I have nothing against gay “unions”, but I don’t think the Netherlands is a good example to use.  In Amsterdam, not only can you legally buy and use narcotics, but you can also window shop for hookers.  I mean literally window shop; chicks are sitting behind windows in store fronts!  That’s fine for “A-dam”, but I don’t think it’ll play well in New York. 

I heard the same argument used about our ban on gays in the military. “Well the Netherlands allows gays in their military and it doesn’t hurt them!” No insult intended for our distinguished allies, but there is absolutely no comparison between the armed forces of that country and the USA.  Having spent much time there, I found very little in Europa that I would like to see here in the USA.

Many years ago, I had an operation in a British medical center.  I got off the elevator for my floor and the hallway was filled with old people on beds...some of them did not look like they were doing very well (gross understatement).  Partitions offered them a little privacy, but the hallway appeared to be their permanent living (and dying)area!  Since the US government was paying my bill, I got a private room big enough for 4 people! 

I think it much better to argue the case for gay unions from the standpoint that it’s the right thing to do; not because some other culture allows it.  That will only give opponents of gay marriage cause to vector off on peripheral issues.

This could be apocryphal, but Chairman Mao purported was once asked, “What do you think of the French Revolution.” His answer: “It’s too soon to tell.”

Gays are screaming “It is discrimination—let’s not write discrimination into the Constitution.” How can gays be discriminated against over something - a law that never applied to them to begin with?

Marriage is for a man and a woman—period and steeped in that “man and woman” traditional marriage is the hope and beauty of natural procreation; not artificial insemination between lesbian couples, and not surrogacy by women for gay men.

I live in Boston, and Beacon Hill has become the land of political confusion.  What I have seen so far on this whole gay marriage fiasco is that it is felt to be a civil rights issue.  Here we have 4 wayward judges that decided to take it upon themselves to write law for the legislature, for which they can and should be impeached.  Gays are relying on Massachusetts lawmakers to pass this law because they do not, by their own admittances, want it to go to the people for voting.  People are more against this than for it; not only in Massachusetts, but in the majority of the world, and the reason is not only tradition and law, but morality—religion aside!

Tolerance of the gay lifestyle, however deviant and unnatural most feel it to be, has been thrust forcefully upon people by liberals and special interest groups.  People are so fed up!  People are sick and tired of everything they feel and think being practically under martial law in this country!  People have bitten their tongues for far too long over everything they are not allowed to do, say, think, feel or celebrate for fear of seeming un-politically correct by not doing the popular thing/feeling the popular, politically correct way, thus being considered a racist, bigot, homophobe or mean spirited.

People have had enough already!  If this law should happen to pass and gay marriage is allowed, it is quite possible that people who were once tolerant and accepting of this lifestyle, be it on their own accord, or because they had no choice, could turn on gays and display outright acts of hatred.  Passing of this gay marriage law could be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel’s back.

Marriage is a very, very venerated bond for heterosexuals.  To have this union ‘between man and woman’, as it has been since the beginning of time, be granted to gays because they whined and bitched and got their way; thus having marriage lose the meaning people held most dear—this could have dire consequences.

If gays think that circumstances are bad for them at this point in time; that they have been victimized and discriminated against, wait and see what the future might possibly hold.  Gays may be biting off more than they can chew. People can become as un-politically correct as we are currently forced to be politically correct.  However far gays think they’ve come in the world in terms of equal rights and acceptance could be offset by a fierce backlash – a revolt, an upheaval of hatred from the straight community - even those who are supposed to act politically correct under “crybaby” left wing laws – people such as landlords, employers, etc.

People may regress to the days when nasty things were said and feelings were shared outright—and no amount of legislature or law suits (another thing people are fed up with) will stop people from expressing themselves --no more putting up and shutting up!  Attitudes could rival the days of Archie Bunker!

Be careful what you wish for—it may not be what you wanted, and it may not go the way you thought it would.

Well, people used to “express themselves” plenty about having to share restaurants with them nasty darkies, but we didn’t let that stop us from changing the laws.  I sincerely doubt that your bile, prodigious as it is, will have much impact, either.

“people are so fed up,” “people are so sick of it” “people have bitten their tongues for far too long over everything they are not allowed to do, say, think, feel or celebrate”

Yep.  They’re called gay people.  And whether you like it or not, they’re not about to shut up and go away just ‘cause they make you a little uncomfortable.

And marriage is not JUST a religious institution--it carries a distinct legal and tax status with it.  You may not LIKE gay unions, but they exist. 

I swear, between you and the people bandying the “N-word” around like there’s no tomorrow, it’s starting to feel awfully fifties in here.

Whatever.  Society changes.  Some people can’t adjust.  It makes them very unhappy.  The rest of us just get on with our lives.

Mild Bill-- Europe isn’t the only place where you find a policy that allows gays in the military.

Australia also has such a policy.  It doesn’t seem to be having much of an impact on their ability to field forces.

There’s quite a few other countries that have policies that allow gays to serve, as well, and while some of them are not stellar examples of military prowess, some of them can manage to hold their own.

Just seems to me that many of the arguments that people level against gays in the military sound VERY similar to the arguments that were brought out before minorities were allowed into the military, and before women were allowed into the military.

“ How can gays be discriminated against over something - a law that never applied to them to begin with? “

I missed the part that excluded certain groups of people. You sound like one of those sheet-wearing, loud-mouthed, bullhorn-toting, cross-burners who scream that “ ‘all men are created equal ‘ never included ( anyone outside the white race ). “ Hetero power! Right?

“ —no more putting up and shutting up! “

You are right about that. No more sitting in the back of the bus because you aren’t the right color. No more being denied the basic legal rights and benefits of a spouse because you aren’t the right gender. Political confusion? I don’t think so. Political enlightenment, more like it.

I agree with you Nowiser, sometimes it sounds like a Klan rally has broken out around here… but what do you expect when a Texan steals the White House? I just hope they don’t start burning the cross smileys on my virtual lawn.

Jaileene, wow. I honestly do not know where to begin, there is just so much undisguised contempt, disgust, bile, and hatred in your post. First, if 100% of the people on Earth believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, or that the Earth was flat, or even that the Earth was supported in the heavens on the back of a tower of giant tortoises it would not make ANY of it true. Just because “the people” believe in something does not make it right, but that is not really what you are saying though is it? No, what you are REALLY saying is that all those damn liberals and homosexuals had better watch out because there is a large angry group of violent hate mongers that are poised to beat down any uppity gays or their liberal goon squads. You probably would have said it differently so as to make yourself look like less of a bigot but not too far under the surface you are one load of bed linen away from a pointy hood.

I don’t understand people like you at all, but then my own brother who was raised by the same parents I was seems to be cut more or less from the same sheet as you. He was of the opinion growing up that everyone who looked at him was gay and looking to get his sweet ass into bed, apparently to a gay man my brother was like catnip. I don’t think he ever mentioned that someone had ever actually propositioned him, or fondled him, or even winked at him but he was so damn...paranoid. Did that happen to you too Jaileene? Is that what scarred your psyche and caused so much anger and hate to build up? Or maybe it is because no one ever did…

Most of what I could say to refute you can be found on Natalie’s site so I will not bore any of her readers by repeating here what she has already so eloquently said in her own blog.

And damned if Covie didn’t beat me to all the Klan references before I had a chance to hit post…

Jaileene, what in the hell are you talking about? Please tell me how exactly your hypothetical marriage is harmed by two lesbians down the street being able to get health insurance through one of their employers? Or how your marriage is harmed by two men who don’t want to be thrown out into the streets from a house they’ve shared for 30 years if one of them dies? Or any other way?

Tell me exactly how you or your marriage is harmed. And try to doing it without using the phrase “sanctity of” or some such thing.

