Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Weighs in on same-sex marriage

April 26, 2013

To the editor: The heart cannot control who it falls in love with. I have gay friends who have been together for over 25 years....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




May-06-13 11:16 PM

"It" was the commitment, Cranky, whatever the contemporary appellation may have been, to each other and to their children as a family unit - as in Adam, Eve, Cain and Able, or Abraham, Sarah, and Isaac. Do you know of any culture in history prior to the current wherein we'll find two men and their children or two women and their children in a committed family relationship regardless of how the adults' relationship may be sanctioned or how it is labeled? Semantical nonsense, indeed! Just as in govt "investments" vs. "expenditures."

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-04-13 8:41 PM

There is nothing wrong with being a lesbian as long as they are both good looking.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-04-13 6:42 PM

This isn't about access to marriage. Same-sex marriage advocates have been deceiving the public from day one. Pro-gay marriage advocate Masha Geffen said “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.” She wants to abolish marriage, as does Cass Sunstein (Harvard Law Prof and currently Obama's regulatory czar). People won't wake up until someone's minor son is in a "committed", legal relationship with a man, or maybe when Fido consents to those things we used to call **********.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-04-13 12:21 PM

"IT" was man/woman? What is "IT"? You mean a relationship? Coupling? Procreating event? Because as you well know, MARRIAGE did not exist.

"Semantical nonsense" is exactly what is occurring in this discussion all over the country. People like you try to make the marriage contract something ONLY allowed between man and woman, and pretend that it's been that way since the dawn of time.

Well I'm here to tell you that it hasn't. Marriage is a relatively recent phenomena and wasn't even religious to begin with. Read a book, Andy. You might learn something.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-03-13 9:38 PM

It was "man and woman/male and female" from the beginning of time, Cranky, be the source God (as in Adam and Eve; Abraham and Sarah) or just male and female (as in "nature"). Your definition of marriage is simply semantical nonsense unrelated to the limited time frame you chose.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-02-13 12:19 PM

Sorry this is over your head, Andy. My posts affirm that "god" did NOT "create marriage between a man and a woman."

Even going as far back as the fifteenth century, there is no "man and woman" rule. Deflection is a worthless exercise, Andy, and it's transparent.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-28-13 7:08 PM

Speaking of relevancy, Cranky, what does all that nonsense you write about from 1400 and 1545 have to do with the definition of marriage today that the views and legislative acts of those who actually wrote our Constitution do not have with respect to its meaning? Writing, apparently, is not thinking, and certainly not wisdom.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-28-13 2:14 PM

In other words, I think that despite this letter writer's wishes, humans deserve the same courtesy as grapes. Get over it.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-28-13 2:13 PM

Since c.1400, the word has been applied figuratively to any close union or blending of any two things. The word dates to c.1300 and is from the Anglo-Norman mariage. Ultimately it is from the classical Latin verb maritare, to marry, used to refer to people, animals, and the crossing of grapes in viticulture and the nouns maritus/marita, husband/wife.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-28-13 2:12 PM

Prior to 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties. The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required. This promise was known as the "verbum." If made in the present tense (e.g., "I marry you"), it was unquestionably binding; if made in the future tense ("I will marry you"), it would constitute a betrothal. But if the couple proceeded to have sexual relations, the union was a marriage.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-28-13 9:36 AM

How ironic; the call for the separation of church and state so the state can discuss a word whose roots clearly originate and is defined in Christianity. Ya gotta love it! Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry First Known Use: 14th century

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-27-13 7:30 AM

The author may not recognize his own bigotry. To define others as different from oneself and then exclude those others from equal participation is bigotry. Marriage is a legal contract to which all are entitled.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-13 9:58 PM

Gee, Anderson, I'm sure glad you dropped in to point out how things were 250+ years ago! But since we don't live in those times, I would suggest you become familiar with the 21st century where the things you mentioned do not happen. And wouldn't. Because there are laws.

Drop in again and give us some irrelevant historical sound byte!

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-13 9:25 PM

Can't imagine what Jefferson was up to when he let them start - and himself attended - denominational church services in the new Capitol bldg in DC, let alone the newly minted Congress of the US in NY when, in its very first act, appropriated $25,000 to finance the first printing of an English-language Bible (both Testaments) in America, not to mention President Washington when he signed it. Did they not understand the Constitution under which they were operating? Suggest everyone here read "Rediscovering God in America" and learn what the "no law recognizing an establishment of religion" clause really meant to those who understood it best and saw no conflict with establishment of churches by individual states, including that of Virginia which Jefferson himself had served as Governor. (Brucee: And you CAN learn that from reading books!)

1 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-13 1:56 PM

Conservative attempts to chide Col B by saying that "God created (marriage)".

I hope you're kidding, Con, because that is the funniest thing I've heard from yo in a long time. "God" created the notion of "taking a wife (or several)", but the feds created MARRIAGE. You want holy matrimony? Go to church. You want a marriage license? Go to the court house. They are two very different things.

10 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-13 9:18 AM

Actually conservative the separation of church and state is implied in the First Amendment which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This is very clear and defining marriage by the Christian definition for all people including gays would be against the Constitution, as there are far more than Christians that live in this country. Also the Colonel is correct - the separation of church and state is the standard here. Oh and as for the Danbury letter...Jefferson was only reiterating what was stated in the the First Amendment.

9 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-13 7:21 AM

colonelbanters I am flabbergasted by your lack of knowledge.."separation of church and state is the standard"? where? Find that in the constitution for me...JEfferson said it in a letter to the danbury baptists and it had zero to do with taking religion out of govt. Churches are having a cow about it- you mean the brick buildings or do you mean people? Nice way to try to marganalize the opinions of others by referring to them as some entity like a church. I know many people who are 'unchurched" who are opposed to redefining something God created and set the standard for. You can certainly have your opinions, but my goodness, at least educate yourself.

4 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-13 2:31 AM

It's not a simplistic approach Rocky, it's a self-defeating approach. Yes, make same-sex couples make up a new term to clearly denote them as different in an effort to prove they are equal? You do have a point about separating issues though. Since the churches are the only ones having a cow about this issue and we live in America where the separation of church and state is the standard, let's just keep the church out of this issue and we'll all realize what a small issue it really is.

12 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 18 of 18 comments


I am looking for: