We have just three weeks in which to bring HJR 6 to the floor for a vote in the Iowa House. If we can get it to the floor, I am confident it will pass.
Unfortunately, the measure is being blocked by the House leadership, and will require a 2/3 majority to even bring it to the floor. Already, Iowa legislators are hearing from their constituents, and some are even canceling town hall meetings and other public events simply because they don't want to face voters angry about their unwillingness to stand for marriage.
Let's keep the pressure on!
We have identified a list of 33 Iowa House members whose support will be critical to our efforts to bring HJR 6 -- the Iowa Marriage Amendment -- to vote by the full House during the last two weeks of this year's legislative session.
These 33 legislators need to know how critical this issue is, not only to their own constituents, but also to the entire nation, as the Iowa decision will embolden and energize gay marriage activists all across the nation. The Court had it wrong -- "The traditional notion that children need a mother and a father" isn't "based more on stereotype than anything else." It's based in common sense, natural law, and the very essence of the way God designed the family structure. Marriage is about moms and dads -- raising their baby together.
But gay marriage activists are targeting these legislators, too. We have a short window of time to act before this year's session ends and need your help today.
Together we can send a message to the Iowa House of Representatives: Vote YES on HJR 6, and let the people vote to protect marriage!
63 Comments
Brian, if marriage were entirely about raising children, then we should have laws which only allow marriage between persons who are actively raising children. The fact of the matter is that your assumption is fallacious. Marriage is entirely about protecting the person that you cherish most, and depend on - your spouse. And it is entirely immaterial in the eyes of the civil government whether that person is of the same, or opposite sex.
Our civil government requires that we protect and support our children. It is not optional. And, it should also offer to all of our spouses an equal measure of protection.
Your marriage will not be harmed by my marriage. Both are valued and both should be treated equally in this country.
“The traditional notion that children need a mother and a father” isn’t “based more on stereotype than anything else.” It’s based in common sense, natural law, and the very essence of the way God designed the family structure. Marriage is about moms and dads — raising their baby together.
1. "Common Sense" would dictate that any two committed people should have their relationship recognized in the eyes of their government.
2. "Natural Law" would support equality for all people without adding discrimination into our laws.
3. "The very essence of the way God designed the family structure" should never be used as an excuse to deny "undesirable" families equal protection under the law.
4. Marriage is not about moms and dads raising their baby together. It's about the government recognizing the relationship between two committed partners. Marriage isn't just a baby-factory, or should infertile couples be forced to divorce?
Marriage can be about children, to some people. You don't have the right to tell another couple what marriage should mean to them though. For most, it means love and unity. For others, it's about convenience. And it's not your business either.
By your standards, infertile couples and elderly couples shouldn't have the right to be married because they are unable to produce children. Shame on you.
If you're against gay marriage, don't marry one. It doesn't affect your life one bit. Further, quit pushing your own religious views on other people who can think for themselves. Not every American is religious or believes in God. That is their right to think that. Are they voting to take away your right to practice your religion? Live and let live.
Your time and energy should be spent educating yourself on the idea that there are many different walks of life in this world. As long as these walks of life aren't hurting you, they are okay and should be respected just as they respect you.
Congratulations to the Iowa Supreme Court, whose members are wise enough to see that legislation allowing a majority to take away the rights of a minority is morally WRONG.
Gay people are born the way they are, and anyone wanting to truly understand can find real facts supporting this. Or go to the source and ask any gay person.
Since gay people are born gay, the right to be who they are and marry whom they love is a fundamental right.
You are entitled to your beliefs, but you are not entitled to force your beliefs onto others through legislation.
You might be interested in what veteran culture warrior Cal Thomas had to say about overturning the Iowa Supreme Court's unanimous decision in World Magazine:
“Iowa law requires a two-year process to amend the state constitution and with Democrats controlling the legislature and homosexuals a significant part of the party’s base, it is unlikely the ruling will be overturned.”
You've lost.
I have now been married to my husband for 5 years (in Massachusetts) and I challenge you to tell me how we have affected your marriage.
Please do not deny me and others like me equality under the law. I love marriage too. I honor it and cherish it. I want to share it with the person I love. I want my family and friends to come to my wedding. Homosexuals are fighting for fairness and equality and perhaps even more for the opportunity to live in a committed, loving and monogamous relationship. A hope, perhaps a need, we all share.
As a Christian and and Iowan, I can not support this initiative and used the link to e-mail those 33 represenatatives that I expect them to leave our constitution alone.
Supporting civil rights and providing an opportunity for happiness to others is a Christian ideal. IMHO, a much more important ideal than supporting outdated sexual morals barely touched on in the Bible.
"It’s based in common sense, natural law, and the very essence of the way God designed the family structure. Marriage is about moms and dads — raising their baby together."
Two points:
You say that marriage is "designed" for parenting (by heterosexual parents). I assume, then, that you also hope to outlaw marriages of infertile couples, for post-menopausal women, and anyone who wishes to get married without having a child? Should we require married couples to have a certain number of children?
Secondly, you invoke the name of God as part of your justification for this legislation. You must be speaking metaphorically, because, as you know, the first amendment prohibits the establishment of religion, and therefore a law must serve a viable secular purpose and not be based purely on religious belief.
I want my children to grow up knowing that they are free to marry the person that they fall in love with, regardless of their gender, race, or religion. I can't understand what is so frightening about that.
