I don’t agree with Gay marriage or plural marriage (keep reading, I have a point) BUT I do believe that everyone should have the choice to live how they wish to live (pursuit of happiness blah blah blah) because I have no right to enforce my beliefs on someone else. I disagree with abortion too, but hell, I am sure GLAD that the choice was available to me.

This country is FOUNDED on the principles of having the freedom from oppression and persecution. I am sure gay marriage was never thought about by our founding fathers, but I think that dictating with whom someone could marry based on gender alone falls under the definition of discrimination. Outlawing it falls under oppression.

Am I comfortable with the idea? NO. Am I willing to fight for the idea? SURE, it’s a basic human right. Why can I marry a man and not a woman? That doesn’t make sense — we are all equal, except for gender. WHY?

The things that pisses me off the most is that the Christian right says absolutely nothing about protecting the sanctity of marriage from television shows like, “Who Wants to Marry a Complete Stranger Who May or May Not Be a Millionaire, And Who Will Pick His Bride From a Whole Stable of Ho Bags (One of Whom May Actually Be a Lesbian or a Man in Drag) Based On A Season’s Worth of Televised Dates and Votes Called in by American Viewers.”

Clearly those are the sacred ties that bind, but my 29 years with my partner are a danger to society. I’ve got the Canadian immigration forms, people.

Right on. Also, word.

I’m very proud of the city where I live — last year, our domestic partner registry was the first pro-gay legislation (incidentally, it also benefits us heteros who want to cohabit) ever passed by voter initiative. It’s small, but it’s something, and it gives me hope. If I ever have a child who is gay, I don’t want to be stuck explaining that this marriage amendment nonsense happened on my watch.

The thing that the government keeps selectively forgetting for the sake of ‘morals’ is the fact that married couples tend to pay MORE taxes overall than individuals or domestic partnerships. If anything, I cant understand why they wouldnt be all FOR it! Money Good. Gay Bad. Therefore, Gay Money Bad. Puhleeese. They need to get their priorities straight (no pun intended.)

F’in let them marry, already!!

Personally I don’t understand why they government affords special rights to single people anyway. Why do we need ANY marriages, beyond civil unions? If you want to add something special to your legal agreement by going to a church, go for it. If not then you simply have a civil union.

Consenting adults should be able to form civil unions with any consenting adults they want to. Including platonic family members, good friends, and yes — including multiple romantic partners if they are all consenting adults. The argument that people will want to marry dogs or kids does not apply, since both dogs and kids are minors who can never be consenting adults. I knew this one shetland sheepdog that lived to be 19, but trust me, no one wanted to marry her. She was blind and only had about half her fur. Very sad.

I do think we will have better luck if we try to respect and acknowledge why the idea of gay marriage might be wiggy to some people. Calling them crazy and ignorant is only going to further the divide. The fact is that they have NO rational argument against gay marriage. Their arguments sound crazy because they are trying to explain something using logical terms that is simply very upsetting on a gut level.

A lot of arguments are that way. Death penalty arguments usually boil down to: Look, I just find it upsetting, okay? Arguments over limiting abortion, arguments over gun control — these are things that people have very strong gut-level feelings about. Then we try to put words on those opinions, and the words make no sense because the words aren’t able to explain the real reason. Usually the real reason would be better expressed with a nervous “AHhhhhhHHHH!!!!” or “Eeek” or “Urgh, I dunno, I just… Urgh.”

On the plurality/strain on health insurance issue: what is there about a person with 8 spouses that places more of a strain on their company’s health insurance than a person with one spouse and 7 kids?

Jon, I don’t live in Utah. I won’t be voting with you. I would if I did.

Tamara, I understand these are not your arguments.

»polygamist marriages, marriages with minors without parental permission, marriages with their dog

1. Nobody is talking about these. 2. There are reasons I see to be concerned about these that don’t apply to gay marriages, namely the likely inequality of power in these relationships. Marriage between two consenting adults is different for that reason alone.

»places a strain on the tax system…

We’re talking about a minority here! How much of a strain could this change produce? And anyway, a financial strain doesn’t justify denying a group of people their rights. (Would we refuse to care for our children based on finances? Shouldn’t homosexuals have the right to care for each other? … in both sense of the word!)

As to sanctity, others here have already pointed out the inconsistency in the objection when marriage is already treated so cavalierly by heteros.

Ach, it all makes me sad.

I absolutely agree, Jon. As the comments kept posting, I was noticing a trend. Several people mentioned health care and the argument that people would marry for health benefits and other domestic partnership benefits.
I think by effectively dealing with the issue of gay marriage (really listening and figuring out where the government should stand) the government would have to acknowledge how f*d up other aspects are. Like healthcare. Why should someone have to get married or enter into a domestic partnership to afford something like healthcare which can affect whether they live or die?

On the parenting issue, everyone should realize that in most cases (particularly in gale male family households) these men had to go through rigorous questioning and investigation and checking and whatever else in order to be able to pay a bazillion dollars to raise a child who needs a home (I’m speaking of adoption here.…) Which, after passing these “tests” probably makes them better suitable to be parents than a lot of us. Whereas Suzzy Slutbag can go out and get knocked up by her pimp and be considered a parent.
It just seems unfathomable that it is okay to be a crack-mom (just be careful because after the 6th mess up you’re kids might go to the government) but it’s not okay to be a great parent who has a legitimate job and love their family, if you are gay.
::argh::
::stepping off my soapbox now::
Have a great day everyone.

But what about Plural Gay Marriage?

In all honesty after living in utah for 25 years, and the (believe it or not) even more conservative (if not ran by any individual church) state of Nebraska.

Alll negative talk on gay marriage always comes down to “my God or our God” — how can any constitution, state or national who claims to follow the little tid-bit about seperation of church and state even consider this an issue???? When in fact it comes down to the religeous right?

Jon:

I’m Methodist. Have been all my life. I do believe the Bible’s teachings that homosexuality is immoral, but I also remember all the bits that talk about the law not being salvific.

That said, I have never had a problem with marriage between any two consenting adults, regardless of their gender or sexuality.

What I do have a problem with is the fact that the state deems it necessary to sanction marriage, place bounds upon it, and give married folks breaks. I’m one of those annoying people that thinks that the state should deal with us all as individuals.

But that’s just me.

The whole “What if people want to marry a dog or a six-year-old” argument makes no sense at all. We have laws about consent. You can’t marry someone who is in a coma, even if s/he’s already engaged to you, because the person can’t consent. A dog can’t consent to get married. We have laws that say that fourteen-year-olds are not of an age where they can consent. Very young people can’t legally consent to get married, or enter into a contract, or all kinds of things.

Allowing consenting, of-age adults of the same sex to marry in no way opens the door to marrying children (who are under age-of-consent) or rocks or pets (incapable of consenting).

Wow, I just re-read my post. That first sentence says the exact opposite of what I meant. I have a toddler who talks to me CONTINUOUSLY. All the time. I was trying to respond to your post while being told about measuring cups and something to do with a toy fish.

What I meant to say was that I don’t think that marriage should give anyone special rights. You should be ale to designate any consenting adult as your number one ace who can see you in the hospital if you’re sick, who gets your health benefits, who files jointly with you on your tax returns, who shares your credit, etc. Those things should have nothing to do with whether or not the relationship is romantic or sexual.

Finally! Thank you for being the one to come out and say it. I am totally supporting the Blurbomat platform on this one.