Consummate: to complete (a marriage) by the first act of sexual intercourse

Intercourse: sexual relations, esp. coital relations

Coitus: sexual intercourse, esp. between male and female humans; copulation

Based on the above, how is it impossible to define marriage as anything other than between heterosexuals?

Yes, I too am deeply offended by the passing of gay marriages/civil unions, and it has nothing to do with religion or politics; nor am I a bigot like you called Jaileene because you couldn’t look at things more objectively.

There was a lot of truth to what Jaileene said when viewed as not a personal attack, but as an overview of what could happen.  I didn’t see Jaileen spewing venom or using terms resembling the “N” word.  I didn’t see Jaileene state anything from a personal point of view, or say she hated gays, but all of you personally attacked Jaileene for pointing out, based on how society is, the things that could happen if people are in a particular frame of mind over this.

My opposition to gay marriage has everything to do with the fact that what my spouse and myself share, along with millions of other heterosexual couples, while not threatened, is no longer something special. Marriage has been sanctioned by society as heterosexual for centuries.  Do you really think people will accept gay marriages “just like that”?  Yes, it is a reality for gays that marriage is for them, but look at it from another perspective, as horrible as you think that other perspective is.  That is a reality too!

I cannot really explain my feelings on this the way that I would like to, partially because I too am so upset over all these “special people” (not only gays) getting all these “special rights”—hijacking every issue and making it about THEM, going above and beyond to take full advantage of the overly politically correct state of mind that has shamefully come to be in this country!

Whether it be bans on peanut butter or legalization of gay marriage, or trying to take the word GOD out of the Pledge of Allegiance, pushing the boudaries has spun out of control.

Gays want acceptance - they got it. They wanted a SEPARATE school in NY - they got it. Now they want marriage?! Someone needs to draw the line somewhere!

You don’t like “special people” getting “special rights”, yet you’re opposition to gay marriage is because YOU won’t be “special” anymore?

My opposition to gay marriage has everything to do with the fact that what my spouse and myself share, along with millions of other heterosexual couples, while not threatened, is no longer something special.

Well isn’t that spayshul.

I don’t need the government to tell me I’m special.

Although marriage may be something religiously or spiritually special to some people, as it pertains to government, it’s just a legal state of being. OK, call it a civil union and let them have the civil benefits of marriage. Now do you feel “special” enough?

I too don’t like “special” laws, I personally am against Affirmative Action, 8A government-coddled companies, and the like. I don’t like any legislation that gives someone an unfair advantage.

But gay marriage (or civil union) isn’t doing that. Were black people asking for “special” rights to eat in the same diner as whites? Your logic suggests that was the case. Damn, who do those blacks they think they are? Wanting the same rights as white people, as if they’re equal or something in the eyes of the government.

Nobody is saying your church has to perform gay marriages. But gays aquiring the LEGAL benefits if marriage doesn’t make your marriage any less special. You’re no better if only by comparison.

OFF TOPIC: And the word God should come out of the Pledge of Allegiance, as it was never in there originally, but especially because it doesn’t belong. I should be able to Pledge allegiance to my country/flag without simultaneously being forced to profess a belief in God.

Hi everyone.  I just wanted to say I understand where each one of you is coming from, and after reading each of your comments I can relate to what you’ve said in some sense.

Lets forget for a minute about who is on what side of the discussion, whether I’m a democrat or republican, what state I’m from, etc.  None of that is important.

I’m a human being.  All of you are also humans.  Now, in order for us to get along with eachother in a society we’ll need to have love for eachother by recognizing that we’re all humans, and we deserve to be treated equally, respected, and loved.

It really doesn’t matter what religion you are, what you look like, or what car you drive… you still have a human brain, just like I do.  You need the same things that all humans need:  Love, from other humans. 

As a human in a loving society you should be given the chance to live life happily, marry someone you love, and raise a family should you feel inclined to do so.  There should be absolutely no question as to whether or not you should receive the same health care or financial benefits as someone else.

