Maine and the country as a whole are closely divided on the subject of same-sex marriage. But polls show there is a growing percentage of advocates and shrinking percentage of opponents.
As opinions shift and countries and states pass laws that allow gay couples to marry, the institution of marriage has not shattered. The opposition’s argument that same-sex marriage will undermine the sanctity of wedding vows is false.
To consider a different argument, read the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment states: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
So when people hold up the Constitution as a model to follow, they should remember that clause — particularly the wording of “any person” — and its implications for same-sex marriage.
Why are opinions changing? Consider the fact that older people are more likely, and younger people are less likely, to insist that marriage must legally be between one man and one woman. The electorate demographic is changing.
Over time, specific individuals have helped alter public opinion. Frank Kameny — who was dismissed from his federal government job in 1957 for being gay — was one of them. Though he ultimately lost his lawsuit at the United States Supreme Court, he drew publicity to the issue. It wasn’t until 2009 that the government formally apologized for firing him based on his sexual orientation.
Credit can also be given to more popularly known figures, such as Ellen Degeneres, the talk-variety show host, who came out publicly as a lesbian on the Oprah Winfrey Show in 1997 and later legally married Portia De Rossi in 2008. Other TV shows depicting gay and lesbian relationships have followed.
Still another factor in the shift is the influence of gay or lesbian family members and friends. As a prominent example, former Vice President Dick Cheney differed from President George W. Bush over Bush’s call for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
When Cheney was asked about the subject at a campaign rally in Mississippi, he said, “Freedom means freedom for everyone. Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it’s an issue our family is very familiar with.”
Over the last decade, various countries have passed laws allowing same-sex marriage, including Canada, the Netherlands, Argentina, Belgium, Iceland, Portugal, Norway, Spain, Sweden and South Africa.
If advocates win at the ballot box in November, Maine will join Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington, the District of Columbia and the Coquille Indian Tribe that have laws supporting same-sex marriage.
Much could depend on Maine’s ballot wording. As proposed by the campaign leader, Mainers United for Marriage, the question reads: “Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples that protects religious freedom by ensuring no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?”
The secretary of state may revise the question, and then will come a period of public comment. The final wording should be decided by mid-July. It’s important to note that supporters want to grant clergy the freedom to choose whether to perform marriages even though the freedom to marry is currently denied to gay couples.
In the end, the campaign should not be waged as a religious debate, as marriage is a legal contract. It is a right granted by laws, not the church. And the legalization of same-sex marriage in some places has not resulted in dramatic societal consequences.
Whether the odds look favorable for same-sex marriage in Maine depends on who you ask. But the trend over the last few decades is clear. Opinions are changing, and with them, gradually, are the laws.
Excellent editorial.
In the words of Homer Simpson, “People change Marge, people change.”
Reality, however, does not. Real marriage will always be the union of one man and one woman. It doesn’t matter what the government decides from a “legal” perspective. Governments have been wrong throughout history, and they will get it wrong again in the future. But that doesn’t change what is true from a logical, reasonable perspective. A cat is not a dog, even if the government decrees it to be so. Likewise, marriage will always be the union between one man and one woman, not any other combination. Sorry.
It will be in your mind, but in the minds of hundreds of thousands of people will be different. You can believe whatever you wish, but it doesn’t make it so.
Speaking of reality. The State of Maine has one of the lowest rates of marriage of any State in the US. per capita. The State of Maine also has one of the highest divorce rates per capita in the US. Maine currently does not allow gay marriage. Mass. on the other hand has one of the highest rates per capita of marriage in the US and the lowest divorce rate. Gay marriage has been legal in Mass. since 2004.
I thought the polls showed it about 50-50 in NC?
What was the vote? 69%-31%? How come in every state
there has been a vote the “polls” always say it will pass, yet it
gets defeted? Must be a lot of lousy “polls”.
More like voting on what the SCOTUS calls a basic civil right. Civil rights should never be put up for a “popular” vote.
If it were a basic right, it would be legal in all states.
Interracial marriage was not a basic right until Loving v. Virginia became settled law.
