Gay marriage advocates try again, in song

The Catholic Bishops can excuse themselves all day, but they are bigots.

The nonsense about protecting marriage is not only ignorant, but a lie as well.

We, in this beautiful state of Massachusetts, are the proof. Marriage between a man and a woman in Massachusetts has not changed a bit since the Massachusetts court decision. No one was hurt, other than a few nut cases were offended ( I think they didn't like their lack of power to impose their will on others).

I am not a gay and have no family members or friends that are gay, yet I believe that this is a case of bigotry against people who are born as gays. I am an agnostic (even though I am a product of Catholic school from kindergarten through college). I hope there is a God. If there is, God has created gays as surely as he has created me. All one has to do is be observant to see that this is
so. If you bigots would be a little less ignorant and more observant, you could pick out a gay person in a crowd every time (I can). They are physically different from us. I am even able to tell you which priest's have the gene (or whatever physical cause there is for this).

I believe science will one day explain the causality and all of you bigots can pray to God that you are forgiven for your hate and once again for denying what science will surely explain.

You may ask why I am so sure that this prejudice is dead wrong. I am, not only because I can see the physical differences, but because there are plenty of examples in the rest of the animal kingdom (there have been observed to be gay monkeys and apes, for example)

Yes, I know you don't want to admit that we are animals. But we are and all of denial in the world will not change this fact.

So, if being gay is as natural as being brown eyed or blue eyed, how can anyone suggest that this is not a civil rights issue and a horrible injustice. We are all God's beautiful creations .If there is no God, then this is still a horrible injustice.

My request to these Bishops is:

MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS and leave others alone. In this great country of ours, we believe is social justice.

Maybe this phoney attempt to redefine the institution of marriage will go away. It will NEVER be marriage, no matter what those who hate (the gay advocates) want to call it. The notion that children are not affected by same sex "partnerships" is a farce. Young boys need male role models and young girls need female role models. Wake up America.

KJR, there you go again. You are showing your tendency to be a homophobe. You obviously think that being gay is a choice or the result of gay influence because you think a child raised by a gay will be confused about his/her sexuality. This has be proven to be totally wrong.

Is this the fear that the Catholic Bishops and the Mormons are pushing? God help us if they use such lies and fear mongering to gain power.

As a role model, I would rather an artistic, sensitive, loving gay male as a role model than a hater like you. Love and honesty, lack of greed and selfishness are what is needed to raise a good and healthy child.

If one looks a heterosexual role models, I wouldn't want half the parents that I see in the world today....with the divorce rates as they are, the child abuse, etc.

And yes America, wake up or you will find yourself having to live in a society where bishops and cults have taken away all of your freedoms, where there are book burnings, censorship, etc. It has to stop now before it grows. We must fight the wish of these zealots to destroy the separation of church and state or we will be living in a society like Iran.

"...religious leaders in America have the constitutional right to speak out on issues of public policy. Catholic bishops, specifically, also have a responsibility to teach the faith, and our beliefs about marriage and family are part of this faith".
There they go again twisting the truth. Constitutional right to speak out? Yes. Teach the faith? Of course. But wait, where's the mention of removing the Constitutional rights (rights already affirmed by the court) of others because they're inconsistent with said faith? It's conveniently missing. But that's really what happened, isn't it? I have a right to speak out against the church and to teach my family about my beliefs and opposition to church teachings. But it would be ridiculous to suggest that I have the right to deny the right to go to the ballot box to remove the rights of Catholics or Mormans to practice their respective faiths because their beliefs are inconsistent with my own.

Mr. Paulson - Please publish more positive stories about religion! Nearly every blog article that is put on boston.com is designed to get opposing sides to hurl insults at each other. These "comment wars" are a waste of time and no one is budging from their position.
There are MANY positive things going on in churches/temples/parishes. I see many good things every week in my parish. Why do only the controversial stories get published? Is it because "that's what sells newspapers?"

Enough is enough with "religious beliefs." Anyone can claim religion as an excuse to support their beliefs and in this instance, this needs to be called what it is: FAITH BASED DISCRIMINATION.
I invite all people in support of equal rights for all people to expose these "religions" for what they are. Force them to explain their opposition and not let them get away with "Well, my religion or my god tells me so."
BS!
Throughout these years, I have lost respect for all organized religions that cling to ideology. In fact, I feel sorry for those that do so: it's intellectual laziness and renders one's thinking nonexistent. Religious people don't tend to look at things scientifically: they fail to identify things as they are and continue to look at things as they should be. This moronic "belief" that children need a mother and a father is nonsense and not supported by epidemiological studies. Then again, the same religious folks who fail to look at this data are the same type of people that despite mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary, believe condoms promote promiscuity and evolution is some form of theory.

Given the fact that the scriptures have Jesus discussing economic justice issues somewhere around 70 times, divorce once or twice, and doesn't speak of gay relationships, it is really sad that certain parts of Christendom dwell on something that is really a side issue, and don't spend more time and effort on economic issues. Historically, the Catholic Bishops have issued pastoral letters on world economic issues that have been really excellent, and now they have devolved into becoming pretty much of a single issue community of faith. It's too bad, and the Catholic community deserves better leadership than it is getting right now.

Oh, there it is again. Anyone who is against the pro-gay agenda is a homophobe...

End it, will you. We, like you, have the right to speak out, and we will. Good for you Archbishop...

Sure Centrist, anyone with an opposing view is a homophobe. That's the typical name calling nonsense and hate that is spewed on anyone who is not politically correct. Keep name calling, and terrorizing those who disagree with you. California would REQUIRE trampling of religious freedom, just like in Massachusetts. But that is ok, because the only valid form of bigotry left if this country is that against Christians, especially Catholics. (Watch the hate on this thread...) (See post #1). Gay couples have THE SAME rights as married heteros in California - which is fine with me. Prop 8 is state mandated hate against religious freedom. That is a fact, because gays are now "elevated" to that of a suspect class individuals (like minorities) which means SPECIAL TREATMENT. So, learn the facts before you state your false accusations.

It will never be marriage, no matter how much you want to call it as such.

ME: "Anyone who is against the pro-gay agenda is a homophobe..."
KJR: "California would REQUIRE trampling of religious freedom, just like in Massachusetts."

Well, here's your chance. Tell us. Tell us exactly and specifically what you, as (I presume) straight Christians, will lose if and when gay marriage becomes legal. Be very specific and tell us which of YOUR rights will go away.

Because as far as I can see, the only practical upshot of this whole "traditional marriage" argument is denial of equal rights. It doesn't defend anything concrete, it doesn't protect anything tangible. It only serves to divide and deny. If I'm wrong, tell me. Otherwise, accept that your words mark you as the bigots you claim not to be.

Massachusetts, same sex MARRIAGE since 2004! The sky has not fallen...Massachusetts is once again a leader and maverick in the pursuit for respect,equality and love for all people!

MVF - ok, here you go...

The California Supreme Court deemed that gay marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, no different than that of race or any other "suspect class". What does that mean to me?

1. Like in Massachusetts, I have NO RIGHT to object to indoctrination of a lifestyle taught to my children in public school, which is fundamentally opposed to 2000 years of Christianity. My religious and parental rights no longer exist. My children now must be exposed to social teaching that my faith fundamentally opposes (and has opposed for 2000 years.) Specific enough? I have a fundamental right to parent my child and raise him or her with the Christian prinicples which the Church teaches. The state now turns into Nazi Germany by FORCING this on my children. To hell with your fundamental religious beliefs. Secularizm now reigns.

2. As a business person, I MUST provide services to enable a lifestyle against my conscience, EVEN if there are ample services available otherwise, under the California Unruh act - or else I am fined.

3. If I express my opinion in public or have personal opinions regarding morality once this is law, I am subject to termination from employment, and I have no recourse.

In a secular world which wants to eliminate faith and religion, I am an endangered species. GET IT?

And by the way mvf, in California, Gays have THE SAME rights as hetero married people. So what is YOUR point? They lose nothing by the passage of Prop 8, except the forcing of its ideology down my throat.

You're not going to send anthrax to me now are you?

KJR, what bothers me about what you said about girls needing female role models and boys needing male models is not that you're using that as a reason against non-traditional families. It's that you're taking traditional gender roles as self-evident. I don't understand why a boy can't grow up with strong female role models (and without male ones), or vice versa for girls. Why do we have to gender ourselves so strongly?

The arguments against same-sex marriage are not simply routed in religious fear. Same-sex unions, in general, threaten the ideas surrounding traditional gender roles. If two women can live together, married, it must mean that they don't need the support of a husband. If two men love each other, it means that they don't need to have a female spouse taking care of the home.

In addition, the only difference found between children raised by same-sex parents and those raised by opposite-sex parents is that the children raised by same-sex parents tend to be more tolerant and accepting of difference. That doesn't seem like such a terrible thing to me.

Besides, if people are SO worried about making sure children are raised well, then we should be improving the foster care system and eradicating child abuse, not forbidding couples to marry because they're the same sex. The same-sex marriage debate is about intolerance, not about protecting anything, whether it's hetero-marriage or children.

KJR...You DO NOT have the religious freedom to deprive another human being of any right. And, whether or not you like it, gay marriage is, in fact, marriage. Whether Sean O'Malley approves of it is irrelevant. Whether religious bigots (yes, the great persecuted Christians/Catholics/Mormons/fundies of every stripe - people are refusing to bow down to them and worship them) choose to honor these marriages, they are marriages according to THE LAW. And in this land of separation of church and state, that's the only law that matters. And before you start going on about God's law, I'll stop you right now - you don't have an inkling about God's law. The closest you can come to that would be the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics, the laws governing the basics of the universe. Everything else, whether Biblical, Sharia, or whatever, are man-made laws. And in this state, thank God, the law states that marriage is between 2 consenting adults, gay or straight, kids or no kids. And if that has an effect on your marriage, then your marriage is screwed from the get-go. And Joe...just what you said!!

If these churches want to always be spouting off about, and influencing politics, then they can pay taxes like the rest of us.

How the Catholic Church, after what they did, can possibly try to stand on some moral high ground is beyond me. And, the mormons....THE MORMONS running around saying gay marriage is wrong after their checkered history with the rules of marriage (remember, polygamy with young girls?) . No different from good ole bob jones university, which is nothing different than a wahhabist school, saying they are sorry for racism........... in 2008. Gotta love religion. At least the Spaghetti Monster doesnt molest kids.

MVF - I never said it would ruin marriage. My argument is that you shouldn't get special rights just because you have sex diffferently. I don't beleive in special rights - for anything, hate laws, gay marriage, quotas, or affirmative action - it raises the significance of one group over another.

You don't have a right to marry whoever you want, it's that simple. A

The real issue is that some religious groups want to impose their beliefs on other religious groups.

And the "marriage has been the same for 2000 or 4000 years" argument doesn't stand up to any facts whatsoever. According to the Bible, sometimes men had to marry their brothers' widows (Deuteronomy 25:5) and sometimes it was outlawed (Leviticus 20:21). King Solomon himself had 700 wives. For the first several hundred years A.D. the Church did not recognize marriage at all, seeing it as a civil legal matter related to property rights.T he Catholic Church's stance on marriage as sacrament came at the Council of Trent in 1563. That's less than 600 years ago. So if you want to make the argument, you kind of have to say "the institution of marriage has been unchanged for 600 years."

