Gay Marriage Beginning in Multnomah County

Even the religous should leave it to God to judge and let people have free choice.Gasp! but what about the sanctity of marriage! I look over at my husbands socks on the floor and I feel uneffected by who anyone else wants to marry.

That's it - in many years, when I get my PhD, I'm moving to the northwest.

One look at the divorce rate in this country and any argument for the sanctity of marriage goes out the window. Let people get married to whomever they want, I say. :::Thumbing nose at George W.:::

I think that's fabulous that Portland is doing this. (arms pumping in "raisin' da roof" gesture) Go, Portland! Go Portland! Get Busy! Get Busy! Word, ya'll.
______

May The Hair On Your Toes Never Fall Out

--Traditional Hobbit Blessing

I think people here already know pretty much how I feel about this issue. But I just have to reiterate that this is an issue of EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. It is not a MORAL or RELIGIOUS issue.

Danna =]

Without saying too much and permanently be labeled a bigot (which may be too late anyway), it sux. Sorry, folks, I so agree with GW. I still think a man and a woman should be the only marriage recongnizable by law. Maybe I'm getting too old-fashioned in my old way of life, but I just don't think it's right. And I will teach my kids that it ain't right. I could go on and on, but I think if I said much more here (and even more than I have said on other threads concerning this very same issue), Lynn WOULD have to throw me off her sight.

The government doesn't have to acknowledge ANY marriage if they don't want to. Make them "civil unions" for straights and gays alike. Let churches honor marriages. If they want to marry two straight people, two gay people, while they handle snakes or play a Bach Prelude -- fine with me. I don't understand why government would decide who is religiously or spiritually bound. Just civil bindings is all that should concern them -- who gets power of attorney when one is sick, who is the beneficiary of one's will, etc. If I want to leave all my money to my dog, I should be able to (and probably can) by law. If I were gay (or not!) shouldn't I be able to designate it to another woman? And if I deemed her my family, shouldn't she be able to come into ICU when I'm sick?

You can teach your children that it's not right for this or that to happen -- that's a parent's perrogative. But should you teach your children that they should actively do whatever it takes to interfere in the lives of others and try to ban George from the hospital room of Bob? And why would you want to? And why would you want George and Bob to oblige your point of view if they had one of their own?

And Jenny, I don't think Lynn would ban anyone for disagreeing, if they are as civil as you've been about it.

I have to throw in with Jenny here.

I'll "throw in" with Jenny and Fern

Think Fiddler on the Roof. LOL!

Marriage is the result of faith-tradition. (Cf. the book of Genesis.) Therefore, it is what it is, and all the laws in the world redefining it to allow man-man, woman-woman, man-goat, couple-couple, brother-sister, anything-goes, make a travesty of it.

Marriage, from time immemorial, has been a man leaving home, cleaving to his wife, forming a family and, under normal circumstances, producing children. It is covenantal, *not* contractual. The state has an interest in licensing who gets married because it has an interest in protecting the family. That doesn't mean the state has the power to redefine what marriage is. Things simply are what they are. To call a same sex partnership a marriage is to drain all the meaning out of the word. It would make just as much sense to call men women and women men. Heck, let's just throw out the dictionary and start talking "at" one another instead of "with" one another (because that's just what results from things like these).

There is also a legal issue here. We talk a lot about the "rule of law" in our political discourse, but this is one instance where it apparently doesn't apply? The Constitution was put in place to balance and limit the powers of government. Judicial tyrrany is *unconstitutional.* So is ignoring the laws and doing whatever the heck we want. If abortion protesters can be prosecuted under RICA (of all things!) then I think issuing marriage licences contra state law can't be construed as "civil disobedience" either. Works both ways, folks.

But what prevents a gay couple from making out a will? Or visiting one another in the hospital?

I'm with Susannah, Jenny and Fern. Expecially Susannah, I think she put it very well.

I'm with those who say there's nothing wrong with gay marriage - AND with those who prefer to see laws strictly interpreted and enforced (so long as we're living in a society with laws; I'll make my pitch for anarchy some other day).

However, checking the news, it does appear that the Multnomah County folks discovered a loophole here; the Oregon state law as written doesn't prohibit same-sex marriages. It defines marriage as a contract "by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age, who are otherwise capable." Doesn't say they have to marry each other.

So, until the voters and legislators in Oregon close this loophole (which I expect they will do), same-sex marriages in Portland don't appear to this non-lawyer to violate the law.

On the other hand, I do hope the California state attorney general charges the mayor of SF with 3500 counts of breaking state marriage law and one count of being a grandstanding ass.

My heart really changed on this issue when I became friends with a SAHM who was also gay. After getting to know her, I realized that her values were a lot closer to mine than I would have imagined. She and her partner were raising two children (who no straight couple even considered adopting), and were the nicest, most committed couple.

At the time, I was particularly annoyed with a neighbor of mine who was a married partner-track attorney. This woman had her kid in daycare 50 hours a week, ragged constantly on SAHM's, and verbally abused her husband (and anyone else within hearing range!). The contrast was pretty stark... I changed my mind.

It's no secret that people with different political beliefs use the same words in different ways.

As far as wills: when a married person dies intestate because of being young, stupid, and/ or lazy, a certain amount of his/ her property passes automatically to the widow or widower as protection from the deceased's youth, stupidity and/ or laziness. A member of a gay couple is not protected in that way.

An example of another legal issue is that gay people whose partners died in the Sept. 11 WTC attacks had to do some fancy legal maneuvering to get the "spousal" compensation. These were people who had been living together for a long time and who would have married if they could, not new couples or anything. The ones who were successful had much more documentation than a lot of married couples could have provided, available.

Also joint tax returns are something that some people would rather have.

A related question: Lynn, I don't think I get the difference between journal and forum thread. This reads like a forum thread, but it is a journal. Clarification, please?

I forgot to weigh in! I am with Mike and Courtney on this one.

Not surprised by anyone's opinions here, except . . .

Susannah, I have to take you to task for your straw-man "liberals" and "they" and "these people." Particularly when you are well aware that you are attempting to represent the views of people you know on this site. Speaking of the misuse of language, do you really think "shut up and tolerate me" is a fair paraphrase of what Lynn or Courtney has said?

All our warm fuzzies on the THN birthday thread reminded me that in those heated debates of times past sometimes we all learned something by talking *to* each other. Now it seems we've joined the rest of the world in simply dividing into teams and tuning out the rest.

Did anybody that is anti-gay on this thread get a nasty email from someone (apparently a lurker) about this topic? Just curious.

And Susannah, as usual, I love the way you put things!

I'm just lurking this thread....not going to get into this one. I know that we have some gay members on this site. I read all the bios when new members sign on. Some of those members are enjoying same sex relationships and are parents. Homeschool too.

Perhaps someone was offended or felt the need to share their feelings with you. I hope it was just a heated e-mail and not really nasty.

Hope, your right, it wasn't really nasty, just heated. I don't understand why this person wanted to just send it to me. Why not post it here and tell everyone! I mean, isn't what this forum is for, to express opinion? I have mine, and I stated it. It would just seem to me that this person should just express her views in public if she feels that strongly about them. I know there have been a couple gay folks on the board posting (or one did the other day, anyway). Why not come on out and make your own voice heard! You will obviously get some support here (and some opposition, too).

My problem with the e-mail that Jenny got... if one of us that opposes gay marriage had sent a similar e-mail to this person, saying "Stay out of my life" it would have been looked at as "Gay Bashing" Well there's no such thing as "Straight bashing"?? To say "keep your kids away from the playground", "it's not good when people intrude in your life is it?" To single her out, and send a nasty/heated e-mail instead of posting your opinions here in an open forum, (where her's were posted) seems a little cowardice to me. I think it was rude, crude, and uncalled for.

Jenny, next time remember "DELETE"

Thanks Lynn, My message was being typed while yours was, I didn't see yours until I "posted".

But I've got to get into the fray.

Susannah brought up a point that gets muddled in my thought process. Help me out in understanding this, fellow Christians.

Let's say that homosexuality is a sin (for the sake of debate) according to Christianity. Why do we as Christians keep expecting government to take such things into account. Being a Muslim is a sin in the face of Christianity (some would definitely say). Should the government say that Muslim "behavior" and the joining of Muslims to create a family threatens the moral fabric of society? Where is the line? If you respond with "Well, our government recognized religious freedom, so we'll tolerate the Muslims...." then how can you can "Gay families shouldn't be legitimized by the govenment based on sin...." when "sin" is part of religious thinking?

To have to say again that I, Courtney, am a Christian might seem redundant -- and even unbelievable to those of you who think I promote the killing of babies left and right. Seems like that always makes its way into such discussions. But Christ is my Christ too, and I view his words very differently than fundatmentalist Christains do.