It is a basic right, and SHOULD BE legal in all states.
Why does “PoliticallyRight” not use his/her real name? Because they do not want their name connected with that statement, I would guess.
Same reason as a bunch of people put on white robes and hoods and hid behind religion to spew hate a few years ago.
I agree that the freedom to marry is a basic right that should be legal in all fifty states. My brother’s wife is black, he was (he’s deceased) white. I have two smart, funny, beautiful interracial nieces. When I was younger, such marriages were illegal in much of the United States. Many people said that interracial marriage was “unnatural” and that the Bible forbade it.
In fact, my own parents were against interracial marriage. I remember them saying that neither blacks nor whites would accept the children. But then they met the woman their son was marrying, and saw their granddaughters, and they changed their minds.
It is arguable whether or not this is a basic right, maybe not to you but to those that oppose it. I’m for it, and I do not think it is a basic right, I think it is a NEW right we are trying to get passed for the benefit of homosexual marriage. Say what you want, criticize as you wish, but just because its that to you won’t necessarily make it that to someone else.
There are over 1,100 benefits and privileges contingent on marital status at the federal level alone— these are not new rights, they are existing rights that heterosexual married couples currently enjoy.
This is absolutely about equal treatment, not special treatment.
the definition of marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN… the benefits you discuss are made up by gov’t.. the Law is Made by GOD… pick one
That is your belief based on your interpretation of your religion. Just because you believe this way doesn’t make it so. You have every right to believe as you wish, but no one is required to believe that. You live your life based on your beliefs, and others are allowed to do the same.
A true American who loves their country realizes that we have no right to control other people’s lives and force them to make their life decisions based on someone else’s religious beliefs.
ok as you say… but listen.. it is a sin for everyone who does this… everyone..it is a sin for all those who promote this …. promoting sinful behavoir is in itself a sin… there is no basic right for a sin to be commited… you or I or anyone else has the right to commit a sin , that’s any sin… not just this one.. God made this law.. argue with Him about it.. I think that’s a very good idea.. start today
It is a sin to judge and condemn others. It is a sin to exclude or shun other human beings. A sin is a sin is a sin. There is no sin that is greater or lesser than another. You are a sinner.
Its not a basic right, its a privilege, just like driving a car, and anyone can be denied the right to drive., if it was a right why do we need permission from the state to get married at all. You have the basic right to vote, move where you want to ect… any thing that requires a license is a privilege, and comes with rules that may or may not be equal to everyone.
When is the last time you heard of a heterosexual couple being DENIED the right to marry? You havent, which exactly the point.
Ooh yes I have, after 5 times in some states. might have changes now but the laws were there.
And the reasons for the denial were Jed?
it not something that can be denied
“Its not a basic right”?
Really? Want to stand on that position Jed?
Read Loving v. Virginia and then post that same statement.
ooops there’s that gov’t thing again… nope.. gov’t made the license a requirement .. they give it and they take it away.. Marriage does not need a license , it only needs recognition by God .. that’s done with a minister. a priest , a rabbi or whatever.. a union between a man and a woman.. not a gov’t privilege.. buy that idea and I will gladly sell you some ocean front lots in Nebraska…oh I know that gov’t made a law… they need the money and the control
Many do not have a religious wedding. Many are married by a Justice of Peace. In this country in order to enjoy all of the benefits and protections of marriage you do need a license and there is no requirement that you believe in God.
So Paul if a person decides they wish to be married but they don’t want a religious wedding and opt for a civil one are they still married in your opinion?
Like how everyone could vote when we started out as a nation?
that why we have amendments, and those things were fixed, where does it say you have the right to get married, if it does amend it.
Jed…please go back and take a Constitutional Law class and LEARN how laws are made, amended and what the purposes of the SCOTUS is.
The same way slavery and denying women the vote wasn’t legal? It is a basic right.
Sometimes it takes a few years to see the tyranny of the majority crushing the rites of the minority because well… minority are smaller numbers of people.