Unless of course you are Mormon. In which case marriage has only been between one man and one woman since Utah wanted to become a US State.

This of course is all irrelevent to civil law in the United States. Until 1974, black people could not marry in the Mormon Church, even though civil marriage was accorded to African-Americans in every state in the nation. Should the Mormons have been able to impose that restriction on the rest of the country? Even the AME Church? Then why should they be allowed to impose their views on Unitarians or Congregationalists or Reform Jews or anyone else?

You can justify it all you want in order to believe you are a good person, but denying gay people the right to marry and care for one another legally IS bigotry and hatred, and the rest of us are obliged to call you on it over and over and over for as long as you keep this up, just as we are obliged to call out racism or sexism or any other form of bigotry.

And by the way, this is not religious bigotry, for I think Catholics have every right to only marry Catholics of opposite sex who have never married before or who have paid the appropriate indugences to get out of a previous marriage. Catholics (or any other religious groups) should not, however, impose those views on the rest of us.

KJR - By your argument, would you say the rights of KKK parents denied when their children are taught about Martin Luther King in school? Are the rights of anti-semites denied when their children learn about the Holocaust? Are their children being indoctrinated to be black or jewish?

And ME - doesn't allowing one group to marry but not another raise the significance of one group over another? I don't believe your argument is intellectually self-consistent.

Centrist, spot on. Thank you for your voice of reason.

I find it insane that some people truly believe gay people simply choose to be gay.

Haven't we all seen a man we could just never in a thousand years imagine being with a woman, or a woman we could just never in a thousand years imagine being with a man?

Being gay is not a "lifestyle choice." It is an inherent identity characteristic.

KJR said:

"Maybe this phoney attempt to redefine the institution of marriage will go away. It will NEVER be marriage, no matter what those who hate (the gay advocates) want to call it."

Response:

Would you please explain to me how gay people are "the haters?"

You confuse righteous outrage at being persecuted and marginalized as "hate."

And I'm getting very tired of the manipulation of the situation by those such as you.

KJR: a solution to the conflict you raise that's between your moral/world views/ what your church teaches you and the progress of modern society is simply to question what you've been taught. Is it
Fair? Is it just? All old religions arise from tribal beliefs with an Us vs Them/good vs Evil mentality. 50 years ago, would you agree with religions' advocation of limiting civil rights to African Americans?
You've probably never had to question your religion before because you were never a recipient of it's potential harm and until you are, you may never see a reason to question wheter what is being taught is in fact moral.
I suggest you stop hiding behind tradition or what you've been taught and think for yourself. Not every thing that us taught by authorities (and in this case, the majority) is just.

KLR said:

"Sure Centrist, anyone with an opposing view is a homophobe. That's the typical name calling nonsense and hate that is spewed on anyone who is not politically correct. Keep name calling, and terrorizing those who disagree with you..."

and

"So, learn the facts before you state your false accusations."

RESPONSE:

KJR, it is you who spreads disinformation and makes false accusations in your claim that anyone who calls a spade a spade is resorting to name calling and hate tactics.

Sir or madam, your post drips of homophobia. Indeed, you are a homophobe. Identifying you as such is not an expression of or act of hate; it's an observation of the evident. Many homophobes don't recognize they are homophobes, just as many racists don't recognize they are racists. Please, stop manipulating the situation and making yourself the victim.

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England]and in New England"

[Benjamin Franklin, "Toleration", in _Works, Vol.ii._,p. 112]

You are all ignoring the fact that Churches will soon be forced, against their own respective consciences, to perform gay marriages under the threat of law suits by irate gay couples. This will be a severe breach of religious freedom and will force Christians to do something they are morally opposed to, yet all of you narrow-minded Cambridge liberals will certainly either cheer for it or just look the other way. The ACLU will not defend the Churches, I am sure. If you don't believe me, do some research. This is already happening in Canada and other European countries.

Marriage was never the province of the state until the state butted in and made it so, what with Justices of the Peace and marriage licenses. The state still has no right to define marriage whatsoever, as it is fundamentally a religious institution. The traditional definition of marriage is the only definition of marriage, because marriage is an ancient tradition itself. If you don't like it, well, too bad. Pick up a history book. Marriage existed long before the U.S. It is a Judeo-Islamic-Christian institution, and other ancient cultures adapted it in some form from that tradition.

I find charges of homophobia by ALL Christians offensive and disgusting. I have both gay friends and straight liberal friends, and we get along fine in spite of our differences (I have worked on group projects in school with them, have enjoyed a lot of laughs and jokes with them, and have confided a lot about myself to them). They respect where I am coming from. The suggestion that Christians hate gays is an unfair example of painting with broad strokes. Some do, yes. Not all. Some gays hate Christians just as much, yet no one seems to hold them accountable.

I love how liberals talk so much about getting out the vote and using democracy to stick it to the man- UNLESS voting and democracy don't work their way, like in California.

THEN they whine and complain about how the majority decision should be overturned, how it's unfair, how mean the world is. The politically incorrect truth is this: you are the ones who registered black voters for Senator Obama in California, and hence, YOU are the ones who by extension defeated your own proposition. It's simple cause-and-effect. Live with it. Stop whining. The people who voted against Proposition 8 had the right to vote against it, and clearly the will of the people is that gay marriage should not be a societal institution. Nothing you do can change that.

Now go ahead and flame me with whining about your rights. Marriage is not a civil right, it's a societal tradition.

On all counts, I think the founding fathers would be on my side.

We hear a lot about what the Catholics are AGAINST when it comes to gays. Are they for anything? Opposition to gay marriage would be more palatable and understandable if the Catholic church also expressed something they are FOR -- nondiscrimination laws? hospital visitation rights? civil benefits to ease the life of partnered gays and remove their necessity to get 20 powers of attorney? If the church is against ALL things gay, or that benefit gays (as it seems to be), then the notion that they are anti-gay has traction.

To all who are blind to the facts of gay discrimination, go see the movie MILK. Yes we have come some way but still lots of work to be done. I sense another uprising is coming!!! " I am here to recruit you" ... HM !

We all are afraid of change, but change is needed to progress as society, human beigns, civilization. If back in the days.. change was not achieved: 1, Women would not be voting, 2. interracial marriage would not be permitted, 3. african americans would not have the right to be free.... all this happend becasue of change. At the begining it was a hard fight, people said this would demolish society, all the same reasons we here now. But now after all this time, people are shaking their heads and saying "those reason were so stupid", "that was bad time in history -now is all better" -- so why the issue now? Did we not learn anything from history?

It's so comical how people in Massachusetts are so incredibly ignorant about the law in California yet they choose to criticize the people who legally voted to amend their constitution with arguments about fairness and moral hypocrisy.

JE: Are you married? Did you get a marriage license as well as a church wedding?

If so, are you willing to get a legal divorce (but you'd still be married in your church, of course) to prove your point? Are you willing to give up being legal next-of-kin? Being able to visit your spouse in the hospital and make important decisions for her (assuming you are male)? Are you willing to have her locked out of her house should you die first? Are you willing to be denied funeral leave if she dies first? Or have to pay inheritance taxes on your home?

Put up or shut up, my friend.

Seriously, I suspect you are basically a good person, but you have been simply mis-informed. No church is required to perform any ceremony. And go find a history book, because your facts on the history of marriage, both religious and civil, are incorrect.

JE--nothing has been suggested, hinted at or proposed that would force any church to marry GLBT couples against it's core beliefs. NOTHING. It wouldn't work anyway--there is seperation of church and state, unless you manage to do away with that with another hate-filled ballot initiative.

You know you have no position to impose your religious beliefs OVER those of GLBT families, and your real fear is loss of power--a power you merely perceive you have to begin with.

The FACT is, GLBT people respect the opposing views against them. You're free to preach and teach children and adults anything you believe, and no one is forcing you otherwise. What you are losing in this process is the ability to pretend GLBT don't exist. We're not staying in the closet anymore because the only reason we're there in the first place is from fear of what people like you want to do to us, like strip us of our voice and right to freedom OF and FROM religion for example. Our beliefs--OUR MORALS---don't have to match yours. They don't. This is America where we agree to respect other's views we disagree with, including moral issues providing the govt. can see no actual harm being committed to another party. And, you'll try to argue there is some harm from GLBT people, but you don't have any legit scientific or psychological research to back up your claim (actually all the evidence points to GLBT not being a choice, and that GLBT parents raise just as healthy and well adjusted children as heterosexual families do).

So one has to stop and wonder what exactly you are "protecting?" All fingers point to your percieved loss of superiority. You weren't superior to begin with, so this is going to be a difficult transition for you. However, you need to respect others and if you won't, at least the courts will keep you out of other's life choices and religious beliefs.

Uh JE do catholic churches in MA have to officiate same-sex weddings? No of course not. So are you just lying to try and scare people, or do you really not get it?

JE, the founding fathers were radicals who fought for freedom from religion just as aggressively as they fought for freedom of religion.

Methinks you are sadly mistaken that these social radicals would agree with you were they alive today.

As for your "stop your whining" attitude, well, it's very indicative of the true motivation behind the "protecting marriage" campaign: a contemptuous desire to maintain a system of classism where you are able to maintain in solid terms the social and psychological barrier that exists between you and gay people.

Your condescension speaks for itself.

We are not talking about a Christmas toy that was taken away. We are talking about court ordered civil rights.

Voting to take away another citizens court-ordered rights is just about the most unAmerican thing a citizen can do, and when those who do it are faced with righteous anger, they dismiss those whom they stripped of rights (in a dehumanizing effort to disenfranchise them) with an attitude of parental authority.

Your post provides further evidence that this ban was not about protecting marriage but about putting gays in their place ("Sit down, shut up, and stop your whining.")

You are losing your ground as the recess bully, and you resent it, thus the tone of your post. Before the vote, your tone was "This is not a campaign of hate and discrimination, " and now it is "Your rights have been eliminated. We don't want to have to deal with you anymore. Now go away or shut up."

Mr. Paulson - These comments are not rational, respectful dialogue - they are "comment wars" and they are a WASTE OF TIME. No one will listen to each other's arguments when they are full of insults. Controversial matters will not be solved in this way.

The bottom line logic for the Prop 8 haters is this: There is no objective right or wrong except that is what is defined by relativistic society.

Boston - you are ignorant about what the Catholic Church teaches. The Church loves the sinner and hates the sin. With regard to Christianity, scripture is clear about homosexuality, and no matter how much you want to deny that, that is an indisputable fact. Your attacks are about religious belief and faith, and anyone who accepts this religious faith is branded a bigot and homophobe. Just read the name calling against me.

Your beef is not with me, it is with Christianity. Why don't you just admit it?

Look at what is happening in Canada. Any member of the clergy who voices any public proclamanation based on their faith against homosexual behavior is hauled before a "human rights commission" and fined. Religious freedom no longer exists in Canada.

The City of San Fransciso passed a resolution declaring the Bible "hate speech".

There is no difference in California for domesitc partners and hetero married people with regard to civil rights and the law.

Who are the haters?

The Catholic church merely wants to protect the SANTIMONITY of marriage.
They lobby hard against same-sex marriage, but do they lobby against divorce? Do you see the Catholic church putting its money where its mouth is when it comes to striking down "no-fault" divorce laws, or lobbying the government to enact laws against adultery? Nope.

