BruschiOnTap

Why not abolish marriage as a state-recognized institution altogether? Then churches can decide if they'll marry gay couples or polygous groups or whatever and nobody gets a tax break and we can all commit to whoever we love. It will be merely a social institution with no legal status. It's not the state's business who I love/have sex with.

__________________
Mannings never prosper

QuiGon

What about polygamy...? I give NEM credit, he at least isn't a hypocrite by supporting one form of deviant marriage while opposing another. Can you say the same..?

BelichickFan

What tax break ? Have you ever heard of the marriage penalty ?

No-one ever said it was. Being gay isn't illegal.

Patters

I agree with BurschiOnTap that marriage belongs to the churches. If the state finds it in its interest, it should support civil unions for all couples, including a child caring for an elderly mother or two elderly siblings living together, etc.

As far as QuiGon's comment about legalizing polygamy, I'm not well versed in the issue. I suppose a case could be made for polygamy, and if polygamists win the support of people I trust, national psychology associations, prominent church organizations, and so on I'd consider supporting it. Any idea of what the polygamist movement is up to these days, QuiGon?

BelichickFan

Well the state gets in the business of encouraging "correct" behavior all the time whether it's making drugs illegal, encouraging home ownership with a tax deduction, making driving without a seatbelt a fineable offense, etc. And as a whole our society feels that homosexuality should be legal but not encouraged through legitimite marriage.

Pats726

You don't vote on rights my freind..I don't know what country you live in, but that is NOT any part of any tradition in the US...The judges interpreted tjhhe law..which is what they do.. YOU and all the others wish to pass a law LIMITING civil rights..that is NOT good for democracy or this commonwealth. you WANT to discriminate and you hide behind all kinds of fancy words of process...but that is the bottom line. Many do NOT want that..the courts have ruled against it...What votes caused schools to desegregate?? to free the slaves?? NONE!! The courts are doing the right thing..and you just do not like that..

Mainefan

There's no question that if gay marriage were subjected to a referendum today, it would lose.

There's also no question that the same referendum would pass easily if brought up again in 10 years. According to the polls, few people under 40 object to it.

Marriage is a religious concept. The government should have nothing to do with it. The government should be concerned with legal partnerships, not religious ceremonies or concepts.

All the fuss here comes down to a single word: marriage. Some people want to define it one way, others want to define it differently. That is not how the meaning of words is determined. It is determined through usage.

Today, when we talk of the relationships between gay people, it is awkward to use the word "marriage," even if we approve of it. But it's only been a couple of years since we've associated that word with gays. In time, I am quite sure, we will become accustomed to it and it will no longer be awkward.

I would say to those opposed to the idea: there's no stopping this one. It's only a matter of time. I would also say to them, the relationships between other people and what they choose to call those relationships have no effect on you, except as you allow them to.

And to those who say what's next? Will we let people marry their pets? I say, keep your eye on the issue at hand. The "slippery slope" idea can be imagined about anything, but it rarely happens. The slippery slope argument is just an attempt to distract from the issue being discussed.

BelichickFan

That's what we're told. However when I say that to the 22-25 year olds I work with they laugh in my face about how homophobia is on the decline in schools and among people their age.

QuiGon

I agree..!! And as soon as you show me the passage in the United States Constitution that says a man has a right to marry another man, I will drop the matter. Actually, this being Massachusetts, you may feel free to use the Massachusetts state constitution in lieu of the U.S. Constitution.
I live in the United States, of course. I thought that was obvious.
So the judges' interpretation of a 220 year old document written mostly by John Adams is that what he really meant was that gays should be allowed to marry..? You don't honestly believe that, do you..?
I do not support gays being married. you can call it whatever you want and come up with all your own fancy words. And it just kills you to know that my opinion is more represented in the mainstream - even here in liberal Massachusetts.
Tough to answer since there have been multiple judicial rulings as well as laws passed by the legislature. I do not want to write a 1,500 word essay detailing the many judicial and legislative activities that put an end to segregation.
That was done by Executive Order.
Correction: The courts have done the wrong thing for the wrong reason and I don't like it.

QuiGon

I would be very interested in seeing any such polls. Please post your references here so that I may look at the data.
"Slippery slopes" constantly happen, but I am not going to bring up ridiculous things like people marrying pets. But make no mistake about it: A large part of the gay agenda - and the next logical step in their activities - is to go after the churches that refuse to submit to every demand they make.