The trend is clear: more and more people are supporting the right of gay couples to marry.
Polls show that support for same-sex marriage has increased two or three percentage points each year since about 2004. Currently an average of about 50 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage rights, and 45 percent oppose them, according to surveys conducted in the last year.
In that sense, then, President Barack Obama’s announcement Wednesday that he supports same-sex marriage could be viewed as a typical progression of the government responding to the views of voters. Though it was a historic announcement about a highly emotional issue, it would have been riskier several years ago.
Still — putting aside whether the political move could win Obama support from some independent and young voters or whether it will galvanize conservatives — it is the morally right thing to do.
If a couple is in a committed relationship and wants to marry, it should be their civil right. Heterosexual married couples lose nothing by having states recognize the legal ability of a same-sex couple to say “I do.”
Maine could become the first state where voters approve same-sex marriage, as it’s set to vote for the second time on the issue in November. In 2009, Mainers voted 53-47 percent to overturn a law allowing same-sex marriage.
If the trend of growing support continues, it’s likely only a matter of time before faithful couples will be able to marry regardless of their sex.
I hope Maine does reclaim it’s “Dirigo” motto by legalizing same sex marriages, thus being the first state to lead the transition to the inevitable constitutional end where all marital discrimination is outlawed, just as it is in clearly stated in the Loving vs. Virginia ruling in 1967. It would be the best choice.
Of course, we can always wait until the Supreme Court rules that laws restricting gay marriage are unconstitutional if we want to be stubborn and ignorant.
Why stop there? If we are going to sanction something other than the one man / one woman marriage, which is essentially the definition of marriage, why not just let anyone marry whoever and whatever they want to? So if I want to marry 3 women because that seems right to me, then who’s to say I can’t? If I want to marry my horse, so that I can get it on my health insurance plan, then who’s to say that isn’t right as well? I would rather we just end the whole idea of government sanctioning legal marriage, as the alternative will ultimately lead to outright chaos and legal uncertainty.
I’d say what’s more important beyond throwing two people of opposite gender together is the love that two people share and the desire to commit themselves to each other. If your marriage is mostly about sex, that’s fine, but for most people I’m sure it’s only a small part of being in a relationship.
Once again, a great demonstration of the need to spend more time on reading comprehension. Please elucidate on where PL101 addressed sex?
Furthermore, you stated, “what’s more important beyond throwing two people of opposite gender together is the love that two people share and the desire to commit themselves to each other.”
Why do you limit it to two? I’ve never seen such judgment and hate in the Comment section before.
You’ve never seen such “judgement and hate in the Comment section before” ?
The kind of “judgement and hate” that compares two people who are in love, and living as a married couple, who want to get married, to marrying a horse ?
The horse reference was to make a point, in that, once you redefine marriage as something other than what it has always been intended to be (one man & one woman), you’re opening up opportunities for people with other alternative sexual preferences to call for the same rights.
I’m guessing that you’re a little fuzzy about the use of sarcasm when I said that to tweak Dn and others who bandy about the H- and J- words about whenever anyone disagrees with them. Feeling a little sensitive because they were applied to the “progressive” position?
Logic dictates that if marriage is redefined to be anything other than one man and one woman, it can be redefined to mean anything.
Give me one good reason why it can’t.
You must have really great and thoughtful points — that’s why you spend most of your time shelling out personal attacks, right?
Apparently, pointing out logical incongruity and imploring you to read with comprehension so that you don’t embarrass yourself has now been raised to the level of a “personal attack.” Interesting.
I would never advocate “throwing two people of opposite gender together” as the definition of a good marriage. Marriage is something which should only be entered into after serious consideration. Sex is an important part of a committed relationship that two people choose to enter into, but it is only heterosexual relationships that can produce children, which is a primary purpose of the historical institution of marriage. If two people of the same gender choose to have sex with each other, there is nothing in this society that prevents them from doing so. But that type of sex cannot produce children, so why complicate it with the perceived need to redefine “marriage” to include it?
Yeah, because there’s been just so much “chaos” in places where gay people have been allowed to marry !
Another big logic fail !
The “chaos” is an internal one, for the homosexual anyway. “Logic” reveals that it is only the heterosexual relationship which can naturally produce children, which is a fundamental part of the full human experience. The homosexual may eventually win the legal right to enter into marriage, but that will never satisfy the inert desire that all humans have to procreate.
This gay marriage issue is all about taking the focus away from the tragedy of Obama. Note how well the BDN is playing the game – at least 4 pieces on the issue today. Anything else going on in the world?
If you were so concerned about this “taking the focus away from the tragedy of Obama”, then perhaps you should have worked to convince the right to adopt civil marriage for LGBT couples instead of fighting it tooth and nail. Then it would be a non-issue.
Instead, no, marriage is the big issue this year. Therefore when the president decides to support it, it’s news. Don’t want something to be news, don’t oppose it.
I’ve been telling my friends the same thing who scream, “Why does it HAVE to be marriage?!” “Because you said it couldn’t be civil unions or legal domestic partnerships.”
I remember when Howard Dean was wearing a bulletproof vest after receiving death threats over the Vermont civil union bill.
Almost as big a tragedy that we can’t get a strong, electable candidate to challenge him.
Are you incapable of caring about more than one issue at a time?
What a hoot! Love how the BDN unequivocally states “it is the morally right thing to do.”
So apparently, there is a universal standard of morality. Please tell, BDN, what is that standard?
It’s an editorial. I guess this is the first one you’ve ever read.
Oh, right! I get it! Because it’s an editorial, the writer gets to make broad, sweeping statements without having to provide any semblance of justification for said statements and I’m supposed to ascribe credibility to the writer because he/she said so in an editorial.
Thanks for clearing it up for me! You’ve been incredibly helpful.
We could be the first state to endorse this attack of fairness by popular vote. I hope we take our chance and do so this fall.
I like how John Stewart put this —
“This is the true measure of how far we’ve come as a nation. In like five years, the prime talking point from Republicans about people who support gay marriage has gone from, ‘It will destroy society via turtle f*cking,’ to, ‘Oh, of course you’re for it. You’ll say anything popular to get re-elected.’ That is progress. “
I have come to conclude that the push to recognize “homosexual” marriage comes down to one word, and that word is shame. “Marriage” was established for the purpose of creating an institution that would foster the healthy development of families, through procreation. Since homosexual couples are unable to produce children, there is a void that exists within many of them that results from the realization that their relationship lacks the ability to reproduce. This void eventually turns into “shame,” due to the recognition that their lives will not enjoy appreciation of the full human experience, which includes natural procreation. As a result, homosexuals have attempted to co-opt the institution of marriage, in order to experience at least part of the normal process that perpetuates the human species. Unfortunately, even if homosexuals are eventually able to secure legal recognition of their sexual preferences through the passage of gay marriage legislation, which I’m sure they will, they will never be able to procreate as heterosexuals can. So this victory will be short-lived, as they will still be left with the realization that their sexual preferences have been not only opposed to nature, but also in opposition to the Law of God.