462 thoughts on “this ocean will not be grasped”

1. 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.

2. 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

3. 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!

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. Please read my latest email to President Bush.

8. 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.

9. Thank you!

10. 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 :).

11. 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 😛 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.

12. 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.

13. 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}

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. word.

17. 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.

19. Thank you.

20. 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

21. 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.

22. 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…

23. From the Washington Post:

24. 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 !!

25. 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.

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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.

29. 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

30. 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.

31. 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…)

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. 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!

35. “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.

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. 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.

39. 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.

40. 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 🙂 ).

41. 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.

42. 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….

43. 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

44. 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.

45. 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%

46. 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

47. 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.

48. 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)

49. 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

50. “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.

Comments are closed.