WIL WHEATON dot NET: 1.5

Amen to that, dude.

It can't be said enough, or in enough places. It's time for this publicly acceptable form of discrimination to become unaccaptable.

I think Bush really blew it on this one. It smells of desperation and division and flopsweat.

While polls (with carefully worded questions) show a majority of Americans opposing gay marriage, I suspect relatively few will go out of their way to support an amendment. It might firm up support in his base, but they're true believers anyway. Those on the margins may roll their eyes and wonder what the hell they saw in this guy four years back.

There's a good chance that this move will quietly disappear in a few weeks, just like Bush's vague advocacy for a renewed space program.

I think the worst part in all this is that a judge, not sure which one, or what level he was in, said that banning same-sex marriages was anticonstitutional.

Dude, I live in San Francisco. I have visited the people in the lines during the first week, and I have spoken with them. The Hosexual Agenda is far more healthy than the Bush Administration Agenda.

Compare:

Homosexuals: Feed the cat
Bush Administration: Change the Constitution

H: Share their lives with someone they love
B: Topple regimes in the middle-east

H: Have families, raise good children
B: Prevent condom use

H: Get married
B: Make it government's business to save your soul

President Jackass can't go bye-bye soon enough for me.

The likelikhood of this happening this year is very small, since nobody in Congress (apart from a few extremists) is going to want to wrangle through the issue in an election year. The fact that the President would support such an Amendment is horrifying, but not at all surprising.

Those who think there is no difference between the parties have got to examine their convictions very closely in light of this (as if the last four years weren't enough). Do you really think President Gore would have done such a thing? Special interests rule the two parties, it's true, but the over-simplification of Nader and his ilk are truly culpable in this current mess.

Look at the pictures from SF. Look at the happiness, the love that pours out at you. If that's a threat to your marriage, I think you have way worse problems than homosexuals to worry about.

I live in Ontario, where gay marriages have been legal for a few months now. And I can tell you, society hasn't collapsed.

Well said!

Good lord. I wrote "Hosexual" instead of "Homosexual". My bad. Funny, but my bad.

You knew what I meant.

Good for you, Wil. I'm rapidly losing hope in my country, my government, and my fellow Americans, (never had any hope for my current president) but I'm glad you haven't lost hope yet.

Wil--

I start visiting your site as "Stand By Me" and "ST:TNG" fan -- but now I read your blog DAILY because of what you have to say, as a POLITICAL ACTIVIST and as a FAMILY MAN.

I agree with essentially everything you said in the article.

--Allan French, Silicon Valley, CA
(living in what used to be a "hi-tech mecca"; but that was before George Dubya f*cked it up and The Terminator rescued us from No-Gray-Matter Davis)

[[Yay, I'm among the First Few Posters today (I think).]]

This is a very evil strategy.
The amendment has no hopes of passing Congress, let alone being ratified by the states, and conservatives know this.
That is why I don't think it will backfire--there will be only limited criticism from the right. So, as you say, the strategy really is to divide America, because Bush has few or no positives to talk about.

Wil Wheaton for president! (Well. When he's old enough, anyways)

Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of whether it is sexual or racial or religious.

Very well worded posting Wil. You would make an excellent Canadian! :)

Love your work, and I will definately be buying your books.

Great post Wil. The thing that infuriates me is that the drive to let homosexuals be married isn't about forcing churches to marry them. Any given church can decide not to marry a homosexual couple if it wants. This is about allowing a couple to pursue that, either at a church that does support it or via a County Clerk or whatever. No one on the right wants to acknowledge this. They want to make it out like its an attack on amrriage and next thing you know we'll be marrying our dogs and letting potted plants vote and then Western Civilization will fall... Criminey.

Here's a fun link for you
http://www.rmpn.org/content/index.cfm?fuseaction=showContent&contentID=53&navID=51

The "fidelity pledge" was sent to all lawmakers who are supporting this amendment. It asks them to add to the amendment a provision making divorce illegal, because if this is TRULY about 'defense of marriage' then divorce should be illegal too.

The silence of the hypocrites is deafening....

Thank you. I'm surrounded by people who disagree with me when I say some of the exact things you said here. It's nice to feel a little less alone...

wil, what's the opposite of boycott? cause that's what i'm gonna do with your site. well said, and inspiring... it's good to know that people take time and effort to see through the bullshit.
ps/ i live in ontario too. since gay marriages became legal, i've actually gotten a raise at work! maybe gay marriages had something to do with this too!?

RELAX. For a constitutional ammendment to pass, it must be approved in congress by a super-majority which means 2/3 of congress must vote for it. Then 2/3 of the states must ratify it by a 2/3 in favor vote. When was the last time you saw ANYTHING get 66% of the vote? I don't think you could 2/3 of the people to vote that chocolate tastes good.

I'm a Republican. I'm not a believer in many of the Liberal viewpoints, but . . .
. . . an Amendment to the Constitution?!?!? What is he thinking (as if). It makes me want to go out and marry a guy.

Mike
www.lindenwald.com

Thank you, Wil. You were eloquent, and you are right. This isn't about protecting the sanctity of anything - it's about hate and about fear and about getting a man that has done nothing at all for the average American over the past 4 years reelected. I can only hope that a majority of Americans, no matter how they feel about gay marriage, can begin to recognize that. Bravo!

One of my closest friends (who happens to be gay) and I were talking about the weddings that have been taking place in this beautiful city that I live in (San Francisco)... The support that Mayor Newsom has granted on gay marriages was I thought a great move, and I had no hesitation when it comes to expressing it to my friend. For some reason, I assumed automatically, that because he's gay, that he'd want the same rights as straight people have, which in this case is the right to marry the person you love.

I was completely taken aback when he told me that he is against it. He feels like marriage is simply a formality, and nothing else. He further explained that marriage is something between God and the couple...

Somehow I agree with him. Politics and religion mixing together have created this whole mess that our country is in- I think this is the primary reason why marriage loses its sanctity in the first place.

Very well written Wil. Your eloquence, intellect and ethics are enviable and commendable. Although I'm Canadian, I've lamented every single day of Bush's term as President - you've outlined just one more reason to do so. Internationally, we all would have been better off with Gore. Best wishes with JAG. Take care Wil.

Right on Wil!

As despicable as GWB's actions and statements are, I don't really think that they are idealogically motivated. If that were true, then he would have proposed this right after he was sworn into office. This is clearly political grandstanding in an election year. He knows as well as anyone that there is a 0% chance of actually passing this in the current political climate.

One positive note is that the Bush White House is very likely worried about their re-election prospects. What I've been worried about for the past year is that he was going to continue his "war for re-election" strategy and start a military build-up in Israel. This clearly bogus constitutional amendent thrust is perhaps evidence that they will, for the time being at least, actually pay attention to what the voters want.

I hope that the Democratic party is wise enough to not be distracted, and keep to the real point at hand. "We don't support your ammendment, Mr. Bush, but remind us again of your rationale for invading Iraq. What evidence did you have at that time to justify this invasion? How many American soldiers have died since you declared Victory in Iraq?". I'm hoping that Mr. Dachle (from my home state, whom I've met) and the other leaders of the Democratic party will keep a cool head and keep to the real issues.

Amen, Wil. I never thought I'd be agreeing with Democrats _or_ republicans (I'm sick of both), but Howard Dean, John Kerry and Andrew Sullivan are all correct.

This shouldn't be a political issue, either at the federal level, state level, or any other level for that matter. It should be a given that people have the right to choose, be they straight, gay, lesbian or bisexual. They have just as much right to freedoms as anyone who is a citizen of this great, yet floundering nation of ours.

I encourage all WWdN readers to vote this November. And please, for the love of Pete, Don't Vote For Bush. To do so is to hand our country over to special interests, and give up all our freedoms, not just those of a minority...

Does this remind anyone of Bush's father's term? We were all embroiled in the Iran-Contra scandal, horrible things were happening around the world, and here's Bush Sr., waving his hand like a magician, saying "Don't burn the flag!" Um... What? Aren't there bigger issues going on? "NO! Keep watching my hand waving and don't burn the flag!"

It just seems very... diversionary...

Well said, Wil!

I was wondering if you'd speak up about this, and I'm glad to hear you did.

Can I get a Hallefuckinglujia? Can I learn to spell? Will Lassie make it in time? Have I been saying that GW was going to go too far for even his ultra-Conservative lackeys for the last 4 years? Do I (pretty much) agree with everything you've said in this entry?

It's a flurry of yeses from start to finish, and I'm going to go tell my friends to stop making fun of me for obsessively reading your blog - this entry alone redeems me.

Eric

As usual the point was missed. Bush said that he supported "civil unions" on the state level. The problem is the attempted redefinition of the word marriage. Marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman. Gay people can get married all they want, so long as it is to someone of the opposite sex, that's the freaking definition.

I don't have a problem with 'civil unions' why should anyone else?

Well said. My only beef would be with "I believe that marriage is between two people who love each other, who wish to make a commitment to stay together through good times and bad." What about people who want to get married for other reasons, or who want to be married to more than one person? I mean, if you want to be REALLY tolerant and open-minded, then you gotta broaden this definition of marriage to include polygamy, be it polyandry or polygyny. But I say do what you will.

ROCK ON! I could not agree with you more...

Brian:

Just for the record, after the amendment is successfully proposed, 3/4 of the states must ratify it to become part of the constitution (not 2/3). The gory details are at the US Constitution FAQ.

The process is hard, by design.

well said Wil. Well said.

yes Wil yes! All my online groups are talking and dealing with this issue. and I am sure that like you said this will no doubt backfire but the audactity is scary!
Furthermore if you check the whitehouse press release today he is asking for biblical guidance! So looking at genesis in the ol bible it does indeed clearly define marriage, as as a union between one man and one OR MORE women sooo just lets dictate our society via a governement that looks to the bible for legeslative policy. woopie.

Also another important issue that wwdn readers should know about. In the house a bill HR 1997 is being debated TODAY that is a 'criminal' bill. It attempts to get tough on violence against pregnant women. Sounds rosey doesnt it? well it's called the acts of violence against unborn childern act. The problem is it takes away little by little reproductive rights from women and makes it mandiated by the government. A government that is using a 1500 year old book to decide what to do about abortions today. So I guess we all need to be aware of the bills being passed and the true ramifications of their passing. Now I am christian and do look toward the bible for guidance and lessons but I do not look toward it to tell others what to do. That is not my perogitive. Now Bush is trying to do that. But we as a society should have the right to discuss when and how life is created and how it should be protected and NOT let a crime bill incidently DEFINE life and protect a fetus just like a man or women. If we as a society decide upon that then so be it, but where is the discussion?

Thank you.

I've been coming to your site since shortly after Sept. 11, and one of the many things that has kept me coming back is that you continue to stand up for what you believe no matter the consequences. I admire and respect you for that!

By the way, when we will learn that separate but equal is anything but?

Very well said. I've been waiting for you to speak up, and I'm very happy that you did it so eloquently. Consequences be damned. The truth is the truth, and it will prevail over bigotry...eventually.

This possible amendment is discrimination in the highest form at the highest level. In a country founded on the basis of freedom for one and all, our leaders are making decisions that ultimately undermine that goal. They make decisions that relegate an entire section of our society to second class citizens. The Constitution says "All men were created equal." At that time, it didn't mean all men but all white men. After more than two hundred years, we've made that belief encompass all men and women regardless of color, but apparently that equality only applies if you are heterosexual.

Isn't it enough that they force us to live in fear? Now, they are trying to undermine the foundation of civil liberty our country was created for.

For the sake of Americanism, vote anti-Bush in November.

i went ahead and posted this on an lj community i run down here ... you have a great many more readers, thought id pass it along: http://www.pfaw.org/go/save_our_constitution/

"We, the undersigned, strongly oppose the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution that would require discrimination against any specific group of Americans. The Federal Marriage Amendment is a betrayal of the American principles of equality and fairness. We oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment."

Right on Wil,

"Evil is what happens when good people do nothing"
Go out and vote and get this idiot out of office.

Shout it from the roof tops. I'd love to see (at least) a 90% turnout.

"Freedom is everybody's fight."

Heh, when I started reading this post there were two comments. Now there's about thirty.

This kind of homophobia crap is what has driven people out of this country for decades. Expatriates all through history have left America for places like France where people understand that some people are gay. Yet another issues where America is behind the times.

You know, it's a good thing we have free speech here, because there's a whole lot of stuff to talk about.

Thank you, Wil.

Good post. Your comment about the complete irrelevance of gay marriages to the success or failure of your own is perfect.

Well said Wil! I support your post 100%!!!

Jeez, the land of freedom is starting to look more and more like Iran every day.

- The European

Amen to that. And thanks for addressing this, Wil. Civil unions just don't cut it--no federal protection.

So banning same sex marriage is a good idea because...? What, there's too much love in the world, and we need to cut down on some of it? I'd also like to hear no more about the sanctity of sacred nature of marriage. As far as the government and courts are concerned the issue of marriage should be strictly an issue of legal contract (hello?!? seperation of church and state? Anyone?! Anyone?!) If certain religions or churchs want to ban it or refuse to recognize same sex unions, fair game, but not the US government. If you take the religious elements out of the argument against same sex marriage there is no longer any wind in that sail.

As individuals, I would love to see more people who look at this from the perspective of, "If two consenting adults make a commitment to love and support each other, how is that ever a bad thing?" We should care only about where people (again consenting adults) put their hearts and not where they stick their d---s...

Regarding my earlier comments: Intelligent commentators are welcome to visit my website. You can post publicly to the Guest Book ("personal" pages) or privately to the Submission Form ("professional" pages, see link above résumé).

Since I can remove vulgar remarks and will learn your IP address, please save us both the effort and keep it polite. Thanks!

The government shouldn't be involved in marriage in any way, shape, or form, either for hetero or homo. At most, the only thing you should have to register with the government is your joint intention to share responsibility for children ("co-parents"), and that should even be open to more than two people. There shouldn't be "legal" gay marriage or "legal" hetero marriage, at least not in terms of the government getting involved. If you want to designate someone as your emergency contact/medical person or what not, go ahead. Doesn't mean the government needs to issue you a piece of paper to reflect a purely social convention.

Thank you, Wil. Well said.

Thanks for that. More people need to stand up and say how wrong a Cons. amendment would be. And thanks for the Nixon thing..I'd never heard that, but boy does it sound familiar.

E
Dublin, Ireland

Bless you for this Wil. If anything it further affirms my belief that you're one amazing guy.

Can't wait to read the new book!

Wil,

I've been a fan for many years, and with this statement, you've just guaranteed that I will be for many years to come.

Thank you.

i'm sure this will take some bashing, but listen up. have you ever stopped to think that maybe it's not about hate and discrimination? that some people believe in a higher power, that some are willing to take a stand for what they believe in? I believe, along with GWB, that supporting gay marriage would be wrong and would hurt the concept of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. We believe in the Bible and in God. We believe in supporting Israel. We believe in things that would take me volumes to discuss. I don't hate homosexuals but I don't support them in their "marriages" and I won't vote for someone who does.
I am sorry if I am wrong, but from reading this site I feel that you take the democrat flavor of the day and run with it, taking every opportunity to bash Bush. Then all of the comments that I see (in my admittedly limited reading of the comments - full disclosure) support you 100%. Somehow I feel this is more in regards to their "idolization" of Wil Wheaton than a clear understanding of the facts involved. I use the word "idolization" for the lack of a better more appropriate word at this time - no I don't think they are worshipping you.
I would love to have the chance for a back and forth, academic discussion with you that you would post on your site, weekly or monthly and we could seriously offer our respective sides, me being a GWB-voting southern republican, and you having apparently liberal leanings.

I will admit that what you say often makes me angry, but I want to approach this in a civilized manner. Would you be open to a forum of this nature? Give me a topic and a few days for research and let us produce our arguments.

sincerely,

david dickerson

Maybe Bush and his cronies would be happy if gay people used different words than "wedding" and "marriage" to define their union. Then the definition of the word "marriage" between a man and a woman would stand secure.

I agree with Senator Kerry. Has Dubya nothing else to worry about????
5 million unemployed and he's pissed about a few folk in SF having a nice day out.

What an asshole.

I have never looked forward to an election so much.

I think Bush got some horrible advice. He is suring up his right wing religious votes by sacrificing all the homosexuals. I think the votes gained won't outweigh the negative effects in the poll of public opinion. There are far to many people that know gay marriage isn't going to hurt them. Bottom line homosexuals should be allowed to pledge there love for each other and they can already. They should benefit from financial situations that other married couple benefit from, but the federal government should have nothing to do with this. Even our founding fathers thought that during peace time federal goverment should be limited severly. In this time of war the president should concentrate on more important issues. Really i swear i dont know the man, but i do support this war on terror, i do support the liberation of Iraq and the ousting of Saddam H., but whatever his belief on gay marriage he should have kept it to himself. The amendment idea was just stupid. *All to float the party line and secure right with republican votes.

Oh yeah and I am a libertarian.

JRS

Yeah, Wil!!!

*applause*

In response to a person above, the problem with "civil unions" is that it is still a seperate but equal thing. Unless you want the state to issue "civil union" liscenses to all couples reguardless of gender, it is still descrimination.

Wil,
You couldn't have said it better. I admire your courage to stand up for what you believe in, even more so when you have a book coming out. Your entries are excellent. I even enjoy the technical ones that I can barely understand.
I think we can all expect great things from you over the years. Looking forward to watching your career grow and grow!

Thank you for standing up and posting what you believe!!!!! Amen! :)

Wil --

I think you're dead on... That was a very impressive entry! Thanks for writing AND posting that.

Nags

Thank you for standing up for what you believe in!!!! Amen! :)

See, the problem I have with marriage for men and women and civil unions for everyone else is that you create a subcategory of people. It's that whole "separate but equal" thing I alluded to before. We don't have a strong history of affording the same rights to two different subcategories of people. You end up with the ability to give a one set of rights to marriages (say for example, all the benefits inherent in a marriage right now)and a separate set of rights to "civil unions" (say for example, letting the spouse/partner make decesions, but disallowing them inheritance rights). I'd like to think idealistically that this wouldn't happen, but just by reading my history book, I'm not willing to put my faith in the system. It needs to be called one thing only, or the government just needs to stay out of it all together.

Hey Wil,

I've been reading your site for a while now and enjoy it very much. I guess I'm going to have to be the only person to disagree with you on this one. Maybe others disagree too, but just don't want to say so.

And before you decide that I'm some redneck klansman, I should tell you that I'm a gay guy myself. I also happen to be a conservative Christian. Weird combo, huh? You can't imagine the conflicts flying around in my head! :)

Anyway, just wanted to say that not all gay people think its a good idea to screw around with what God established as the marriage covenant. And I know you could care less about my God, but that doesn't make Him any less real to me.

God established marriage as something between a man and a woman. Any variation on that is contradictory to God's plan. As a non-believer, you may be able to dismiss this as non-important, but I don't see how anyone who considers themselves to be a Christian can see it your way. Since our nation was founded on Christian principles, I think it is great that GWB is taking the stand he has chosen. I don't believe he will be successful, unfortunately. And as a result, our country will take one more step toward the abyss of sin that has destroyed so many great nations in history.

Anyway, thats the view from one fag. Even though we disagree on this (and most other political points), I still love ya dude! Keep on keepin' on!

Thank you for having the courage to stand up for what you believe.

Thank you for having the courage to stand up for what you believe.

Thanks, Wil. As a person in a committed relationship who has chosen not to be legally married because so many people I know and cherish cannot be, it's great to read someone as well-written as you on this subject. Keep the courage of your convictions, it's why we come back to the site day after day.

Very well said Wil. I was actually about to post the article from Andrew Sullivan in my LJ because I felt it was very well said.

I cannot believe that anyone, even our jackass president (as much I hate & distrust him) would think to do such a thing. Open discrimination is NOT acceptable. I just hope my fellow Americans can see this.

If they do not, then I think I will move to Canada.

I believe Bush is wrong as well. I believe in God too, but you know what, the Bible is NOT THE LAW! I say let those of any race, religion, sexuality, creed, be bound with whatever makes them happy,and if gays and lesbians want to marry, I say go for it. Wil is right it wont affect the marriage between and men and women, it is they themselves that will break it or make it. Let's stop finding ways to degrade our fellow americans, let's rise above these filthy politics and be humans. "All men were created equal", so does that mean we all should be treated differently, I don't think that is the context meant to be interpreted by that statement! I am neither republican nor democratic, however it plays no role what level I believe politically, it is the human concept that scares and worries me the most. What have we come too when we can't have a say in who we marry, who we fall in love with. Today it is is gay and lesbian marriage, tomorrow it might be your marriage or life someone is trying to dictate. Let us end the insane crimes against humanity!!

Wil, I hate to break it to you, but Andrew Sullivan is not an ultra-conservative. He's conservative on some issues, such as the war, but liberal on cultural issues. You probably have a lot more in common with him politically than you think.

And, since Sullivan is gay, his opinion on the issue is probably more a reflection of his personal life than of conservative ideology.

Please note that I not saying that gays do not have a right to be heard or to be taken seriously on this issue. All I am saying is that because of his personal stake in the issue, Sullivan's views tend to be different from those of most conservatives.

Now, you may ask, what is a conservative like me (I supported the war, I oppose same sex marriage, etc.) doing reading your blog? Well, for one thing, I'm a Star Trek fan. I've met you at conventions, and you seem like I nice guy. You're a talented writer, and generally enjoy reading what you write, even when you sometimes go off on topics where I disagree with you.

I'm not going to boycott you or try to retract the donation I made to help cure leukemia, just because you happen to disagree with me politically. I'm a reasonable guy, and I know that reasonable people can differ on things.

But it would be nice if you could acknowledge that maybe -- just maybe -- some of the people who disagree with you about gay marriage might do so out of something other than "hatred, bigotry, and ignorance."

This doesn't belong in the Constitution pure and simple. It takes rights away from people. In the history of the Constitution, only one other amendment has ever taken rights away from people...and it also happens to be the only amendment which was ever repealed: the 18th, Prohibition. All the other amendments have either enumerated additional rights (such as granting the vote to blacks, women, and 18-year-olds) or clarified procedural matters (such as the 12th Amendment, fixing the bugs in the way Presidents and Vice-Presidents are elected, or the 20th which changed the day that terms start, or the one clarifying Presidential succession and disability). So a "Federal Marriage Amendment" just doesn't belong there, purely on grounds of being consistent with what has come before.

Which is not to say that I don't oppose this idea on moral grounds as well. A member of my family is gay, and I want him to find the same kind of happiness I found in my marriage. How is my marriage, or anyone else's, threatened if he wants to marry another guy? Because they can't have kids in the biological way? Neither can my wife; she had a hysterectomy years before I met her, and I knew about it long before we pledged to marry...does that somehow make MY marriage less "legitimate"? Does OUR marriage "threaten" anyone else's as a result?

Anyway, my other thought is, WTF is Bush doing by proposing this NOW? THERE'S A WAR ON, in case he hadn't noticed! Worrying about who can get married and who can't, when there's still a major threat of Americans getting KILLED by Islamofascist terrorists, is, in my view, morally equivalent to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Neither gay nor straight people are going to be too concerned about whether they can marry or not, if they're DEAD! So, Mr. President, I say, "First things first!"

Awesome Wil! Just wanted to let you know that the Americans who support gay rights have the support of a huge number of Canadians!

I am a pretty conservative person, normally, and agree with everything you wrote. Bush will lose in November and this issue is why; unless he changes his mind between now and then...and even then, he will probably still lose just for coming out in support of this.

I am also in the minority, unfortunately it IS the minority opinion, and have no problem with same sex couples getting married. What's the big deal? How does it hurt me or my marriage? Will we all turn into a pillar of salt if gay people are treated as equals? How ignorant! I think people who have a problem with same-sex marriages not only are bigoted towards gay and lesbians but also don't have enough to do or think about so they create problems in their heads. They are unhappy with themselves and with the choices or non-action they have taken and are looking for someone to blame. I say we leave the gay community ALONE, for pete's sake! Let them live their lives and we should live ours.

Hey I am standing here
I am not beside you
Don't look for me behind you
Just know
I am standing here
And I am standing here with you

Thank you. Lots. It's important that people say this.

One of the things I plan to do when I have the gay marriage fight with my father is ask him how his marriage has been destroyed in the past few weeks.

Both sides of this argument have unclean hands. I don't support wasting political capital on this, because it (amending the constitution) is too much of a hot button issue. But while I would rather get the state out of the entire marriage business, the gay acceptance movement isn't saintly either.

They are hypocritical; you will hear, "we just want to be able to do the same things as everyone else", but when that is offered in civil unions, you see clamoring for the word marriage. You hear "we just want to be left alone" and the same person clamors to be first in front of the TV camera.

Bush was provoked into calling for this. His call for an amendment was just as empty as the illegal marriage licenses being granted in SanFran, and nothing is going to come from either of them. But the illegal acts being conducted in SanFran are the very things that will damage the image of gays in America to the point that something like an FMA can be passed.

On top of all of it, this does have the potential to spark a constitutional crisis on the level of Dred Scott for the exact same reasons. You will have one state being forced to recognize a legal status from another state that is patently illegal in that state. At that point, it becomes a federal issue, and we may get an amendment whether we want it or not. And at this point, gay marriage is down 60/40 and doesn't stand a chance. A constitutional crisis would be the very thing that prompts people like me who just don't care to support an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The last time, when there was no chance of doing that, we fought a civil war over it.

Amen, Wil!

This is the most disgusting abuse of the constitution in our nation's history, and it's nothing more than a political maneuver.

Wil, I know you were reluctant to post this - thanks for doing it. Everything you said was right on target. Tell you what - I'll buy *two* copies of "Just A Geek" to compensate for any loss in sales resulting from this, ok? :) Cheers - Paul

Wil, you said a mouthful.
Consider me a re-re-affirmed admirer.

I do wish the people who think that marriage has always been one man and one woman wauld read their Bibles. Solomon was a polygamist. Other cultures have had multi-partner marriages over the millennia, such as Ireland (even during the early centuries after its conversion to Christianity, taking multiple wives was allowed by law). Both Christianity and Judaism have polygamous pasts. Islam has a polygamous present. Other cultures just haven't given two farts in a windstorm about two men or two women sharing their lives together. History says diversity has been noted and accepted. Why some people can't is an exercise for a psychiatrist, not me.

I live in Oz, and I think that the sooner you Americans dump that poor sad excuse of a president, the better off the world will be. I thought the UN was made to protect the world from people like him!

Well said, well quoted, well done! You took what I was thinking and put it amazingly well, Wil.

One of the big things that bugs me about this issue is how much the conservatives scream about the "sanctity of marriage." A quick glance at the statistics for divorce, adultery and domestic violence will put to rest any thoughts that heterosexual marriage has some kind of sanctity that can't be found elsewhere. Marriage in itself is just a symbol; it's what the couple puts into it that matters. The sanctity they're talking about comes from love, not marriage.

I agree that the government does not belong in marriage. They don't get involved with baptism, communion, confirmation... why this particular sacrament? Because sex is involved?

Say no to Bush, kids... anyone who claims to back a reduction in government while at the same time uses the government to impose his own moral standards on the entire populace does not deserve to lead. Bush will leave you alone to live your life as long as it's a life he approves of. It won't end here. Use your vote.

Well said! Thank you!

