Collegiate Times

So it seems that your whole paper is written to say that Marriage holds only one point to bear children. If this was true than we should ban all couples who cannot have children from also being married as they suffer the same fundamental flaw as same-sx marriages do the inability to have a child. A more legitimist argument is Marriage is strictly the act of a church providing a religious bond between two people and therefore should NEVER be used in conjunction with a government body (as it only has religious backing). Instead the idea of Civil Unions for the sake of Government legal Unions to account for Assets and other financial logistics should be the only reference used by government bodies and Civil unions hold no boundary of gender but only that of the contract between two people usually only crated by that of full trust usually developed by "love". California has started to come to this realization and now refers to legal “Civil Unions” and not as marriages.

Orson Scott Card is a certifiable loon. He blames all or most of society's problems on pre-marital s*x. He's a fun author to read as long as he stays in the realm of fiction. Quoting Orson Scott Card only hurts your viewpoint, it does not help it. (How can we have a conversation about this topic if the word s*x is censored!? Is this a university newspaper or a kindergarten newspaper?)

If what you really care about is the good of children, then you should really support same-sx marriage. The American Psychological Association along with every other reputable association that's weighed in on the matter has concluded that same-sx couples are just as likely to be good parents as opposite-sx couples. The only people I’ve ever seen speak against it are blatantly biased organizations such as Focus on the Family and their affiliates. I would almost argue that same-sx couples, on average, make better parents - afterall, there's no such thing as an accidental child in a same-sx relationship. Again, if what we’re talking about is really providing good homes for children we should be helping and supporting same-sx couples instead of trying to tear them down. The biggest issue children of same-sx couples face is being harassed by others who don’t respect their families – people who try to convince these poor children that their parents are perverted or evil and that their family is somehow inherently flawed no matter how loving and stable it is. If we as a nation rally behind these couples who are committed to each other and working hard to provide good stable homes for their children we can do a lot of good for everyone.

If this were simply about equal rights, I would argue that the government has, once again, made this mess by essentially subsidizing marriages (joint income taxes, for example), when they should really just butt out of everything other than the social contract aspects. But it's more than this: there is a social stigma associated with not being allowed to marry. That is why many are not satisfied with the "civil union" compromise. As far as I'm concerned, the government should only look at it from the perspective of "person A and person B agree to join their assets under this contract." From a public policy perspective, call even heteros_xual marriages unions, and leave the term marriage where it originated: in the churches.

I agree that Article IV should not be changed, but the U.S. government has already done this with the Defense of Marriage Act, passed under the Clinton administration in 1996. Essentially, it allows any state to ignore the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution in order to justify their refusal to recognize same-s_x marriages.

Most of the objections raised by Mr. Gillespie were used to fight against inter-racial marriages, such arguments are as bankrupt now as they were then. Marriage is a contract between two people which provides privileges not otherwise available. It is a sad day when the government of the US denies any segment of the population a right enjoyed by the majority, especialy when the motivation is primarily religious.

I would just like to point out that Gillespie's reference to Article IV- full faith and credit- does not apply to same-s*x marriages. The Defense of Marriage Act mandates that full-faith and credit does not apply in this situation. Also, children are not the only goal of marriage, as most of the population knows. Ignoring the obvious legal benefis, emotional benefits are important to some people. Mr. Gillespie's argument that "compassion should not be legislated" is a great argument- if used in favor of same-s*x marriage. He' right: the government shouldn't make laws concerning marriage. Also, I'm curious to know these "negative long-term psychological effects" are which Gillespie alludes to, and what causes them. And where did this so-called "research" come from? Most of his arguments fall flat, relying on nothing but his personal beliefs about human reproduction.

Scott, the notion of marriage as a 'contract' is precisely what leads to the preponderance of divorces in our nation and globally. It's an interesting way of looking at things, anyway - contracts provided a 'quid pro quo' arrangement, so I'd like someone to produce a list of to what each party is entitled in a marriage. Nonetheless, it's always been beyond me why the government is involved in marriage anyway. It's a religious concept, not a legal one - except for that the state has made it so. What a mistake.

It is so sad that discrimination is still so rampant in 2008. Forty years ago, MLKjr. fought for rights for african-americans. Today, the society is as afraid of homosxuals. Why? Why deny people love, the ability to demonstrate this love, or HUMAN rights? What happened to All are created equally?

No, Kyle, the reason we have so many divorces is not because marriage is viewed one way or another. It is due to the fact that we are very imperfect at judging both ourselves and others. If people could look at both themselves another person honestly, then they night be able to see whether the person they're marrying is a good match. However as we are such imperfect creatures, we often look through a veil of arrogance, hope, lust, and all the other qualities that make us human that we often don't realize until after the fact that the person we thought we loved is not what we need. It must be wonderful that you can prune down all these problems to black and white, it makes it easy to cast the first stone since of you're always in the white, eh? The world is not as simple as you want to believe.

