what's the historical background on same sex marriage?
396757
The issue of same-sex marriage was thrown into the national spotlight in November of 2003, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to bar same-sex couples from civil marriage.  That was followed by a second ruling in February of 2004, stating that creating civil unions for same-sex couples while barring them from civil marriage was not acceptable.  Massachusetts has been issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples since May, and many localities followed suit.\n\n\nThe national attention on the Massachusetts case soon overflowed to other states, and ballot initiatives started circulating this spring to amend state constitutions to define marriage as between one man and one woman.  33 states already have state statutes defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman; these ballot proposals go further would enshrine the definition in the states’ constitutions.  There are currently just six states with constitutional limitations on marriage.
848695
Two people who willfully choose to join themselves in a committed relationship and who plan to stick it out through the good times and bad times, come hell or high water.\n\nSince this is the LGBT forum, I will add this. I am really angry about all the hoopla about gay marriage going on in my country (US) right now. So many people keep saying marriage is a one man + one woman only affair, but the fact of the matter is that marriage, at least in the US, is a LEGAL MATTER. If you choose to have a religious ceremony, it isn't legal until you get the marriage license issued by the state. Since it's a legal contract, I find it obscene that anyone wants to legislate that it can only be between a man and a woman. If marriage was simply a religious affair, then I would say it was up to the religious leaders of that faith to say who can and who cannot be married, but I find it repugnant that some people are not allowed to enter into a binding legal agreement simply because they happen to be of the same sex. The simple fact that I have two X chromosomes, and my partner is an XY gives us, automatically, all sorts of rights and privileges that are denied to other couples because they are the same sex. I am weary of people saying, "well, they can go to an attorney and make sure that they inherit each other's stuff, and they can go to an attorney and legally adopt each other's kids, and they can go to an attorney and give each other medical power of attorney, and they can go to an attorney..." because all of that stuff was just given to me and my husband when we married. No one in a committed relationship should have to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees getting their ducks in a row so that when something happens to one of them they can end up with a rotten judge in court and have it overturned in favor of "next of kin", who are, sadly, not always mindful of what their dearly departed would have wanted. It's all just offensive to me. \n\nOkay, sorry for the outburst. I will put my soapbox away now.
686276
If there is any Christian Church in the United States that has married a same sex couple it is definitely the Metropolitan Community Church which is a denomination explicitly welcoming of gays, lesbians, etc. If any other has performed a same sex wedding, it would probably the United Church of Christ or the Episcopal Church as they are probably the two most liberal mainstream churches. Unitarians of course marry same sex couples all the time, but they aren't necessarily Christians.
57526
Yes...although I'm thinking this wasn't the place to ask this question...unless you're looking for a fight.  You will invariably get rude and hateful answers.  Since you don't have any history, it's impossible for me to guage if you asked this to see others' views on the subject or if you are gay and wanting to marry.\n\nI am a strong advocate for gay marriage.  I'm straight myself, but I have quite a few gay friends and I like to think of myself as somewhat liberal.  Who are we to define who should and should not get married?  Granted, anything within a family is sick and wrong (although I'm sure there are some people out there that will beg to differ with me - but I've seen in places that the result of children from incestuous relationships often have severe abnormalities)...and I agree with NoMorLuv that anything involving animals (beastiality) is also wrong.  They can not speak for themselves.  Multiple partners, not okay either.  \n\nThat remains simple.  Set a law establishing that a marriage is a union between 2 persons - be it a man and a woman, 2 men or 2 women.  That's it.  1 union per 2 people, not related by blood.  There ya go.  Solves that.  Why can't 2 guys get married in most states?  Why can't 2 women?  Why does it matter?  \n\nI'll tell you why - because you have the religious types (nope, not quite sure where my faith lies) that say that it is wrong in the Bible.  I thought God was supposed to love you no matter what?  No matter what your sexual orientation?  I've seen people post here that if you repent for your sins (ie homosexuality - I saw it on a post concerning lesbians going to hell) that God will forgive you.  Why should you have to repent for loving someone of the same sex?  That implies that it's wrong, when it's not.  So what if you're the same sex?  As long as you love each other, that's what's important.\n\nIn my mind, I think that a marriage should be just as stated above.  It's a commitment to love and honor your spouse, no matter what.  I have a very close friend at work (he lives in Massachusetts - where gay marriage is legal) who is married to another man and he can't be happier!  And you know what, I can't be happier for him!  \n\nPeople say that by allowing gays to marry, it will destroy the sanctity of marriage.  Will not.  Like said, it shouldn't matter as long as there is love and commitment there!  \n\nPlus, there's the whole children thing.  Just because Mary has 2 moms (or 2 dads) doesn't mean that she will grow up to be a lesbian.  It's more important to show a loving relationship than the sex of the parents.  Homosexuality is not something that is induced by surroundings or peers, it's just something that happens.  Nor is it an abbhoration, as I've also seen people post here.  Damn people and their closed minds.  It's actually been seen in young children, sometimes they just don't know it yet.  I believe it's something that is just predetermined...a lot of gay people (mostly men) that I've talked to said they always knew.  Actually, my married friend was married to a woman once...he thought he might change!  (I saw that here too...someone said with enough of the right counselling they can "become" straight!)  So it really doesn't matter who your parents are, as long as they're happy.\n\nBesides, why should they be denied the benefits of being married just because they're not man/woman?  Gay people need health insurance too!  (No smart comments, future posters, please!)  Life insurance?  Then again, some plans might let you place a sibling or what not as a beneficiary.  There's the tax break (although that's not as big of a reason but it is still a reason)...\n\nSo all that being said...YES.\n\n\nPS - Thanks for the clarification.  I'm all for it.  If you don't live in a state where gay marriage is legal yet, lobby for
155078
Well most people fighting for gay marriage also call it civil marriage (to differntiate from religious marriage, no one wants to force any religion to marry same sex couples) or equal marriage rights.  Gay marriage is largely an oxymoron, because we don't want a special gay version of marriage, we want the same marriage that heteros get.  However the term gay marriage is what has caught on in the press, so that is what most people use.
