Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MARRIAGE: Purpose is to nurture children

Letter by Alice Cecilia Hori, Auburn on Jan. 9, 2012 at 11:37 am with 62 Comments »
January 9, 2012 1:29 pm

The question of same-sex marriage is usually approached as though the state awarded couples the benefits of marriage by right of their mutual affection – and shouldn’t all affections be included as a matter of justice?

But the purpose of state-sponsored marriage is to protect and nurture children, not to dignify every sort of fond feeling. Same-sex romantic partnerships are, by their nature, unrelated to the production and raising of children and so are not the kind of friendships suitable for marriage.

In contrast, sexual love between a man and a woman is fundamentally ordered to the procreation of children. Children are the expected natural outcome of the relationship, which forms, not coincidentally, the ideal arrangement for their care and raising.

The statistics are beyond dispute at this point: Children do best socially, emotionally, academically and materially if they are raised and nurtured by their own parents in a single household. Marriage between a man and a woman is the best incubator of future citizens, so governments have always tried to promote and fortify the institution.

Others may “pinch-hit” in the raising of children when the natural family structure has collapsed. However, an intact natural family is statistically preferable, and society recognizes this fact through the rights and benefits conferred by state marriage.

 

Leave a comment Comments → 62
  1. aislander says:

    No doubt; no doubt. But…here we go again!

  2. muckibr says:

    Nurturing children is one purpose of marriage to be sure. But. it’s not the ONLY purpose of marriage.

    Alice states that statistics prove something, but she never provides any proof that she really has statistics to support her claim. It’s just her opinion, nothing more.

    Alice: “On January 10, 2007, a group calling itself the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance filed Washington Initiative 957 (2007) to put one part of the Andersen decision into law by making procreation a requirement for all marriage in Washington State. The stated rationale was to prompt public examination on the premise that marriage exists for the purpose of procreation and to create a test case whereby Andersen could be struck down as unconstitutional. The initiative was withdrawn by its sponsors on July 3, 2007 after receiving too few signatures to qualify for the November 2007 ballot.”

    From ==> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Washington

    Alice, apparently the majority of Washington state voters DO NOT AGREE that marriage is only for procreation and child nurturing. If they did, they probably would have signed the petitions. Sorry about that!

  3. Copper2Steel says:

    How very disheartening it is that Ms. Hori’s belief means that if a person (or couple) is incapable of producing a child, s/he should not marry… or at very least means that there’s really no point.

    What does that mean for heterosexuals who cannot have children?

    Marriage is about the relationship, not a POSSIBLE result of a sexual union.

  4. aislander says:

    Copper2Steel writes: “Marriage is about the relationship, not a POSSIBLE result of a sexual union.”

    Not only “possible,” but probable. Most new marriages result in children.

    Marriage is “about the relationship” to the people in the relationship. The state’s interest is in promoting a stable environment for the rearing of offspring…

  5. muckibr says:

    ” Most new marriages result in children.”

    Please provide some proof or documentation or link supporting your OPINION.

  6. “Same-sex romantic partnerships are, by their nature, unrelated to the production and raising of children and so are not the kind of friendships suitable for marriage.”

    Since my wife and I were married well after our respective children were grown and gone, and since we have no plans on having more children, I guess we shouldn’t have been allowed to be legally married.

  7. “The statistics are beyond dispute at this point: Children do best socially, emotionally, academically and materially if they are raised and nurtured by their own parents in a single household”

    Not according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. They studied the issue and concluded:

    “There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and any measure of a child’s emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.”

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/349.full

  8. aislander says:

    Peer-reviewed study affirms importance of opposite-sex parents: Journal of Communication and Religion, November 2008…

    http://secularheretic-st.blogspot.com/2009/01/opposite-sex-parent-reltionships-girls.html

  9. muckibr says:

    ========
    WARNING
    ========

    The comment posted above on JAN. 9, 2012 AT 2:13 PM bears no resemblance whatsoever to Fact or Truth.

    If it were actual FACT or TRUTH it would have some attribution in the form of a researchable document or web link that one could use to verify the data.

    As it is simply the unfounded opinion of it’s remiss author, it may be completely ignored.

  10. ManuelMartini says:

    “Children do best socially, emotionally, academically and materially if they are raised and nurtured by their own parents in a single household.”