Anon E. Mouse, clearly you, along with Mr. Gillispie, have never been married. If you have ever been in love, you know that it sees no boundaries. As a individual, and a Christian, I can say that to be in a homosxual relationship is considered a sin, but I'm not the one that's doing the judging. I would rather my God judge me that a court. It is, and should be, the person's decision.

You claim this is not a screed against adoption, but you basically say that an adoptive parent is by definition inferior to a biological one, because biological parents have increased incentive to properly provide for their offspring. Were this true, there would be no need for adoptive parents in the first place, except in cases where accident or illness leave a child orphaned. The sheer number of children in institutional care gives the lie to your argument. In short, you fail -- and denying the implications of your words does not erase them. You still fail. Second, your frustration over having the democratic process subverted conveniently ignores that majority vote is perfectly capable of producing flawed legislation. To argue against judicial review is to render the Constitution moot and meaningless. In the absense of review, literally anything can be legislated, no matter how badly it contravenes the Constitution or infringes on the rights of the populace. Congratulations on your (lack of) reverence for the founding principles of the republic. Have you no shame at all?

That's the very point, Anon. Look, contracts assume a set of benefits to both parties. If I want to buy your car, you tell me how much you want for it, I give it to you, and you give me the car. When marriage is viewed as nothing but a 'contract,' the signees tend to view 'happiness' as the desired effect. I marry you and expect you to make me happy, etc. It's a very ego-centric way of living, which is why it is incompatible with the very notion of marriage to begin with. Marriage isn't (or ought not to be) "two people living together and reaping tax benefits." Marriage is a unifying concept - two become one, joined forever. It's a contract that cannot be broken - simply because, it isn't a contract. It's a commitment with no expectation of benefit - marriage only works when each party acts always in the best interests of the other.

Prop8 is about preserving marriage; it's not an attack on the homos*xual lifestyle. This proposition does not take away any rights or benefits to gay couples or domestic partners. Prop 8 just simple restores the definition of marriage which 61% of California already agreed back in March of 2000 with Prop 22. If passed Prop 8 will overturn the outrageous decision made by the 4 Supreme Court Judges that ruled in May of 2008. Prop 8 will also protect our children from being taught in the schools that same-s*x marriage is equal to traditional marriage. If parents want to instill those values to their children then it should be taught at home and not in the schools. By voting yes on Prop 8 we are simply preserver the sanctity of marriage as God intended, between a man and a woman.

More needs to be done to protect the sanctimoniousness of marriage. Every little bit counts.

So many problems in the column. The most obvious being this canard that marriage exists only to produce children. Should we forcibly divorce people who don't have children after a certain point? As for the Prop 8 nonsense, I would first point out that same-s*x marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since, what, 2004? Yet the world has failed to end. Second, I would point out that it was judges who made interracial marriage legal. Yes, they defeated the democracy of the Commonwealth of Virginia, deciding by judicial fiat decided that they were right and Virginia was wrong (The case was Virginia v. Loving, ironically enough). Those stupid activist judges! Get the point? Kyle and Anonymous, somehow I think that most of us prefer to define what our own marriages are about, thanks. And, yes, I have been married. Andrea, not all of us have the same religion so it's really offensive to tell us that marriage is somehow ordained by a God who may not be ours, 'kay?

Well, Lucy, if we really want to get technical, the production of children is the only way in which the state can possibly achieve a direct benefit from a union between two people. The point, ultimately, is that a union is a contractual relationship which obtains some sort of legal benefits for the parties involved. Marriage is an extra-governmental institution. Secular or religious, a marriage is explicitly defined as a pretty narrow set of things. If this is a benefits-based argument, that's fine - but that's not what marriage is about. That's why you tend to find a lot of people who are for civil unions but opposed to 'gay marriage.' In the one case, we're talking about a legal institution and the benefits derived therefrom. In the other case, we're talking about redefining a word.

Actualy, Kyle, you're wrong. The state enjoys many benefits from a couple being married. Mostly it benefits from the fact that a couple is able to share resources, such as a domicile or financial resources. If one person in the relationship is out of a job or has a serious injury occur, the second person can help by picking up the slack and taking care of the other. This is important because people are going to be more productive and quicker to start back up in society if they don't have to start from the bottom (and yes these things are easier from a legal standpoint when you're married).

Anoymous, I have been married, I have known lots of people who are married and quite Christian. Unfortunately, you don't seem to know the depths to which people can and will fall, and how we can trick ourselves into believing that it's not that bad. I know people who married alcholics and were physicsally or emotionally abused. Sometimes this was no fault of their own, the symptoms didn't show until after the fact, sometimes these people veiled their opinion of the person with the hope that they could some how make these deeply flawed people better. This is an example of what I was talking about, but there are many more minor instances that we trick ourselves into believing. We are imperfect creatures, we live in sin and we make mistakes the reason divorce exists is because of this. If divorce is more prominent now it's because it is less of a stigmata. No longer do women have to live with abusive husbands because "divorce is bad".

