Christian marriage is man and woman/husband and wife.

[99percentatheism]

There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife. Therefore, it should be a criminal act under current hate crimes laws, to accuse a Christian of hate, bigotry, or irrational . . ., if they assert the immutability of the structure of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

As Jesus proclaimed it in the Gospels and the writings reaffirm and define it so.

Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?

[dianaiad]

<snip most of the post, with which I mostly agree, except for the following>

Therefore prop 8 was wrong, wasn't it? The LDS Church acted against its own teachings by financing an operation seeking to either limit legal rights of people based on sexual orientation, OR limit spiritual freedom of people through the government, depending on the interpretation of the word "marriage".

Interesting.

So...according to you, it's perfectly Ok for a group of people to insist that even though they have every single legal and contractual right..as members of a civil union/domestic partnership...that the state can give a married couple,

First of all, it's very important that you realize that you're factually wrong. As of today, nowhere in America can a gay man give his foreign born boyfriend a green card by marrying him.

That single fact makes your statement that "gay couples enjoy every single legal right that straight couples do" FALSE.

In California (you know, where Prop 8 was going on?) gay couples had every single right that the state of California could give married couples. Gay couples did not gain one single right, privilege or responsibility by being able to become married in California that they did NOT have already.

California cannot issue green cards to anybody for any reason. Do try to keep up.

Your notion that legalizing gay marriage brought no legal advantages to gay couples is predicated on the assumption that legal marriage is the same as a civil union.

That is complete nonsense.

Civil unions are different from legal marriage and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the two institutions unequal, such as:

Snip to end...

Your point, here, is equivocation and obfuscation taken to a ludicrous level.

Prop 8...which YOU brought up, only affected California, because (guess what..) marriage is a STATE issue. In CALIFORNIA, gays did not gain a single legal or civil right that the state of California did not already give married couples, from survival to tax rights.

The point is, gay rights activists, who already had all the civil/legal rights that California could give them, wanted something California had no right to give them; forced cultural and religious approval. They wanted the government to co-opt the religious/cultural meaning of the word and declare 'we don't care what you think marriage is, within your religions, we declare that your religion must now recognize that these people are married according to YOUR beliefs.'

The government doesn't have the right to do that.

It's in the first amendment.

So yes, in California, 'domestic partnerships' were exactly the same as marriages...as far as the government was concerned, because the government only has the right to issue CIVIL rights and obligations. Declaring what religions think is not one of those civil rights.

Now....is it the same thing in all other states? No.
Is it the same thing in federal law?

Nope. Come to think of it, if you want to get married (or enter into a civil union/contract) you can't do it through federal law; that's strictly a state matter. The Feds only attach civil rights to marriages/civil unions that the states approve.

So...Domestic Partnerships/civil unions in California have every single government granted right that marriages do. Every one.

All other states should follow suit.
The feds should attach the same rights to civil unions recognized by the states as they do to marriages.

Or rather, the government, state and federal, should get out of marriage and restrict itself to civil unions only. Leave 'marriage' to religions, personal preference and romantic trysts on beaches.

Everybody gets civil unions. Everybody can get married. Government stays out of religion. Religion stays out of the government.

Everybody wins what they CLAIM they want.

[no evidence no belief]

<snip most of the post, with which I mostly agree, except for the following>

Therefore prop 8 was wrong, wasn't it? The LDS Church acted against its own teachings by financing an operation seeking to either limit legal rights of people based on sexual orientation, OR limit spiritual freedom of people through the government, depending on the interpretation of the word "marriage".

Interesting.

So...according to you, it's perfectly Ok for a group of people to insist that even though they have every single legal and contractual right..as members of a civil union/domestic partnership...that the state can give a married couple,

First of all, it's very important that you realize that you're factually wrong. As of today, nowhere in America can a gay man give his foreign born boyfriend a green card by marrying him.

That single fact makes your statement that "gay couples enjoy every single legal right that straight couples do" FALSE.

In California (you know, where Prop 8 was going on?) gay couples had every single right that the state of California could give married couples. Gay couples did not gain one single right, privilege or responsibility by being able to become married in California that they did NOT have already.

California cannot issue green cards to anybody for any reason. Do try to keep up.

Your notion that legalizing gay marriage brought no legal advantages to gay couples is predicated on the assumption that legal marriage is the same as a civil union.

That is complete nonsense.

Civil unions are different from legal marriage and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the two institutions unequal, such as:

Snip to end...

Your point, here, is equivocation and obfuscation taken to a ludicrous level.

