Respectfully, I’d like to point out that for conservatives, especially the ‘value voter’ brand, the passing of Proposition 8 is a silver lining. If I were a California citizen I would have voted yes on 8, not because I don’t think homosexuals aren’t equal to heterosexuals, as you suggest. The proposition makes no adverse claims on homosexual citizenship, personhood, and societal importance. Frankly, I think that liberals using proposition 8 as a defining factor of gay rights is invalid and erroneous. It is a definition of a tradition, and a determination of sanctity of marriage. Please recognize that to many, this is an issue concerned with values and religion that is just as important as your liberal agenda is to you. So it is a silver lining for certain (many, as it turns out) members of society.

I am by no means an expert on the issue, but doesn’t banning same-sex marriage prevent homosexuals from having the civil rights and tax breaks that are afforded heterosexual married couples? What gives us the right to say that the “sanctity” of the word marriage and our traditions is more important than denying rights to an entire population of what is said to be the freest country in the world? It was also a tradition that women were not allowed to vote because they weren’t mentally capable of making the informed decisions that men do. Should we have kept that tradition too?

Niki,

If you really want to protect the sanctity of marriage, outlaw divorce, take away marriage licenses from people who can’t or don’t want to have children, or use marriage more for the government benefits. Also, tradition doesn’t always prove “right”. If we followed “tradition”, we’d still discriminate against African Americans and women because it’s “tradition”. Also, while your (not you particularly, but you in general) religion may be very important to you, it would be nice if once in a while you recognize that not everyone shares your religious beliefs and defining other people’s lives by your own beliefs is incredibly ridiculous and outright wrong.

Hi Danny – Actually Proposition 8 is not domestic partnership legislation. The laws that have afforded same-sex couples the rights to have civil partnerships with the same rights as everyone else are not at stake. It is the definition of marriage as being between a man and woman that is in question. For clarification check out an earlier supreme court discussion, Lockyer vs. San Francisco, especially pages 3-4: (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF).

You have misinterpreted the meaning of the word “sanctity” as well – technically it is the quality or state of being holy or sacred. A religious word. This debate has everything to do with religion. So in my opinion yes, the sanctity of a tradition is more important to me than anything else. But you have made a beautiful point on my behalf – civil rights are not the same as religious rights. It is blasphemous to consider women’s suffrage to be holy, however profound it may be. You are talking of apples when you should be talking of oranges. This is a new situation, and requires a new denomination. When homosexuals are able to marry, I think it’s only a matter of time before religious officiants who refuse to marry them are accused of hate crimes for adhering to their religious beliefs. No gay rights have been infringed upon, and it is only fair that no religious rights are infringed upon either.

Hi Emily – please see above my explanation that religious rights and civil rights are completely different. Therefore, your using racism and sexism as battering rams against my religious argument is unjustified and irrelevant. Also please note that I have given you no reason to assume that I am happy with the divorce rate, or secular marriages, or any such thing that reduces the sanctity of marriage. When there is legislation that regards these things, I will vote accordingly. Don’t assume I am only against homosexual marriages and nothing else. So your comments addressing these things are virtually pointless.

Ironically, this whole debate revolves around my recognition that not all people share my religious beliefs. My argument is not that we should imprison homosexuals in monasteries and not let them live their own lifestyles. But since I see marriage as a religious establishment, why shouldn’t I have the right to defend it as such? The ridiculous thing is that you are accusing me of trying to make everyone live by my beliefs when in fact that is what you are doing. Just because I refuse to ignore my religious convictions so no one feels left out, I am a bigot? But when you try to force me to do so, you are a champion of the greater good? I sense a bit of hypocrisy.

Thanks for clearing that up for me Niki, and you do bring up a good point about the hate crimes thing. Personally however, I still feel that Prop 8 defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman breaches the divide between church and state. To me it still seems like people are putting their religious beliefs over the civil rights of other individuals.

On another note, isn’t it up to God to decide? Casting judgment on the lifestyles of homosexuals is not our purview, that is the right of God alone. Are we not all sinners? Take what I say here with a grain of salt as well, I am nowhere near as versed in the Bible as I used to be.

I would also like to thank you for being able to have a civilized discussion here. Religion and gay rights are a touchy subject for just about everyone, and it’s nice to be able to talk about it without either side become explosively angry.

Let’s also not forget the conundrum with which the country is now faced to deal with. In three states “gay marriages” have been banned, and in one fortunate state no child will ever have to bear the burden of growing up cared for in a loving home with homosexual parents. The issue here is no that conservatives or liberals are either protecting the moral good or allowing sin into our country.
The issue is that people become so focused on one side and entrenched in their views that they never look at the entire field of issues.
America is a country that every year imports thousands of children from across the globe for adoptions. While even thousands more of American born children have to live in broken homes, where most often domestic abuse is rampant.

So what needs to be dealt with now is for Americans to find a solution to the forgotten youth of our own country. Americans need to remember the foundation with which we were founded.

As for banning gay marriages I find it appalling that anyone who calls them self an American or religious can support such a heinous thing.
America is a land of freedom that the world turns to for guidance, but how can we be a guide when gay people are not protected by the law as their straight counterparts are.
As for the religious wing of this argument, It always baffles me how anyone who claims to love God cannot love the creatures he/she made.
The religious defense of gay marriages is not one at all. By allowing gay people to marry no one is condoning any sexual behavior between people of the same sex, which is the moral question.
Besides conservatives/ religious or whatever u want to call the anti-gay marriage movement is only entrapping gay people in a horrible cycle of “sin”–> If they can’t marry it will always be premarital sex.

SO AMERICA WAKE UP.
Stop trying to protect your personnel beliefs. America is about the separation of Church and state and when people continually hide behind their religion they only weaken and further divide this amazing country.
So let the gays marry and take care of all the conservatives’ daughters “who choose life” for their babbies.

I am saddened that the loss of my rights is celebrated by so many at UMBC.

There is still so much work to do.

Knight
The religous view of this has nothing to do with wether or not the church approves of gay couples of not!! Everyone always assumesthis when really it isn’t the gay part we are fighting it is the marriage part we are fighting. If people want us to seperate our religous views from stately views they should take religious matters out of law! Marriage is the union of two people to procreate, according to religion. A religous joinging of two people who do not plan to procreate therefore, for the church, is not marriage. When I say marriage, I mean the original unlegalized meaning of the word.
However, I agree that legal rights should not be denied to two people supporting eachother in a union, and that has never been the churchs’ plan. However, as before mentioned, our traditions and sanctity of the word marriage are being trampled on by the legalization of the word into a completely mutated form. What gay couples are looking for is not the procreate themselves but to get the benefits legal unions have and therefore be on equal footing with every other loving couple in America. Yes it is a free country, and yes you should be free to do as you chose without religous persucution, but then shouldn’t the government also keep their hands out of religous ceremonies?? you don’t see everyone getting a bar mitvah once they turn of legal age, and if they did, I’m sure there would be a similar argument to end such a mockery of something sacred to them.
(I am speaking from a moderate catholic viewpoint, by the way)

Hi Danny – I understand your statement about the separation of church and state, and I am even substantiating my claim in the exact same way, just flipped around. The above poster Mary makes the point I am searching for – non-Jewish people don’t get bar mitvahs when they are of age, and I am certain the Jewish population would try to fight it if there was legislation making it OK for them to do so. In the hope of not sounding too severe, it is simply not a homosexual’s word to use. I have to say I agree with Mary that it makes a mockery out of a sacred tradition. So reverse what you say, that religion is impeding civil rights, and consider that this civil movement is infringing upon religious rights (not my ability to practice, but my ability to preserve its sanctity). I’d also like to thank you for bringing up God’s perspective, which I am more than happy to say I can not represent. I think that there are correct and incorrect assumptions, obviously. And I am careful not to pass judgment on a homosexual’s lifestyle for the exact reason you mentioned – I too am a sinner. But I am operating under the assumption that this religious tradition is the way it is, namely between a man and woman, because that is how it is sanctioned by God. It is just an unarguable point, for better or for worse.

And I too thank you for your discussion. The problem with most forums, blogs, newspaper opinion sections… is that they are full of people validating each other’s points, who become angry when something is said otherwise. To me it is far more valuable to discuss things with people who can counter your points, and not perpetually agree with you, and in a civilized manner. You never know, you might gain a little bit of perspective if you’re open to it.

Well then why will churches not recognize or perform marriages unless you come to them with STATE PAPERS SAYING SO?
NO one is asking churches to recognize marriages, people are asking for the same protection given to married couples.
They are looking for Marriage Licenses not ceremonies performed by religions that do not accept or even tolerate homosexual relationships.

Some people still think of marriage as a religious union between a husband a wife and God. I don’t think they should have that privilege as it is impossible to have the third element , God, in a homosexual union as it is explicitly forbidden.

I do not think the government ought to have a say in it at all. I think the government should employ no notion of marriage. Marriage should stay in the church.

Nick,

I think those on the left need to get over it…you lost fair and square. I don’t see how passing question 8 “enshrines discrimination” in the California constitution it simply means that them manner in which gay marriage was legalized was undemocratic, un-american and unacceptable. Also, to somehow attribute blacks to it’s defeat is absolutely ridiculous and shows how the gay community picks and chooses when it wants to side and not side with blacks. How many gays and lesbians were present during the Jenna 6 protests or the Sean Bell rallies….try ZERO! The is the black people in this country can point to the “civil” right amendments to the constitution, the “civil” rights act of 1964 and the voting rights acts of 1965 which just happen to be actual articles of legislation passed by the U.S. Congress. My advice would be quit trying to circumvent the democratic process by colluding with super liberal courts for self-serving case rulings. Try canvassing the community and educating the public to your cause just like the Suffrage movement, the Labor movement, and the Civil rights movement and might see a different result. Their causes are current fabrics of American society because their movement is from the bottom up, yours is the exact opposite and the American people since the days of King George III has had a real problem with being told how they should think.

@Nick

How do you know that there were no gay and lesbians present during civil rights protests? Do you keep tabs on all of them and know where they are all the time? Or do you just have excellent gaydar?

…ridiculous.

I wish the administration read these blogs so they had a better idea of what a long way this school has to go before we can say that we’ve included LGBT people in the “diversity” that is UMBC.

Just a thought…My friend was telling me how proposition 8 was unconstitutional due to Article 4, Section 1 of the constitution which states that all states should recognize licenses rewarded by other state – proposition 8 does not allow for this – as it will refuse to recognize gay marriage permits awarded by other states.

Can someone please explain to me why gay people should be denied the right to marry due to the beliefs of a religion they do not espouse? Seriously, I’d like to know.

Marriage isn’t just a religious institution… that’s why there are civil ceremonies. If marriage were strictly religious, athiests wouldn’t get married. If the church has a problem with gay marriages, then its rights should be protected with a provision to refuse to marry gays within its walls, but that shouldn’t deny the right to civil marriage for gays.

And why, exactly, is marriage about procreation? If that’s what marriage is for, should we tell the infertile or those who don’t want children that they can’t get married?

To Nick… I second Paula’s comment. Just how do you know that there were no GLBT people at the Jena 6 protest? Did you stop to interview every single person there about their sexual preferences? If so, how can I get that kind of free time?

To Matt… when you say that “Some people still think of marriage as a religious union between a husband a wife and God”, the word that sticks out most to me is “some”. Some people think that a woman’s place is in the home (and I suppose they technically have the right to think so), but I don’t have to be subjected to their beliefs because they aren’t congruous with mine. So if some people think gays shouldn’t get married due to religious ideas, why should that matter to those who actually are gay?

I dont think that people should be denied to right to be with someone they love, but if both of those people are the same gender, that isn’t marriage. It’s not just a matter of morality or values, its a definition. If two people of the same gender want to be together, they can call that union something else. Marriage is taken.

Allow me to clarify myself when I stated that “ZERO” gays and lesbians attend the Jenna 6 protests or Sean Bell rallies. I meant gay/lesbian “ORGANIZATIONS”. Bayard Rustin, who just like Sean Bell you probably never heard of, was the on the chief organizers of the 1963 march on Washington where Martin Luther King Jr. made his famous “I have a dream” speech and was openly gay. Black people in this country are in debt to his service and I actually think it’s a shame that he doesn’t get any credit during February simply because of his sexual orientation.

My comments wasn’t an attack on gays and lesbians and a group, is was however an attack on the way they try and by-pass the democratic process. Can you imagine how much negative coverage blacks would have gotten in Colorado that vote against affirmative action had they gathered in masses, held up traffic and stood on top of police cars because they didn’t get their way. My advice the “GLBT” community as well as Republicans, the two biggest losers last week is to; re-think your point of view, adjust your strategy and maybe be more tolerant of Log Cabin Republicans(Gay wing of Republican Party)…you probably never heard of them either…anyway, and spend more time trying to educate the public and win them over honey rather than vinegar.

I also want to say how embarrassing it is that UMBC on neither it’s homepage nor it’s myUMBC page has failed to mention or acknowledge the fact that it’s “VETERANS DAY”!!!!!!!!!!!!!God forbid if it were Earth Day, The Great American Smoke Out, or any other “acceptable” day of recognition that failed to be recognized…. I’m sure the out-cry would be deafening. The fact is that we owe a great deal of gratitude to our fellow Americans who are serving, served, or will serve in the armed services. We are able to attend UMBC and/or any other institution of higher learning because of their committment and sacrifice…such an omission of recognition should shame us all. Please don’t let this happen again!

@Andrea

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by Clinton, allowed for states to refuse to recognize gay marriages from other states.

So unfortunately, it is perfectly legal. Any gay married couple that leaves Massachusetts forfeits all rights to marriage benefits, unless they move to New York, which specifically DOES recognize gay marriages from other states… even though they won’t grant marriage licenses to gay couples.

Nick,

To my knowledge, for a spotlight to appear, someone actually has to submit it. People like SEA and UHS sponsor the things like Earth Day and the anti-smoking campaigns. I guess Veteran’s Day just didn’t get some kind of sponsor. Pity, because I agree that it should have been mentioned somewhere.

However, I still don’t see what that has to do with gay marriage…

Also, if the anti-smoking day and Earth Day weren’t recognized, I don’t think there would be that huge of an outcry. I know I wouldn’t really care.

I am a Conservative and though I oppose Gay Marriage on principle, I do not really care one way or the other.

The problem is that Marriage has always been defined in this country as between one man and one woman. This is just the way it is, however if we were to change it into a right instead of defined union it would need to be provided to all.

Thus polygamists and those engaging in bestiality would also have the right to be married and so on and so on.

I have no problem with civil unions, but changing the definition of marriage opens up doors that most Americans do not want to go through.

All I know, is I think it’s shit that people like Britney Spears can marry on a whim and then have it anulled three days later, but I can’t marry my girlfriend, just because I have a vagina.

Hey C, I couldn’t agree more.

When straight people arrogantly believe that their way is the only way, it almost makes me ashamed to be heterosexual….

I honestly think gay marriage should not be something left up to the courts. I don’t think it should be required for churches to honor gay marriage, as it may go against their beliefs. Marriage is, at a foundation, a religious institution. To pass legislature one way or the other on marriage is fundamentally a violation of the separation of church and state. I am not anti-gay, but I feel it should be left up to churches to decide whether or not to marry gay couples. I do agree in tax breaks and the such for gay couples, which is why I would propose legislation on civil unions, because that would be a legal institution. In conclusion, to rule one way or the other on gay marriage goes against the constitution, and should not be the concern of lawmakers.

Its not that anyone is trying to keep any two people appart. When two people of the same gender come together it is not a Marriage. It’s definition, not discrimination. That word has had a specific meaning for thousands of years, and some people think that it’s sacred.
I personally think that people should be with whoever they want to be with, but the union between a man and a woman is called a Marriage. The union between two people of the same gender doesn’t really have a name.