Keep dreaming. The polling data is on the side of the good guys.

Keith, the normal effective date for legislation is either July 1 or October 1 of the year in which it is passed. If it is going to take effect sooner than that it would need to be passed as emergency legislation and would require a 3/5 vote of each house of the legislature. In this case, the house accepted an amendment to change the effective date from October 1 to January 1 to get a vote from Delegate Kach, a Republican who at the last minute agreed to support the bill. His concern, from what I understand from news reports, was that if the bill goes to referendum, he didn't want it to go into effect on October 1, and then potentially be overturned by referendum a month later. He felt it was safer to delay the effective date by 2 months. The rest of the house apparently felt that in order to secure his vote on the bill, they were willing to delay the effective date by those two months.

I am an atheist am I am not for gay marriage I am however fine with civil unions or what ever you want to call it. Why taint something that is fine and understandable to all. Or lets just have only civil union documents and let government agencies perform them and churches could still celebrate a marriage but not be included in law. So nobody could get married but you could have a civil union to make it official. Or give the term marriage to same sex unions and come up with a new term for not same sex unions. I bet the gay community would not be happy with that as they want to be equal. You can never satisfy them. Will we next be able to marry chimpanzees or multiple persons, yea I want to marry at least 3 women, not sure what is wrong with having an extra wife or two.

Matt, nowhere that civil unions have been enacted, have they had the effect of attaining 100% of the duties, responsibilities & benefits of marriage. NJ & VT tried it & it didn't work. Also think what you are saying - if you are happy to grant same sex couples all the legal substance of marriage but not the name, aren't you being hypocritical or prejudiced? As for eliminating the word marriage. . . why? Marriage is fine. It works fine now & will do so in the future. Churches ought not have any problem with marriage equality because no one is forcing them to perform marriages they don't agree to. But some churches don't mind. And justices of the peace/clerks of court would be available as always. Separate but equal NEVER works (see US Supreme Court decisions Plessy vs Ferguson & Brown vs board of Education). As for polygamy & bestiality, well, you certainly have a vivid imagination. I wonder what is it that brings such ideas to your mind???

David I am still waiting for you to inform me of my wishes to marry multiple partners and what is wrong with that? Please enlighten me. In every society someone will always be unhappy as no rules is the only solution to making everybody happy. Unfortunately no rules equal chaos. Where does the term marriage begin or end? In your mind to definition of marriage would be any two persons could integrate their lives with government papers. Sounds so happy. New marriage vows do you person take this person, who is the Mrs and who is Mr or is there one??? Lets just change everything that took hundreds of years to form. I do not understand why civil unions can not over time become law and provide same sex unions a place to be joined. Next the word divorced will become uncoupled.

Matt, what is is with you & your wishes for multiple partners? If you have those wishes, go away & explore them by yourself.

Why David is that different in your mind then mine. Why is that not my equal right. Why are you mean to me David, I just want what everybody else has, happiness, why deny me what I think is the correct term of marriage. I thought you would be happy for me. Well you have shunned my right and put up a law in front of it and made me a criminal, WHY????

Matt, marriage equality has nothing to do with polygamy. But since you insist that you have those "peculiar" inclinations, go think yourself what arguments you want for them.

David is so mean to me and my group of polygamist's. Who is making the term marriage state how many are involved? Below is the def.
In it are the words current usage, form of marriage ect..

You for some reason think its awful to have such feelings and think I am gross. I never said I wanted to be even in the same house with my 3 wives yet alone in the same bed or sexual act but you cast me as some freak, who is biased now?

Monogamy /Gr. μονός+γάμος (monos+gamos) - one+marriage/ a form of marriage in which an individual has only one spouse at any one time.[1] In current usage monogamy often refers to having one sexual partner irrespective of marriage or reproduction. The term is applied also to the social behavior of some animals, referring to the state of having only one mate at any one time. Also I do not want to control them or own them I would love them as much as I could. My children would grow up normal with three mom's no problem.

David your perfect shell is cracking.

David, what an excellent post. I love it when people put things in plain English for those who don't "get it".

The objection to "marriage equality" as you like to call it is not just religious. It's primarily based in the idea that homosexuality is abnormal behavior and as such should not be sanctioned, much less promoted. Just because a very small number human beings seem to have this proclivity doesn't justify the redefinition and perversion of common institutions such as marriage to make the afflicted feel more "normal". Once you strip away all the talk of legal rights and marriage equality, it really does boil down to this simple fact. Sorry, but "there's the rub", as they say.

Ryan, an even better result would be if they fail to get enough signatures for a referendum.

I agree, that would be awesome. If I'm reading this right, they'll need just under 56,000 signatures (3% of the 1.8 million votes in the last gubernatorial election).

Melanie, the problem is that those that voted against equality were voting either based strictly upon their faith, or else cynically voting that way to get the votes of the fanatically religious. Either way, they failed to uphold the constitutional standard of equality under the law. When fanaticism & scoundrelism join forces, Thomas Jefferson's wall separating church & state must be vigilantly guarded.

In the future the government will not recognize the term marriage and will perform all civil unions. This will remove the church from any part of it. Nothing should be called marriage.The government will charge their fees and everybody is equal. The Government gets $$$$$ Church will still be able have ceremonial marriages. This solves the church and state issue but ruins heritage. We will lose our spirit soon enough. Without rules or guide lines chaos soon follows, We all can not have what we want. We live in a majority rules society or did anyway now it looks like minorities rule. Oh well not a big deal. USA replaced by The Forced States of Government Rules

VERY WELL SAID!

I wonder what the other un-intended consequences of this legislation will rear their heads.

No way that happens. Support for gay marriage is constantly on the rise, and last year marked the point where supporters of gay marriage outnumbered those opposed.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/gay-marriage-opponents-now-in-minority/

By the time this actually goes to a vote, the numbers are going to look much worse for those opposed to this.

20 years from now, those that oppose this are going to look as backwards and wrong as those that once opposed interracial marriage.

Really?

Randy, I hope not!
The last time polygamy was practiced in this country many of our fellow Americans in Illinois, (who claimed they were Christians) massacred many of these polygamists. This caused the victims and survivors of this attack to flee to a place that would become known as Utah. Is this "marriage equality" really an issue of religious beliefs or personal/cultural beliefs of one citizen (Or a group of) being imposed on another (or group of) citizens? The Government has no business defining marriage. I would propose the definition of marriage remain with the Church, Synagogue, Mosque or other places of faith and ask citizens to challenge the unconstitutionality of the government defining a religious institution called marriage at all. We should petition our US Congress to strike the word "marriage" from any and all law books and replace it with Civil Unions. Then CU's would apply to any two people who willing consent and choose to become a couple to do so by applying for a CU license. This will allow CU couples the religious freedom to become bonded with this Civil Union in the eyes of God and in the place of worship and faith they choose. This would truly separate the issues harped on for so long about marriage being a 2000+ year institution by leaving it in the places of worship and at the same time allow everyone in a Civil Union access to the 1100+ benefits and entitlements under the law. Seems to simple aye! Thanks.

You said it yourself - pursuit of happiness.

As originally written the Pledge didn't have the phrase "under God".

And if you want to live in a Christian Theocracy, go find one and move to it, but the United States is not one and never will be.

Laura, the US Supreme Court in Loving vs Virginia (1967) said marriage IS a basic right. In part I quote: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.". But guess what? Even if the court had never said anything on the issue, the Constitution does: 9th ammendment says rights not listed remain with the people. To go further, the Declaration of Independence you quote gives us the right. What isn't marriage but covered under Life, Liberty & pursuit of Happiness?

Funny how quick we dismiss our Forefathers beliefs of God and religion. How our great state of Maryland did NOT want Catholics settling here during the reign of the King of England. One does not need to dig very deep to understand the mess religion was in Europe at the inception of our country and that many did not want the same theocarcy here. One should be proud to learn the beginnings of "freedom of religion” started right here in what we now call Maryland. Our forefathers with such primitive communication tools and transportation access understood this, why can't we? Thanks!

tom, you really don't think there are any benefits to marriage? While couples won't receive federal benefits, there are still state benefits that they may be eligible for. These include the following:

Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

So some things will change!

Jennell, that was a great answer to Tom. Since he doesn't think it a problem, let him live with his "girlfriend" without marriage & see what happens when someone gets sick or dies. He'll have such great fun with the bureaucracy then! Just picture Tom's smile as he finds out how costly it can be not to have that $25.00 marriage certificate!

TOM. You make some good points, however some of us are Gay and are not as Liberal as you want to paint us. It is much more basic than you seem to imply. Take some time to look at what it does when two consenting adults can't have the 1100 plus benefits and entitlements that protect you and your wife. Then imagine what would happen if they did not exist. If you still feel there is no problem, then allow the government to abolish those 1100 + laws and I think your point would be just. Just thinking outside of the box you seem to place people into. Thanks! Sincerely,

All this nonsense for benefits, thats what civil unions, domestic partnerships, power of attorney, call it whatever you want are for. I guess intruding into the legal version of marriage made it easier to get all those benefits but has created a lot of headaches for everyone. Why didn't the proponent just come up with a same-sex benefits law. Nobody would have cared and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Tom, a simple $25.00 marriage certificate achieves about 1,000 benefits + all the rights & responsibilities of marriage. If the legislature were trying to achieve this piecemeal it would take hundreds of new laws to achieve. Then courts would get involved to determine precedent & legality. It would take years & million$ to complete. And still some rights & benefits might not be attained. Moreover, many who oppose marriage equality would still try to block it. A lot quicker to just get married. Another thing, consider what you just said: " I guess intruding into the legal version of marriage made it easier to get all those benefits but has created a lot of headaches for everyone. Why didn't the proponent just come up with a same-sex benefits law. Nobody would have cared and we wouldn't be having this discussion." -- don't you see that you are admitting it's OK for same sex couples to achieve the substance of marriage? I just quoted your own words. That's why court after court keeps deciding that discrimination is wrong. Tom, see you are just quibbling over a word - marriage. If we are eligible to the substance of the word, why not to the word also? Please, think about it.

Whats a couple hundreds of new laws. A simple cut and paste in MS Word could pump out the thousands of pages to write up same-sex benefit versions of the laws. And you could just click on Find "marriage" and Replace All with "same-sex union". You'd have 8000 pages of stuff. The legislators wouldn't have to "read the bill" No one would care and you'd have your benefits just like everyone else. If the Obama Administration can ram thru the Obamacare bill why can't we have O'Marry Unions.

David, is "the substance of marriage" your admittance that same-sex unions is not marriage?

No Tom. 1st remember what YOU said, I quote: "I guess intruding into the legal version of marriage made it easier to get all those benefits but has created a lot of headaches for everyone. Why didn't the proponent just come up with a same-sex benefits law. Nobody would have cared and we wouldn't be having this discussion.", by which you tacitly admit that you don't care if gay couples would be achieve the rights & responsibilities (the substance) of marriage. To which I responded - "If we are eligible to the substance of the word, why not to the word also?". Obviously, substance means the the rights & responsibilities, while the word means marriage. You see, by your own admission you are quibbling over a word. Don't you see it?

Barry, except on some moslem societies, marriage ALWAYS implies monogamy. Unless you live in Saudi Arabia or some other moslem country, polygamy is not an issue. Yes, there are those Utah & Arizona polygamists but guess what? They are all illegal & heterosexual. As for man/woman definition, women were once considered the PROPERTY of their husbands (in some moslem societies they still do). Do you consider your wife property? Once marriage was also defined within social class & race. Now we marry whomewher we want (except gays, whom you want to refuse the right). Definitions evolve as societies do. So your objection lacks logic, reason & merit.

If marriage ALWAYS implies monogamy.. i guess it ALWAYS implied between a man and a woman.

Jeff, I see your point. Opponents to marriage equality will now come up with million$ on a propaganda war to convince the public that marriage equality is evil. Never mind they never have enough $ to compensate church child abuse/pedophilia victims, to fight marriage equality the $ will magically appear! That's why me all must speak often, loudly & tactfully to educate the public, show them this good law HURTS NO ONE. We must answer EVERY false accusation & unmask it as the falsehood it is. Respond to every irrational accusation with evidence, logic & reason.

Jeff, you must not have read the article I linked. If you look at the trend lines on the graph, in 2008 40% of people approved of gay marriage and 55% disapproved. If you follow the trend, you would see that by 2013 (that article is a year old) that the numbers will have basically flipped, with well over 50% of people supporting gay marriage, and ~40% being opposed.

You can cite all the history you want, but it ignores the cultural shift that is underway in this country. What happened last year is a poor predictor of what will happen next year.

Jeff, all amendments offered to the bill by the GOP were meant to be poison pills to kill it. Had it passed in the senate in a different version than the house version, the whole circus would have gone back to the house, where passage might be harder the 2nd time around. So let's be glad it passed. I agree it is a distraction from the real issues that hurt people, issues the GOP would rather not discuss. That is why all those issues must be kept in the public's mind. See my response to Liz below.

MJ, the government has always been involved in marriage. Who enforces child support, investigates/adjudicates charges of spouse abuse or rape, enforce marriage/divorce laws? Not the church. The government always. Imagine the chaos & anarchy if churches ran the show - jehovahs witnesses cannot marry baptist, nor methodists evangelicals, etc.; jewish police refusing to aid moslem spousal abuse victims, presbiterian divorcees getting no child support payments from their episcopal ex-husbands because catholics didn't even recognize their marriages? How about atheists & agnostics, who would marry them? What about buddhists, hindus, etc.? That is WHY government has always had the duty. The marriage equality bill just passed by house & senate already says churches can't be forced to perform marriages they don't agree with. So there is no real, valid objection to marriage equality.

David, you're incorrect. The government hasn't always been involved in marriages. A marriage contract would include things such as child support and marriage/divorce arrangements. The government is there to protect contracts, not regulate or undermine them. As for charges of rape or abuse, I was unaware that only an issue with married people. The criminal justice system would resolve those issues, just as they do now. Some of your examples are quite confusing. How does a Jewish police officer refusing to aid a Muslim abuse victim have anything to do with marriage and who performs the ceremony?! Private entities currently marry atheists, agnostics, etc. Last time I checked, the Elvis chapel in Las Vegas isn't run by a religious organization. I am talking about contracts between two consenting adults, not the church regulating things like child support, etc. People need to stop thinking that the government intervention and regulation is the best solution.

MJ, notice what you are saying - that government is there to protect marriage contracts, not to regulate or undermine them. Isn't the very action of enforcing a definition of regulation? Even if the definition wasn't, in practice & legally it is. Marriage has legally defined parameters & rights codified by law. Who creates law? Who administers & enforces it? Government. Religion only provides a spiritual veneer to those who want it. But the function itself is governmental & precedes islam, christianity, judaism & even paganism. The criminal justice system involved in enforcement is an area of government. The example of jewish police officers was meant to illustrate how things wouldn't run well if church/mosque/synagogue were trying to enforce marriage laws. Since religion would do such a bad job, the state (government) handles it. Rape & abuse may involve married & unmarried people, but my example only concerns marital abuse/rape & how if religion were in charge of prevention/investigation/prosecution, some religions would discriminate against others. Again, that is why it is a government function, because government belongs to everyone & to no one, thus hopefully more impartial & less prejudiced.

Mediation over a contractual dispute between two adults and legislation regarding marriage are two completely separate actions by government. My position is to get rid of the latter and have individuals decide what they want to enter into with another person. I never said that the churches should control and enforce marriage laws.

The marriage contract, however, doesn't just define how two people interact with each other, it defines certain interactions and benefits from the society at large. These benefits are provided because marriage is considered good for the society as a whole. But, by necessity, society cannot review every individual contract to determine if the particular contract meets a standard to receive the benefits. As such, the government regulates what the contract of marriage entails if one wishes to be recognized as deserving the benefits of marriage. Those who want society’s benefits apply for a marriage license from the government and agree to the underlining requirements of that license.

If two people just want a contract to define their personal relationship to each other and aren't concerned with societies benefits then they can enter into such a contract. That would not mean however that your employer would have to recognize that relationship and provide health insurance for your spouse or that the IRS would have to recognize your arrangement. Can you image the chaos if every couple had their own written contract that defined only their agreed upon commitments? A tragic accident might lead to the following conversation at the hospital, “Does your legal contract allow you to make health care decisions for your partner? Please submit your contract to our overloaded legal department and they will let you know their determination in 3-6 months".

So MJ, if government is taken out of the equation, WHO is to enforce contractual obligations? Wisely, you say not religious organizations. But it still leaves the question of WHO will be the enforcer? Remember, without a mechanism to enforce laws they are nothing but dead. You keep mentioning mediation. WHO will mediate? And if mediation fails, WHO enforces? The only existing organization that could take such a duty is the one which has always taken it - government. Anyhow, regardless of anything you or I have discussed, marriage equality hurts no one.

Jennifer, you put this so well that I love to quote you: "Can you image the chaos if every couple had their own written contract that defined only their agreed upon commitments? A tragic accident might lead to the following conversation at the hospital, “Does your legal contract allow you to make health care decisions for your partner? Please submit your contract to our overloaded legal department and they will let you know their determination in 3-6 months".".

Liz, yours is the wrong question. If the republican$ & the churche$ hadn't made such an effort to stop the bill, it could have gone through without problems. They made it an issue. Why? THAT is the real question. Why focus so much on the possibility of a gay couple somewhere getting married & being happy? Could it be they don't want us to remember how some Wall $treet magnates pillaged the country? How some megabuck$ corporation$ are screwdriving the consumer? How unscrupulous bankers stilt the economy against the middle class? How gazillionaire$, corporation$ & churche$ pay little or no taxes while the middle class does & also gets salary freezes/reductions? How the churches hide pedophiles, cover-up during investigations & refuse to pay victims? How convenient to have gays marrying somewhere to criticize rather than looking at all these issues that HURT EVERYONE thousands of time more than some gay couple somewhere marrying?

Never let a good Politically Correct Crisis go to waste! - Zing!

Isn't the act of picking and choosing sections from the Holy book something that is done with all religions? There are a lot of Muslims that are not out for blood of those who don't follow the Koran. Sure the founding fathers wanted this to be a nation with freedom of Religion. They were more speaking to Christian religion, but where aware of others. Why is Marriage even something that is in the laws since it’s a religious institution? As far as the state is concerned it should be all civil unions. That would allow two long time friends to share their lives. Religion is helpful to some but not the path for all.

I did notice that and have contacted my reps that voted against this and expressed my displeasure with their votes.

In 10yrs petitioning at the legislature, the only time any Anne Arundel rep ever would meet the group I was with was last year, 5-10 mins with Vitale & 20mins with McConkey.

Barry, are you advocating that marriage "evolve" into polygamy? Thus far only oponents of marriage equality seem to keep bringing up polygamy. Thus your objections STILL remain without logic, reason or merit.

I'm all for not forcing people into marriage. Why is polygamy so wrong however. If consenting adults all want to live togeather is some crazy relationship why should they not be able to. For some people it would work, I don't think wife would like other wives and I'm not interested in her having extra husbands. Some people it would be alright with it. If the prices of things keeps giong up and pay stays the same it owuld be nice to have a few more bread winners in the house.

Agreed, I'm not really seeing the issue with polygamy either. There are likely some practical aspects of it that would need some tweaking, but for my part I couldn't care less what consenting adults do.

That differs from the other usual slippery slope complaints of the opposition (thankfully absent from this discussion thus far) like pedophilia (children aren't consenting adults) and bestiality (animals aren't either).

David - you are the one saying that marriage evolves over time. I'm just pointing out that if you are for having gay marriage you should be 100% for polygamy since its the consenting adults in that marriage that should decide whats best for them and not the government. If you disagree with this I'd love to here your logic and/or reason.

Barry, by your logic women ought still be the husband's property. Go tell that your wife & see if you get lucky anytime soon! Marriage evolved from women being the husband's property to being an equal partner. Also evolved in allowing different classes & races to marry. Our situation is similar, but doesn't extend into the bizarre arenas you want it to go. We who want marriage equality don't want polygamy. If you or the opponents of marriage equality want to evolve marriage into polygamy, go petition yourselves to the legislature.

Wow, having more then one wife is "bizarre" Maybe people think the same about 2 dudes getting married. Its funny how you fight for equality, but only for some and not for others. That was my original point and you proved it nicely.

Barry, the fact remains that you seem fascinated with polygamy, homosexuality & other variants of sexuality. I wonder why???

Not really Amy. Churches pay no taxes & millionaires pay very little. That's why us middle classes have to pay so much.

Learn Math, review Math, and all the taxes, loopholes, make sense. The Fraud even makes sense to. Now if we could just get those fraudulent tax dodgers brought to justice.

That's kind of creepy.

Does it really matter?

Don't know either of them.

Hmj, concerning divorce, marriage equality makes no difference. Divorce laws as they exist would continue to apply. Limits remain in place (monogamy, age of consent, not related, etc.). So . . . don't be primitive, evolve & stop the nonsense.

Will somebody please help me understand why I can not have 3 wives. Its my problem when it all goes bad. There would probably be 4 lawyers involved in a divorce hence more jobs for lawyers.

Just because you can't handle more then one wife doesn't mean the rest of us can't. The reason polygamy is illegal is the same way gay marriage has always been illegal. Why would you care if I had more then one wife? I'm not forcing you to do the same.

BTW Multiple husbands would be polyandry not polygamy. And since traditional marriage is really about property rights, in a male dominated culture, polyandry stands even less of a chance of becoming legal. Just saying.

Biblical definition matters not. It's a constitutional issue. Moreover, if you apply biblical standards, then it's polygamy all the way. Remember king Solomon & his harem of 700 wives & 300 concubines? (1 Kings 11:3). The bible clearly sanctions polygamy & "shacking together". So Liz, if we apply your judeo-christian standards, get ready to do some husband sharing. Or if you are of a more liberal persuasion, get your husband to share you with Matt & Barry since both are "bi-curious" about polygamy. Too bad for them that polyandry isn't biblically sanctioned, but at least you 3 can explore all the facets of your interest in polygamy, which marriage equality doesn't sanction.

Have to agree with Liz here. You can't have it both ways David. Also, why would you care if Liz wants 3 husbands. Just like she said its actually not a bad idea to have multiple sources of income. What are you opposed to, the fact that a girl can have sex with more then one guy? Wow, can't imagine how you even can wrap your head around your own sexuality. Although I bet I know how others wrap your head around their...well nevermind.

I am shocked David thinks I am bi-curiuos, WTF I never said I am into other men like David. I never said I want to have sex with more than one wife at a time?? What a losing winer is now going to tell lies about me just because I bring up a point that marriage is truly defined by who defines it and where. You would think David and his husband would understand my plight to make things right for me and my beliefs. My contract to marry more than one woman should be my problem and under civil unions it could be written. Any monies, properties, responsibilities could be on paper. Why not! At least I have a chance of procreation unlike SSM DAVID

The mention of not coveting asses is appropriate. I guess some opponents of marriage equality sit so much over theirs that is has gotten so large & fat that husbands no longer covet it, thus fancies of polygamy. BUT, there is NO mention of gays in the 10 commandments. However, there is pesky 1 Samuel 18:1,3-4 says David's & Jonathan's souls were knotted together & loved each other as their own souls, to the point that Jonathan stripped himself & exchanged clothes with David. Moreover, on even peskier 2 Samuel 1:26 David expresses distress over Jonathan's death & says "very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love for me was wonderful, passing the love of women". If anyone heard this on any street & saw clothing exchanged between 2 men, they'd say "GAY", but there it is, on the bible. Look it up ignoramuses.

OK children, let's see what the US Constitution has to say about the 10 commandments in 2 lessons! LESSON # 1: 1st we must decide WHICH version of the 10 to use - Exodus 20: 1 - 17 or Deuteronomy 5: 4 - 21? For the sake of simplicity we will overlook the various differences in wording, emphasis & meaning between the 2 versions & just make a blending of the 2 into 1. #1- "You shalt have no other gods before me" -- Invalid under 1st Ammendment of the US Constitution. We have freedon of religion. #2- No graven images -- Also invalid under 1st Ammendment for same reason. We may make graven images & worship them if we please in America. #3- Do not take Lord's name in vain -- Also invalid under 1st Ammendment freedom of religion & also freedom of speech. #4-No work on sabbath -- Invalid under 1st Ammendment freedom to peacebly assemble. #5- Honor father & mother -- OK constitutionally. #6- Do not kill -- OK constitutionally.

LESSON # 2: #7- Do not commit adultery -- Invalid under 1st Ammendment freedom of speech, assembly & association; that's why adultery not prosecuted as a crime however wrong it is morally. #8- "Thou shalt not steal" -- OK constitutionally. #9- "Thou shalt not bear false witness" -- depends upon the case. If perjury is committed in a criminal case the Constitution permits punishment. But if you just lie all the time in non-criminal situations, then 1st Ammendment free speech protects you right to lie (Matt, Barry & Liz, you may keep lying about polygamy being OK with marriage equality). Moreover, the 5th Ammendment might be invoked by lawyers to protect liars from prosecution. #10- "Thou shalt not covet" -- Constitution says NOTHING about coveting. But coveting is what keeps our capitalistic economy moving. We want better & faster cars. Better, bigger homes. So coveting may be a force for good if properly applied. Thus, we see that of of 10 commandments the Constitution invalidates all except 5, 6 & 8. Also # 9 is half invalidated. So the moral is: The US Constitution is the law of the land, NOT the 10 commandments. So...religious objections to marriage equality are invalid.

Sinner, if you are so concerned about the 10 commandments, you'd better stay away from shopping Saturdays & Sundays (sabbatt is supposed to be Saturdays, but some christians say it is Sundays, so to be sure stay home both days) lest thy soul be cast into eternal flames of perdition. Make sure you lift no finger to work, not even flushing the toilet or opening a can of cat food for Fluffy or else to hell you go.

So I'm going to put you in my corner of supporting marriage with multiple husbands/wives. Right?

I can't endorse polygamy, polyandry, or group marriage. My focus is on equal application of the existing laws, specifically around property. Polygamy, polyandry, and group marriage are not applicable.

So Ann, as long as its written in law you are ok with it. You aren't trying to challenge the law - only to make sure it is equally applied? I doubt that is the case. If there is a law that says only a man and woman can marry I'd expect you to agree with that? Come on

David, I can only speak for myself but I'm amazed that you still dont understand my point. Polygamy has a lot to do with "marriage equality" In my perfect world "marriage equality" to me would be to marry 2 women. In your world you want to marry another dude. So why is it that you support your own selfish wants but completely reject polygamy? Just answer the question david - why are you against polygamy. Polgamy has nothing to do with you so why do you object to it so strongly? Why?

David your mind is closed and what you interpret is correct and nobody will ever wake up a few more cells in your brain to help you understand the theory behind Pandora's Box. If you change the meaning of marriage for a few, insult the many then you will never have served a purpose, as nobody will see you as equal as you are not. If you open the meaning of marriage to any souls joined in a union then it has no meaning. You are such a big pussy you could marry a few men yourself.

Your soul has no understanding of others, religion or respect. You know nothing of me, my upbringing or how I drive. I hope your mother was a man then we would be on track to validating a purpose for your existence. You have assumptions of my driving???? Contact David for his/her psychic abilities!

Matt, what happened? Did I come close in analyzing you? You are petulant & full of yourself. Probably you don't get along with your neighbors either. Also believe in conspiracy theories galore. As for me being a pu@#%, I bet if you ever met me in an alley not only would you not recognize me as gay, but I'd probably scare you. :)

I wonder if you have any hidden "inclinations" yourself. You protest your heterosexuality too strongly; those with nothing to hide wouldn't protest so much. :)

I am starting to feel sad for David as he can not ever acknowledge anyones view points of a topic. Not once has he opened a little to information on this blog, he only starts to insult people he doesn't know. David today I am going to help a woman I just met yesterday as she is new to town and has no friends. I repair things for the elderly a few times per month. So I do not know where your mind has gone to locate such information about me on a personal level or why. Maybe it is because you have had so much man sperm down your throat in years past your brain has become chemically unbalanced. I don't know why you do not understand what will follow the changing of marriage as it is interpreted now and how another small group of persons will attack the value of its meaning after that as they try to make it mean something else. It would be easy to make everything and anything someone would want to call a marriage a union. All laws in the US could be changed by a few words Civil Unions, under a Civil Union all the same benefits could be written. But I know this will not satisfy you because you would then have nothing putrid to say anymore.

Oh, and bu the way David I do not protest what you and your Tommy do in the bedroom, I never said I did not approve. I encourage you and Tommy to forever pound away on each other. This is fine because that way you will never replace yourself and your nasty DNA will slowly disappear from this world. Maybe AIDS will slowly go away with you.

AIDS natures little insecticide!

Matt, I see you have had such great concern for my well being! Don't worry, since I have been monogamous for over 20yrs I have nothing to worry about AIDS, "natures little insecticide" as you call it. I however, do worry about you. With your promiscuous, polygamous fancies you will surely fall prey to chiggers, clap, AIDS, herpes, syphilis, gonorrhea, etc! I wonder how you'd explain the most recent flareup of crabs to your wife. I bet you'll be quite creative, with that vivid imagination of yours! I'm sure you can explain those crabs away. Yes, maybe having that homosexual couple 20miles away somehow "influenced" you in such a way that it led your marital vows astray. Maybe they exert some supernatural powers upon married heterosexual couples that make their marriages fail. If you persist on those cheating, polygamous ideations, I suggest condoms to you. For you wife's sake.

Matt, it suddently dawned upon me why you raise such a stink about a gay couple being married somewhere affecting you so wildly. According to Alfred Kinsey's sexual sexual report approx 37% of males have had at least 1 homosexual experience (Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, p. 656). I myself think that number is probably too large, but the point is that there is a lot of experimentation out there. What happened to you in college (I'm grasping at straws, since you give the impression of lacking in education)? Did some experimenting? It is commonly said that people who protest too much a point are usually guilty of it. What skeletons lurk in Matt's closet????

Matt, we can continue personally attacking each other or we can call it quits & try to have a more dignified discussion. The last 2 days I restrained myself while you kept at it. I just let go 2 little presents for you. If we keep at it, the discussion will get guttery. I'd rather keep it more educated. But if you keep attacking me I will attack back. That is a promise.

David you are correct, I never made it past 6th grade and you are far superior, smarter and more important than I will ever be. Your life itself will prove more important than anything I could produce. Be proud big scary alley man! Did I say everything you said is correct?, are you finally happy with something I have said. Oh yea everything I had to say was nonsensical. Its not fair I did not graduate 6th grade, I mean I had no choice, nature made me stupid and you are being mean to less superior persons.

David bringing my wife into this? Where a condom on your tongue!
Just a little information not written by me nor intended to hurt your feelings. I am sure none of this applies to you, but your large brain loves information, so here!

There are many health problems that can result from practicing anilingus, because of the presence of bacteria, viruses or parasites on or in the anus or rectum. These include hepatitis A, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, intestinal parasites, chlamydia infection, poliomyelitis, human papillomavirus (HPV), gonorrhea, Herpes simplex virus, conjunctivitis, and other sexually transmitted diseases.[7] Applying the mouth to the genitals immediately after applying it to the anus can inadvertently introduce the bacterium Escherichia coli ("E. coli") into the urethra, leading to a urinary tract infection. HIV/AIDS is not believed to be easily transmitted through anilingus.[8]

Matt, what a vocabulary! Anilingus! Boy, you know SO MUCH about THAT subject! makes me wonder WHERE your tongue has been all these years? At least I know WHERE your mind is - THE GUTTER.

David, Anilingus, learned that word in sixth grade, you know the gay community has forced the school board to include these important terms in elementary school so we all grow up thinking gay is normal and we would not fear their sexual activities. I want to tell you that is is horrific to a child's mind to push such things on them at an early age just to justify a life style.

David my wife has found my posts and said I was not allowed to reply to your posts anymore and that you are immature and I am no better by replying. I showed her how you taunt people and still she said sorry I don't believe in this conduct. Here is a quote she referenced, Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.

Liz, let me quote you: "Civil Unions exist to afford gays all the benefits of tradiitonal marriage...You say that opponents are trying to tell you who "you can love." No we are not. We seriously don't care." -- In other words, you stand ready to grant us ALL the rights & responsibilities of marriage, only not the word marriage. Isn't that cynical/hypocritical to give someone all the power invested in a mere word but refuse them the word? As for redefining marriage, wasn't it also redefined when women ceased being the husband's property? Or when members of different religions, social classes & races were allowed to be married? As for name calling, I can dish out after someone dishes at me. I could quote lots of names I have been called in these postings, thus my responses back at them, But just look at your own words - "you can then entertain anything - man and man - woman, man, man, man - man and dog, etc." - thereby stating I promote bestiality! How am I supposed to respond to that characterization of me? I am human; if I'm attacked I bite back.

I agree with you, there is NOTHING I would love more than having clean, intelligent & civil discussions on these posts. So, if you want to keep arguments civil, then be civil yourself and I promise to be civil towards you.

Liz David is far from being truthful. He will attack your very existence if you tell him your view point of a topic!

KRB thanks for saying this. I like it!

KRB, thank you for your well thought posting. The bill just approved by house & senate already includes language indicating churches can exercise right to sanction the marriage of only those they choose to. Moreover, the 1st Ammendment of the US Constitution already indicated churches have the right to sanction the marriage of those they choose to by virtue of freedom of religion. That should allay fears that gay marriage is being forced upon churches.
As I see it from various other postings, the more enlightened opponents of marriage equality (I don't count you among them) seem mostly resigned to grant us all the rights & responsibilities of marriage but refuse to call it marriage & re-name it civil union. I find that to be either cynical or hypocritical as it grants us the substance of marriage but refuses us the word itself. Moreover, we see from history that separate but equal never ends in equality. Also since marriage already is a civil matter with government conferring the tax & other legal rights, we have had never worry about churches doing it. Churches only provide the "spiritual" component to those asking for it. For those reasons I still prefer marriage in substance & word.
Again, thanks for your ideas & let's keep the dialogue going, for therein lies reasoning together.

Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich said Friday that he disagrees personally with same-sex marriage, but states that have approved it legislatively are “doing it the right way.”

Gingrich, the former U.S. House Speaker from Georgia, met with lawmakers Friday in Washington state, where same-sex marriage passed the legislature this month. Maryland lawmakers approved same-sex marriage this week. Six states and the District of Columbia issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and five states allow civil unions with similar rights.

“I think at least they’re doing it the right way, which is going through voters, giving them a chance to vote and not having a handful of judges arbitrarily impose their will,” Gingrich said when asked about the votes in Washington state and Maryland. “I don’t agree with it. I would vote no if it were on a referendum where I was, but at least they’re doing it the right way.”

I'm ok with that. Hope the Morman church will support my polygamous lifestyle!

Ann, I appreciate you seeing the common ground, however, it still begs the question - If it's ok to grant ALL the benefits & responsibilities of marriage, WHY not the word too?

David, I don't see it as significant. I am not religious and because of it, perhaps, the word doesn't carry that much meaning. But that's just me. I certainly don't claim to speak for anyone but myself.

David, I think KRBs point is that everyone should just have civil unions, not just homosexual couples. And that "marriage" itself would only be something recognized by a church and if these couples wanted any of legal benefits, that they would need to also have a civil union. As such anyone who was "joined" by a Justice of the Peace would only have a civil union. In this case there would be no need to have separate but equal institutions, it would be one institution that everyone shared. Truthfully, this is not a horrible idea. But I don't see people going for it as people don't like change. And realistically, there are religions that will marry homosexual couples, so they could still receive the exclusive title of marriage if they were willing to convert to a religion that supported them. So it would cause a whole lot of societal upheaval to get nothing substantially different than we would have if we allow two people to marry no matter their race, religion or sex.

Jennell, I see your point & your analysis is 100% correct. Thank you for your time studying the issue. Like you say, it seems like so much trouble caused just over objection of the use of a single word - marriage. So easy to solve the problem just by letting gay couples marry! Well, I guess supporters of marriage equality just will have to make oponents realize that churches that object gay marriage WILL NOT be forced to marry gay couples & that some gay couple married somewhere harms no one.

Jennell is correct in her understanding of my comments.
Liz - civil unions just don't give the same rights - examples - IRS laws, and if your partner is injured and hospitalized in a state that doesn't recognize civil unions then you have no rights to visitation or decision making. The list is literally over 1000 items long.

I see you took the definition of marriage from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. If we tweak the words a little bit & change it a bit, this is how it comes: "Marriage is the state of persons being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by laws between the couple". This "redefinition" as you would say doesn't really change much. And as for monogamy, I can quote myself as an example - 21yrs of exclusivity & happy about it. We even adopted kids, 1 in 1998 & another in 1999. 1 is in high school, the other about to start it. Both in honors. Both straight. If you visited my home you'd see we are fairly commonplace & even more conservative family than our quasy-rural neighbors with the exception that my partner & I are gay. We mostly work, eat & sleep. So perhaps we're not too different from you as you might have thought. As for "open marriages", I don't have or want that, but I'll tell you cheating occurs amongst heterosexuals too. Didn't Newt Gingrich himself have a recent scandal for wanting an open marriage? That didn't make him any less married.

Liz, looking at what your reference pointed out concerning monogamy & "open relationships", I don't see how it holds any water. Law looks at law, not statistics. By the reasoning of the article you referenced black people ought be denied marriage because as of 2002 only 35% were married vs 63% in 1950 & only 25% of black children are born in wedlock vs 80% in 1960 (US Census Bureau info at http://www.bookerrising.net/2007/09/statistics-about-black-americans.html). Black citizens CANNOT be denied the right of marriage despite these statistics. Neither should same sex couples. But I go farther to expose the irrationality of your referenced source. Look at US history. Those "Southern Gentlemen" that were so proud of their superior white race had black slaves, whom they deemed inferior non-humans. Ever seen a pure blooded African? On average they are much darker than US blacks. What does this prove. That these white "Southern Gentlemen" had LOTS of sex with their female black slaves, creating our present day black citizens. Guess what? These "Southern Gentlemen" had white wives. So in a sense these dastarly "gentlemen" had "open" marriages. Somehow their marriages remained valid even though they must have been quite busy cheating. Legally cheating & "open" relationships are not legal impediments to marriage equality any more than they are to current heterosexual marriages. Cheating is bad I wholeheartedly agree, but the law allows cheaters to marry anyhow.

Liz, you indicated fears of "horrible attacks" on 2/26/12 if you expressed your opinion. I thought I should quote a few lines from Matt just so you can see how I get "attacked". This should give you an idea of the hatred I have to deal with. Here goes Matt: " Maybe it is because you have had so much man sperm down your throat in years past your brain has become chemically unbalanced." & "I encourage you and Tommy to forever pound away on each other. This is fine because that way you will never replace yourself and your nasty DNA will slowly disappear from this world. Maybe AIDS will slowly go away with you. AIDS natures little insecticide!". These are but 2 quotes from same day. I have lived through 50yrs experiencing this "love the sinner but hate the sin" expressions on a regular basis. If you were in my place, how would you feel?

Liz, remember when Matt said "Liz David is far from being truthful. He will attack your very existence if you tell him your view point of a topic!"? Yet he was just wishing me an AIDS death. Wasn't he attacking my very existence? What is your opinion of this? Do you think it appropriate? I am trying to be civilized here. Am I threatening your existence or his?

Liz, David is trying to manipulate you and make me look worse than him self. He, DAVID decided to attack, me, my mother, and my life in general. It took him four or so tries before I defended myself only because of his clairvoyance abilities. Then he pats himself on the back for getting me to fall into his trap. I admit I defended myself. I could have been more aggressive in my replies.

This is where he is happy about attacking me remember this blog came after several very mean spirited lines from him, then tries to save you as an advocate.

Matt, what happened? Did I come close in analyzing you? You are petulant & full of yourself. Probably you don't get along with your neighbors either. Also believe in conspiracy theories galore. As for me being a pu@#%, I bet if you ever met me in an alley not only would you not recognize me as gay, but I'd probably scare you. :)

Liz, I may add that perhaps you have an erroneous idea of what type of person I am. And of what gay people in general are. If you were to sit down have dinner with my family, you'd see a very happy, close, talkative family that is perhaps not too different from yours except in the presence of 2 dads. I even venture the guess that you'd probably enjoy our conversation & soon our company. And as you got to know us, you'd see we're no hellspawn minions bent upon the destruction of civilization. We are just 2 guys who work extra shifts to afford mortgage, car notes, bills & food, so the kids have a home, education & a better future than our present is. Now on gays in general. Many have had a hellacious time with rejection from families, friends, church & society in general. Despised by many, with few refuges & friends, I'd be surprised if some don't have problems. But gays have existed in all civilizations & times. Often persecuted, but never extinct. Why? Because we are human & as long as humans exist we will also exist because that is how we were created. And as Thomas Jefferson said, we are equal in right to life, liberty & pursuit of happiness. If you want to know what our agenda is, it is the same as yours - life, liberty & pursuit of happiness. There is no monstrous cabal meant to destroy the world, just people, perhaps different from you, perhaps not so different from you, but people nevertheless.

David goes out and gets a drivers license that allows him to drive heavy equipment Class A. Tommy gets a license to drive passenger cars class C. Now they both have a license to drive however they live by different laws even when they share the same highway. They both have a license of similar protocol, but they are not equal in requirement, benefits and the contracts with the state are different. Class A is more strict but you could make lots of money with it, class C driver is more general and used to drive around. And yes class C can make money too, its just not as capable as class A. They both live there lives fine. The classes of drivers licenses were derived over time and continue to be modified.

What David does not understand about Civil Unions is that they can be close to the same but it will take time to have the law written.

The driver license example isn't appropriate. Class A & Class B have different requirements due to size/weight of vehicles being driven. Marriage as a concept fits both gay couples & heterosexual couples equally. Both get treated equally, unlike Class A & B drivers - the guy who only knows how to drive Smart cars could be a disaster on the highway if he drove an 18-wheeler instead! But in marriage the gay couple live their lives & the heterosexual couple live theirs. A more apt comparison to marriage would be a road called marriage. It's the same road. All lead couples be they gay, straight, black, white, rich, poor to wherever they want to go in their journey through life.

Part 1
I know David's can not understand how two men sharing there lives is different than a man and a woman who can procreate which is the sole reason to be here on this earth. So David please stop telling me that there is no difference. Its is completely abnormal in nature itself for animals to be gay as it would serve no purpose for the animals existence. We are not born with a penis or vagina for the sole reason to not use them for their purpose. You have made a choice to be gay, to act on your gay curiosity and then settle when you found yourself another man with the same disposition. If you did not make a choice and you are chemically different in your brain, have a different brain, have a woman"s brain or you are over producing estrogen, whatever you want to claim is the reason for making you family members scratch there head about your behavior is still a choice. I make choices I do not like and move on with life. Either way this in itself proves you are different.

Part 2 For old stubborn Dave
The gay community I am sorry to inform you is a minority group and include persons like yourself and some people who just got bored with sex itself and are raising the bar of what they need to be happy. Now you want to change what a majority of people understand about the meaning of marriage and do not care one bit about the way they will feel to be in the same word marriage as you. If you would care one bit you would accept civil unions and live on with your choice. Most people would not care about your civil union and as time went along it would be written very easily into all laws that you could retain 90 percent of the same laws and the other ten percent maybe not after all you are not exactly the same. If you don't think you have had your adopted children's mind racing with questions on occasion I know you cannot be truthful with yourself. And stop making so much out of a simple analogy. Are you that anal all the time?? Even if they make your wishes true it will never be enough. You will always complain how I need to recognize you as equal or superior to those in your community.

Just as you say, I have seen the polygamy issue used just as a scare tactic over & over. Thanks for explaining the issue so clearly.

I am not using polgamy as a scare tactic. I am saying polygamy should be allowed. David, you were never able to answer why you have a problem against polygamy. If two (or more) people want to get married let them do so right?

Right now its popular to support gay marriage and unpopular to support polygamy. However they are both trying to achieve the same thing in that let people decide whats best for them and who they can marry.

Barry, for the 1,000th time I explain to you again. Marriage equality as established in the bill passed by both chambers of the MD legislature envisions marriage of gay couples by the same standard of monogamy as required to current (heterosexual) marriages. If you want polygamy, that is YOUR argument to make, not mine & it is up to YOU to petition the legislature for that "right" you keep bringing up. I consider ALL of your posturings about this inane polygamous subject a simple propagandistic tactic to smear marriage equality. If you want to prove you are not using that tired polygamy horse as propaganda, I dare you to prove me wrong by rushing to the legislature tomorrow & petition for the right to polygamy. Come on, brave boy, prove me wrong. I wait to see about your petition in the news. I myself was brave enough to petition the legislature for marriage equality for 10yrs. I wonder how corageous you will be?

Males in nature have the inherent urge to propagate as much as possible with as many females as possible. Male persons are free to do just that, but it will be against the law once marriage is recorded. Does't seem fair to restrict nature itself. At lease persons for SSM is not something you go to jail for. They can live together, have civil unions and maybe soon get married. Will they fall prey to all the laws? Polygamy or some new word that forms the same basis. So stop one let the other what will really be fair? Gays say they are natural, males in nature like to propagate but are then by law stopped. Its just a law why not erase that or is there a Definitive reason this law was created.

James, I appeal to your sense of reason. I quote you: "If the pro-SSM movement had just taken the approach of wanting some kind of civil unions none of this discussion would be occurring.". In other words, you admit not caring if SSM attains ALL the rights & responsibilities of marriage. Does it not stand to reason that if you really don't care that SSM attains ALL the rights & responsibilities of marriage then you are only opposed to grant a mere word - marriage? And does it not stand to reason that if SSM merits attaining ALL the rights & responsibilities of marriage, it would constitute discrimination to deny SSM the word marriage too? Don't you see that logically, reasonably both the right & word are entwined? Now I quote you again: "By attacking something as deeply ingrained in the human experience as marriage between a man and a woman, I think you've only made things worse.". James, give a good reading to your own quote - it reads as an appeal to discrimination, which I assume is unconscious on your part. Analyze what you wrote; you say it's OK if SSM attains some sort of "marriage lite" but feel unconfortable admitting the rights you yourself it was OK for SSM to have. A Klansman could have said as much in the 1960's about desegregation. Remember that racial segregation was also "deeply ingrained in the human experience", so was slavery, and women as the husband's property, and the burning of witches. James, again I appeal to your reason, NOT to "ingrained" ideas.

Kenn Bing, even if a referendum were to overturn the bill, eventually the referendum itself would be overturned in court, for it would fail constitutionally. That is why the proposition 8 referendum banning gay marriage in CA has repeatedly been overturned every time it comes to court. For the latest court opinion trashing proposition 8, just look http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fthinkprogress.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2Fdoma-opinion.pdf&h=3AQG_m-1QAQEdVsfzbcnc53EueKluxp2jvPZ76SuLKsZeHA . By the same reason, any referendum voiding marriage equality in MD will likewise be overturned & then marriage equality will be law in MD. So, even if it takes longer & harder, we shall prevail. By the way, you write very poetically. :)

Liz, it is not that I am psychic. Nor is it that even Republican apointee judges are deciding. I just follow a line of reasoning (A goes to B goes to C, etc). Thus far every time a court case has come up on this issue, if the judges rule only based upon law, constitutionality & logic (which is the way law is always supposed to work), the cases keep going in favor of marriage equality. Again, read the latest court decision. It is logical & reasonable: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fthinkprogress.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2Fdoma-opinion.pdf&h=3AQG_m-1QAQEdVsfzbcnc53EueKluxp2jvPZ76SuLKsZeHA .

Thomas, are you saying that laws & courts are to be disregarded & disobeyed? Doesn't that lead to lawlessness, crime, anarchy, chaos & collapse of society?

Hello James. We have a long way to go in treating people without judgment. I know living in Crofton it is still a struggle to just get black and white to see each other without discrimination or labeling, let alone something like a Gay family. But, the fact is some people do think about it just like your example and some think of a gay family in the way you describe in your post here. It is not the job or mission of the gay couple or family to convince people to believe gay people are born this way. Discrimination is a de-habilitating action to towards any individual. It sometimes is done unintentionally and for others it is very intentional and in fact validates those who would take dangerous or hateful steps towards a group of people (whoever they may be). The challenge is how you separate yourself from this type of behavior. I believe it is through getting to know others you find different or.... "Queer" as stated in your post. “Bob and Bill” already exist at the PTA and Bob and Bill experience both positive and negative reaction as well as their child. But this is how we will see a difference in 50 years. I remember my daughter telling me one day how she could not understand why anyone would make black people sit in the back of the bus, "Why would people do that Dad" and how she was struggling with this at 8 years old. Rosa Parks made a difference and 50 years later it is not tolerated. That is real, not a utopia. Character & Integrity is key Thank God.

Liz, This is painting the wall with a broad brush. Gays have as many lifestyles (Choosing to live a certain way, but nothing to do with their sexual orientation) as straights. So, your point can only be taken as to say all gay people act this way. As you know men and women cheat on their spouses. Other married couples have sex outside of their relationship knowingly (Swingers) and yet others participate in the same type of activity as you have pointed out in your link. I do not find it appropriate to provide a link, as I believe you and others on this site are fully capable of using google and locating what I have identified here. I am sorry you have a beleif of one link representing millions of people. I hope this is not a reflection of how all people who happen to born Gay are living.

James, I am sorry how important marriage is to you and I will respect your right to defend it as you are. However, the definition of marriage has already changed (two people of the same gender can be wed) with our neighbor and close allies, to include Canada (For close to a decade) and many other countries as well, although they are not America and can only be looked at as separating church and state on this issue. We in our country take great steps for those who are born with the challenge of being who they are if they happen to be blind, deaf or a physically challenged, so they can function and thrive in society and be protected under the law. We take great steps in this area and just because history has not embraced it, is not a reason for America not to. The issue is simple, Gay (or homosexual) is not a choice, therefore making civil marriage available allows Gays (or homosexuals) to function in society and be protected under the law. (Continued 2)

(continued from 2)The institution of marriage is not changed as each of us sees it through God in our house of faith. Growing up and being told that "who you are" is wrong, disgusting, evil, etc. is a discrimination that can be compared to the struggle of Blacks in America. Homosexuals have been persecuted and murdered for centuries. The Civil rights movement of the 60's included a movement of homosexuals who were tired of being discriminated against and being treated like trash and worse (In some cases death). I have an article to demonstrate the existence of the discrimination of our society, titled “homosexuals can control you Job" (People Today, JUNE 1963) just to site one article in one magazine in the beginning of the 60's. James, I do understand you are offended by the definition change to marriage, but I find it unfortunate you cannot see the law is unconstitutional and that holds the highest decree in our land, no matter what they did in Greece, Rome, or Britain for that matter. I am sorry we differ on this point, but I respect and see you are defending marriage as you know it. (Continued 3)

(continued from 3, I beleive these may post in the reverse order, so please follow the numbers of 2 & 3)
I hope that you can see that I too, respect and know this is the right thing to do for those who happen to be born gay and to allow them to be able to have the opportunity to a full and fruitful life in America. God bless.

Well said

So Matt says that it isn't right that gays marry because they cannot propagate. By his line of "reason" sterile couples ought have their marriages invalidated. Same for the elderly. Ditto for childless couples.

Matt, I know you have difficulty reading, so I will post it again. Hopefully someone can help you read:

The Merriam-Webster definition of marriage - " Marriage is the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by laws between a man and a woman".

The marriage equality redefinition of marriage - "Marriage is the state of persons being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by laws between the couple".

Seems to me like not much difference.

David, by your own new definition of marriage I would say that it supports polygamy. Right? Still have no idea why you are so against polygamy. I'm not asking you to do my work and get the legislation passed - just asking your opinion on why you agree/disagree with polygamy. As a gay you should support the right for "spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship" to do as they wish.

Matt did say whatever David did or did not want to hear, understand or interpret. Procreation the main reason David and not the only a reason a large number of persons marry. I would think most people know its not part of the definition David provided. But once again let me waste my time with this Engineer David.
It seems to me that some (gays/homosexuals or whatever word I am so blessed to use for the sake of conversation) would like to celebrate and define their existence and be well defined and proud of their choice/forced lifestyle's. David wants for his whole life to be seen as the same as other than gay people and not as a gay person. He just wants to be normal as in those who marry. Please put that bumper sticker on the back of your Prius I am a proud gay man! or Vote Democrat for liberal laws and liberal spending! or both.
David I am sorry you find anything I say that is not in line with what you believe, understand, or make up horrible. I do hope that one day when discussing a topic with someone whom your disagree with you could say something nice like sorry we will have to agree to disagree on this topic but I found something you said that I will ponder.

Here David I can change a definition too!
The definition of Civil Unions - "Civil Unions is the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by laws between the couple and the state. Usually for the sole purpose of same sex couples to be recognized as spouses with the same rights as those whom fall under the laws of those whom are married and still not be satisfied.

Hopefully in the near future David will realize that gaining recognition and understanding takes time. Best wishes for a more open mind! And remember other people have feelings too, we just can't sue someone if they hurt are feelings. Basically you are afforded things which other people do not have. ?????

I am glad you David have reached a far better relationship with Tommy than me and my wife. Thanks for not calling her any names. Once again you wonderful mind has placed me in some sort or dream you are having about me in a non existence promiscuous relationship. Please don't place that much thought about me in your mind. I may collide with the first thoughts you had about placing your penis in another mans rectum to reach his soul. And as far as you and you man having sex I am sure it is save and ordinary. At this point in your life I am sure you still eat solid food.

All children deserve to begin life in stable homes with loving parents. All too often this is not the case. Please tell me how the rejection of same-sex marriage in any way shape or form fix any issues, problems, or challenges with unstable homes. How does the rejection of same-sex marriage make straight parents love their children? How does the rejection of same-sex marriage stop parents, boyfriends, girlfriends, babysitters, and caretakers of children from harming the children entrusted to their care?

Ann, Looks like you missed the point of role models and how they play out in a child's mind thru adolescence. Not all relationships of any kind guarantee a perfect childhood, but maybe tradition marriages offer higher possibilities. After all male/female has been the normal since our existence.

Matt, looks like you missed the point of reality. And perhaps you need to be better acquainted with history. Marriage and family unit of today has only existed since the Industrial Revolution. Nuclear families are not the historical norm. Neither is marriage for love.

Ann I am talking about parental structure and not marriage. If you could enlighten me about how we all got here without traditional sexual arrangements or how thru time people as a majority have had same sex parenthood please do as I am ignorant of such history. This conversation was about children and normalcy.

I am not saying that people didn't have sex and procreate - aka sexual arrangement. I'm saying the that what we call "traditional" parental structure is far from the historical norm. What about extended families? What about nurse maids/nannies (of the wealthy)? It was the norm among the wealthy that children would be farmed out to nurse maids to be breast fed and raised. Their parents would only see the children on occasion.

BTW with 7 billion people, I think we have the sexual arrangement bit covered.

Ann, I am just pointing out that a child of traditional marriage has a different structure to to develop from. The child sees he has a father and a mother and their interactions. And for your other scenarios like nurse/maids/nannies ect.. that is a small portion of society but still the child has a mother and father. Oh and don't forget grandmothers and grandfathers as they also raise our children in increasing numbers as both parents want/need to work.

I have kids & they are doing fine. I know several other gay couples with kids & the kids are doing fine. I also know of heterosexual couples with horrible kid problems. Open any newspaper & you will see horrible situations with heterosexual families. Does that mean all heterosexual families are bad for children? NO! Does it mean all gay families are swell? NO! What it means is that they are all families with good & bad points. So this is a non-issue.

Liz, I raised my kids since well under 1yr old. If you met my kids you would be exceedingly hard-pressed to find any shortcomings caused by their upbringing. Are they perfect? No, but neither are yours nor those of that conceited Mattyboy. I know of other kids raised by gay couples & the kids are fine. I know of heterosexual couples with good and bad family situations. And I bet $100 you can't find any perfect kids anywhere in the world. Liz, kids are kids. Very resilient. To be cherished & protected. But this is a non-issue. Heterosexuals outnumber gays at least 10 to 1, so just on basis of that statistic you can predict heterosexual couples will far outnumber gay couples at having disastrous family situations. Are you advocating banning heterosexuals from having kids? That makes no sense & neither does saying gay couples are incapable of being good parents. Moreover, this is a non-issue as even sterile & elderly couples can marry to be childless couples.

Matt - You are making my point. The so-called traditional family is anything but.

Ann in your world two men raising a baby is the exact same as a man and a woman congratulations on your finding. A grandmother is one thing a maid is another and a nanny another as most of them would be a female role model. Babies develop their minds from more than books, teachers ect...

That is a ridiculous assertion. This is all about the separation of church and state.

you base this on what? the state has no right to interfere in what a church does solely within its congregation unless it violates statue, ie a priest has no right to molest a child on a religious basis. That is the other side of separation of church and state

Chet can you have a whites only church? Is this seen as being bigot. Do you not think stress on public opinion will favor with empathy for the gay movement to be equally accepted?

Matt - agreed. Church's being forced to marry gay couples would be as horrible as...well, it would be as horrible as priests molesting little boys.

Nowhere that marriage equality has been enacted would that happen. Remember the US Constitution Mattyboy? NO ONE can force religions against their doctrine. So NO ONE will force marriage equality upon churches. Gay couples will marry at courthouses by justices of the peace/clerks of court OR at those churches that DO WANT to perfoirm such marriages. So Mattyboy, stop being a purveyor of ignorance & falsehood.

ok David please show me a church that states this is a white only church like out front on a sign or something.

Here's one Mattyboy -- World Church of the Creator. Here's the website of another -- http://tdn.com/news/article_98206c1d-0e0c-53d0-aecb-427a4676683b.html. The US Constitution protects freedom of religion, thus only churches that WANT to perform gay marriages would perform them. Thus your objection is hereby again proven false.

Yes David I see how widespread and popular they are! You are very smart and understand my point about general acceptance.

Matt, I seek no self recognition from no one. I know who & what I am. I seek the rights denied to me that are part & parcel of all citizens. Those rights carry certain rights & responsibilities. That is what I want. And I want it called what it is, not a fake created name that avoids attaining the full significance of the right. As for lawsuits, I myself am not interested in any such thing. As for your question, just think about these 2 questions: Should blacks have been denied desegregation because 20yrs later some might bring lawsuits of discrimination? Should women have never been granted the vote because 50yrs later some would sue for discrimination?

Thanks you have answered my question.

David does a woman have a choice to be a woman? Does a black person have a choice to be black. I understand they don't however I do not understand why you should be afforded special rights based on a choice you have made to mate with the same sex. Today nobody is stopping you from marring a woman or reproducing yourself with her but your you.

Mattyboy, you show lack of understanding. 1st - sexuality is inborn, not chosen. You are born gay or not just as with eye color, big nose or small ears. 2nd - No special rights, EQUAL.

You are right I do not see what physically stops you from producing offspring. What is stopping you from placing your blank into a females blank.