Prop 8...which YOU brought up, only affected California, because (guess what..) marriage is a STATE issue. In CALIFORNIA, gays did not gain a single legal or civil right that the state of California did not already give married couples, from survival to tax rights.

The point is, gay rights activists, who already had all the civil/legal rights that California could give them, wanted something California had no right to give them; forced cultural and religious approval. They wanted the government to co-opt the religious/cultural meaning of the word and declare 'we don't care what you think marriage is, within your religions, we declare that your religion must now recognize that these people are married according to YOUR beliefs.'

The government doesn't have the right to do that.

It's in the first amendment.

So yes, in California, 'domestic partnerships' were exactly the same as marriages...as far as the government was concerned, because the government only has the right to issue CIVIL rights and obligations. Declaring what religions think is not one of those civil rights.

Now....is it the same thing in all other states? No.
Is it the same thing in federal law?

Nope. Come to think of it, if you want to get married (or enter into a civil union/contract) you can't do it through federal law; that's strictly a state matter. The Feds only attach civil rights to marriages/civil unions that the states approve.

So...Domestic Partnerships/civil unions in California have every single government granted right that marriages do. Every one.

All other states should follow suit.
The feds should attach the same rights to civil unions recognized by the states as they do to marriages.

Or rather, the government, state and federal, should get out of marriage and restrict itself to civil unions only. Leave 'marriage' to religions, personal preference and romantic trysts on beaches.

Everybody gets civil unions. Everybody can get married. Government stays out of religion. Religion stays out of the government.

Everybody wins what they CLAIM they want.

Diane:


FACT 1: There are irrefutable legal differences between legal marriage and civil unions. First, legal marriages while administered by individual states are recognized by every other state. Second, they are also recognized by the federal government. Third, they are recognized internationally by foreign governments.
Civil unions are NOT.

Imagine a gay couple who entered into a civil union in California go skiing in Colorado. One of them has an accident, breaks his back and is in critical condition at the hospital. The California civil union does NOT give the spouse the right in Colorado to hospital visitation.

Imagine that same unlucky skier goes into a coma. The next of kin gets to decide whether to pull the plug. Colorado doesn't recognize the spouse as next of kin, so the choice instead of going to the spouse goes to the skier's crack addict sister.

Imagine the crack addict sister chooses to pull the plug and the guy dies. He owned a vacation home in colorado. Colorado probate court doesn't recognize california civil unions, so the dead skier dies intestate, his spouse is not recognized as next of kin, and the proceeds from the auction sale of the house go to the crack addict sister, who blows it on drugs in 6 months.

Imagine the unlucky skier had adopted a child. What happens to the child? If the gay couple was married in California, the State of Colorado would be required to consider the surviving spouse the automatic guardian of the child. But because Colorado doesn't have to recognize civil unions, this is not the case. The child who just lost his father doesn't get to stay with the rest of his family. She is put in foster care.

DON'T YOU DARE say that california gay couples get the exact same rights through civil unions that they would get through legal marriage. Don't you dare hide behind the technicality of difference between state and federal rights without acknowledging the real life repercussions of the differences. Don't you dare.



FACT 2: There is NOTHING in the language of the Supreme Court decision to legalize gay marriage in California that indicates that they are talking about anything other than LEGAL marriage. No indication that spirituality or religion is being affected in any way.

I quoted the specific language to that effect. You IGNORED it. You will lose all credibility if you continue ignoring evidence and making counter-factual assertions. The language of that Supreme Court Decision is public record. Please quote any section of it that indicates a government overreach into spirituality.

The Supreme Court decision to allow legal gay marriage was just an expansion and equalization of legal rights with NOTHING in the language of the decision giving any government any say over spiritual matters.

Think about it. Why is it that NOBODY, not Rush Limbough, not Sean Hannity, not Bill O'Reilly, not Mitt Romney, not ANY of the anti-gay activist, not any of the anti-gay lawyers, NOT EVEN ANY OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES THAT VOTED AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE, mention the separation of church and state as the reason they are against gay marriage?

Why is it that it's just YOU making this absurd case?

This is the truth: Legal marriage carries more legal rights than civil unions. The language of the Supreme Court Decision simply expands and "universalizes" the dispensation of those legal rights without attempting to affect the private spiritual views of any citizen in any way.


You and I agree with the complete separation of legal marriage from spiritual marriage. The California Supreme Court agrees with you as well.

You and I agree that gay couples should have every single local, state, federal and international legal right that straight couples have. The California Supreme Court agrees with you as well.