In America, supposedly the majority rules although one could argue that is not the case right now. Are you suggesting that the minority should rule? So whatever the majority of people want, too bad?
What is it your bible says??? Oh yeah…the meek shall inherit the earth
We are not a majority rule country. We are a Constitutional Republic. That Constitution is in place to ensure the rights of the individual. You should take some time to read about the founding of the United States and the fear the founders held of any one “majority” becoming too powerful. (also half of that fear was founded on paranoia the of the Christian sects that one of the other sect would become too powerful)
Where does it say you have the right to get married?
Do you always make assumptions of sexuality orientation based on support of SSM Jed ol’ boy? I have been married for over 25 years.
Do you have any other assumptions you would like to make?
What are u talking about, where does it say anyone has the right to get married? could care less how long you have been married.
Jed I know it goes against your southern charm but read the SCOTUS case Loving v. Virginia. You will find the answer to your question there.
in the bible
Paul would you be so kind as to provide Chapter and Verse where it say “you have the right to get married”.
They are! That’s the same polls that show Rumney ahead of Obama.
The Public Policy Poll April 29 said that 55% would vote for the amendment, and 41% would vote against it, with 4% undecided. The same polling firm in January said that 56% would vote for the amendment banning same-sex unions, and 34% would vote against it, with 10% undecided at that time. As has been the trend with these votes, the “undecided” voters were generally ready to vote against same-sex marriages (and for the amendment), but were not willing to tell the pollsters.
Also, this was the big issue on the ballot, so turnout was low. Only those who were very motivated, on both sides, went to the polls. Those who were against same-sex marriage in NC were highly motivated, and so they got a big turnout for their side.
Also, those opposing the freedom of gays and lesbians to marry outspent those supporting the freedom to marry by a nearly 3-to-1 margin.
In the end, 61% (not 69%) voted yes, and 39% (not 31%) voted no. So the Public Policy Poll came up with the correct general results, but didn’t predict the margin, probably because of low general turnout and high conservative turnout.
So no, the polls did NOT say it was 50-50 (although Elon University did polling that was consistently wrong). It was widely expected from polling data that the marriage equality people would lose, and the amendment would win, as turned out to be the case.
There may several reasons for the discrepancies.
If a poll is conducted properly, its results will reflect public sentiment about 95 percent of the time. However, the question respondents are asked may be confusing, or it may be biased. The poll may target the wrong people by not zeroing in on registered voters who intend to vote on election day. Some prospective voters may see poll results and figure it’s not worth going to the polls, either because the poll shows wide agreement with a prospective voter’s view, or a wide disagreement with a prospective voter’s view.
Elections tend to attract the more motivated members of the voting populace. It’s easier to answer a poll in your home than it is to leave your home and go to the polls to cast a ballot. Properly done polls feature a random segment of the population. The ballot box does not reflect a random segment of the population. In a sense, a properly done poll can be more accurate in measuring the population’s views than any election tally.
People may outright lie to pollsters, especially if they have to give answers to a person instead of pressing a key on the phone or clicking the computer mouse.
Answers to election polls are more like promises to take the garbage out at a certain time. Not everyone follows through.
The word “marriage” does not need to be in statute. Get rid of it – problem solved.
Then you have to change thousands of laws — tax laws, inheritance laws, business laws, laws that deal with court testimony, laws that deal with visitation rights in hospitals, etc., that all use the word “marriage.” And you have to tell people who have been married for thirty or fifty years that they aren’t married anymore. Your intentions may be good, but it just isn’t practical.
Better to simply give everyone the same fair and equal treatment under the law, and let gays and lesbians get married, just as I’m already allowed to get married (and have been for 33 years). We’ve modified the legal terms of marriage many times before, and we can do it again. It’s a lot easier to change one law than thousands of laws. Let’s just give gays and lesbians the same freedom I already have.
Again – take the word “marriage” out of statute. Problem solved. Government does not need to be invloved in it at all.
It can be done.
But until then it isn’t fair to discriminate.
You want to take the word “marriage” out of thousands of statutes — and tell married couples they aren’t legally married? Don’t make it so complicated.