I don't get why people keep bring religion into this argument. Religion has nothing to do with this! The law is to change the state's def of what a marriage is. If a state allows gays to marry a church does not have to marry them, the church is a private organization and can do as they please.

I think a better way to do this is for the states to completely get rid of marriages and from now on they're called civil unions for both gays and straights, but you can still get married in a church. But only if you didn't have sex before you got married......

JE said "You are all ignoring the fact that Churches will soon be forced, against their own respective consciences, to perform gay marriages under the threat of law suits by irate gay couples."
JE, this is not a fact. This is a myth created in a desperate attempt to 1. Give same-sex marriage opponents a personal stake in the matter. 2. Create fear in the religious community and recruit others to the anti-gay cause. 3. Reinforce the lie that gays are a threat to society. Evidently, you don't understand the difference between civil marriages and the various ceremonies by which they can be officiated. The truth is that nobody is trying to change which couples a particular church will or will not marry. This is about civil marriage, not religious sacrament. Here's a fact for you: A Muslim couple can not get married in a Catholic church. Are you seeing any lawsuits to change that? Will you argue that Muslims should be denied the legal right to civil marriage to protect the Catholic church against potential lawsuits? Sounds absurd doesn't it? It always does when you take a common anti-gay marriage argument and replace the word "gay" with something else.

JE comment #24-well said.

"Nutcases, bigots, moronic..." Ah, there's the tolerant, open-minded, caring left liberals. I haven't found one of the conservative comments with insults to the left; it doesn't help your credibility.

I always love the anti-religion folks "you're trying to impose your will" argument. Lefties, be honest, in the proposition fight, and the Obama election, weren't you trying to impose your will? Your side went 1 for 2, our side went 1 for 2, except your side are crybabies; we didn't like to see Obama elected, but we accept it as the downside of democracy, win some, you lose some. On the other hand, nobody is just "trying to impose their will." The anti-amendment folks and the pro-amendment folks both had rational, coherent, sincere arguments for their positions. A few hundred thousand more people were convinced by the traditional definition of marriage arguments. Stick to the issue; don't engage in ad hominem attacks, impugning the motives of your opponents.

Someone mentioned that the Cal Sup Court had declared same sex marriage a fundamental right? I really don't give a dam what the Cal Sup Court says, or the US Sup Court, for that matter. Are they infallible? Their decisions are only of value when they are in accord with natural law, the truth.

The basic biblical teaching on marriage is found in Genesis and out of Jesus' mouth in the gospels: marriage is between one man and one woman. Were there aberrations in the bible? Yes, but they were just that, aberrations, and Jewish and then Christian history was to try to get it back to the norm.

Someone said that conservatives are saying that gays are the haters. It is not gays that are the haters, but the bitter proponents of same sex marriage who are the haters. What they hate is the Judaeo-Christian heritage which is the foundation of this country, on to which is grafted a little sliver of secular govenment

JE...so much misinformation! No church, not even in Canada or Europe, is ever forced to perform marriages against their consciences. What in the world makes you think they are?

Why are you so sure the ACLU won't defend churches? Right now, in New Jersey, there is a case the ACLU is championing involving a jail inmate who was being prevented by the state from preaching. The ACLU is suing to force the state to allow the inmate to preach in accordance with his religion. The ACLU is NOT anti-religion, as you wish us to believe.

Your history is also wrong. Marriage was the province of the state long before the Christian or Jewish religion was even invented. Marriage originally was the state's way of protecting property and determining inheretance rights, and had nothing to do with religion.

Love the sinner but hate the sin. I love when religious folk say that line in defense of the extreme judgment and bigotry they spew. What sin? The one man made up while he was writing and rewriting the book called the bible! God would not create a person, a human being and call his work a sin...

"It is not gays that are the haters, but the bitter proponents of same sex marriage who are the haters. What they hate is the Judaeo-Christian heritage which is the foundation of this country, on to which is grafted a little sliver of secular govenment."

This is utter nonsense.

As a "bitter proponent of same sex marriage," I do not hate Judeo-Christianity; I hate the arrogant insistence of some that our laws adhere to those individuals' own personal religion's dogma.

NOTE: There are two "Peters" posting FYI...myself and another individual.

Archbishop George H. Niederauer (left) defends the churches, including Catholics and Mormons, that supported Proposition 8...."Indeed, to insist that citizens be silent about their religious beliefs when they are participating in the public square is to go against the constant American political tradition. Such a gag order would have silenced many abolitionists in the nineteenth century and many civil rights advocates in the twentieth."

This is a civil rights issue in the 21st century... Women are now allowed to vote...blacks are no long segregated...gays will someday marry.

Folks as Will Durant once said
"Civilization begins with order, grows with liberty and dies with chaos”.

We are defineately at chaos my friends!
Let there be Peace on Earth!

Joe, I think you are right. Gays and gay empathizers need to unite and put an end to all the bigotry. I read a comment that all these jabs back and forth aren't productive, but I don't know if that's necessarily true. In any case, one good thing I see coming from this is that people are being forced to think about what, exactly, a marriage is. What makes a marriage? What are it's boundaries? Is it for one man and one woman to share? Is it for procreation? If so, then a lot of stright people have some answering to do, including Catholic priests. What about couples that never plan on having children, or can't for whatever reason? I think a large part of the problem is distinguishing between marriage as a social construct versus marriage as a divine right. Because the term is the same, we have a hard part agreeing on what a marriage is and whether we should be changing it. It's something that bears discussion and thought, but as a member of society who is somewhat religious (not Catholic), I'd like to see marriage rights fully extended to the gay community (that is a large part of America's community. Religious convictions aside, who's to say that gay men and women shouldn't be allowed to express their love as fully in the eyes of the law as any straight couple, and enjoy the soldification of their public vows and offer their families the stability that comes with marriage? Some will say that God is one to say, but we Christians all have very different views of God and faith, and we've managed to get along prety well thus far. And I don't see this as being the straw the breaks any camels back. Keep talking everyone. And be compasionate whatever your views.

Why is it that when someone who has faith, or is just generally opposed to the idea of same sex marriage is labeled as a 'homophobe'? Can't someone just have a differing opinion? How is that in any way evidence of someone having a 'phobia' of same sex marriage? I also like how democracy is a great thing to the proponents of this bill, until it gets oted down by the majority, then is just a bunch of 'stupid,' or 'uneducated' or 'religous nuts' out there that are afraid so they voted it down. There are many people out there (and this vote proves it) from all different races, religous backgrounds, etc. that do not support same sex marriage. Seems to me the only people who are getting angry, and saying mean and insulting things are the proponents of same sex marriage. In my opinion (my OPINION) that is a result of the internal guilt complex these people have for living in sin.

echo said:

"Seems to me the only people who are getting angry, and saying mean and insulting things are the proponents of same sex marriage. In my opinion (my OPINION) that is a result of the internal guilt complex these people have for living in sin."

It is statements like this that are infuriating. You slam gays and lesbians for "getting angry, and saying mean and insulting things, " and in the same breath turn and insult us!

Our lives are sinful, and we walk around being angry out of guilt?

Your comment basically says we are angry at ourselves for living a bad life.

No wonder you seem to think gays are the only ones being insulting...you can't even recognize an insult!

echo...
Homophobia is not just a phobia of same-sex marriage. It is defined as a fear of homosexuality. Look at the reasons the anti-gay marriage crowd give for being against same sex marriage. They are afraid that legalized same sex marriage will cause public schools to teach tolerance of homosexual couples. Why would that be wrong? They are afraid of homosexuality being accepted. They are afraid of homosexuality. They are afraid they won't be able to teach their children to hate homosexuality. They are afraid that somehow, in some way they can't describe, that their "real" marriages will somehow be lessened. All their arguments reek of fear of what will happen. Yes, they are homophobic.

Go back and look at some of the comments posted by KJV if you want to see some examples of insults posted by the anti-same sex marriage crowd. They are there. Maybe you didn't see them because you agree with the insults?

To gaudette:

Those in favor of same-sex marriage are not trying to impose anything on anyone. No one would be required to take part in a same-sex marriage if they don't want to. However, the anti-sam sex crowd definately want to impose their ideology onto all people, whether we agree with them or not. My same-sex marriage would have absolutely no affect on anybody's mixed-sex marriage or their lives. But their steadfast refusal to permit me to have my marriage DOES directly affect me and my life. Who is the side doing the imposing?

Quite frankly, I don't care what your Bible or Jesus Christ said. They are ancient history, from another time. I know you rever the Bible, but I don't. It is no more
infallible than the California Supreme Court. But the California Supreme Court is empowered by the California Constitution to decide what are valid state laws in California, and what constitutes human rights in California. The Bible does not have that power.

Finally, a little history. Our country was NOT founded on "Judaeo-Christian heritage ", but was founded on the ideals of the enlightenment movement of the 18th Century,. Many of the founding fathers were Deists, a philosophy that many Christiands of today would reject.

Peter, I know you have said there are 2 of you, but how do we distinguish, and how did the Boston site let you both have the same catch?

Anyhow, to the more strident Peter (a same which i love, btw), you are wrong and obviously have not read much about revolutionary-constitutional-federalist era American history. Perhaps the only 2 who could even be slightly called 'freedom of religion' were Thomas (aptly named) Paine, and to a lesser extent, Thomas Jefferson. It is true, Adams, Franklin and Madison were Deists,. and not orthodox Christians, and had a more utilitarian attitude toward religion, basically, that it was good for the rubes, to keep them from rioting too frequently. But the vast majority of the non-big-name founders were orthodox Christians, as was the vast majority of the people of the states, who ratified the Constitution. The 2 clauses in the 1st amendment say, 2nd of all, freedom of religion, and first of all, no one denomination established church over all others, something with which every conservative and liberal agrees.

Peter, at comment 5and 33, I'm surprised that you want to call an end to debate, press a vote for cloture; how undemocratic. I think, believe it or not, that a tiny bit of the adversary's argument sinks in sub-consciously. For me, that means I better understand (though will never agree) about how seriously the anti-traditional marriage folks take this, and how angry they are; I wonder if there is a single proponent of same sex marriage who has taken one second to try to put themselves in the shoes of the conservative, traditional, non-same sex marriage camp. Debates can be vehement, but whoever wins, as i said before with President-elect Obama, somehow the sort of loyal opposition will survive, no one will be rounded up and killed.

Rich, you say that all marriages should be civil unions, and then let them get married in church if they want (the French solution.) It is already thus in MA. Have you seen a marriage licence lately? No longer labeled 'husband' and 'wife;' now, 'party A' and 'party B.'

ACLU--probably the single most destructive organization which has led to the severe decomposition of this once great country. The name says is all: over-emphasis on civil liberties, 'me, me, me, i want mine, etc.' to the detriment of our mutual responsibilities, the major contributor of our litigious society.

Reed, you say gays should be allowed to express their love. All i ask are 2 things: don't block my view of the TV while you are doing it, and don't call it marriage. That word has a fine pedigree. My dictionary defines marriage as : "the state of , or relation between, a man and a woman who have become husband and wife or to the ceremony marking this union." Now, of course, i know that you will attack this dictionary, and say that the meaning of words evolve. But they don't evolve into their opposites. If you want to create your own dictionary, have fun, just like you can make your own addition table, which states that 2+2=5, but that won't make it so in reality.

