February 17, 2004 in Politics

Homosexual Marriages

Post placeholder image

Now that 2,600 gays/lesbians couples in San Francisco have realized their dream of getting married, I await word of the first divorce in the bunch. Ok, I know that’s a really negative statement but it will be interesting to see if these couples fair any better than their heterosexual counter-parts. For the record, let me that I’ve always been supportive of the gay rights movement. However, until about a few years ago, I was against homosexual marriages; primarily on religious grounds. I did support gay couples being able to get the secular benefits of marriage if they formed a domestic partnership, but I just didn’t want the relationship to be called marriage. That I felt was something a man and a woman did. I have since evolved from that original viewpoint. In my opinion, to be against homosexuals marrying is to be in favor of discrimination against a group of people due to their sexual preference. That I cannot support. As such, my new motto is live and let live. Ultimately churches will need to decide in they want to perform these marriages, but I think the government should not stand in the way of progress. Let them marry. The whole institution in and of itself is pretty fucked up, so maybe this shake up will be good for everyone in the long run. After all, doesn’t the support of these relationships ultimately lead to acceptance and support for all types of families? I think so. It will be interesting to see how this issue is decided in the judicial and legislative branches across the country.
Update: Top 10 Reasons for Marriage Equality. Link found while cruising Bazima.


  1. December 9, 2004 at 10:50 am


    im actually doing a report on gay marriages and some of your comments and opinions are so blah……. i don’t really know what to say… except that everyone should have the right of being equal and marriage shouldn’t be this big of deal, if you don’t like it…. don’t pay attention to it!!
    ** sara

  2. May 13, 2004 at 3:51 am


    If you ask me, (someone who is homosexual no one has the right to say weither we can marry or not. It is up to the people who love each other and want to show the world and thier faily and friends what they feel by gettting married, if you don’t agree with the idea then that’s you’re opinon and no one can take that away from you and no one will, but you could at least give us the right that you have and let us marry the peple we love

  3. February 25, 2004 at 2:38 pm


    I just had to plagarize this from another source and share it. I thought it was funny and sad all at the same time:
    “If they allow this kind of undermining of the sacred institution of marriage to occur, what will happen to our great cultural elements like “The Bachelor”, “The Bachelorette”, “Joe Millionaire”, “Married by America”, “Littlest Groom”, and “My Big, Fat, Obnoxious Groom”? As
    we all know, these cultural touchstones epitomize the length that Heterosexuals will go to show how much the sacred institution of marriage is dear to them and it certainly needs to be protected from Homosexuals who will surely defame, degrade and cheapen it.
    And how about our celebrities? If they see this kind of thing going on, how can they help but feel cheated by Homosexuals as they hold fast to their vows for those few precious hours?”

  4. February 23, 2004 at 10:44 pm


    If you agree polygamous marriage doesn’t affect anyone outside the participants in such a marriage, then the argument applies equally to polygamous or homosexual marriage, neither of which I think should be discriminated against. I also stressed that the union would be between consenting adults, so there is no “sexual slavery.” Consenting adults entering into a union should have equal rights whether they are heterosexuals, homosexuals, or polygamists.
    You say that polygamy is illegal and homosexuality is not. Neither polygamous marriage nor homosexual marriage is currently legal. That does not make the law right. I do not mean to put words in your mouth, I think you would agree that if a constitutional ammendment were passed that stated marriage is only between a man and a woman, that you would oppose such an ammendment? Correct me if I am wrong. Just because something is not a legal right, doesn’t mean it is not my human right.
    As far as a natural right, polygamous marriage between consenting adults IS just as much a natural right as homosexual marriage. What I am saying is that the rights of both polygamists and homosexuals are being denied. The fight both groups are making is related to the common cause of a liberalized acceptance of marriage by the government. I’m not saying you have to fight for both causes, but I AM saying that both groups make the same argument that the government has NO right to restrict the private lives of consenting adults, so why NOT join together? There is strength in numbers, right?
    “Closed viewpoints? I’m open to the discussion, if you so choose to elighten me on why you believe that the struggle same sex partners is matched by that of people seeking to participate in polygamist union.”
    I am sorry that I implied you were not open to discussion, that was my mistake. I am glad to see that we can have a rational discussion on the topic here, because in my experience it is very difficult to find anything but “I’m right, you’re wrong” types of message boards where all parties assume to be in the absolute right.
    “My question to you is why would you want to marry more than one person? What is gained by this gluttonous pursuit of procreation? Or am I missing something?”
    This question is no different than me asking a homosexual man why he would ever want to marry another man. Personally, I do not see the attraction, or the benefit. However, if he wishes to do so, it is absolutely his right. As far as calling polygamy a “gluttonous pursuit of procreation,” I’m sorry to say that you are gravely misinformed. As you said in your post, “I don’t have first hand knowledge of polygamist lifestyle.” A polygamist marriage between consenting adults is a wonderful lifestyle that can promote great family values. Just because you, or anyone else, doesn’t see why people would want to enter into such a relationship, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be able to. The majority of this country doesn’t understand why homosexuals should be allowed to marry, or why they would ever want to do so, but that doesn’t make their position any more correct.

  5. February 23, 2004 at 12:34 pm


    WOW! I commented on Hanlon’s blog and agreed with your comment and decided to stop by. I’ve visited before, maybe you’ll remember me.
    But in response to your blog, I agree wholeheartedly and I blogged about this topic just yesterday! Our views seem to be identical. If you have some reading time, won’t you please stop by and add your comments Ursula? It would make my day!

  6. February 22, 2004 at 2:48 pm


    Slylayne, first off, I don’t think polygamy affects anyone other than the participants and the offspring of such a union. What I said was that “polygamy is illegal for a variety of reasons, the least of which is that some believe it is more akin to sexual slavery.”
    I say “some” because I don’t have first hand knowledge of polygamist lifestyle. What I do know is that polygamy is illegal and homosexuality is not. It is NOT your legal nor natural right to marry more than one person. I’m trying to figure out whether you’re trying to tell me that the plight of polygamists and homosexuals is similar or that I should fight for the legalization of polygamy. To suggest that homosexual unions and polygamist unions are the same doesn’t make sense to me.
    Closed viewpoints? I’m open to the discussion, if you so choose to elighten me on why you believe that the struggle same sex partners is matched by that of people seeking to participate in polygamist union.
    My question to you is why would you want to marry more than one person? What is gained by this gluttonous pursuit of procreation? Or am I missing something?

  7. February 22, 2004 at 2:01 am


    E!, I ask you the question, how does a polygamist trio getting married affect the rest of the non-polygamist world? How can you akin polgamy to slavery when there are three *consenting* adults? Do you really mean that you know a better way for said three people to live? Are polygamists less able to take committment seriously? Would the whole of creation fall because three people named Bob, Bobbi Sue, and Bobbi Jo married?
    Honestly, I do not see how you can support homosexual marriage and NOT support polygamist marriage. Remember, I am talking about three consenting adults, not any type of forced marriages and children. As a stauch supporter of polygamy, and a devote practicer, and am deeply troubled by your seemingly closed viewpoint on the matter. In my fight for equal protection and opportunity under the law, I thought for sure that supporters of homosexual marriage would support my right to a polygamist marriage. Please, tell me why you think the government has a right to deprive me of my natural right? And please, no “societal norms” arguments, because that would be a step backward in the case for homosexual marriage as well.

  8. February 19, 2004 at 9:05 am

    Hollie Richard

    Apology accepted. 🙂
    When I said this issue affects more than just homosexuals…what I meant is that people such as polygamists will use the reasons homosexuals are giving to support their own cause. There was a polygamist trio on Larry King Live and they were saying that they will move to San Francisco so the mayor will marry all three of them, citing that polygamists are just as discriminated against as homosexuals when it comes to marriage.
    Homosexuals getting married in our society will NOT have a negative affect on heterosexual anything. (double negative?…sorry)
    I beleive there should be a constitutional amendment banning a man from marrying his microphone.

