"Many fundamentalist Christians vehemently oppose same-sex marriage."

So?

Many of the same fundamentalist Christians in Maine also oppose black men marrying white women.

Is the BDN also proposing civil unions for black men marrying white women?

Cheers.

Ahh DW-Yer an Idiot

They should quit wasting time fighting for the word and just fight for the rights. Most people don't have a problem with giving equal rights to all , they just don't want to change the meaning of another word in our language.

Whatever marriage may mean for the various religions, for society it simply represents a system for social order to deal with the naming of possible offspring, property rights and taxation, among other matters. As such civil marriage provides certain obligations and benefits to the partners involved, regardless of religion. The notion that homosexuals can be denied the same privileges any other citizen may freely enjoy, for traditional and/or biblical reasons, flies in the face of reason and justice in an egalitarian society. It is time to put this ideological battle to bed.

There is admittedly some disagreement within the Gay community over what's more important, the word "marriage" or the benefits and responsibilities that are connected with it. As someone who prides himself as being nothing if not diplomatic, I would take simple legal equality under the law, even if the operative term is "civil unions." If social conservatives simply wish to reserve the term "marriage" for heterosexual couples, they can have it, as long as Gay couples are treated fairly.

Here's an example of how the current system is not fair: According to a statement I recently received in the mail from the Social Security Administration, my married spouse would be eligible for over $1400 per month (after retirement) in the event of my death. I think anyone would agree that $1400 per month is a pretty hefty chunk of change. However, it is money that my significant other would not be eligible for, because we would not be allowed to get married. I would like to provide for the financial well-being of my spouse, just as I'm sure any heterosexual would, but in essence I'm throwing away money on a fund that my partner cannot take advantage to in the event of my death.

At the root of this discrepancy is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was signed, to his eternal shame, by Bill Clinton. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in Connecticut or Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government, and any such couple becomes magically “UN-married” once they move to another state. So frankly, even married Gay couples in Connecticut and Massachusetts continue to be second-class citizens in the eyes of Washington.

At the very least, the federal government should allow Gay spouses to file joint tax returns and to designate one another for survivorship benefits under Social Security. If a "civil union" would allow us to do this, I'm all for it. If not, then nothing but full marriage equality will suffice.

One thing that folks pushing the civil union argument don't recognize, is that federal law is not currently written to recognize them. Thus, the federal guarantees that gays are after is not granted through civil unions.

Either the laws must be rewritten, or marriage in it's current state must be extended to include all citizens equally.

Considering the cost and time of rewriting federal law to recognize civil unions, this is not something that I, as taxpayer, feel comfortable buying into.

Extending the concept of marriage takes neither the time, nor the money. Remove the religious aspects (which have no place in law anyway) and it becomes common sense. If gays are to be taxed equally by state and federal governments, they must be treated equally.

OK, hell with the antiquated nonsense about procreation and the differences between male and female plumbing. Let's let it all hang out and remove the other barriers to marriage. When we allow same sex marriage let's also permit sibling and sibling and parent and child to marry too, just so long as they're infertile. If they can't bear children together, there can't be any objection to their marriage. It's no more perverse than buggery and the other things homosexuals do to each other, and it would promote equal protection of the laws. Who could object to that?

A serious suggestion for moving past this dilemma: All clergy, as a humanitarian and patriotic gesture, stop signing marriage licenses (later, if it's legal, they can become notaries or lawyers and sign in that capacity). Churches can deal in "holy matrimony" "Ubermarriage" or anything else they care to call it. Marriage once again becomes the state, secular institution it began as (remember, the Christian church avoided playing a role in marriage for the first half of its history, since they felt that celibacy was the truly holy state).

People will rapidly become accustomed to thinking of a two-step process for marriage: one civil, the other religious. We then repeal DOMA, and add same-sex couples to marriage.

Of course, some churches will want to offer "Ubermarriage" to same-sex couples; others will not. That's all fine.

Phew! We've got rendering unto Caesar and unto God straight at last! ??????? ??? ?? ???????? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???, as Jesus said. What could be more American than that?

I do wish that the subject of same sex marriage between two consenting adults would be strictly adhered to in all discussions of this kind

I, and I'm sure other intelligent thinking individuals would also appreciate this small consideration, also.

I really don't want to hear from trashy perverts who fantasize about making their already existing sexual relationships with their aunt, uncle mother, father, sister, brother, neice, nephew, dog or teddy bear legal.

Obviously, they are doing thier own thing successfully now.

Just what are we really trying to save, today's Marriage is little more then legal bondage for over fifty percent of those dumb enough to venture into it.

In today's society, Marriage vows mean very little to nothing for many.

OK, Mainelyme, I understand you want to limit the subject to same-sex marriage of "two consenting adults". That seems small minded, but I can understand the logic of not talking about polygamy or marriage between unconsenting adults. Now, given your own limitations, do you have something intelligent to say about same-sex marriage?

Bandbox

Yes.

It's really nobody else's business.

Mainelyme.. teddy bear LOL.. thanks I needed that little giggle hahaha. Can anyone remember back a few years ago ,about the guy from Parkman who wanted to marry his dog? Now that right there was one sick person. As for gay couples, I believe it is up to them to decide who they want to be married to. If they are going to be judged then it will be a higher power who will do the judging. I just personally dont give a rats furry butt.

whitnmeme:

I'm now ashamed to say that I took all of my childhood frustrations and aggressions out on my poor little Teddy Bear.

If we had been married it would have been a battered spouse, and I would have been an abusive husband!

First ask why government should be involved in marrying anyone (there used to be good reason, but those reasons may have fallen away).

Only then can you proceed to ask if makes sense for government to marry homosexuals.

Hi I Thnk That Equal Right Will Never Happen. Evey One Is Not Opened Up To Every Thing . But I said We All Have The Right To Do As We Want As Longe As The Law Alows Us To. Now Gay Marriage Should Be Alowed. Marriage Is A Commitment To The One You Are Going To Marry. By saying No To Gay Marriage You Are Saying That Gay's And Lesbion's Are Not Commitment Enough To The One's We Love, But Yet There Are Strait People Who Are Married That Go Out And Have Affairs And Yet Do We Bring Up The Right For Them To Be Married, Even Those Who Are Swingers Have The Rignt To Be Married. Why Do We Always Go Back To What The Bible said. The Bible Is Just A Story Line Of Gods Life And How We Take It Is up to Use. So I Say Agein Why Do We Go Back To The Bible. When We All Need To Have Our Own Life Story. I Was Rased A Holer Then Though Person, But Then I came Out Of The Closet And Now In A Five Year Storng Relationship. So I Say That We All Have The Right To Be With Who Ever Make Use Happe Ever Time We Look At Them.