I’m not here to take sides, I’m just here to point out the obvious:  We’re all humans and we should all treat eachother the same way we expect to be treated in return. 

I think of bigotry and discrimination as societal diseases.  I refuse to get angry or upset at those who do not treat other humans as equals.  I understand that they did not inherit the societal diseases by choice, just as no one asks to get cancer.

I’m here to help cure the disease, by spreading positive messages that will improve the growth of our society, and in doing so, helping others to pass on this message, and cure.

I’ll give you a simple analogy to help you understand this point of view.  Imagine humans as cells, and the human body as society.  Cells must work together, as a team, in order to keep your body in good health and working order, just as humans must unite in order to keep society together. 

Imagine what would happen if your cells spent their energy attacking eachother, preventing eachother from gaining access to certain parts of your body during an infection, and didn’t recognize and treat the other cells as equals.

The outcome would of course be fatal.  Almost all problems in society stem from people not treating eachother as people.  Wars caused by religion are a prime example of this. 

I’ve thought about solutions that would help our society move in the right direction, and this involves many changes, particularly to the educational system, which needs to be highly improved, and funded accordingly.

I won’t get into all that at the moment, but I’ll be glad to share later should anyone be interested.  I do want to leave you with one final note.  When you are discussing your opinions with others, no matter what ‘side’ you’re on, try to avoid personal attacks and excessive rhetoric in your message, as it does little to validate your reasoning.

Brandi, you are bitter as they make ‘em!  Stop living in the past - a past that you likely weren’t even a part of.

Aren’t there forms you can sign to make everything legal?  In some states there is a form for choosing a medical proxy.  There is Power of Attorney, Executor of Estate, etc.  If everything is made legal, people can choose whomever they want for whatever they want in the event of illness or death.

About health insurance: if you are employed in a state that recognizes civil unions, but the parent company is based in a state that does not, will you still be allowed health benefits?

Federally, death benefits will not happen, as it is a state by state case of recognition.

Me? Bitter? You’ve got to be kidding me. I’m the happiest, most relaxed person I know. Although I do like to argue. And I get a little quivery and salivate when I run across ignorant people.

What past am I living in again? I think I just made an correlation to an old familiar argument to make a point. What is it that makes me bitter?

Oh, see I just realized that “ccc” and “not a bigot” are the same person. I thought there was another random person jumping in an attacking me, when it was really just a repeat poster trying to pretend to be someone else...assumedly to bolster perceived support.

I’m still awfully curious to hear what makes me “bitter”. That seems to imply I have a chip on my shoulder about being wronged somewhere down the line.

I almost choked on the apple I was eating trying to laugh when I read CCC’s acusation that Brandi is bitter. Angry perhaps, irritated surely, but bitter? :-D

Consummate: to complete (a marriage) by the first act of sexual intercourse

Intercourse: sexual relations, esp. coital relations

Coitus: sexual intercourse, esp. between male and female humans; copulation

Based on the above, how is it impossible to define marriage as anything other than between heterosexuals?

What a stupid argument. Most marriages are about more than merely sex and there are more than a few that are never consumated, odd as that may be. Additionally, there’s nothing about the definition of “intercourse” you provide that indicates it’s only applicable to heterosexual couples. Nor is there anything about the definition of “coitus” you provide which indicates it’s strictly applicable to heterosexual couples either. It merely points out that it is especially applicable to sex between a male and female, but doesn’t limit that as being the only possibility. This has to be one of the lamest attempts at an argument I’ve seen on this issue in a long time.

Yes, I too am deeply offended by the passing of gay marriages/civil unions, and it has nothing to do with religion or politics; nor am I a bigot like you called Jaileene because you couldn’t look at things more objectively.

There was a lot of truth to what Jaileene said when viewed as not a personal attack, but as an overview of what could happen. I didn’t see Jaileen spewing venom or using terms resembling the “N” word. I didn’t see Jaileene state anything from a personal point of view, or say she hated gays, but all of you personally attacked Jaileene for pointing out, based on how society is, the things that could happen if people are in a particular frame of mind over this.