Besides the fact that your proposal is impractical, there would be a general outcry. The religious right would say that you are destroying marriage, and married people all over the nation would oppose your proposal.
I realize that there are many anarchists like yourself who believe that there is no need for the government to do anything at all (who needs roads?), but the fact is that since about 1500 the governments of the world been involved in marriage laws. You can’t unring that bell.
But it would be much easier, and more fair, to simply give gays and lesbians the same freedom to marry that my wife and I have. Problem solved.
You know very well the impossibility of changing the thousands of laws in the manner you suggest.
It will never be right–no matter what public opinion says.
Thank you for your opinion….now back to our regular program
I remember when people said that interracial marriage was just plain wrong. They said it was unnatural, and that the Bible was clearly against it. They said that biracial children would never be accepted by either the black community or the white community. They said, “It will never be right — no matter what public opinion says.” But those days are gone, and those people have changed (or passed on).
Someday you’ll say the same of polygamy and incestuous marriage too.
In order for Polygamy to be legal the SCOTUS would have to reverse a previous ruling.
Incestuous marriage is illegal for genetic reasons. Pick up a book and read….you might learn something.
Interesting reply really. I have seen no national campaign on making Polygamy legal, nor incestuous relationship, nor beasteality for that matter. You seem interested in those areas, do you know something the rest of us dont? I think when people go so far out of the rhealm of possibility because they cannot change the inevitable, it proves just what type of person they are.
I’m not sure that polygamy is a bad thing. It seems to work out well for many families. You are nuts to think that incest will ever be permitted. It’s ignorant to compare same-sex marriage to incest.
wrong… I don’t recall where the bible says anything other than marriage is between a man and a woman. and they shall be as one… the rest of what you said is just another weak attempt to justify your sin
As a matter of fact, the word MARRIAGE is never mentioned in the Bible. The word wasn’t invented prior to the 13th or 14th Century…..
So please show is which scripture that says marriage is between a man and woman.
Spuds, it may never be right for YOU, in which case you should never EVER marry someone of the same sex.
Good advice. I’ll do as you suggest.
Perfectly worded editorial, thank you.
Keep shaking your fist in God’s face and it is only a matter of time… Isaiah 5:20
Every one is a sinner including you .
Yeah–but if he’s a Christian, he’s forgiven . . .
The Bible is NOT the basis of our countries laws.
Lets think on that one, Thou Shalt not Kill, Thou Shalt not Steal, ect……, try again.
Try again Jed. The U.S. legal code came to us courtesy of the British Common Law which can be traced back to the Code of Hammurabi (1772 B.C.) and that predates Moses by 381 years.
denying the 10 is not a great idea… you need to bring it up a notch to make a coherent argument that the 10 commandments were not used to help frame the thought process.. I doubt very very much that any of the framer of our constitution were thinking about the Code of Hammurabi when they were penning that document… predating moses and the commandments would only mean that it ( the code of hammurabi ) had been amended.. and replaced ….
The argument is coherent and logical…just because you don’t believe it doesn’t make in incoherent and illogical.
Based on your last sentence one could make the argument that Mosaic law (in fact all religious law) has been amended…and replaced.
Um, those are laws found in every society, not just those based on the Bible…
No, there is demonstrated harm in those acts. Try pointing to actual and direct harm in gay marriage — you can’t.
well except that one who sins repeatedly is likely to experience a judgement without salvation..for some that would be ranking right up there with major HARM.. so wolfideer you make a point that only someone in support of this sinful behavoir could dream up..
I said actual and direct harm. Your personal religion doesn’t apply to all, obviously. When someone steals, another is deprived of their property. That’s actual and direct harm. Please indicate the actual and direct harm a gay marriage would cause.
