History in the making…

Supreme Court

I am both excited and a little anxious about the two cases before the Supreme Court today and tomorrow. My future is in the hands of nine individuals charged with the huge responsibility to ignore their possible personal views and rule according to the Constitution of the United States. Here is a personal reason why marriage equality is important, and just how little it will have an adverse affect on traditional marriage. In fact – it will stop people like me from taking advantage of the current marriage laws. Let me explain…

You all know about Kitten and I. We are two women who share every moment of our lives together. We live together, share expenses, go to each others doctors appointments; we are best friends and lovers. Our lives are intertwined with one another in every way possible – except we can’t commit to one another legally. One reason for that isn’t because of U.S. or State law; it is because I am already married. Yupper – I have a husband.

You see I joined the Army the day after Bill Clinton enacted the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. I was grateful for that because I didn’t have to lie to enlist. Had I signed up one day earlier – I would have had to check YES in the box that said, “Are you a homosexual? and Have you ever participated in homosexual acts?” and I would have been denied entry into the Armed Forces or I would have had to lie – and face a discharge and possible UCMJ (military law) actions against me if I was ever caught with a woman. Thanks to DADT I was able to join without fear of lying – but I still had to hide who I was.

So when I reported to my first duty station in upstate NY, I had to live in the barracks. You can’t hide anything living in the barracks. So I married another Soldier so we could move out of the barracks and away from the prying eyes of everyone else. Now my husband is a super awesome guy and I do love and trust him very much (or I wouldn’t have married him). We have been happily married for 13 years now! Of course – we don’t live together, share finances, or have sex – so you know it is a recipe for a perfect marriage! Anyway – I only have health insurance right now because I am married to him. I COULD be covered under Kitten’s insurance, but we can’t do that (yet). My husband and I didn’t marry to procreate, we didn’t marry in a church, I don’t obey or submit to him – we just have a very serious contract together to be responsible for one another. I would prefer obviously to be legally and physically with Kitten and if the Supreme Court makes the right decisions today and tomorrow then my happy hetero marriage will end like most others; divorce. I want my marriage to be what everyone else has, not just a legal contract, but because I love my partner and want our lives to be joined in every aspect possible.

Now my ‘fake’ marriage hasn’t hurt anyone. So how on earth would a marriage between Kitten and I hurt anyone else? Is my relationship with my husband more important or real than my relationship with Kitten? What does it matter really in anyone else’s life who I marry? I make contracts with people all the time – buying a vehicle, renting a home, my cell phone provider – marriage under the law is really just a contract between two people and I am more than ready to break that contract with my husband and sign a new one with Kitten. How does that impact anyone but me and my husband and my Kitten? The fact is that it doesn’t . It is no ones business but mine who I assign my life to or who I make a financial contract with.

The arguments against marriage equality are mostly based on perceived biblical admonitions, and other religious values about what marriage is ‘supposed’ to be. Well, I am all for letting you define marriage however you want under your religious beliefs and live your lives accordingly, but in this country – we don’t have to subscribe to anyone else’s belief system. Under the law in our great country, we don’t have to be Christian, Jewish, Muslim or any other faith. We have the freedom to choose our religions affiliations or to not have any at all. Each group can define marriage however they want and live by whatever rules they set up for themselves. However, federally, the laws should be the same for every human being and for every consenting adult to be able to choose who they live with, who they share finances with, and least importantly who they sleep with. I sincerely hope and pray that the Supreme Court Justices uphold the ideals of our Constitution and allow for the end of discrimination against all people.

To all of you who support marriage equality – Thank you! To those who oppose it, well, I am sorry you feel so strongly about my life choices, but they don’t effect you in any way so please just accept the fact that some people are different than you and you have the freedom to not associate with those people you find offensive. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will make your objections invalid and allow for people to marry who they want; whether it is an arrangement like my husband and I, or a religious ceremony, or a union between two people who love each other enough to give their lives to someone else. Under the Constitution, we are all equal and we all have the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

liberty and justice

RELATED POST: More on marriage equality – Thank you!

120 thoughts on “History in the making…

  1. I personally would love to be the lawyer who gets to speak to the courts. It really is as simple as the Constitution. It doesn’t matter what polls are being conducted or what they have revealed about peoples’ opinions. It doesn’t matter how any religion defines marriage. It doesn’t matter whether or not people are ready for this change to happen. All that matters is the Constitution.
    SO if I were able to speak to the courts I would just constantly remind them that it is their job, their duty and their responsibility to uphold the Constitution. There should be no other arguments allowed. There should be no other resources being used.
    It all comes down to the Constitution. People are equal according to the Constitution and that is the only thing that matters. No argument needed.

    • Stephanie, I 100% agree with you there. Too bad we confound the issue with ego and faulty belief systems. The Constitution is pretty clear on the issue of equal rights for all citizens – too bad our appointed officials have trouble recognizing this simple fact.

    • Magic, thank you for reading and your comment. The good thing out of this that those who oppose marriage equality are no longer the majority! The tides have turned and equality is coming. 😀

  2. i wish and pray that this law comes through and with this, i hope people find the sensibility and sensitivity each human deserves from the other. marriage is about sharing lives and one SHOULD have the privilege to choose who the one.
    coming from a relatively orthodox country and an even more orthodox background, i’ve been (and my fellow people too) subjected to such predetermined choices and there are many who have lived through such miseries and sufferings.
    it is time to end the pain and such confinement and step into the 21st century uninhibited and prejudice free.
    excellent post. all the best for the verdict!

    • Thank you so much for your kind words and your support! I certainly hope that we can one day learn to live together without having to judge or discriminate against others. It really is easy to do.

  3. I have not been able to wrap my head around the whole “sanctity of marriage” thing when arguments are made against gay marriage. For me, as a divorced heterosexual female, sanctity means love, respect, honor, friendship, trust, and commitment between two people, no matter who they are. You and Kitten apparently have that to the nth degree, it’s discouraging that a legal piece of paper is all that’s holding you back. I hope the Court rules to end your contract and give you the life you long for.

    • Hi Bikerchick, thanks for commenting! Kitten and I do have it pretty good – we seem to like each other a lot and even federal and state laws won’t keep us apart. It WILL be nice though when we can stop worrying about legalities and move on with our lives! Thanks for your support!

  4. I absolutely agree that everyone has the right. That is what freedom is all about. I can’t agree that same sex marriage is right, but I understand the demand for people to all have the same rights and freedoms…

    It is a hard topic to discuss, full of partial buried bomb’s…if you will, and one that I rarely engage in as my opinion is not generally the popular one. I dearly love my homosexual friends though, and I will continue to love them no matter what happens.