Simply because you’re offended at the concept of gay marriage doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be allowed. Jaileene’s reply was thinly vieled threat at best and had plenty of venom to spare. I’d argue she got back what she put out in invective.

My opposition to gay marriage has everything to do with the fact that what my spouse and myself share, along with millions of other heterosexual couples, while not threatened, is no longer something special. Marriage has been sanctioned by society as heterosexual for centuries. Do you really think people will accept gay marriages “just like that”? Yes, it is a reality for gays that marriage is for them, but look at it from another perspective, as horrible as you think that other perspective is. That is a reality too!

I completely fail to see any validity in this argument. My marriage to my wife is special because I consider myself lucky that she’s willing to put up with my shit for the rest of my life, not because we’re heterosexual. If you feel your marriage will no longer be “special” if gays are allowed to marry that says more about your shallow value system than anything else. The fact that it’s been considered a strictly heterosexual privledge for centuries has no bearing on whether it’s right that this has been the case or that it’s right that this should continue to be the case. As has been pointed out already, if we were to allow what “has always been” to determine what will be then women wouldn’t have ever gained the right to vote among a host of other advances in society that were foisted upon a largely unwilling majority by us evil liberals.

I cannot really explain my feelings on this the way that I would like to, partially because I too am so upset over all these “special people” (not only gays) getting all these “special rights” — hijacking every issue and making it about THEM, going above and beyond to take full advantage of the overly politically correct state of mind that has shamefully come to be in this country!

They’re not asking for special rights, they’re asking for equal rights. I can see you’re all for what’s fair and just for everyone. Talk about self-centered!

Whether it be bans on peanut butter or legalization of gay marriage, or trying to take the word GOD out of the Pledge of Allegiance, pushing the boudaries has spun out of control.

Only by pushing boundries is it possible to advance. There’s no reason to ban peanut butter, gays are only asking for equal rights, and God never should have been put into the Pledge in the first place.

Gays want acceptance - they got it. They wanted a SEPARATE school in NY - they got it. Now they want marriage?! Someone needs to draw the line somewhere!

Gay’s haven’t gained acceptance, your comment shows as much in itself. Nor did they want a separate school in NY. You’ve yet to provide even a remotely reasonable argument on why they shouldn’t be allowed to marry other than it would make you feel your marriage was no longer “special” which isn’t a reasonable argument at all.

Nah, not angry or irritated either, really. No more than an athlete is angry or irritated while playing the sport he loves. Arguing is my sport. It makes me happy.

It makes me feel “special”. HA! Couldn’t resist.

I sleep like a baby every night and don’t sit around wallowing in anger at the world after I log off...I’m just more sharp-tongued than many and don’t roll my statements in sugar before lobbing them out there.

I’m not kidding. I’m the most relaxed and laid back person I know....just mouthy. I take “live and let live” very seriously. But I will admit getting angry when anyone tries to mandate how other people are supposed to do their living.

You have what you feel is a valid argument, and I have some very strong convictions about marriage being between men and women.  You might be very surprised to learn that this “special” evil witch with the lame argument is not against gay relationships by any stretch of the imagination. It is use of the word “marriage” that gets to me.

If that surprised you, this will shock the s**t out of you.  Say hello to Darryl, guys!  He is sitting right here as I type this.  He is one of my best friends.  And guess friggin what?  He is gay!  Excuse me, he corrected me—he is “very gay”. 

Darryl supports the opposition on this issue.  He claims that makes him a traitor, but says it is okay because he is already hated for being, in his words, an Oreo.  Oh my friggin’ God, the “special” evil witch isn’t a racist either - she hangs out with “blackies” from the back of the bus!

Darrly read everything on this site and is amazed at all the “fur flying” in here!  Les, Darryl has a new name for you honey.  Alexis (meow)!

