Archive for Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Same-sex couples begin tying the knot

Jodi Linley of Iowa City, Iowa, left, holds 18-month-old Norah, the couple’s daughter, as her partner, Brenda Linley, celebrates after applying for a marriage license Monday at the Johnson County Administration Building in Iowa City. Same-sex couples began applying for marriage licenses at government offices across Iowa on Monday, and several gay and lesbian couples quickly tied the knot in ceremonies in Des Moines.

Jodi Linley of Iowa City, Iowa, left, holds 18-month-old Norah, the couple’s daughter, as her partner, Brenda Linley, celebrates after applying for a marriage license Monday at the Johnson County Administration Building in Iowa City. Same-sex couples began applying for marriage licenses at government offices across Iowa on Monday, and several gay and lesbian couples quickly tied the knot in ceremonies in Des Moines.

April 28, 2009

Advertisement

— Same-sex couples in Iowa began holding hastily planned weddings Monday as the state became the third to allow gay marriage, a leap that even some supporters find hard to grasp in the nation’s heartland.

Within hours of a state Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage taking effect, several same-sex couples had exchanged vows on the steps of the Polk County Administrative Building.

“It’s not very romantic is it?” Melisa Keeton joked, referring to the location of the ceremony and the media attention, before marrying Shelley Wolfe.

The couple were allowed to wed after getting a judge to waive the state’s three-day waiting period. The waiver was granted after the couple claimed the wait was stressful on Keeton, who is pregnant and due in August.

The couple, who will go by the last name Keeton, were married by the Rev. Peg Esperanza of the Church of the Holy Spirit. She later married at least two other couples, all at no charge.

“God sent me here today, and I’ve said OK,” said Esperanza, a lesbian who plans to marry her partner in October.

Court ruling

On April 3, the Iowa justices upheld a lower court ruling that rejected a state law restricting marriage to a union between a man and woman. The decision added Iowa to the list of states where gay marriage is legal, joining Massachusetts and Connecticut. A Vermont law allowing gay marriage will take effect in September.

Officials said the Polk County recorder’s office had received 82 marriage applications from same-sex couples by 4 p.m.

One of them was Alicia Zacher, 24, and Jessica Roach, 22, who waited in a misting rain to enter the office and file their application. They later got a waiver and planned to get married as soon as possible after seeing how California voters last year reinstated a ban on same-sex marriage.

“You just never know when they’ll try to take it away,” Roach said.

A poll by the University of Iowa taken just before the high court’s ruling showed 26 percent of Iowans support gay marriage. That number rises to more than 50 percent when people were asked if they supported either gay marriage or civil unions.

“If they want to marry, I don’t see a reason not to let them,” said Joe Biase, a 31-year-old college student from Des Moines. “For a state in the heartland, it’s come a long way.”

Tom Wittman, 55, of Johnston, agreed.

“I think it’s fine,” he said. “It is an issue of equal rights.”

Still, the issue is far from settled.

Bryan English of the Iowa Family Policy Center, which opposes same-sex marriage, said the Legislature and Gov. Chet Culver had put some “poor county recorders in an awfully tough position today” by not working to block the court’s ruling from taking effect.

The group wants the state to begin the multiyear process of amending Iowa’s constitution to overturn the court decision.

Culver and majority Democrats have refused, which Republicans predicted will hurt Democrats in the 2010 elections.

Race for governor

One gubernatorial candidate, Sioux City businessman Bob Vander Plaats, has already made gay marriage a focal point of his run for the Republican nomination.

“This will be a major issue in the campaign of 2010,” Vander Plaats said.

Some Republican strategists warned, however, that the GOP could overplay its hand. They said Iowans largely oppose gay marriage but may not consider it a make-or-break issue.

“That issue is not a negative one for Republicans, but if Republicans let this be the only thing they talk about they won’t be successful in 2010, said Doug Gross, a former GOP gubernatorial nominee.

On Monday, a handful of Iowa’s largest counties saw an initial rush on marriage applications from same-sex couples.

