Why Can't I Marry the One I Love?

[bucktalk]

"The LGBT community and its allies need to shift their rhetorical focus from how the country is oppressing LGBTs and denying them "rights" to why allowing them to marry will benefit the country as a whole"

But is this possible? I'd like to see statistics as to the divorce rate among same sex couples in comparison to 'traditional' couples...

[wallbreaker]

So I need some help understanding some of your views here. For this discussion let's just focus in on the religious argument.

I'm a fairly libertarian person. I consider myself part of a mainstream denomination that bills themselves as being open and that they just don't care about this issue, or that they do care and think it is a human right. They'll allow whatever marriage. So that is their religious conviction.

Why do you have the right to interfere with my church's right to worship as it pleases? What gives you the right to set law that says who the church clergy can and cannot marry? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." How can passing a law that requires all churches everywhere to never follow one of their religious convictions be anything but repressive? How can any of you be for that? Why should anyone have to "prove" or "show benefit" to anyone else why they should be granted their inalienable First Amendment right to religious worship?

I don't think ANYONE would argue that a clergy member has to perform a marriage ceremony. Just like I, as a non-catholic, can't get married in a Catholic church. Any church is more than welcome not to perform ceremonies they don't want to. The problem is, right now, churches in Oklahoma (for example) couldn't perform a gay marriage if they wanted to. So the problem isn't that folks might get forced to do something, but rather than they are being restricted, and are not being allowed to perform a ceremony they might disire to. So this would expand religious freedoms.

[ljbab728]

I don't think ANYONE would argue that a clergy member has to perform a marriage ceremony. Just like I, as a non-catholic, can't get married in a Catholic church. Any church is more than welcome not to perform ceremonies they don't want to.

You're absolutely correct and it obviously still happens.

http://news.yahoo.com/mississippi-ch...225115526.html

[mugofbeer]

I have no problem with gay marriage but I think where this issue becomes so volotile is not the legality aspects but the religious aspects. In multiple states, voters have voted that "gay marriage" should not be allowed. If the issue was brought up using a different term such as "legal partnership" or some more palatable term that comes complete with all the same rights as a "marriage," I believe the issue would pass. Consenting same-sex partners should have the same rights to become a legal couple. I think the hitch is the term "marriage" and the fact the bible does not allow for it.

While I support gay unions (of some terminology), I also respect the religious opinions on this issue which should not be trampled and equated with 'hate.' A religious edict is not 'hate' but a prohibition a relgious group feels is wrong on multiple fronts. Those who equate the anti gay-marriage side to hate-mongers are simply hate-mongerers of a different stripe. Its like those on the other side who equate homosexuals to pedophiles.

Force anything on people and there will be resistance. Force something on people that is against a deeply-held religious conviction and they will fight you until their dying breath and be happy to die. See abortion. See invasions of Muslim nations.

[PennyQuilts]

I don't think ANYONE would argue that a clergy member has to perform a marriage ceremony. Just like I, as a non-catholic, can't get married in a Catholic church. Any church is more than welcome not to perform ceremonies they don't want to. The problem is, right now, churches in Oklahoma (for example) couldn't perform a gay marriage if they wanted to. So the problem isn't that folks might get forced to do something, but rather than they are being restricted, and are not being allowed to perform a ceremony they might disire to. So this would expand religious freedoms.

Yes, they can - it happens all the time. It won't be recognized by the government but a church can perform a religious ceremony and that is just as good on a spiritual level as any other marriage. Catholics might or might not accept what the Methodists are doing but that is nothing new. Which goes back to my broken record point - let the government restrict itself to civil unions and leave "marriage" to the churches. A gay couple aren't going to be able to be wed by a priest or a southern baptist preacher but chances are the Lutherans will let 'em in if it really that important to them. Let's face it, though - this isn't about wanting the church to accept them. It is about demanding the society change their attitude towards them and marriage - rather than civil union - is just a principle of the thing. If they could be married by the government and the catholics still wouldn't let 'em in, they'd be able to deal with it. It isn't about a spiritual marriage - it is about trying to force acceptance.

