripture as a basis for your views on SSM.

     Maybe put that aside and speak to the opinion you say has been formed by your personal experience and knowledge. You might stand on firmer ground there.

151. chairm
     Posted November 12, 2009 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

     Amy said:

     "In a worst case scenario, I might agree that homosexuality is detrimental to society and promotes its decline, but to embrace that decline as part of a world solution is new to me."

     That final solution is also new to me, but is apparently not so brand new to gay activism. I think Lynn may have coarsely misstated the notion. But the misstatement does get at the political gist of the theme in SSM argumentation: how much worse could it get?

     * * *

     Nicholas said:

     "The logic doesn’t follow."

     You are right. The logic is flawed and undoes Lynn's suggestion -- and would make irrelevant her discussion of God's purpose.

152. Lynn Smith
     Posted November 12, 2009 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

     Haha! You guys are right, I didn't even realize how bad that sounded until I read Amy's post! Sorry, definitely NOT what I was intending to say. I just screwed myself really bad, and I realize how my posts must sound as if I am grasping at straws, but it's just really hard to articulate how I feel inside. It's like, I am absolutely sure that i'm right, and you guys are absolutely sure that you're right, and thus is born the greatest battle of public opinion I have ever been engaged in. Our country is divided, where 5 states allow SSM, and California allows HALF of it's gay couples to be married. A gay couple from Massachussettes can move to New York and live next door to another gay couple. Since NY recognizes but does not perform SSM, one couple can be married and one cannot. It does not get any more divided than this, and it just raises frustrations and brings people to their boiling points.
     Let me pose a question, since the issue seems to be mostly about the word "marriage" in the religious sense, and also the fear that churches would have to marry gay couples and vendors would have to cater to gay couples. I know that this provision has already been written into most of the SSM laws, but would you approve of marriage if it prevented businesses from being sued for not wanting to do a gay wedding? Would you approve of marriage if the church had nothing to do with it? I mean, obviously, I have resigned myself to the fact that I will never be able to be married in church, but what if any new law were to outright prevent religious marriage for gay couples, unless of course their church does them anyway? If these factors were accounted for, what would be the issues then?

153. Chairm
     Posted November 12, 2009 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

     Lynn, if you read the comments in this discussion you will learn that you are very mistaken when you said the following:

     "the issue seems to be mostly about the word “marriage” in the religious sense"

     1. The argument for marriage (and against the SSM-merger) is not purely religious. It does not stand or fall on religious beliefs.

     2. The argument for marrige (and against the SSM-merger) is not about the label alone but it is about the core meaning of the social institution of marriage.

     Lynn, if you would like to discuss the actual disagreement you will need to address the questions put to you earlier.

     What is the union of two persons of the same sex -- the type of relationship you have in mind -- and how is that different from the rest of the non-marriage category?

     Please explain whether you are in favor or against the special status of marriage? If against, as suggested in your earlier comments, then, why are you in favor of flattening the status of marriage to that of non-marriage?

     You are also mistaken when you calimed that "California allows HALF of it’s gay couples to be married". Maybe you meant to say something else?

154. Nicholas
     Posted November 13, 2009 at 12:35 am | Permalink

     Lynn,

     Are you suggesting, then, that because humanity is constantly in flux, that God should be too? Why? Wouldn't this make God schizophrenic and not to be trusted? In other words, if God is uncertain about His creation, at what point could He be trusted to lead, guide, and direct those who depend on Him? At that, what about forgiveness of sins? Would He one day say your sins are forgiven and the next day say they aren't?

     Also, if you cannot shut off your "gayness," as you suggest, then the onus is on God. Yet, you continue to "choose" to be in a SS relationship. Or is the same-sex person you are with beyond your control as well? In other words, could you not "choose" to be with another same-sex person?