    Your writing was both articulate and respectful. Thank you for that. Happy Easter.

    • Happy Easter to you too Stranger, You don’t have to agree; that is what makes this country great; you just have to respect that under the law as human beings we have the same rights as you or anyone else and it seems as though you are doing just that. If you have homosexual friends, talk to them. It is a hard subject to discuss for some people, but have an open mind and be respectful and I am sure that you will be able to love them AND want them to share the same rights you have. Thank you for reading and commenting and for being willing to separate personal beliefs from legal rights.

  5. Would that we could just “define marriage however want under our religious beliefs and live lives accordingly.” Why am I skeptical about that? The recent HHS mandate attempts to force Catholic schools and business owners to violate their religious beliefs in regard to contraception and abortion. What reason would we have to trust the federal government to leave us alone in regard to marriage, if anyone can marry anyone becomes the law of the land?

    • Alex, the two issues you site are different examples. As an employer of people outside the Catholic faith, the church should follow any other rules that employers need to follow for State and Federal operations. Employees are entitled to health care and for an employer (regardless of affiliation) to determine what types of heath care an employee receives is a personal and private matter. People have been celebrating and practicing different types of marriages since human beings started marrying one another. So if you want to define marriage as religious ceremony – you can or you can do so as a legal contract or arrangement. Making marriage the law of the land does not hurt anyone else – like maybe denying someone healthcare because of the religious belief of the employer might.

  6. Wow, Sophist6, so well said.

    I have to say I consider myself religious and very spiritual. I still believe that, in life, everyone has the right to choose what to do, who to love, and who to marry. No one can really stop or should stop others from doing what they want if it doesn’t harm anyone. Your post gave me a lot to think about and I thank you for sharing what you went through.

    And congrats to you on getting Freshly Pressed! =)

    • Lila, thank you for reading and your comment. There are a lot of very religious and spiritual homosexuals out there too who want to actually obey the rules of their faith and legally marry before they start families or move in with a partner. I am glad my post made you think – and I hope it does with others too. I am loving the dialogue happening here and the “Freshly Pressed” honor made it possible!

  7. ok, so maybe I missed something here. Fill me in. What’s wrong with a Civil Union? Why insist on “marriage” when the union is obviously different for same sex couples? I’m not being mean or argumentative, I just don’t get it.

    • Daryl, Civil Unions do not afford the same rights as marriage under federal law. Also, by creating a sub-category or marriage, you create separation and a ‘lesser’ commitment as recognized (or not) by the federal government and States. Straight couples can also have civil unions so it is not a separate but equal situation – and we have seen in history what “separate but equal” actually means. Try not to think of marriage equality as gays taking something that is yours, try seeing it as a right afforded to every American citizen – to get married and being able to appreciate all the rights and responsibilities that go along with that commitment on a legal level. I Appreciate you taking the time to ask the question – and I don’t think that is argumentative at all. Thank you for reading and commenting and I hope one day we gain your support for equality!

      • Thank you for your prompt and sensitive reply. I do not feel anything is being taken from me by granting same sex marriage, I just have difficulty seeing the need for it. I trust you know that I will give this a lot more thought. I am being guided somewhat by some articles on http://www.redletterchristians.org This site, led by Tony Campolo and others are doing their share to educate the public about matters such as this. You may be surprised by what you read there. Many of the articles are reblog-worthy! Peace be unto you!

        • Daryl, you are welcome, and you are welcome to ask me any question any time and I promise to give you a respectful response. Of course you don’t see the need for it, you have not been adversely affected by it or denied your basic rights under the Constitution. I am sure that if the government said, Christians can no longer celebrate Easter but Pagans can you would defend your right to celebrate under the Constitution. That is all we are doing. I will go check out the blog you mentioned – hopefully they won’t mind if I chime in because the reality here is that Christian or not – religion is a non-issue when it comes to federal rights and protections. Peace to you too!

          • Agreed, but I do not think the government has any right regulating Easter or marriage. But I am keeping an open mind to equal treatment. If people treated each other right, the government would not need to interfere with any of these issues, gun control, marriage, religion, prayer, education, credit reporting, access to services, ad nauseum!
            I truly wish you well.

  8. I really appreciate your honesty and insight in this piece.

    You are absolutely correct that the Constitution of The United States of America guarantees the same freedoms for all. Unfortunately, our government sees fit to tie tax dollars and subsidy dollars to many things.

    As an accountant, I would like to answer how our government has twisted it so your marriage to Kitten may hurt conservative families. It is not my objective to disagree with you, or hurt or offend you. I just wanted to answer your question in case you didn’t know.

    Some Catholic charity services, specifically an adoption service center, chose to close the doors because it could not receive federal subsidy unless they agreed to place children in homosexual homes. But many conservative Catholics at the time did not want to place a child for adoption if the recipients could be homosexual.

    Many conservative religions are opposed to homosexual marriage recognized legally because places of worship where marriages are performed may loose their tax exempt status for income and property taxes if they refuse to perform a homosexual marriage on the premises.

    I am sorry that many times it just comes down to money. My gay brother is too.

    I am not trying to defend the position of a conservative religion. I believe if everyone understands the other side better, there may be less hurt, though.

    I wish you a life filled with love and happiness. And I pray for a government who will stop manipulating our lives with subsidies & taxes & entitlements. Most of all, I pray for ALL of us to have our freedom.

    • Simply, Thank you for reading and your comment. Again though – we need to take religion out of the equation. If churches want to keep their tax exempt status and receive federal money – their services need to be available for every American citizen. Discrimination based on belief systems is still discrimination and our government tends to frown on that. So; Churches have a choice to make; they can have their schools and fund them and they can discriminate. Or they can receive federal dollars and follow the laws of the country that is providing support to them. It doesn’t hurt conservative families to allow anyone to marry it hurts conservative families when theology gets in the way of equal rights for all American Citizens. Remember when churches refused to marry inter-racial couples – once the government changed the rules, the church changed their theology to keep that money. They are just going to have to do it again. It might sting a little at first – change is hard; but resistance to change is not a reason to allow discrimination in any form.

  9. Despite being religious, I’ve been irritated all my life about how slow the church and laws are to reflect social reality. I’ve known monogamous same-sex couples for over 40 years. I know it’s not spiritually generous of me, but being near the end of my life, I’m praying for all those having a problem with marriage equality to either die, or get the F over it! This isn’t a theocracy, and I’m tired of hearing the bigotry disguised by scriptural rationalizing.

    • Mikey, your post actually made me laugh! I don’t wish death on anyone, but I do understand the sentiment. I am ready for the next generation of tolerance instead of what we have running around now. It will come though, those of us who are on the side of equality are watching a momentous turn of attitudes and the church, as they always do, will come around.

