Gay marriage debate

Vern Barnet is right to expose the hypocrisy of those who uphold the Defense of Marriage Act’ and yet violate their vows (7/8, “Faiths grapple with gay rights”). He is wrong to intimate that such hypocrisy justifies gay marriage.

Barnett employs a gay pastor’s view to express his own, in my humble opinion.

Gay marriage further disintegrates marriage and its fundamental purpose: to create, protect and empower children to become responsible heterosexual lovers in their own right. Two mommies or two daddies can not engender that.

In truth, children suffer most from the mess we have made of marriage, a mess that has now morphed into gay marriage. For their sake, let us expose and rid ourselves of marital hypocrisy so that marriage can be empowered to withstand all its adversaries, including gay marriage.

Andrew Comiskey

Kansas City

Comments

[EL]

devin

''The only reasonable solution is get government out of the marriage business. Civil unions only. If we are to believe the opponents of gay marriage, it sounds like most of them mainly oppose it on the grounds of the word "marriage". So get rid of the word marriage.''[

This will never happen and to propose it would kill any chance of advancing gay rights. Whether you like it or not the word marriage has an important meaning for the majority and they will vote against any change to that.

Give same sex couples a civil union and leave marriage as it is.

[Jazz-Man]

Get government out is key but since there was a ruling against it why fight it. Vote is a vote, next thing you know Light skinned people will want to be classified as white, Atheist can only marry atheist it all so crazy. I as a Christian cant ask the government to make people vote on everyone converting or making gays not be gay; and dont pull that its the same as slavery crap.

[devin]

The only reasonable solution is get government out of the marriage business. Civil unions only. If we are to believe the opponents of gay marriage, it sounds like most of them mainly oppose it on the grounds of the word "marriage". So get rid of the word marriage. Let every religious group define what is and is not marriage amongst their own group. It's a religious issue anyway. We don't expect the government to define what is and is not a valid baptism, or who can or cannot take communion. It doesn't make any more sense for the government to decide what is or is not a valid marriage. The state should allow any two consenting adults to form a partnership with all the rights and privileges we now associate with "marriage".

Somebody may make the argument that government should recognize marriage because of its social value (marriage arguably provides a stable environment for raising kids, etc.) Of course, the same people who make that argument probably also believe that church membership, baptism, etc. have the same sort of social value; i.e. that society is better off if more people are actively involved in a church. Nevertheless, our society is based on the principle that legislating religious beliefs is not a role in the state...and lo and behold it turns out that eliminating the regulations on religious behavior has actually had a positive affect on that behavior as Americans are on the whole far more religious than countries with an official state church or churches. Maybe getting government out of marriage will lead to more successful marriages. Who knows?

[EL]

By ruling of the supreme court each state decides on same sex marriage and there is no way Missouri or Kansas will approve it.

The best option is a civil union for gays.

Opposite sex parents would be best for the child IF all other factors are equal. Of course good same sex couples would be better than rotten opposite sex parents.

[Jazz-Man]

The gay marriage issue has come to the forefront because Gays had nothing else to do; all you had to do is continue being yourself and live happy as gay couples. Why stir up something that didn’t have to be an issue all because of your own insecurities?

[Moral City USA]

"Gay marriage further disintegrates marriage and its fundamental purpose: to create, protect and empower children to become responsible heterosexual lovers in their own right."

I have never seen a state purpose for marriage. Where did he get this???? I think he fabricated it in his own mind.

[HC Brando]

Want to get rid of marital hypocrisy, Andy? Demand a nationwide ban on divorce, non-marital cohabitation, and out-of-wedlock childbirth, and let's see how many of your "sanctity of marriage" defenders vote for that. And stop blaming homosexuality for your own moral shortcomings.

But first answer this humble question: how did so many gay people come to be born of so many "responsible heterosexual lovers"?

[pmcw]

gg, I understand, at least to the extent I can as an outsider, and sympathize with your situation. However, the issue is much more complex than it may appear.

I think to fully embrace the complexity you first have to break it down into the various pieces.

Constitutional - It would be wrong and against the wishes of our founding fathers to trample on state's rights (ignore the 10th amendment).

State Laws - There are states that are more open to gay rights and there are states that are very closed. Similarly, there are countries and religions we could view similarly. There are many reasons why state's rights to set law and policy is an important part of the American fabric. For you, gay rights or states that are more accommodating for gays is a very important issue that you can fight for at the state level. If you want to move to a state that is not so friendly, you'll just have to fight there or weigh the situation in your decision to move. But, I think you should also appreciate the state's right to have a different set of rules. What is obviously right to you may be just as obviously wrong to someone else and they are entitled to their opinion.

Industry rules - There are a myriad of complexities here. As you noted, in health care there are some automatic rights provided to married couples. I think you can address that at the rule level and, if not there, at the state level if it is law that prevents the policy. I think this should be easy to work around in that a person could carry information or pre-sign HIPA like authorization (my wife had to sign such a form to allow me to discuss certain things with physician and insurance and we've been married a very long time).

You also have insurance rules about what is "family." This may seem small, but there are different risks associated with insuring male and females and if a couple is a pair of one or the other it would effect the risk profile assumed by insurance. Should insurance companies have the right to charge differently for a pair of males or a pair of females versus a pair that is one of each? It would seem so from a purely economic view point, but it is an issue that I'm sure would be a heated debate.

The list goes on and on - inheritance tax (let's just shelve this or raise the limit so high that it's not an issue for 99.9% of the population and remove the charitable trust loophole that essentially sets up a family legacy in perpetuity and shut off the insurance loophole (funny how that benefits Mr. pro estate tax Buffett).

The bottom line here gg is that in many aspects of this situation I'm squarely on your side, but I'm not at all when it comes to a proposal to draft a federal law that I would view as trampling on the rights of individual states to set policy. Maybe a limited federal law that would allow for equal treatment on federal tax issues, but not one that would force states to adapt legislation or policy - that would set us on a terribly slippery slope and impact many other issues - some you might like and some you might not.

[Jim]

Marriage is a social construct that has changed over time as society has changed. We humans created marriage, not god. Saying that it's "threatened" is ridiculous and not borne out by the facts at all.

[Kee]

"a dying cult"? I hardly think so.

[kayceewolf]

More anti-gay diatribe from Andy, KC's "ex-gay" snake-oil salesman, I see. Is it any wonder that his version of christianity is a dying cult?

[Kee]

Hell I don't care any more. Let anybody "marry" anyone, or anything at any time. I am just tired of listening to all the dingbats piss and moan about it.

[ggbridge]

Thank you, pmcw, for reposting your comments, I find with this site, once letters fall off the "recent posts" section, I'm quite at a loss to find them again.

I'm trying to figure out how anyone's marriage tramples anyone else's rights, but this thread will have to be continued in the morning. Good night.

[pmcw]

gg, let's pick this up where we left off on the previous thread. ironically, it moved to exactly this topic. The following is what I just posted there...

sorry gg, but some states don't like it (gay marriage). the tenth amendment, which is a part of the bill of rights clearly gives states the right to say what is a legal marriage. what you propose is a constitutional amendment and there is a process for that. but, don't suggest your rights trample the rights of others without due process. due process what this country is about.

all that aside, I think it's a dumb law that won't allow anyone a patient wishes to see into the emergency room. I'm sorry you were blocked from that and, if I was there, I would have stood up for your "rights." But, what you're describing is a totally different story that you should be able to address that with your state rep - it's just a rule not a debate of states rights to set rules.

[ggbridge]

Children suffer when their parents split up, not when their parents are the same sex. I'm guessing Mark Sanford's kids are forever damaged in a fundamental way. I can't imagine the kids I know in happy same sex families being hurt that way. It seems to me that socially conservative politicians don't believe what they preach. That's okay, because neither do I.