I agree. Some people's outrage over gay marriage is really directed at judges and mayors taking the law in their own hands. Others see it as the last straw - quickie divorce being the first, second and third straws.

Query how many gay activists would actually want marriage - as opposed to separate civil unions with rules of their own - if the old fashioned rules applied to marriage.

Xrlq, I'm sure John Kusch would still want to get married to his ol' man, just "fer instance."

Speaking of whom, I emailed John a link right after the Spears fiasco became news:
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200401090854.asp
by Deroy Murdock.

"Gay marriage is a big idea that deserves national debate. Nonetheless, social conservatives who blow their stacks over homosexual matrimony's supposed threat to traditional marriage tomorrow should focus on the far greater damage that heterosexuals are wreaking on that venerable institution today."

You would be surprised how many conservative Republicans agree with you on this one. It seems to have more of a generational element than is generally being acknowledged. Liberals and the younger generation support gay marriage or civil unions, conservatives and older people oppose it.

Rosie said she and her wife got married because George the Bushwacker said vile and vicious and hateful things. Now, there's a motivation for gay marriage if there ever was one.

Do you really want congress deciding what's sacred and what's not?

I'm not a big believer in the sacred anyway, at least as the word is traditionally understood, but... is this a matter for legislation?

If it's not... well my position has always been the same- gay marriage pretty much destroys straight marriage, as a legal institution, and... that's ok.In fact I think it's a good thing.

No, I don't want Congree deciding what is sacred. I was being very tongue and cheek.

Catch:
Rosie said she and her wife got married because George the Bushwacker said vile and vicious and hateful things.

She's wrong. He didn't. She may not agree with what he said but he wasn't saying vicious and hateful things.

As a resident of the first state to institute no fault divorce laws, I'm all in favor of getting rid of them. However, every attempt to do so has been met with failure in our Democrat-controlled legislature.

I agree as well that shows like The Bachelor, Bachelorette, Temptation Island, etc. denigrate and degrade the institution of marriage (right along with Britney Spears' marriage/divorce).

Am I now allowed to be against gay marriage as well?

Doesn't New York have a DOMA?

To those who think Gay Marriage won't hurt Marriage, I think it's kind of like this...Most people feel a lot of the problem stems from No-Fault Divorce, and I bet in the 60s and 70s, people said the same thing people say now about gay marriage. It won't hurt your marriage if people want out let them, don't like it don't get divorced. But it set the culture on a path...One which has led to this point. Would I love to see No-Fault Divorce done away with...absolutely. As it stands now, it seems we are looking at a patient...(marriage) who is ill, but penicillin(Fault) would cure/help the patient; instead, we proscribe it Arsenic(Gay Marriage), and tell us that it won't do any harm.

"prescibe"...Sorry

I have to chime in here.
First, words cannot express my utter lack of interest in the gay marriage thing. In the words of Mr. Humphries from "Are You Being Served?", "I'm neither one way nor the other" on the issue.
From personal experience, I'd say that 97% of marriage is merely a state of mind shared by the couple in question. All the ceremonial is merely to reassure the state, and make the clergy & family feel better by putting their stamp of approval on the matter. I can say categorically that it matters not a jot to my own marriage if queers get married or not. It is what it is.
The thing that excercises me is: Why is someone like Rosie O'Donnell even a celebrity to begin with? She's not attractive, not funny, and doesn't exactly seem given to the philosophical play of intellect:)
She seem to be there mainly to allow drab soccer moms to feel wicked and daring by watching her show.

Bill:

I think that recognized gay marriage pretty much destroys recognized traditional marriage. The whole point to marriage is that it is exlusive.

The only question is whether or not you think this is a good thing or not- I don't think that the government should decide what is and what is not a valid marriage.

If a man and a woman choose to call themselves married, great- if you agree, OK. You're free to dismiss them as breeders if you want as well.

Same with a gay couple.

Why the government must be involved in deciding what is and what isn't a real marriage is beyond me.

I don't admire Rosie O'Donnell since she wants to take away my gun, but that's totally irrelevant to this issue. Her marriage is every bit as sacred and dererving of legal protection as George W. Bush's (who also wants to take away my freedoms).

