Let's talk about GAY MARRIAGE!

[siniri]

Siniri, when you started to bring up the issue of female gen mutilation, I just decided you've drifted off the tracks. While I was privy to more of the aspects of the women's secrets because of my role, I can not say that I know all of them. However, I can speak with a certain confidence that none of the old blood women that I know have ever or would they ever decide to mutilate the gifts of She Whom Created all. Nor am I pleased by your assumption about my role in the care of my beloved one (aka wife)'s daughter. I have done all that my wife requests of me, from diapers to teaching daughter how to fight with war clubs and the long sticks. Accepting that my wife is a woman,and that women have the fire of Creation within them, and therefore I defer to her judgement in issues of debate is a very far cry from not being involved. If this leaves me ill prepared to comment upon on certain minor aspects of your argument. This is not cultural whatever, it is just my acceptance of my own limitation that I should not comment of what I have no experience.

 

ALEC, Rove and other voices of the darkside of politics have used DOM as a useful political tool, rallying the masses and increasing conservative turnout for the last 30 years, many elections have been swayed, state legislators gerrymander to the point that democratic and freethinking representation has been diluted out of existence. To say that this did not happen, you would have to assume that all of their efforts proposing DOMA and the ilk were the works of fools. I don't see that, the conservatives may be evil, they may be attempting to destroy society as we know it, but they are not stupid. If they thought it didn't work, they wouldn't have used the techniques. It may be that this is not the issue it was, in general, that it was 30 years ago, but around here is still is.

This has been the world I have lived in, this has been my air and my water. Yet you tell me that water is not wet, and fire is not hot. On that note, let this end.

Please note that bolding emphasizes the points that are relevant to the gay marriage discussion; everything else is only semi-relevant.

 

I never said that your culture practiced genital mutilation. Nor did I make any assumptions about how you care for your children/stepchildren/however you define the relationship (I don't know you, and I don't really need to know -- it's not relevant to this debate). You said, "we do things the old and right way" -- implying that there is only one right way, and that only your "old" culture knows it. I was just pointing out that 1) There are other cultures that have different views on how childcare, education, custody, etc. should be divvied up between parents. Frankly, I don't really care how you do it. Whatever floats your boat, as long as the kids are not neglected or abused (yes, I know these terms can also be debated -- again, that's irrelevant to the debate at hand, so define them however you like, giving me the benefit of the doubt this time, please). I made no assumptions regarding anything more than what you said -- I was just trying to point out that other cultures have different views, trying to provide a semi-specific example without getting overlong in my response; my example wasn't to suggest that it was 100% different from your culture, just to explain that there are differences across cultures. Namely, in the U.S. (in the legal context, which is what is relevant to gay marriage). 2) The "age" of one's culture (however you even define that) does not make it more right than other cultures (which you seem to imply by the above quote). This is the same argument used by "DOMA" people (marriage has existed unchanged since the beginning of time, yada yada yawn... it would be a more persuasive argument if it were true, but even still, there are plenty of things that were considered okay by certain cultures until quite recently, that most people in the world would concede are not okay -- my examples of slavery and genital mutilation were just two examples, and I did not say that your culture -- or any particular culture at all -- practiced either one of those, just that they were accepted by some -- or even many --cultures in the past, and that both are still practiced to some extent today, though the majority of cultures views them as wrong now).

 

Okay, still no specific reference to an election that was won because of pushes for gay marriage. The South turned red after the Voting Rights Act and other civil rights legislation. Would you make the argument that MLK and other civil rights leaders are therefore responsible for every legislative act passed by Republicans at all levels of the government since the 1960s in states where the Republicans had little traction before then? I think it's ridiculous to blame the victims of discrimination for the actions of bigots who are trying to prevent the victims from achieving equal rights (why am I bringing up the Civil Rights movement? because many people view same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue, as well -- I know that you don't, but I'm just hoping you can see it from the perspective of someone who wants to live and work legally in the same country as their spouse, be assured that they can take care of them without getting fired and visit them in the hospital when they're ill, and have peace of mind that their coparent will retain custody of their children and receive the full benefits of any life insurance policy if something should happen to them, etc. -- things taken for granted by most opposite-sex married couples in the U.S.).

 

DOMA passed in 1996 (17 years ago, not 30 -- it wasn't really on anyone's radar until 1989, when Denmark passed legislation, and didn't become an issue in the U.S. until a Hawaii S.C. ruling in 1993 -- only 20 years ago). State DOMAs were passed mostly from 2004 to 2008. By 2006, they realized it wasn't really mobilizing voters the way partisans expected. In 2008, states that passed DOMAs voted in favor of Obama (California and Florida -- Arizona went to McCain, but they'd already elected him for decades, so I don't think you can blame that on the state DOMA...). Note that Obama opposed same-sex marriage in 2008 -- as did the vast majority of Democrats, especially in more conservative states. Which is why a lot of state DOMAs passed by pretty high percentages even as Democrats were elected in some of those states. But public opinion has been changing rapidly, as I already noted -- the majority of Americans of voting age are now in favor of same-sex marriage.

 

"If they thought it didn't work, they wouldn't have used the techniques. It may be that this is not the issue it was, in general, that it was 30 years ago, but around here is still is." Or maybe they passed DOMAs because they were seriously morally opposed to same-sex marriage and scared that society would degenerate if it was allowed to progress. As some states legalized it, it became necessary that other states clarify whether they would recognize a marriage performed in another state or not, and by making it an amendment, they could hope to avoid the state courts deciding the issue in a way they thought was wrong. They knew they had the votes to do it at the time (even liberal CA passed their DOMA). Just because they passed it doesn't mean they did it just to get votes; I believe the people working towards DOMAs mostly honestly thought they were doing the right thing. Sure, it helped that it was also popular, but again, there weren't a lot of politicians taking the opposite stance, anyway.

 

"This has been the world I have lived in, this has been my air and my water. Yet you tell me that water is not wet, and fire is not hot. On that note, let this end." I told you no such thing. We all live in the same world and share the same air and water. Can we please keep the histrionics out of the debate? You made an objective, factual claim; I simply asked for evidence to back that claim up.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

[Thomas_T]

Everyone has freedom of expression,love if it is between two homo sex humans then nothing different in that.I am in favor of gay marriage.

[precieuxly]

Me too! Everyone should be able to marry whom ever they want without anyone staying otherwise.

[Lozzie]

I have absolutely nothing against it. Not in the slightest. But the amount of publicity and drama being made about it in my opinion does nothing more than alienate it further from general society.

 

It's not like gay people cannot get married, there's just certain religions in which it is against their belief, and will not condone it in their holy place of worship.

So tell me, what on earth is wrong with that? Yes, there are two sides to the story; one, you could have someone of that religion who is also gay, and feels alienated because their own church will not support their decision on who to get married to. I can understand that is saddening.

 

But on the other, what gives people the right to forcefully change a holy place of worship's belief for their own selfish gain?

A lot of people get offended when Jehovah's Witnesses or other such beliefs stop you in the street, come knocking at your door, etcetera, to ask what you are doing to solve the problems of the world. On a general basis, it's viewed as rude to try and forcefully change someone's way of looking at the world.

 

So then, what on earth is the difference, of a bunch of people marauding into a holy place and demanding they change their views and way of belief for the sake of someone else?

 

It annoys me that such a huge big deal is made of this when, the bottom line is, homosexuals can get married out with the church, perfectly legally.

 

I know a lot of people will strongly detest my opinions on this matter, but I'm very much a non-religious person. I just think that people need to stop being so ignorant and appreciate that not everyone has the same beliefs as them, and celebrate what you believe in your own personal manner. Don't shove it in anyone's face.

[siniri]

It's not like gay people cannot get married, there's just certain religions in which it is against their belief, and will not condone it in their holy place of worship.

So tell me, what on earth is wrong with that? Yes, there are two sides to the story; one, you could have someone of that religion who is also gay, and feels alienated because their own church will not support their decision on who to get married to. I can understand that is saddening.

 

But on the other, what gives people the right to forcefully change a holy place of worship's belief for their own selfish gain?

...

 

So then, what on earth is the difference, of a bunch of people marauding into a holy place and demanding they change their views and way of belief for the sake of someone else?

 

It annoys me that such a huge big deal is made of this when, the bottom line is, homosexuals can get married out with the church, perfectly legally.

 

I know a lot of people will strongly detest my opinions on this matter, but I'm very much a non-religious person. I just think that people need to stop being so ignorant and appreciate that not everyone has the same beliefs as them, and celebrate what you believe in your own personal manner. Don't shove it in anyone's face.

Ummm. In most places in the U.S., homosexuals cannot legally marry. And there are a lot of legal advantages (some of which I outlined above) given to married couples that same-sex couples cannot have (at the local, state, and federal levels -- the DOMA ruling only affected the federal level, but many federal rules are based on whether or not you're legally married in the state in which you reside, and again, for most same-sex couples, that's not possible).

 

I don't know anyone advocating that churches should be forced to marry anyone; most people are advocating that the state not discriminate (in issuing marriage licenses or performing civil -- i.e., non-religious -- marriage ceremonies), while churches can perform (or not) any marriage as they choose, same as they can now. As an example: divorcees cannot marry in the Catholic Church. Just because divorce is legal, that doesn't mean the Catholic Church has to recognize it, just like if same-sex marriage were legal, that doesn't mean the Catholic Church would have to recognize it. The Catholic Church could refuse to perform a same-sex marriage just as they now refuse to perform marriages between divorcees. Having a marriage license doesn't mean that anyone who can marry people must marry two people who present the license. Even civil government employees are allowed to abstain from performing same-sex marriages in states where it is legal; the couple simply must look for someone licensed to perform marriages who is willing to marry them (since obtaining a license to marry couples is pretty easy, the couple should be able to marry if they can get the marriage license -- the problem is that right now, they can't get a marriage license).

 

Right now, the law is discriminatory, based on the beliefs of some people/churches. Same-sex couples are simply asking that one set of beliefs is not held higher than another in the eyes of the law.

[Uliel]

Here in France, gay marriage was just recently legalised (after a lot of drama from the anti side). I feel like it should be pointed out: they still can't marry at church because the Church is againt it, and before the law they couldn't marry AT ALL. LGTB didn't force their beliefs and wishes at anyone else, they just wanted to be equal with everyone else. The Church wanting to forbid marriage to gay people, on the contrary, is using religion and belief to remove rights to a part of society.

[Lozzie]

Siniri: Ah, I wasn't aware of that.

The issue on 'gay marriage' here at the moment is forcing the churches to allow gay marriages to be taken place there, and I'm pretty sure a priest was made to retire or was sued on the grounds of refusing to hold a marriage in his church upon the request of a same sex couple, who then took him to court over it (I'll need to look up the exact news article on that one; I'm not 100% sure). A private B&B was subject to a lot of negative media publicity on the grounds of rejecting to give a same sex couple a room, as well. Which yes, is discriminatory, but at the same time a private establishment is just that; private. So making a scene and going to the press about it is just as bad as the establishment in my opinion.

 

I can certainly understand on the grounds of what you've said there; people should legally have the same benefits regardless of gender. But a religious centre shouldn't be made to change it's ways for the sake of anyone; else the title of 'religion' is then pretty much stripped from said place.

 

And unfortunately due to circumstances over here in which protests towards the church and whatnot against gay marriage, it's just becoming more removed and alienated in a way, at least in my opinion. The more the press makes a scene about something, then it has that effect.

 

And yeah, it's sad that the law is discriminatory like that. :c

 

 

[siniri]

That's interesting, Lozzie. Is it just Church of England (er, Scotland), or all churches? Is the Church of England still tied to the government like it was in the past? If it applies to all churches, would the churches who don't want to perform same-sex marriages have to give up the right to legally marry people (while presumably retaining their right to spiritually marry people, except those marriages wouldn't be considered legal)? Uliel can speak to it better than I can, but my understanding is that in France, the government keeps civil marriage completely separate from religious marriage, so many couples there get married twice, once at the government, and once at church (though some forgo the church wedding). Is this what would happen to churches who refuse to conduct same-sex marriage? Trying to force churches to perform them using lawsuits seems counterproductive -- if you're such a loyal member of your church that you'd rather marry there than leave, why would you want to hurt it financially (and presumably keep it from doing the good that makes you want to remain a member...)?

 

Here in the U.S. (which I suspect is similar to the U.K.), ministers* can register with the state, enabling them to conduct legal marriages (similar to becoming a notary public, who can notarize documents on behalf of the state -- it's really easy to become one, and the fees are minimal). Couples have to get a marriage license from the state, and then the minister* and the couple sign that the marriage happened, and it's legal. They use the state-issued marriage certificate as proof of marriage. I think there's fairly wide latitude regarding the vows and ceremony used, as long as the minister* is registered and the couple has a license.

 

Because of our first amendment, which prevents the government from both promoting an establishment of religion and from prohibiting the free exercise of religion, people are usually given a fairly wide latitude regarding not having to do things that violate their religion, even if it's part of their government job -- and they can't be fired for refusing to do those things unless they're an essential part of the job description and there's no other way to accommodate them. Since ministers* register with the state but are not state employees, it'd be even harder to try to make them do something they don't want to do. County clerks (who give out marriage licenses for the government) who are opposed to same-sex marriage have been allowed to pass those cases over to others who are willing to grant the licenses. There are some jurisdictions where I suspect every local government official would be opposed (especially if same-sex marriage is forced on all the states by court order); in that case, couples would have to sue to force the government to issue the license (or go to another jurisdiction to get married; it doesn't matter where you were married as long as it was legally recognized). But I can't imagine anyone trying to force a privately employed minister* to conduct a marriage they were morally opposed to.

 

At any rate, I think I would prefer for the government to separate out religious and civil marriage, like France does, rather than trying to force religions to conduct ceremonies that violate their beliefs. It's interesting to see how different it is across cultures, both the separation of church and state, and where they stand on marriage equality. You'd think given our strict separation, the U.S. wouldn't be so behind. Then again, when you look at our history, it's completely unsurprising.

 

*minister here can mean anyone who has registered with the state to perform marriage ceremonies; they don't have to be affiliated with any particular religion.

[LucyL]

I don't like to get involved in debates, especially about topics like this...it usually never goes well! So I'm just gonna say, as I am gay, I fully support gay marriage and wish the majority of people felt that way. It would make life a hell of a lot easier for many gay people. But oh well, it's not to be right now, but hopefully one day.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

Siniri: Ah, I wasn't aware of that.

A private B&B was subject to a lot of negative media publicity on the grounds of rejecting to give a same sex couple a room, as well. Which yes, is discriminatory, but at the same time a private establishment is just that; private. So making a scene and going to the press about it is just as bad as the establishment in my opinion.

 

 

That's part of freedom of speech. If you have free speech and freedom of religion, that doesn't mean you don't have to face the perfectly legal consequences. Was the B&B forced by the government to open to gay people? Or was it simply the negative attention?

 

In saying that going to the press was "just as bad", you are saying that people should have neither freedom of speech nor freedom of information, nor even freedom to spend their money where they so choose. Negative media publicity? It was just saying "They didn't allow us to stay at this B&B because we are gay." If it's negative, it's because the B&B chose to be negative in their actions. And if they get to choose to turn away a couple, then that couple definitely has the right to tell others. If the B&B thinks that their beliefs are correct, shouldn't they be proud to spread it around? Why should it be kept a secret if it's perfectly okay?

[Calfie]

Love = love. I don't see why same sex couples could not be married.

[Master of Puppets]

and all other people do not value it, and married only last a few hours.

[Maraquaza]

i have nothing against gay marriage but in all honesty it kind of freaks me out

[emkatrine]

Denmark in Europe was the first country in the world to allow gays to be registered partners, and I am proud of that.

 

It is now also legal to get married in a church and obtain exactly the same rights as a couple of opposite sex.

 

I am a Christian, and I know that the bible says, that one man lying with another man is an abomination, and that they should both be killed, but honestly, the bible was not written by God, it was written by people who all claim to have had contact with God, and how many crazy people today is saying that?

 

The God I know loves all men (and women ;) ) equally, regardless of what your sexual preference is.

[Babygal4eva]

I have a friend in a country in West Africa where it is actually a law that if you are gay(not to talk of marriage yet) that you will be sentenced to 14yrs in prison... When i heard this I was like what the , like how is it the politicians business what my sexual orientation is when there is poverty, kidnapping, rape, murder etc and their main concern is if someone is gay or not. I agree that it is mainly the older generation who are so against this and it really is sad cause I can't see why they are concerning themselves with it. I personally see politicians as soulless individuals concerned with only their pockets and getting fatter.

I mean live your life how you please don't be so nosy.. be ye LSBGT who give a, do what you want and be happy life is too short to be concerned with what society thinks of you.

i believe that when the younger generation take over (i.e those born around the '80s no offense to anyone hers) that this will cease to be an issue.

This post has been edited by a member of staff (Spritzie) because of a violation of the forum rules.
Please do not use curse words in your posts. Replacing letters with symbols isn't allowed either. These have been removed.
Please check your user inbox to see if you have been contacted regarding this incident, then review our rules.

[rinoa812]

I completely am for marriage to anyone who desires it. I grew up with two moms , and the love they showed each other and me (and continue to show 18 years later) should not be condemned by anyone. They always wanted to get married but even now , I live in a state where it is not legal. People should have the right to be with whoever they love regardless of gender. If you dont like the idea of gay marriage than dont get one. I dont understand why the opinion of some people based on faith ( not just christianity) determines what gets into the law, when there is supposed to be a separation of church and state.

[Tenshinohana]

Love is love. Some people have said it here already - why should it be other people's business if two human beings are in love? It's not like they are committing a crime! D:

I kinda find it ironic that people in faith trash them - religion is all about loving each other and getting along with each other, about the love of God and trusting and following him. Even tho I don't believe in God, I do believe in the love (not sexual love, but the love thy neighbor -stuff). That's why I don't really appreciate one who claims to be in faith and still does not understand that even tho the Bible is a holy book, it is still written by man and you shouldn't act in the name of God when it comes to this.

They're just loving, and then people of faith hate them. What went wrong? That's why I find it somewhat ridiculous and ironic when someone in faith hates the gay folk.

[Lexa88]

I identify myself as a Christian, but I don't hate gay people. I disagree with their lifestyle, but that doesn't make them bad people. I do believe that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman, as sanctioned by God, but they do have a right to make their own choices, that's the power of freewill. The choice doesn't mean they should be persecuted or trashed.

[worstpoetryever]

I identify myself as a Christian, but I don't hate gay people. I disagree with their lifestyle, but that doesn't make them bad people. I do believe that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman, as sanctioned by God, but they do have a right to make their own choices, that's the power of freewill. The choice doesn't mean they should be persecuted or trashed.

 

I see what you're trying to say, but it doesn't work that way. You can't say that you "disagree with [my] lifestyle", express that you don't want me to have the same privileges as you (marriage), and then try to cover it up by saying that you don't hate me. It'll still hurt and upset me. It's not my lifestyle, it's a part of who I am. I'm into women and I love my partner. It sounds like you don't know what you're talking about at all. That last sentence to top it off, does that really need to be said? Does it prove you to be a good person if you don't think that people should be persecuted? No. All it says is that you're not a completely rotten human being.

 

You're allowed to have your opinion and I respect your beliefs, but I honestly don't think it has a place in this discussion. Your opinion is based on an interpretation of the bible and it's very hard to get anywhere with that. When I went to bible camp and asked the theologists about homosexuality, they said that if Paul had known that his letters would later be interpreted as God's literal word, he would've chosen his words more carefully. They brought up Romans and explained the context, and that the passage in that light most likely refers to men cheating on their wives with other men (and vice versa). Then they went on to explain how we no longer live in bondage by the old law (e.g. Leviticus), and that living according to the old law is a curse. And, that teaching other people to live under the old law is bringing them under a curse.

 

Their interpretation of the bible is (at least*) as valid as yours. You could discuss it, but they (and you as well, I assume) have read the bible and understood it through the holy spirit. I don't think it's possible to validly bring the bible into political discussion before it is somewhat clear what the bible says. You can say that homosexuality is a sin, and another Christian comes in and disagrees with you. It sort of cancels your argument out. (Not your opinion or your personal voice, but your argument.)

 

*by "at least" I don't mean to belittle your interpretation, but at the point (one of them has graduated and become a priest) they were studying Christian theology at a university; including bible studies; Hebrew, Greek, and Latin; biblical times history; among other things related, so while not knowing your background, I assume that they have put more time and effort into understanding the bible.

 

 

And, on to what I wanted to say. In the physical world of man-made law and justice, it's ridiculous how gay marriage still is an issue. The gays aren't trying to steal your marriage and keep it for themselves. We just want to share.

[marthaclark]

If you don't agree with gay marriage, don't have one ;)

[Lexa88]

 

I see what you're trying to say, but it doesn't work that way. You can't say that you "disagree with [my] lifestyle", express that you don't want me to have the same privileges as you (marriage), and then try to cover it up by saying that you don't hate me. It'll still hurt and upset me. It's not my lifestyle, it's a part of who I am. I'm into women and I love my partner. It sounds like you don't know what you're talking about at all. That last sentence to top it off, does that really need to be said? Does it prove you to be a good person if you don't think that people should be persecuted? No. All it says is that you're not a completely rotten human being.

 

You're allowed to have your opinion and I respect your beliefs, but I honestly don't think it has a place in this discussion. Your opinion is based on an interpretation of the bible and it's very hard to get anywhere with that. When I went to bible camp and asked the theologists about homosexuality, they said that if Paul had known that his letters would later be interpreted as God's literal word, he would've chosen his words more carefully. They brought up Romans and explained the context, and that the passage in that light most likely refers to men cheating on their wives with other men (and vice versa). Then they went on to explain how we no longer live in bondage by the old law (e.g. Leviticus), and that living according to the old law is a curse. And, that teaching other people to live under the old law is bringing them under a curse.