I echo what 'echo' said: that the fundamental tactical and strategic mistake that liberals in general make is that they present themselves as pompous, elitist, know it all, more intelligent, self-proclaimed superiors, look down their nose (all this is true of the tone of the newspaper on whose blog we write, especially its parent company), so that anyone who doesn't fit into that sub-culture, says "whatever you say, I shall vote the opposite." The problem is, that most of the Globe/Times readers, and these commenters, don't realize that they are the SUB-culture, and that the culture is still based on the cult, the religion, in this case, the Judaeo-Christian ethic. Don't like it? MA, CA, NY, please, do us a favor, and create your own nation.

notso:

It is not a fear that tolerance will be teached, we should all tolerate everyone, what you do in your own privacy, you can and will do. It is the school teaching our children that it is natural to engage in these acts that is wrong. Just like I wouldn't want the school to tell my kids that it was okay to just go sleep with anyone you want. FACT, if the whole world turned homosexual this instant, without the aid of medical tinkering, the human race would die off in one generation. Two of the same sex cannot get together, and from that union creat human life, never happened, never will. the day it does, I will call it a miracle.

Secondly, Jesus Christ is 'ancieny history' your right, he is the most ancient history, he was here before all. The fatct hat you don't believe the bible is your right, and is not suprising, as many don't nowadays. even those who profess to believe do not live a lifestyle that reflects that belief. But let me put it ot you this way:

Suppose you are right, and I'm wrong, that there is no God, no heaven, when we die, we just die. I lived my life with a belief in God, firmly believing that there was a heaven, and in so doing lived a good life, mindful of pleasing God. Others benefitted from my lifestyle, as I treated them well in keeping with my beliefs, then I die, and there's nothing. No harm. I was fooled into living a life of hope and joy, then went to the nothingness that you believe. I lost nothing. Now, suppose I am right and you are wrong. You live your life as you want, denying God to the last, then you die, and you face eternal salvation, or eternal damnation. You have lost ETERNITY. Is that a bet you are willing to make, based on a lack of faith?

I would look a little deeper into your assertion about our Founding fathers being deists. Probably to one most on the left of that group, Benjamin Franklin himself had this to say when the constitution was being written. It is worth reading:

Ben Franklin's Call for Prayer
Thursday, June 28, 1787, the Constitutional Convention, 1765

The situation was seemingly hopeless. The delegates were deadlocked over issues regarding representation and voting. Tempers were flaring. Part of New York's delegation had departed in frustration, and many others were on the verge of quitting as well.

Thus was the scene and atmosphere as Ben Franklin rose to address the President of the Convention, George Washington. Here are his words, as recorded by James Madison:

"The small progress we have made after four or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other - our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ays, methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the human understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed modern states all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances."

"In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of Lights to illuminate our understanding! In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence, we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten this powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that 'except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war, and conquest."

"I therefore beg leave to move - that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service."

Shortly after this, the Connecticut Compromise was presented, debated and adopted. By September 8, the rough draft of the Constitution of the United States of America was complete. Prayer has opened all sessions of both houses of Congress ever since.

Notso, saying that the country was founded on the ideals of the enlightenment, and not on Judeo-Christian values is an overstatement. There were Christians among the early colonists and among the founding fathers.

However, if your intent was to state that our country as founded on the U.S. Constitution was based on Enlightenment principles, I would agree. The founders mad it clear that the Constitution took its authority from "We the people," not from God. Some Christians at the time specifically objected to this wording and demanded that a reference to God and Jesus be included; their demands were rejected.

But let us also give credit to those Christians, such as Roger Williams, who believed that the role of religion was to save souls, the role of government to ensure the prosperity of the secular world, and that the two were best off not mixing. Those Christians also approved of the Constitution's purely secular nature.

Does anybody really think the Catholic bishops have any moral credibility ??
Their actions during the clergy sexual abuse scandal was outright criminal.
They can wear their fancy gowns, hats, and parade aound with their golden staffs all they want. They are moral scumbags.
I have seen more respectable people on The Jerry Springer Show.

Human behavioral norms are sometimes based in biology, like the concept of male/female marriage and sometimes are based on arbitrary social constructions, like the concept of "adulthood" (Age of Consent, Retirement Age, etc). The concept of male/female union has evolved over centuries to ensure reproduction and provide cultural stability. Homosexuality is natural in that it exists in nature but not genetically preferable since it exhibits very low incidence in human populations. Gays have no more right to marry than polygamists or people attracted to children.

Hey,
When will the state support my right to enter into a marriage with 2 women? I feel discriminated against because Massachusetts only allows man/women, man/man, women/women marriages! What about man/women/women? I’m in love with 2 women and don’t want to choose between them – let me marry both of them. If we're going to change the definition of marriage, I say we need to remove all restrictions, not just some. Anything else is discrimination…

Echo, you should also have noted that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not vote on Franklin's request for daily prayers in the Convention, but instead adjourned. Nor was his request brought up again, nor were prayers given every morning during the Convention. If you are trying to give credit to public prayer to the Christian God for the success of the Constitutional Convention, you are simply wrong.

You are correct that Congress has opened with public prayers. But James Madison, for one, was specifically opposed to the practice, regarding it as tending toward the establishment of the Christian religion. He was one of several with proven deistic tendencies. Thomas Jefferson's deism was so notorious, that conservative Christian preachers feared he would order their Bibles cast into a bonfire!

It can be difficult to tell whether a founding father was Christian or deist, because the two categories were not in practice exclusive, and both tended to refer to one true God. This is one reason why Christians trying to rewrite the preamble to the Constitution directly referred to God and to a divine Jesus, to distinguish their beliefs from the deists. But they failed to get the preamble rewritten.

echo:

You bring up the argument about what would happen if the whole world were to suddenly turn gay. LOL! And you wonder why I say you are homophobic. IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. Even if we legalize same-sex marriage, the world is not going to suddenly turn gay. The gay population will remain the same percentage of teh overall population as it is now, and as it was when homosexuality was illegal. Stop being so afraid of the consequences of accepting homosexuality.

As for your "What if I'm right and you are wrong" argument, you are presenting what is called a false dichotomy. You are overlooking the very real possibility that neither of us are right. What if we are both wrong. I am wrong, and there is a god, and YOU are wrong in that the god rejects homosexuality and demands belief in the Bible. What if the god that really exists wants us to use our god-given intelligence to learn the truth about the world, and condemns those who just blindly follow some book simply because they believe it to be god-given truth without a shred of evidence? Under that scenario, I am the one who gets to heaven while you are condemned.

Give that some thought before you attempt to condemn others to the fiery pits of hell.

After I read some of these comments...I go back to the 1800s until 1920s when Women's Suffrage allowed women to vote...It took time, but it happened. I go back to 1950s and 1960s when racial discrementation was fought and won, that also took time. Gays will marry someday...its only a matter of TIME.

I don't know if these discussions every really go anywhere. The truth is, anyone caring enough to participate has already made up their mind in stone. But, hey, that's what these boards are for...

Yes, historically, marriage was only between a man a women. But, historically homosexuality was something to be ashamed of, hidden, and repressed (at best). Thankfully, we've come a long way from that. To go the next step, if we are to truly accept homosexuality as OK, how can we deny homosexual couples the same rights and responsibilities that heterosexual couples have? It's really a question of equality. I recognize people don't like change, and people will always have their prejudices, but we should not have such prejudices as part of our law. Yes, this could mean that people will be taught in school that homosexuality is OK, just as they are currently taught that it's OK to be Jewish, or have red hair. Is that really so bad?

The other part of this is the separation of church and state. Yes, marriage may or may not have origins in religion. It really doesn't matter. As soon as the government is involved and gives official rights and responsibilities, it's also a civil matter. I really believe the solution is what has been suggested above - that the government should only grant civil unions and ALL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES SHOULD ONLY DEPEND ON THE CIVIL UNION. Marriages can be granted by religions, but should have as much legal meaning as my bar mitzvah. (By the way, if this occurs, I am sure you will quickly find some progressive religious groups granting homosexuals marriages - which should be just fine by everyone. No one will say your church/synagogue has to do it.).

I really get a kick out of it when Hollywood preaches to me. Being lectured by such an assortment of screwed up, dysfunctional, self-absorbed, morally questionable characters is hilarious. The day Jack Black is my moral compass will be a sad day indeed.

Gaudette, you really do have quite a nerve to call your opposition elitist and pompous.

Listen to you, "gaudete":

"Reed, you say gays should be allowed to express their love. All i ask are 2 things: don't block my view of the TV while you are doing it, and don't call it marriage. That word has a fine pedigree."

A fine pedigree of which you are worthy and gays are not. Again, you've got a nerve calling anyone elitist and arrogant.

Notso,

I hear your sincerity, and i hope you can sense mine. You say: "those in favor pf same sex marriage are not trying to impose anything on anyone." Pardon me if I demur. There is a long-time legal and moral premise: maintain the status quo, until proven otherwise. In other words, those who would change the status quo, have the burden of proof, the current culture is fine, until proven otherwise. Now, I and all conservatives contend that the status quo is what is found in the US Constitution and the Constitutions of most states, except for imperial judiciaries in CA, MA, CT? and a few other places. Our nation was not founded on Courts First, Executive Second, Legislature Third; precisely the opposite. It was in the beginning, legistatures, first, executive, second, and courts a distant third. But liberals, since the 1947 Everson case, continued through the 60's, and epitomized by Roe v. Wade, said, we know better than the legislatures, here's your new law, by us 5-4 geniuses, or 4-3, as here in MA. Can you begin to feel how this rankles us? So, therefore, anyone who is trying to create a so-called right that was not written into the Constitution, has the burden of proof, and you should carry the burden of the onerous amendment process, with its 2/3s majorities, etc. As we view it, your side is trying to impose the new found insights, sincerely but wrongly held from our viewpoint, against the collected wisdom of human history, the greco-roman-judaeo christian ethic, and the wisdom of the first 200 of 220 years of history of this country. That is a high bar; why do y'all think you're smarter than all those billions of folks?

And notso, when you said "the anti-sam sex crowd," that was one of the better Freudian typos I've seen in a long time ;)

I will now try to answer one of the fundamental questions, posed best by comment 1 by centrist, and Joe, comment 11, as to the practicalities of same sex marriage, as the saying goes, 'the sky hasn't fallen here in MA with (so-called) same sex marriage. I am willing to, for the sake of argument, to say that there are NO practical difficulties with these so-called marriages. What I would say, is that it is more of a subtle deterioration of the culture, the civilization. Does it necessarily affect the marriage of John Jones and Jane Smith, in the sense of making them want to get a divorce? No, probably not. But what it does do is contribute to a subtle but real undermining of our culture, our civilization, it makes the atmosphere in which cultural conservatives have to live feel toxic, just as i bet that pro same sex marriage feel that the traditional culture is toxic to them.

It is like the question of pornography. Does the fact that many people look at, and some are addicted to, pornography of all types directly hurt me? The cynics on that side of the argument say 'just don't look at it." But what it does is create a coarser culture, one unlike the one on which this country was founded, one unlike the culture of our country of the 1950's. Were the 50's perfect? No, of course not. The best part since then is that African Americans are welcomed as equals (see Obama, Barack); women are equal (see: Rice, Condoleeeza, and Clinton, Hillary, although I would only vote for the former). But the CULTURE was more harmonious, less litigious, more unified (of course, with exceptions.) Now, are culture is Balkanized, and that is not a good feeling for any of us.

