Marriage is between a man and a woman. Next question, please.

Marriage is between two souls and the guy upstairs. It's easy to form opinions and judge. Let's all focus on the plank in our own eye.

Marriage in the US is a secular and dynamic institution that has gone under several major transformations. Interracial marriage was illegal in many US states until a 1967 Supreme Court decision. Coverture, where a woman's legal rights and economic identity were subsumed by her husband upon marriage, was commonplace in 19th century America. No-fault divorce has changed the institution of marriage since its introduction in California on Jan. 1, 1970.
It is no one else's business if two men or two women want to get married. Two people of the same sex who love each other should be allowed to publicly celebrate their commitment and receive the same benefits of marriage as opposite sex couples.

It's a matter of civil rights. People should not be denied equality of how and who they love in the eyes of the law because of how they are born. simple as that. Next question?

Yes, I believe all people should be treated equally.

What is the underlying fear of people who believe marriage is ONLY between opposite sex couples? Do they fear their own sexuality? Do they fear the next generation of consumers will not be born? Are they so hypnotized by the beliefs they are force fed by religion that they can not even think for themselves? Willie Wilmette hit it right on the head. Equality for ALL...regardless of marital status.

Why does your straight daughter have more rights than my gay daughter? Please "evolve" on this issue. If you can't you must believe my daughter is somehow less of a human because of who she loves.

It would save argument if the government got out of marriage altogether. The government should do ""civil unions" for everyone. This would be the binding legal aspect. Then those wishing to have the union blessed by their church could do so.

I cannot believe that intelligent free humans would even have to debate this question. The right wingers have been always on the wrong side of history: slavery, womens suffrage, civil rights and now this. Take your religious beliefs and obey them in the privacy of your own cave.

If marriage is ONLY meant for creating children as some Christians say, then only those capable of reproducing should be allowed. Caring that premise logically forward then those over 50 would not be allowed marrige; and if you do not have a child within two years the marriage is automatically annulled by the feds or the state.

Of course, it should be legal. What gives anyone the right to deny this basic right to anybody? For those who may say The Bible, remember that not everyone believes in it. For those of you who do believe in it, you do not have the right to force your beliefs on others. One religion is not superior to any other religion. We live in a multicultural society. Everyone deserves respect, not only those of a particular belief system.

Pat Reynolds (no relation) states the situatio very well. My feeling exactly.

I guess I still don't understand the debate. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman by definition. I am not opposed to same sex couples making a commitment that is honored by the government for civil union purposes.

Seems to me like the word marriage is trying to be redefined. Anyone else see it that way?

Isn't this more about money and benefits than marriage? Who really cares who marries who? Interracial, same sex, dogs and cats....I could care less what people do....but I don't want to be paying for their benefits, supplementing their insurance and paying more in taxes to cover their special needs. Who about the government gets out of our private lives, gets rid of all marital benefits for everyone: no more tax breaks, no more benefits, no more insurance.....that way everyone can marry who they want, when they want....and everyone will be treated "fairly"!
What a crock. I have a gay nephew, he is perfectly happy with his relationship, of course he is very successful and doesn't need anything from the government. Why don't people say what they mean and fight for want they want, instead of hiding behind false or personal issues?
Sexual orientation is a personal issue, not a governmental issue. Stay out of our personal lives. If your gay, give your partner a ring, be monogamous and have a wonderful life together. That's fair. Aren't their bigger things to worry about? Shouldn't we be trying to shrink this enormous government and grow our economy?
What happened to trying to better our educational system? What happened to our manufacturing ? Is gay marriage really what we should be voting on?

I agree with the above. There shouldn't be any controversy over this "issue". It's merely disappointing that there are so many people hoping gay marriage be illegal. If two attract to each other from the same sex, so be it! It's just cruel that the government would snatch away so many people's rights and dreams.

what is the purpose of Marriage?

Why cant two people that love each other just be together.........Marriage is for having children.

If you cant have kids whats the point of being married, its not the social norm to be GLBT. This is just the bandwagon of the moment from the crazy liberals, distract and focus on something other than the large issues at hand.

What people do in the privacy of their home is their business but does not mean it needs to be the social normal.

I thought Obama was against this, as he had previously mentioned. Maybe Sasha and Malea can convert their father on economic policies too.

YES. Of course it should be legal.

I don't understand why people have such a strong opinion about how others choose to live their own lives, especially when it does not have any affect or impact on them. Other people's second hand smoke can damage your lungs; other people's impaired driving can kill you; there are plenty of things that other people do or can do that actually have an affect on your well being. Those are the kinds of things that government should legislate, not people's personal choices (civil liberties) that have no impact on others.

I would no sooner tell a same sex couple that they could not be married, than I would tell any other person that they could not attend school, eat in a restaurant, or hold a certain job. We should all be free to enjoy the same opportunities to enhance our lives.

Imagine society telling you that you cannot do something that you feel makes your life better because of who you are. Maybe YOUR kind shouldn't be allowed to play sports, or enjoy music, or work in certain professions, or any number of things that have no affect on anyone else. If you are fine with YOUR rights being different than everyone else's, then by all means, have the opinion that same sex couples should not be given the same right as you to be married.

The fact that it is 2012 and we are even debating this is embarrassing.