While President Bush has endorsed a Constitutional ban on gay marriage, he did leave open the possibility of individual states crafting Civil Union legislation. Some posters here have stated this would be an acceptable compromise. As a gay citizen of these United States, I hearby declare that Civil Unions are completely unacceptable unless they are recognized by the Federal government and given the same standing as marriages.

Back when the "Defense of Marriage Act" was being rushed through Congress in the wake of the ruling from the Hawaii Supreme Court, the General Accounting Office of the United States was requested to document what laws were on the books that were related to marriage. They found over one thousand such laws, laws that gave special rights, privileges, and responsibilities to legally married persons. A summary of the report can be found here (http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf) in PDF format. That's just a listing of the affected areas of the body of law and it goes on for 75 pages. It does not list the text of the laws. That would probable go on for thousands of pages.

When a state, such as Vermont (currently the only state to recognize any form of Civil Union), grants gay couples the right to form Civil Unions, presumably all of the rights granted by that state to married couples now would apply to those joined in Civil Union. (Presumably, but not guaranteed.) However, and this is the big problem, no matter how carefully and completely the legislation is drafted by the states, none of the Federal laws granting rights, privileges, and responsibilities will apply. None.

Unless Congress writes Civil Unions into all of the over one thousand places in Federal law where marriage is current recognized, Civil Unions will continue to be inherently unequal.

I agree with your comments, Wil. I do believe this amendment will have difficulty getting out of Congress. However, if it goes to the States, I think it's going through quickly.I've written my Congressmen and State legislators to voice my opposition to any amendment. I recommend everyone who feels strongly about this to do the same. Make your voice heard.

I just want to add a thought here: I don't see a problem with people who disagree affirming their right to disagree. Where I have problems is with flamewars and all that crap.

I think that it's FANTASTIC that people are talking about this, and I realize that some people simply won't change their minds, and see things the way I do. That's okay. As a matter of fact, that's really important.

I just want to make it clear that dissenting opinions are respected, as long as they are presented in a respectful manner.

Like I said, we as a nation need to confront this issue, and if my stupid website can stimulate some dialogue, I think that's a good thing.

I'm Canadian, and I agree with you 100% and am sure my friends and family have been subjected to my opinion on this many times over. Canada has had the same issues going on for a while now. Ontario has allowed Same sex marriages, but Ralph Klein out in alberta has the same veiw as Bush. I normal have backed Ralph Klein in most of the things he has done for Alberta and have looked past his drinking problem and other such media slashing that has been done, but why is same sex marriages any of the governments concern. Yeah I respect that Bush and Klein have an opinion and that they stand by it but that they are trying to force their opinions on others is unacceptable. The thing that worries me most about it is the fact that the youth of today don't turn out for voting like they should. That the percentage is down. So the people who do vote, like our parents and grandparents are the one's who's has the higher percentage of perticipation in voting and they are the one's who will most likely have the old school views and closed minded opinions on subjects like same sex marriages.

My hat's off to you Will and I will defend my reading your blog till my dieing day!

while I consider myself more of a centrist, it blows me away that GW would want to ammend the constitution. That's just too extreme, especially since his argument for the ammendment is based on his religous beliefs. This will backfire on him. People from all sides of the political spectrum are opposed to this. who cares if gays marry? really? who cares? GW needs to get with the times. This is the type of shit we usually go to war to stop.

Thank you. Very well spoken. I just don't understand how me marrying my partner (which I will be doing on March 31st at 2pm) will affect any other marriage in the universe. Marriage is a commitment between two people.

Good lord--"ultraconservative"? Do people even *think* for themselves? Sullivan is far from "ultraconservative".

Otherwise, good post.

I'm with you, Wil. Marriage should never have been part of governments agenda. It wasn't when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were established, and it shouldn't be now. The problem is, government put their hands into it a long time ago, and now (especially with the tax credit for married couples who were unfairly bearing more of the tax burden) marriage has become a hotbed of political issue. Why? It's an agreement between 2 people to share responsibility for their household (and children, if applicable). That's all it should be, as far as the government is concerned.
The problem with Mr. Bush (and most of the'religious right') is that his religious rhetoric and bible-thumping causes enmity for almost all Christians, whether they subscribe to his agenda or not. And the funny thing is, for most true Christians who subscribe to the Bible's tenets, most of the Bush agenda flies in the face of Christ's teachings! As a Christian humanist, I have found it appalling that we became the first strike, take revenge country that would go forth "in God's name" to eliminate terrorism without so much as adequate proof or support of our neighbors! What happened to "turn the other cheek"? or even better, "Love your enemies, and pray for those who hurt you." I never heard these teachings of Jesus come from George Bush's mouth in the months before our invasion of Iraq. And now he want's to vault us back to the Middle Ages and start denying rights to anyone who's different? His (supposed) Lord would say that we need to spend time with those who are different than ourselves, and that "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."
Yes, I'm a believer in Christ and his Word and teachings, but not in the Pro-War, anti-gay, up with the Corporate Rich Bush religion. And it scares me that so many people who are believers in Christ can support him with such disregard of the facts. Kinda sounds like the Anti-Christ that Jesus warned of, and that takes control in the book of Revelation. Scary.

Keep up the good fight, Wil! I love to read your blog everyday!

Right on Wil; and I'm not saying that out of my "idolization" of you, as David D. would have you think.
What blows me away are the polls, and how in favor of proposed change they are. Unbelievable.
I wish I could be more confident about GWB getting outed in Nov.

I wonder... what he was thinking.
The only people he didn't alienate today where biggots.
Does he really think that there are THAT many biggots left in this country that he will win the election by doing this and winning their votes?
If by some odd chance he does win this election, what does that say about the american people?
Is there still that much hate and intolerance out there?
I really hope not.

Every post like this that you make increases my respect for you 10 fold..

Keep it up!

An interesting thing has happened since San Francisco started granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples: my marriage is just fine!

And so is mine. But my mother's is not. Thanks a million for a well-thought and educational post. As a proud child of a lesbian, I thank you.

I love your site Wil! And I love that you post your opinions not matter what!

I quote from a preceding post:

"But the illegal acts being conducted in SanFran are the very things that will damage the image of gays in America to the point that something like an FMA can be passed."

Hmmm. I suppose Rosa Parks and those like her did not accomplish anything? Every time a group stands up for equality, the country cries "we're doomed!" Illegal acts, like those in San Fran must occur for discrimination in the law to be abolished. Ms. Parks illegal act ended with the law siding with her.

Rock on, Wil. The only threat to my marriage is from those idiots in congress.

Couldn't agree with you more.

Look at interracial marriage. Back in 56 when Virginia and some of the first states started performing interracial marriages, it was basically banned, looked down upon and considered a huge threat to "marriage" and so on. All the same stuff being said now about gay marriage.

Now, I'm free to marry an asian or black or white or whatever. Big whoopie.

Will it take another 50 years before homosexuals are able, as taxpaying, responsible, working citizens in this society, to have all its benefits as well?

You're absolutely right: This is about discrimination and hate, and I'm glad you and others get it. Hate needs to be left at the curb.

David Dickerson,
I do not know if you will read this, but I feel I need to post it anyway. Your devotion to your beliefs is as admirable as Wil's is to his. You have approached your argument in a rational fashion, and I think you've done it quite a service. But there's still a problem.
Regardless of whether or not you believe in God - or whether or not any of us do, for that matter - it is not our President's job to defend that. Our government is supposed to be completely separated from religion. It is not Bush's job to defend the sanctity of anything. It is completely inappropriate for him to even suggest that.
Yes, this argument has been turned by some into a Left vs. Right issue, but if you stop to think about it, it isn't. It shouldn't be a political issue at all. This is not our government's job. Your church has every right to refuse to marry Gay couples if that is against your beliefs. But our government is not supposed to involve itself in that.
Anyway, I'm glad that you've shown the courage to voice your opinion, especially since you knew, beforehand, that it might garner negative responses. What makes our country great is that we have the ability to voice dissenting opinions. (Unless they violate the Patriot Act...) You may all now go back to your regularly scheduled programming.

NWW

Great post, Wil. My best friend works at an LGBT community center in Buffalo, NY (www.pridecenterwny.org), and she deals with the repercussions of unequal rights every day --- custody of children, death benefits, insurance coverage, health care, and so much more.

I completely respect everyone's religious beliefs. But they shouldn't have anything to do with the law. If a church or religion doesn't accept same-sex marriages, then that's fine. But that shouldn't have anything to do with the legal institute of marriage.

Thanks for taking a stand on this, Wil, and opening it up for discussion.

Bravo, Wil!

Thanks for re-establishing my believe that there actually are Americans with brains. I live in Germany, and everything that I heard and saw comming from America while GWB was usurper of the presidency made me really scared of your country and the people living there.

If those fundamental-christians want to live in a christian theocracy, why don't they live in the Vatican-State???
I do not care what religion a person has, as long as he or she doesn't try to make me live according to their religious laws, which clearly are not MY laws. I guess a lot of Americans are with me on this one.

Marriage should be open to all people, no matter whom they love. Is my love second class because I love a woman? I don't think so.
Marriage has not been invented by the christian church, so, please, to all those fundamental-christians out there: stop acting as if you are the ones who have a right to grant this right to some people and deny it to others.

Wow. Exactly. Abso-freaking-lutely exactly!

Last week I took my ten year old son to SF City Hall to show support for the folks waiting in line to get married. We brought snacks, and chocolate, and water, and other goodies. Mostly we brought smiling faces.

It was fabulous in many, many ways. One unexpected way (sadly) was that he was suitably horrified to see the messages of hate on the protester's signs. He just plain couldn't GET it ... Good. I'm glad he doesn't get that.

What you wrote was, as always, incredibly eloquent and to the point, and pertinent.

Your book isn't going to suffer because of this, Wil. You're a genuine human being, and those who care about genuine human beings will still be interested in your writings - even the ones they'll have to pay for. Thanks so much for putting those thoughts into such well-spoken words.

Funny - my marriage hasn't suffered a bit from the marriages across the bay either!

Oh, yeah. Personally, I support equal rights for all. :) Excellent post, Wil. And wonderful comments, all.

hi wil! i think your career will be okay. now, this is what i feel: i am christian, i believe in the bible, and i believe it is WRONG WRONG WRONG to discriminate against, and reflect hate or disapproval to homosexuals or anyone. i agree with you, politically or legally preventing gay marriage does say it's okay to relegate homosexuals to second class citizens and that's unbelievable in this day and time. haven't americans figured out yet what happens when you do this? hopefully we'll get it soon!

Thank you. Always stand up for what you believe--we'll be around.

Another good take on this was Bill Maher's Valentine's Day op-ed.

Unfortunately, I have realized recently than in supporting gay marriage, I am very much in the minority in the U.S. I wish that weren't so. I doubt it would change anyone's feelings on the subject, but perhaps one thing we could do is reframe the debate (and remove many of the Republican "objections") by not calling state-sanctioned marriages--between whomever--"marriage," since that *is* a religious term. State-sanctioned unions should *all* be called civil unions, between man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. And all couples should have the same *civil* rights--inheritance, health decisions, tax (dis)advantages, adoption, etc etc etc. If a couple chooses to also have a religious "marriage" that should be up to them and whatever religion they adhere to.

We are no doubt heading for a Constitutional crisis--the Defense of Marriage Act is patently unconstitutional since it is in opposition to the full faith and credit clause (says states have to recognize each others rules--why if you get married in Texas, you're still married if you move to Cali). And marriage is clearly reserved as a "states' rights" issue vs a matter for the federal government. Having a consitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage (unions, whatever) is the only way around this, legally, though morally it's abhorrent.

I worry that such an emendment does have a chance of being approved in the current climate. But I also pray that it would eventually become the second amendment ever to be repealed.

Right on, Wil!

I love it when gay marriage opponents claim that God says gay marriages are wrong. Using that logic, I think I'll sell my daughter off into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. Why not? It's in the Bible!

Cool post, Wil. Never be afraid to stand up for what you believe in! You set a good example for us all.

Excellent post Wil.

As an attorney, I would encourage everyone to read Loving v. Virginia, 1967 Supreme Court case. (Just Google it.) It is a short but enlightening read.

He's going to realize he's gone too far with this one when even the most hardline of his supporters are telling him he's out of his fucking tree!

Some of the things going on in this country right now frighten me, but I will not give up hope.

A few comments:
1) Bravo, Wil.
2) For those who are swallowing the line that the proposed amendment will still allow states to establish civil unions, read the text:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

[emphasis added]
...in other words, no marriage for homosexuals, and nothing that confers the same legal rights either. Don't believe the lies.

3) For the Christians out there who believe that all good Christians must be against homosexuality because of the bible, this should be an interesting read.

Thank you.

Seperate but equal doesn't work for race or gender so I don't see why people think it should work for sexual orientation, either.

Thank you for your post today! I couldn't agree more if I'd written this myself. I love what you said 'An interesting thing has happened since San Francisco started granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples: my marriage is just fine!' Amen!

Gorgon,

Bush's "support" for marriages and civil unions is support for "separate but equal" treatment.

Get real.

Many people of all orientations are not happy with "civil unions" because those unions DO NOT provide the same rights as "marriage" does. There is more difference bewteen the two than just the sex of those involved.

Marriage is a unique legal contract and is recognized by governments around the world. Marriage creates between two people a host of reciprocal obligations, rights, and protections. A civil union is a legal status which is provided by the state. Civil unions provide legal protection to couples at the STATE level, but do not come with any FEDERAL protections. This is a very important distinction.

When a married couple moves from state to state, they know that their status will be respected and they will be provided the same rights and priveleges due to that status. A couple bond by a civil union does not have that assurity of freedom. Partners in a civil union cannot take leave from work to care for their partner, sponsor their partner for immigration purposes, nor recieve Social Security survivor benefits. Because civil unions are not recognized federally, these couples face problems regarding taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and programs such as Medicaid. Even something as simple as filling out a form requesting your marital status causes problems. Technically, civil unions create a single family unit, so these partners are not single. However, they are not married either and their claiming that status would be considered fraud.

So, yes, there IS a major problem with civil unions. Haven't we learned that there's no such thing as "separate but equal"?

As a Member of another "Minority". I have nothing but praise for Wil!

Hey Wil if you ever run for President I'll Win you Texas!

Seriously. The Republicans are all about division among america to gain strength. And they not only use it against gays but syill use it against other minorities.

If I had my way bush would be banished from Texas for all time!

Thanks so much for the amazing post, Wil. I'm a lesbian and a very devoted stay at home Mom... my partner is a dentist. I think that what everyone forgets is that we all pay taxes, we gays and lesbians contribute to society just as much as a straight person, so why shouldn't we have the same rights? I also think they forget about the little part of the constitution that defines a separation of church and state. You can't legislate morality, and I wish they'd keep their morals out of my bedroom, because it's no one's business but mine.
Also, all this mud-slinging about gays not being right, blah blah blah... I'm sorry, but before this all started. you didn't see Gays and Lesbians attacking the right wingers saying "They're not right! Immoral sinners, burn in hell!!" We just wanted to live our lives, raise our children and be left alone. Unfortunatly, GW and Marilynn Musgrave have now made that impossible.
Anyway, thank you so much for the support, and thanks again for the eloquent post.

I have been with my partner for over five years. We have three children. We had a commitment ceremony four years ago because we felt there was importance in standing in front of family and friends and publicly declaring our commitment to each other.

I have so much to say on this issue, I just don't know where to start. But, I'm going to save it for my elected officials. This is not an issue our politicians need to waste time on right now. Hundreds of thousands of children in this country are without permanent families, and Bush takes time to talk about THIS? I could go on about this country's ill's that need attention, but that's not the point.

Thank you, Wil.

Thank GOD! A voice of reason - no one has the right to tell anyone else - especially in our wonderful land of freedom - who you can and cannot love. Government should stay out of people's bedrooms and worry about healthcare, education, and getting us out of a war we should never have been in.

Run for president Wil! I'd vote for ya!

Most everything I would like to say has been said, so I'll just say "thank you" to Wil for posting and to everyone else for keeping it polite. It shouldn't matter to anyone else if two consenting adults of any gender wish to make their relationship official in the eyes of the law.

Interesting post. Last night's Daily Show had on a guy who wrote a book called Bush Country (I think). The Daily Show site should have the video up in a week or so, but it was a very interesting interview, suggesting that Bush isn't as stupid as he looks, but treats America as stupid. For example, rather than telling us that "We need a bastion of democracy in the Middle East," he'd say "Iraq has WMDs." Bush can be as wrong as you think he is, but the key is not to call him an idiot or Hitler or a moron. I'm voting for whoever can get him out of office, but I don't see him as stupid, just wrong.

Interestingly, the Onion's new issue has a good articl eno this topic: "Massachusetts Supreme Court Orders All Citizens to Gay Marry" - http://www.theonion.com/news.php?i=1&n=1

It is the ramblings of people with a large audience (notice I didn't say celebrity) that are dividing Americans against one another.

This is accomplished by lumping everything that occurs in society as being the fault of one of the two major political parties.
Republican vs. Democrat cannot be neatly described as right vs. wrong.
I get the feeling that Wil's political views are blindly democratic. It is this blind support (be it republican and democrat) that is driving a wedge between the two parties and this can cause more harm than good since we are no longer working together to make this country better. It seems more effort is made bitching about the other party's views versus working to mend those fences and working as a team.

I like this blog. It's always good reading. I have even donated to the marathon Wil is in. Just quit the political pissing and moaning and offer solutions to the problems you mention and bitch about.

My thoughts exactly, Wil!

I could never understand how or why people could be hurt by other people loving each other.

I just hope this sparks our generation to get off our collective butts and take some action. We can not let this adminstration get away with tearing our country apart!

-al

Well said, Wil. You just exercized your freedom of speech as stated on Amendment I of the U.S. Constitution. :^)

I read somewhere that the Declaration of Independence was the promise of a new country and that the Constitution was the fulfillment of the promise -- or something along the lines of that. Yes, America became nation because people were fleeing religious persecution from Great Britain. Why add something that discriminates and favors a religious view? What happened to equality for all and the separation of church and State? Yes, I did not vote for GW.

P.S.
I asked a librarian about the possibility of the amendment passing. She didn't think it would pass. As someone above stated, 2/3 of both the House and Senate must approve the proposed amendment -- not an easy thing to do. There is also a time limit on how long the proposed amendment can be on the floor. Something like seven(?) years.

(upon decriminalizing homosexuality in Canada) "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Elliot Trudeau

The man was a bit of a wing-nut, but at least he was a forward thinker.

Good post wil

I couldn't agree with you more!! I can't wait to get Bush out of office. Grrrr. You said it best, Wil!

*claps* I think it's great when people stand up for what they believe in no matter what the consequence may be. If it helps, you have my full support. :D

*claps* I think it's great when people stand up for what they believe in no matter what the consequence may be. If it helps, you have my full support. :D

I've said it once and then again.... If you can't beat 'em, we have plenty of space up north in Canada... Come one come all! lol

Cheers,

P

Is it any wonder a lameduck president came out against gay marriage? I was not surprised by it he's very much being led by the nose.

If the majority of people in this country said 'eh, we don't give a crap... let gay people be married just as straight people are with all the benefits the law provides a married couple,' GW would be going right along with it.

However, since a great many people have an issue with gay marriage and are so very vocal about it GW has no choice... he has no spine... he MUST side with the loudest mouths and denounce gay marriage to the fullest. To do otherwise could cost him in November.

He knows it and I hope those who support him know it too.

This isn't about saving the sanctity, the definition or the institution of marriage. That's a smokescreen to give the impression that he really gives a damn about any of those things. Fact is, all Bush cares about is not becoming a one term president.

Hell, if people were hopped up mad and this pissed off nutso about the lack of jobs, Bush would speak to it. However, people aren't up in arms over that but gay people getting married... dammit! that'll destroy the whole country!!!

The very idea of taking what Bush says "troubles" him and seeking to ban it by altering the constitution sickens me. It's so homophobic it is beyond words and I just wish he'd come right on out and admit he's homophobic and get it done with. That's what is at the heart of this. Gay marriages won't destroy the definition of anything but rather enhance and improve it to what it should already be... a union of two people that love eachother.

That anyone could make an argument against gay marriage and make an argument for discrimination... it boggles the mind. To be the most intelligent species I am constantly amazed, on a daily basis, just how stupid so many of us are.

To fellow WWdN monkeys--

I posted very early in the day. I am thrilled to see how unhappy most readers about Dubya's anti-gay marriage stance. (I figured Wil was in for some flaming, as he himself feared.)

While Wil's Posse may not be representative of the overall US popualtion (or the voters therein), I can only hope the "prevailing sentiment" here means that Dubya has sealed his electoral fate. Bye-Bye Bush!

Your thoughts are welcome at www.CloseTheBooks.com. You can post publicly to my Guest Book ("personal" pages) or write me privately via link at top of résumé ("professional" pages). Thanks!

--Allan French, Silicon Valley, CA

Thanks for posting this, Wil, and for providing a place for reasoned discussion to occur among all parties and all viewpoints.

I went up to SF City Hall on President's Day to help folks get married, not for any agenda, gay, striaght, liberal, conservative. I just went because people wanted to get married and helping them was the right thing to do.

Folks wishing to read about it further are welcome to do so. http://www.livejournal.com/users/rmjwell/287952.html

Thank you Wil, for taking a stand on this issue. I'm not a terribly eloquent guy, so I'm just gonna say I (and countless others) appreciate it.

You rock, and I have no doubt you will continue to rock.

To any and all who say, "That amendment will never pass." I say this.

As long as there is the slightest fraction of a chance that the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America will be constrained by an amendment to said Constitution, then the risk is too high to not fight.

Our complacency is a weapon of our opponents that we have the power to control. Don't let them have it.

Helen

Amen.

<rant>

Meh, who knows if anyone will get down this far (127th post?!?) As a resident of the Metro-Boston area, I can tell you how fed up I am with this whole issue. I'm glad Kerry came out against a constitutional ammendment, but you'd be pretty hard pressed to find a national politial figure who's willing to stand up in support of gay marraige here. Every one (Kerry included) just go on and on about "Well I think everyone should have the same rights, civil unions are okay, but I'm against *marraige*." Like they're afraid of losing those votes if they actually came out and admitted supporting gay rights and gay marraiges.

Honestly, we're darn lucky our State Supreme Court justices are appointed, not elected, or no one would have the guts to stand up for what's right.

The Constitution doesn't say you have to make friends with a black man, nor like him. It says you must allow him to vote, you must count him in the Census, and you must not interfere with *his* other rights. Similarly, if gays get married you don't have to associate with them or be their friends or like them. You just have to *BUT OUT* of their lives. Marraige is a formality, or a contract, for some, and they chose to ignore the labels society places.

But please, Mr. Bush, don't impose your values on me.

</rant>

Wil,

No one thinks more highly than I do of our country and patriotism. Different people often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to people if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak my sentiments freely and without reserve. The question before us is one of awful proportions to this country, and her people. For my own part, I consider it nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject should be the freedom of all human beings to do with their life as they see fit. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to our country...freedom, and the ability to make choices. Should I keep back my opinions, through fear of offending someone? I should consider myself as guilty of treason, and diloyalty towards my counrty, and human kind if I say nothing.

Is it unnatural for all involved to indulge in the hope of prosperity, and happiness? Are we supposed to shut our eyes against a truth, and listen to the uncareing tyrant until he transforms us into immoral hate mongers? Is this the part of a wise man, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty and freedom to all? Are we suppose to be followers of one who, having eyes, does not see, and Having ears, does not hear, the things which so nearly concern all involved? For my part, whatever backlash of body or of spirit it may cost, I am willing to extend my hand for the whole truth; to know the worst, and to prepare for it, if the so called leader should restrict a simple right to marry whom ever one chooses, and to support those who believe in happiness.

I know of no way of judging the future but by the past. Ask yourself how this leader of our country can be warlike against his fellow human beings? Is George W. Bush's purpose to force us to submission? After all things are said and done, may we indulge in the desire of peace and happiness for all involved? There is no longer any room for intolerance. If we wish to be free...if we mean to preserve privileges and rights for everyone for which we have been so long restricted... Those who believe will not abandon the struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the object of our contest shall finally be obtained.
They tell us, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary, called conformity, But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and unprepared for the final decision? shall we be bound by hand and foot so that we may not fight for what we believe in? We are not weak if we make a proper use of the way we live our lives. I shall not let my family of human beings fight this battle alone. The battle, is not for the strong alone; it is for the vigilant, the active, and the brave. The chains that bind us are to be broken! I support same sex marriage, and wish that certain people would wake up, and realize that the world does not revolve around only them!

Artemis Jade Wetzel
Mother, Wife, and Humanitarian

Thank you. Just... thank you. That's all there is to say.

Thanks Wil.

I have one question for those few people here who agree with President Bush.

Does your country have a state religion or not?

If the answer is "no", why do your personal religious values belong in the Constitution?

Yeah, Ralph Nader for president!... I mean, hehheh, well put, Wil. Don't worry about your book sales, man, George W. wasn't going to buy a copy anyway...

Thanks for chosing to post this Wil, you carry a point very well and it was great to read.
All I can really say is, I'm very very glad not to be living under direct rule of Bush, just indirectly via his great pal Tony, joy.

The State/Government should have nothing to do with which Gods you choose to worship, who you can love, who you can marry or what you can think. These are things that only the individual can decide, to try otherwise would be foolish.
It seems they're only fooling themselves when they say that these could sew the seeds of society's collapse. Maybe they should put "Distrust and disbelief of anyone who wants to be in power" above everything else on that list of dangers to their current hold on society.

Oh and don't worry, if anything I'll buy two copies of all your books now. You've gained a new regular reader of WW.net

Wil: thank you for posting this!

to some other commenters: civil union is not Not NOT the same as marriage! it excludes over 1,400 rights that 'marriage' entitles couples to. do some research before you open your trap to whine "but it's the same thiiing!"

The question is not discrimination but what is right based on some standard. That standard since the beginning of our country was the Bible. The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. I think too many children are going to be confused as to their own sexuality when they do not have a man and a woman in their life helping them to know what it means to be a man or a woman. I believe homosexuals should have their rights when it come to work, health care, living where they want; but I draw the line on changing the defintion of marriage and changing the definition of the family that has stood since Adam and Eve. Our society is lost many of its standards as we feel all people should be what they want as long it hurts no one elce. A Christian society (and supposedly this country) have been weakening for the past 200 years what ideals our country was founded upon.

First, I want to say that I am strongly in favor of extending the rights, privelages, and responsibilities of marriage to homosexuals. I don't care if you call it marriage, a civil union, or a chocolate parfait, it should be avaliable to any couple who wishes to undertake a marrisge like situation should have them avaliable.
You have a slight fallacy in your arguement, and it is one that the pro-gay marriage folks usually accept and ignore. You seem to be taking "Gay marriages will undermine the institution of marriage" to mean that it will be an assult on individual stong marriages while the folks who are claiming this mean that it will weaken society's respect for marriage. They don't think that you will get divorced because Mike and Danny get married, but they think that Mike and Danny getting married will make it more likey for people in general to get divorced. This is not a particularly more defensible position, but if you are going to argue against someone's position, it is best not to use fallicies to do so. I like my epistemic and logical fallicies to all be on the sides of my opponents.