  10. I really hope that they legalise same-sex marriage. I am not homosexual myself, but my mother has a female partner and many my nabours and close friends are gay. I am from Germany, and sadly same-sex marriages are not legalised yet (although we were close in 2011), but at least we have registered life partnerships, which basically allowes gay couples everything, except marriage. I totally agree with you, I really don’t understand what harm it could do. Good luck for you and Kitten!

    • Thank you Clumsy! Do you happen to know if the actual legal benefits are different for marriages versus registered life partnerships? Do they receive the same governmental recognition (health care, taxes, end of life plans and benefits, family planning etc.? Thanks again for the well wishes and support!

  11. “In Germany there is a legal recognition of same-sex couples. Registered life partnerships (Eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft) (effectively, a form of civil union) have been instituted since 2001, giving same-sex couples rights and obligations in areas such as inheritance, health insurance, immigration, name change, and maintenance (alimony and child support). In 2004, this act was amended to include adoption rights (stepchild adoption only) and to reform previously cumbersome dissolution procedures with regard to division of property and alimony.
    Later that year, the Social Democratic Party, one of the oldest and largest political parties in Germany, and the Alliance ’90/The Greens (a political party founded in the 1970s, based on progressive social movements in Germany) proposed allowing same-sex marriage.
    In June 2011, the Senate of Hamburg, following CDU/CSU losses in state elections around the country, announced its intention to introduce a same-sex marriage bill in the Bundesrat, the federal representation of the German states.”
    Its Wikipedia, but it sums it up quite nicely.

    • Thanks for the quick response (I suppose I could have just looked it up lol). That’s pretty much the same as here then with Civil Unions Vs. Marriage at the State level.

  12. If you have the right to do something, I find it absurd that you would think that other people shouldn’t have the same right, just because it differs from what your own narrow experience has defined as “normal.” Best wishes, hoping that this gets legalized!

    • Thank you! There are a TON of military people who get married for many reasons other than ‘love or babies’. There are a lot of perks that go with marriage, and those are put in your face daily in the military. The barracks are like college dorm rooms, gayness aside, when you have to live there as a person older than say, 22 it gets annoying fast. In order to move out on your own? You have to have rank or you have to be married. Many people get married just to get an apartment so they don’t have to live through barracks inspections or just having the ability to choose your own roommate.

  13. The arguments against same sex marriage are weak. It just takes one generation ( about 70 years ) for govt. to catch up to the tide. Opponents should just give up and accept it because it’s happening. I’m not gay, but I have some friends who are, and I want them to be free in their pursuit of happiness. It’s our constitutional right. The federal govt. should butt out and let states decide. The most annoying people are the ones wagging their fingers in your face lecturing you on moral issues. We all know they lie and cheat more than the general population. Let the people follow their hearts !

    • Chris, thank you for your comment and support! There will always be the “finger waggers” and those who oppose whatever they feel like opposing for whatever reasons. We just can’t allow that opinion to become law when it limits the rights of American citizens. As for liars and cheaters, well every group of people has their “bad apples” we just need to constantly stay above the fray and make decency and tolerance the more prevalent attitude. 🙂

  14. So, you got married to a man because you couldn’t live in the barracks? You have a “fake” marriage as you describe it, but you enjoy all the benefits of a real one. It’s too bad you had to go to all that trouble. Couldn’t you have just moved out of the barracks as a single person? I don’t really get that. Maybe, the laws in the military should be amended.

    I think the courts will likely grant rights to same-sex couples the same as married couples. I agree in equality to all. However, with that said, I think the whole subject got controversial because gay couples want to get “married”. I’m from the camp that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I think if the gay community stopped calling it marriage and focused efforts through the courts on Constitutional rights, it wouldn’t rub the Catholics, extreme left and other believers of marriage as an institution the wrong way.

    I think you have the right to do whatever you want. But it appears you ‘used’ the institution of marriage for your benefit only. You husband must be an extremely understanding individual.

    Most heterosexual couples view marriage as a religious and sacred ceremony that has been handed down through the ages as a bond between a man and a woman. Should they be privy to certain benefits, etc. that a gay couple shouldn’t? I don’t think so. I think out of respect for an institution, however, marriage should be left alone and the definition should not be changed so same-sex couples can get the same benefits. There is probably a better way. Maybe the courts will see it this way. I don’t want to be disrespectful in the comment and I wish you the best of luck.

    • I don’t think you are disrespectful at all. It is your opinion and the conversation is important. You can’t move out of the barracks as a single person that easily. If that were the case I surely would have done it. Also, my husband is no saint for doing this, we both wanted and agreed to marry one another to help each other attain our goals in fact, he receives more benefits from our marriage now than I do- so maybe he is the selfish one – you would have to ask him though. Our marriage is only ‘fake’ because people see it that way because we are a financial arrangement and not one forged from love or the desire to have a family together. There are LOTS of people like us around, it’s just not a big deal because it isn’t noticeable and it doesn’t hurt anyone nor is is against the law.

      Now marriage as an institution and how individual couples value it is different for various groups. However, no matter how you define marriage, all couples receive the same rights, benefits, and entitlements under the law whether they marry in a church or at a Justice of the Peace, mayor or ship captain. We could make up new names for this benefit under federal law if that makes you feel better. It would have to be then that you get your marriage license from the church and are recognized federally as a civil union. That would be fair, but it seems an awful lot of time a resources would be wasted by making people marry/civil union twice. The system we have now under the law works, it just needs to be applied fairly and equally among all citizens regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

      Finally, marriage between a man and a woman has undergone several changes over history and what we deem acceptable now wasn’t always so. In YOUR history it has always been one man and one woman, but in ALL history; that is certainly not the case.

      • Thanks for the quick reply! I pose this question. Should anyone who is not simply a 1 man and a 1 woman have the same ‘rights’ as a married couple who want to get married? Take polygamists for example. Why, if a same-sex marriage is legal, shouldn’t they get the same rights as anyone else? I just think you have to draw the line in the law somewhere. I really don’t agree that someone who is ‘married’ should get certain exclusive rights that a same-sex couple would not get. I still think the controversy is over the definition of marriage. I guess if there are so many benefits, that is why so many people, as you see it in the military, do it. I just think marriage as an institution gets ‘watered down’ if people go into it just to get the financial benefits from it. Your right, it is perfectly legal, but doesn’t marriage loose something if everyone just got married for financial reasons?

        I still see same-sex proponents using ‘marriage’ as the vehicle to promote an equal rights agenda, and it doesn’t really have to be through the institution of marriage. I’m sure there may be a happy medium for both somewhere.

        • Ah, but they do have the same rights. A polygamist can marry one spouse under the law. They can ‘marry’ 7 other people too, it just isn’t federally recognized. One spouse is all the law allows, and most sane people only want one -but if you can handle five wives – more power to you, but you only get federal benefits for one of them. Marriage is a partnership and legally recognized as a contract between two people (currently of opposite sex). When people take the jump from allowing two consenting adults to marry and start applying it to issues our Country has already addressed (polygamy) or saying if we allow gays to marry then the next thing people will want to marry a duck – is a red herring argument. Also, people keep saying that there has to be another solution, or a happy medium, but I don’t see anyone actually proposing relevant and plausible alternatives. If you can find an alternative that is fair and equal under the law I am open to hearing the suggestions (the Supreme Court would also appreciate your input I imagine).

    • Vlad, it is interesting isn’t it? That is why I decided to share. While there are many people who get married for non-traditional reasons, I don’t think too many people share about it, and my situation just seemed to really highlight this whole argument in a unique way. Thanks for reading and commenting! If there is ever a movie I want someone super famous to play me. 🙂

  15. I wish the best for you and your Kitten. Have faith, it is unconstitutional to keep you two apart. I mean, just look at Lovings Vs. Virginia when they said you can’t keep two people of separate races from marrying. It made the right to marry a constitutional right. I have full faith in our legal system to, even though it has been a long road, make the right decision in the end. As for the people who don’t support your marriage, thank them. It was them protesting in California and getting gay marriage repealed that made people able to appeal the validity of their marriages to the supreme court, which will now make it a federal ruling instead of just state by state.

    • Storm, thank you for your support and comment. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court actually handles this in the end. Hopefully, they look at the Constitution and the law and rule accordingly.

  16. This is both a beautifully crafted social and political statement, and love story. Thank you for sharing. If I were on the Supreme Court, I don’t think I could counter your argument. And as Storm mentioned the Lovings vs. Virginia case, this too may all soon be history.

    • C.L. Thank you so much! I am glad you appreciate the story for exactly what it is! I hope it is history soon, it would be a shame to see us move backwards at this point. Thanks for reading and commenting.

  17. I think this is a really good story, but I honestly don’t know how I feel about the marrying to make things easier thing,. I honestly, I do feel myself judging you a little, because that seems like more of an affront to the sanctity of marriage. More so, in my opinion than a marriage between two people of the same sex. I don’t mean to offend you, and sorry if I have. I wish you the best going into the future with kitten.

    • Ah Yannie, that is the point. It doesn’t matter how you feel about why I decided to marry under the law. The fact is that under the law I can marry any man I want for any reason at all. It’s legal. Now as an ethical choice, you may have an argument – and you may not value my choice. but it is irrelevant. The marriage license doesn’t ask WHY I am getting married, or what God approves of my union. It is about the law, and in our country it is not okay to allow one group of human beings rights and deny them to another group. Again, with this side of the argument you have to let go of personal beliefs and religious notions (sanctity) because not all people straight or gay marry just for love, or just because God says so. Do I need to bring up the long list of people to whom the sanctity of marriage is a non issue (Kim Kardashian maybe?) People who marry for money. Open marriages, arranged marriages… Thank you for your comment, and I don’t mind being judged a little or I wouldn’t have put this out for the world to read. My life just proves a point, and that is that no matter your argument – marriage isn’t all that easy to define even between one man and one woman.

        • No worries. Like I said in the original post, I would love to be able to marry for the ‘right’ reasons, but I can’t. So why not take advantage of a system that allows all these benefits by marrying a friend? While my marriage was to make things easier, it was because in order to live my life and still serve my country, I had to lie EVERY SINGLE DAY. Once I got married I didn’t have to lie anymore. People just stopped asking questions. Now that it is okay to be homosexual in the military, I honestly would not have gotten married if I had the same choice to make today. However, the point is that under the law I can get married for any reason I want. So can you.

          • I hope I can marry for the right reasons in the future too and that is what this post is all about! All the best to you too and thank you for asking the questions and being open to the answers! Peace 🙂

  18. As an aousitder , I wants to understand Americans I realy do .
    But , there is something’s I don’t get it , if the marriage is not about like we say in Spanish “por mis huevos “ or like you say , “because I say so”
    If is for taxes reasons , political or another …why you don’t create another contract what has the same rules like , you are partners in money and everything and call it whatever you want gaymarriage and make it easy for yourself and anybody alse
    But I see this like , I want to get a tortilla whit beans roll it and say “ LETS FIGHT FOR THIS TO BE CALL HAMBURGER “

    • Outsider, thank you for reading and commenting. I want to understand Americans too and I am from here! 🙂 We are a complicated bunch. Anyway, without getting into details about our Constitution and laws and how they protect the rights of all Americans I will just say that “marriage” is – as seen by our government, a contract. Getting married in a church brings along with it certain moral obligations, but getting married by the state or a representative of the state is a civil matter -which includes civil rights, which are protected for any group of people under the law. Now we could change the name sure and call it something else – however, it is like saying that the word marriage only belongs to one group of people. The government would then have to investigate all marriages to see if they conform to the definition of marriage as defined by … well who? Who gets marriage and who gets civil unions? It is ridiculous to deny rights to people based on one word and its various meanings.

      • what about you get a government offert , you can get a contract whit you life partern , whit the same rights and and if you get separate from your partner your partner can make you as miserable as an ex wife do , take the half of your money and the custody of your dog ….. but whit diferent name, no marriage ,…..would you take it?

        • There are two sides to this argument obviously, we could start calling marriage “bacon” and reserve bacon just for same-sex couples. The problem is that is creates a ‘lesser’ or ‘equal but separate’ arrangement and in our country we have already experienced what ‘equal but separate’ does. Will we have to have separate lines in the clerks office? Those looking for a marriage license and those looking for a bacon license? It simply wouldn’t work. Also marriage is a word with a secular definition. Marriage is a word that has had different meanings over history and what is happening here is not a change of meaning for marriage, but applying what it means to us now for ALL people.

          • Thank you for answering my questions , and they are real , I am not augmenting whit you I am trying to understand , because this is something weird to ask some one in the street , what about they say “no” is bacon or nothing?
            By the way I don’t approved gay relationships but I tolerate and you have my sympathy ,I hope you get a solution that bring you happiness , sorry my English but I still learning

  19. The fundamental problem with same sex marriage is that the basis for claiming discrimination is not racial.
    DNA /Genetic tests have failed to find a gay gene that would make being gay a biological predisposition instead of a choice.
    And that is the problem.
    This would be the first time a behavioral choice would be granted racial rights. Race is biological and behavior is choice.
    We are responsible for our choices no matter how strong they are.

    • CCT, while there may not be a gay gene that has been found, there have been several studies about whether or not being gay is a choice or not. Until that is proven, should we allow discrimination? It wasn’t too long ago that African Americans were seen as sub-human, and their skin color is obviously not a choice. You are using an old argument for an old problem. Humans aren’t the only species who have homosexual members. In fact, every species in nature have exhibited homosexual behaviors. The research is obviously ongoing, but the fact that we as human beings have the capability to express ourselves with language and try to understand our sexuality is what separates up from other animals. So lets do it this way – no one can get married until they prove that they are getting married because God wants it. Infertile couples can’t get married and should be tested before being granted a marriage license to ensure that they can in fact procreate. People who’s behaviors are not in line (with some arbitrary standard) can’t get married because it’s behavioral. It just doesn’t make sense to me. Human being + American = equal rights under the law.

    • Whether people are born gay or choose to be gay is neither here nor there when it comes to the law. That is what we are talking about here. The LAW. Laws that were and are created despite any religious, moral or ethical beliefs. This court has one and only one thing that they should consider and that is the constitution. The “definition” of marriage, the traditions that go along with different religions and the moral beliefs of Americans does not belong in this decision. This argument, this battle is between the Constitution and gay Americans, nothing more and nothing less.

  20. The tide is steadily turning in favor of LGBT acceptance in society. As they say, it’s a matter of knowing someone who’s gay, making the concept real and human and not abstract, that changes people’s attitudes.
    I had this experience with the teen I mentor long-distance in South Africa — a poor, black Pentecostal Christian. A couple years back he was at a church camp and we were chatting online and he said, “Well I hate gays.” South Africa, like much of the continent, is pretty conservative on that issue.
    After dealing with a couple days of negative emotions over his comment, I brought up the subject and came out to him… essentially saying “The American guy you consider to be your father, who pays your bills and who you call on in a crisis is gay.” He was shocked at first, but his homophobia is now gone. It’s not all me — he’s exposed to different people now at college. But he’s learning to judge and relate to people as individuals — and as I’ve taught him from the very beginning, to treat people with respect.
    He’s getting there. And the world is getting there. Those who don’t will only fall behind into a world that no longer exists.

    • Thank you for your comment and for being a mentor!! Your point is absolutely correct. As more and more gay people “come-out” many people are faced with the person-hood of the issue and not just a talking point. I have taken a ‘one heart at a time’ approach to the issue of equality in all its forms because when you take an issue and add humanity to it, it gets harder to justify discrimination.

    • Thank you for reading and your support! I too agree that we could be focusing on bigger issues – the Constitution is pretty clear about our civil rights and to spend money on active discrimination is a sincere waste of resources. I can think of a million things that need attention and reform in our nation where the money would be better spent. 🙂

  21. First, congratulations on being Freshly Pressed.

    Your thoughts are interesting. So, I read your blog.

    I, also, was a soldier under DADT.

    I found several things you wrote contradictory. But, what I found most contradictory was your need to be ‘married’ in order to feel equal.

    I am single, never married. So, I will break down your argument from my point of view, and logic.

    By redefining marriage (a religious institution) you would finally become equal.

    If it is marriage which defines equality, then you would gain greater rights than I as a single man.

    Wouldn’t you be pushing me down, in order for you to move up?

    Therefore, you would discriminate against me by becoming married.


    • Ghost, You have the choice to marry any time you like, so no. Being single and married are flexible categories. We can enter and exit them as we desire.

      However, I can marry a man any time I like. You can’t. As a single woman, I have a right you don’t. My gender is not a flexible category. It is fixed for most real purposes (barring the very long and tedious process of sexual reassignment). So is yours. Our rights are based on our genders, which are fixed categories.

      Really, we both lack the right to marry the person of our choice. It’s just that if the person you want to marry is of the correct gender, you never notice that restriction the state has imposed on your choices.

    • Ghost, I am sorry but your logic doesn’t make sense to me. First of all, many people served under DADT and have different experiences, also I am assuming that you are not gay and therefore have no idea what my service was like. I don’t need to be married in order to feel equal, I said that the ability to marry would make me equal under the law. I could choose, as many people do, not to marry like you have. The act of being married does not equal equality, the RIGHT to marry who I want if I should I chose to do so does.. Also, marriage is not as you say a “religious institution” that is how many people interpret it, but under the law it is a civil right to marry, it is a contract, an agreement. They do not say “By the power vested in me by GOD – they say, “by the State of ____.” Civil; not religious.

      • The power vested in my by God is RELIGION. By the state is CIVIL union.

        There are two elements to most marriages in America. One element is Religion, the other Civil Law.


        I should interview you and see if we have common ground.


        • Ghost, I am little confused yet again and I am starting to think you may just be trolling. Either that or your reading comprehension needs some work. At the end of every marriage, the person officiating the ceremony says, “by the power vested in me by the STATE of PA, I now pronounce you doomed to a lifetime together. <—-that was a joke. The authority over marriage is given by the State. A pastor or preacher or any clergy member does not make your marriage legal, the State does. Pastor Jim has no authority to LEGALLY marry anyone – he does have the authority to preside over a religious ceremony (that is unnecessary under the law). So for a marriage to be legal, there is only ONE element.

          • An Ad Hominem about my reading level will not win a discussion. I thought you were about tolerance of other points of view?

            A Pastor’s authority comes from his ecclesiastical ordination. That ‘ordination’ varies by Religion, or Denomination. And in some ways it varies by state. Different states require different documentation.

            Historically, Marriage has always been defined by Religions. You are seeking to change that. Therefore, you have the logical burden to overcome.

            Would you name some historic examples of Marriage not defined by Religions, other than Communists? The Communists were not a very historic experiment.


  22. Your point that it is a contract is one I haven’t heard before, and I like it very much. It answers that weird, off-the-wall, but still uncomfortable question about “What will people do next? Will they start marrying their dogs?” Which is absurd, but given how strange people really still needs an answer. And the answer is that dogs cannot enter into contracts. Neither can children. So pedophilia is also out.

    • Ashana, Thank you for your comment. I am glad you picked up on that part of the debate. Many people choose to ignore it because they are afraid of something (and it doesn’t help with the religious right fueling these kinds of arguments that do nothing but perpetrate fear). We are talking about two consenting adults entering into an agreement to love, honor, and cherish one another, and they are entering that agreement willingly. Gender should not be an issue. Thank you for your support!

  23. It’s sad that gay rights is even an issue. I hope that in a few years people can look back on it and see it in the same way as interracial marriage- something that shouldn’t have been an issue in the first place.

  24. Reblogged this on thewordpressghost and commented:
    Here is an interesting take upon ‘gay’ marriage.
    And while I understand much of her argument, I find equating marriage with equality interesting.
    In a comment to me, she pointed out that marriage would not make her equal with married couples. But, the right to marry whomever she chose would.
    I do not have the right to marry anyone I choose. First, I cannot marry married women. I cannot marry women who do not want to marry me. And the list goes on.
    But, the equation is interesting. On one side, she argues for the right to be equal in marriage. But, then she stated marriage would not make her equal.
    Therefore, if you seek equality and marriage would not make you equal, then marriage is not the goal.
    So, what would the goal be?
    Readers? Any ideas? Tolerant people? Any ideas?
    If marriage is not the goal, then what is the goal in this debate?

    • You seriously don’t get it do you? I NEVER equated marriage with equality. Please READ what I wrote again or host this conversation on your blog since you are actively ignoring the point of this one.

      • I was attempting to understand your point.

        However, should you wish to continue this, come over to my blog.

        I am tolerant of dissenting POV’s. That does not mean I will agree with you. But, I will be tolerant.


        • Seriously man. You are obviously at this point trolling. It isn’t a difference of opinion, you are having your own conversation with an argument you created – the reading comprehension comment stems from the fact that you misread what I said, twisted it into something else entirely, and when corrected continued to ignore the actual point so either you are’t comprehending what you are reading or you are a troll. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and tried answering your questions. So while I have no trouble with you opposing marriage equality I do have trouble with people intentionally trolling the conversation. I hope someone on your blog is willing to actually read my post and maybe you will listen to what they have to say about it.

  25. I really enjoy to know about this type of point of views. it seems interesting to me because I prefer to live in a variable environment rather than stick to permanent ideas and trends to live. your story is so amazing and It is appreciated to share it with us.

    • Thank you for reading and commenting! I try to remain flexible with my ideas too. The world is such a great place with so many different people with different ideas. If I set myself to one point of view I would miss out on so much! Open minds and hearts are truly free!

  26. Your post is one of those articles that resonates so well. Because of its honesty, and logic, and personal touch. I think that people should be able to marry anyone they want. Where I live, that is already the case. I hope that you and your love will be able to share the same rights as any heterosexual couple very, very soon!

  27. Hello Sophist, thank you for being so open to discuss this and your responses to each post. I have a feeling that most of those against equality in marriage feel that the movement is an attack on their beliefs. However, to what I understand is that the movement is simply an attempt to 1) provide marriage to same sex couples and 2) to provide the same protections for same sex marriage all at a state level (not a religious level). A ‘Jim Crowish’ approach with equal but different distinctions with Civil Unions and such does not sound right as it really is an invasion of privacy and other problems I think most people end up looking over. With that being said I do not think it is right to broaden the definition to include systems that go against others religious beliefs forcibly by law. Lets say the movement succeeds, and my church refuses to marry a same sex couple- could not my church be charged with discrimination under law? Should my church be forced to employ homosexuals even if they consider it evil? To me, I think the obvious is no, they should not be charged with discrimination else we have an issue with the separation of church and state. Many people speak about tolerance but what about the tolerance for the religious views?

    It almost seems to me that the religious institutions have it backwards in the sense that marriage by law is not marriage by religion. It seems to me that marriage was different and somehow changed when the state took an interest in it. I think that if the state decides to go with the equality movement then it needs to permit room for ‘religious discrimination’. I can even envision religious institutions creating a reform of marriage, renaming it consequentially it not being tied to state law OR protection and then fighting for its equality under law. To me, the issue is not about providing equal protection and recognition, its the state stretching its hand where it should not. Else, legal marriage and its protections should be divorced from all religious ties and provided solely by the state.

    The only way I see this working for ‘all’ is separating religious marriage from state protections, having the state responsible for the legal protections of any marriage, at which if a couple regardless of orientation can get the legal protections from the state while at the same time not interfering with religious matrimony. This would enable the religious institutions to stay true to what they believe and offer the legal protections to everyone. Question is, what other medium will the state recognize as authority to join peoples in marriage and would those people be bound by state law? For example, lets say we have marriage by religious rite and marriage by state rite. Religious can marry whom they believe is right and the state can marry whatever is constitutional. Lets say a court authorizes the marriage of a same sex couple, but the judge is religiously against the idea. I would hope the state would find another judge who would do the ceremony instead of forcing the judge against it. Idk, I feel like I have gone too far. Sorry for the bad spelling. To sum, the state needs to recognize a state authority in regards to marriage protections instead of forcing religious institutions to adhere to a state marriage. I am against the movement mainly because I think they are going about it the wrong way and because I think the state is the one discriminating not the religious institutions.

    • Jones, thank you for reading and your comment. I broke down your response and tried to answer your concerns:

      “Lets say the movement succeeds, and my church refuses to marry a same sex couple- could not my church be charged with discrimination under law? Should my church be forced to employ homosexuals even if they consider it evil?”

      No. The same way the BSOA can discriminate, so too can your church. Most organizations chose NOT to discriminate because it is morally wrong to do so. Under the law though, your church can marry who they want and refuse those who they want. Like a Catholic church that refuses inter-faith marriages, or a Baptist church that requires couples undergo marriage counseling before they agree to officiate over a wedding. Churches will still be able to decide who they perform services for. There are many churches who would not mind at all officiating a gay wedding and many churches who (for a time) will object. We aren’t fighting for the right to have a church wedding. We are fighting for the right to marry under the law, which does not require faith.

      “Many people speak about tolerance but what about the tolerance for the religious views?”

      Really? I am sorry but you have more freedoms in this country to practice your religious beliefs any way you choose to do so. We are not after the eradication of religion; we are after the same rights you have as a heterosexual person to marry another heterosexual person. Religion should not be an issue under the law. We do not MANDATE religion in our country it is a choice and a freedom that we all enjoy. Disagreeing with your belief system is not intolerance; it is a difference of views. If you are a Jewish person, are you just by being Jewish discriminating against Christians or by having no faith at all being intolerant of the right for other people to practice as they see fit? No. You celebrate different views and practice different beliefs, and our government can’t stop you from doing so. That’s America!

      “The only way I see this working for ‘all’ is separating religious marriage from state protections, having the state responsible for the legal protections of any marriage, at which if a couple regardless of orientation can get the legal protections from the state while at the same time not interfering with religious matrimony.”

      You just answered your own question, and said exactly what we are fighting for. You see, marriage – pre-dates organized religion. Marriage in history was a way of spreading the gene pool looking outside of your family to breed (raiding other villages and stealing all the women), as well as attaining financial security (giving your daughter to a King in another land for instance to forge alliances). People marry for all sorts of reasons, not all of them are for religious reasons – arranged marriages are still very prevalent in many cultures and they still happen here in America.
      The benefits you enjoy as a married heterosexual couple are afforded to you by the State, and recognized by the federal government whether you marry in a church or on a cruise ship. Religion isn’t the issue here at all. Again, your “marriage” license comes from the county and state you live in. The federal laws allow for that marriage to be recognized in Virginia even when you got your marriage license in California. It doesn’t matter who officiated your ceremony, nor does it matter the reasons you got married (religious views, to start a family, or just because you like each other so much you want to hang out together for a lifetime).

      I am not sure which faith you subscribe to, but I am going to guess a Christian faith. What about Muslims. They can marry. What about pagans? Or Atheists? They don’t marry in your church and yet they all have the same protections under the law. Any male and female can get married and have it recognized on a state and federal level. The church doesn’t matter –gender is not a religious choice. Once DOMA is stuck down, those states who allow marriage equality will issue marriage licenses, and those couples who move from their original state will still be married in their new state (because of federal protections) – even if the new state does not allow for it (yet), that is same as any other couple whether they had their ceremony in a church or in a casino.

      You see, your religion doesn’t make your marriage valid, the State does. The law does. The religious part of your marriage is your personal choice, and no one is trying to take that away from you.

      “I am against the movement mainly because I think they are going about it the wrong way and because I think the state is the one discriminating not the religious institutions.”

      You are right. The States and the federal government are the ones discriminating and that is why there is a fight at all. The religious institutions have the right already to officiate over any wedding they deem worthy. However the judges, mayors, Justices of the Peace (public servants who swear to place the law above their personal beliefs and who should not take the job if they are unable to do so) do not have the right under the constitution to deny any American citizen the same rights and freedoms afforded to other American Citizens based on moral or religious beliefs. THAT is the point of separation of church and State and THAT is the point of the ‘movement’. It is the churches that are making this a religious argument and not a legal constitutional argument. You are in essence suppressing yourselves with a limited view of what marriage means to certain individuals and creating an ‘attack’ where there isn’t one. It is a legal battle, not a religious one.

  28. Hello again Sophist, your last paragraph posed somewhat of a contradiction to me. You say: “…you have the freedom to not associate with those people you find offensive” which I read as you approving that some can discriminate based on their moral feelings. Then I read: “Hopefully, the Supreme Court will make your objections invalid and allow for people to marry who they want; whether it is an arrangement like my husband and I, or a religious ceremony, or a union” which I read as you saying: ‘discrimination, regardless of your religious views, would be ‘invalid’.’. The latter statement implies that regardless of your religious positions or moral inclinations the law will force you to marry persons that you do not agree to morally. That is what scares me and screams or intolerance. Or, were you saying that the state would recognize marriage regardless of sexual orientation…. The whole manner in which that last statement was made is what alarms me of this movement. Would you please clarify? Did you mean to say that regardless of your religious or moral inclinations if the Supreme court decides in favor of the marriage equality movement that by law one cannot discriminate authorizing marriage else be charged of breaking the law? Thanks

    • Jones, there was not contradiction. I am simply stating that the Supreme Court will make any one persons view (or organization) irrelevant under the law. Right now, the state I live in can discriminate against me. Those who have a moral objection to my lifestyle are welcome to their opinions but they are not the ones who afford me rights as an American citizen. All I am saying is that hopefully, the supreme court will make objections to marriage equality based on religious or moral views irrelevant because in this country we are free to associate with whomever we want. I don’t HAVE to go to a Christian church in order to be provided equal treatment under the law. As Christians, you don’t have to like me, agree with my choices, or hang out with me – the government doesn’t have that option. Regardless of my religious views, I have certain inalienable rights under the constitution and your religious objections have no merit in that context.

  29. Sophist, kudos to you for having the patience to take the time to respond to these comments in such a polite, efficient and “tolerant” way. I personally would just keep responding with the same thing.
    This is not as difficult a topic as people want to make it out to be. I said it once on here and I will say it again.
    This is a battle between gay AMERICANS and the Constitution and NOTHING else. This is not a battle of gays against other Americans or gays against religions or gays against marriage.
    It seems so simple to me and I do not understand why or how people can’t or choose not to see it for only what it is. EQUALITY! The Constitution! The Law! Oh yeah and that silly thing called LOVE.

    • I don’t mind addressing the concerns of people, because in all honesty I believe those concerns come from fear of the unknown, or fear of change. Just like we do with any other fear, we have to address them with reason and logic. Fear is irrational and yet one of the most powerful emotions we face as human beings.

      In a way, I have responded with the same answer for everyone here, I just personalized each answer to the people posing questions. I don’t blame people for believing that marriage equality is an attack on religion; that is what their leaders or favorite news or radio show are telling them. I figure if people are brave enough to ask the question here, they are ready for a logical and personal answer.

      The answer is simple for us, because we know exactly what we are fighting for without the media or church twisting it into something else.

      I believe that that only way to eliminate the fear is to address it head on with patience and tolerance. Much like we do with children who are afraid of the dark. We can say all we want that there is no boogy man in the closet, but until we personalize and rationalize that – some parents leave the lights on, or make a ‘boogy man spray” to assuage the fears of their children. Different methods work for different kids – but the message is the same; there is no boogy man in your closet.

  30. This is great! While I hate that you have to have a ‘fake’ marriage in today’s world to get what you need, it is a great story AND argument for marriage equality. I’m a huge supporter! Great post 🙂

    • Thank you for your support! Also, I will say again my marriage isn’t fake to me or my husband – it’s very real. I only use the word ‘fake’ because that is what we have been accused of simply because we don’t follow some stupid arbitrary rules for marriage and what it is. Thanks for reading and glad you enjoyed it!

  31. Ok please don’t flame me. IMHO I believe that marriage is defined in the bible by a man and a women. Many other religions non Christian follow this same belief. I don’t see where a church of any kind would have to marry people if it goes against there beliefs. Now personally I have friends that are Homosexual that I love and care for just like I am taught in the bible to do. I also don’t believe in people heterosexual living together either. I would also be the first person to stand up for you if you were being pick or bullied because that is wrong. Just because I don’t believe in your lifestyle doesn’t mean that I hate you or a bigot in anyway. You have a Right to believe what you believe but I also have a right to believe what I believe. Remember I don’t hate anyone. But I am not for Gay marriage…

    • Ron, we don’t flame here, at least we try not to. I am just going to say that reading the comment thread may help answer some questions for you, but the bottom line is this: Your faith and belief does not dictate my constitutional rights. Your religion has rules about marriage and you are welcome to continue following those rules. You don’t have to agree with the homosexual lifestyle, fly a rainbow flag at your church or take part in any of this in any way at all. It is a legal battle, not a religious one. If you have some questions or observations that are not religious in nature, I will be glad to try and answer for you (but do me a favor please and read the 60 or so comments I have already responded to – there are some really good questions and answers -so you understand what the fight is about and just how little (not at all) it will effect your life or your faith, or your relationship with your God or your spouse or whatever justification you are using the deny rights to other human individuals who believe differently than you do. I don’t think this is about hate Ron, at least not for most people. It is about fear, and your fear is misplaced on this particular issue. Thank you for commenting, and please, read some of the other discussions going on and try to look at it from the perspective of our Constitution and not your belief system.

