Is gay marriage bad for family? Europe might have the answer

Will gay marriage in California fundamentally change family life? Some backers of Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage, have argued that same-sex unions could "undermine" traditional marriage. But John Richardson at Esquire noted that little has changed in European countries that allow gay marriage:

They say that acceptance of gays could even lead to the "self-destruction" of the human race, as the Pope himself recently argued. But once again the actual evidence goes against the assumption. Not only have gay rights had no effect on constantly expanding population rates, but they've had no effect on traditional marriage in those European countries where they have the most extensive legal protections. Similarly, the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts hasn't changed a relevant fact: Massachusetts has one of the lowest divorce rates in the United States. This is relevant because divorce is the real threat to American families, having broken up more than fifty percent of all marriages since it achieved widespread acceptance.

-- Shelby Grad

Comments

[Bob]

Living in Canada where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2005, your article is completely accurate.

We had the same arguments here prior to legislating same-sex marriage, and the statements made by the opposition sound very familar yet also unfounded in reality. Churches are allowed to refuse to marry same-sex couples; hence, this maintains religious freedom while offering the freedom for both same-sex and opposite-sex to marry.

People quote that same-sex parents are not ideal. In fact, many are better parents than opposite-sex couples. Child abuse, more often than not (proportionately), occurs with opposite-sex couples. As we know too, there are many children that simply need good loving homes with caring parents, rather than being made to grow up under the State.

I must confess I feel fortunate. It appears that our legal systems are somewhat different, and (to me) there seems something fundamentally "off" when the majority votes for minority (equality) rights.

Keep up the good fight! Hopefully this will pass soon so all Californians are treated with equality and respect in terms of marriage.

PS. If you believe same-sex marriage treatens opposite-sex marriage, this makes no sense whatsoever. We are all personally responsible for our actions, relationships, etc.

[Ant]

As for the excuse that legalizing gay marriage will force anything onto any church, this is an outright lie. No church here in MA has been forced to recognize any marriage it doesn't want to, and there's been no push to do so because we understand that in this country we have separation of church and state. Nowhere that gay marriage is legal has a church been forced to accept them. Religious hysterics will have to come up with a far more compelling excuse than this.

[Ant]

The merits of marriage are self-evident. It protects families and joint assets, and it fosters stability and commitment, ideally.

Why should gay people be denied any of that?

It's also good for gay kids to grow up knowing that they can participate in their families' and society's traditions instead of being made to feel they are somehow outside or not a part of them. People complain about the gay subculture but don't want to give gay people any real alternatives to it. They just want gay people to go away or live like spies in enemy territory. But they're not going to go away and society is increasingly realizing that there's nothing freaky, weird or wrong about their gay friends, neighbors and relatives. The sooner we positively integrate the gay members of our society, the better. We've already seen what happens when we don't integrate them positively.

[Teressa Spencer]

Pearl, it's not about whether there are enough "merits" to make this a good idea. (How long are gay couples supposed to wait around for people like you? )This is about equal civil treatment of gay people/couples to straight people/couples, and civic equality has all the merits it needs because it is promised in the Constitution.

[ThomasAlex]

Dropping By

Your post sounds extremely ignorant, with the use of personal opinion over fact, you tend to confuse the reader.
Gay Marriage has no effect on children, since the children were with out a Mother or a Father in the first place. Are you saying you would rather this kids spend their 18years of their life in adoption homes or with foster parents, instead of being loved by even a Gay couple? Your facts maybe facts, but your facts do nothing for your cause. You have not once, said why children raised by Gay couples harm them.
Don't blame your Divorce rates/issues on the Gay Community, that is all you guys.

[Pearl]

Europe has had legalized gay "marriage" for a whopping eight years. Is that really enough time to glean conclusive evidence as to its merits?

Massachusetts has boasted legalized gay "marriage" for a whopping four years. Again, is that really enough time to glean conclusive evidence as to its merits?

Hardly.

Pearl

[Brian]

I really am amazed that I read the same crap from the same types of people over... and over... and over.... what kind of IQ are you people seriously working with? ... If divorce were illegal it wouldn't spare any children whatsoever... it would simply imprison them in a dysfunctional, unloving home life where they are more likely to grow up wanting to lash out at the world or repeat the same dysfunction ... read some psychology ... What children need is love, guidance, structure and discipline ... Why are people pretending that if gay people can adopt kids that they would somehow be allowed to TAKE them from their loving biological mother and father? Of course.... everyone agrees that if there IS a loving biological mother and father who WANT the child then that's where the kid should be... that doesn't at ALL mean that legislation should be passed against gay couples adopting the throw away cast offs of a failed heterosexual 10 minute God sanctioned "relationship" in the back of a pick-up... If gay people can't adopt it isn't like those kids are going back to this loving biological family... grow up... thank GOD for gay people who want to give of themselves to any unwanted child and clean up your pathetic mess...and gay people want to "get their foot" into your religion?... if THAT'S not the pot calling the kettle black... wasn't it the religious whack jobs that spent 40 million to write discrimination into California's constitution?...

I'll stop now... I know logic isn't even considered here...

[Mark]

To waiting on him....
IIn a review of 21 studies of gay parenting, sociologists Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz concluded that “every relevant study to date shows that parental sexual orientation per se has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on children's mental health or social adjustment.” The minor observed differences between children raised by gay parents and those raised by straight parents “either favor children raised by lesbigay parents, are secondary effects of social prejudice, or represent “difference' of the sort democratic societies should respect and protect.”

Our government should be god free like it was meant seperation of church and state most of our founding fathers werent even christain.....deal with it!

[Peter]

Couple of clarifications:

Folks, while it is true that many of the children being raised by gay couples are adopted (which is a GOOD thing, remember?), it simply isn't true to say that gay couples are raising children that are not biologically theirs.

A significant proportion of the children being raised by gay couples are the biological child of one of the parents, either by a previous opposite sex marriage or relationship, or by donor or surrogate. Especially children being raised by lesbian couples are frequently the child of the mother, raised from birth by the two moms.

Second, I wish people would just to ten minutes research before they start using Europe as proof of all sorts of anti-gay marriage horrors. The biggest BS point is that somehow gay marriage is destroying marriage in Europe - look at all the babies born out of wedlock. Well, guess what, if you look at the facts, it is DENYING gay marriage that is causing that.

It's because the "just give them the rights one by one but keep marriage for straight people" crowd got limited civil unions passed, with the intention of keeping marriage pure. So straight people, especially young people, who weren't sure whether they wanted all the commitment of marriage, started lining up for civil unions. Culturally, it has become a "test drive" for marriage, and young, two career couples tend to get civil unions, because they don't need the extra benefits and it is easier to break up. After they have their first child, a lot of those couples then get married.

Read the actual studies carefully. Even the reports trying to skew the results keep talking about, not single parents, but how often the "first child is born out of wedlock" - that is, born into a civil union. Notice how they don't mention "second children" being born out of wedlock.

And - wait for it - if gay people had been allowed marriage equality from the start, the civil unions wouldn't exist as an option for straight people, and "marriage" would not be declining.

Bad enough when people skew the truth for their own ends, but when the truth is the exact opposite of what they are claiming, it becomes a lie. Or, if you will, "false witness" - which is against the Big Ten, while gay marriage isn't.

[Phil M]

Separating Fact From FIction

Wouldn't it be interesting to track the 18,000 gay marriages and see how many have ended in a divorce within the first year versus "conventional" rates?

Note: The real problem here is the separation of Church and State. Church (Or some form of it) wants to set who can get married. This in turn gives only one type of couple rights that are denied to other couples.

Churches should not be allowed to give couples legal rights at all. Churches cannot decide who can practice law or medicine, who is qualified to be a judge.

We should have the two step approach just like in Europe. A couple first gets joined legally in a Court house civil ceremony. A couple then gets joined "under god" or in the "eyes of the church" by doing a 2nd ceremony.