To the folks who are decrying Wil as a kneejerk democrat: I don't know the man. I've only read his blog. But from what I've read he comes off as a dedicated liberal. I suspect that he would vocally disagree with the democrats if they took a stand that he disagreed with. It is not that he blindly supports the democrats, it is that they are the party that currently backs the causes that he agrees with and opposes the causes that he disagrees with, or at the least, does more so than the republicans. (Well, I guess now I'm not only putting words but ideologies in his mouth. Oh well. That's why they call this a forum.)

Insightful post and I agree with your comments...but isn't this just an election year ruse of sorts to placate conservatives? In a way, he had nothing to lose. So he lost the gay vote...never really had it anyway. Lost the liberal vote? Never really had that either. I doubt there will even be a full-fledged attempt at an amendment, and if there is it won't pass congress.

Wil,

Your words are eloquent and written with conviction. Do not reconsider stating your opinions. I am honoured to say that I just recently attended a marriage between a dear friend and his husband here in Ontario. It was broadcast on our national television network, the CBC, and provided and excellent forum for debate on the topic.

To those who say, why not let gays have civil union, I would ask them to consider whether they would be willing to accept their own marriages as civil unions. For those who say that this is not a matter of discrimination, try replacing the word gay with 'black'. History will judge these zealots and their ridiculous interpretations of the way that love should be legislated in the way that persons who made the marriage between a black man and white woman reason for violence and hate.

For those on the side of the 'it's a slippery slope argument' and what will happen next, replace 'gays get married' with 'give women the vote' and again you will see how ridiculous the claim could be.

Keep talking wil, your words are important. There is a large segment of the population that is uncomfortable with gay marriage because they have never had to think the issues through. These are people who do not fall in line with the religious conservative 'we built this country on religious principles' nutjobs, but who need forums such as these to help them work through the debate.
Keep it up, from a long time reader, first time poster.
~S

Just a few words for all the people who believe that gay marriage is against the word of God...

THAT'S IRRELEVENT!!

We are living in America people! A little thing known as the separation of church and state. Remember that?!?!

This is yet another example of Conservative Republicans wanting to do nothing for the people but scream 'limit government and let big business take care of everything’, and then at the drop of a hat they try to get involved with the most personal of issues.

Stopping consensual adults from expressing their love for each other is yet another low point in America's history.

Hopefully, people will realize no matter how much they morally object to gay marriage and understand that the government has no way to legally deny gay people their basic human right to be in love and have that love recognized as any other couple. Gay marriage is coming people, and its about time.

Wil, I’m glad you had the balls to say something. Its amazing just how far we’ve come from the genocide against Native Americans and systematic oppression of African Americans. Things like this make you realize just how far we have to go.

P.S. The death penalty... isn't that against the word of God too? I guess GW forgot that part.

Personally, I think that marriage is a religious institution and the U.S. Constitution should have nothing to say on the matter. If Mormons can argue they are allow (or used to be allowed) to marry multiple partners, then I think that homosexuals should be allowed to marry (As long as they find a church that accepts them).
I was married at City Hall, and I would have no problems calling it a civil union as long as I love my wife and we get the same civil benifits as a married couple.

Sure seems like Republicans don't want gay people to be loose lovers and more upset that they want to be monogomus.

On a side note, I am concerned that gay people want to marry. I am happy with my life with my wife, but I could have strung on the engagement for a few more decades.

I think it is shameful that with the larger concerns of our economy, the war on terror, the rebuilding of Iraq, the problems in Haiti and Wil Wheaton's acting career that George W. makes this is Waterloo.

My wife and I were couple number 32 on Monday morning, February 16, in San Francisco.
We camped on the sidewalk overnight to be in line in time. We stayed there through 9 hours of torrential rain, 40 degree weather, and 20 mph winds.

I wish everyone had to go through that to get married.

oh yeah...also...as an addendum to my previous rant. For those of you looking for an argument to those anti-gay marriage folk. Consider this, one of the most bandied about arguements is that marriage has been the same for 'thousands of years' and should not be changed. Take it from a cultural anthropologist, nothing could be further from the truth. How many of you Americans paid or received a dowry upon your marriage? How many of you consider it a duty to bear children as part of said marriage. The nuclear family and the 'institution' of marriage is rare historically and cross culturally, and changes in form and function over time.

Dear Dubya, you are not the boss of the future.

grr...ranting now.
~S

hear hear

Way to stand up and be heard Wil. I agree with you fully.

And I don't think you need to worry about your book sales. (I just pre-ordered Dancing Barefoot from Chapters.ca (Canadian Online Book Seller) Anyone who chooses to boycott your book because of your views obviously doesn't believe in the constitution to begin with.

You know, the whole freedom of speech thing. :)

I can't say how thankful I am that you wrote such a thoughtful, heartfelt, and well-organized piece. Especially when there are folks on the loose writing things like this.

Is there an echo in here? Well I will add to it just enough to say thank you Wil for the great post. And equal thanks go out to those who disagreed but said so respecfully! I'm really impressed with WWDN readers!

I utterly agree. I've never liked Dictator Bush and this will hopefully be the wake up call to everyone that he is the epitome of evil!

I'm so anti-politics, but there are 2 things:

1) Whatever happened to separation of church and state?

2) Mayor Richard Daley said, "I don't think it's fair to blame [the ruination of] marriages on homosexuals. Divorce has done that."

Sometimes, well, most times, and especially this Maddux year, Chicago is a cool place.

And we've got great Mr. Beef and Popcorn. You all know it, too.

I think that pretty much sums up the opinion of a lot of people right there.
Thank you!

I haven't cried this hard from reading someone's blog in a very long time. Thank you so much for putting this up. I'm a bisexual Atheist, so I am extremely discriminated against right now. Bush is making that clear. I don't think it's right that we live in a country where the President can show such blatent discrimination. It sickens me. Again, thank you. You don't know how much this blog entry means to me.

Will,

I couldn't agree with you more! In order to preserve freedom, Church and State should be kept SEPARATE! Quite frankly, Bush scares me with his fundamentalist (and often militant) religious rhetoric. I hope Americans pull together and oust this fanatic!

As soon as your book is available in Canada, I'll be heading out to get my copy!

For what it's worth: I've been politically indifferent for years, registered Independant in my old state and voting every four years by mail-in. *This* is the issue that was big enough, important enough to me, to get me re-registered, as a Democrat (because I want to be able to vote in the primaries), in my current home state. Which is Massachusetts. No amendment. Never.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I was just talking to my husband this morning about how angry I am about this issue. I am so glad to see you stand up and be counted. It just makes me glad that I enjoy reading your column so much, and that we are of like minds on this subject.
AND I PROMISE TO BUY 10 COPIES OF YOUR BOOK, to make up for the assholes who might boycott you(they don't deserve to have your book anyway - so there!)
HEY WE SHOULD ALL DO THAT - RIGHT? Right!

Instead of an amendment banning love, how's about one allowing 31-year-olds to be president??

Wil Wheaton for America 2004! :o)

I totally agree with you on this issue. I couldn't have said it better myself. May I put a link back to your blog in my blog?

Well said Wil.

thanks, Wil. once again, a clear and compassionate commentary on current events.

I want to second Sacha's post. as another cultural anthropologist, I find the debates about 'marriage' in this country interesting, for while many people may not know about the range of marriage and family systems found cross-culturally, there seems to be the awareness that 'our' system needs to be propped up. what this means to me is that the ship has sailed (judging from the posts on this blog) and the issue is moot. our evolving, cultural definition of marriage seems to be "a union between 2 loving people that extends legal protections and rights to the children and survivors of that union"

I agree with you 100%. Its great to see celebrities taking a stand for civil rights.

Jeremie

Thank you for pointing out that your marriage is in no way, shape, or form damaged by gay marriages. That's the part that stuns me -- why on earth are people getting so worked up about something that can only help one group of people and takes nothing away from everyone else. IT'S A RED HERRING, PEOPLE!!! Ugh.

Anyway, rock on Wil.

-MK from Mass.

Thank you so much for you comments on this issue Wil. This one does hit close to home for me. I am leaning to see marriage as a LEGAL contract between two people that love and cherish each other.

-gil

Well said Wil. I completely agree, and while I try to understand and accept other people's beliefs - I just can't grasp the other viewpoint here. Hasn't our society progressed to the point where this shouldn't even be an issue? I sincerely hope this backfires against the ultra-conservatives.

I consider myself to have a pretty long fuse. I haven't really lost my temper in years, but reading your post I felt my blood start to boil. How people can so blatantly support discrimination and not be ashamed and disgusted of themselves is beyond me.

I'm going to go slightly off topic here, but bear with me. I live in Australia, where the current government has, for the last three terms, done some things that are just inexplicably stupid and inhuman. My knowledge of American politics is shady at best, but reading that quote from Dean reminded my of Australia's current policy on asylum seekers. For a while now we've been enforcing 'mandatory detention' that is, when ever anyone seeks asylum from Australia, they get locked up until their claim can be processed. This is regardless of age or physical condition. Some of them remain there for years while the government fumbles through their paper work.

The Howard government used this hard line attitude towards what they termed 'illegal immigrants' (a blatant misrepresentation, seeking asylum is perfectly legal) to help them win the last election. I was disgusted that enough people supported it for them to be re-elected.

Back on topic, Howard is trying to stop gay marriages from ever being legal here, saying that marriage is for 'the survival of the species' and since gay couples can't have their own children, they therefore shouldn't be allowed to marry! I don't need to tell you many things fucked up about that. I mean, does this guy listen to himself?

This stuff is just the tip of the iceberg, but it would take way to long to list the rest, so I'll move on.

We also have an election coming up, and if the opposition can hold it together, Howard should be ousted this time, but it really depresses me that voters allowed his bullshit to survive three terms...

Anyhow, thanks for listening to my rant whoever's read this, and a big thanks to Wil for his inspiring post.

PS: I'd be worried if you weren't on those boycott lists!

Amen, brother Wil

Welcome to America.

You will be assimilated...

A few months back, when the Catholic Church released a letter telling any Catholic lawmakers that they were required to do whatever they could to prevent same-sex marriage, or face consequences up to excommunications I put up this web page:

http://www.leviathanstudios.com/rant/

Thank you for saying this. We're working in my state (Rhode Island) to pass a bill allowing same-sex marriages. It's just been introduced, so we have a long, long road to success. Words like yours encourage us to work even harder.

Oh, and I'm certainly buying your book.

Go Wil!! your totally right!!! Evenone should be equal, otherwise, we might as well not have and sense of gourvement at all!!
~A

Well said. It is really odd that bush keeps talking, and so does the GOVERNATOR., that these laws and amendments will solidify the sanctity of marriage. I thought the divorce rate was like 52%? Why is there no law agains divorce to provide that sanctity of marriage. That seems weird to me.

Great comments! It's amazing that a man that has the insight and courage to dedicate funding for us to travel back to the stars is ignorant enough to do something as foolish and narrow-minded as this.
Oh yea, anybody ignorant enough to boycott your book, blog or anything else is not worth your time and is no great loss.

Preach it, Uncle Willie!

Thanks again for voicing how my wife and I feel about this and other important issues Wil.

I think I have forwarded more of your posts to friends and family in the past month than ever before.

Ignorance is teh suck!

Wil, you rock. You are my new favorite writer. I'm going to buy at least two of Dancing Barefoot. I'm mortified that one of my former favorite writers, Orson Scott Card, can use such incredibly ass-backward logic in support of his position. Thanks to fellow commenter Adrienne for bringing this to my attention.

I don't have time to read all the posts but I've glanced and I am happy that a lot of you are against what the president is proposing.

For some of you who seem to be offended by Wil's comments, you know...you don't have to come here. I found one person particularly interesting when he said that he's been frustrated by Wil's posts for quite a while. Isn't obvious that he does not share your views? If you are frustrated, then don't come here anymmore then.

You can check this out on the internet. The Bible says that practicing male homosexuals must be put to death. I can't find anywhere that it ever mentions females in reference to this, but women didn't matter anyway. Just being gay brought no punishment unless they were actually doing something. But then again, it also says that adulterers must be put to death, but let's don't get carried away. Pick and choose what verses to practice. Even though the Pope says that you mustn't do that!

Standing ovation, dude. 100% agreement.

Now if only I wasn't in the minority in Mississippi :(

"I believe that Americans will unite against segregation now, just as we did during the Civil Rights movement."

I really wish I could believe that. It's pretty tough though from all I've been seeing and hearing lately. It seems like way too many people are pretty okay with banning gay marriage.

trust me wil, i feel the same way. the government should have nothing to do with marriages, it just has to do with the people in love and who want to commit to each other for the rest of their lives. i hate how most of the candidates are against it. but some want them to just be in a civil union. thats great,i can see on the back of the car after the wedding instead of saying "just married", it can say "just unionized"... ok well im done ranting.. and i agree w/ other WWdN readers when I say Wil Wheaton for President.. rock on Wil.. cant wait to get your book...

Hi there Wil,

I don't normally read your blog, but I remember you from ST:TNG--and a gay friend of mine heartily endorsed this posting of yours in his own Livejournal. I came over to read it, and I wanted to publically thank you for your eloquent words.

Regards,
Anna Korra'ti in Seattle

Dude.

Two things.

a.) You just sold a shiat load more books, and
b.) You rock.

Keep up the good work.

- Chris

Thank you for posting this, Wil.

I've been hearing a lot of talk on the local radio stations about how "the ideal family environment to raise children is one man and one woman" because kids need role models of both genders in their lives. Or something like that. And it makes my blood boil... such statements, given as support for codifying benefits to families in the "ideal" configuration and ignoring all other families... they ignore all of the single parents, the blended step-families, the queer couples raising perfectly well-adjusted children... as well as heterosexual couples with children where abuse is happening in the home. All of those families do exist in America, and they shouldn't be ignored simply because they're not "ideal".

Thanks for the opportunity to soap-box a bit. Ranting in my car just didn't help, though writing to my elected representatives is helping me feel a bit better. Please, everyone, do that. The writing, not the ranting in your cars, I mean. Or call or fax them. The ballot box on Tuesday, and again in November, is not the only way to make yourself heard.

Thanks again.

I haven't read all the posts because I ain't young, but I just really don't understand what the problem is.

Wil summed it up just fine. I am a man and my marriage (to a woman) hasn't changed since Canada allowed gay marriage, Mass. didn't change it, and now SF had, I dare to say it, no effect. I really have some questions of the motive of our so-called leader:

If we're so busy fighting a "war" (on terrorism), why do we need to find something to distract America from that fight?

What if America had to worry about gay marriage during World War II? Would we have all been on the same side and fought the enemy as one? Our country gave up metal, meat, gas, any other item we all take for granted today to fight the good fight. And now look at us.

Bush had a golden opportunity to be a leader among leaders, someone that will sacrifice and strive to make others sacrifice for the common good. Instead, our country is more divided than ever, and now on a subject, that to me anyway, is truly a petty subject. I ask...How does this affect a straight marriage? How does this affect single mothers? How does this affect America?

Anyone But Bush in 2004!

Wil,

Preach it brother.

It's amazing to me that some people just can't seem to grasp the whole 'equal protection under the law' thing.

Oh yeah, and my wife and I... we're fine. Our marriage hasn't collapsed because of all this.

If gay people are allowed 'marriage' then their relationships will have the same legitimate status as heterosexual marriages. And that offends people.

And that's just sad.

pete

Keep preaching, Wil.

I hope everybody is listening.

J

realize I've come into this comment thread a bit late, so I hope I don't seem like a flaming troll.

but..

There's nothing homosexuals can gain from "marriage" that they cannot get from "civil unions". Therefore the only agenda this movement can have is the destruction of the word/traditional relationship that is "marriage"

Activist judges/mayors etc. are not happy that the public has voted on this issue (in state elections, in polls, nationally, regionally, by state and on a local levels) and, for the most part, overwhelmingly denied it, so they poo poo exsisting laws in favor of forwarding a liberal agenda that can't get traction otherwise.

Does it make sense to do something "illegal" in order to be recognized as a "legal" union. The cause cancels out the objective.

/no gay basher, just my .02

(oh yeah, and I really don't wanna see some big burly gay biker in a wedding dress)......

or do I????

Wil. From a Lesbian American...Thank You

Thank you, Wil! I couldn't have said it better myself.

Wil,

Thank you for your comments and discussion. I admire your site and very often your politics. Count me among those who believe it's important to stand up for the equal rights of all people. And for the ideals of our constitution, which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - for everyone.

- Tara

The problem with 'civil unions' is that employers and other agencies are not compelled to give the same benefits to 'civil unions' as they are to married couples. It also allows organizations to discriminate, sight unseen, against gays. (Look for the "civil union" box checked instead of "single" or "married.")

Better yet, let's eliminate marriage from government entirely. Everybody gets a 'civil union', which is a contract signed in front of a judge or other official. If a couple wants to have a 'wedding' or 'marriage', they can go to their local religious figure, but such a ceremony has no meaning to government. Problem solved: the fundies can keep their 'sacred' marriages (at least until the divorce) and all couples can get the same rights and responsibilities, regardless of race, religion or orientation. By having one checkbox on all forms, no discrimination is possible.

Good for you! I'm glad you spoke up for your beliefs, and I'm even more glad for what those beliefs are. And I'll be buying the book now, even though I have no idea what it's about. So it's not all bad for business. :)

Rock on Brother!

I like how 'slorge gridlock thinks he's a clever poster

Well said Wil! It is about time we recognize what is really going on with this issue. It is about denying civil rights not some stupid sanctity of marriage b.s. G/L people are expected to pay taxes, obey the law and be a part of a society that won't allow them basic civil rights? Thats so wrong. Just wrong.

Hello Will. I've never read your blog before, but there was a link from live journal. *Big Star Trek fan*

Anyway, I will say that these same-sex marriages do have a direct affect on my own marriage - I feel like San Francisco's commitment to eliminate marriage discrimination actually strengths the institution for all of us. I am getting married next year after grad school, but I have often felt like I can't in good conscience accept a legal marriage when so many are denied it. Now, however, I feel that as a Bay Area resident I can obtain a marriage that is actually fair, just and meaningful.

Bravo Wil.

My wife and I applaud you.

I too shall be making a point to buy your new book.

I have to say that when I heard Bush yesterday I felt sick to my stomach. What right does he have to say who people should love and marry? I have a son that is gay and if he told me he wanted to marry and spend the rest of his life with someone he loved I would be just as happy for him as I was for my daughter. This world is filled with so much hate, and now Bush is feeding even more hate. As for protecting marrage, how long have women realy had a say about how their husband could treat them? Not long ago a man had the right to everything that a woman brought into the marrage and the wife could not say a thing about it. He could treat her any way he wanted,and again she couldn't say a thing. Now Mr. Bush wants to protect it? How long must we put up with a small group of people telling us what to believe? Sorry about the ramble I feel strongly about this. Please, I am begging everyone to get out and vote. Do not let this man take away more freedom from us!

Wil, you so rock. Really, you do.

Man, Wil, you just made my day.

And a question for the Civil Union people out there, if separate but equal is considered discriminatory in the realm of education, how is it any different in matrimony?

You go Will!!! F the people that would boycott you for beleiving in whats right, would you really be able to take their money anyway? You comments about your marrage not being threatened by allowing homosexuals also marry for love is dead on. I'm proud to be a Will Wheaton fan, knowing that you will stand up for what you beleive in. I got your back all the way dude!!

Believe it or not, the marriages in SF are actually strenghtening one marriage: mine. The spouse and I have been in a bit of a rut lately (long story there), and I think I've been taking him a bit for granted. Seeing how many people have been chomping at the bit for the privilege of saying, "I love you" in public makes me more eager than ever to fight for the future of my own marriage and the man I love. (This would be a great time for the spouse to read over my shoulder.)

We need to separate the legal aspects of marriage (joint tax filing, streamlined inheritance by surviving partner, making of medical decisions, etc.) from the religious aspects (for whatever your church of choice is). A church can't be forced to recognize any couple that doesn't meet their requirements...but because we have separation of church and state, they also should not be able to dictate to the government to whom they can or can't give legal secular recognition.

Here endeth the rant...if you get boycotted, Wil, I'll buy two copies of JAG to make up for it, okay??? (Heck, I'll probably have to buy two anyway so the spouse and I won't fight over it!)

Oh, and one more aside for the "civil union" folks: the same people who oppose same-sex marriage also oppose "civil unions" in most cases.

Got to go eat dinner before the spouse gets mad...

Wil- Good for you for posting this. Stand up for yourself and rock on. I have very stronge feelings on this issue you to and as worried as I was to post them on my blog, I got over it. What's right is right. Make wave. ~L

Your courage to post your views on same-sex marriage is to be admired. I have always enjoyed your work as an actor, and now my admiration of you as a human being has increased exponentially. If I were wearing a hat right now, it would be off to you! I can only hope that more people in the public light will speak out against this shameful trampling of our constitutionally-based guarantee of separation of church from state. Same-sex marriage is a civil issue, not a religious one. The very mention of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage is the beginning of a very disturbing trend towards the erosion of our civil rights and freedoms.

Wil,

I sat and thought about telling you why I think your wrong but I remembered one of my favorite sayings. I'm going to paraphrase it because I live on a horse farm.

Never try to teach a horse to sing. Your wasting your time and annoying the horse.

Bart

Well said.

Sorry to disagree, but I do.

First of all, the Administration did not bring this issue to the forefront of the national conciousness. I seriously doubt that the Massachusetts high court or the mayor of San Francisco have been acting at the behest of Karl Rove.

Regarding the issue itself, I would assert that the comparison to racial discrimination is flawed. Allowing blacks to sit at the front of the bus does not require a redefinition of the bus. To tell a black man that he is not allowed to study or work alongside whites is to tell him that he and his race are inferior. To tell a homosexual couple that they cannot enter into a pact which fundamentally involves a man and a woman is simply to tell them that they are homosexuals.

No one would argue that one's own marriage is affected by the marriage licenses currently being issued. However, changing the definition of marriage will invariably change its meaning on the cultural level and its value to society.

Further, there are ways of dealing with the real legal and institutional problems faced by homosexuals that do not require this kind of divisive facedown. We can ensure that adults in consensual relationships are treated fairly without undermining the sanctity of the traditional family.

Traugott said:

"No one would argue that one's own marriage is affected by the marriage licenses currently being issued. However, changing the definition of marriage will invariably change its meaning on the cultural level and its value to society."

Where'd your definition of marriage come from? I'm not flaming, I'm curious.

And based upon what you've said, if the definition changed from being "man and woman" to "two persons" would then, you retract your statements?

Just curious.

More, sorry...

"Further, there are ways of dealing with the real legal and institutional problems faced by homosexuals that do not require this kind of divisive facedown. We can ensure that adults in consensual relationships are treated fairly without undermining the sanctity of the traditional family."

Okay, I find a flaw here. The flaw that I find is that you are meshing church and state, and I don't think you can do that and have your argument hold water.

The word sanctity is defined as:
1. Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness.
2. The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability.
3. Something considered sacred.

Sanctity thusly makes your argument based upon religion, and I do believe that the discussion as to how gay marriages are to be "handled" is something being taken under consideration by the government.

Church and State.

That, I think, is one of the biggest flaws with this all--and I don't fault your line of thinking as it makes sense to a degree, but I don't think that a country should be making decisions based upon religious beliefs when the churches are finding themselves in too much deep water as it is.

Regardless of the issues facing the Church, there's also the mention of the "traditional" family, and that also troubles me, as the word "traditional" makes as much sense as the word "normal".

Tradition:
1. The passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation, especially by oral communication.
2a. A mode of thought or behavior followed by a people continuously from generation to generation; a custom or usage.
2b. A set of such customs and usages viewed as a coherent body of precedents influencing the present: followed family tradition in dress and manners. See Synonyms at heritage.
3. A body of unwritten religious precepts.
4. A time-honored practice or set of such practices.

And again, we run into the issue of religion, however, if we throw that definition out, we are left with something that is passed down--and we, as a people create new traditions every single year.

If on 9/11 next year, Wil creates another Flash piece in memory of the Tragedy, then he has created a tradition. See the flaw?

I won't even go into the definition of normal, as that definition says plenty but normal also tends to change as your group size, location, demographic, etc. etc. etc. change, and it's unfair to use a blanket word like "normal" to define all of our peoples in this country, or any country for that matter.

God (Church), I hate politics (State).

I can tell assure you one thing: were I not already prepared to buy your book, I'd sure as hell be planning to do it now. Thanks for your terrific post!

To quote Christian Slater in pump up the volume...

Talk Hard!

And I've said it before and I'll say it again...

Uncle Willy for Prez! (although it does seem silly to call someone a few months younger than me uncle...ah well.)

Mr. Wheaton,

Ive been reading your blog for a long time because I think its awesome what you do with this site, especially since I am an aspiring webdesigner and believe that the simpler the better. And when I read your post today, I ran and made my father read it as well, and you might have just gotten a new fan!

You rock my socks and I can't wait for your new book!

Now I will go back to my hole in the wall here in Ky and just watch silently as your mind is day by day revealed for my own eyes.

Peace

Rock the hell on, wil. \m/

Funny thing I just thought of...

John Titor predicted that the startings of a civil war would start this month....

I know a lot of people have said this already but I just couldn't help myself:

Hell yeah! You rock, Wil. You really, really do.

Never be afraid to post what you think and believe. Especially if all your thoughts are as wonderful as these.

When was the last time you saw ANYTHING get 66% of the vote?

The 1996 'Defense' of Marriage Act passed in both houses by an enormous margin, far exceeding that required to approve a constitutional Amendment.

If the Musgrave amendment (popularly known as the Federal Marriage Amendment) is approved by Congress, 38 States must ratify it. Currently, 38 States have some kind of law expressly prohibiting gay marriage, and the other 12 are considering it. (Rhode Island was the very last, in late January.)

Honestly, though, I don't think it will make it. It's one thing to pass a local DOMA, or even a federal DOMA, but quite a different thing to ratify an amendment to the US Constitution. Still, we'll see. And history will judge.

(To Kelly in RI -- Hi! See ya down at Haven Bros. or AS220 or wherever else..!)

Wil, You have my upmost support and respect for everything you have just said.

Russ:

First, I'm not going to respond to everything you said. (Specifically your attempt to read things I didn't write by copying and pasting multiple definitions of my words.)

I don't need to define marriage for you; everyone knows what traditional marriage is, and to feign otherwise is pure obfuscation. And "what if the definition changed ... to 'two persons'?" That is the exactly the alteration I'm opposing!

Further, the institution of marriage is not "traditional" because it is formed regularly, or even because it has existed for a long time. It is traditional because it is the foundation of the family unit that is our social underpinning. As such its sanctity -- and I do not accept your assertion that this word must have religious connotations, or that my position is spiritually based -- is worthy of protection.

I've been reading this website for quite awhile now, but this is the first time I've ever felt so inspired to post. I don't know if you'll read this or not, but if you do... stop apologizing for your point of view. You are consistantly fair, articulate, and relevant. You are not attacking, slandering, or ranting. There's no sense in worrying about whether or not you're going to piss people off, because you will, no matter what you do. You will piss people off if you post your opinion, and you will piss people off for not making a statement. Keep on doing what you're doing, because you're good at it. You should take pride and pleasure in your skill with the written word, and in the fact that you're using your talent and ability to reach the public on such an important issue. Above all, thank you. Thank you for being so vocal and standing up for what you believe it.

I'm in the UK and am watching what our prime minister's boss has had to say on the matter. I think what he fails to realise is that marraige ceremonies take place in other faiths and religions. Not everyone in this world, or our own countries worships the same God. How does Mr Bush know if all of these people are even Christian? I'm begining to become more and more disillusioned with the "sanctity of marraige". At the end of the day, what does it mean? that you love someone so much you are commited to them. I'm sure I'm not the only person to realise you don't need a piece of paper to proove this to someone? Saying that, with so much hatred and intollerance in this world, I feel the people choosing to get Married in SF are making a very important point. I'm not a Christian but I think it says somewhere that all men are equal under God, so by saying what Mr Bush is saying, surely he is comparing himself with God?!? I know he loves to meddle in the affairs of others but he's a moron. He's ill advised and a total berk.

Wil, I have to agree with a previous poster: You should never apologize for your opinion. If people don't like it, they can shove it.

That's wonderful said - even made me tear up a little. Thank you for sharing your thoughts :-) .

Gidday Wil (and fellow Wilfolk),

It's a bugger* (no pun intended) when you actually AGREE with a political opposite isn't it?

Thought you were all brain dead for a while there ... what with the way y'awl were running around like chooks with your heads cut off, nice to know the sleeping bear is awaking from it's slumber at last!

(Just make sure Shrubbie doesn't slip one under the radar before Nov. and you end up with a "naturalised" Prez. Set that sort of precedent and we'll sic Steve Erwin on you!)

Hmmmm ... Crocodile hunter V Arnie ... ROTFL ...

*BUGGER: another of the great Australian adjectives. has many meanings depending on the context. ex: “bugger!” = damn! or “bugger all” = nothing. ex: “I can see bugger all without my glasses.” or “Bugger off!” = go away!

Source - http://www.aeo.us/students/aussieterms.html ... look for chooks too, if you don't have a clue.

Very well put, Wil. It is great to see people taking a stand on such an issue. Just wanted to add my support to the cause.

Anyone who can keep a loving, respectful and monogamous relationship together, whether heterosexual or homosexual, has my undying respect and admiration.

I love you. No, I'm serious. I'm glad you are on this planet.
I'm bisexual. A minister's daughter and religious and a democrat (not to mention the daughter of a vietnam veteran). And up until last night I had a girlfriend I thought I was going to marry.
I feel like any other person out there, obviously. And then I read things like what Bush said and I feel like crap. And it makes me angry. And drained. And suddenly I want to move to Canada. Again. And that makes me angry too because I shouldn't let that man have that effect on me. Because I love my country.
But he makes me feel so powerless when he says and does these kinds of things.
And I just wanted to thank you for saying all that you did in this post because it made me cry and remind me once again that George W. Bush can't run this country forever and that we outumber him. We of course meaning people who remember the meaning of the word 'secular.'
Thank you Wil Wheaton. Thank you for being you and for standing up for what you believe in no matter the consequence.

Every time that man gets up on a podium and says something to the effect that marriage is one of the oldest traditions known to mankind, I'm reminded of the oldest profession: prostitution.

You could also replace "racial prejudices" with "religious prejudices".

Oh, I'll be voting in November.

The Amendmant has no legs. It's a dead issue.

Point #1, Mayor Newsom is wrong. The marriages, by CA law are illegal. There are better ways to accomplish this.

Point #2, Marriage between gays is a pointless formality. Marriage is a religious ceremony (that shouldn't be regulated by the state). Most religions scowl at homosexuality in general, for whatever reason. Those that don't would likely perform a marriage ceremony sans marriage license anyway (and more power to them). Still, some people happen to like pointless formalities though.

Point #3, not all Conservatives are excited by this. Most find the idea stupid in the extreme. I'm one of them.

Well said, Wil and very brave. Prepare for uber amounts of hatemail. For inspiration, check out some great responses to hatemail at: http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/Personal4.html

Micah Wright is a former Army Ranger and artist of propaganda posters that mock the current administration and its blind, hate-filled ideology. You can access his propoganda artwork at: http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/PhotoAlbum1.html

Wil, you rock! I have two comments:

1) Legal marriage has nothing to do with marriage. If a man and woman atheist can go to city hall and get a marriage license, then any same-sex couple should be able to as well.

2) Over at DemocraticUnderground.com people were calling their Senators to see where they stand on the amendment. As of last night, 30 were against it. If we get 34 to vote against it, it's dead. So call your Senators and make your voice heard.

Rock on,
Laura

Awesome Wil, thanks for seeing the big picture. You're one of the wisest people I know.

It's about time we stop fooling around and wake up to the fact that in America, people can do what they want as long as it doesn't interfere with others. The notion that this interferes with others is groundless and in the end, discriminatory.

There's more than one reason why I and my family only refer to Bush as "Das Fuhrer." This is only the most glaringly obvious one.

Nah. GW is just pandering to his base. He's said what they wanted to hear and now he's done. He won't be pushing for an amendment. He "supports" one. NO ONE EXPECTS AN AMENDMENT TO PASS. No one in the know, that is. This "issue" will die of neglect now.

Thanks for your good words. I've been working myself into a head case over this all week, and trying to be patient with my friends who say, "We agree with you, but now is not the time. People aren't ready now." Well, if not now, then when? And to have the issue so blatantly used as a political wedge makes it worse. Knowing that, after the sound and the fury that will be the 2004 campaign, I still won't be able to marry who I want to, I feel disgusted with my government and sick that men like that are permitted to have the White House.

Okay, this is to all of you who are claiming that our country is based on Christianity.
Yes, Christian ethics are a part of what underlies the positions of many of our founding fathers, but at the same time, many of the most important of them were deists of unitarians. They used the Christian template because it was an ethical system that worked, but many of them had negitive things to say about the faiths.
Washington wasn't a Christian. He defended non-Christians in the military and (a big deal at the time) did not call for a clergyman to be with him as he died. The treaty of Peace and Friendship was written during his administration.
John Adams thought more highly of lawyers than clergy. He sent the above treaty to the senate. HIS SENATE RATIFIED the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which among other things says "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
Jefferson was a unitarian. His hope was that no young man of his day would die a Christian. As to the Bible that the fundies like to say is literally true... he said that Revolations is "the ravings of a maniac" His beef wasn't so much with biblical Christianity but with the leaders who had injected Plato into it early on. He was an admirer of the doctrines of Christ, but the folks who came after Christ he believed were in it for the power.
One last point on Jefferson. He wrote to J. Adams "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
James Madison (Prez #4 for those of you who are counting) accused Christianity of bringing about " pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
Enough presidents.
A little more about the Treaty of Friendship and Peace. It was read aloud to the Senate. Each Senator received a printed copy. The vote was recorded. Of the first 339 recorded votes by the senate the Treaty of Tripoli (Peace and Friendship) was only the third to pass unanimously. There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers - two in Philadelphia, one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.

Well worded article, Wil! I particularly like this excerpt:
Personally, I don't think the government should be involved in marriage in any way. I believe that marriage is between two people who love each other, who wish to make a commitment to stay together through good times and bad.

Your personal beliefs should not interfere with the freedoms of others. Homosexuality might not be a "religion" but it should be protected by the constitution as any other civil right. Not restricted by the same document.

You go Wil!
The whole thing makes me want to hurl - the audacity of it! The fact that our President has the balls to actually say that in this day and age. More balls than brains that's for sure. It's time for us, as Americans to stop tolerating this bullshit. To me, it goes against the very grain of what America is all about. A step backwards in our evolution as a country. Electing George W was a mistake - something that will soon be rectified come November.

Wil:

I have been reading your site for some time now. I found it through a friend's link. I have been a fan of your work since we were both kids, and you did Stand By Me. I loved the flick. Heck, I even liked the Wesley Crusher character! *smile*

I am happy to see that my admiration of you has transcended beyond your ability on the screen and into real life.

My partner Patrick and I have been dating for 5.5 years. We got engaged last month. We hope to join the many gay couples being married next spring, if we can ever set a specific date instead of a season!

Thanks for being supportive.

Never be afraid to voice your opinions, whether you think people will agree or disagree, they are your opinions and you are entitled to them. If the public doesn't like them, well, "F%!# 'em".

BTW: Fantastic post the other day about you and the kids and AD&D. While I myself prefer other gaming systems, (Currently loving the Buffy game), it is a good system to introduce them to!

You go, Wil! (after all, you have a posse!)

and

Why can't we just get everyone to vote democrat... after all, don't we all Obey Wil?

Well written, Wil... (say that 5 times as fast as you can..heh) There really isn't that much to be said about this issue, the truth is so evident that arguments are hardly necessary....

And, like you, I've noticed no significant impact on my own marriage since the evil city of San Fran started issuing those marriage licenses.....

As promised, I've gone to Amazon.com and pre-ordered 3 copies of Dancing Barefoot. Rational thought, and the ability to express those thoughts clearly should be rewarded. Good boy, Wil. Sit. Stay.

I agree 100%! I have believed from the beginning that this was a discrimination issue. And as for having the people of the U.S. vote on the issue? I say no. Discrimination is not OK even if a majority of people vote for it(although I don't think they would). Bush has been on a major power trip since the beginning. He's not being a leader, he's just throwing his weight around. Does anyone remember the case of the brain-dead woman in FL whose husband won a court battle to have her removed from life-support? Bush actually stepped in and stopped it. Now, no matter what your view on this issue, the president had no right to step in. People, let's please get him out of the White House this year!!!!

Oh, and Wil, thanks for again standing up for what you believe in. Maybe there are a few people left in the world with morals after all.

I heartily agree Wil!

Of course, I live in the Netherlands, where gay marriages are legal since two years, and nobody but our Christian prime minister has even mentioned them for the last year.

But when I see the fiftieth photo of a Just Married(TM) gay/lesbian couple on the stairs of San Francisco's City Hall, I see the fiftieth photo of two people who are happy, and in love.

Isn't the "pursuit of happiness" a part of that same Constitution?

Apparently this cartoon is correct:
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/luckovich/index.html

Well said Wil, I'll second that.

Amen. brother! You put my precise thoughts into much better words than I could. The absurdity of this idea actually prompted me to write to both senators and my congressman - I've never done that before.

I cringe every time Bush refers to marriage as a "sacred union." While I happen to believe that, the word, "sacred," has no business in my government. Let the judicial process do its thing and sort this out.

This is just a comment to show my support for civil rights in any form be it race, gender, religion or sexuality.
...to show my support for seperation of church and state...
...to show my support for human beings.

Hi,
Love your blog and glad you decided to post this one. As for the Amendment: Fat chance. (my opinion) As for Bush as president again: wasn't it Scotty all those years ago that said something to the effect "fool me once shame on you. fool me twice shame on me." I only have one vote but it is mine to give to who I will and it WILL NOT be to the Shrub. Thanks...you rock.

From my interpretation of the Old and New Testament scriptures, I can come to no other conclusion that homosexuality is a sin against the Judeo-Christian God with whom I claim a personal relationship. Wil, I appreciate being able to share this difficult statement and apologize for any discomfort my statement brings you all.

From my understanding of electoral politics here in America, GWB has no chance of getting enough states and senators to go along with this amendment. But, as a majority of American voters are against granting homosexuals the right to marry each other, it is shrewd of him to campaign on a wedge issue. Wil, I complement you on seeing beyond the issue to realize one reason why GWB has this in play.

From my understanding of the end-of-the-world issues of the book of Revelation, the Second Coming of Christ will occur when the world is a much worse place than it is now, and that the best intentions of the Religious Right will be powerless against it. Wil, do you realize that there are Christians in high places that believe that the Second Coming will occur only after "the Kingdom" is established on Earth, the Theocracy assured?

As a civil rights issue, it is beyond argument that rights are currently denied. However, the democracy has the right to examine this as a public policy issue and redefine the rules. If we agree homosexual marriage is a right, is every single item we as a society have given to heterosexual married couples through the law equally applicable? We need a national discussion what civil rights we cherish and what benefits, if any, we decide should be imparted on us breeders, which would still be our exclusive perview.

Now is also the time to begin to consider whether multiple spouse marriages might be allowed. Don't think about the sometimes-brutal Mormon marriages, but about Dr. Phlox on Enterprise. It can work.

The feds don't recognize bigamy or polygamy. In fact, they're illegal. There's nothing that says you can't live with a dozen women, take care of them, and have babies with them though. You just can't "marry" them.

The idea here is similar...except they're not talking about criminalizing gay marriage.

The notion that the government should have no say in marriage is ridiculous. They already do. If you have a marriage license, the government certainly had a say in *your* marriage. So go ahead gay guys and gals, have your happy life together. The feds just aren't going to recognize your union as a legal/licensed marriage.

Sad that so few people bother to understand the difference.

I know my comment is way the heck down this list. But I wanted to add my "well said" to the list. Well said!

Thank you Wil. Your post almost made me cry, because you are one of the first straight allies I have seen who has got it down perfectly. I also want to thank everyone who reads this and sees the amendment for the smoke and mirrors distraction that it is. It seems that the world has not caved in from the marriage of a few gay people, and that should be patently obvious to all of the people who are secure in their relationships, as Wil and Anne clearly are. Hopefully this is an announcement of desperation from the Bush Administration that they are willing to demonize any one they can, just to win elections. I hope Americans will not stand for it.

Thankfully, here in Ontario (Canada), gay and lesbian marriage is 100% legal! This spells excellent news for a lot of my friends, and I think it's an absolutly wonderful thing. I suggest to all you guys (and girls) out there who are looking to marry your sweetie, but can't 'cause your el presidente is a prejudiced and close-minded fuck, come up to Ontario! We don't care who you marry as long and you're happy!!

If the word "marriage" is supposed to mean a spiritual ceremony, then why did I have to go get a MARRIAGE license from my county clerk's office?!

To all those folks who are honestly uncomfortable at using the M-word to describe committed same-sex pairings, I am truly sorry. But right now, that is the word that the government is using to describe the legal binding of an opposite-sex couple. And in a perfect USA, the government's co-option of the word "marriage" means it's been spiritually neutered, because the government is not supposed to have spiritual influence.

If you'd rather see "civil union" used to describe the same-sex legal bindings because "marriage" has religious significance to you, I can understand that. But I would rather see you try and get *all* legal bindings, heterosexual *or* homosexual, renamed as "civil unions". I'd actually support you on that, 'cause it'd make it just that much more clear that the government can only bestow the legal rights and privileges currently assigned to marriage; the couple is on their own to bring their particular vision of God into the relationship.

My husband and I have gone round and round about this and he finally understood it when I used one of his friends as an analogy - letting him know that his friend wouldn't have the same rights as we do should something happen to him.

The constitution was not set up to provide for racism in any way and anyone who uses it for that purpose should be ashamed.

(and i liked GW. However, he killed me with this one)

Good job Wil. I totally agree with you (and am a fan of Andrew Sullivan too). Keep the faith, brother.

I'm proud to be a fan Wil.

I do not, in any way, shape or form, agree with gay marriage. I am a strong Christian and it goes against the Bible and what God meant marriages to be.

However!

God also said to hate the act, not the person. I think dragging the Constitution into this is a mistake. I think letting each state chose it's stance is a good thing. Here in Kansas, a church in KC isn't doing marriages at all anymore, gay or otherwise, because they do not want to discriminate. I think it would be better to take a calm approach to that. Stating that they do not believe in gay marriages and will not be preforming those marriages in that church.

My church has made it clear that we do not support gay marriages, but in no way has alienated it's gay members. We welcome them and though we do not agree with what they do, we don't dwell on it and make it a big deal.

In Topeka, where I'm from, there is a church there that reguarly stands on the corners, holding signs and shouting that God hates gays, God wants gays to die. Had they ever taken the time to actually READ the Bible, they would see that God doesn't hate anything he had created. What he hates is the act and instructs us to love our enemies as ourselves. How are we to do this when small issues like who sleeps with whom are blown up to such an enormous size?

The country is acting like a bunch of petty teenage girls in my view. What's going to happen will happen. As a Christian, we pray against gay and lesbian marriages and hope for the best, waiting on God, but we don't go around making a spectical of ourselves. We state our beliefs, explain why we believe that and leave it alone, putting our two cents in every now and then, hoping it will sink in.

Sometimes, like now, it seems that we fail but that is part of being a Christian or Catholic, Methodist, Babtist, whatever you call yourself. Dealing with failure. The trick is to not get overly upset and make a mountain out of a mole hill. God never intended for that. He's a quiet, laid back sort of dude. If he wasn't, he'd have gotten pissed off centries ago and ended this who life thing, leaving NO ONE behind to see the rainbow.

As a human being, an American and a gay man, I thank you for your post. I agree with you 100% in your well thought out position statement and can appreciate how you might have been apprehensive to post it.

As someone who shares many of the same political views as you, I found it gratifying to hear you state what I had been thinking but had been unable to put into words. To see so many comments in support was pretty cool, too!

As a Buddhist (or even just as a non-Christian) I find it frustrating that most of the dissent on this issue has centered around Biblical reasoning -- at least from what I read. I'll admit, though, that I stopped reading at 12:30 last night around 100 comments in and started skimming. I was hoping that more people who support relegating me to second-class citizenship despite the fact that I pay the same taxes (like most gays & lesbians do) and served in the army (under "Don't ask" -- which many of us have done and continue to do) would do so with some kind of reasoning that didn't go back to the Bible. But it keeps popping up.

So, finally, to all the people who commented in support -- especially those Christians who support equality and fairness for all in the true spirit of this country as well as of their religion (which, I believe, is based on love and compassion), THANK YOU. And thank you again, Wil!

Wow, Wil.

Mirabile dictu, seriously.

You're dead on, and I can only pray [irony check] that you're right about this backfiring on the Dubya Administration. I have long since had enough of him.

Wil, thanks for posting your reasoned and reasonable response to GWB's new strategy of division.

I wonder, though, has Mr. Bush gone far enough? As several of your commentators note, the Christian Bible is interpreted by many as literally classifying homosexuality as a sin. This is then advanced as the justification for codifying into a law -- no, an AMENDMENT to the US Constitution! -- what is essentially a prohibition against that sin. On that same basis, it would seem to me, Mr. Bush needs to do more. For, if there is anything that Jesus seemed to be crystal clear about in His teaching, it was the unacceptability of divorce. The Gospels of the NT have Jesus in four different passages prohibiting in pretty absolute terms divorce. And, if marriage between a man and a woman is such a sacred and divinely-inspired institution (the bedrock of our society in GWB's mind), it would make sense that the priority in support of marriage ought to be just such a prohibition. (see Mark 10.2-12, Matthew 5.31-32 and 19.3-11, Luke 16.18 and 1 Corinthians 7.10-11). Why do we not hear the President leading the charge to fortify the sanctity of marriage precisely by an Amendment to the Constitution which would, except in cases of fraud or some other criminal activity, essentially ban divorce!

Of course, my irony here is intended to underline the essential point that Bush's action is, at least in part, not motivated merely by a desire to support marriage. Rather, he seems to be doing penance for his wildly anti-conservative adminstration in its embrace of reckless spending, threats to personal liberty, and all those other acts which the Christian Right has actually begun to grow restless about. So, he throws out the lives and liberties and personal happiness of gay men and women as a diversion.

Wil, thank you for your eloquence. It is refreshing.

In Canada we have a similar debate. However, our Supreme Court has already said that placing a ban on homosexual marriage would go AGAINST our Charter of Rights & Freedoms.

I consider myself a conservative, but am not religious. The only arguments that I hear against gay marriage are based on religious beliefs. Since I'm not religious, I can't see a reason NOT to allow it.

Don't worry...The people who put you on their blacklists and ban lists probably wouldn't be buying your books anyway.

You were on the mark with everything you said. You haven't cared what people thought about you up to this point, why worry now. Those of us who will be putting dinner on your table agree with you. We always have, and we probably always will.

Get Child-emperor George who is just trying to do what Daddy couldn't do, with Texas Oil money, out of office! Wil for president! :) okay, not really, but at this point, I think the neighbor's labridor could do a better job.......

I have very little time, so I'll leave everything I could say to those who can get around to saying it. Most people already have, anyway. Mostly, I just wanted to add my "thank you" to the slew of them you've already gotten.

As the close friend of a great number of GLBT people, I salute you.

I haven't read any of the other comments here, but I just wanted to say *I'll* boycott you if you ever stop speaking your mind because you think it will help sell more books.

I mean, how many people "boycott" Michael Moore? Has that really hurt him?

Wil, you rule! I was against gay marriages at this time at first because, as a gay man, I felt there were more important issues. I also felt that legal civil unions would be fine with me, but then the neocons objected to that too, and then they started removing anti-discrimination language from the federal job descriptions.

Now I'm 100% supportive of gay marriages.

As for the right-wing conservative view that activist judges are ruining America...around 1800 the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall stated in 1803:

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is...Thus the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void..."

Thanks for posting this Wil. My guess is that your book and business will weather the storm just fine.
My marriage seems to be fine too. Does anyone know if metrosexual marriage is still legal?

GOOD WORK, SIR!

I probably wouldn't have bought your book before I read this... when does it come out?

Ever notice how folks who call themselves "good Christians" define "sinners" by calling them ___-lovers? ie, n*gger-lovers, faggot-lovers, etc." They define "evil" by love, and themselves by hate; I think if you want to find the anti-Christ you need look no further than the closest frothing Fundie.

"Defending" conventional marriage by forbidding gay marriage is like protecting a dog from rabies by refusing to vaccinate a cat.

Please keep the courage of your convictions!

I agree with most of this, except that Republicans aren't the only ones to use the divide and conquer strategy. Democrats do it too, by telling racial minorities that Republicans and corporations are fully responsible for their lot in life -- when in fact, it is each individual's responsibility to take whatever they have and make something of it.

You're one of the few to actually state that government should have no business in marriage. Ironically, the Puritans (yes, the actual Puritans) were the first group in America and in the Western World of the time, to say that marriage was a civil contract, and had little to do with religion. It's an interesting topic to research.

Thanks for taking a stand on this issue. I don't think it's a poor marketing choice at all. It's what makes you, you, and why you have so many people reading your blog every day -- you're not afraid to be you.

Wil, you have always wrokked, hopefully will always wrok. Keep up the good dialog.

I recently became a US Citizen after living apolitically and apathetically in the US for a long time. The policies of GWB have been key in pushing me towards my first voting experience.

Vote your conscience in November! Let's lose the Bush.

Those that have watched the season-ender of Season 3 of US "Queer As Folk" know the significance of the attached URL to a sampler of New Order's "True Faith" (not the mix).

Time to get those long lines to the voting booth going.

i don't think it's so much of "we hate Bush because he doesn't support gay marriages" but it's more of a question of what is he offering the gay community? He's all fired up about protecting marriage as it relates to men and women, but he gives us nothing to look forward to in life. If i fall in love with another guy, i have nothing to look forward to except a "civil union". As a citizen of America, it's my right to love someone and to be able to live happily with that person, and the things that Bush puts out and proposes diminishes that love and makes it less just because it's directed to another guy.

And to redefine the word marriage so that it's different for gay people...what is that? Why should our love have to be redefined, isn't it love just like anyone else's? Sometimes i think those things are just frustrating, because it's hard enough to actually FIND someone and fall in love with them, but with Bush's ideas and proposals, that's as far as i would be able to go with it. I could never build a family or be happy because it doesn't go with what his religion tells him marriage is. I just think that he's overstepping the law like crazy to push a religious agenda.

I think that's why in Australia, we don't vote for someone based on their religion, but on their ability to uphold the laws of our land. It seems like Bush is mixing his faith and using it to tear up the Constitution of this country. It seems like that anyway...good writing Wil, thank you for talking about this.

-Aaron-

Ok, let me try to clear up something for everyone... Anyone who says this is an issue about religion or hate or discrimination (yea, that includes people on both sides of the proverbial fence) has not looked at all the facts involved.

All I read on this weblog and in many other places is a series of emotional or religious rants that don't discuss the ACTUAL points involved in this debate. Simply calling people bigots does not make gay marriage valid. Simply saying the bible says it's wrong does not make it INvalid.

If folks in this discussion want to get into more of the real issues, I encourage you to read the following artcle (which by the way, was written by both a fundamentalist cristian heterosexual woman AND a non-religious homosexual man - both whom have a tremendous amount of FACTS and RESEARCH on their sides.

It's 20 pages long, so most of the people in this forum will not read it because they don't want to learn more about the foundation of the arguments, they just want to spout their "beliefs." For those who wish to be more informed,

Here you go:

http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/mmmode.pdf

Wil, you rock. Sincerely.

God established marriage as something between a man and a woman.

No, that is not true. Please pick up a history book and read sometimes, will you? Marriage existed long before people started to believe in a single God, before the Bible was even written. And marriage exists in cultures today that have no belief in God, as Christians or Jews believe in. Marriage has changed throughout history as society changed.

Wil...right on!

You're dead on here, Wil. The President's position here directly contradicts his position during the 2000 election, when he claimed to believe gay marriage was an issue for the states, not the Federal government.

From a logical viewpoint, I can't see a real argument for such a discriminatory law. If marriage is a religous concept, then the government has no more business "protecting" its sanctity than it has protecting the sanctity of Jewish dietary law or Islam's prohibition of alcohol - sanctity is the business of the churches. If marriage is a legal concept, then any form of bias or discrimination, be it related to gender, race or sexual orientation, is contrary to the principles America holds dear and inconsistent with every legal decision that says, "discrimination is wrong".

It's been said before, but it bears repeating: separate but equal isn't.

Wil, I've been reading for quite sometime and have never felt the need to comment until now. I love you. Thank you so much for being so awesome. Rock the hell on.

Hoodyfrickinhoo Wil! (and you get a geek point if you can name that reference!) I've read through some of the comments here and I'm glad to see the majority agree with you as I do. For the hypocrites that are trying to fall back on the Bible to justify this amendment feel free to see my page: http://journals.aol.com/amtfool/Dancingtomyownbeat/ I'm so tired of people using the Bible as the end all, be all of how we should all behave when they pick and choose which Bible verses THEY follow in their own lives! Have you ever heard of seperation of Church and Government? There's VERY good reasons for it! Bush all too often just acts as a puppet for a minority radical christian portion of the populace. That should scare anyone enough to not vote for him regardless of anything else.

The next time I'm watching TNG reruns on Spike TV, I'm going to watch a kid who grew up to be a great and noble man. Thank you so much for having the courage to take a stand.

And to anyone who says that they support this marriage amendment not out of hatred, but out of their faith, I will just say that I am reminded of women being told that they should not be given the vote in order to protect them from the corrupting influence of politics. The things we do . . .

I love that you wrote without being divisive. Everything else I've read on this subject, rather than simply being a logical, reasoned defense has been an illogical attack - and I appreciate seeing someone argue for equality in a positive voice.

Nicely Said! And I'm glad you decided to post this because it needs to be said and it needs to be spread. Some of my friends are homosexual, I don't see any differences between them and myself apart from that, yet they are being restricted to marry someone that they love because people in our government dont like it. It's all bullshit.

Maybe we need one of the guys from Queer Eye to run for President?

I know I am late for the discussion, but I thought I should inform you on how the right thinks.

1) We are NOT racists!!! Every republican I know is not a racist (and that is a lot of people). If we thought for a second that our leaders were racists, we would leave the party in a heartbeat. Just in case I have not made my self clear, the KKK can kiss my ass!!!!!!!

2) There is no southern strategy (see #1). It is another myth from the left. They want to continue to portray the right as racists to sure up the votes of minorities. You should hear some of the commercials that the democrat party plays to make the right look bad. Some of them are just disgusting.

3) This is a constitutional problem. It is a violation between Church and State. The state can not define something that is a religious institution.

4) Religion has been taking a beating in the courts lately. The courts in Massachusetts, and the Mayor of San Francisco, have forced the issue. Even though there is a law in the California Constitution against gay marriage, the Mayor has decided to break that law. In Massachusetts, they want to create a Civil Unions law. But the Court won’t let them.

5) I don’t believe President Bush wanted to go down this road. If this was something that was true to his heart, he would have brought it up during the first year of his presidency. Not to mention the political capital he will have to waste during the very difficult process of adding an amendment.

6) If a two gay people want to get married, then they should just do it. The state can not stop two people, be they gay or not, from having a ceremony. The state can’t stop two people from saying they are married. It is called freedom of speech. It is the first amendment. Who cares if the state recognizes it as marriage. It is what is in that person’s heart that matters. Not some piece of paper.

7) Civil Unions should be available in all 50 states. And not just for gay people. I have a cousin whose first marriage was a disaster. He will not marry his current girl friend of several years. A Civil Union for him would be a good alternative.

One of the great things about Star Trek, is how it teaches people to be tolerant of others. That we are all human beings. Just because a person may look, act, or think different views, doesn’t mean that we should treat them any differently. That is unless they are a skin-heads or nazis. Then they can kiss our ass!!!

P.S. Even though I do not agree with Wil's view here, I will not boycott. I will still purchase "Just a Geek" (and love every word). Wil has the right to say what ever he wants. Especially on his own web site.

As far as I'm concerned, the civil aspects of marriage should be treated as contract law -- if two consenting adults want to sign a contract saying they'll live together in a monogamous relationship, let 'em. People don't even wouldn't even have to include that "til death do us part" clause if they don't want to -- why shouldn't someone be able to sign a five-year marriage contract with an automatic extension in the case of childrent?

People could sign whatever contract they want, and if they get a church to bless it, more power to them.

That being said -- Wil, if you think Sullivan is ultra-conservative, you need to get out of California more often. He's pretty moderate on everything but the war (and he seems to be losing faith on that), and regularly gets taken to task by Jonah Goldberg, a real, honest to Cthulhu ultra-conservative.

Though I know most posters will skip over any dissenting viewpoints, even when I say up front I am not against gay unions and being the gazillionth post makes it fairly unlikely this will be read by anyone, I have to voice my thoughts as well.

First point, I don't believe government should have any role in marriage or committed relationships at all. I don't believe in the current sodomy laws most states have enacted, even though the intent was to protect non-consenting adults such as victims of rape. Marriage was decreed as a religious union long before the concept of civil law as we know it was ever conceived. It should stay a religious union, whatever religion the participants practice. Every human should be responsible for his own future, not his husband/wife/wives/partners social security.

Second, one of my major political hot buttons is the interpretation of the intent of separation of church and state. The intent of the Founding Fathers was never to have no religious input into government at all. The intent was to prevent any religious body from having legislative control. The second intent was to prevent the government from having any religious control, i.e., the monarch being the head of the Church of England. It was never intended to totally segregate all aspects of religion from influencing government decisions.

Third, every American should examine their own prejudices. One that is commonly ignored is the lumping of political beliefs with personal integrity. Do I agree with President Bush on this issue? No. Do I agree with Wil Wheaton on this issue? No. Do I believe they both feel strongly that their beliefs should be the deciding factor in the long term well being of our country? Absolutely. Do they both have that right as human beings? Absolutely. Does anyone have the right to question their moral integrity for standing up for their own beliefs or denegrate them for believing as they do? Never.

While I consider myself a political conservative and a social liberal, I don't believe either party does any better job forwarding my agenda. The government that seems to best serve my needs is the non-partisan local government where media, spinners and all the other truly divisive influences have very little say. If we could take the Terry McAuliffes and Karl Roves out of the system and leave the few men with strong enough convictions to truly fight for their own beliefs, we would see a country where everyone could prosper. Not a country where the strongest contributors have the largest pull, both for the Democratic and Republican parties.

The greatest advantage to our form of government is that all Americans have the right to influence that outcome. We have the responsibilty to go to the voting booth and pull whatever lever, mark whatever box or touch whatever part of the screen will denote who we best think will carry forward our personal beliefs.

This is the time for all of us who speak out to speak out on behalf of those who live in fear of this administration. Thank you for speaking out, Wil.

I am emotionally stunned by the Bush/Rove-head, and all the crazy, evil and uncompassionate idealogies
they are imposing on this great, grand country. I still can't believe how they maneuvered themselves into office (but I can understand how they did it.)However, being stunned has not prevented me from getting up and moving, constantly,
towards their removal.

And, I agree with Wil...my marriage is just fine, too.. and the only ones who can harm it would be my husband and I.

Thank you for that, Wil.
It needs to be said for more often.

Wil, this is so beautifully put and well-written, I am forwarding it to everyone I know. I especially appreciate your point about how your own marriage is not threatened, nor can it be, by anyone else's. Beautifully said. I'm newly engaged and think it grossly unfair that my marriage will be legal because it happens to be to a man, while my maid of honor, who married her wife over a year ago, does not have the same privilege. Marriage is apparently so sacred that britney Spears can do it on a whim for a weekend and we have shows like "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire" on TV (not to mention the divorce rate), but same-sex couples who ahev been together for years can't get married if they want to? Civil unions are separate and unequal. The same old tired arguments used against interracial marriages are being recycled now. It's bigotry, pure and simple. Thank you for speaking out, and for your thoughtful articulation of what so many people are thinking and feeling right now.

WIL..YOU MADE ME PROUD!!

Thank you so much for having the courage of your
convictions..

WIL WHEATON FOR PRESIDENT!

I completely agree. I've recetnly taken up being an activist because I can't stand letting so many deplorable actions take place in the country which I share with my (gay) friends and family. I've also felt more useless than ever, since no matter how hard I've worked, it's seemed that 'the other side' has managed to speak louder. It's great to know that there are others out there who can speak at the same level, and say the same thing.

All I'm going to say is this:

Anyone who can watch the footage of the marriage ceremonies in San Francisco, who can sit there and see the love, the joy, the rapture of two people dedicating their lives to each other, and still proclaim that marriage is only for heterosexuals is speaking completely and totally out of hate, contempt, and ignorance.

I personally cried Tuesday night when "The Daily Show" made it a point to make their credits twice as long to show an actual ceremony from San Francisco. I cried for two reasons: first of all, I always cry at weddings. Second of all, I'm watching centuries-old barriers fall away as social justice finally makes its way into our society.

I can't add anything that anyone else hasn't already said. I'm just ecstatic that I can be alive to watch this, to take part in it, and to remember, years and years and years from now, that I was there as history was made.

Frankly, it comforts me to see that President Bush wants to protect the institution of marriage.

Had gay marriage been legal before I got married to my wife in 2002, I would have seriously considered marrying my best man. Because it was prohibited, I chose to marry my wife.

It truly protected me and I am eternally grateful to all of republican officials who passionately supported and enforced this law.

My hard-earned tax dollars are working to protect me, and that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside every day that I am reminded of it.

I also feel that I am not the only one who has been protected by this regulation. If not for this law, many straight married couples would indeed be gay at this time.

Kidding. only kidding

eric b

wil,

you rock. for having the courage to post something that you knew to be highly controversial in your blog. you always stand up fr the things that you believe in. what a great example you are!

while i am not gay, i do live in a gay household. i believe that an amendment to the constitution prohibiting gay marriage would be wrong. simply because it would take away rights from a big portion of the population. and that is opposite of the whole point of the constitution.

Thank you. Maybe someday I'll be able to get married to the woman I love, too.

Wil, I have never heard the issue stated & supported as well as you have written here.

Bill Maher was interviewing a Republican senator the other night, and when the senator made said that gay marriage would somehow taint the institution of marrige, Bill Maher responded: "I don't get it, so if this happens, how exactly does the republic fall?"

Too much focus is always spent on defending the intangible "institutions" and too little on the actual people that are involved in them.

-Chris K.
Atlanta, GA

Wil, thank you for being brave enough to post this one. Thank you for saying so eloquently what really needs to be said. Thank you for being a voice for those of us who don't feel comfortable making speaches, and for those of us who would prefer not to take a stand in public. Thank you for making me feel a little bit ashamed that I don't always want to take a stand.

I'm glad someone agrees with sanity. I'm even more glad that when someone asks me how I feel, I can point him or her to your blog, and tell them "He said it all."

I think I'm going to tell my mom, too.

speak the truth, brother.

For those who like to protest that there is a biblical injunction against homosexuality, lets take a look at the 6 sections of the bible that deal with homosexuality.
1 Genesis 19:1-29. The action described here is a homosexual gang rape. The bible should speak out against rape. I'm not sure what entitles Lot to be saved from destruction in this case though. While he protests his neighbors' desire to rape his guests he offers instead his two virgin daughters to "do ye to them as is good in your eyes" (sorry about the painful convolutions, that is the KJV.)

2 Judges 19:1-30 This is a similar story, except this time it is a man's concubine and his host's daughter. The man shoves his concubine out the door and she is raped all night. Then he goes on to murder her and ship pieces of her body around the realm.

The next two are from Leviticus. Using Leviticus to defend anything seems kind of shakey to me. It is the ultimate in pick and choose scriptures, and if you don't follow the whole thing, then you have no right to quote it against someone you disagree with.
3 Leviticus 8:22
and
4 Leviticus 20:13

These two are the strongest calls against homosexuality in the Bible, and they are both dealing only with men. Again, if you don't follow all of Leviticus I don't see where you lay claim to any part of it (well, okay, the offerings for sin are taken care of by Christ I suppose.)
This means:
Your mutton must be lean (Lev 7:22-27) forget the bacon and hare (Lev 11:6-7) ever eat a clam, shrimp, oyster, lobster, crayfish, or squid? That's forbidden in Lev 11:9-12. Did your wife sacrifice a lamb 7 days after giving birth to your son or 14 days after a daughter? (I skipped the sin offering. I figure that the Christ Sin Credits will take care of that.) Anyone trim their beard (Lev 19:27) oh, tattoos are a no no too (Lev 19:28). Ooh, don't forget to not ever discriminate against foriegners (Lev 19:33-34.) When is the last time that you stoned someone who took the Lord's name in vain? (Lev 24:10-16)
Looks like crop rotation might be a bit risky, and those cotton/whatever blend shirts... that is verboten (Lev 19:19). (I shoud go tell that one to my neighbors. They grow pumpkins among their corn.) There are others.

The last two actually come from the new testiment.
5 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
KJV says "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
The key words are "nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind" The origional text (in greek) said "effeminant male prostitutes nor the adult males who have sex with them," That is an injunction against male prostitution on both sides of the issue (the prostitute and his john)

and
6 Romans 1:18-29
This one refers to men who turned their backs on God and thus did many things unseemly to Him. Verse 27 says "and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity." I don't know about you, but most of the homosexual males I know don't "burn with lust" for other guys. Yeah, they are attracted to guys, but in relationships they are just as gentle and compassionate as the hetero couples I know.

Thanks for the great post Wil!

I'll just go ahead and add my little story to the mix of the well-thought out comments already posted.

I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. I'm also a lesbian in a committed relationship. My partner has a child from a previous marriage, whom I love dearly. She receives little child support and struggles to make ends meet. I don't have much in the way of extra money, but what I do have is hers when she needs it. However, I have a job with great medical and dental benefits, none of which my partner or her child could ever have access to because any marriage between us won't count as a "real" marriage.

In this uncertain economic time it makes more sense than ever to allow gay and lesbian marriages. It takes at least two incomes to be able to live comfortabley in the Bay Area and I resent the fact that Bush wants to get in the way of my ability to help my loved ones.

Yes, I want to marry for love, and to me part of loving is caring for the needs of those you are in love with.

Thank you again Wil for providing this forum in which people can speak their minds.

First off: Right on. The entire push for a Constitutional Ammendment does nothing but piss me off on a daily basis. There's no real need for me to opine upon it, since I won't be saying anything more interesting than "Right on, Wil!"

However, I do have to point something out. "Southern Strategy" is a political tactic practiced on all sides, not just those of Republicans. (Bringing out the worst in people - let's talk about how we should hate all Republicans, huh? Howard Dean the Angry Man made me want to tear my hair out.) Both major parties manage to consistently screw with our lives with utter abandon, it just depends upon the issue. (And sometimes it's on the same issue. Consider that while Bush is doing his ammendment BS, Clinton was the original signer of the "Protection of Marriage Act.") It's something I get rather cranky and sensitive about, considering I'm a Republican myself, and I think both parties are pretty much equally full of it.

Damn Straight! Pun intended. I hope that Bush and all the Bushies find this issue the one that topples their winter palace of cards.

150 years ago, the Bible said that slaves couldn't marry
50 years ago, the Bible said that black and white couldn't marry
Now, it appears that the Bible says two men can't marry.

I wish they'd get to the final release of this troublesome document, the one where God is love - found in the space between two.

I'm paraphrasing a televangelist named Selma Massey, in Detroit, who was with my wife, meeting with House reps trying to block a DOMA amendment in Michigan a few weeks ago. Televangelist, in this case, does not mean an old white man with big hair.

Dr. Massey never talked about release versions, I'm the geek here.

This is one place where Chaney is on record disagreeing with Bush. I wonder if he'll come through. Doubt it.

If it helps at all, I'll buy an extra several copies of JAG as Christmas presents.

Thanks so much for deciding to publish that Wil, I nearly cried when I read it. Thankyou.

Alex
x x

Wil Wheaton cussed. Great speech, Wil!!!

Thank you so much for that thoughtful and well-written protest against the "master of political illusion." Dubba's administration has become incredibly skilled at diversion and distraction. It's a crying and frustrating shame that we seem to live in a nation suffering from mass ADD. I can't even begin to tell you how disappointed I am in Colin Powell's association with this administration. When Dubba took office and announced Mr. Powell'a appointment, I had hopes that there would be a sane voice in the oval office to temper the insanity that I foresaw. Wish I hadn't been wrong :(

Anyway, just wanted to share an interesting bit of GWB trivia with you...Were you aware that 1/3 of Texans have NO medical insurance? The situation is so bad that the hospitals have started turning away patients for non-payment. That seems to be the legacy their former governer has left them. I have to wonder what he'll leave the rest of the nation when we finally get him the hell out of Washington??

Thanks for such a great blog, Wil! Can't wait to read JAG!

Dierdra

I'm never quite sure whether to classify myself as a Republican or a Democrat. I'm strongly opposed to entitlement programs and the growth of government (I'm *very* attached to my pocket book, and I think that taking 1/3+ of my income for taxes every year is highway robbery), but I also think that the government should stay out of my personal life.

Congress and the President shouldn't even have the opportunity to voice an opinion on who we marry or what we do with our lives and our bodies. It's a slippery slope that Bush is treading on.

The Framers of the Constitution saw issues such as this as regional problems that should be handled at the local & state levels, because it is there that we have the most input into the policies and laws that govern our daily lives. If Minnesotans want to live in the Dark Ages and ban gay marriages, they should have that right: BUT, they most certainly should NOT have a say in the same issue for San Franciscans.

Comment 5,692 e99 for the day, I'm sure =).

PS: I've noticed no difference in the value or "sanctity " (rolls eyes) of my marriage since this issue started. People who want to tell other people what they can and can't do should've been taught better in preschool, and definitely should NOT be deciding our collective fate as a nation. Om mani padme hum.

So you just want to change the name of this country to "Sodam and Gamora"?

This nation is supposed to be about freedom. So why are we always trying to deny American citizens their freedoms. Wil, I agree with you on this completely. President Bush must be stopped. Equality for all. He keeps saying that gay marriage will ruin the good-name and values of marriage. Well, let me leave you with this. Straight couples have been getting married and then divorced right and left. The divorce rate keeps increasing. I think the good-name and values of marriage have long since been gone and changed. The Catholic Church is no better....saying that we should accept one another, be tolerant, and live in harmony. But in their next breath, accept for these people over here. The Catholic Church has made their stance on the issue, but that doesn't mean that Catholics believe it. I'm a Catholic, and I believe in gay marriage. I've already written countless articles on my website about this...including one that I just posted. It's an election year, so I'll probably have more to say on it as the months pass. We must speak up and tell Mr. Bush to get back in touch with the American people and to stop this craziness.

Than you so much for this, Mr. Wheaton.

I'm a bisexual, and I've spent the last six years working with other students to ensure that students who come after us will be able to attend safe schools, free from discrimination based on their sexual and gender orientation.

While we've come a long way, it feels like plugging river with a pebble when we're faced with the prospect that our work will mean nothing when we enter the 'real world.' We'll still be second-class citizens once we leave school grounds, and that scares us.

Statements of support like the one you have written mean more to us than you know.

...and if its any consolation, we keep lists, too. And disposable income to spend on shiny new books.

mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

Why ban something that doesn't make sense? Why not make a new word up like, "marriage2", and give people the same rights and privelages that come along with marriage. It is the same thing, but doesn't make everyone buy new dictionaries.

Right on Wil! My wife and I live with her brother, who's a gay man. He's shown no signs of being interested in getting married, but it's made all of our lives a little better that he now has the choice. (Hurray for Ontario!)

So this is what passes for bravery these days? Surely your past posts have demonstrated that 95% of your audience here agree with you on anti-Bush matters.

I tend to agree that a constitutional amendment to legalize such bigotry is appalling. I can't think of a more horrific use of our Constitution.

But it's been my experience that Democrats are far more experienced in the wedge-driving game than Republicans. Let's not forget that Clinton had every opportunity to veto the original "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996 and instead chose to sign it.

If Clinton had shown some "bravery" then, perhaps we wouldn't be discussing this matter today.

Thank you, Wil. I love that you actually GET IT. But of course after reading your blog for awhile, I don't see how you wouldn't.

To those who are so concerned with what their higher power thinks about marriage, you should lobby the government to completely obliterate all things marriage-related. Keep "marriage" as a religious institution for those who feel they are holier-than-I and my partner, and institute a "civil union" status for everybody in order to gain the Special Rights that the government bestows upon the betrothed.

Otherwise, we'll have to make another Constitutional amendment to make sure that people of two different faiths cannot call their union "marriage" since that concept goes against many people's concept of what a valid marriage is. As well, we'll need another amendment to keep Catholics for example from every remarrying. A Catholic who divorces cannot get married in the eyes of the church again - however they can get married in the eyes of the State as many more times as they like. This is an affront to the Almighty! And don't get me started on those Hindu marriages!!

Really,

Wil,

Kudos to you for the backbone to speak your beliefs! The whole idea behind free speech is so that citizens can discuss the issues of the day and hopefully come up with the best solution through logic and debate.

However, I think that you would be more effective in getting your points across by pointing out the problems that homosexual couples face when they are denied marraige as opposed to an emotional, illogical, half-baked conspiracy theory such as the "Southern Strategy". This conspiracy of dividing the country sounds more like the plot of an X-Files episode rather than the possibility that Bush might just promoting what he sincerely believes to be the correct course of action according to his faith. I'm not necessarily advocating Bush's position, but I think you are accusing him of something terrible that possibly isn't true. I'm willing to bet that you hate it when commenters on your site make unfounded accusations about you that aren't correct.

Wil, you're a talented and passionate guy. You have it in you to do better than this post. If you want to change people's hearts and minds you're better off doing it with supportable facts rather than alluding to some speculative theory. Wild, glib statements such as these were the downfall of Howard Dean.

Wil,

I agree with you 100% on this issue. You are right in saying this will backfire: How do I know? Because I actually *voted* for Bush in 2000 (unfortunately)...and there is no way I am going to make that same mistake twice after something as blatently against the spirit of this country as this. It's revolting, authoritarian, fundamentalist garbage, and one of the main reasons I decided to leave the republican party for the libertarian party...

Ben

Replace homosexual with child
Replace homosexual with animal

What about people who want to love more than one person?

Again Where to Draw The Line?

What makes any law valid?

If I want to sell cocaine, use cocaine why can't I? Where are my rights? Where are my protections?

Why can't I kill people I don't like?

Why can't a father marry and have children with his daughter?

Why can't a mother marry her son?

Don't these people love? Don't these people have rights? Are they second class citizens?

What about my right to steal for what I want?

Can't I kill someone and marry his wife and take his land?

Why can't I lie in court? What business is it of theirs?

It all reminds me of something I heard on TV once:

"whateva, whateva...I do what I want"

GULP! I agree with Wil on something?!?!?! I consider myself pretty conservative but messing with the constitution about something like this is nuts. Like you said, Wil, leave government out of it altogether. That is what any true conservative should say in the first place.

GULP! I agree with Wil on something?!?!?! I consider myself pretty conservative but messing with the constitution about something like this is nuts. Like you said, Wil, leave government out of it altogether. That is what any true conservative should say in the first place.

What is that guy on? Over here in the UK I'm hearing every day on the news about Bush just going to more and more extremes and I just find myself thinking each time 'Why is Tony Blair working with this man?'

As for marriage, well that is not the business of the government - what can they know about the love of a couple who have decided to spend their lives together? Regardless of sex? To make it a political issue is just cheap and insensitive - and to decide blatantly to re-engineer another age of hate is just ....I can't think of what to say to describe it. What I can say it that the thought of it pisses me off big time. I have had several gay friends and they're no different to anyone else physically, emotionally or socially; they've just made a choice regarding their sexuality. And by the way, what about bisexual people too? Are they also going to be victimised? Let's not stop there, if this bill gets passed, who's next? Fetishists? Nudists? Furries? Anyone who won't tow the line? The thought is horrifying.

If a gay couple want to get married that's fine by me; marriage is a big commitment, it is also a demonstration of how much a couple love each other enough to consider spending the rest of their lives together. So what if it's two guys or two girls? What difference does it make? Where does it actually say in the Bible (or in any other book of faith) that you can't do that?

I really, really hope this guy doesn't win the next election.

Ditto - what you said.

I'm a republican that is ashamed to be one anymore, what with how the party is being represented these days. Kerry was totally right on about Bush not addressing real issues. I'm switching parties before the FL primaries, I can't stand it anymore.

And here's my two cents (if anyone actually reads this after all these comments!)

If there's one defining characteristic about George W., it's his shining streak of self-interest. In that vein, I don't think this "amendment" he's proposing is solely based on homophobia (although there's a healthy dose of it there.)

It's very, very simple: Follow the money. Who would REALLY be hurt by allowing two people of the same sex to formalize this union through the institution of marraige?

I'll tell you who. Big insurance companies. Because as soon as you allow marraige between two loving partners of the same sex, then the insurance companies have to allow them to register as beneficiaries. They get the same benefits (gasp) and the same rights as heterosexual couples enjoy. And that's what ultimately is driving this whole campaign, whether we realize it or not. Even most democrats are not in favor of marriage, they're in favor of "civil unions" - which, I'd bet money, WON'T be recognized by insurance companies.

Allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry hurts ansolutely no one - not my marraige, not the fabric of my community, no one. And although this stance may get him more campaign contributions from the big insurance companies, and more votes from the ultra-conservatives - there's no way I'm going to make the same mistake twice and vote for Bush again.

Mr. Ben doesn't seem to fully grasp the concept of CONSENSUAL.

And why do bigots always love to throw in ANIMALS into the equation as if the love my partner and I share (or anybody else in a loving and committed relationship shares) can even compare to bestiality.

Bravo Wil! No matter what someone believes, legalized discrimination can never be an acceptable answer. Thank goodness for people like yourself who have the moral character to speak up and be heard!

So Mark...where do you draw the line?

Then who are you to draw the line?

So animals is wrong, but your daughter is ok?

So does that mean that a pot smoker is discriminated against for smoking pot?

It's interesting that they want to ban gay marriages, but won't even look at the idea of banning adultery. Hmmmm.

Not A Biggot (and apparently Not A Speller):

Where is the line drawn? Quite simply: two unrelated adults in a consensual relationship.

Keep your slippery slope in your bedroom, por favor.

Mark,

Who are you to limit it to two consenting adults?

Three is better than two, and four is better than three!!

No slippery slope just why not 3 or 4?

In response to Michael Phillips, 11:07am
I understand the arguments you make. In brevity, I for one hold fast to the Romans 1 description of the world, decaying into a fallen state where people blur what is right and wrong. One symptom of which is that unnatural things are acknowledged as natural. While the Leviticus verses spell out clearly who you should and should not have intercourse with, without explanation "why," the fuller descriptions of the actions of the Sodomites and the future proscribed by Paul in Romans correlates in my mind ungodly living and homosexuality.

But that's one guy's view, and it should not be in the Constitution because "I say so." But, the majority of people who feel as I do aren't just stretching the Bible for our own political gains or cultural biases. It's there.

Your Librial is showing Wil. You might try listening to Rush you will be so much better if you do.

Wil,

Thank you for taking a stance on this issue. Everyone should make their voice heard so Bush knows that the majority of America is not behind this insanity. If you get on boycott lists for this I wouldn't be too worried since you would only be losing a few close minded morons you'd be better off without.
Good post and keep up the good work. I have to say I thought you were pretty cool just from TNG, but from checking out your site over the last few months I find you are awesome for many other reasons as well.

Very good comment,SK.
Wil,your opinions on this travesty in society is right on. I haven't read all the comments on this page so if I sound redundant,oh well.
I see all this emphasis placed on the sanctity of marriage,that it should be between a man and a woman and that the Bible intended it so. It's funny how the Bible is always touted when the Great American Way of Life is threatened in any way shape or form. The Bible this,the Bible that. It's Adam & Eve not Adam and Steve-get real people. We preach about being the perfect conservative society but we all as a whole fuck it up daily. We live in a society where Michael Jackson is allowed to have children share his bed and sniff his collection of their underwear. Any constitutional amendments out there to prohibit that? A priest sexually molests children.No constitutional amendment proposed to handle that(perhaps has something to do with the separation of church and state). Yet,a gay couple wants to get married and American society is all up in arms. It's immoral,they'll tell you. God did not intend for man to be with man or woman with woman. Well,sometimes a marriage between man & woman is immoral. I've seen gay couples last longer in relationships than most heterosexual couples. There are some heterosexual couples who shouldn't even be married and who rightly tarnish the sanctity of marriage. There is nothing wrong with two people who love each other and want to commit to that-even if they're of the same sex. Get real. I hope all this conservative hysteria dies with Bush's generation because he sure as fuck doesn't speak for me.

Let's just blame Bush's latest action on the Smallpox vaccination(as if he really had one).
Seriously though,Please don't just talk the talk vote this foolish arrogant so called man out this November.Separation of Church and State means just that!!

Bang on Wil, thanks for your thoughts and the forum for us to talk it out. It's good to hear an American speak out - sometimes in Canada we get the depressing picture that you are all GWB clones, and that's just not the case here, thank you!!

Well it's a long list here but for those of you tuning in a couple times like myself to see what's new, here's my response to a few posters:

Thanks Bryan for a measured stance that calls for national discussion on what it really is we value. Good separation of civil rights and religious ideals.

However, in your call for a discussion of what special rights the 'breeders' might retain, you are making the same mistake as the authors of the document that Dave Campbell offered us: that gay people do not procreate.