As we all know prior to the bible it was OK to kill, steal etc. It all changed only after the bible was written. ROFL
While the British Common Law is the basis of our Civil System it is not the basis of our criminal System. When the Constitution was written, there were specific point addressing abuses the colonist suffered under the British rule, which are addressed in the Bill of Rights. Most of the legislators who wrote the laws were Masons and used that training for the basis for writing the laws. Masonic rules are based in Biblical text. The ten commandments are the basis for many of the US laws and had been displayed at many court throughout the country. There is a movement to have the ten commandments removed from all Government building to promote non- christian values in the courts. Make no mistake, Judea-Christian values were behind our laws.
They will try anything to get away from the truth., I don not go to church, read the Bible, or even care, but I sure can read between the lines. I’m also not offended because the Ten Commandments are posted somewhere, or God is on our money. or see a see a cross in a Veterans Cemetery, it’s called Freedom of Religion, not Freedom From Religion.
Jed the truth, which you fail to acknowledge is the United States has no state religion. All religions are equal in value in this country.
Yes, you will find a sea of crosses in our Veterans Cemetery along side Stars of David, Crescent Moons, etc… Again, no one religion is more important than another religion.
“In God We Trust” and “Under God” were not part of the founding of our nation. They came along at a much later time.
The First Amendment says this – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…” That means you are free to worship who you want, when you want and how you want. It also means you are free not to worship if you desire. It also means that the state cannot establish a religion…no matter what you or others desire.
nice… well said and pointy at the same time ..
Very nice try to devalue the U.S. Constitution. The criminal and civil laws of this country are most certainly based on British Common Law. It is true that the U.S. Constitution provides the basis for our government and the Bill of Rights affords protections that are in direct response to the quartering of troops, state religion, etc…it is not true that the U.S. Constitution is based on Masonic rules. Without the Bill of Rights the parent document likely would have failed the rectification process.
It is also a fact that there is no mention of a Deity in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Don’t you find that odd if what you say is true?
By the way the Code of Hammurabi predates Mosaic Law by almost 400 years and contains many of the same provisions found in our law system. How do you account for that?
Somewhere in Maine there a a bunch of bigoted, ignorant, spirit in the sky, worshipers that will respond to your reasoned logical arguments by holding up their middle fingers the same way god told them to.
that is an opinion.. God’s law trumps…it’s a matter of belief.. no one will argue your comment ..it’s not an argument that is fruitful , but there is no doubt that George Washington consecrated this country on the steps of St. Pauls Cathedral in New York City in 1789, the , then capital of this country, a country under God, a Christian nation , during his inaguration speach as the first president of this great country.. all laws are derived from the Word of God..and just for kicks .. that Church still stands in the shadow of ground zero un harmed saved from destruction by a Sycamore tree
No paul it is a fact. If the Bible was, this country would be a very different place in which to live. For example, nothing would occur on the Sabbath…nothing.
So why is there no national religion if this is a “Christian country”?
And why does the FDNY station house that sits closer to Ground Zero then Trinity Church still stand? Or the hotel that serves as the welcome center/gift shop that sat directly across the street from Ground Zero still stand?
So the change in the drinking age from 21 to 18 to 19 and back to 21 was “derived from the Word of God”? Was God confused? No, I suspect that people were confused when they changed the law in the first place.
Paul believe what you want. But facts are facts…we are a secular nation. If you want to look at examples of theocracies, look at Iran they are after all ruled by religious leaders and hold to a very strict religious text and the people are so happy with all the freedoms they enjoy. If that is the type of country you want to live in….move. No one is stopping you and I believe they they still murder gays there so wont have SSM issues to deal with too.
I’m going with the Creator on this one.
me too
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”, then this same, amendment should allow people to marry more then one wife., or their sister or brother, cousins,(I know you can marry 1st cousins in ME). So anyone can use this clause to fit, their lifestyle.
The SCOTUS has already ruled on multiple wives and the ruled against it so want to try again. It called settled law.
And sisters, brothers, mothers and fathers have genetic reasons behind the prohibition.
Maybe YOU are the one that needs to retake biology class and pay special attention to the part about the off spring of closely related relatives.
So then the law can never give true EQUAL PROTECTION, because someone can always yells where is my equal protection?
Are you suggesting that we shouldn’t try? That unequal protection is better than equal protection?