 

Their interpretation of the bible is (at least*) as valid as yours. You could discuss it, but they (and you as well, I assume) have read the bible and understood it through the holy spirit. I don't think it's possible to validly bring the bible into political discussion before it is somewhat clear what the bible says. You can say that homosexuality is a sin, and another Christian comes in and disagrees with you. It sort of cancels your argument out. (Not your opinion or your personal voice, but your argument.)

 

*by "at least" I don't mean to belittle your interpretation, but at the point (one of them has graduated and become a priest) they were studying Christian theology at a university; including bible studies; Hebrew, Greek, and Latin; biblical times history; among other things related, so while not knowing your background, I assume that they have put more time and effort into understanding the bible.

 

 

And, on to what I wanted to say. In the physical world of man-made law and justice, it's ridiculous how gay marriage still is an issue. The gays aren't trying to steal your marriage and keep it for themselves. We just want to share.

 

I hesitate to respond, as I am not emotionally charged over this topic and I really don't want to upset anyone else, or further upset you. I very much respect your view, and I apologize that I upset or hurt you. I should have chosen my own words with more care - I didn't see how they could be interpreted as an insult, and again, I apologize. I could go into the Biblical backing of my point of view, but as you said, religious interpretations don't really have a place in a political discussion, or at least they shouldn't. So, I will just explain with: I was trying to respond to the person above my post who was saying that people who claim to be of faith trash homosexuality. What I wanted to get across was that, while my personal beliefs are that I do not view homosexuality as something that is "right", I believe that your choice to marry someone is your own choice, and it's not anyone else's business as to what you choose to do. If I were to interfere or persecute you for your choice to marry, then it would be just as wrong as someone trying to interfere or persecute me for my choice to marry. It doesn't matter who we've decided to marry. This is what I meant by the power of freewill and that it's wrong to persecute someone for their marriage decisions. It works both ways. Unfortunately, we live in a society that still seems to think there's a place for this debate (as I believe you were saying already).

 

(I do not hate anyone, let alone people who go into marriage with intentions of love and devotion for their partner - I'm not saying this to cover anything up. It's simply a statement of how I feel.)

[Russ]

My home state of Illinois passed a gay marriage bill yesterday. State number fifteen, baby!!

[_snuffles]

One thing I strongly believe is that while I fight for equal rights, there are many gay marriage supporters who really need to dial back. Attacking someone for being Christian is just as wrong as them attacking homosexuals. While I don't agree with it, a Christian has the right to disagree with homosexuality. And you know what? That's okay. My problem starts with these people thinking it's okay to deny people rights just because they don't agree with the way they live their lives. If you don't like homosexuality, just don't vote on the issue. Homosexuality is never going away so why actively try to make life hard for those people?

Additionally, I went to a gay pride festival a few weeks ago and it was so much fun. I got a Human Rights Campaign bumper sticker for my car. ... Did I mention I work at Chick-fil-A? ;D

[Zombiiesque]

The big problem really is that whatever religion you have, it has NO PLACE IN POLITICS. So no one should be bashing anyone else for their religious beliefs in this context. Unfortunately so many people can't seem to get that point and so we're still at just 16 states with marriage equality in place. I cannot wait for the day when we can look back on this the same way we look back on other human rights issues we've had to fight in the past in our country and instead of defining it as "gay" marriage it will simply be marriage.

[pixyperson]

I'm gonna chime in here, and I don't know if this has been said before, but honestly I already had a rant about this on facebook, and I think my point comes across clear enough:

 

I think that one of the main problems is the term marriage, and how it has religious and legal connotations. I support the legal recognition of a long term commitment, in this sense I support gay marriage, from a legal standpoint. That said, the government cannot force any religious institution to recognize a couple as "married". This means, that I don't support the government making churches, synagogues, temples, etc. marry people.

So is gay marriage a religious issue? No, in my mind, the governmental recognition of marriage is completely separate from a religious institution's. Thus I have no conflict allowing another institution, besides my church, to have different rules and customs on marriage. But I have no training in contract law, or political science, so I could be completely wrong.

 

This said I don't support people trying to make an institution recognize another institution's definition of "marriage" (Just to be clear this is a general statement), be it religious or otherwise.