Posted on 02/21/2004 7:26:50 PM PST by mhking
Like many other states, Georgia is in a dire budget crunch -- cutting money for health care for the poor, parks, college professors and state troopers. Though the state longs to get its school children out of the academic cellar, it is cutting funds that would shrink the size of classes and improve the climate for learning.
So what is so critical that it dominates debate at the Legislature this session instead? The issue that has consumed contentious hours of talk and testimony is gay marriage -- or, rather, "protecting" traditional marriage from same-sex unions. After public hearings that drew crowds of religious conservatives as well as gay activists, the Georgia Senate passed a bill calling for a state constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. (Georgia law already prohibits recognition of same-sex unions.) It awaits consideration in the Georgia House.
I admit that I'm puzzled by the intense focus on the prospect of gay marriage -- not just in Georgia but also in the White House, with President Bush threatening to throw his support behind a ban on same-sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution. The president, like the Georgia Legislature, would seem to have more pressing concerns: The federal budget is awash in red ink; Iraq is mired in turmoil; the vaunted economic "recovery" has left millions of Americans jobless. Bush believes a priority should be throwing obstacles in the way of gay unions?
What is it about the prospect of allowing same-sex couples the right to pledge fidelity, loyalty and love to each other -- as heterosexuals do -- that threatens the foundations of the republic?
For many religious conservatives, the issue is simple enough: Leviticus condemns homosexuality as an "abomination." But the guiding legal document of a pluralistic nation has no business recognizing one religious view over any other. Some denominations -- including my own, the United Church of Christ -- have no prohibition against same-sex marriages.
(A literal reading of the Bible, by the way, poses many a conundrum. Leviticus also orders capital punishment for homosexuals and adulterers.)
Many Americans view marriage only as an institution ordained by religion, but it is also recognized by civil authorities. While no church could ever be ordered to recognize or perform same-sex marriages, the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees full equality to all, should not block a courthouse marriage between two consenting adults.
But religion is just one consideration. Tradition is another. Even among many Americans who would not identify themselves as religious conservatives, there is a vague and unsettling fear of undermining the modern conception of marriage as a commitment between a man and a woman, especially when the institution is already in decline throughout the industrialized West.
The loosening of marriage bonds has taken place against a backdrop of rapid cultural and technological shifts; it has also struck every racial, demographic and religious segment of the population. Even among those who characterize themselves as born-again Christians, the rate of divorce is high, according to a 2001 survey by the Barna Research Group Ltd.
I understand the fears over the decline of marriage. Most psychologists agree that stable marriages are the best arrangement for children, and children reared in single-parent homes are more likely to suffer poor educational achievement and to be lured into drugs, early parenthood and crime.
But isn't that all the more reason to welcome gay marriage? At a time when marriage is rapidly losing its allure for so many heterosexuals, one of the most promising developments is the deep desire of so many gays to commit themselves to marriage, with all its rewards and sacrifices.
Gays and lesbians deserve the right to succeed -- or fail -- at marriage just like the rest of us. When it comes right down to it, a constitutional amendment won't save marriage. That can only be done by couples, regardless of gender, one marriage at a time.
Thank you, ma'am. Please send him my regards.
He did. Take a look, right before the title: "Cynthia Tucker."
The U.S. Constitution does guarantee full equality to all couples who desire to get married, that is, to all couples that are made up of one consenting man and one consenting woman.
Well, here it comes.....
At a time when marriage is rapidly losing its allure for so many heterosexuals, one of the most promising developments is the deep desire of so many gays to commit themselves to marriage, with all its rewards and sacrifices.
Bull-hockey. Gay marriage only makes a mockery of a centuries-old tradition. Instead of strengthening the institution, it will only serve to undermine it and destroy it completely. Gays are notorious adulterers, unable to stay within a monogamous relationship. The piece of paper will not bind them to one partner.
Most psychologists agree that stable marriages are the best arrangement for children, and children reared in single-parent homes are more likely to suffer poor educational achievement and to be lured into drugs, early parenthood and crime.
And children reared in same-sex parented households? They are going to be the epitome of "normal?" I know of one woman in particular who was raised in a two-woman lesbian household. She had such a desire for "normalcy" that she ran away with an older man when she was 16 and is unable to have a lasting, normal relationship with a man. Where were her role-models? Two women who partied non-stop and verbally denigrated men and minorities? Yeah right.
The "End Times" that we are taught about in the Bible are upon us. It is evident in the blatant lack of morals, the "in your face" activism of gays in the churches as well as the secular world and the God-less masses that support such crap. It is evident in the one million human beings who each year are not allowed to be born - supported by the bull-dyke lesbian "wymin."
Cynthia Tucker is a clue-less journalist who spews her filth in a clue-less rag sheet. The unfortunate thing is that Atlanta is chock-full of so-called Christians who blindlessly vote a dimRat ticket because that's what their parents and friends have always voted and they are not about to take a stand. Spineless cowards, they all are.
Did that meet your expectations ((((((onyx)))))))?
Amending the constitution to deny some citizens rights is not a priority. You people who complain about homosexuals forming civil unions are the same crowd who complain about homosexual promiscuity and the spread of disease. So, which is it going to be, folks? Gay civil unions and monogamous commitment, or promiscuity and disease?
I'd guess that people like you would choose neither and would prefer that they all "just stop being gay!". I'm afraid that isn't going to happen, so you'd better learn to make the best of the situation.
Gay people forming civil unions is not going to destroy marriage. If anything it is going to reinforce the idea of monogamous commitment.
If gay people want to stand up at a ceremony and swear to spend the rest of their lives together that should be their prerogative. Amending the state (or Federal) constitution to deny them that right is just plain bigoted and wrong. If you can't see that, then God help you.
I'm a day late with this, but that is the stupidest thing I have read today. I'm sure this bit of information comes from your years and years of personally associating with gay people and not from second-hand rumor, right?
What's that, you don't know any gay people? Well, then, I'm confused. How is it that you know so much about their lifestyle and inability to be monogamous? Oh, you've just heard about it? Ok, that makes sense.
May not be such a great idea to them after better than half have to start paying out for their "divorces."
Wrong. *If* you knew me you would know I only speak from first-hand experience and not rumor, innuendo, etc.
My line of work for the past 20+ years has put me into close contact with scores of gays and lesbians. I stand by my *observations.* Most of these people admitted to a lack of monogamy in their relationships. I knew of exactly 2 couples out of the many people I had close association with that were monogamous.
Your sarcastic and uninformed attack was rude, to say the least.
I call a spade a spade, sorry if that offends you. Please enlighten me on this line of work that puts you in contact with "scores" of gays and lesbians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.