It is not a matter of people yelling equal protection – that will always occur. It is more a matter of the Government’s mandate to be fair in dealing with its citizenry.
If the government puts into play a requirement that certain benefits only apply to heterosexuals, then it is incumbent on them to then show why it would not apply to homosexuals.
Well I guess they have a better argument now, laws can be changed when the law is not giving Equal Protection, I do beleive that is what this is all about, a bunch of people yelling where is our Equal Protection?
Jed when someone can get married in one state and has to move to another state because their work transfers them. And the state they they are transferred to doesn’t “recognize” their marriage that is “unequal” and flies against the 14th Amendment.
If you think or believe that the U.S. Constitution should not apply to ALL citizens of this country then maybe you would find yourself more welcome in say…Cuba, Russia, Iran, China, etc…where only the “right” people enjoy the protection of the country.
If you can’t argue against gay marriage without bringing up polygamy, you have no argument against gay marriage.
Its is not an argument for or against, it’s what is the definition of Equal Protection, when does it star and stop, anyone can yell I want my Equal Protection.
Maine and the country as a whole are closely divided on the subject of same-sex marriageAgain, lets check their math, 7 states passed same sex, 38 passed laws against same sex.
Someone needs to go back to math class.
That way the SCOTUS exists…to level the playing field.
If SCOTUS has to level the playing field, then you just proved my point, the Country is not divided, but has to be told and forced to go along. which makes this story wrong from the jump.
The national guard has had to come in and enforce the desegregation ruling decades ago.
You have no point here.
If you think or believe that the U.S. Constitution should not apply to
ALL citizens of this country then maybe you would find yourself more
welcome in say…Cuba, Russia, Iran, China, etc…where only the “right”
people enjoy the protection of the country.
I am curious why these states that are ammending state constitutions are allowed to do so when it cleary goes against the 14th Ammendment fo the U.S. Constitution? Are there lawsuits being filed against these states. There certainly should be. Time for the United States to be an example and send a message to the rest of the world that when we say we are the Land of the Free, we do NOT discriminate against any type of peoples.
Constitutional challenges are making their way up through the courts. We operate under the rule of law, and it takes time for legal arguments to make it from a local/state challenge to the US Supreme Court.
We have been a country for 236 years, and it took this long to figure out. Thats a pretty slow process.
How long was slavery legal before we figured it out that is was WRONG? Try again.
Plenty of discriminating going on in this country, just look at what is going on with smoking, I do not smoke, we live in the so called free country, but I could not build a smoking restaurant, and if you do not smoke stay out of my restaurant, but instead people go in a bar and complain and now they have to stop smoking, where is there right to smoke, if you don’t smoke stay out. go some place else. smoking banned outside, give me a dam break Free is slipping away.
Smoking is a choice. Try again.
Roughly speaking, the 10th Amendment states that things not defined on a federal level belong to the State. As such, without a national policy on marriage, the States are free to pass what they want.
Obviously, at time the Federal government needs to step in an override the states when their priorities conflict with the core vales of the nation as a whole.
-J
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
When a person is married in one state and moves to another that no longer recognizes their marriage it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment as they have been deprived of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” and the “equal protection of the laws”.
I’m not sure why you responded to me. I am a proponent for SSM. I was simply answering JeffCol question as to how States derive the power to pass anti-SSM measures.
The policy is called equal rights for all.
If the government decides that a cat is really a dog, does it make it true? Of course not. That’s why gay marriage will never really be the same as regular marriage between one man and one woman, even if it becomes legal in all 50 states. Because marriage is, by definition, the joining of one man to one woman for the purpose of creating new life, through heterosexual procreation. Gay marriage cannot create life. All of you gay marriage advocates can argue whatever you’d like about human rights and other unrelated issues. The bottom line is, and always will be, that gay marriage is not real marriage. Sorry to break the news to you.
Then help us vote in civil marriage for same-sex couples this November, and rest easy that the couples it benefits won’t be married in your opinion.
Sorry. I can’t vote for something that defies logic, reason, and science.
Why don’t we remove the word marriage from state law, call all unions sanctioned by the state Civil Unions and if you want to call it marriage you go to a church and have it solemnized there in “Holy Matrimony”?
Why not just call it Civil Unions, and not Marrriage?
Why don’t we remove the word marriage from state law, call all unions
sanctioned by the state Civil Unions and if you want to call it marriage
you go to a church and have it solemnized there in “Holy Matrimony”?
That is the dumbest thing on this post. Why not call it Civil Unions, and they can think they are Married, in your oppinion.
Then, by your standards, people who are infertile should not be able to get married. People who don’t want children, people who already have children and don’t intend to have more, people who are past their childbearing age, etc. should not be able to get married. People who are currently legally married but have no children would also, therefore, not be married. Do you see how illogical that really is?
No, not at all. You are always going to have a few exceptions to the norm. Those rare exceptions do not override the reality that most heterosexual marriages result in the reproduction of human life. Absolutely zero homosexual marriages will result in the reproduction of human life. This is the one issue that unites both evolutionists and creationists, since homosexuality is not only strongly prohibited in the Holy Bible, but it also stands opposed to The Theory of Evolution and science itself, given that it does not perpetuate life within the human species. The primary reason why gay marriage is gaining in popularity in Western Culture is because our culture has begun a process of decline, much like other empires have experienced throughout history. Our culture is not only rejecting the core religious beliefs upon which it was founded, but it is also turning from the logic-based scientific processes upon which so many of its successes were founded. It is unfortunate, but probably inevitable as well.
There is no requirement to procreate to get married. Some couples choose not to, some choose to adopt or foster. It’s not what we’re discussing, so you have no point here.
miss the point much… some should not enter into a discussion where the brain actually needs to be used… this one of those duh momentrs for wolfndeer
Miss the rules much…some should not enter into a discussion before they read the rules…this is one those moments for Paul.
So where do I find the line on the marriage license that says procreation is a requirement for this license?
Funny, you don’t have a real argument so you resort to a personal attack. This is one of those desperation moments for you.
Your handle is misleading.
The definition of marriage in this country is that of a legal contract between two people. While it certainly does also carry some religious connotations, the Government has no vested interest in recognizing that particular aspect not does it care about whether the union bears offspring.
Once the Government tied legal aspects to the license, it becomes incumbent on the Government to ensure that it is applied equally to all citizens. This is precisely why SSM will eventually become to the equal to “traditional” marriage.
-J
the problem is that it is a religious issue.. we didn’t make it that way ..God did.. the seperation clause is there to keep gov’t out of our churches not to keep religion out of gov’t.. we , as Christians and citizens should never try to make a law that promotes sinful relations.. it is clear that out bible says this activity is an abomination.. a sin. we are in moral desent as a society .. our moral values are at an all time low, and it is affecting our relationship with our Lord.. anyone who denies this is just fooling themselves..we cannot, as a society, condone and support sinful behavoir and most certainly should not create a law that says it’s perfectly ok to commit this sin.. what next.? any one of the 10 commandments could be next.. or child molestation could be next… sound out rageous of course but so did this 20 years ago… a sin is still a sin.. and we don’t get to pick and chose which ones are ok to commit and which ones are not…this is very dangerous territory…
“the seperation clause is there to keep gov’t out of our churches not to keep religion out of gov’t”
Ah Paul,
Point # 1 – it is the “Establishment Clause” not the “seperation clause”. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Point #2 – Establishment means exactly what you say it doesn’t. The First Amendment prevents the U.S. Government from establishing a state religion akin to the Church of England. That would be to keep religion out of government. When the framers of the Constitution wrote the document the King of England was not only the head of the government but also the head of the Church of England and was consider Divine.
No matter how many times you continue to post inaccurate information it will not make it any more accurate or truthful.
This whole subject is getting old and boring to those that don’t make sexual preference the forefront of their existence. Civil rights? Yea, right.
Another logical argument against SSM…not and a wonderful example why Civil Rights are so important to our society.