Well, I was going to comment, but the CT website sucks. Basically, I was going to say that a contractual view of marriage is incompatible with what marriage actually happens to be. Contracts of that sort always require an ego-centric view of effort and derived benefit, which prevents people from ever getting close enough to make a marriage actually work. The other thing I was going to say was that the tangential benefits of marriage for the state are actually non-unique to marriage - which is a compelling argument for wholly divorcing the legal nature of marriage from the social nature of marriage (ie, religious/secular versus legal benefits).

Andrea, you are incorrect to say that Prop 8 has anything to do with the education children receive in schools. First, California has a very strong opt-out policy, where parents have to be notified when any topic relating to health, s-x, or families are taught and they can have their child opt out of these discussions. Therefore, no child can or will be forced, against their parent's will, to hear any discussion on marriage. In addition, not one word in Prop 8 mentions education and says nothing about teaching children that same-s-x marriage is equal to opposite-s-x marriage. Even the Orange County Register, which is traditionally a very conservative newspaper, from a very conservative area of California says that this Proposition will have no effect on education (I tried posting the link but it apparently contains inappropriate words). If you are going to make an argument as to why we should deny human beings rights and why we should discriminate against a group of people, please make sure you have correct information.

I'd argue that any s3x-ed program of any type taught in public schools ought to be opt-IN (ie, the assumption is that the student will not take part in the curriculum unless the parents specifically say they would prefer it). . . Also, please be careful in your usage of the term 'right.' A right is something that is outside of the realm of the state (ie, the right to life exists whether the government is there to protect it or not). Marriage is, in and of itself, not a 'right' per se because it is a construct of either the state (a concept with which I vehemently disagree), of religion (more plausible), or of society in general. Constructs of third parties cannot be rights because their universal applicability only comes from the fact that 'someone says so.' This discussion, then, has absolutely nothing to do with rights - it has everything to do with the ability of persons to obtain benefits from governments under certain circumstances. It's an important distinction.

My husband and I do not want to have children, are not planning on having children, and even though I am only 35, I have had a hysterectomy, thus rendering my ability to have children impossible. By your principles, our marriage is a sham and worthless. Do you hear the natural outgrown of your argument? That unless couples have children, then there is no "true" point their marriage. This is terribly insulting. Also, as someone who has counseled abused children and adults, I can tell you that proclaiming that a biological connection "would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child" is patently false. I have seen more patients than I can count in my eight years as an LSW who were serially raped, beaten, and terrorized by a parent. Please, if you want to be taken seriously as a journalist, you may want to widen your data pool when citing statistics.

With all due respect, are you actually stating that there should be a regulating committee that will oversee and decide whether or not my marriage is "appropriate"? And as a couple who don't have children to drink from our apparently acid filled glass, are we without purpose? How sad for you that you believe marriage "is independent of happiness; it is beholden to no emotion." I see my happy marriage as the most incredible thing I have achieved in my life and it brings me great joy. Here is a news flash for you, Mr. Gillespie. Marriage is something private that takes place between two people.

In response to Lucy, regardless of your religion God did ordained marriage. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Genesis 2:34. God is authoritative truth regardless of your beliefs. My comment was not made to offend but to state the truth. In response to Liz, State law may require teachers to instruct children as early as kindergartners about marriage (Education Code §51890). So teachers could be required to teach young children that there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.

In regards to the comments about divorce I just want to let you all know that divorce is a cop out. I know that this may offend many of you that are divorced but marriage requires work, commitment, respect, love and so much more. That is why in you state in your vows till death do us part. It takes a life time to learn and relate to another person. Love is an active emotion that you do choose to give or deny. Relationships require hard work and if you don’t vest into your relationship daily you will inevitably will grow apart to the point where you feel that you’re not in love anymore. The divorce rate is so astronomically high due to our own selfishness. If we don't actively work so we don't reap the rewards of a good relationship. People are too focused on themselves that they don't know how to meet the needs of others. Where is altruistic love? We live in a narcissistic society, it’s all about me, me, me that we fail to act in a loving way to the person that we have committed our lives to. A word of warning to those that are not married or are thinking about getting married to give love is a choice, investing into your relationship daily is a choice, choose wisely and love with agape love.

