Gay marriage goes on trial in US federal court

At the risk of incurring your wrath then, Delia, I would only say that I think it is very important to realize that at the heart of the founding fathers' philosophy was the concept of LIBERTY as freedom from tyranny...even if that concept was defined a bit differently then due to a social and cultural context that in some ways (slavery, disenfranchisement of women, etc) we would find repugnant today.

But if we as a nation are still primarily about liberty...and live in a DIFFERENT social and cultural context...I think the answer to the question of whether gays should be allowed to marry is fairly clearly yes.

Now don't tell my kids this or they will turn my words against me with regard to their obligation to do their homework...but given time I will find a founding father argument to thwart THAT attempt as well (heh)...

I'm not bashing the founding fathers entirely; I know their concepts were solid and still very relevant- but just as you said, we have to realize the inequalities and social context and change our ways accordingly. I'm just sick of conservative hatemongers using the founding fathers to justify their motives!

Delia, NJ assembly did not pass marriage.

Bigotry should never be an assumed motive for a stance on a legal issue. The stance supporting marriage as an institution that can only exist between a man and a woman, has not been argued well in the media. However, there are some people, such as myself, who actually support traditional marriage without harboring any hate for homosexuals.

All legal unions between two consenting adults are just that - legal unions. The "man+woman only" argument has its roots in religion, and this is supposed to be a secular nation. The government isn't going to make any religious institutions marry gay people, so they should return the favor by keeping their noses out of it - so sayeth the 1st Amendment. Policing who can get certain rights and who can't, simply by merit of a physical difference, isn't exactly American.

Religious beliefs cannot be assumed as the sole reason for opposition either. Some dictionaries and laws originally defined marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman. A percentage of openly-gay citizens have voted against gay marriage. I believe the mason-dixon line on this issue comes down to whether one believes that sexual orientation is a biological or behavioral trait.---"What is wrong with Proposition 8 [attackers] is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage. I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."---Elton John

Separate is not equal.Gay marriage will not harm nor degrade traditional marriages. Both can exist together.

sorry neo,

those who would deny homosexuals the right to marriage are bigots expressing a hatred for homosexuals. Any protests to the contrary ring hollow.

@ neodobby.... JUST BECAUSE is not a good enough reason.

Wow, unimatrix0 is an authority and the last word on the attitudes and motivations of others.

unimatrix0 is not the authority, but it's entirely logical. Saying "I support the 'traditional view of marriage' (and therefore that gay people should be denied that very basic right) but I'm not prejudice against them" is like saying "I'm not a racist but I don't think anyone but white people should be allowed to vote." You don't have to actively hate a group of people to be prejudice.

"unimatrix0 is not the authority, but it's entirely logical."

The use of logic does not guarantee that any conclusion reached will be true.

@jb83: As I said in my 2nd comment, the biggest division line on this issue is whether you believe sexual orientation is biological or behavioral. There have been some studies that have suggested that there are biological factors that influence sexuality, but it is ultimately a choice. Therefore it is not truly comparable to race in this sense. @Delia & unimatrix: Technically, bans on gay marriage can neither be considered a separation nor a denial of rights, since the original definition of marriage specified that it was between a man and a woman. Whether or not gay marriage degrades traditional marriage is a matter of opinion. I respectfully disagree with the stance in support of gay marriage, but isn't it ironic that anyone who opposes gay marriage is automatically labeled a bigot / homophobe / etc.; so who's really 'intolerant'?

@neo - We create the definitions and rules. We can change them. Saying "That's how it is, so technically we're not denying anyone rights" is simply an endorsement of a discriminatory system. Once we realize the prejudice in a law or social construct, we should work to correct it- so no, I don't think it's strange that people who are against gay marriage are labeled as bigots or intolerant. Supporting institutionalized discrimination is a form of intolerance.

Also, your assertion that "ultimately being gay is a choice" is highly refuted by scientific research, sexuality experts and people who are actually gay. Do you think that heterosexuality is a choice?

@ neo: there are studies on a lot of things. It is undeniable that largly studies show that it is biological (many on the "gay gene" itself). You can find a study to support whatever you want but look at the weight of the evidence. It is exactly like race. People fought race equality for years claiming religious reasoning for that as well. Doesn't make either argument any less discriminatory and hateful.

And let's be honest. With how poorly we treat gay people in this country, do you think people just have this burning desire to be treated like "immoral, reprehensible human beings"?

Thank you neodobby for posting such a rational argument in such a hostile environment. I see exactly where you are coming from and feel the same way. Let's just change someones name to a profane word and see how they like it? Because essentially to a lot of people calling a homosexual union a "marriage" is to profane the word marriage. It really is that simple, nobody gives a crap about what two consenting adults do in a bedroom, nobody cares if they have the same equal rights and privileges as married people, just don't insult the heterosexual community in the process.

Nobody has to accept any number of homosexuals trying to pass their "thing" off as marriage, and I believe very firmly well over half the population won't. Because doing so calls into question the seriousness of their own marriages. Maybe it is wrong, I don't think it is but fine, still tell me 1 thing sodomy has produced other than a thrill, and how that could be considered "consummating a marriage", and THEN somebody might have an argument.

"It really is that simple, nobody gives a crap about what two consenting adults do in a bedroom, nobody cares if they have the same equal rights and privileges as married people, just don't insult the heterosexual community in the process."

You don't care, but you are insulted. Ummm... what?

I do believe that heterosexuality is ultimately a choice (& same for asexuality); we typically don't think of it as a choice because it is natural (in the sense that we exist as a result of heterosexual reproduction). We are sexual beings by nature, but we choose how we express that. I am aware of studies that suggest for instance, the more older brothers a male has, the less testosterone, etc. he may inherit, thus greater are his chances of being gay. However, for any romantic / sexual connection to be made, one has to make the conscious decision to either make an advance or accept one - such action cannot be credited to one's genes. For those who subscribe to the belief that sexuality is determined by attraction and not action: ask yourself what your favorite color is. Is that your favorite color because you've developed that preference over time? Or do you believe you were born with a gene that predetermined your favorite color for you? Like spacemikey, I believe that consenting adults should be free to do what they please; but gay marriage requires the government to legitimize a union that does not meet the main requirement of holy matrimony.

neodobby--you got the research wrong: men with greater numbers of older brothers are exposed to MORE testosterone in the womb, which increases their chances of being gay. [Unless they are left-handed... but let's keep things simple...]

As for color preference, I've always liked the color blue. Since I was very, very little. In more recent years, that has bothered me for various reasons. For one thing, I'm feminist, and I hate the fact that, as a man, my favorite color is blue. But I can't help it! I like blue.

@ neo... a few more things:
"I do believe that heterosexuality is ultimately a choice (& same for asexuality); we typically don't think of it as a choice because it is natural (in the sense that we exist as a result of heterosexual reproduction)."

Is procreation the only natural activity for human beings?

"I am aware of studies... However, for any romantic / sexual connection to be made, one has to make the conscious decision to either make an advance or accept one"

Can you WILL yourself to fall in love with someone? With ANY random person?

"Like spacemikey, I believe that consenting adults should be free to do what they please;"

Do you, like spacemikey, put down gay relationships as 'their "thing"'? Do you, like spacemikey, equate gay marriage with sodomy, and do you, like spacemikey, feel that the right to marry should be decided on the basis of whether or not the sexual activities of the couple in question can be considered as 'consummating' the marriage?

"but gay marriage requires the government to legitimize a union that does not meet the main requirement of holy matrimony."

Legalized marriage is NOT a religious issue. Whether or not churches or other religious institutions choose to perform or accept marriages is up to them and their congregations. But, thanks to the separation of church and state (so brilliantly endowed to us by our founding fathers), what the government accepts as marriage should have NOTHING to do with anyone's religious beliefs.

If what you say about sexuality is true, then all sexual behavior is a "choice" and that particular issue shouldn't come into play here.

"gay marriage requires the government to legitimize a union that does not meet the main requirement of holy matrimony." Holiness has nothing to do with the government. Marriage may have started as a religious concept, but in today's society it can exclude religion completely. Marriage licenses must be acquired through the state governments, not churches. Again, humans have made up the "requirements", thus they are subject to human questioning and human change.

@ neo,

You have an interesting argument I must admit. I also commend you for remaining civil and somewhat respectfully voicing your opinions. It's very easy in these situations for things to devolve into shouting matches.

