Proposition 8 ruling in California: religion roundup

By Elizabeth Tenety Religion roundup on Prop 8 ruling: In the immediate aftermath of Wednesday’s ruling that deemed Proposition 8, … Continued

By Elizabeth Tenety

Religion roundup on Prop 8 ruling:

In the immediate aftermath of Wednesday’s ruling that deemed Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California, unconstitutional, it was mostly religious organizations opposed to gay marriage that spoke out.

Below is a roundup of religious responses; this list will be updated as more congregations and religious organizations weigh in.

Catholic Church Statement by USCCB President Cardinal George:

“Marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of any society. The misuse of law to change the nature of marriage undermines the common good,” Cardinal George said. “It is tragic that a federal judge would overturn the clear and expressed will of the people in their support for the institution of marriage. No court of civil law has the authority to reach into areas of human experience that nature itself has defined.”

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regrets today’s decision. California voters have twice been given the opportunity to vote on the definition of marriage in their state and both times have determined that marriage should be recognized as only between a man and a woman. We agree. Marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of society.”

Family Research Council:

“Marriage is recognized as a public institution, rather than a purely private one, because of its role in bringing together men and women for the reproduction of the human race and keeping them together to raise the children produced by their union. The fact that homosexuals prefer not to enter into marriages as historically defined does not give them a right to change the definition of what a ‘marriage’ is.”

Jewish Orthodox Union:

“Traditional Jewish values recognize marriage as being only between a man and woman. In addition to our religious values – which we do not seek to impose on anyone – we fear legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” poses a grave threat to the fundamental civil right of religious freedom.”

Episcopal Bishop Bishop J. Jon Bruno of Los Angeles:

“Justice is advancing thanks to today’s ruling affirming Californians’ constitutional right to marriage in faithful, same-gender relationships.”

Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism:

“Proposition 8, adopted by ballot initiative in 2008, effectively denies gay and lesbian individuals the same rights afforded heterosexual couples under the law. Judge Walker’s decision reaffirms the strong commitment to equality upon which our nation is built.”

Rev. Welton Gaddy, Baptist minister and President of Interfaith Alliance:

“We are pleased to see that Judge Vaughn Walker was sensitive to the concerns of people of faith who oppose same-gender marriage on religious grounds but that he recognized, as do we, that their religious freedom will not be impacted by the legalization of same-gender marriage. America’s diverse religious landscape leaves room for a variety of theological perspectives on same-gender marriage; indeed, some faiths enthusiastically support it and others vehemently oppose it. Under this ruling, as with any constitutionally based marriage equality law, no religion would ever be required to condone same-gender marriage, and no member of the clergy would ever be required to perform a wedding ceremony not in accordance with his or her religious beliefs.”

National Organization for Marriage

“NOM is confident that the Supreme Court will affirm the basic civil rights of millions of American voters to define marriage as one man and one woman.”

Focus on the Family

“Judge Walker’s ruling raises a shocking notion that a single federal judge can nullify the votes of more than 7 million California voters, binding Supreme Court precedent, and several millennia-worth of evidence that children need both a mom and a dad.”

Emily Eastwood, Executive Director of Lutherans Concerned/North America:

“Here we are, 1,977 years from the death of Christ. Proposition 8 has been ruled unconstitutional, Mexico’s Supreme Court has upheld same-gender marriage in Mexico City, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America allows ministers in committed same-gender relationships to serve in the church, the United Church of Christ has for some years now, the Presbyterian Church USA is studying same-gender marriage, offers benefits to same-gender spouses of church employees, and is looking to abolish the ban on clergy in same-gender committed relationships. A month ago, another federal court ruled the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. It is clear in God’s world and this world: it does not matter how “traditional” it is, how long you thought slavery was ok, how long you denied women the vote in the land of the free and the home of the brave, how long after a bloody Civil War states were still denying basic rights to a minority, or how many voters you stack up who want to continue to deny a minority something the Constitution views as a right. We are terribly slow learners, we human beings, and frail. We fall short of our promise and the words we say. That’s why the Constitution of the United States enshrines how majorities are to behave regarding minorities: they can’t vote them to be unequal. Christ has to be pleased: we are finally getting it, and that happens to be how God works too.” – Emily Eastwood, Executive Director, Lutherans Concerned/North America

Elizabeth Tenety
Written by

  • mmcwalters

    I find it funny that those who have made a comments are the ones who do not pay any taxes on their contributions. When religious organizations pay their fair share of taxes then and only then can they have a seat at the ballot box. Until then they spread hatred from the pulpit.

  • flanoggin

    I am uncomfortable with any religion influencing secular law. Should we outlaw pork? )Jews and Muslims) Should we outlaw divorce and contraception? (Catholic) Should we instill polygamy? (Mormon). Give unto Caesar what is due Caesar and leave the rest alone. There is less mention of homosexulaity in the bible than divorce. Let loving couples be and tend your own gardens.

  • merrill277

    It is the people who have voted whether religious or not. It is the peoples voice who should be heard not the minority. When you override the will of the people then you have begun a dictatorship not a democracy. Even if I was for gay marriage, I would not want to see it happen this way.

  • phred20910

    If marriage is for “bringing together men and women for the reproduction of the human race and keeping them together to raise the children produced by their union,” then how long should the government allow a man and woman to remain married until they produce a child? Should the marriage be annulled after a year? Two years? How about men and women who are unable to produce children? Should they be prohibited by law from marrying? No fair adopting or using AI, either–recent studies show that children from same-sex unions are as well-adjusted as any. “Unnatural?” So is dialysis. So are baby incubators. (h/t to Jeremy Hardy) No, you’ll have to come up with something better to convince this middle-aged heterosexual man.

  • willemkraal

    HOW ABOUT EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL AMERICANS GAY/STRAIGHT OR IN BETWEEN. JUST REMEMBER RELIGION POISONS EVERYONE IT TOUCHES, ITS A SCAM A TOTAL FRAUD A BIG MONEY MAKER!!!