At the Pottawattamie County recorder’s office in western Iowa, Marilyn Hebing said the office had applications for marriage licenses from 23 same-sex couples by early afternoon.

“We’re pretty busy,” she said.

In Iowa, gay marriage opponents have no other legal options to appeal the high court ruling at the state or federal level because they were not parties to the lawsuit, and no federal issue was raised in the case.

Their only recourse appears to be a constitutional amendment, which couldn’t get on the ballot until 2012 at the earliest. A constitutional convention could be called earlier but is unlikely.

Comments

Jama Crady Maxfield 5 years, 11 months ago

Great job Iowa!!!! Hope others soon follow so that ALL Americans will have the equal rights they deserve!

lawthing 5 years, 11 months ago

Yes marriage is a Government contract, and although the religions like to claim it for their own, it could not be santified by Judges if it were not also Governmental.

By law there is a division between "Church and State"

Therefore any attempt by the Government to deny rights to any American is discrmination.

meggers 5 years, 11 months ago

Awesome! It's encouraging to see a fellow midwestern state do the right thing. At least in this instance, the right-wing 'sanctity of marriage' hypocrites can't chalk it up to northeastern latte-drinking, Prius-driving 'libruls'.

Best wishes to all of the couples!

pace 5 years, 11 months ago

good, the days of hatred and ignorance in the name of god should end.

PapaB 5 years, 11 months ago

God loves all his children, but this doesn't mean he agrees or supports all their decisions. I have a couple issues with legalizing this: 1. If we can redefine marriage to mean 2 same-gendered people, then why not multiple other configurations? Why not 3 men, two women, and a tree joined in matrimony? 2. Various churches have had to stop having any marriage ceremonies held in their buldings because they have been forced by the legal system to allow same-sex marriages in their buildings. I believe that churches have every right to decide who can and can't have a marriage in their facility. This is a horrible infringement of the freedom of religion when a church is forced to allow something they consider a sin (it doesn't matter if anyone else agrees - it's their right to believe what is or isn't) to be done in a location they consider sacred.

Jama Crady Maxfield 5 years, 11 months ago

Setting the Record Straight......how sad for YOU to not be happy for PEOPLE who have found love and want to marry. Very SAD indeed.

Papa B.......3 men, 2 women and a TREE???? Come on now, let's just stop being ridiculous.

cthulhu_4_president 5 years, 11 months ago

as is said during election season: As goes Iowa, so goes the nation.

randysavage 5 years, 11 months ago

well done, duplenty....its nice to see you take it upon yourself to deem other people's views as 'pathetic'....

Confrontation 5 years, 11 months ago

pace (Anonymous) says… "good, the days of hatred and ignorance in the name of god should end."

I couldn't agree more. Considering most religions started their own theories of "God" in order to hate and discriminate, I don't see an end coming very soon.

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 11 months ago

This isn't Massachusetts or California. This is Iowa, conservative center of america.

The end of discrimination against gays and lesbians is beginning. Equal protection under the law, as described in the Constitution.

If the religious conservatives have trouble with our constitution, they should move to Iran or Pakistan, where religions can apparently impose their dogma without regard to pesky rights guaranteed in pesky constitutions.

KansasVoter 5 years, 11 months ago

PapaB (Anonymous) says… "Various churches have had to stop having any marriage ceremonies held in their buldings because they have been forced by the legal system to allow same-sex marriages in their buildings."

That is a shameless lie. Unless PapaB can provide proof of this happening, he is a liar.

BrianR 5 years, 11 months ago

Well Papa, at least a tree won't walk out on you.

SettingTheRecordStraight 5 years, 11 months ago

a) "Conservative Iowa" isn't so conservative. It's trending liberal.

b) As is true about most civil setbacks, this re-defining of a millenia-old societial institution didn't come about through a vote of the Iowa legislature or by a vote of the people. It came about (gasp!) through the courts - the final and unassailable arbiters of what is right (sarcasm).

c) I'm waiting for duplenty to bang his head against a wall, call me a name, and then criticize my intelligence - all of which will diminish his argument and make him look more like a fool.

woxy 5 years, 11 months ago

b) As is true about most civil setbacks, this re-defining of a millenia-old societial institution didn't come about through a vote of the Iowa legislature or by a vote of the people. It came about (gasp!) through the courts - the final and unassailable arbiters of what is right (sarcasm).

Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, anyone?

Cooky_the_Cook 5 years, 11 months ago

Right now I could choose to marry a man or a woman. I am bisexual, and I love them both. So who wants to help me legalize bigamy? Our new slogan: "Kansas...as bigamic as you think!"

Ralph Reed 5 years, 11 months ago

STSR. re: your 0938 Why do you call this "Sad?"


PapaB. re: your 1027 I think I can discount your first statement.

Regarding your second statement. What churches and where have stopped holding marriage ceremonies inside their churches "because they have been forced by the legal system to allow same-sex marriages in their buildings." Please provide a list, reference and so on. If you can't do that, I have to discount this statement also for lack of proof.


I'm me. Who are you behind your hood of anonymity?

randysavage 5 years, 11 months ago

a question for any married person from an unmarried guy:

is there some sort of tax break people receive after getting married? or is the other way around??

frank mcguinness 5 years, 11 months ago

Good for them!

Furthermore if two dudes and a chick want to marry, good for them too. As long as they are of consenting age and capacity, great.

randysavage 5 years, 11 months ago

everyone look at how brave ralph is!!!!

ralphie, did you ever get that BB gun??

Ralph Reed 5 years, 11 months ago

Well done randy. You can't seem to counter what I said, so you engage in argumentum ad hominem. Well done, indeed.

Oh... I did get a BB Gun, only it wasn't, "An official Red Ryder carbine action two-hundred shot range model air rifle with a compass in the stock and this thing that tells time." That was a little bit before my time. http://www.flicklives.com/Glossary/red_ryder/red_ryder_ad.jpg


I'm me. Who are you behind your hood of anonymity?

mcontrary 5 years, 11 months ago

Arlen Specter just switched from a republican to a democrat, where is the breaking news? Does the LJWorld exist only for local news or silliness? I am so happy for Iowans, but where is the current news coverage? This paper obviously views any news outside the city limits as off-limits until it has been consumed, chewed, swallowed and regurgitated. ie, no new news.

Kirk Larson 5 years, 11 months ago

I'm all for it. Marriage has undergone many changes over the centuries. I think it's good that it evolves and grows as society does.

PapaB, I think you either drank some O'Rielly Kool-Aid or are being dishonest. Churches can marry or not marry whomever they please in their sanctuaries. This is about civil marriage which is a Civil Right.

Kirk Larson 5 years, 11 months ago

Cooky_the_Cook (Anonymous) says… “Kansas…as bigamic as you think!”

Sheer genius!

d_prowess 5 years, 11 months ago

"Bryan English of the Iowa Family Policy Center, which opposes same-sex marriage, said the Legislature and Gov. Chet Culver had put some “poor county recorders in an awfully tough position today” by not working to block the court’s ruling from taking effect."

Oh those poor county recorders... they probably thought they were going to have a quiet day at the office and instead had a busy day... so sad for them...

SettingTheRecordStraight 5 years, 11 months ago

So there's no minimum standard? Great. But note that moral relativism generally does not work as an effective worldview. In fact, one of the main reasons the United States remains the world's safest, most prosperous nation in the history of the planet is because we have not (yet) completely embraced atheism, relativism, or secular humanism.

Music_Girl 5 years, 11 months ago

Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman. If same sexes can marry then why is polygamy illegal? The family unit is already in trouble, why add to the problem? Is it legal for same sex couples to get divorced too? Yay for a new depressing statistic...

beawolf 5 years, 11 months ago

Marriage is just a cultural definition and can be restructured by the choice of the people.

A marriage license is a contract sanctioned by the government and those binding into that contract are subject to the laws which pertain to it. Same-sex couples should be considered identical to heterosexual couples in the eyes of the law.

Any other interpretation is purely a religious belief that should have no bearing on the legality of a marriage.