See, while my friend here feels deep love and respect for his man Tim, and plans on spending the rest of his days with him, he feels that “marriage” is for heterosexuals, as in his parents’ marriage of over 40 years.

The consensus seems to be, with most of our gay friends, that marriage isn’t for same the sex.  Another shocker, eh?  Miss Special hangs out in a gay circle, watches The L Word and goes to gay bars.

I’m not spewing hatred, as I can’t - and won’t because I love Darryl too much and I respect him and who he is.  Any one of you would be lucky to have him.

We both want to know why no one answered, or had anything to say about the ways to make it legal that were mentioned, at Darryl’s suggestion might I add, since he and Tim have done this themselves.  Does it offer an alternative that doesn’t coincide with your views so it is no good?

First of all, I thought you were a guy. Not that it matters, but I apologize for my misconception.

I’m glad that you have gay friends (hi Darryl!), I have quite a few as well. Also have black friends. A one is black/asian AND gay. I WIN! Actually, none of those “one of my best friends is...” arguments goes very far. I consider it somewhat a given, unless one lives in a racist/fundie bubble. If I can have gay friends here in the deeeeep South, i assume everyone else is just swimming in them. We have a shortage here, IMO. This place could use some livening up…

Darryl’s opposition, IMO, doesn’t make him a traitor. Just being gay doesn’t mean he has to jump on every bandwagon that goes by with his flag on it. I understand that there is some disagreement in the gay community about marriage. Something about marriage taking away the essential “otherness” of a gay relationship or lifestyle. And I can understand that, too. Maybe they don’t want to live under the societal mores than come with a “marriage”. If I was gay, I doubt very much I would want to get married. The “otherness” is attractive to me in some sense. But not everyone feels that way.

There’s plenty of straight people who don’t feel the need for that “piece of paper” to validate them. Good for them. Certainly doesn’t mean that piece of paper should be denied to the straight people who DO want it.

The fact that we can find SOME gay people who disapprove of gay marriage by no means supports the argument against it. That implies there should be some concensus in the Big Secret Gay Meeting on how exactly one is supposed to “be gay”. And I still can’t understand why anybody, gay or straight, should get wound up about denying someone else something they want, especially when it has no effect on them.

We both want to know why no one answered, or had anything to say about the ways to make it legal that were mentioned, at Darryl’s suggestion might I add, since he and Tim have done this themselves.  Does it offer an alternative that doesn’t coincide with your views so it is no good?

It doesn’t matter whether the legalities can be achieved in other ways. MY point is that SOME gay people desire very much to be “married”, and all the legal trappings implied, and therefor should be allowed to do so. Simply because there is no reason to DENY that to those gay couples that want it.

But since you brought it up again (I think I meant to address it and got sidetracked with work), there ARE benefits to marriage in this country that cannot be achieved through any other means. You can get close with a pile of legal documents, but can never achieve the full benefits of marriage without actually being married.

Here’s a few:

Here are a few of the 1,049 benefits the United States government provides to couples in a heterosexual marriage:

Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Here are a few of the state level benefits within the United States: 

Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

I find it truly ironic that I, a straight white guy, am stuck in the position of arguing the defense of the civil rights of the gay community with a gay black man (or at least with his stenographer). I know that Darryl is both black and gay (I was introduced to him at least once by Les) but that does not automatically give him the trump card to use in all arguments that center around his sexual preference or race. When you discount the arguments based on fear, ignorance, moral outrage, and petty meanness it all boils down to will we as humans continue to accept discrimination based on X. Are we evolved enough to CHOOSE what is right even if it makes us feel uncomfortable, or will we continue to organize our society in pecking orders so we can always feel superior to someone else, driving out the members of the pack we perceive to be weaker or different?

To say that marriage has always been about a union between a man and a woman so should always be between a man and a woman is like saying that because the train was the pinnacle of engineering and transportation when it was developed the Wright brothers should never have attempted to build an air plane.