937742
In all seriousness, I know a lot of gay people that believe marriage is meant for man and woman, but believe they should at least have a civil union. they both contribute to each other except of course the reproductive aspect.
94753
The "context" of the question is about Marriage and how a Man and a Wife should be conducting themselves in the Marriage covenent.\n\nIt is extended out here as a reply to the deciple about even getting married or having a relatiionship.\n\nIt was the custom to make eunuches of the male childern that could be used around the palace and other important houyseholds of the leaders who took them "Captive" in battle or as Daniel was with shadrack and his buds.\n\nOthers were not born into this world with a developed desire to be married or drawn to enter into relations with anyone in particular female or otherwise just content to have some form of companionship or brotherhood family relationship.\n\nOthers again make themselves one, so as to not be encumbered by intense relationshiups so as to free themselves to consentrate on doing the work of the Lord and how they can please him alone.  Ditto for the Virgin Women till death . . .dying to self and worldly pleasure and living or letting the Lord live through them.
772719
It depends on exactly what you're asking here. Will you have the right to wed openly and have your spouse guaranteed the same benefits as a partner in a heterosexual marriage? If that's your question, I would say probably not. The Christian right still has its claws on the balls of government. Separation of church and state is a convenient illusion. G.W. is an evangelical Christian. He opposes everything about gays, including their right to love whomever they want. As far as you have come in assuring that you will be treated equally in America, you have that far to travel yet again. Good luck.
546249
same sex marriage is gay.
166113
try this:\nhttp://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/ceremony.htm
1086339
The current debate is foundational.  It touches on the issues of how the country should be governed.  Whether we should employ democratic and constitutional processes to change the meaning and intent of the US Constitution and the granting of "rights."  Second, the current campaign will not ensure that your brother or any other gay or lesbian persons will actually enjoy the privileges and benefits that current heterosexuals enjoy now as a married couple.  In short, the current campaign for gay marriages is ill-conceived and will cause more harm than good for both homosexuals, bisexuals and heterosexuals.  You need to look beyond the hype and your emotions and become informed.  Your goals are not helped by using the incorrect political process.\n\nThere are several secular and non-religious reasons for rejecting the current process to secure "Marriage" or "Civil Unions" for gay and lesbians. I have summarized the major reasons below. For more indepth analysis, see the reference below.\n\nI.Why the Current Campaign to Establish Gay \nMarriages Is Anti-Democratic and Anti-Constitutional\n\n\nOur government was founded upon the premise that “Governments are instituted among men [and women], deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The current attempt to change the scope and meaning of the US Constitution in regards to 'gay marriages' by side stepping the amendment process will--in the end--jeopardize everyone's freedom. The attempt to expand the current tradition and meaning of marriage to include same gendered individuals through either a judicial pronouncement of a single state or federal judge--or a decision by a “State” or an Appellate Court, and/or through the edicts of several local politicians--should be seen as an attack on our constitutional democracy from within. \n\nSeeking to expand the rights of a few, by the few, by trouncing on the rights of the governed, should be seen as an act similar to those which occasioned the creation of the “Declaration of Independence.”\n\nIt is our position that expanding the rights of gays and lesbians to enter into marriage should be done through the amendment process that has been used for over 200 years. Seeking to side step the ‘constitutional’ process in favor of expediency is a sign not of enlightenment, patriotism, nor constitutional fidelity, but of hubris—of pride and arrogance. Historical and constitutional integrity requires all Americans to work to defeat the present attempt to expand the U.S. Constitution by the dictates of the few whether or not an individual believes that granting “gay marriages’ is a just cause.\n\nAs stated above and worth mentioning again, it is our position here that the real issue is not whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. The real issues are (1) did the original white male voters, who approved the original articles of the Constitution, mean to include gays and lesbians in the institution of marriage and, if not, (2) did subsequent voters expand marriage to include gays and lesbians and, if not, (3) what are the proper means for expanding the institution of marriage to include gays and lesbians?\n\nAs Americans, we should all believe in the use of the “proper means for a proper end.” The proper means for expanding the rights we have under the US Constitution is to submit such changes to the American people via a proposed Constitutional Amendment. We believe that the US Constitution should only be changed with the consent of the governed as is required in our democracy.\n\nThe current campaign to enact 'gay marriages' without allowing all Americans to exercise their right to vote is counter-productive to maintaining our constitutional form of democracy, divisive to society, a waste of tax payers' dollars and a frivolous use of the time and skills of our elected and judicial officials. We believe that our elected and judicial officials
392945
I have nothing against same-sex marriages. I think it's really stupid how the government is not allowing it in the US. We have the freedom of religion. Wouldn't that mean that we have the freedom to choose what sex our marriage partner is? This topic is purely religious, and what happened to "seperation of church and state"? For the land of the free, there are a lot of useless things restricting our freedom.