Sadly people don't know their history when they claim marriage has always been between a man and a women. Woman were in most Western cultures not joined with a man, the man always owned the woman. Marriage ceremony and even the words are all sourced from Greek marriages where two men joined households legally. A women could be dismissed by simply saying three times "I divorce you" . She could also be sent back to her family in disgrace for failing to bare children.

[Joshua]

"For man to survive, religion must die" Bill Maher

[Bruce]

Waiting on Him said:
1.Not sure but wasnt there a nimh study tracking children raised in same sex households for 20+ years showing double the risk of suicide, suicide attempts, 3-4x use/need for psychiatric svcs/cunseling, 2-3x rate of drug use etc. If it was really about childrens welfare no child would be adopted/raised by homosexuals....

I think the study you are referring to was with unmarried homsexuals who attempted/comitted suicide due to condemnation by those around them. Presumably those who marry are in more fortunate circumstances.

[Steve]

Anyone who has knowledge of what passes as 'morality' in Europe will know that this article is false. Modern-day Europeans are amongst the loosest morals people in the world and traditional marriage is in the minority in at least some countries. Arguments that Massachusetts has a low divorce rate is essentially meaningless, too, because 'gay marriage' is simply an oxymoron. It's wrong and should not be permitted. My vote will always be against it.

[Pie-Kun]

"Children should be raised, as often as possible, by their biological father and mother. "

Ok Honey, when you come back the '50s, I have a little statement for you:

Children that are being raised by their biological mother and father are a dying breed. Whether it be the product of divorce, neglect, adoption, or any number of reasons, kids are increasingly being raised in different households.

Oh, and by the way. There WOULD be no kids out there for gays to adopt and start a family if it were not for the fact that their HETEROSEUXAL parents did not abandon them at some point or another.

Sounds to me like you people should be focusing more on YOU than on others.

[Steve]

While marriage rates may go up, that is because absolutely the truly committed are the only ones that get married. What they don't tell you in Europe is that there are more children out of wedlock, and people simply don't get married anymore. The divorce rate goes down because only the truly in love and committed want to get married.

[MTB]

It amazes me that someone in this day and age can or WOULD use the bible to destroy another persons family. The use of outdated passages is what brought Christ to the cross, his last words "Father forgive them they know not what they do, into your hands I commend my spirit." The religious right and the literal use of each word in the bible gave them the justification they wanted to kill Christ.

To all those who would use the bible to attack my family I would ask you; Would you use the bible to cruify Christ now, or have you learned from what he said that the two most important things are to 1. - love God above all others, and to love one another as he has loved us?

The Crusades usecd scripture to send how many children into war and their deaths. The religious war brought on by Osama Bin Lauden to terrorize and kill is based on religous beliefts. It doesn't make it right obviously.

So stand there with a bible in one hand and wag your finger at me with the other pointing to your understanding of the bible, proving that history repeats itself over and over again. Thousands of families are loosing their homes, sleeping in shelters and going to bed with nothing to eat. Children are starving in each and every state, the economy and natural disasters have destroyed everything thousands if not millions of families have ever had, and the best use of your time as a "Christain" is to debate the legality of my marriage.

As a Christain following in the footsteps of your beliefs, are you prepared to explain on your judgement day why you're time and money was spent on saying "NO" to allowing loving families the same legal equality you enjoy. If you're prepared to explain why your money was better spent on fighting gay rights, which could pull children from their homes versus donating your time and money to feeding children without homes, have you taken the time to understand the bible versus about Christ breaking the scripture to work on sunday when he saved a life from the well.

Still brings tears to my ears each time I sit throught a stations of the cross ceremony at church, to think how horrible it was for him to be killed beacuse of fear, the fear of change from old scriptures, from the religous order who simply used written scriptures to murder my savour. When we will learn?

Yes, I have the legal right to marry a woman but I don't have the moral right to marry her when she deserves the loving relationship that I have now with a man. My marriage is my marriage, we have a home a family, a business and the respect of our community peirs and neighbors. We don't have the tax advantages of "marriaged" couple; We don't have the law on our side when one of us passes away to protect what we've built together with the same force of a legally married staright couple. We don't have recognition of those rights beyond the boarders of certain states. We can't share the same legal benefits of married couple, but some Einstein above believes we should call our marriage a Civil Union and we should spend a lot of money and time fighting for one right at a time, instead of using our time and energy to help those who need us. Really Christain, and a great use of time and money.

Unbelievable.

We donate to charities that save, feed and reach out to children, and get this we go to church.

[Don Sakers]

Unfortunately the reality is that there are certain people (not most) in the EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN community who would love to tear down my church. Allowing INTERRACIAL marriage is a way for those types to get their foot in the door, and ultimately one day try to legally force bishops and priests to marry MIXED-RACE COUPLES, even if it goes against the priests religion. No matter what you say, this will ultimately happen one day if INTERRACIAL marriage becomes legal - particularly in America - forget about Europe.

Unfortunately the reality is that there are certain people (not most) in the CHRISTIAN community who would love to tear down my SYNAGOGUE. Allowing MIXED-FAITH marriage is a way for those types to get their foot in the door, and ultimately one day try to legally force RABBIS to marry MIXED-FAITH COUPLESs, even if it goes against the RABBIS religion. No matter what you say, this will ultimately happen one day if MIXED-FAITH marriage becomes legal - particularly in America - forget about Europe.

Yada yada yada.

[Keith]

People seem to forget something in this discussion:

* It is legal for a convicted child molesting rapist male to get married to a woman in California.
* It is legal for Charles Manson, or any other crazed killer (including those on Death Row), to get married to an opposite gender person in California.
* Dennis Rodman and Carmen Electra got married while completely inebriated, and did not even know they were married for 4 days.
* A sterile woman with a 65 IQ can get married to a vasectomied cross-dressing priest who kites checks and who murdered his parents AND threatened a US president.
* Mary Lump and Dave Dohickey, both from wealthy familes, hate each other, but their parents can "force" them to get married just to keep the money in the families. By the way, Mary is a lesbian, and Dave is a gay male. This marriage is perfectly legal.

So please, stop with the pious discussions of "perfect" "ideal" marriages and the "perfect idea family situation". Marriage rights have been FREELY available to ANY two adults of opposite gender, no matter how unGodly they are or their union is. Just like unpalatable people have the right to free speach and to bear arms, people whom you won't approve of have the right to get married.

Do you want the state to start evaluating couples and judging which non-related heterosexuals can and cannot get married? I don't think so....

[William W. Delaney]

"The bible spells out repeatedly that homosexuality is wrong in old and new testaments."

'Old Testament' and 'New Testament' are very sweeping, general terms. Shouldn't you at least specify a book. Yes, there is a clause in Leviticus that specifically forbids men from bedding men. However, the assumption that this is a divine command that applies today represents a grossly ignorant understanding (or lack thereof) of what Leviticus actually is.

There are interpretations of certain passages from Genesis and Judges that supposedly cast homosexuality in a bad light, but I find these interpretations to be very hard to swallow. That is to say, 'they're stupid.' I don't see what's wrong with just reading them literally. Almost the only part of the Bible that doesn't make sense read literally is Revelation. That logic applies to books like the Book of Lamentations if you've actually read enough of the Bible to know what a lament actually is.

The only references to homosexuality in the New Testament, as far as I know, are in First Corinthians 6 and Romans 1, both of which are collected excerpts of a series of letters written by Paul to members of of the early Church. Paul made a number of now vague references to the contemporary understanding of Jewish law, but he was essentially very plainspoken. He believed gentiles who did good because it was in their nature would receive the same regard as Jews who did so because of something written in their laws. In Paul's eyes, the number of people deserving to be treated well in Heaven had multiplied into a whole wide world of people who would be held in just as high regard as any Jew. That's just who Paul was.

"the King Janes versionn was translated by 800 bishops not King James."

That's part of the problem. The content of the KJV was actually very subject to the politics of the time. It isn't as bad as it could have been, but it's riddled with inaccuracies. Go with the NIV if you're looking for easier reading material, but the only credit due to the KJV is flowery language.

[Jesse]

@spritom

Actually it says all of the things Perspective paraphrased in the book of Leviticus. At this point, it is standard response for the Christian hard right to say that the book of Leviticus was written for an earlier time and no longer applies. This same Christian right should know that the ONLY scripture directly against homosexuality is Leviticus 18:22:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"

Many religious scholars have pointed out that this passage is translated wrong, and in fact is referring to two men sleeping in the same bed. Not having sex. But the point still remains that you don't get to pick and choose in your religious texts. Especially if they're in the same book.

Maybe you ought to be reading your bible.

[robinsgarret]

Wow. It is amazing how those in the Heterosexist Community think. They are paranoid that gay people will insist that they change their archaic religions.... the Catholics have not been forced to give equal rights to women or to marry divorced people...so doubtful they would be asked to perform gay sacraments anytime soon.

And I don't see Heterosexuals having to build up their 1500 marriage rights one right at a time.

The other Heterosexists are apparently against adoptive kids... since the bio parents appear to be the only ones they deem appropriate. Even though all the Fostercare systems in the country are populated with children who have suffered at the hands of a legion of drug abusing, neglectful and abusive ....Bio Parents.

And then yet another member of the Heterosexist community has decided to re-purpose a study on single Heterosexual Parents and use its findings as ones about two-parent same sex households...none of which were studied for it.

Sigh.

It is pathetic that the Heterosexist Community must use as its chief banners Paranoia, Hypocracy and Deception. Then again, it is only with those that they can maintain their sense of entitlement.

[gg]

I can't wait till gay friendly scientists expand on current research and make it possible for two men or two women to have a genetic child together. At some point folks will then begin to question the "unnaturalness" of homosexuality like they did about airplanes (if man were meant to fly, God would have given him wings). At that point we will stop basing societal decisions on the harmful parts of a current day blood cult mythology.
How can folks be so naive as to not think every religion that has preceded Christianity is any different than Christianity. Aztec human sacrifice wasn't that different--sacrifice, blood, redemption. There is something very unnatural about the ability to deny the mass delusion of religious certitude when it is seen other than as helpful stories. I wouldn't deny folks the right to their mythology, but why make everyone suffer so you can remain in blissful denial--not the kind of idea our country was built on...seems like it was just the opposite. Thank goodness the current fundamentalist Christians aren't Aztecs... that would be very scary --I'm absolutely sure they would believe with absolute certainty in their god, their myths, their rituals---including the sacrifices--and would have considered any other myth intolerable. If fundamentalist Christians were Aztecs they'd think they were just as reasonable as they insist they are now--and instead of marriage we'd be talking about their freedom to deny others life.

[Burt]

Is this the same Europe with the declining Euro birthrate (in many cases below replacement rate) that is being outbred by Muslim immigrants?

Riiiiight. All is just peachy in Enlightened and Relaxed Europe.

[Tom]

jv asked "Why don't they fight for specific rights, one at a time until they get all the rights a marriage has?"

jv, it would take an eternity to do that. The U.S. government provides 1,138 benefits and protections ONLY to legally married couples. All of those benefits and protections are denied to partners in civil unions. Among them are, according to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office: Sick Leave to Care for Partner, Bereavement Leave, Access to Military Stores, Assumption of Spouses Pension, Immigration Insurance Breaks, Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner, Social Security Survivor Benefits, Tax Breaks, Veterans Discounts, Visitation of Partner in Hospital, or Prison.

[spritom]

@Perspective:

Your information is incorrect and "ALL" of those practices are not an abomination/A-OK. As your premise is incorrect, so follows your conclusion.

There are many valid points that can be brought up in healthy discussion without resorting to "straw man" logical fallacies.

[aaglaas]

Here are all the arguments... for and against, 'gay' marriage... you decide:

http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Aaron%27s+Story?t=anon

[David Lhoc]

I have multiple degrees very successful great son and spouse, emotionally healthy and, wait for it...I was raised by gay parents.

[TJ Parker]

Unremarkable but true, most of the anti-gay comments on this story miss the mark. You think that children should be raised by a heterosexual couple and not a gay or lesbian couple? Oh well, that's not the issue at hand. These children will be raised by gay or lesbian couples, whether the state permits gay marriage or not. That is the fact. The question is: do you then pass legislation to discriminate against these families and disadvantage them and their children relative to your own?

I think this whole string of comments demonstrates why bigots can not be reasoned with. They believe that unfair legislation - the fact that I pay my taxes just like they do but the state treats me and my family differently than them and their family - will have some effect on the reality of my relationship with my husband or our relationship with our son. So go ahead, stick your fingers back in your ears and sing LA-LA-LA really loud. But we're here and we're not going away.

TJ

[Marco Luxe]

JV: no, if you believe in equal rights for gays and their families, you're not a hater. However, you are just plain uninformed about a church losing control over its own marriage practices , as your fear for your church is simply unfounded. Your fear is a common red herring easily debunked. Ask any lawyer or constitutional scholar, or even your high school govermnent teacher; they'll all say there are unwavering protections for churches at the heart of the 1st amendment . These protections are politically inviolable as they are held dear by powers on both the right and the left. Common sense will tell you this too: priests , ministers, and rabbis, etc. have the unilateral authority to decline to officiate at marriages they don't approve of, whether divorced or mixed-faith, etc. [the stories of churches being "forced" to do anything are limited to churches performing secular functions [landlord, social services] - and have to do with our government not funding discrimination.] Why should your irrational fear for your church trump the hope and joy of same sex couples trying to form lasting bonds in marriage? In addition, it's impossible to get equal rights for gay families without the titile marriage. That may change if we ALL get civil unions. Would you be OK with that: no civil "marriage" for anyone, only unions? However, if you want a legal "marriage" for yourself, then you'll have to eventually share the term with others of differenct faith traditions. What's so hard about sharing?!?

[CWBarton]

to: WaitingOnHim

"...wasnt there a nimh study tracking children raised in same sex households for 20+ years showing double the risk of suicide, suicide attempts, 3-4x use/need for psychiatric svcs/cunseling, 2-3x rate of drug use etc."

No, there wasn't.

There have been many long-term studies of children raised by same-gender couples, and the results are exactly the opposite of the ones you have described above. Children raised by same-gender couples are found to be indistinguishible from their opposite-gender-raised mates.

"The bible..."

...is irrelevant, since we're talking about secular, Constitutional law.

[Rob]

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS

Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents
A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.
Ellen C. Perrin, MD and Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO get your info straight straight bigots!!!!
And btw: we're not coming to "your house" or "your church" and I feel sorry for "your Jesus" and all the hate, lies and misinformation you spew in HIS name. You and your churches don't own marriage, marriage is a license issued by the state like a hunting license, a real estate license, which is why you got to court to get it!!!! Maybe gays shouldn't be able to get hunting licenses either!!!!! . I have raised a healthy, happy well adjusted 22 year old with my partner of 25 years. Like her 16 year old cousin said "hey I'm cool on the Christians, they're a little scary aren't they"!!. LMAO

[vvv123]

Coincidentally, the Bible was also not written in English. Can you give me the historical word for "homosexual" in Greek or Hebrew, in the same context as we understand it today? The word doesn't exist, because Paul had no notion of loving same-sex relationships -- only orgies. And that's what he talks about in Romans, buddy. It was a condemnation of those who had left Christianity for paganism, and solidified their new religion through various acts and practices, including promiscuous homosexual orgies. Thus Romans 1 is less about homosexuality than it is a rebuke of Christians who have left Christianity. I should also mention that Paul was not even a contemporary of Jesus...

