Women sue over marriage

Pair challenging voter-backed Amendment 43

By Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published February 12, 2008 at 12:30 a.m.

Text size

Photo by Chris Schneider / The Rocky/2007

Kate Burns, left, and Sheila Schroeder sit in at the Denver clerk and recorder's office after they were refused a marriage license last year. They are suing to overturn a related law.

More Local News

Comments

February 11, 2008

3:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Francesca writes:

Why would they use a trespassing charge on this?
February 11, 2008

3:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Just wait... we'll have all the "marriage is a right" posters here in a minute, but whose logic suspicially only allows for homosexuals to marry, but not those pesky other groups they don't like.
February 11, 2008

3:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Spencer writes:

Are lesbians sodomites?
February 11, 2008

3:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Beauman writes:

It's amazing the level of misinformation that gets leaked and repeated as true. 1st- for all the "Founding Fathers" and Pseudo-"Christians" This country was based on puritanical beliefs that have been completely changed by pervasive politicians. Yet when a PERSON stands up for their beliefs, they are wrong. BTW- Christianity's definition- to be Christ like. Last time I read my bible, he left 2 commandments-look em' up. 2nd- Not sure where "pesky other groups" comes from- but again, last I heard, it was the LGBT community-That would be for LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL & TRANSGENDER- what "pesky other group" did we leave out. Please do not measure the whole community by some who want to seperate. Please, just be informed.
February 11, 2008

3:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

benn writes:

Haha, good point spencer
February 11, 2008

3:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

bookwerm writes:

Ok, it is NOT about what the "majority" of people want, but what is DEFENSIBLE via the constitution. Banning Gays from marrying is NOT defensible, and merely reflects the prejudices of this time and place. I am married, with a kid, totally hetero, so don't think I am writing on here to benefit myself. But basing what is "ok" or legal on the majority? That is NOT how the Bill of Rights work, as if it WERE a simple majority RULES in America (OR other democracies), then it would end up being the TYRANNY of the Many over the few! The Majority of folks back in the early 19th century DID think it ok for Blacks to be second class (called colored then), AND in some areas, Italians, Polocks, Slovaks and the like were CONSIDERED COLORED! Really. And then time moves on, and in hindsight, we see that was not ok.

Same thing for this Gay bashing/ "protecting" the institution of Marriage.. with McCain divorced, Guiliani divorced (2 times?), I have a hard time thinking THEY protected the sanctity of marriage!

So what is the answer? END MARRIAGE by the STATE! Marriage is NOT the business of the STATE!!! The STATE should ONLY provide Civil Unions, male/male, male/female, female/female, and if you want to GET MARRIED DO IT IN A CHRUCH! Marriage is both a civil AND religious institution. Based on the latter, it has NO business being the former!

I think all unions should be permitted.. and if YOUR church won't support Marriage of Gays, FINE! But to make the state prevent it is a heinous crime depriving a whole class of people EQUAL RIGHTS due to YOUR PREJUDICE! What YOU think is wrong is not what I think. So suck it up, get this fixed.

The continuation of treating gays as second class WILL be a continued stain on our country, and one that is all TOO similar to "NO COLORED" and sitting at the back of the bus.
February 11, 2008

3:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

JustSayin writes:

Hmm ... christo left two commandments? After the ten from the old testament (you know, the ones given to Moses - "look 'em up"), what are the other two? Would they be considered the first and second amendments to the Bible?
February 11, 2008

3:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

DenverTea writes:

I think the first one of the things JC said we should do is Love each other.....the second I think is to honor God,, I am not sure on that second one though....I think love means to care about - so I care. The women should be able to get married. Saying they can't is silly patriarchical control freakism.
February 11, 2008

3:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

HolierThanThou writes:

Ever notice how the people making the biggest stink about gays are always a bit queer themselves?
February 11, 2008

4:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

NotChasB,
The majority of voters approving or disapproving any law has virtually nothing to do with its constitutionality. If Burns and Schroeder want to challenge the constitutionality of Amendment 43, they have every right to do so.
February 11, 2008

4:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

matthew writes:

JustSayin - The old testament has hundreds of commandments, and several groups that can be considered "the ten". If you want to go off of the old testament, I hope you're treating your slaves and wives well; and for heaven's sake, stop wearing that cotton-wool blend!
February 11, 2008

4:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

pwern writes:

No, AirBailey. What's 'really sad' is that my children are slowly being forced into accepting the notion that homosexuality is normal behavior. It's NOT. It's just another bullet point on the list of valueless garbage that the Left is constantly trying to ram down our society's throat in order to further erode the institutions and poke more holes in our social fabric.
When you're finished emoting, why don't you try rationalizing the simple fact that 99% of us AREN'T gay. There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. Nobody cares what homosexuals do in the privacy of their own homes, but when attempt is made to destroy the single most sacred institution in our culture - marriage - that's where the vast majority of us draw the line. Sorry if that makes you feel so 'really sad', but some of feel there are some values left in our culture that are worth fighting for.
February 11, 2008

4:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Beauman writes:

Since someone felt they needed to specifically respond to a post-I'm just saying- JC came to release us from the old laws (i.e. all the rules in old testament books, eating pork and such) So by his standard-not mine- HIS- we have 2 commandements. His only two commandents were 1. love thy god with all your heart, soul and body. 2. Love your neighbor as you would love yourselves. As far as people who act queer themselves. I am and LOVE IT! Another poster was not-yet you still put them into that realm. The being fit enough to judge is God-let him.
February 11, 2008

4:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

NotChasB,
What truth is that? Why is it wrong for someone to challenge the constitutionality of Amendment 43, or any other law for that matter? The court will either agree or disagree. If the court agrees that Amendment 43 is unconstitutional, opponents of gay marriage have every right to propose a constitutional amendment. This is the way our legal system works. What problem do you have with it?
February 11, 2008

4:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

JustMe writes:

Love is love. Keeping two consenting adults from marrying is discrimination. How are gays asking for "special rights"? Because it seems, to me, they're simply asking for the same rights afforded to their straight brothers and sisters.

Now the religious right and homophobes will start making comparisons to bestiality and child abuse. Disgusting means of furthering fear of gay, lesbian and transgendered folks - who largely just wantvalidation of their two-consensual-adults relationship, validation, legal rights to visit one another in the hospital, etc.

People who claim to be Christian and yet spew nothing but hatred and vitriol toward gay, lesbian and transgendered, are giving Christians everywhere a bad name.

I am a Christian - and it's not my, or anyone else's place to judge, and while my religion may say one thing - it should NOT be used to legislate laws that will affect everyone.

I commend these two women - and I hope they are victorious!
February 11, 2008

4:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Beauman writes:

Yet you can judge NotChasB? Again-god is the only judge-let him.
February 11, 2008

4:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

buffsblg writes:

Really, so much venom and hatred from the alleged christians on here. trying to see how that fits into your moral view. do you really think Christ would be on here calling people "queer"?

As to homosexuality being " unnatural" how do you explain it being common in the animal kingdom. There are gay cows, sheep, chimps etc etc. If you are the hard core christian you claim, you must beleive that "god" made them that way. Or do you think cows choose to be immoral?

These two women want the right to be treated the way others are treated. Maybe the constitution provides for that, maybe not, but all of you on here calling names only show that most of the opposition to this notion comes based upon hate.
February 11, 2008

4:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

O_TRAIN writes:

most sacred institution - yeah right

My parents (hetro/married, 40+ years) are miserable and can't stand each other, but refuse to divorce (because of their religion). What a joke and waste.

I would have loved to have two LOVING parents of any gender - instead of the misery and suffering caused by their religious dogma.

If you don't believe in gay marriage - say no the next time a gay person asks you to get married. Legalized discrimination and bigotry are what make me sick.
February 11, 2008

5:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

pwern, you mention children, are you sure you are doing everything in your power to keep them from choosing to be gay? Are you monitoring all that they do and all their friends? Do you make sure no gay influences touch them?

Be alert, be very alert, gayness can happen to any child.
February 11, 2008

5:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Jeff writes:

NotChasB wrote:
"What will you misfits and perverts be defending next? Pedophilia(Man marries 8 yr old), beastiality(woman marries her Great Dane) Incest(Brother marries his brother."

And gays are the perverts? For someone throwing around that label, you seem to have some very detailed thoughts in the old dome that raise eyebrows, probably even among homosexuals. (I mean, where on Earth did you come up with the Great Dane scenario? Why that breed?).
February 11, 2008

6:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

mama_mia writes:

NotChasB, your comments are so vile they really don't deserve a response, but since you and others seem to actually see a connection between same-sex marriage and your examples, let me point out the differences to you:

Pedophilia and bestiality lack the key component of consent. Minors and animals are incapable of consenting to commitments such as marriage and sex, while adult homosexuals are every bit as capable as adult heterosexuals. No one (that I know of) is fighting to allow 8year-old homosexuals to marry each other. Why on earth would allowing consenting adult same sex marriage lead to legalized pedophilia when heterosexual marraige has not?

Incest is almost always forced on a minor relative and therefore lacks consent as in pedophilia above. Also, marriage (as far as the state is concerned) is about forming a family. Two unrelated people want a relationship that is legally recognized. Two adult siblings already have that legally recognized relationship. They are already considered acceptable heirs and can make medical decisions on the other's behalf. From the state's perspective, it serves no purpose for them to marry.

Society generally agrees that it's beneficial for children of heterosexuals to have parents in a stable, legally recognized relationship, why are children of homosexuals not worthy of the same benefits? There are thousands of them across the country who have only one legally recognized parent, even though they share their love and their lives with two.
February 11, 2008

6:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

mama_mia writes:

pwern, you are mistaken in your stats. It is commonly agreed by experts that 10% of the population is homosexual, not 1%. Is that a large enough percentage, in your opinion, to deserve equal rights? If not, what is? 15%? 30%? 49%? At what point is a minority large enough to be worthy of the same rights as the majority?

Also, in what way, specifically, would same-sex marriage "destroy" marriage? Gays and lesbians are asking only for the right to marry, they are not trying to ban heterosexual marriage. I am a married, heterosexual Christian, and my marriage isn't affected by what other people do, how is yours?

If same sex marriage could actually "destroy" heterosexual marriages, it'd be happening already. The Unitarian Universalist Church has been marrying gays and lesbians for over 40 years. Even though the government doesn't recognize those marriages, those couples are married. Same sex couples are legally married in Massachusetts as well. And yet, the sky hasn't fallen, marriages are continuing on as they were, some good, some bad.

What are people so afraid of?
February 11, 2008

6:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

JustMe writes:

I think it's impossible to reason with someone like NotChasB who are clearly so blinded by hatred, ignorance and fear. Like I said, these people always go right to the bestiality and pedophilia arguments. Because they're fears of homosexuality are rooted in ignorance. Pure and simple. OR they're rooted in self-hatred.

I'm heartened to see the amount of positive comment this article has generated, usually I find that articles on this paper generate mostly hateful comments.
February 11, 2008

7:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

HolierThanThou writes:

Dang...

There sure are a lot of closet queers on this board, worrying that their children might be converted to the gay life.

Let me put it this way. I am a man who likes women. Yes, I'm a real sucker for them. I'll fix their cars, do free plumbing for them, scare other men away at the risk of my own neck. You name it. I'm probably dumb enough to do it for a pretty woman. I've often paid a terrible price and suffered disappointment after all these efforts, but I still love women.

Chances are awful good that I can't be converted to loving men the way I love women. That's why, if I meet queer men who like me, they don't bother me in the least. We can laugh and joke. I can even cry on their shoulders about how hard it is loving women who will never understand my simple ways. Why? Because in spite of my tears, I will never be queer no matter how much easier life would seem if I was.

Now you take your religious homophobes like notChasB and SASQUATCH and all the members of New Life Church and those Family Values jackasses. They're scared witless of gays. There's only one reason why they would believe that their own children could be turned gay and that's because they're marginal themselves.

QED
February 11, 2008

7:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Golden writes:

Bookwerm - you are an idiot. I hope this law is declared unconstitutinal. I am going to marry my dog! Who says I can't. I love my dog. We have been happy together for seven years now (42 dog years). I love her and she loves me. We have always been faithful together. I would never play fetch with another dog. I won't even pet one! My parents wre miserable for 3 1/2 years before they finally got divorced! Who says heterosexuals and the State can define marrage. And if you won't let me marry my dog than I am going to marry my 2 year old next door neighbor. She loves me also, and I love her!

Idiot gay ativists. They only want to be married so people will accept them. It would be so much easier to accept them if they weren't such idiots.

The state didn't define marriage 20,000 years of societal development did.
February 11, 2008

8:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

GWBushwacked writes:

Golden:

Wow, your intelligence speaks volumes. In fact, I think you should become a spokesperson for those opposing gay marriage. Gives us more of your pearls of wisdom. Keep talking, it gives credence to the whole notion that gay marriage is wrong.

<sarcasm> off
February 11, 2008

8:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

glowrock writes:

Golden, you're a freaking idiot. Last time I checked, dogs can't give informed consent...

We're talking about two consenting adults, not kids, not sisters or brothers, not fathers and daughters, not man with sheep, not woman with horse. TWO CONSENTING ADULTS!!!

What the hel* is so difficult to understand here?
February 11, 2008

8:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

ElGordo writes:

Aren't queers human also? I bet everyone here talking badly about our gay friends were the first to believe that Ted Haggard could be "cured". You guys all talk about marriage being so important, then why do we have a high rate of divorce? How many of you judgers have been faithful to your spouse(s) for all this time? Holier than thou, you stole the words right from my mouth.
February 11, 2008

8:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Golden writes:

How do you know my dog and next door neighbor don't consent? Can you read their minds? No one knows my dog better than me and I say we ae in love. Just because you don't approve doesn't mean you can hate me. I have a right to do what I want without you forcing your morals on me!

How old does one have to be in order to be an adult? Didn't the state define that limt? What right do they have to tell us who is an adult and who is a child? People use to get married at 14 and 15. That would not be considered an adult today. Why? Because the State decded? Because society decided?

So...why can't I marry my dog or my two year old neighbor.
February 12, 2008

6:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

nicolec writes:

As a historian I find many of these writer's notions about the "history" of marriage hilarious. Stop making up history and do a little research. The idea of love marriages didn't become normal until the 1800s. Homosexual and Heterosexual (as words and/or concepts) didn't exist until the 1800s. Take the most masculine culture you can think of pre-1800...Sparta? Men in all these cultures had sex with anyone they wanted to other men, women and children(despite what 300 wants you to believe). Marriage was first about property, then convenience and eventually came to be associated with a way to show one you love them (although some marriages seem to reflect the later two). Interestingly, in Colonial New England the colonist didn't get married in the church but rather at the court house- it was seen as a legal issue not a religious one.
The romantic idea of marriage we have now is relatively new. If you want to be a hate mongering zealot do it without trying to use history to justify it.
February 12, 2008

7:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Francesca writes:

Golden, you're referring to a 2 yr. old child. A two year old is basically still a baby. Are you really a pedophile or just trying to make a sick joke? Go marry your dog. Geezus.
February 12, 2008

7:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

I fully agree that people should be free to love whoever they want, without harassment or prejudice. However, there is no such "right" to marry whoever you want, else other "discriminated" groups would have had this right long before now. (Such as polygamists, close relations, or even single people who don't get the tax breaks.)

If this continues to be such an issue, (i.e. homosexuals cannot accept that marriage is going to have restrictions), then as bookwerm says, the government needs to get out of the marriage business and everyone can go through the trouble of doing their wills, getting powers of attorney and such.
February 12, 2008

7:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Classof80 writes:

First we all live in a FREE COUNTRY and it gives these women the right to question the constitutional basis of the admendment. But when or if it is deemed to be constitutional they need to leave it alone. This is why our soiders defend this nation so that people of ALL types can do what they if is in their best interest.

As for why they were arrested I would guess that their refusal to leave after being asked would constitute trespassing.. So in turn their actions do nothing for their cause. Just make them look like idiots..
February 12, 2008

7:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Spencer writes:

Didn't the majority oppose inter-racial marriage in the 50's?
February 12, 2008

7:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

bookwerm-

I don't agree that this is "discrimination" like you cite. Except for marriage, in the eyes of the law, homosexuals are treated exactly the same as anyone else- they even have added protection under hate crime laws. They are free to pursue their version of happiness without interference or harassment. They are not treated differently at all- they don't ride buses in the back, aren't given different fountains to drink from, can live together and wherever they want, open joint bank accounts, and so on.

For both you and Eli-

I believe marriage is a privilege, not a right, else how could it be denied to other minority groups? Polygamists even have an advantage over homosexuals in this matter, since polygamy is required under some religions. Then there are polyandrists, group marriages, related individuals (whether able to conceive or not), etc. Why should homosexuals be given preferential treatment under the law over these other groups? Further, look at the tax advantage to being married- couldn't singles complain about being "discriminated" against?
February 12, 2008

8 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

My 11 year old son is special needs and very affectionate. About two weeks ago, he came home upset because some kids at school called him "gay". We sat down and had a talk. First, I had to explain to him what gay meant, in reference to homosexuals. (He knows what homosexuals are since Uncle "Mick" is.) Next, I told him those other kids used that term because *they* thought it was an insult, based upon their hate towards homosexuals. Lastly, I told him: 1) people may do or say something you don't agree with, but you *should* agree with their right to do it (as long as doesn't hurt anyone), and 2) just because you disagree with them doesn't give you the right to insult them.

This is obviously a lesson NotChasB could learn from. Our country would be so much better if we could drop the hate and prejudice. Why can't folks be more tolerant towards those whose views or lifestyles are different than their own? I've noticed that on every blog where someone else's viewpoint is different than his, NotChasB spews such hate and venom. Let's debate on the issue of homosexual marriage WITHOUT all the hate and bigotry- and that goes for BOTH sides of the issue. I see proponents for gay marriage doing the exact same thing as NotChasB, which makes them not only bigots but hypocrites as well.
February 12, 2008

8:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

I am always amazed at the number of so called Christians who continually quote the Old Testament. The entire reason Jesus message became so poular was the fact that he offered ideas separate from the opressive Old Testament. Read the beatitudes folks. His message was one of forgivness and acceptance into the kingdom of god. I can't seem to find anywhere in the Bible where jesus preached an exclusionary message. Wake up! you so called Christians.
February 12, 2008

8:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Marshdale- hear, hear! This is part of the reason I left organized religion. Jesus' message was love and acceptance, and look what has been done in his name. Crusades, inquisition, forcable conversion of "heathens", burning of suspected witches, formalized bigotry and intolerance, etc...
February 12, 2008

8:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Spencer writes:

you think inter-racial marriage should be against the law GWM? maybe the majority of people at your cross burnings feel that way but no the general population isn't nearly as ignorant as your group.
February 12, 2008

8:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

pwern said: "Nobody cares what homosexuals do in the privacy of their own homes, but when attempt is made to destroy the single most sacred institution in our culture - marriage - that's where the vast majority of us draw the line."

I defy you to come with a lucid, logical explanation of how gays being allowed to marry destroys the institution of marriage.

I also defy you to give a similarly plausible explanation for why you people aren't focusing your energies on insisting instead that divorce - the legal act of ending a marriage - is outlawed.
February 12, 2008

8:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

Where the the hell do people get the idea that majority rule is the way this country is run. If majority rule was what it is all about we would still have separate drinking fountains. Yes it is true that in the House and Senate the majoriy rule does apply. This is why however the president has veto power and when something might be uncontitutional the supreme court steps in. It has never been about majority rule. That is a right wing fantasy.
February 12, 2008

8:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Spencer writes:

I don't know anyone oppossed to inter-racial marriage GWM. My point was in response to the postings claiming that because the majority thinks so that gay marriage should be outlawed. I have no problems with gays getting married. It will have no effect on my marriage. I believe that as the old die hard hate filled bigots die off it will become legal. Just like the old inter-racial marriage laws.
February 12, 2008

9:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Is the concept of "majority rules" a crude way of referring to democracy? Yes, we DO vote/pass laws where the outcome is determined by the majority of votes. We have to be careful though to ensure that no laws are drafted or passed which are unconstitutional.
February 12, 2008

9:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

jconder45 writes:

All those who want gay marriage sanctioned still seem to want to limit the right to marry to "two consenting adults". Why? Why, in particular, "two"? Why shouldn't plural marriages be allowed? The only reason is the Judeo-Christian tradition, but that tradition also limits marriage to a man and a woman. Something doesn't add up.
February 12, 2008

9:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Charles_B- once again, YOU are showing bigotry, by assuming that all who oppose homosexual marriages *must* be doing so out of bigotry. Do you propose opening up the definition of marriage to include polygamy, polyandry, and group marriages? If not, then YOU are not only a bigot, but also a hypocrite.
February 12, 2008

9:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

"The lawsuit claims Amendment 43, which 56 percent of voters approved in 2006, is unconstitutional on several grounds, including it was "religiously motivated" and has the effect "of establishing religion."

Now, THIS is ridiculous. We can start over-turning laws because we "think" we know a "motivation" for it?? Wow!
February 12, 2008

9:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

robert29b writes:

Does it change the feelings homosexuals have for each other if they are married vs. having a civil union? Does it change the fact that laws are already in effect that cover financial and legal issues for gays? The answer is NO. Gays who are in love are going to love each other no matter what. I have gay friends and I love them to death, but I still don't believe that the law should be changed just for them.

P.S. Animals don't have gay sex. Two dogs humping each other is a dominance thing, not a sexual act.

P.S.S. If you check the laws still on the books in many states, oral sex is still illegal as well as anal sex (even between a man and a women). But if you ask any person you know, they will disagree that it is illegal. Just goes to show that laws are still enacted based on the views of society, not just a small percentage of people.
February 12, 2008

10:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Nicola, nice history lesson, one of my professors said the primary purpose of marriage, where ever and when ever, was to let the community know "Who had sexual access to whom". That makes a lot of sense, as women usually were compelled to dress differently after marriage. They wore their hair up instead of loose, wore rings, and had completely different clothing. No more looking like a little available girl once a man had her as property.
February 12, 2008

10:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Charles_B: I'm glad to see your answer, since most advocating "equal rights" are doing so solely for gay marriage.

The question becomes then, not gay marriage, but marriage for all. In that scenario, where ALL are truly equal, I don't see folks going for it. I think government needs to get out of the marriage business, since it's not a right that needs to be regulated, and let the churches handle it.
February 12, 2008

10:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

robert29b: You're wrong about animals not having gay sex. Several species of apes are known to have gay sex as well as other species.

There are tons of laws on the books that are archaic and are no longer enforced (if they ever were). Heck, there's dozens of joke books that list nothing but various states' archaic laws that are often still in the books and could technically be enforced.

fiesty: Saying an individual is doing something out of bigotry does not make the accuser a bigot. If he's wrong, he's wrong nothing more. If you disagree, look up the definition of 'bigot' because yours is not the one the rest of us are using.

jconder45: "Why shouldn't plural marriages be allowed? The only reason is the Judeo-Christian tradition, but that tradition also limits marriage to a man and a woman. Something doesn't add up."

There are specific reasons against each of these:
plural marriages (as far as I know, always multiple women to one man): Tend to place the man in a superior part of the relationship. The women usually have much lower property rights than the man and the question of divorce proceedings get really dicey. Various other issues could be listed as well but these are the main ones I think.

As for other possible relationships others have talked about:
beastiality: For one, animals have absolutely no property rights. As nicolec notes marriage was originally about property distribution. To this day that is an important role of marriage--the rights of the married people to their combined property. Unless you are doing anything that would be considered animal cruelty you can already do whatever you want with your animals so marrying it wouldn't confer either of you any legal rights you don't already have so it's a stupid idea regardless.

marrying parents/siblings: This obviously is psychologically harmful as various studies have shown (about fathers sexually abusing their daughters, etc.). Also, unlike being gay, there is no known occurrence of an Oedipus syndrome where one would want to marry their mother or sibling. A recent case of a brother marrying a sister occurred recently in the UK I think but it was purely accidental as they were separated at birth and adopted by separate families. They didn't find out they were siblings until after being married though (I'd presume they divorced but I don't know). I'm not even sure if this is illegal--if they had known they were siblings before getting married.

Gay people marrying each other will strengthen their relationships just as marrying often strengthen heterosexual relationships. It provides certain legal rights that they would otherwise not have in addition to its symbolic importance. How this can weaken some other heterosexual relationship is beyond me.
February 12, 2008

10:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

"plural marriages (as far as I know, always multiple women to one man)"

Not true. Polygamy is where one man has multiple wives. Polyandry is where one woman has multiple husbands. Group/plural marriages is when there are multiple men and multiple women.
February 12, 2008

10:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

JTTAAB writes:

If you are lucky enough to find someone to love in this day and age.. why not?
February 12, 2008

10:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

robert29b writes:

Joggle: You are right and wrong

Sex is used not simply for pleasure, he says, but also to encourage peaceful interactions between competing bonobo groups and to quell the violent urges of males. Infanticide, common among apes, is virtually unheard of among bonobos. "Sex for the bonobo is as much affectional as it is genital," he says. "They have adapted sexual relations to soothe tensions, encourage cooperation, and ensure their survival as a species."

This sexual utopia apparently is made possible by the prominence of females in bonobo society. Because females camouflage their reproductive cycle, they are able to keep males off-balance and have a larger say in their choice of sex partners than females of other ape species. Males have learned to moderate their behavior to curry favor among females, who can just as easily turn to other females for companionship and erotic gratification. In a section of de Waal's book titled "Make Love, Not War," the author describes observing a female bonobo defuse a potentially dangerous standoff between two camps by rubbing her clitoris on an aggressive male. Shortly thereafter the animals were resting together peacefully.

That model of social interaction does not necessarily apply to humans, admits de Waal. "We have other ways of reducing aggression, including verbally and through nonsexual bodily contact. The reason we have sexual moral restraints--not all of them good--is that our society is based on the nuclear family, with males invested in just their own offspring. To increase paternity certainty among humans, we require monogamy. Bonobo females have successfully countered the danger of males' attacking the infants of other male bonobos by making it difficult for males to determine their own offspring."

This study shows that there are major reasons for the gay interactions for apes and other animals that don't apply to humans!
February 12, 2008

11:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

my3pugs writes:

bookwerm makes a very good point that the state should not be in the business of defining marriage. Only in defining the benefits and obligations of civil union. There are benefits and obligations. Benefits such as medical decision making, inheritance preference, insurance coverage, shielding of assets, joint titling, protection from incriminating testimony. Obligations such as support during and after the union, presumption of parental definition, the care of children. Adoption of children from other unions, and the like.

Children? Yes, quite a bit of present marriage law applies to children specifically. And same sex unions will have children, either from previous unions, adoption, or donor sperm.
February 12, 2008

11:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

WindWalker writes:

It rarely fails....someone makes reference to Scripture and is accused of spewing hate and venom.
I haven't yet seen where Jesus preached tolerance. In fact, for one example, he was particularly intolerant of hypocrisy.
To be sure he preached a gospel of love - the love God has for us but not for what we do. That doesn't equate to tolerance. He was clear about that fact that he didn't come to discard the law but to fulfill every single bit of it. Jesus did NOT tell anyone that what they did in the privacy of their homes was peachy if it flew in the face God's expectations. He confronted the woman at the well - he told her to stop sinning. And while He forgave her sin, He did not say it was perfectly OK for her to continue sinning.
Loving the Lord your God is not accomplished by refusing to honor Him and refusing keeping His commandments.
Love and tolerance are not equivalent concepts.
God made it perfectly clear that certain behavior is abhorent to him - homosexual acts, bestiality, etc. And Jesus confirmed that when He said that, from the beginning, God's plan was for a man and woman to join together.
Now, let's see how long it takes for a poster to accuse me of spewing venom or hate, of ignorance, etc.
February 12, 2008

11:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

robert29b: How am I wrong? You originally said no animals have gay sex, I stated some species of apes do, and then you respond that bonobos have gay sex. Umm, doesn't that mean I'm right? I didn't go any further than that as far as talking about other animals having gay sex and why they do it or why that would justify people being gay.

fiesty: Do you want me to go through every possible scenario? That could take a while. I discussed polygamy because that's the only form that has ever been legal or practiced by a significant population anywhere in the US. Succinctly, plural marriages in the US have the main two legal problems of property distribution and child custody if the relationship breaks up. The laws simply aren't designed for 'partial' divorces and distributing property among a group of people (except for dealing with estates). And child custody would really be troublesome.

