Want to Send a Message about the Defense of Marriage Amendment?

to get married?

Really? If you don't mean that, can you explain further?

Fighting for divorce reform (no-fault divorce while being important to help defend against domestic violence is the crux behind our ever increasing divorce rates) and universal health care that covers the millions of our children that are left vulnerable, are ways to actually do something positive to protect marriage. Don't you think? If not, why?

As for the so called liberal media - there are numerous outlets that express your point of view Janet. Including innumerable talking heads and pundits. All over talk radio. All over the papers. And on the web there is Townhall.com, FreeRepublic, RedState.com, Fox News, and many more. What I love about the web is that there is room for all view points.

But I hear NONE that talk regularly about no-fault divorce and it's harm done to the institution of marriage.

Have you? And where? And why do you think that is?

elderly people shouldn't be allowed to marry. who thinks they're going to procreate??

heterosexual couples who intend to adopt (let alone homosexual couples who might also like to give a child a home) should know better -- leave the lifetime partnerships to the fertile!! haven't you read The Handmaid's Tale?

surely you can do better than that, Janet.

here are a swath of other benefits given to heterosexual, fertile, still of breeding age couples, as well as heterosexual couples who are elderly, not of breeding age, not intending to have children, or even celibate. can you tell me why all these benefits should be given to some adults that are making a lifetime commitment/home and not to others? because dental benefits for spouses are all about fertility? because end-of-life decisions are only for parents? because family discounts on car insurance make sense only for breeders? the mind reels...

acm

indeed acm. indeed.

Big AMEN Karl!

Nobody mandates fertility testing before getting married. Are you suggesting people who are fertile when married but lose fertility due to injury/disease have divorce forced upon them? If 2 widowed 70 YOs want to marry, they should be refused?

Also, as I recall, this country's founding fathers allowed slavery to flourish, allowed for the creation of an underclass based roughly on skin pigmentation. Please don't tell me you find the foundation of this country to be so sacred as a static state that you resent this.

You wouldn't happen to be referencing adoption agencies who try to mandate bigotry in their coda, would you?

And due to the societal fringe that gay adoption is on, many gay couples choose to adopt the "unadoptable" children, who have significant mental/emotional/physical problems, or who may be mixed race, or who may have been abandoned past the "cute baby" stage. Are you advocating these children are worse off for having a loving home instead of wasting away in foster care or an orphanage?

The people who find beauty in what this country is and what it does, including our founding fathers, have never been the ones to worship the static state for what it is, but ones who see the beauty in allowing change to come in to correct the flaws yet to be detected in the fabric.

thanks for the reinforcenment - we must have been typing in tandem

...to Ellen and Karl.

I am not put on this earth to merely be a brood mare and procreate (and since I look lousy in an apron you won't find me barefoot and in the kitchen either).....while we are speaking or marriage and partnerships - take a more philosophical approach:

A partner or spouse complements who you are. Not defines you. Ditto with children.

Thank you both for being sane and logical.

This Marriage Amendment/Act stuff disgusts me. (in case you couldn't guess)

Every study shows that children who are brought up with a Mom and a Dad are more have better jobs, are healthier, are less likely to be poor, less likely to be on welfare, less likely to fail at school, less likely to have an emotional behavioral problem, and on and on ...

Every study says that gay couples stay together much longer than heterosexual couples (eg. divorce rate)... so wouldn't that mean that a child being raised by gay parents would have a stable home longer and therefore do better in the long run?

And here I was thinking marriage is about love. Silly me.

Mark (The Long Cut)

we know plenty of single parents...who have kids that are insome cases MORE well adjusted that homes where both parents reside.

But evidently, we can't guarantee you a chorus of nodding heads. I tend to think that with over 800 registered members, there are at least a few members of our site who may agree with your view on this, but they're not making any noise on this for some reason. I'd be interested in seeing a real discourse on this issue, as it goes beyond just discussing ammendments and laws.

There are a lot of ideas at stake too. One thing you mentioned that caught my eye:

Marriage between a man and a woman is about children and our future society. Gay marriage is about adults.

I'd agree with the first sentence, in a perfect world at least. The simple fact is that just because the ideal marriage (any ideal marriage) will provide a healthier environment for the kids, that doesn't necessarily mean that John and Jane Doe down the street are providing a healthy environment. And if we allow for the perfect world scenario that your statement suggests, can't we allow for the same in a same-sex situation?

I'm asking this as a question. If you (or anyone else who favors the crux of your argument) wants to address it, I'm all ears.

I tend to favor the idea that before we hold up any brand of marriage as the societal gold standard, we take measures to ensure that we're talking in realistic terms. I'm 100% for strengthening the institution of marriage, but simply declaring a gold standard won't necessarily help the millions of heterosexual unions that are failing at a customarily high rate.

There are plenty of people who agree with Jan's POV--I am not one of them, but I have heard their remarks. My husband and I have been married for two years. We have no children and, at the moment, have no plans for children. Some people have commented to me that our marriage is not complete because we haven't started a family yet. I do not find anything that would make my relationship less of a marriage than a one with children. I do not agree that children alone make a marriage.

Love brings two people together, regardless of fertility, religion, ethnicity, or orientation. Civil marriage grants legal rights to that couple. (Religious marriage, in my opinion, gives different meaning on a spiritual level, and should remain separate from civil marriage.)

If I am sick or dying, there's no one I want in charge more than my husband.

We were lucky enough to have the option of marriage available to us, because he is a man and I am a woman. If I were in love with a woman and pledged my life to her, I would want the same legal rights.