The Real World of Gay Marriage

I don't get why calling it a "domestic partnership" is a slap in the face. It is not intended as one. It is an accurate (perhaps to a fault) description of the relationship that distinguishes it from marriage. Is it just the distinction from marriage that makes it offensive? Marriage has meant one thing for thousands of years, you can't blame people for wanting for a word to have an unchanging definition. There is an argument for creating a new term for a type relationship that hasn't been accepted for very long, historically speaking. As a lawyer, Susan should know that the meaning of a word matters, and that fluid definitions cause confusion. I personally care little whether it is called a domestic partnership or something else. Calling it marriage would only bother me because it bothers me when definitions of words change over time. When it happens its usually because of laziness, as in the case of the words "treacherous" (whose definition has become more broad than originally) and "anti-semitic" (whose definition has become more narrow).

Susan, you are so out of line with your article. Marriage is meant to be a sacred bond between a man and a women. It is a religious ritual that has roots in creating families and stabilizing society. Gays have equal rights. To liken the issue of equal rights of gay marriage is like granting Elephants the right to free speech. Thus, gays are unable to marry because they cannot consumate the relationship by producing children. This is why gay marriage is not possible. All that society does with marriage is sanction it through legal means. Many gay marriage advocates believe that the legal side is where they lose benefits, when in fact they already have all of the rights (with the exception of very few). Where else in world does the concept of family accept gay marriage? Iran? Saudia Arabia? Indonesia? Japan? Italy? No where.... It is because these people have made a choice to define marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. Get over it and stop fooling with something that is the foundation of society from the beginning of time.

Marriage - a union between a man and a woman. Why after 2000 years, is this now complicated?

Just because 25% of the1% of the population that is gay want to change the definition of marriage, why do the other 99.75% have to do it? It gets voted down ever time. It's just a definition!

If Sam wants to sleep with Joe, that is none of my business. But because society has norms and certain moral standards, I don't want my kids to be exposed to it. It's a weird and confusing abnormal condition that some people act upon. I have no idea if people are "born that way or not" - personally I don't care. But I do care when people try to normalize abnormal behavior when it's clear it's not. I am simply stating that marriage is a union between a man and woman - in other words, a normal relationship - don't redefine it to be something abnormal.

Where to begin?
"Marriage is meant to be a sacred bond between a man and a women."
Not true, unless it's performed in the context of a particular religious ritual. People get married in city hall by a justice of the peace all the time. That is NOT a sacred bond. It is a civil, legal bond.
"Marriage has meant one thing for thousands of years, you can't blame people for wanting for a word to have an unchanging definition."
Really? People who resort to the bible and/or religious tradition forget that the major Hebrew patriarchs were all polygamists.

I agree with several others that you are off track here. This is not an equal rights issue as gays DO have equal rights in respect to passing property, being by the bed side of their loved one, benefits, etc., by definition in the California code in the civil union/domestic partnership. To say otherwise is completely disingenuous. To say it is a "slap in the face" to NOT call it marriage? How about the slap in the face to those in the MAJORITY who call a man/woman relationship as it has been called for thousands of years? Further, What about the slap in the face to the black community who by an overwhelming majority find it offensive to call this a "civil rights" issue? They were there for civil rights.
"No one is telling the Mormon Church what it can do with respect to gay marriage. The Mormon Church should not be telling us." This, too, is disingenuous, as government gets involved they WILL be telling the Mormon (and other churches) what to do, just as striking down conscientous objections to doing abortions will be affecting Catholic churches and concientous objections to homesexual 'marriages' has already affected Catholic adoption agencies. The government IS dictation to churches what it can dowith respect to "gay marriages."
Further, it wasn't just the "Mormon Church" who voted in California. Mormons are only about 1.97% of the California population (and not all of them voted the same way on prop 8--just as not all Catholics voted the same way). A LOT more people than that voted to maintain man/woman as a definition of marriage.

"How about the slap in the face to those in the MAJORITY who call a man/woman relationship as it has been called for thousands of years?"
With all due respect, Lisa, did you read any of the other posts here? Where has marriage been so defined "for thousands of years"? Again, anyone familiar with the bible, the heart of Judeo-Christian tradition, knows that the founders of that tradition were polygamists. And, indeed, for better or for worse polygamy is still practiced in many traditional cultures. To borrow another quote from you: "To say otherwise is completely disingenuous." Or willfully ignorant.

That's a nice try at changing the subject, cadbury. The polygamous relationship was still a man/woman relationship (not man/man or woman/woman). Even in earlier days, it was most frequent that a man had only one wife. Richer patriarchs sometimes had more. But, clearly, that was not on the ballot.
Still, for centuries in all major religions/cultures, marriage is man/woman relationship, as the majority has defined and followed and--and as several other comments have indicated above. With all due respect, did you read any of the other posts here?
According to the statutes in place today, there is no true "civil rights" issue in the state of California. Homosexuals have rights in civil unions--just has heterosexuals in civil unions or marriages would have. There IS an attempt to redefine the word "marriage." A majority has objected to that by clear vote.

Let's stop trying to dignify immoral sexual behavior with definitions like "sexual orientation." Much research seems to point to the likelihood that we would all be promiscuous sexual "alleycats" except for the influences of civilized society and spiritual values. Society is hugely impacted by irresponsible procreative sexual behavior. The legal contracts that strengthen and hold procreative sexual relationships to be responsible are and should be different from those affecting appropriately termed to be domestic relationships. For many years I taught school and was associated with several splendid teachers whose personal relationships did not meet my pristine standards but there was no conflict because in every case these teachers kept their very personal behavior whether it was heteo or homosexual activity outside marriage to themselves and openly acknowledged the strong advantages that were more possible for children raised by responsible heterosexual parents.

