Comments on: “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.” OH MY!

By: Désirée

Désirée — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:46:42 +0000

My marriage must cause these people’s heads to explode, since I am a M2F TS who married a woman prior to my surgery. Since divorce in California is not required for surgery and since California legally recognizes gender changes, I am a legally married lesbian and I didn’t need the State Supreme Court to say so.

By: Titus

Titus — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 22:45:13 +0000

In this article, published by The Witherspoon Institute, a leading social conservative think tank affiliated with The Family, Matthew Franck claims that Judge Walker’s conception of gender equality constitutes an “assault on moral reasoning”:

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/08/1490

It seems pretty clear to me that the opposition to same-sex marriage is based, in large part, on the defense of patriarchal marriage.

By: truthteller

truthteller — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 21:53:41 +0000

How about just calling it what it is? Civil Marriage.

By: Publius

Publius — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 21:49:40 +0000

I want to add one more comment about Albert Mohler’s article. The very structure of Walker’s argument did NOT condemn religious and theological objections to homosexuality and same-sex marriage as “harmful and irrational”! Rather, Walker’s argument is based on the fact that religious and theological objections are IRRELEVANT because we have a SECULAR government under our Constitution. Mohler, like the Baptist Church, wants a theocracy where religious and theological objections to homosexuality and same-sex marriage would have the force of law.

By: Publius

Publius — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 21:40:09 +0000

One of the upset “traditional marriage people you quote is President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Albert Mohler. In his article, he also says: “While Judge Walker declared that the religious freedoms of citizens and religious bodies were not violated because no such body is required to recognize or perform same-sex marriage, the very structure of his argument condemned religious and theological objections to homosexuality and same-sex marriage as both harmful and irrational.”

This, too, is nonsense. For example, State law permits divorce, even though the Roman Catholic Church does not. Does this mean that by permitting divorce, the State condemns religious and theological objections as both harmful and irrational? (And divorce is a hardship on the children involved, unlike having two loving, same-sex parents.)

Mohler is a nut.

By: Scott P.

Scott P. — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 20:43:44 +0000

Elmo, I think the best term is marriage equality.

By: Other Fred in the UK

Other Fred in the UK — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 20:42:09 +0000

Technically, it’s the common law of England & Wales, not Britain. Scotland has an entirely separate legal system.

By: Elmo Buzz

Elmo Buzz — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 19:55:52 +0000

I think we need to stop refering to this as an issue of same sex marriage or opposite sex marriage.

Instead, I think it’d be best referred to as same sex marriage (in the case of gays and lesbians) or mixed sex marriage in the case of non-gay or non-lesbian couples.

SSM or MSM.

It’s a nuance, but the term “mixed sex” and marriage, I think, carries a certian stigma, just as the right tries to imply applies to same sex relationships