And don't even try to bring the Old Testament in here; the 'arguments' there that supposedly condemn homosexuality are a whole 'nother barrel of laughs. But if you really want to, you can talk about Sodom and Gomorrah or the Levitical laws, and we'll debunk them with some context and truth.

[Teressa Spencer]

Why does any religious anything have ANY say over marriage for me? I don't believe in God. I believe in life and the universe and science and reality. So why do peddlers of superstition and invisible supreme beings dictate my civil rights? It's time for that to end.

[Hyhybt]

This is mostly in response to JV: Have no fear for your church or any other; they're already protected by the first amendment.

You say gays should work towards getting the rights of marriage without marrying. But how could allowing couples to actually get married possibly be worse than that? If a couple marries, regardless of gender, they're making a commitment that even now most people take seriously and that is still difficult and expensive to unravel should they divorce. Expecting the same for gay couples as for anyone else *reinforces* marriage as an institution. But trying to get rights outside of marriage doesn't just trivialize gay relationships, but straight ones as well. Take health insurance, for example: it's pretty common for a business to offer coverage to spouses. To get it you have to be married... but wait, that's not fair to gay employees, who cannot marry. So you let them get coverage for their partners anyway... but that's not fair to the unmarried *straight* couples so do they get coverage too? It goes the same for domestic partnerships or whatever other name you like. Unless it's *exactly* the same as marriage, then unmarried straight couples will (rightly) think they should be allowed in too rather than having to get married. And what could be worse for the institution of marriage than that?

[Danny]

Why is it so hard for folks to separate religious marriage from civil marriage? God does not hand out marriage licenses at city hall, and justices of the peace have no authurity in church. Two separate things. Pretty simple.

[Waiting on Him]

1.Not sure but wasnt there a nimh study tracking children raised in same sex households for 20+ years showing double the risk of suicide, suicide attempts, 3-4x use/need for psychiatric svcs/cunseling, 2-3x rate of drug use etc. If it was really about childrens welfare no child would be adopted/raised by homosexuals.
2.The bible spells out repeatedly that homosexuality is wrong in old and new testaments. the King Janes versionn was translated by 800 bishops not King James. Plus if God cant keep his word and deliver it to us, He wouldnt be God.
3.To believe that Homosexuality is wrong does not mean that one is fanatical, unintelligent, etc. just the same that believing that the bible is true doesnt. It often takes more "faith" and disregarding evidence to believe in the "scientific" explanation( see dark matter, dark energy).
4. Most christians still love and pray for homosexuals.

[Mark Windsor]

Sorry, Andre, but I very much doubt if it was God who tells all the fundamentalisrs to hate gays. It's more like the homophobic preachers sending the message. But you make a very good and valid point: "Send all the gays to hell along with the shellfish eaters". You could also have included those who shave or have a haircut, those who wear clothes made of different material, those who eat pork - the Leviticus list is endless. This is the problem of using a Bible translated hundreds of years ago when knowledge of ancient classical languages is not what it is today! And the Bible most used in the US is the King James version - the same King of England who in today's English could be described as having been "gay" - his "boyfriend", who he paraded in both the Royal Court and in public, was the Duke of Buckingham. Anyway, in the case of same-sex marriage, did not the California Supreme Court spell it out in plain English that their 4-3 decision last Spring only applied to CIVIL marriage?

[Joe Mustich]

Bad for "families?"

How can a couple who love one another and their family be bad for another couple and their family?

Kudos to CT, MA and Europe. Shame on CA.

Cheers, Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace, Washington CT USA

http:justicesofthepeace.blogspot.com

[Jason]

To the above comment posted by 'Dropping by'..... I would love to read some of these 'studies' that show children raised by Gay people are some how worse off.... I'd love to know how many of them weren't funded by an organization with religious ties. All of the impartial studies done show that kids raised by gays or straights come out the same. What a novel concept!!!! Human children raised by loving human adults turn out to be...... Normal loving humans!!! Wow who'd have thunk it!?!?!?!? Certainly not any brain washed person talking to an invisible dude in the sky.... Cause that's not crazy.

[kerry]

It amazes me that when people hear someone state that it says so in the bible, it does. There is no reference in the the bible that says being gay is evil and if it did hold on to your hats God freaks, the bible was written by humans, not a God or God's in any sense so get off your high God horse and look at the facts of marriage, divorce, and what can cause a bad union between 2 people; adultry, alcohol, drugs, beatings, abuse of all types, etc, which by the way to a large extent is inherited from parents.

I'm not gay, but to cut down people who are, without any clue on why some people are gay or understand that they deserve happiness like everyone does, is what your God, as you believe says in the bible is a sin so if you really believe that sinners go to hell get used to the heat...

[Perspective]

The Bible Says:

-Homosexuality is an abomination
-The eating of shellfish is an abomination
-Tattoos are an abomination
-Selling your daughter into slavery is A-OK
-Slavery, in general, is A-OK
-Women must go through cleansing rituals after their period

Obviously, since ALL of these rules are still in place, the banning of gay marriage makes perfect sense.

[jv]

Unfortunately the reality is that there are certain people (not most) in the gay community who would love to tear down my church. Allowing gay marriage is a way for those types to get their foot in the door, and ultimately one day try to legally force bishops and priests to marry homosexuals, even if it goes against the priests religion. No matter what you say, this will ultimately happen one day if gay marriage becomes legal - particularly in America - forget about Europe. Gay people can do whatever they want, but I will never vote for them to get their foot in the door of my religion. Why don't they fight for specific rights, one at a time until they get all the rights a marriage has? It is wrong for them to try to change the definition of marriage. Marriage is a symbol of creation. It is yin yang, man woman. Does believing this make me a hater? NO!!!! And the more I get accused of this the less respect I have for certain people in the gay community. Those who will call me a hater because I view marriage as an institution between a man and a woman - well, they are hurting their cause by doing this, by calling me something I am not. I am not a hater. I believe gays should have the same rights as anyone else. Just like every adult, they have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Whatever rights they don't have under a civil union, they should fight for them. They should fight for their civil unions to have the same rights as a marriage. But to take away the honor that should be given to the institution of man and woman, the creative symbol of all of our existence, is wrong.

[D]

There is a lot more that affects a child's outcome in life than whether or not their parents stayed together in an unloving marriage. The family values argument would have to go so far as to want to outlaw premarital sex, divorce and gay marriage. But wait, that would make them seem too radical...Way to play both sides of the fense on that one. The Christian Right is neither.

I'd rather have a child raised by a loving same sex marriage than an unloving heterosexual one.

[Andre from Sacto]

Why are you trying to use facts and logic with people who believe in superstition? Clearly God told these people to hate gays because they deserve it. It says so in the bible and thats the only thing that matters to these people. Send all the gays to hell along with the shellfish eaters!

[Dropping By]

Gay marriage will be as bad for families and the raising of children as divorce has been, perhaps worse. Children should be raised, as often as possible, by their biological father and mother. It is not always possible, but it should be our country's ideal and it should remain what our state and federal governments back. This premature paean by Esquire magazine, asserting that gay marriage does no harm to families in Europe, reminds me of the numerous "experts" throughout the 1960s, '70s, and '80s who insisted that divorce would be good for children. Finally some actual, well-researched evidence started to become available in the 1990s, and no one makes that particular asinine argument any longer. Divorce has been a catastrophe for children caught in its crossfire, and the same will be true of children raised by gay parents.

[Cal]

This is plain old reality. 18000 Gay couples married in California between May and November. I challenge anyone to name one single tangible affect this had on traditional marriage during that period. The reality is that marriage is good for anyone gay or straight. All the anti-gay arguments seem like chicken little yelling nabout the sky falling. Long on rhetoric and hystronics but awfully short on facts or real substance.