Marriage is not about rights it is about OBLIGATIONS. Those obligations are encouraged and enforced for the benefit of the children that almost always result from heterosexual unions. By extension, the well being of those children affects us all as they may grow to be productive, contributing members of society or destructive, parasitic criminals or bums. Look at the statistics for children from single parent homes.

Nice job on demonizing Mormons...

It was unnecessary and your article/argument hardly needed this.

So any 2 consenting adults should be able to marry???? How about John Doe 48 years old , and Jane Doe 18 years old want to marry each other. These 2 happen to be father and daughter, but who are we to judge them or deny them the right to marry. After all, he cannot help that he was born with sexual attraction to family members. You know , just an alternative life style. And this will be the next case that the ACLU will take up in the court system. This is why I say Yes to rights but ABSOLUTELY NO to calling it marriage.

Ms Estrich with all her education doesn't seem to understand that this isn't a discrimination issue, its a definition issue. Marriage for thousands of yrs has always been between male and female and sometimes with multiple males or females but NEVER between males and males or females and females. No one is being discriminated against here, only being held to a definition of something that has as she being a lawyer holds sacred, precedent. My personal opinion is that government should get the hell out of the marriage business anyway. Anyone wanting to take care of the legalities of cohabitating would get a '"civil union contract" from the government, have it signed and notorized like any other binding agreement and happily go ahead and do what ever the hell they want. Marriage is a religious endevor anyway and always has been so if you also want to be called that find some religon to do it for you. But the government should have no say in that respect, and the contract is binding anywhere in the country and would be the ONLY document recognized for legal purposes.

Dear Susan,

I read your recent column in our newspaper, as I often do, and although I have never responded to a columnist before, I am compelled to do so today.

Your column titled “The real world of gay marriage” posits that the issue of gay marriage should be determined by voters, rather than by judges. I definitely agree with your opinion on that matter. Our national founders recognized the danger of allowing any one branch of government too much power and sought the balance of that power by the creation of the three different branches of government. A liberal or conservative judge begs the question of the purpose of a judge—to uphold the law of the land, not to assert his or her own view. All judges who choose to legislate from the bench, whether we agree with their legislation or not, damage our democracy by removing decisions from voters hands. Our government was designed to be “of the people, by the people, for the people”, and to that extent I agree with you. Majority rule does not establish morality, however. The opinion of voters is nothing more than that: an opinion.

However, I was disappointed that you chose to hide behind some popular mantras in your column rather than establishing an arguable position. I would very much like to dialogue with you about some of your statements, which you offer very confidently. You made the statement that voters have nothing to lose by allowing their fellow citizens the same rights to marry that heterosexuals enjoy. How do you know? You said the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade has saved the lives of countless women. How do you know? You said that in Brown v. Board of Education, separate but equal was inherently unequal was a right decision. On what basis? I am not necessarily disagreeing, but I would like to know from where you are arguing.

First of all, do you believe in absolute right and wrong? If so, what do you believe the basis of right and wrong is and how we can know it? If you do not believe in absolute right and wrong, how do you determine that the aforesaid statements are right? Do you have any basis, outside of your own opinion, or are you indeed arguing for the morality of the majority, whomever that may be?

When you declare that Roe v. Wade has saved the lives of countless women, you are defending the over 30 million children who were definitely murdered, over 3,000 every day in this country alone, without basis. Abortion is an ugly but well-established fact in this country; the “countless” lives of women are not. Millions of women are also victims of Roe v. Wade because they have been convinced that abortion on demand is in their best interest, which is also a baseless assertion. Many women suffer from severe depression, regret, and suicidal tendencies because of their decisions to abort their unborn children. This is also a verifiable fact. To hide behind a mantra with nothing to verify it is to fail all of those women and children with your opinion.

You said that voters have nothing to lose if they allow homosexual marriage. How do you know that is true? Have you researched the effect of homosexuality in cultures in the past, or even researched the effects of homosexual relationships on the people within them, or the children connected with them? What do you believe should be done about people who believe homosexuality is wrong? Do voters indeed run a risk in refusing to support something they believe to be morally wrong, judged by a morality that was not established by somebody's opinion, or a majority rule idea, but from a fixed point outside of themselves? We already see evidence from the so-called “hate crimes” laws that once something is considered legal, we are no longer permitted to call it wrong, but are instead criminalized because of what we believe. Do you see any possible dangers?

You said that Brown v. Board of Education made a right decision. I happen to agree wholeheartedly with you in this respect; however, I do it not because of my opinion, but because it is God's opinion that all men and women are of value in His sight. Again I must ask, on what basis do you argue that it is right?

You present strong statements of belief regarding what is right in your eyes in your columns. I do sincerely want to hear from you about how you arrive at those opinions. Your assertions are little more than rhetoric or propaganda without a basis for your argument, and to lambaste others for having a different view than yours is not logical unless you have confidence in the basis of your worldview.

I am simply a mother who typed this out after putting my kids to bed for the night. I would welcome dialogue with you about moral issues, especially if you can supply me with meaningful and reliable statistics to back up your assertions, as well as the core of your epistemology.