Two gay people, from a legal standpoint, can easily be treated as two straight people and all standing laws can easily be applied for dealing with property and child custody. Laws reflect society and tend to only contentious laws only get changed when there's a significant movement desiring the change. The odds of that happening for all of these other scenarios are basically zero so it's really a red herring regardless.
February 12, 2008

11:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

WindWalker: I think that's a fairly accurate interpretation. However, it seems to me that the individuals involved in the acts are responsible for themselves. If they want to have a legal marriage then let them. How does that make any of the rest of us responsible? And I refer you to nicolec's post at 6:46am for the recent history of marriage and its purposes.
February 12, 2008

11:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

WindWalker writes:

Thank you joggle.
Nicolec's posting is irrelevant to me. What mankind has chosen to make of marriage and it's "purposes" is simply a reflection of mankind's self-chosen priorities. God's plan and purposes for marriage have not, nor will they, ever change.
Responsibility? I believe I'm responsible for honoring God by speaking His truths. HOPEFULLY, I do it in a more life-giving manner than spewing hate and venom! And it's highly unlikely you'll ever see me on a soapbox on a street corner.
As a society we have the right, and the responsibility, to create a framework of expected behavior.....and, as often as not, consequences for choices made in defiance of that behavior. If the two involved don't like that framework, that very framework provides a means by which to attempt to change that framework. Under the current framework, they cannot have a legal marriage. And those who want same-sex marriages will likely call that unfair, intolerant, etc., while those who do not want to see same-sex marriages within the framework of their society will have a completely opposite view.
Wasn't it Cain who howled about accepting responsibility for his brother? That position left a very fractured relationship.
We don't break God's laws.....we just dash outselves to pieces against them. And then we wonder why our lives our painful and our actions and choices sometimes have uncomfortable consequences. We don't live in a vacuum - our choices affect others, sometimes in ways that aren't immediately evident.
February 12, 2008

12:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

WindWalker writes:

Charles_B:
Who cares? I care. I care about what is written in the Bible and I care, deeply, about what Jesus said. And those truths are completely relevant, perhaps more so today than ever before.
Yes, I could draw in other arguments and positions - others have already done so. But rather than clutter my stand, I'll just focus on what's fundamental.
February 12, 2008

12:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

JustMe writes:

Charles_B:

"Who cares what the Bible says or Jesus said. We live in a secular republic where mythology and superstitions should be irrelevant.

Can you make your argument based on something besides your religious beliefs?"

And clearly - she cannot make an argument based on something other than religious beliefs. Why? There is no logical reason beyond religion.

Ok - so WindWalker - you do realize that not everyone is Christian, right? Or that, believe it or not, people interpret the Bible differently (it was written by men in power positions and has been so grossly diluted, I don't take it literally)?

Why should the whole of society be expected to uphold your Christian ideals? Because you're so sure you are "Right?"
February 12, 2008

12:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

junglegymco writes:

"There is no tyranny worse than that of a majority." Thankfully the courts exist in order to help eliminate the bigotry and prejudice of the majority and allow ALL AMERICANS the right to equality, not just the "Special Rights" granted to heterosexual couples.

And the "Slippery Slope" argument is lame. We're talking about two adult, non-related, tax paying members of society. If it's slippery slopes you're concerned about, I'd worry more about when the Evangelicals are going to start burning Muslim babies in the name of "The Crusades". History is rife with religious violence and not so much legalized bestiality.
February 12, 2008

12:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

LoFat writes:

It is amazing how Jesus and Christianity is always brought in to these arguments. Homosexuality, lesbianism, pedophilia, bestiality, voyeurism, and other perversions at a result of NURTURE not NATURE. And please do not try quoting the bogus junk science studies to justify such behavior.

If you have CHOSEN one of these lifestyles, so be it. Enjoy. This is your right to self-indulgence. Quit trying to force acceptance of these perverse acts on others. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF MARRIAGE GRANTED TO SAME-SEX COUPLES.

Anti-semitism, racial hatred, bigotry, and xenophobia are also the result of nurture and not nature. Would you defend them also as a persons constitutional right ?
February 12, 2008

12:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

WindWalker writes:

JustMe:
Well, yes, I CAN make an argument based on something other than religious beliefs. I chose not to and I briefly said why and, I thought, clearly enough to be evident. Perhaps not.
It sounds as if you do not share my beliefs.....and that's perfectly fine. My beliefs do not require you, or anyone else, to share mine.
I believe that there is perfect logic behind God's wisdom and it does not require interpretation but simply to be read within context.
Indeed, it has occurred to me that not everyone is Christian or, if they are, that they still don't share all of the same views. Again, my beliefs do not require them to. I wrote nothing that suggests I expect the whole of society to uphold my ideals, Christian or otherwise.
NONE OF THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE NEWS STORY
At a minimum, I expect the whole of society to uphold the framework of laws and expectation that the whole of society has put in place. I happen to be glad the framework has some basis in morals and values I consider to be Godly.
At this point in time, and in this State of Colorado, society has determined what a marriage is to be and what is not considered to be a marriage.
I may not be right. But I am utterly convinced God is.
(F.Y.I., WindWalker has an "X" chromosome and is, therefore, not suitably referred to as "she".)
February 12, 2008

12:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

blacksho89 writes:

You want unfair? I'll show you unfair!
I have a dog. Dogs are required-REQUIRED!- to be licensed, yet pet turtles are not!!
I'm going to sue to make my Dog a Turtle.

If two men, or two women, want to live together, love one another, that is their choice. It does not hurt me. But it is not a marriage, anymore than my dog is a turtle. The definition of marriage has been agreed upon by SECULAR society for thousands of years, to be one man and one woman in a consenting relationship, just as the definitions of dogs and turtles have been agreed upon.
February 12, 2008

12:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

JustMe writes:

LoFat:

So when did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual?

Lame. Homosexuality is NOT in the same league as pedophilia, bestiality and other "perversions". Can't cite any science at ya - because clearly it'll be "junk science". But the fact that there are people out there like you who believe what you've stated is frightening. And it shows a great deal of what is wrong with society today.
February 12, 2008

12:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

WindWalker writes:

PajamaPulitzer:

SWEET, and VERY relevant, scripture.
A thousand thanks for that encouragement.
February 12, 2008

12:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

joggle- red herring my butt. It's directly applicable if you're claiming "equal rights". It's not equal rights if you're only trying for one group! junglegymco says he wants it for "all" americans, but what he probably means is just all the Americans *he* supports.

So unless you are truly advocating "equal" rights for "all", not just gay marriage, then quit using that as your basis.

And I'm with LoFat- marriage is NOT a right, it is simply a legally recognized state with benefits, mostly tax-related, that is already "discrimatory".
February 12, 2008

12:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

LoFat writes:

Justme
The norm in the animal kingdom is heterosexuality, therefore I am normal. All life is hard-wired to procreate. Yes, all of the "perversions", deviations from the norm, are all in the same category as they all involve abnormal sexual practices.

I'm not sorry if I gored your sacred cow. So, how long have you been out of the closet?
February 12, 2008

12:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

junglegymco writes:

Hey Fiesty - Please don't try and put words in my mouth. I support equality even for those who would want to deny it to others. And let's be clear about who were talking about - two adult, non-related, tax paying members of society.

It just doesn't make sense to deny equal access to benefits that state-sanctioned marriage provides to some, but not others.
February 12, 2008

12:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

JustMe writes:

Homosexuality did used to be considered a mental disorder. Until SCIENCE determined that it was not.

Disorders can often-times be cured, a link, source or cause can be found,that is not the case with homosexuality. More and more (reliable) studies are finding that it is something that one is born with. It's genetic.

It's clear that most of the hate-mongers, anti-gay folks, or folks who choose to demonize homosexuals are doing so out of ignorance and fear. One only need look at some of the ridiculous comments made on this board, the ones linking homosexuality to pedophilia and other actual mental disorders that have nothing to do with genetics.

But me and others who are using actual rational discussion will be simply talking to brick walls. Either way - society will move forward and one day gay citizens will be granted the same rights as everyone else.

And no, they currently are not. Until very recently one could be fired simply for being gay in Colorado. Can you be fired for being straight? NO!

And people who are trying to use history and nature as examples against same-sex marriage have failed miserably and only shown their ignorance in history and nature. No amount of message board talking is going to chance anyone's mind.

I guess the only thing for me, and others, to do is stand up for these women and continue to work for the cause they support.

FYI, I'm a straight, Christian woman who believes that all consenting adults should be afforded equal rights. I also believe that gay marriage will, in no way, harm my, my parents, my siblings or friends marriages. If you think gay marriage will affect your own, then it seems you have problems that go deeper - perhaps you should look inward.
February 12, 2008

12:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

JustMe writes:

"LoFat:
The norm in the animal kingdom is heterosexuality, therefore I am normal. All life is hard-wired to procreate. Yes, all of the "perversions", deviations from the norm, are all in the same category as they all involve abnormal sexual practices.

I'm not sorry if I gored your sacred cow. So, how long have you been out of the closet?"

You did nothing to my "sacred cow". Your comment is laughable at best, because it's completely untrue. We've been over the animal component. Yes, there are gay animals. Penguins, hens, primates (human and not). Homosexuality is seen in the animal kingdom - and it's been around before there even was a Bible.

I'm not out of any closet. I'm simply somebody who is secure in my own sexuality and wants to see my gay brothers and sister treated with the respect and dignity.

I also have seen, in my experience, that those most opposed to homosexuality are those who harbor homosexual feelings themselves. Sad but true.
February 12, 2008

12:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

fiesty: "It's not equal rights if you're only trying for one group!"

OK, tell that to the abolitionists who 'only' tried to get voting rights to the male African Americans rather than for all adults. Or to the suffragists who 'only' tried to get voting rights for women rather than for all people, including children.

Individual problems are addressed one at a time. It's unreasonable (and illogical) to expect to change marriage in all aspects at once to be the only fair way to allow gay marriage to be acceptable. And there's obvious limits to when a law should not be applied and when it should. Children do not have voting rights because they are not mature nor independent. Various forms of 'marriage' wouldn't make sense in our system because, for one thing, they are too incompatible. The Saudi system of marriage would not be legal here because women have property and custody rights here whereas they do not under the Saudi system. There are basic legal incompatibilities that I've listed (and you've ignored) that prevent virtually any other kind of marriage that you would morally oppose. However, that is not the case for gay marriage and I challenge you to find a single, legal reason why two, consenting adults cannot get married, share their property and share custody of their children.
February 12, 2008

1:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

my3pugs writes:

There is no mention of marriage in the Constitution at all, same sex or otherwise. Amendment 14, however states:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Marriage laws provides protection to those who are married. And other laws provide for special treatment for those who are married. These constitute "privileges and immunities" "protection of the laws" that are abridged by restricting marriage without a good reason. Religious reasons are particularly not relevant to "due process of law" since the law is supposed to be religiously neutral.