Oh - and you probably wouldn't have any problem getting married in the Catholic church so long as you agreed to certain stipulations. But if you won't want to agree to them, why would you want to be married there, anyway?

[mugofbeer]

Which goes back to my broken record point - let the government restrict itself to civil unions and leave "marriage" to the churches.

Yes!

[wallbreaker]

Yes, they can - it happens all the time. It won't be recognized by the government but a church can perform a religious ceremony and that is just as good on a spiritual level as any other marriage. Catholics might or might not accept what the Methodists are doing but that is nothing new. Which goes back to my broken record point - let the government restrict itself to civil unions and leave "marriage" to the churches. A gay couple aren't going to be able to be wed by a priest or a southern baptist preacher but chances are the Lutherans will let 'em in if it really that important to them. Let's face it, though - this isn't about wanting the church to accept them. It is about demanding the society change their attitude towards them and marriage - rather than civil union - is just a principle of the thing. If they could be married by the government and the catholics still wouldn't let 'em in, they'd be able to deal with it. It isn't about a spiritual marriage - it is about trying to force acceptance.

Oh - and you probably wouldn't have any problem getting married in the Catholic church so long as you agreed to certain stipulations. But if you won't want to agree to them, why would you want to be married there, anyway?

Sooo... seperate but equal, is what you're saying?

Just getting this clear.

[wallbreaker]

Let's make a simple question...

3 Choices..

1) Government tells Churches who they HAVE to marry.
2) Government tells Churches who they CAN't marry.
3) Government says nothing, and churches decide who they want to marry.

Now which choice is freedom of religion, and which 2 choices are government controlling religion?

It's a tough quiz I know, so take your time.

I'm wondering if I'll get a straight answer, but I'm sure, rather than answering the question, I'll get a post accusing me of comparing lynching to gay marrage, and saying that I hate poodles.

[PennyQuilts]

Let's make a simple question...

3 Choices..

1) Government tells Churches who they HAVE to marry.
2) Government tells Churches who they CAN't marry.
3) Government says nothing, and churches decide who they want to marry.

Now which choice is freedom of religion, and which 2 choices are government controlling religion?

It's a tough quiz I know, so take your time.

I'm wondering if I'll get a straight answer, but I'm sure, rather than answering the question, I'll get a post accusing me of comparing lynching to gay marrage, and saying that I hate poodles.

I personally don't have any earthly idea what you are getting at, Wallbreaker. The government can't tell the churches who they can and can't marry under the constitution. That's bedrock and has nothing to do with the debate. I'm trying to understand your point. The whole gay marriage thing isn't about the churches. It is about the government. All the churches do, as a courtesy, is file the paperwork for civil marriage when they've performed a religious ceremony. People who are certified to perform civil marriages can do the same thing and it is common. Right now, in Oklahoma, churches can marry LGBT if they want to and often do. It isn't "legal" because the government doesn't accept it as a legal civil marriage but that doesn't mean it isn't a religious marriage if that is the spirit it is undertaken. Some states don't recognize common law marriages and require a civil marriage to be registered. In a state like that, you could have a great, big blow out religious wedding with all the trimmings including a priest and a mass with a honeymoon in Paris and if the paperwork isn't turned in - and you never meant it to be - in the eyes of the law, the marriage didn't take place. But it would still be considered a valid religious marriage, which is why people get married in the church in the first place. If that wasn't important to them, they could go to city hall. I am not a canon lawyer so I don't know specific Catholic law on the subject so they may require that the documentation be filed - but that would be a church law, not a civil one.

[PennyQuilts]

Sooo... seperate but equal, is what you're saying?

Just getting this clear.

I still am not following you. A civil union would be equal across the board.

Religious weddings aren't regulated and are left to the conscience and traditions of the church members. Since they aren't legally binding it is simply a personal/religious matter. As I just posted, churches often file the paperwork for a civil marriage but that is either a church requirement or a courtesy. The government requires proof of a civil marriage and a license but a religious wedding is not the same thing.

Let's look at it, this way. When you get engaged to marry, in some religions that actually means something spiritual. Personally, the parties may end up arguing about it if it doesn't work out but that is typically a personal matter between themselves, even if they bring court action. But beyond that, an engagement means nothing to the government. They don't get involved in that, at all. They don't engage in licensing it, granting it, regulating it, etc. Religious marriage is the same way - the government isn't involved. Doesn't matter your orientation - if you can find a spiritual leader to marry you, you can get married in terms of a religious marriage. Plenty of churches or pastors marry gay folk. And it isn't unheard of for pastors to refuse to marry heterosexual folk they don't believe are ready or able to commit to religious marriage.

[HewenttoJared]

That feels like destroying the institution of marriage just to keep homosexual couples from joining it. If that suggestion had been done as a way to remove controversy over interracial marriage don't you think that interracial couples would have felt insulted by it? It's like throwing out the baby with the bath water, but in this case you're accusing minorities of being the bath water. It feels wrong to me.

[PennyQuilts]

That feels like destroying the institution of marriage just to keep homosexual couples from joining it. If that suggestion had been done as a way to remove controversy over interracial marriage don't you think that interracial couples would have felt insulted by it? It's like throwing out the baby with the bath water, but in this case you're accusing minorities of being the bath water. It feels wrong to me.

That doesn't destroy the institution of marriage - has nothing to do with it. This controvery, primarily, is just about what the government is going to call it and, in any event, the "it" they are talking about really isn't marriage - it's just a civil union, anyway.

Religious/cultural marriage is the important thing for most people who care about traditional marriage. Civil marriage merely confers legal rights and a civil union could do exactly the same thing as a civil marriage. By demanding civil marriage, LGBT are just picking a fight over semantics to prove a point and try to force people to respect them. And same sex kissing in chick fil a's is liable to accomplish that - yeah, right.

If marriage really is important, just go get married by a spirtual advisor, push for civil unions to protect your legal rights and don't worry that some people don't think you should be married. Some people will never accept the LGBT community or think they should be married but who cares? Married or unmarried, that won't change. Anyone who thinks they are a second class citizen because they have traditional marriage and a civil union, rather than a traditional marriage and a civil marriage must have no real worries on their mind.

This conflict/controversy is what happens when people become so distant from the notion of marriage that they have no idea what it is. They put way too much stock in what the government calls it and have forgotten that "traditional marriage," at least in this country, is typically a christian sacrament but if not christian, generally has a religious/cultural connotation concerning the relationship of two souls with their community and includes as an essential element a formal and heartfelt commitment to the community to become a family unit. Marriage affects the community, especially when children are involved. Important in the marriage contract is the giving of acceptance and support by the community in exchange for the sincere commitment by the spouses to support the community and avoid being a burden. That's exactly what is meant when we talk about the family being the basic unit in society.

"Marriage" isn't about government benefits and legal recognition - it is a cultural/religious contract between spouses and their communities. Unfortunately, all that has broken down - where a couple used to exchange acceptance by the community for the promise to take care of their own and try not to be a burden - and implicit with that agreement was that the community, including the churches would be a safety net - we now have couples willy nilly shacking up, marrying with no understanding of their responsiblity to their communities and the government stepping in and replacing the traditional safety nets and cultural institutions that once gave us stability. The most unstable families in the country are those where traditional marriage is very low (and I don't mean civil marriage - I mean traditional marriage), where children are raised without fathers, where people turn to the government for assistance rather than their friends and families. It's a free for all and it comes from losing track of what it means to be married. It isn't what the government calls it - it is a relationship.

Too many people think that marriage is all about hearts floating in the air and "marrying the one you love." Well, that is part of it but mainly the courting, wedding and honeymoon parts. The long tradition of marriage didn't come into being to recognize that people were in love. People fall in and out of love all the time. Traditional marriage, I repeat, is a relationship not just between spouses, but between the spouses, traditionally their church, and especially their community. The government, no matter what it calls it, just keeps records and writes checks. At the end of the day, the marriage clerk doesn't give a flip if the couple divorces, if they are lousy parents or if they treat their community like a cash cow that is forced to support them if they'd rather lay around and do meth. People who go to the trouble of getting married (as opposed to a civil union that passes for marriage, these days) do it to tell the world they are in it, together, for the long haul and that they recognize they are part of a community. If that weren't it, they'd just throw a party and go their merry way. That contract between the couple and the community is what makes traditional marriage different than a civil union. And gay or straight, anyone can have a traditional marriage - the government has nothing to do with it.

[HewenttoJared]

If someone banned you from marrying simply because of a physical characteristic you wouldn't think that you were just picking a fight by seeking that right. Your view on marriage is very jaded. What the hell does marriage have to do with welfare? lol...

[Bostonfan]

One reoccurring comment I hear from some regarding the same sex marriage issue is, "why can't people who love each other get married?" While that seems like a simple question it creates even more questions on marriage limits. Isn't it very possible, if carried to the full extent, why couldn't brothers marry each other -or sisters? Or if 'people are in love' then why couldn't 2,3,4 people 'marry' each other? I realize this sounds far-fetched but same sex 'marriage' was far-fetched in America not too many years ago.

If same sex marriages become accepted by the courts - what/how will other definitions of marriage take place??

Your thoughts? (please, let's keep this civil!)

Why can't you marry the one you love? Because conservatives want to be the only ones who can **** up the traditional marriage.

[Bostonfan]

I agree and I have to laugh when people say's it goes against the sanctity of marriage but when you look at the divorce rate, the marriages that last a week, etc.... You don't hear people saying those are against the sanctity of marriage.

Notice how the conservatives on here don't mention divorce? It hits too close to home. It's easier for them to go after gays.

[Roadhawg]

Notice how the conservatives on here don't mention divorce? It hits too close to home. It's easier for them to go after gays.

How many times has Rush been married? Doesn't that go against the sanctity of marriage? Hell, look at Newt and he spouts off like he's the torch bearer of morality.

[Teo9969]

"The LGBT community and its allies need to shift their rhetorical focus from how the country is oppressing LGBTs and denying them "rights" to why allowing them to marry will benefit the country as a whole"

But is this possible? I'd like to see statistics as to the divorce rate among same sex couples in comparison to 'traditional' couples...

It's not about divorce rates. On that count, we ought to disallow all marriage. And it would be hard to quantify anyway because when same-sex couples can't marry, they can't divorce.

They need to really push the angle of getting at-risk kids into homes. There are too many kids that need to be adopted, and, lo and behold, it's the only standard way for same-sex couples to have children.

They need to quantify why allowing them to marry will be economically advantageous for the United States and why allowing them to marry will ease the court system from unnecessary legal filings that same-sex couples must go through to combine their financial lives.

But to be honest, it is pretty much guaranteed to be legalized in the next 10-20 years. By then, the oldest baby boomers will be moving on from this life while the Millennials will all be voting, and evangelicals will be more split than ever on the issue.

[Roadhawg]

As the joke goes why not allow same sex couple the chance to be as miserable as the rest of us.

[kevinpate]

Teo9969, with respect, the notion that there will be an adequate dying off of the antis and an adequate coming of age of the it'll be just fine folk to bring about wide scale same sex legalized marriage in the next 10-20 years is a tad short sighted. I see and hear many strongly opposed to the notion who are in no danger of dying away that soon, indeed are still bearing children and rearing them up with their belief systems.

I think the day will come as well, but I don't expect that it will arrive anywhere near that soon.

[wallbreaker]

Oh, I don't know. There's been very rapid changes in public opinion, even over the past few years. My father, who's in his 60s, a church elder, and a staunch republican (and listener to Rush and such) has changed his views in the past year. I know my viewpoints are significantly different than they were even 4-5 years ago.

Since all states are required by the constitution to recognize marriages performed in other states, same sex marriage is already essentially legal in the US, and that won't go away. We'll see more and more states issuing same sex licenses each year, and it will be like dominos. There may be states that will hold out for 10-20 years, but those last few states will be laughingstocks of the next 100 years. They'll be seen in the same light as the states that drug their feet on integration and other civil rights.

[Bunty]

The most unstable families in the country are those where traditional marriage is very low (and I don't mean civil marriage - I mean traditional marriage), where children are raised without fathers, where people turn to the government for assistance rather than their friends and families.

I doubt many friends and relatives appreciate others constantly coming to them for handouts. It helps explain why we have government welfare. As much as conservatives so dearly hate it, let government worry about the needy.

[Bunty]

Why can't you marry the one you love? Because conservatives want to be the only ones who can **** up the traditional marriage.

Famous evangelist Pat Robertson insists that gays only make up 2% of the population. I don't see how such a tiny group of people is big and destructive enough to screw up marriage worse than it already is or endanger society's ability to procreate.

[Teo9969]

Teo9969, with respect, the notion that there will be an adequate dying off of the antis and an adequate coming of age of the it'll be just fine folk to bring about wide scale same sex legalized marriage in the next 10-20 years is a tad short sighted. I see and hear many strongly opposed to the notion who are in no danger of dying away that soon, indeed are still bearing children and rearing them up with their belief systems.

I think the day will come as well, but I don't expect that it will arrive anywhere near that soon.

I intend no disrespect, but I don't know how to say this other than I'm firmly convinced that you're wrong.

1 - The US is becoming anti-fundamentalist (thank you Westboro etc. and particularly crazy Muslims) and less evangelical on the whole, so the language games are starting to tip in favor of the pro-legalization argument.

2 - More people are going to college, which frequently leads to at least a more open and ambivalent mindset to legalization.

3 - It's simply more acceptable to the younger generation, and with what seems like a higher percentage than ever before of young people <20 coming out, their friends and family grow more sympathetic to the cause of gay marriage.

4 - Not only is the stuck-in-their-ways crowd going to be dying off...their children are going to become less mobile and less interested in politics. I would not be surprised if the <30 crowd overwhelmingly supported gay marriage (65%+)

I honestly think we're dead-locked at this point and the only reason it's going to take more than 10 years for same-sex marriage to be legalized is because the Baby Boomers outnumber both Gen. X and the Millennials.

[Teo9969]

I doubt many friends and relatives appreciate others constantly coming to them for handouts. It helps explain why we have government welfare. As much as conservatives so dearly hate it, let government worry about the needy.

Friends and Relatives will only give out handouts for so long before they demand accountability. The government will never require that you get your act together, in part because they can't qualify what getting your act together means.

[Midtowner]

Had someone share this on my facebook:

A very articulate, emotional and thought provoking stance on the chic-fil-a issue from a former student of mine...very proud of him and Peter!
[Fraternity Brother] --

I love you like a brother, and I’m really truly happy that as an owner-operator of a Chick-fil-A franchise, you enjoyed amazingly stellar sales yesterday due to circumstances that had nothing to do with what I’m sure is quality food and service that your business provides your community. But as a gay man who is in a loving, supportive, fulfilling relationship with my partner of 13 years who I met at the fraternity that you personally convinced me to join, I am obviously and very painfully conflicted. Unfortunately, your success today was due to the outpouring of support in your local community for the opposition to same-sex marriage. My inability to marry my loved one is a denial of a basic civil right that you and all opposite-gender couples enjoy.

According to the Chick-fil-A website, the Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in its restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect – regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender. Despite this noble viewpoint, Chick-fil-A’s CEO Truett Cathy has been very vocal about his commitment to supporting groups that oppose marriage equality.

Chick-fil-A’s very noble public equality statement obviously does not take account of how destructive it is to American society for gays and lesbians to be regarded as second-class citizens by denying them the basic right to marry. This “basic” right is not as basic as it seems though, because the definition of marriage in federal law includes provisions for well over 1,400 rights and privileges that are difficult, if not impossible, and prohibitively costly to engineer and or contract for outside of a basic marriage license.

While you may feel that your value system and religious beliefs are in line with the “blocks long” swarms of customers that have demonstrated their support for Chick-fil-A’s opposition to same-sex marriage, and while you may feel that you and your beautiful family are far removed from the struggle for marriage equality because you have traditional Christian beliefs and a “traditional” family structure yourself, I don’t think you realize how involved in the struggle for same-sex marriage you and [Fraternity Brother's Wife] actually are.

When I rushed our fraternity on a cold September evening back in 1996, I met you and a handful of other mutual friends of ours that night at the chapter house, and I was hooked. There was nothing particularly amazing, special, unique, or outstanding about the fraternity house or any of the guys that I met.

But I never would have stuck around the fraternity after that first night if I hadn’t met you and [Fraternity Brother #2] and [Fraternity Brother #3]. I never would have had the two years of bonding with you that I got to enjoy serving together on the executive committee and doing our best to promote and grow our chapter together. I never would have gone on to continue being actively involved after you eventually graduated and moved on if I had not had such a worthwhile time bonding with you and the 100+ brothers that came along after you during my four years of active membership. And I never would have met my Peter at the beginning of my fourth year had I not been there in the first place because of special friends like you.

I DID NOT realize I was gay prior to having met you at the age of 18. It did not occur to me until I was 21 and met my Peter. I just realized that it is what I always had been. It was not easy for me to come to terms with, mostly because I had to spend a few years coming to terms with it and waiting for my friends and family and loved ones to come to terms with it, all over different periods of time. Most of the fraternity brothers that I still keep in touch with have basically found out via Facebook if they cared to look at my profile, and the ones I have chatted with about it have been supportive as far as I can tell.

I certainly did not choose to be gay. It can’t possibly be a choice. Why would anyone choose to be regarded as a second-class citizen and have to plan travel itineraries around gay-friendly versus gay-hostile cities and towns? Why would anyone choose to disappoint family members who most likely expected children from me by my mid-20s and are still waiting and will have to keep waiting until I can muster the funds to either adopt or conceive through egg donors and surrogacy?

I don’t know how you and [Fraternity Brother's Wife] feel about me being gay, but your opinions, which you have every right to, are not any more relevant to me than my opinion on where you should vacation this year should be to you. We all live our separate lives, and most of the time, we can celebrate each others’ lives together either passively or actively or not at all using social media like Facebook and Twitter during the long stretches of time that we go between actually visiting each other in person. It is rare that our personal views on a topic can actually have far-reaching and destructive effects on others.

I sincerely hope that I never ever have a chance to benefit financially from your misfortune. More specifically, I hope I never have an opportunity to celebrate a banner day for my own small business while at the same time supporting or expressing appreciation for or agreement with any cause that restricts, revokes, withholds, or otherwise undermines any of the civil rights that you or your loved ones enjoy or hope to enjoy in the future.

What exactly is gay marriage or same-sex marriage? What is marriage itself? Marriage establishes a legal kinship between a person and his or her spouse. It is a relationship that is recognized across cultures, countries and religions. Civil unions and domestic partnerships address only some of the legal rights inherent with marriage, and these legal designations are only recognized within the borders of the state that granted them. Only marriage itself is recognized across state lines, by the federal government, and even across national borders.

You may not realize it, but there are more than 1,400 legal rights that are automatically conferred upon heterosexual married couples by virtue of a simple marriage license in the United States. By not being allowed to marry, gays and lesbians are denied these rights. Even in the state of Massachusetts, one of a handful of U.S. states with legalized gay marriage, most of the benefits of marriage do not apply, because the Defense of Marriage Act states that the federal government only recognizes marriage as "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife".

