Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MARRIAGE: Don’t deny gay couples equality

Letter by John K. McCluskey, Tacoma on Jan. 20, 2012 at 11:11 am with 94 Comments »
January 20, 2012 1:34 pm

As any serious student of U.S. history should know, this country was founded on secular principles allowing a wide diversity in religious beliefs and practices. This was the first nation to have no official state-endorsed religion.

I respect those living according to their religious tenets but disagree there is any right to impose those upon others. I wonder from where comes the belief that we should all vote on the fundamental rights of others.

My partner of 53 years and I have lived almost eight decades as marginal citizens, denied the equal protection of the laws as provided in the U.S. Constitution. We have, however, loved and served this country and our community as good citizens by every measure. We worked for equality and social justice for everyone even as it was withheld from us.

We have been committed to each other through good and bad times and taken care of each other in sickness and health. I take care of my severely disabled partner and have since a stroke in 2006 and will continue to do so for as long as we live and I am able to do so.

We are a couple, and life without the other is unimaginable for either of us. It should not be surprising that we want the same recognition and respect that comes with a state-issued marriage license. It is the final piece to recognition as full and equal citizens in our own country and perhaps our final wish.

Leave a comment Comments → 94
  1. ReadNLearn says:

    You can try to feel better about what you’re doing, and we don’t even need to bring religion in it as biologically it’s flawed.

  2. surething says:

    Explain homosexuality in the animal kingdom, or is that also biologically flawed?

  3. commoncents says:

    Read – It’s your thought process that’s flawed. If you don’t bring religion into play then there is absolutely no reason that you could prevent two adult people, and I repeat TWO ADULT PEOPLE, from entering into a legal contract based upon gender alone. Sorry, it’s discriminatory. As for the religious aspect? I looked through the 13 sample wedding vows provided by bible.org to aid happy couples to be..and you know what? Not a single one of them mentioned children. Not sure why that would be the case other than the fact that marriage really is a binding societal contract between two people and is NOT a perquisite for having children which numerous single mothers in this state have found out.

  4. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Marginal citizen? You could vote, join the service, etc.

    You could not marry. So what? It did not change how you lived.

  5. After a considerable amount of discussion amongst friends and associates, I have come to the understanding that the bill does NOT in any way impact anyone’s religious beliefs, practices or ceremonies.

    As I understand it, the proposed law essentially allows for the issuance of a government Marriage License/Certificate to a same-sex couple so that they can be married in a civil ceremony (or possibly even a religious ceremony, if the couple can find a church and minister/priest who will voluntarily perform such a ceremony), and then they will be covered under the same body of civil laws in our state that cover and protect all other married couples.

    As I understand it, this law will NOT entitle same-sex couples to use the government produced Marriage License/Certificate document to compel any church or religious organization to perform a religious wedding ceremony.

    I also understand that the Washington state law will have no impact or affect on Federal Law or Federal Tax filings, and I believe most people who would be affected by this law probably do fully understand that limitation.

    I believe that if it is explained to people in those terms: that this law will not and cannot require any church to change its current religious or ceremonial practices, that most fair-minded people will agree the law is only fair and just. Religious zealots may never be convinced that is the case, unless and until the law is passed. Then, when they see no harm has come to their church as a result of this new law, they may begin to understand that there was never any danger in the first place.

  6. Microsoft, others endorse same-sex marriage legislation

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017284622_gaymarriage20m.html

  7. John: You enjoy the same constitutional rights that my wife of 42 years and I do. You do not share the privilege society assigned to our union.

    I paid a lawyer to secure my estate and make certain it is passed along as I wish. You can do the same.

    I drew up documents allowing those I choose to visit me in the hospital when I’m on my death bed. You can do the same.

    My wife and I raised children. There were tax advantages to doing so. You can adopt and do the same.

    I have no desire to participate in your union or sanction it. You can do the same.

    I have no desire to interfere in your life. You can do the same.

    You on the other hand insist on interfering in my life, my children’s lives and my grand children’s lives. I resent it. Please quit!

  8. aislander says:

    You have the same rights and are under the same rules as every other man and woman in the state.

  9. aislander says:

    Nanook: Well stated! I read your post after I put mine up, and realized I could have saved myself the trouble, because you nailed it…

  10. nanook, can you please explain this comment of yours?

    “You on the other hand insist on interfering in my life, my children’s lives and my grand children’s lives. I resent it. Please quit!”

    Just EXACTLY how does/will John’s marriage to his partner interfere with your life, your children’s lives, and grandchildren’s. Be specific in your description as to how it INTERFERES, if you would please.

    This is NOT a rhetorical question. I really would like to know how you justify that comment.

  11. Put it up for a vote.

  12. … after we intitute a photo ID requirement.

  13. BigSwingingRichard says:

    Based on equality, gays should be able to marry: No reason they shouldn’t suffer like the rest of us.

  14. I along with mukibr, am waiting for an answer from nanook.

  15. “You can try to feel better about what you’re doing.., as biologically it’s flawed.”

    If you and I weren’t biologically flawed, we’d have been born with three hands. I could usually use an extra. How about you?

  16. John doesn’t like anyone with religeous beliefs imposing them on him, but he is ok with imposing his immoral beliefs on us. How is this progress?

  17. sandblower says:

    nanook cannot answer because of its myopic view of what our society is all about. ” John: You enjoy the same constitutional rights that my wife of 42 years and I do. You do not share the privilege society assigned to our union.”
    The Constitution does not mention marriage at all. The Declaration says we are all created equal. Which one applies nanook?

  18. Flanagan says:

    Bravo nanook. You saved me from a lot of typing too.

  19. he is ok with imposing his immoral beliefs on us.

    How is anyone getting married equivalent to imposing their “immoral” beliefs on anyone?

    Did my marriage impose my beliefs on anyone except, maybe, my wife?

  20. Nanook’s Northern brain freeze in not being able to justify rude, bigoted, comments, imposing knee-jerk squeamishness learned in gosh knows what back alley school of thought, is the exact same lack of logical or moral persuasiveness that hampered that Pastor who was interviewed by Enriquez Cerna last night with Rep. Laurie Jenkins.

    THe pastor kept insisting that giving Marriage Equality to non-heterosexuals would somehow expose his church to lawsuits for discrimination. WHen Rep.Jinkins asked if they clarified the language to avoid any possibility of that (because the Act specifically did not want to force any church to marry gay people against the tenets of their religious beliefs)- would he support the bill. SURPRISE – No.
    THere is no logical argument to deny one group of human beings the same right as others because it’s emotional.

    Nanook does it not concern you that you will go down in history, and your grandchildren will be embarrassed and ashamed by your stance the way the descendants of those white adults caught on film yelled and screamed at black kids for wanting to go to a college of their choice?

    You seem like a fairly thoughtful person – right up until the end of your letter. Think again. It is definitely a thoughtful process to re-examine your concept of freedom. I didn’t arrive at my position overnight. Give it some time.

  21. Flanagan “Bravo nanook. You saved me from a lot of typing too.”

    Since nanook apparently will not explain himself and his comment. (I really wonder why?) Why don’t you Flanagan.

    Just EXACTLY how does/will John’s marriage to his partner interfere with your life, your children’s lives, and grandchildren’s. Be specific in your description as to how it INTERFERES, if you would please.

    Or, how about you? You wrote basically the same thing.

    d237154 “John doesn’t like anyone with religeous beliefs imposing them on him, but he is ok with imposing his immoral beliefs on us.”

    Just EXACTLY how is John “imposing” his beliefs on anyone else?

    I would really appreciate one or all three of you answering the questions, because I would really like to understand where you are coming from. Without your point of view explained, your comments seem completely unjustified and unsupportable.

  22. The nature argument is dead. It occurs in nature AS an anomaly.

    Mr. McCluskey, you sound like an admirable man in a meaningful relationship. I would join you in a fight for your rights, but as some have pointed out here, you have the basic rights each of us has.

    To sanction and bless gay marriage is to put the stamp of approval on it; to validate it. For those who believe it is against God’s will, that’s like validating, well…abortion. They cannot, with integrity, put a stamp of approval on something they believe to be morally wrong.

    If gay marriage is validated by the state, those who find it contrary to things as they were intended will have to live by the law, again just as they’ve had to accept the legalilty of abortion. But don’t ask them to approve when, with good conscience, they cannot.

    The time has come for gay marriage advocates to stop attempting to alter others’ belief systems.

  23. commoncents says:

    an anomoly doesn’t necessarily equate to being a bad thing. It’s simply a deviation from the norm. I would think that even gay folks would agree that their lifestyle is a deviation from the norm. I am in no way casting it in a negative light -simply applying mathematical concept to it.

    As for Mr. McCluskey…while he may enjoy the same basic constitutional rights as the rest of us he does not enjoy the basic CIVIL rights that are guaranteed by the constitution. There is a difference. In addition, he does not have certain federal legal rights that would be available to him should the DOMA be rescinded unless the state sanctions gay marriages as being legal.

    Granted the sanctioning of gay marriage is mostly symbolic in nature but it’s a necessary one if we to continue to be a civil and just society. As sozo said – you don’t have to approve of it but you will have to accept it. However, I don’t believe that approving of it forces you to alter your beliefs one iota. I would hope that it would make you more resolute.

  24. There are too many things that some people call “immoral” to count in our society – drinking alcohol, dancing, gambling, divorce, wearing short dresses, using birth control, hunting animals, eating meat, wearing fur, and the list goes on and on.

    The great thing about the USA is that we believe in freedom from any person’s religious beliefs or desire to use government to control other’s behavior to fit their own life choices. Instead, we look at how actions harm others, harm the actors and harm our society.

    Being disgusted or feeling morally superior has not worked as a defense for any law that restricts freedom or rights under the Constitution, such as equal treatment under the law.

    I am especially amazed that conservatives, who value freedom above all else, stoop to any argument that allows big government to take freedoms and rights away from others for actions that do no harm to others.

    Oh, I forget, for over two hundred years conservatives have been the ones to preach freedom on the one hand and take it away from anyone who is slightly different than the white, male, Christian protestant, non-disabled person of European descent who they think are the only ones worthy of the guarantees of freedom and equality under the Constitution.

  25. Still hoping to hear back from nanook, d237154 and/or Flanagan!

  26. leavenworth2010 says:

    Live and let live is fine…. when you demand that your living together be called marriage, you are now stepping on our lives. When you call people homophobic, you are calling others names because you think you can cow people into your point of view. You have scared a lot of people into thinking they cannot have an opinion different from yours by saying they are not tolerant. We who follow the law and choose to keep marriage one man and one woman, are not the problem. You are. You are not tolerant of the fact that the law says one man and one woman + marriage. The best defense is a good offense and you are calling people of another belief…a healthy belief…the problem. You have all the civil rights that any man or woman has who is a citizen in this country. If you don’t like people disagreeing with you then you can choose to go on with your life. But don’t expect people to change their minds about what marriage is. One man and one woman.

  27. leavenworth2010: “when you demand that your living together be called marriage, you are now stepping on our lives.”

    How?

    Similar statement as made by nano, d237154 and Flanagan, but still absolutely no explanation from any of you four as to how what you say is happening.

    Just EXACTLY how does/will John’s marriage to his partner interfere with your life, your children’s lives, and grandchildren’s. Be specific in your description as to how it INTERFERES, if you would please.

    Just EXACTLY how is John “imposing” his beliefs on anyone else?

    Just EXACTLY how is John’s wanting to be married “now stepping on your lives.”

    I am NOT calling you homophobic.

    Yes, you are being ‘intolerant” as you are clearly not tolerant of others’ views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from your own.

    Yes, you are correct, right now the law says one thing, but here we are on the verge of that law being changed through the legal process. Just like anyone else, we all have the right to try to change laws that we feel need changing. By the way, some people are even trying to change abortion laws, while others are bombing abortion clinics and murdering doctors who perform abortions. I know of no instance where any buildings were bombed or people were killed to try to change the marriage law. Do you?

    No one is trying to get YOU to change YOUR mind about what marriage is. People are just trying to change the law about who can get a government produced Marriage License/Certificate. That’s all.

    How will any of that change YOUR life?

    And here I will quote you verbatim, “If you don’t like people disagreeing with you then you can choose to go on with your life.”

    Why can’t you just go on with your life? How is any of this preventing you from doing that?

    I really would like to know and understand.

  28. Very well put sozo!Just because the State sanctions anything doesn’t mean we have to accept it, if we don’t agree with it.At least that is one freedom that hasn’t been taken away from us,YET!Sanction is one thing,Puting into law is another.

  29. *** sincere: “Just because the State sanctions anything doesn’t mean we have to accept it, if we don’t agree with it.”

    YES IT DOES! Because if the state “sanctions ” it, it becomes the “law.” And, you have to accept and obey the law, unless or until the law is changed.

    sanction |ˈsa ng (k) sh ən|
    noun
    official permission or approval for an action : he appealed to the bishop for his sanction.
    • official confirmation or ratification of a law.
    • historical Law a law or decree, esp. an ecclesiastical decree.

    *** sincere: “Sanction is one thing,Puting into law is another.”

    NO THEY ARE NOT DIFFERENT! Both “sanction” and “law” mean the SAME THING in this regard! For the state to “sanction” something, means that it is “putting it into law.”

  30. People should mind their own business.

  31. ReadNLearn says:

    Anomoly is a nice way of saying freakish.

    It is equal. A straight male can’t marry another male, whether gay or straight and neither can a gay male. That’s about as equal as things can be.

  32. ReadNLearn, the pathetic argument thagt people are equal if they go against their right to choose whom to marry and amrry some other person’s choice has been tried and failed big time in the Supreme Court.

    As a last ditch defense of their law against interracial marriage, after they had tried majority rule, religion, tradition and immorality, the people of Virginia said that Blacks could marry other Blacks, and Whites could marry other Whites, so they were equal under the law.

    The Supreme Court saw that for the nonsense it was and said that marriage is a right that cannot be restricted unless harm could be proved. They said restricting the a person’s freedom of choice of whom to marry was unconstitutional.

  33. leavenworth2010 says:

    Bandito, I see you are minding other’s business by reading these comments…. Where do you stand?

  34. leavenworth2010, While you are waiting for Bandito to answer your question, how about you answer my question from 1:31 PM above?

  35. leavenworth2010 says:

    We are all affected by what other people do. I have two extended family members who are gay. They are great people. It is their choice to pursue the same sex life. The fall out to the families is underestimated by you. The family members are sad, disappointed, fearful for their family member’s health: mental, physical, spiritual, emotional…When I care for family members, I want God’s best for them. To see them struggle from one relationship to another is heart breaking. The parents and other family members are having physical, mental symptoms, and spiritual and emotional symptoms. They struggle. Their grandchildren don’t understand. You cannot know because you are not a parent or grandparent yet. There is just a pall that comes over the families, and we just pray and continue to reach out to the gay person. I do not think you can understand this because you are only thinking about you right now. Someday, you may be able to understand what it is like to not be gay. I pray you do. I pray you think about the difficulty you are creating around others in your families. I pray you will consider your parents, aunts, uncles, sisters, brothers, cousins, grandparents, and how your wanting to change what they call marriage and how they struggle with your choices. Peace be with you.

  36. You assume a lot leavenworth…, and you assume wrong. I am a parent and a grandfather of three grandsons.

    When you make such faulty assumptions as that it undercuts the veracity of every other assumption you make.

    You assume I am thinking only of myself… how on Earth did you arrive at such a foolish assumption as that?

