MA court rules on same sex marriages

[Seany-D]

www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/index.html

This is definitely a complex issue ... on one hand, marriage is often viewed as a religious institution, held high amongst many (most?) religious faiths, while on the other hand, marriages can also take place outside of any religious construct, as say, by a justice of the peace. Marriages confer certain benefits (and penalties, depending on how you look at it) under law; should civil unions be allowed as a "middle ground", or would such a classification not confer the same legal status as marriage?

Sean "I do ... what?" Davis

[Valvilis]

I'm not comfortable in the practice of ostracising citizens based on the bigotry of the "moral" majority. It's been said before, the Christians right seems to hate abortion more than almost anything else, you'd think they'd love homosexuals...

Seriously though, the whole issue is yet another misunderstanding of the bible. Newer translations clearly read that homosexuality is a sina and an abomination. These verses have nothing in common with the original texts. The bible is very clear that the sin of the Sodomites was their lack of hospitality. In a desert climate, refusing to let someone come in for the night could often mean their death, so it was steongly emphesised that you would allow anyone who asked a place to stay, even an enemy. When Sodom refused to open its gates, this is why god was displeased. If more Christians would take the time to get an actual education in Christian theology and Christian history, instead of bending the bible to say whatever they want it to (be it anti-women, anti-black, anti-gay, etc.) we wouldn't have half the problems with intolerance that we have in America today.

[the anti-myrmidon]

The opposition to gay marriage by means of government does not hold up any way you look at it. Religious motivations for banning gay marriage have no place in our laws or government agencies. No one should be forcing churches to marry gay couples if they disagree with it, but neither should gay couples be forbidden to marry through civil marriages or through gay-friendly churches. If gay marriages are to be banned, there must be a secular reason for doing so.

However, any potential secular reasons apply just as equally to heterosexual couples. If the tax breaks and other such benefits conferred to married couples would be too burdensome for our government if extended to gay couples, then they should not be extended to heterosexual couples either, as this would amount to discrimination.

I am disgusted by the deliberate misleading of the public by calling the move to ban gay marriage as "Marriage Protection." Two guy consentually screwing in a legally sanctioned relationship does nothing to threaten anyone else's marriage, and to say that it does is utterly ridiculous. If you are so against gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex...it's that simple. But don't force your prejudices on others and rob them of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.