Rich: you say that you cannot understand why everyone keeps bringing religion into this [discussion]. Its because this is on Michael Paulson's blog on Articles of Faith.

Someone's post said earlier that GLBT people respect gay marriage opponents' position and that they can teach their children whatever they please. I disagree when that position is faith-based. Why should we respect delusional beliefs? A patient who believes god will cure him is no different (in reason) than a patient who believes aliens will cure him. When any living person on earth believes his or her answers to life's questions arise from the supernatural, that immeiately should be challenged because it can never be proven or disproven. Their arguments are immediately invalid and quite frankly juvenile and intellectually lazy. So any of you who continue to claim your sense of morality comes from a book that is replete with barbarismic tales and written by people ages ago from scientiically ignorant times, it's time you look for another excuse to hide your prejudice behind. I'm sorry, but I think most intelligent people have awaken to identify the logical fallacies inherent in your defense of the status quo. By the way, as there are 2 Peters on this blog, there are 2 Rich's.

Gaudet: blame gay marriage for the deterioration of society? Last time I saw, marriage has been strictly a heterosexual institution destroyed by heterosexuals, and heterosexuals only. Classic scapegoating for your own problems.

You all denounce my prediction that gays will eventually request that churches marry them, and that consequently churches will be sued. I have been accused of lying and fear-mongering, and all the usual things that liberals like to accuse people who disagree with them of doing.

What I said was SOON this will be happening, and that there is a precedent for it. That is not speculation but fact.

A prime example: Catholic Charities was forced to shut down its adoption services rather than allow same sex adoptions. If that is not a precedent-setting incident in which the judicial made clear that churches must revise their morals in the face of public pressure or else, than I don't know what is.

How about this Christian photographer who was sued into bankruptcy for not photographing a civil union ceremony? http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/feb/25/artist-hit-for-refusal-on-beliefs/

Or the lawsuit against this Catholic hospital for not complying with a trans-gender man's desire for breast implants? http://catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=11383

You can all point fingers and dismiss these as isolated incidents, but they ARE NOT. There is a movement in the judicial system to punish those who take exception with the gay agenda. The churches- Muslim, Christian, and Jew- that don't go along with the gay marriage will be punished in due time.

But of course you don't believe it. That's because it would further your agenda if it did happen, and you probably wouldn't want to pass up a chance to see your opponents suffer. Like I said, liberals LOVE fairness and open discussion--when they're winning.

Contrary to what some of you wrote earlier, I hate no one, and do not want to be "the bully on the play ground". I have never, and will never, assault, demean or attack gay people for being gay. Nor do I oppose their having rights. They should be able to visit each other in the hospital and so on. I don't want them stripped of common human rights. I just don't think that marriage, which IS a Judeo-Christian tradition contrary to all of your uninformed rants, should be redefined to accommodate them by a government that has no right to redefine it.

And I was right about the flaming. All you tolerant, open-minded, sexually-liberated people from Newton and Cambridge sure aren't tolerant or open-minded when someone disagrees with you. You just say brilliant, sparkling intellectual things like "you're dumb" and "you're wrong". I hoped for a logical discussion. No such thing around here. You have all acquitted yourselves well in the pissing contest.

There are a lot of gay folks out there who are capable of intelligent and reasoned discussion about this issue. It's funny how I see more hatred spewed towards religious people from straight people advocating for gay rights than I do from gay people themselves.

Gay marriage was banned in California because a majority of the people did not want it. This is democracy, plain and simple. Criticize and complain about the decision if you want- it's your right. But don't call the voting results unfair or wrong, because the results are binding. The people have spoken.

Gaudete, the role of courts in overturning unconstitutional law actually dates back to the Supreme Court decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803), and was anticipated by the founding fathers in the Federalist Papers.

In the debate over the Bill of Rights, one of the fears commonly expressed was whether specifying a set of rights would lead to a restrictive interpretation that the Bill included all rights. Hence the provision in the Ninth Amendment, that the enumeration of rights could not be construed to deny or disparage others held by the people. Many of the more recent Supreme Court decisions you question in part hinged on the court's belief that the system of government developed in 1787 and its roots in English law implied a right to privacy.

Arguing for the wisdom of the ages is a good conservative strategy, and there is much to be said for it. Be careful who you include, though. The Greeks you cite had a lively bisexual culture, as a reading of Plato's Symposium would demonstrate.

But there is also the argument that we accumulate knowledge over time, and that collectively we have the capacity to be wiser and smarter than the ancients. Is it always so? Of course not. But neither is the wisdom of the ages always wisdom. We have to judge what to do based on our experience, beliefs, knowledge of history, and concerns for the future.

gaudete, you suggest that those who want to legalize same sex marriage or to claim that there are some rights that you do not believe are contained in the constitution of a state have the burden of proof.

Well, gaudete, the supporters of legalized same-sex marriage DID meet that burden of proof, in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and in California. They met it by getting the supreme courts of those states to recognize that the denial of legalized same-sex marriage violates the equal protection clauses of those constitutions.

It is the ant-same sex marriage crowd that now want to take away that right, to violate the equal protection claus in those states by appealing to a mere majority vote.

If we subject all rights to majority vote, I wonder how many rights will remain?

Rich, I couldn't agree more with your post #62.

I feel I have been wrongly persecuted my entire life because of a primitive book of lies written by man who wished to control the future of society.

I believe people should have their right to believe in nonsense, of course, but I am outraged that, essentially, a book of mythology has made my life much harder than it needed to be.

Coming from an Evangelical family, I've had aunts and uncles, grandparents disown me.

I'm a good, decent, taxpaying citizen...an introspective soul...yet my family members have disowned me simply because I have chosen to embrace my inherent nature.

I once told my mother, shortly after I came out, "Mom, when I die, if there is a god, the first thing I will ask is, 'Why did you make me gay?'"

It's beyond frustrating when you're constantly being told you chose this "lifestyle."

I am beyond words. I prayed for over a decade to change, dating women and only hurting and manipulating them to suit my deception...and why? Because I feared societal rejection and because I was taught to hate this part of myself.

I have no place for any organized religion that would teach someone like me that there is something inherently wrong and evil about me and my relationship, which is about love, security, stability, emotional and spiritual growth...and yes, sex...just like everyone else. Who would I be to invalidate their relationship.

Having said what I've just said, people can write off my anger as self-loathing, and "arrogance," but that's their ignorance. I haven't even touched on the anger I feel for having lost two gay childhood friends...both committed suicide. One hanged himself and one shot himself in the head. My younger gay brother slit his wrists as a high schooler. Fortunately, he survived.

What many conservatives see as "whining, " I see as righteous anger.

We want to make it easier for future gays and lesbians.

We want to prevent gay youth from killing themselves.

And for the record, more often than not, the gay and lesbian youth that do kill themselves, or that try, are YOUR children...children raised in religious families that have made it clear to them that there is something disgusting and evil about their very existence. That is the true tragedy here. You think you're shielding your children from an immoral evil, but in reality, you are often making life more difficult and painful for your own children.

Peter- thanks for revealing the hurt. A lot of us past that awful stage in our lives forget the pain and have moved on, but discussions like this are important to remember that those who have religious beliefs that are counter to the real teachings of Jesus (or other spiritual leaders who preach love and respect) are usually the ones who "don't get it." Once you define their position EXACTLY what it is namely, PREJUDICE under the guise of religion, it needs to be addressed EXACTLY as that. No skipping around respecting a person's beliefs simply because they are "deeply held," "traditional," "what God teaches us," what "our church teaches us," what "we believe"... etc. Ask them "why do YOU believe this?" What makes you believe this? Have you questioned this? Where is the PROOF that what you believe in is VALID? Oppressors who have religion on their side have no real need to question what they believe since they are not themselves targets of those beliefs. You'll be surprised: when you challenge someone and they're up against a wall, their conclusions for why they believe in what they do are illogical. That's religion for you. They're hilarious. You ask them: why is homosexuality sinful? They're response: It's in the Bible. Idiots. Simply idiots. I know that sounds harsh, but in my encounters with these fundies, I find that they quote Sodom and Gomorrah quite regularly not realizing that in the ending of that story, Lot has sex with his daughters. Moral? Yeah right!
These people are ignorant and they hate and they take no responsibility for that hate because they're truly believe "The Bible tells me so." Bullsh*t.
Someone asked: what's the use of these blogs? People are already entrenched. I think these are useful. We challenge one another to think about what we've been taught. Most of us have had to extract ourselves from the brainwashing of religion. Once people do, it's very enlightening.
Ultimately, it's religion that is the enemy. As writers like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens say: Religion poisons everything. The discussion above is a case in point. Where's the apology and accountability?

JE: "I just don't think that marriage, which IS a Judeo-Christian tradition contrary to all of your uninformed rants, should be redefined to accommodate them by a government that has no right to redefine it. "

Well, then, please do begin your campaign to invalidate the marriages of agnostics, atheists, and anyone who is not Christian.

Because if you don't, then, yes, you are simply copping out and are indeed discriminating against gays and lesbians.

JE, Your "prime example" of Catholic Charities being "forced" to shut down its adoption services rather than allow same sex adoptions is, once again, a twisting of facts to suit your agenda. No one "forced" them to do anything. They chose (with much internal disagreement on the issue by the way) to stop adoptions because they didn't want to comply with the law. The fact that anti-discrimination laws make it more difficult for Group A to discriminate against Group B does not justify denying rights to Group B. Catholic Charities should be ashamed that they have denied countless children a chance of having a family in order to make a political statement.

Rich, one of the gifts of being gay has been this...

I was raised in an extremely fundamentalist family (my grandmother once said that God only made one mistake...sex), in a Republican town (Duxbury)...and being gay, given my upbringing, taught me to question EVERYTHING. It taught me to look at everything I've been taught, all the while taking into consideration human nature and human sociological history...until one day I said, "Society would rather have me use this woman and marry her, unable to fulfill her emotional and sexual needs, hurting her, manipulating her, causing her self-doubt....than have me live an authentic life with another man, not hurting anyone."

It seems to me this is really about conservatives (1) not wanting their children exposed to even the NOTION of accepting homosexuality, and (2) not wanting to have to see or deal with open homosexuals.

I have no doubt whatsoever that I am a more moral person and that I have stronger character and integrity, now that I am an openly gay man and am no longer using straight women to protect myself from stigma and judgement.

Rich, you said:

"You'll be surprised: when you challenge someone and they're up against a wall, their conclusions for why they believe in what they do are illogical. That's religion for you. They're hilarious. You ask them: why is homosexuality sinful? They're response: It's in the Bible."

It's sad, but my mother no longer speaks to her sister because her sister has condemned me and my younger gay brother to hell, saying we are ungodly. Instead of offering support and empathy to her sister who has two gay sons, she's questioned my mother's parenthood because The Bible says we're an abomination but my mother has rejected that notion of her two good children and has chosen to uncondtionally love them.

Where my family is concerned, religion has only served to judge and to divide.

What enrages my mother is when people say, "I'm not judging them, God is." It's intellectually dishonest and it's a cop out. It's not taking personal ownership of action.

Yog-Sototh,
I appreciate you engaging me on the issues, with a minimum of ad hominem invective. You cite Marbury v. Madison, for Scotus review. I say, it was wrongly decided, despite my admiration for John Marshall. Again, like a pope, is he infallible?

