commentaries

The headline says it all. Do you wonder why this country has major social problems? The author can describe his partner as "significant other," "life partner," "spouse," or even "love of his life." Marriage needs strict limits, that is rule 101 for a successful society, which isn't the current America. Still, live and let live, also probably the Roman motto in the empire's waning years...........

What a beautiful testimony to the spirit of marriage, Jonathan O'Conner! "[F]amily, companionship, encouragement, compromise and love" fully defines and perfectly captures the lifetime commitment which should be the unarguable goal of marriage--regardless of the gender of the partners.

goferfanz Nov. 3, 12 9:57 PM - "Marriage needs strict limits, that is rule 101 for a successful society, which isn't the current America." **** You're absolutely correct. Because marriage is a civil contract we limit the age of the participants realizing that they must reach the age of majority in order to understand exactly what they are entering into. We limit the contract to two consenting individuals. The contract must be witnessed by others. We understand that the contact must be recognized in all states in the United States. We recognize that the contract must be filed with the government and because it is a civil contract only the courts can dissolve the contract, no other body. There is absolutely nothing in the contract that requires the use of a religious organization, nothing. This is why this attempt by the Republicans and the church to impose themselves in this contract issue is wrong. The U.S. constitution, bill of rights, and the Declaration of Independence, yes, those documents that the Republicans like to wave at rally's state that all men are created equal and each is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To impose a religious restriction into the law violates everything that our founders fought for. If we don’t vote no on this important issue maybe we will have to include Sharia law into the equation to make divorce fairer, it would only be right wouldn’t it if this unfortunate precedent is set? Vote NO!

Another GOP anomaly: curse Obama for mandating that everyone be covered for health care (originally an GOP idea), but bless the GOP extremist who, while a minority of Americans and even of their own party, insist on mandating who is eligible to be legally married and how it is to be defined. Ah yes, the same people who wear American flag pins, carry the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution in their breast pockets, but haven't yet come to the part about separation of church and state. In fact, they frequently quote from one document something that is in the other. Very astute, don't you think?

And to think that some would call this man's loving relationship with another man immoral! It saddens me. Please vote no and restore my faith in humanity.

Thank you, Jonathan. I will be voting no.

The author can describe his partner as "significant other," "life partner," "spouse," or even "love of his life." *** Okay what if YOU get to retain copyright on the term "marriage" and the author and his partner gain full legal equality to married couples under the law? If your church isn't required to perform gay weddings wouldn't that seem fair enough for you? Gays and often their dependents are at economic disadvantage because legally excluded from recognition as a family unit. But you're willing to tolerate the existence of gay households like you would tolerate hispanic laborers working on your roof as long as they seek no legal recognition and protection?

Great heartfelt commentary. Words matter. We GLBT persons have tired so hard to be gentile with others' feelings as we trample on our own. Those we love are diminished as we, like the author, choose words that hide our love and commitment behind words like "partner." We love. We want to express that love. When we are ready as a couple, many of us want to make life-long commitments to each other. Personally, I am a gay man and I wish for a husband, not a legal partner or any other lesser word. It is a matter of honoring the love between us and our commitment to each other. And yet, if another couple prefers "partner," then I will honor the meaning they find in that expression of their love when referring to them as a couple. Thanks for sharing your commentary article.

"""existence of gay households like you would tolerate hispanic laborers working on your roof as long as they seek no legal recognition and protection?""".....Well, other households dont need my protection or approval, so I have no idea what your screed is trying to achieve. What I do know is America is in the middle of a "family meltdown," and our youth are most affected--> as evidenced by their horrible health outcomes. Meanwhile, some wax philosophically about the horrors of climate change or the wonders of "limitless" marriage. America is mostly clueless about what is important.

So if it is wrong to limit marriage by gender how can it be wrong to limit marriage by the number of spouses?