    So that you can stop making bad assumptions let me tell you that my decision to support the same-sex marriage bill, and contact my state senator to commit his vote toward it, is based in my faith in Jesus Christ and what he would want me to do in this regard. Do you recall the famous WWJD – What Would Jesus Do saying? That is what I base my choice in.

    Read Jesus my friend. Read the New Testament: Matthew. Mark, Luke and John. Then ask yourself: What would Jesus Do?

  37. My opinion is that people should mind their own business. If John wants to marry his life partner that’s his business not mine not yours. Let it be.

  38. aislander says:

    So, let THEM say they’re married, Bandito: don’t force ME to say it…

  39. aislander, has anyone tried to FORCE you to say that about any same-sex couple? If so, when? If not, do you expect anyone to FORCE you to say it in the future? If so, under what circumstances?

  40. Packed hearings likely Monday on gay-marriage bills

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017300977_gaymarriage22m.html

    Uncommitted senators hear from both sides in gay-marriage debate

    http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/01/21/1993147/uncommitted-senators-hear-from.html?storylink=rss

  41. Sroldguy says:

    “…The Hidden Costs of Domestic Partner Benefit
    one insurance company found that it paid 17.1% more for health care for same-sex couples in 2001 than it did for opposite-sex couples….”

    “…The Health Risks of Gay Sex
    Sexual relationships between members of the same sex expose gays, lesbians and bisexuals to extreme risks of sexually transmitted diseases, physical injuries, mental disorders and even a shortened life span…”

    http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers.html

  42. Sroldguy, just more ridiculous scare tactics thown out to try to obfuscate the issue of equality under the law. Married women who have children cost insurance comapnies more too. Are you making a case to exclude them from company policies?

    You do know that the “Corporate Resource Council” is an antigay propaganda developer whose sole reason for existence is to develop antigay “white papers” that are then used by the antigay crowd in unethical ways.

    Michael Hamrick, the author of your study cites one company that had a negative experience. Hundreds of comapnies have had positive experiences with gay marriage, and in fact, this particulatr white paper that you cited has been debunked many times.

    In fact, the main concluson in the white paper you cited was that, until a large number of studies are done, no one knows what the costs will be. Several of his citations even make the point that heterosexual partners who are not married show the same increased costs compared to married couples that homosexual partners do when covered by company insurance, but in states where gays can get married, the insurance costs for married gay couples are the same as those for heterosexual married couples. It seems marriage makes a difference in commitment, health and family relationships in both heterosexual and gay families.

  43. Pacman33 says:

    tuddo mangles ~
    “….the guarantees of freedom and equality under the Constitution.”

    My goodness, the Constitutional illiteracy of the left in this country is absolutely deplorable. It really is a shame that those who would abuse it, falsely citing it, in an attempt to infringe on another’s rights, indubitably, are incapable of feeling the shame they should. Hate it all you want, but at least familiarize yourself with it.

    Our Founding Fathers were fully aware of the dangers of the state trying to impose “equality” on its citizens. The specific word “equality” does not appear, anywhere, in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.

    The word “equal” that likely confuses gay marriage apologists: “…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed…” is addressing the English aristocracy. Condemnation to the belief in authority of King George II. Basically it was middle finger to the King from the Constitution’s Framers, pronouncing claims to authority based on divine right were false.

    The frequency in the chant of this Utopian pipe dream and with the more recent and increasing mythical connection with our founding documents, I briefly wondered if this info was not the common knowledge I assumed it was. So I searched “All men are created equal” in Wikipedia, sure enough, it is covered within the second sentence. Even a hapless twit whose depth of historic reference is reliant on Wiki, knows the founders were defying royalty’s ‘divine right’ to authority. Ironically similar to these wacko’s divine power to declare the impossibility of “equality under the law”.

  44. Sroldguy, You are the first, the very first that I have seen, who has put up an actual, legitimate, non-religious, and QUANTIFIABLE argument against the same-sex marriage bill. I congratulate you!

    I disagree with you, but still I have to congratulate you.

    There are many other groups of people who represent high risk lifestyles. Nascar drivers for example. Should laws be passed to also prevent them from getting married?

  45. Pacman33, the Supreme Court disagrees with you, and in many cases states that equality under the laws of our nation extend not only to people of different racial backgrounds but for sex, color and others. The word “equality” may not be explicit, but a lot of freedoms and guarantees are not explicit, either. That is why we have the Supreme Court to interpret what is meant by the language that is in the Constitution.

    “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”(14th amendment)

    One example: Loving v Virginia:

    “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men …”

    The decision states that “the principle of equality (is) at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment”

    I guess you would argue that the definition of “arms” in the Constitution only includes type of weapons used in 1783, and so make a case that government can restrict gun rights and not allow people to own and carry weapons invented after that. It is only the Supreme Court that added other type weapons, after all.

    I would argue that the Supreme Court has to interpret “intent” in many cases, and did so in Loving v Virginia and will have to if gay marriage hits its dockets. If “equality” is at the heart of the 14th amendment in other cases, and marriage is an essential right, would they say there is no “equality” in the Constitution, or marriage is not a right for some people, like you are saying? I doubt it very seriously.

  46. “It is equal. A straight male can’t marry another male, whether gay or straight and neither can a gay male. That’s about as equal as things can be.”

    It is equal. White kids can’t go to school with black kids, and black kids can’t go to school with white kids. That’s about as equal as things can be.

  47. ““…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed…” is addressing the English aristocracy.

