Gay Marriage - A View from the Inside

Tonia-your words are heartfelt, and obviously you know how I feel about the topic. I don't know why some are so opposed to something that truly won't affect their lives in any negative way. I also think that as with anything "new" there is a learning curve, and we are all in different places in our feelings and acceptance of things we don't understand. I respect that, and I'm sure you do as well. My hope and prayer is that some day soon this won't be a discussion we need to have. Everyone deserves to be treated equally, and while the path isn't moving as quickly as I would like...the number of rainbow icons, and supportive comments I have seen here on Gather has given me hope. I have been married to my best friend for almost 34 years...I want you to be able to say the same thing some day.

We would confuse the children of this country because they would have to witness a greater number of adults making a public commitment to their partner of choice.

Are you serious?!?! With the divorce rate as high as it is, I would think that more married examples would be a good thing... Show the children that it's possible to find true love. Show the children that it's possible to be happy with one person. Show the children that marriage is special and not something to be taken lightly.

Tonia, I'm sorry your life can't be how you'd like it to be because of the backwardness of our society. I truly believe that in the future we'll look back on these days and be shocked at our ignorance, just as now we look back to times when races weren't allowed to marry.

Ummm, Lainie - just trying to highlight the absurdity of that notion :)

After posting this it occurred to me the great irony of the belief that it would harm children to see more adults making that commitment. Deb's two young grandchildren are part of our lives, and we are the most stable relationship in their world. I am glad that they have the opportunity to witness two adults negotiating life together in a way that is loving and mature. I hope that it will serve them well to know that this is a possibility for them no matter what partner they choose, and despite the example that has been set by the other adults (all of whom are heterosexual) in their lives.

Sue - I do know your feelings on the matter, and that you are willing to express them so readily, and beautifully, gives me hope.

Melinda - yes, change is necessary. And the tide is certainly turning in favor of allowing rights for all.

Vicky - thanks for that - I do hope that it is something that I can look back upon in my lifetime.

Darling, sexual preference is a surface thing. You are so right...we are all the same on the inside where it counts. We love and we suffer heartache and we hurt and we heal.

I am 'straight' (and personally hate that word because it implies that being gay is bent, but I digress) and I was married for 15 years. It wasn't gay marriage that threatened the sanctity of my marriage...what threatened the sanctity of my marriage was between me and my husband, and no one else.

I've heard many arguments against gay marriage, I just haven't heard any good arguments against gay marriage.

Okay....what threatened the sanctity of my marriage was between me and my husband and another woman, but that's a totally different story. :)

Having three children, I agree with Lainie. I am all for any examples of a loving relationship, and I'm thankful that my children have such open minds and hearts.

It grieves me, every day, that there are citizens in this country who are still not afforded us the basic rights the rest of us take for granted. I can't argue with you on this; I'm in a complete agreement.

I don't understand the need of some to take away the rights of others. I don't understand how anyone could think acknowledging that loving relationships does harm to anyone, children or adult, religious or not.

Does it help to know that there are many people out there that understand and care about your happiness, too?

Stephanie - you have no idea how much it means that so many are willing to stand up and speak out for the necessity of these basic rights for us all. It has moved me beyond words.

Jules - yes, you do understand, and I don't get why people get so hung up about the surface things either.

Tonia, as I see it, the effect on marriage that legitimizing gay marriage would have is positive, not negative. 1. Gay persons would likely marry someone more appropriate for them instead of hurting someone of the opposite sex by marrying them. 2. Gay marriage would bring more commitment and add more love to the world.

I do not qualify to answer your question, since I support the right your query addresses. I am only commenting to let you know that I read your article and, when available, vote to promote this cause.

Blessings...

p.s. Children seeing the love between two people is always a good thing. And as my mother told me when I worried that my step-daughter to be would not need me in her life, "Children can never have too many people who love them."

Rock on

Hi Tonia,

Well, I've tried the old Pandora's Box argument - strictly from an anecdotal point of view. It fails to convince anyone of the folly of same-sex marriage.

Soooooooooo....let's try a more scientific approach, shall we?

Given that we know that traditional man/woman marriages are good for the mental, and physical, health of both men and women, and that the environment for children in these marriages is good let's examine those factors in places that have adopted same-sex marriage laws, shall we?

Stanley Kurtz, a senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center has written extensively on the subject.

In countries that allow same-sex marriage there has been a decline in marriage, delayed marriages, increased divorce rates, and more children being born out of wedlock. None of these things are good for society, and certainly none can be considered good for children.

