Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MARRIAGE: Referendum 74 is unconstitutional

Letter by Logan C. James, Tacoma on May 17, 2012 at 12:15 pm with 71 Comments »
May 17, 2012 12:15 pm

Now it has become clear to me that there are individuals in our lovely state that believe marriage is not a civil right. So to anyone thinking this it is time to realize that denying same-sex marriage couples the right to define their relationship as a marriage is unconstitutional. Here are a few examples of precedence set in place by the Supreme Court.

“We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man, marriage and procreation”
Justice William Douglas (Skinner v. Oklahoma)

“Marriage, as creating the most important relation in life,” “It is also to be observed that while marriage is often termed by text writers and in decisions of courts as a civil contract, generally to indicate that it must be founded upon the agreement of the parties, and does not require any religious ceremony for its solemnization, it is something more than a mere contract.” “It is an institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
Justice Stephen Fields (Maynard v. Hill)

“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. Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man….”
Chief Justice Earl Warren (Loving v. Virginia)

Leave a comment Comments → 71
  1. BlaineCGarver says:

    Not one of your “examples” applied to same sex marrigage. T’aint legal yet by a long shot. When it’s the law of the land, I’ll shut up.

  2. “When it’s the law of the land, I’ll shut up.”

    Shut up. It’s legal in the state of Washington.

  3. charliebucket says:

    larry you are killing me. LOL.

  4. BGC – the examples are ‘case law’ supporting the contention that marriage is a civil right, and thus to prohibit same sex-couples for being married is a violation of their civil rights.

    PS: the civil right of equal protection under the law.

  5. charlie – after awhile, you have to push their own words back in their mouths. LOL

    By the way, thanks for the ‘SSDD’ on AverageJoeyD. I had forgotten that acronym (?) and it is so suitable. He, in his various monikers, reminds me of the Dustin Hoffman character in “Rainman” or the father in law character in “Forget Paris”. Hook into one thought and re-spew, over and over.

    I am a little worried, though, about his obsession to the point of keeping archives of comments, particularly beerBoy’s. Someone that is so obsessed with others to that extent will probably eventually be arrested with photos of his obsession in various forms of dress taken from windows in their home.

    I think ehill is happy to be my son, though. That will take about 25 years off his life.

  6. charliebucket says:

    trust me Larry, I have noted the goings-on here, I am extremely observant and detail oriented.

    And, I surmise, very soon you and I are going to be accused of being the same poster, or, of knowing each other, or, of being related, or, of tag teaming on the board. Those tactics are common with right wing posters in internet land. When they ain’t got nuttin’ it’s what they do.

    SSDD, indeed.

  7. So there’s a statute that says a man cannot get married because he is a rainbow boy? How about one that says a female cannot get married because she’s a rainbow grrrl?

    There isn’t one, you say? Hmmm. Then where’s the civil right that’s violated?

    Hint – there isn’t any. And the 3% tail of the population doesn’t get to wag the 97% dog.

  8. “Not one of your “examples” applied to same sex marrigage”

    But they do set precedent that marriage is in fact a civil right, which is the bigots last gasp.

  9. aislander says:

    Er…those quotes were regarding marriage as it has always been defined. A new definition requires a new look…

  10. Scottc51 says:

    Not sure the letter writer wants to have the word “procreation” in the mix.

  11. aislander says:

    …and a new chance for the people to assert their understanding of the word.

  12. RLangdon says:

    charliebucket, Just a note of caution at becoming “friends” with LarryH (or whatever moniker he chooses to use from week to week). If you don’t agree with him 100% of the time, he will attack you just as nastily as he does the conservatives on these blogs who he hates. He also hates Christians. And, LarryH especially hates Catholics. Even if you are not a Catholic, but can support them on an issue here or there, LarryH will hate you forever.

    Now, as to his invitation for you to join his personal blog in Olympia. You might want to think twice about that, because if you sign up for HIS blog, you give him access to your personal information, and that may come back to haunt you.

    Just wanted to give you fair warning before you take the next step with LarryH.

  13. RLangdon says:

    Folks, there was another blog topic in these TNT forums in which the question about marriage being a basic right or basic civil right came up. Now, thanks to Logan James, I believe we have our definitive answer. Marriage is a Basic Civil Right, as described by no less than three esteemed Justices on three cases from The United States Supreme Court.

    Thus, as a Basic Civil Right, it CANNOT be denied by law or by coercion to any legal citizen of The United States of America. Homosexual Americans have the same Basic Civil Right to Marriage that all other American Citizens have. So, if they want to marry the person they love, they have the RIGHT to do that. Even if that person is the same sex as they are!

    Game!

    Set!

    Match!!!

    Thank you for playing.

  14. Pgroup: enjoy the taste of shoe leather.

    Washington State Law Defense of Marriage Act 1998 & RCW 26-04.010: Marriage contract

    1) Marriage is a civil contract between a male and a female who have each attained the age of eighteen years, and who are otherwise capable.

    (2) Every marriage entered into in which either the husband or the wife has not attained the age of seventeen years is void except where this section has been waived by a superior court judge of the county in which one of the parties resides on a showing of necessity.

    Aislander – The only reason marriage needs to be re-defined is that it now restricts marriage to one male and one female.

    So we re-define marriage as a civil contract between two people who have each attained the age of eighteen years, and who are otherwise capable.

  15. RLangdon…..were you the little girl in middle school who ran around telling other little girls that they shouldn’t be friends with the little girl that took your friend away from you?

    Just when I thought I’d seen everything on the internet….LOL

  16. RLangdon says:

    See what I mean charliebucket? Just a nasty little man.

  17. RLangdon says:

    Now, to serious people on this blog, if Sodomy is a Civil Right, then surely Marriage is a Civil Right as well, wouldn’t you agree!

    “William Eskridge, a Yale Law School professor and author of “Dishonorable Passions,” a book about the history of sodomy laws in America, rejected the contention that sodomy isn’t a civil right. He pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2003 Lawrence vs. Texas decision, which struck down the criminal sodomy law in Texas – and by extension, other states – as unconstitutional.”

    “The Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence that anal or oral sex, commonly known as sodomy, when performed in private by consenting adults, is constitutionally protected — which makes it a civil right,” Eskridge said.”

    Read all about it at the link below…

    http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/17/11747197-law-experts-challenge-virginia-lawmaker-bob-marshall-on-sodomy-is-not-a-civil-right-comment?lite

  18. Kluwer says, “But they do set precedent that marriage is in fact a civil right, which is the bigots last gasp.”

    I’d be really careful if I were you waving that bigot label around in the wind kluwer. Ive read many of your posts, and based on the description of that label, you and most of your other liberal cronies are quite the bigots yourselves! Bigot does not apply only to Conservative views against Liberals. It goes the other way as well, and frankly often more frequent and certainly louder.

    So, you might want to watch where you throw your stones.

  19. :::::bowing to the Royal Drama Queen:::::

  20. GHTaxPayer says:

    Here’s what’s popular – In all 32 states where this has been put to public vote – homo marriage has been banned. In 6 other states they restricted the definition.

    Get back in the closet and stay there.

  21. RLangdon says:

    You know, many respected psychological texts and behavioral journals have reported that men who frequently use the terms “queer”, “homo” and other derogatory terms, to describe gays in a negative and harsh manner, may actually be overcompensating in their outward expression against homosexuals in order to cover for their own latent-homosexual tendencies. In essence, they are attempting to cover the fact that they actually have homosexual feelings and desires themselves, that they have been taught are socially unacceptable, but they still find the feelings personally exciting.

  22. RLangdon points out….”You know, many respected psychological texts and behavioral journals have reported that men who frequently use the terms “queer”, “homo” and other derogatory terms, to describe gays in a negative and harsh manner, may actually be……

    This actually does bring up a point. Assuming your assertion is correct, would that also not indicate that homosexuals who use the term “straight, or bigot, or racist or any other anti-conservative label, are ALSO on that same level of being closet HETROsexuals!

    OMG! Think of this possibility….How about all those homosexuals who thrive on referring to Christians as Religious Nazis”….Is that to suggest that they might possess latent Christian tendancies!!!!

    Nope, I thought about it, then thought….I just cant pass that one up! You kiddies enjoy yourselves.

  23. RLangdon attempts a boast with, “Folks, there was another blog topic in these TNT forums in which the question about marriage being a basic right or basic civil right came up. Now, thanks to Logan James, I believe we have our definitive answer. Marriage is a Basic Civil Right, as described by no less than three esteemed Justices on three cases from The United States Supreme Court.”

    Sorry again, but none of those three court cases had anything to do with homosexual marriage. Seem to me you characters are so desperate for legitimacy that you repeatedly try to cash in on judgements made under entirely different circumstances and situations. In at least one of those cases, it regarded the inter-racial marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN.

    You people are just going to have to win your own case…and as GHtaxpayer correctly added, when put to public vote, the homosexual marriage proponents just dont seem to fare so well. I wont be placing any bets in the near future on your success.

  24. charliebucket says:

    larry thank you for the invite but I am already a member of another forum/blog that takes way too much of my time.

    rlangdon, thank you for the suggestion, and trust me, I have already been stalked by a woman on the internet, so I am very careful and selective in my dealings, and, already have the police involved with my internet situation, so I am good as far as my internet safety goes. thanks again.

    now, if I may suggest: would all you with ‘personal history’ try to keep the personal stuff to yourselves? I mean unless this is your personal blog(s), maybe you should take your personal beefs elsewhere and not the newspaper’s public blog. is there a private message system here you could use instead of the board? (this is not directed at one or two individuals, it is directed at many, the personal stuff by all ya’ll is rampant and uncool and some it is downright creepy, IMO).

  25. “Get back in the closet and stay there.”

    Back to the back of the bus.

  26. Thanks for the advise, Charlie. I’ve been tolerating these activities far too long and possibly I should engage law enforcement as well.

  27. I note that we are back to the rhetoric roulette game, this time it’s about language that is distained, for the most part, in social circles.

    Now, regardless of whether interracial marriage was between a man and a women or not, the logic used to prevent it in the past was nothing less than the logic presented today, with exception of the “man/woman” issue.

    Look, people – WE GET IT. A male/male relationship isn’t the same as a “male/female”, not is it the same as a male/female/female/female which was legal in the past. Get over your old tired ethics (that was a great phrase originally) and live and let live. Two people wanting to marry will do no harm to society and there is no logical reason to prohibit them.

  28. correction – “Call off your old tired ethics”

  29. BlaineCGarver says:

    *tsk* Some of you try, but you are not very good at being azzholes. Washington is but one state, and nothing has been written in stone as of yet. Speaking of last gasps, I’ve noticed what when people run out of points, they call racist, bigot, or some other personal attack. Wow, I’m sure offended by that…LOL

  30. XBJ98N writes, “Sorry again, but none of those three court cases had anything to do with homosexual marriage”

    If you read the discussions and the majority ruling in those cases, you will see that the Supreme Court had to degtermine if marriage is a federal constitutional issue or whether it was not part of the constitution, something specifically given to the states to control as they see fit or if it was an individual right.

    The determination that marriage is a basic civil right was a general discussion and not specific to the type of case. It discusses various parts of the constitution and how they apply.

    After determining that marriage is a basic individual right, they had to determine of the states could have any jurisdiction over it. They found that yes, states can prohibit or control marriage in order not to harm the participants in the marriage, not to harm others, not to harm society and not to harm democratic processes.

    They also talked about what kinds of issues are not relevant, and that includes general disapproval by others, religious views (either for or against certain types of marriages), but can include scietific studies that change the way we look at certain amrriages. (Several states had to relax their restrictions on relatives and allow distant cousins to marry, and certain states had to lower their age restrictions after scientific studies showed no harm.)

    I think it is very clear that opponents of gay marriage want to win, they need to develop some strong arguments that gay marriage is harmful to society, harmful to children raised in the marriages, or harmful some other way, and that is a tall order, since no studies have shown that yet.

    Because the activist justices on the right seem predisposed to ignore any precedent they don’t like, I think the decision at this point is a toss up, not for constitutional reasons, but because the conservative justices have been extremely political and have discounted individual rights and freedoms to support their ideological views.

  31. chile74 says:

    Blaine – I have noticed the same personal attacks and that’s why I don’t comment very often. You got it right with your first post. There is nothing in case law that backs up gay marriage. After a few posts, the discussion just goes off into nonsense.

  32. chile74 – you get what you give. Under any moniker

    There was nothing in case law to deny states the right to prohibit interracial marriage either, but they did.

  33. “*tsk* Some of you try, but you are not very good at being azzholes. Washington is but one state, and nothing has been written in stone as of yet. Speaking of last gasps, I’ve noticed what when people run out of points, they call racist, bigot, or some other personal attack.”

    The irony is thick, Blaine.

  34. charliebucket says:

    larry, good points about the case law.

    and, I am well aware of who the trouble makers are here and I suggest you might make sure to take care of yourself, if you know what I mean.

    BTW, giving back to them what they dish out backfires because then they gang up on you. sound familiar? and larry, the dirt dished on you, publically, and outing your real (especially last name) name etc by posters speaks volumes about those posters. take care of yourself man.