To the contrary Prop 8 says "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." There is NO ESCAPING the fact that this is either an attempt to limit the legal rights of gay people (which you disagree with) or an attempt of the government to encroach upon spirituality (Which you disagree with).

You got nothing baby. You should enter into one of those pray away the homophobia centers where you can be healed of your homophobia through the power of Jesus Christ, Amen.

[dianaiad]

FACT 1: There are irrefutable legal differences between legal marriage and civil unions. First, legal marriages while administered by individual states are recognized by every other state. Second, they are also recognized by the federal government. Third, they are recognized internationally by foreign governments.
Civil unions are NOT.

They are in California. They SHOULD be everywhere else. End of.

What's your PROBLEM with 'they are in California and they should be everywhere else?"

What part of YES don't you get?

[no evidence no belief]

FACT 1: There are irrefutable legal differences between legal marriage and civil unions. First, legal marriages while administered by individual states are recognized by every other state. Second, they are also recognized by the federal government. Third, they are recognized internationally by foreign governments.
Civil unions are NOT.

They are in California. They SHOULD be everywhere else. End of.

What's your PROBLEM with 'they are in California and they should be everywhere else?"

What part of YES don't you get?

So what you're saying is that instead of fighting to obtain the right to legal marriage that is already in place and working very well for straight couples, and that automatically gets recognition in all 50 states, federally and internationally, gay activists should have to reinvent the wheel and fight for a brand new set of intra-state, state-federal and USA-overseas statutes in recognition of this new concept of civil union in thousands of courtrooms across the world, to obtain the exact same legal rights that are already in place with legal marriage?

Why? What's your justification for requiring that they go about this impossible task?

Legal marriage as administered by the courts is ALREADY a strictly secular, civil, legal process which has NOTHING to do with spiritual marriage.

The separation of church and state is already complete with regards to marriage.

You got nothing, I'm telling you. Just come out homophobe. It's ok. We'll still love you.

[dianaiad]

FACT 1: There are irrefutable legal differences between legal marriage and civil unions. First, legal marriages while administered by individual states are recognized by every other state. Second, they are also recognized by the federal government. Third, they are recognized internationally by foreign governments.
Civil unions are NOT.

They are in California. They SHOULD be everywhere else. End of.

What's your PROBLEM with 'they are in California and they should be everywhere else?"

What part of YES don't you get?

So what you're saying is that instead of fighting to obtain the right to legal marriage that is already in place and working very well for straight couples, and that automatically gets recognition in all 50 states, federally and internationally, gay activists should have to reinvent the wheel and fight for a brand new set of intra-state, state-federal and USA-overseas statutes in recognition of this new concept of civil union in thousands of courtrooms across the world, to obtain the exact same legal rights that are already in place with legal marriage?

Why? What's your justification for requiring that they go about this impossible task?

Legal marriage as administered by the courts is ALREADY a strictly secular, civil, legal process which has NOTHING to do with spiritual marriage.

No it isn't. If it WERE, then California gays would not have had a problem with 'domestic partnership' rather than 'marriage,' because 'marriage' has a cultural and religious meaning over and above what the government can do.

.....over and above what the government has the right to do.

Gays wanted the religious and cultural forced APPROVAL, and went to the government to force that. The problem is, doing that is establishing a religion...in the sense that it is telling religions (and everybody else) that marriage is ALL about the state and nothing about religion; that religions have no right to have private ideas about what marriage is within their own belief systems, and that the state has the right to come in and dictate to religion what they can, and cannot, do about marriage as it pertains to religious doctrine.

......and that is simply against the constitution.

The separation of church and state is already complete with regards to marriage.

You dare tell a MORMON this? REALLY?

ARE YOU NUTS??

You got nothing, I'm telling you. Just come out homophobe. It's ok. We'll still love you.[/quote]

[no evidence no belief]

FACT 1: There are irrefutable legal differences between legal marriage and civil unions. First, legal marriages while administered by individual states are recognized by every other state. Second, they are also recognized by the federal government. Third, they are recognized internationally by foreign governments.
Civil unions are NOT.

They are in California. They SHOULD be everywhere else. End of.

What's your PROBLEM with 'they are in California and they should be everywhere else?"

What part of YES don't you get?

So what you're saying is that instead of fighting to obtain the right to legal marriage that is already in place and working very well for straight couples, and that automatically gets recognition in all 50 states, federally and internationally, gay activists should have to reinvent the wheel and fight for a brand new set of intra-state, state-federal and USA-overseas statutes in recognition of this new concept of civil union in thousands of courtrooms across the world, to obtain the exact same legal rights that are already in place with legal marriage?