Some could argue that cancer is God’s will but does that stop us from trying to rid ourselves of it? Although a mutation, cancer is alive (not sentient obviously, but alive) so should religious zealots begin picketing Oncology centers, or killing Oncologists? If I squeeze my eyes shut I just picture the picketing woman being dragged away by police screaming “but what about the tumors, won’t somebody PLEASE think about the tumors!?”.

Sometimes when people take a step forward and try something different it turns out to be an abysmal failure, but if that happens you can always step back. The current protests against gay marriage is like one big argument to remain paralyzed for all eternity. Have you ever watched a kid who has over protective parents? They are afraid of EVERYTHING! Don’t touch that, don’t put that in your mouth, quit scratching or it will scar, oh dear where are you hurt? The kid is a frazzled bundle of nerves who winds up afraid of anything unfamiliar.

Maybe we are just too different to see things eye to eye, I mean I was the kid who got a pebble stuck in his nose because he wanted to see how far it would go. I also got pretty banged up when I jumped off the back of a moving car because I figured if Wile E. Coyote could step off of a falling piano before it hit the ground and be none the worse for wear then I could easily land on my feet if I just pushed off hard enough from the trunk… I also have stories where I took a chance and wound up getting something wonderful for my effort but those aren’t all that funny. Even though I have done some serious hurt to myself by making some pretty dumb decisions I survived them, and learned never to trust my brain when it starts by saying “you know what would be REALLY cool?”

In the end all I can say is that when ever I see one person being denied something another person can have based on some arbitrary set of rules it will always set me off because it isn’t fair. Maybe life isn’t fair, but that isn’t going to stop me from trying to make it.

CCC your comments and trail of pseudo-names seem more like desperate ideas pulled from a hat than actual responses to the other posts here. While Brandi, Les, and others certainly hold their own, the best argument for allowing gay marriages would be simply to let you go on.

Unlike Brandi, I am angry. My life is by no means miserable for it, but I am not shy about placing that anger on the tip of my tongue and fingertips when I am presented with the utter stupidity and “klan” mentality that is f*cking everything up for the rest of us. Dave, got to love your position, but sometimes I cannot stand there. I have to say it: diseased or not, the Stupids have reached all the way up to the White House, and quite frankly, it is scary. People are discriminated against at best and dying at - sometimes - worst for the same reasons over and over again, and I’ve reached a point of total frustration with the inability of the general public to just catch on already.

Throughout history there has ALWAYS been some group of people who have been made to stand apart from the others. And throughout history, eventually, people thought better than their predecessors - and this begins with the children, I think, who end up making friends with members of the current outcast group. These kids begin to see right through the prejudices (example: Jamal isn’t a thief). Bam! Gradual, collective mental evolution begins. That most certainly is my own little theory, but I think it is a couple steps up from the tired “ but I have gay (and/or black) friends. “

My name is Covie, and I am angry. My father did not lose himself to the Viet Nam War for WHITE STRAIGHT PEOPLE. That flag does not fly for WHITE STRAIGHT PEOPLE. Gay marriage is a civil rights issue, and we have been here before.

Thanks Brandi, seriously, for the enlightenment on the legalities.  I guess it depends on your state.  I am not married in the eyes of the church you know.  This is my second marriage so the Vatican excommunicated my ass.  We eloped and got a JP so I got me a real civil union going here, don’t I?

And Covie?  Pseudo-names?  So I am a liar now on top of being an ignorant racist and hating gays (which is bulls**t)?  Screw you.  You are angry alright - it shows in your little meow fests.

First of CCC, we don’t have any real reason to believe that your friend Daryl actually exists or that he’s anything like you describe him. Certainly it’s possible, though awfully convenient for your argument, and I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

That said, as Brandi has already pointed out, it doesn’t matter if your black gay friend Daryl agrees with you that marriage should be restricted to straight couples only. I’m certain I could find individuals among the gay people I know (and I know more than a few) who honestly believe marriage should be left to the straight couples. There were black slaves who honestly didn’t think that slavery should be ended as well for whatever reasons they may have had.