Practicality 5 years, 11 months ago

Already wondering when the first gay/lesbian divorce is going to take place.

cthulhu_4_president 5 years, 11 months ago

"In fact, one of the main reasons the United States remains the world's safest, most prosperous nation in the history of the planet is because we have not (yet) completely embraced atheism, relativism, or secular humanism."

Silly me, I thought that, as Americans, we could embrace any worldview that we liked. Thank goodness we have this moron to tell us how it really is, and why the US is really number 1. Get real. I am, however, comforted by the fact that all of the institutions that you mentioned, as well as the gay rights movement, will outlive you. Those among us who, for whatever reason, do not want to see their fellow citizens protected equally under the law have a very frustrating time ahead of them. Until then, might I suggest you take sebatacle to one of the fine countries of this Earth where homosexuality is still illegal and/or punishible by death. I've heard that Saudi Arabia is very nice (hot and dry) at this time of year......and all times of the year. You would feel right at home!

cthulhu_4_president 5 years, 11 months ago

Practicality (Anonymous) says…

Already wondering when the first gay/lesbian divorce is going to take place.

It already has, and it was covered by many news outlets if I can remember correctly. The ladies who got it were two of the original pioneers of the gay rights movement, I believe. Some laugh and call it ironic, but I interpret it as a symptom of honest equality. After all, how can one have the right to divorce without first having the right to marry?

Music_Girl 5 years, 11 months ago

Where in the original constitution does it say we should take God out of our government and play god ourselves? I'll wait...

Kryptenx 5 years, 11 months ago

Music_Girl: I don't know where you get the notion that allowing equal rights is 'playing god.' The Bill of Rights guarantees that government and religion stay separated. If your memory is short, Americans rebelled to gain this right. Turning America into a Christian Theocracy is contrary to everything this country stands for, whether or not it is the most popular religion(for now) or not. I think you deperately need to re-evaluate your knowledge of this country's creation.

I don't really care about your God, but would he not want all of his 'creations' to have the same rights and be treated the same way? Does he not tell you that he will judge, and not you? If anyone is playing God, it's the posters who claim to be religious, yet go against even the most basic religious teachings.

sinverguenza 5 years, 11 months ago

Congratulations ladies and gentlemen! Way to go Iowa (of all places)!

But marriage... eh. Hope it turns out to be all you hoped for.

guesswho 5 years, 11 months ago

We need to separate marriage (a religious sacrament) from a civil union (legal benefit). Currently a marriage gives you legal benefits (a contract) with the state. A divorce breaks that contract. You can get married in a courthouse or a church.

We need to grant the right of a civil union (legal benefit) to any 2 consenting adults (same or opposite sex). Leave marriage only to churches. Currently, many churches do allow homosexuals to get married - those are not recognized by the state (not a civil union).

A church could deny marriage between 2 people in the name of religion - that would be consistent with the separation of church and state. That way people are free to keep their religion and ideas about who should be married within the boundaries of their religion.

grammaddy 5 years, 11 months ago

Iowa rocks!! That makes 4 down and 46 to go.

SettingTheRecordStraight 5 years, 11 months ago

Music_Girl,

Sadly, I predict that homosexual "marriage" will one day be the law of our land. It might take 20 years, but the descent is inevitable. Therefore, don't be surprised a generation from now when those pastors and priests who remain faithful to Scripture and choose not wed homosexuals are labeld hate-filled, intolerant, equality-rejecting, bigoted extremists. You can already see the not-so-thinly-veiled contempt for any detractors in the posts by duplenty, agnostick, and others.

Think about it. We're barely five years into the first gay "marriage" in Massachusetts and already the Far Left has claimed an (imagined) right to homosexual matrimony. Just as you and I believe that marriage is a sacred institution meant for one man and one woman, they believe just a strongly that the drafters of our Constitution could somehow see the day when their words would be taken to mean two men could become husband and husband. Yes, it's unbelievable, but that's where we are.