Why? What's your justification for requiring that they go about this impossible task?

Legal marriage as administered by the courts is ALREADY a strictly secular, civil, legal process which has NOTHING to do with spiritual marriage.

No it isn't. If it WERE, then California gays would not have had a problem with 'domestic partnership' rather than 'marriage,'

Diane, you're literally making no sense.

You acknowledge that domestic partnership doesn't have the legal strength of civil marriage when it comes to the rights granted and recognized across al States, federally and internationally, right?

You recognize that an atheist couple that gets civil marriage in city hall in California can enjoy hospital visitations in Georgia, but that a gay couple that gets a domestic partnership in California does NOT.

You understand that, EXCLUDING ALL RELIGIOUS CONSIDERATIONS COMPLETELY, there is a LEGAL (I repeat, legal) difference between domestic partnership and legal marriage.

This is what Im saying:
Legal marriage offers better legal rights than domestic partnerships, and that's why gay people want it.

How can you possibly disagree with it?

because 'marriage' has a cultural and religious meaning over and above what the government can do.

What are you TALKING ABOUT! Civil marriage is just a set of legal rights administered by the courts and legislatures. There is NOTHING cultural or religious about the dispensation of tax breaks, green cards, hospital visitations, and thousands of other legal rights.

Please show me where in the language of the California Supreme Court Decision, or any other legal document (other than prop 8) is marriage implicitly or explicitly described as anything other than a legal contract with a bundle of legal rights.

Show me. Don't assert it. Show me.

It's public record. Show me a government document which refers to marriage as anything other than a contract between consenting adults, granting several governmental facilitations and civil rights.

S H O W M E

Gays wanted the religious and cultural forced APPROVAL, and went to the government to force that.

Maybe gays DO want cultural approval. But that's NOT what they're asking the California Supreme Court. They are just asking for the same LEGAL (I repeat, LEGAL) rights that everybody else enjoys.

If domestic partnerships carried the EXACT SAME rights as legal marriage, then your argument would stand. But since it's firmly established that from a strictly LEGAL standpoint (I repeat, LEGAL) civil marriage is better than domestic partnership, then gays have a constitutional right to expect the exact same legal (I repeat, LEGAL) treatment as everybody else.

The problem is, doing that is establishing a religion...in the sense that it is telling religions (and everybody else) that marriage is ALL about the state and nothing about religion; that religions have no right to have private ideas about what marriage is within their own belief systems, and that the state has the right to come in and dictate to religion what they can, and cannot, do about marriage as it pertains to religious doctrine.

What are you talking about? There is NOTHING like that ANYWHERE in the Supreme Court Decision.

SHOW ME where it says that. Stop asserting it. SHOW ME.

Legal (I repeat, LEGAL) marriage has nothing to do with religious marriage.

Legal marriage is just a contract between consenting adults granting several civil rights and governmental recognitions. It must be available to any two consenting adults.

Religion has NOTHING to do with legal (I repeat LEGAL) marriage.

Religious marriage is ANYTHING anybody wants it to be. It can be the sacred union between you and your dead husband, it can be the unholy union between Santa and Satan, it can be a bond of love between me, my inflatable doll, my porn collection and Cher's latest sanitary napkin. It can be the celebration of a threesome between Spiderman, Cat Woman and Pat Robertson.

Government (thankfully) has NOTHING to do with religious marriage.

The separation of church and state is already complete with regards to marriage.

You dare tell a MORMON this? REALLY?

ARE YOU NUTS??

Wait, are you saying that it's wrong for the government to limit the legal rights of mormons, therefore it's right for the government to limit the legal rights of homosexuals?



It's really really really simple:

Premise 1: Legal marriage is better LEGALLY than domestic partnership
Premise 2: Everybody other than gays is already enjoying legal marriage
Conclusion: Gays should have the right to enjoy it too


All the baloney about religion is completely inside your head. Nobody cares about you and the ghost of your hubby. Nobody cares about a pastor that will not marry interracial couples. Nobody cares about people that consider themselves married to the devil. That's all religious nonsense that has NO PLACE in courtrooms and legislations.

All we are saying is that all consenting adults get the same legal rights. Period.

[dianaiad]

Premise 1: Legal marriage is better LEGALLY than domestic partnership

You keep claiming this.

OK,

here's your chance.

Show me one, even one, LEGAL right or civil right that was gained by gays IN CALIFORNIA, that they got when 'married' that they did not get as a domestic partnership.

G'head.


You are equivocating here. You are using 'legal marriage" the same way I use 'civil union.' as opposed to 'spiritual marriage."

"MARRIAGE,' the WORD and the CONCEPT, should be 'spiritual.' Period. There should be no such thing as 'legal marriage.'

Why?

Because 'marriage' (the word and the concept) has predated governments, and has been apart FROM governments, ever since humankind started pairing up. Government has never done anything except recognize marriage and assign rights to it...but first came the relationship. The joining up part.

Then came the government assigned rights, as various governments attempted to put some control over who it approves of in the joining up part.

there is no other term/word that applies to that...spiritual/cultural/relationship; 'marriage' is it.

So....since 'marriage' (the relationship) should be between the parties (and their various belief systems,) then 'marriage' THE TERM should be taken away from the government. Utterly and completely.

The government, assigning rights and responsibilities to partnerships it approves of (only two, male/female, male/male, female/female, whatever other partnership it likes) should use a term that more closely describes what's happening. Civil unions. Domestic partnerships. Cohabitation contracts. Whatever...something that applies only to the legal stuff that the government has the right to assign and enforce.

The legal stuff should be the same everywhere; state to state, federal...whatever.

"Marriage" should have no legal force whatsoever; only religious/personal.

So. The government can look at a polygamous group and say 'fine...only two spouses in this arrangement get the rights," and the religion can say 'fine, only two partners in this arrangement can have the civil union, but any number can participate in the marriage.

The government can say 'You, Molly and Mary, (or Mike and Mathew, or Marcus and Marian) can have a civil union...." and they get the civil union. However, if they want to attend a wholly church owned school run for the purpose of educating members of that church, Molly and Mary (or Mike and Mathew) don't get to live in married housing.

By the same token, Marcus and Marian don't get to force, say, "Napa Valley Elopements" (which ONLY do, and rather blatantly advertise...'small, gay weddings") to photograph their very big straight wedding.

Everybody gets what they claim to want. Everybody remains free to both marry, get the rights, AND be free to believe as they wish.

What's so difficult about this?

[no evidence no belief]

Premise 1: Legal marriage is better LEGALLY than domestic partnership

You keep claiming this.

OK,

here's your chance.

Show me one, even one, LEGAL right or civil right that was gained by gays IN CALIFORNIA, that they got when 'married' that they did not get as a domestic partnership.

G'head.

The right to hospital visitation when on vacation and traveling over State lines. Married people have it, people in domestic partnerships don't.

I am deeply offended by the fact that you seem to only be reading snippets of my posts to you. If you had read them fully you would be embarrassed to ask me to repeat myself as I have done right here.

The differences in the legal rights of a married couple and the rights of a couple in a domestic partnership are ENORMOUS. I've listed them in great detail. You need to educate yourself.

You are equivocating here. You are using 'legal marriage" the same way I use 'civil union.' as opposed to 'spiritual marriage."

I am not. Civil marriage grants WAAAAY more intra-state, federal and international rights than civil unions.

"MARRIAGE,' the WORD and the CONCEPT, should be 'spiritual.' Period. There should be no such thing as 'legal marriage.'

Why?

Because 'marriage' (the word and the concept) has predated governments, and has been apart FROM governments, ever since humankind started pairing up.

I'm sorry but pairing up also predates religion. If there should be no "legal marriage" because pairing up predates legality, there should also be no "religious marriage" because pairing up predates religion.

Government has never done anything except recognize marriage and assign rights to it...but first came the relationship. The joining up part.

Right. So? The government never has done anything other than assign rights to married people. And that's what it should continue doing. Including gay people. Because it would be unconstitutional not to.

Then came the government assigned rights, as various governments attempted to put some control over who it approves of in the joining up part.

there is no other term/word that applies to that...spiritual/cultural/relationship; 'marriage' is it.

So....since 'marriage' (the relationship) should be between the parties (and their various belief systems,) then 'marriage' THE TERM should be taken away from the government. Utterly and completely.

Right. And I assume that you can show us copies of letters you sent to your governor making this point, when gay marriage was NOT being discussed at all.

The government, assigning rights and responsibilities to partnerships it approves of (only two, male/female, male/male, female/female, whatever other partnership it likes) should use a term that more closely describes what's happening. Civil unions. Domestic partnerships. Cohabitation contracts. Whatever...something that applies only to the legal stuff that the government has the right to assign and enforce.

The legal stuff should be the same everywhere; state to state, federal...whatever.