  35. “LEXINGTON, Ky. –Two female students say they were not allowed to attend Lexington Catholic High School’s prom as a couple Saturday night, upsetting a number of students at the school.

    Hope Decker, 18, a senior, and sophomore Tiffany Wright, 16, had already gotten their dresses for the event, but Friday afternoon they were told by school administrators they could not attend as a couple because of the church’s stance on same-sex relationships, Wright said.”

    Here it is, folks. They say it never happens in America and it’s happening. I wonder if all of the Catholic endorsed couples that attended the prom were having heterosexual relationships (thus having sex)?

    A perfect example of the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church and the issue of “First Amendment” rights.

  36. Charlie – It’s really not that big of a deal. Internet bullies are cowards by trade. If they really wanted to do damage, they’d have to come out of skulking in the shadows, and as we know, they don’t have the plumbing for that.

  37. Scottc51 says:

    Chile74 is right about the personal attacks. A very low form of argument. Name calling exposes the writer’s doubt about the strength of his or her argument.

  38. TheSlag says:

    The irony is thick. This is the same Blaine who calls the victims of Bales horrendous massacre ‘barnyard animals’. The same Blaine who loudly claims to be a victim of affirmative action. Describing you a racist is not an insult, Blaine, it’s a fact. I venture far out on a limb her to say you are a homophobe, too.

  39. charliebucket says:

    I hope not larry but the personal and pointed attacks etc are concerning to me, as a registered user here, and as a human being.

    regarding the lesbians not allowed to attend prom: what a shame. glad I escaped the Catholic Church when I did.

  40. Scott…maybe you’d like to address Blaine’s behavior directly to him. He appears to be one that likes to use personal attacks and profanity.

    Now that we’ve heard from two monikers or more….

  41. Charlie, the only reason that the school would know that they are “lesbians” is because they are open about their relationship. When my oldest son attended his Catholic HS prom, a bunch of the kids all went together, without paring off in to boy/girl relationships. What did THAT constitute? Group sex?????

    I’m sad for these girls to have been discriminated by a place that should be protecting them, but the other side of the coin is that it is proof of the discrimination directed at people who opening say “I’m not the same as you”.

  42. aislander says:

    I gotta say that it sure sounds as if the voices in sum-one’s head are having a love-fest in there…

  43. In my school district there is also a growing trend of same-sex group attendance at proms etc.

    That is not to say the groups are gay, lesbian, or into group sex.
    Just friends wanting to be together as a group.

  44. sumyungboi says:

    Marriage applies to heterosexual couples, and so the letter writers examples don’t apply. I can hold an apple in my hand, and demand that it be called a baseball bat, but it’s still an apple, not a baseball bat.

  45. “A new definition requires a new look…”

    It’s not a ‘definition’, it’s a right and it’s Constitutionally protected.

  46. “So, you might want to watch where you throw your stones.”

    This treads hypocrisy moment.

  47. sumyungboi says:

    kluwer sez: “It’s not a ‘definition’, it’s a right and it’s Constitutionally protected.”

    Nyet, if that were the case, we wouldn’t be debating it.

  48. To amplify what Kluwer says:

    Prohibiting civil marriage for same sex-couples violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

    Anti-sodomy laws violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable as set forth in the 4th Amendment.

    Sumy – feel free to not participate in any kind of marriage – in the meantime go look up the 9th Amendment.

  49. Kluwer,

    Notice how the ‘party of smaller, less intrusive government’ always comes down on the side of more intrusive government?

    In terms of abortion, Jimmy Carter was an enlightened, compassioned small government conservative.

    He personally did not approve of or support abortion, but as President was duty bound to support Roe v Wade.

    His solution was to work to reduce the necessity of abortion by supporting contraction and adoption programs.

  50. sumyungboi says:

    xring sez: “Prohibiting civil marriage for same sex-couples violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.”

    I disagree. Everyone, straight or otherwise, has exactly the same opportunities when it comes to marriage.

  51. LornaDoone says:

    “Marriage applies to heterosexual couples”

    Not in the State of Washington, and other states. Those that are uncomfortable with the law, are welcome to seek life elsewhere. It’s a personal choice in our state.

  52. Sum – you are wrong – go read my response to Pgroup posted May 17, 2012 at 4:58 PM.

    There are currently 31 states with similar restrictions.

  53. RLangdon says:

    Washington state! Love it, or LEAVE IT!!!

  54. sumyungboi says:

    xring, everyone, straight or otherwise, has exactly the same opportunities when it comes to marriage. I challenge you to show me otherwise. I’m not interested in reading your “opinion”, if you’re a man, you can marry a woman, if you’re a woman, you can marry a man, this applies to all citizens, hence, we all have _exactly_ the same opportunities.

  55. LornaDoone says:

    “everyone, straight or otherwise, has exactly the same opportunities when it comes to marriage.”

    Since the law changed in Washington.

  56. RLangdon says:

    Apparently Lorna is even more dense than Larry. That same-sex marriage law, passed by the WA state legislature, does NOT go into effect until June 7th. Thus, same-sex couples cannot legally be married in this state until then.

    I get what you are saying sumyunboi. You are saying that everyone of legal age in the state of Washington has the legal right to marry anyone of the opposite sex who will consent to the marriage. Thus, we all have the same right, to marry someone of the opposite sex. Correct? Correct!

    So, let me ask you this sumyungboi: Let’s say you have a daughter. Are you okay with her marrying a flaming Gay guy? It’s legal!!

  57. RL……please….don’t whine about me being too mean to you when you like to start crap with me.

    Your statement is academic. I’m less than worried about when the law takes place, but if it makes for your superiority complex to bring it up, pat yourself on the back.

    Meanwhile, don’t go into your whining act about me addressing you when you want to engage me.

    How did you like the number that the Catholic Church did on those high school girls? Now two girls cannot attend a school event together. No room for a lawsuit there, huh?

  58. “Notice how the ‘party of smaller, less intrusive government’ always comes down on the side of more intrusive government?”

    I have noticed that, in fact they look to the big Govt to solve all they made up ‘problems’.

  59. langdon,
    You need to grow up and stop stalking people, you are lower than the conservatives with their childish attacks.
    Do yourself a favor and stop it.

  60. menopaws says:

    We have spent a lot of time, since 9/11, displacing our fear and anger on any minority available. Muslims, Hispanic immigrants, gays and lesbians, African Americans……….White America is just picking a new group to slather fear and ugliness on. And, it really needs to stop. Because, guess what???? It makes you look desperate, it makes you look ignorant, and it makes you look like Archie Bunker. There is a voice from the past…….And, given the atmosphere today—he was much more honorable than this crowd is today. At least he was honest and open with his bag of prejudice.
    The future is only open to those who adapt to change and grow with it. There is NOT ONE good reason for people to fear gay marriage. We need to stop victimizing our own citizens because of their race, sexual orientation or religion. This country needs all of it’s citizens to work with each other. Don’t let people divide us—figure out ways to help us all work together…….Why is it so damn important to single people out as if their existence somehow threatens ours??? I refuse to be manipulated by any religion or political party that nutures prejudice as part of their agenda. The world would be a much better place if we stopped letting ourselves be used for such purposes.

  61. peppermelly says:

    Most people recognize that marriage is clearly a Civil Right, established by the US Supreme Court in 1967 by the Decision in Loving v Virginia. The Constitution is clear that any right explicitly provided for in the Constitution itself, or explicitly recognized by the US Supreme Court IS a Civil Right of US citizens. The issue here is not whether marriage is a civil right, but what IS marriage(?)

    The philosophies and ideals inherent in traditional marriage and “gay marriage” are distinctly different. Traditional, or gender balanced, marriage recognizes that men and women possess unique and complimentary attributes. That men and women perform unique prospective roles in marriage and family. This is evidenced by the fact that only a man and a woman can naturally conceive new life. It is also evidenced by the unique roles which mothers and fathers provide in parenting their children.

    Gay marriage philosophy, on the other hand, holds that gender, and gender balance, is not important in family, and that the gender balanced marriage ideal amounts to gender discrimination. This philosophy asserts that each individual is entitled to determine their own gender role for themselves and that this supposed right takes precedence over any theoretical rights of children to be raised by their real parents. The right to define ones sexual identity in spite of what ones gender may actually be. Husband, wife, mother, father, gay marriage philosophy believes, are regarded as stereotypes unjustly imposed by society. Gay marriage advocates argue that everyone should be able to define marriage, and their role in it, for themselves.

    These are two distinctly different philosophies. One holds that only a gender balance relationship, applied equally to everyone, constitutes true marriage. The other holds that when it comes to family, two male lovers are a man and a woman.

