[Golfingnut]

OK. I will say it.

It's about time.

Honorable call.

[springfield]

Someone else's marriage has no effect on mine.

[jane032657]

Fantastic. A day to celebrate with so many people we love and share the joy of our friends and family members having equal rights and benefits along with all other citizens of the United States. There is a significant gay and lesbian population in The Villages and I wish I knew where the celebration party was tonight because I would love to join in, and also bring some new friends who have moved here who are in a same sex relationship who would love to meet others, and share in everyone's elation. Private message me if you like and let me know where the celebration takes place! It is a time for everyone who believes in equality to come together and say FINALLY!!!!

[specialk]

So happy for all the same-sex couples I know and love. Justice rules!!

[ilovetv]

There is "civil marriage" as in Justice of the Peace and marriage license, and there is religious marriage, as in church, synagogue, mosque, etc.

This is a "civil" arrangement and should not be put upon the religions. And I think it should be termed a "civil union" or "domestic partnership" instead of a "marriage".

Terms (words) convey concepts, and homosexual unions are not the same concept as heterosexual marriages.

[queasy27]

Someone else's marriage has no effect on mine.

Bottom line.

I cried a little with happiness and see it as wonderful and much-needed progress, but I also sympathize with those who feel it violates their deeply held beliefs. In the end, though, someone else's choices also have no effect on your religion.

Coexist!

[jane032657]

There was a time when the concept of white was "privilege" and the concept of black was "slave" instead of all people being treated equal. There was the concept that white people rode in the front of the bus and others in the back. Or the concept that intellectual/developmental disability was "retarded" instead of looking at abilities and gifts. Concepts change with time, it is called progress. We made progress today, the law has been decided. We have further to go. But what was accomplished today is the concept of equality as it should be today, with some more miles to go to make it universal in our country. We are on the way. I am elated.

[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by jane032657

There was a time when the concept of white was "privilege" and the concept of black was "slave" instead of all people being treated equal. There was the concept that white people rode in the front of the bus and others in the back. Or the concept that intellectual/developmental disability was "retarded" instead of looking at abilities and gifts. Concepts change with time, it is called progress. We made progress today, the law has been decided. We have further to go. But what was accomplished today is the concept of equality as it should be today, with some more miles to go to make it universal in our country. We are on the way. I am elated.

So wonderfully stated. At my age I have witnessed so much persecution of so many that did not fit into the conservative religious box of the PAST. We are one step closer to defining LOVE as having very little to do with macho power or sex. Wonderful decision by the court

[scarecrow1]

I don't care and never did.live and let live. More important things to worry about. How about the environment ???????

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by ilovetv

[1]There is "civil marriage" as in Justice of the Peace and marriage license, and there is religious marriage, as in church, synagogue, mosque, etc.

[2]This is a "civil" arrangement and should not be put upon the religions. [3]And I think it should be termed a "civil union" or "domestic partnership" instead of a "marriage".

[4]Terms (words) convey concepts, and homosexual unions are not the same concept as heterosexual marriages.

For the sake of discussion and understanding, I have numbered in bold the points made by ilovetv.

[1] One cannot disagree with this, though it should be pointed out that the first—civil marriage—is the one that is legal. A religious marriage by itself is not a legal marriage.

[2] A "legal marriage" is indeed a "civil arrangement," I would think. As far as religions are concerned, I know some ordained clergy who would happily participate in the marriage of two persons who love each other, without regard to the gender of the participants—whether hetero or gay/lesbian/transgender. I know other ordained clergy who would differentiate, presumably based on personal beliefs, and not be willing to marry a gay or lesbian couple. No one is forcing anyone to do anything against his or her will. And who am I—a lay person—to even consider judging what a clergy person might be willing or unwilling to do?

[3] Here is where I'm confused. Why "civil union" or "domestic partnership" rather than "marriage"? Not to be crass, but is this a differentiation based on body parts? It's clearly not based on feelings, is it?

[4] I agree that words can convey concepts; however, IMO words themselves are not concepts, just as words can be used to attempt to convey feelings, but words themselves are not feelings. If what I just said is acceptable, then what follows in [4] is confusing as well.

What differences are alluded to by saying that marriage between two persons of the same gender is not "marriage"? That they cannot have children biologically? If so, would this mean that a heterosexual couple who are unable—or choose not—to have children would not be considered in a "marriage relationship"? The divorce rate upwards of 50 percent and its implication for children does not speak well for "marriage," yes?

Everyone is different! But beyond what makes each of us unique, I would just like to understand the view that there are differences in relationship between two persons of opposite gender and two persons of same gender that both should not be called "marriage." What are those differences?...

[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by Quixote

For the sake of discussion and understanding, I have numbered in bold the points made by ilovetv.

[1] One cannot disagree with this, though it should be pointed out that the first—civil marriage—is the one that is legal. A religious marriage by itself is not a legal marriage.

[2] A "legal marriage" is indeed a "civil arrangement," I would think. As far as religions are concerned, I know some ordained clergy who would happily participate in the marriage of two persons who love each other, without regard to the gender of the participants—whether hetero or gay/lesbian/transgender. I know other ordained clergy who would differentiate, presumably based on personal beliefs, and not be willing to marry a gay or lesbian couple. No one is forcing anyone to do anything against his or her will. And who am I—a lay person—to even consider judging what a clergy person might be willing or unwilling to do?

[3] Here is where I'm confused. Why "civil union" or "domestic partnership" rather than "marriage"? Not to be crass, but is this a differentiation based on body parts? It's clearly not based on feelings, is it?

[4] I agree that words can convey concepts; however, IMO words themselves are not concepts, just as words can be used to attempt to convey feelings, but words themselves are not feelings. If what I just said is acceptable, then what follows in [4] is confusing as well.

What differences are alluded to by saying that marriage between two persons of the same gender is not "marriage"? That they cannot have children biologically? If so, would this mean that a heterosexual couple who are unable—or choose not—to have children would not be considered in a "marriage relationship"? The divorce rate upwards of 50 percent and its implication for children does not speak well for "marriage," yes?

Everyone is different! But beyond what makes each of us unique, I would just like to understand the view that there are differences in relationship between two persons of opposite gender and two persons of same gender that both should not be called "marriage." What are those differences?...

Some get it and some never will. Great post. I am happy to say, I get it and I wish so sincerely that everyone did.

[Monkei]

Someday someone close to you, probably a family member, will come out and say they are gay ... at that point you will rejoice in this decision.

I don't find it hard to believe that those disappointed are the same who were against every progressive move ever made in this country, like the right to vote, the right for those of different races to marry, etc.

The work is not done yet there are still 20+ states that allow employers to fire an employee simply if they are gay.

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by Golfingnut

OK. I will say it.

It's about time.

Honorable call.

I agree! Time to celebrate.

[Villageshooter]

Originally Posted by Golfingnut

OK. I will say it.

It's about time.

Honorable call.

God said Adam & Eve.. not adam & steve

[ilovetv]

Originally Posted by jane032657

There was a time when the concept of white was "privilege" and the concept of black was "slave" instead of all people being treated equal. There was the concept that white people rode in the front of the bus and others in the back. Or the concept that intellectual/developmental disability was "retarded" instead of looking at abilities and gifts. Concepts change with time, it is called progress. We made progress today, the law has been decided. We have further to go. But what was accomplished today is the concept of equality as it should be today, with some more miles to go to make it universal in our country. We are on the way. I am elated.

Yes, concepts do change with time and many changes are indeed "progress". I think we'd all agree it was "Progress" when the concept of the right to vote was no longer contingent upon being male and a land owner.

But: was it "progress" when the concept of the right to vote became contingent upon becoming a full-fledged member of the communist party in USSR and Cuba, or a Ba'ath Party member in Iraq under Sadaam Hussein?

Personally I wouldn't call it progress if I'm allowed to legally vote only if I become a member of the party that is in control of all government and all production in the nation, and that party is the only party. I would not call that a "vote". I'd call that "oppression".

I'm not writing against the gay couples who want to make it official. I'm just saying "be careful what you wish for" when re-defining the concepts/precepts of centuries-old laws, because not all "progress" is good for a nation and its citizens in the long run.