19577
As many people have recently witnessed in San Francisco and Massachusetts, gay marriage has absolutely no effect on straight people who are married.\n\nI don't think its possible for a straight person to comprehend what it's like to live in the closet, any more than it's possible for a white person to know what it's like to be called a racial slur, or a man to feel complete fear of being raped walking down a dark alley at night.  It is completely outside their realm of experience, so they don't think it's all that bad.\n\nThese same straight people (at least one person who answered probably falls into this group) will then say we should just have civil unions, or some other second-class legislation that will give gay people a small fraction of the rights that married straight people get.  Or better yet, let's take their rights away just to be on the safe side.\n\nThe problem is that people don't live very long, so they don't know that the world used to be radically different.  As you mentioned, all left handed children were once scorned, and forced to learn how to write right-handed because left-handedness was considered the mark of Satan.  About 30 years ago scientists came out and said that it was just genetics, people are born that way.  Society evolved and we now accept left-handedness.\n\n160 years ago slavery was legal, with arguments from the Bible as the primary support.  We freed the slaves and the world didn't end.  50 years ago multi-racial marriages were illegal.  "Activist judges" made them legal, and the predictions of Armageddon never came to pass.  Around that same time people were predicting that divorce would unravel the very foundations of society, again very little happened after divorce was widely legalized (except more people who were living miserable lives were able to get divorced, perhaps.)  \n\nFor every civil rights struggle that we’ve had in this country some people have predicted that if we do such-and-such God will reign down fire and brimstone.  Each and every time we’ve evolved, and God has remained silent.  I personally think it might be because God likes greater civil right for minorities, but call me a whacky liberal.
1020304
Gay marriages have been made legal in Canada for the past year.  The New Prime Minister Steven Harper has promised to hold a "free vote" on this subject...it was the last government (Liberal) under Paul Martin that made it legal and changed the whole definition of marriage.  I don't see the point of a "free vote" now; it's too late to take it back now and will just cost a lot of tax money to hold it.
1112316
The theory that gay marriage is wrong because it somehow threatens male-female marriage is a crock of shite.  Tradition is no reason to continue a practice.  To say that we should prohibit gays from marrying because we have not allowed it up til now and marriage has traditionally be between a man and a woman it no different that that standard answer your parents gave you when you asked why you could not eat your dessert first -- "because we say so."  Makes no sense.  It offers no logic.  Guess what else is tradition -- traditionally we don't let jews play at our golf courses.  And traditionally we don't let blacks marry whites (there were actually laws on the book in most states, so it went beyond tradition, it was the law).  Traditionally, children slept on their stomaches, until the scientists told us that the chances of SIDS skyrocketed when an infant doesn't sleep on its back.  So don't give me that tradition garbage.  We don't continue doing things just because that how it has always been done.  The american people deserve better than that -- we deserve to know how it benefits the overall society.  The bottomline is that monogomy and marital committment is a major benefit to modern society, whether it is between opposite sexes or the same sexes.
217027
I support gay marriage all the way. Civil unions sound like a good way to keep the "sanctity of marriage" while still giving gays equal rights, but actually civil unions only give a portion of the rights that marriage gives and are more easily contested in court by family members. Gays and lesbians would still be denied equality that way. I also think the "sanctity of marriage" argument is bogus, as the definition of marriage not only differs with culture and religion, but has also changed within this country several times over the centuries. See the link for a short and amusing "history of marriage in America."
1160041
With the separation of church and state, can the government even legislate what marriage is??  "Marriage" is a religious ceremony to unite 2 people.\n\nIf the government wants to have marriage be a lawful union, then they have to come up with an unbias reason (not based in religious belief) that gays should not marry.  Because it is stated to be wrong in the bible will not fly in a court of law.  Anytime that someone tries to pass a law about marriage being between a man and a woman, it gets struck down as unconstitutional because lawmakers can't come up with a good enough reason other than it's in the bible.  Thank God that someone can still look at the law without pulling the bible into the mix.\n\nI seriously think that no one ever expects the law to pass, and it is only done to make "friends" with the "moral majority".  If the Christian Right is happy, the funds keep going into the reelection accounts.  They can say "well, we tried".