Maybe i'm oversimplifying the issue, but in my book and perhaps Webster's, marriage is essentially a joining of people.

Matrimony on the other hand is a religious experience. and I do believe that society can change meanings, but religion can not.

So, if two people want to get "married" who cares? Experiencing "matrimony" is a much different task when it entails a "higher authority".

"Experiencing 'matrimony' is a much different task when it entails a 'higher authority'". I don't recognize a higher authority, so I'm not sure what you mean.

Since you don't recognize a higher authority, and think marriage should change with the times, I imagine you'd be be comfortable marrying a 10-year-old grand daughter to a 55-year-old man [provided of course, that the culture accepted this practice]?

How about if the government got out of the "marriage" business all together. "Marriage" is, after all, a religious concept from the outset. All a statistics-keeping government needs to know is who is residing with whom. So why don't all those of legal age who wish to cohabit officially (all individuals, regardless of gender or why they want to live together), get a certificate from the government for domestic partnership or domestic union. Then, if they wish, they can find someone outside the government to officiate at their "marriage"--a rabbi, priest, minister, life-style officiant, etc. This would get politicians off the hook, erase extraneous agendas, and let us all get on with the important issues.

Allan--in citing the APA assertion that homosexuality isn't a mental disorder any longer you ought to take the next step and inquire into the empirical evidence for the new position vs. political pressures that led to the revised "discovery". The DSM is driven as much by cultural winds and opinion polling as it is by hard science.

I also happen to believe that the moment a culture says, "any human arrangement is equivalent to every other" that culture becomes highly toxic to children and women and is slouching toward oblivion.

Susie-agreed that marriage is a religiously bracketed concept. The trouble is that every perspective on marriage--even the laissez faire position articulated by Allan is a devoutly religious position. It's just not recognized by Allan as a religious flavor aka "secular humanist marriage". In other words, it's not a neutral position at all--and it's as intolerant of all other understandings of marriage as militant Islam is--just a secular left version of marriage.

This blog coming from someone that claims they're of a religion that mocks Christianity for sport. Society hasn't really changed. Counter culture insanity seems to take front and center.

Bringing religion into this is a distraction. No society of any size before ours, be it pagan, Christian, Jewish, Islamist, or atheist (like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia) has ever extended marriage to persons of the same sex. Thus, the explanation for the traditional definition of marriage has less to do with religion and more to do with (I daresay) an understanding of the basic aspects of human sexuality and procreation.

The same goes for abortion: whether an unborn child is a human being or not is a scientific / biological question - not a religious one. And if it is a human being, it is entitled to life under the US Constitution. That too is not a religious question - but a legal one.

You're certainly free to have the positions you do on these two contentious issues. But kindly refrain from erecting a straw man when attempting to characterize the arguments against them.

Good editorial. Thanks.

Seems to me that Ms. Rosenbluth has got it right. Why is the government in the business of deciding what is and what is not marriage? It's a religious concept after all is said and done.

Putting religious issues aside, marriage is also a legal concept. Companies offer benefits to married couples, e.g. health insurance; pension benefits. Social Security spouses receive increased benefits upon passing of the partner in marriage. Whenever money is involved, issues arise.

Why not just get the state out of marriage? Problem solved.

"Bringing religion into this is a distraction. No society of any size before ours, be it pagan, Christian, Jewish, Islamist, or atheist (like Nazi Germany..." Was Hitler/Nazi ideology atheist? http://atheism.about.com/od/isatheismdangerous/a/HitlerAtheist.htm

Allan, I imagine your self-description as a "devout Pastafarian" is a bit tongue-in-cheek. However, the "Pastafarians" have a membership, creed, morals, Facebook page and website, so I'll call it a religion. How can you say, "bringing religion into this is a distraction"? You are a self-described religious person and you're bringing us your opinion on this issue. Seems a bit self-contradictory to me.

Allan, I imagine your self-description as a "devout Pastafarian" is a bit tongue-in-cheek. However, the "Pastafarians" have a membership, creed, morals, Facebook page and website, so I'll call it a religion. Therefore, how can you say, "bringing religion into this is a distraction"? You are a self-described religious person; and you're bringing us your opinion on this issue. Seems a bit self-contradictory to me.

I think some people would say that Pastafarians, who worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, are religionists. I prefer to think that FSM is a parody, a joke, as www.landoverbaptist.com is a parody of Christian fundamentalism. Or do I err?

Your group has a creed--the 8 principles adherents must embrace to consider themselves as Pastafarian's. The moment you self-identify with group, professing and practicing a creed [a set of beliefs that bind the group together and govern the group] I'm afraid you've just invented your own religion. You may colorize it differently [say your own sect or denomination] with atheist convictions, and your zeal may actually rival the landoverbaptist.com group that your sect vilifies [albeit through mockery rather than protest or violence] and your sect actually evangelizes [wishes to convert others to your point of view]. I think it'd be more honest to simply admit that you critique them [and advocate your stance on gay marriage] not from a religious vacuum [as you suppose], but simply from a different religious viewpoint.

Wow.

Miss S, why should you be so intolerant and closed-minded as to call any views that challenge your own "disgusting"? I think we can (and should) do better, when it comes to significant questions that to resort to name calling or trying to shame people into agreeing with us. To equate slavery with gay marriage begs lots of questions, and is a dubious comparison at best. No one is part-black or black for a season, or experiments with blackness, or has tastes in that direction. Yet, sexual identity markers are more fluid and plastic in many cases. And you assume that marriage is a fundamental right of anyone who loves another--and that only a bigot could possibly disagree with that relatively new belief of yours. Which "Bible" have you been reading that grants the "right" of "gay marriage"? You recoil as if this were a self-evident truth. When did we discover this right? When? Who granted it? If it's such a blindingly obvious right, who is qualified to see which rights exist and which don't? Do I have a right to free pizza every Monday night at taxpayer expense? Why not?

Finally, you assume that only practicing homosexuals are entitled to make societal decisions about homosexual behavior i.e. to give themselves new rights? Does your principle hold true for children? Can kids under 16 grant themselves the right to drive? Can pedophiles grant themselves the right to marry their beloveds? If the morality line moves [as you argue] why end the line where you have done?

If you can point to no rational basis for your moral indignation ["disgusting" earlier comment, or "sad" newer comment], nor your principles, derivation of rights [or your particular understanding of rights], who gets to assert 'rights' and on what basis, nor refuting my claim to Monday Night pizza-rights [preferably during the NFL season]. Since you've done none of these things, you simply have emotional reactions to issues i.e. sentiments that are a product of time, chance and culture. But I'm not sure why anyone should be obligated to honor your sentiments more than say, Hugh Heffner's, Daisy Dukes, Lady Gaga's or Duke Ellington's. A whim is a whim. And the moment new "rights" are accorded on the basis of whim, you owe me my pizza.

Marriage is a legal right more than anything else. It's origins are the underpinnings of the social/religious construct of the family, and on a larger scale, the society. But I find the argument absurd that religion has a lock on the validity of marriage simply because it says so in the "good book." This is actually a very simple issue - should gay people have the legal ability to enter into a marriage or not? Society and legal-workarounds have already nullified all but the most symbolic of aspects of gay marriage. If homosexual couples plan correctly, the issue of succession, legal authority over an estate, health care, etc. is already eminently possible. I am unsure of the tax code and the treatment of civil unions, but this is perhaps the final legal bastion I can think of where the legal status of marriage makes any real difference. Frankly, this issue affects me not at all...but to use your words, it is blindingly obvious, that in a fair and equal society that we purport to be and strive to be, that a group is excluded from a basic "benefit" of society for an arbitrary reason. We "discovered" this right sometime in the 1970s when the bravest of homosexuals began to live openly even with fear of reprisal. 40 years later, this "discovered right" ought to be self-evident. Shame on you Willy for your faux-intellectualism on this topic.

I agree with Howard to the extent that it is sad to say that government cannot stay out of the marriage issue because it impacts on taxes, deductions, health and pension benefits, etc. It was sad to see my dear friend who was in a relationship for over 20 years, 6 years stay at home to take care of his partner, left with no pension benefits because the State never recognized him as a spouse.

WW- How do you know that rights are "advancing" as you claim? What is the bright light on the horizon that we are advancing toward? Your belief in moral progress sounds very white, western and European. Do you believe that your understanding of human rights is superior to say, Middle Eastern Sunni Muslims? On what basis?

MissS--you missed my point entirely. You're correct. Claiming the right to Monday Night pizzas is silly--just as silly as you claiming that 'gay marriage' is a right, just because you feel deep in your gut that it ought to be. What is more silly, is that you create a straw man argument against those who oppose gay marriage as only doing so on the basis of the Bible. The truth of the matter is that eastern and western cultures for millennia, all the major world religions, have opposed gay marriage. Your view is trendy, secular, white and western--a cultural product of the 1960's free love sexual revolution movement. To know where all that leads just visit any slum in any major urban area and take good notes.

Friends that I grew up with that are now psychologists, psychiatrists, and other ---ists, were the most messed up heads, had the most messed up families, could have been just as easily anarchists, or communists. These people are now putting on suits and ties, showing us their degrees from universities being run by professors that are just as messed up, and are telling the rest of us how to live, love, get married, have or not have children, what is the meaning of life, and etc. Hey this is how they do it in Asia or Europe. Why those people have really hot rock bands, and can they cook and eat, and drink wine and never get fat. Their kids smoke pot in coffee bars. They must be doing something right.