You cite the 9th amendment for an "implied" right to privacay. What about the most beautiful amendment to the Constitution, the capstone of the Bill of Rights, that whatever is not specifically (not merely implied) to the Feds, is reserved to the states and the people? For me, and most conservatives that I know, that's fine. If y'all want, e.g., abortion or same sex marriage in your state, make my day, go right ahead, but don't IMPOSE it on those for whom they are obnoxious. I say this as a citizen of MA, where I know that both of these will be 'imposed' by the majority over my obections, but somehow, i will survive.

Peter, # 67, how many times do we have to reiterate, before it penetrates your thick skull? No one is saying anything wrong about your being gay, or your relationships? Just don't ask us to call them 'marriage,' because they divert radically from how marriage has been understood from the beginning of human history.

Rich, # 68, as Ronald Reagan said, "there you go again," calling those who have the temerity to disagree with you "idiots," although I would never call you that. But I appreciate that you say that ultimately, it comes down to religion, and then you cite the pope/bishops of atheism Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. You are correct; it ultimately comes down to religion. The irreligious are a thin slice of the North Atlantic, so-called enlightenment infected culture. The rest of the world knows better. What in your ego thinks that you and yours know better than than the rest of the world, and the virtual consensus of history prior to the socalled enligntenment? Wow, I wish i was as smart as you and your friends. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and their ilk only came forward in these last several years because they did not like George Bush, and they knew that his Christian faith was the bedrock of his political philosophy. Their arguments are watered down versions of Marx, Feuerbach and Nietsche. But again, you are correct; it comes down to religion (the conservative, usually but not always the gop party), versus the party of atheism, the dems, the inheritors of the viscious french revolution, which led to the bolshivek revolution and regime. Make your choice.

JE, you wrote, "You all denounce my prediction that gays will eventually request that churches marry them, and that consequently churches will be sued. I have been accused of lying and fear-mongering, and all the usual things that liberals like to accuse people who disagree with them of doing. What I said was SOON this will be happening, and that there is a precedent for it. That is not speculation but fact."

You then went on to give a number of examples you believe will demonstrate your point. But did you notice that not one of your examples involves forcing a church to accept any person into its congregation, or to perform any kind of ceremony or rite to someone that the church does not want to perform the rite for?

Instead, you have examples of people or oorganizations performing civil, non-church specific tasks, and denying their services to others in violation of the law.

In this country, we have separation of church and state. The government can not force a church to do anything. If a church chooses to perform civil tasks, like run hospitals, or run charities, then yes, those activities are covered by the law. But the activities of the church, in relation to the practice of its religion, are the business of the church, not the government.

Bottom line: most religious institutions and their followers have been nothing but hostile toward gays and lesbians. From the worst of the worst of the fire and brimstone variety ("gays will burn in hell") to the subtle ("protect traditional marriage,") the churches' stance on gays and lesbians civil rights throughout the years is tantamount to spiritual abuse.

Gaudette #73: the "idiot" swipe I took in my post #68 is in reference to those who quote Sodom and Gomorrah and the conclusions they make from that to support their bigotry against gays. Granted, it's an ad hominem attack, but seriously, I couldn't help myself. And who else couldn't? Please address that aspect and aspect alone of this argument. I ask because as this is a blog on how religion interferes with civil rights of gays and lesbians and most religious organizations cite this parable in support of their stance against gays, wouldn't you agree?
Now, explain to me how anyone with a moral compass could find that parable a reason to define gay people as immoral when the conclusion of that story ends with Lot having sex with his daughters? Hence, the idiocy inherent in that argument.
I'm bringing this up because in this country, many people refer to their Bibles as a guide for morality, and those who quote scripture to support their views are shooting themselves in the foot when they do so. The Hitchens, Harrises and Dawkins of the world help bring us out of the dark ages of magical thinking. History alone is insufficient to support a position. Take a recent example: smoking was historically touted as good for your health, even by physicians, until we know now its vast ill effects. To continue to say that tobacco is a healthful substance is incorrect based on DATA.
We are living in an age when information gathered via the scientific method is the most solid way to ascertain the way the natural world works. I would suggest, if you haven't already, that you abstain from ever benefiting from western medical advances should you ever require health care and instead go to a faith healer for your ills (and I am in no way wishing you ill health). The point I'm trying to make is: why do you make arguments against progress by relying on our ignorant historical past (religious faith being a big part of that).
I am not advocating to demolish religion. What I am arguing is for religious people to wake up and stop clinging to their faith as if it's a cookbook.

Gaudete, I was not claiming Marshall was infallible, any more than you are, the Pope is, or I am. It would help when you say Marshall decided Marbury wrongly to offer a reason. (You might want to advance the idea that he was acting from partisan motives, although that in itself does not invalidate his reasons.) The reason I support Marshall's reasoning has to do with the concept of the balance of powers among the three branches of the government. Although I may misunderstand your position, you seem to be arguing for legislative supremacy in government, a theory more in keeping with the Articles of Confederation than the U.S. Constitution.

I admire the Tenth Amendment as well as the Ninth, but I must add that I see no way in the text of the Constitution itself to decide whether either takes precedence over the other. (And a judgment of beauty is subjective, so we cannot reason about it.) One has to look at the legal traditions to decide the matter. I have already indicated why I think the Ninth takes precedence. Your turn.

You say that people are trying to impose abortion and gay marriage on you. But that is not so. No one is asking you to have an abortion, or to participate in a gay marriage. What I think you are claiming is that people are trying to impose a legal environment where other people can do these things, that you object to these things, and that you feel harmed by these things even when they do not directly involve you because they involve a degeneration of morals. (I draw this interpretation from your discussion of pornography.) And this gets to the heart of the current political debate: is government meant to maintain order and promote prosperity, or to support morality (and if so, whose)? Those who support the former cite the Lockean social contract theory and the libertarian strain in American political thought,as well as the intent of the founders NOT to have a national religion, as embodied in the disestablishment clause. Those who support the latter, such as yourself, cite the Christian moral reformatory strain in American political thought, which of course makes it clear which moral code will be followed, and has been the source of much legislation. Though one must not overlook the often profound differences among Christians over morality, as the slavery debate demonstrated. This debate reaches back to the origins of the Republic, and this battle over gay marriage is just another example of it.

"You then went on to give a number of examples you believe will demonstrate your point. But did you notice that not one of your examples involves forcing a church to accept any person into its congregation, or to perform any kind of ceremony or rite to someone that the church does not want to perform the rite for?

Instead, you have examples of people or oorganizations performing civil, non-church specific tasks, and denying their services to others in violation of the law.

In this country, we have separation of church and state. The government can not force a church to do anything. If a church chooses to perform civil tasks, like run hospitals, or run charities, then yes, those activities are covered by the law. But the activities of the church, in relation to the practice of its religion, are the business of the church, not the government."

Wow. You have utterly missed the point again. I am talking about SETTING PRECEDENTS. The precedent being set is that court action is used to punish those who have reservations about same sex unions/marriage and allow those reservations to dictate their actions.

Of course I did not say that churches have been forced to marry gay couples: I am talking about the PRECEDENT that is being set, which will lead to this in the future. You should actually read other people's words before ignorantly commenting on them. I didn't cite an example of a church being forced to act because I didn't mean to in the first place. Instead of looking narrow mindedly at what has happened or has not happened, you should try to read the signs of the times and make predictions according to the direction that society is moving. It's not that hard. All of you enlightened, smart, left wing people should be able to figure this out.

As for "denying people service" in "violation of the law: what law prevents a photographer from choosing clients? For that matter, what law prevents store managers from kicking people out of if they cause a ruckus? There is nothing illegal about refusing to photograph a civil union. Stores and businesses have the right to conduct business as they wish; at least, they did, until this law suit came up. You are simply wrong.

You are also wrong about Churches performing civil task. Churches should be able to run hospitals and schools according to the dictates of their morals. It is a trampling of religious freedom to ask Catholic nuns to teach non-Catholic opinions to their students, or to ask Catholic doctors to perform abortions or gender surgeries.

Your arguments are predicated around the typical liberal idea that the church should bow to the state if and when the state says so, yet the state should never accord similar respect to the church.

"gaudete" said:

"Peter, # 67, how many times do we have to reiterate, before it penetrates your thick skull? No one is saying anything wrong about your being gay, or your relationships? Just don't ask us to call them 'marriage,' because they divert radically from how marriage has been understood from the beginning of human history."

I think you are absolutely intellectually dishonest. I think you may even be kidding YOURSELF.

"Separate but equal" is a sham. It is a two-tier system that fosters bigotry and prejudice.

The reason I went into my personal history, which includes losing two gay friends to suicide and finding my brother in his bedroom with his wrists slit, is this:

Gays and lesbians are routinely told in one way or another that they are "less than," and this pervasive message causes spiritual and emotional damage to them.

A system of "separate but equal" (i.e. marriage vs. civil unions) is a system of government sanctioned classism.

"gaudete," you are truly a piece of work.

You basically called me an idiot (i.e. "Peter, # 67, how many times do we have to reiterate, before it penetrates your thick skull?") then moved right on to Rich and chastised him for calling you an idiot, saying, "although I would never call you that."

There's more of that intellectual dishonesty.

"The reason I went into my personal history, which includes losing two gay friends to suicide and finding my brother in his bedroom with his wrists slit, is this:"

Because you will do anything to demean your opposition and blame it on the "homophobes"

Sorry about your friends and brother, but they had bigger issues obviously if they killed themselves. Psychotherapy helps, not protesting for gay marriage.

There is a direct connection between gay youth suicide and societal condemnation.

Outside the State House, as Governor Romney condemned the "attack on traditional marriage," several church leaders stood with him...a group of boys around 11 years old or so walked by me and other gays and lesbians and shouted "You're all disgusting!!"

Where do you think they learned it? If those boys were bold enough to say such a thing to adults well into their thirties and forties, one can only imagine the way they treat classmates they suspect to be gay.

Whether you choose to take respsonsibility for it or not, you are indeed committing spiritual violence against gays and lesbians.

You are out of touch.

JE: In #78, you accuse me of missing your point. I did not. Your point was that there are precedents for your claim that eventually churches will be forced to perform same-sex marriages contrary to their religious beliefs. One would assume, then, that the precedents you went on to cite would be examples of churches being forced to perform rites or other religious actions contrary to their religious beliefs.

MY point, which you completely missed, is that the examples you cited show no such thing.

You ask what law prevents a store from removing a person that causes a ruckus from its premises. There is none. However, there ARE laws that prevent a store from discriminating on the bases of race, gender, religion, nationality, and sexual orientation, among other things.

Likewise, photographers can not discriminate for those reasons. In those states where it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and where civil unions or same-sex marriage is legal, the YES, it is illegal for a photographer who has a business of photographing marriages to refuse to photograph a civil union. That is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation which is illegal. It is NOT illegal for such a photographer to refuse to photograph a marriage OR a civil union because the people involved are impossible to work with.

And in a democracy like ours, where the state represents ALL its citizens, even those who do not belong to a church, then yes, the state should not have to buckle under to the rules set by a church for its members.

So, let me get this straight. According to the pro-gay marriage posts, the churches are bigotted and homophobic and abusive toward gays. If I as a parent teach my children that homosexual lifestyle is wrong, then I am bigoted, homophobic, intolerant, abusive, blah, blah, blah. In otherwords I have to accept your point of view, but you don't have to accept mine to be "tolerant".
As for the ramifications of gay marriage in MA, a quick online search will show the statistics - sharp increase in the number of reported AIDS cases, increased number of domestic violence involving gay couples, pro-gay topics and classes forced on students in public schools and parents are not given the choice to have their kids opt-out.