      • If I may ask how is this a constitutional right. Marriage is not listed once in the constitution. I have read all the comments. I am not trying to change your beliefs by any means I just want to engage into a conversation…

        • I am all for a conversation, I wasn’t trying to alienate you I have just answered this question like at least 10 times already. I don’t mind really, I’ll keep answering until people separate church and state like the Constitution says they should. Under federal law, which is governed by our Constitution to ensure the rights and freedoms of all Americans – it also states the separation of church and state. So while it does not say “marriage” is a right, it does say that the laws of this country need to apply to ALL American citizens and those rights cannot be denied to any person because of belief, skin color, gender, or disability.

          Disallowing marriage equality based on gender is unconstitutional (saying only one man and one woman can get married and not two women or two men). Also, under the law, marriage is not a religious right, it is a state right and a legal union/partnership. That’s the argument. God isn’t part of it. Although, I will be happy to someday engage in a theological conversation with you about the issue.

  32. I hate how much I’m seeing federal and national decisions based on religious dogma of people. It is a violation of the most fundamental right we have as human beings – the right to our own opinion. I hope the supreme court strengthens the precedent of separation of church and state.

  33. I 100% agree with your free expression of whatever you want to do and who you want to be with. I don’t claim to understand or to know how this is for you, but I recognize your desires and rights. I do not believe however that this argument is about rights. After a long analysis of this, long talks with wise LGBT people, and some pondering alone in the dark recesses of my mind, I have drawn a simple conclusion.
    This argument is not about “rights”. This argument is about “entitlement”. Now, I don’t mean to subvert the proposed ideas, nor do I think that anyone should be treated unfairly. I ask the question, “What is the reason why you are asking for the government to recognize you’re ‘right’ to do something?” Breaking it down this way allows analyzing the situation.
    A person only expects recognition from something/someone if they care about their opinion or if there is a benefit for that recognition. Because the LGBT community clearly doesn’t care about the status quo, I am compelled to believe that there is a benefit that is not being received because of a person’s sexual preference. So, it is fair to say then that the community is really fighting for fair benefits of marriage, which requires the federal recognition.
    So, there we have it. If there were rights being violated, then the talk would be about Gay Rights. There are no rights listed in the constitution or bill of rights that is remotely perceived to be violated by a person’s sexual preference. The military no longer cares about preference, there is not a lower wage for gay men or women, there is EEO rights given to all in the workplace, and there is not a social system in place that accepts the harmful torture of LGBT people. So I have to conclude that it is not about rights at all, but about privileges. In this case it is a privilege because of a title that one has accepted, therefore it is an entitlement. So the truth about this whole argument is about Marriage entitlement equality.
    An outsider may ask three simple questions: 1) why do people expect entitlements for an action that they are willingly doing and say they would do without them? 2) Why is the government given entitlements to people in the first place, unless they are incentivizing a behavior that they want to promote for some reason? 3) How do entitlements affect the fabric of social, economic, political, and the philosophical responses in the community? (Notice that I never pose the question about how the Gay rights question affects the response of the community, because Gayness could be a response to a community rather than a thing that affects one.)
    When you ask these questions, many outsiders would at least, come to the conclusion that 1)People will always ask for something if they think it will benefit them, even at the expense of someone else’s money (selfishness) 2) The government profits off of the entitlement, because you are more likely to support its actions if they benefit you. The government is more likely to be allowed to do things that you disagree, because now you are beholdent to their processes and can’t afford to halt the situation (entitlement mindset) 3) They affect the community greatly, as the community that relies on the recognition of themselves by another, are always weaker because they are defining themselves according to someone else’s criteria.
    The rhetoric of the argument needs to change. State what it is you are trying to accomplish plainly. State that you want equal Marriage entitlements. Then the argument become fair, because then it comes down to the philosophy of the country. The logical outcome would be one of two things 1) either all marriages will receive benefits (straight or otherwise) or 2) all marriages would not.
    To reiterate, I am in support of anyone’s actions that do not harm another. I am personally on the opinion that taxes are inherently coercive and there for wrong, however I recognize that others don’t think that. I will further add that all people HAVE the right to be with anyone they want.

    • If this is about religion, however, there are different topics to cover.

      The end result of the religious discussion, if that is the direction of the argument, is that everyone can do what they want.

    • Teddy, thank you for commenting and reading.

      It is MARRIAGE EQUALITY not gay rights. There are human rights, which we have (sort of – depends where you are) gays can still be discriminated against and kicked out of housing. There is active and alive discrimination but that is not the argument here at all. We are not asking for separate rights for gay people, we are asking for the same right straight people have – but that is another argument all together.

      Marriage IS an entitlement, and any American citizen should be able to have that entitlement if they qualify for it (if they are legally married in thier State). To base the qualification on gender (defining a marriage under federal law as one man one woman) is a gender discrimination issue and therefore a direct infringement on the Constitution. We are fighting for two adult people to be federally recognized in marriage when their State authorizes it.

      You said, “The logical outcome would be one of two things 1) either all marriages will receive benefits (straight or otherwise) or 2) all marriages would not.”

      You are right! THAT is the argument. Plain and simple. It isn’t about God, or rights, or even entitlements, it is about fair and equal treatment under the law. If you (a man) marry a woman in NY, your marriage will be recognized in California. If I marry a woman in NY (where two women can legally marry) and we move to CA our marriage is no longer recognized and even though it’s legal in NY, we don’t receive the federal “entitlements” that comes with that legal marriage.

      Also the argument doesn’t boil down to just taxes, it is other simple things that many married people take for granted, like being able to visit their spouse in the hospital, make end of life decisions and being able to maintain the family home after one of the people passes away. There are laws and entitlements for married people, and ALL married people should be subject to those laws and entitlements.

  34. Pingback: 100 things to talk about! | tolerantpeople

  35. Pingback: History has been made!! | tolerantpeople

Share your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s