Extending marriage to same sex persons able to freely make that choice does not mean that bestiality or group marriages or incestuous marriages must be recognized as well. Animals cannot give consent, neither can children or the mentally defective. Group marriages may one day achieve legal status, but for now, public policy states there is good reason to limit marriage to couples only.
February 12, 2008

1:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

my3pugs writes:

Charles_B: Your personal attacks don't help. It weakens the impact of what you are trying to convey.
February 12, 2008

1:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

my3pugs writes:

blacksho89: Since you don't mind that same sex couples are part of society, what exactly are you losing if they avail themselves of the privileges and protections that are only available to married partners? Is it just "don't call it marriage" but it can be the very same thing? Fine, go with that. Marriage is a legal state, and for some, a spiritual and religious state as well. The state should only concern itself with the legal aspect and not any other. If I start a church that champions multiperson group marriage as the best way to bring up children in a stable home, the state has no obligation to recognize all the members of my marriage. The state can choose to recognize that I have one and only one spouse who gets the legal benefits of marriage under the law. I cam, if I choose, be married spiritually to as many as I wish, and the state cannot deny me that. It can deny me the ability to assert marriage rights to anyone other than with whom I am legally registered married to.
February 12, 2008

1:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

my3pugs writes:

Okay, to all who make personal attacks, you're all stupid. That better?
February 12, 2008

1:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

"I support equality even for those who would want to deny it to others. And let's be clear about who were talking about - two adult, non-related, tax paying members of society."

junglegymco- you DO realize the hypocrisy in this sentence, don't you?
February 12, 2008

1:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

junglegymco writes:

Fiesty - There is no hypocrisy. I'm simply clarifying who falls into "full" citizenship (for lack of a better term). Minor children, animals, and those determined to be mentally unable to attend to themselves, do not have the same (or in the case of animals, any) access to the freedoms guaranteed within the constitution.
February 12, 2008

2:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

junglegymco-

"OK, tell that to the abolitionists who 'only' tried to get voting rights to the male African Americans rather than for all adults. Or to the suffragists who 'only' tried to get voting rights for women rather than for all people, including children."

Nice try. In the case of voting for males, it wasn't just for African American males, it was for ALL minority men, so that ALL MEN could vote. Then they amended to give ALL WOMEN the right to vote too, not just white women. Very similar parallel- they didn't just give to white women (homosexuals) but all women (polygamists, polyandrists, group marriages, etc).

"There are basic legal incompatibilities that I've listed (and you've ignored) that prevent virtually any other kind of marriage that you would morally oppose."

No, you haven't. What you've posted is specious logic which supports your position of allowing marriage to homosexuals, but not other groups you don't support. Any "legal incompatibilities" (which is bogus) could be dealt with by having guidelines developed similar to those dealing with hetero couples. For example, when a will isn't present for a hetero couple, the surving spouse is assumed to inherit. In a polyandry or polygamy situation, the estate could be assumed to be divided equally. In a case of child custody, limit it to the biological parents and just like hetero cases, determine the best parent. In a case of making emergency medical decisions, in an alternative marriage, have the "senior" spouse make it. And so on. Your "legal incompatibilities" are not hard to solve at all.
February 12, 2008

2:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

navymom writes:

The issue of the morality, or lack thereof, of homosexuality is not a new debate. What never changes in the debate is the fact that God is still God and His ways are not our ways. He ultimately will decide the matter for each individual when we stand before the judgment seat of Christ and answer for our lives. If we espouse hatred, whether for the homosexual by the Christian or for the Christian by the non-Christian, we each will give an account for that hatred.

Many accuse those who are morally opposed to homosexuality of being bigots solely because they uphold Biblical standards for a society whose very laws are based upon the 10 commandments. I find this to be hypocritical. If you don't believe in the Bible, that is your prerogative. It is also your prerogative to not approve of my belief in the Bible, but don't call me a bigot while at the same time trying to shove your beliefs down my throat.

Now as to the issue of homosexual marriage, when the electorate of Colorado passed the marriage act, the majority of the people spoke. Before bombarding me with more screams of this not being a nation of majority rule, I am well aware of the fact that we more appropriately should refer to our system of government as a representative democracy, not a true democracy. I am also aware that we are a republic. That being said, our state government has given us the means whereby some things are allowed to be voted on democratically. When amendments are placed on the ballot and passed by the electorate, then those become the law of the land until such time as they are deemed unconstitutional by the courts, which has not happened in this case.

What then is our responsibility as citizens when this occurs? If we do not like the outcome, we have several options: 1)work within the system to change it, 2) accept the outcome as the will of the people, 3) protest in a legally prescribed manner, or 4)move somewhere that is more conducive to our lifestyle.

Lastly, I know that Jesus gave us the two greatest commandments in the New Testament. Love the Lord, your God with all your heart, with all your mind and with all your soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. I, also, believe that there is a big difference between loving your neighbor and tolerating what the Bible tells me is a sinful lifestyle. I apply that to much more than homosexuality. I apply that to the neighbor who constantly wants to gossip, the coworker who wants to steal from the job, the parent who wants to abuse a child, and a myriad of other sinful behaviors. I also try to pull the plank out of my own eye before I try to get the speck of dust out of someone else's eye. So don't condemn me and I won't condemn you. Only God has that right!
February 12, 2008

2:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

my3pugs-

You argue that marriage laws are affording special protections under the law, so that all must be afforded that as well. But then you contradict yourself by arguing that alternative marriage styles besides homosexuals don't have to be "recognized as well". That's false. Yes, obviously animals and minors must be excluded, as they are not of legal age or mental capacity to engage in legal matters. However, by your own argument, those who are of legal age and mental capacity MUST be granted the same "protections"- whether it be heterosexuals, homosexuals, related individuals, polygamists, polyandrists, or group marriages.
February 12, 2008

2:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

hmmm writes:

Trespass implies that you have no right to be on private property. Isn't the Clerk & Recorder's office public property? Was the office closed for the day and they had broken in? Wouldn't that be burglary? Were they causing a ruckus? Wouldn't that be disturbing the peace?

This country was founded on several ideas, one of which being that individuals should be able to protest unjust laws (something which was not afforded in merry-old England at the time of the revolution). These women have every right to sue for unconstitutionality - they may not be right (or wrong), and they may not win, but they have the right. Personally, I think Colorado's constitution is WAY to easy to amend. Having more than a simple majority to approve an amendment should be required. Like maybe 60% or 65% approval.

Marriage law is all about legal rights and responsibilities - such as inheritance, debt responsibility, property ownership, tax rates, and legal/medical decisions. Without marriage law, marriage is solely a personal committment between two adults based on an emotional relationship. My question for those opposed to allowing gay/lesbian marriage - if marriage is nothing but a spiritual/emotional committment between 2 adults? Is the lesbian married couple 5 doors down causing strife in your heterosexual marriage? If so, maybe you should tend to your own relationship, instead of trying to regulate everyone elses lives to meet your very narrow viewpoint. Your religious dogma (what you call your morality) is not mine, and you have no right to force yours down my (or anyone elses) throat.
February 12, 2008

2:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

junglegymco-

"Fiesty - There is no hypocrisy. I'm simply clarifying who falls into "full" citizenship (for lack of a better term). Minor children, animals, and those determined to be mentally unable to attend to themselves, do not have the same (or in the case of animals, any) access to the freedoms guaranteed within the constitution."

Okay, you obvious didn't get it. Yes, children and animals can't give informed consent, and aren't citizens. But there ARE those who can- related individuals and groups of individuals. They ARE full citizens. Yet you stated above that-

"I support equality even for those who would want to deny it to others. And let's be clear about who were talking about - two adult, non-related, tax paying members of society."

This is a prime example of what I've been saying- you want "equal" rights but only for the group you support. That's the hypocrisy- saying you want equal rights to all, but then narrowing your definition of "all", even against legal citizens/adults.
February 12, 2008

2:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

fiesty: No, the legal argument is not bogus. No laws need to be adjusted whatsoever to handle gay people (other than allowing them the right to get married in the first place). Virtually any other kind of marriage would require various laws and codes to be changed which is never an easy process.

So the right of marriage that the gays are asking for is 'ALL PAIRS' to be legal. Does putting it in caps make it easier to grock?
February 12, 2008

2:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

God/Goddess has not made any remarks on our morals. Everything we have from the Bible is something made up by people, mostly men. That is why women are said to be unclean after childbirth. Now we know that isn`t true, so what else is wrong? Probably most of it.

The country wasn`t founded on Christian morality or we would be forced to honor our parents, jailed for swearing the lords name, and stoned if we commit adultry. With Biblical instead of secular laws, we would be forced to go to church.
February 12, 2008

2:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

junglegymco writes:

Navymom (and the others' using their own version of "the bible") - You really need to read "Misquoting Jesus." It would be nice if people using the Bible to justify their own attempt to deny equality to others would actually UNDERSTAND the history of Bible and its contstruction.

Fiesty - You're mixing posts. I didn't write any of what you just quoted. What I am saying is that people who are "full" citizens shouldn't be denied equal access to a legal benefit. I was making the case as to why children, animals etc aren't pat of that group. Interesting argument about polygamists.
February 12, 2008

2:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

junglegymco writes:

Fiesty -

There are health reasons why related individuals should not be allowed to marry - both documented psychological and with regard to offspring, developmental. As for polygamists - interesting argument, as I noted before. However, Dan2 makes a great point about benefits and employers. I would also be concerned about how healthy a relationship is with that many spouses and is it really just a way for someone (typically male) to subjugate others?
February 12, 2008

3:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Charles-B/Junglegymco: how is that any different than a couple with a lot of kids, like the couple in AR that just had their 17th child?
February 12, 2008

3:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

WindWalker writes:

Charles_B

Your comments suggest to me that you believe that you are coherent but someone else is not.
Coherancy is not the issue - you disagree with someone else's position and have stooped to attacking them, personally, as well as attacking their beliefs by calling them "fairytales".
You have thus painted a clear, to me, example of your brand of tolerance.
You've also used the phrase "secular republic" with great regularity in order to, as I see it, to (try to) paint the position and beliefs of others as irrelevant in this discussion order to make yours more relevant.
It strikes me as bit disingenious but, when taken as a whole with your attacks, not surprisingly so.
February 12, 2008

3:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

hmmm writes:

WindWalker - The US condemns other nations whose laws are dictated by religious dogma (i.e. Islamic or Sharia law), but apparently it is ok for the US to have laws based strictly on the Christian bible? The Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion. by extension, we should not enact laws that are based in religious dogma (i.e. Amendment 43). We are, by Constitution, a secular nation. It doesn't negate your religious beliefs - in fact, it allows you to celebrate them - and me mine. We just can't force them on each other.