  9. February 19, 2004 at 12:28 am


    Communist? Because I believe in the individuals right to choose what is right for them? Ok, I’ll bite.
    First off, polygamy is illegal for a variety of reasons, the least of which is that some believe it is more akin to sexual slavery. Please don’t try to convince me that three people deciding to get married is the same as two people. The higher the number involved doesn’t mean there is any more or less “rationale & understanding.”
    And I apologize if I attacked you. I was just reacting to the ridiculous position. Now, as far as you stating that Homosexual unions would affect non-homosexuals… please enlighten my communist brain with why… seriously, how does two homosexuals getting married possibly affect the heterosexual population of the world? Shrub said the same thing today and I don’t get it. Are homosexuals less able to take the committment seriously? Would the whole of creation falter because two people named bob married each other?

  10. February 18, 2004 at 10:22 pm

    Shasta MacNasty

    Question: why should a man and woman be allowed to marry? I understand why everyone has their views one why others shouldn’t, but why should heterosexual males and females be allowed to marry?
    And no. You may NOT use procreation in your explaination.

  11. February 18, 2004 at 6:56 pm

    Hollie Richard

    Three people regardless of sexual preference who love each other have the right to choose how that love is committed. Three people can be rationale and understanding of a higher moral level. No one with any level of intelligence should look at this subject and think this issue ONLY affects homosexuals.
    I didn’t think I was going to upset an anti-free speech communist who subscribes only to ideas that fit his/her agenda. To not agree is one thing, but to attack someone personally because we disagree on what is relevant…well, let’s just say I have the shoulders to burden that load.
    Homosexuality is not immoral.

  12. February 18, 2004 at 6:17 pm


    you have got to be kidding me. Seriously. No one with any level of intelligence can possibly sit there at their keyboard and enter the characters that make up that resolutely asinine post.
    Ok, from the top. Two people (regardless of sexual preference) who love each other should have the right to choose how that love is committed. Not a man and his dog. Not a woman and her cat. Not three midgets with microphones! No where in my post did I say anything about polygamy. I’m talking two human beings with the rationale and understanding of a higher moral level. Don’t even throw anything out about how homosexuality is immoral either.

  13. February 18, 2004 at 5:08 pm

    Hollie Richard

    If a man and two women who love each other and are willing to commit their love on paper walk in the courthouse for a marriage certificate, should they be allowed to get one? It would fall under the same ideology as the people in San Francisco. If two men and a woman who loved each other walked to the courthouse….If a brother and sister loved each other enough to commit their love to paper and they walked into the courthouse for a marriage certificate…well, you get my point. The ideology does not just apply to homsexual partners.
    Stepping stones to the next level…to be continued at a courthouse near you!!

  14. February 18, 2004 at 3:56 pm


    OK, I just don’t understand what divorce has to do with gays having the right to marry. When (and it will happen) the first divorce between a same sex couple happens, will that suddenly make all gay marriages less valid? I don’t remember the arguement being “Well we can’t let gays marry because they’ll just end up divorced.” That sentiment could be used on any marriage these days, but I don’t think most of us head to a wedding discounting the couples happiness as fleeting and destined for the divorce court.
    I already feel sorry for the first same sex couple that does get divorced as it will be cited as proof that gays can’t stay married and gay marriages are infact destroying civilization as we know it, when it fact it will prove nothing except that gays are just like everyone else.

  15. February 18, 2004 at 12:18 am


    yeah what E! said. completely.
    funny, urs, i had typed an entry about gay marriage and in it i mention divorce and a whole host of other questions. i didn’t state my opinion as i don’t feel it’s relevant, but i’m glad someone else was wondering about divorce. i’m thinking about re-posting it.

  16. February 17, 2004 at 11:10 pm


    I’m not gay, nor do I really believe in the institution (marriage) that the couples in San Francisco (where I live) have just entered into… I was raised catholic and my father is a pretty devout bible thumper. That said, I think that anyone, heterosexual or homosexual, who is willing to commit their love to paper should have the right to do so and neither government nor religious institution should be allowed to disallow their intended union. With the state of the world today, with religion becoming more of a political stance than a social and spiritual position, don’t you think it is ridiculous to stand in the way of two people so in love and committed to their trust in each other?

Comments are closed.

By browsing this website, you agree to our privacy policy.
I Agree