Cam,

You are allowed to be what you will. It's still a free country.

Xlrq has a good point regarding civil unions...maybe it should apply to hetero marriages as well. Do you want no-fault civil union or the whole enchilada: old-fashioned marriage?

Maybe anyone can get a union but, after a child is born or adopted into the relationship, then they can (must?) get married.

I'm kinda in the middle about Gay marriage - I don't see it as a right since it is primarily a matter of (re-)definition. On the other hand, I'm not sure that there would be that many gay marriages that it would really affect most peoples' perceptions of the institution.

What say you?

Steven Malcolm...the selfish aesthete,

What freedoms is Bush itching to take away from you? Seriously?

What is Marriage seems to be a fundamental questions. Donald Sensing has excellent thoughts on this. Most likely gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage. Why? Because it is the only aspect of the tradition left. Courtship is mostly dead, Family(true Family not PC family) (tied with Marriage) is dying. When Marriage dies, Civilization will die as well...Granted these things take time...But give it 30 years...Look at how well No-Fault has done in that time.

Tagore-If Government does not decide what marriage ought to be...there will end up being no government...All things radiate out from the family...to community...to state...to nation.

Note Also-The word "breeders" while derogatory is interesting...It is those who have children who are fundamentally responsible for the next generation.

"Breeders" is derogatory?

It might be meant that way but, hell, I'm proud to be a breeder! Pretty proud of those I bred, too!

As well anyone with children would be Wild...They are a true blessing, but with the advent of the 60s, to too many children became an obsticle instead of a blessing.

I don't blog much but I do have one- what I think of gay marriage is there- click on the link (lihked to by my name). I wrote it before posting here tonight, btw.

As for "breeders"- just a word right? In an ideal world it would be as inoffensive to call a gay guy a fag- but that world doesn't yet exist.

Bill:
Precisely because family is the central institution of society I'd like to keep it clear of government. I don't think that the 2% of the population that is gay can destroy the family. But I do think that the really large number of people that are public servants could put a big dent in it.

I always thought that Britney Spears didn't do much damage because she's a celebrity. I thought that people stopped regarding them as fully human man years ago. Their marriages don't count, since they have so many of them, so consequently neither do their divorces. To a degree their marriages are as much for show as everything else about them is; they do not really exist as people so much as interesting and pretty shells which will eventually booze and drug themselves to death.

I exaggerate, of course, but I always got the impression that part of the use of celebreties was to have people to look down on while in some sense living vicariously through them. They exist to foster a sort of role-playing, where their fans imagine themselves being wealthy and famous, and not so morally deranged.

Hence these pseudo-human-beings have different rules which apply to them. In essence, her 1 minute marriage doesn't harm marriage in general because she couldn't never have a real marriage anyway. She's a public toy, not a person.

Note: I'm not describing what should be, but just my perception of what is.

However, Rosemary, if you have some way to get rid of no-fault divorce, please, do tell. To a large part I think that the people against homosexual marriage are silent about no-fault divorce simply because that battle was already lost a long time ago. But if you know a way to bring back that battle, let me know. I'll fight.

But how about a compromise. Preserve marriage as it is now, get rid of easy divorce, and create a fuck-your-heart-out license given to any couples who asks for it, void when one of the couples tears it up, but they get to have a big ceremony with pretty dresses when they both sign the fuck-your-heart-out certificate. Then gays — and straights who want easy divorce — can all get a fuck-your-heart-out certificate and play dress up without bothering the rest of us?

Why do people want us to be involved in their sex lives? It's one thing to want the protection of a stable home for your children, so asking the state to get involved to prevent your or your partner from leaving them. If marriage is for children, I can see a reason for the government to get involved. Why on earth should people who aren't going to reproduce drag us into their sex lives? Can't they just fuck whomever they want whenever they want and keep whomever they can for as long as they can, and leave us out of it?

Am I the only person who doesn't care if fuck buddies are faithful to each other if they're not making children as a result (regardless of gender)? Have we completely lost the notion of people minding their own business?