The government should not be in the marriage business - either get rid of the protections/privileges offered in marriage law, or allow any 2 consenting adults to marry, regardless of race (inter-racial marriage), religion (inter-faith marriages), or sexual preference (hetero- or homo-sexual marriages).
February 12, 2008

3:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

WindWalker writes:

hmmm:
What you write suggests that the US has laws based strictly on the Christian bible.
- I think the basis for our system has somewhat of a different origin - I'll let you Wiki that one.
- If it happens that SOME laws are in agreement with Biblical principle(s), that doesn't mean they all are or that those dots actually connect.
- Writing and/or enacting laws that agree with Biblical principles doesn't, in my opinion, establish religion.
- Most, if not all, of what we legislate is MORALITY. Whether that morality is based upon Biblical principles, happens to agree with those principles, or isn't overtly addressed in those principles, seems irrelevant, at least to me.
If your personal, moral code believes that same-sex marriages are O.K., then your personal, moral code differs from that of others. Not everyone's personal, moral code can be enacted or practiced.
I, personally, believe that a nation acting on Biblical principles, as written by God and walked out by His son, Jesus Christ, will be a nation that is blessed and whose citizens will also be blessed.
In decades past, I believe this nation was walking, collectively, more closely to those principles than it is now and I believe the difference is stark and painful to behold.
The cool thing is that I can express my opinion freely (at least in certain arenas) as can you. (That would be one difference between our currenct code of law and that of countries whose laws ARE dictated by religious dogma. In a country like that, one of us would be required to be silent on pain of death.)
I disagree with you.....strongly, but I appreciate the fact you are able to disagree with me, express your opinions, and pursue the implementation of your beliefs, within the parameters of this state's legal framework.
AS AM I.
February 12, 2008

4:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

fiesty: "how is that any different than a couple with a lot of kids, like the couple in AR that just had their 17th child?"

That's about the limit of the number of children a woman can have. A man with many wives could have hundreds of kids. That's one difference. Also, women have a strong incentive not to have 17 kids since that would require her to be pregnant for easily 10 years, depending on number of twins so regardless of marriage laws that isn't much of a problem.
February 12, 2008

4:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

LoFat writes:

Where have all the rational adults gone to? I enjoy reading many of these discussions for their educational value. And, yes, I sometimes deliberately try to antagonize people. I want to see their reactions.

What I find in many cases are self-indulgent busy-bodies with too much free time on their hands. I am, myself, semi-retired after having spent over 43 years in America's workforce. Some provide rational, well thought out points of view. These I enjoy. Then there are the intolerant bigots (zealots, whatever you wish to call them) that can do nothing other than devolve to personal attack against their would-be opponents. This shows a lack of knowledge and the ability to present a logical argument, thereby proving a lack of any reasonable education.

The main pattern I find developing is that of egocentric, poorly educated, permanently-offended people with a vastly overrated sense of self-worth who believe they are superior to anyone else.

This is not to demean anyone in their beliefs, for their beliefs are their own and they are entitled to them. I will, as an American, defend to the death their right to hold their own beliefs. It's when they attempt to force their beliefs on others that I draw the line. When their beliefs are well out of the mainstream of accepted beliefs and practices and they demand a total change of the mainstream to accomodate them and their beliefs is a good example of such force.

We as Americans are creating a sub-culture of uneducated, intolerant, selfish bigots that feel they are entitled to whatever the next person has without having to work for it. I personally feel that this is the beginnings of a welfare-dependent uneducated subclass. (Perhaps we are in the middle of it already?)

Just re-read the comments on this article and think about them with an open mind. I believe that any reasonable person will find a lot of narrow-minded, uneducated, hate-filled bigotry.(on either side)
February 12, 2008

5:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

navymom writes:

Charles_B and junglegymco:

I didn't say that the Bible or Jesus had anything to do with the question of governance in a secular republic. I also am not Bible thumping. I am not misquoting the Bible to "justify my own attempt to deny equality" to anyone and I do understand the history of the Bible and its construction. I believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God and infallible. I also believe that the Bible speaks volumes on a number of sins. I nowhere said that you had to agree with or conform to my point of view. In a free society you are free to agree or disagree. In a free society, I am also entitled to my belief and opinion.

I addressed the Biblical aspect of this topic in response to the fact that Christians tend to get called bigots any time they state their beliefs that are contrary to the beliefs of secularists. Christians, it seems, must be tolerant and accept every lifestyle or point of view, regardless of their own convictions. Isn't it strange that no other group is expected to be silent about their convictions?

As to the issue of a secular republic, I believe that the Pledge of Allegiance says it best. One Nation Under God! Our forefathers did not intend that we should be required to deny the existence of God. They simply intended that the state could not force a church on its citizens as was the case in England. Each person was free to worship (or not worship) as they chose. I think that the vast majority of our founding fathers would never have conceived of a state that was intolerant of Christians!

In my paragraphs that dealt with the law, nowhere did I state that the Marriage Act was right or wrong based on Biblical principals or Jesus' views on marriage. I simply addressed the political process by which an amendment is allowed to become the law of the land and a person's options if they disagree.

Until the supreme court tells me that I cannot vote based on my convictions, I will continue to vote based on my beliefs. If ever the court tells me otherwise, then I must look to God to guide me.
February 12, 2008

5:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Spockr writes:

Two observations about the debate over the oxymoronic concept of same-sex "marriage":

To opponents who cite the Bible:

Whom are you trying to convince? The odds are that anyone willing to accept the Bible as evidence already agrees with you. If you are content to "preach to the choir" that's your prerogative, but understand that you are doing nothing more than that.

To supporters who ascribe bad motives or bad character to opponents:

The definition of bigotry includes intolerance of other opinions. By assuming suspect motives or character (e.g. hatred or bigotry) when benign motives (e.g. aversion to the entitlement mentality) fit the available facts, you are practicing bigotry in the name of acceptance. Do you not understand how this damages your credibility? You are depicting yourselves as being everything you profess to despise.
February 12, 2008

6:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

mama_mia writes:

LoFat, you certainly prove your point. Your post comes across as egocentric as those you lament.

It is stretch of ridiculous proportions to assert that same-sex marriage proponents are trying to "force" their beliefs on you. They are not insisting that YOU marry a person of your own gender. They (the gays and lesbians I know, anyway) couldn't care less whether you or any other individual "accepts" their relationship. They only want to be able to make medical decisions for their spouse, file a joint tax return, and receive the other 1,047 other rights and benefits of marriage bestowed on those of us lucky enough to be attracted to the opposite sex.

The only people being forced to live according to the beliefs of others are the gays and lesbians.

As far as "mainstream" beliefs go, well, that can vary greatly depending on different factors, such as age. You are retired after 43 years in the workforce. I am 43 years old, so you are likely the generation of my parents. It's been my experience that homosexuality is far out of the "mainstream" for people of my parents generation, but gets less closeted and more accepted by people of my generation. By the time we get to my 25-year-old nephew and his friends, homosexuality is no bigger deal than the color of someone's hair. Soon, his and later generations will define the "mainstream", homosexuality will be accepted, and people will wonder why there was even a debate about it, just as we now look back and wonder why there was ever a debate on allowing interracial marriage.
February 12, 2008

6:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

mama_mia writes:

Navymom, surely you're aware that "under God" was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954. Our forefathers had nothing to do with that!

You're absolutely correct that they "did not intend that we should be required to deny the existence of God", but that is irrelevent, because allowing same-sex marriage would not require anyone to deny the existence of God.

"They simply intended that the state could not force a church on its citizens as was the case in England. Each person was free to worship (or not worship) as they chose." Exactly true. The Unitarian Universalist Church allows same sex marriage. While the government doesn't recognize those marriages, at least they are not breaking down the doors to stop the ceremonies, thereby allowing them to worship as they choose.

Similarly, if the government started recognizing same-sex marriage, churches that disagree would be allowed to impose their own requirements, not performing those ceremonies, just as they do now. Just as the Catholic church isn't forced to recognize a legal divorce, and many churches are allowed to marry only members in good standing. Governmental recognition of same-sex marriage would not change a thing with regard to anyone's relgious beliefs or religious marriage.
February 12, 2008

9:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

navymom writes:

mama_mia, I am fully aware that the phrase "under God" was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954. I did not mean to imply that our founding fathers had anything to do with that. In fact, the Pledge of Allegiance did not even exist until Columbus Day, 1892. It was amended in 1923 and 1924 to read "the flag of the United States of America". It was not an official flag until 1942, received it official title in 1945 and was changed in 1954 to include the words "under God." So, yes, I know my flag history. In 1954, President Eisenhower said about the addition he approved, "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

As to the paragraph about denying the existence of God, read my paragraph. It was addressing the fact that our country has never been a truly "secular" republic and that our founding fathers would never have conceived of a state that was intolerant of Christians.

Read some of the material on the Library of Congress website: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/...