Civil marriage is not solely about child-rearing and it is not at all about gender. Civil marriage is first and foremost about love, commitment, and the right to be legally recognized as a couple. Everyone deserves to have access to their chosen spouse, and they deserve the protections any family would have under the law should they choose to raise children.
Marriage equality is on the rise, and there is no fair or legal argument against it, but it's never too late to respect others. Live and let love.
The government doesn't exist to parrot the religious beliefs of a single demographic, regardless of its size. In fact, the Founding Fathers strove at every level to frustrate the formation of a majority. This is because they recognized that the rights of the minority matter, and that the minority should not always be shouted down.
Those who attempt to stop the arc of the moral universe from bending toward justice will find their effort ultimately wasted. Fighting against equal rights will only make you an embarrassment to your grandchildren. That is not the legacy you want to leave behind.
The Iowa Supreme Court correctly ruled that equal protection means what it says: equal rights under the law. The Court also looked at the real reason for opposition to gay marriage: religious belief and again correctly stated as follows: "State government can have no religious views, either directly or indirectly, expressed through its legislation. . . . This proposition is the essence of the separation of church and state. As a result, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals."
The Christianist need to stop trying to impose THEIR religious beliefs on the rest of us citizens. Why can't they do something constructive like working to help financially stressed families at risk of losing their homes or solving other problems that make straight marriages break up.
Please leave gay marriage alone and focus on the real needs of citizens and leave religion to the churches.
The Iowa Supreme Court did the correct thing in making Same Sex Marriage legal in Iowa. I hope that you do NOT do anything to overturn this fair and just decision. Equality for ALL!
This is a "critical" issue, and Iowa took the right stand. Equality is guaranteed in their constitution and by upholding it they showed that all men are indeed created equally and that forcing one's ideology on discriminated minorities is not acceptable. Way to go, Iowa!
Finally, all families, be they headed by same or opposite sex couples, be offered the same rights and responsibilities that come with civil marriage. The resulting stability is not only in the best interests of the state and the couple, but provides a multitude of advantages to any of the family's children. Iowa residents should be very proud of their state's leadership.
db
There is nothing 'common sense' about the idea that children can only be raised by a mother and a father. Study after study has shown that the only difference that children of gay parents encounter is the stigma from people that will not accept the idea that other types of family exist. Gay marriage will never go away....just accept it.
I would ask your members to please note that the judicial and legislative efforts of the gay movement towards marriage equality is being watched closely in countries around the globe, as are the methods of those who are trying to block these efforts.
As a heterosexual Irish woman who has been in a happy marriage for 23 years, I am astounded by the bilious rhetoric and base false witness being exhibited by the so-called 'pro-marriage' groups such as yourselves, Focus on the Family, Americans for Truth and so forth in your biased and unjust stance against those who simply wish to marry and protect the persons they love and their families.
I applaud the sane and just judiciary of Iowa in their recent affirmation of the civil right for gay people to enter into full and equal marriage, and also those of the legislature in Vermont who have seen that the marriage of two people who love each other, whatever their gender, should not be blocked by those who seek to impose their religious beliefs and personal bigotry on civil law.
I am truly praying for you and all those in your organization that the veils will fall from your eyes, so that you may see how much you have strayed from the humble and compassionate spirit of Christ in your dogged and misguided adherance to selective dogma written by MEN for their fellow MEN over two thousand years ago.
How can you love God whom you have not seen when you don't love your brother whom you have seen? Let people love whomever they wish; if it's against God's will, leave justice to Him, as He has commanded.
Jim
um we have gay marriage here in Canada and the sun came up the very next day .Don't mind me asking but you guys spending millions of dollars to stop gay marriage why not ues that money to halp build homes for the poor .and don't mind me saying but you guys are failing prop 22 won by 20% prop 8 won by 4
in the bible if you read it in both greek and English it says a man took his wife and married it was not saying that is marriage
oh yeah we know what you guys are up to
quote. ................................................................................
UPDATE: We just noticed that they're actually moderating the comments. So if you leave perfectly peaceful comment that is unapproved, try to make a screen grab of it so that we can point out their attempts to shut out dialogue. That story, a frequent meme of far-right sites, is another good one for us to use against their movement
Great job, people. I've already sent my emails, and I am encouraging others to do the same. I really admire everything that you do, and I appreciate the communication regarding this issue.
Guess what!?! Religion has NOTHING to do with our goverments decisions!! Yay! You are all idiotic homophobic retards! Every Human has the right to love! Same sex marriages don't affect you or your household in any way! And I will fight alongside thousands and thousands of straight and gay people who oppose you! Our voices will be heard far louder and more clear than yours every day! To quote a favorite of mine.. "BRING IT ON!"
I'm from Iowa, heterosexual and married for 29 years with 2 adult children and Catholic. I read your page "Same-sex marriage: Answering the Toughest Questions" and would like make a few comments.
II. Main Message the 3x5 card:
I challenge the notion that marriage is "about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers." Many people marry without any intent to have children, can't have children or women are past child-bearing age. I think marriage is first and foremost about two people wishing to commit to themselves out of love.
You state that children "are confused enough right now with sexual images." No kidding. Most kids live in single parent homes or divorced homes. Same-sex marriage will not confuse kids anymore than they are. Stability of a relationship is what's needed.
"Gays and lesbians don't have the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us." I think you totally miss the point about marriage and Ia. Supreme Court decision. Marriage is still between a man and a woman if you're heterosexual. The court didn't change that.
Now,about your "Frequently Asked Questions" section.
4. What's the harm from SSM?
I have not lost my right to define marriage as a result of the court decision. A parent can tell their kids that marriage is between a man and woman. That's their belief.
What evidence do you have that religious charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemption or be denied the use of public parks unless they endorse gay marriage? That is not in the Ia. Supreme Court decision. Yes, Iowa has a law that public accommodations cannot deny service to gays and lesbians, just as it is true for women, men, all races, etc. There's nothing in our Iowa laws that speak to a legal mandate to endorse gay marriage by religious groups.
I don't see how our court's decision will result in "our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife." Churches still have the right to marry who they will. If a man want to marry a woman, you can. Nothing prevents this.
5. Why do you want to interfere with love? What makes my love any more special with wife than two men or two women? And, that has nothing to do with our court's decision.
7. Isn't divorce the real threat to marriage? I couldn't agree more and same-sex marriage is not a threat. The husband and wife are the threats to their marriage.
8. Are you saying gays cannot be good parents? Well, they are parents, have been for some time. I have friends that are and they have provided a loving home for their kids, better than some heterosexual family units. And, the absence of fathers in families is a high. I think we've got our own problems to deal with. Better there are two adult women raising kids than a single mom. It's an issue of a loving home, support and security.
That's all. I just don't see the threats you stated. My marriage doesn't change because of our court's decision. And, my son's marriage with his wife is not affected. Focus on loving relationship will you? That can be provided by all of us. Thanks.
Great site. I hope we can generate some positive energy on this issue. Once we gather enough momentum then we can also work on restoring other aspects of traditional marriage!
The United States was founded on Religious liberty, so please keep your religious dogma out of my liberty.
I agree with Kevin.
This kind of an organization is a disgrace to the very fundamental nature of America and the Constitution. History has shown us that the courts typically act ahead of the populous, do not try and counter their actions. This organization will be remembered in history as the hateful group that attempted to act against American Constitutional Law and the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause… “No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. Marriage is a legal institution and therefore falls under the Fourteenth Amendment. There are plenty of suppressive countries still left in the world that would gladly take you in, because clearly you have proven that you do not deserve the liberties this country has granted you. People like you were the ones that caused a Civil War, forced women to protest in order to earn suffrage, and caused African American citizens to riot and start the Civil Rights movement.
Kevin makes excellent points. This country has bigger problems than to continuously degrade those who are in committed, loving relationships by constantly telling them they are not good enough to be recognized legally. No matter what is said, civil unions and domestic partnerships are NOT the same as marriage; there are over 1,000 laws that do not apply to civil unions.
Email your legislators--tell them to support the repeal of DOMA and to stand up for equal rights.
The courts have always stepped up to the plate when the Majority was wrong. Many of the advances in our rights as Americans came only when the courts or the Gov. stepped in. Do you think Slavery, a Womens right to vote, interracial marriage, would have happened if it were put to a vote. This is going to happen. Marriage has always been evolving. It's only recently been considered traditional.
Kevin Pokorny, is marriage a social institution?
Yes, it is. It is a coherent whole in our customs, traditions, and in our laws.
You said: "marriage is first and foremost about two people wishing to commit to themselves out of love"
Is there a love requirement in the law?
No, there is not.
But what kind of love did you have in mind, Kevin?
If you had in mind some sort of sexual attraction or sexual behavior, please cite the legal requirement for this.
You won't be able to do so, because there is no legal requirement for same-sex sexual attraction nor for same-sex sexual behavior, anyplace where SSM has been imposed.
On the other hand, marriage is a public sexual relationship type to which all who commit also consent to the marital presumption of paternity. This is a vigorously enforced legal requirement. It makes of marriage a both-sexed sexual relationship.
As does the man-woman criterion which is also vigorously enforced.
These two key aspects of marriage directly reflect the core meaning of this foundational social institution which unites the sexes and provides for responsible procreation.
SSM does not integrate the sexes; it does not provide for responsible procreation; and it is not a coherent whole -- least of all is it a foundational social institution.
* * *
You said of the Iowa Supreme Court's pro-SSM opinion: "Marriage is still between a man and a woman if you’re heterosexual. The court didn’t change that."
If heterosexual?
There is no sexual orientation requirement in the marriage statute that the court supposed analyzed. None.
Can you please explain how sexual orientation even enters the question of the statute's constitutionality?
It can't be same-sex sexual attraction and behavior, since there is no legal requirement for these to be shown or performed for SSM.
The marital presumption of paternity does not apply to SSM. Even if you'd concoct some other presumption, it can't be based on whatever an all-male or an all-female arrangement did sexually.
So what's the relevance of sexual orientation, Kevin?
In addition to the bride and groom, society (through the delegation of authority to the government) is party to each marriage.
Marriage is a public relationship. It is a legal and a social status.
So society needs to distinguish marriage from other kinds of relationships and types of arrangements.
Can you, as a Catholic, as a parent, as a married man, as a citizen in a pluralistic society, can you please state the legal requirements that make the conjugal relationship distinct from nonmarital relationship types and arrangements?
