You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
We should follow the lead of most other industrialized countries (most of Europe and East Asia), in which only the civil ceremony confers legal status on a marriage and the religious ceremony is optional. Even nowadays, clergy may refuse to perform religious ceremonies for couples who can legally marry according to civil law, such as couples of different faiths or people who have been divorced, if their particular religion forbids it. I'm a Christian myself, and I have gay and lesbian friends who are. I cannot imagine any way in which legalizing their unions actually harms heterosexual marriage. Nobody has ever been able to explain what is "harmed" except their ability to impose the their hang-ups on the whole society.
As a heterosexual, married mother of five, I challenge anyone to explain how gay marriage would harm me, or anyone for that maatter. The sooner these distinctions are ignored, the sooner society will realize how cruel we were to maintain them.
Our society does not function because all of our laws are based on the fiction of 'equality.' Bring on Obama! The sooner things fall apart, the sooner we can start rebuilding society along the lines of empirical reality.
a straight man marrying his first cousin, and a gay man marrying his first cousin?
If you say that the law preventing first cousins from marrying doesn't apply to a gay couple, then you're also acknowledging a definition for marriage that can't be applied to homosexual relationships.
The first post makes it sound as though homo sexual marriage is the norm in Asia and Europe with the US being the outsider. Gay marriages are accepted almost nowhere in Asia. In Europe, only in a small number of countries allow it. Many have civil unions which give much of the rights of marriage, but with exceptions, frequently in the area of adoption and child rearing, because a traditional couple is still considered to be preferable for the child.
Why can't Gay folks enjoy the GOVERNMENTAL special rights that straight folks have created for themselves? Fair is fair. This nonsense about "defending" traditional marriage is a false argument. It's embarrassing. It's clearly unconstitutional. What harm has experienced by anyone as Gay and Lesbian's have married around the globe?
In response to your comment about how gay marriage could possibly hurt a straight person--how about prostitution or incest? How does an act of prostitution between a single man and a single woman affect anyone besides the two interested parties? How about an act of incest between two consenting adults? To go even further, what about drug abuse?
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;" Why doesn't KK understand this part of the 14th Amendment? Why does KK hate the Constitution? Why does KK hate America?
WE NEEDED GAY MARRIAGE BUT THE LIBERAL ELITE CANNOT WAIT TO MAKE IT AN INSTITUTION, JUST LIKE LAWYERS.
The 14th Amendment of our Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law for all people. If marriage carries with it legal rights and protections, which it currently does, then it cannot be denied to homosexuals. The solution is that straight people and gay people all have "civil unions" under the LAW and can be "married" or not by their CHURCHES. Just take the word "marriage" out of the laws and replace it with "civil union." For the record: I'm heterosexual, I'm married, we have kids, and I'm not in the least bit afraid of homosexuals having the same rights that I have.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Drive: Metro traffic
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks