Comments on: Wilde Stein remains vigilant in the face of gay marriage setback http://mainecampus.com/2009/11/05/wilde-stein-remains-vigilant-in-the-face-of-gay-marriage-setback/ The University of Maine student newspaper since 1875 Thu, 24 May 2012 03:20:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Kay http://mainecampus.com/2009/11/05/wilde-stein-remains-vigilant-in-the-face-of-gay-marriage-setback/#comment-47688 Kay Tue, 01 Jun 2010 20:45:53 +0000 http://mainecampus.com/?p=3724789#comment-47688 To June's reply: No it is not the same thing. And yes, a same-sex relationship is NOT the same thing as a heterosexual relationship. Even Darwin (aka evolution) would agree with that! I'm so shocked at the lack of basic understanding regarding morality and the fundamentals of society by those who support the LGBT community. Sure, we can LOVE those with homosexual tendencies BUT we can not condone homosexual behaviors. There IS a difference. All societies that allow same-sex relationships end up harming themselves. To June’s reply: No it is not the same thing. And yes, a same-sex relationship is NOT the same thing as a heterosexual relationship. Even Darwin (aka evolution) would agree with that! I’m so shocked at the lack of basic understanding regarding morality and the fundamentals of society by those who support the LGBT community. Sure, we can LOVE those with homosexual tendencies BUT we can not condone homosexual behaviors. There IS a difference. All societies that allow same-sex relationships end up harming themselves.

]]> By: Katie http://mainecampus.com/2009/11/05/wilde-stein-remains-vigilant-in-the-face-of-gay-marriage-setback/#comment-8385 Katie Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:49:42 +0000 http://mainecampus.com/?p=3724789#comment-8385 I'm sorry that you have a personal insecurity about sharing the title of 'marriage' with gay and lesbian couples, but that does not make it okay to give us a separate 'union'. Maybe you get the creeps when you think of a same-sex couple going at it, but so do I when I think of heterosexual couples going at it. That doesn't mean I have an issue sharing the title of 'marriage' with you. People are people. Yes, we are different, but that does not make me unequal to you. We are both people, and I deserve your respect. Marriage has not always been between heterosexual couples. There are several documented cases of homosexual marriage ceremonies in the Roman Empire. Same-sex marriage was not outlawed until CHRISTIAN emperors came in and took over in 300 AD. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions) As a secular country, we cannot abide by non-secular moral principles. There is absolutely nothing harmful about same-sex marriage to society, (which is why a federal court case concerning the legality of banning same-sex marriage in California is now being tried), and other countries that provide same-sex marriages do not suffer because of them. It is only the "I'm better than you" attitude of heterosexual couples that is stopping us in this country. It is unfair. It is unjust. It will be changed. There is absolutely no way that this country will not one day allow same-sex marriages. My generation is much more open-minded and accepting, and when the time comes in a few decades we will be running the country and it will show. That is why we continue to fight. We are here, we deserve our rights, and we're not going anywhere else. I’m sorry that you have a personal insecurity about sharing the title of ‘marriage’ with gay and lesbian couples, but that does not make it okay to give us a separate ‘union’. Maybe you get the creeps when you think of a same-sex couple going at it, but so do I when I think of heterosexual couples going at it. That doesn’t mean I have an issue sharing the title of ‘marriage’ with you. People are people. Yes, we are different, but that does not make me unequal to you. We are both people, and I deserve your respect.
Marriage has not always been between heterosexual couples. There are several documented cases of homosexual marriage ceremonies in the Roman Empire. Same-sex marriage was not outlawed until CHRISTIAN emperors came in and took over in 300 AD. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions)
As a secular country, we cannot abide by non-secular moral principles. There is absolutely nothing harmful about same-sex marriage to society, (which is why a federal court case concerning the legality of banning same-sex marriage in California is now being tried), and other countries that provide same-sex marriages do not suffer because of them. It is only the “I’m better than you” attitude of heterosexual couples that is stopping us in this country. It is unfair. It is unjust. It will be changed.
There is absolutely no way that this country will not one day allow same-sex marriages. My generation is much more open-minded and accepting, and when the time comes in a few decades we will be running the country and it will show. That is why we continue to fight. We are here, we deserve our rights, and we’re not going anywhere else.

]]> By: Kaylan http://mainecampus.com/2009/11/05/wilde-stein-remains-vigilant-in-the-face-of-gay-marriage-setback/#comment-8363 Kaylan Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:49:35 +0000 http://mainecampus.com/?p=3724789#comment-8363 I agree and disagree that sex crimes are based on power issues alone. I'm a victim of sex crime myself and I know for a FACT that the offender was obsessed with sexual materials. Lust was a huge factor, not power. This same person was into porn and other sexually explicit actions and given their psychology at the time, it was not based on domination. Sadly, too many people read psychological reports based on one or two authors rather than looking at the whole scope of the problem. I do think that it is a factor that many of the sex crimes associated with the sex scandal were homosexual in nature. The Church also made point in the 1970's that homosexuals were not to enter seminary because it would possibly lead them into tempting situations (they would be living amongst other men which would be akin to someone living with the opposite sex, like a coed dorm room). Alas, some places (or the men themselves) ignored that Church rule and entered the seminary anyway (possibly assuming they had it under control, which is noble of them to begin with...the Church believes those with homosexual tendencies are to remain celibate no matter what their vocation and to offer it up like any other sexual illness as a "cross"; heterosexuals also suffer various disorders and must endure them throughout life as well. Another factor, many talk about the Church but have not researched it or even been Catholic to begin with. Most people who are not familiar with the Church have no idea what they are talking about aside from seeing some clips on tv or reading a scant article or two. I, myself, was in a monastery and studied moral theology extensively; so I'm pretty educated on Church matters. I agree and disagree that sex crimes are based on power issues alone. I’m a victim of sex crime myself and I know for a FACT that the offender was obsessed with sexual materials. Lust was a huge factor, not power. This same person was into porn and other sexually explicit actions and given their psychology at the time, it was not based on domination. Sadly, too many people read psychological reports based on one or two authors rather than looking at the whole scope of the problem.

I do think that it is a factor that many of the sex crimes associated with the sex scandal were homosexual in nature.

The Church also made point in the 1970′s that homosexuals were not to enter seminary because it would possibly lead them into tempting situations (they would be living amongst other men which would be akin to someone living with the opposite sex, like a coed dorm room).

Alas, some places (or the men themselves) ignored that Church rule and entered the seminary anyway (possibly assuming they had it under control, which is noble of them to begin with…the Church believes those with homosexual tendencies are to remain celibate no matter what their vocation and to offer it up like any other sexual illness as a “cross”; heterosexuals also suffer various disorders and must endure them throughout life as well.

Another factor, many talk about the Church but have not researched it or even been Catholic to begin with. Most people who are not familiar with the Church have no idea what they are talking about aside from seeing some clips on tv or reading a scant article or two.

I, myself, was in a monastery and studied moral theology extensively; so I’m pretty educated on Church matters.

]]> By: Adam Flanders http://mainecampus.com/2009/11/05/wilde-stein-remains-vigilant-in-the-face-of-gay-marriage-setback/#comment-8360 Adam Flanders Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:06:44 +0000 http://mainecampus.com/?p=3724789#comment-8360 Yes, you do have religious freedom and freedom of speech and you are perfectly in your right to have those. I personally believe what's going on in Canada (if that's true, which I am somewhat doubtful of) is wrong. We have freedom of speech and religion - anything SAID (as long as it's not a direct threat) should be allowed and certainly the speech within a church should be protected. That's separation of church and state. The state should not have the right to dictate speech and certainly not religious freedoms within a church. I also believe the state should not be able to force the church to wed same-sex couples if the church is against it. That was part of LD 1020, in fact - the affirmation of religious freedom. But it's a two-way street. While you have freedom of religion and speech, you do NOT have the freedom to breach the separation of church and state by imposing your religious beliefs on our laws, thereby forcing everyone to follow your religion. Same-sex marriage has no effect on anyone except the same-sex couples getting married. We take pride in our laws being secular. The churches breach of separation of church and state, and hence IRS violations, is why many YES on 1 churches will lose their tax-exempt status in the coming months and years. Visit MEmarriage.com FMI The Bible also says that seafood, for the most part (shrimp, lobster, etc.) is an abomination, MORE times than the so-called prohibitions against homosexuality. The Lord commands us to commit rape, incest, slavery, and to murder unruly children. Why aren't your people creating laws to outlaw lobster, one of Maine's primary economic resources? By outlawing child murder, rape, and slavery, isn't the the state infringing on your religious freedoms? What about the Mormon's religious freedom to marry multiple little girls? All other class rights (gender, sexual orientation, etc.) take precedence over religious freedom. For example, in NM a Christian photographer was sued by a gay couple when the photographer refused to photograph their commitment ceremony. You have the freedom to practice your religion, but it must not infringe other fundamental rights. Our laws are first and foremost secular and that is written right into the Constitution. And in terms of nature, homosexuality is genetic but it's not a heritable trait - it doesn't get passed on through generations like fur color, etc. It naturally manifests regardless of natural selection. Arguably homosexuality is a natural means to regulate overpopulation and provide better population fitness by providing surrogate parents to adopted offspring. I don't like to compare humans to animals because our motivations are often different, however animals do engage in homosexual behavior for the purpose of enjoyment (dolphins), family adoption (penguins), and conflict resolution (baboons and other primates). You have no reason to be against gay marriage - it would have zero effect on your life. We're redefining CIVIL marriage to be more inclusive, but we're not redefining religious marriage. Christianity does not have a monopoly on marriage - is everyone who gets a civil marriage a fundamentalist Christian? No! We redefined CIVIL marriage in 1967 (interracial) and before that when women weren't allowed to consent to marriage. Religious individuals used to have polygamy until we removed that with the anti-bigamy laws (I've always considered it strange that the religious fanatics accuse the gay rights movement of a slippery slope toward polygamy and child molestation when it was the religious fanatics decades ago that promoted polygamous marriage with young girls). I have no problems with your religious beliefs. I'm not telling you or anyone else how to think or how to speak. I don't even want your fundamentalist/traditionalist churches to be forced to marry same-sex couples. All I want is separation of church and state - just because you believe something, I don't want to have to be forced to live by it because you and others choose to violate IRS policy and the Constitution by legislating your version of morality. That infringes on my civil rights. It will come with the Supreme Court, in any case. Yes, you do have religious freedom and freedom of speech and you are perfectly in your right to have those. I personally believe what’s going on in Canada (if that’s true, which I am somewhat doubtful of) is wrong. We have freedom of speech and religion – anything SAID (as long as it’s not a direct threat) should be allowed and certainly the speech within a church should be protected. That’s separation of church and state. The state should not have the right to dictate speech and certainly not religious freedoms within a church. I also believe the state should not be able to force the church to wed same-sex couples if the church is against it. That was part of LD 1020, in fact – the affirmation of religious freedom.

But it’s a two-way street. While you have freedom of religion and speech, you do NOT have the freedom to breach the separation of church and state by imposing your religious beliefs on our laws, thereby forcing everyone to follow your religion. Same-sex marriage has no effect on anyone except the same-sex couples getting married. We take pride in our laws being secular. The churches breach of separation of church and state, and hence IRS violations, is why many YES on 1 churches will lose their tax-exempt status in the coming months and years. Visit MEmarriage.com FMI

The Bible also says that seafood, for the most part (shrimp, lobster, etc.) is an abomination, MORE times than the so-called prohibitions against homosexuality. The Lord commands us to commit rape, incest, slavery, and to murder unruly children. Why aren’t your people creating laws to outlaw lobster, one of Maine’s primary economic resources? By outlawing child murder, rape, and slavery, isn’t the the state infringing on your religious freedoms? What about the Mormon’s religious freedom to marry multiple little girls?

All other class rights (gender, sexual orientation, etc.) take precedence over religious freedom. For example, in NM a Christian photographer was sued by a gay couple when the photographer refused to photograph their commitment ceremony. You have the freedom to practice your religion, but it must not infringe other fundamental rights. Our laws are first and foremost secular and that is written right into the Constitution.

And in terms of nature, homosexuality is genetic but it’s not a heritable trait – it doesn’t get passed on through generations like fur color, etc. It naturally manifests regardless of natural selection. Arguably homosexuality is a natural means to regulate overpopulation and provide better population fitness by providing surrogate parents to adopted offspring. I don’t like to compare humans to animals because our motivations are often different, however animals do engage in homosexual behavior for the purpose of enjoyment (dolphins), family adoption (penguins), and conflict resolution (baboons and other primates).

You have no reason to be against gay marriage – it would have zero effect on your life. We’re redefining CIVIL marriage to be more inclusive, but we’re not redefining religious marriage. Christianity does not have a monopoly on marriage – is everyone who gets a civil marriage a fundamentalist Christian? No! We redefined CIVIL marriage in 1967 (interracial) and before that when women weren’t allowed to consent to marriage. Religious individuals used to have polygamy until we removed that with the anti-bigamy laws (I’ve always considered it strange that the religious fanatics accuse the gay rights movement of a slippery slope toward polygamy and child molestation when it was the religious fanatics decades ago that promoted polygamous marriage with young girls).

I have no problems with your religious beliefs. I’m not telling you or anyone else how to think or how to speak. I don’t even want your fundamentalist/traditionalist churches to be forced to marry same-sex couples. All I want is separation of church and state – just because you believe something, I don’t want to have to be forced to live by it because you and others choose to violate IRS policy and the Constitution by legislating your version of morality. That infringes on my civil rights.

It will come with the Supreme Court, in any case.

]]> By: June Howard http://mainecampus.com/2009/11/05/wilde-stein-remains-vigilant-in-the-face-of-gay-marriage-setback/#comment-8337 June Howard Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:36:58 +0000 http://mainecampus.com/?p=3724789#comment-8337 Sex crimes are not about the gender of the victim, ma'am, they're about power and domination. Look at the crimes taking place in prison systems. Perfectly heterosexual men go into a prison system and they are sexually dominated and overpowered for the purpose of creating and sustaining a hierarchy. If you're going to argue that that's a good reason against homosexuals, keep in mind. Rapists don't focus on gender so much as dominance. Children and women are the most prominent victims because society trains them to be vulnerable (high heels make it hard to run, don'tcha know) and the rapists are given ample opportunity (parents not paying attention to where children are or aren't actively supervising). Sex crimes are not about the gender of the victim, ma’am, they’re about power and domination. Look at the crimes taking place in prison systems. Perfectly heterosexual men go into a prison system and they are sexually dominated and overpowered for the purpose of creating and sustaining a hierarchy.

If you’re going to argue that that’s a good reason against homosexuals, keep in mind. Rapists don’t focus on gender so much as dominance. Children and women are the most prominent victims because society trains them to be vulnerable (high heels make it hard to run, don’tcha know) and the rapists are given ample opportunity (parents not paying attention to where children are or aren’t actively supervising).

]]> By: June Howard http://mainecampus.com/2009/11/05/wilde-stein-remains-vigilant-in-the-face-of-gay-marriage-setback/#comment-8335 June Howard Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:29:13 +0000 http://mainecampus.com/?p=3724789#comment-8335 And you're doing the same thing you're accusing this group of, making sweeping generalizations about an entire group of people. That's just as sad and intolerant. Most of us have felt disappointment and hurt. To be blunt, we're being told very bluntly "You're not deserving of these protections that keep your family safe in times of financial, physical and emotional difficulty." Can you honestly imagine what would happen if one of your parents, assuming they're together and they're dependent on each other due to income, shared housing and children, gets into a car accident. The car is totaled, the parent is hospitalized, and the other is told at the front desk, "No, you cannot see your partner, because you're not related." The parent stays hospitalized, and because they're not a spouse legally they're denied coverage in insurance. Bills start coming to the house. Electric, car payments, mortgage payments, hospital bills. They can't afford to pay for it. Why? Because legally they're not married. Would that be a slap in the face? Would you be angry and hurt? Most people would. This is exactly is what's being said to the LGBT community. What the heck does being with someone who has the same genitalia as you have to do with being able to protect your family? And you’re doing the same thing you’re accusing this group of, making sweeping generalizations about an entire group of people. That’s just as sad and intolerant.

Most of us have felt disappointment and hurt. To be blunt, we’re being told very bluntly “You’re not deserving of these protections that keep your family safe in times of financial, physical and emotional difficulty.”

Can you honestly imagine what would happen if one of your parents, assuming they’re together and they’re dependent on each other due to income, shared housing and children, gets into a car accident. The car is totaled, the parent is hospitalized, and the other is told at the front desk, “No, you cannot see your partner, because you’re not related.” The parent stays hospitalized, and because they’re not a spouse legally they’re denied coverage in insurance. Bills start coming to the house. Electric, car payments, mortgage payments, hospital bills. They can’t afford to pay for it.

Why? Because legally they’re not married. Would that be a slap in the face? Would you be angry and hurt? Most people would. This is exactly is what’s being said to the LGBT community.

What the heck does being with someone who has the same genitalia as you have to do with being able to protect your family?

]]> By: Bruce http://mainecampus.com/2009/11/05/wilde-stein-remains-vigilant-in-the-face-of-gay-marriage-setback/#comment-8261 Bruce Fri, 13 Nov 2009 06:00:13 +0000 http://mainecampus.com/?p=3724789#comment-8261 I as one of the 291 thousand am accused of hatred and bigotry. Those of us who refer to religion are called religious zealots. I am a Christian. I have religous freedom. I have freedom of speach. In Canada it is against the law for a preacher to preach against homosexuality, even though it is part of the Bible which has been around for many years. Hate speach against homosexuals is now a law. G&Ls say the new laws do not infringe upon religious freedoms, but they do and they will. G&Ls will probably achieve what they want, but will not be happy if religion continues to preach against G&Ls. Why does my freedom of religion have to be revoked for you to gain what you want? Leviticus 18 : 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (kjv) Even nature agrees. Homosexual acts between animals do occur, but they are not a problem for the species because of natural selection for obvious reasons. I have freedom of religion? I have free speach? I do not hate and I am not a bigot. I am not against you. I am against gay marriage. I am a Christian. I AM proud. I as one of the 291 thousand am accused of hatred and bigotry. Those of us who refer to religion are called religious zealots.

I am a Christian. I have religous freedom. I have freedom of speach.

In Canada it is against the law for a preacher to preach against homosexuality, even though it is part of the Bible which has been around for many years. Hate speach against homosexuals is now a law. G&Ls say the new laws do not infringe upon religious freedoms, but they do and they will.

G&Ls will probably achieve what they want, but will not be happy if religion continues to preach against G&Ls. Why does my freedom of religion have to be revoked for you to gain what you want?

Leviticus 18 : 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (kjv)

Even nature agrees. Homosexual acts between animals do occur, but they are not a problem for the species because of natural selection for obvious reasons.

I have freedom of religion? I have free speach?

I do not hate and I am not a bigot. I am not against you. I am against gay marriage.

I am a Christian. I AM proud.

]]> By: Bruce http://mainecampus.com/2009/11/05/wilde-stein-remains-vigilant-in-the-face-of-gay-marriage-setback/#comment-8256 Bruce Fri, 13 Nov 2009 05:02:55 +0000 http://mainecampus.com/?p=3724789#comment-8256 You did a good job of taking my comment "my favorite co-worker..." and turn it to sound as a bad thing. In the article that started this debate, 291 thousand people where accused of hated and bigotry. My comment was a small attempt to say I don't hate and I am not a biggot. Changing my words to reflect 50 years ago is also not right as I am not guilty of what my grandparents and great grand parents did. G&Ls use examples of injustice from the past many times, but it will not justify your cause. Your cause must stand on its own merrits if it is to succeed. I attempted to use an example of past events to show the goodness of different, but you use past examples in attempts to telling me how I am a biggot now, or fifty years ago. Debate it good, and I will stand by what I have stated with every opportunity to vote. The one thing that we can both agree upon is that this issue will ultimatly come to the Supreme Court, and once they come to a decision, you will not have to worry about anyone changing the ruling. John Roberts is impressive and I am sure he will rule according to laws and not opinions. I too would like it to go to US Supreme Court, that it would be done with, either yay or nay, that the debates would stop and the media could move on. You did a good job of taking my comment “my favorite co-worker…” and turn it to sound as a bad thing. In the article that started this debate, 291 thousand people where accused of hated and bigotry. My comment was a small attempt to say I don’t hate and I am not a biggot. Changing my words to reflect 50 years ago is also not right as I am not guilty of what my grandparents and great grand parents did. G&Ls use examples of injustice from the past many times, but it will not justify your cause. Your cause must stand on its own merrits if it is to succeed.

I attempted to use an example of past events to show the goodness of different, but you use past examples in attempts to telling me how I am a biggot now, or fifty years ago.

Debate it good, and I will stand by what I have stated with every opportunity to vote.

The one thing that we can both agree upon is that this issue will ultimatly come to the Supreme Court, and once they come to a decision, you will not have to worry about anyone changing the ruling. John Roberts is impressive and I am sure he will rule according to laws and not opinions. I too would like it to go to US Supreme Court, that it would be done with, either yay or nay, that the debates would stop and the media could move on.

]]> By: Eva http://mainecampus.com/2009/11/05/wilde-stein-remains-vigilant-in-the-face-of-gay-marriage-setback/#comment-8255 Eva Fri, 13 Nov 2009 05:02:07 +0000 http://mainecampus.com/?p=3724789#comment-8255 There are plenty of religious groups and organizations active on campus and receiving support from staff members and public figures. No one cries out that they feel threatened or outraged because they disagree with that group's point of view. It seems that the tables are turning and the people who once felt safe denouncing the rights of gays and lesbians here now feel that they can no longer do that and be in the majority. The University of Maine is going to support the rights of all its students. If a person disagrees with this and does not want to be a part of our community then he can transfer to a private college with religious affiliations. If a person feels uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals they need to educate themselves and do some deeper soul-searching. There are plenty of religious groups and organizations active on campus and receiving support from staff members and public figures. No one cries out that they feel threatened or outraged because they disagree with that group’s point of view. It seems that the tables are turning and the people who once felt safe denouncing the rights of gays and lesbians here now feel that they can no longer do that and be in the majority.
The University of Maine is going to support the rights of all its students. If a person disagrees with this and does not want to be a part of our community then he can transfer to a private college with religious affiliations.
If a person feels uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals they need to educate themselves and do some deeper soul-searching.

]]> By: Adam Flanders http://mainecampus.com/2009/11/05/wilde-stein-remains-vigilant-in-the-face-of-gay-marriage-setback/#comment-8136 Adam Flanders Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:50:01 +0000 http://mainecampus.com/?p=3724789#comment-8136 It's been shown that civil unions have failed wherever they have been placed into law. Our system cannot handle a separate institution. It creates confusion and still results in unequal treatment. Research the success rates of civil unions in the US - they fail. Your analogy about black slaves not wanting to be white is irrelevant. As gay people we do not want to be straight. We do, however, want the same right to get married as heterosexual couples have, just as black slaves wanted to have the same freedoms as white people. Later interracial couples wanted to have the same rights as white/white and black/black couples, but they did not desire to be a white/white or black/black couple. I have no desire to be straight and if there were a pill to make me straight, I would not take it. Same-sex couples seeking marriage equality have no desire to be a straight couple. Marriage has been many many things through the years, in many nations, in many religions. Christianity does not hold a monopoly on marriage. Additionally, we are speaking about CIVIL marriage, not religious marriage. We are not trying to be like anyone else. 50 years ago your argument would be the same except that you'd be accusing interracial couples of trying to redefine marriage, and saying that black people were trying to be white by seeking interracial marriage equality with their white spouses. It’s been shown that civil unions have failed wherever they have been placed into law. Our system cannot handle a separate institution. It creates confusion and still results in unequal treatment. Research the success rates of civil unions in the US – they fail.

Your analogy about black slaves not wanting to be white is irrelevant. As gay people we do not want to be straight. We do, however, want the same right to get married as heterosexual couples have, just as black slaves wanted to have the same freedoms as white people. Later interracial couples wanted to have the same rights as white/white and black/black couples, but they did not desire to be a white/white or black/black couple.

I have no desire to be straight and if there were a pill to make me straight, I would not take it. Same-sex couples seeking marriage equality have no desire to be a straight couple.

Marriage has been many many things through the years, in many nations, in many religions. Christianity does not hold a monopoly on marriage. Additionally, we are speaking about CIVIL marriage, not religious marriage. We are not trying to be like anyone else. 50 years ago your argument would be the same except that you’d be accusing interracial couples of trying to redefine marriage, and saying that black people were trying to be white by seeking interracial marriage equality with their white spouses.

]]>