Several years ago I was against any same-sex marriage. However, I have changed my mind. I can no longer see how it is a risk to my or anyone's marriage.

Glen - congratulations to you. Most people seem to be afraid to change posititions these days for fear of being called flip-floppers.

I could careless if gay people marry. It doesn't affect my relationship with my husband.

I think it is sick. I think it degrades what MARRIAGE has stood for through the times of man irregardless of any religion. It will weaken and destroy the fabric of society.

Once again the Republicans are trying to use hate and discrimination to scare people into believing when 2 people love each other and want to express their love, that somehow it is taking away from heterosexuals. I am an American Citizen who deserves the same rights as all American citizens.

Just give them civil unions as a compromise, they get the legal protection they deserve and the conservatives can shut the hell up!!! What, TOO rational! What's so complicated?

Anderson, you do know that "irregardless" is not a word, right? If you are going to oppose something, you might as well do it correctly. I don't think that spreading the reach of the word "marriage" hurts anyone.

We've changed rules and terms before to accomodate other people. America grows by adapting to these changes.

Anderson, you do know that "irregardless" is not a word, right? If you are goint to oppose something, you might as well do it correctly. I don't think that spreading the reach of the word "marriage" hurts anyone.

We've changed rules and terms before to accomodate other people. America grows by adapting to these changes.

Isn't it possible, gay marriage has nothing to do with religion or love.

Marriage, in our country, is just a legal piece of paper that gives the couple some economic and legal rights. That's it.

No where does it state that "God" has to be involved. It does not state you have to "love" someone to get married. (Ever hear of shotgun wedding?)

Married people face different tax codes and different insurance rates than two un-wed individuals. In essence, that's all the gay activists are asking for. The rest (love, honor, God, religion, etc.) is a choice made by individuals, not the state.

You can talk about marriage in terms of religion, love, and the church, but in the USA, you do have to married by a religion or in a church.

Just because a couple gets married, it does not mean they love each other. Look at how many fail within a few years.

And if a gay couple stays together, it is very likely they love each other as much as any married couple. Whether or not they have a piece of paper from the state.

Did the state tell me I love my wife? Did I love her more because the state said I was married? Did the state decide which God oversaw our vows? No to all three.

All the state did was give me the legal and economic rights of a married person.

If a gay couple was allowed to be married in VA, it in no way threatens my bond with my wife. It in no way changes the meaning of our relationship. And our commitment to each other and to God are not threatened in any way.

So unless you work for an insurance company and are afraid you'll lose some revenue because of a loss in premiums, why would anyone care?

California made the right choice. The rest of he nation should follow.

So BILLY CLINTON signed this into LAW.... and people go after the Republicans... go figure.... I think its the gay people who are preaching hate and using the word "discrimination" to intimate heterosexuals and degrade what a "Marriage" has always meant in order to get what they want…. It will never be “NORMAL”……I have no problem with “civil unions”, as with any handicap, we should accommodate their handicap so they can have the same benefits….. but it totally wrong to define a marriage as anything goes…….

Why Not - I agree with your stand 100%, but with one minor correction. It is not required in the US to be married in a religious service or church. You may get married at the courthouse (or whatever is appropriate locally) by a judge or justice of the peace and it is as legally binding as a religious service.

That correction being said, perhaps we need to take the religious aspect out of it entirely and make everyone get married in front of the judge. It sure would allow the conservative religious right to avoid the issue altogether.

I see no problem with gay marriage. If two people love each other and want to be together, what on this Earth does it have to do with anyone else but the two people in the relationship? Perhaps more of you "devout Christians" can learn something from the women who have been together for 55 years. How many others can say that?!

If you are so concerned with the "defense of marriage" then why don't you make divorces harder to get. I didn't want mine, but my ex wanted his girlfriend. Some people don't care what it does to their kids. Although I'm better off, my kids aren't. If adultery was still on the books (which technically it is in my state but lawyers won't use it except to pursue alimony)and/or you had to state more than "irreconcilable differences" maybe people would take marriage more seriously. Perhaps we should require intensive counseling (which I tried to get him to do)before a divorce is granted.

If people want to protect marriage, do more to help prevent the ones that happen. I wouldn't be opposed to premarital counseling (although I'll never marry again). Maybe I would have been forewarned about things he kept very hidden from me (including drinking and previous spousal abuse).

Quit griping about the "sanctity" of marriage until hetero marriages aren't on the downslide they seem to be on.

I think your marriage must be really weak if it is treathened by what two other people do somewhere in the US. Never have I understood why there should be any involvement of the government in marriage. By the way, I've been married for 38 years.

Why not find a civil solution to this issue? Let any couple get a legal civil union that protects partners, assets, rights, etc. Let the churches of the denominations perform marriage ceremonies. This country is filled to the brim with hypocrisy when it comes to marriage and the legalities of it. Civil unions could protect children, parents, spouses. The churches can handle the ceremonies and blessings, while providing spiritual needs.

This political football will never be solved by political candidates' pandering to voters.

Isn't this a question for the church? If people are not against civil (legal) arrangements, then the rest is a question of religion...isn't that for the Church?

georgia...

couldnt agree more. whether you're for or against it, whether you think its wrong or right, it cant be that hard to solve! bottom line is that everyone in this country should have equal rights. thats the bedrock of our nation. there has been, and always will be, struggles with this. but why not leave it up to the churches to allow it to be a marraige or not a marraige. then if you dont believe in that, you attend a church that allows it. it just dosnt seem like it should be that big of a deal. me, personally, the only problem i see with it is from a society standpoint. it just seems a little weird for me to think about a grade schooler trying to go to school with his "two dads" and being able to deal with the inevitable fallout from that. it sure will be hard on lots of kids. but im not sure there is a right answer to that point.

another interesting point on this for me as more of a conservative, is that liberals and people who fully support gay marraige, use the fight that this isnt a government decision. and i TOTALLY agree with that, but heres my point.. those same people are generally, for bigger government! it just seems so contradicting to me. they dont want the government to be involved in any way with this, but they want them to be in charge of our healthcare? they fully support keeping our welfare nation alive and well? they support canidates who want to put profit caps on big companies? they support sooo many things that the government just shouldnt be involved with, or have very limited involvement with. i mean, the list could go on and on and on with things that these same people who dont want the government involved in this particular subject, but want them involved in other decisions that government shouldnt be involved with. i just cant figure that one out. where am i wrong?

Regarding the words of laws and amendments around the nation that "marriage" is the union of "one man and one woman":

Do they say that the man must be heterosexual? The woman heterosexual?

Can they both claim to be homosexual??

If so, where's the discrimination in the law worded that way? Unless, of course, you people are claiming that a third sex is excluded.

==I think your marriage must be really weak if it is treathened by what two other people do somewhere in the US.==

I've always wondered why I should fret about a wifebeating down the street. It doesn't involve me. Neither does the rape of a woman, nor somebody beating you up side the head and taking yo' money.

Yeah, I see your point.

== Never have I understood why there should be any involvement of the government in marriage.==

I agree that those who claim to be homosexual could have gone to a lawyer and drawn up a contract and called it "mariage," if they wanted. I agree with you that they didn't need this court decision.

==By the way, I've been married for 38 years. ==

Not to a member of the same sex as you.

==bottom line is that everyone in this country should have equal rights.==

They already do.

Nobody stops a man who claims to be homosexual, or heterosexual, from marrying a woman who claims to be homosexual, or heterosexual. The laws refer only to a man and a woman, not what kinda man, or woman.

So, what's discriminatory about requiring "marriage" to be between a "man and a woman"? Anything in there that requires the man to be hetero and the woman hetero??? Unless, of course, you wanna try to prove that those who claim to be homosexual are members of a third sex that is excluded.