I'll come out and say it, and then let the discussion start flowing:

I do not believe the government should be in our lives, or our bedroom. The government's role is to secure and protect us against foreign invaders and fraud/manipulation, while at the same time doing what WE want it to do.


In other words, let the gays do whatever the heck they want in their own house; let the drug users do whatever they want in their own house. On the same token, leave the private organizations and corporations refusing membership to any gay, black, hispanic, etc. alone.


But, I do not believe state governments should recognize a same-sex union, or homosexual marriage. -OR- be able to adopt children.

Seriously, and I think I might have support on this, if we were to allow gays to marry, then we'd have to allow Ma' Bell and her male horse, who she has sex with, get married.

And not only that, but we should recognize marriage between a man and a dead woman --- using the stance that gay marriage should be permitted and recognized.

Anyone in on this one with me?

Gays in Texas are flaming mad (tee hee) because Gov. Rick Perry signed a law strengthening the Defense of Marriage Act, which provides for the man-woman traditional marriage, NOT same-sex unions.

Discuss.

Just being gay doesn't degrade marriage institution

http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/column/guest/52462.php

By Sherri Byrand
July 9, 2003

Last week's Newsweek cover pictured two males embracing behind the headline "Is Gay Marriage Next?"

My first thought recalled the previous cover of Newsweek: "No Sex, Please, We're Married: Are Stress, Kids, and Work Killing Romance?"

Hmmm. I showed my husband. He didn't get the connection immediately, but then (what with stress levels and all that) he doesn't get much lately. I drew it out for him: If gays marry, then they'd be having a lot less sex, too. It would seem the perfect solution for those who ask that we should hate the sin, but love the sinner. But of course, nothing's as simple as it seems.

Not covered in Newsweek was the just-proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage - or protect marriage (depending on how you look at the issue). Supporters have rallied behind what they see as the need to protect the "sanctity of marriage" from the debasement of "hellfire sinners" like homosexuals.

So here I sit, Christian, heterosexual, politically moderate, and married only once, and for more than 16 years. Married in a ceremony that intentionally left out "till death do us part" because we thought our commitment should last longer - like eternity.

I am left to question why homosexuality debases marriage, but no one's been on the bandwagon about adultery. And let's face it, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is one of the Ten Commandments. Homosexuality didn't make the list.

Why no constitutional amendments about adulterers not being allowed to enter into another marriage contract once they've ruined one? Why no federal mandate making adultery a crime punishable by fine or imprisonment (a la the Texas anti-gay act law just struck down by the Supreme Court)?

Then I looked further. If marriage is indeed sacred, as "sanctity of marriage" asserts, then why do we as a society allow it to be so easily entered into? Couples don't even have to go to the Department of Marriage Vows and take a written test to prove they have the bare minimum awareness of what it takes to be a decent spouse.

In Sheboygan, kids 16 can get married with just parental consent. States like Texas, Alabama, New York, and Connecticut all allow kids as young as 14 to enter into marriage as long as they have parental consent and/or a judge's approval.

They can't vote, can't drive (in most states), can't get a video rental card, but 14-year-olds can get married, as long as mommy and daddy say it's OK. And this doesn't disgrace the status of marriage?

Why no "three strikes and you're out" policy when it comes to getting married? We'll let you have two divorces, but after that, you better make it work; otherwise, no more state-sanctioned shenanigans?

But no, instead we are just focused on the likes of four of my friends: two lesbians who entered into a civil union in Vermont two years ago (after six years of living together), and two gay men who have been in a mutually monogamous relationship for nearly 25 years (and now with blessings from an Episcopal church). I can't see fully into their relationships, but I don't need to. What I have seen has all the hallmarks of the healthiest marriages of my heterosexual friends, like commitment and deeply cherishing each other.

For so long, those against civil rights laws said, "You can't legislate morality." Now, those in favor of discriminating against homosexuals are saying, "Yes, we will."

Just last week, I heard the author of the new biography "Ben Franklin, An American Life" talk of how that Founding Father edited the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson originally wrote, "We hold these truths to be sacred." Franklin suggested "self-evident," given their desire to base the government on reason, not religion. Jefferson concurred.

I hold that it's not up to the government to sanctify anything. The solution here is that all marriage licenses from the government be civil contracts only - giving the couple (gay or straight) certain legal rights and responsibilities when it comes to such things as property and insurance.

If those getting married want sanctification, they should go to their churches, synagogues, or mosques. And those places of worship then would have every right to bestow the blessings or withhold them, establishing their own criteria for what - or who - would make a sacred marriage.

But none of that is on the legislative plate - just the amendment saying no to gays getting hitched. Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee gave his support it, saying, "I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament."

I know with all my heart that my marriage is a sacrament. But the state didn't make it so: My husband and I did. And sure as heck, no other person's activities in marriage - gay or straight - can chip away at what we've built.

Sherri Byrand is a Sunday editorial page columnist for the Sheboygan Press, where this column originally appeared. E-mail: byrand@earthlink.net

As long as you deem love between two people of the same sex acceptable, I don't see why such a marriage would be unacceptable. Marriage is simply a formal affirmation of that love. As far as I'm concerned the definition of marriage as being only between a man and a woman is strictly biblical.

As far as adoption goes I see no reason for gays to be barred from having a family. Joey, how is that you think it would "hurt the child to grow up with gay parents"? Do you mean that other people's reactions to the gay marriage could be damaging to the child's self-image? If so, I'd say that there are people in this country who don't think blacks should be allowed to adopt. Or Jews. Or political extremists. There are people out there who are willing to oppose almost anything they see as a character "flaw". I happen to think that any child raised by gay parents for instance would probably have an advantage over other children, as they would have first-hand knowledge of bias and stereotyping and would learn early on of the importance of overcoming these obstacles.

Joey, you also said that they "aren't made to have children" and "if they wanted a child they should of went with the opposite sex".

To the first statement I say: What about women who are sterile due to disease or genetics? They evidently weren't "made to have children", should they be allowed to adopt?

And to the second part: To my understanding homosexuality is not a conscious choice. It's what feels natural for the individual. If the situation were reversed and you wanted children would you marry a man for the sake of being able to have a child? If you're not homosexual, I would hope not. Likewise if a man is not heterosexual it's unreasonable to expect him to marry a woman solely for the right to raise a family.

Joey, you still haven't answered my question from my last post...

You sound pro-states' rights. Do you believe in the power of states over the federal government? I think the supreme court should have the power to declare state's rights unconstitutional. After all, they are under the same constitution as every one else.

i dont agree with you man... evry body should be treated equally no matter how different they are. let the damn woman marry a horse.

Joey you are cool nad all but I will never understand your poliocal views. LOL or anyone elses. Darn for people haveing minds of their own. LOL but anywayz,,,,is'nt it the goverments job to make sure we are all treated equal?

Because that's one of the established roles of the supreme court; like it or not, that's what it is and has been.

But I suspect that what you really want to know is how that role came about and what it's legal basis is, right? Of course, you already know the answer to that, but I'll reiterate it. Marbury v. Madison established judicial review, and it's been the basis of everything the court has done since.

I know everything comes down to the Constitution for you, Joey, so go to Article 3, Section 2: Quite simply, it says that the Supreme Court is the final authority on "all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html

Rights not reserved for the Government belong to the People, or to the States --- to paraphrase the 10th Amendment.

So whatever is NOT in the Constitution should be left up to the states. Please tell me where the Supreme Court gets off overruling states' rights?

while we're discussing government getting involved with morality.......can't this also go in the way that prostitution should be legal?

I mean i'm not saying i quite agree with this statement ( i'm kind of undecided at this point) but wouldn't it make sense?

If a girl wants to have sex with a man and needs some cash and the man is willing, then Why Not?
It's her morals and her beliefs. It's not right to most of the population, but government shouldn't get invovled with morality, RIGHT?

I think that sometimes the government does sometimes try to force itself on us. Some of the laws are absolutly ridiculous. I however think that people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want to do in their homes or private clubs AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T HURT ANYONE. If Augusta National doesn't want to allow women members why should it? It's a private club. Augusta National is saying the same thing to women that I say to solicitors everytime they call me phone "I don't want you. Leave me alone." If a person wants to sodomize in their bedroom, and it's not rape, then they should be allowed to do it. But if someone is using drugs that could easily hurt others. Especially, if they leave the house. But it can cause harm inside the house too. So, yes, I think the government has the right to control part of our lives for the good of ourself and others, but that it should give us freedom to lead our own life.

I'd brought this issue up earlier saying sodomy was still illegal in TX... but no longer!! Score one for the gay community. The Supreme Court has ruled the Texas statue unconstitutional.

More detail here: Court overturns Texas sodomy law (MSN)

I am not sure where I am in this subject i have a lot of opinions I read most of these Messages all show good points!

this is where I am



Marriage
I do think that is is about love and all I dont think they should be married.maybe I am wrong. I always felt in my heart that marriage was only suppost to be man and woman becoming one.

Dating
Fine all them that is there chose they want to be with another an or women fine enjoy your choice. It doesnt mean people will accept you. I mean that is your choice not there but people might feel that only women and man should be married. I feel it is there choice and there choice ONLY!

Adoption
No...they might be good with children and all but i feel that it might hurt the child to grow up with gay parents. And they arent made to have children if they wanted child they should of went with the opposite sex.

That is just my opinion maybe I am wrong I dunno!!!

quote:

---

Still, I'm not - and will not budge - from the gay adoption thing. That I will hold.

---

Why? What is it about gay people that makes them less fit to raise a child. If the child is up for adoption, chances are they'd have a much better lifestyle with gay parents than they currently have. The goal of adoption is to give a person loving parents; If I lived in China I'd rather be adopted by a gay couple than stay in China.

quote:

---

But, now, as I got thinking about it more, the more I realized: if gays want to get married, they will have to abide by the same tax laws, the same rules, regulations, restrictions placed upon homeowners, property owners, etc., etc.

---

Agreed. And I don't believe any gay marriage proponents are asking for exceptions to be made for them.

quote:

---

No special "benefits" because your partner gets AIDS. No special tax reduction because your gold shorts-wearing boyfriend, "Jen" wants to become a woman...

---

AIDS is no the "gay disease" like it is so often stereotyped to be. The risk of getting AIDS is there for everyone. And the "Jen" comment does not accurately show the average gay relationship. Gay rights groups try to distance themselves from this image. But yes, agreed, no exceptions like these examples. That would be ridiculous.

quote:

---

Still, I'm not - and will not budge - from the gay adoption thing. That I will hold.

---

Why are you so strongly opposed to gay adoption? I'm not sure how I feel. Couples would still have to be screened. There are unfit gay parents and unfit "traditional" parents. I guess society still has the mindset that it is best to be raised by a man and a woman, although that is not how most children are raised.

Okay, well, the Government does not sanction (or shouldn't) marriages - the Bible does, or whatever belief system you people have.

But, now, as I got thinking about it more, the more I realized: if gays want to get married, they will have to abide by the same tax laws, the same rules, regulations, restrictions placed upon homeowners, property owners, etc., etc.

No special "benefits" because your partner gets AIDS. No special tax reduction because your gold shorts-wearing boyfriend, "Jen" wants to become a woman...

...if we're going to say okay to marriages, then they abide by equal playing rules.

Still, I'm not - and will not budge - from the gay adoption thing. That I will hold.

quote:

---

Ya, I agree ...the homosexuals, if they want, should be able to marry.

---

Basically, yeah. If homosexuals weren't allowed to marry, then that would be legislating morality. I mean, what's the big deal? It's not liking giving them tax benifits for marriage is going to kill you. I think those bible worshiping loons are just scared of em. But, what do expect from people who follow a religion that survives by playing upon a person's fears i.e. homophobia, fear of the unknown, etc. And here's a question: If homophobia is a phobia, why don't homophobes go to a psychiatrist? Its just as crazy as hydrophobia or claustrophobia.

I thought I'd hop in this discussion.

JoeyDauben: Now you support gay marriage? I'm just a little confused because you seemed so opposed to it in your first post. If so, I'm glad to see your position has changed.

The fact of the matter is the government will always be legislating morality, at least to some degree, and America is an example of a country who does this all the time. Laws are derived from morals. Our morals say it is wrong to kill another person, therefore it is illegal to commit murder. See the connection? Whatever the larger society deems as immoral is illegal. Right now gay marriage is illegal. Sodomy is still illegal is several states. The government will always legistate at least some level of morality but I consider that too far. I feel the views towards gay relationships needs to be updated. The impression of the gay community has always changed over time. In the 50's, "gays" were sent the phsychiatrists for treatment and it was believed (and is still believed by many) that this "mental disease" could be reverse so they could live a "normal" life. It is time to once again change the attitude towards gays... this time to completely accept their lifestyle and now have laws that interferre with that. This means legalizing gay marriages.

quote:

---

its not like they have gone totally Big Brother on us...yet

---

Read more newspapers or online news sites. You're not fully out from under that rock.



Well, Dante, I've thought about it, and you're pretty much right on the money. If gays want to marry, why can't they? How can prisoners in two separate Texas prisons who were guilty of murder get married, but gays cant? Hmm.

Ya, I agree ...the homosexuals, if they want, should be able to marry.

But I'm just not real supportive of the adoption teal. I'm sorry, but that's the one I have a real big problem with.


Anyway, the government is not going to tell me who I can or cannot marry. It's not their place. But I still don't have to hire them.

Ok, let me get this straight:

You already know your position on the issue but you don't know why you believe that way and you can't think of a good argument for it?
You say you came here to learn but it seems like you've already got your mind made up.

You're not prejudiced against homosexuals but you don't want to allow them basic rights?
Your evidence that you're not prejudiced is that you have gay friends? This speaks more to their tolerance than yours, as you would treat them as second-class citizen yet they stand by you. You should be happy you have such good friends.