    Advocates for same sex marriage confuse the legitimate right of homosexuals to practice homosexuality, as recognized by the US Supreme Court in Lawrence v Texas, where a Texas anti sodomy law was found to be unconstitutional, with a supposed entitlement to gay marriage. In Lawrence v. Texas the court clearly stated that its Decision “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.”

    Furthermore, when the Justices in Loving v. Virginia found marriage to be a Civil Right, they were clearly referring to a philosophical version of marriage which reflect the natural and complementary relationship between a man and a woman. It is ludicrous to suggest that they were assuming a definition of marriage so broad and inclusive and to be arguing for the formal recognition of homosexual relationships as equal to gender balanced relationships.

    When the US Supreme Court overturned Virginia’s anti miscegenation laws in 1967, Loving v. Virginia, it recognized the civil right of all citizens to participate equally in marriage by the same rules, and within the same ideal and philosophy. It was not necessary to redefine the core philosophy of marriage in order to allow true marriage equality.

  62. sumy dumby – the Revised Code of Washington is hardly my opinion. It is a cold hard legal fact.

  63. took14theteam says:

    Cue ehill for xring’s attack @ 2:32.

    Hey kluwless, wouldn’t that be some leftist hypocrisy? Just axin…..

  64. averageJoseph says:

    Yep.

  65. averageJoseph says:

    It’s comedy gold took1… comedy gold.

  66. “wouldn’t that be some leftist hypocrisy?”
    I would like to thank you and the other sock puppets for demonstrating that you truly do not know the meaning of ‘hypocrisy’.
    I asked the question and you answered it.
    Your childish name calling is noted and the irony did not go unnoticed either!

    An average joe also prove it is an out right liar by claiming it ignores my posts, thank you for that validation of my observations.

  67. tacomarph says:

    “The right to define ones sexual identity in spite of what ones gender may actually be.”

    I’m glad someone brought this up. If we are going to define marriage as between one man and one woman, we also must define exactly *what* is a man, and *what* is a woman. Most people think of sexual gender as a simple dichotomy, while it is not. There are many biological situations in which a person may be genetically male, but physically female, or vice-versa. Or some persons may be genetically both sexes, with the anatomy of both sexes. These are a few of the gender ambiguous or intersexed or “third gender” conditions:

    5-alpha reductase deficiency
    androgen insensitivity syndrome
    aphallia
    clitoromegaly
    congenital adrenal hyperplasia
    gonadal dysgenesis (partial & complete)
    hypospadias
    Klinefelter syndrome
    micropenis
    mosaicism involving sex chromosomes
    ovo-testes (formerly called “true hermaphroditism”)
    partial androgen insensitivity syndrome
    progestin-induced virilisation
    Swyer syndrome
    Turner syndrome

    Unless the state is in the business of chromosomal testing and inspecting sex organs, I don’t see how defining marriage as between a man and woman would work. And these are just the biological variations, once you start talking about psycho-social variations, the list is much longer.

    Given all this variation in nature, for me, it is not a great leap to deduce that sexual orientation is chosen by nature.

  68. peppermelly says:

    tacomarph

    Such gender ambiguities are very rare. Over the years I have known many people who were active bisexuals, whose genders were very obvious, and only a few folks who were strictly gay, as from birth. Most LGBT people are bisexuals and and can chose their gender roles. Many same sex marriage advocates recognize this fact but still argue that all people should have complete freedom in defining for themselves what marriage is and how they fit into it. No restrictions are distinctions at all. This opens the door wide open for same sex incest.

  69. Wow, put on your waders….it’s getting deep in here!

  70. wildcelticrose says:

    interesting quote I read this morning…

    “Do you really think that god is going to judge two people of the same sex who choose to love each other, more harshly than someone who chooses to hate someone they don’t know?”

    why not spend all that time and energy on good christian pursuits like feeding/housing the poor and healing the sick.

    You know… the teachings that your church claims to be following…

  71. tacomarph says:

    “Such gender ambiguities are very rare”

    0.1% of everyone is a lot of people.

    “Over the years I have known many people who were active bisexuals, whose genders were very obvious, and only a few folks who were strictly gay, as from birth. Most LGBT people are bisexuals and and can chose their gender roles.”

    I think you will agree that using ONLY the people we know as a sample is not representative of the whole.

    “This opens the door wide open for same sex incest.”

    As opposed to heterosexual incest? Not sure I get your point there. Both kinds of incest are already illegal in Washington. Same-sex marriage will not change that.

*
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