"Marriage" should have no legal force whatsoever; only religious/personal.

So. The government can look at a polygamous group and say 'fine...only two spouses in this arrangement get the rights," and the religion can say 'fine, only two partners in this arrangement can have the civil union, but any number can participate in the marriage.

The government can say 'You, Molly and Mary, (or Mike and Mathew, or Marcus and Marian) can have a civil union...." and they get the civil union. However, if they want to attend a wholly church owned school run for the purpose of educating members of that church, Molly and Mary (or Mike and Mathew) don't get to live in married housing.

By the same token, Marcus and Marian don't get to force, say, "Napa Valley Elopements" (which ONLY do, and rather blatantly advertise...'small, gay weddings") to photograph their very big straight wedding.

Everybody gets what they claim to want. Everybody remains free to both marry, get the rights, AND be free to believe as they wish.

What's so difficult about this?

This makes me sick to my stomach.

Millions of dollars that could have gone to charity invested in antigay campaigns, thousands of lives ruined, and all it boils down to for you is an issue of semantics?

You agree that currently gay people are not getting EXACTLY EVERY SINGLE LEGAL RIGHT that straight couples get.

You agree that they should get those rights.

You just want them not to use the word "civil marriage" or "legal marriage" to describe those rights? You want them to use the word "domestic partnership"?

Who cares, woman!?

Here we are, talking about children going into foster care rather than staying with their families, here we are, talking about people not being able to say goodbye to the love of their life on their death bed because of hospital visitation rules, here we are, talking about people being precluded from billions of dollars in tax breaks, and you are wasting our time with the WORD?

Shame on you Diane!

Nobody cares about the word! Call it "Smarriage". Call it "Definitely not marriage because marriage is only a religious institution", call it "Whatever Diane wants to call it after she talked it over with her ghost husband".

We don't care a flying... about what you call it.

We just want the same LEGAL rights to be accessible to all consenting adults. The California Supreme Court decision to recognize gay couples as recipients of those rights was a step in the right direction.

Overturning it with prop 8 was a step in the wrong direction.

You are a homophobe.

[kayky]

The idea of "civil unions" is an insult to gay people. It marks their partnerships as somehow less than those of straight people. It's in the same line of thinking as the "separate but equal" doctrine of segregation days.

[no evidence no belief]

The idea of "civil unions" is an insult to gay people. It marks their partnerships as somehow less than those of straight people. It's in the same line of thinking as the "separate but equal" doctrine of segregation days.

It would't be discriminatory if both straight and gay couples could only be issued civil unions by the government.

It wouldn't be discriminatory, because everybody would get the exact same thing. It doesn't matter if we went from calling it civil marriage to civil union. that's not the problem.

I just have two issues with Diane being so adamant about calling it civil unions.

1) WHO CARES. It's only a name. To ruin thousands of lives because you don't like a name is callous and slightly pathetic.

2) For the last 5000 or so years, marriage has been defined as the union between human beings. Details have changed, like for example it wasn't always consenting adults, it wasn't always a union of just two individuals, etc, but marriage has ALWAYS been defined as the union of two or more human beings. Now Diane wants to poach this word to make it mean ANYTHING. Ask Diane and she will tell you that it's ok to call it "marriage" if it's between a man and an inflatable doll, between a woman and a ghost, between a boy and a comic book, between Santa and the Tooth Fairy, between Snow White, the Seven Dwarves and Prince Charming's penis pump. Whatever.

She claims that marriage should no longer be a legal institution binding human beings and granting them legal rights as it has been since waaay before the Bible, but that it should be defined as "anything whatsoever that anybody can think of even if completely meaningless".

Ask her: If the leader of a cult somewhere in Montana wants to officiate the union between a man, a plastic dildo, a goat, two dead chicken, a roll of toilet paper and a vibrating George Bush bubble-head doll, and if a City Hall somewhere in New York want to officiate the union between me and my girlfriend of 9 years, which one of these two events should the word "marriage" be reserved for?

Diane, under our constitutional right to free speech, you already have the right to believe and say all sorts of wacky absurdities about ghosts and goblins. You don't need to separate the word "marriage" from the legal underpinnings its had for millennia, in order to retain the right to believe you're playing house with the spirit of Christmas Past, or whatever you believe.

Just stop it. Ask for God's forgiveness for having been a homophobe. Ask any homosexuals you know for forgiveness as well. Donate to a pro-gay group an amount at least equal to what you've donated to anti-gay groups. Move on with your life.