From the 10/13/06 Toledo Blade:

 

 

More admit same-sex relations

Survey: Number of gays reporting ties on rise in Ohio, Mich.

By KARAMAGI RUJUMBA

BLADE STAFF WRITER

 

Not only are Ohioans increasingly identifying their same-sex relationship status, but so are gay, lesbian, and bisexual couples in the Midwest and other parts of the country, according to a study by the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the University of California at Los Angeles' school of law.

 

The study says Ohio had a 62 percent growth in the number of people who said they were in same-sex relationships between 2000 and 2005, from 18,937 couples in the 2000 census to 30,669 couples in last year's American Community Survey. Michigan had a 48 percent increase from 15,368 in 2000 to 22,701 in 2005.

 

And the number of the nation's same-sex couples grew by more than 30 percent from nearly 600,000 couples in 2000 to almost 777,000 in 2005, said Gary Gates, a senior research fellow at the institute. His study, "Same Sex Couples and the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Population: New Estimates from the American Community Survey," is based on an analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2005 American Community Survey and the 2000 population census.

 

...

 

Contact Karamagi Rujumba at:

[email protected] or 419-724-6064.

 

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061013/NEWS08/610130344/-1/NEWS

 

From the 10/15/06 DDN:

 

 

Challenge to gay marriage ban makes some unlikely bedfellows

Top court must decide if unwed couples can be treated as spouses in domestic-violence cases.

By Laura A. Bischoff

Staff Writer

Sunday, October 15, 2006

 

Two years ago, Democratic and Republican leaders urged Ohio voters to reject a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

 

They warned that the poorly worded proposal could trigger unforeseen consequences.

 

Voters approved it by nearly a 2-to-1 ratio.

 

...

 

http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2006/10/15/mj101606carswellinside.html

 

Just thought I would post this. Its a great thing...unfortunately those of us gay men and women in Ohio will continue to be oppressed!

 

 

Gay couples have the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples under the New Jersey state constitution, the state Supreme Court rules.

 

right off the presses:

 

New Jersey recognizes same-sex unions

 

TRENTON, New Jersey (AP) -- New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples.

 

But the court left it to hte legislature to determine whether the state will honor gay marriage or some other form of civil union.

 

The case was brought by seven gay couples who say the state constitution allows them to marry. (Opinion -- pdf)

 

New Jersey is one of only five U.S. states with neither a law nor a state constitutional amendment blocking same-sex marriage. As a result, the state is more likely than others to allow gays to wed, said advocacy groups on both sides.

 

...

 

http://www.ap.org/

Ohio top court to hear gay marriage case

BY JON CRAIG | ENQUIRER COLUMBUS BUREAU

December 11, 2006

 

COLUMBUS - The Ohio Supreme Court will hear its first legal challenge of one aspect of Ohio’s defense of marriage amendment Tuesday when Warren County Prosecutor Rachel A. Hutzel argues that the state’s domestic violence law applies to unmarried couples.

 

But Thomas G. Eagle, a Lebanon attorney representing Michael Carswell, said he will argue that when Ohio voters passed Issue 1 in 2004, the constitutional amendment repealed the state’s right to treat unmarried people the same as married people, including in enforcing the 1979 domestic violence law.

 

The state Supreme Court cannot overturn the amendment, but merely rule on how broadly it can be applied.

 

...

 

E-mail [email protected]

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061211/NEWS01/312110013/1056/COL02

I really think this amendment may violate the full faith and credit clause of the US constituion.

Gay marriage amendment case argued

Does violence law conflict?

BY JULIE CARR SMYTH | THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

December 13, 2006

 

COLUMBUS - Ohio's gay marriage ban does not prevent domestic violence charges against unmarried people, Warren County Prosecutor Rachel Hutzel told the Ohio Supreme Court on Tuesday.

 

In a case expected to set a precedent affecting a dozen similarly worded bans around the country, Hutzel argued that Ohio's 2004 constitutional amendment was clearly intended to outlaw same-sex marriages and civil unions, not to render obsolete portions of the state's domestic violence law.

 

The case is among the first before a state Supreme Court to interpret any of the constitutional gay-marriage bans passed in the wake of the Massachusetts decision allowing same-sex marriages, legal observers said.

 

...