  • TORO50

    FLANOGGIN:Mormons don’t practice polygamy, and haven’t for 120 years. That is like saying that anyone with a family history in the Southern states must be in favor of slavery. Get your facts straight.

  • shadow27

    Dear “Christians” where in The Bible does Jesus condemn homosexuality? Oh he doesn’t. As for argument that marriage is for the continuation of the species, does that mean couples that can’t have children should be banned from wedding? I think by that argument hetro couples that CHOOSE not to have kids should not only have their marriage annulled, but be excommunicated. I mean, they’re openly flouting God’s will.

  • MrDarwin

    If anybody’s really concerned with “protecting” marriage maybe they could start by addressing the divorce rate–it sure seems like divorce is a much bigger threat to “traditional marriage”, i.e., people trying to get out of marriage, than gay people trying to get into it.

  • presto668

    merrill277:So the people should be able to override the Constitution whenever they feel like it?

  • Chops2

    The Catholic Church can really just shut the f#%k up about morality, seriously. “No court of civil law has the authority to reach into areas of human experience that nature itself has defined.”Did nature define raping kids and covering it up?Shut up

  • shadow27

    TORO50 there are plenty of fundamentalist Mormons out there practicing in polygamy. You might not consider them Mormons, but then many Protestants don’t consider Mormons Christians.You’d think after being chased across the continent with pitchforks and torches Mormons would be more apt to defend against the oppression of the majority. You’d think that, but of course you’d be wrong.

  • Rhea1

    Marriage is a legal and civil institution. That’s why it can be celebrated in a courthouse. If a religious group doesn’t want to celebrate a same-sex marriage, no one is forcing them to do so.Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. He did condemn a few other things, such as divorce and remarriage, praying in public to show how religious you are, and being rich or even caring about whether you have money, but it looks like a lot of people have torn those pages out of their Bibles. They’d rather jump up and down about other people’s sex lives and deny them equal rights.According to Jesus, Ronald and Nancy Reagan were living in sin because they’d both been divorced. Haven’t heard much about that from the religious marriage folks…. (Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11-11; Luke 16:17)

  • APaganplace

    I see a lot of monotheist religions once again mistaking themselves for the United States government. Nothing new there.

  • APaganplace

    Oh. Oh. By the way. If you want to put the FRC: ‘Family Research Council’ on the same footing as other word Christian religions, ms. Tenety, you may want to look into just what kind of egregious lying sacks they are. Not to say anyone else isn’t on this issue, but some people don’t even know when they’re being insulted.

  • Ilikemyprivacy

    I love how “conservatives” think that the law exists to try to make everybody believe the nonsense they believe. It’s apparently OK for the government to regulate the private lives of individuals but not oil companies or Wall Street.You think homosexuals shouldn’t marry? Don’t marry one. And then mind your own business.

  • almliemark

    so since the main argument for same sex marriage is “equality for all” does anyone in favor really believe in equality for all”? Is anyone for polygamy being the next definition change in marriage? After all they have been “discriminated” against much longer than any other minority group.can anyone in favor of same-sex marriage name one other minority group that they will support because this is about “equality for all”?

  • analyst72

    The foundation of any society throughout history is NOT marriage but laws and rules governing the interaction of its members, among themselves, as well as with other groups.

  • analyst72

    The foundation of any society throughout history is NOT marriage but laws and rules governing the interaction of its members, among themselves, as well as with other groups.

  • APaganplace

    Well, if people want to be ‘religious,’ about the ‘traditional definition of marriage,’ then someone could rape me, pay my father five shekels, and claim to own me for eternity. No. Thanks. No thanks, even.

  • shadow27

    Almliemark homosexuals have been discriminated against – in most cultures – for far longer than polygamist. While the Old Testament – arguably – denounces homosexuality it is rife with polygamist. Abraham, who pretty much founded Judaism and Christianity had 3 wives.I don’t really have a problem with polygamy. I’m guessing driving it into secret it is probably more hurtful than helpful. Because you end with these enclaves like they have out in Texas and Utah where the women are sequestered from society at large and subjugated through religious ideology. Plus polygamy would be awesome in this more liberated day and age then it was in eons past. You’d totally have all these women married to like 9 guys. I’m also for immigration reform because I see the way it’s being used now as a cudgel against minority (legal) immigrants as well as against illegal ones. So what reasons do you have against polygamy?

  • APaganplace

    They’re *not* ‘against polygamy,’ Shadow: just afraid they won’t get any and that that has something to do with anyone being gay. :)

  • APaganplace

    Oh, btw, sorry to interrupt the moralistic titillation about the sex of who I love dearly and make a very nice baked ziti in bolognese for:Look! A *distraction!*Worrying about polygamy doesn’t mean you’re treating a couple of gals fairly.

  • uh_huhh

    On one of the great human rights causes of the day, most religious figures are either hostile or ambivalent–Reform Jews and Episcopalians being exceptions.Seeing these religious figures either oppose or disregard this cause concretely demonstrates to millions how bankrupt these figures’ pretensions to moral purity are.It goes far to explaining why so many good people no longer bother to set foot inside any of these figures’ houses of worship.

  • mullerohana

    comparing this issue to polygamy does not follow logic. To frame the comparison logically, one would ask, “if it is legal for some people to practice polygamy, should it be legal for all”? Well, I believe the answer to that is yes. Either outlaw polygamy or let everyone do it; either outlaw all marriage, or let everyone do it.