    Now if the letter writer could just get heterosexuals to stop divorcing.

  11. ManuelMartini says:

    A religious personal Google blog takes a stand against gay marriage?

    Amazing.

  12. aislander says:

    …which is why the study title was included.

  13. I do not dispute the fact that a child raised by a gay couple is better off than say a child raised in a home where spousal abuse is occuring. Nurturing a child IS the essential thing.

    That said, the ideal situation, and I base this on many many years of observation is for a child to experience the balance provided by having a male and a female parent. Despite all efforts to deny it, men and women ARE different and they bring very different sensibilities to the business of child-rearing.

    We should not acquiesce to what is passable for our children by denying them what’s absolutely best for them whenever possible. Many will disagree with my notion of what is best, but I will stand by it which is what those opposed to gay marriage are doing.

  14. ManuelMartini says:

    How many children of gay parents did you observe, sozo?

    First, answer how you knew they were gay. I knew two women that raised their collective four children in the same house for the purpose of sharing expenses because one was a nursing student and the other was starting a business.

    Good parenting has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

  15. aislander says:

    So whom do the children of such parents mirror?

  16. Well, aislander, just based on what I have found on the web, I would say the children would mirror whichever parent that they had an unresolved issue with. And apparently, it doesn’t matter if that parent is male or female, because children of either sex can mirror with parents of either sex. The act of mirroring does not seem gender limited.

    Here’s just one of the site I looked at

    http://thecarolblog.com/do-our-children-always-mirror-our-issues-back-to-us/

  17. If the argument about restricting same-sex couples from enjoying the basic human civil right of marriage was all about nurturing the children, then perhaps we should base our decision on this study. Unfortunately, it would mean that opposite sex partners would not be able to marry.

    Children of same-sex couples scored higher than kids in opposite-sex families on psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.

    http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html

  18. “The Journal of Education and Religion”? ROFL – do ya think they just MIGHT have an axe to grind?

  19. sozo epitomizes to the tee those people who are otherwise fairly intelligent but on this issue refuse to look at any facts, arguments based on scientific information or the reasons why this country was founded.

    What is best for children is far from their minds. Note sozo’s comment that she realizes many gay families would be best for children who are in many straight marriages, but she would still refuse to recognize them because, well, just because it doesn’t fit her own preconceptiion of what a marriage should look like.

    They believe that we should use the power of government to restrict people who want to create a nurturing family environment in a same-sex marriage while acknowledging that it would be a better environment than many opposite-sex marriages. How is that for a weird argument(and a dangerous one for our society, too) .

  20. aislander, I finally was able to read the actual article your blog citation was based on. It was “peer reviewed” by other Christian educators, not social scientists. Their alst conclusion in their study was : “The family that prays together, stays together”

    The article was about divorce, by the way, not same-sex marriages. The comparisons were about single parent families and two-parent families (yes all were straight).

    The article I cited, however, studied both single parent and two-parent gay families and was an actual scietific study, not a religious exercise. The authors are employed by Eastern Nazarene College as communication instructors.

  21. My insertion point was off, and the authors I am talking about in the last sentence of my post above are the ones for aislander’s religious article, not my scientific one.

  22. Tuddo writes, sozo epitomizes to the tee those people who are otherwise fairly intelligent but on this issue refuse to look at any facts, arguments based on scientific information or the reasons why this country was founded.

    To which I reply, I do not ignore these things, but I look beyond them to a higher source when it comes to the subject of family. The wisdom of God often seems like folly to the world.

    Tuddo also writes: sozo’s comment that she realizes many gay families would be best for children who are in many straight marriages, but she would still refuse to recognize them because, well, just because it doesn’t fit her own preconceptiion of what a marriage should look like.

    To which I reply: “Huh?”

    This is what I said:

    I do not dispute the fact that a child raised by a gay couple is better off than say a child raised in a home where spousal abuse is occuring.

    Standing by it, as well as standing by my comment that we should not substitute “okay; for the ideal.

  23. I am curious about this comment from aislander…

    JAN. 9, 2012 AT 9:21 PM “So whom do the children of such parents mirror?”

    but, since he won’t answer me, then maybe someone else can provide a comment.