OK, I just feel compelled to respond to each statement above.. So it seems that Justin feels that marriage is between two soul? Do you think that maybe marriage was created at one time as a binding contract between a man and a woman to HOPEFULLY guarantee the commitment so the children created from that union could count on some type of security? Unless you completely believe that it was just a holy issue directed toward another rule to guarantee access to divinity. I'm trying to remember if ever there wasn't a governmental attachment to the state. The opperative word here is marriage. If we are looking stricktly a legal issue, hell call it a unity instead of a marriage and get on with the contract issues. Those are availble with or without the word, such as in "WILLS, DYING DECLORATIONS, PRE-ARRANGED CONDITIONS, PROPERTY CONTRACTS." Even a spouse does not have rights to overpower the last requests or arrangements of their partner, you can't ask a docter what is wrong with your spouse and have him answer if they don't want you to know, it's under Hippa Law.

All this fuss over Same Sex marriage. I don't see what the big deal is. I'm an elderly man on medicare. My wife and I have been having the Same Sex for 43 years and to tell you the truth, it isn't worth getting all upset over.

If you want to fight it legally more power to you, hope you have a lot of Bucks in your pocket. If you are talking about a religious aspect then I do think it would be any religions right to determine if it is against thier belief to restrict who falls under the "MARRIAGE" guide lines or not. You don't agree find another religion if you need one. So it you get right down to it what are we talking about here? A tradition? A religious belief? A law that was based on a religious traditional belief that has a few benefits and I do mean few? If that is the case then stop trying to tear down a sanctity, an established defined form of unity just so a same sexed union can feel equally involved in its traditional term. Write out your own state of union requirements, write out how you would like those declarations to be followed, lobby to have that new state of union included in the laurels of the law.
Too many people are more interrested with interfering with or driving thier beliefs down the throat of other. So again the opperative is the word "Marriage" a very long tradition stop trying to redefine it and create one of your own if you need it because we are not the same.. we ARE different just worth and (should be) valued equally.

Marriage is between A Man and A Woman!!! I have no problem with civil unions, but marriage between same sex is not morally right. I believe with The Q! What goes behind closed doors is no ones business!!!!

And Obama should worry about the economy and taking care of our country instead of butting into people's businesses!!!!

It is a personal choice, which really should not involve anyone but the people who are involved.Marriage is not for everyone, nor does it work for many, but for those that want to should have that choice regardless of gender. We have choices, to bad there are so many others that to want make them for us.

Stupid in America?? Folks this issue is just a political distraction because the economy sucks, jobs are scarce, people need work and families are losing homes and here we worry about a dividing issue that won’t feed one person of any sexual preference. Sexual orientation!!! This is just one way Americans allow themselves to get side tracked from getting to issues of importance to the whole country. Almost everyone around me is either un-employed, under-employed, or afraid they will not have a job soon. Kids are growing up to live at home because they can’t get enough of a chance to get out and ahead. Parents go to the grocery store and find prices have skyrocketed. Gas is over $4.00 per gallon and a tank of gas costs almost an arm. Get real folks LGBT is an issue but not the main one we all face in every household around me. Focus will you please?
Frankly I don't care either way. If the argument is all in a name - marriage - why not just let everyone have civil unions. That’s right if the government is involved no mater what your preference it’s a civil union. The churches are not going to change their view so let them call it marriage, BUT, the legal docs will all say civil union regardless. End this nonsense.

Carmen, you should listen to Bob Dylan's, "the times are a changing". You and your superstious ilk will be left in the detrius of human historical shame. Why your imaginary friend in the sky tells you how to live your life is no concern of mine. Please keep your bizarre rituals to yourself. Believe it or not people can be moral and do the right thing without a bogeyman in the sky watching over their shoulders.

Ray, you sound intolerant of other's beliefs and confused about American history. You sound like a liberal.

Were the right wingers correct about isolism during WWII?what about civil rights? Cmon, mccloud, reread your hisory, cause you and your kind are always on the wrong side of it

I think the government should bow out & let people live their own lives.There are far more important issues that should be addressed!!!

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. Idiots like Obama are confusing a legal relationship that the state uses to define legal rights, and the inalienable relationship that has existed for eons, even before there was a word to define it.

Really? FDR was a right winger?

Does anyone but me see the irony of this poll being posted on Mother's Day? Just wondering.

YES! Well said, Raymond. It's like they don't even realize that they are the same as those oppressive individuals from our nation's history. Future generations will look back at them with shame.

Obama didn't bring gay marriage into the public view. The right wingers did that, and have been doing that for quite a while as a wedge issue. If Biden hadn't said anything, I think Obama was perfectly fine keeping this on the back burner. And yes, gays should have the same rights as straights. Their marriage has no affect on yours.

Yes, right wingers are in dire need of a wedge issue, since people are back to work, the housing market has recovered, our debt is under control, and our future looks bright. Biden is a brave man for following the script he was given.

Will L

I have to ask? Who do you think you are that you think you can just negate a definition associated with a term which a good portion of the op0opulation relate to? I'm not saying it shouldn't apply I'm saying it DOES NOT. And your comparision of a drink from a fountain if profound but totally unrelated. Hatred as you put it usually stems from a reason, I restate usually, and is something that takes effort and work to disolve. I am assuming you think you know the inner working of the 60' with your generalization. You sound rather young, were you there? Please don't live under the perception of perfection, the secret is none of us are nope not even you. There are good and bad people in the world but to state that your gradfather was a reacist on a public platform does not show well on you. Your statement makes you look just as bad if not worse than those you speak of. It's called respect. If not for the living then for the dead. He's not here to defend himself..

More important things to be concerned with. I could care less.

The politicians are tripping over themselves trying to get on this vote wagon. The truth of the matter is that equal rights can be accomplished without the marriage word. Let those who want to reserve marriage as a man-woman thing have their way and let those who need equal rights and protection have their thing.