I took up Dave's challenge to read the doc he posted: http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/mmmode.pdf
Unfortunately it's not particularly balanced and its biases are clear. Being queer does not make one of these authors unbiased, nor does being female.

What I would note in particular is the repeated insistence that gay marriages 'do not' or 'cannot' produce children - a common misunderstanding and weapon against queer families. But of course they do, especially lesbian couples, and gay male pairs adopt and/or bring their 'natural' children to a marriage as well. (It's especially undermining of their argument to say that sperm donation is an acceptable outcome of marriage in cases of infertility - thus upholding the apparently prime procreation purposes of straight marriage - yet sperm donation to lesbian couples is not). Many, many queer people have kids, often born while in het marriages before they come out.

I am also personally offended by their insistence that marriage is for procreation and that, say, my decision to not have kids is somehow a 'mistake' or I might change my mind or have an 'accident' thus still fulfilling my role as an ostensibly 'straight' person in a marriage. The ideological underpinnings are clear: no single person is a proper member of the community, and no non-procreating person is either.

Interesting that their reasons for why 'every society needs a public heterosexual culture' includes encouraging men to give back to the community by being fathers, and helping men be active in family life - forming a 'healthy form of masculine identity.' I'm all for healthy masculinity, but since they have not one word about what marriage can give to women (women are assumed to be only giving to - 'cooperating' - not getting from) I am already understanding their gendered as well as anti-single stance.

In their final analysis, gay marriage's hugest impact will be on the psyche of the young male of tomorrow, who will look for a negative identity in lieu of the 'proper' married male adulthood he 'should' have, except that gay marriage will take away the women he 'should' have access to marry.(p.13)

Whoa. While it is laudable to be concerned for the many cultural factors that affect youth, this in essence is saying: women must not have their own choices about their sexuality or indeed to not marry (single mothers are at fault here as well) - they must marry men in order that men have the preferred identities, practices, roles that society thinks they should have. Women are made to serve men's personal needs on all levels, and to have none of their own. It's classic misogynist thinking. (Not to mention condemning all men who choose not to marry as having a negative identity, implying this is the cause of deviance and violence.)

My point is that this is indeed one of the great fears of gay marriage: women will have choices, many women may not choose to be with men, and society, as usual, will fall because of it. (They said the same over women having the vote - actually thought women would stop marrying, which begs the q. of how bad marriage must be for political equality to make women chuck it entirely.) And men, who are really soulless violent apes, will tear down civilization because they didn't get their women. If I was a guy I'd be seriously offended by all the implications here.

Real men who want real relationships with women (or men) - not automatons to service them - are left out of the picture. Their ideas of marriage are irrelevant. And women don't count at all.

I think everyone who wants a healthy, equal, loving relationship is being attacked by anti-gay marriage rhetoric.

Personally, I say if you're worried about marriage, go after the adulterers, the incest perpetrators, the spousal abusers. The ones who really ruin marriage, and our society, and create much of the 'negative' identities that you're so worried about. Clean up your own house first.

Thanks again Wil for the room to rant. Canada is struggling, but we might be getting somewhere - you're all welcome to join us (well, as long as you're a white, middle class professional... that's another rant entirely.)

Thanks, Wil. My marriage is fine too. Us straight couples have to stand up for the rights of our friends and neighbors and hope they would do the same for us. :D

Oh, and I tried to ignore the troll who is comparing homosexuality to beastiality and considers himself not to be a biggot, but I just can't...There must be a new definition of biggot of which I was unaware. Probably one Bush came up with.

Wil - as always, your blog is intelligent, insightful and timely. More than 30 (THIRTY - pardon my caps) years ago, before we were even here, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, then-Prime Minister of Canada made the comment that the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation (slight paraphrase). No one has the right to tell us whom we can spend our lives with. An amendment to your constitution is an abhorrent idea and reflects the homophobic, xenophobic, everythingnotwhiteandfromtexasphobic ways of your current president. As a not-so-neutral outsider, I hope that all responsible Americans cast their votes in November, and save your beautiful country and its wonderful people from the future which Mr. Bush and his cronies have planned for you. Its not a pretty future, and it will change everthing for all of us. Go Wil!

I agree. Well said.

As has been said, the *majority* of americans believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Shouldn't america (which is a democracy, if I remember correctly) bow to the will of the majority and keep marriage the way most americans believe it should be?

I think Bush was forced to play this hand because of the extra-legal actions of the mayor of san francisco. It would have been better to try to legitimize gay marriages when there is more public acceptance.

Yeah, what you said, Wil!!! Well done.

I've been saying all along: If you replaced "gay" with "black" or "Jewish" or "handicapped," no intelligent person would accept that. Gay prejudice is the last bastion of hate, and I don't know WHY!

No more of this "separate but equal" schyt.

Wil,

Thank you.

Thank you, Wil, for posting this. I was actually pissed enough about what Bush said to have written a letter to my congresspeople:

I strongly urge you to not lend support to any proposal to ban same sex marriages, or government mandated definition of marriage.

I do not believe that the government has the right to tell its citizens who they may fall in love with and choose to spend their lives with. My own marriage would probably have been deemed “illegal” or “immoral” not all that many years ago as it is one of mixed cultures. Absolutely no one has ever given a solid, non-religious reason why upstanding citizens may not marry. Last I checked this country is built on the principle that there shall be a separation of church and state.

President Bush recently said “…more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization,” in his urging for a government sanctioned right to discriminate. That statement screams out “I’m a closed minded, ethnocentric American!” Had it occurred to the president that it is he who is presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization? How many societies, current or historical, are based on polygamous family structures, be it male or female dominant? How many actually have a strict definition of marriage being a union between a man and a woman?

Marriage is not a Christian concept. It was practiced for thousands of years before the start of this one religion. Forcing the Christian definition of marriage on everyone should not be tolerated. I can’t help but find it extremely ironic that the government is essentially applauding those people who rush into one marriage after another while, at the same time, keeping those who are truly committed from formalizing their commitment.

So what should marriage mean? Marriage should mean the union of people who are committed to each other. It should not matter what their ethnicity, religion, or sex are. We are all human beings. We all deserve the same right to love, the same right to have that love recognized, and the same right to live.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

To those who oppose same sex unions on "morality" grounds, think about this.

Who said that Christians are the ones who came up with the concept of marriage? The concept was around even before the start of the religion. So please don't use that as a soap box to stand on to advocate discrimination. I'm sorry if seeing fellow Americans, no, human beings, finding happiness with each other violates your religious sense of morality, but please, PLEASE don't forcibly impose your religious beliefs on the rest of us who do not subscribe to them.

Thank you,
Emily

Foreigner: The Bill of Rights is specifically designed to protect the minority from the majority - that's why it's there. Why do you think it's so hard to amend the constitution? The system is deisnged so that people can retain their rights despite the whim of all but the strongest majority.

I agree and disagree with you on this subject. I don't think a Constitutional Amendment is in any way necessary for this subject. It goes against many things the Constitution stands for. It makes me think of all the horrible things that were caused by Prohibition.

However, state rulings on marriage and its definition are a problem. The issue on this isn't marriage itself, but the sanctity of the union. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam,the three greatest religions in the US today (and to which, the vast majority of Americans belong), agree on the fact that marriage is a union between man and woman, and that homosexuality is a sin. So for me the problem isn't so much that two men or two women want to live together, it's that a few judges wish to make me and the rest of the nation treat this as morally responsible. It isn't. The book of my religion (in my case, the Bible) clearly states in in three different places.

That is the problem with this issue as a whole. And it's one that millions of Americans will side with President Bush on. I don't like the idea of the new Amendment at all; I don't really see it as necessary. But this entire controversy promises to be a huge issue in this campaign, and I believe Bush wishes to mince no words on where he stands.

And to use an attack on his message of bi-partisanship on togetherness against his stance was wrong. Bush wants to find solutions for the country that a majority of America can agree upon. He wants to bridge the huge gap that has grown between Democrats & Republicans. He still wants this. Both parties do not. His stance against homosexual marriage isn't because of a hatred for homosexuals, it is for the reasons I posted above. (And just as an aside, if he were to try to institute this amendment, it would require bi-partisan support, as an amendment would require a 2/3 vote in both branches of Congress.)

As always, thanks for the interesting commentary.

The sad thing is, when I saw the news announce Bush's stance the first thing out of my father's mouth was "Good! I don't want gay immigrants bringing their gay spouses into this country!"
I love the man dearly, but homosexuality and religion are two areas in which I wholeheartedly disagree with him. It was sad to see that despite being accepting of various races, he still has some prejudices that he was raised with. I have to remind myself that he was raised in an era of bigotry.
I was irritated enough when Bush said he wanted to only appoint people with "common sense" and by such he defined having common sense as believing in a God.
I don't really know if the man is intentionally malignant, or if he's just ignorant. I'd like to think he's ignorant. I met George Bush Sr, and he seemed nice enough, but he still had policies that were detrimental to the country.
I'm sad to say I have less faith in the people of the country in terms of voting for civil rights. We still have gender descriminatory laws (such as the indecent exposure laws which are biased against females), political leaders that spit in the face of the constitution by spitting in the face of freedom of religion, and most certainly discrimination against homosexuality. I've found that the gender and sexual discriminations are closely bound to the religious ones. The religion is often the origin if not the excuse. It's very sad.
I hope things work out though.

I don't think this issue is Liberal, Conservative, Democratic or whatever. This issue is about people.

Wil, I completely agree.

After reading many of the comments posted here, I think I should point out a few things that people are missing. I believe they are the true heart of the matter.

First, I believe at that this is really a monatary issue. Question, If I were to waive my magic wand and make the entire issue go away and deny same-sex marriages and revert to status quo, would that stop same sex partners from cohabitating and raising children? Unlikely. At issue is do we as a nation bestow monetary and legal rights to a class of citizens that were a mere twenty years ago regarded with contempt. What are the fiscal and social impacts of granting such a change?

You are talking about a fundamental shift in how we as a society recognize the family unit. So where do we redraw the line? Do we recognize same sex unions, or will we in another twenty years time begin to recognize communal marriages, or polygamy. How does the property get divided when we die? How looks after the kids?

Also to state that gay marriages have been taking place a few weeks or months and nothing has happen yet (in all due respect) is pretty low brow. The real question Wil is what happens when these people's marriages begin to fail. Think about it, marriages have a 50% failure rate. Is it reasonable to assume that everyone one of these same sex marriages will end happily. Do we as a nation want to add to the court burden already? DO NOT dismiss this as a secondary issue. The devil is in the details. WE WILL NOT KNOW FOR YEARS the true measure of the impact.

Second, the amendment is being proposed because it is becoming clear that courts are dictating laws. Let me be very clear in this. The Mass. State Supreme Court gave an order to their own legislature dictating to them on what to make law. Courts DO NOT have this power. They can interpret the existing laws only. This is a matter that belongs to the people to vote on. Isn't that what your issue is with Bush that the people's vote was being denied?

I ask you what is the difference here? The vote in California banned these unions for good or ill. The mayor of SF. decided to flout it, why not just go to the courts? His actions are a direct cause to giving fuel to the fire. The majority of Americans are liberal minded except when it comes to core values(loyalty, love, honesty, right of education,etc) and do not greet change quickly in these.

For those thinking of moving to Canada, I wish you well. Your right to emmigrate is one I cherish as well. My own ancestors lived in Canada for a time and I assure you it is a beautiful country. They have a serious population growth problem and will probably welcome you there. Just be sure you change your citizenship when you get there. I can't stand people who won't commit to what they believe in.

To those foreigners, I welcome your opinion, but please make it a informed one. If you saw it on TV, it doesn't necessarily make it true.

Oh and personally insulting Bush and the majority of Americans who don't agree with you only makes you look petulant. Stick with reasoned arguments, "Bush is evil, Bush sucks" just clutter up the board.

Anyways, thats my two cents worth.

Bush's (and others') ignorance (or arrogance - this is out for debate) really comes through when he speaks of "activist judges" - I find it hard to believe that he's never been educated in the wonderful checks and balances incorporated into our system.

If what was popular ruled the land, perhaps in 2004 the folks at American Standard would be shipping two sets of drinking fountains for every order placed.

Wow, this really blows me away.

I'm gay.

Every hour of every day, I live with some level of fear, anxiety, and depression. Some days worse than others. When I was in school, I worried that I'd get beat up if I got found out. Or my friends would dump me. I worried that my parents would beat me or throw me out of the house. When I left home, I joined the Navy, and worried that I would be imprisoned if I got found out (before "don't ask, don't tell"). After 8 years of service to this country, I left the Navy. It got better after that, mostly. I only had to worry about casual namecalling or being fired from my job, which is at least not as bad as prison.

Over the years, things seemed to get better. I found friends who were accepting of me, and a life-partner (can't call him my husband, yet). My fears were renewed when Matthew Shepard was killed. They waned when shows like "Will & Grace" and "Queer Eye..." became popular.

I've been quite depressed to hear the reactions to the San Francisco weddings and the proposed Constitutional Amendment--the polls I hear on the news that say most American's don't support allowing gays to marry, and the fact that DOMA had sufficient support to pass the threshold needed for a Constitutional Amendment. I've been wanting to crawl into a hole and disappear, or move to Canada. I despaired that discrimination could be this acceptable and widespread in this country. Why do people hate me or fear me or feel threatened by me so much just for loving a guy instead of a girl?

So I was so blown away with your blog entry. It restores my faith that some shred of sanity remains in this country, that not all straight people hate me or want to enshrine discrimination into the Constitution. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I'm furthermore stunned by the hundreds of comments (mostly) in support of your stance. Wow. You and your fans made my day, and lowered my level of fear, at least for a while.

You totally rock. \m/

Check this out. This is funny! It's a proposed version of the amendment based on "Biblical Principles". I wonder just how many people can actually get married if the definition of marriage keeps going the way of the bible.

http://www.whitehouse.org/dof/marriage.asp

- Emily

Good call, Wil. I'm a devout Christian and I basically agree. My preference: get rid of the idea of state/federal/workplace recognition of marriage and replace it with contracts.

I wrote more on my blog, including asking what should be an obvious question: why 2? Who can discriminate against polygamy? Polynamy? Communes? Not making a slippery-slope argument, just asking the question. More:

http://www.tallent.us/CommentView.aspx?guid=b2c8e3ac-4732-4ff0-b5bd-2af81bf93ca8

I think the thing that annoys me the most is that Bush and his ilk are trying to justify their deep-seated homophobia through quoting doctrine that doesn't even apply to their professed faith, which is just hypocritical.

Marriage didn't become a religious issue in the Christian tradition until the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) under Pope Innocent III. Prior to that marriage was a civil, contractual affair. So the "sanctity of marriage" within the confines of the Catholic Church only--not Christianity as a whole--is a mere 800 years old. (It is notably also the only of the seven sacraments in the Catholic tradition that was not commissioned by Christ, since it was a preexisting civil condition, which I consider further evidence of its questionable status as a sacrament.)

Since the schism between orthodox and catholic church had already happened by then--in 1054 to be exact--I'm assuming that the orthodox churches made marriage one of their holy mysteries at one of their ecumenical councils at some point, but I don't know when.

Martin Luther, on the other hand, was very vocal that, "Not only is the sacramental character of matrimony without foundation in Scripture; but the very traditions, which claim such sacredness for it, are a mere jest... Marriage may therefore be a figure of Christ and the Church; it is, however, no Divinely instituted sacrament, but the invention of men in the Church, arising from ignorance of the subject." (cf. "Von den Ehensachen," "De captivitate Babylonica") Therefore any denomination that follows the Reformed tradition of Luther (Calvinists, Presbyterians, Puritans, Congregationalists, United Church of Christ, and Baptists) technically shouldn't believe in the sanctity to marriage to begin with (regardless of whether they actually do), because it is contrary Luther's teachings.

Bush claims to be a Methodist, and Methodists only recognize baptism and communion as sacraments. So whenever he's talking of "the sanctity of marriage" I'm thinking he either doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, or else he hasn't looked up the dictionary definition of the word "sanctity."

And I'll be buying your book, mostly because I wish a lot more celebrities had the guts to do what you just did by posting this. Thank you.

Hmm. Interesting.

thank you for this eloquent piece, Wil.
i am going to link to it in a couple posts on other boards...i hope you don't mind.

Thank you Wil for that wonderful post,
As a longtime fan your voice on this issue is encouraging to me, and as I read the responses I am encouraged even more.
As a young gay man who has been in a committed relationship for several years now this is a very important issue to me. However there is a point many people are missing about this Constitutional ban gay-marriage debate. This defining marriage as a man and woman goes beyond stripping the rights of gay men and women, it will also strip rights from inter-sexuals (people born with both genitalia), transgender, and tran-sexuals and anyone else where gender can not be easily defined.
Another point is for those of you who are unaware there is ALREADY an amendment being proposed (I believe its currently in the senate) to define marriage called the Federal Marriage Amendment. (I’ve noticed very few news media have made this known). This amendment has been floating around for a while mostly being lobbied by very right wing religious conservatives. So when Bush said he would endorse a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage this amendment (FMA) would very likely be the amendment he is referring to. And for the sake of argument this amendment in question makes absolutely no reference to civil unions, on the contrary, it would eliminate many things beyond just gay marriage.
For the Federal Marriage Amendment states:
“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
That last sentence in it would be the kicker for it has the possibility to eliminate a lot of legal protections unmarried couples have gay or straight. Many unmarried couples receive the same legal benefits (or incidents) as married couples enjoy such as common law marriages, joint-adoptions, guardianships, and a host of others that are normal saved for married couples. This amendment can conceivably erase all those legal incidents. Of course it would also eliminate states rights as well since marriage licensing is a state matter.
So as you see even though the likely that this amendment could be passed is rather unlikely, Bush endorsing such an Amendment should be an outrage not to liberals and sexual minorites but to the heterosexual majority as well.
It’s simply a point that needs to be brought to light.

Well said Wil!

There are so many things that I love about the USA, but lately I've slowly become concerned over how things have been changing. This is just one of the latest issues that has made me wonder what has happened. Let's not even mention what the state education board in Mississippi did a while back: the withdrawal from school curricula of the teaching of fractions, decimals and other non-integer mathematics. INSANITY!

Thank you for a heartfelt and extremely true post, especially where you point out that the only people who can threaten a marriage are the two people with matching gold bands on their fingers.

I'm a heterosexual Canadian, and in the nine months since my province started allowing same-sex marriages, the sky hasn't fallen! Neither I nor any of my straight friends decided to go out and 'become' gay just because we could get married now, a straight wedding I attended a few months ago wasn't affected, there hasn't been public fornication in the streets, nothing has changed in our country except that gay Canadians have a greater sense of dignity and more inclusion in our national institutions. Which, hey, some people might think is a bad thing, but a lot of other people think is good.

I have gay and straight American friends who are heartsick at this potential amendment which would enshrine discrimination in the constitution, and I am thrilled at how many people have spoken out against this pandering to hatred. I sincerely hope you're right, and this issue causes on-the-fence Americans to open their eyes to the discrimination gays still suffer. Thank you for your words.

Thank you. The more this issue is humanized, personalized, visualized... the more the public will realize that a Federal Amendment codifying marriage is just wrong.

Cheers.

It may have already been said, but...

I'm not a Christian. Does that mean I can't get my notarized marriage license, either?

Seeing how marriage is apparently a Christian concept, and all.

Please read my latest email to President Bush.

I know there are conservatives out there who think. I know there are. Why is it that, in every online forum I frequent, the people making the biggest asses of themselves on this issue are always the conservatives? They're presented with reasoned arguments, and they counter them with soundbites about a slippery slope.

Wil, we don't agree, politically, on a lot of things. I'm sure that, if I were to get into my long, drawn out reasoning for supporting gay marriage, there'd be more than a few things that we'd disagree on there. But, I'd like to thank you for not being one of those people who simply repeats the last convincing argument he's heard and pretends to have real reasons to believe the way he does.

And, those of you who're conservative and don't agree that homosexuals should have the right to marry, please sit down and think about it, then come back with a well reasoned argument. Discussion and debate that makes us think makes all of us grow. Discussion that does nothing but annoy those you disagree with does nothing but convince them that your points are completely invalid.

Thank you!

Adding my name in agreement. Always write what you like here Wil - it's a goldang weblog after all, not a press release.

The Irish Breakfast tea has kicked in, and I've just thought of a new word - Bushsh*t. It's like bullsh*t, except it relates directly to Dubya.

Well, I didn't say it was a good word :).

For everyone against the marriage amendment that will allow homosexuals to get married:

1. Saying that 'marriage' will be used for straight couples and 'civil union' will be used for gay couples is segregation. It's no better than seperate schools for black and white children. The whole POINT is so that homosexuals can engage in this revered part of our shared culture. As long as heterosexual couples can get legally married, homosexuals should also have that right.

2. Marriage is not a set-in-stone institution. It's been redefined before. We changed it so that people of different races could marry, we changed it so that people could get divorces.

3. It's not just a formality. There are tax benefits to getting married. There are spousal benefits that go along with marriage. There are safety things put in place such as distribution of assets in case of death or divorce. Why should people not enjoy these rights just because they're gay?

4. Just because EVERY SINGLE gay person doesn't want to get married doesn't mean that some homosexuals who do want that should have to suffer.

5. The family and marriage are not distinctly tied anymore. People who aren't married can adopt or have children. People who are married don't all have children. In fact, when you marry someone who already has a child, you don't automatically get guardian rights, which just further shows that marriage and family is not connected.

There are more reasons, more rebuttals, but I'm tired so I'm done :P anyone who wishes to discuss it, I would be more than happy to have a civil discussion about the issue, and feel free to email me or place a comment on my livejournal.

I think this country has moved far from being a place in which people will stand up for their beliefs. In fact I seldom believe that people actually have any convictions to back up the veritable plethora of positions they espouse. I believe that marriage is, in fact, a union based not just in Christian tradition, but in religious tradition dating back far prior to the drafting of the Constitution. I personally hate to see the government taking a stand against same- sex unions simply because I hate to see government burrowing deeper into the regulation of our private lives; however, I do appreciate a government that reflects my personal belief system. I believe "Marriage" is a union between a man and a woman. Period. I didn't say that there shouldn't be an acceptable form of union for people of this belief system. Call it something else. Very simple. But then I also oppose the espousing of political beliefs as fact from a soapbox of celebrity when indeed, beliefs without authority are just rectums of another name.

You are one gifted writer wil. Perfectly presented. The issue is not really about marriage at all. It's about diginty, it's about human rights. It's about building instead of tearing down.

I'm from Canada, and I'm glad that our debate here has spilled into the US. For both our countries, it about time!

About 30 years ago Canada's prime minister at the time Pierre Trudeau said "The state has no business in the bed rooms of the nation".

Unfortunately even in Canada, it took another 30 years to really understand the human rights behind that statement. I'm glad the US is not far behind.

{K}

This is the first time I have ever posted a comment - but I read your site all the time, because I really loved you as an actor and like your writing style nowadays. Here's my comment - Thank You. Thank you for writing down these thoughts which so perfectly mirror my own feelings, and which I was unable to articulate nearly so well. What's happening makes me so sad and angry. I'm a straight, married woman who believes the government should never have the right to define love and marriage. Thank you so much. This blog entry should be on the front page of every newspaper in this country.

And now, to inject a little humor. A very tongue-in-cheek top 12 list:

12 Reasons Why Same-Sex marraiges Will ruin Society!

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married, because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful than Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name, are better: because a "seperate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

word.

David wrote: "i'm sure this will take some bashing, but listen up. have you ever stopped to think that maybe it's not about hate and discrimination? that some people believe in a higher power, that some are willing to take a stand for what they believe in? I believe, along with GWB, that supporting gay marriage would be wrong and would hurt the concept of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. We believe in the Bible and in God. We believe in supporting Israel. We believe in things that would take me volumes to discuss. I don't hate homosexuals but I don't support them in their "marriages" and I won't vote for someone who does."

Yes David, I'm going to give you some heat for this. It's a really ignorant comment. Let me spell it out for you:

I have two friends who are both atheists, and neither can have children (a vascetomy for him, tubes tied for her). They both got married down at the court house.

You see, marriage is TWO SEPARATE THINGS. It is a religious ceremony, and it is a civil contract. Gays can already have the religious ceremony. There are many churches that perform gay marriages, and have for years. Examples include the Jewish Reform, Metropolitan Community Church, and the Unitarians have been performing gay marriages since 1973. This isn't the issue.

The issue is civil rights. Equal rights. Getting the state to see your life-long partner as part of your family. This is very important in situations such as immigration, the sudden illness or death of a partner, and when the partners have children, among many others. This is a matter of justice.

Who cares if you have a religious objection to two men getting married? Seriously. This isn't about your religion, and legalizing gay marriage isn't going to force your church to start performaing same-sex marriages at all. After all, many churches won't perform interracial or interfaith marriages as a matter of policy. Yet the state recognizes them. Some states recognize marriages between first cousins. I'd never in a million years consider that. But because at least one state does, ALL states and the federal government recognize that marriage. This is as it should be.

Your religious beliefs should not dictate my civil rights. Other people who call themselves Christian and consider themselves just as religious as you don't share your stand against gay people and gay marriage. Why should YOUR view take precidence?

Civil rights should not be up to majority vote. The consitution and the Bill of Rights are designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. When inter-racial marriage was finally legalized in this country (only around 50 years ago, if you can imagine that), 90% of the public was opposed to it.

Face it. It will happen, sooner or later. Gay marriage is already a reality in Canada, The Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Norway, and other countries. Their societies are doing just fine. You and the President and others are on the wrong side of history here. Are you sure you want to be looked back upon by future generations the way we look back upon the racists of the 50's and the fight for equal civil rights for blacks?

There really is no rational reason for banning gay couples from equal marriage rights.

ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤ºº`ºº¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø

With the respect of the MAGNITUDE of people that have posted, Gay, Straight, etc.. It is plain to see that the people who have the prophetic "Balls" to comment good or bad AGREE with you Wil.

Upon noting one person's post: "...me being a GWB-voting southern republican, and you having apparently liberal leanings."
It just goes to show you, some people ARE either ignorant to modern-day realities, OR they are CEOs or Millionnaires that are only benefitting from gee-dubya, and NOT one of the struggling family people like myself and my neighbors trying to make a living out of this controlled "Iron Curtain Society" that Mr Monkeybrains-For-Prez created for us honest, and hard-working folks.
Yeah, we might be liberal-minded, but what the hell is progress and acceptance ?!
I love my wife, but I am not one bit threatened by a Gay man or woman that decides they want to complete their lives by having what we have. This IS America, and when did it stop being about helping each other, and all about 'me'.
I was moved today when I heard Rosie O'Donnell's speech, and in it she stated the same lines that I have always repeated since a child: "With Liberty and Justice For ALL".
I am sorry Mr Prez, but if you don't like Rosie O'Donnell and all the other thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people out there that plan on getting married, then you might as well start picking on us straight people who don't have children or don't have sex, if you feel that families and sexual preference is the basis of your arguments, because apparently you just don't know where to draw the line. I know many long-term straight couples that don't have children or don't have sexual relations, but still are married. Apparently, even THIS violates your 'sanctities' of marriage as well if what you are saying is true... Mr Prez, we are NOT in the Matrix, and you cannot control our every thought.
We all(at least most all) figured out the "Big Brother" theory a long time ago, and it doesn't work anymore. "You CAN lead a horse to water, but don't expect it to ride off with you in the sunset just because you tell it that's what horses are 'supposed' to do."
Wil. Don't stop writing these gems, and I hope NO straight person is afraid of their own self as much as the coward we (for some reason) call president. Stop the Lies gee-dubya, go away, and leave us ALL in peace. Stop acting like Stalin.
This act of selfishness affects everyone's freedom.