And please remember that the Far Left will never be satisfied with mere tolerance of their lifestyles. They use that term in order to come across as reasonable. That's why the public schools teach "tolerance" to our children. What they really must have is complete societal acceptance of their point of view. Anthing less is worthy of their wrath.

d_prowess 5 years, 11 months ago

I am always intrigued by debates like this because I don't believe there is really a way to "win." I respect the opinions of both sides and totally get why each of them think they are right and it some cases they both are.
The real fight comes when you have to somehow come up with an operational decision of how to handle the issue. And I am not sure what the best way to do that is either. Are the courts that best way? Are the voters the best way? Both sides have made mistakes in the past.
I guess that is why we all keep fighting for what we believe. I stand on the side that two people of the same sex have the right to get married just as much I did. I don't think it hurts me, marriage, God's love for everyone, or the quality of life we all enjoy. But again, that is just me...

mbarne22 5 years, 11 months ago

I dont agree with this at all...its suppose to be Man and Woman nothin else...this disgust me

RedwoodCoast 5 years, 11 months ago

Oh my god! I can no longer sleep at night due to the fact that I might walk out of my front door only to see queers flaunting their sexuality in my face! What if my kids see that??!! What if my kids go to school with children of these queer sexuality-flaunters?? I don't want to have to discuss it with my kids!

AjiDeGallina 5 years, 11 months ago

Marriage was not even a matter of church interest until the 14th century.

That was the decision of a man, not God to change that. Before that it was a civil matter controlled by local governments.

My feeling, is if you want to be a Christian Supremecist, then renounce your American Citizenship because you are a traitor to our country.

And you should also renounce God because you are a traitor to Christianity to preach hate in his name.

In fact, there really is little bigots have to offer anyone except as bad examples of miserable failed little people.

Ralph Reed 5 years, 11 months ago

Glad to see you survived the weather Tom.

I've seen a couple things on 21 Dec 2012. They're interesting.

RedwoodCoast 5 years, 11 months ago

ArumerZwarteHoop: Maybe you are seeing something that I am not. I don't see Rush Limbaugh anywhere in that photo. This leaves me wondering what your swine flu (now H1N1) comment is about.

feeble 5 years, 11 months ago

Once again, Arumer 's misogyny is on display for all to see. Admit it Arumer, you won't be happy until every woman in America wears a burqa.

Better retreat to the bunker, Iowa's barely a state away! Your caught between the Liberal pandemic and the gayzombiepocalypse, ZOMG!

llama726 5 years, 11 months ago

"God loves all his children, but this doesn't mean he agrees or supports all their decisions. I have a couple issues with legalizing this:"

God doesn't write our laws, so it doesn't matter if God loves his children or supports it. We are not a theocracy.

"1. If we can redefine marriage to mean 2 same-gendered people, then why not multiple other configurations? Why not 3 men, two women, and a tree joined in matrimony?"

Classic! Redefining marriage from "a couple including a male and a female" to just "a couple" will allow people to start marrying trees!

Just like interracial marriage allowed for people to start having dog and cat spouses. Get real.

"2. Various churches have had to stop having any marriage ceremonies held in their buldings because they have been forced by the legal system to allow same-sex marriages in their buildings. I believe that churches have every right to decide who can and can't have a marriage in their facility. This is a horrible infringement of the freedom of religion when a church is forced to allow something they consider a sin (it doesn't matter if anyone else agrees - it's their right to believe what is or isn't) to be done in a location they consider sacred."

Source? I don't believe it.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

This is definitely a victory for people advocating for polygamy, group marriage, and incestuous marriage. Looks like the erosion of marriage is moving forward.

AjiDeGallina 5 years, 11 months ago

Satircal,

There are literally dozens of countries with gay marriage, some having it for more than 30 years and non of your over-dramatic hysteria has come true or is even on the verge of coming true in any of them.

Your soundbite is simply fluff without any real basis whatsoever.

You are not credible.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

AjiDeGallina....

A country or state which has legalized same-sex marriage isn't required to legalize polygamy, etc., but the arguments for them are essentially the same. Since you can't discriminate against same-sex marriage, you also can't discriminate against polygamy, etc.