Hey, if you want to live that lifestyle and sodomize each other, that's your business. (Yes, I dared not to be politically correct. I am just telling the truth that you want to make the practice of using the body for unnatural acts acceptable. ) But when your force it to be legalized and shoved into public schools, then it becomes everybody's business. Did you actually expect people to accept this and go away quietly? This battle is not over in MA and it is only beginning in other states.

Well, Rob from the Southcoast, we also say that if you, as a parent teach your children that Blacks are inferior to Whites, then you are bigoted, racist, intolerant, abusive, blah, blah, blah. Or if you, as a parent, teach your children that Women are inferior to Men, then you are bigoted, sexist, intolerant, abusive, blah, blah, blah.

So, yes, wen you, as a parent, teach your children that homosexuals are not deserving of the same rights as straights, then you are bigoted, homophobic, intolerant, abusive, blah, blah, blah.

Legalizing same-sex marriage in no way forces anything on you. Teaching tolerance for those who are different than the majority is standard procedure as far as sex, religion, race, etc. is concerned.

When you advocate keeping same-sex marriage illegal (or in the case of a few states, making it illegal), you ARE attempting to force your opinion on everyone.

Rob said:

"Hey, if you want to live that lifestyle and sodomize each other, that's your business. (Yes, I dared not to be politically correct. I am just telling the truth that you want to make the practice of using the body for unnatural acts acceptable. )"

Rob, this statement is representative of a widespread misunderstanding about gay people.

You make it sound as if gay people cavalierly decide to be gay.

In reality, most of us spent our childhood, our teen years, and sometimes our young adult lives in the closet, terrified of losing loved ones and family because of who we are, all the while denying ourselves sexual pursuits, in the hopes that we'll change.

You can write us off as rebellious sexual deviants but we know the truth. Unfortunately, many like you think you are shielding your children from "gay lies," but the lies come from you, sir.

Many people who are anti-gay say that gay people are intolerant of their opposing viewpoint, which makes us hypocritical. Those people are mistaken. Allowing others to flagrantly lie about you and spread disinformation is indeed intolerable. There is no hypocrisy.

Many of those who are against us, like you, are uninformed and they choose to remain uniformed. Willful ignorance shouldn't be tolerated in a climate where we've begun voting on others' civil rights.

And for the record, not all gay men do the things you assume they do.

Notso,

If legalizing same sex marriage does not force anything on us, then why are school districts in MA forcing pro-gay topics into classrooms? Why are they teaching kids that gay marriage is ok without consent of the parents or at least the option to opt-out of the class. It is my right as a parent to make that decision for my child.

Also, stop comparing gay marriage to the civil rights struggles in the past for women and blacks. No one is taking away your rights or saying you are inferior because of gender or race. Sexual orientation is should not even be in the same category. That is insulting. You don't choose to be a woman or man, just like you don't choose to be black or white. You may not choose ( which is still up for debate) which sex you may be attracted to, but you sure as hell choose the lifestyle you lead and who you marry.

I'm am not trying to force my opinion on anyone. I am trying to protect marriage. You are one trying to force your opinion on me that gay marriage should be equal to straight marriage. That is like comparing a cubic zirconia to a diamond, one is just a poor imititation of the other.

Rob, do you choose the people to whom you are attracted?

Would you rather a gay man lie about his natural attractions and marry, say, your sister, or your daughter, making her life unfulfilling and inauthentic?

You're basically saying gays choose to not lie about themselves, which you find offensive.

What I find insulting is your persistence in ignoring our personal testimonials attesting to the fact that we don't choose our attractions...I mean, it's still up for debate?

Are you kidding? I mean, you're serious?

Please tell us when you chose to be straight. Is your "still up for debate" perspective clouded by your own personal issues of bisexuality?

"If legalizing same sex marriage does not force anything on us, then why are school districts in MA forcing pro-gay topics into classrooms? Why are they teaching kids that gay marriage is ok "

Rob, they are promoting good will, and dignity and respect for all. Family values, no?

Some children go to school coming from home's with same sex parents. It's a fact. It's part of the real world.

Teaching tolerance and respect for ALL families, regardless of family differences, isn't the insidious indoctrination you make it out to be.

Gay people and gay families exist. They simply do. Acknowledging that fact is hardly promotion.

Teachers unions are very gay supportive. Why? Because teachers know that some of their students are gay...they work closely with children for nearly the duration of our work day. My mother has worked in an elementary school for over 30 years and on occasion she'll say to me something like, "Peter, there's a little boy in the fourth grade, and he gets teased something awful, and I think he's gay."

Now, my mother and I have had very in depth conversations about my elementary school years, during which I very much knew I was gay...I just didn't know what it was called. All I knew is that I wasn't like most of the other boys, I could better relate to girls, and I had crushes I knew I wasn't supposed to have. I didn't like team sports. I was more arts inclined. And believe me, the other children made it clear they thought there was something unacceptable about me. I often felt very alone.

As an adult, I didn't one day just say, "Ya, know. I think I'll tick people off and be gay. I think I'll choose a life of persecution, harassment, ridicule, and degradation."

I've known I was gay since my childhood, and if you ask most gay people they'll say the same thing.

My mother now has the insight to recognize when other children are living the experience I lived, and it pains her.

My friend Scott was very effeminate and as a boy, when I would play over his house, I would witness the contempt his firefighter father had for him. Scott was mistreated and at least verbally abused. I saw it. At the time, I knew it was because of who Scott was, not because of anything Scott had done. Why did I know this? Because his father was very much like the boys at school who made Scott's daily life a living hell. Those boys learned to mistreat Scott (and sometimes me, but I didn't receive the level of shaming Scott did because I wasn't effeminate...I was "sensitive") from mirroring older siblings, older children, and adults. That's how children operate. They overhear things. They see things. And then they act via imitation.

Teachers witness stories like Scott's each and every school year. They wish to educate people to the fact that some people are simply different and they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

Scott's school life only became worse as he got older. His daily ridicule at school was routine and predictable. His home life was miserable and his relationship with his father was increasingly strained (many people often say gay people are gay because they were abused as kids...I suspect the reverse is true: gay people were abused as kids because they were gay), as was his strongly Catholic family life, in general. Over the years, Scott, from a multiple of sources, was taught that there was something inherently bad about him, that there was something deserving of torment and humiliation, regardless of what he did or didn't do; he was taught to hate himself.

Scott shot himself in the head when he was 24.

Another friend in a similar situation hanged himself in his bedroom closet at college, at 21.

I found my gay brother in his bed with his wrists slit. As I've said in a previous post, fortunately he survived.

Teachers want to prevent stories like these by teaching tolerance, love, respect, and the notion that everyone is deserving of personal safety and of his/her dignity.

Gay people struggle their entire lives to learn to love themselves and to care for themselves, constantly deflecting degradation and unwarranted hostility from those who misunderstand them.

You say HIV has been on the rise.

Well, HIV is not the real problem of the gay community. Low-self esteem is.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that the rate of HIV has gone up during an intensely anti-gay climate as the culture wars ensue. Gays are not inherently promiscuous. Gays do, however, often make decisions that are not in the best interests of their personal safety, health, and wellbeing.

I am hopeful that as more people actually listen to our life experiences, people will reconsider what they've been taught about gay people.

Gay people are struggling to solidify our lives and to shed the albatross of a stereotype that society has in part helped sustain. We daily contend with the unhealthy lessons we were taught about ourselves in our youth.

Many people who don't know many or any gay people simply think gay people are all about the sex. I hope this post helps illustrate that being gay is so much more. It is an identity. It is not a "lifestyle" but a life.

Thank you for reading.

Peter,

Yes you read it right. I do not buy the whole "born gay" argument. Until 1973, homosexuality was correctly classified as a pyschological disorder. There is nothing "natural" about it. Just look at how the male anatomy and the female anatomy complement each other. Heterosexualtiy is natural, not homosexualtiy. It was the whole gay rights political correctness baloney that pressured the medical community to change that classification. But that is besides the point Petey. If you want to live that lifestyle, that's your business. Don't force it on a society that was founded on the principle and natural order of a married couple always being one man and one woman.

I am not telling gays to lie about themselves or enter into a false marriage as you mention. But accept the fact that marriage is reserved for one man and one woman. If the state wants to grant gays civil unions, fine, but leave marriage alone.

Rob, so you seem to think homosexuality is a develeped psychological disorder?

Why is it then, that the gay male brain more resembles the female heterosexual brain than the heterosexual male brain?

My theory is this.

Why do we all have nipples?

Because in the womb, we all start off female.

It is not until the arrival of a vital flood of hormones that gender is determined. I believe homosexuality is caused during this period, where there may be unusual distribution of hormones.

Now, of course, though, when it is finally proved once and for all by the medical and scientific community that homosexuality does indeed involve a biological component and that homosexuality is indeed a natural occurrence, gays will continue to be mistreated, maligned, and disrespected (your "Petey" was a nice touch, btw).

"Heterosexualtiy is natural, not homosexualtiy."

Perhaps gay people are a form of population control. Who knows?

Perhaps homosexuality is a "mistake" of nature. But even so, that would make homosexuality a product of nature, thus making homosexuality natural, indeed.

"Don't force it on a society that was founded on the principle and natural order of a married couple always being one man and one woman."

Rob, given what society often forces on gay people (see post #89), I don't think gay people asking the Supreme Court to provide us with equal protection under the law so that we can build our lives to their fullest capacity, using the same tools as our heterosexual counterparts, is forcing anything on anybody. It is only people who have a problem with gay people who feel as if anything is being imposed on them. My heterosexual male friends feel their rights are not being violated in any way when gays are allowed to marry the person of their choice, which is a right traditionally reserved for heterosexuals.

Frankly, sir, I suspect you are among those who simply resent us for even existing in the first place, and that you have contempt for feeling forced to deal with us in any capacity whatsoever. I suspect you are willing to throw us a bone (i.e. civil unions) to convince yourself you are a proponent of the American ideal of civil equality, but in reality, you don't want separate terms to "protect marriage" - you want separate terms because you don't want gay people even remotely associated with you.

The "traditional marriage is the foundation of our society" argument does not work.

Family design in contemporary society is simply too varied for this argument to be the basis for denying gay people civil marriage rights.

typo: developed

(i.e. "Rob, so you seem to think homosexuality is a develeped psychological disorder?")

I think its safe to agree that discussiing this any further on this board is pointless, as neither of us are likely to change our views. However I don't resent you or anyone in the gay community for just "existing". What I do resent is this whole gay marriage movement and how it will ultimately infringe on the religious freedoms of those who oppose it.

Rob, my parents left the Republican Party because of its stance on gays and lesbians, because of its perpetual usage of the gays and lesbians to polarize the nation.

My father, raised in a fundamentalist household, is now a Unitarian. He feels your religious views infringe on his religious freedoms, in that he wants to see all three of his children, not just one child, able to marry the person of their choice, and that the religious dogma of others have primarily fueled gay marriage bans in this country.

No, I clearly won't change your mind about the issue, or about the very nature of homosexuality, but I continue to dialogue with people like you in the hopes that others are following our debate and are at least open to questioning their prejudices.

That's the thing, Rob. It does NOT infringe on the religious freedoms of those who oppose it.

If you oppose same-sex marriage on religious (or any other) grounds, you don't have to participate in one. Simple.

If you choose to teach your prejudices against gays to your children, you can continue to do so. No one will stop you. What may end is your expectation that our public schools will validate your position.

But there are a lot of things that the many people fervently believe that are no longer validated by our school system: Among them the idea that Blacks are inferior to Whites, that women are too motional to hold high positions, that the world is flat, that germs do not cause disease, that the sun revolves around the earth, that there is one god and he can only be found in the book known as the Holy Bible, and many others.

Yes, Rob. There are indeed people in this country who strongly believe all those things, and who teach those things to their children. They are probably just as upset that our public schools teach otherwise.

Public schools teach tolerance for ALL people, regardless of race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. That is because there are people of all races, religions, sex, and sexual orientation in the community, all equal Americans, all deserving of the same respect and rights as you. I'm sorry if such an idea violates your religious beliefs, but it is a fact.

Your freedom to believe what you wish, your freedom to teach what you want to your children remain intact despite all this.

Will the wedding photographer who does not condone gay marriage be sued in court to force him to accomodate gay marriages? Will the wedding cake baker be forced to do the same? Will the restaurant or banquet hall owner also be forced to condone a marriage that is against his religious beliefs? The answer to this is probably yes under the current court decision in MA that recognizes gay marriage. That is not freedom to believe as we wish. I fortunately have the ability to have my children in private schools where there education is not in the hands of liberal politicians and the gay agenda. But for those parents who don't have the option of a private school, it is not freedom to believe as they wish when a public school forces on the kids ideas that are completely against the beliefs of the parents. At the very least schools should be required to allow the parents the ability to have thier kids opt out of those classes. Also there should be laws established to allow business owners to refuse gay marriages or gay couples if it is against thier beliefs. I guess the tolerance in public schools you're speaking about is tolerance towards the gay communtiy while at the same time teaching intolerance towards others religious beliefs.

Here we go again with "all equal Americans, all deserving of the same respect and rights as you". What about my rights as a parent or business owner not to have my religious beliefs infringed upon? I guess the only thing that matter here is your so called right to marry or your right to trample on others rights as long as you get what you want?

What I teach my children are not "prejudices" as you described it, but religious beliefs that have held my family together for generations and have been in place for over 2000 years. These dogmas don't change like the wind like some denominations. (I am also quite familiar with the Unitarians and their lack of any dogma or beliefs.)

Rob,

Yes, just like the wedding photographer who does not condone interracial marriage may have to photograph such a wedding if hired to do so. That does not in any way affect his right to believe such a marriage is against God's plan. He is free to believe whatever he wishes. He is also free to lobby for changes in the law or Constitution that allows for interracial marriage.

YES, what you are teaching your children are indeed prejudices. The fact that the prejudices have their roots in religious beliefs does not change that.

We all have prejudices, Rob. We wouldn't be human without them.

Public schools DO teach tolerance towards people with different religious beliefs. That does not mean that pubic schools are required to validate those religious beliefs.

And THAT is what you are really after. You want the public schools to validate your religious beliefs, and not teach anything that might possibly contradict them.

Should racist parents be allowed to remove their children from classes on that teach civil rights? Should Creationists be allowed to remove their children from classes that teach evolution? There are many people in this country who do not believe the germ theory of disease. Should they be allowed to remove their children from biology classes?

Re-read my post Notso. I never once said I want a public school to validate my beliefs. I simply said that parents should have the freedom to decide if their child has to sit through a class on this when it is in clear conflict with thier beliefs.

"Yes, just like the wedding photographer who does not condone interracial marriage may have to photograph such a wedding if hired to do so. That does not in any way affect his right to believe such a marriage is against God's plan." That doesn't effect his right to believe but it forces him to do something that clearly violates his religious beliefs. Your whole argument is you can believe in whatever you want , but you will be forced to do what we tell you. That is not religious freedom. The same goes for the public schools. You can believe what you want in private, but you will do what we tell you even if it agianst your religion. That is not tolerance by tyranny.

So, Rob, you didn't answer my many questions. Should Creationist be allowed to remove their children from classes that teach evolution? Should racist parents be allowed to remove their children from classes that teach civil rights? Should those who reject the germ theory of disease be allowed to remove their children from biology class?

Should every topic in every subject be sent to every parent in advance to give them the option of removing their children from that topic?

The purpose of education is to EXPOSE children to various viewpoints, not isolate them from disagreeable viewpoints. Public schools are allowed (although very few do this) to teach courses in comparative religion, where various religious views on all sorts of topics can be discussed. Kids CAN be told in school that there are some people who disapprove of homosexuality on religious gounds. Kids CAN be told in school that there are people who disagree with evolution on religious grounds. Kids CAN be told in school that there are people who do not believe all races are equal.

But it is necessary that the schools teach children what public policy demands, which is that ALL Americans are equal, and should be treated with respect, regardless of their views. That there ARE families in this country that have two daddies or two mommies, and they are just as deserving of respect as families with one of each. And, no, children should NOT be excused from having to learn that.

As for that photographer, photographing a same-sex wedding does not force him to violate his religouis belief. he is no more violating his beliefs by the act of photographing the wedding than an pacifist photographer hired by news organization is violating his beliefs by photographing a war, or a pacifist doctor is violating his beliefs by being sent to a war zone to treat soldiers with war injuries.

If a photographer is so against same-sex weddings that he can't possibly stomach photographing such a thing, then he should stop advertising himself as a wedding photographer Problem solved. Let him photograph baby showers instead.

This video is painfully self congratulatory
Lord have mercy

You talk about tolerance and respecting people's rights. Read the article below to get the truth about the gay marriage movement to intimidate, bully, and punish anyone who disagrees with them. It just validates what I said, this isn't about rights, its about tyranny.

Marjorie Christofferson's Courage
Maggie Gallagher
National Review Online
December 9, 2008

Rob,

I'm sure you would not want us to judge all of Christianity based on the actions of a few gay-bashing Christians.

Do not judge the entire pro-gay marriage crowd based on the actions of a few.

Don't make me laugh Notso.

Rob, in the other discussion you advised that I not judge all Catholics on the actions of a few family members.

Are you not being hypocritical?

Nope!

Please DO explain.

I'll it explain it if it helps you go away. The actions of your family are inconsistent with what the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, and priests have been teaching. The actions of the gay-rights protestors are pretty typical for those inolved in the gay marriage movement. I don't hear any of you in the pro-gay group condemning their actions.

First, I don't care what the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, and priests have been teaching.

Second, I for one DO condemn campaigns aimed at getting people fired from their jobs based on what political causes they privately support.

Third, I know many who share my feelings that the actions you describe are wrong.

Fourth, you ARE being hypocritical by judging an entire movement on the actions of a few..

See, Rob, that's exactly what this whole thing is REALLY about:

"it if it helps you go away"

I wish you were more intellectually honest about your motivations against gay marriage, and against gay people, in general.

You cowardly hide behind your religion so you can justify your aversion to us. You claim loyalty to your religion but the truth of the matter is you just want gays back in the closet where you don't have to deal with them.

Most gays and lesbians have indeed vehemently condemned the actions you mention. You just don't care to see or hear those voices. That much is evident from your "if it helps you go away."

You go right ahead and choose to remain ignorant to accommodate your personal bigotries. Fine.

Just don't expect us to be punching bags anymore. Aint happening.

"I'll it explain it if it helps you go away."

Einstein, a reminder: you don't have to keep coming back to a gay topic blog every day or two to interact with me.

You just don't like interacting with me because I challenge your perspective in a way that is uncomfortable for you. You resent it.

Well, again, guess what? You don't have to be here.

Real sorry I make it more difficult for you to spew your ignorance and disinformation regarding gay people.

Peter -
This will probably be my final posting on this discussion since I find talking to my dog a better use of my time than discussing this with you any further.

"You just don't like interacting with me because I challenge your perspective in a way that is uncomfortable for you. You resent it."
"You cowardly hide behind your religion so you can justify your aversion to us. You claim loyalty to your religion but the truth of the matter is you just want gays back in the closet where you don't have to deal with them."

Peter your perception of reality is so warped. Nothing you have said will ever "challenge my perspective in a way that is uncomfortable". There is nothing cowardly about what I am doing. I am standing up for my religion which which I resent being used as a punching bag by people like you. I have no aversion to gays. I have a deeply held belief that marriage is only for one man and one woman. Spirtually, physically, and emotionally, man and woman were created for each other. Maybe you missed biology in school but it takes a male and a female to make a baby. Your gay marriage is completely against the natural order, is immoral and will never be equal to a straight marriage. Your warped sense of reality stems from the disinformation you have that gay marriages are normal and should be accepted. This sir, is ignorance and disinformation.

"I don't hear any of you in the pro-gay group condemning their actions."

Nonsense.

We have repeatedly made statements that distance ourselves from the actions of a few, from those few isolated incidents, which is in and of itself a condemnation.

I haven't heard you condemn gaybashings, gay executions, or even those children (at their church's rally) who shouted "You are all disgusting!" at a group of gay adults.

You routinely choose to ignore how the Church's means of expressing its prerogative (i.e. the tee shirt, for example), contributes to a climate of anti-gay hostility.

The isolated incidents you mention?

We deal with far worse treatment every day...reading about a gaybashing where a man is nearly beaten to death....reading about hangings in Iran...reading about teens thrown out of their homes because they are gay...receiving threats walking home from dinner with our partners and hearing screamed at you, "You effin faggots! I effin hate you! I hope you get AIDS And die!" (this happened to me, and when I responded with "Yeah, yeah, yeah," the punk got out of his car and started to come after me saying he was going to kill me...his girlfriend pursuaded him to get back in the car).....

After Prop 8 passed, a few isolated incidents of inappropriate retaliation took place (acts that were immediately condemned by every major national gay and lesbian organization), and our opposition swiftly manipulated those situations to broadly convey that "this is the face of the gay community."

You guys got a taste of the kind of hate we deal with ALL THE TIME.

Is it wrong? Absolutely.

And some of us often take issue with being told to be tolerant of an opposing view when we know full well that those conveying that opposing view are absolutely fueling the aforementioned kinds of incidents against us, which should most certainly not be tolerated.

Rob, you SHOULD take that dog for a walk.

Just make sure you print out your last post and take it with you so you have something appropriate with which to clean up his business.

"I am standing up for my religion which which I resent being used as a punching bag by people like you."

IN A NUTSHELL:

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. "

[Benjamin Franklin, "Toleration", in _Works, Vol.ii._,p. 112]

So I suppose it's my church's fault that there are executions in Iran and my church's fault the punk got out of his car to assualt you. Cardinal O'Malley holds up one lousy t-shirt to use a old quote like you did from Franklin and all of a sudden there is a vast Catholic conspiracy against gays. You got issues! It called freedom of speech. If the Cardinal wants to hold up anything to rally people against gay marriage, its his right. Just because you don't like or it's not politically correct that doesn't change anything.

I'm going to take my dog for a walk. Fortunately those rainbow flags do a good job of cleaning up after him.

Big ole "whatever," Rob.

Rob, you're a hater in Catholic's clothing. Thanks for again showing your true colors and validating our claims that many of those that say they have nothing against gay people are often full of crap.

Again, I really have nothing further to say you to.

Take it easy.