I URGE ALL INTELLIGENT AMERICANS TO STAND UP FOR FREEDOM. NO VOTES FOR BUSH THIS ELECTION DAY

ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤ºº`ºº¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø

Thank you.

The US Constitution is designed to guarantee us our Freedoms, not revoke them. As seen with the ill-fated 18th Amendment (prohibition).

Look at such amendments as this:

AMENDMENT XIII

Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865. Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legisla- tion.

FREEDOM

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868 Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

FREEDOM

AMENDMENT XV

Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870. Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

FREEDOM

AMENDMENT XIX

Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legisla- tion.

FREEDOM

AMENDMENT XVIII

Passed by Congress December 18, 1917. Ratified January 16, 1919. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all ter- ritory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the Legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

REMOVAL OF FREEDOM

AMENDMENT XXI

Passed by Congress February 20, 1933. Ratified December 5, 1933. Section 1. The Eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or Posses- sion of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited. Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the sub- mission hereof to the States by the Congress.

FREEDOM RESTORED

Okay, and let's take a look at this one. Part of the United States Bill of Rights.

Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY OR TO THE PEOPLE

Not the Conservative Right. Not those who would force their moral will on other people. THE PEOPLE

Why are people so keen on denying others liberty and the pursuit of their happiness? Why is it so morally reprehensible to some people that two gay men or two gay women would want to share the same joys, troubles, benefits, and trials of marriage? Because the Bible says so? Not good enough for me. Even God said to "love thy neighbor." Even if they did something that God thought was wrong, they were still to be loved. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

I'm not gay. I'm not even curious. I am completely and totally heterosexual. And I am comfortable with my heterosexuality. Comfortable enough that I can support the UNALIENABLE RIGHTS of others to do what they think will make them happy, when it concerns THEM and ONLY THEM.

This is not saying, "Well, if someone thinks Murder is okay, then I guess you think they should be allowed to do that, too." No. Murder violates someone else's rights.

GAY MARRIAGE VIOLATES NO ONE'S RIGHTS!

Oh, and how about this one? "It will destroy the sanctity of marriage."

So Brittney Spears marrying some guy for 55 hours is upholding the sanctity of marriage? Many gay couples are together for 10, 20, even fifty years. Isn't that more stable then a Weekend Hollywood Marriage?

The millions of children born out of wedlock uphold the sanctity of marriage? Gay couples can't naturally concieve children between the two of them (barring lesbian artificial insemination). But gay couples -do- have children. Either from a pervious marriage, adoption, foster care, the passing of a family member/friend. And those children are raised by parents who LOVE THEM and CARE ABOUT THEM and are INVESTED IN THEIR LIVES. Gay couples, by and large, are not the ones who go around beating their children and their spouses (although it does happen, but rarely so). How about this argument: "Gay guys will make children turn gay." No. A child that lives with gay parents is about as likely to have the same sexual preference as a child who grows up to heterosexual parents. It's a ridiculous argument.

I am so sick of people who have nothing better to do with their lives then start "Coalitions" demanding that other people have their freedoms limited because of something as harmless as sexual preference. If they put half that much energy into creating something that would help the world, not limit it, we would all be better off.

I realize a few things that could happen by posting this in my live journal. One, some random troll comes along and starts yelling "fag fag fag!" at me in numerous posts. Childish.

Friends that I know, who are strongly against gay lifestyles or gay marriage may decide that we should not be friends any longer, because I support these rights of others. That's fine. If that's the case, then I probably didn't know you very well in the first place, that you would throw away our friendship over something like this.

I may be mistaken for gay by a gay man. It's happened before, when I've done peer counseling at school for guys who were coming out or what not. Because I'm not repulsed and go, "Ew, fuck you" some people assume that I'm a closet homosexual. I'm not. Just as a woman who persues me, that I do not wish a relationship with, after my initial, "No, I'm flattered, but I'm not interested," I will get perturbed and remove myself from our conversations. I don't care what your gender is. If I am uncomfortable with your advances, I will not keep myself around you.

I have gay friends. I have straight friends. I have bi-friends. I work in a field that's widely homophobic. I can't help that. But I can be sympathetic to people who are only trying to take care of themselves, through NO HARM to anyone else. How evil is that?

For those who read this, thank you. For those who misconstrue it, I'm sorry for you. For those who lash out against my beliefs, bite me

Wow, coming out in support of gay rights in Hollywood. That takes guts.

If you have the courage, maybe next you can come out in favor of cheap beer on Bourbon Street.

Wil,
Please write something non-fiction in this vein. You do the topic tremendous justice!
Although happily married, I'm thinking of getting a sex change just to screw with the minds of people who support this policy.
Plus I can play the crying game with twits like Thomas...

From the Washington Post:

Doesn't GW realize that Gay marriages will actually result in more jobs therby helping the economy ? Look at it this way, about 59% of marriages in America end up in a divorce. Assuming a similar rate for the gay community, we are already talking of extra work for lawyers, court clerks, Private investigators and a whole bunch of people. All this will create new jobs, more money for these people and bingo! a boost for the economy. Of course, I haven't event taken into consideration all the business generated by the weddings themselves !!

Well said, Wil. I'm in almost the same boat as you -- getting married in a few months, myself, and the more I think about it, the more I don't want to involve myself in an institution that is segregated and used as a political tool.

Thank you for posting that. We need to start exercising our right to free speech in criticism of this policy and our President.

Any President of the United States who says "there ought to be limits to freedom" in response to a website criticizing him should be removed from office. He is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States...that includes the First Amendment. Freedom of speech, religion, and the right to peacably assemble was so important to our founding fathers that they didn't only make an amendment to the Consitution, they made it the FIRST one.

Thanks, also, Wil, for adding the part about your marriage being fine. People need to take a deep knee bend and put down the Bible that they've been thumping people to death with.

-AT

Sometimes I do not agree with your comments, Wil, but this is not one of those times. I am a lifelong Republican, and proud to be. I am also a supporter of full rights for all citizens, period. I am really starting to falter in my support of W, and this issue is a big part of it. Why should we care what people do with their personal lives? Why not let them get married? It really does boil down to 2nd Class Citizenship, like you said. I just saw “Iron Jawed Angels” the other night on HBO (the story of women’s suffrage in the USA), and it reminded me how blacks in our nation were given the vote after the civil war, but women were left out. I see the gay community as just the latest social group “left out”.

I would like say that I think Howard Dean is a farking idiot, and he paints all of us Republicans with the same brush. Was Nixon a jerk? Of course he was! Does the rest of the argument hold water? No. I have historically believed in the Republican Party, as its views and my views have been very similar. I believe in smaller government, support of ALL of the Amendments to the Constitution including number 2, and that government trying to fix societal programs with expensive social programs like welfare simply doesn't work (what a disaster that was).

I guess what I am trying to say is that I have always thought that in a democracy and free market system, government should intrude the very least possible. Government should only do what citizens cannot independently. It should enforce the rule of law, build roads, etc. This principle should extend to intruding into peoples bedrooms! Why should government care what people want to do, and how they want to form their family units!

Please know that there are many of us in this nation that our proud to be conservatives. But this does not mean we are racist, war mongering, money lovers like we are often portayed by the left. Please know that many people on the right side of the isle back gay rights. Don’t alienate us by calling us all racists.

History repeats itself.

http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/002111.html

A proposed constitutional amendment introduced in 1912 stated:

Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and
Caucasians . . . within the United States . . . is forever
prohibited.

Wil: you, in all that is true, indeed rock!

(I posted this on a friend's site. He requested I post it to yours, as well)

[rant]

I don't know why this issue bothers me more than it should. Actually, I know why it bothers me: this is the last straw for me when it comes to G.W. Bush. His policies, especially since after the beginning of the Afghanistan war, have really pissed me off, and led me to the conclusion that he and his buddies are truly evil sons of bitches. I mean "evil" as in evil.

They want to concentrate more wealth for the upper class, spoil the environment, continue our increased dependence on imported petroleum, piss off our allies, create more terrorists by pre-emptively invading countries that present no clear and present danger. That's only scratching the surface.

The idea that Shrub and his minions want to turn our nation into a plutocratic Christian theocracy scares the hell out of me. The gall and arrogance these people have in thinking they can legislate discrimination by encoding it into the United States Constitution goes against my religious beliefs.

The plan to ban gay marriage reminds me of the Nuremburg Laws passed in Germany during the Nazi period. Some of them had to do with who the Jews could and could not marry, among other restrictions. We all know what happened from there.

I'm not saying that the Bush Administration is going to start building concentration camps and calling for the death of the GLBT community, but there are many Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians who wouldn't bat an eye if they disappeared off the face of the earth.

This is the United States of America, for God's sake. A place with liberty and justice for all. The Constitution states that "all men [and women] are created equal." Funny, I didn't think there was a clause excluding "them ho-mo-seck-shuls." Maybe I skipped over it.

Plain and simple: while many Americans continue to wave their flags and find fear in gays, Janet Jackson's tits and "activist judges," Republicans and the "Religious Right" (which is neither) are picking all our pockets and letting the American people hang out to dry.

::deep breath::

I'm angry because I want to take action instead of just sounding like a ranting loony. I want to take this to the streets. I want to call Feinstein and Boxer. I want to tell Bush and Cheney what kind of evil assholes they are.

[/rant]

Ariel

Wow. Andrew Sullivan too? This is madness.

As for you, I don't think you need another person saying "well put", but I'll add my thanks to the pile.

Thanks for posting this Wil. I live in Australia where we're always hearing of a new mistake by Bush. Yet I'm still suprised that he would be so blatantly bigoted.

I'm particularly shocked that anyone could consider "no gay marriages" as something to be held up alongside free speech, religion and press, or the rights of any adult to vote regardless of race, sex, creed, or colour.

I can only assume it stems from Bush's religious beliefs; but as a Christian myself, that argument seems to put one limited interpretation of a couple of lines against the entire message of the Bible. Several denominations have given serious consideration to homosexuality and found no disagreements with it.

Those who take the literal interpretation presumably also never work on the Sabbath, don't swear, and go around stoning people for minor transgressions. And it's been ages since I've been invited to a good animal sacrifice... :)
As someone mentioned above, even in the Bible it wasn't always about one man and one woman. The wise Solomon had some 700 wives... and 300 concubines. Not to mention 12,000 horses (presumably they were there mostly to carry all the wives around...)

To Eric, who asked why civil unions on a federal level isn't enough - go read the findings of the MA supreme court on this matter. Separate but equal is NOT equal.

Remember segregation? They had separate schools, facilities. Were they equal? NO.

And to date civil unions have NOT inferred all the rights of a marriage.

And for the gay guy who thinks that marriage is just a formality, I encourage you to read up on the rights that 'marriage' gives a couple. Go to this link http://www.glad.org/Publications/CivilRightProject/PBOsOfMarriage.pdf

After you read that, THEN tell me it's just a formality.

All of you guys keep trying to equate this debate over gay rights to the racial prejudice issues our country has faced for years, but I just don't think that argument holds water. Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR..not a race or nationality. Why should the government grant special rights to a group of people just because they engage in certain behaviors?

I have a friend who I frequently play golf with. If we decide to make a vow to always play golf together for the rest of our lives, should we be given special priveledges or standing in the eyes of the government? I don't think so. Homosexual behavior is no different. I am gay, but my sexual preference does NOT determine who I am, and I don't think my choice for a sexual partner should give me any rights that I don't already have.

To me the bigger issue is the issue of state's rights. Since we have some of the more liberal states trying to pass laws to allow civil unions or gay marriages, there is a great potential for a HUGE legal mess in our future. Just as those liberal states have the right to pass the laws they want, conservative states have an equal right to pass laws they want. As soon as we have state laws that contradict one another, we FORCE the Federal government to step in and resolve the potential constitutional crisis. So, for you guys that want to blame GWB for this one, you should be looking at the liberal activists and judges who started the escalation of this issue. They are the ones who forced action at the federal level.

I've been reading for only a few months, and I've often wanted to write in to tell you what an excellent example you're setting for (geek) fathers. Now you're showing us all how to be American citizens. You are truly a great man, WW. Lead the charge!

"Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR..not a race or nationality."

You are flat out wrong. Sexual orientation is innate. This is a simple matter of civil rights. You are very, very uneducated for someone who is allegedly gay (why do I doubt you really are?)

"I have a friend who I frequently play golf with. If we decide to make a vow to always play golf together for the rest of our lives, should we be given special priveledges or standing in the eyes of the government? I don't think so. Homosexual behavior is no different"

Oh please. Homosexuality is completely different. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

I don't believe you're gay (unless you're particularly self-loathing). I believe you're an anti-gay conservative troll.

Excellently said, Wil.

I think George Bush handed the Democrats a huge gift with this, but I'm not sure they're sharp enough to take it. One thing that unites most Americans, regardless of their beliefs on any single issue, is a tremendous respect for the constitution. Treating it as a prop in a reelection effort is offensive. In a single statement Bush changed the focus from support of gay marriage, to support of the constitution itself. He thinks its flawed.

Unfortunately, I haven't heard very strong opposition from the other side. Every statement I've read starts with "While I don't support gay marriage,.....". They've spent so much time running from one issue, they didn't notice when the debate changed.

This is how the democrats have lost the last several elections. They've failed to seize the initiative and make the debate their own.

There are no simularities between the Defence of Marriage Act, a proposed Constitutional amendmant to affirm marriage is -- as defined -- between a man and a woman, and the anti-miscegenation proposals. Tear down the value/moral of marriage being between a man and woman (not related and of age), and what standard is left? Polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality why stop there? Is marriage all about tax deductions and insurance eligibility?

How does gay marriage hurt you? When the standard is torn down and all the other pervertions made normal, now your children are the ones effected. You want your child to see sex for the sake of sex as OK? Sex with an animal? Sex with an adult? Sex with a relative?

No. If a state insists on going down this path (Vermont, California, New York, and Hawaii), then the only way to defend the sanctity of marriage is by Constitutional Amendmant. This establishes the federal power by which the States can not exercise their will per the Tenth Amendmant.

Remember fighting a war over this in the 1800s? We lost over 600,000 Americans because of States insisting on engaging in slavery per the 10th Amendmant. It is the gays that are standing on shakey ground.

Not all discrimination is bad. Every day you choose one thing over another, you have discriminated. People admire one with discriminatory taste. We discriminate against the lawless in favor of the law abiding. Homosexuality is a behavior just like alcoholism. Some may have more of a propensity to engage in a behavior than another. But it is a learned behavior all the same. So lay off the bigotry/discrimination arguement. You won't get anywhere with it except those that already share your view.

The culture war has been raging since the 60s and now has come to a crucial battle. It is a battle that must be won lest we walk down the same path as old Rome. We never want to be an empire, but we are the strongest country on the planet. This fact alone earns us many enemies desirous of tearing us down. The culture war is but one of the many fronts we face. We must win.

Dear Wil:

Thank you for this. Thank you for speaking out and standing up for what is right. I am an ultra-conservative and I believe that a loving, faithful, committed marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is every bit as sacred and as deserving of protection as that between a man and a woman. I further believe that government has no business defining what is sacred and no business whatsoever in our bedrooms.

Remember fighting a war over this in the 1800s? We lost over 600,000 Americans because of States insisting on engaging in slavery per the 10th Amendmant.

Of course as soon as World War I and II and Vietnam showed up the nation suspended the 13th Amendment (that made involuntary servitude and slavery illegal) and drafted thousands of young men against their will and forced them to go to war (WWI and Vietnam made no sense for us to be there at all in any way). So the message is that involuntary servitude is only OK if the federal government forces it upon us. But during the Civil War, the North started drafting people and that involuntary servitude is just as wrong as the slavery forced upon the people in the south.

Just wanted to add my $.02 to all this... and no, I didn't read all 390+ comments. :) I'm a Christian and believe that homosexuality is wrong. However, I agree with everything Wil said. Just because I think it's wrong, that gives me no right to hate, discreminate, etc. against homosexuals or have anything to say about whether they should be married or not. It's their choice. One thing that makes our country great is seperation of church and state. As a result, religion cannot directly influence the government. What Bush is saying is completely moronic and wrong. Even as a Christian, what he should be doing is trying to bring equality to homosexuals, whether he approves or not. That's the whole point of, "Hate the sin, love the sinner." I'm ashamed to admit that I voted for Bush in 2000, but that definately won't be happening again this year. Originally it was for other reasons (needed to get rid of Rumsfeld as one of the biggest), but this is yet another nail in Bush's political career.

Ok, off the soapbox now (and no I didn't proofread any of that so my apologies if something doesn't make sense :) ).

Hi Will. I've been reading your blog for a while. I'm a big fan. But I have a different take on this issue. Personally, I support a Constitutional Amendment. But I think the Amendment should NOT be about the definition of "Marriage" but rather say "The Government shall make NO LAW concerning marriage." The real issue here is that the gay community wants the same legal rights that heterosexual couples get. Fine. I propose the government do away with "Marriage Certificates" and simply start issuing "Social Contracts." I mean, isn't that what a "Marriage Certificate" is really all about? And why should homosexuals and heterosexuals get special laws and rights and NOT people who are single and not in a sexual relationship? With "Social Contracts" ALL people can benefit. Any two individuals who want to share their lives and merge their homes and live together should be able to. They should be able to file joint taxes, have access to each other's life insurance and medical records, etc. It shouldn't be dependent on whether the two people are having sex or not. Also, Churches perform marriages. If marriages become a legal, governmental issue, are churches going to be forced to perform and recognize marriages that go against their doctrines and teachings? If a gay man is raised in the Catholic church and wants a Cathlolic "wedding" will the Catholic church be compelled to comply or be accused of discrimination? Making marriage a legal issue is a violation of church and state in my opinion. Let's let the goverment be focused on "Social Contracts" and leave marriage out of it.

Clinton Signs Law Backing Heterosexual Marriage

-by Kim A. Lawton in Washington, D.C.

The Republican Congress and the Democratic White House found a rare patch of political common ground on the cusp of the November election with enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act.

President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the first federal law to define marriage officially as a "union between one man and one woman." The legislation comes as the issue of same-sex marriage continues to be debated in many sectors of society, from the church to the corporate world.

Under DOMA, a bill actively pushed by a coalition of pro-family groups led by the Family Research Council (FRC), homosexual couples would be denied spousal benefits from such federal programs as social security or Medicare. The law also holds that no state can be required to recognize the validity of a same-sex marriage that may have been sanctioned in another state.

A pending Hawaii court case had pro-DOMA forces concerned that a ruling on the island could force other states to accept homosexual unions (ct, March 4, 1996, p. 64). Under the Constitution's "full faith and credit" provision, states are required to recognize "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" from other states.

DEFENSIVE MEASURE: DOMA moved to a legislative fast track in the waning days of the Republican-controlled congressional session. The measure passed the Senate in an 85-to-14 vote on September 10. At the same time, the Senate voted 50 to 49 against an Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) amendment introduced by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) that would have banned workplace discrimination against ...

Looking to blame Clinton or Congress in '96? I have not problem with the system working, not present renagate politicians....

Although many of these statements are encouraging I find it disturbing the defense against gay marriage and the views posted here.
Some have expressed the argument that if gay marriage is legal were would the line be drawn will we allow bigamists and polygamists or bestiality and extend marriage to their desires. I must say from a sort of legal point of view these arguments hold no water in comparison to legalizing same-sex marriages. First off the legalizing of gay marriages is hindered on the philosophy that any two people should be allowed to marry especially since there are other sexual minorities such as inter-sexuals and transgender people who cannot easily fit into the criteria of one gender. Marriage could not logically or legally be applied to bigamists or polygamists because then every member would have the right to marry another and conceivably the benefits and legal protections of multiple married bigamists or polygamists could conceivably be carried to every person within a large population. Now this doesn’t mean bigamists or polygamists can’t have a ceremonial marriage it would just be impractical and a burden to the state if it allowed to issue contracts to multiply married partners. So it is legally logical to limit marriages to two people. Now in the case of bestiality this is an absurd defense because in order for a person to marry an animal the state would have to grant that animal an equality of human rights so that it may be recognized to marry a human being, which in turn could force the state to recognize all animals to have equal human rights. (And you can see where this would lead). So in the end limiting marriage licenses/contracts (provided through the state) should be limited to two people, any two people.
The second and questionably the most dangerous argument is gay marriages should be illegal because its against biblical scripture. Well, if this is the argument lets make divorce illegal, the eating of pork illegal, make it illegal for women to wear pants, we could even make worrying illegal because all of these things are denounced in scripture or against the Christian-Judea religions. In fact by this argument lets just right the whole Bible into the Constitution and with it erase the entire philosophy to which this country was founded on. We could become just like those other religiously led countries that have riddled most of the Middle East (you know like Afghanistan).
For once I would like to see someone argue against gay marriage without resulting into religious reasons and argue strictly from legal reasoning because religious reasoning should never be used to enact in law the denial of equality. Religion should not be involved in law and law should not be involved in religion period. Especially if freedom of religion is to endure in a democratic society. (PS: For those of you who are not aware freedom of religion does not mean simply the freedom of Jewish and Christian faiths either it means all faiths.)
People need to realize that the only way same-sex marriages will bother anybody is if they have to RSVP to one.

I can marry legally, and will do so soon, but many of the most beloved people in my life can not.

The mayor is marrying people here in NY now, upstate, in the small artistic town of New Paltz. With NY and CA moving forward, won't others follow?

I hope that this is another sign that a quiet revolution has begun, one that will be led by those who have stepped forward to say "I do.". And will be supported by the many of us who believe that same-sex marriage is a right that has been denied for far too long.

Good for you Wil! You stated what many of us are thinking, and you did it in plain view of many who might disagree. Though, this fan agrees with you 100%

Wil:

You totally rock! Thanx for a really well-written piece about something that our country really needs to face if it's gonna grow up.

I remember a similar discussion about human rights after Matthew Shephard's murder. My partner at the time (a Log Cabin Republican, no flames please!) and I went to the Capitol here in D.C. to support the hate-crime legislation that was in the works at that time. I really felt like I was making a contribution.

As someone who has faced anti-gay discrimination both from external and family sources, I have to agree with you, Wil, 150%.

It's unfortunate that people have to be made to feel as though they are in a witness box and forced to say: "I plead guilty to the grand crime of being human!". (Sorry, shades of a mid-21st century courtroom with a red robed judge with a penchant for a certain Starfleet captain; smirk)

We have our priorities screwed up in this country, don't you think? It's more important to satisfy a small group of narrow minded people than to allow everyone to live in freedom... Totally sad.

Anyway, thanx for reading. And Wil, thanx again for all you do. You are a great guy and your posse is behind you! Uncle Willie for President in '04!

Peter Goodman

I have a good friend who is gay and has educated me on this matter. My belief is that marriage is a religous institution. I hold my marriage vows to be sacred. I do not believe that any church should be forced to marry two men or two women if it is against the beliefs of that church. I think that most people in America feel the same way. I am sure you will find that many people if asked would support a "separate but equal" civil union for homosexual couples. They just have an emotional objection to the use word marriage for such unions.

The problem is there are over 1000 laws that pertain to marriage. Things that deal with inheritance, visitation rights in the hospital, powers of attorney, tax laws, and who knows what else. There will be no such thing as "separate but equal". The more I thought about this, the more I asked why the government is in the business of marriage in the first place. It should not be for religious reasons. There is some benefit to soceity for having marriage. The question is does society realize that same benefit with a marriage between two members of the same sex.

Before you say that benefit is to have and raise children is a nurtuing environment, ask your self if you think that old people should be allowed to marry -- or young people with fertility problem. Raising children is not the reason for marriage (although the stability it provides is certainly an important part of raising a child).

I believe that families, regardless of the shape they take, have a positive influence on our society. Who is to say that two widowed sisters shouldn't be allowed to work together to raise their children where one works to support the family while the other stays at home to take care of the children? That is a family and the government should recognize and support that. Who is to say that two men who love each other and want to take care of each other for the rest of their lives should not be allowed to? The government should support and recognize that too. These are good things. They help provide stability and security in out society.

My friend told me about polls in America asking who supported gay marriage. Any way you slice it, the majority of America is against gay marriage -- except one. A majority of people who know said they know someone who is gay supported gay marriage.

Thanks, Wil. Thanks for standing with us and speaking your mind.

For the proponents of civil unions (which do not confer all or the same rights as marriage) consider this; I cannot live with my partner in America because we do not have the same immigration rights as a heterosexual couple with access to 'real' marriage. I gave up everything I had and left my friends and loved ones behind to go live in a country I don't want to be in... just so I could continue to hold the one I love at night when we go to sleep.

And one more thing... the amendment Bush is proposing would effectively squelch any hopes in court for begging for the same rights as 'real' marriage (regardless of what Scott McClellan would have you believe). We can never be 'equal' and would always be separate.

[the text]
'Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or or groups.'.

If someone in a civil union (which would only be recognised in the state it was issued) wants to argue for immigration right, the INS can say 'It's a marriage right, you're not married and I'm not therefore bound or inclined to confer those rights to you. Sorry, the constitution is clear on that. kthxbye.'

Maggie (who misses home)

Hi Wil,

Thanks for being a positive proponent on this issue. I'm glad to see we have much diversity in our ranks; however, I'm still concerned by the pathetic arguments presented by those who still think they are just in denying a group of individuals because it doesn't fit into their box of beliefs.

But as you said, talking about the issue is a vital function of our democracy, even if the actual battle of civil rights isn't/shouldn't be based on majority beliefs.

So I take comfort in knowing there are many out there willing to take a positive stance on an issue which well deserves attention--especially at the cost of a little personal risk.

Thanks for being one of those people Wil; your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

Your loyal fan,
-Curtis

"I do not believe that any church should be forced to marry two men or two women if it is against the beliefs of that church. I think that most people in America feel the same way."

Gay marriage WOULD NOT force any church to marry any two individuals that they didn't want to. Gay marriage would not change anything for any church, anywhere. It's not about religion at all. It's about the "civil marriage contract" between the couple and the government. That's all. Nothing else.

I think a lot of people fail to grasp this.

The fact is, two athiests can get married. Two reproductively barren people can get married. As long as they're striaght. It just seems odd to bar gay people from this same contract. Couples provide stability. If something should happen to one of the couple, the other is there to provide support. A marriage contract facilitates that support by recognizing the partner as official "family" and providing mechanisms for things like immigration, inheretence, insurance coverage, joint ownership and joint taxation, etc.

This is a good thing that doesn't in any way threaten any religious institutions in any way.

So, Will, when are you going to enter politics? (If I were a Californian, I'd vote for you!)

I believe the founding fathers did not foresee these types of situations when they drafted and signed that great document that outlines the rules of our country. But, then again, they knew time would change this country and that's why there is the provision for adding amendments.

All this societal rhetoric and bickering over sexual situations is ridiculous. How you choose to live your life behind closed doors, and who you choose to spend that time with is your own business. A boob accidentally gets displayed during a contest where the main activity is guys knocking the crap out of each other repeatedly, and it's STILL news! How many more people are aware of the Super Bowl half-time oops than are aware of the actual game, its participants and/or final score?

BTW, what's really the difference between a marriage and a civil union in the eyes of a state that is to be a separate entity from any church?

12 reasons not to accept gay marriage: gatorgsa.org/gaymarriage.html

Understand how you feel, Will, but I think you're blaming the wrong side.

John McIntyre of REAL CLEAR POLITICS has the conservative POV on Gay Marriage and shows who is, and who ISN'T being divisive:

GAY MARRIAGE: The issue of gay marriage boils down to the question of whether homosexuality should be on an equal moral and legal footing with heterosexuality. The core of the gay rights agenda is to enshrine in law, as sanctioned by the state, the full and total equality of homosexuality in comparison to heterosexuality. Gay and lesbian activists want government policy from nursery schools to nursing homes to force homosexuality to be treated as totally equal to heterosexuality in everything.

The problem with this is the vast majority of Americans don't see homosexuality on par with heterosexuality. And guess what? That doesn't make them bigots or homophobes.

The truth is that even though most Americans are perfectly tolerant of gays and lesbians, that doesn't mean they want their third or fourth graders being taught that there is absolutely no difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. It's not surprising that many people are uncomfortable at seeing homosexuality actively promoted in schools, glorified by the media, and now sanctioned by the state.

In fact, most Americans want the government out of the business of casting moral judgments and would be fine with the government remaining agnostic on the issue of homosexuality. That means the state should not punish or discriminate against gays and lesbians, nor should the government cede special rights to them.

Like most Americans, most gays and lesbians are good and decent people. They are entitled to enjoy all the rights, freedoms and privileges granted to every individual in this county. But they aren't entitled to have the government proactively endorse their lifestyle as on an equal footing with heterosexuality - unless a majority of the public's elected representatives in Congress decide it's the correct thing to do. And that's the rub.

The truly intolerant in this debate are not the mean and evil "religious right," but rather the activist left that demands the rest of the country accept their view. Contrary to what some may say, the President didn't seek this out as an issue, activists judges in Massachusetts and leftist politicians in San Francisco thrust their minority views in the country's face.

Personally I'm conflicted about altering the Constitution and I wonder whether there are less draconian ways to maintain the sanctity of marriage. However, the activist courts and the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, maybe the FMA is the only way that will effectively work.

My gut tells me that the majority of Americans would like to see marriage remain between a man and a woman, but are open to having the states deal with the issue of civil unions on a state by state basis. This seems to me to be an amiable compromise that protects the ancient tradition of marriage while also allowing individual states to pass civil union laws that provide legal equality to homosexual couples.

In many ways this is exactly what President Bush has done by calling for a constitutional amendment protecting marriage.

America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.

Contrast this with the reaction by Andrew Sullivan, a leading proponent for gay marriage:

The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land....

This president wants our families denied civil protection and civil acknowledgment. He wants us stigmatized not just by a law, not just by his inability even to call us by name, not by his minions on the religious right. He wants us stigmatized in the very founding document of America. There can be no more profound attack on a minority in the United States - or on the promise of freedom that America represents....

This president has now made the Republican party an emblem of exclusion and division and intolerance...This struggle is hard but it is also easy. The president has made it easy. He's a simple man and he divides the world into friends and foes. He has now made a whole group of Americans - and their families and their friends - his enemy. We have no alternative but to defend ourselves and our families from this attack. And we will.

If you read the the President's statement and then spend a few minutes reading Andrew Sullivan's blog it becomes rather clear which side is the intolerant one. - J. McIntyre 6:41am

Bravo, Wil. Thank you for speaking out. In some parts of Canada, gay marriage is now legal, but there is some serious opposition brewing. I only hope that unprejudiced heads will prevail. The late (prime minister) Pierre Trudeau commented that the state had no business in the bedrooms of the nation (or words to that effect)and I hope that will remain the case.

Thank you for this entry. You expressed very eloquently what I was thinking and feeling. You give me hope that what I hear in the media is wrong, and that Bush does not speak for the people, and that I am not hated by the majority because I am gay.

You are not hated because you are gay. At least, not to the majority of Americans who are against Gay Marriage. In fact, most back civil unions.
And I think John McIntyre says this quite clearly.

What Sullivan spews is so far outside of the mainstream, and so far outside of the President's motives that it's clear that Sullivan, and those seeking to violate the rule of law, are making it the divisive issue.

Are there those filled with hate for gays? Sure. And that's a terrible reality. But the rest of us really don't care what you do in your bedroom and with who.

Well done Will,

I live in the great frozen liberal land of Canada, but I have been a passionate anti-Bush individual since before he was not elected. This latest propsal is just ridiculous and I'm happy to see you taking a stand on this issue. More attention must be paid to the crippling joy-ride that that meglomaniacal nut job Bush has been taking your country and the whole world on. Kudos on the post and let us hope that the answer to Mr. Bush's campaign is a resounding no.

P.S. Check out this site, its pretty interesting.
www.theboywhocriediraq.com

I was in a LiveJournal debate with the votebush2004 community, and I was wondering if you would mind if I cited or quoted your artice, with due credit of course.

Thank you for your time, I understand that you have many comments to read, so perhaps you will not even get this, I just foudn this page from google, and I find your stories incredibly interesting and well written.

Take care, be well and remain safe and comfortable.

A-fucking-men. (A-freaking-men just isn't strong enough.)

I agree with Kerry on this one. The Bush administration is grasping at straws. They're afraid, as well they should be.

I didn't normally read your blog - I usually don't read the blogs of people I don't actually know - but this is the second post you've written this week that I've linked to from my personal LiveJournal. I've been very impressed with what you've written, both about politics and your personal life. Oh, yeah, and I'll be reading regularly now. What you have written here is especially inspiring.

I saw this somewhere and thought it was relevant to spread around... very amusing if you ask me. I mean, all we ask is a little consistency, right? :-)

---

The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to: "Pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles. With any forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will be honored by our government."

Any good religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on Biblical principles:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage between a believer and a nonbeliever shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut25:5-10)

Why don't we just pull a "King Henry VIII" and create a church that does whatever the hell it wants? Reigning power doesn't want to let you get married? (and in Henry's case, divorced) Make a church that's all for it! Then, let that become your sheild and have bush take it on. Lets see how well he does once he starts attacking religion, and shows what a hypocrite he is. I'm sure if it said somewhere in the bible that being gay was ok he's have sunk his piggy teeth into that too.

Thank you, Wil. You always say what I want to say a million times better than I ever could.

the president's latest diversion is the real reason our father's insisted on the seperation of church and state...the important issue is not religious icons on display on government property...but it is the real meat and potatoes of our society...the freedom from having the church dictate the law to the government...the more the zealots try to exclude those different from them from the equality of law in our government...the more the complaints will arise about christmas trees on the courthouse lawn...those who say they they want to bring religeon into the world are instead taking it away...JERRY FALWELL and his ilk have caused much pain and suffering in the world...and it is a shame...they have decieved those who have really believed...and set them on a course of hate and bigotry...look up PHARASEES in the new testament and you will see many similarities to the modern day televangelist.

I was raised in a fundamental religious family. I was taught homosexuality is a sin. I never knew any gays growing up. So my question is, how did I become gay? It is NOT a choice. Life in this homophobic country sucks for gays. Why would I choose that? Gay people did not influence my sexuality. Bigots who DID try to influence my sexuality made my life hell. Given all this, why should I be denied equal rights, pursuit of happiness, and all the other AMERICAN ideals?

You had nothing to gain personally by sharing your views. I can only assume that you are a good person, Wil. Thanks for speaking up.

I've noticed that this board seems to be largely populated by people with a live and let live philosophy. As long as your not Christian. As long as your not a Bush supporter. As long as you stay trendy. I just want to remind ya'll that a good many folks have principles that they feel are absolute and as it happens our current President reprensents us as such. Just as I try to see your viewpoint on the issues, I just wish that everyone would extend that same courtesy to others.

P.S. Bush won. Get over it. I felt the same way that you folks did when Clinton won. Now I self-rightously feel vindicated after his C- legacy, for having wept for a week after his election.

You're my personal hero, Wil. Even if I don't agree with what you say (And I do in this case, seeing as I'm part of the target group), I admire you because you have the BALLS to say it, and stand up for what you think is right. You use your brain.

*applauds*

GEORGE BUSH does represent many who's principles and views are absolute with no room for compromise...a president who panders to such a group is why separation of church and state is such an essential part of our constitution...the TALABAN have already proven this point for us in AFGHANISTAN.

Too bad Bush wasn't elected Mr. Sack, he lost by half a million votes remember.

Amen. I am so pleased to find someone express the same opinion I have on this issue so eloquently. Thank you!
Erin

This issue is aobut a lot of things.
It is about discrimination, equality, religion, politics, re-election, scare tactics, stupidity, prejudice, and most of all separation of church and state. I can't say anything new - I think it's all been said, but I can try and condense all the above information. I think I have succeeded. The only way to combat all these multiple forces is quite simple: one must recognize his place in society as a citizen, and use the power given to him to control and or change his government. That said, do your citizen duty. You didn't earn it, because you deserve it. It is inalienable - go vote this thing down.

The confusion between legal contracts and religous sanctification just boggles my mind. Fine, don't let Gay people get married, but let them have the same LEGAL rights enjoyed by a heterosexual married couple. That's the sticking point and everything else is smoke and mirrors.

We need only change the legal definition. Marriage=Done by a church, Civil Union = Done by the governemnt. All "Marriage" licenses will now be Civil Union Contracts that confer identical rights as "Marriage Licenses" used to. All Married couples enter into a government dictated Civil Union but they may or may not enter into a Religiously defined Marriage. The end.

"Ultra-Conservative writer Andrew Sullivan" ?? Well, I guess one could expect such a ridiculous observation from a Hollywood leftist whose political meter is so skewed, his idea of centrism is Michael Moore.

I really think Bush is going to have a hard time with this one. The main reason is he'll have to say. Gay marriage is bad, but gay people have all the same rights as us. Such a quandry, it will be a culture war he loses.

I believe I am being discriminated against since I have a want for 3 wifes to call my own. Damn the goverment telling me I can't! The nerve!

I'm so impressed that someone who can support his position is speaking up on this issue! My "partner" (read that: not-yet-legally-regognized wife) and I have been together for three years, and being granted the rights of married couples is incredibly important to us. It is NOT just a formality. For example, I moved away from home to go to college and require a lot of financial aid to pay for it. If I had married a man, financial need would be determined our combined income. But, since I's just a domestic partner, financial need is determined by my parent's income; the parents who haven't supported me since I was 18, but earn enough money to make me inelligible for aid. And that's just the start. Even if domestic partnership granted the same rights as marriage, it would always be stigmatized. Seperate is still inherently unequal. I don't want a "life-partner," and I'm sick of coming up with euphemisms for my relationship with my wife. Thank you, Wil, for taking a stand. Your support brought tears to my eyes and made me respect you even more.

Way to go Wil! Only thinking of number one and perpetuating the downward spiral. It's pretty evident from Wil's comments and all of you who so blindly agree, that you all see so short-sided. You blast Bush for supporting a concept that's been around forever. Marriage means a union between a man and a women. Go figure, we've had it all wrong since the beginning. Hey, it doesn't affect me now, so what's the harm? My marriage isn't affected, who cares what it may do to my future grandchildren. Keep it up and maybe, just maybe, your 9 year old great great grandson will someday have the right to marry and be a$$raped by some NAMBLA member. Everyone should be equal, right? You take the "great sacred document" written by some slaveowners talking about every (white) man being created equal and try to say that they intended that gays should be allowed to marry? Seperation of Church and State right? We should let the churchs burn before state funded fire depts put them out? Our economy sucks and it's all Bush's fault. Screw the 2 terms of Clinton that led us to it. It's possible that Bush may have stole the election, but man am I grateful it was him there after 9/11. Los Angeles and 2 other major cities would have burned to the ground before Gore would have done anything. WMD's? Good lord, the freakin UN gave Saddam 8 YEARS to move/hide/sell them off. Maybe we should have waited until AFTER he struck to do something about it. It would have cost us maybe only one more 9/11-like event, but hey!, it would have saved us a couple hundred soldiers. I mean, Saddam was only threatening us with WMD's. He didn't really mean it. Just like Osama, right? We're losing our allies? When did France ever like us? Oh yah, when they're getting their asses kicked. I guess it's been awhile. They didn't want to support the war on Iraq, but I don't see them refusing to profit from it. Hypocrites.

Great post...

I am a libertarian who will vote Democrat for the first time in my 20 year voting history. I will do whatever it takes to get this madman out of office.

I just wanted to say thank you to Wil Wheaton for standing up for his own convictions in a time when people are judged for doing so. Anyone who keeps such an open mind, and isn't afraid to speak it is tops in my book. My boyfriend and I both wish that there were more people in the world of such good standing as Wil and his family. Here is a link to our Bio and to an essay he wrote which mentions Wil's views on the subject. Thanks again Wil, You ROCK!

http://students.uta.edu/JX/jxy6740/bio.htm

http://students.uta.edu/JX/jxy6740/Bio_files/The%20Changing%20Definition%20of%20Marriage.htm

My Bad, I forgot to mention that the essay mentioned above has some really interesting points on the history of marriage and its changing meaning through history.

P.S.-Sorry for the double post.

Thanks...Tim

Thank you for articulating the views with which I agree on this subject. I recently had a discussion with my typically far left wing father on this very topic, and he suprised me by telling me he didn't see what the trouble was with the "separate but equal" concept of "civil unions" that has been proposed in what I believe to be an ultimately futile attempt to appease both sides. I intend to share your words with him in an effort to express to him my own views on the matter. At the least, it should spark some interesting discussion on the topic.

Thanks so much for speaking out. And especially for locating some of a supporter from "the other side" (I nearly said the dark side, but I didn't want to insult Darth Vader) :-)

This is my first visit here, but certainly won't be my last (this link was posted on the "No George W Bush" tribe board at tribe.net (url posted above).

Quite a few people I know believe that there is a strong silent majority not speaking out on this issue and others where "lil' shrub" has put his bible-belt agendas. We won't even go into his other flaws... :-)

I agree with at least one other commenter here in that whatever the opposite of boycott...I'm there for ya'. That any kind of McCarthyish blacklisting crap still exists just proves how draconian our current admistration is.

Best of luck with the new book and everything else!

Wil, I agree with much of what you said. I think the issue here is government control, not same-sex marriages. I am a Christian and do not think homosexuality is right; that's just my opinion. Yet, it is everyone's right to speak their mind. So, as far as gay marriages are concerned, I really don't care. I especially wouldn't like the government to tell that I couldn't marry my girlfriend, so I understand both sides. I think the real problem is that the government just has too much control. Back in the day, Govt. regulated like 10 things. Marriage, school, pre-welfare, whatever; it was left up to the church or organizations. So, why the heck do they have so much control now and over seemily everything. It really donesn't make much sense.

Way down the list, but just for the record, good call. Well written. Thanks for this post!

marriage a divisive issue

...

shouldn't that read:
divorce a divisive issue

marriage a ______ issue

options for filling blank:
commitment?
uniting?
loving?

How refreshing! I had no idea that you were so fabulous...
I stumbled upon this via the godhatesshrimp people, and now I feel that I am not alone in my long, dark struggle against the bigoted-sh*tpig-malcontents who hold the power.

Wheeeee!

Mark Morford had this link in his column today. Very funny site. (sorry, if someone already linked to it)

Alright, I'm an idiot, I forgot to include the link. http://godhatesshrimp.com/

A lot of people here act as if Bush will actually get this done. There is NO WAY this amendment will pass. NO....WAY. I know it, he knows it, now you know it. He's just using it as a distraction to all the people that he screwed over that supported him before. A lot of the people who originally voted for him are mad that he screwed up their economy and sent their sons/daughters to their deaths just so that they could have oil to heat their homes that now have no people in them. And so he's just using the old "pinch manuver". If something is bothering you, give yourself a big pinch on the arm and you'll forget all about it. And by the way, to all those out there that support Bush and this amendment, and seem to think that all us liberals are gonna show up at your house with a baseball bat, your beliefs are not the problem. If you feel homosexuality is wrong, then...well, congrats. You now have an opinion. But the best thing my mother ever taught me was that no one has the right to hurt you, no matter what. This amendment, even the idea of it, is hurting people. Can any of you imagine what it would be like if your lover of 20 years was dying in the hospital, but you never got to see them one last time because you're not officially related and their parents never wanted to acknowlegde you? What would that be like? And what will you do if your future son/daughter is gay? Think about it. You can not prevent it.

P.S. To all the people who support bush but don't support this amendment, I admire you. We may not agree on everything, but you have the balls to stand up for everything you believe in, even if it might be a little hard.

Wasn't it Descartes that said" I may not agree with what you have to say, But I will defend with my life your right to say it.."

This is why I love ya, Uncle Willie! What you've written here is spot on.

In a speech given over 35 years ago, a Canadian politician said "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation". This message was taken to heart by many of the current political leaders of Canada, despite their personal views. It is unfortunate that the current American leadership does not share this same wisdome.

I am not even sure how I ended up on this site, but I am glad I did.

If indeed America is divided into "church" and "state" by law, why is all this even an issue? I don't think Dubya or any government should be involved in this matter.

Get a license, get married by someone who has the qualifications to do so, file it, and move on with life. If gay people can raise kids and have a family, I think they should be entitled to the same rights as everyone else to be nagged to take out trash, feed the baby, put gas in the car, pay the visa bill, and find the energy for sex after 8 hours at work. :)

Marriage by "Christian" standards is between a man and a woman. But who is Dubya or anyone else to push their beliefs on an entire nation of people? I am a Christian, but I believe that everyone is responsible for their own choices. "All have sinned and fallen short the glory of God". That includes liars, cheaters, killers, and people who send young men and women to die for their own personal agendas.

I personally don't think God intended homosexuality and I don't think He likes it very much. HOWEVER, man has free will and what he does with it is his business.

MARRY WHO YOU LOVE. IT CAN'T MAKE THE WORLD ANY WORSE.

I can't understand a law against love when there is so much hatred overtaking the world. I love everyone regardless of what they do or who they do it with. Because that is what the foundation of Christianity is supposed to be about. But maybe Dubya missed that chapter.

This is typical of this administration. We can't find the guy who spearheaded 9-11, but we can spend millions to convict Martha Stewart. We can't do something to prevent all the jobs from floating away, but we can ban gay people from getting married. We can't end occupation in Iraq, but we can fret about athletes taking steroids.

Glad to know the man with his finger on the button has so much spare time on his hands to worry about your sex life. Its such a comforting thought. Maybe if O-bin-L was gay, the witch-hunters would have located him already?

What if in 50 years a gay man is president and wants to take away hetero's right to marry. How would you feel then GW?

*Oh and I am offended by the Civil Rights comparisions because I can still get pulled over in my car because of my color. Gay is something personal that you can expose when and where you wish. And your ancestors were not beaten and hung for it. I sympathize with the Brandon Teenas and Matthew Shepards of the world, but it is not right to compare a few decades of violence to 500 years of black oppression where MILLIONS of men, women AND children died.

Its a uphill battle, but it uniquely your own as it encompasses all races, religions, economic standings, etc.

And its a slap to my ancestors. Marriage would have been nice for them... but they were busy fighting just to LIVE.*

That's my 2 cents.
Wil, I respect your opinions and admire your cajones to say exactly what you feel. As well as the other posters.

Blessings to all of you and I hope that this issue comes to a quick resolution.

Wil,

Thank you! Thank you so much for your support of our relationships. I have been with my partner Kent for 28 years. Our families have both disowned us and over the years, we had to make our own families of friends. We are not complaining, but wish that life could have been easier for us.

A few years ago, Kent was hospitalized for an illness. The hardest part of all of this was that I was not allowed to go in to see him. You see, I'm a "legal stranger" to him in the legal system. I had papers that we had drawn up, but the hospital did not honor those papers. Yet, they did allow his cousin to go in to visit him, because he happened to have the same name as Kent. It was then that I realized what our relationship was in the eyes of our government - nothing.

It's been tough, because we don't know what the future holds for us. Today, it's snowing outside. Kent left for work 20 minutes ago. What will happen if he's in a car accident? What will happen to our home if I should die suddenly? My family would come in and take half of what we have spent building up over the last 28 years. The point is, I shouldn't have to worry about all of this. All of these things are protected legally with civil marriage.

It was nice that you came out in favor of gay marriage. I visit your site from time to time, and I was always hoping that you believed in what was right.

Bill

The United States need more voices like yours. I hope that more American's will see what a tyrant Bush is and realize that his aspirations at controlling the world aren't restricted to the middle east. Stop him before he takes away all of the freedoms you have fought so hard for.

A Northern Neighbour

Thanks so much Wil for standing up for what is right and speaking your mind. So many people, especially of celebrity status, are afraid to state what they truly feel. I have read what you have said and also what Bette Midler wrote and was humbled by your support and willingness to speak up.

Maybe with a united voice we can make a difference and help keep such discrimination from occuring.
I will also try and be more supportive of your work since you have spoken out loud for me and the countless others like me.

Thank you.

For reference, I am secular democrat in ideology, although, I'm moderate on many issues. I disagree with Republicans on many issues. But, that is their right as Americans to have their own ideas, their own views. If I remember correct, wasn't that one to the core priniciples that our founding fathers were after?

What I'm about to say may have been said before as I haven't read through all of the numerous posts before mine. This issue, I believe, is an issue because marriage is a unity that has one foot in religion and one foot in government. Many people (christians, catholics, etc) say that marriage is a holy union that should only be between a man and a woman. As far as the religious unity, that is fully their right to assert. The problem though, is that the government then proceeds to allow benefits and rights based on that religious ceremony. That is what I have a problem with. Essentially, the government is giving preferential treatment to groups based on social acceptance of their religios ceremony.

The compromise will be in the government recognizing "civil unions" regardless of the religious side of it. It won't happen today and not tomorrow. But, in time with the growth of our nation, it will happen.

I have many issues with Bush, but this is one that will definitely not help him get re-elected.

Well to be truthful i think Will is making the point that most people see in this,even though i am only a 13-year-old and i still have a very strong beleif that we should have gay marriages. And for all those people that are against why? Why do you care about what sex a female or male loves or is intrested in? If you see a gay couple holding hands look the other way b/c right now the bigger deal you make it the bigger deal it will seem. Also just like Will said if two people love eachother and if two people want to be known or offically married why not. If two poeple love eachother for the way they make themselves feel then why do you care. The goverment's only role in there marriage should be they liscense not the couple. And i was totally for Bush until now he has no right once so ever to bring descrimination to millions and millions of people to make his campain "more known" or "popular". And its very sad to see what our world is coming to for the fact of that we are trying to change what is history, with the Civil Rights, no one in the right mind should change that our fore fathers Carefully thought over and protected it so that America is known to create freedom and to create hope for a new and better land and unite a country full of fair and equalness. And i will fight against Bush. even though i may be young i will spread my beleifs and share what i have to think b/c i don't want our world commming to hate, pain, discrimination, and hurt but i want this country to have what it and our fore fathers promised us, Freedom, and if that wasn't what they said then why am i even in this land of the free and home of the brave Sincerely April B Illinois

escorts
gohit.net

Great, Thanks

If homosexuals can marry then it would be discrimination to not allow Polygamists, Immediate family, Close relatives, Distant relatives, Step relatives, Cousins, Bisexuals, Bestialities, Paedophiliac’s, Necrophiliac’s, people wanting to marry themselves, and who knows whats next? Anything allegedly linked to “civil rights” will be doable.

Necrophilia, inbreeding, beastiality, and pedophilia are linked to civil rights? These things listed above go against basic genetics, harm other individuals (or animals) against their will, and are all illegal. Homosexual marriage is none of the above. The only damage it does is to Bush and his followers bigoted view of the world. I can't believe anyone would compare the civl rights of two loving, consenting gay people who want to get married to the civil rights of a person raping a child or a person who robs graves and sleeps with the corpses. Actually, I can believe it, it just sickens me.

Thank you, Mr. Weaton, for your comments on this issue.

While I have no interest in pursuing marriage with my partner of six years, I am none-the-less frustrated with this issue. Not content to tell gays and lesbians that they can't marry, this administration (and its ilk) seeks to go farther, and make it clear that we don't even have due process of law.

The House of Representatives have already passed legislation to block gays and lesbians from even approaching the Supreme Court on the issue... a clear violation of the Constitution. The Senate will be voting on a similar bit of legislature later.

To add insult to injury, many people denigrate this tactic on the part of this administration as a diversion from the many other ways in which this president has blundered. Thus, not only does this president not particularly gave a rat's fart about equal rights for all citizens, our concerns are unimportant enough to use as political fodder for his broken presidency.

If people have a serious concern about the destruction of the institution of marriage, I submit that we should help give those concern a real voice. I move that the federal government be banned from recognizing any form of marriage.

If gays and lesbians can live without marriage effectively all these many years, it's good enough for the rest of the country.

Brian said:

RELAX. For a constitutional ammendment to pass, it must be approved in congress by a super-majority which means 2/3 of congress must vote for it. Then 2/3 of the states must ratify it by a 2/3 in favor vote. When was the last time you saw ANYTHING get 66% of the vote? I don't think you could 2/3 of the people to vote that chocolate tastes good.

That's what I thought that about the Patriot Act. It's important to be vigilant about this sort of thing as it's been proven that we cannot count on the common sense of our elected officials.

Just surfed in and found this really interesting place here. A lot of good stuff for everybody.
Go on like this and i will surely visit your site again sometime.

Regarding the Bible and homosexuality being a sin, and thus opposing gay marriage, the "Christian" right has it wrong.

I invite you to read: "Connecting the Biblical Dots: Why Jesus Is For Same-sex Marriage." It's a biblically grounded paper that gives a convincing argument why homosexuality is not a sin to God and why marriage, including same-sex marriage, is the acceptable standard. You may read it here: www.purplepew.org/biblical_dots.html

Kind Regards,

V.L. Carey
The Purple Pew
Stand Up For Truth
www.purplepew.org

It´s really a great joy being here. Your site is a varied mixture of the latest news, specified information and
activ power. I heard of your site and just wanted to see what´s up here. Really nice place. See you again sometime.
I wish you great success, good luck and a lot of fun for the future. Maybe one day you will really be the best of all.

A friend told me of your site. He said that I will find just the information here I was looking for.
That was definitely right. Good work.

Hallo you! Great site. I found exactly the information I was looking for. I will recommendyou page to all my friends.
I heard of your site and just wanted to see what´s up here. Really nice place. See you again sometime.
I wish you great success, good luck and a lot of fun for the future. Maybe one day you will really be the best of all.

I enjoy reading through this informal place. I will surely visit you again to see if anything new appears on it.
Good luck for the future.

Just be surfing around in net. I definitely fpund a very informal place with a lot of good stuff for everybody. I will
certainly visit your site again sometime. Really good work.

My celeb home page: Eliza Dushku nudeFarrah Fawcett nudeGillian Anderson nudeGwen Stefani nudeHalle Berry nudeHeather Graham nudeHeidi Klum nudeJane Fonda nudeJanet Jackson nudeJennifer Aniston nudeJennifer Ellison nudeJennifer Lopez nudeJessica Alba nude

--------