Comments on: Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage: What’s the difference?

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:40:27 +0000

Grant: Thanks for your response and I do appreciate your comments. I have a few points in response:

1. Marriage is more than just a religious institution. It is not something the church just came up with. The state wouldn’t offer benefits if marriage didn’t help society and the common good. It shows up in all civilizations; not just Christian or religious ones. Churches look to ensure marriages are healthy and strong. The State is interested in what marriage provides society. All societies need men and women to come together in founding homes and raising children. Marriage is the way all societies accomplish just that.

2. You mention two people: if the argument is ‘two people who love each other’, why stop at 2? If it’s just about two people, who says two is the best number? Why not 3, 4, or 8 people in a marriage?

3. This debate is not about benefits. Even before one Proposition 8 vote was counted in California, same-sex partners could enter into domestic partnerships. These partnerships provided all the benefits of marriage the state could give.

4. In terms of protecting rights, I again point to my previous comment. Have same-sex couples ever needed a Voting Rights Act to be given the right to vote? Every homosexual has the right to get married. The argument is not against gay marriage but same-sex marriage. No one is allowed to marry the same sex and no one can marry more than one person.

Thanks for taking time to consider these points and I hope they provide some further insight into this issue.

By: grant

grant — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:02:56 +0000

Dan, I appreciate the response – thank you. In my very humble opinion, “marriage” should be a religious institution ONLY. If two people choose to partner with one another, this should be called a domestic partnership and be given all the legal / financial rights (and responsibilities) as what we now call “marriage”. If those two people choose to take this partnership one step further and involve religious beliefs… fantastic! It’s that second step, the act of your partnership being blessed by a church, that worries me. It’s this very thing, the fact that we allow the church to define what is a suitable partnership, that contradicts our ideals of religious freedom. Our laws should protect the rights of all … not just Christians who happen to believe that being gay is somehow a sin and that these people who have committed themselves to one another can’t be partnered together legally. We’ll get there. I’m one of the few lucky ones who works for an extremely progressive company that offers domestic partner benefits. Most gay couples aren’t so lucky and are not afforded that privilege. Dan, as you work to set us back, we’ll continue working to move forward and this privilege will soon become a protected right.

My two cents. Thank you for listening.

By: Jarod

Jarod — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:19:31 +0000

Yes Grant I agree. I’m surprised heterosexuals think their marriage is so fragile that if we are allowed to marry too, their world will fall apart. And then they always cite Europe, and especially Norway as a place where people stopped getting married once gay marriage was permitted. I lived in Norway, people stopped getting marriage because the tax system provides benefits to NOT being married, it has nothing to do with allowing gay marriage.

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:00:24 +0000

Regarding the treatment of human beings, the issue of same-sex marriage and black civil rights are two separate fights.

Did homosexual couples ever need a Voting Rights Act in order to vote or ever be treated as 3/5 of a human in the Constitution?

This is no laughing matter and its not about ignorance or tolerance. It’s a matter of redefining an institution that would negatively effect school systems, religious freedoms and further redefinition of marriage.

By: grant

grant — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:08:14 +0000

laughable question, laughable response – keeping in step with the entire notion that same sex marriage is somehow a threat — absurd. educate yourselves, people. there’s a big world out there behind your walls of ignorance.

By: Jarod

Jarod — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:37:00 +0000

I know one thing is that same. Its people who choose not to educate themselves on the constitution of this country and how to treat fellow human beings who were against interracial marriage and now same-sex marriage.