I'm angry because while the some in government are doing their best to create obstacles for gay couples (LEGAL obstacles, not approval, which is a private matter) --- they don't mind when gay couples adopt some of the most UNadoptable babies. If we're going to allow gay couples to do what many consider the hardest job there is, parenting special-needs children -- if that's not illegal -- who are we to say that they can't be legally recognized at tax time and the like? Or that they have to be Christian? Or have the same definition of sin? It just doesn't sound a BIT like Jesus and his teachings to me. I picture Jesus at the home of one of these couples, helping to rock a crack baby to sleep, while the Jerry Falwells get all red-faced out on the curb with a picket sign. I resent the implication (even IF being gay is a sin) that gays repeatedly sin in the same way, while the rest of us sin, repent, and then move on to new, more loftly sin and then repent and so on. (that's not meant for you Susannah) Even if homosexuality is a sin, MOST Christians sin repeatedly. Most people die with many of the same "issues" they started out with. Let this particular "sin" join the ranks of all others, is my wish. If you believe it to be sin, that is.

What other sin gets this amount of air time and vitriol? "There goes Courtney being gluttonous again! Can you believe she ate that whole pie? Doesn't she know her body is a temple?!? Let's punish her at tax time. Let's make it so that her will can be easily contested! She deserves it! After all, she keeps sinning in the same way. Over and over! Repent already, Courtney!" Signed, your compassionate brothers and sisters in Christ.

Shaun, sorry to have offended you. I don’t want to hurt a friend, honestly. I admit to feeling a bit defensive about a couple of your points, but accede that one can be right and not right at the same time, KWIM? I guess it’s all in the tone. I would stick around to answer Courtney, but something has come up and I really have to duck out now.

Regards!

This thread is driving me crazy. I read, then next time I come back there are posts added in out of order and who the heck knows who said what, when?!

I just feel compelled to give Susannah a hand up. Even though she and I don't always agree either, it seems that everyone else is gung ho to state their opinion, yet she is pounced for hers. I know, I know. . .expression is everything.

The fact is, this is a volatile subject. It has been on this site in the past and probably will be in the future. Anytime a post concerning this matter is put on, there isn't an adult on this site that doesn't expect just exactly what has happened here. A free for all.

My feelings on the subject have been stated before. I wish no one ill will, but I simply do not believe in it. I'm wondering where do you draw the line? How much of your feelings are really and truly from your heart of hearts, and how much is from what is expected from political correctness? Can you honestly say your feelings are so unprejudicial on this subject that it would not bother you one whit if your child chooses this lifestyle over a traditional lifestyle?

You write about couples taking in children who do not have chances for other homes, etc. It is commendable for anyone to take on those responsibilities. However, there is another side to the story that no one seems to see. A woman in my area left her husband for another woman when her two boys were in their late teens. One still in high school, the other just out. I saw the horror and embarrassment on her child's face when he knew his friends knew. So, please don't say it isn't hurting anyone. For every child that gains a new home, another is ripped apart in pain.

Every mother/father has the perogative to teach their children their beliefs of right and wrong. Just be sure your right is for the right reasons. We can teach our kids compassion and understanding of those different than us without condoning actions we do not approve of.

I had to jump off this thread yesterday to leave the phone lines (and prayer lines) open. I have posted the request. Please pray!

Meanwhile, I have figured out why debating this issue is so frustrating. We are debating something that ought to be completely self-evident, and how many times can you say the same thing?

Whether homosexual couples should be allowed to foster children in the first place is yet another topic of discussion. But Steve and Roger's philantropy is utterly beside the point. They still can't marry and here is why:

You see, the purpose of marriage is *not* so we can file jointly on our income taxes; be assured our estate will pass automatically to another person when we die; ensure that we can adopt if we become foster parents; or be compensated if our spouse dies in a tragic disaster.

These are entirely *incidental* to marriage. They have evolved as ways the state recognizes and protects marriage but virtually *nobody* marries for these reasons. If a heterosexual couple were to tell you they were getting married for the above reasons, you would be quite justified in considering them devoid of feeling, a tad bit mercenary, or, quite simply, coo-coo.

That is because the purpose of marriage is to become "one flesh" and to produce children. And therein lies the mistake perpetuated in this thread. "One flesh" is a Biblical term for intimate sexual union. (Those of you who believe the Bible is hooey may check out mentally until this paragraph is complete.) The purpose of marriage is found in Genesis 1-2. In nature’s equation, one man plus one woman equals one flesh. "God created man in his own image…male and female he created them." Note that masculinity plus femininity are an integral part of being like God! The word "man" here is used to designate "humanity." "And God blessed them and said, Be fruitful and multiply and increase in number...." The purpose of this union is to have children! Further, man and woman are an inextricable part of one another. "Bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh." "For this reason [bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh] a man will leave his father and mother [side note: not father and father, nor mother and mother] and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

Even those who are ignorant of the context in which marriage originated can see plainly from "the book of nature" that there is a biological imperative that underlies the institution of marriage.