When marriage because a casual contract to which any number of people are eligible, and definitionally becomes so broad, it will lack any meaning or significance.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Correction: "When marriage (becomes) a casual contract..."

beawolf 5 years, 11 months ago

barrypenders (Anonymous) says…

Absolutely nothing. That was the most nonsensical post I've seen in weeks.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Agnostick....

You can't dispute the fact that the arguments supporting same-sex marriage are almost identical to those advocating for bigamy, polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriage; so you use the lame slippery slope defense.

Nice try though!

Music_Girl 5 years, 11 months ago

It is sad how those who advocate for "equal rights", "gay marriage" and "tolerance" are so quick to judge and be hateful to those who express a different opinion. Where is your tolerance now? Who is the hate filled, name calling, closed minded idiot now? Just look at the Miss America pageant. There is a huge push for "tolerance" but all that is really happening is those behind that push just want their way and will be as spiteful, arrogant and closed minded as the people they claim to be "fighting" against.

Kirk Larson 5 years, 11 months ago

Satirical (Anonymous) says… Correction: “When marriage becomes a casual contract…”

What you don't get is it's not gays who are taking this casually. They wouldn't want it if it wasn't important. I believe this will actually STRENGTHEN the institution of marriage.

SettingTheRecordStraight 5 years, 11 months ago

Music_Girl,

Your observation is spot-on. There is no tolerance from those demanding tolerance.

Jama Crady Maxfield 5 years, 11 months ago

Music girl and Setting the Record Straight......tolerance is given by most on this posting. You are the two that are not showing it by not allowing for the natural born rights (that are guaranteed in the constitution) to be granted to all citizens. You make the argument against gay marriage on a religious basis, yet there is NO national religion in the United States. We don't all live under the same religious code, morals, beliefs, etc.... HOWEVER, we DO live under the same Constitution, with the same laws, same protections, and same RIGHTS! This is a RIGHT for all Americans!

Music_Girl 5 years, 11 months ago

OK...yes we all have rights. You have the right to your opinion. I also have the right to mine. I was merely making an observation about the violent backlash I received for stating an opinion against the mainstream.

Roadkill_Rob 5 years, 11 months ago

Gay marriage brings out a couple of my favorite neo-con hypocricies.

First, neo-cons base their ideologies as wanting government out of their lives. But when it comes to gay marriage, they're all for the government regulations.

Then, when their intolerant views are challenged on the matter, they get upset that they're the ones being victimized by the "intolerant" left. Cry me a river.

I think you guys need to brush up on the definition of tolerance.

SettingTheRecordStraight 5 years, 11 months ago

ok and Roadkill,

I freely admit that I am NOT tolerant of all behaviors. I'm quite intolerant of a number of things, e.g. rape, murder, child abuse, theft, etc, etc.

Tolerance is not a virtue. It is a marketing gimmick for moral relativism.

Jama Crady Maxfield 5 years, 11 months ago

Setting the Record Straight......good to know you're against abuses that are illegal for all people in this country under ANY religion! Now, if you can make the same arguments (again......constitutionally based, not religious based.....since we have no national religion) against gay marriage.......I'll be very surprised since none exist. Tolerance is NOT a marketing gimmick. Please spare us.

Roadkill_Rob 5 years, 11 months ago

STRS,

Are you implying that gay marriage is the same as "rape, murder, child abuse, theft, etc..."? Those are all crimes with a victim and you should be intolerant of those that commit those CRIMES.

So, who is the victim in gay marriage? Insecure christians?

3crookedhearts 5 years, 11 months ago

Satirical, these are also many of the same arguments African Americans and women used when they fought for a.) freedom from slavery and b.) the right to vote. Some slopes are more slippery than others, though.

As you may have noticed, most posters on here are not fighting for polygamy, incest or multiple marriages. That's because I would contend that most people who are proponents of gay marriage would want the definition to read something like: "the legal, spiritual and social union of two human beings that are otherwise not related by anything less than being 3rd cousins" or something to that effect.