If you say it is commitment, well, commitment to what?
If you say it is whatever the Government says it is, then, your relying on an arbitrary power rather than the cause of justice.
Marriage has a core meaning. It is aruond this core that boundaries are drawn justly.
Whatever you might say is the core meaning, please test it with the same rules you used when discussing procreation.
If (fill-in the blank) can occur outside of marriage, then, it is not essential to marriage.
Also, if (fill-in the blank) is not made mandatory in the law, then, it is not essential to marriage.
Then test the boundaries against underaged people, already-married people, and related people. These are based on the core of marriage and not merely some arbitrary exercise of power.
Further, these are embedded in questions of morality that each society must decide when showing preference for the conjugal type of relationship in our customs, traditions, and our laws.
Since the pro-SSM side is pushing for the boundaries to be redrawn, these questions must be answered by those proponents of a new core meaning for marriage.
And you are mistaken to claim that marriage has no shared public meaning. If that was the case, then, marital status would be meaningless for it encapsulates society's consensus on the significance of sex integration and responsible procreation. If you think marital status encapsulates something else, then, you need to first answer the questions above BEFORE than issuing your own demands for changes.
Great victory in Iowa. What are you people afraid of? Legalizing gay marriage will not change anything about the state of straight marriages. Wake up!
As a descendent of proud Roman Catholic Iowans, I'm deeply saddened by the imposition of same sex marriage as a matter of law. However, the previous Catholic heterosexual who had been married for 29 years missed the most salient beliefs of his own faith. According to Catholic doctrine and dogma since the original Christians, marriage has always been considered a Sacrament between and man and a woman and open to procreation. It is the modern (wo)man who tampered with this most unique relationsip which enabled us to become partners with God in creation. Ever since the dominance of premarital sex, divorce, and contraception, that has eroded the very fabric of society. Frankly, the reason why so many favor same sex marriage is that they do not want to be told to return to the Ten Commandments either.
Pat H.
I do not think Chairm's comments and questions are an appropriate response to Kevin's post. Furthermore, I do not understand why Chairm's put "before" in all caps. My understanding is that all caps means yelling and do not know if Chairm means to be yelling at Kevin. Finally, Chairm never took up the issue of divorce, which always is an attack on a marriage. I think Chairm should voluntarily remove Chairm's post.
Chairm - you've deconstructed Kevin's very reasonable piece and I find it very difficult to understand what you're saying. You've written punctuated sentences with vague questions as if you're making a point but I'm afraid the literate audience is shaking its collective head in confusion. What the hell are you trying to say?
Since same-sex marriage, my marriage has been falling apart. I told my wife, "If gay people can get married , what's so special about our Christian marriage? Let's divorce." She said, "The sacredness of our family has been torn apart by gays wanting to be just like us."
My son said, "Daddy, how come you no longer teach me that gay people will burn in hell forever?" I said, "Because the government is telling you that gays are normal people like Daddy and Mommy. I have failed as a father, son."
Chairm:
Please learn to use good grammar before you go off on a tirade, especially against someone who is so patiently explaining their opinion.
Also, most same-sex couples who want to get married want, first, the ability to be protected under the law without having to spend thousands of dollars on attorney fees and carry legal documentation with them wherever they go, and second, to celebrate their love in front of family and friends. One can do only the latter without legal recognition, but one cannot do the the former without legal recognition. Second-class citizenship is so last century.
Youre response is very vaguely worded and a little diffucult to understand, but here goes a response:
You said, "If (fill-in the blank) can occur outside of marriage, then, it is not essential to marriage" therefore saying that a sexual relationship would not be a requirement for SSM because it happens outside of marriage. But cant heterosexual sex occur outside marriage as well, meaning heterosexual sexual relations are not importonat to 'traditional' marriage?
I don't understand your point about sexual orientation not being a requirement by law in marriage. It is a solely a question of semantics and you didn't address his point at all. I would like you to respond in a logical way (and not in an irrelevant fashion about its word choice) to the following point: The Iowa State Supreme Court did not redefine marriage for couples that consist of two different sexes, only for couples that are made up of the same sex. How can you say that they're marriage threatens yours? How can you say that a same-sex married couple is anymore dangerous to a heterosexual marriage than any other married couple? Is your lesbian married couple down the road going to invade your house, steal your children, and rip up your marriage contract? Because that's the only situation that I can concieve of that involves ANYONE elses marriage (whether they are of the same sex or not) being threatening to your own.
If you want to dismiss Kevin's rationales for SSM with a poor and very off topic point about sexual orientation not being required by law, then you should think about the nature of a marriage from a legal standpoint. Marriage is truly just a business relationship. What the SSM movement is trying to accomplish is to open this relationship up to people of the same sex. There is no reason why they should not enjoy the same legal and financial benefits that accompany a heterosexual couple that wants to commit their lives to eachother.
What this entire debate is about is the mostly religiously conceived notion that same-sex marriage is somehow immoral and dangerous and that once we as a society allow it, there is no reason we won't allow any other "sin" to legally occur. In the eyes of the courts and people supportive of SSM, SSM does not affect anyone who does not choose to partake in it, whereas murder, theft, etc. do.
this is help we need to help spread the word so people know about this
The problem with the statue was that it discriminated against a segment of the population of the state.
Chairm, I love people like you. People like you miss the point entirely and fluff up their meaningless rebuttals with equally meaningless "facts".
Lets begin shall we?
1) "there is no love requirement in our law." You're right! But you missed something somewhere in your rant about sexual attraction or some nonsense. The reason why there isn't a requirement for marriage is because it's not the government's job to tell you who you can or cannot marry. It hasn't been for some time. What's-his-face that you replied to said it well. It's the responsibility of those who are getting married. Get it? Those gay folks aren't making you marry anybody you wouldn't otherwise. Why are you butting into their personal lives?
2) you also said somewhere that "SSM does not integrate the sexes; it does not provide for responsible procreation..." and you again miss the point entirely. SSM is not supposed to integrate the sexes, it's not supposed to provide for responsible procreation. Those things are up to the individuals.
3) On the subject of heterosexuality being in or out of a marriage bill, well um, how should I put this. If I were about to marry somebody, (I'm heterosexual), I would pick a person of the opposite sex 100% of the time. Now, to say that a MARRIAGE BILL has nothing to do with sexuality is naive at best.
4) "marriage is a public relationship..." Yes indeed, marriage is a social status you put on when you are married, same as the status of plumber if you worked in plumbing. But wait! Does this mean that SSM will destroy the very fabric of society if it's accepted?!!? Actual Quote time!
"...society needs to distinguish marriage from other kinds of relationships and types of arrangements.
Can you, as a Catholic, as a parent, as a married man, as a citizen in a pluralistic society, can you please state the legal requirements that make the conjugal relationship distinct from nonmarital relationship types and arrangements?
If you say it is commitment, well, commitment to what?
If you say it is whatever the Government says it is, then, your relying on an arbitrary power rather than the cause of justice.
Marriage has a core meaning. It is aruond this core that boundaries are drawn justly.
Whatever you might say is the core meaning, please test it with the same rules you used when discussing procreation."
Okay! Lets tear this down shall we? Society needs to distinguish marriage from other types of relationships? It already does! It's a binding property arrangement with legal protections in place. Only fools get married without considering these things. So... it's already not the same as "lovers" or dating partners, or cuddle buddies.... etc.
What else is there to say you ask? Plenty, Procreation and marriage do not go hand in hand. Many unmarried people have kids and many married couples do not. Catholics (I used to be one till i got tired of people like you thinking you were intelligent) may not believe that gays are worthy of equality on average, but this should have no bearing on sweeping legislation that will effect people of other religions and even atheists who could give less than half an ounce of shit about your stupid bible. So as an argument, his religious and marital status don't mean shit as far as the legality of SSM is concerned. As to the cause of justice, YOU are relying on arbitrary power to take away the rights of others. What's-his-name is relying on that same power to give them back.
yeah, you need to learn to read and think before trying to argue again, I hope i embarrassed you.
Keep up your cause guys! I'm young and unmarried, but even I can see how desires are winning out over values time and time again in this world today.
If anyone really wants to see how far swayed the general public really is on this issue, view the NOM Youtube page. There are thousands of outlandish and ridiculous comments from people who THINK they know what is right and what they THINK the very fabric of America was founded under, but they are so very wrong.
Bottom line: marriage is first and foremost a civil institution, and as such, it is also a civil right. Gays and lesbians work hard, pay taxes, raise children, and contribute much to society, yet are not equal in the eyes of the law in many states. When courts declare gay marriage legal, they are not "imposing" it on everyone else, they are simply making marriage available to everyone, not just one segment of the population.
Everyone should be allowed to marry his or her life partner. Whether or not they choose to involve a supernatural being should be their choice, not the government's.
Richard,
You have it wrong when you compare slavery to marriage. Abraham Lincoln said that if slavery isn't wrong, nothing is wrong. Slavery was wrong. Every human has the unalienable right to freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, we were set up as a Republican nation where our voice does count. Homosexuality is a sin. We need to love the sinner but not the sin. You are comparing apples and oranges. We must as a nation stand up for religion and morality for they are the two things this country is based on. When we lose those its what Reagan said, "When we are not a Nation Under God, we will be a nation gone under." I really wish people would understand that we believe in fair treatment and rights but it was God that ordained marriage and that was defined as a union between a man and a woman.
The basis for the Christian belief that Gay sex is wrong is found in Leviticus 18. This is the same part of the bible that describes the Kosher laws. Many of these laws were created for people wandering in the desert for 40 years with very little water, manna, and not much else.
Many Jews today honor the Kosher laws as a way of honoring the time of the Exodus. Christians like to "pick and choose" which Kosher laws to follow.
In Acts, Peter is shown many unkosher foods and is told by got to eat. When he objects because the food is unkosher, God says "that which was unclean, I have made clean", referring to the sacrifice of Jesus.
Part of the problem of Leviticus 18 is poor translation. In the KJV it says "A man should not lie with a man like a woman". In Hebrew, the act being described is more like rape, referencing the treatment of captive women. When the Jews conquered a new town, they killed all the men in battle, what was left were boys too young to fight, and women. The women were given to the conquering men, who shaved the women's head, dressed them in sack-cloth, and let the women live with them for an extended period, after the defined period (6 months?), was up, he could have sex with her, or he could set her free. This prevented the women from being raped by several men over a short time, leading to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
The young boys, however, were not to be taken captive in this way. They couldn't be forced into sexual relationships with male captors. The young men could work as servants, eventually becoming strong young men, and once circumcised, could be members of the Jewish community. For the boys, the price of freedom was circumcision, not sexual submission to a man.