  • billwxyz

    As a 5th generation mormon, born/raised in Utah with 3 sons and 4 grandchildren, here’s how I’d respond to the questions:Is marriage, as the Family Research Council declared a “public institution”? It’s the family that’s an institution in our society – private, public, religious, secular, common-law, blended, extended, and sadly broken sometimes. No single religious or secular view of marriage can likely encompass all the forms of family that exist in our country today and certainly no single view ought to trump or outlaw alternative beliefs about marriage.Do you agree that, as the LDS church said, that “Marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of society”? Marriage – along with love and family – is a beautiful pillar of our society. To suggest marriage can only be between one man and one woman is a theological claim that neither the bible, the torah, nor the koran actually supports. Any mormon in good standing who says he/she believes only in the one man and one woman form of marriage is breaking faith with mormon theology.What’s at stake for religious organizations if same-sex marriage becomes legal? The same thing that was at stake 100 years ago when asking what inter-racial marriage would do when it became legal. Churches will be fine. What will supportive religious communities gain if gay marriage gets legal standing?Their moral stance will gain legal standing. I grew up in Utah in the late ’50s and early ’60s where interracial marriage and inter-faith marriage were deemed a violation of God’s will. Separation of theology and secular legal matters makes it clear states cannot long deny citizens equal rights.

  • uh_huhh

    Polygamy is a red herring.Folks, laws don’t just exist in a logical vacuum. Laws are grounded in reasons.There are reasons why we ban polygamy–namely, protection of women from subordination in a harem-type situation, protection of teenage girls from sexual abuse by patriarchs, and protection of teenage boys from mistreatment by patriarchs (who would compete with them for wives). Either we find some or all of those reasons adequate for banning polygamy, or we don’t. Whether we permit interracial marriage, same-sex marriage, or interfaith marriage is wholly beside the point.We do not allow underage marriage, but for different reasons than we ban polygamy. Namely, we think minors lack sufficient maturity to make a lifetime commitment. Whether we find that rationale persuasive has nothing to do with whether we allow interracial, interfaith, or same-sex marriage.Many states ban same-sex marriage. The question is why? What is the rationale? It’s hard to come up with a very strong one. Regardless, whether a good rationale exists for the bans has nothing to do with whether there are good reasons for banning polygamous and underage marriages.”Slippery slope” arguments are flimsy because they ignore the fact that each of these issues is separate and grounded in completely different rationales.

  • shaiarra

    Marriage used to be at an earlier age. WIKIPEDIA “Betrothal” GOOGLE:”BIBLE POLYGAMY”However in Old and New Testament times marriage was likely to be at an earlier age, compared to now, and therefore SELF TOUCH SEX would be less of an issue. Because of high rates of mortality, it would be natural for people to marry early.Marriage ages in the Ancient Near East: (ADULTS married the under age EVEN IN BIBLE ie MARY AND JOSEPH) Ancient Egypt marriage ages: females 12-14, males 14-20Banging children and relatives was “normal” for Moses and many other tribes of the Middle East and “holy” land. And so was god sanctioned genocide, slavery and rape. But somehow, intercourse between consenting adults is a sin.

  • shaiarra

    AS JUDGE JUDY A JURIST SAID in a broadcast about a women being sued by her husband mistress “MARRIAGE IS A CONTRACT” U.C.C. (partnership),SO ITS LEGAL FOR ADULTS TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT AND THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (a LICENSE) , .IF “CHRIST IS A MALE AND MALE XTIANS ARE PART OF HIS “BRIDE” IS THAT NOT SAME SEX MARRIAGE, WIKIPEDIA “MARRIAGE” AND SEE HOW DIVERS AND CHANGING IT IS ALL OVER THE WORLD AND TIME

  • APaganplace

    Ms. Tenety: ‘Round up’ *this:*””The response from the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles to the announcement Wednesday (Aug. 4) that a federal judge had overturned California’s Proposition 8 was swift and celebratory.”Justice is advancing thanks to today’s ruling affirming Californians’ constitutional right to marriage in faithful, same-gender relationships,” Bishop J. Jon Bruno said in an official statement.The Episcopal Church, which has in recent years become one of the Christian denominations most supportive of gay and lesbian rights, has been vocal in its opposition to Proposition 8. “””

  • shaiarra

    IT IS GENETICS BEING RE-ENFORCED BY NATURE ie ESTROGEN IN FOOD/ WATER/ AIR/PLASTICS etc.GOOGLE: “INTERSEXED” people BORN with both fully, ENVIROMENTAL ESTROGEN RE-ENFORCES ITSIN INVOLVES A CHOICE, ESTROGEN HORMONAL “GOD” MADE NATURAL FOOD/ WATER BASE IS NOT A CHOICE NOR A CONSENT, ( ENTRAPMENT BY GOD?) YOU DONT OUT LAW SOMETHING THEN PUT IT IN THE FOOD/ WATER SOURCES, WITHOUT ANY EFFECTS EXPECTED THAT REALY UNJUST ENTRAPMENT, NO XTIAN HAS ANSWER WHY YHVH DOES THIS! THEBIBLE IN GENESIS SAYS VEGAN FOOD IS FOR MEN GROWTH (MEAT) OF MIND AND BODY, ( IN ESTROGEN SOAK?)SO IS THE 90% KNOWN VEGAN/ MEAT/ WATER/ AIR “GOD YHVH” CREATED AND BLESSED ESTROGEN SOURCES “SIN AND UNNATURAL?” BUT YOU EAT IT!So again, why does “GOD” put Estrogen in the Food source then? Its UNJUST to call Same Sex “SIN AND UNNATURAL” when “GOD” the lawgiver puts Behavioral Estrogen Hormones in the Food/Water and Air Sources and BLESSED THEM, ITS NOT A CHOICE NOR A CONSENT (IS THAT A TYPE OF ENTRAPMENT?, so its must be SUPERNATURAL yes crude oil increases estrogens in the lab studies