I read somewhere that people who obsess, rant & rave about homosexuality are closet cases. Could it be this applies to you?

Wow Dave you can't possibly have a conversation without offering your psychological disorders which you see as your abilities. It seems instead of explaining your differences you dream of me wanting to be just like you, that way you seem more normal. I hope one day before it is to late you copulate with a woman, get her pregnant and on the day of your child's birth you find the true meaning why you are here. Nothing wrong with adoption David and thanks to anybody who adopts children. You David will miss out on something very special in live. Sorry for your invisible forcefield around females.

No wish to be like you. You, on the other hand...

Pedophilia (adults molesting children) is vile, evil & ought always be punished. But the issue has nothing to do with marriage equality. Most pedophiles are heterosexual, not gay. Moreover, if opponents of gay marriage want to protest pedophilia, go protest at a church that hides molesters, places obstacles to prosecution, hides evidence from investigators & won't pay proper compensation to the victims. If you want to go protest at that church, let me know & I may join you protesting the abuse.

I agree. When this law goes through I will finally be able to marry multiple wives. Let business be business. Don't judge.

Well said. Hope everyone can learn a lesson from this and remember to let individuals decide what is best for them and who they should be allowed to marry instead of a government official.

I'm betting a lot of people are going to join me in marrying multiple partners since it makes a lot of economic and biological sense.

There you go again discriminating against who I want to marry. You are such a hypocrite. Either you are for people making their own decisions or you are against it. You still never answered my questions on why you are against it by the way.

Okay Barry, you are still insisting on polygamy so how about you lay out exactly how this would work? Homosexual couples have done that, they simply want their same sex partner to be legally treated no different that any opposite sex spouse. Clearly what you are requesting is more difficult, so give us the details.

Would you and your spouse have to agree prior to marriage that you could each marry someone else later? Would your spouse have any say on that later marriage? Would you have a special "polygamist" marriage or would your spouse still be able to seek divorce for adultery? Would sleeping with your other spouses constitute adultery as it is sexual activity outside the marriage that you two share? Or would all of you have to enter into the marriage at the same time agreeing to all allow everyone to sleep with each other? Would your spouses have any claims on the property earned by your other spouse? What would happen to their relationship if you passed, would they remain in a married state? Would there be any limit to the number of people you could marry? Would your insurance plan be forced to cover everyone under one family plan. Would you all be filing a joint tax return, and if so, if one person commits income tax fraud, could you all be locked up? Who would have the right to make end of life decisions? Would it be up to a vote? What about a tie? And finally do you really not see any differences between polygamy and same sex marriage?

Jennell - I'm glad you asked. Currently, when you marry you sign a "contract" the same as any other business contract. We would treat polygamy the same as any other business partnership. If you have already entered into a 2 person partnership, both parties would have to agree to allow a third into the partnership. Anytime you have a business partnership you can spell out the arrangements for how assets will be distributed whenever one partner decides to quit.
"Would sleeping with your other spouses constitute adultery" No
"What would happen to their relationship if you passed" Same as any other partnership agreement
"Would there be any limit to the number of people you could marry?" No
"Would your insurance plan be forced to cover everyone under one family plan" Yes
"Would you all be filing a joint tax return" Yes
"If one person commits tax fraud could you all be locked up" Yes - the same law as it applies to married couples
"Who would have the right to make end of the life decisions" Spelled out in the partnership agreement
"Do you really not see any differences between polygamy and same sex marriage" No

Why would it bother you if I had 3 wives? Seems like you are trying to force your morals and your idea of what marriage should be on everyone else.

Barry, I don't really have a problem if all the parties agree with the exception of the legal issues that I think it would bring up. My point is that writing the laws allowing polygamy is not as simple as changing "between and man and a woman" to between two people. There are numerous laws written retaining to rights in a marriage and those would all need to be evaluated with their ability to continue functioning when more then two people were allowed in a union unless it simply followed rules agreed upon in the agreement. The law would still need to specify how these relationships would function in areas that aren't spelled out in the agreement. People tend not contemplate every issue ahead of time. I am assuming if it isn't spelled out it isn't allowed? But what would happen to those in a two person marriage? Would they still get the benefits of marriage without having written agreements specifying their rights? Or would they now have to have a lawyer to write their legal commitments to each other? And would this end up making marriage something that only those with means could afford?

If polygamy becomes legal however, I offer to marry anyone who needs insurance coverage providing they will sign a partnership agreement that specifies that our "marriage" is limited to insurance. I mean after all, I already pay for a family plan I might as well get my moneys worth.

I think you mean the 2 cases in which some churches sent people pretending to be gay to protest at the churches very same churches that sent them.

Couldn't agree more. I think you get it - except for the part where an agreement can only be between 2 people and not 3 or 4.

Sure, I made a comment much farther up the thread agreeing the need for multiple folks if prices continue to rise and salaries stay the same. Why couldn't me and 3 others put all our eggs into a basket for an equal share of the gain or loss. Not as a S-corp or anything but as a "family", let consenting adults consent.

Barry, if you want polygamy so bad, go petition the legislature for it. Go make your arguments & defend them. Go open a polygamy blog elsewhere & take your comments there. But don't pretend to saddle it upon gay marriage, which has absolutely nothing to do with it.

David, I hate to call you a bad name, but seriously dude. Gay marriage and polygamy are all the same. We are on the same team. By you saying "I gots mine so I dont care about your cause" only makes me want to disagree with you. You still have never answered why you disagree with polygamy - you are only concerned with yourself and your own causes. If everyone was like you gay marriage would never be passed until the majority was gay.

You know how to read? The definitions are not the same. Look it up in a dictionary.

I would let adults decide for themselves if they want to get married.

Hey My Name
I don't drink beer without a social event, which is not this blog. I don't have gay babies as there is no such thing, babies develop and mimic their environmental surroundings. There is nothing in our DNA stating a gay gene. Some children find it hard to develop the skills needed to be successful with the opposite sex and find themselves looking for another opportunity for social comforts and sexual satisfaction. Its funny how in prison the same sex persons engage in homosexual activities only due to environment limitations, I don't think all people in prisons are born gay and end up there together.

Boy, you know so much about that subject that you must be having some hormone therapy yourself.

More personal attacks David? How mature.

And if you discriminate against polygimist then you are hyprocritical. I've asked you at least a half dozen times, but you have never answered why you are against polygamy. You just think its either gay marriage or polygamy and you have to choose one. I feel sorry for you - and how you think - and how you raise your kids.

Why not an incremental approach? First we let gays marry, then we take marriage out of the laws and make them all civil unions, then whomever can consent can form a union with whomever. Sure you would have communes of 30 people together sharing whatever they have. The majority however would be a man and a women. You may end up with a lot of Man/Woman/single Widow or Widower. Would that be wrong to allow adults to care for older people like they were family? We seem hung up on the trees for the forest in this case.

The fact that opponents of polygamous marriage cannot point to a single harm this law would cause is proof they only oppose it based upon religious or emotional bias. Marriage laws are fine as they are. Just need to allow plural couples to marry. No other change necessary.

Barry - Here are several cogent arguments.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2006/03/dont_do_unto_others.html

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/03/distinguishing-gay-marriage-and.html

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/marriage.pdf

You can find many others. I personally find the economic argument to be most compelling.

Didn't Newt Gingrich himself have a scandal a few months ago because he had wanted an open marriage with wife # 2? Onetime presidential candidate John Edwards had a similar incident. Or so many infamous politicians & religious figures that throughout the years get caught with their pants down? So, were their marriages invalidated by their nefarious, perfidious 2-timings? No, & neither have the marriages of millions of heterosexual adulterers throughout the centuries. So unless you are willing to make adultery a prosecutable crime for heterosexuals, with lots of convictions, harsh penalties & reduce heterosexual adultery to practically 0%, you have no argument against gay marriage. As for myself, no open relationships here.

The USA is one of the most religious countries. Religious influence has been steadily growing since the late 1970's. Some may even see a correlation between the growth of religious fervor & the growth of socio-ecomonic woes. The country definitely seemed much stronger & better when the pledge of allegiance didn't include God, and when coins just promoted "Liberty" instead of under God. Regardless, that is not what is at issue here. At issue is wether civil rights can be witheld from citizens because of rel;igious discrimination. A simple reading of the Constitution & even of the Declaration of Independence says no, because rights are inalienable. So just because someone might feel "uncomfortable" or have his faith or religion disagree, rights are rights & cannot be taken from people. The same happened when blacks were finally awarded their full citizenship rights. Deeply religious people were "uncomfortable" with it & it was against lots of faith & religious convictions, but right are rights & cannot be taken away.