As for Lesbian sex, the Bible is much less clear on that. Hagar, the "hand-maiden" of Sarah, Abraham's wife, was probably Sarah's lesbian lover, which is why Sarah was willing to let her have the baby. It was only when Hagar sought to have Ishmael made lord over Isaac that Sarah demanded that Abraham send Hagar and Ishmael out into the desert, where they became what we now know as the Arabs.
Jacob had 2 wives, David had over 100, and Solomon had over 300.
Much of modern Christian sexual restrictions are actually inherited from Islam, the Inquisition, and some monks who had no experience with marriage and didn't really observe animals as carefully as they claimed.
The "Nuclear" family, of 1 father, 1 mother, and 2-3 children as a self-contained unit that could be relocated "at will" by employers, or career moves, is actually a very new phenomenon, started in the 1950s, to encourage migration from farms and urban centers into the suburbs. The model was introduced by Television, primarily because the sets were small, and budgets were tight, so the families had to be limited to a smaller cast.
Up until the end of WW-II, most families were more like "The Waltons", large extended families, often 3 generations living within 2-3 miles of each other. Aunts and Uncles took turns taking care of the kids, fixing meals, and other key responsibilities. They usually all went to the same church, and in more rural areas, inbreeding between 2-3 "tribes" meant that everyone in town was kin of some kind.
The "nuclear" family has turned out to be a disaster. Women, exhausted by 24/7 child-care, suffered severe depression. Doctors prescribed sedatives and other medications, other women turned to alcohol, and later generations turned to diet pills, stimulants, and recreational drugs such as pot, speed, and cocaine. Divorce often broke up the families just as the children were entering school, and often children grew up without one or more parents. Today, 75% of all children born since 1980 have not had the same parents at high school graduation.
Marriage has become a sham in the legal system. Women get pregnant, married or not, and whichever man passes the blood test, gets to pay 1/2 his after-tax income for 20 years. Husbands don't even get the benefit of a blood test. They are automatically assumed to be legally responsible for the child, even if they aren't the biological father. It's one of the few areas where the law assumes that the father is guilty and should be punished, and doesn't even have permission to prove that he is not a philanderer, a wife beater, or a child molester. The burden for winning a custody battle is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mother is a clear and immediate danger to the kids. If she has been arrested for crack possession, or has been pulled over for 5 DUIs with the kids in the back seat, and is already facing prison, the father **Might** get custody. If the child is a healthy white infant, it's more likely to end up in the hands of the "baby sellers", private adoption agencies organized by the churches, who help couples adopt, for the modest feed of around $250,000, which includes legal fees, "sponsored" evaluations, and "sponsored" review by the social services workers. For non-tithing members or non-members, the price is substantially higher.
Yes, well, you see, I have a problem. I'm in love with a ram and want to marry him. The same sex marriage folks want same sex marriage for themselves but they won't join my cause of interspecies same sex marriage. I'm not being given equality under the law.
I'm not seeking conjugal rights, just the right to marry the species of my choice. I mean, after all, that is the next logical step in marriage rights.
All I'm asking for is my right to the of pursuit of happiness. I don't see where my case is fundamentally different from same species same sex marriage. So come on, same sex marriage folks, support my cause. What objections could you possibly have. The same arguments apply to my situation as apply to yours.
I was once in love with a bull. He left me because I couldn't marry him. I'm thinking of suing the government for pain and suffering. Love, after all, is love. Shouldn't we all be permitted to marry the one we love without species prejudice?
Being a gay man, having been brought up in a good Prodestant home i still believe the santity of marriage is between a man and a woman in the eyes of God.
However in the UK (where i live) it is not a form of marriage that occurs, its called a Civi Partnership, ie Same Sex couples can technically get married in that everything is 50/50, aswell as that a man and woman may never get married however apply for a Civil Partnership to. Its about equality not religion.
And prey tell how can you say that a man and woman make better parents that a same sex couple? Is there statistics that say different? Any information (bar that from relgious sources i mean government or indepentant studies) that states this? I think you find they wont.
Society is changed and still changing, some respects for the worst and others for the better. We share this world with billions of people there is far more concerning issues out there, like homeless, child abuse, drugs that being worried about oh my two men are holding hands.
And let me ask you this do you belive the world is flat, and the center of the universe to?
Everyone should know that NOM is a front organization for the Mormon Church. I first noticed it when I saw that this website was clearly designed by the same people that designed the Protect Marriage site during the California Prop 8 battle. They didn't even disguise it...
This site tells the full story: http://www.mormongate.com
Hey Dan, who cares? If the Dixie Chicks would come in and help the cause to save marriage, I would welcome them even though I can't stand them. Are you afraid of different groups coming together to save marriage?
Kevin, #3, WELL SAID! Chairm, #7, you ramble with all your logic but your logic isn't sound. "marriage is a public sexual relationship type to which all who commit also consent to the marital presumption of paternity." I think you're saying that anyone who gets married also commits to being parents--how wrong is that?????
If anyone can call any relationship marriage then marriage doesn't mean anything. Can I marry my Mom? Can I marry my dog? My dog really likes me. We go on walks together. He brings my slippers.