    LOL – that’s pretty funny coming from the author of “The specific word “equality” does not appear, anywhere, in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.”

    Since you’re such a stickler for exactitude, please point out exactly where the Declaration of Independence specifically says that “all men are created equal” is addressed to the English aristocracy.

  48. muckibr – actually sroldguy’s claims about risky behavior amongst unmarried homosexuals demonstrates the benefit to society by encouraging gays to enter into committed, long-term monogamous relationships.

  49. YES IT DOES! Because if the state “sanctions ” it, it becomes the “law.” And, you have to accept and obey the law, unless or until the law is changed.

    And what does the law currently state, muckibr?

    And where’s your support for the citizens’ right to try to change a law? Perhaps you’re only a cheerleader when folks want to change laws your way. Btw…
    “Sanction” in this context can mean legalize, but when I used it I was using it in the context of validation or blessing.

  50. Hetero’s have a 50% (at least) divorce rate. I say give the Gay’s the same chance to be miserable. If Hetero’s have to get stuck with paying out Alimony and Child Support then the Gay’s should as well. I’m all about equality.

    Give the Gay’s the same chance to be happy and/or miserable in marriage as us Hetero’s.

  51. My last sentence in the above post is confusing. My apologies. What I want to know is do you, muckibr, give the same energetic support to pro-lifers who seek to change a law that you do to proponents of gay marriage who are attempting to get a law changed?

  52. took14theteam says:

    I say let it pass. Then two straight people of the same sex could get married in order to utilize employer provided benefits that one of them may have and the other doesn’t. Think about it. You could be two friends, one has excellent health insurance provided by his employer, the other one doesn’t and is in need of insurance. When the law passes, they could get married, and then the one without insurance would be able to use the insurance of the other. Think of the possibilities.

    Maybe you could even marry your children after they turn 26 so you can still provide them with your employer provided health insurance.

    Just think of all the possibilities out there. And if you don’t agree now, why we can just repeat it and shove it down your throats over and over until you “accept” it……

  53. took14, that does happen with heterosexual marriage and partnership laws already. Employers have sued couples whom they say got married just for the convenience of obtaining employee benefits and for no other reason. Some states and employers have accused non-citizens of marrying citizens to obtain residency rights.

    Several courts at several levels have stated that it is not the government’s responsibility to decide for its citizens whom to marry and for what reasons. If society through employers or through the laws grants benefits to certain contracts, like marriage, the courts have said that they must grant them to all equally.

  54. sozo: “And what does the law currently state, muckibr?”

    Currently EBM, but we are actively trying to change the law. Right?

    sozo: “And where’s your support for the citizens’ right to try to change a law? Perhaps you’re only a cheerleader when folks want to change laws your way.”

    If you go upthread to 1/21 @ 4:12 PM you will read this in my comment: “So that you can stop making bad assumptions let me tell you that my decision to support the same-sex marriage bill, and contact my state senator to commit his vote toward it, is based in my faith in Jesus Christ and what he would want me to do in this regard.”

    sozo: “ Btw… Sanction” in this context can mean legalize, but when I used it I was using it in the context of validation or blessing.”

    Okay, I will concede that point to you sozo. Words can have more than one meaning.

  55. sozo: “My last sentence in the above post is confusing. My apologies. What I want to know is do you, muckibr, give the same energetic support to pro-lifers who seek to change a law that you do to proponents of gay marriage who are attempting to get a law changed?”

    I didn’t think it was that confusing at all. I think I got it correct, and conceded the point to you. But, …

    As regards pro-life issues: I consider myself pro-human-life, but I am not engaged in, nor do I plan to get engaged in trying to change the law as it currently stands. To do so, to me, would be an attempt to impose my religious beliefs on someone else, and I am against that. I don’t feel I have a right to do that.

    Right now the law gives people a choice if they want to get an abortion or not, up to a certain time-point in the pregnancy as prescribed by law. I’m okay with that, because…

    1. People do not all share the same religious beliefs.
    2. People do not all share the same biological beliefs as to when life begins.
    and most importantly..
    3. If I am right about God, and they make the wrong decision, they will have to answer to Him ultimately, and that’s His call, not mine.

    The difference in my stance on same-sex marriage versus pro-life is that on the one hand I want more people to have a choice to get married and live a monogamous lifestyle, but on the other hand I want to preserve people’s right to make decisions about their own lives as it comes to abortion, even if it ultimately turns out that at the foot of God they will be held accountable for a bad choice.

    What about the poor pre-babies who are aborted? You have to know that God welcomes them into His house just as He does all people who pass from this existence to the next. (Baptized or not.)

    Sometimes, for some of us, our “time-to-go” comes long before we think it should, and sometimes much later than we would like. How can anyone one of us be sure that it’s not in God’s Divine Plan that those pre-babies were destined to pass on to heaven sooner than later?

  56. For those of you claiming that the lifestyle is biologically flawed because humans are functioned by design to procreate, miss the point of human beings and intimacy. On the human female exists the ONLY organ whose purpose has NOTHING to do with procreation. It does not appear to exist anywhere else in the animal kingdom. Therefore, one can only logically conclude that intimacy it NOT only for the purpose of procreation in humans and thus an intimate marital relationship between two consenting adults be it hetero or same sex, is not perverted. In closing, I feel so sorry for those of you (and your spouses) who are only intimate for the purpose of procreation. Please keep your rigid views out of everyone else’s lives.

  57. aislander says:

    bvask5 writes: “Hetero’s have a 50% (at least) divorce rate.”

    Not even close to being true. Sixty-five percent of first marriages end with the death of one of the partners.

    The only way you can approach the fifty-percent stat is by counting some people twice…

  58. source for that statistic?

  59. According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America:
    The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
    The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
    The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%

    http://www.divorcerate.org/

  60. Sroldguy says:

    Frida wrote:
    “Therefore, one can only logically conclude that intimacy it NOT only for the purpose of procreation in humans and thus an intimate marital relationship between two consenting adults be it hetero or same sex, is not perverted.”

    The female body comes with a built in lubrication system.
    The male body doesn’t.
    One can only logically conclude that man on man is perverted?

  61. EqualityNow says:

    I ask the undecided senators to support the marriage equality bill. Everyone deserves to have marriage – regardless of the person that they love. My family and I ask the lawmakers to vote in favor of legalizing gay marriage. Please don’t let the fear-mongers and hate-mongers blind your vision for a better and more equal future.

  62. Sroldguy – marriage is not about sex, ask anyone who has been married for awhile.

    But – what I think is perverted is someone posting about the intimate details involved in sexual acts.

    And……haven’t you heard of saliva? Believe it or not, there are more things that people do than just penetration.

  63. “source for that statistic?”

    He pulled it out of … well, you know where it came from. That’s why it stinks.

  64. sandblower says:

    I have another one for you BB: At a Family, Faith and Freedom rally in Des Moines, IA the Christian writer Josh McDowell pointed to an alarming study showing that more born-again Christians than atheists are divorced.
    Who would have guessed?

  65. Sroldguy says:

    beerBoy wrote:
    “marriage is not about sex, ask anyone who has been married for awhile.”

    I don’t think I made a connection between marriage and sex?
    Lot of hetro couples live together and are not married.

    As far as couples living together and not having sex there are always exceptions because of medical reasons and others.
    There are also billions of dollars spent on ED every year.

    And off to another subject about everyone should be able to marry.
    How about the following?
    Brother-Sister?
    Brother-brother?
    Sister-sister?
    Father-daughter?
    Father-son?
    Mother-Son?
    Mother-daughter?

    The latest info I could find is first cousin marriage is still prohibited in Washington state. Done for proven, so they say, genetic reasons. What happens for same sex first cousin marriage? Should it stay the same for gay couples getting married even though there is no chance for children?

  66. sandblower says:

    Sroldguy, we already have restrictions that govern the unions you propose, which are red herrings to divert the discussion. Nearly everyone already agrees with those restrictions. Try something else as ridiculous. How about dogs and cats or horses and sheep?

  67. Seems like a few people here are really interested in what goes on in other people’s bedrooms. That has little or really nothing whatsoever to do with the same-sex marriage bill.

    What it does have to do with is a perversion called voyeurism. Are you really that concerned about what other people do in their own homes and bedrooms? What business is it of yours?

  68. Sroldguy, you just keep trying with those scare tactics, don’t you.

    The Supreme Court in a number of decisions about marriage, said that marriage was a contract between people who both agreed to the marriage and that states could restrict marriage rights if the state could show that a marriage harms the individuals involved, harms other people or harms our democracy.

    It upheld restrictions against incestual marriages, marriage with or between underage children, and forced marriages. It prohibited state restrictions against marriage based on reasons of tradition or religious views.

    All the anti-gay marriage crowd would have to do is show me proof of harm that it does, and I would withdraw my support. After a decade or so of my asking for such, no one has been able to give legitimate cause that shows harm. I look at each claim, like I did for yours, so try again.

  69. Marriage is all about commitment.

  70. muckibr, you made an interesting comment about what Jesus would do, implying that you are quite sure YOU are doing what he would do. Must be nice to have that kind of confidence.

    I would suggest that Jesus might do what he did when he saved the adulterous woman from being stoned to death. After ridding the scene of those who would have killed her, what did he say to her?

    “Go now and sin no more.”

    Compassion for those who have missed the mark is in line with Jesus’ conduct to be sure, but don’t conveniently leave out the admonitions and warnings he issued for living by the world’s moral standards.

    Also, you say, re abortion: “for some of us, our “time-to-go” comes long before we think it should, and sometimes much later than we would like. How can anyone one of us be sure that it’s not in God’s Divine Plan that those pre-babies were destined to pass on to heaven sooner than later?”

    A convenient position to take and not a strong argument. I would concur that when a miscarriage occurs, it might be part of a grander plan, but the ending of one life by another person…really? In that case, you could say the same thing about a serial killer who gets put to death by the state! It was “his time to go?”

  71. Re all the stats about heterosexual divorce, this has nothing to do with the discussion. I’m pretty sure that broken relationships occur in both homo and hetero-sexual unions. Just as abuse occurs in both.
    All this does is confirm that human beings can be brutal, selfish and stupid, regardless of their sexual preferences.

  72. Good point sozo. But, to me it appears you are equating homosexuality and being a sin, just as adultery is a sin, and I disagree with that equation entirely.

    The comparison doesn’t fit. I don’t believe that Jesus would consider a person who is a homosexual to be any more of a sinner than a person who is a heterosexual. That’s simply a state of being. Adultery is not a state of being, it is an act of sin. Big difference!