Btw, by "(regardless of gender)" I meant the fuck buddies, not the children. I mean M-M, M-F, F-M, F-F fuckbuddies.

Rosemary,

Your argument isn't a fair one. It's like arguing that because I shot you once and you survived, I should be able to shoot you again. I posted a response to it last November.

Now if Rosie had just waited she could have gotten married in NY. (some news, mayor named Jeff West)

This is turning into a 'mayoral' revolt.

"What we're witnessing in America today is the flowering of the largest civil rights movement the country's had in a generation," West said.

I like it. It's getting people thinking. And ranting. Let's not forget the great rants!

Ha ha. Caught up in the rant race.

"I agree as well that shows like The Bachelor, Bachelorette, Temptation Island, etc. denigrate and degrade the institution of marriage (right along with Britney Spears' marriage/divorce). "

I agree. Those are nothing but shams. Another horrible one is My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiancee. Those also degrade the institution of marriage.

Rosie O'Donnell did not get married in San Francisco, because marriage between two women is not legal in California. All the gay marriages performed by the city of San Francisco are null and void because they lack the necessary authority. Given that, I don't understand why people are willing to stand in line for hours to get a piece of paper that is completely worthless, or why they act so happy after they have it. If you want a piece of paper that says you're married, you can make one exactly as valid at home using your own computer.

Same with the people who traveled from the States to Canada when Toronto started marrying gays. I hope they enjoyed their marriage, which ended when they left Canada. Why did they bother spending all that time and money to end up as unmarried as they were before they started?

I'm in favor of some kind of gay civil union or marriage (actually I'm inclined to say that the government should issue civil unions and churches marriages). But I would have thought that gays were smart enough to not bother with these faux marriages.

Personally, I thought the central core of marriage wasn't that it was exclusive, wasn't that it was between a man and a woman, wasn't about courtship: I thought it was about a legal contract that says these two people agree to stay together for the rest of their lives, making their lives as one, and, as such, would like some legal recognition of this commitment and consolidation.

Ya know, kind of like a corporation. "We act like one individual to the State in the following ways.... so please treat us that way."

Under this concept, gay marriage doesn't do anything to destroy straight marriage. And equal rights under the law are deserved by all.

Specious argument, Jerry.

I agree with your last point. The government should issue civil unions and churches marriages. Both (CU and marriage) should provide identical economic, parental and civic advantages (and disadvantages).

Gays are smart (or not smart) enough to know that the majority of people will not take the chance that these 'faux marriages' will set a precedent that leads to legal gay marriages.

Well, they're not making it "tough" to get a homosexual marriage; they're making it impossible. Hence, they should make it impossible to get a divorce. Outlaw all marriages in the state of Nevada as well. They should start executing women who get married but aren't virgins, too.

I think the distinction between civil unions and marriages is a slippery slope, but I do have an ernest question: If churches become responsible for marriages and governments for civil unions, are both equally valid in the eyes of, say, my HR department? If my husband and I had a "civil union" instead of a "marriage", does that mean that we couldn't share benefits like health insurance, dental coverage, power of attorney? Who decides?

What "precedent" relating to marriage could possibly be set by a not-marriage? The charade grants them no legal benefits in this country. Not even a conservative can feel threatened by Rosie O'Donnell's "marriage."

I've seen the pictures from San Francisco. All these gay couples seem so happy leaving City Hall. How can they not realize that they're not actually married? Has it really been their lifelong dream to stand in line and pay a fee for a piece of paper that claims to be, but in fact is not, a marriage license? What do they think they have accomplished? I'd think they would reserve their happiness for after they have attained the goal.

Maybe it's intended to be a kind of public relations stunt. They're going to San Francisco so the public will see lots of pictures of smiling gay couples. As if that's going to help sway the religious right -- "Look, the demons are SMILING as they destroy the institution of marriage!" I just don't understand what it is they think they're doing.

If churches become responsible for marriages and governments for civil unions, are both equally valid in the eyes of, say, my HR department? If my husband and I had a "civil union" instead of a "marriage", does that mean that we couldn't share benefits like health insurance, dental coverage, power of attorney?