Can I marry my business? I could might be able to get tax breaks that way. Why should I be discriminated against because my business isn't a person.
One thing that was troubling for me in this case is that the supreme court said that each generation makes its own decisions about right and wrong. So then slavery is bad today, but was it OK in the 1800's?
Tekakaromatagi
Tom, I did not use all caps.
kBono, I explained that I used the same rules of argument that the SSM side uses when attacking the centrality of procreation in marriage.
Grace, it was no "tirade". Please use language with greater accuracy.
You pointed to no example of grammar errors in my comment. Please make the effort to be specific in the future and I hope you will not waste time making trivial nitpicks.
You greaty exagerated the cost of utilizing the provision for designated beneficiaries. But if affordability and accessiblity cost are actual problems, then, that can be addressed without touching marriage law.
And, in CA, domestic partnership disproves your complaint.
* * *
JS, yes, you understand the problem of the special rules that SSMers use. That is my point. That is why I turned those rules on the premises of SSM argumentation.
How can there be sexual orientation discrimination when that is not in the marriage law?
Indeed, since SSM argumentation negates the sexual aspect of the public relationship of marriage, it also negates the claim of discrimination based on sexual orientation. It asserts identity politics first and foremost -- almost to the exclusion of anything else.
If "gay" union has no core meaning (and apparently no one here is prepared to plainly state such a meaning), then, if it was to be merged with marital status the core meaning of marriage would be negated.
The basic problem is one of a false equivalence. It is repeated ad nauseaum by SSMers near and far.
Why should there be a public relationship status without a core meaning? Why claim it is about homo- versus heterosexal people when there is no sexual orientation requirement?
According to the SSM campaign, marriage is not about responsible procreation and is not about uniting the sexes. It is about something else. But what? Can you fill in the blank?
It can't be commitment to nothing. Nor consent to nothing. Right?
If you can fill-in the blank, then, we can discuss the merits and demerits of the proposed change. That's the real starting place.
If you can't, that woul be normal among SSMers, because it seems to be one of those things for which SSMers expect to get a free pass.
You did offer something that is rather odd: "Marriage is truly just a business relationship."
Not according to the arugments made in courtrooms by SSM advocates. Maybe you can elaborate while keeping in mind the Iowa Court opinion. Thanks.
* * *
Cecil, the reason I care about Mormons being involved in marriage equality is because they are trying to impose their beliefs on us, and that's positively un-American. If we truly believe in religious freedoms, that means the right not to worship god, doesn't it? To say nothing of the denominations and religious groups that condone same sex marriage. If it violates your beliefs to be in a same sex marriage, than don't marry a same sex partner. Simple, right? For those of us whose relgion doesn't condemn same sex marriage, we must be allowed the freedom to marry. Simple, isn't it? And, yet people don't get it yet... Do you know that Buddhist and Christian denominations (Unitarian and Church of Christ) have also been fighting FOR same sex marriage? What about their religious freedoms?
If anyone can call any relationship marriage then marriage doesn’t mean anything. Can I marry my Mom? Can I marry my dog? My dog really likes me. We go on walks together. He brings my slippers.
Can I marry my business? I could might be able to get tax breaks that way. Why should I be discriminated against because my business isn’t a person.
Tekakaromatagi said this:
One thing that was troubling for me in this case is that the supreme court said that each generation makes its own decisions about right and wrong. So then slavery is bad today, but was it OK in the 1800’s?
You bring up a great point. The people at NOM have been insisting that marriage is between a man and a woman. Then why not a father and daughter? Are they not man and woman?
You see how nonsensical your argument is? Of course, there are boundaries for who can and cannot marry. Just two generations ago our grandparents could marry at 14. It's called statutory rape now, and would land you in jail. So, yes, marriage is constantly in flux, and has been expanded and alterted to fit the needs of society. There are Americans who are appalled that come cultures still practice "arranged" marriages. Would you like your parents to pick your mate? And, yet it is practiced around the world. The world has now woken up to the fact that gay people have lifelong committed relationships, including children, and we'd like the protections YOU, as a heterosexual, take for granted. It's really quite simple. And, this trend is sweeping the globe at lightening speed. Keep your umbrella handy, because the storm could hit your area any time now....!
FIRST OF ALL: This is NOT an issue of civil rights, its a moral and ethical issue based on Liberty; and it is that gay (*#@*%*) judge that is interfering with our right to pursue HAPPINESS. We just want to get away from something that is revolting, disgusting, and immoral. We oppose that gay judge attacking our beautiful women, our values, and making us unhappy with an exposure to his disgusting immoral sewage. Now, Just in case Donald Trump decides against Carrie Prejean, this should be our response: Carrie's RIGHT to support the (NOM) and marriage between a man and a woman is based on the Declaration Of Independence (that the USA is founded upon), which states that “We The People” have the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the [[ PURSUIT ]] of [[ HAPPINESS ]]. In litigation thereafter, the U. S. Supreme Court declared in, ( Loving v. Virginia (1967) 388 U.S. 1 ); that, the freedom to marry is recognized as a vital [[ PERSONAL RIGHT ]] that is essential to the pursuit of happiness. As a result, that gay judge has violated the liberty rights of Carrie Prejean by condemning her pursuit of happiness to marry a MAN. The (NOM) can file suit against that gay judge, who slandered Carrie Prejean, because of her support for traditional marriage, and for her pursuit of traditional happiness; because, that gay judges slanderous attack is meant to destroy Carrie's career, and livelihood, because of her LAWFUL pursuit of happiness (Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) 262 US 390). You see, Carrie didn't attack him, he attacked and slandered Carrie because she rejected his method to pursue happiness, and this the way it always is, gays exist to give us a problem, where we have none.