Simply because you can find people who are denied their civil rights who think that’s as it should be doesn’t mean we should continue to deny them their civil rights. In the end if gay marriage is allowed and your friend Daryl doesn’t want to get married then guess what? He doesn’t have to get married much the same way that heterosexual couples who stay together, but never get married don’t have to. If there are gays who feel marriage is only for straight couples there’s nothing about the legalization of gay marriage that will force them to have to marry their gay partners. It merely gives them the choice whether to do it or not the same as heterosexual couples currently have.

As for whether there are other legal alternatives to calling it marriage such as the proposed “civil union” concept, all I can say to that is: If the only difference between one and the other is the friggin’ name then there’s no reason not to call it a marriage. That’s known as “splitting hairs” and it’s generally considered a silly activity by reasonable people. Congrats on getting hitched via a Justice of the Peace, but you don’t have a “civil union” you have a “marriage.” I did the same thing and I still had to apply for a “marriage” license and I still have a “marriage” certificate. The fact that a judge did it instead of a clergyman doesn’t change the fact that I had a marriage.

Honestly, if you’re that hung up over the word marriage I suggest you seek out some counseling.

CCC, I’ll admit to a clumsy post as only the first paragraph was directed at you specifically. The rest was for anyone who cared to read the viewpoint of someone frustrated over the repetition of discrimination and really, utter stupidity. However, I don’t think you are far from the people I feel fit within my complaint. ( By the way, I was never unclear about being angry, but good observation anyway I guess. )

Am I calling you an ignorant racist, a gay-hater, or a liar? I think you might rethink some of your arguments. Your marriage would be less special? That sounds comparable to the same mentality that kept blacks out of white pools so they wouldn’t foul the water. I’m not calling you a racist, but I do think your argument fits the same mentality. A gay-hater? I don’t think you have to hate someone to think them beneath you - or otherwise not deserving of the same rights you enjoy. A liar? Your word, not mine. And so we come to what I did direct specifically at you:

Pseudo-names: it appeared you changed your name on this thread. If you didn’t, my error. If you did and you were clear about being the same person, my error. Otherwise, . . Pseudo-names.

Each time you have been met with articulate and intelligent responses to your statements, you have changed tactics and completely avoided any kind of open communication. That appears desperate, mousy even. I’d rather be the cat having the “little meow fest” any day.

But don’t get all caught up in my claws. By all means, ignore me if you like. However, if you are going to insist that a group of people in this country should not be given the same rights you enjoy, then have the decency to actually respond to the very good points of views presented to you by Brandi, Les, and Eric. Go back and read their posts - you missed quite a bit.

I read these post and I think BLAH BLAH BLAH (I’ve spent the last hour soaking them up!) LOL I’m a natural-born homosexual from Idaho and not an active supporter of the gay community but I believe that everybody should have the right to marriage regardless of who or what you are.  That’s all I got to say about that.  LOL

Les and Covie, I went from typing the ‘subject’ of my post one time in the ‘name’ section to using my initials going forward.  That makes me a pseudo name?

I realize that when you put yourself out there on the Internet you open yourself up for all types of comments and 9 out of 10 times I’m not bothered by that.  However, there are times, such as now, when I’m simply astounded by another’s attempt to psychoanalyze what someone else thinking and feeling deep down inside, sitting there on their cyber high horse placing their opinion (and supposed superiority) above that of others – one who is forever bound to their own thesis via narcissistic, arrogant pseudo intellectualism.

This aggressive attitude invariably runs the gamut, resorting to any means necessary to deal with others who disagree.  This person’s superiority is vindictive in the extreme, anxious for vengeance or retribution for any perceived slight.  Such a person always sees himself in the actions and words of others, is hyper-sensitive, emotions at a constant flash point, misconstruing every comment of others as an affront even when it is not actually there, and is acrimoniously critical, yet, he does not recognize himself as the arrogant person.