155. Lynn Smith
     Posted November 13, 2009 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

     Chairm: I don't understand what you mean by "the non-marriage category." I can try to answer your question if I knew more about what that means, because I have never heard the term before. When I said that half of California's gay couples can be married and the other half cannot, I obviously didn't mean that it is split exactly in half. I meant that the couples who chose to get married when the law first went into effect were able to keep the distinction of marriage. And the couples who did not take advantage of the law before it was repealled will not be able to say they are married. I was illustrating that in a country that has some states allowing it and most states that do not, there is also a state that is split among itself. It seems to me the greatest division on social issues since the Civil War.
     As for the special status of marriage question, I cannot say whether I am for or against it until I know what that means. I have already asked for someone to tell my why marriage is considered special status, when everyone in the world can do it. Do you mean special status as in a man and a woman, and why do gay people deserve to be included and the law therefore changed?
     If by the non-marriage category, you mean Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships, then I will answer the question presumpriously for now. We do not intend to flatten the status of marriage to that of non-marriage. We would be graduating everyone up to the same status, to strengthen the marriage category to include more people. People who love the same as you do, only the same sex. When I was trying to deny who I was, and dating men, I tried to tell myself that I was in love when I really didn't know what that felt like. My friends talked about that feeling all the time, and I just didn't feel the same way about anyone. I denied other gay people who told me that I was gay before I even knew, and eventually I knew it myself when I met a girl at a new job one day. I was attracted to her right away, more attracted than I had ever been to the most handsome guy I had ever seen, and we became best friends. I began getting butterflies in my stomach every time I saw her, and I wanted to be with her all the time. I can't describe the feeling, but it was like floating on air, and losing my breath every time she accidentally touched me. She wasn't gay, but she was curious, and we hooked up a few times. It was the happiest I have ever been, though eventually she told me that she wasn't into girls and we couldn't hang out anymore. I went through hell after that, the happiest I have ever felt was replaced by the most pain I have ever felt, and I thought that I would never find someone who made me feel that way again. But I did. Two years later, I met my current girlfriend at a party and I fell in love all over again. We have been together for 5 years and are now engaged. We want children very badly, and I just turned 30 so we know it has to happen soon. But we do not want to have children until we can be married. We just can't bring children into the world without that stability, you know?
     So, I don't see how my story is any different than the rest of you guys who have fallen in love with a girl, or women who have fallen in love with a guy. Except that we cannot follow the natural progression of being engaged, planning a wedding, having children, etc. There is no excitement for us because we have to fight for the same distinction. And that is where the source of my frustration comes from. That I have someone I would like to walk down the aisle to, but afterwards, we must say, "Yep, we were civilly unioned on June 26th, or whatever day, and it just isn't the same."

156. Lynn Smith
     Posted November 13, 2009 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

     Nicholas: Just because humanity is constantly in flux, does not mean that God should be too. God created us and he set the laws in the beginning. As my previous post stated, some of those laws are outright rediculous for this time and age, and are not taken literally anymore. That is all I was trying to say. And God would not be schizophreninc if he changed his mind, schizophrenics hear voices and their thoughts are delusional. It is not the same as Multiple Personality Disorder, which is perhaps what you meant? I said it was for God to decide what he intended when he made me, and for him to judge me when I get there, not you.
     Yes, I cannot shut off my gayness, and of course I choose to be in a SS relationship because of that. You cannot shut off being heterosexual, and yet you can also choose which person of the opposite sex you wish to be with, based on who you fall in love with. You can be in love with your wife, and yet choose to cheat on her as well. I choose to find love based on what type of person I fall in love with. Not really a choice for me either way. If you cannot shut off your heterosexualness, and it was socially unaccepted, would you then choose to not be with a woman? Would you "turn it off" and just give up, or would you fight?

157. Chairm
     Posted November 13, 2009 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

     Lynn, there is a very wide range of relationship types and kinds of living arrangements. Some are marriage and some are not marriage. Those outside of marriage are non-marriage.

     Non-marriage is far broader than civil union or domestic partnership. Draw a cricle and within it is marriage. Outside of that boundary is nonmarriage.

     Where does the line get drawn?

     This boundary is drawn around the core -- the essentials -- of the thing that is recognized, shown preference, and accorded a special status in our society.