Now, if Steve and Roger decide they have a right to marry too, and petition the state for a license, they are requesting that the state *grant permission* for them to marry, no? The dictionary (which I fished out of the trash) says that to license something is to grant permission.

Because Steve and Roger are both male—without going into graphic detail here—they cannot become "one flesh." The closest approximation they can muster is sodomy, which denotes "unnatural sexual relations" (dictionary again). Not so very long ago, sodomy was a crime in many states, until, of course, judicial fiat came down. Steve and Roger cannot naturally produce children from their union, in fact their seed falls upon a place most unsuitable for life. (Whether children should be exposed to sodomy is yet another topic.) The state, in licensing Steve’s and Roger’s "union," would therefore be *granting permission* for them to commit sodomy. People do so all the time without a license, of course, but the license represents state *sanction* for it. That is the crucial difference and that is what bothers people who still accept the self-evident truth.

Please note well that this is the real agenda behind what is going on, not a grab for the few benefits that accrue to the married. It is all about seeking approval and not really about mercenary matters. The state represents society, and to achieve state sanction would be to force society to concede the acceptability of the very thing that *defines* homosexuality (hence the word)--same-sex relations. Not only is this a co-opting of the state, it is also a co-opting of the culture. This makes it much more difficult an environment for those of us who wish to rear children with the proper moral outlook. And that is why the solution to this conflict is *not* for people who wish to guard our institutions to hush up and simply not marry someone of the same sex.

Now obviously, in the three main religions I can think of, homosexuality is also listed as a sin. It is not the only sin mentioned, nor is it even mentioned as frequently as the others. There are indeed other egregious sins running rampant in our culture right now, apparently largely unnoticed and uncondemned...greed, idolatry, lust, and so on. Because the moral dimension is another long discussion, I must request that anyone who wishes to discuss the nature of sin and its antidotes, grace, redemption, and healing, start a thread on it. I’ll be glad to join in.

A homosexual union cannot be a marriage because only a male and a female can become one flesh. A church that "marries" homosexuals is denying their imago Dei (that they bear the image of God)...not to mention repudiating its own theological roots (think, heresy). A state that "marries" homosexuals is subverting nature itself. In most cases, right now, it also does so illegally, without the consent of the governed. Both are making a mockery, not a marriage.

Marriage should not become a sideshow. It is a sacred institution! If Steve or Roger should wish to marry, he has every right to do so. All he needs to do is find a nice woman and marry *her*. *Then,* he will be rightly married.

That something this axiomatic has to be spelled out is both astonishing and appalling. What have they been teaching in public schools? Something tells me we’ve been glossing over biology and concentrating a little too heavily on "Heather has Two Mommies."

The sun rises and sets, the moon waxes and wanes, the tide rises and falls, and *male and female* belong together. If this is bigoted, I refer you to Mother Nature (and her Creator).

Susannah, you are coming from a place that is so alien to me that my entire body is becoming numb (literally) just reading what you have to say. How can it not be self-evident to you that when the government decides that it will grant those "incidental" rights to married people, they are creating an institution completely apart from a religious covenant?

As a person who has no religion, I do find your comments extremely offensive because you are basically saying that my marriage has no validity because it's not based on your god. Frank and I absolutely did get married for the very reasons you describe as mercenary. As an athiest, what other reasons would we have had to ask the government to "license" us? We would love each other every bit as much as we do now whether the government approved of us or not. The license we got from the state is NOT what defines our loving relationship. It gives us rights BASED ON that already existing loving relationship.

You certainly have a right to your opinion and I know I never will change it. But I want you to know that what you say makes me feel like I don't count in your world.

Danna

"their loving relationships are not the slightest bit different than mine"

Emotionally, perhaps. The difference is that they are having intimate relations with someone of the same sex. That is a *crucial* difference and it is what *defines* homosexuality. Therefore, to ask for the right to be a homosexual married couple is to ask for *special* rights to be conferred, not to have *basic* rights recognized.

Gender is basically a grammatical term. I wish to goodness would could have kept it that way.

Guys, I think we're done here. Don't you? We've come to the point where we're just going to rehash old arguments. Let's move on.

Lynn Siprelle, Editor

I agree with susannah

one thing about our "disscusions" is we see people post that usually don't unless we bring up hot topics