  • shaiarra

    GENETICS: GENDER IS A SPECTRUM OF RANGES NOT A CHOICE NOR A CONSENT, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER SPECTRIAL RANGES IN GENETICS, ie HAIR/EYE SHAPE-COLOR/SKIN TYPE-TONE/ HEIGHT /WEIGHT/ VOICE SIGHT/ HEARING/ TOUCH/ SMELL/ ALLERGIES etcIN THE FIRST TRIMESTER ALL EMBRYOS (X/Y) that come out of ALL MALES TESTIS SPERMATICS ARE GENETIC FEMALES, yes sir even you started out female before the sex change to male (an X/Y maker and carrier) while in the womb, THATS WHY MEN HAVE TEETS, & FEMALE DO HAVE PROSTATES LIKE MALESGOOGLE: “FEMALE PROSTATE G-SPOT” found in THE NEW SCIENTIST MAGAZINE ARTICLE BY DR.SHARON MOALEM AT MT. SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE NYC,NY, 30 MAY 2009 Pg33 paragraph #7, and also GOOGLE:(Adam Hermaphrodite/ Adam Androgyny)

  • bds112003

    In response to Shadow27: “Dear “Christians” where in The Bible does Jesus condemn homosexuality? Oh he doesn’t.” You’re right – Jesus doesn’t. It comes directly from God in Leviticus 18:22 – “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” (KJV)And from Shadow27 again: think by that argument hetro couples that CHOOSE not to have kids should not only have their marriage annulled, but be excommunicated. I mean, they’re openly flouting God’s will.THIS is what’s not in the Bible. There is no commandment that married couples have kids. There is an expression that it is the general intent of God that people marry and have kids, but it is not commanded anywhere.

  • army164

    Thank God for all of us that we live in a country that is governed by Constitutional law and not the American version of Sharia Law. Marriage in America is recognized and legalized by the state, not your chosen faith. If one desires you may elect to be married in the “eyes of God” but it isn’t a requirement. The Catholic Church and Churc of Latter Day Saints amongst others should be happy. The judge didn’t order you to change your discrimnatory ways, no the orders and faiths that that would continue to discriminate are free to do so to your heart and soul’s content. Knock yourselves out. Nobody is demanding that you perform these marriages so mind your doggone business. Those of us who choose to be religiously observant and do so in faiths that do not discriminate will welcome those that you shun. This isn’t the land of Salt Lake or the Vatican it is America

  • Chops2

    The slippery slope arguement works both ways. If we allow more of our laws to be defined by the bible, where does that end? Killing homosexuals? Pushment for adultery? Stonigs, slavery?The place would look more like Iran than the America the world knows if this “slippery slope” of religious fundamentalism is adhered to.

  • IonOtter

    Unfortunately for the haters, the United States is NOT A DEMOCRACY. Sorry, but we are a *republic*, which means we follow the rule of LAW, not the majority.Judge Walker has weighed Prop 8, aka “The Will of the People” against the Constitution of the United States of America, and the people were found lacking.Anytime a judge does something people like, they’re doing their job. Anytime they actually DO THEIR JOB, they’re called “activists” or worse.

  • uh_huhh

    BDS112003: You’re right – Jesus doesn’t. It comes directly from God in Leviticus 18:22 – “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” (KJV)Oh, please! I’m not even a Christian, and I know more about your religion that you people do. Ever hear of something called the new covenant of Jesus? Hint: It’s why you get to eat at Red Lobster without violating Leviticus. You simple-minded people don’t even understand how the different parts of your bible fit together.

  • IonOtter

    @bds112003: Hope you follow ALL of the Leviticus Laws, and not just the ones you like. Be a darn shame if you ended up going to Hell over that shrimp cocktail…

  • lembark

    Interesting that the churches arguing against same-sex marriages are the same ones who argued against inter-racial marriages in 1967.Orthodox religions have difficulties progressing.Interesting also that their freedom *not* to perform same-sex marriages is protected by the same first amendment law that allows us to define “marriage” as civil law.Perhaps orthodox religions also have difficulties noticing.

  • Catken1

    “You’re right – Jesus doesn’t. It comes directly from God in Leviticus 18:22 – “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” (KJV)”That bars heterosexuality for me, not homosexuality. Uh-oh. Guess I’d better leave my husband and find a lesbian lover, then. Yeah, I know. Funny to think God would talk directly to women, as if we were real humans, important people in our own right. But seriously. Why are Levitical laws relevant to the secular law? If Jews cannot get pork and shrimp and cheeseburgers banned for everyone based on Levitical law, why can you bar gay marriage for men, of whatever faith, because Levitical law does? And if heterosexual marriage is so important and desirable an institution, why is it suddenly in deep and dire danger just because another alternative, that by definition DOES NOT EVEN APPEAL to heterosexuals, becomes legally available? Do you religious types think that the majority-straight population is suddenly going to forego their marriages because other people can have them, too? That we need a sense of special privileged better-than-them status to value our own most intimate relationships? That we’ll cease to fall in love and have kids as we naturally do if government doesn’t step in and give us an _exclusive_ Stamp of Approval for our choices? Or that coercing/pressuring gay people into loveless hetero marriages of convenience is a Good Thing? Sheesh. Gay people can maintain lifelong marriages with tenderness and devotion in the face of discrimination and persecution. Yet we’re told we can’t even be trusted to maintain ours if we have to SHARE our privileged “married” status with others, without losing anything ourselves. Maybe these guys are afraid that hetero marriage really IS that inferior, weak and undesirable. And do you all think that gay people’s kids are less deserving of a secure family foundation than other kids? Or that denying gay people’s children the security of married parents will really do one iota of good for straight folks’ kids? How is my child better off because some other kid’s life is made more insecure?

  • stuck_in_Lodi

    To those who say that the majority should be able to have their way on defining marriage because they are the majority (or were in the California vote) suggests that they also believe we should let the majority create rights or rescind other rights long held by the people. Would the majority allow the police to extract confessions by harsh interrogations? Allow resegregation of the public schools? Create a state religion? In this country, the majority does not interpret the Constitution, yet the supporters of Prop. 8 are arguing precisely that that should be the case. It is an argument as dangerous as it is foolish.

  • wvskin

    God also frowns on divorce.Mark 10:2-9

  • dcostello

    The beauty of this country and its constitution is the protection of the basic rights of minorities from the majority whether it be speech, guns, choice and practice of religion, etc etc. Now this judge has added marriage. For those who find homosexual marriage against their religion, there is no requirement for a specific religion or clergy to perform the ceremony. It does not intrude on your right to practice your religion. For those who feel marriage is a sacred union meant for the creation of children, would you band marriage between older citizens who cannot have children or younger citizens who choose not to or can’t. If marriage is defined by its goal of having children, then heterosexual marriages that don’t want or cant have children should be abolished and their marriage rights taken away. This issue is no different from the earlier decided cases on mixed marriages etc. How would some of these organizations raise money if gays and lesbians were allowed to marry?

  • silencedogoodreturns

    God obviously must be a homophobe.

  • atefksayed

    The fact that a judge (one person) can turn the voice of the people is outrageous and wrong, The will of the people does write the right law. So the court not turn over the peoples will. The American constitution was written by the Elite of American politicians and never voted for. So the court can over turn the constitution as well. Let us turn the election even of the USA president as the Supreme court tried it during Bush/Al-Gore election. The court has to respect the peoples will.Governments have used the court to stand against people’s will, so let the US government or state governments use the court to turn over the people’s will.

  • calbooster

    These religious leaders make it clear why this country was founded on the separation of church and state. You’d think they would understand it after all these years, but they never will.

  • lufrank1

    “It is the people who have voted whether religious or not. It is the peoples voice who should be heard not the minority. . . . “Posted by: merrill277 | August 4, 2010 7:00

  • shadow_man

    Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, prostitution, and rape, not homosexuality.(Change *** to www)

  • shadow_man

    The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.America’s premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

  • shadow_man

    Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don’t choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.(Change *** to www)

  • beckfield1

    Reverend Gaddy’s comment is the most reasonable and honest of all the listed responses, and I applaud him.A. Our Constitution guarantees religious freedom for all citizens. This has been repeatedly interpreted by the court system to mean that anyone may choose to belong, believe, and behave according to the religion of their choice, or to no religion at all, so long as it does not abrogate the rights of anyone else.B. In the USA, marriage may be both a civil and a religious institution. In order to be recognized under law, a marriage must be a civil marriage, duly recorded by the State, but need not be a religious joining. Marriage ceremonies conducted by clergy, or under the auspices of a religious organization, are optional. The minister is generally deputized by the state to conduct a civil marriage, so both religious and civil unions can be accomplished simultaneously (“…by the power vested in me by the state of Oregon…”)C. It is unconstitutional, immoral, and unproductive to force behavior according to religious beliefs upon those who do not hold to those beliefs. (I say “unproductive” because forcing someone to behave according to one religion’s beliefs does NOT make that person a member, or a believer, in that religion)This is the way I believe it should be:1. Marriage between consenting adults should be a basic civil right of all Americans. This includes heterosexual and gay marriage, as well as polygamy in all its forms (polygyny, polyandry, group, etc.). These have all been recognized forms of marriage in one culture or another throughout history.2. Each state has laws defining “consenting adults,” so some variation can occur. But the Constitution requires that contracts formed in one state must be honored by all states, even if the contract would not be legal in the other state. So if one state defines the age of consent as 16, a 16-year-old married in that state must be considered married in a state that defines the age of consent as 21.3. Employees of the government, at all levels, who are deputized to preside over civil marriage proceedings (judges, Justices of the Peace, etc.) should be required to perform gay marriages. If they are not willing to perform marriages because of personal objections to the union of same-sex couples, they may resign their deputization without fear of losing their position (unless their position is solely dedicated to marriages), and they may no longer perform 4. Anyone deputized to perform marriage ceremonies, but not employed by the government (church pastors, priests, etc.), should have the right to refuse to perform marriages according to their personal religious beliefs without penalty. No church or religious organization should be required to perform any such ceremony against its will, and no church or religious organization should be forced to accord any recognition of civil marriages that do not conform to that organization’s beliefs.

  • shadow_man

    AllHai: You are misinterpreting and taking Corinthians out of context. Let’s examine it with the proper Greek words and context.I Corinthians 6:9-11Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.First of all, before we address this line, let us consider one thing. Supposedly taken from a 2000+ year old book, understand that the word “homosexual” was not coined until 1869 by Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny. So how it happens to be included in a true reading of the particular biblical passage should make you ponder how accurate the interpretation actually is. So man changing the words of the Bible to conveniently spread hate? I think so.(Continued)

  • JenChapin-Smith

    The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) holds equality as one of its key testimonies or pillars. We believe that all people are equal, including gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

  • rogied25

    “What will supportive religious communities gain if gay marriage gets legal standing?”Parishoners!

  • mickle1

    The argument I keep hearing from those opposed to gay couples getting married is that they want to protect the sanctity of the institution of marriage. I remember when I was young, divorce rates were much lower than they are now and long before I was born, they were quite rare. So I ask myself if all of these long time married people were so intent on protecting the sanctity of marriage, just who were the men supporting the institution of prostitution. I can’t quite bring myself to believe that it was gay men who were frequenting the ladies of the evening. Yet nearly everyone I’ve ever encountered has insisted that prostitution is the world’s oldest profession. Very strange.

  • shanks1

    I say let em be miserable like the rest of us.

  • shalshah

    This is expected. The human race is in a period of moral decline and decay. Hindu and eastern philosophy have been left out of this discussion and vehmently opposes the “marriage” of man and man or woman and woman. We call it kaliyug, when thw “wrong” gets masked as the new “right”.

  • benjietaylor

    Gay marriage has never been about giving the same rights to homosexuals that heterosexuals have, as civil unions provide every legal right to same gender relationships that hetorosexuals enjoy.

  • JaneDoe4

    Since when does religion recognize the basic rights of human beings? If anything, religion is out to punish who don’t follow their rules. Looking out for the welfare of people is not on their agenda.

  • kca1253

    Just a couple quick thoughts.Be Blessed.

  • tidmore

    If the Catholic Church believes that heterosexual marriage is the bedrock of society why does it prohibit its religious orders from doing it? The comment from the Jewish Orthodox Union is misstating its own beliefs since ‘traditional Jewish values’ equally don’t fully recognize a marriage between a Jew and a nonJew. As for the ban on homosexuality in Leviticus, it’s worth pointing out that Leviticus also prohibits such things as crop rotation and making cloth with mixed fibers (those cotton-poly sheets are a SIN!). Are we going in enforce those as well? Come on, folks. Why should you care who somebody else is married to? Do you also worry about people eating food you don’t like or going places you wouldn’t visit or reading books you’d find boring? This is just crazy.

  • mmcwalters

    I have to laugh at focus on the family response. Once again they use fear, no one is going to “force” you to marry anyone. You really think I would waste my time getting married in a church. I want to have the benefits you have federal and state the 1089 rights they have. If focus on the family is enamored with domestic partnerships then by all means you can have them. On the other lets face it, the yes on prop 8 side had a very week case. voters or not it was weak, no evidence to support your fear, hatred and bigotry. At the moment Equality has taken a victory in the right direction.

  • cbk1

    Civil Unions can be structured to give the same rights as Marriage, this issue has nothing to do with Civil Rights. Should we change the definition of Lesbian because a man and woman want to be called a Lesbian?

  • cbk1

    Civil Unions can be structured to give the same rights as Marriage, this issue has nothing to do with Civil Rights. Should we change the definition of Lesbian because a man and woman want to be called a Lesbian?

  • apdseal

    >6.3 million voters approved Proposition 8Does anyone see anything wrong with that? How does one person have that much power in a democracy?What a bunch of bulls**t!

  • slowe111

    These religious organization can all go to Hell! Oh, yea. I don’t believe in Hell. signed,

  • archyboi

    Separate but equal is an ignoble dodge. We are all equal or we are not. If we are not we must hear the call of justice for full equality for all Americans or the pledge of allegiance is a hypocritical lie. As a 10-year-old Arkansas boy made plain last year. Marriage is not the bedrock of civilization. This is a straw man. Families have changed definition all throughout history. Just because gay and lesbian American citizens will be invited into the whole community as fully-integrated members it does not follow that heterosexual couples will stop marrying and raising families. This is ridiculous. Gays and lesbians are born to heterosexual parents. Allowing then to celebrate their lives fully with their heterosexual brothers and sisters makes a more perfect union. It strengthens us overall. American Christianity must decide if it is to remain heterosexist and homophobic or move out of its self-imposed ignorance. It looks like some will and most won’t. There will become a virulently Antigay Christianity that will die of its own irrelevancy and a new Christianity for new world that lives up to its namesake in authenticity and integrity. It’s happening right now.

  • onthejourney

    Prop 8 should have been overturned as the constitution grants equality to all and therefore the ruling provides such equality. I hope that this ruling does not cause more division or harm from those who profess to be Christians.

  • jontomus

    The churches can feel their power and influence slipping away. Like a politician starting a war to rev up patriotism and divert attention away from his incompetence, the churches are trying to have a war on this issue.When you religious fanatics eventually lose this argument, when the population finally tires of your unwelcome influence into other people’s lives, you will have lost far more than just one battle.And that’s a good thing. From there you will begin to lose your ability to con people into believing in your gods, into donating money to your priests … soon you will go the way of the Zeusists and other followers of ancient myths. You will be the oddity, you will be pointed at as being somehow ‘sick’.And that’s a good thing.

  • fare777

    Religion hateful, divisive, and producer of violence. Religion=No Peace. When will we ever wise up and get rid of religion and its con men? We simply can’t afford their nonsense anymore.

  • archyboi

    momof20yo: Too funny! Your comment says more about YOU than it does about GLBTIQ persons. It’s fascinating to me to depth of fear and loathing that is inside people like you. A lie is lie no matter how you rationalize it. If the G-d you worship requires such lying SHE is not worth your prayers. And she certainly won’t be getting mine — AMEN!!!!!!!

  • uh_huhh

    TODDPOLLARD: [Blah, blah, blah.] [H]omosexuality comes from hate, and not love. Love is often mixed into the equation because the homosexual experiences physical and/or psychological attraction, dependence, and affinity to another person of the same gender. But the proper word is lust, not love.How would you know? You’re just a dogma-filled bigot.After fifteen years together, I can tell you, it’s not LUST anymore. It’s not lust that moves me to cook for my partner, clean for my partner, do laundry for my partner, run errands for my partner, take care of my partner’s mother, take care of him when he’s sick, be his date for business functions, etc., etc., etc.Your ignorant and utterly self-absorbed attitude is infantile. It is a perfect example of why you will ultimately lose this debate. Your position rests on fiction; mine rests on fact.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    Religions should not be participants in the marriage business. Once gays become fully enfranchised and have the right to marry, I cannot see how we can continue to give tax exempt status to religious institutions that discriminate against gays in any way.In the interim, clerics should not be permitted to conduct marriage ceremonies; marriage is a legally binding contract. If religious institutions wish to perform some sort of post-marriage ceremony, fine. But, again, any institution that does not fully accept the rights of gay citizens should not benefit from nonprofit status. Period.

  • DwightCollins

    with this ruling…

  • jojomijala

    I feel sad learning that decision on Prop 8 has been overturned.Man would like to make the law made by God to suit themselves not thinking that God made this law for man’s own good.A word to those who write and say negative things about the Holy Roman Catholic Church – I hope when you die and face your Creator you can say the same things – then you will see what will happen to you.I have started praying for your salvation now.

  • cornetmustich

    The essence of America is freedom of and freedom from religion. And in America, marriage licenses are issued by and recorded in town halls, not church halls, or mosques or temples. As a justice of the peace, I perform non-religious civil marriage ceremonies for couples all the time, many of whom have been together for 20, 30 and 45 years..Cheers to Walker, Boies, Olson, and to common sense,

  • James10

    It is the people who have voted whether religious or not. It is the peoples voice who should be heard not the minority. When you override the will of the people then you have begun a dictatorship not a democracy. Even if I was for gay marriage, I would not want to see it happen this way.Posted by: merrill277Individual rights are not about protecting the majority. It’s about protecting the individuals against abuse by the majority. [Look up James Madison’s address when he presented the Bill of Rights for consideration.]Under the law, marriage nothing more than a particular type of contract between two people. Prohibiting certain groups of people from entering a contract because you don’t like them is discrimination. It denies them equal treatment under the law. It’s a violation of the Constitution.