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061213/NEWS01/612130371/1056/COL02

From the 11/25/06 Dispatch:

 

 

GRAPHIC: Counting same-sex couples

 

Same-sex pairs on rise

More couples publicly affirming relationships, expert says

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Alayna DeMartini

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

A lot more same-sex couples in Ohio are stepping out of the closet, at least for government surveys.

 

Between 2000 and 2005, Ohio had the sixth-highest percentage increase in the number of couples who said they were in same-sex relationships, U.S. Census figures show.

 

The Midwest had the largest increases reported in that period. Wisconsin had an 81 percent jump.

 

...

 

[email protected]

 

http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/11/25/20061125-D1-00.html

 

wow.  It's about time the 'mos came out of the closet!  Represent!

Theres fucking genocide going on in the world right now and people care about gay marriage? Jesus, even if you're opposed to it, who cares, really? It doesn't affect you personally if two gay people are married.

QFT. (Quoted for truth)

 

I say again, QFT!

From the Other Paper, 1/25/07:

 

 

Judge rules lesbians’ custody agreement valid 

Gay-marriage ban doesn’t apply, Squire says

By Erik Johns / January 25, 2007 

 

In her final moments on the bench, Judge Carol Squire ruled that Ohio’s two-year-old same-sex marriage ban doesn’t invalidate a parenting agreement between a lesbian couple.

 

In what has become a lightning-rod case, Denise Fairchild cited the 2004 “Issue 1” law in a legal dispute with former partner, Therese Leach. Fairchild contends that since the constitutional amendment doesn’t recognize relationships that “approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage,” then a 2001 joint parenting agreement is null and void.

 

The case garnered national attention because of a gay woman’s attempt to use an anti-gay law to her benefit.

 

...

 

http://www.theotherpaper.com/TOP1-25/1-25_substory2.html

 

CCV accused of questionable financial reporting

March 29, 2007 | THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

 

COLUMBUS - A liberal advocacy group, ProgressOhio.org, asked the state's elections chief Wednesday to investigate whether backers of a 2004 gay marriage ban properly reported all the money they received and spent during the campaign.

 

Citizens for Community Values, the Cincinnati-based group behind the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage, immediately dismissed the claims as unfounded.

 

...

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070329/NEWS01/703290352/1056/COL02

Strickland restores protection for gay workers

 

Posted by Mark Naymik, Plain Dealer Politics Writer May 16, 2007 20:17PM

 

 

State employees who are gay or consider themselves the opposite gender are about to have the same legal workplace protections as their co-workers.

 

Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland plans to sign an executive order Thursday morning prohibiting state government from discriminating against its employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

 

The order goes beyond state and federal law, which protect against discrimination on the basis of race or religion but not on sexual orientation or gender identity. The governor is actually restoring protections for state workers that existed for 15 years under previous administrations before then-Gov. Bob Taft struck them down in 2000.

 

...

 

http://www.cleveland.com

"To give someone these types of privileges based on whom they choose to have sex with is an insult," he said.

 

But having the right to fire someone solely based on whom they choose to have sex, that's sensible?

 

In 2000, Taft issued an executive order that eliminated the words "sexual orientation" from a decree banning employment bias in state government. At the time, Taft argued that he did not want to favor any group.

 

Ummm ... I think anyone with even a cursory understanding of civil rights law knows that the door typically swings both ways. The same employment protections afforded to homosexual employees could also be availed by any heterosexual worker who felt they were dismissed solely on the grounds that they liked the opposite sex.

 

Granted I'm a gay man, but honestly, even if I wasn't, these are some terribly crafted arguments. I just want to pat the Christian Right on its pretty little head and say "There, there". All I can say is thank jeebus that Ohio is finally back to a point where a moderate Democrat is electable on the state level.

 

I applaud Governor Strickland's decision to reinstate this protection.

I too applaud the decision, but the loons sure are out over on the comment section of the Dayton Daily News.

Gov.: Gay marriage ban hurts discrimination bill

BY JULIE CARR SMYTH | THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

May 18, 2007

 

COLUMBUS - A gay marriage ban placed in Ohio's Constitution during the 2004 presidential election would make it difficult for the state to outlaw discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation or gender identity, the governor and his top lawyer said Thursday.

 

Strickland, a Democrat, made his comments after signing an executive order that bans such discrimination against employees of the state government agencies, boards and commissions he controls. He said any bill that would extend similar protections to the private sector runs the risk of being unconstitutional.

 

While saying he would support private-sector protections for gays, lesbians and transgendered workers in concept, Strickland said he is skeptical Ohio can follow the other states that have passed such laws.

From the 6/3/07 DDN:

 

 

Dayton hosts symbolic same-sex ceremony

By Laura Dempsey

Staff Writer

Sunday, June 03, 2007

 

DAYTON — Sometimes the symbols tell the story.

 

Downtown Dayton's Courthouse Square was covered in rainbows Saturday afternoon as the site of the Pride Fest celebration and the end-point of the Gay Pride Parade that began at noon at Cooper Park.

 

Across Main Street, about a dozen people shouted slurs at those crowding into the square, people who were there for the party that surrounded Ohio's first mass commitment ceremony for same-sex couples. Nothing the protesters could say, however, spoke as loudly as the swastikas on their T-shirts; fortunately for the peace-keeping officers at the scene, nobody was listening.

 

"Oh yeah, that Nazi sign gives them cred," sneered Ken Nopier, of Columbus, who came into town for the parade and festival. "It was kind of a shock at first to see that symbol worn so openly, but what can I say? This festival is about freedom, and it should apply to everybody."

 

...

 

http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2007/06/03/ddn060307pride.html

 

Unmarried partners do have rights

2004 amendment, domestic-violence law reconciled

BY JAMES NASH & ALAN JOHNSON | COLUMBUS DISPATCH

July 26, 2007

 

COLUMBUS - Unmarried couples who live together are entitled to protection under Ohio's domestic-violence law even though the state's 2004 marriage amendment denies them legal recognition, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday.

 

In a 6-1 decision, justices said there is no conflict between treating unmarried victims of domestic violence as "family or household members" and denying them other benefits of marriage.

 

The ruling drew praise from both the sponsors of the marriage amendment and gay-rights groups who vehemently opposed it.

 

...snip...

 

---

Definitions

Here is the language of the anti-gay-marriage amendment approved in 2004 and the section of domestic-violence law challenged as conflicting with it:

 

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT

"Only a union between a man and a woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."

 

DOMESTIC-VIOLENCE LAW

"Person living as a spouse" means a person who is living or has lived with the offender in a common law marital relationship, who otherwise is cohabiting with the offender, or who otherwise has cohabited with the offender within five years before the date of the alleged commission of the act in question.

 

Source: Associated Press

while I hate to see violence anywhere, I think the justice who dissented has a valid point.  If you read the law the anti-gay marriage ammendment "trumps" the domestic violence law.  The decision plays to discrimination and prejudice in that it opens up the door for picking and choosing when and if the anti-gay ammendment applies.  If that's the case, why is it law at all.  It is a flawed law.  My only hope is that the decision is a watershed at wearing away at the codified bigotry.

I actually fear that it will do the opposite ... as the article mentions, one of the primary arguments offered by opponents to "sanctity of marriage" legislation in other states is that it such broad laws have unintended policy consequences (e.g. not being able to enforce domestic violence protections for unmarried couples). If anything, it seems this ruling more narrowly tailors application of the law to preventing gay individuals from marrying, which makes it more in line with the original intent of Issue 1 but also makes it more likely that such legislation will pass in other states. It's easier to pass a bigotry-laced ballot issue the smaller the group you are legislating bigotry against.

^I fear you might be correct, and pardon my ignorance about the history of this particularly nasty constitutional addition, but if it turns out to narrow the scope of the law, why was the original amendment so broad to invite these kinds of challenges to begin with?

 

As an aside, I really worry about the government deciding to "sanctify" something - both for hets and homos (of which I am the latter). If marriage is "sacred" then, what business does the government have allowing divorce...Etc etc... if one feels the need to "sanctify" something, leave it up to religion, and government stay OUT of it.

As an aside, I really worry about the government deciding to "sanctify" something - both for hets and homos (of which I am the latter). If marriage is "sacred" then, what business does the government have allowing divorce...Etc etc... if one feels the need to "sanctify" something, leave it up to religion, and government stay OUT of it.

 

AMEN

I can finally see why the right is so concerned with protecting the sanctity of marriage:

 

[youtube=425,350]9Np9TTzx7rA

KOOW, I'm speechless.  That has got to be the tackiest thing I've ever seen.

This video would be the mess of the month on HotChavMess.co.uk, if such a site existed.

 

Hey, speaking of classism... http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=13790.new#new

 

 

This was just posted on Cleveland.com, I'm not sure if it's received coverage in other venues. It's a very interesting, if incomplete, survey recently conducted about same-sex couples in Ohio.  I do have some issues with some of the conclusions, however, as it contradicts many previously held estimations on same-sex couples.  It's been generally held that same-sex couples earn more, on average, than heterosexual couples, but perhaps it would be more accurate to say that same-sex couples have more spending power, as "DINCs" (Dual-Income, No Children).  But why is it that a population that has higher educational attainment (according to the survey) earning less on average?  Is it occupational choice, or discrimination?  Also, only .33 percent of Ohio's population is gay, according to this survey! How laughably inaccurate that statistic surely is!

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/01/samesex_couples_in_ohio_increa.html#preview

 

Same-sex couples in Ohio increasing, parenting, study says

Posted by Patrick O'Donnell January 22, 2008 22:24PM

Categories: Breaking News

 

Same-sex couples are raising nearly 12,000 children across Ohio and more than 2 percent of the state's adopted children, researchers at the UCLA law school reported Tuesday.

 

And the number of same-sex couples in the state is growing, the study found, jumping from just under 19,000 in 2000 to nearly 30,700 by 2005.

 

The Census Snapshot of Ohio compiled by the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, adds limited commentary to data distilled from the 2000 Census and more recent census updates. Researcher Adam Romero said he hopes the data will better inform debate about related legislation in Ohio.

 

...

 

What was the outcome of the survey? It's more occupational choice, I think. Women tend to go into lower paying fields, but when they go into predominantly male fields they often make more on average so I don't think it has much to do with discrimination. Maybe they're also more likely to quit their jobs or take time off to stay at home with kids (not sure about that). When you say "population with higher education attainment" are you referring to everyone? 60 percent of people will have a college degree by 2010, meanwhile 25 percent of jobs require one. College degrees are like monetary policy, the more you print 100 dollar bills, the less they're worth.  I don't see a reason why gays should complain about those statistics; I know a guy who's basically going through hell with paperwork and a court system to prove him and his partner would be "fit parents". I'd imagine a higher duel income can only help gays who want to adopt in a bias court system and such a high demand for newborn babies.

 

Edit: nevermind. My assessment was based off of misinterpretation of your post before you updated it.

By "population with higher educational attainment," I simply meant the population with more college degrees: According to the survey, gay couples were more likely to have college degrees than straight couples- 34 to 23 percent.  However, straight couples make more money than gay couples- $60,200 to $45,300.  Now, I know that statistics can lie, but on the surface this seems contrary to the fact that those with college degrees typically earn more than those without.  I'm wondering why this is...do gays, for some reason, tend to work in lower in lower paying fields?  Or, are they less likely to be promoted?  I'm sure there could be a multitude of explanations, I'm just thinking out loud.

 

But I certainly agree with you about the deflating value of college degrees...especially worrying to me as I'll be receiving my own in a few months time!

Oh, sorry, it's 2:30 and im burnt out on studying lol. 70 percent of jobs in the U.S. are referrals. In other words, people give their friends jobs (and people who refer people get thousands of dollars in bonuses at a lot of companies, that's some BS). I'd consider that a subtle form of "discrimination" personally, because you're at an advantage by being in the right networks. The gay community seems pretty isolated, at least from my perspective. I heard the GLBT community tends to push an agenda that's very very liberal and not pro-business. I wonder if people on this site would verify that or disagree, or have any insight on whether it might pertain to income inequality. I've been reading a lot of books about inequality lately; fascinating subject.

"In other words, people give their friends jobs (and people who refer people get thousands of dollars in bonuses at a lot of companies, that's some BS). I'd consider that a subtle form of "discrimination" personally, because you're at an advantage by being in the right networks."

 

Yeeeah, I keep hearing on regular folk losing jobs to the "gay mafia" referrals ALL the time. Besides, if someone refers someone - that completely balances out a lifetime of discrimination! :roll:

 

"I heard the GLBT community tends to push an agenda that's very very liberal and not pro-business."

 

David... I hope you understand that socially liberally and fiscally "liberal" are two different things. I also hope you realize that just like any other group, the gay community is just as diverse as any other. I know investment bankers who are as greedy as it gets to the most bleeding heart Kucinich backers on earth. Just like I can't say all bus boys know how to Windex a table, you can't just slap a one-size-fits-all label on the gay community.

