Texas Gay Marriage Ban Latest to Be Struck Down

[Graeme]

Texas Gay Marriage Ban Latest to be Struck Down

Though the decision is stayed to give the state a chance to appeal, as the Supreme Court indicated in it's Utah decision.

As the article says, the Supreme Court is either going to have to make a decision on whether Same Sex Marriage is a constitutional right, or they'll have to leave decisions such as these in place, doing the same thing but on a piece-meal basis. I think they'll take one of these cases eventually, though they're obviously reluctant to do so. They won't have a choice.

[Chris James]

Do we really understand the fanatical Christian perspective on marriage? Why all of a sudden do these arguments exist where religion claims the complete moral high ground over marriage? Do they also claim the damage caused in a marriage with children? Can't have one without the other.

I don't buy into the propaganda that marriage is one man and one woman...maybe in your world but not in mine. Is it possible that the religious beliefs of many are so shaky and weak that they feel the need to fight about this issue? Marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people that comes with legal benefits. Any religious connotation is secondary. We don't need religion to be married and that is what scares them.

So trying to see the other side of the argument, which is something the fanatics don't even bother to try, it seems these Christians want to make moral decisions for everyone. Sorry, if I am not a part of your cultish beliefs then you have no authority over me, period. All that Jesus this and that rings hollow in my ears, you guys don't speak for me and my personal freedoms...don't even try.

All this talk about making Constitutional changes to elevate religion to a higher plane is absurd. Anti-gay marriage laws are not about activist judges but about judges that apply the laws of the land fairly. Oppressing a minority opinion with religious belief is double jeopardy in this country. Take your Bible back into the church where it belongs (and I can ignore it) and keep it out of my face...I don't like bad fiction.

[Graeme]

I need to jump in here, because there seems to be a prevailing opinion that objection to gay marriage is only on religious grounds. That is definitely not true.

My next door neighbour here in Australia is also against same-sex marriage, and he's definitely not religious (I don't think he's ever been to church for as long as I've known him). His objection is based on the belief that children should be raised by a mother and father, and marriage includes the right to adopt so same-sex marriage will means gay couples raising children. He feels that that is wrong.

Now, his arguments are subject to refutation through scientific studies, but those studies can only come with time. At the moment, the studies that have been done all have flaws in them and are hence subject to dispute. Accusing him of being a religious bigot (or similar) is just going to alienate him. Education is what is needed, not abuse.

Educating people that same-sex couples can successfully raise well-balanced kids is going to take time. I believe that is where our community should be concentrating its efforts, not complaining about religious extremists.

Sorry, rant over. I just get annoyed when people seem to think that there's only one reason for people to object to same-sex marriage and ignore other legitimate (if incorrect) reasons.

[vwl]

To me, the State should not be in the business of recognizing any kind of "marriage". They should only do civil unions, leaving marriages to the churches of whatever persuasion, including a number that have no problem with gay marriage. All the legal rights should be embodied in the civil-union documents and legislation. All the 'Till death do us part', vows. and such should be in the marriage consecration ceremonies.

To me, gay marriage is the second, lesser solution as to how to people of the same sex are treated by the State, but it may be all we have.

[Cole Parker]

I'd like to have a go at talking to this neighbor. He thinks children should be raised only by a married man and woman. If we give him that point as a starting place, what then about the fact that over half the marriages between a man and a woman now end in divorce. Divorce is said to be extremely hard on the children in the marriage. So now a huge number of marriages are causing harm to lots and lots of children. How is this better than allowing a loving couple of same-sex people to adopt?

The kids from this divorced couple are now, for the most part, living with and being brought up by one person. Is this better than being brought up by two adults, even if they're the same sex?

Today there are many children in adoption centers longing for a couple to find them and take them in and create a family and love them. Many of these children are there because they're gay. Should we preclude them from the fulfillment of having a family because there aren't enough straight couples wanting to adopt?

Can't even this neighbor see that kids are better off in a home of loving adults, even if they're the same sex, than in a group home where they are forced to accept that there's something wrong with them because other kids get adopted and they don't?

I would bet that for every kid who's found happiness being adopted by a gay couple, you can find two kids who've been hurt by having fighting, divorcing parents. Which kids are better off?

I think the neighbor is allowing his prejudices rather than his rational thought to control him on this. He should be able to recognize, if he thinks about it, that if we prevent gay couples from adopting, then we'll have more kids without parents, and that if we permit it, those gay adults will create a family environment that will benefit these kids, and not allowing such adoptions will hurt kids.

C

[Chris James]

Well said, Cole, right on target. The number of children in foster homes and orphanages is astounding, and expensive for the taxpayers. The opinions about gay culture, the negativity about the integrity of gay people is the direct result of organized religion. Perhaps after we win the marriage debate, toss out these silly religious protection laws, and show how well gay men and lesbian women fit into society, then we can go after these bastards for the slander.

[Graeme]

Cole, I 100% agree. The point I was trying to make is that people who object to same-sex marriage should not be automatically assumed to be doing so for religious reasons. Education can be used to teach people that their fears and concerns about same-sex marriage are not warranted -- but I see too many times that accusations of religious bigotry are thrown at the opponents without any effort to determine if that is really the case. I've give one example of someone who opposes same-sex marriage who is not a religious bigot -- they're just ignorant.

How do we fix ignorance? Through education, not inappropriate accusations.

[The Pecman]

My next door neighbour here in Australia is also against same-sex marriage, and he's definitely not religious (I don't think he's ever been to church for as long as I've known him). His objection is based on the belief that children should be raised by a mother and father, and marriage includes the right to adopt so same-sex marriage will means gay couples raising children. He feels that that is wrong.

Then he has a moral problem with two same-sex people raising children, which is just as stupid, judgmental, and inane as a religious argument. No difference. It's just ignorance from a different point of view.

I think there are incompetent parents of all different persuasions, and gay and straight are just a small part of it. The argument against your neighbor's point of view would have to include single parents -- again of all persuasions -- and also instances where one or both parents are absent for long periods, such as fathers who have to go off to war. I think the quality of the parenting is more important than the sexuality.

And kuds to Graeme and Cole for preceding my thoughts! I'm amazed that anybody at this point can argue against gay marriage and against gay adoption, when it's clearly worked just fine in many countries around the world. I would rather a child have two loving parents than one abusive parent and one absent parent, or a single parent who has to work two jobs every single day and is almost never home. You can't legislate morality, and you can't legislate judgment.

[Nigel Gordon]

Do we really understand the fanatical Christian perspective on marriage?

I don't think the Christian's understand the Christian perspective on marriage. The early Christian church actually refused to marry people because it regarded marriage as a purely secular arrangement. It was only when the church fathers realised that by controlling marriage they controlled property that the church first started to sanctify marriage in order to control it. The basis of marriage, from ancient times, has always been one of being a civil contract that may or may not be sanctified by a religious dimension. This is still seen in Islamic marriage where the nature of the marriage is defined by the type of contract that the parties have entered into, the is no requirement of any religious involvement.

[Merkin]

In the United States we have become obsessed with what we mistakenly perceive as the "religious basis" for marriage. Marriage in most of the world is a civil contract, entered into in order to predetermine property rights and inheritance. In France, for example, a religious ceremony does not constitute a legal marriage. A religious ceremony may be performed after (never before) the required civil ceremony, usually performed by a civic official. The minister, priest or rabbi performing the religious ceremony will require thecertificate of civil marriage(certificat de célébration civile) as proof that the civil ceremony has taken place.