Does opening the door to same-sex marriage also open the door to sibling marriages, cousin marriages, adult-child marriages? Shouldn't everyone have access to equal rights? If you say no, who are you to judge?

People let it be. It shouldn't matter who get married to who. Men to men, women to women, men to women and racial marriages if they love each other who cares. There are more important things to worry about than this. How about the teen sucides that are happening??

Alan, thanks for your advice, you probably just overlooked the guy who posted before me, since he was taking a swipe at a group you probably despise?

This is not a government issue. IT'S A CHURCH ISSUE.

FDR battled against people like George W's grandfather in trying to aid the British mccloud. Where you get your history lessons sounds like the same place rush limbaugh gets his. The right wingers always are behind the curve of history, hence the name conservatism, which is preserving the past for fear of growing wiser, evolving. Oh, I forgot, you don't believe in evolution. You think Adam and eve roamed with the dinosaurs. Apt term, dinosaurs. That's what anti gay people are: homophobic dinoss

This curve of history thing must be a new mantra circulating on your diabolical channels of information. Not sure what that's all about, all I know is FDR put the American Japanese into camps, and southern Democrats strongly opposed civil rights, and none of this is relevant to discussion. Your assumptions that I am anti gay or don't believe in evolution are laughable. Tell me, does growing wiser start with mocking another's faith in a higher power?

You right winger, left winger types ARE the problem!! Just use some common sense for once and quit with the patrician BS!! Get the government out of these types of things PERIOD!!
McCloud, It does seem like people on this blog who make pro "liberal" comments are not subject to a reply asking them to stay on topic. Look at the blather posted by Raymond above.

So you sign up with a political party that IS anit gay, anti-science, anti-tolerance, anti-research against stem cell research? Why mccloud? Because of only monetary reasons? You give up your core beliefs to a party of radicals so you can save a fee bucks in taxes?

Republicans claim that they want government out of their lives, yet gladly accept it's policing our bedrooms. Why use your belief in a higher power to control other human's personal lives? I don't believe in your higher power for the same reason I dint believe in astrology or Mormonism. It's all mythology for people who cannot accept their own mortality.

This conversation is becoming a platform of insults and the true issue has been lost. "Will L" the topic sounds very personal to you and If I insulted you by calling it a lifestyle rather than a Humanity facit I deeply apologize. My personal choices are none of your business which is what I was trying to relay, and in turn I'm not interested in yours. The topic was unions.. and I again will assume the legal aspects of that relationship, which can be attained via contracts and legal statements. If you are talking about a spiritual commitment after years of religious rearing I still cannot remember any statement that gave clue to a same sex relationship being acceptable. So there you have it. Legal? make your own contracts with a reputable lawyer or lobby for a change in the definition of the legal term "union" . If needed spiritually find your own don't stomp on what others believe in. I find you obnoxiously insulting. HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY TO THOSE ON THIS SITE!

Alan, I get the point that Raymond was trying to make. My point was that this ridicolous hyper-partisan rhetoric from some posters doesn't help anything. Also it does seem that you like to redirect conservatives who stray off topic, more so than liberals....no quotes!

Gay marriage is NOT a Federal issue. It is up to the individual counties and states who have the authority to issue marriage licenses in the first place to determine - based on democratic principles - who should or should not get licenses.
Obama politicized this issue to detract from his failed presidential record.
It's the economy stupid!

I am sorry but simple Biology says that it takes a man and a women to make a baby.....not 2 men, not 2 women. Like i said before, i dont really care if LGBT couples want to have a relationship. But redinfing the social and biological norm is not Marriage. We are talking about 5% of our population not 50%. Hence this is not the norm.

There should be a distinction between "marriage" and "civil union". Both would automatically grant the same rights, insurance, property rights, adoption, etc. And it would satisfy the religious and non-religious groups. If you're same sex, you can have your civil union, administered in a court. If you are opposite sex, and you want your religion to bless your union, fine...have your church ceremony. Federal law should NOT dictate who is entitled to marry, or have a civil union. It should be up to the states. And if your state doesn't allow civil unions, go to a state that does allow it, and have at it. The federal government is already too intrusive on what we should do as individuals, and have stripped away many of our freedoms.

Alan, did you pass the Constitution test? Faith has no place in the discussion of American law? Otherwise you would know our Declaration of Independence acknowledges a Creator as the source of the unalienable rights that governments are formed to secure. Personally, I have no opinion in this discussion, just disgust with the dramatic reactions of the Obamaphile media and people who are held prisoners to the ignorance being spoon fed to them with vile towards those who oppose them. The tolerant and enlightened always reveal their bigotry and uneducated ways on these forums.

The constitutional freedom of belief also guarantees Rights for those who for religious beliefs chose not to accept the homosexual lifestyle in their communities. If gays want their relationships respected they can move to a community where they are.
Don't let the gay lobby take away your religious rights. You do NOT have to recognize their behavior if it goes against your beliefs.
On the same token they should and in fact are free to do whatever they want in their privacy.

Yes it should be legal

Practice what you preach mccloud. You have no tolerance for anyone with a belief other than your own. You ridicule opiions that differ from yours as being spoonfed? You take it intravenously.

Actually I have no tolerance for fools who act high and mighty and bash people who have faith. Fools who make blanket assumptions about others, and use the tired Limbaugh reference as an insult. Fools who lack historical understandings and try to cloak themselves in a bed of tolerance, all the while grouping people into catagories, race, gender, sexual preferences, religions, ect. Fools like you are miserable people who try to make themselves somehow superior, and think they are more enlightened than the rest of us.