    I am wondering if aislander thinks/believes that the act of children mirroring their parents is what gives them the sexual identity?

    I am wondering if aislander thinks/believes that a child who mirrors a homosexual parent will become homosexual because of that mirroring?

    If that is what aislander thinks, then I am wondering how it is that the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, Mary Cheney, is a homosexual?

    I am wondering, that since aislander and others of his ilk have stated the obvious, that: homosexuals cannot have children if they practice only homosexual ways. Then where do homosexual people originally come from?

    They must be born to the parents in non-homosexual traditional man-woman straight couplings, or traditional marriages, since those are the only kinds of couples who can have children according to aislander and his ilk.

    If that’s so, then having a “normal” set of parents should enable the children to “properly mirror” their parents.

    If that’s so, then why do some of those kids still turn out to be homosexually oriented?

    Maybe somebody can comment on these things, or just ask aislander what he meant when he asked: “So whom do the children of such parents mirror?”

  24. I cannot NOT comment on this. And sozo, I’m really really sorry if you think I’m being mean to you by writing this, but I swear to you I am not trying to be. But you wrote:

    “Tuddo writes, sozo epitomizes to the tee those people who are otherwise fairly intelligent but on this issue refuse to look at any facts, arguments based on scientific information or the reasons why this country was founded.”

    AND THEN you proved Tuddo’s thesis by writing:

    “To which I reply, I do not ignore these things, but I look beyond them to a higher source when it comes to the subject of family. The wisdom of God often seems like folly to the world.”

    You look beyond scientific information, to the wisdom of God.

    Okay, so do I, but as I have often stated, I am a Christian, so I look to the guidance of Jesus Christ in The New Testament of The Holy Bible, and not to The Old Testament which is the Jewish portion of The Bible.

    Do you understand that as God gave us Jesus, God also gave us science?

  25. Pacman33 says:

    Do you understand that God gave us the definition of marriage?

  26. Yes! I do understand that God, through his son Jesus Christ, gave us the definition of marriage and divorce. Religious marriage, that is.

    Do YOU understand that God does not print or issue paper Marriage Licenses?

    Do YOU understand that the state issues paper Marriage Licenses?

    Do YOU understand the that governor is not recommending a change in religious marriage, but ONLY recommending a change in the state law covering the issuance of government produced paper documents entitled Marriage Licenses?

  27. ManuelMartini says:

    God also gave us the definition of naive

  28. sozo, did I misunderstand your point that you repeated but did not explain? Wasn’t your point that you would not legalize gay marriage because it is “OK”, but falls short of being your ideal? However, you acknowledge that a lot of marriages that you do support as legal are less than ideal and often less than “OK”?

    Why not be the personal judge and jury of every marriage in the USA, if it must fit your ideal marriage? Isn’t that what you want, to have sozo’s law of marriage so you can impose your ideal on everyone? Why stop with gay marriage, why not intrude yourself into everyone’s lives? That’s what you want government to do regardless of anyone else’s ideal marriage or what science has found out about nurturing children and family relationships??

  29. aislander says:

    sozo: While a child raised by a gay couple may be better off than if raised in a dysfunctional environment–and one does not preclude the other–it IS better for children if they have role models of their own sex in the home, as well as a parent of the opposite sex with whom to interact.

    The former provides someone after whom to mirror their own behavior, and the latter a more social experience…

  30. aislander says:

    “God also gave us the definition of naive…”

    I thought that was the French…

  31. To the French, their language came directly from God and cannot be changed by man, especially Americans.

  32. Isn’t God French? :)

    Good point above aislander, about the need for opposite sex parental influence.

    I do not, tuddo, wish to be the judge and jury that you describe. I want us to uphold a standard that we have upheld for a long time, one that I believe is in the best interest of children and the community.
    The pressure to sanction gay marriage is not about rights. It’s about a group of people insisting that their conduct be validated by the rest of society. While I can love and even share communion with gay friends and family members, I will not be bullied into validating their choices when it goes against my conscience.

    It seems that many folks here are insisting that we acquiesce to a cultural change when it goes against conscience. Doesn’t anyone value integrity any more?