Gays have always existed. I am so glad that you have brought up a baseless legal issue regarding Ms. Prejean. Ms. Prejean is a very beautiful person and she may have deserved to win if she was able to collect the points she needed in the contest. She failed to do so prior to the question even being asked. Pursuit of Happiness is just that, the pursuit, not the guarantee. I personally do not like Mr. Perez and his tantrums but I cant make any judgments regarding him based on your proposed legal action based on Pursuit of Happiness. I guess maybe I should sue you for making a judgment on my pursuit of happiness because you want to belittle gays, and have your own little rant about us. Sounds to me like you may have some psycho-sexual issues of your own. A legal battle with NOM based on your argument would be laughed out of the courts.
If you think that gays are here to give you problems, you were mistaken. Notice I used the work “were”? You have created your own problem by not looking at this from a historical and legal standing. You appear to me as a back yard, arm chair lawyer that had serious trouble passing the bar exam, if that is your occupation. Leaving this in the courts to make a decision is the best course of action. Since when does it make sense to allow a Majority vote to rule over a Minority class? The numbers you end up with are still the same. The prejudice is still the same.
Let me break this down for you. Equality = Good. Hate = Bad. Hate is neither a Christian or family value.
Timothy: the [ pursuit of happiness ] is an [ inalienable ] right, that means MORE than a guarantee, it means that GOD gave us that right, and that RIGHT must be respect by the governmental authority. Furthermore, gays/homosexuals have used the [ pursuit of happiness ] to advance their homosexual life style upon the traditional moral Christian life style, so now that homosexuals are attacking and eroding the values of moral Christian faith, the [ pursuit of happiness ] of Carrie Prejean, and people like myself, are under attack from homosexuals who interfere with our inalienable rights. So now, christians can use the same [ pursuit of happiness law ] that gays have used; but, it is now REVERSED against homosexuals. You see, it's a two-way street, when one entity makes the other suffer, the same law applies to the victim against the perpretrator.
Timothy: Gays have NOT always existed, they arose into existence after Cain killed Able and after the1st Adam died; and only then, did the domination of Satan's evil treachery slowly corrupt and pervert all life on earth, and everything therein. However, the 2nd-Adam is our salvation, and when He returns, His control over existence and the forces of nature will perfect fetal development, and eliminate the genetic defects that create homosexuals. This is why the 2nd Adam would not addres the homosexual issue when he was here, and this is ONE of the reasons why he did proclaim that everyone must be reborn ( Exekiel 36: 24-26 & St. John 3:3-7 ).
Joshua please keep your bible out of this. this is a civil matter and nothing more. this is a civil right. A majority should not be in the position of being able to vote out a minority. The founding fathers have made that abundintly clear in the constitution. Read more than your bible sir.
Joshua, since you have made 2 I will make my second. if you want to push the bible then so be it. Do you stone your wife or advocate the stoning of a wife for adultry? Should Red Lobster be out of business because they sell shell fish? do you have two refrigerators? Should all of the pork selling BBQ places in the North, South, East and West be out of business?
Get with it! This is a civil society and you should grow up!
No one in the GLBT have ever said they want special anything. They just want equal. If you have a problem with equal you may have a problem with a whole bunch more. I can make recomendations for such behavior. I work in the medical industry and know of several good clinics thay may be able to help you with your biblical anger management.
In the words of our most fearless leader "We Won" Iowa is the best!
Let's talk about how one defines sex. We male-female unions function as a procreative unit.. We are procreative in kind. The male sperm reaches the egg inside the woman and fertilizes it. We use the appropriate body parts to commit to this most glorious act of nature. In this way the male and female function as a unit. It is the only bodily activity which is reproductive. This organic function requires a complimentary partner. This is nature. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes we choose contraception to limit our reproductive capacity. Sometimes we use fertility aids to help us along. I have two wonderful sons. I've been married to the father of my sons for thirty years. Now I can no longer reproduce but perhaps I will be fortunate enough to watch my sons unite with the women who will complete them so that they may experience the incredible happiness in fathering children and living as a family with their female counterparts. Marriage is a union of male and female. Health and happiness is what I hope for them. I hope they will find the women to complete them. What other definition do you have of marriage? If it is not sexual, it is not marriage as we know it. If it is sexual as you SSM advocates state, then define sex. If you can't then we are open to all other types of relationships defining two or more people. We heterosexuals are asking for an honest answer.
Marriage has always been an institution regulated by social mores and law -- for the purpose of the larger society. Nobody cares if two people live together and commit their lives to one another. The larger society has no vested interest in two gays who want to "marry" in some ceremony. But society does have a stake in the offspring of heterosexual couples, and that's why marriage has always been limited by law. You cannot marry your cousin! You cannot marry your daughter! Or two different people at the same time. There is lunacy afoot in this world, exemplified by the idiot known as Perez Hilton. Stop the madness and stand up for common sense. All children have a right to be protected by law and to be adopted into a home where they have male and female role models after which to pattern themselves.