Marriage shouldn't be legislated at all. All are humans are equal under the constitution. Marriage certainly shouldn't be voted upon by the court of public opinion. As one of the great writers of our generation wrote "what is that your business?"

It is a matter of fundamental fairness and equality .That is one of the principles that our country has always been dedicated to. It is disappointing that this still remains a debate. Giving all who love each other the right to mary does not and should not affect anyone else or their beliefs
It is a matter between the two peopleand they should not have any less right to formalize that bond than anyone else

You're fooling yourself mccloud. Keep drinking the tea party venom

You're either with us or agin us mcloud. Love your intolerance for progress. Thought you were open minded

When every group of people in America can be looked upon with equality and respect then our country will truly be the "land of the Free".

I support gay marriage but The Q gives some excellent insights about the blindness of the average American. Many Americans, typically liberals who champion or egalitarian identity, fail to separate our nation's reality and our perception of what we would like to be. America is a nation where, throughout our history, the power of the government has increased at the expense of the lax lifestyle we have taken for granted (patriot act anyone...). We pride ourselves with an illusion. I'm not disputing the morality of the gay marriage campaign (as I feel the opposition belongs in a nation where religion rather than common sense dictates society) but it's difficult to dispute the viewpoint The Q has.

Absolutely. And the military will lead in this social change as it did with desegregation and equal rights for women. As a veteran army officer who had gay soldiers working for me when that was not even don't ask don't tell, and seeing some of the hell they went through to serve their country, so glad they are allowed to serve openly, while maybe taking a bullet or IEF shrapnel for even those who do not want them to have any rights period. My husband who has served 27 years and been married that long as well feels the same way.
I would be devastated if he were injured and I could not be by his bedside. We have gay neighbors who are trying to adopt and would make great parents to a child whose parents cannot take care of them or don't want to. They have grandmas for support. But two adoptions have fallen through. My gay cousin who was persecuted and made fun of may be here today if he had same rights we had. I have lived in the south and Midwest states who passed amendments. The divorce rate was so high in those areas. The hypocrisy was amazing. I have a cure for some of that. Let's make adultery illegal like it still is in military today. Not only will you lose your career but may serve prison time. Live by our rules. Now that would be an amendment I doubt politicians or the public would support.

What a bunch of partasian BULLS**T...from both sides!! It seems some of you could care less about the real issue and more about politiocizing the whole thing. Why do you MOrons think so many people are disinfranchised with the entire political process and the hopelessly, blatantly partasian hacks who are our "leaders"!

Honestly, we said when they were getting ready to overturn don't ask don't tell that the biggest reason politicians, etc didn't want gays to serve openly was because the military has been the first in most social changes. They knew gay marriage was not far behind. They claimed it would hurt the mission, put soldiers at risk, etc well it didn't. We are still at war. Your buddy still looks out for you. And IED s still don't discriminate. But the military does have to address issues of partners, and marriage soon. But wonderful senator from MO has attached amendments to current defense bill to allow no gay marriages on DOD facilities and that military chaplains can preach against the gay lifestyle, etc. so those battles still not over.

End on funny note and not my quote. Somebody said sure let gays be married. Let them have right to be as miserable as rest of us. Ha. Gotta laugh. Ya know.

Try being in,military where your lives are directly affected by political ya-hoos on daily basis. Well at least it gives us a bit of rest. We are usually the ones used in last few elections. And make us good background props. One party in particular tried to make public believe they support military, patriotism, all that. But well, Hmmm. Someone sure got good political gain from that. Quite a few. Well aware of issues at hand. Everyone has issues most important to them.mine is healthcare for one. And why in greater Chicago and surrounding areas that doctors here don't take tricare. Have to go to milwaukee for specialists. I know why. Because they pay medicare rates and doctors here don't want to take pay cut. Up to docs to take tricare. So there us patriotism in form of bumper stickers, etc. then there is real support for troops and veterans. And Chicago is prob worst place we have been for medical. Great lakes has only certain specialties and family usually goes to civilian doc for major issues. So there you go. But I'm off topic and Q about gay marriage

Hey you higher power believers. Is he or she as intolerant as you guys? Is he or she as insulting as you are? Does calling other people names act as a sacrament in your higher powerism? Is your higher power a bully like you mccloud? You believe in a make believe supernatural being and you call me the fool? Debate is fun but you male it funny

I'd give you more rope, but it looks like you already hung yourself. I have to go shower, corresponding with you makes me feel greasy.

I will first state that I don't care if gays may ever get married, EITHER WAY. If certain states won't allow you to get married as a homosexual, you have the right to move to another state, just as you could if you didn't like any other law or restriction.

The Federal Gov't has no right to create laws regarding marriage as it is not an interstate commerce issue. Even as a constitutional "equal protection" issue, it doesn't compare to interracial marriage because those laws stopped men from marrying women. Gay men may still marry a women, and a lesbian may marry a man, so the laws are constitutional as they are.
Marriage is a states rights issue and as it stands is between a man and a woman, if anything I would like to see the Gov't out of all marriage.
It seems to me the reason gays want a marriage license is to feel their relationship has been validated by society, otherwise, they would have a ceremony and draw up legally binding civil contracts, which without religion is all a marriage is.

The issue is several-fold. Should it be a state's rights issue or a federal? There are merged rights involved, particularly when things like Social Security benefits are involved, or when filing a joint tax return. However, the real issue at this point is whether it should be permitted. Yes, LGBT couples can exchange promises, live together, love each other, but there are other issues present, both legal and sublime. It's not just hospital visitation, or the raising of children. There is also the justifiable desire by LGBT couples to call themselves married. This may seem minor to many, but it is important. How people view themselves, and how they are viewed and labeled by the outside world counts. I have absolutely no problem with LGBT couples' marrying. It does not diminish any relationship I may have. It is not how many of us were raised, and is criticized by many for religious or traditional reasons, but that is not our role to put up such an obstacle. I hope that my state will enact legislation that permit LGBT marriages, and soon.

Well-stated, Bob Blinick. How people perceive themselves is ultimately important. This is a perspective few seem to understand.

Simple answer is the government gets out of the mrriage business. They let the Church decide if two people should be married. If a straight couple comes to church and the church doesn't think they should get married then they just turn thme away. Like to they do gays.

if you have lived in sin all or most of your life,if you don't repent and ask Jesus into your life and be your Lord God and Savior,you will never enter the gates of Heaven.Marriage is between a man and a woman...period.

Hey Lucas just a simple question: what Church? Is that Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Islam, Sikh, etc. or a Justice of the Peace, a Las Vegas marriage chapel; or whatever comes along. What about atheists or agnostics? Anyone of those religions could decide that your color is wrong, your ethnicity is wrong, you just don't look good together, etc. The 100s of christian groups can't even get along together or agree on things. Throw in varying cultural backgrounds and things really get interesting. That is why there was built into our government a separation between church & state & Federal & State governments. Religious differences created Ireland (Catholic) & No. Ireland (Protestant) after bitter, bloody conflict, the U.S. was created in a way to stop this from happening. The U.S. was also based on the idea that all men are created equal & that idea almost split the U.S. into two countries. The outcome of that war was intended to put the country back together & to free those enslaved. Lincoln's idea was to give the slaves homestead land, the right to vote & equal opportunity in society. It took the Civil Right's Act of 1964 to attempt to do what Lincoln wanted to do in 1864. So the new group to pick on are LBGT men & women who only want the same rights as all of their other brothers & sisters already have; to fall in love and establish a societal union that everyone else has without question. They want to show our society respect by living within it as they were taught to do.

Obama, the great divider!!!!

Marriage is between one man. One woman. Cause GOD says so. PERIOD.

Gullivers' Travels anyone?
The conflict between them, he tells Gulliver, began years ago, when the emperor’s grandfather, then in command of the country, commanded all Lilliputians to break their eggs on the small end first. He made this decision after breaking an egg in the old way, large end first, and cutting his finger. The people resented the law, and six rebellions were started in protest. The monarchs of Blefuscu fueled these rebellions, and when they were over the rebels fled to that country to seek refuge. Eleven thousand people chose death rather than submit to the law. Many books were written on the controversy, but books written by the Big-Endians were banned in Lilliput.
The debate between the Big-Endians and Little-Endians does provide some clues, however. The egg controversy is ridiculous because there cannot be any right or wrong way to crack an egg,

Well said. Satire, other than that practiced by Steven Colbert is a lost art. Hey mcloud, I'd like to offer an olive branch and propose a beer summit. I can't believe that that political differences result always in belittleing anothers point of view(which I did to you[assuming as I did your acquiesence to your political party's platform] obviously incorrectly-think creationism) and name calling(which is your best defense to your positions). Can't we just disagree without the pettiness of immature adolescents? I'd like to think that if we came upon each other on a dark road and one of us needed a hand, we'd offer it to each other as fellow citizens or at least human beings. Your faith and my secular humanism surely would bring out the best, not the worst of us?

Ps. Mcloud, it's really not worthy of both of our intellects and our beliefs to be so snippy to each other. Although I took great pleasure in pressing your temper buttons, I realize that it's not adding to the debate but only appealing to my sarcastic side which will only reinforce the negative stereotypes you have of people who don't agree with you and reduce both of us to cliches. How about a truce mccloud?

Two mommies or two daddies is a good thing. It means those people aren't procreating.

Just one more reason, other than abortion, that will keep liberals in the minority.

"contraception!"

"bullying!"

"gay marriage!"

these are all merely distractions for the administration.. because they KNOW 'it's the economy, stupid'.

Instead of the government worring about same sex marriage, shouldn't they be trying to fix the economy?

I have read all the comments. Such human folly. Or... better yet... I quote my personal Lord and Savior...George Carlin... " It's ALL B** S***".

The only thing I have to say is.......Does anyone who has commented for or against have a son or a daughter who is gay? I believe this makes all the difference in the world!! My son is gay and I want him to have the same rights as everyone else....it is that simple. My views all along have been the same-if 2 people love each other and are committed to each other whose business is it if it is 2 men and or 2 women. It is their own business and is is so sad to me that people can not step back for a moment and just see how simple it really is.

Sully, it's political because "We the Poeple" allow the political class to use it as a way to divide us. It's a sad day when the "reality" that we have to consider, is that politicians will always do what is politically expedient to they're careers and in the best intrests of the party, with blatant disregard to the will of the people!

SCOTUS needs to rid the political arena of this question. Simply put, they are a protected class and SCOTUS needs to etch that in stone. Once that is done these stupid debates about State/Federal rights and whether or not marriage is okay for gays is over. Protected Class = Resolved.

Eleni: You should be ashamed of yourself using that word. Whether you agree or disagree, show some class!

Dow awa with marrage and make it Civil Unions for everyone. Next topic

In reading through many of these comments, it appears that most of the arguments against this seem to stem from a person's disregard for another person's lifestyle choices. Gay marriage is either wrong morally, a sin, unnatural, etc...all things that just mean you don't like it and feel the need to impose that dislike on others who don't affect your lifestyle or access into heaven.

The arguments for seem to stem from not caring what people do, equality, fairness in governmental recognition, human dignity.

How can this even be a question we are discussing and debating? I know I boiled down the pros and cons to very basic levels, but that's what it looks like to me.

Everyone who is against this, if two gay men or women get married in your town's courthouse will your life be altered? Can you not be married to a woman/man? Can you no longer ruin the "sanctity of marriage" by cheating or getting a divorce? Absolutely nothing in your life changes other than saying my gay neighbors had a lovely/awful wedding and they are married now as

Please stop beating a dead horse. I really have no opinion, just try to accept the fact that there are people out there who have spiritual reasons for being against it, thats all nothing more. There are problems expotentially larger than this one to be concerned about, like record unemployment, record foreclosures, record debt, record bad economy. Folks who want to deny the open discussion of these problems in place of this one have their reasons, like they voted for the wrong guy last time.

Sure those issues are serious McCloud (can't we multi-task?), but there isn't a bigger issue than legalizing Gay marriage, if you are a gay person and you want to marry your partner. I'm sure that during the 60's, there were a lot of people who were concerned about the U.S.S.R. and Vietnam, and wanted to put ending Jim Crow "on the back burner", but I also suspect the majority of people who held that position weren't from the disadvantaged group.

Keep using terms like same-sex marriage or marriage equality. Bisexuals marry too so gay marriage is an incorrect headline.

Funny how Obama wasn't for gay marriage for 4 years. Now that it is time for votes he all of a sudden had an epiphany. There are many hetrasexual couples that are not married and do not get their significant others benefits. Sometimes life just isn't fair. Isn't that what we try to teach our kids?

Obama has always been for gay marriage. If you go into his history here in Chicago, you will know this, he has quiet about it, due to the country being in the middle. That's why it's not hard for him to say it now. There is data that he has always been for it! Regarding straight folks, it's called palimony, so that is a incorrect statement. :-) As a single person with no kids, I get no benefits on anything and I still want folks who wish to get married to be allowed under our laws to do so... "Life is Good"

Oops sorry marriage equality for non gay folks who are also bi in the LGBT groups! :-)

LET'S COME TOGETHER ON IT....
marriage does NOT need 'love' we all know about the drive-up wedding chapels in a famous place out west
and
civil unions? just mean..'contract' that does not give LOVE a proper description
lol civil union 'chapel' ?
this constitution ammendment...to say...all men are NOT created equal...if you yourself decide to choose a same sex 'marriage' partner?

here we go!...the U.S. Supreme Court will be required to define humanity
we live off the the known fact...all men are created equal...
then? homosexuality or homophobia...makes this part of 'humanity' ...something 'less' than equal?
GOD loves ALL he created HUMANS! and the USMC...who by nature 'send' those HUMANS' to be sorted..by GOD!
now...
homosexuality is being...enhanced or popularized? or legitimate?
nor rationalized...
civil rights....is civil rights
100% equality...period
if my house is for sale...and i want $$$ i sell for the highest price...
this is the business practice of value not ethics

It's funny how things change, growing up in the 1960s I always heard that marriage was just a piece of paper, man. Now the same folks are on the other side.

No matter how much we blather about it, it's still about human beings. Whether they be adolescents who are gay and don't need to feel guilty about it anymore, it's about lovers who have taken care of each other for years being able to say to the world who they are, it's about life(children who might not have a family having one, hospital decisions that must be made by our dearest loves)and death(dower rights). We tend, once we feel we have the high moral ground, whether it be based in religious dogma or our own personal cultural preferences, to expect humans tobluce as we think is right for us. That can never be the standard. We don't hold the keys to absolute truth. No one does, no one ever can, beccsuae we are all indivduals. As Atticus Fiinch famously said in "To Kill a Mockingbird", "Scout, you never really know someone until you walked in their shoes for awhile." love is the only measure when it comes to these questions.

Having read a number of these posts. It appears to me that some of you would probably go into shock when you found out that someone who you were 100% sure was just like you (straight) came out to you as being gay and in a secret relationship with a person of same sex.

What if the person you had lived with for 20 years was dying and in the hospital and you had no decision in their health care and no visitation rights, despite being power of attorney. What if you had a child with this person and he/she were the primary income earner whose employer provided insurance for the family and it was suddenly "illegal". Amendment 1 in North Carolina deprives all couples who are not 'legally married' regardless of sexual orientation of their rights. This state already has a law in place that states homosexual couples cannot marry. Amendment 1 was much more evil that saying marriage was between one man and one woman. The only benefit that the federal and state governments have really allowed married couples is a tax break. Government needs to get out of the relationship business. The opening sentences of this post were about my niece who has been living with her 'common law' husband for 10 years and they have an 8 year old daughter. They have been quite happy the way they have been and got married after Amendment 1 was put on the ballot in the state in which they live, North Carolina. This issue is way bigger than gay marriage.

Wow....Wow...I say...Kudos to all the fired up, sincere and heartfelt postings from everyone....of every stripe. We have a veritable plethora, a smogasbord if you will, of opinions and beliefs. We have pontification. We have jail house lawyers. We have bible interpretation. We have our local legal "experts." Sociology was explored. Great byplay and interaction. Everyone venting with sincere emotion. Is this a great melting pot to call home, or what? Personally I find "be fruitful and multiply" to be a tad difficult to accomplish with two people of the same gender. Adoption? Fine...but how are the kids then raised? Is the ultimate goal to dismember/dilute and ultimately make irrelevant social mores and customs our country has held sacred to accomodate and sanction alternate behavior by a minority, or simply just to confuse the kids and hasten their therapy visits? Those of you worried about inequity in social security benefits for your significant other when one of you dies, simply purchase life insurance on each other & you're both fine, aassuming you can prove you each have an insurable interest in the other. Lastly, on the subject of marriage that has been slapped around pretty good on this blog....suffice it to say we can all agree that "Marriage is the triumph of imagination over intelligence." Now go forth and sin no more.

Dan. I bet your wife cheats on you for your lack of imagination

But you beinfnthe cuckhold Dan, would never know! Ignorance is bliss Danny boy! Keep smiling!

And she's probably with a liberal Danny! All you conservatives look like newt or cheney or rush. You guys hid behind deferments while we Lund fought your wars you only rooted for from afar

"Everyone did what was right in his own eyes." (Judges 21:25) Columnist Cal Thomas compares ancient Israel's abandoning God's laws and precepts to OUR loss of moral direction today. (Daily Herald, editorial page 5/11/12, "Marriage and Political Expedience"). I would also add bad results followed; eventually they lost their liberty. (Also see Judges 17:6)

Classic Obama, pitting citizens against one another. A president needs to lead not divide. This president has never been a leader and has been pitting groups against each other since day one. He should take a history lesson from fellow democrat Bill Clinton and lead from the center not from the left. I happen to believe that marriage is between a man and a women. I further believe in Civil Unions that give gay couples rights that married couples enjoy. Approximately half of US citizens feel this way. How an issue that's split down the middle can be used to further divide is shameful. The president needs to lead and not divide, if he knows how.

Obama said something he believes as an individual. He is not going to take any rights away from heterosexuals. He is not leading us down the path to the devil, as so many of the religious right so-called preachers pontificate. When we were led to war and kept at war on questionable grounds, did you consider those who were opposed to it? Was that not a divisive issue? My guess is you were pro-war, so you didn't care about the other side.

Why is it our politicians have no problem butchering our Constitution by amending it to fit their needs? Why is it that they will not stand up and END this lack of equality? Any person of legal marrying age should be able to marry another person of legal marrying age. NO QUESTION! To those who are so very against same sex marriage here is a question for you. Your son or daughter announces they are gay and they are engaged to marry their partner. What do you do? Tell them they are less of a person because they are gay? That is EXACTLY what this is telling our gay community. They have a right to EVERY SINGLE RIGHT as a United States Citizen. SHAME ON OUR GOVERNMENT! MAKE IT LEGAL!!!!

And to those that think Civil Unions are the same as Marriage then go on ahead, get yourself divorced for your husband or wife and then the two of you go down to the county courthouse and get yourselves a Civil Union. It is not the same.

" Threat to Traditional Marriage ". Well, let's think about traditional marriage. Is it a threat to traditional marriage that close to 50 % end in divorce? How about no fault divorces? Does adultery (even by politicians) play a large role in traditional marriage? Drunken visitors can get married in Las Vegas on a moments notice and annul the marriage when sobered up. Does anyone see these things a threat to traditional marriage? Is 'traditional' marriage threated anymore or less my Gays having the equality that allows marriage? I submit for your consideration that this perceived threat to traditional marriage is actually homophobia, plain and simple.

Perhaps we can stop using the Bible, or any religious tract, as a solid basis for a moral decision. I would start with the golden rule (the one about treating others the way you would like to be treated) as a good moral basis, and going from there. If I were LGBT, I would want to have my relationship given the same respect and legal significance as a straight person.

Even this guy knows Obama didn't just all of the sudden start this-

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/parshall-blames-satan-legislation-limiting-ex-gay-reparative-therapy

From the article, "Dallas: To my knowledge there hasn’t been a specific recent event that served as a catalyst for this but this has been brewing for at least twenty years or longer."

I think the catalyst for this was the AIDS crisis in the 80's when the gay community figured out how to organize and become a legitimate political force at the national level.

One Nation under God

Is the Question: Should Gay Marriage Be Legal?
OR SHOULD IT REALLY BE:
Should the Government get out of the marriage business?

Hey brainiac, there are no conservatives out there shoving anything in anybodies face. They took a vote last week in North Carolina, and the vote results probably did not agree with your position. The people decided. Conservatives would much rather speak about the once again failed theory of Keynsian economics, and the record unemployment, record foreclosures, record debt. You can package any illogical reason available from your diabolical sources, bottom line, all three branches were under Obama's thumb and he is now a failure.

RB, Have you ever heard of Exodus International? They have helped many people leave the gay life style since 1976. They are now a network of of over 200 Christian ministries - throughout America, Canada, and the rest of the world.

Threat to Traditional Marriage ". Well, let's think about traditional marriage. Is it a threat to traditional marriage that close to 50 % end in divorce? How about no fault divorces? Does adultery (even by politicians) play a large role in traditional marriage? Drunken visitors can get married in Las Vegas on a moments notice and annul the marriage when sobered up. Does anyone see these things a threat to traditional marriage? Is 'traditional' marriage threated anymore or less my Gays having the equality that allows marriage? I submit for your consideration that this perceived threat to traditional marriage is actually homophobia, plain and simple.