If the Pizza were free, it probably would only be poor quality anyway and most of us would prefer not to indulge.
The issue of a "universal morality" is always on the table. If Orthodox Jews and Catholics refuse to use contraception, but the more intelligent people choose to use it, which side is the "universal side"?. If Fundamental Islamists insist that women wear burqas and naqibs, and others find it "demeaning", which side is "universal"? If Steven Hawking says that he has not found "evidence" that a God exists, is he immoral by definition?
Marriage is only defined by the individual, not by dictionary.com. Allowing religion, which by its very essence incorporates prejudice, to define terms is a recipe for disaster. Government does no better, as it is influenced by special interest groups, including religious entities.

If 5% of people run red lights on occasion or "California roll" a stop sign or two, what's the "universal interpretation" of the red light? What percentage of people need to see it one way to claim the universal mandate? The moment you say, "the individual decides!" I reply, "baloney". You and I both know that the person who cuts in front of you in traffic or the cashier who fails to give you adequate change is in trouble. Why? You expect them to bow to a universal moral code. Don't con me.

There are so many holes in your argument, I feel a bit like a mosquito in a nudist colony. There are so many places I could land but have not the time. True, there is both religious and irreligious prejudice. So what? You're prejudice against prejudiced people. Does that make you prejudiced in a good way or bad way? If you weren't prejudiced yourself, the prejudices of others wouldn't raise your ire.

https://plus.google.com/photos/114122960748905067938/albums/5737652751671996417/5737652752222546690

Iseedarkmatter: Why? Fear of ramifications. Have a beautiful wife, don't need the other women. Can't afford ice cream, need to lose a few pounds. Need a Dux bed, don't sleep well on cave floors. The biggest screen in the world would not make Housewives of NJ palatable. Hope that answers your questions!

Well, I suppose God owes Sodom and Gommorah an apology. Everyone here tries to set themselves up as Gods....there is only ONE, and HE designed the miracle of the human body for the sacred purpose of bringing forth sacred human life...not for gratifying empty lusts that are ends in themselves. He is the Designer, the Engineer and the Lawgiver -- and His Laws are clear. Why don't we all stop trying to play God, stop ignoring Him, and start listening. Our society is in a moral tailspin, the family unit is disintegrating, suicide among youth is skyrocketing, marriages fall apart at least half of the time, and children are left with all the bleeding emotional wounds...and NO ONE connects all of these dead bodies with the abandonment of morality GOD's style. We have become a very sick human race.

DMF, I totally get it. Your god is really pissed off with some stuff happening here on Earth, and we'd better not piss your god off, 'cause he's ready to smite us good and hard. But my god, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, may his noodles, meatballs and sauce be praised, is OK with a lot of the stuff that your god is down on. The Muslim god, aka Allah, wants us to accept Mohammad as his latest and greatest prophet, and says that martyrs for the faith get to consort with a bunch of comely virgins in paradise. The Mormon god assures us that he really, really doesn't like homosexuality, but polygamy....let me think about that one. The Hindu gods are of somewhat mixed minds about this stuff, and the Jehovah's Witness god....don't even go there. The Shinto god and the Buddhist god are kind of up in the air. The Voodoo/Santeria god doesn't give a damn.

So, DMF, why should your god be able to lay down the law for billions of folks who don't give a hoot in hell what he thinks? Get my drift?

To Jimmy Lutz: Reality check: Correction to your analysis:
Life WAS simpler then. Boy and boy met and were scared to come out of the closet. Girl met girl and if they got caught were beaten by their parents and/or locked in their room.
Life was never simpler and happier; it was just more convenient to pretend to be happy by not facing certain realities. Gay people exist and always have; they did not just magically appear in the 20th century. The issue of whether gay couples should be allowed to marry relates to a relatively new openness in our society. It is a topic for discussion, one that the gays in our society will no longer allow us to avoid.

Howard, where is your standard for openness in society? I'm sure the secret service agents who got busted at the Columbian brothel and pedophiles feel repressed that their preferred sexual tastes must be put "in the closet". What is your advice for the wives of the secret service agents or John Edward's deceased widow (or Demi Moore)? Should you lecture them on the repressive olden days when so much abuse existed due to repressive social morals? Should a little carousing among boys be allowed, in the name of openness, tolerance? These women are crying their eyes out, and you're holding the box of Kleenex in hand Howard. What is your counsel to them?

Willy:
Openness, as utilized in my commentary, refers to the “acknowledgement of existence” in our society, not necessarily the acceptance. But let’s address your issues!
(1) Secret service agents. Brothels legal, no issue. Possibly putting President in jeopardy, major issue. The wives of the secret service agents have to deal with their husbands’ indiscretions like every wife and/or husband has to deal with a spouse who makes bad choices. Were all these agents married? If not, would your evaluation be different?
(2) Pedophilia, major issue. However, it appears that the pedophilia permeates the one area where morality is supposed to rule: religious leaders, e.g. Catholic Priests, Rabbis, etc. Pedophilia is a perversion, a disease, and has no relationship with “openness”.
(3) John Edwards is a politician; I hardly think you can expect fidelity, e.g. Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, JFK. There is too much temptation, too much unbridled power in the hands of people who crave it.
These unfortunate victims have my sympathy. My only counsel to these people is to lead your life by having values, teach them to your children and hope they learn them. If we perpetuate a culture where some intrinsic values are passed along, maybe there will be hope.

To Willy Wallace:
Please remember to take your medications. The doctor prescribed them for a reason.
I am neither endorsing homosexuality nor disparaging it. You cannot deny its existence. And stating that the DSM called it a form of deviance is equivalent to the ancient belief that the Earth was the center of the solar system, rather than the sun. If homosexual relationships are part of our society, they have to be recognized as some sort of civil union, but not necessarily a marriage.
Your views on pedophilia are of course ludicrous. When two parties are involved in a “relationship” and one is at a severe disadvantage, being abused, there is no value system that can condone such.
You are correct about one thing. My values are my own. I have been blessed with three incredible children, all who appear to have developed an excellent sense of morality, as judged by the many acquaintances who have complimented us on our children’s manners and demeanor.

So if a person disagrees with you, they must be sick (needing medications)? That's a convenient world to inhabit. No dissenters. Only "yes" men. Must be nice.

I don't deny homosexuality, cross-dressing, transvestites, she-men (men who now impregnate themselves). We live in the same fact world Howard. But your glasses for looking at the world differ from mine. You feel in your gut that certain things that were once wrong are now right. This is the same basis for morality incidentally, of the guy who says certain sexual practices are now right (because I saw them in a NYC parade) or because my uncle Bill does that sort of thing. And it's the same basis for morality of the guy who says all these things are wrong i.e. b/c I feel em' in my gut.

We're not disputing whether certain things are right or wrong. You feel pedophilia is wrong. I'm guess you're not a fan of bestiality either. I'm guessing if a grandchild start cross-dressing you'd be concerned. I'm just asking why you draw the line where you put it? Why is gay-marriage now cool (or permissible) in your world, but say, men who impregnate themselves (after adding female gonads) not okay...or at least not yet?

Your comments are overly abrasive, particularly your vile comment regarding my children. You deserved the medication comment and worse.
You are also not reading my words. I “never” stated that homosexuality is “right” or “wrong”. You are entitled to believe it is wrong, but you have to deal with it on some level. No one is advocating that “gay marriage” is cool, but it is permissible, by default, whether you accept that or not.
I do not deny that I have a general discomfort with transvestitism; cross-dressing, etc., but I have to deal with its existence and help my children understand it. I am not a fan of sex-change operations. But I have taken the time and trouble to have read studies on the psychological reasons for the individuals that believe they are necessary. Keeping an open mind is not the same as agreeing with something.

My comments in no way impugned your children. You take offense where none is intended or intimated. I simply took what you said and applied your perspective to child rearing. Anyone who says, "morals evolve and there is no fixed basis for morality," has to live with the conclusion that any moral guidance they impart to their kids is simply imparting time-bound tastes--nothing more. This is not a criticism of your children. And you may well be a devoted father. I have no basis for criticizing you in the least on this score--nor do I want. I'm simply saying, the moment you kill God [if that were possible] or eradicate him from your universe, certain implications follow. The "gods" you're left with bring baggage with them.

We love conspiracy theories don't we? Who really knew about the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor? Who shot JFK? Geraldo Rivera's "Al Capone's Secret Vaults? Where was Obama really born? Where is the recipe for Coca Cola classic hidden? And who really wrote the Bible? That could be another neat thread couldn't it Andy?

Let's see. The Muslims have the Koran. The Jews have the Pentateuch. Christians' have the Bible. Where do Andy's views on reality come from? A couple sociology professors in college? Could of Bob Marley lyrics? Where's your Bible come from?

"A couple [sic] sociology professors in college?" This gem from Mr. Wallace. Ah yes, those damned intellectuals raise their ugly heads once again. Where is George Zimmerman when we really need him?

Allan, I am sad to see how everybody seems to view same sex marriage as something so natural. How can we allow same sex marriage when we have persecuted, sent to jail Mormons for being polygamists? Look, all I am saying is that if we allow same sex marriage unions, why not allow other types of marriages. Jews, Mormons, Moslems have deeply held polygamy beliefs and they have rights and we have persecuted them for too long. This one man one woman thing is a Christian belief and we should not favor it over others.

As the Greeka embraced such abhorrence so go we........and we ALL learned what happened to THAT great civilization