     Societies may vary the line but it is always drawn around what marriage actually is. And in our society the law expressed the core meaning and vigorously enforces legal requirements.

     1. The man-woman criterion stands for the integration of the sexes.

     2. The marital presumption of paternity stands for responsible procreation.

     3. The Law recognizes a foundational social institution of civil society (it pre-exists any government) and no government owns civil society. Quite the other way around.

     Marriage is recognizable by its core, its essentials, its universal features.

     As for SSM, Gay Union, or whatever, there appear to be no such core, no such essentials, no universal features -- but instead a great emphasis on gayness. But there is no legal requirement for gayness in any place where two people of the same sex might show up for a license for SSM or Gay Union. There is no proposed requirement for gayness. This would disqualify gayness as the core, the essential, the universal feature of the type of union that the SSM campaign has been demanding society issue licenses for.

     So it is not a sexualized arrangement, at law, nor in concept, nor in argumentation. As such it is no different than the very large category of nonmarriage in which mutual support, love, and even childraising are chief variable features.

     Whatever the merits, and demerits, of the type of relationship you have in mind, Lynn, it is not distinguishable from the nonmarriage category.

     Promoting gayness as the special reason to pluch this subset of nonmarriage out of the nonmarriage category and elevating it on par with marital status would be unjust.

     If it was just, you would provide the special reason other than the assertion of identity politics. You haven't so far. You have justified the raising of gayness to the level of societal significance for which civilizatons have long recognized marraige -- its special reason for special status -- its core meaning.

     On the other hand, vulnerable families outside of marriage merit protections. SSM argumentation talks a lot about protections, for example, but mistakes marriage for a merely protective status. Well, the nonmarriage category includes a vast range of scenarios that are not gay and not sexualized but which merit protections of the very kind that SSMers have been claiming in the name of gayness. The provisions for designated beneficiaries has long-existed -- predating civil union or domestic partnership -- and is not restricted on the basis of gayness. It is nonmarriage, sure, but it serves a different purpose and is not designed to compete with marital status.

     Merging nonmarriage with marriage would NOT lift relationship up to the status of marriage. It would eliminate the core meaning of marriage. THat would remove the special reason for special status. And that would demote the social instituiton of marriage to a protective status.

     Actually, given the rehtoric of the SSM campaign, such a merger would demote the core of marriage from its preferential status, below a protective status, and down to a barely tolerative status. It would be slurred as bigoted and hateful and barred from social policy and even exiled from polite society. Children will be taught this and so the SSM campaign would change not just the law but the culture that supports the rule of law.

     But what would distinguish the SSM-merger from nonmarriage if not gay identity politics? Nothing. Just the arbitrariness of Government ownership of the substitute that SSMers would impose on society. And the rejection of the core meaning of society's most pro-child social institution -- a foundational social institution of our civilizaton.

     Gayness -- gay identity politics -- does not justify any of that.

     Marriage is special.

     What is so special about SSM that it must negate the core meaning of this institution?

158. Nicholas
     Posted November 17, 2009 at 1:33 am | Permalink

     Lynn,

     After mulling over your post for a couple of days, I figured it was time to respond.

     First, from what I gather from your post, it seems to me that being male and/or female, as we were created by God, is problematic. In other words, it is not enough to be male and/or female, but that we feel the need to confuse the two genders. I mean, we are all apart of humanity and being male and female is just a social construct, right? If that is true, then why are we still being created as male and female from the get go (when we are born)? If gender is moot, then why does God continue to create us as male and female?

     Second, as to your admission that some of God's laws are no longer applicable, why is that? Because they were written so long ago? Only applied to the Jews? Or do you have something else in mind? At that, as I understand Orthodox Judaism, they adhere strictly to the Oral and Written Tradition/Law that was instituted at Mt. Sinai and passed down in successive generations so indeed these "ridiculous" laws are still practiced, just not wholesale by society.

     Lastly, wherein am I judging you? Have I said anything that would be deemed as such? I am just stating the case for marriage as created by God just as you are stating your case for SSM.