Wow, this question really touched a NERVE ending with people. Heres the thing,
you are born a certain way. Period. Up about until 1980? people did not talk about being gay.They didn't dare admit it if they were. Men got married to women, and vice versa. They had very unhappy marriages, had children, got divorced, or they became nuns and priests, (and I am NOT saying all nuns & priests are gay) and in this day and age, people can be who they want to be. I have friends who are straight and gay. They all have kids. They were all married at one time. Group insurance includes "significant others", "domestic partners". I could care less if my neighbors are gay or straight. Traditional marriage sure didn't work with the boomer crowd. I know more people who are divorced than married. I agree with James comments re: what would you do if your kid came home one day and said: Mom & Dad, I am gay. Would you love that kid any less? Would tell him/her to leave and never come back?Look at all the gay couples that adopt kids, raise their families. Gay marriage should be legalized.

RB, O.K. if you disagree, I welcome your facts and ideas - but skip the personal insults.
Lucas, I remember hearing John Paulk on Focus on the Family. Surprised to hear he returned to the gay bar scene. Interesting.

I think we all need to understand that we're dealing with inter-related interests and ideas. "God" is related to, but separate from "religion", which is related to but separate from "the church". We each define the above according to how we were raised, and how we have learned. I doubt that many of us have the same exact definitions of each of the above. We are dealing, among other things, with many different religions. It would be better for all, I believe, if we each believe as we wish, and allow everyone else to believe as he or she wishes. Our theological beliefs may influence our thinking, but do not need to dominate our laws, especially where they infringe on the desires of others to enjoy their freedoms. A lot of the difficulties that we're dealing with here stem from the idea that too many believe that they are right because that is what they believe, not just for themselves, but for all. Those who believe that way need to reconsider their position.

The Judeo-Christian definition of marriage does come from the Bible, such as Genesis 2:24...."a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." (This was the ideal. When men took more than one wife, events did not go well, as with Solomon). The Bible is a basis for our laws: that is why the Ten Commandments are depicted on the wall of the Supreme Court chamber where the Justices deliberate, and also on many court houses throughout America. Further, our Declaration of Independence states that men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights....Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.... More specifically, the government sanctioning or endorsing marriage only as a relationship between one man and one woman seems to be for the sake of children - so they might ideally have both a mother and father.

I believe all marriage licenses are issued by the State. Churches, and I can only guess, Synagogs and Mosques, or other religious entities, perform marriages as an agent of the State. That is, a combination of a legal and a religious event. Millions and millions of couples have been married in that manner. As long as marriage was defined as between a man and a women, religious organizations holding that view had no problem acting as that agent.

Once marriage is redefined as a union between any two individuals, religious organizations will no longer be able to perform marriages unless they accept the State's definition. Everyone who wants to be “married” will be married in a civil ceremony. Then, if their religious institution can't accept the State's definition, they will also have their union blessed by that religious institution if that's what they want. I'm only familiar with the Christian religion and I believe all denominations only recognize a union between a man and a woman as valid if performed in a religious ceremony.

I guess that's where we're going and it may or may not be right. I think the few individuals that want this “equal” right need to recognize the huge inconvenience million of couples will be faced with. One can say, “That's their problem.” in one wants, but I still think it might help individuals better understand why this is more than changing some words in a dictionary.

I don't believe that they will need two ceremonies. Churches are and will continue to be free to marry only those of whom they approve. Judges, justices of the peace, and open-minded clergy will continue to be available to preside over marriages, with no infringement upon anyone's right to practice as they choose. As to Mr. Krudop's last comment, unfortunately human rights are frequently taken away by governments, and most especially by governments that are too closely intertwined with religions that believe that their way is the right way.

(previously posed)The Church can do the same thing after the same sex marriage law is approved as it does today. IF THE CHURCH DOESN'T WANT TO PERFORM A MARRIAGE IT CAN JUST SAY "NO". Churches do not have to perform a marriage just because it's between a man an women.

I am not fooling myself, but I think you're worrying too much about what our government might do. Yes, there is a bit of an overlap between church and state with regard to the state's authorizing clergy to act as an agent of the state with regard to presiding over the marriage ceremony ("by the power vested in me by the State of...."). That is an accommodation which I don't believe violates the First Amendment because a priest has no greater power to marry a couple than does a justice of the peace. No priests have been forced to marry anyone against their (the priest's) will, just as many clergy will refuse to marry those outside of their religion. You may be afraid of the clergy's being forced to act in violation of their religious obligations, but I doubt any court would find that way. You do, however, raise an interesting issue, due to the intertwining of the clergy and their licensing to wed.

You're switching topics, at least with regard to rights of religion versus rights of marriage. No member of the clergy will be required to marry a couple where performing that ceremony would violate that clergy's freedom to exercise religion. There are other avenues available for an LGBT couple to travel to be married, and nobody has a right to be married, for example, in a Catholic church. However, and it does raise an interesting point, what about an employee at, say, Notre Dame, which is self-insuring, and where there is no separate entity to insure procedures which Notre Dame finds religiously offensive. That case will likely go to the Supreme Court. What are your thoughts, or the thoughts of those who have read this stream, on that issue?

I am not for and strongly disagree with what marriage has "become" in the eyes of so many people. It is steeped too much in religion, politics, "what everyone thinks is the right thing to do", blahblahblah. What ever happened to it being a sacred union between two people who share a special love and who want to demonstrate that love to themselves and their loved ones by having a special ceremony to honor it?
Just like with so many issues that should be "human" issues and that should be made by those involved, the government, religion, and society have just gotten way too much involved. (Not that a marriage is something simple, as I'm absolutely not trying to say that. That's anything but true! Leave all the hooplah out of it-let it be a decision that is made by two individuals who love one another and who want to officiate that love, regardless of sex, race, religion, or whatever.