HOORAY! Maybe now we can begin to stop the last greatest human rights violation of our time in the United States!

If I ever get divorced from my husband, I will marry a woman! Yes I will!

How DARE the government tell me who I can or can't marry (as long as it's consenting adult!)

I knew it was WRONG to deny Gay people the right to get married when I was four years old! I wanted to marry my best friend Kristin and my mom said I couldn't because two girls could not get married and I was like "WHAT?!?!?! WHY NOT?????????? WTF???"

GAY MARRIAGE NOW!!!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Seems to me that a lot of this discussion involves semantics. And faith. And how is an argument based on those things ever going to be resolved? It has given a forum to those who wish to make their points, and that's a good thing. But feelings and thoughts and ideas about religion are so very deep-rooted and based on so many life experiences, how can we all be on one page unless we all shared the same background and life experiences?

I honestly have appreciated hearing all the sides to these questions that ya'll have offered up. And if these posts have helped people - even just to reaffirm their own convictions, then it has been a good thing!

I believe in God, but I don't believe we all have a personal relationship with God.

When I hear people saying that God saved them from an accident, or helped them come out of problems etc, I think that they are blind.

Yeah God helped some woman come out of a bad car crash, but let hundreds of thousands of people die during the tsunami. He saved a child from drowning, but let all the other children be kidnapped, raped, and murdered brutally. He helped you pay mortgage last month, but allowed thousands of women be brutally beaten by their husbands. He did all these miracles for certain individuals, but somehow overlooked all the people who are beat, cut, raped, murdered, killed and buried under houses (John Wayne Gacy), and whatever else.

If we are all children of God, does he love his praying Christians more than all the other people who experience real pain and tragedy?

I believe in God, the creator of earth and life, but I don't believe he is there for us. I think he made our world, made us, gave us the gift of free will, and said "Here you go!" and that was it.

Prayer is powerful, in my opinion, but its just something we do to make ourselves feel better. I don't think he can hear us.

How can I think God can hear a prayer when a child is stolen from his parents and later found raped and dead in a river. I can only imagine how much parents of missing children pray. Being a parent myself, that is truly the worst pain a parent can feel.

The Bible instructed through God. That would be NKJ,NIV,American Standard,KJ,ones with old and new testaments in them.

Carol....please explain how you know these are the Bibles "instructed by God". Does it say so on the Bible itself? Did God give you a list? Are you saying that MY Bible is not God-approved?

Which bible do you mean? There are several. King James wanted a divorce from his wife because she couldn't have a son....he knocked up one of the handmaids and she had a son....so he had the bible rewritten ...so that he could marry her.....hence the King James Verson....and I don't really care either way....I am just curious when someone says "the bible" ...which one??

So many people don't agree with what is supposed to be the original bible, that they go off and make their own religion......hard to know which is accurate. (esp since the orig bible was written many many years after the incidents written in it)

I am not trying to cause grief....it just facinates me. I think we should all be multi-denominational.....but that is just my own opinion

Actually, although it is often referred to as the King James Version, the only active part King James took in the translation was lifting the criminal (death) penalty attached to its translation and setting very reasonable guidelines for the translation process (such as prohibiting partisan scholarship and footnotes.)

I believe God whispers and I believe God winks...and I believe we have free will. I agree with Carol that I'd rather have a government of leaders who have God in their hearts that a gov't run by the Bible. For me, having humans run the government according to the Bible just gives humans one more way to mess it up...and Royally, with delusions of greater power than their offices already have. Better a pure heart than rhetoric.....

Well, actually, better a pure gay heart than a straight right winger.....

Well, actually, better a pure gay heart than a straight right winger.....

You mean to tell me that someone who is gay can still have a pure heart? I thought gay people were sinners.

obviously that's sarcasm

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

But it's your place to prohibit them from entering into a CIVIL (not religious) union for the sole purpose of protecting each of them in terms of inheritance, workers/survivors benefits, community property, etc?

Is it your place to ALLOW them to enter a CIVIL (not religious) union (. . . blah blah blah)? What I'm saying is that we all draw the line somewhere, and at some point a decision has to be made about where to draw that line. I have my opinion, you have yours, and the job of the government is to codify where that arbitrary line falls. There is no "inalienable right to marry".

Would you ALLOW a redefinition of CIVIL unions to include polygamy? Or the woman who marries a dolphin? I'm not being ridiculous here (see http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/woman-marries-dolphin/2006/01/01/1136050339590.html or various others through a web search). I'm not saying she shouldn't be able to have a ceremony where she says some nice words and commits her life to a dolphin. I'm asking if you would include that ceremony in a definition of legal marriage for the purpose of protecting each of them in terms of things like medical insurance? There is such a thing as pet insurance, so it is a legitimate question.

There's a Golden Retriever in Autralia who performs marriages. Maybe he'll join them.

Got his credentials by applying online to the Universal Life Church to be a pastor.

Sorry. That was AUSTRALIA

According to the Associated Press, sodomy laws remained on the books in 13 states as of the middle of 2003. "Sodomy" was illegal for everyone -- gay and straight -- in Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia. In addition, four contiguous states, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas, criminalized certain forms of private, consensual sexual behavior between persons of the same gender, but permitted them if performed by a man and woman.

During the first half of 2003, the U.S. Supreme court studied the constitutionality of sodomy legislation. In the Lawrence v. Texas case, they reviewed a Texas law. It criminalized certain sexual behavior by same-sex couples even though the same activities are quite legal if done by opposite-sex couples. In a ground-breaking decision, the Court decided on 2003-JUN-26 that adults are free to engage in private consensual sex without government oppression. They placed limits on the ability by governments to legislate sexual morality. The sodomy laws in Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas, were declared unconstitutional. Legal experts believe that the sodomy laws in the nine other states are now also null and void. Laws in a few states which criminalize fornication (sexual intercourse by unmarried persons) adultery, and other behaviors may also be overturned by this ruling.

I'm well aware of the law. However, there is a difference between decriminalizing sodomy and legalizing gay marriage. Decriminalizing sodomy affirms personal autonomy, which I believe is the correct interpretation of the founding fathers' intent (as vs. privacy, a made-up "right" that isn't anywhere in the intent or verbiage of the founding fathers).

It's my turn to Lector tonight at Mass. Fortunately the reading is from Deuteronomy.

Carlene, have you ever had to read Leviticus 18:22 at a Mass? Or Psalm 139:12-24? I'm just wondering if/how you would get those words out in front of the congregation if you don't believe them. If you haven't had to, how would you handle it if asked (or assigned) to do it? I'm not being snide here; I'm really curious.

I would personally like the GOVERNMENT to stay the hell out of my bedroom. What gives them the right to say who I can marry? What gives them the right to make a law stating what the definition of marriage means? Isn't there this thing called separation of church and state? Or did I miss that day in school?

I am not married, I live with my sweetie, John. I have been in this relationship for 8 years now. How would you define my relationship? You don't have to answer that you know.

I believe that GOD has blessed my relationship. It is no different than same sex relationships. My sweetie and I have taken steps to protect each other in cases of medical emergency and have wills set up. In same sex relationships it is difficult for the same protection to take place. This screams of discrimination.

The Government should stay out of it. It ain't their business.

I would personally like the GOVERNMENT to stay the hell out of my bedroom. What gives them the right to say who I can marry? What gives them the right to make a law stating what the definition of marriage means?

There is a very good argument to be made for the government to sanction NO marriage at all, and for marriage only to exist as a religious institution. If the government wants, or wanted, to encourage "heterosexual couples committed to live together, have children, and raise families together" then that's a, for want of a better term, business decision that the government made and decided to codify and reward as they saw fit. There is no right to marry, that I'm aware of, in the constitution.

Isn't there this thing called separation of church and state?

That's a common misconception. The words "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the constitution, but they've been thrown about so much that people believe they do. The First Amendment states, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". In other words, we are to have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Congress was prevented from establishing a national religion; they wanted to make sure that no single religious institution had authority over the state. They did NOT want to ensure that an un-Biblical, anti-Biblical, or athiest state be established.

I am not married, I live with my sweetie, John. I have been in this relationship for 8 years now. How would you define my relationship?

I wouldn't feel a need to define it, but if pressed, I would say it sounds like you're in a committed relationship that doesn't include marriage. [shrugs] It's not really my business and I don't really care. The only thing that matters is how you feel about it.