  • hmaulden

    All Mormons: If you want eternal families in the afterlife, you are only going to have it with polygamy — celestial marriage. And I believe you ALL know it. The LDS prophets have only renounced multiple wives in this, temporal world. You all know that. Just examine how today’s Mormon “divorce” works for the men. How ironic a so-called church opposes same-sex marriage. Prop 8? Stop LDS propaganda — sanctimonious, deceitful and long history of disingenuousness. LDS has been one of history’s biggest deceivers. Great family values.

  • hohandy1

    when they start paying taxes I’ll give their point of view on civil matters some respect – until then – MYOB

  • LevRaphael

    The people voted in California to discriminate and enshrine prejudice in the law. The judge wisely ruled that this was unconstitutional.

  • BillKilpatrick

    If there’s anything to regret, it’s that religion and politics were combined in such a way as to deny a group of Americans their civil rights in order to satisfy the religious convictions of people who didn’t even live in California. What part of Equal Protection under the laws is that hard to understand? I’m thrilled to know, after eight years of Bush, there are still copies of the Constitution left to cite. I regret that none of these people, who claim allegiance to its sacred text, are willing to read it carefully or apply it faithfully when it comes to people they don’t want in their little tea party.

  • CapsNut

    The USCCB, Mormons, FRC, and JOU are absolutely correct in their assesments.Furthermore the Jewish Orthodox Union is 100% correct that these rulings will eventually be used to restrict the free exercise of religion. Prior comments here are testimony to that fact as those opposed to a re-definition of marriage are branded as bigots and any commentary even remotely seen as against homosexuality is called “hate speech.”It is not too much of a stretch to think that at some point religious denominations who refuse to go along and “marry” same-sex couples will be denied the power to perform marriages period.At that point, we really will have come off the rails.

  • bgreen2224

    Just consider for a moment how heterosexuals would deal with a law prohibiting their marriage if a homosexual majority had voted such a law into force.

  • rocketman5

    God is not a homophobe but there are a lot of homophobes who want you to believe He is.

  • Vachette

    Like all couples, my partner and I were attracted to one another for a variety of reasons, including the wish to one day have a family. We are a decade into our relationship and have adopted two vibrant young children. Our family, friends, teachers, pediatrician, coworkers, pastor, neighbors, and daycare employees can attest to the health, social skills, and psychological well-being of these children being raised by two loving parents. When are the hypocrites going to allow us to protect our children by letting us marry so we can provide the same societal protections afforded to all other children being raised by heterosexual couples? And if the religious folk think that children raised by gays is horrendous, they need to review the studies and talk to people that see first hand these children to well adapted and prospering in loving homes. Get over yourselves, truly love your neighbors, and let others live their lives. Heed your own scriptures that state only God is our judge, not you.

  • daddy00

    Seriously, there I can name about 100 more pressing issues that “religious” organizations should be working on than this one. How does same sex marriage really “hurt” anyone? How can you knock the willingness of any two individuals to avow their commitment to one another? You may as well pass a law that says “being single is illegal past 30″.

  • bruce18

    Gay “marriage” is a perfect example of the human ability to justify any behavior. Its a sad day for the human race.

  • spidermean2

    GAY BEHAVIOR IS A DISEASE just like pornography or pedophilia. It should be cured and not to be spread around.Soon these sick idiots will legalize marriage with dogs.

  • onesugar

    The Bible was written by Man, This man could have had a lover (man) got mad at him because he was a cheater and wrote it into the Bilble, this man in the Bible said that marriage is between a man and a woman, Did ANYONE of you ever heard GOD say it “Hell To The No” you did not, only what you believe and have read. Beleive in your heart, Your heart tell’s you to Love.

  • spidermean2

    ORDER AND DISORDER. Two screwdrivers are not meant for each other. The right pair is a screw and a screwdriver.That is what we call ORDER. If the mind is sick, a screwdriver is partnered with another screwdriver.That is what we call DISORDER.Why can’t gays can’t accept that they are SICK AND NEED TO BE CURED?

  • AllHail

    Since this is a religious opinion. Refer to 1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

  • postaddict1

    TORSO50 responded to a post by FLANOGGIN copied below:

  • haveaheart

    I’m delighted to see Baptist minister Welton Gaddy say publicly that nobody else’s “religious freedom will not be impacted by the legalization of same-gender marriage.”If a minister of the Baptist church can recognize this, all other religious leaders should be able to do so as well.As to the statement by the Mormon hierarchy — that their church “regrets” the decision — you bet they do. They bought and paid for that legislation, and I’m sure it riles them no end to see all that money go down the drain. Not to mention the money they’ll have to cough up to mount an appeal.Finally, the statement by the Family Research Council — that “marriage is recognized as a public institution, rather than a purely private one” — that’s completely absurd. Marriage is no more a “public” institution than religious observance is a “public” obligation.

  • spidermean2

    Welton Gaddy is not a baptist minister. Baptists believe in the Bible. I doubt if this man even have a bible.

  • Catken1

    “we fear legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” poses a grave threat to the fundamental civil right of religious freedom.” Because our religious freedom includes the right to force everyone else to comply with our particular religious laws? Because having to coexist with people who don’t live as we do is a grave threat to our religious freedom? And if they’re worried that because gay civil marriage is legal, they’ll be legally coerced into recognizing it, they ought to have started worrying years ago. After all, I don’t believe Orthodox Jews recognize interfaith marriages, do they? And those have been legal in the US for – well, since the founding of the nation. Nor are the Catholics being forced to alter their beliefs on the permanence of marriage because divorced people are allowed to remarry under civil law, either. Funny. Guess it’s not all that grave a threat to religious freedom after all.