I can understand why you are so protective of the "institution of marriage" and respect your opinion.

rollin08 5 years, 11 months ago

I think that we are finally getting to the point in our lives that we must change our way of thinking. One of the things that we as americans pride ourselves on is our right to life, liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. I would interperate this matter to fall into the Pursuit of happiness. If a man and a woman choose to be married they are pursuing happiness. if a same sex couple are getting married then they are pursuing their right to happiness. This country was founded on different views and this is justy another view. How does it affect anyone other than the two people that are getting married. If you are so insecure in your marrage that you feel that your parner is going to go find someone else of the same sex then maybe you need to take a closer look at your own relationship before you critisize someone else's. LIVE AND LET LIVE!

mbarne22 5 years, 11 months ago

There should be no same sex marriages. Period.

SettingTheRecordStraight 5 years, 11 months ago

I think some of you are missing my point. I am making an exclusive statement about whether homosexual "marriages" should be the law of the land. Therefore, I am not making a comment about men and their boyfriends or women and their girlfriends.

Some of you would like to peg the pro-traditional-marriage advocates among us as wanting to keep any two consenting adults from being romantically involved. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm simply saying that one-man-one-woman marriage, as our society understands it (or at least, formerly understood it) is a government-endorsed sexual relationship which, among other things, promotes childbirth and child-rearing. Because of that, we should maintain a minimum standard. That standard is one man and one woman.

Kirk Larson 5 years, 11 months ago

STR So when my widower grandfather married a seventy year old woman, it wasn't a traditional marriage, because they weren't going to have kids (barring a miracle)? What about gays who are raising their own (biological from other relationships or adopted) kids? Don't they deserve consideration for their families? They are still families. I believe allowing same-sex marriage will actually strengthen the institution as people see how important it is that gays are demanding this right. It will certainly do more for marriage than Britany Spears or thrice married Newt Gingrich.

Christine Anderson 5 years, 11 months ago

Hmmm.....At one point in my life, I would have been sickened to see same-sex couples legally marrying. But, over the past 27 years, I've seen so much hypocrisy by those who oppose it.(As well as fakeness on many other issues) After I started having co-workers and friends who were openly gay, I realized they are just people like everyone else. Then, I noticed the gay couples I know treat one another with more love and respect than a lot of the straight couples I know, and that's when my opinion changed to be "If they want to marry, let them marry."

I got a laugh out of the poster who asked for help in legalizing bigomy. No, I'm not making fun of him/her. I heard about this person once, who was married, and had another partner (secretly) on the side. The person wished to be able to "have them both", openly, in the same household. The problem here is, what if one of the two partners decides they don't want to share....

staff04 5 years, 11 months ago

Don't tell STRS, but I've heard the gay isn't contagious...so he's off the hook.

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

strs: "[traditional marriage] promotes childbirth and child-rearing."

Please look at the photo accompanying this story once more. Notice the child? That means this marriage will promote child-rearing in a married environment. Congratulations, you get what you wanted.

While gay couples can't have children by conventional means, neither can a lot of hetero couples, so should we outlaw all fertility treatments then? Should infertile people be allowed to marry, gay or straight?

Leslie Swearingen 5 years, 11 months ago

I have no understanding of what it would take to make someone gay, but it does seem to me a lot of them are hostile and aggressive, acting in such a way as to bait others into anger. We all live as we choose and associate with whom we chose. We all go to church or not as we chose. In any event, calling names and insults is not likely to change either sides minds.

kidicarus 5 years, 11 months ago

"Irish (Irish Swearingen) says…

I have no understanding of what it would take to make someone gay, but it does seem to me a lot of them are hostile and aggressive, acting in such a way as to bait others into anger. We all live as we choose and associate with whom we chose. We all go to church or not as we chose. In any event, calling names and insults is not likely to change either sides minds."

Like calling gays "hostile and aggressive"?

deskboy04 5 years, 11 months ago

My choice is that a marriage should be between a man and a woman...but I don't think that I have the right to tell other people that. If two men get married, or two women, that ought to be their right. No one makes you marry someone and they shouldn't tell you who you can't marry.

Kryptenx 5 years, 11 months ago

Seriously? That's like faulting slaves for hating their owners. The problem lies with the oppressors, not the oppressed.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.