    For the record, some of you write as though you ASSUME that a gay family is automatically free of abuse and dysfunction. Whatever you find faulty in heterosexual marriages, you are going to likewise find in homosexual unions, no matter what you call it. Living together, sharing responsibilities, putting another’s needs ahead of your own are challenges for any couple. Do not presume that gay households are somehow free from disease.

  33. aislander says:

    sozo writes: “Do not presume that gay households are somehow free from [dysfunction].

    God no! Do you recall the gay doctor in Seattle who murdered his adopted daughter, as well as his partner (if I recall correctly)?

  34. sozo, you are questioning whether I value integrity or not. Yes, it seems like I do, especially in my concern that children are raised in the best environment possible.

    The Supreme Court of NY, along with several other courts came to the conclusion based on scientific research that statistically, it is more likely for a child of opposite-sex parents to end up in a dysfunctional home than it is for a child adopted into a same-sex parental home.

    They said that fact should not preclude heterosexual marriages or heterosexuals having children, but neither should it preclude same-sex marriage.

    Basing decisions on facts is what integrity is all about. Insisting on intruding into the life of others and their decisions based on your own personal god or your own personal ideal that flies in the face of factual evidence is called a lack of integrity.

    And, no one is asking hyou to validate their decisions. They are asking that you not restrict trheir ability to make those decisions and to leave their decision making up to the people involved, not you.

  35. aislander says:

    If there is no functional difference between EBM and marriage, but the word “marriage” is what is wanted, they ARE demanding we validate and celebrate their “decision…”

  36. aislander, haven’t you worn out that old argument yet? If you actually believed that there was not a social and positive impact by calling a union a marriage, you would not be fighting the granting of it to others or you would be insisting that we call all unions “civil unions” and remove the word marriage from the list of options.

  37. aislander says:

    Thanks for making my point, tuds…

  38. 1/10 @ 10:22 AM aislander writes: “The former provides someone after whom to mirror their own behavior, and the latter a more social experience…”

    Please Note that aislander has NEVER explained what he means by children mirroring parents, since he brought it up in his 1/9 9:21 PM post.

    And, I suspect he never will, because he doesn’t have a clue what it means. It’s just some garbage he throws up to pretend to know what he’s talking about, when he really does not.

    Otherwise, he could and would explain it.

  39. 1/10 @ 10:34 AM sozo wrote: “For the record, some of you write as though you ASSUME that a gay family is automatically free of abuse and dysfunction. Whatever you find faulty in heterosexual marriages, you are going to likewise find in homosexual unions, no matter what you call it. Living together, sharing responsibilities, putting another’s needs ahead of your own are challenges for any couple. Do not presume that gay households are somehow free from disease.”

    Not me! I don’t assume gay families are any better or worse than straight families.

    Overall, I figure their about the same, and that’s why they deserve the same rights!!!

  40. 1/10 @ 10L42, aislander, in support of sozo, wrote: “God no! Do you recall the gay doctor in Seattle who murdered his adopted daughter, as well as his partner (if I recall correctly)?”

    Do YOU recall:

    Mother kills herself, shoots children when refused food stamps
    Dec 7, 2011 – In San Antonio, Texas, a seven-hour stand-off ended with a 38-year-old mother killing herself, critically shooting her two children in the process.

    http://digitaljournal.com/article/315695

    Mother Stabs, Kills Her Own Kids: Cops | NBC 10 Philadelphia
    Sep 1, 2011 – A South Philly mother allegedly stabbed and killed her own son and daughter Wednesday.

    http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/breaking/Mother-Kills-Kids-South-Philly-128849133.html

    Mother responsible for five shooting deaths, police said – Chicago …
    Dec 19, 2011 – A central Illinois mother was responsible for the chilling murder-suicide … Woman in Emington, Ill., shot and killed her 3 kids, man she lived with …

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-12-19/news/ct-met-emington-shootings-1220-20111220_1_shooting-deaths-funeral-services-shot

    Pretty sure all three of these mothers were hetero. I could be wrong, because I didn’t read everything ever written about these three incidents, but what did read never mentioned any one of them being gay or lesbian.

  41. One thing you have to give aislander. He is GREEN In that he keeps recycling the same old crap over and over again from thread to thread.

    And yet, I betcha he doesn’t even believe in Global Climate Change.

    aislander AGAIN writes “the word “marriage” is what is wanted, they ARE demanding we validate and celebrate their “decision…”

    No it’s not! No they aren’t! The only people they want to celebrate their unions are their friends, and I’m absolutely sure YOU aislander will NOT be on any of their guest lists, so YOU don’t have to worry about validating or celebrating JACK!

    All they want is a paper Marriage License, issued by the state, not by God, so they can have the same protections of the full body of civil laws that other married couples have under the law, as clearly articulated by Governor Gregoire.

    Haven’t YOU been paying attention aislander?

  42. As far as making points, the only point you ever had aislander is the one on the top of your head, temporarily covered-up by your Dunce cap as you sit in the corner on your stool.

    Hey! That’s just a joke! Just kidding!

    Lighten-up Francis!

    But seriously Francis, I mean aislander, can you explain what you mean by that mirroring stuff?

  43. aislander, so you are for calling gay marriage, “marriage” and for eliminating the unequal, less socially desireable and therefore functionally substandard contract of “civil union”? That was my point.

  44. aislander says:

    MY point, tuds, is that the gay lobby wants the aegis of something that is not theirs and will never, in truth, be theirs. They just wish to force everyone to say it. It’s a passive-aggressive play, and a whack at the culture…

  45. aislander says:

    I think it was H.L. Mencken who said of an acquaintance that he had a magnificent grasp of the obvious. Some people lack even that, and I don’t intend to belabor the obvious for their benefit…

  46. “passive-aggressive” Really?

    of or denoting a type of behavior or personality characterized by indirect resistance to the demands of others and an avoidance of direct confrontation, as in procrastinating, pouting, or misplacing important materials.

    Don’t think so. The LGBT lobby is “Loud and Proud and changing the Crowd!” They’re not just waiting around quietly until someone gives them permission.

    Wrong again aislander!

    How many times can you afford to be wrong, just because you try to use words that make you seem smart?

  47. aislander, I think that gay marriage has always been part of the rights that we fought to have in this country, just like equal rights for minorities. They are inalienable.

    Just because certain percentages of the US have fought hard out of fear, bigotry and/or a sense of superiority to deny those rights doesn’t mean they didn’t have them, it just means that we have to keep working to ensure a more perfect union in line with the equality and justice that were promised, but denied for too long.

  48. aislander says:

    Marriage is a word that has a (and always has had) a specific and sacred meaning), and I intend to fight to prevent that meaning from being hideously distorted as a lagniappe to an aggressive constituency…

  49. “lagniappe” You got a Word For The Day calendar for Christmas, didn’t you aislander?

    QUESTION: Besides posting your anti-gay marriage demagoguery here, how else are you going “to fight to prevent that meaning from being hideously distorted as a lagniappe to an aggressive constituency…” a constituency you previously described as passive-aggressive?

  50. It is only a matter of time until marriage equality becomes a reality in every state in this country and I look forward to a time when the time in the spotlight these current generations of middle-aged and older conservative adults has come to pass. The time of the backwards and arcane theological basis for so many laws that restrict and discriminate against individuals in the United States has reached its final hour. This is what the dying face of religion in America looks like.

    I would urge those who are in favor of preventing two consenting adults who love each other, who are committed to each other, and who are no different than you and I from getting married simply because they are the same sex to watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q. Maybe you have already seen it; Zach was raised by two mothers and he speaks to the Iowa House of Representatives about his experience.

  51. “a whack at culture”…..sorry aislander but culture isn’t something you see in a museum where the point is to keep it from ever changing. A healthy, vital culture reflects the society and thus changes to reflect the changes within the society.

  52. aislander, as I’ve often said, people who claim that “marriage has always meant” are substituting their own fantasy into the discussion. In the South, when I was growing up, that was an argument heard often from the bigots who refused to allow interracial marriage.

    Of course, these bigots said they were being called names when people pointed out the bigotry. I say it was just stating a fact.

  53. commoncents says:

    Unfortunately those that believe that marriage is mainly for the purpose of procreating are also the generally the ones who remain married “for the children” and end up bitter, divorced, and hating each other by the time they are 50. Why? Because they put their children before their spouse…

  54. For those who cite the Bible invocations against homosexuality you should not call yourselves Christians rather Paulists – as it was Paul, not Jesus, who wrote about homosexuality. Or hypocrites if you are relying upon Mosaic Law and Leviticus to ban homosexuality without observing the other archaic laws within the Old Testament.

  55. Here is a great example of presumption… that only “middle-aged and older conservative adults” are opposed to the idea of gay marriage.

    If you really believe this, you don’t get around much. Granted, the mainstream of the younger generation may well agree with you on this matter, but there are thousands of young people who long to preserve the sanctity of marriage as well, and the word DOES matter.

    bBoy, your remark about the Bible is only applicable if folks do not believe that the whole Bible is divinely inspired. Further, Jesus Christ quoted from the OT and did nothing to wipe out the spirit of the laws that were applicable to people for the benefit of a healthy, strong society.

  56. Pre-emptive…to whom it may concern. Please don’t flood the thread with messages about how Jesus never mentioned homosexuality when he named “sins.” He never specifically mentioned wife-beating or child-abuse either. He spoke about sexual immorality, and at the time of his ministry, no one questioned that homosexual acts were under that umbrella.

  57. “He spoke about sexual immorality, and at the time of his ministry, no one questioned that homosexual acts were under that umbrella.”

    What was considered ‘normal’ sexual behavior during a given time is based on the norms and mores of that time, there is no bottom line or ultimate truth to what is right or good or correct. Have you ever heard of the Roman emperor Claudius? Do you know why his love life was considered strange by others during the time in which he lived? Was it because he was homosexual? Was it because he was a pedophile and enjoyed having sex with underage boys? No. It was solely because he was NOT either of these things; he was a heterosexual male and this was considered strange and wrong. Kind of reminds you of another sexual preference that is often labeled with the same terms today, right?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudius#Marriages_and_personal_life

  58. aislander says:

    Merely trying to KEEP the culture healthy, beerBoy…

    …and I knew that throwing in “lagniappe” would elicit a patellar reflex on the part of sum_nos…

    Hey, sometimes I just have to amuse myself.

  59. aislander says:

    Gotta promote that moral relativism, I see, since it makes EVERYTHING acceptable…

  60. Hey, sometimes I just have to amuse myself.

    Oh, I am sure we all know how you “amuse” yourself!

  61. I guess I had better things to do last Monday than go on line and read the latest dribble from some posters. I wish people would just come out and state they dislike people who are not like themselves. I haven’t decided whether I am for granting legal marital status to same sex marriages or not. I have more respect for those who are opposed to same sex marriage when they site biblical verse for their position than people who cloak their bias feelings in mumble jumble. What I object to is the sentence “…not to dignify every sort of fond feeling.”

    The letter writer really does not state the primary attack on marriage comes from those who are legally entitled to be married who do not get married. We confer the legal ability to get married for heterosexual couples to get married and they choose not to get married. So, there is a minority of persons who are of the same sex who desire to get legal status, and, they are the reason for the downfall of marriage?

    By the way, since same sex couples cannot procreate anyway, why should you care if they get legally married?

  62. A321196, you have made some very good points that I can’t argue with. As regards the folks who quote the Bible verses, I have big issues with them too, but you will also see me frequently quoting chapter and verse from The Bible (New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke & John mostly). Those folks use The Bible as it was not intended, and mostly quote from The Old Testament, which I believe is Jewish law and history, not Christian. (We can get more into that if you want to.)

    As far as granting same-sex couples the right to marriage, the point I keep trying to make is that: A. The change in the law will not affect the churches in any way. B. It will simply authorize the government to issue government printed Marriage licenses/Certificates to same-sex couples. C. The fact that a same-sex couple has a Marriage License/Certificate does not in any way empower them to compel a church, priest or minister to perform their ceremony.

    Religions are not in any way in danger by the passage of such a law, but from the uproar the so-called defenders of religions are bringing, you would think that this law will actually give birth to Damien Thorn.

    Regards your final comment: “By the way, since same sex couples cannot procreate anyway, why should you care if they get legally married?”

    You might be surprised to learn that many opponents to the same-sex marriage law cite that exact reason as justification to deny same-0sex couples the right to marry. They claim the only reason for marriage is for procreation. At least some of them do.

    Thanks for you comments. Hope you get back to this thread to read this reply.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0