The other way around. If you had a "marriage" instead of a "civil union," you would have none of those benefits. Why would your employer care what some church thought of you and your significant other?

I envision that most religious people would get both a civil union and a marriage, typically on the same day. A representative of the government would be there to witness your signing of the agreement. The civil union would cover the legal aspects -- it would be basically what we today call the marriage license. However, the marriage would cover only the religious aspects. Any couple could get a civil union. And if you could find a church that was willing to marry you, you could get married too.

Separation of church and state is where it's at.

I've been trying to get divorced since we filed last September. My soon-to-be-ex isn't fighting it; she wants it as much as me. There were no arguments whatsoever about who got what. She got tired of waiting and has moved out of the house (indeed, out of state). I live in a no-fault state.

So. Where's this easy divorce people keep talking about? Sheesh. The damned "referee" keeps coming up with excuse after excuse, delay after delay, and at no point has anybody but her objected to anything to do with this proceeding.

I think gays should really consider whether they really want this.

Seperation of church and state is indeed where it's at! I was assuming that "marriage" would be what it is today, with the blood tests and marriage licenses, and "civil unions" would be like a consolatin prize for the hethens among us. Thanks for the clarification.

Valerie write:

Personally, I thought the central core of marriage wasn't that it was exclusive, wasn't that it was between a man and a woman, wasn't about courtship: I thought it was about a legal contract that says these two people agree to stay together for the rest of their lives, making their lives as one, and, as such, would like some legal recognition of this commitment and consolidation.

There's nothing there that can't be accommodated by a civil union. In fact there's nothing there that couldn't be accommodated by simply increasing the scope of contract law.

I'll also note that this doesn't have much to do with courtship or love, necessarily- we recognize, and sanction, marriages that involve neither- for instance arranged marriages.

The debate over gay marriage is not really about particular identifiable rights- if it were, the debate would be over civil unions. It is about a more general "sanction", furnished by the govt. The whole point of sanctioning one thing is that you don't sanction everything. That is why I say that marrige is _about_ exclusivity.

Ya know, kind of like a corporation. "We act like one individual to the State in the following ways.... so please treat us that way."

Right- again, this could be handled entirely as a matter of contract- and there is no reason in that case to exclude non-sexual marriages. Why can't two best friends get married, even if they don't have sex?

I know that this argument is used by opponents of gay marriage as a sort of reductio ad absurdum- but that is not the sense in which I am invoking it. I don't find it absurd.

The conclusion that I come to is not that gay couples should be satisfied with "second-class" status under civil unions- it is instead that the govt. should not be in the business of sanctioning certain familial relations (and thus failing to sanction others) as a general thing. This still leaves some arguments on the table, but they are about specifics- should a gay couple be able to adopt, for instance?

By the way, the really radical view on this- and I think I may be coming to believe in that view- is to allow people to pick and choose from the "incidents" of marriage.

In fact this is already a feature (to a small degree) of traditional marriage, given prenups.

It's OK for Britney to do what she wants because she's pretty. One day she won't be pretty, but by then she'll be wise. If you notice, really pretty women end up really learn a lot about human nature in their lives.

Rosie, on the other hand, was never pretty. Wisdom I have no idea. Her marriage -- who cares?

Rosie who? Is she the woman who was with Madonna in that movie?

Marriage, as a social institution, not a religious one, is the foundation of any society. And it is being utterly destroyed as we speak. A house cannot stand without its foundation. The mere fact that this argument is center stage in America right now is evidence that America has already lost its soul. The sadness is overwhelming and the pain is excruciating. The great idea is dying as we speak. The great dream of Liberty is being overwhelmed by anarchy. Those who have no respect for the law, the barbarians, are winning. A mournful lament is rising up from deep within my being. And the words cannot express my sorrow. Hope is abandoning me. Whither, now, shall I go.

Casey said:

"...should focus on the far greater damage that heterosexuals are wreaking on that venerable institution today."

If you think about it, the harm being done to CHILDREN as a result of this is probably equal to or greater than the damage to "traditional marriage", between the divorce rate and number of children being raised by unmarried mothers.