  • moser1

    People make the arguement that “the will of the people” is what democracy is all about, not the “dictatorship” of one judge.Well, why do children need parents? Because children don’t always have the reasoning power and experience to make good choices. Why do we have state and federal laws? Because “the people” don’t always do the right thing.What about when “the will of the people” supports things like slavery, or violence against women? What about when “the will of the people” says that a white man and a black woman can’t marry?Plain and simple, just because something is “the will of the people” doesn’t mean it’s right. We have a constitution that guarantees civil rights to ALL because there is always the possibility that “the will of the people” may not be quite so inclusive.

  • mikeab

    Haven’t seen much mention of this here yet: I’m impressed by the judge’s adherence to constitutional reasoning, vs. emotional arguments. Reflect on this a bit. Whether you love or hate gay people is irrelevant here, and so are your religious beliefs. The judge found that there was no reasonable basis for treating gay people differently if they wished to marry. It strikes me that the arguments for Prop 8 are so extreme (gay marriage will lead to polygamy, or hell….) because there’s no rebuttal available to the judge’s careful decision. Such a rebuttal (if you wish to offer one) would have to assert that procreation is critical to the definition of marriage, despite not being a requirement for any marriages currently; that gay people could just choose to be straight; that there is some greater good that is served by restricting marriage to heterosexual couples. These arguments were made at the trial, and rejected as mere prejudice.

  • Catken1

    “Is anyone for polygamy being the next definition change in marriage?”What you’re saying is that the _only_ reason we have for banning polygamy is that monogamy is part of the “traditional definition” of marriage. Thus, if we change ANY part of the “traditional definition” of marriage, we MUST allow polygamy because the ONLY reason to ban it is “tradition.”If that is in fact the case, if the only reason we bar polygamy is because it’s “traditional” to do so, then yes, let’s allow polygamy. “We’ve always done it this way,” is not a valid reason to interfere with people’s rights to make their own private choices. And anyway, we’ve already substantially changed the traditional definition of marriage, far more drastically than gay marriage would – I’m not my husband’s property, we chose each other ourselves without parental dictation, our marriage is based on love and companionship rather than on money and breeding, I retain my human and property rights myself rather than being a “femme couvert” and a nonperson before the law, and either one of us may choose to divorce the other at will. All of this is a HUGE break with traditional marriage in European and Euro-American law. So if any change in tradition logically requires the legalization of polygamy, then by all means we must legalize it.But if there really are substantial, rational reasons to ban polygamy (such as the complexity and difficulty of managing multiple relationships administratively for government, or the potential for exploitation of certain people, like young women, etc.), then we may continue to ban it if we so choose, regardless of what we do with respect to gay marriage. It’s a separate issue, anyway. Allowing gays to marry is like allowing interracial marriages- it involves the same contract, the same rights, the same responsibilities, the same relationship to each other and to the law, but simply opens it up to different couples. Polygamy involves a more substantial change to the structure of marriage. Saying “one marriage relationship per couple at a time” is not equivalent legally or structurally to saying “you can have a marriage relationship with the consenting adult of your choice, but you can’t.”

  • Medicolegal

    Muslims allow for a man to have 4 wives.Why should the United States limit the number of people that one marries, if one follows Judge Walker’s concepts of equal protection? I believe that Judge Walker should allow polygamy. That’s secular, just the way that Judge Walker wants it.

  • trippin

    What if a certain denomination of a certain church decided to marry gays? Would it then not be a matter of freedom of religion? Those who oppose equality do so on religious grounds, but our government is prohibited from favoring one religion over another.

  • queenofromania

    So, some people are upset that the Republican appointed federal judge who decided the ruling declaring Prop. 8 unconstitutional on ‘overwhelming evidence’ because he has a sexual orientation different from theirs.Excuse me, but don’t all of us have sexual orientations, even celibates? If we recused judges from deciding cases because of their sexual orientations then we would have to resort to Ouija boards or clairvoyant eight-balls to determine the constitutionality of our laws.I’d rather stick with a process that has worked for two centuries, not just when it suits the ‘sexual orientation’ of the ones who are opposed to the judge’s decision.

  • thebobbob

    If the majority voted to prevent athiests from marrying, having children, or receive government benefits would that be OK.They could claim that belief in God is necessary for a marriage to be sanctified or for children to be properly raised or that they don’t want their tax dollars going to non-believers??Of course not. The Emperor has no clothes here. The only basis for the hatred and discrimination is ignorance of the scientific fact that homosexuality is part of the normal spectrum of human sexuality or a religious argument which, Constitutionally, can’t be imposed on a citizen.Marriage between two committed people who love each other is no threat to anyone. Except maybe Republicans who like to fan the flames of the Culture Wars.

  • shadow_man

    Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, prostitution, and rape, not homosexuality.(Change *** to www)

  • shadow_man

    Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don’t choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.(Change *** to www)

  • shadow_man

    The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.America’s premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

  • shadow_man

    This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don’t feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren’t human.”I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if “Gays” have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate “(Legal Document)” of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. “

  • amm72

    And even if polygamy weren’t a distraction, let’s think about it logically. Legally, what status would each spouse have? How would disputes between all of them be resolved in the law? It would create all kinds of bureaucratic red tape that I highly doubt overburdened local, state, and federal governments would want to touch with a ten-foot pole. So chill, y’all.

  • canada2

    In Canada same sex rights in all areas including employment, immigration, marriage, etc. are the law in every single province. Forty years ago, former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau stated that the “government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation”, which started Canada off in changing its laws and practices. The fact is that the country is not falling apart as a result. Whatever happened to that great American tradition of separation of church and state? The state represents all people; each church only those that subscribe to its teachings. Your constitution allows freedom to practice your religion, not the freedom to impose your religion on others. You are already familiar with fanatics who want to do that. Someone has to explain to me why this is any different.