Victoria (Australia) to recognise gay couples

It's not our parents' world! When you consider that the Stonewall uprising happened less than 40 years ago, it's really amazing how liberal we have become!

One set of laws for straights and another set for everybody else is just plain unfair. I hope we have better sense than to pass such a ridiculous constitutional amendment.

Nothing our government does surprises me. I have yet to hear a coherent argument against same-sex marriage. How it could possibly ruin the sacrament of marriage is beyond me. Any law that encourages stable relationships seems like a good thing to me. Hooray for Victoria!

Props to Victoria!!!!!!!!

I 2nd the good!

You make it sound so simple when in reality it is quite complex. Whenever a term is redefined it rarely if ever retains any semblance of either its original meaning or its intended meaning. You will find this is true with such liberal buzzwords words as "diversity" and "tolerance", which as used hand-in-hand with each other. Diversity simply means a wide range of possibilities. Tolerance means empathy or sympathy with someone whose vies differ from one's own. However, in the ironically fascist politically correct view, diversity has been twisted to mean that differences should not only be empathized and/or sympathized with, that they must be embraced and accepted as new de facto standards. Tolerance has been subverted to now mean that total and unconditional acceptance of any view that meets with the politically correct standard. Of course, these are blatant and thoroughly biased revisions of the original definition to suit a politically-motivated agenda. The true irony of this is that ALL diverse views and opinions are now acceptable to the liberal elite EXCEPT views that are in opposition to them. Which makes the original definition of tolerance unusable to the liberal agenda, doesn't it? How convenient. The end result is that these diverse views are not met with the tolerance so eloquently espoused for one's own causes but are instead subject to vicious rhetoric and anger. Indeed, such a response is not only expected and acceptable to those who preach tolerance, it is encouraged.

What does that have to do with this subject? I'm sure, based on previous experience, that I will receive slurs such as hatemonger and bigot as a result of this post. But even though I believe that homosexuality is a sin, so is divorce, drunkenness and a slew of other behavior. Sinfulness has nothing to do with my argument view that marriage should not be redefined because this redefinition opens up too many other, unthought-of possibilities. Few people know that on the day after the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriages, two lawsuits were files - one in Utah and one in California. The one in Utah stated that since marriage is being redefined that the government could no longer outlaw polygamy. And much as I hate to agree, I have to - because once a definition is changed it opens itself to any or all definitions. See the two (out of many) examples I cited above. But the lawsuit in California carried polygamy to extremes and points out why we cannot allow marriage to be redefined. In it, a married woman claimed to be bisexual and wanted to marry her female lover as well as her husband. On the surface, this may even seem to be a reasonable re1quest - a woman who is married to both a man and a woman. But walk this out to its eventual conclusion. Once they are married, it would be easy to suppose that the 2nd bisexual woman in the marriage could conceivably want to marry a man. Perhaps the same man as her wife (or are they already married?), or perhaps a different man. And in this 2-couple-1-marriage scenario, who is married to whom? And what if one wishes to divorce one member but remain married to the others? And - God forbid! - if there are children in this arrangement, what role does each ply - ESPECIALLY if a divorce occurs? You may think this far-fetched but let me point to another Supreme Court case that sets this standard. And by the way – within that first week another lawsuit was filed in California involving bestiality and marriage. Can we not see what this brings on? All of this came as a direct result of the Massachusetts Supreme Court seeking to change the definition of marriage to placate a relatively small group of people for overtly political reasons.

Still question the long-term affect of changing social definitions for the benefit of a small minority? And note that we are not talking about keeping people from having jobs, places to live or even worse, but let's look at a landmark case from the US Supreme Court that changed lives dramatically for the worse even though it appeared to be innocuous at the time. In 1970 the use of foul language was not considered acceptable "in mixed (or polite) company." It was not broadcast on TV or the radio as entertainment. Nor was it widely used, mainly out of respect for others. Obviously that sort of language has existed for centuries. Jesus even quotes a Hebrew epithet ("raca") in the Bible. But the point was that American society was much more congenial and amicable forty years ago than it is today, and "Cohen v. California" is a major reason why that is no longer the case.

In 1970, taking into account the context I explained for the benefit of those who may not be old enough to remember it, Paul Cohen walked into the Los Angeles court house - a government building and obviously public property and shared space where societal rules of the day normally offered respect for others and their sensitivities - with the words "F*** the Draft" on his jacket. Over the course of a year he was arrested, tried, etc. He fought all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and in 1971 was acquitted and a landmark opinion handed down, citing the First and Fourteenth amendments. This blasted opened the door, allowing any sort of self-expression to be completely legal regardless of its affect on others.

Now I treasure my Constitutional rights. But what were the long-term affects of this? I was taught, prior to that date, that my rights are important but they have to be weighed against their affect on others and that whenever possible my rights end where yours begin. That is the thought behind not yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. You know that we now live in an age where the prevalent view is that my rights are the only rights that are important t& that you are allowed your rights but don't expect me to show the smallest bit of restraint because I am too important for that. There is no place - including schools and all other public areas - where using foul language is not deemed to be acceptable behavior. Regardless of what impressionable child is nearby or whether we ourselves find that kind of language or behavior offensive, we all have the "right" to speak and express ourselves in any way we deem acceptable to ourselves. This is not the view of a mature and healthy society, but rather the view of spoiled children who each wishes to have his/her own way and the devil with anyone who disagrees? If you have even the slightest ability to be honest you will have to agree that this is true. Is society better off? Can we still leave our doors unlocked and the keys in eth car when parked in the driveway? Do we feel safe walking down the streets of our cities at night? Are we better off as a nation for allowing Paul Cohen to print a profane term on a jacket he wore in public? Was it worth the cost? Because Cohen v. California and the current ideas of political correctness are not about taking away an individual's or a minority's rights. It is about protecting the rights of society as a whole. And this doesn't even take into consideration the fact that what is being demanded are not equal rights but special rights because the people in question today are not truly a "minority" in the legal sense of the word. But that's another discussion.

Unfortunately I imagine my post will fall on deaf ears, as it were. Based on prior experience I think I will probably be vilified by one side and praised by the other. But I do this in the hope that one person will take the time to learn by looking at this with logic instead of emotion and will be open to reason instead of the heat of the moment offered by the rebellious liberal agenda. May God be with all of us.

When will this country recognize the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

We all have equal protection under the law. This includes gays and lesbians.

Its only a matter of time before same sex marriage is legal here in the U.S, right now law makers are just getting away with legislating homophobia. there's no reason to deny gay people the same rights as straight, it doesn't take away or infringe upon straight people's rights

I agree that it is only a matter of time before the U.S. makes the mistake of sanctioning homosexual marriage. But while there is yet time I will attempt to educate the public. Apparently the entire ideal of cause & effect is lost on this generation. Did either of you read what I wrote or merely scan it, make a quick judgment based on a few buzzwords & then decide to say that I am a bigot (as predicted would happen)?

As far as homophobia is concerned, that is another of those terms that is grossly overused and misused. A "phobia" is a fear of something. I have no fear of homosexuals nor homosexual behavior. I am simply using logic to see what has happened as a direct result of short-sighted decisions & think we should not rashly make public policy based on the trend of the day. Just for the record, study clearly shows that the use of demographics (starting in the early 1980's) as a method policy making is primarily responsible for our entire culture becoming hype driven instead of well-read, educated and rational.

Many good changes have come out of the late 60's and the "Question Authority" mindset. Of that there is no doubt. But over time liberals have become drunk with that power and seek to overturn EVERYTHING – even things that don't need to be changed. And in the rush and thrill of social change, few stop to consider the implications of their actions – it is truly a one-sided discourse, as evidenced by the posts above.

The Fourteenth Amendment grants us wonderful rights. But as is the norm for those of a liberal mindset, you chose to overlook my key argument regarding Cohen v. California. And that is very simply that we do ALL have EQUAL protection under the law. And in a utopian society that would be great. But this is not utopia – it's reality. And the key to Cohen v CA was that the Supreme Court valued the narrow view and rights of a single individual and in doing so completely trampled the rights of others.

I'm not saying we shouldn't offer minorities some breaks to help them. That is humane and indeed a Christian thing to do. But this should only be done when the long-term consequences are thought out and contrasted against the pattern of history rather than held up in the light of modern revisionism as if one were choosing a paint color. And it should be reserved for minorities. Homosexuals do not meet the criteria in the US to be considered a legal minority. Unfortunately they have the support of the press and Hollywood. Jim Morrison once wrote, "Whoever controls the media controls the mind." And the American public has been brainwashed.

Homosexuals don't want EQUAL rights - they want EXTRA rights. The reason for this is simple: There is no valid evidence that homosexuality is biological. None. Look up Dr. Dean Hamer for more information. I am not saying it's a choice. I am simply pointing out that the scientific evidence shows that it's not biological. Instead the only medial group that supports homosexuality is the American Psychological Association. Since it is not physical and the APA stands by it one can effectively reason that it is a purely mental issue.

I am also not saying that it is a mental illness, although there are many parallels between the behavior of homosexuals, alcoholics and other addicts. But note that all groups considered minorities have physical attributes that contribute to their status. One cannot choose one's race, one's gender (although some take drastic action to do so - point out another psychological aspect of homosexuality) or even whether one has a disability or not. And that is the defining factor, aside from the earlier-noted problems that redefinition pose.

So I ask this: if one redefines minority to include mental differences, does that mean that alcoholics are free to drink & drive? Does that mean that addicts have the right to smoke crack or shoot up? They don't choose to be what they are, but society rightly expects them not to act on their impulses. I know that goes against the "do it if it feels good" mentality that cripples the U.S., but it the sensible and logical view. Yes, those are extreme examples, but note from my earlier examples that once the definition has been changed and the paradigm has shifted there is no turning back - only moving in the same direction to whatever end awaits. History provides thousands of examples that support this, and with little variation the results are bad for the whole of a society.

But let's try it this way. I am a Caucasian man that was raised in the inner city and was truly a racial minority in my own neighborhood growing up. For purposes of discussion, let's say that because of my environment growing up I relate better to African-Americans than I do to Caucasians? Let's even go so far as to suppose that I consider myself a black man trapped in a white man's body. I'm sure we can all agree that this is a feasible state of mind. Does that qualify me for Affirmative Action and other programs set aside specifically for African-Americans or other minorities? Of course not. Why would it? Just because I have a mental outlook that is different from the majority of people does not qualify me as a minority because my physical characteristics don't meet the criteria. Too facile? Let's try another example - what if I had been adopted and raised by African-American parents? Would that change anything? Of course not - despite my background, I am still Caucasian and BY DEFINITION not a minority. But to look at it from the purely liberal entitled view point, I should. Can you see how that clouds the other aspects of short-sighted social experimentation & programs so beloved by liberals?

Here's a better idea - reverse that situation – envision black children raised by white adoptive parents - or a mixed race children raised by their white custodial parent - but in the suburbs instead of the ghetto. In that scenario, the environmental issues that originally pointed out a need for preferential treatment of a particular race are no longer an issue. Like privileged white children, these kids would be raised in a safe, privileged atmosphere by loving white parents. Does that mean that the child no longer qualifies to be seen as a minority? Not in my opinion, but it raises the thought. And it drives home the argument that social experimentation, even when well-meaning, is full of issues and problems. My father used to tell me "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." This is a classic example of that.

It's not that we shouldn't take action when and where it is warranted. But we must be vigilant and extremely careful about the effect a decisio0n made today will affect three generations from now. We owe that to our children and their grandchildren. When we redefine a term or a situation it virtually never results in the intended definition. It nearly ALWAYS takes on the most drastic and extreme form of the definition – usually an unwanted version. And while some cases may (and do) merit this, homosexuality doesn't because it doesn't meet the qualifications to be considered a legal minority. And since it doesn't qualify as a minority it doesn't deserve to receive special treatment. My view is not angry, it's not hatred and it sure isn't a phobia. It's simple, it's straight-forward and it's logical. The problem in the 21st century is that it requires the ability to think rationally and without the cloud of fear or angry emotions emanating from many on both sides of the fence.

equal protection yes, and recognizing gay/lesbian unions sure, but marriage is a defined term. One should not mean the other.

Joe W. You have given these issues a lot of thought and have stated your feelings plainly and well. I could almost agree with you. But something in my heart keeps saying: Love is Love. I am not gay but I have close friends who are. I have empathy for them because I know they live on tenterhooks for the most part. One friend's life partner was brutally murdered and she was not allowed to view the body to make the identification because she was not a relative. You make good points but then I remember that miscegenation used to be against the law. In that sense, laws can change. When and if people of the same gender are allowed to marry, I'm sure the lawyers will get everything sewn up as tightly as possible. I think the reasons you bring up are true because the possibility of the nation allowing these unions to be recognized haven't been taken seriously enough as yet. Then there are the hermaphrodites to deal with. . .

Nyota, well said. And M.Emmett, as Nyota said, marriage used to be defined as being allowed only with people who were of the same race. Before 1967, in the United States, a white man could not marry a black woman; that was not defined as a marriage. For governmental purposes in the United States of America (and most other nations in the world), marriage is, quite simply, a contract. While many religions recognize a "marriage," the separation of church and state in this nation prohibits us from using a religious definition of marriage.

Please see also my post about 40 Years of Loving, an article I wrote about the 40th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision striking down anti-miscegenation laws, which links to a couple of articles I've written on my blog regarding this subject.

This comment is to let you know that this content has reached ten comments, and as such has been removed from Comment Speedway! Congratulations!

Thank you for your comments, Nyoto. I appreciate that this is a very touchy subject, but that is exactly why we need to be extremely careful moving forward. I also have gay friends, some who are as close as biological family to me. They are aware of my view on this issue and we choose not discuss it because we agree to disagree as it were. But more importantly, they also know that I love them dearly for who they are. That brings up a large question in itself. Should emotion sway public policy? I don't believe that it should. And thankfully this has been a very civil discourse instead of the standard emotional backlash that I have grown accustomed to. So while we may be moved emotionally we should act thoughtfully instead of reaction to an emotional issue. That is why I sought to lay out the logic behind my thoughts.

As far as the miscegenation laws and the comparison to them I am acutely aware of this argument. However, I this does not apply to the issue of homosexual marriage for the reasons I gave in my last post. Miscegenation applies to matters of race - something that is genetic and biological. Homosexuality is neither, but is instead seated in the mind of the homosexual. Again, I am not saying it is a conscious choice. But I am saying that despite the billions of hours and dollars spent researching it, there is no tangible evidence that supports a biological cause for human homosexuality.

And I also must respectfully disagree with the assertion that lawyers will sew up any loose ends tightly. If one examines the landmark cases of the past fifty years one will find that the cases are nearly always left wide open for alternate interpretations and that they are done with an individual's or small minority's rights to the sometimes obvious detriment of the general public. While we should certainly safeguard rights for minorities and not allow the majority to trample them, should we allow apartheid to become our national standard? It is not trendy to consider that when looking at a society such as ours (read: primarily Caucasian) but apartheid is apartheid - the minority ruling over the majority without regard to the majority. The states (11 out of 11) that have made homosexual marriage unconstitutional provide a very strong support for this view.

At any rate, I appreciate the thoughtfulness of all the responses. Discussions such as this are the life-blood of every democracy and republic. Take care.

God is indeed love; but God is also justice, order and a host of other qualities. Some that humans understand and some hat we cannot because He is God and we are merely human. To elevate human opinion to be equal to God's is to recreate Lucifer's original sin &to give in to his temptation.

Church and state should remain divided on this issue. Marriage is a legal contract. That is state. Holy Matrimony is the holy rite and that is church. Never the twain should meet.

Church and state are divided in baptism, good thing too. They are divided on so many areas of our lives, as well they should be.

State does not decide what is a sin and what isn't a sin.
Church should not decide what is legal and what isn't legal.