Here is one quote: "That religion was not otherwise addressed in the Constitution did not make it an "irreligious" document any more than the Articles of Confederation was an "irreligious" document. The Constitution dealt with the church precisely as the Articles had, thereby maintaining, at the national level, the religious status quo. In neither document did the people yield any explicit power to act in the field of religion. But the absence of expressed powers did not prevent either the Continental-Confederation Congress or the Congress under the Constitution from sponsoring a program to support general, nonsectarian religion."

Also, marriage is not an act of worship. I honor God in my marriage, but the act of marrying a person is not worship.

If you had read my earlier post, you would see that this post was addressing some criticisms from people who obviously didn't pay attention to what I was saying.
February 13, 2008

9:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

pklee527 writes:

It is very interesting and even amusing to read some of these comments. People are cherry-picking and twisting and taking out of context many Bible verses. For one, homosexuality is a behavior. Behavior is learned. Even at 10%, they are still a minority. The last time I read the dictionary, democracy meant- "majority rule."
This is a very dangerous, unhealthy behavior and it is an "all about me" situation as well. If this is allowed, then adults will want to marry children, incest and other perversions will be on the public forum to allow those few to do. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, however, One thing we have learned from history is that we have not learned from history.
February 13, 2008

9:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

my3pugs writes:

Removing a barrier based on gender does not require removing a limit based on numbers of participants. Recognizing same sex marriage does not require recognizing group marriage. Some day perhaps, group marriage may be recognized and afforded protections and responsibilities, but that will not be soon. Perhaps the government should not recognize special rights and privileges to married individuals at all. Why should two people be allowed to lower their taxes because one earns a wage and the other does not. Why enable tax free transfers between two individuals based on their relationship? Remove the benefits of marriage from the law and no one will care about anyone's marriage arrangements.
February 13, 2008

10:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

pklee527 writes:

Charles_B, I am not a bigot, I am concerned about self-preservation, which it doesn't seem like you are. You are on a path of self destruction and one day you will have to answer for it. Acceptence doesn't make anything right.
February 13, 2008

10:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

pklee527: "If this is allowed, then adults will want to marry children, incest and other perversions will be on the public forum to allow those few to do."

Prove it! I'm sick of people making this non-sequitor as if it is a fact. There are long-standing gay communities in NYC and San Fransisco and the only known increase of anything negative vs. the rest of the population is STDs.

Also, we live in a democratic republic in which minority rights are preserved.
February 13, 2008

10:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

pklee527 writes:

"The only thing is STD's", are you serious?!? Thats exactly what I was talking about when I said an "unhealthy behavior". The burden of proof is on you. There are pedophiles in our society that would very much like to make it ok to fondle kids and do whatever other perversions that they want.
February 13, 2008

10:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

pklee527 writes:

how about this--"are you stoned or just stupid"?
February 13, 2008

10:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

pklee527 writes:

It is about whether or not to make homo marriage legal. As far as democracy or Republic- the minority want changes to the majority. The vast majority of Americans have already said they want a traditional marriage.
February 13, 2008

11:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

mama_mia writes:

Thank God our country protects the rights of minorities (well, most of them anyway).

And pklee, what are you talking about? "the minority wants changes to the majority"???? Gays and lesbians don't want to change anything about heterosexual marriage, they just want the government to recognize their marriages in the same manner. This does not change anything with regard to the "traditional" marriages of the majority of Americans. You will not be forced to marry someone of your own gender, nor will your church be forced to perform such wedding ceremonies.

Again I ask, specifically, in what way will same-sex marraige change or "destroy" traditional marriage?
February 13, 2008

11:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

pklee527 writes:

It obviously will not make a differrence as to what I say or how I say it. You want gay marriage, most people don't.
February 13, 2008

11:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

WindWalker writes:

Charles_B et. al.:
In your post to pklee527, you try to describe how simple it can be (if homosexuals are allowed to have a legal marriage).
I won't speak for anyone else but here's how simple it really is to me:
I believe (via my morals or my "religious doctrine", whatever you want to call it), that same-sex marriage is wrong.
Hear me on this: not just wrong for me - but just plain wrong, period.
I do not want it taught in any way or venue, whether in schools, in courts, in any segment of public society, that same-sex marriage is acceptable. I suspect, though I can't prove it, that most if not all of those who voted FOR that amendment are, at least, similarly inclined to agree.
Yes, there are tax benefits to a filing status of "married". If you're not married, according to the current legal framework, you don't get that benefit. The two women in question are trying to change that. That is their right. I hope that they do not succeed. I don't hate them - I don't even know them. But I don't like what they are doing or are trying to accomplish.
Previous posts suggest (and I agree) that same-sex behavior raises incidence of a terrible disease. Since state-sponsored health care proposals frequent pop their heads ups, I don't want my tax dollars going, involutarily, to treat the effects of wrong behavior, anymore than I want to involutarily contribute to hospital care for someone who was DUI and was in a vehicular accident.
For the record and for my part, it's not about who someone is - it's about the behavior and the choices.
It's not bigotry and it's not homophobia; it's concern about certain behavior and the effects of that behavior on me and my family, whether those effects are direct or indirect.
Again, we don't live in a vacuum - (you can argue all you want about the distinctions between democracy, republics, secular or otherwise and what you think we live in) anyone, doing whatever and anything they want, isn't (currently) acceptable nor are there rights to all practices.
Got it now? I believe the behavior is wrong, I don't want it presented as OK in any public venue including where my children might be exposed to it or the position that it's OK, nor do I want legislation changed to reflect that it is OK or, worse, mandated to be presented as OK.
I'm not at all inclined to think what I write on the subject will be something to which you (will) agree. Again, my beliefs do not require you to agree with them. Society has the right and the responsibility to decide what behavior is appropriate and safe within that society, and whether certain behavior merits protection and benefits.
February 13, 2008

1 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

joggle- those who want "equal rights" have to be prepared for the ramifications, including possibly higher health insurance premiums. However, if the issue truly is about "equal rights", then health insurance shouldn't matter in determining laws.

et all-
1. Personal morals and religious beliefs have no place in this debate, given that this country guarantees freedom of religion- which includes having someone else's religion forced upon you via legal means. Quoting the bible really has no place in this debate, which is discussing the challenge to the ban on same-sex marriage licenses on "equal rights" grounds.
2. Obviously, comments that are derogatory, hate filled, prejudiced, assumptive, or bigoted have no place here either. (Once again, this applies to BOTH sides of the debate.)
3. Folks on BOTH sides of the issue need to keep their emotions in check, and try to address the issue rationally. That includes actually substantiating statements.

Some of the issues that need to be determined in relation to this topic is:
1. Should the government even be involved in the marriage business?
2. If yes to #1, is marriage a right?
3. If yes to #2, should marriage (as a status) be applied to everyone, given that it is currently already discrimatory? (Remember, no right is unrestricted.)
4. If yes to #3, what are some of the ramifications we might need legislation for?
February 13, 2008

1:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

WindWalker writes:

fiesty:
I will not permit you to limit my discussion sources.
Nor will I cooperate with your insistence that I check my beliefs, depending on their source, at the door.
In fact, personal morals and beliefs, religious or otherwise, have a CENTRAL place in this debate!
And while I completely agree with you re. derogatory and hate-filled comments, it is obvious to me that you are trying to create a playing field designed to best suit and support your position(s):
The issue was raised by two women whose attorney complained that the amendment is unconstitutional based, in part, that it was "religiously motivated". You are attempting to tilt the playing field by re-writing the facts in stating that the debate discussion is about "equal rights".
How utterly transparent.....
February 13, 2008

2:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

mama_mia writes:

STD's shouldn't be a factor in this debate. Since when do we discriminate against people based on that?

Prostitutes, as a group, have a higher instance of STDs than the general population, yet they are allowed to marry.

Even if it were relevent, if I recall correctly, it's only gay men who have a higher instance of STD's, with lesbians actually having a lower instance than the general public. Maybe only lesbians should be allowed to marry.
February 13, 2008

3:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

mama_mia writes:

Navymom, relax, it's just a discussion.

I'm glad to see you know your Pledge history. Many Americans don't.

I understand perfectly well why you said what you said, but the fact remains that no one is being told to deny God, and when you throw out such exaggerations, it really lessens your credibility.

As a Christian, I don't feel that this nation is intolerant of Christians at all. We all get to go above and beyond secular law to follow those laws of our own religion. The fact that dishonesty (other than fraud), premarital sex, divorce, adultery, alcohol consumption, etc are legal does not mean that I have to participate or teach my children that they are OK. Millions of Americans already follow their own moral code without every component being the law of the land. Why would it be any harder if gays and lesbians were allowed to marry?

I agree that "marriage is not an act of worship". I misspoke and should have said that gays and lesbians who marry in their own churches are being allowed to practice their religion freely. In any event, I'm sure you knew what I meant, or are you going to try to find fault with that wording as well?
February 13, 2008

3:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

robert29b writes:

The laws are created by individuals and passed by a majority vote. If the law was passed because the majority of voters approve it, then accept the outcome and deal with it. I have no problem with trying to change the law once it has been passed, but don't demonize it by arguing that the law was passed under the guise of "religion" or some other stupid excuse. I don't like paying 30% or more of my income to taxes, but the law says I have to and I do.

P.S> There are laws on the books that protect civil unions and partnerships with regard to financial and personal issues. My work supports these rights and offers the same options to gays as they do to straight people.

