Replies

I'll be married 20 years this May. My sister just celebrated her 31st anniversary yesterday, and my parents will celebrate their 60th next month. In fact, as I look back through my family tree, I haven't found so much as one instance of divorce. This isn’t to brag (not too much anyway). My point is to simply establish some raw credentials that I come from a family that takes marriage pretty seriously.

Yet, no matter how I look at it, I can't see how gay marriage threatens or affects my marriage, those of my family or anyone else's for that matter. I don't see it. Defend marriage? From what?

A gay man or woman' is able to make medical decisions for their partner as a spouse would. Who does this hurt? A gay man or woman inherits their partner's estate. This does not effect me, or anyone outside of some rather selfish relatives.

Health insurance, credit ratings, powers of attorney – Whether you are comfortable with them or not, does the fact that committed homosexual couples could go about these things with the ease of married couples really have any significant negative effect on us heterosexuals?

Certainly a gay person referring to themselves as "married" doesn't have any direct effect on us whether we approve or not.

As near as I can tell, the great adverse reaction to the idea of gay marriage is reactionism in it's purest form: "Gays want it, they think it will make them happy therefore we must be against it."

Now what really bothers me is at a time when we have serious problems to consider: the Iraq occupation, terrorism, a huge deficit, the decline of our manufacturing base, corruption in the securities industry, health care, and on and on. These things really impact our daily lives and these are the type of things this coming presidential election should be about.

Now I'm afraid this election year is going to get all wrapped up in something as comparatively trivial as gay marriage, just as the pledge of allegiance and flag burning got all blown out of proportion as issues in previous elections. Emotional issues, sure; but not sustentative ones. Trust me, we have far more important things with which to be concerned.

I'll be married 20 years this May. My sister just celebrated her 31st anniversary yesterday, and my parents will celebrate their 60th next month. In fact, as I look back through my family tree, I haven't found so much as one instance of divorce. This isn’t to brag (not too much anyway). My point is to simply establish some raw credentials that I come from a family that takes marriage pretty seriously. "

Maybe those who have had such problems in the family may have a better perspective. There is certainly alot of smugness coming from the "I'm too good to have marital problems, so why be worried about its redefinition" camp. But as I explained to another poster - as long as you went to the COURTHOUSE to get your marriage contract affirmed in LAW, you too think marriage needs GOVERNMENT PROTECTION.

" Certainly a gay person referring to themselves as "married" doesn't have any direct effect on us whether we approve or not. "

Calling themselves married is something they can do today without Govt recognition per se. The Govt and societal recognition is about demanding an 'equality' of two separate things that should not be considered equal. The societal trend of allowing random sex partners being 'married' and having the same rights as those who consider marriage as a sacred duty aimed towards the creation and development of a family. This trend has large negative social consequences. To wit, children in single-parent / broken homes do worse in life (highercrime rates, worse school performance, lower future income) than children in 2 parent homes.

The life choices people make - good or bad, right or wrong - are their choices, but they affect others - families, children, communities, the whole society. When choices are made that dont accord with moral sense, we pay for that. We will pay likewise for the benefits given to gay "married" couples. It will affect us fiscally as well as further dividing and harming our culture.

This error of granting a privilige as if it were a "right" is compounded by it being done at variance with the rule of law. An elitist Judicial imperium ditated their cultural view and abused the rule of law and our democracy by over-ruling the will of the people and pretending this non-existent equality must be made law.There is nothing in the Massachusetts constitution nor in any state or Federal constitution or law justifying this extreme view. This is yet another example of judicial tyranny.

Lastly, I agree that our political system has better things to do. That is however the fault of the gay activists pushing it and the liberal judicial activists putting their agenda above the rule of law. One thing we definitely need to do is clean out the judicial tyrants (through impeachment) and get believers in judicial restraint on the court bench!