    As to your final paragraph: “I would concur that when a miscarriage occurs, it might be part of a grander plan, but the ending of one life by another person…really? In that case, you could say the same thing about a serial killer who gets put to death by the state! It was “his time to go?”

    How about civilians who are killed in wars. Those were people whose lives were ended by other persons, correct? Possibly part of God’s Divine Plan or not?

    How abuot a person, or family, killed in a car accident when hit by another car on I-5? Those were people killed by another person, right? God’s Divine Plan or not?

    I could go on with many examples, but you get the point right? How can any of us know what God’s Divine Plan is and how it will be worked out. It’s beyond our human comprehension.

    But, as long as you brought up capital punishment, let me add this…

    I have stated I am pro-human-life, and therefore I am absolutely anti-death-penalty.

    That serial killer you mentioned should NOT be put to death in my belief, but instead be left to rot in prison with a life sentence with absolutely no possibility of parole, ever. However, the greater community of voters in our state, and others, have said that they prefer capital punishment for criminals like that serial killer, so the law is the law, and therefore, when that serial killer is executed, yes, it is “his time to go.” Could that be part of God’s Divine Plan? I think it could.

  73. There is an interesting double standard on display regarding Supreme Court decisions and historically socially accepted norms.
    (I’d be interested to see the Supreme Court decision that defines marriage as Tuddo implied)
    There was a time when most people wouldn’t consider homosexual marriage any more than incestual marriage. As we see, homosexual marriage doesn’t carry the stigma it once did, therefore, it isn’t unreasonable to expect other social taboos would follow. I wouldn’t call the comparision a scare tactic.

    BTW, it isn’t the job of the SCOTUS to define marriage, it’s the job of the legislature.

    I still say, put it to a state vote.

  74. How can anyone one of us be sure that homosexuality and gay marriage is not in God’s Divine Plan?

  75. Muckibr, nice use of hypotheticals to take completely unrelated topics and turn them into jabs against people you disagree with.

  76. Bandito, you get right to the heart of the issue, don’t you?

  77. “As we see, homosexual marriage doesn’t carry the stigma it once did, therefore, it isn’t unreasonable to expect other social taboos would follow.”

    That’s pretty funny coming from someone who opposes the use of hypotheticals.

  78. SPeters, (you said: “I’d be interested to see the Supreme Court decision that defines marriage as Tuddo implied)”

    I quoted, I did not “imply”. I also cited the court case if you have any real desire to look at facts. Removing restrictions on one kind of marraige has absolutely no effect on other types of marriages. If a marriage will cause real ahrm, I have confidence in our society keeping the restricitons. If it doesn’t cause harm, I would hope people would look at facts instead of innuendo and not base any decision on unfounded fears.

    The main issue here is government making choices and removing freedoms without any factual evidence to do so.

  79. I must have missed it. What time was the post. I didn’t see quotations or a citation.

    Thanks in advance.

  80. I find it really interesting when some people presume to tell the government what its job is, and is NOT, as in:

    “BTW, it isn’t the job of the SCOTUS to define marriage, it’s the job of the legislature.”

    The job of the SCOTUS is to do what the SCOTUS does, and if the COTUS doesn’t like it, then the COTUS can enact new legislation overturning the SCOTUS.

    And if the POTUS doesn’t like that new legislation, then the POTUS can veto the legislation, thus giving the COTUS the opportunity to override his veto by a 2/3rds majority vote.

    If either the POTUS or the COTUS (with a 2/3rds veto override) enacts a law, and the SCOTUS still doesn’t like it, then the SCOTUS can rule against it again, and the whole process starts all over.

    That’s called the system of checks and balances we have in our government, as it was designed by “The Founders,” and it seems to be working pretty well. So perhaps the SCOTUS has been doing its’ job just fine for these past 212+ years.

  81. Sroldguy says:

    muckibr says:
    “Seems like a few people here are really interested in what goes on in other people’s bedrooms. That has little or really nothing whatsoever to do with the same-sex marriage bill.
    What it does have to do with is a perversion called voyeurism. Are you really that concerned about what other people do in their own homes and bedrooms? What business is it of yours?”

    I am beginning to believe that the same-sex marriage bill is giving the green light to a certain life style that can be dangerous to the whole population.
    Seems the FDA is also interested in what other people do in their own homes and bedrooms.

    Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men Questions and Answers
    What is FDA’s policy on blood donations from men who have sex with other men (MSM)?

    Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors. This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.

    Is FDA’s policy of excluding MSM blood donors discriminatory?

    FDA’s deferral policy is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, such as HIV, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor’s sexual orientation.

    http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/bloodbloodproducts/questionsaboutblood/ucm108186.htm

  82. I cannot say understand all there is to know about sexual identity and sexual orientation. Who can say they do? There’s still plenty of mystery here. If one is born gay, then in my opinion that’s no different than being born with a predisposition to alcoholism. The condition itself isn’t the issue. It’s what one choosed to “do” that matters. Because the Bible seems clear that to engage in the act of homosexual intercourse is contrary to God’s intention, I believe it is highly likely that Christ would, if he came upon a gay man about to be brutalized, stop the crowd from THEIR sin, and might very well say, to the gay man…”go now and sin no more.”

    I realize this is not what many here believe. It would make my life easier if I could go along with the world on this one, but then the Bible also says that a disciple will often find himself at odds with “the world.” That’s what’s going on in both the gay marriage and abortion debate.

    Are any of us absolutely certain we are right about these things. Nope. We do the best we can with the information we have on hand. IF one respects the “authority of scripture” well, that’s part of the information we have on hand. And I’m sorry muckibr, but your glib dismissal of all of scripture except for the Golden Rule strikes me as intellectually dishonest. It DOES make life easier for you though, so I can see why you do it.

  83. sroldguy – encouraging monogamy in gay men by legalizing marriage would seem to be the solution to your concerns about risky behavior.

  84. sozo, you are being disingenuous when you say, “And I’m sorry muckibr, but your glib dismissal of all of scripture except for the Golden Rule strikes me as intellectually dishonest.”

    Now you are bearing false witness by making such a flawed statement against me. I do not “dismiss” the other parts of The Bible, and you know that, as I have been very clear in all my writing about Christianity on these blogs. My view is that:

    1. The Old Testament is the history and law of the Jews, because that is who wrote those texts, and they cover times and events before the coming of Jesus Christ. It is important to Christians because Jesus was born a Jew, and Christian heritage is Jewish, but Jewish Law is not Christian law.

    2. The Four Gospels of The New Testament are the stories and teachings of Jesus Christ, in his words as he gave them to the people during his life here on Earth. That is obviously the core of Christianity, simply because it is Christ about Christ to his followers who became known as Christians.

    3. The remainder of The Bible is mostly texts like those written by Paul The Apostle (a man who never actually knew Jesus when he was alive on Earth by the way) are texts where these people try to interpret what Jesus meant in order to convert others to Christianity. In that regard, in an equivalency of a court of law, those references in most of those texts try to describe what Jesus might have thought or meant and thus could be considered hearsay evidence only. The real words attributed to Jesus himself in The Four Gospels would always take precedence.

    4. As for the laws of The Bible, all that is written in The Old Testament, including Leviticus as well as The Ten Commandments in Exodus, are Jewish laws. They no longer apply to Christians, as they are part of The Old Covenant God had made with the Jews.

    5. The Two Commandments given to us by Jesus, as part of The New Covenant he brought to us and sanctified by his crucifixion, are the main and guiding laws of Christianity. Jesus’ version of The Golden Rule is Commandment Number 2. It’s really simple to understand, and it makes being a Christian a whole lot less convoluted, and less complicated real Christian as opposed to those who claim to be Christians so they can pick and choose the passages from scripture of the entire Bible that they can use against others. If you follow The Two Commandments of Jesus, you just can’t do that sort of manipulative thing.

    I’ve been consistently clear on these points in all the comments I have made in these blogs regarding Christianity.

  85. Sroldguy says:

    beerBoy says:
    “encouraging monogamy in gay men by legalizing marriage would seem to be the solution to your concerns about risky behavior.”

    Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret
    New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

    That is only 3 years. A quick search on google will comes up with many articles that show the percentages get higher the more years the couples are together.
    Monogamy and gay marriage are something like military intelligence. Oxymoron

  86. sroldguy – where is the research on heterosexual marriages and monogamy. Since nearly 50% of het marriage end in divorce, it is logical to deduce that at least 50% of those surveyed would likewise admit that they have sex outside of their marriage – just not with the knowledge and approval of their mates.

  87. Oh, okay. You don’t dismiss it entirely, you just do not consider it “the word of God,” but of various men? That clears it up.

  88. If heteros cheat inside their marriage and homosexuals aren’t bothered by social norms to begin with, what would lead anyone to believe that legalizing gay marriage would encourage monogamous relationships among gay men?

  89. sozo, I don’t want to belabor this, but I do believe The Old Testament does contain “the word of God” in those passages when God is quoted: as when he was talking to Abraham to stop the sacrifice of his son, when he commanded Noah to build the ark, when He gave Moses The Ten Commandments, etc… But, that was God talking to his Chosen People, the Jews, in relation to The Old Covenant. Most of what is written in The OT was written by men, describing events, and sometimes interpreting God, but I believe that “the word of God” is when His words are credited in The OT as being spoken by Him.

    In The New Testament “the word of God” consists of the quoted words of Jesus who is, if you believe as most Christians do, God the Son. Most of Jesus’ words are in the Four Gospels. The remainder of The NT is mostly the interpretation of Jesus’ words and teachings by men who were sent on a mission to spread “the word of God” and of Jesus to the rest of the known world, as Jesus asked them to do.

    Being Christian is about living life by the guiding principles given to us by Jesus. Christianity is called Christianity because Jesus is called The Christ. Therefore, the best direction and guidance one can get to help each of us to be good Christians will naturally be found in the Four Gospels of The New Testament. It’s only logical.

    sozo, I really do appreciate your consideration of my perspective on these issues, even if you can’t fully agree with it, and I want you to know that even if we can’t agree on some of these things, I really do highly value your commitment to your faith in Christ. Not all Christians believe in the same way. And, we don’t have to, because none of us will really know we are right until that final judgement. We can all just hope to do the best we can, as we see the light to do that.

  90. I think I hear harps in the background.

  91. took14theteam says:

    Hmm

    Now we can post links to TNT Letters to the Editor blogs?

*
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