Here are some of the legal rights that married couples have and gays and lesbians are denied:

1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

These are just a few of the 1,400 state and federal benefits that gays and lesbians are denied by not being able to marry. Most of these benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for within the legal system, and those that can be privately arranged or contracted for will cost me a hell of lot more than the $60 it costs to get a marriage license here in Clark County, Nevada. Much like an extremely complicated general partnership in business or even a standard franchise agreement with Chick-fil-A, it would undoubtedly cost me thousands of dollars in attorney consultations to have any of these benefits privately arranged or contracted for.

For a more exhaustive list of areas of federal law that apply unequally between married couples and couples who cannot legally marry, please reference a pretty comprehensive 1997 letter from the General Accounting Office to the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee discussing the matter which you can find at http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf.

There are six predominant arguments AGAINST gay marriage that I’m sure you are keeping one or more of fresh in your mind as a retort as you are reading this letter. Here’s what they are and also why they fail:

Gay marriage violates tradition.

Yes, most cultures have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. But tradition is a mixed bag. It includes slavery and grotesque exploitation of workers. It also includes the denial of rights to women and the execution of those who committed thought and property crimes. Traditionally, we have cast aside the disabled and righteously persecuted those with differing religious views. Integrating a society and expanding human rights has always shattered tradition, and we have consistently been better off for it. Many of the same biblical arguments used to oppose same-sex marriage were also used in earlier modern history to deny interracial marriage.

Gay couples can't produce children.

Marriage provides a legal framework that strengthens that union for the benefit of all. But that's not all marriage is, by any means, which is why the law generally allows prisoners to marry even when they're likely never to be released, has no bar against elderly couples getting married, imposes no fertility requirements on prospective marriage partners and considers long-term childless marriages equal to others.

Further, lesbian couples often get pregnant (with outside help, admittedly, but many heterosexual couples get outside help as well) and their families could benefit as well from the legal framework of marriage.

Having a mom and a dad is better for children than having two moms or two dads.

Making that case won't be easy. Studies show little developmental or social difference between children raised by heterosexual parents and children raised by homosexual parents. In fact, a 2010 study in the journal Pediatrics found that children of lesbians scored better in such areas as self esteem, behavior and academic performance than children of straight parents.

Second, even if we concede for the sake of discussion that a stable, loving opposite-gender couple is the gold standard for parenting, it's otherwise offensive to deny those who fall short of the gold standard the right to marry.

I think it is safe to say that having two parents that are drug-free, gainfully employed, debt-free, and certifiably sane is better for children than having even one parent lacking one or more of these virtues, but none of these attributes has ever been used as a legal or moral standard for those who should have the right to marry and/or bear children.

Legalizing same-sex marriage will put us on the slippery slope toward legalizing polygamy.

The practical and philosophical arguments both for and against multiple-partner marriages are largely distinct from the arguments both for and against marriage equality. Historians find that it destabilizes a society when some men take many wives and leave large numbers of other men without the opportunity to mate. Despite this finding by historians, polygamy is evident in multiple places in the Bible, even though you and I probably agree that it should not be legalized.

Same-sex marriage does not fundamentally alter the basic idea of two people agreeing to unite for life and taking on the responsibilities and privileges of that agreement.

Proposals to legalize multiple-partner marriages, should they ever seriously arise in the legislatures and the courts, would be considered separately from laws regarding single-partner marriages, just as the law now considers alcohol separately from crack cocaine, and hasn't slid helplessly down the slope to legalize them both.

Same-sex marriage trivializes and therefore weakens the institution of heterosexual marriage.

This argument almost seems irrelevant now that we have seen state after state allow same-sex couples to marry with no documented repercussions to straight marriage or conventional families.

Philosophically, the fervor with which same-sex couples demand to be granted the dignity and respect of legal marriage underscores the value of marriage and ought to remind straight couples not to take it lightly or for granted.

The ease and frivolity with which opposite-gender couples are allowed to marry and also divorce in this country are the REAL threats to the institution of heterosexual marriage. Allowing for more loving couples to marry and serve as a beacon of hope for those heterosexuals and homosexuals who have yet to find their soulmate or life partner would indeed strengthen the institution of marriage rather than weaken it.

Homosexual behavior is immoral and ought not be encouraged.

What is the meaning of immoral? The definition of moral is “concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.” Immoral is understandably the opposite of this. Who are we to judge what is right and wrong behavior between two consenting adults?

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

Leviticus 20:13 seems to be the crutch that is leaned on by opponents to same-sex marriage as the standard bearer for what is moral and immoral. But the Bible is ignored by most of modern American society when it comes to the following pretty clear biblical laws:

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

It is a crime in the United States to kill your kid because he or she mouths off to you.

"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people." (Leviticus 20:18)

No one is prosecuted or excommunicated in the United States over having sex during menstruation, and this is probably because what happens in the bedroom is largely considered to be private and none of anyone’s business.

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)

This part of the Bible was largely responsible for the “moral” justification for slavery in America until (and, unfortunately, for many years after) the Emancipation Proclamation in the 1860s. It’s amazing how time heals all “moral” arguments. Can’t we just skip all the decades of bridging understanding between same-sex marriage opponents and proponents and just cut to the chase with regard to allowing for equal rights for all? Hopefully it won’t take another civil war for America to work out its differences on this one before it’s all over.

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)

This reference to shaving and trimming sideburns has certainly been disregarded for all of the modern era. It would be quite the job killer for all the barber shops in America (including the ones in Walmarts) to have to close up shop because some nutjob decides to pick up this “moral” issue and run with it in order to get elected to public office in Minnesota or something. Who is the “moral” authority that gets to pick and choose which parts of Leviticus are relevant? And if some are no longer relevant to society and largely disregarded by American society and even Christians in general, why not bite the bullet and allow same-sex marriage to be included on that list?

"At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts." (Deuteronomy 15:1)

This Bible verse can’t even be understood or comprehended in the current context of American society, which is why it is and should be disregarded. But this verse is no more relevant to modern American society than Leviticus 20:13.

Here are a few more disregarded gems from the Bible:

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of the town. They shall say to the elders, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.' Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death..." (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)

I think you get the picture. I understand and appreciate if your religious tradition does not want to bless same-sex marriage or celebrate it or even like it. There is a fine line between personal morality and judgment in the eyes of the law. There are matters of the heart and of personal conduct that are your business and those that are none of your business.

Homosexual conduct itself has been legal since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws in 2003. And if anything, encouraging same-sex couples to commit to one another for life will decrease promiscuous behavior among gay people, should that be of particular concern.

It was not your decision for your franchisor, Chick-fil-A, to come out in opposition to marriage equality. But please don’t celebrate or endorse it without recognizing how deeply and how irreparably it harms and affects the lives of real people that are actually in your life. I’m sure there are many more gay people in your life than just me. You may not even realize it. They might not even realize it (yet). Would you deny these rights to your own children or a beloved family member if they ever came to you one day with a revelation that they are gay?

This is way more than just politics that same-sex marriage opponents are expounding their views on so publicly and so virulently. You and I can agree or disagree on tax policy, economic policy, states rights, military funding, education funding, healthcare mandates, or hundreds of other issues. Those are political discussions and both sides of each argument are partially right. What will prevail in most cases is some legislative compromise that throws each side a bone.

This is NOT the case with regard to same-sex marriage. Denying me and Peter any of the 1,400 federal rights and privileges that any two opposite-gender people can enjoy for the cost of a $60 marriage license is wrong. It is unfair. It makes me effectively a second-class citizen despite contributing to society just as much or as little as you do. If you disagree that I should be denied these rights and that no one should be relegated to second-class citizen status just for loving someone who is of the same gender, then please consider expressing your support for marriage equality, much like Anthony Piccola is doing in Nashua, New Hampshire. http://www.boston.com/news/local/new...ay_pride_fest/

I hope you can take my comments to heart and reconsider any overt or covert endorsement or support for the positions that have been made clear by your franchisor and also many of your customers and friends. I wish nothing but the best for you, your beautiful family, and your business. I hope you feel the same about me.

Cordially, Sincerely, and Fraternally,

Dave
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf
www.gao.gov