 

God love ya, but please stop posting at 2:30am.

"In other words, people give their friends jobs (and people who refer people get thousands of dollars in bonuses at a lot of companies, that's some BS). I'd consider that a subtle form of "discrimination" personally, because you're at an advantage by being in the right networks."

 

Yeeeah, I keep hearing on regular folk losing jobs to the "gay mafia" referrals ALL the time. Besides, if someone refers someone - that completely balances out a lifetime of discrimination! :roll:

LOL what are you talking about? That's not what I meant.

Interesting article on what Gov. Paterson has done.    Gov. Strickland, where you at on this issue? 

---

How Governor Set His Stance on Gay Rights

By JEREMY W. PETERS and DANNY HAKIM

 

When David A. Paterson was growing up and his parents would go out of town, he and his little brother would stay in Harlem with family friends they called Uncle Stanley and Uncle Ronald.

 

Uncle Stanley and Uncle Ronald, he said, were a gay couple, though in the 1960s few people described them that way. They helped young David with his spelling, and read to him and played cards with him.

 

“Apparently, my parents never thought we were in any danger,” the governor recalled on Thursday in an interview. “I was raised in a culture that understood the different ways that people conduct their lives. And I feel very proud of it.”

 

...

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/nyregion/30paterson.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

just wait

just wait

 

Honey, I've been waiting.  Although, I don't want a man anywhere near me a the moment, I would like the opportunity to be able to marry if I chose.  In addition, breaking down these laws would also be beneficial to non married hetero couples.

Yes. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

I don't have an issue with gay people as a whole because I know a few of them I have gone to school with and they are great people; but the last thing I'd want my kids seeing are two gay guys getting married on the steps of the county courthouse.

 

I'd 100% support a gay marriage ban. They can go out and live together, but they should not get married in my book. What is this culture becoming!

Uh. Wow.

 

I'm in full support of non-discrimination in all facets of life -- marriage, civil unions, employment.

 

And only 50 years ago, we were discriminating against African Americans from inter-racial marriages, disallowing them in theatres with other races, and forcing them to use separate restroom facilities...

^^ I agree 'seicer', discrimination is simply the practice of hate.

 

I got to tell you 'Ytown..', I'm all about civil discourse when it comes to matters of architecture or planning and the related subjects on this forum. I'm actually surprised that topics of this nature are fair game on this site. Since you've had the fortitude to state your position so honestly I'll do the same.

 

I would like to invite you to actually stand upright, throw some salve and bandaids on those knuckles and admit that you actually do have a problem with gays. Should you ever decide to let your children out of the basement they'll see a great deal worse than two women, or two men in love with eachother; choosing to have a benevolent god, and an insignificant church and state sanctify that love.

Anyway, don't worry they'll find those weapons of mass destruction by November.

"the last thing I'd want my kids seeing are two gay guys getting married on the steps of the county courthouse."

 

Do you even have any children?

"the last thing I'd want my kids seeing are two gay guys getting married on the steps of the county courthouse.

 

I'd 100% support a gay marriage ban. They can go out and live together, but they should not get married in my book. What is this culture becoming!"

 

Since you asked, our culture is becoming more and more a return to a culture of bigatory and hate.  And that is working out real well for us, isnt it? Some values from the past should return- return to community living, putting family first (what ever "family" is for the person, and it may or may not include children), and less focus on material things.

Yes. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

Really, I thought that marriage was a social contract between two individuals who love each other unconditionally.

 

I don't have an issue with gay people as a whole because I know a few of them I have gone to school with and they are great people; but the last thing I'd want my kids seeing are two gay guys getting married on the steps of the county courthouse.

 

It sounds to me like you do have a problem with gay people. How would seeing two people in love and taking the next step in their relationship be harmful to your kids? Surely they will see much worse thing in their lives than that.

 

 

I'd 100% support a gay marriage ban. They can go out and live together, but they should not get married in my book. What is this culture becoming!

 

If two people love each other they can only live together, they can't solidify their relationship? Why? Just because someone from Youngstown might be disgusted by a ceremony that he probably wouldn't have been invited to anyways?

 

 

 

I am in college. I know 3 gay kids who I talk with on a regular basis and have no problem with them or them having relationships. But to have them get married in my moral beliefs is not right. These gay kids that know me are well aware of my position on it and respect me for it.