Marriage is no longer the deeply religious ceremony it once was, all it does anymore is symbolize a strong bond between two persons/things (yes I did marry my lamp to my shoe, and they're reaping the tax benefits ). And I'm happy to know that I can marry whoever or whatever I want to. Oh, and not being religious helps, after all, I don't have to stone people to death who work on the weekend :P In my humble opinion, marriage is what you make it, not what the bible says. Who reads the whole bible these days anyways, I mean, there are some parts that are so freaking weird, (like the part where the dude who's wife turns to salt goes and has s3x with his daughters and some random person in a cave) Not believing in a god makes all of this bickering seem so silly, enjoy your useless argument :D PS. stop saying its morally wrong, you all know it's all about the Benjamins. After all who would really care if there weren't some benefit to being married (besides religous nutjobs).

Spoken like a true Athiest!

This is the most asinine article on this issue that I have ever had the misfortune to read. Seriously, the Family Resource Council as an authoritative source? They're tantamount the the Academy of Tobacco Studies in the film, "Thank You For Smoking," What next? Citing the Creationist Museum on matters of biological evolution? Perhaps Sarah Palin on issues of foreign policy or Stormfront on matters of racial equality? The author castigates proponents for taking an emotional position to feel good, all the while building his central argument around an equally emotional opposition that reminds me of Helen Lovejoy's constant cries of, "Won't someone please think of the children?!?" Bottom line is, there is no legitimate legal rationale for denying equal rights in this situation, just as there was no legitimate legal argument for prohibiting interracial marriage.

Re: marriage and divorce I have been married, and have been divorced. It wasn't for a lack of trying, believe me. Sometimes people, young or old, make mistakes. Anybody who says saying in a miserable marriage is "better" than "copping out" and getting a divorce hasn't been in that kind of situation. My fear is that so many people, author included, don't understand what real love is and how it sees no boundaries. I am a Christian (though I'm curious, Anon E. Mouse, as to what other levels there are of Christianity besides being "quite Christian") and believe in the Bible and when it says that homosxual relationships are a sin. Does sinning keep one out of heaven? I certainly hope not...otherwise heaven is a pretty lonely place. But who am I to decide what's right for you? I can't make you a Christian any more than I can make you not gay. We as humans are not the judge for that. That is taken care of, and when the time comes, we all will be judged. I think we would all be better off if we stopped focusing so much on trying to fix everyone else when we've got a lifetime of problems we can fix within our selves to make us better people. Decide what you believe in, and stick to it. Make your decision based off of what you believe, not what someone tells you to believe.

@ Liz on 10/24: Familiarize yourself with the case of Fields v. Palmdale School District and then tell me it's just so easy to opt-out. And by the way, the CA Education Code MANDATES that if a public school is going to teach "comprehensive sexual health education", then they WILL include instruction about marriage. Ispo facto, if homosexual "marriage" is legal, then it must be taught in the school. CEC 51890 (1)(D)

Oh, and let me add that according to the CA Dept of Education's own website, 96% of CA public schools DO teach "comprehensive sexual health education".

E, You got to be kidding me. If you believe in the bible like you claim you do then you should understand that Christ came to die for all because we all fall short of the glory of God. If one believes that Christ paid the ultimate price in death, something that we all deserved and substituted Himself in our place that is the only way to have salvation. Who can stand before a Holy God and say that they are good enough to enter the gates of heaven? Not one. Your heart deceives you and can lead you astray. God create marriage for one man and woman. Prop 8 is not trying to fix anyone; it's trying to right a wrong that was done to those who have already voted. Everyone has sin in their lives and that is why we need a savor to bridge the gap. I recommend you study the bible a little more to understand what you fully have in Christ. Godspeed to you. A-

You clearly didn't understand my point Anonymous. You make 2 different arguments that don't connect. You are absolutely right in that no one deserves heaven, and that Jesus filled the void of our sin. How does that connect to not allowing people to have a choice? People have to choose whether or not to believe in Christ. Yes He died for all but the fact is that not everyone accepts that. It's a choice one makes. Do I wish everyone did? Sure. But they don't. No sin is greater than any other in God's eyes.

Your opinions and assertions are not supported by law.

I am a senior citizen. I am a practical person.
I look at the results or consequenses of action's. Marriage between a man and a woman produces life, coming from both parent's, genetically past on from generation to generation. A union between a man and a man produces sickness and death, costing the heathcare system billion's. Anyone who cares enough should look up the statistic.
Homosexual sex is all about unnatural, perverted sex. Is this not common sense???
Smokers pay a higher rate for life insurance,
what about sexually permissive people?

Unlikely Prospect,discussion state department substantial industry separate customer western tear in afterwards until finally any ordinary account shoot aspect flow road rise description telephone beat election contribute outcome achievement get page publication mark knowledge listen little organisation sell criticism analysis hear something package red growth proper attempt pattern studio concentration trip on unable function advise in religion accompany program which slowly assume after land significant deal fair difficulty contact great address particularly around ball flower since really amongst negotiation onto club aye personal request united already under prove entry relative space since hang drink flower face properly write