So When Did YOU Come Around on Same-Sex Marriage?

[Mickeyluver37]

I went to Catholic high school. I don't remember ever being against it or even being told that I should be against it by the church, but it wasn't common around me at all, so I never gave it much thought. I always remember hearing that being gay was genetic and not a choice, and that 10% of the population was born that way. DH was actually in the military around the time of the whole "don't ask don't tell" and the passing of DOMA. That's the first time I met any gay people (that I knew of- although several classmates have since come out) actually- and some of them would get married to opposite sex gay people just so they could live outside of the barracks. I am so glad now that none of that shenanigans has to go on just for someone to live their lives as who they are. Anyway, I've never been against it, but it's probably only in the last 15 years or so that I've really opened my eyes and been actively FOR it.

Hmm legalizing marriage with inanimate objects would only affect the rest of us in one way... There is going to be a huge expense to figure out laws and how they should apply to that. I mean if I die my husband inherits my assets. Now if someone married to a carnival ride dies does the ride now own property? How does that work?

In more seriousness this would be the only issue with legalizing polygamy. If they were to decide today it was legal I think it practice it would take a few months just to get some of these types of issues worked out... Same *** isn't too hard since it is still just two people (although even there some changes were made. I know they had to change all the Massachusetts marriage licence forms for example). This isn't a reason not to do it... Just a reason it would take a bit more time.

Polygamy for me is also something I couldn't care less about from a "sanctity of marriage" standpoint. Maybe if they are legally married and have to claim each others assets, there will be less welfare fraud and bankruptcy. But what I DO care about is how the male children are treated on these compounds, as well as the young girls being groomed as child brides for these old men. I'm ok with live and let live for any lifestyle, as long as no one is forced into anything.

 

[Rhombus]

I never even gave the subject any thought until I was in my mid-teens and that whack-job orange juice loser started spouting anti-gay rhetoric in the late 1970s. Ever since I've been pro gay rights, including marriage.

 

[Missy1961]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-colorado-bakery-cater-***-weddings/story?id=21136505
This.

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant proof of why you think that churches will lose tax exempt status if they won't perform same-sex marriages. Because the government in the states that have allowed same-sex marriages haven't stepped in any way. And as far as I know the government of Canada hasn't stepped in either.

A private company not providing products and/or services to someone is different than a church.

 

[mnrose]

Its not my life or my marriage to "come around" to. People deserve to be happy. If anyone has ruined the "sacred union of marriage" its all the straight morons who get married 3 times in 5 years.

Sort of like my sister, who is opposed to gay marriage, but has had three marriages so far, the shortest of which lasted less than one week (I wish I were kidding).

 

[pryncess527]

Okay flamers, come and get me.
I honestly don't understand why we could not offer the same benefits of marriage to same gender couples, but for the sake of compromise, call it a civil union rather than marriage.

Here are my problems with this:

1. Marriage as a civil institution predates marriage as a religious institution.
2. There are tons of people who are civilly married who had no religious body participate in their wedding.
3. Given that religion does not have any reason to claim exclusive ownership of the word marriage, it makes no sense to let religion dictate the definition.
4. Even if we did say marriage is exclusively religious, there are some denominations of Christianity that do not see homosexuality as a sin (based on absolutely no mention of it in the New Testament), so to permit one denomination of Christianity to define marriage for all other denominations, much less for other religions or the non-religious, would actually violate the freedom of religion. (and yes, I would absolutely use that same argument to legalize polygamy)

 

[momto2girls]

I have never been against it but necessarily for it either.

Kind of neutral on the subject.

I see way more pressing matters needing attention.

I realize this is not a popular stance but it's mine.

This is how I feel. I've never really been for it or against it. It just doesn't affect me either way, so it isn't anything that I have felt the need to take a stance on. Personally I would never feel comfortable attending a same sex wedding, but it certainly doesn't bother me that they are legal now. I guess I'm just a go-with-the-flow kind of a person and if this is what has been decided, I'm fine with it.

 

[pryncess527]

To answer the OP, I have never been against gay marriage. I had a gay friend in high school, when this issue was heated due to the passage of DoMA, and despite being very active in my Baptist church at the time, I felt that basing our laws on an individual's interpretation of Christianity was wrong.

There have been quite a few other political or social ideas where I did come around and change my mind as I aged and got more information, this just doesn't happen to be one of them. I commend anyone who is willing to confront their views, on any issue.

 

[bcla]

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant proof of why you think that churches will lose tax exempt status if they won't perform same-*** marriages. Because the government in the states that have allowed same-*** marriages haven't stepped in any way. And as far as I know the government of Canada hasn't stepped in either.

A private company not providing products and/or services to someone is different than a church.

The example that has been brought up was when Bob Jones University lost its tax exempt status over its policy that students could be expelled for interracial dating. However, that's the only case in three decades. I can't imagine that purely religious institutions like churches or synagogues will lose their tax exempt status over who they do or don't perform weddings for. It's the religious educational institutions where there's a gray area. One of the questions was over whether married family housing needs to be made available to SS families. Then there are the private businesses that claim some sort of religious inspiration, such as Chick-Fil-A or Interstate Batteries.

 

[DopeyDame]

I'm a practicing Catholic, and I admit to still being a little torn about what a sacramental marriage in a Catholic church should be. But from a secular/legal standpoint, I don't think I've ever been against gay marriage. As I've gotten older, I've become strongly in favor it.

There are all sorts of things that I am held to as a Catholic that are between me and God and shouldn't be a matter of law: I'm called to love my neighbor, honor my mother and father, and keep holy the Sabbath, among other things. That doesn't mean that being a crappy neighbor, cursing out parents, or working on Sundays should be illegal for the rest of the country. Likewise, my neighborhood priest isn't going to marry someone who's been divorced, a Jewish couple, or Catholics who refuse to do pre-cana sessions. Yet all of those people can and should be able to get married at the local court house. Just like two guys or two girls.

 

[Mizzoufan]

I think it's biblical wrong. However, I'm gulity of doing a lot of things that are biblcal wrong. So who I'm to judge anyone else. In the end the greatest thing we can do is LOVE one another.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I don't know that I was ever "against" it. I really didn't have much exposure to it (that I was aware of; in retrospect, I probably did, but it wasn't really talked about back then) until I was in my early 20s when I became close friends with an openly gay man. We had many fun and memorable times together, and I loved going to his and his partner's beautiful home for the friendly, welcoming atmosphere and gourmet meals. (He was a world traveler and I still have treasured things around my home that he bought for me.) I went on to have many other gay friends. I was glad they were able to marry if they wanted to when it became legal here in MA, and am happy for them now, as well.

 

[JoeA]

I think some things may be on the horizon such as taking away tax exempt status for churches that refuse to offer same gender ceremonies. Private companies already are being fined for refusing to participate in ceremonies for them.

Man, I hope that doesn't come true, but I'm afraid it will. I don't care what side of the coin you fall on - politics have no role in religion, and vice versa.

I was attending a church in FL on a very regular basis and the preacher there refused to marry my wife and I because she was divorced. This was his religious beliefs, which I respected. We found a place that would marry us and never went back to the first church. It wasn't my "right" to get married where ever I wanted and I had choices. Simply put, I didn't agree with him, but I respected the preachers religious convictions.

How is that different than a church/preacher who doesn't believe in same sex marriage refusing to marry two dudes? If the church is forced to marry same sex couples regardless of their beliefs then the gay community hasn't stopped at wanting the same rights as "straight couples" - they have more demands and want more rights, which is wrong, IMO.

And for the record, I have never really cared one way or the other if same sex couples had the right to marry.

 

[DopeyDame]

Man, I hope that doesn't come true, but I'm afraid it will. I don't care what side of the coin you fall on - politics have no role in religion, and vice versa.

I was attending a church in FL on a very regular basis and the preacher there refused to marry my wife and I because she was divorced. This was his religious beliefs, which I respected. We found a place that would marry us and never went back to the first church. It wasn't my "right" to get married where ever I wanted and I had choices. Simply put, I didn't agree with him, but I respected the preachers religious convictions.

How is that different than a church/preacher who doesn't believe in same *** marriage refusing to marry two dudes? If the church is forced to marry same *** couples regardless of their beliefs then the gay community hasn't stopped at wanting the same rights as "straight couples" - they have more demands and want more rights, which is wrong, IMO.

And for the record, I have never really cared one way or the other if same *** couples had the right to marry.

Divorce is a fantastic example of why I am not even a teeny tiny itsy bitsy little bit worried about ministers, priests, or rabbis, or imams being forced to marry someone. Divorce wasn't always legal. Yet it is now perfectly legal in all 50 states and someone can remarry without any issues. But not in a Catholic church. No biggie. Just because your local judge (ie, the SECULAR GOVERNMENT) has to do something doesn't mean the local religious will have to. This is truly hand-wringing over-dramatics at its worst and least factual.

 

[Patch'sD]

Still evolving on the subject. But if two people love each other there should be no obstacles in them being allowed to officially enter into a legal binding union that will allow them all of the rights from Corporations, State, and Local Governments. They should be allowed to have children and if the union needs to be disovled, that must be done in accordance with State Law. I do believe in the religious right to deny that right if it goes against it's cannon laws or beliefs. I also do believe that this right should be governed by the states and not the federal government.

 

[bcla]

Divorce is a fantastic example of why I am not even a teeny tiny itsy bitsy little bit worried about ministers, priests, or rabbis, or imams being forced to marry someone. Divorce wasn't always legal. Yet it is now perfectly legal in all 50 states and someone can remarry without any issues. But not in a Catholic church. No biggie. Just because your local judge (ie, the SECULAR GOVERNMENT) has to do something doesn't mean the local religious will have to. This is truly hand-wringing over-dramatics at its worst and least factual.

There was a justice of the peace in Louisiana who refused to issue a marriage license for an interracial couple.

As for who performs secular weddings, in California it's typically a county employee. We have a long list of people who can perform weddings, which includes judges and certain politicians. However, we have this title called a "deputy civil marriage commissioner" where the county's civil marriage commissioner (the elected county clerk) can deputize almost anyone. Some counties have a "deputy marriage commissioner for a day" program where a friend can perform a wedding. Courts don't schedule weddings like in some states. However, most counties do perform weddings, and so do some cities (that have an employee deputized by the county clerk). However, there was one county (Kern) where the county clerk was opposed to SSM and decided to completely end all county-performed weddings so as to not have to perform SSM ceremonies. However, she couldn't refuse to issue SSM licenses, as it was a requirement in California law.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/07/local/me-clerk7

Also, wasn't Northern Exposure the first show to portray a SSM ceremony? That was over 20 years ago.

 

[bookgirl]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-colorado-bakery-cater-***-weddings/story?id=21136505
This.

That is a PUBLIC business. If you are going to do business with the public, then you do business with ALL the public. That's different from a denominational based religious organization.

You don't see Christian churches being sued because they wouldn't preform a Muslim ceremony. No church is going to be MADE to perform a ceremony outside their beliefs.

Now a courthouse is non denominational and a government office, they absolutely have no right to deny a license or refuse to perform a ceremony based on the law.

Frankly these states saying that clerks and JOP's should have the right of refusal on contentious observer beliefs are full of BS. Get another job, if you work for the government then you do what's legal. Your religious preference has no business there.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I started to edit my last post but I lost it. In thinking about this, I just wanted to add this. My thinking about gay marriage rights was influenced by what I saw as a hospital nurse before MA enacted the Health Care Proxy law in 1990. Homosexual partners were not afforded the same rights and priveleges as heterosexual partners, or families. I remember one case in particular, of a gay man dying of AIDS and unable to speak for himself - his estranged family's wishes had to be legally honored over his long term partner's, and, without going into a lot of detail, it was a tragic situation. Also seeing long term partners not being able to get health care coverage or enjoy other "rights" that heterosexual married couples had - there were sometimes very difficult consequences that many of us wouldn't even notice if we weren't paying close attention.

 

[ashley0139]

I started to edit my last post but I lost it. In thinking about this, I just wanted to add this. My thinking about gay marriage rights was influenced by what I saw as a hospital nurse before MA enacted the Health Care Proxy law in 1990. Homosexual partners were not afforded the same rights and priveleges as heterosexual partners, or families. I remember one case in particular, of a gay man dying of AIDS and unable to speak for himself - his estranged family's wishes had to be legally honored over his long term partner's, and, without going into a lot of detail, it was a tragic situation. Also seeing long term partners not being able to get health care coverage or enjoy other "rights" that heterosexual married couples had - there were sometimes very difficult consequences that many of us wouldn't even notice if we weren't paying close attention.

The articles about the AIDS situation in the 80s and partners not being able to speak for their loved ones are devastating. I wasn't alive for most of it, but reading about it and watching documentaries just breaks my heart.

 

[pryncess527]

Marriage has been defined traditionally as the joining of a husband and wife, but has now been amended. I think it would have been a decent compromise for those against it based on it being called something other than marriage but with the same rights and privileges. A lot of those opposed to same gender marriage would agree to this. Some benefit for both sides. I have spoken of this to some of my gay friends (yes I have gay friends), and they agree it would have been acceptable.
Some of you close minded individuals will argue to no end against anything but total acceptance by everyone, but let's face it, people have different beliefs.

I'm going to encourage you to think about this from a different direction.

Christianity does not have a monopoly on the word marriage. Marriage has traditionally been a civil institution designed to formally recognize lifelong relationships and families. Across the globe, this has, for centuries, been used to describe a wide variety of relationships -- sororal & non-soral polygyny; fraternal and non-fraternal polyandry, monogamy, group marriage, etc. The concept of marriage has existed in many different cultures, religions, and legal frameworks.

Perhaps it would be a decent compromise, if those who wish to keep their religious institution separate from the legal concept of marriage that is not bound by religious law, if a different name were given to those religious ceremonies and unions. Maybe those should be called "religious unions," and they can have the same rights and privileges, just call it something other than marriage.

 

[scrapquitler]

I admit it, I used to be against same-*** marriage. I remember, more or less, when I changed my mind - I believe it was sometime in late 2011 or early 2012.

Many notable politicians, even the president of the USA, were once against it but now feel that it is right that marriage should be equal for all.

So who here is willing to admit that you were once against it and are now for it? When did you change your mind? Maybe you'd even like to share what it was that made you re-think it.

I never cared one way or the other.

Then about 7-8 years ago I met two gay couples. Both couples were in long term, committed relationships of more than 20 years. They owned their homes together, one of the couples were foster parents, one owned a business together, they were solid couples, not just some casual pair. I remember asking one of the guys in one of the couples why he cared if they got married or not, and he explained to me that if his partner got sick, he had no say in the medical decisions that would need to be made, that his partners family could keep him from visiting in the hospital if they wanted. That if his partner died, the partners family could contest the will and put ownership of their business and home in peril, that he couldn't carry his spouse on his health insurance, that they did not get the same tax benefits as others, all because they both happened to be males and therefore could not marry. I went home than night and realized how stupid that all was...these were men that were devoted and in love, yet they couldn't have the same protections as everyone else. Both of these couples were able to marry, but only because they live in Vermont. But that didn't count everywhere.

Then I met another couple. The lived in one state and were married in another. But their home state didn't recognize their marriage, nor did the federal government. Because of that, their 'marriage' was just kind of a sham....it didn't mean anything if it wasn't legal everywhere. Ever since I found that out, I've been hoping that one day they would have the same protections as my husband and I have. And now finally, they do. Which only makes sense because of all my friends, the most stable and long term relationships are not among men/woman couples but among the homsexual couples that I know.