 

So stop putting words in my mouth. I do not hate anyone. Hate is a strong word. I am a strong believer in Moral Values and I believe marriage is between a man in a woman. I truly look deep into the root of marriage and try to develop an opinion of what God would view it as, and that's my conclusion.

 

So stop the attacks on me because I support a ban on gay marriage. If you want it, couples can go catch a flight to Massachusetts or California..

Guys, let's keep this civil. This thread (and the other almost parallel thread) has been very civil and constructive, and we should respect other's opinions -- even if we strongly disagree.

 

I voiced my disagreement above, based on my non-belief in religion and my totally open moral code. But the same doesn't hold for every individual.

I would like it explained to me why one person's religious views should influence a law that would prohibit someone to their right to marry who they wanted. Marriage has been around long before Christianity, Judaism, etc., therefore, it is not a religious institution but it is a social contract between two people who are in love. That love should not be discriminated against by the state just because that love is between two members of the same sex. Churches would still have the ability to decide whether or not they would marry a gay couple, however, the state could not prevent two people from having their relationship recognized by said state.

I agree churches can do what ever they want- they always have. Unless the price is right they will continue in the same manner. My concern is from a non romantic legal perspective. I find it  heartbreaking that a gay couple can be committed to each  for many years and if the partner is sick or dies their rights are so limited. Marriage may only be a "piece of paper", but it is an important one and should not be limited to people with more socially accepted interchangeable parts.

"So stop the attacks on me because I support a ban on gay marriage."

 

Develop an idea of how a ban on gay marriage affects people in their daily lives - then people might treat you with respect. When you're stripped of your rights by people whose reasoning is "my god says so", it's not easy to pretend that everything is oh so nice. So sorry if your feelings are hurt - I'm just a little pissed that if something happens to my partner, I don't have the same hospital visitation rights married couples have. I mean, it's okay with YTown and his three self-loathing friends if my partner and I shack up, but apparently his "moral" beliefs don't extend any further than that.

Yes. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

I don't have an issue with gay people as a whole because I know a few of them I have gone to school with and they are great people; but the last thing I'd want my kids seeing are two gay guys getting married on the steps of the county courthouse.

 

I'd 100% support a gay marriage ban. They can go out and live together, but they should not get married in my book. What is this culture becoming!

 

This culture is becoming better and more fair, what do you think its becoming?  You know, you could insert 'black and white' in some of your sentences, and you would have exactly what was going on 50 plus years ago.  You do realize your position on these types of things will be looked at in history in the same line as those who opposed black-white marriage?  You are wrong and history will prove that to be true.  I love how a straight person can pull a 'moral values' card simply because they were born straight.  Its as if they have some sort of superiority over us.  ha. 

I've never once supported gay marriage and I never will. I do not believe two men or two women should be married. I believe in the sanctity of marriage and that marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. I am not all that surprised by the attacking replies I am receiving on here since this is without a doubt a board with those of the liberal political beliefs, therefore the moral beliefs of many conservatives are only represented by a select few like myself.

 

That is my story and I am sticking to it. I don't feel any rights are stripped here... I just do not believe they should be married. The purpose of marriage is to create new beings to follow in God's Footsteps, and we all know that can't be done with two men or two women..... If no straight couples want to adopt a child, then open it up to those in the gay ranks to adopt, but thats as far as I will go.

What if we regulated marriage to religious affiliations and replaced the government-defined standard of marriage with civil unions, where the couple would receive the full benefit of the state and where they would be covered legally under their insurance policy?

 

It's sad that the separation of church and state, as clearly outlined in the legal doctrine that is the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, has yet to extend to marriage.

Ytown- I don't believe that I was attacking you. I think that I asked some pretty valid questions that have not been answered. Why should your religious beliefs influence law? Last time I checked, the U.S. wasn't a theocracy.

 

 

I believe in my moral values. I believe in God. I am a devout Catholic that tries to spread God's word by way of my actions and my beliefs. I PERSONALLY do not believe God intended for two men or two women to be married in holy matrimony, and I am sticking to it.

 

Our nation is Athe greatest on earth because of our freedom of religion, but the backbone of this country is our moral principles in my humble opinion. Most Americans believe in God and many Americans vote on their morals.

 

I don't vote on morals most of the time, I vote on many issues. And I vote Republican on many issues do their fiscal policy and foreign policy....