However, there lies a commonly (conveniently) overlooked flaw in all comparisons between sexual orientation and anything else. Nothing else can fully encompass your entire being as much as pure sexual attraction. I choose to act on my urges because I have them. Because without them my life is fundamentally of less worth. This is something every gay person experiences in their life. Every. Single. One. So yes we all choose to act, but that very action is a mere reaction of the very calling of our souls; So strong is the calling that to do the complete opposite (documented fact) can damage our very psychological state. I very much doubt that one's preference for a mere fraction of the color spectrum (however acquired) can do so much to a human, or any animal.

Next, holding on to tradition for tradition's sake is not valid reasoning. To clarify, when one argues the validity of an existing law, it is not a legitimate defense to say, "Well we've been doing it for a long time." No law has held its ground with such a flimsy foundation.

Furthermore, arguing that some nature is "unnatural" because of a lack of biological end to a means would call into question the very "holy matrimony" so many claim to defend. Why should barren women or neutered men have the right to marry? They in no way help expand humanity and in fact suck up valuable resources and man power that could go to reproductively viable couples.

Which leads me to the next argument. I have yet to read a rebuttal in which some religious context does not eventually follow. Obviously any mention of a religious order, sect, or cult implies favoritism and violates the constitution.

I welcome feedback.

I too completely disagree with comparing liking a color to being gay. It's like saying "I didn't come into this world naturally loving mac n cheese and the color green and therefore that proves gay people make a choice." There is no foundation to that statement.

That Elton John quote is bogus. He's BRITISH. They are more enlightened over there, and their civil unions are on par with marriages. Our civil unions suck, far fewer priviledges than marriage. For example, if your gay spouse is in the hospital, a civil union doesn't give you the right to see them. Unacceptable!!

For the full list go here: http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

If you don't trust about.com, just Google it. there are tons of sites with lists.

Gay people are PEOPLE and there are a lot of them, and all they want is equality. This isn't some weird fringe thing like marrying your goat. It's one person partnering with one person. Allowing this doesn't hurt you. So what's the big deal. If you are against gay marriage or some civil construct that has EXACTLY the same priviledges and responsibilities as marriage, then you are a bigot. There is no other explanation.

I believe being black is a choice and I do not approve. Obviously actually being black is not a choice, but acting on it is. Black people do not actually need to come out into the world with skin showing and offend people by being seen. That is a choice. I have nothing against neodobby, I just don't think he should be able to vote like the rest of us non-blacks. If he votes it demeans the value of my vote. He is entitled to a "shout out" of his opinions, but federally recognized votes should be reserved for normal people who do not choose to offend me by being openly black. I hope you recognize that I am talking calmly and therefore can not be considered a bigot.

Wake up dobby! You only get one chance at life. For God's sake, stop fighting for the unhappiness of others! Your cause hurts people while achieving nothing for yourself. It is pure insanity. Just stop!!!

Do I believe that a gay person should be able to visit their ill partner in a hospital? Absolutely. But that is not an argument for gay marriage, that is merely a flaw in hospital policy. Patients should be able to receive visitation from anyone they choose. Hospitals should reserve the right to limit the amount of visitors one has at any given time, but not to dictate the validity of the patient's relationships. Domestic partnerships / civil unions should afford partners all basic rights such as sharing of insurance coverage and inheritance, etc. But besides rights, marriage includes certain benefits, such as tax breaks, that were implemented as incentive to promote the traditional family structure. sraevoz makes an interesting point about barren women having the right to marry; but if such a couple were to adopt, they could still attain a traditional family structure. Not to say that gay domestic partners should be unable to adopt, but a married couple should be considered first, then domestic partners, then individuals-seeking-to-adopt. This is not promoting tradition for tradition's sake, but rather it is based on the logic that a child benefits greater from growing up in a certain type of household. My argument was dismissed as 'religious' because I used the term 'holy matrimony', but I did so because it is widely cited as a synonym to marriage. The term 'holy' simply means 'pure' in this sense; and whether married in a church or a courthouse, marriage is looked at as an institution of sanctity. @jb83: my question about color preference was simply meant to provoke analysis of behavior versus biology.