This is just a way to get their views into the news...
February 13, 2008

3:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

robert29b writes:

ANother note: I have many gay friends and they agree with me. As long as their rights are protected, they are fine with civil unions.
February 13, 2008

3:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

WindWalker writes:

Charles_B:
"Paranoia" - another dramatic term used in an attempt to paint the person with whom you disagree as extreme...
I certainly am concerned about the "normalization" of wrong choices and immoral behavior on my children and the society in which I live.
I take absolutely no such position as you ascribed to me. As a parent who does care about my children's safety and well-being, I most certainly endeavor to keep them safe, ensuring they're equipped to live IN the world while knowing it's wise not be OF the world.
Your hope that someone I care about and love would make a decision as you describe is something I utterly reject and do not receive. I bless you with a Road To Damascus enlightment of the blinding pure white light of truth.
"Forward", off the edge of an abyss is not progress in my book. The majority of the people of Colorado who voted on this amendment do not see same-sex marriage as forward progress and, in fact, people who think like you have failed to drag society off that cliff.
You wrote declaring that gay marriage would reduce the instance of STD's among gays. Since we've made marriage a disposable item in our enlightened forward progress, simply depending on getting married itself instead of remaining in it as a method of reducing the spread of STD's, would be as great an "obvious" fallacy as any.
"Further up and further in!"
-Aslan the Lion, from The Chronicles Of Narnia
February 13, 2008

3:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

mama_mia writes:

Windwalker, I don't see it as a failure. I see it as progress. Only 56% of Coloradans voted for this amendment. That means 44% did not. These types of amendments weren't on the ballot 10 or 20 years ago, (as far as I know), but if they were, I'd bet they were passing by margins of 80-20 or 70-30, not a mere 56-44. The tide is turning and it won't be much longer until the next 6-8% swings the vote over to a positive one for equal marriage rights.
February 13, 2008

3:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

WindWalker writes:

mama-mia:
Historically, I'd guess you're right. Which tells me we're abandoning morals - my thought is that morals aren't relative nor would a wise, committed person discard them. Nor is that progress. The world is not a better place with these "new" morals adopted and acted upon. But then I don't think you and I are looking at the same things.
I also agree with you that the tide is turning. But I disagree with you on it's direction.
Acknowledging I don't have a crystal ball, and supposing you do not either, we will wait and watch and see.
As a side-bar to your discussion with Navymom, I do see a Godly marriage, walked out in a manner parallel to Jesus' relationship to the body of Christ, as a beautiful act of worship that honors His Name.
February 13, 2008

4:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

WindWalker writes:

Charles_B:
I suppose you look at your words and congratulate yourself on your wittiness. I'd recommend you check your road-map, re-think your route, and keep your eyes on the road, rather than looking for me in the rear-view mirror.
I doubt we're on the same road so it's highly unlikely I'll see you, even if I were looking for you.
Principled? Principles are things that do NOT change. If what people have in the way of stances or positions change, then they weren't principles in the first place.
More homosexual activity can be expected by those who aren't forewarned and who see it practised openly. That's a natural tendency of human beings who are ignorant of, or ignore, danger - to try what they see others doing, just to be with the crowd, whether they're lemmings or teens or adults.
As for monogamy, I indicated (at least tried to) I agreed that it would decrease the incidence of STD's, just so long as it wasn't serial monogamy.
Ta-ta.
February 13, 2008

4:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cel writes:

You know, if you look at the language of the law, seemingly the courts constantly refer to "The Letter of the Law" or exactly what the words of the law are, there is nothing in there that forbids same sex marriage, there is nothing that forbids a clerk from issuing a marriage license to a same sex couple, there is nothing that forbids any clergy or officiant from performing a same sex marriage ceremony, it only says a the marriage won't be considered valid by the state (14-2-104). As a matter of fact, CRS 14-2-106 states that a once the fee is paid the Clerk "Shall" issue a marriage license, it says nothing about the sexes of the parties involved. Prior to that, in the statute (14-2-106) the requirements for a marriage license are laid out, and among them is nothing that says the parties in the marriage have to be of different sexes. The statute goes on to make reference to 14-2-110 "Prohibited Marriages". Within 14-2-110, there is nothing that says a same sex marriage is prohibited. So it would seem to me that once the forms have been signed and the fee ($7.00 - 14-2-106(1)(a) has been paid, a license "Shall" be issued. I fail to find anything that says a clerk (or the agency) can't issue a license. Now, that being said, the CRS does go on to state that a valid marriage shall be between one man and one woman (14-2-104(1)(b)), but there is nothing that forbids a ceremony or the issuing of a license. After all I suppose it's up to the courts.
February 14, 2008

10:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

WindWalker-

You really need to keep a little more CALM in this decision!

"I will not permit you to limit my discussion sources."

I didn't tell you to do that; you want to talk from a theological point, fine. However, biblical reasons have no place in being used as a factor in actually determining or advocating laws on this subject; that's FACT based upon the laws in this country guaranteeing freedom of and from religion.

"Nor will I cooperate with your insistence that I check my beliefs, depending on their source, at the door. In fact, personal morals and beliefs, religious or otherwise, have a CENTRAL place in this debate!"

Once again, if you want to spout off on your personal opinions, fine; but you have to recognize that not everyone shares them. And just because they don't agree with you, doesn't make them wrong. And once again, your personal opinions, morals, and beliefs are not a legitimate basis for deciding laws.

"And while I completely agree with you re. derogatory and hate-filled comments, it is obvious to me that you are trying to create a playing field designed to best suit and support your position(s)"

WHAT??? By trying to get folks to discuss this rationally, getting folks to recognize that not everyone has the same religious/moral beliefs, and looking at the legal aspects of the issue, THIS qualifies as "supporting my position"?? You need to rethink that. And in case you hadn't noticed, I AGREE with you in that I don't support gay marriage! I personally don't think we need any change or that the gov't needs to get out of the marriage business; but if any change DOES happen on the basis of "equal" rights, it needs to be applied equally.

"The issue was raised by two women whose attorney complained that the amendment is unconstitutional based, in part, that it was 'religiously motivated'"

If you had read my 12 Feb 9:46 post, I already addressed how the women's objection to the law as being unconstitutional due to "religious motivation" is a crock. It is FACTS that need to be dealt with, not what someone *thinks* is the motivation of another.
February 14, 2008

11:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

"Historically, I'd guess you're right. Which tells me we're abandoning morals - my thought is that morals aren't relative nor would a wise, committed person discard them. Nor is that progress."

WindWalker, now the first part of this statement I can agree with- morality and ethics have greatly decreased, causing a much greater incidence of social problmes. However, morals and religion are not the same thing. While religion can promote moral behavior, it can also promote immoral behavior (intolerance, bigotry, historical cruelty, etc)- religion and morality/ethics are not necessarily synonamous. Nor is the implication that non-religous persons are immoral or of less ethical character correct. Bringing "back" religion is not the cure to our social ills.

However, part of this statement isn't correct- stating that morality isn't relative. For example, one person might say that abortion is wrong/murder because it is killing an innocent; however, in cases of eptopic pregnancies, that same person would state abortion is not only acceptable, but necessary to save the life of the mother. This is a situation where the morality is relative to the situation.
February 14, 2008

12:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

hakj- yes, you did miss something. I was addressing WindWalker's (and others) religious arguments against homosexual marriage. Christian ideology is not a valid legal reason to ban homosexual marriage. Proponets of religious agenda cannot legislatively force their religion on others due to separation of church and state, as well as freedom of religion.
February 14, 2008

6:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

mama_mia writes:

hakj, if you didn't mean that all laws are based on religion, why did you say it? You accuse Charles B of "twisting" your words, but at 10:07 this morning, you posted exactly this, capitals mine, for emphasis:

"ALL LAWS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, all beliefs/creeds, are based on some type of religion; Whether it be Christian, Agnostic, Atheist, Humanist, Hedonist, Bhuddist, it doesn't matter. ALL LAWS, or beliefs are based on some type of religion or mythology. And yes,I consider all sciences a form of mythology as science has yet to explain a lot of things there is a needed faith that some day it will."

If you worded your post badly, admit it. Denying it does nothing for your credibility.

Now, to address your words, I disagree. I am a Christian. I've been told in my (previous) church that homosexuality is wrong, but I couldn't for the life of me believe it. I can't believe that something that is inborn in so many people and hurts no one, can be so wrong.

So where did my belief come from? It didn't come from my religion, that's for sure. I guess you'll say it came from my own latent humanist beliefs, which you will define as a religion, and while I know that Webster's fourth entry on religion would suit that definition, I think most of us here talking of "basing law on religion" are talking about organized religion.

From my perspective, most laws seek to prevent people from hurting other people or their property. Kidnapping, theft, assault, fraud, vandalism, etc. For example, I want to throw a rock through my own window, that's fine, no one will care. But if I do it to a neighbor's window, I'll expect a knock on the door from a police officer. Likewise, motor vehicle laws are designed to protect people and their property. Run a stop light, you could hurt someone or something that doesn't belong to you, and you'll get a ticket. Hit your own car with a sledgehammer -- who cares?!

We don't generally legislate morality in the U.S., unless it directly harms others. Dishonesty (when not used to fraudulent gain the money or possessions of another), premarital sex, masturbation, divorce, adultery, jealousy, vanity and laziness are or were considered my many to be immoral, yet we do not commonly legislate against them. The closest thing I can come up with is prostitution, but I have read that it was originally criminalized over public health concerns, rather than moral concerns.

A marriage of two men or two women would hurt no one. Even if you believe it will doom this couple to hell; since when do we ban things that hurt no one but the doer? Why is it so important to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying, when we don't give a darn about other victimless "sins"?
February 14, 2008

8:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

mama_mia writes:

How often are people charged with fellatio, adultery, etc?

Old laws still on the books that are seldom, if ever, enforced, don't prove that we legislate morality. If anything, the lack of enforcement demonstrates our hesitance to do so.
February 15, 2008

7:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

hakj- mama_mia is right. We do not pass laws for the sole purpose of regulating moral behavior, as you state. Our laws, while may be seemingly enforcing morality, are really protecting our rights guaranteed in the constitution. For example, laws against stealing aren't passed because stealing is wrong, but because it violates the rights of the property owner. Laws against rape or assault aren't passed because the behavior is immoral, though it is, but because it harms another. Laws against murder aren't passed because murder is wrong, but because it violates the murdered's right to life. And so on.
February 15, 2008

1:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

mama_mia writes:

Thanks fiesty. You said it much better than I did.

Home › News › Local News

Women sue over marriage

Pair challenging voter-backed Amendment 43

By Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published February 12, 2008 at 12:30 a.m.

More Local News

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs