Brian:  I appreciate your views... I really do.  That being said, I think every time (or at least many times) you have expressed your views on how not having access to same sex marriages keeps same-sex folks from enjoying the 1300 rights that married folk have access to, and enjoy.  While I understand that for many... those rights not enjoyed are of paramount importance, for other folks... it is more the simple emotional phenomenon of being see in the "public eye" as being "married."

As one is growing up, the majority of folks have heard a gazillion times, and believe it themselves, that sooner or later one hopes to meet one's soul-mate... and to eventually "get married" and live happily ever after.  Even though all the above-mentioned rights are critically important, for many... the emotional side is even more important.  Thanks for such a great explanation of your viewpoint on this.  Take care...

Brian - What the state government has authority over is Civil Marriage.  The sacrament of marriage is governed by each church.  While for most people, the civil and religious marriage occur at the same time, that is not always the case.

Civil marriage is all that is governed by the states. What each church may sanction is up to that church. 

There is a distinction, and those fighting for same-sex marriage are not fighting for the individual churches to also recognize those marriages.  That will be up to each church and their congregations.

it is more the simple emotional phenomenon of being see in the "public eye" as being "married."

I know, Karen.  That's a tough one for me.  As you can see, I cop out by suggesting that we do away with all state-sanctioned "marriages".

There is a distinction, and those fighting for same-sex marriage are not fighting for the individual churches to also recognize those marriages.  That will be up to each church and their congregations.

That's why I am against the definition of marriage by the State, Don.  My opposition to the California ballot initative is VERY strong

Thank you both for your comments.  I wanted very much for people in this group to understand my thoughts on this matter.  On the surface, I can appear to be an unlikely ally but as you two have discovered, I'm just a libertarian

Brian:  I know several Libertarians, and all of them are quite cool.  Very much of a live and let live mentality.  What a concept.

Brian  This is exactly what I would expect from you:  a calm, respectful, well-thought-out perspective.  I have to say I agree with you on many points, and truly see you as an ally & friend.

This is an entirely differently post, but I could go even further and say that as someone who is unmarried, and has no desire to ever marry (but believe I should have the right), that there's no reason legally recognized couple (hetero- or homo-) should have the 1300 rights that I don't qualify for as a single person.  If anything, I should get tax incentives because I have only one income supporting my household  :)  How's that for opening a whole new can? 

Thanks for posting this and sharing your heart with us.  I appreciate it.

How's that for opening a whole new can?

Hehe.  Worthy of exploration.

truly see you as an ally & friend.

Thanks, AC.  Much appreciated and reciprocated.  I've learned a lot this past year

Just my $0.02 - I believe in absolute separation of church and state, and when a state "adopts" a definition of "marriage" outside of (or in addition to) what they are authorized to perform - ie Civil Union, - the line between church and state starts getting blurred and its this "blurring" or grey area that feeds into peoples emotions and what conservatives use for the own agenda to block equality.   

Brian: Thank you for you well reasoned post. Yes, civil marriage and religious marriage in, my opinion are two different things.

I was legally married here in beautiful Massachusetts in 2004. It was a very powerful day for me. It was very similar how I feel every time I vote. I feel as if I matter.

The despise the term "judicial activism" as much as I detest "unelected judges." We do not elect or judges here in Massachusetts. I guess if we did, then one of the right wings arguments would be taken away. Judges interpret laws, they do not make them. It only appears as if they are "activists" when their ruling go against what the right-wing wants. In California, the legislature actually voted to allow equal marriage last year. Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed it. So much for elected representatives having their say.

I hope that the voters in California defeat this measure. Had it gone to a popualr vote in Massachusetts, it would have been horrible. I am fortunate that I have no neighbors that are anti-gay. It would have made me sick to see signs around town that targeted me, urging a marriage ban.

Thank you for your support Brian.

Brian-Just as I commented on Karen's post, I appreciate your supportive position. I can never understand the "protection" of marriage argument.  I have been in a loving same sex relationship for over 37 years (actually today is the anniversary of when we met).

I'm trying to ignore the vicious posts by alleged Christians on some of the other groups (we all know who they are). However they phrase it, they are telling me that their God actually wants them to treat people unfairly. I find it very upsetting that people say such things in the name of God.

I don't want to go into detail, but this is a difficult time for me and I am very grateful to read posts from someone like you who is fair minded and non judgmental. I sincerely hope that the majority of people in California feel as you do. If all goes well, my partner and I may go out there to get married.

Brian - Not only should the State stay out of our bedrooms, but so should the Federal Government.

It's all very well certain States permitting same-sex marriages (which is an important first step), but until same-sex marriage is officially recognized on a Federal level, inequality will prevail.

Brian - Not only should the State stay out of our bedrooms, but so should the Federal Government.

Okay.  I'm cool with that.

It's all very well certain States permitting same-sex marriages (which is an important first step), but until same-sex marriage is officially recognized on a Federal level, inequality will prevail.

I disagree.  The federal government should just stay out of our bedrooms and away from this issue.

But without Federal recognition, many of the benefits applicable to straight couples do not apply to gay couples - and that's not fair and just.

http://activerain.com/blogsview/515068/Prejudice-and-Injustice-The

The Blog above is a clear explanation of inequality as a result of non-recognition of gay marriage on a Federal Level.

That has always been my argument:  Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?

Stewart ,

Wouldn't it just make more sense to abolish the State (meaning all government) from licensing activities sanctioned by Churches (marriage)?  You keep everyone happy and grant equal protection under the law.

Follow me on this.  People suggest that they want a separation of Church and State.  Marriage has traditionally been held to be a religious sacrament.  Don't let government license religious sacraments and it solves all the problems.

Jesse,

Does that make sense to you?

Stewart,

That blog post you linked is an excellent example of the inequality towards same sex partners.  I feel ya on the Federal level; the death tax is HORRIBLE.  I'd go even farther to say that the Feds should stay out of our bedrooms and our definitions of families.

Brian - You make excellent sense.

If only the "lawmakers" would understand the concept you outlined.

If only the "lawmakers" would understand the concept you outlined.

Thanks.  Let's usurp them this November.You and I can do just that (we're in CA)

Jesse:  That is the current problem.  So many in the current administratrion and the conservatives want their religious views forced upon everyone else.  They want their own version of a theocracy.  See two of my posts about it.

Karen,

I think you'll get this.  Can you see how a Federal mandate of same sex "marriage" is the State forcing religious institutions to accept a narrow definition of "marriage"?  My view is as protective of The Church as it is protective of couples' rights.

Readers, look at my final line before the bolded conclusion:

The irony of this desire is that I just want to be left alone with my private beliefs... sound familiar? 

That statement defines me in a nutshell.  I desperately want us to be able to practice our respective beliefs/lifestyle without government interference.  My view isn't popular in The Church but I believe most of the Episcopate, clergy, and laity can't look past the near future to see the danger of harnessing the State to promote our belief system upon the unwilling.  For what Karen defines as a "theocracy" could easily become a Godless State (like the USSR) by the virtue of one or two Presidential terms and 4-5 Supreme Court appointments.

If the State decides that Liz and Catherine can't partner today, what's to prevent them from limiting the number of children I father from my partnership to Debra tomorrow? 

That is what I fear the most. I'll draw the line in November so that it can't be crossed in the future

Aloha Brian,

Thanks for the post. I think people lack historical perspective when it comes to the concept of marriage. Marriage is a political creature, supported by religion not the other way around. Marriages were created to help eliminate confusion and violence when the head of a household died and the transfer of wealth was to be determined. Simply put the first born(primogeniture) of the official wife of the deceased got everything. Back when the formal act of matrimony was invented polygamy was the norm. Multiple wives, concubines, lovers, and sometimes rape victims produced offspring who could press claim to the resources of the patriarch. The social instability created by creating too many heirs needed a simple clear cut solution to avoid the family from destroying itself over the inheritance. Marriage was invented at the very beginning of civilization and grew and evolved with it. All the Patriarchs of the Hebrew Bible would be considered philanderers by many of today's Christian religions and their current standards.

By the time the Romans came around Caesar Augustus made it illegal, for a period of time, for Roman males of age not to be married. This was based on fears of a declining birth rate amongst Roman citizens. Homosexuality was condoned but the necessity to consummate same sex partnerships was irrelevant in their society. Marriage was a political arrangement between two families and the participants often had little or no say in the outcome. Offspring, power and wealth transfer was the purpose of marriage. Men had rights women didn't have much except legitimate offspring from their husbands. Men could legally will this or that to whom ever they choose without worry, but most found it a matter of pride to reproduce whether gay or not.

Through out the middle ages, marriages were for people of means. If you didn't have wealth or a position of power which was usually hereditary no one cared if you married or not. Then after the Reformation things began to change theocratically speaking and religion began to take a front seat position with regards to matrimony. The branch of Christianity your spouse supported became a hot topic and the notion of whether you were married or not and what church you belonged to became a way of taking religiosity to the people regardless if you had a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of. After the wholesale murder that went on after Martin Luther's treatise was posted marriage became a simpler more gentle way of homogenizing communities under one church roof. Ireland is still figuring it out today.

I do respect your opinions but I believe this is solely an equal rights issue. If marriage is dissolved in the civil arena so be it but if any religion, government, or social institution claims to have a historical right to determine who gets married thats just a wives tale, in my humble opinion. Money and power have been historically the determining factor in who gets married not religion.

I've been with my "partner" since May 1994, and we registered as Domestic Partners in California in August 2003, and we'll be getting "married" in September or October. I've always thought that if one believes in the "sanctity of marriage," as defended by the religious political extremist fanatic fundamentalists, then perhaps they should work on making divorce illegal. I wonder how many of them have been divorced. Where's the sanctity of marriage there? Hmmmmmm. As someone once said (loosely quoted), "Remove the log from your own eye before speaking of the speck in someone else's eye." (I'm sure I butchered that since I'm not a Christian, nor of any man-made religion, but you get my message.)

Russel, I do get your message and it resonates with me.  Marriage is an "event", in many people's eyes and hardly the commitment it's supposed to be.

My message is one of no sanctioning by government.  Registered Domestic Partners should be the ONLY status for couples, heterosexual and homosexual, sanctioned by the State.  All the State should be doing is noting a tax status.

Marriage is, and should be, definied by belief systems, within that belief system.  Those belief systems should be afforded our mutual respect, regardless of our agreement with those beliefs.

In short Russel, I'll do my thing, you do yours; let's respect and not inhibit one another.

Hello Brian,  I am new to this blogging thing but I had to comment on this subject.

My partner and I have been together 21 years this month...and I am only 40!.  Just like any your couple, we had issues in the beginning but were committed to our relationship.

A little over two years ago we decided to disregard everyone elses viewpoint of marriage, family, etc. and adopt.  Why should others tell us what our family should look like by their definition of marriage or family.  We started the process through Guatemala but someone sought us out locally looking specifically for a gay couple to adopt her child only requiring that we had been together awhile and were committed...we fit the bill.  Three weeks later our little boy was born and two months later our little girl was born in Guatemala.  People...gay & straight...thought we were crazy to intentionally have basically twins but it has been fantastic.

Long story to get to my point...Many of the same sex couples I know believe the same thing you do about simply having a civil union and not trying to define marriage.  Who the heck can truly define a marriage anyway no matter who the parties consist of.  Thank you for your message.

Did you hear that philanthropist Steve Bing has made a $1,000,000 challenge grant to Vote No on Prop 8. From now through midnight this Sunday, Steve Bing will match the first one million dollars donated to Vote No on Prop 8.

To be doubled, donations need to be made through this URL:  http://www.NoOnProp8.com/challenge

All donations will be doubled if received by Sunday midnight. If you're able to give, please donate today.

Please spread the word to every one you think might be willing to give.