In response to:

Beyond the Supreme Court: A Guide to Settling Gay Marriage

WPMac Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 4:32 PM
I like how this article separates marriage into its three spheres: religious, familial, governmental. The gay marriage issue isn't about marriage, it's about acceptance and forcing everyone to recognize homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality when it clearly is not. It is a subtle form of tyranny in the guise of fighting tyranny. It is demanding rights at the expense of the rights of others (mostly religious liberty rights), even though taking the rights of others isn't even necessary in this case.
David3036 Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 4:40 PM
It is NOT about acceptance. You are NOT required to accept homosexuality if your state has gay marriage. It is simply about equality,and the desire of gay couples to have the same rights as married couples, and it does NOT change anyone else's rights including the right to worship as you wish.

Those "rights" we speak of are contained in more than a thousand federal laws and hundreds of state laws that grant privileges and financial benefits to married couples. Britney Spears and her husband had more rights in their 55-hour marriage than my gay friends who have been together for 40 years.
Andy544 Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 4:58 PM
It is IMPOSSIBLE to have "equality" between two essentially UNLIKE things! One cannot have 'equality' between Night and Day, or Fire and Water, or Life and Death, or Good and Evil, or between the devil and God!
There is NO commonality or possible 'equality' between a God-designed relationship between a Man and a Woman that produces LIFE, and a sterile, sinful parody between two confused individuals that does NOT produce life..... You folks keep demanding EQUALITY..... there is NO 'equality' between heterosexual marriage and what you are proposing! Does that idea not register in your mind?
nawlins72 Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 6:10 PM
"You folks keep demanding EQUALITY..... there is NO 'equality' between heterosexual marriage and what you are proposing! Does that idea not register in your mind?"

Seems that "equality under the law" doesn't register in your mind.
Andy544 Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 6:35 PM
This is a RIGHT that NEVER existed before, in 223 years of this Constitution, nor 4,000 years of Judeo-Christian tradition and law. There is a REASON WHY this right never existed before under the laws of this land. Do you know what that 'reason' Is? Do you even care?
nawlins72 Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 6:42 PM
First of all, this issue has all to do with a PRIVILEGE, since the State entered the marriage license business. So your argument is a non-sequitur to begin with. If you wish to speak of the RIGHT of marriage, then we would discuss why the State has no business dispensing licenses as a precondition to individuals wishing to marry.

As for your "history" lesson, I am not concerned, since the argument of "never existed" is not compelling. Freedom has barely seen the light of day throughout man's history. Arguing something can't be, if it hasn't been is poor reasoning.
Andy544 Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 7:22 PM
A bunch of double-talk and spin from a dishonest god-hating rebel. Whether you call it a RIGHT, or a PRIVILIGE...... homosexual marriage has not been recognized as EITHER for 4,000 years of human history! And you are simply a LIAR if you claim otherwise. Also, if your definition of "freedom" is two perverts bedding each other down, and mislabelling that as MARRIAGE, then you are a whack job, indeed! God hasn't granted them the PRIVILIGE of 'marriage', thus the State should grant them neither the right nor the privilige.
nawlins72 Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 9:44 PM
Yep, Andy argues for theocracy, but I'm the whack job. Uh huh.
David3036 Wrote: Dec 15, 2012 12:11 AM
Your history lesson is not even correct. Same-sex marriages existed in medieval Europe, Japan and China, and among native tribes in Africa and the Americas.

In his book "Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe," John Boswell offers evidence that the early Christian church had liturgies to unite same-sex couples. He found such evidence in archives in the Vatican, St. Petersburg, Paris, Istanbul and the Holy Land. The ceremonies he describes had all the earmarks of a wedding. Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and was actually married to two men, and both weddings took place in churches with priests presiding. Historian Allan Tulchin researched a same-sex union called an "affrèrement” in medieval France -- a marriage contract between...
David3036 Wrote: Dec 15, 2012 12:18 AM
...two men. Homosexual “marriages” also took place in Ireland in the late 12th to early 13th centuries.

And all this was accepted. Nothing that could be called homophobic appeared in any European writings until the late 14th century.

David3036 Wrote: Dec 15, 2012 12:25 AM
Your analogy about unlike things is bogus. It is equal RIGHTS we're talking about here. NO two things in this world are truly "equal" and no two relationships are equal. But people who are not alike, in relationships that are not like any other, deserve to have equal opportunities.

Black people are unlike white people. Does that mean they don't deserve equal rights? Women are unlike men. Does that mean they don't deserve equal rights?

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to tackle two gay marriage issues, those of us looking for some sweeping overall conclusions on the issue should temper our expectations.

The cases to be examined by the high court involve some specifics-- the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, and the range of benefits the federal government should grant in states choosing to recognize gay unions.

Both will necessarily involve some examination of what role the federal government should play in matters of gay marriage, but neither is likely to settle the biggest questions:

What is the proper...