I wrote this hours ago, and I’ve debated whether or not I should post it. This is an incredibly divisive issue, and I’m sure that I will end up on more of those stupid boycott lists because of this, and that’s probably not the smartest business move, considering that I have a book coming out in less than two weeks . . . but I have to stand up for my beliefs, so here it is:
When I heard that George W. Bush had called for an amendment to the Constitution that would effectively codify homosexuals as second-class citizens, I recalled something Howard Dean said recently:
In 1968, Richard Nixon won the White House. He did it in a shameful way–by dividing Americans against one another, stirring up racial prejudices, and bringing out the worst in people.
They called it the “Southern Strategy,” and the Republicans have been using it ever since. Nixon pioneered it, and Ronald Reagan perfected it, using phrases like “racial quotas” and “welfare queens” to convince white Americans that minorities were to blame for all of America’s problems.
The Republican Party would never win elections if they came out and said their core agenda was about selling America piece by piece to their campaign contributors and making sure that wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of a few. To distract people from their real agenda, they run elections based on race, dividing us, instead of uniting us . . .
Dean was right. Just read that again, and replace “racial prejudices” with “sexual prejudices.”
I hate it when I agree with politicians, but John Kerry said what I thought as soon as I heard the news:
“This president can’t talk about jobs. He can’t talk about health care. He can’t talk about a foreign policy which has driven away allies and weakened the United States, so he is looking for a wedge issue to divide the American people.”
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. I suppose that it can also be between those people and whatever god they choose to worship, but even then . . . wouldn’t it be stupid for the government to tell couples which god can bless their marriage? And who cares what sex they are?
An interesting thing has happened since San Francisco started granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples: my marriage is just fine!
That’s right. Even though there are thousands of gay and lesbian couples affirming their love for and commitment to each other, my marriage — my affirmation of love and commitment to Anne — isn’t threatened at all. As a matter of fact, the only people who can really “threaten” my marriage are . . . well . . . the two of us.
And this brings me to the first thing that’s so profoundly upsetting about this entire issue: it’s not about marriage, it’s not about love, it’s not about family, it’s not about commitment. It’s about hating homosexuals. It’s about treating homosexuals as if they are second-class citizens. It’s about dividing this country into those who support discrimination, and those who don’t. It’s about Karl Rove updating The Southern Strategy.
It comes as no surprise to me that, as part of that strategy, George W. Bush wants to take the Constitution, a document that is supposed to limit government and guarantee freedoms to all Americans, away from millions of our fellow citizens who are homosexual. I didn’t buy the “I’m a uniter, not a divider, compassionate conservative” bullshit during the 2000 campaign, and this is just another example of Mr. Bush revealing his true colors. And this argument that it’s a response to “activist judges?” That’s a huge load of crap too. Mr. Bush has a lot of nerve talking about “activist judges,” considering that he owes his presidency to five of them.
Ultra-Conservative writer Andrew Sullivan said it best, I think:
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. Rather than allow the contentious and difficult issue of equal marriage rights to be fought over in the states, rather than let politics and the law take their course, rather than keep the Constitution out of the culture wars, this president wants to drag the very founding document into his re-election campaign. He is proposing to remove civil rights from one group of American citizens – and do so in the Constitution itself. The message could not be plainer: these citizens do not fully belong in America. Their relationships must be stigmatized in the very Constitution itself. The document that should be uniting the country will now be used to divide it, to single out a group of people for discrimination itself, and to do so for narrow electoral purposes. Not since the horrifying legacy of Constitutional racial discrimination in this country has such a goal been even thought of, let alone pursued. Those of us who supported this president in 2000, who have backed him whole-heartedly during the war, who have endured scorn from our peers as a result, who trusted that this president was indeed a uniter rather than a divider, now know the truth.
Yes, I am shocked that I agree with Andrew Sullivan about anything, but that just illustrates how insane this idea is, and how it transcends political ideology.
Now, I have no doubt that this effort will fail. I believe that it will ultimately backfire on the Bush Administration, and contribute to his defeat in November. The United States just isn’t the Theocracy that Mr. Bush wants to create.
There is a wonderful opportunity here, though, that I haven’t heard anyone talk about, yet: we are now forced, as a nation, to acknowledge and confront the widespread discrimination against gays and lesbians, and I believe that Americans will unite against segregation now, just as we did during the Civil Rights movement.
I believe in America. I believe in the Bill of Rights, and the founding principals of this nation. I believe that goodness, compassion, and tolerance will triumph over hatred, bigotry, and ignorance.
And I am proud to stand up for these beliefs, whatever the consequences.
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:
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!