Comments on: Stop Same Sex Marriage

By: JohnC

JohnC — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:19:13 +0000

In my opinion the worst term used in this debate is “One man, one woman.” It demeans gay marriage by implying that it is on par with polygamy and marrying inanimate objects or, gulp, animals.

That is very, very thinly veiled hate.

By: Mike Bellina

Mike Bellina — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 03:31:08 +0000

I agree with you 100%. For a country that preaches tolerance, we certainly put people into definable categories. Hispanic, African-American, Gay, Straight, Blue, Purple, you name it. Why make these distinctions? I think we would be better off just calling everyone in this country what they are… Americans.

As for same-sex marriages, marriage is a state of mind. Yes, there are vows and such, but I know of people who treat them as just words. To be married is not a function of any church or state, it is a commitment between two people regardless of sex. What is the big deal if two men or women chose to share that commitment? They’re going be just as miserable as the rest of us.

By: LeoC

LeoC — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:00:13 +0000

Podcast Mike: You’ve *almost* hit the nail on the head. The problem is that marriage is BOTH a religious ceremony AND a civil contract. Over history, the importance of the two factors has varied, but they’ve become badly entangled. And THAT is the fundamental heart of the problem.

Same-sex couples want the same civil, secular treatment as others. Including the opportunities made available by the legal condition of marriage.

You might want to remember that, throughout history, established churches have failed to recognize marriages by other clergy. So protestant marriages were not recognized in catholic countries and vice-versa. Today, we have “solved” that problem by allowing any clergy to sanctify a marriage, and we accord them equal weight in law.

So the Lutheran church may deny a same-sex couple a Lutheran wedding, but Buddhist weddings, and Hindu weddings, and Shinto weddings are equally valid before the law. And it’s that part of things – the part before the law – that is what the legal efforts are primarily about. This is why Canada’s bill C-38 is the “Civil Marriage Act” ; because it’s about civil law. Canon law may be very different, but we have separation of church and state.

By: Christopher S. Penn

Christopher S. Penn — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 01:04:10 +0000

Podcast Mike – if marriage is a function of the church, then technically isn’t any treatment of married couples vs. single couples discrimination based on religion?

By: Podcast Mike

Podcast Mike — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 05:02:26 +0000

The post isn’t around at the moment (due to reorg of personal site), but I put up a post about gay “marriage” a couple years ago. Basically it said, as a Lutheran I don’t believe gays should be able to get “married”. Marriage is a function of the Church since the times of the Bible. HOWEVER, I do feel that gay couples should have the exact same rights as a married couple.

By: Chef Mark

Chef Mark — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 04:15:17 +0000

YES! I’ve been saying this for years…now maybe with a straight guy saying it, people will start to listen! Luv ya, Chris!