I'm not saying your marriage would bring about the decline of American culture, just as 1, 2, or 200 same-sex marriages wouldn't, but to deconstruct traditional marriage is to dilute its meaning, and therein lies a great deal of the problems created.

Earlier societies probably had to forbid gay relationships to ensure their survival. To be a sustainable society when you were small and always at the mercy of disease and war, they needed to have everyone procreating. Gay sex could detract from that. For these earlier societies, successful procreation was equivalent to sustainability.

In our era, other issues are more important to sustainability than procreation. Cultures around the world need to adapt and update their values to increase the sustainability of our planet. Accepting gay marriage and enlarging our view of family are adaptations we must make.

C A - thank you for adding your voice here. I do need to ask though, haven't we witnessed "a decline in marriage, delayed marriage, increased divorce rates, and more children born out of wedlock" in this country also, despite the fact that gay marriage is not legal here? Is this not a societal trend that really has nothing to do with whether gays are allowed to marry or not?

d g - spending time with the kids has shown me the wisdom of your mother's statement. They really don't care who or what we are, all they know is that they feel secure when they are here, and that they are loved. Rock on yourself there, my friend.

Verie - I'm sure that society will not change fast enough to prevent those mistaken marriages anytime soon as that comes more from the desire to conform than anything else, but we can all hope that when the "norms" change it will be easier for those of us who are gay to walk more comfortably through our lives.

C A - another point - what is the scientific evidence that gay marriage is not good for the physical and mental health of both partners, and that the environment for children in these marriages is would not be good?

And what exactly is the meaning of traditional marriage that would be diluted?

CA, you say that Stanley Kurtz has noted "a decline in marriage, delayed marriages, increased divorce rates and more children being born out of wedlock." As that stands, what does that mean?

Can you prove that allowing gay marriage is the causal factor or are there other factors that could have affected it? Could it be that allowing gay marriage wasn't a causal factor at all but just a coincidental factor?

Compared to what they were before in that country?

Compared to what they are here (which as one of the highest divorce rates in the world)?

According to Wikipedia, there are six nations that recognize same sex marriages: Netherlands was the first country to allow same-sex marriage in 2001, also Belgium, Canada, Norway, South Africa and Spain. You'll notice that there's not a lot of time to gather data since the earliest of these is only seven years ago, so that puts a twist on the data as well. I'm off as soon as I post this comment to check the data myself on these six nations.

And you then state: "None of these things are good for society, and certainly none can be considered good for children."

Um, is that a FACT or what you assume? Can you show an actual decay in the society by a factor that you aren't already predisposed to assume?

For example, say the legal advantage of marriage went away or that there were tax disadvantages to it at the same time as gay marriages became legal (as a way out of the quandary), but committed relationships still existed. Your stats would still stay the same but the lives for the children would not appreciably change because the relationships would be the same. Just as an example.

Netherlands - 2001
Belgium - 2003
Canada - 2005
Norway - it will become available in 2009 - so this isn't useful statistically
South Africa - 2006
Spain - 2005

Wow, that's not a lot of time to reach hard and fast conclusions there (including DELAYED marriages? Sounds to me like Stanley Kurtz might have been reaching just a little bit). But let's check stats. More to come!

hmmm, "Given that we know that traditional man/woman marriages are good for the mental, and physical, health of both men and women, and that the environment for children in these marriages is good." yeah, i know that my absent father and my overworked single mother and i were all reeeeealy healthy, both physically and mentally! i wonder about your mental health spouting crap like that. think outside your narrow life, talk to some people with different experiences than your own, then come back and post something logical.

sorry, tonia, didn't mean to hijack but wtf. i don't know why anyone would want to get married. but if you do, knock yourself out. and for those of us who are forced to so that our partner can have health insurance or the like, that's a whole other discussion, isn't it? forced marriage - is that good for the mental and physical health of both men and women.

i really wish i could swear in this thread, but i'll spare you the flag, my friend.

A beautifully-done, honest and inviting essay, Tonia. I hope it leads to a lot of fruitful discussion here.

We don't have divorce rates available except for 2004 or 2003, which really isn't helpful for comparison purposes. However, in 2004, let's compare. According to this source (cited by Wikipedia)

Netherlands: Divorce rate has gone steadily down since 2001 from a high of 2.31 in 2001 to 1.91 in 2004. Woops. Perhaps Mr. Kurtz is in error. "Ethics and Public Policy Center " wouldn't have religious ties, would it, CA?)
Belgium: In 2003, 3.02, though that was provisional.
Canada: In 2003, 2.24
Normway: In 2004, 2.41
South Africa: ??
Spain: In 2003, 0.75
United States: listed as 3.4 (higher I might add than all of the others and from 2004 as well). Via this resource: NHST. I'd like to add that the states where it is legal have among the lowest divorce rates: Connecticut with 3.1, Massachusetts with 2.2. Anyone know which states specifically ban gay marriage and dictate specifically that marriage is a man/woman or have other antigay restrictions. How much anyone want to be they're on the high end of the divorce rates on this handy dandy chart I have linked.

So much for a "scientific reason". Check the facts yourself, next time, CA. Don't believe just anyone claiming to be an expert.

actually, let me restate something so i don't come across as a crackhead. i do understand why some people want to get married. and although some of us never wanted to, everyone and anyone should all be able to.

and before i get contradicted by some smart ass: no, i don't mean anyone should be able to marry an animal, a child, or a cucumber.

there, that's a bit more coherent.

Gerry - thanks - I also hope that it is fruitful.

mona - I think you highlight something really important in this debate - that though there is some idealized concept of what "traditional marriage" is - the reality can be very different. Ultimately, it is about the human experience and what we can do as a society to create opportunities for all.

Stephanie - thanks for bringing your scientific approach to this debate. It is most welcome.

stephanie, you're a genius. will you marry me?

I think it is so very sad that this discussion is even necessary. Sexual preference, like race just IS and using it to discriminated in an ignorant control issue with the religious right.
Send the light of love and hope Tonia

It makes me crazy when I listen to people go on against gay marriage on talk radio or wherever.... they are so illogical and so rabid about it.

It particularly upsets me when they harp on religious reasons for their opinions.... although it is invariably an interesting exercise in rhetoric. They so rarely have any idea how very unChristian they are in the process.

To quote Tina-as-Sarah: I believe marriage should be a sacred covenant between two unwilling teenagers.
But seriously, I think the entire institution of marriage should be revised to bring it into the 21st century. As it stands now, it's still a relic of the Middle Ages, when it was established as a method of consolidating property between two families. Since this is no longer the basis for the contract, the whole thing needs to be brought into line with current mores. (If you can find a copy, read Marriage is a Bad Habit by

Already married, mona, but I appreciate the offer.

Just for grins, I hit up this resource for states that are all cranky about same sex and I compared it to my handy dandy chart for divorce rates:

Alabama: 4.9
Alaska: 4.3
Arkansas: 6.1
Colorado: 4.4
Georgia: 3.2 (2003)
Idaho: 5.0
Kansas: 3.3
Kentucky: 4.9
Louisiana: 3.4 (2003)
Michigan: 3.4
Mississippi: 4.5
Missouri: 3.8
Montana: 3.8
Nebraska: 3.4
Nevada: 6.4
North Dakota: 3.1
Ohio: 3.6
Oklahoma: 4.9
Oregon: 4.1
South Carolina: 3.2
South Dakota: 3.1
Tennessee: 4.9
Texas: 3.6
Utah: 4.1 (Shame on those Mormons!)
Virginia: 3.9
Wisconsin: 3.0

(I removed Hawaii because it recognizes same sex unions from other states)

So, let's recap. 2/2 on states that currently allow same sex marriages having below national average for divorces (I'd love to see current stats), them more than a full percentage point lower.

9/26 states that preclude same sex marriage absolutely have better than average and none by a full percentage point. However, of the 17/26 that are average or higher, 7 are higher by more than a percentage point.

It doesn't look like intolerance is helping society as much as we thought. This was fun; any other nonsense you want me to debunk?

that should have been on the third paragraph from the end, "one of them more than a full percentage point lower".

Sorry.

Tonia - I agree with you and Stephanie. And let me say we would love to have you and your partner move to CT or MA, both of which now recognize same-sex marriages as totally equal.

I grieve for the states and the people who still suffer under the close-mindedness of the religious and bigoted. It is my fervent hope that states like mine will show the way into the future and bring these people into the 21st century.

OH, and there were many 'studies' done by bigots in the last century that showed blacks to be an inferior race and the children of mixed races to be doomed. Such ignorance. We laugh at stuff like that now, but, as you can see, people still perpetuate that kind of nonsense when it comes to gays.

It's a shame that there are people in the world who don't understand love, they have blinders on. They are entitled to their opinion but I can't see why they need to spout on about it. There is so much grief and sorrow around us, why worry about where someone else found their happiness or with who they share this happiness. It's an age old argument that I never understood. So the question is, should they marry, legally. So far I haven't read one valid reason why they shouldn't. Until I see something that convinces me it will affect me I am for it. I've known children who were raised in a "gay" household, they were friends of my son, and there was nothing different about them at all. If I hadn't known the two women who were the parents, I wouldn't have ever known their family was any different than mine. Oh, but then it really wasn't different, was it. They were actually lucky kids, they had two parents that loved them dearly, my kids only had one.

Tonia, an excellent article! It warms my heart to see the comments as well.

Sheryl, thanks so much for the invitation, but it's cold in Ct and Ma right now. :)

Tonia, I can't understand it either. Why would ANYONE discourage two people from committing to each other for a lifelong union? If they love each other, regardless of their sexual orientation, why wouldn't folks want to encourage stability in this insane world? I just don't get it. And those that use God as a weapon behind their madness are just crazy, IMHO. The God I know encourages love, and acceptance, inclusiveness (is that a word?) and goodness, and doing what's kind and right and decent. If two people love each other - I'm sure that's enough for Him. So who are we to prevent a GOOD thing from happening? I'm sick over this - it's just insane.

"Sheryl, thanks so much for the invitation, but it's cold in Ct and Ma right now. :) "

But, it's only half the year...and the people are so nice it's worth it. :)

Beautifully said. It's a shame a country that bills itself as the greatest in the world still participates in legalized bigotry.

Beautifully stated.

It disgusts me to read some of the narrow-minded rhetoric that I've been seeing on these threads. I keep a low profile rather than have an aneurysm trying to debate with the undebateable.

I can't abide bigots of any type.

Love to you and Deb.

"Stanley Kurtz, a senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center has written extensively on the subject."

HAHAHAhahahahaaaa! I Bet he has. This [*picture air-quotes here*] UNBIASED person has written on all kind of things...like...you know...how Obama is tied to that terrorist Ayers and how Reverend Wright speaks for Obama. I absolutely love how the GOP requires NO logic what-so-ever and can call Obama unpatriotic for sitting 20 years in that Christian church one moment, call him a Muslim the next and then a terrorist who's not even a citizen! DAMN how delusional can it get? So your source...I question. SERIOUSLY question! But it was funny how you tried to make him look all...what...prestigious? Unbiased? Pfffft.

"...but to deconstruct traditional marriage is to dilute its meaning..."
Really?
Thank GOD we have it's "meaning" protected by such stalwarts as Liz Taylor married 8 times to 7 husbands? Or is it Britney Spears who was married for only hours...a shorter marriage than some gay people spent waiting in line? Hmm? Is THAT what you're saving? The Carmen Electra Dennis Rodman marriage lasted ALL the way from November to March. Wow.

It's pathetic and an excuse....And traditional also applies to what interracial bans on marriage was considered. You know Polygamy was traditional too, right. You don't keep failed "traditions." Read a Story called "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson.

Tonia...I cannot engage you in this as I cannot defend or explain the innane opposition I hear. It's an opposition, I fear, that coms from dark spaces in people's souls and they flounder about trying to find an excuse...any excuse...to justify this so they need not face the truth.

But know and understand this, my friend: The time is coming and the progress is inexorable. It wasn't so very long ago that people needed to hide their preferences. It wasn't so long ago that people would live their lives hiding the one aspect, sometimes even from themselves. Things have changed and people really need not fear now like they did then somehow being stigmatized by societal judgement. In a way, because of the freedom of people to be themselves, it has done a lot to educate homophobes of the past and prevent homophobes of the future. More and more people now know they know gay people who may never have known they did before. The increasing openess in the Gay community and the decreased hiding of it....has helped society, in my opinion, evolve over the decades....to the point now where we've reached another unity...not unlike the one Obama fused. Where groups will join together and do the right thing...whether Gay or not...and put an end to this. It's going to happen.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

PS: When it does....some of these people are going to look like total fools as their comments about marrying their pets would be next get placed into history books.

Well, Tonia, you certainly know how I feel about all this. And you know how dearly I treasure the friendship with you and Deb, cyberspace entity though it be. You really ought to consider Sheryl's offer of a move to MA or CT. RI isn't horrendous - we don't have anything actually legalizing same sex marriage (although that's being worked on, and each year it seems to get a little closer to passing), but we don't have a law that makes it illegal, either. And our attorney general, Patrick Lynch, actually ran a successful campaign to have same sex marriages legally performed in other states recognized in RI. So it's a much more appreciative atmosphere up here.

Stephanie, once again a brilliant job!

You're gay?

(sneaks away grinning)

Tonia, I can't help you with seeing the reasons against same sex marriages, because I don't agree with them. None of them make sense to me. I see a lot of reasons for same sex marriages, the first being that people love each other in a way that constitutes a marriage relationship as opposed to any other, so the gender of the people involved is mute. Gender has nothing to do with the bond of love that brings two people together in a way that makes us want to be partners/helpmates. We love in so many ways, but only one way is what distinguishes a marriage relationship. And we seem to recognize this special love when we feel it. I also see that for financial reasons and many others gay marriage needs to be recognized and legal. I know people are denied their rights when being denied the right to marry just because it is not a man/woman relationship. That really is rather trite and so out-dated. Too, I know the love I feel for my husband and regardless of what anyone could say to me, I know it to be a love suitable to marriage. So, if I can figure it out, other people can too, and when it's right it's right. Gay people can spot that love also. To me being gay is like having brown eyes or blue eyes, being short or tall, freckled or not. We just are. All of us. Contrary to a disease that attacks the body, being straight or gay is our natural self, not distorted. We accept different eye colors and different colors in hair and don't stigmatize those. We shouldn't stigmatized our sexuality.

I am always amazed at the number of people who can sit in judgement of another. And flabberghasted at the criteria (criterium?) they base these judgements on. My nephew and his partner were among the first to marry in Ontario, aboard a dinner-cruise ship out in Lake Ontario. It got a lot of publicity because it was the first gay marriage on this particular line. Surprisingly, most of it positive. They have been together for about 20 years now, altogether, have traveled to some 29-30 countries, and been accepted everywhere. The fact that my nephew is 6'3" and rather solidly built might have something to do with it. Two of my sisters went to the wedding and most of their children. (I couldn't leave my husband to go, but I certainly approved of their marriage/celebration/right of passage, etc.)
I happen to be heterosexual, but I know I would be exceedingly unhappy, if some stranger decided to rule over whom I could love and live with.
I think all couples should have the same rights.

Another issue that bothers me about the reason why gay marriage is wrong is that some believe it is not natural sexually. To me, it is only not natural sexually when the person is heterosexual and trying to engage in sex with someone who is homosexual, or vice versa. The rest of it is that just because one is in a man/woman marriage doesn't automatically guarantee the sexual relationship will be conducive, uplifting, natural, enjoyable, helpful, healthy, etc., etc. If it were guaranteed to automatically be so darned healthy and good for people, I don't think people would get into the power plays and struggles and games heterosexuals get into. No. Man/Woman marriage is no guarantee people know how to use sex to the benefit of the other or even of themselves, else we wouldn't have so many books out on human sexuality specifically as it relates to marriage.

Thank you all for adding your voices to this. I do hope that we are witnessing a change in the social undercurrent in this country. It is hard for me to express the depth of feeling that I have experienced through seeing the outpouring of support here. I've had to live through my own struggles which have not centered around the fact that I am gay, but rather what that means in a social context. I was lucky in that I have a gay uncle, and my mother was completely accepting of him and his relationships. Though she died before I came out, I have always known that being gay is perfectly natural. I have lived my life preferring to be me first and gay second so that the people who I interact with will see that being gay really doesn't make me any different as a human being. It is also in my nature to live quietly. I have only had to deal personally with overt homophobia a few times in my life, and mostly I have found tolerance and acceptance. This has not led to complacency though as most of the institutions in our society continue to cultivate homophobia in all its ugly forms. To discover that this is so distasteful to so many of you truly gives me hope that we can make a change, and make a difference, and potentially even save some of the young lives that are lost every year because being gay is still considered by many to be the ultimate perversion. Please keep spreading this message as far and as wide as you can. It really will make a difference.

First of all, if I could find a way to have a rainbow flag up there on my icon, it would be waving.
Second: If a still somewhat yahoo state like New Hampshire ( Live Free or Die) allows gay marriage, then where the heck are the rest of the states? My daughter is planning her wedding to her partner next year.
Sad, sad - I feel anyone wishing to marry should be allowed to marry - and companies should support ALL unions and extend health benefits to ANY partner. I know this is a huge difficulty for many (gay) people, and it infuriates me.
If I stay on here, I'm going to get all worked up and rant - but just wanted to throw my positive vote in your direction.....

Just to reiterate a fine point--

I've heard many arguments against gay marriage, I just haven't heard any good arguments against gay marriage.

I, too, am still waiting.

The world is a Rainbow


The world is a rainbow
That's filled with many colors
Yellow, black, and white, and brown
You see them all around

The world is a rainbow
With many kinds of people
It takes all kinds of people
To make the world go round

Now you be you
And I'll be me
That's the way we were meant to be
But the world is a mixing cup
Just look what happens when you stir it up

The world is a rainbow
with many kinds of people
and when we work together
It's such a sight to see
The world is beautiful when we live in harmony

Now you be you
And I'll be me
That's the way we were meant to be
But the world is a mixing cup
Just look what happens when you stir it up

The world is a rainbow
with many kinds of people
And when we work together
Its such a sight to see
The world is beautiful
When we live in harmony

We have to just keep working on it....and we will succeed.

The song is by Steve and Greg.

A truly awesome post, Janet Louise.

I just got ripped asunder because I commented on the anti-gay position of the Boy Scouts of America on another thread. They didn't refute my contention that the BSA is overtly exclusionary, just called me a bitch for pointing it out. Guess how much I care.

I agree with Doyle about those "dark spaces in people's souls". It's fairly clear that old primal instincts about "the other" and "dirty things" are behind any violent reactions to the idea of gay relationships. They're impermeable to logic or to higher ethical arguments because they're from older parts of the brain.

But despite this, times change, and the moral circle has been expanding continuously. We are much more inclusive today than we were fifty years ago, and all of us would be horrified if we could see societies from hundreds or thousands of years ago close up. It's just a matter of time before the majority will consider gay marriages in the same way as they now see the abolition of slavery or the 19th amendment.

There are many arguments out there about how the sanctity of marriage would be undermined if gay marriage was made legal. Somehow the fabric of our society would unravel

*THWACK*

That was the sound of me tossing down the BS Card. We breeders have done a pretty good job of unraveling the fabric of society...

Tonia, I am PROUD to count you among my friends -- and whom you choose to be intimate with sexually is no more prominent in my mond in thinking about you than if I'm thinking about Ina or Vicky.

IF I could find someone to love and spend the rest of my days with, I see that as gravy. YOU HAVE, and for someone to cheapen that by saying it's not "right" or it's [insert homophobic reasons here] pisses me off. If it were up to me, gay marriage would NOT be an issue.

And since it is up to me to voice my opinion -- in hopes that others will, too -- I will. As often and as loudly as I can.

LOVE is never wrong. Small minded, bigoted, narrow A-holes, however, are.

BTW, it would be in my mInd -- not my "mond." I'm not even sure I have one of those...

PS: I just realized that I really hate having to qualify it as "gay" marriage. Two people who love each other, want the same things out of their shared lives, want to be there for each other in all those codicils that make the cermony -- well, that should just be marriage.

Such a well-written article.

I am polyamorous-- I choose to date multiple people at once. I do so in a responsible, honest, and open manner.

At the end of the day, my reason is much the same as why I support gay marriage, and, really, any alternate lifestyle that doesn't involve harming others--

Love should have no limits.

The positive part of this is that as a society we seem to be going in the right direction, and actually I'm surprised at how quickly. Of course people are going to react with fear and try to turn things back.

But that's no consolation to you, living now, wanting to have your relationships treated the same as everyone else's. It's sad, and I'm sorry.

There were so many good comments to your article Tonia. I'm so glad you wrote it. Everyones support is very touching. I'm not bitter about how things are. I have lived my entire life knowing certain rights were being denied me. I actually didn't expect to see the progress that has been made in my lifetime. Hardest is what you will be denied when I am gone. I worked hard for all that 'social security'.

I'm here, I'm queer, get over it (how old is that phrase).

There are so many things happening that I never thought I'd see, I don't feel I have to list those, all on here know what they are.

It constantly amazes me that my daughter and her partner, my son and his partner and their cohorts are so free with each other in places where we would have kept such a low-profile back in the day. I'm thrilled about that. I also remember the first time my ex and I kissed in public, marvelous.

People always need someone the hate, belittle and criticize to make themselves feel better about their weak, pathetic selves. Right now, we're it.

I went to see Margaret Cho last night, OMG I can't believe how amazing and outrageous she is.

Their is a huge demo here in Cleveland today, which she announced at the concert last night. My friends and children will be there. Because of health issues and today's rain I won't be there, but I will be here coordinating bail money if needed. They forgot to get a permit - ahh young people.

Margaret will be at the demo in Cincinnati. There are demos happening all over the country today. FINALLY, the fire has ignited. We need to get an amendment to the Federal Civil Rights Law.

Hopefully in my lifetime, hopefully in all of ours.

Thanks for the beautiful article Tonia. You and Debbie are wonderful people.

Blessings.

i don't get it, why anyone would try to regulate anyone else. that whole thing drives me nuts. but - i know that when you make a true commitment, it doesn't matter in a way, if society recognizes it, as YOU do. on the other hand, it is tiresome to have to not be recognized. i do know that from years and years of trying to 'pass' as an abled person, when i finally acknowledged my disabilities to my world, life was much easier. here's hope that people will finally get it, and move past this junk.

Committed couples should be able to go to court for their license and then choose whatever ceremony they'd like. No one's religious beliefs should be legislating anyone else's lives.

Coming back here, I completely agree with both Joy and Phoenix. I haven't thought about the qualifier "gay" marriage either, but I'm going to be bugged by it now that I have. Marriage is marriage. The gender of the participants doesn't (well, shouldn't) matter.

Phoenix is right too. If you have a civil service, you're doing churches the courtesy of leaving them out of it -- they should have the courtesy to do the same.

No one, particularly in the U.S., should be allowed to cast a vote that takes away someone else's rights. I didn't live through the first Jim Crow era and don't like seeing another one arise with different victims this time. Wrong is wrong.

Something that I think I've been aware of for a long time just crystallized in my mind so that I notice it.

All the illogical attacks on gay marriage (to use the term they're attacking just to be clear, though they are indeed attacks on marriage) are smoke screens for homophobia, although the people propounding them may not be aware of it. Their logic doesn't have to be strong enough to convince anyone because those "convinced" by it are really looking for excuses for their existing feelings.

And this is exactly the same as many of the attacks on Obama that were just smoke screens for racism.

This is obvious, true, but so obvious that I've never formulated it before.

Same folks, too.

OK, not necessarily the same folks, but I think it's probably more true than not. Clearly, some that voted for Prop 8 clearly voted for Obama, too, but I think they'd be less likely to be defending that action if challenged.

I think for white people the overlap is significant. It gets more complicated with other ethnicities--the mythologies are different, though they're based on the same psychological phenomena.

I almost want to apologize for being "white" -- and not for the first time in my life. Really, it's been bothering me all day, this issue of "gay" marriage.

Someone, please, explain to me how two people who love each other should be denied the right legally to spend the rest of their lives together.

IF that is too hard, explain to me what TRUE deficit is presents to society. Try the argument about insurance costs (I have an insurance license. I LOVE this argument.)

In short, please -- just argue against "gay marriage" (GRRRRR!) without bringing Jesus or his dad into it. Srsly.

Then tell me how the economy would fall apart. Take a few minutes to tell me about how children would suffer... These are THE most ridiculous arguments, ever.

There is NO real reason why "gay" (GRRR!) marriage is "wrong." Except for narrow minded, bigoted fools spouting some ridiculous Jerry Fallwell Pary Line.

I think it's about time we embraced 2008. Am I wrong?

Oh, the typops! I apologize, but I stand behind what I've said: SHOW me where it's wrong and I'll stand corrected.

I don't mean to parrot my own party line, but I suspect most people against "gay" (GRRRR!) marriage fall into #7.

Again, not trying to blow my own horn, but it works here... and I think I made some good points.

Your #7 is close to the definition of Puritanism as the haunting fear that someone, somewhere might be happy (or whatever the actual Mencken quote is [if it is a Mencken quote]).

i've been here and gone away to think, and come back, and gone away to think some more, and now realise the lovely sensible people have said it all anyway. but i was particularly taken with Donna's comment, because i think her tongue in cheek thing was perhaps more important than many would realise. decades ago, having moved far from home and meeting all sorts of strange and wonderful people (some of whom were GAY! can you believe it???) i came home to visit my poor old ma who'd fallen ill again. i was waxing on about my new friends in the hope of shocking her and this totally straight thirties-raised woman just laughed in my face and said, "so you think those maiden ladies who for centuries have lived together for 'company and safety' weren't lesbians? Get a grip!"

her point being that people are people and you could still share tea and pikelets with them at the ladies church auxillary, all the time totally knowing and totally not caring because it was none of your damn business. the difference now i guess is that it's all our business if we believe in social justice.

and all this reminds me of the beautiful judy small song, no tears for the widow, from her snapshot album 1990:

I never saw my mother cry until the night my father died --
Married nearly thirty years and the dying had been hard.
I remember how the family came to share the grief, the tears, the pain,
And how her friends all gathered round, and all the black-rimmed cards.

The funeral was a large affair. The civic fathers all were there,
And mother held up stoically. She never shed a tear.
But everyone there understood that she had entered widowhood
And life would never be the same. Her status now was clear.

And there were tears for the widow, tears for the widow,
For the woman who had lost her love and must carry on alone,
And mother now writes 'widow' in the space on all the forms.
It's part of her identity, like her grey hair and her name.

My friend Amelia lost her love to cancer's slow and painful glove.
The dying was no easier than my father's was back then.
No black-rimmed cards came to her door, her grief and anguish all ignored,
Except, of course, for closest friends who tried to understand.

Her lover was described by all as a single woman living well,
A tragic loss for family, taken well before her time.
When Amy left the funeral home, she travelled to their house alone
And sat among familiar things and wept into the night.

And there were no tears for the widow, no tears for the widow,
For the woman who had lost her love and must carry on alone.
And Amy still writes 'single' in the space on all the forms,
But she rages at the lie it tells and the loss that it ignores.

And who can tell how many women live their lives in shadows,
Unrecognised, unsympathised, unseen and disallowed,
Who've lost not only lovers, but often hearth and home,
For 'marriage' is a special word and only meant for some.

And there are no tears for the widows, no tears for the widows,
For the women who've lost lovers and must carry on alone.
And life goes on, but for them, there is no space on any form.
Yes, 'marriage' is a special word and only meant for some.

I weep, literally, for the pain this intolerance costs every day.

I cannot undo it, not alone, but I will not be silent until the law is changed.

Tonechka, dear - all that I can say is that, being an out-and-out "hetero", I'm totally with you here. ;-)

Hugs and blessings - S.

Wow! So many comments, great job.

I came late to this article, but I wanted to throw in my support and say "Ditto" to what Charles said. "Their logic doesn't have to be strong enough to convince anyone because those "convinced" by it are really looking for excuses for their existing feelings." That's the conclusion I've come to after watching folks who know the extent of child abuse, molestation, and adultery in hetero marriage throughout history and who still say gay marriage will put our children at risk or throw our society into turmoil. We are ALREADY in turmoil. In my opinion, it's caused more by the "us against them" mentality than anything else. They don't look into the science of sexual preference, they don't look into the fact of the relationships around them, and they don't even consider the verse in the bible that tells them it's not their job to judge others, even though they usually purport that they are being Christian by fighting gay marriage. Logic certainly has nothing to do with it, excuses have EVERYTHING to do with it.

I am for equal rights of ALL kinds.

But you do have to take into account, it hasn't been very long that marriage even happened for love. Marriage was an institution to (supposedly) protect the safety of the people in the family (not the institution). You got married for financial/political/social gain - plain and simple. If you learned to love the person, great. But if you didn't, so what. Your obligation was then to have children. People got married at a young age so they could start to have children earlier, like before they got too old to have lots of children.

Gay couples could rarely meet the rigorous duties society demanded since artificial insemination was not done.

Society doesn't change as quickly as we'd like. It takes ideas a long time to be accepted, usually several generations! Think about it, would your grandmother or grandfather have been free to have an open relationship with someone of the same sex? Heck, Jews and Blacks couldn't even associate with Whites 50 years ago. My grandmother couldn't vote when she was 18!

The last 100 years have seen more change than any other 100 years. By virtue of that speed, we have become very impatient with those who can not adapt as quickly as others.

But before you all fry me for taking this "other view", I want you to know I am very committed to the rights of ALL people. I have many friends who are gay and have wonderful families. I even know a very strict Roman Catholic who, although his religious views are very clear on the appropriateness of homosexuality (as is his right), he is a financial adviser and jumps through hoops to be sure his Gay/Lesbian clients are as protected as his straight clients!

I am hoping sometime soon that everyone who is in a committed loving relationship will have the same rights!