JackM: The "marriage" union, seeks to create biological families. Same-sex unions are a biological aberration. "Contracts" link partners with common goals. Same-sex contracts should not be recognized as marriage.

formicacid: Same-sex marriages should be allowed. The only argument against them is the "it's morally wrong" one, and what is wrong for you is right for others. If it doesn't hurt you, why should you object?

AlMiller: Traditional marriages fail about half the time in this country; and when divorce happens, the person with the most to lose gets burned. The only winners are the divorce lawyers. Same-sex mariages will result in same-sex divorces. In the USA marriage has become less of a lifetime obligation sanctioned by one's moral and religious beliefs, and more of a government- sanctioned legal contract to determine tax, immigration, and welfare status. I oppose Congressional action to define, regulate, or ban ANY kind of marriage and let local community standards prevail. Understandably, many people are dismayed by the widespread failure of the traditional husband/wife/children nuclear families and want to restore and uphold tradition. In today's society, it is most important that children are raised in an environment of love and support, regardless of the sexual preference of the parent(s). At this point in time, I favor neither banning or upholding same-sex marriage at the federal level. Clinton would sign such a bill for political reasons (he is not going to lose the gay vote to Dole), but he is probably hoping such a bill never reaches his desk before November. If I was a Congressman I would want such a bill killed in committee and would abstain from voting on it. Our social evolution is not quite ready to accept legal matrimony of people of the same sex.

Stonewall: Why should Congress have the right to define what marriage is let alone WHO we should marry! As a heterosexual male, I hope to marry the woman of my dreams and live a happy and fulfilling life through love, commitment, togetherness, and cooperation. Should I or anyone else deny the same to ANYONE due to sexual preference? The Constitution of the United States guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and if that happiness is found in a same-sex marriage, then LET IT BE! Congress has more important things to do with its time, such as safety in the airline industry and fire running rampant through America's churches.

Colestock: Same sex marriages seek to provide a permanent union between people who are sexually and emotionally attracted to the same sex. Does everyone expect that banning such a union will force such people to marry someone of the opposite sex?? I see allowing these marriages as a way of providing an avenue that will stabilize many homosexual relationships, provide more reasons to remain monogomous and thereby reduce the AIDS risk in that group of people, and encourage marriage for other than providing more children to populate the earth. And the federal government needs to stay out of our homes and our relationships anyway. I am a happily married heterosexual man with children and I don't see how same sex marriages can threaten my morality or my safety and health in any way.

Kristerin: I think that if God our creator wanted us to marry those of the same sex it would have happened in the garden of Eden long before now. In the Bible it is said that homosexuality is morally wrong and is punishible by death.

grok: It seems that it's time for us to decide what a marriage is for, a union between two people that love and care for each other, or a union between people that intend to create a life together and bring that life to fruition. The latter is an easy answer, because it requires a male and female human to join with that intent, and to strive for that goal. These are the only two possibilities that can join together and in virtual certainity, create a reasonably normal and defect-free child. The former is where the problems develop.... For example, if we use the criteria of "love" alone to justify a marriage between consenting adults, then where do we draw the line? How about polygamy, incest between adult siblings or cousins, or any other form of relationships that can exist between people? In gay relationships, as well as these others, we hope for and expect that people would behave responsibly, but that is no guarantee that will comfort a 'spouse' when a STD, deformed child, or similar results. I just ask that if anyone supports gay marriage based on loving relationships between consenting adults, that they recognize that ALL forms become instantly available. Double-standards should not apply... On a personal note, I don't have a problem between responsible adults that behave in responsible manners - heck, farmers can even tell you that some individual animals can occassionally inter-breed between siblings (for example), but our science doesn't allow us to know this ahead of time. But such marriages should avoid progeny whenever possible, until we can know exactly what will happen. I guess that all things considered, it'd be easier for the next 100 years or so to let marriage be defined as between male and female alone, and let the science catch up to ALL possibilities of marriage first. -Mark H.

Bunksley: I disagree that marriage seeks to form "biological families"; were this the case, we would also have to outlaw those families who adopt. Why must there be a legality over the decision to live together in a socially sanctioned relationship? Look at common law marriage; based on the stating of a couples'belief in their roles as "husband and wife". Is same sex marriage any different?

KMorrison: No one, not my parents, friends, etc. has ever been able to tell me who I could or couldn't marry; I don't believe the government should have that right, either. Who I choose to marry is my business. Who you choose to marry is yours.

Pete_W: It seems to me that marriages were originally created to provide some method of support whilst one partner was occupied with the child rearing role. In today's society we still do not have the infrastructure to provide adequate support to anyone who wants to assume that role full time. One day marriage will not be necessary. The main consideration is the commitment to the other person - whether this is called a marriage or a contract. It is the mutual support and love that makes this commitment. We are told that we should not judge a person by they way they look so should that not mean that love can exist between two people of the same gender? or is it another of those hypocracies that plague our society? Where another's action have no direct detrimental affect on you or any other then why should that action be labelled as an abhoration? Open your minds by re-educating yourselves. Same-sex marriages are fine.

roots2: I say why not. If two people are committed to each other, why shouldn't they be allowed to be covered for insurance pur- poses and get other benefits as well.

snapple: Homosexual marriages should never be allowed in this country. Our Founding Fathers would be turning in their graves if they knew how this nation is evolving. Marriage is a sacred right given by religion. It should be kept in that perspective. Marriage was originally defined for the purpose of having children. Let's not confuse our children's children. If we allow homosexuals to marry, what's next? How about letting brothers and sisters marry? Why not allow Mothers and Sons marry? etc. Where is this country going?

MrNivek: It is wrong. I don't believe that a same sex marriage is productive at the most basic level. It's supposed to be boy meets girl, they fall in love, then get married and have kids. All a same sex marriage does is make sure each one has property rights. They can have documents drawn up for that, they don't need a marriage.

MJCameron: I don't believe we have the right to interfere in such a personal ceremony as a marriage. The law should not prohibit citizens from taking advantage of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I see no rider on that statement that says "as long as they follow the same moral/ethical code".

clongley: The next time you see a group of gang-bangers and just want to throw-up remember this; they all probably had male dads and female moms. Our values, beliefs, and actions as adults are, to a large degree, influenced by our parents and home life as children. The gender of our individual parents has a minuscule effect on us compared to how we observed their relationships to us, to the community, and to each other. A same-sex union is no more, or less likely to produce a quality citizen than a traditional one.

sheilaj: I am against same-sex marriages. Some may find this an old-fashioned answer, but, in my opinion, somes things never go "out of fashion." God instituted marriage in the Garden of Eden, with Adam and Eve. God designed marriage to be between a man and a woman. There are quite obviously only 2 sexes, which naturally, and by great design, fit together. This institution of marriage has great meaning, in God's eyes. Man was not meant to be alone - but another man was not created to be his partner. God designed a woman. Who better to know what is best for us?

pulpfreak: I think that same sex marriages should be allowed because, ultimately,who is anyone else to deny them the right? How could they refuse the right to single sex marriage and claim to be unprejudiced? There is very little difference between hetero and homosexual relationships,they can be just as responsible and caring and sometimes more so. Denial of the right to marriage and to the legal and social privileges which come with it is discrimination and should be illegal.

xiabelle: Marriage today /is/ a monetary and financially based institution, although common mores of society do tend to condemn more for being done openly for those purposes than they did in the past. Be that as it may, the purpose of marriage is more a pragmatic bond than an emotional one in a legal standpoint; how much say does being emotionally attached have, save in some situations? Now, I can't say that I would support same-sex marriages -- but nor would I condemn them. In my opinions, that is not something that should be regulated on the federal level. I'm not even sure if it /can/ be regulated on the federal level. I would, then, have to agree with AlMiller's suggestion: neither uphold nor deny the right, although that could cause some stickiness still. I, personally, do not care how two people attach themselves: I would like to get married some day, but I can't say I particularly want to have it too regulated. Societal acceptance of social practices have changed. The incest taboo (in terms of brothers and sisters, and here, first and second cousins) of course exists; it's in every society) but the same-sex unions are not quite so universally condemned or supported. Society changes. And acceptance grows. So, in summary: keep it off the federal level, and let the states do it if they /have/ to regulate it. But I don't see much need just right now.

msattler: Ever since I first started to have independent thoughts on things like this, I've never had a problem with the gay lifestyle, so when the question of sanctioning homosexual relationships with the law came up, my immediate reaction was favorable. Why not? I think we'll all agree that the goal of marriage is to have successful, mutually beneficial, stabilizing structures within which people can live their lives; and as far as I've seen, the gender or sexual orientation of the participants guarantees nothing about the quality of the union. I've seen lousy heterosexual marriages, and great homosexual ones. But when I really started thinking about it, I wondered whether it's necessary - for purely cultural reasons - to take the step of federal legal sanction. I would have no problem with private entities, or even states, offering tax or other financial benefits to same-sex couples, and I'm certainly in favor of monogamy; but I don't think the country is ready, culturally, to accept gay marriage on the same grounds as straight marriage *in one fell swoop*. Using the courts to force social change is a misguided 60s-era tactic that circumvents the democratic process, and the slow evolution of cultural mores. During the civil rights era it may have been justified because of the apartheid-like conditions that prevailed in certain parts of the country - real damage was being done on a human rights scale. This is different. Acknowledging same-sex marriages won't end gay bashing, will it? Someday, perhaps, so many people will support same-sex marriage that our federal legislature will be politically able to make a law sanctioning it without jeopardizing their positions - as the consitution intended. Until then, let the change happen slowly, on the local level.

rhoades: Who married Adam and Eve? What are you fools talking about? There wasn't even such a thing as marriage -- they were living in sin according to your dumb Christian morals.

arima: Just to make a correction to a previous comment: Adam and Eve were not living in sin, their union was sanctified by God Himself and that's what marriage is essentially. It's called "holy matrimony" for a reason. But since people can now be married by a judge, the sacrament has lost its sanctity which is probably why people can easily give up their commitment to each other because they do not take marriage seriously to begin with. They marry for all the wrong reasons. As if that's not bad enough, now they want to recognize same sex unions. If God wanted us to be able to do that, he would have made us hermaphroditic, like the earthworms. I don't see why the homosexuals want any part of a legacy that was born of the tradition of religion with all its so-called "dumb morals", morals for which they have no respect. Why don't they just find a good lawyer to devise some meaningless term for the collaborative venture they want to embark upon that will justify the tax breaks they need and leave the sanctity of marriage alone. Let them do what they want to ruin their life, and break break God's law. No one's trying to tell them what they should or shouldn't do, not anymore because they've stopped listening but why should they get recognition for it. No one can force them to become hetero-sexuals again but the guilt is on us if we continue to make it easy for them to do whatever they please. Soon we'll have no more morals left to erode. God help us all then.

DianneO: Seems to me that an awful lot of people don't understand what marriage is all about. A lot of the comments on here and the divorce rate in this country proves that. Anyone who believes all marriage is is a financial issue CERTAINLY should never be married nor understands marriage.

Moran: I think a lot of people in this country need to grow up. Adults may do as they please. There really shouldn't be this religious issue at all here, I mean there a lot of people who think there is no such thing as god. Even if there were, would it care what the heck we were doing? The universe is huge. We are tiny. This is the United States of America for pete's sake. "Moral decline", sheesh give me a break. The problem of our "moral decline", whatever the hell that is, has nothing to do with two men or two women getting married. And if you believe that it does, then grow up.

Twinfinity: Marriage has no place in politics and government, pro or con. Is it a matter of religious sanctity to you? Congress should make no law recognizing or restricting marriage as a religious institution -- First Amendment, simple and clear. Biological arguments are really teleological arguments: Were man and woman "meant" to be paired one to the other, monogamously? If you argue the Bible, you're back to religion. If you argue evolutionary design, please note that the human body has evolved to derive pleasure from many different sources ("polymorphous perversity," as Freud wonderfully described babies). Do you say it's not about pleasure, but about child-bearing? Please. Shall we federally nullify all infertile marriages?

It's time to de-mystify the institution of marriage -- re-think its origins, give it an overhaul or the heave-ho. If you need a ceremony and a certificate to create a bond with another person, you're doing it wrong. Same thing with education and too many other processes. Our society has a plank up its fundament over categorization: Are you MARRIED? Did you GRADUATE? Are you OVER 18? (21, 35, 65...) It seems society at large doesn't accept any kind of progress if there's no photo-op.

Kimmy: Marriage marriage marriage. I can't actually figure why it is people are so desperate to get married in the first place, but, I definitely think that if that IS what people want to do, the government should have absolutely no say in the matter. I can't understand why people feel so threatened... by something that is between two people and no one else. The arguments that marriage is for procreation are very puzzling to me. Should there be a fertility test then? as prerequisite to obtaining a marriage licence? I mean, if you can't pump em out, I guess you shouldn't be wasting people's time getting married! As for all the worries about incestuous marriages and the like, what's the big deal? How does preventing people from getting married stop them from behaving in the way you deem unacceptable? Do you think that it keeps them from falling in love, having sex, becoming a family? Not a chance.

MendelS: I don't see anything wrong with same-sex marriages. Even if I did find it "wrong", that does not give me the right to tell someone else that they can't do it. I am a heterosexual woman and hope to someday meet and marry a wonderful man and spend my life with him--and be happy. Everyone has the right to be happy--whether in a same-sex union or an opposite sex union. It is a decision for each individual to make and no one else has the right to make that decision for them.

KBlack: I feel that the governmet has no right to tell us what type of person we should marry whether the question is race or same sex. I do believe that we all make choices depending on what our beliefs are. For myself I feel I feel it would be wrong according to the bible. The choice lies with the individual. We are all sinners and no sin is bigger than the other but we must acknowledge what we do wrong and ask for forgiveness.

Cloric: I think that Congress has itself made this point moot. A recent article revealed that Barney Frank's gay partner was issued a spousal id card...isn't this a indirect admittal of the right to a same-sex marriage? I hope so, b/c I want to be able to marry the person on my wishes in a couple of years...

earthcrone: There seem to be two issues here. First is the very pragmatic problem of couples living in a committed relationship who do not have the financial safeguards provided by the state in marriages now licensed and recognized, such as spousal health insurance, provisions for inheritance in the absence of a will, tax breaks, etc. For instance (and this really brought it home to me!), I have a very dear friend who had been living with another dear friend for the twenty or so years that I had known them. While they were vacationing together abroad, one of the men died suddenly of a heart attack. The initial nightmare of getting the body back to the US, which evidently required certain signatures from a family member. I don't know how my friend managed that, but eventually he did. Then, his partner's will could not be located. These men had bought their home together, and it was nearly paid for. It was in both their names. Hi The other issue is spiritual and social. For a lot of couples, it is important to have a formal declaration and dedication of their relationship to endow it with their sense of commitment to each other, as well as having a ceremony to help the community recognize their union. This is emotionally vital to a lot of people. So my feeling is that same-sex couples should have the legal recognition of their union, and if they wish it, a separate dedication and commitment that would not be covered by any law but their own spiritual counsel.

Clothilda: Straight guys talk about "institute of marriage". Gay guys are worried about their own happiness, because many of them find the marriage necessary to feel happy. You Americans should decide what is more important - another "institute" or the happiness of many of your citizens. When a state prefers "institutes" it hardly can be called democratic, you know. And... you Americans are too much influenced by religion. Thank your God, that He's Jesus, but not Allah. If he would be Allah, America would be a great Iran now.

buch1: This issue is really about money. There are two types of marriages. The first type of marriage occurs between people in a mutual understanding, respect, and commitment for one another. It can be recognized through religion of custom, but it is most real to the people involved. The second type of marriage involves the federal and various state governments. It servers to census and divide people into groups. It determines your Tax status. It determines the legal benefits the involved parties are entitled to. It has nothing to do with the love and commitment people share with one another. And, until the federal government can arrest you for sharing an apartment or house with someone, anyone can participate in the first type of marriage. If, it is recognition from your church that you want, well the federal government is the wrong place to go (Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion . . . ).

cyberqueer: It boils down to a simple issue of equal access under the law - gay people are being denied the benefits (and tax disadvantages :-) of legal marriage. My partner was just laid off from her job - I wish like hell I could cover her under my health insurance policy, but since we can't legally marry, I can't. Religious arguments have no place in political decisions. I would love it if marriage (the religious institution) were completely separated from marriage (the political/financial institution). In fact, it'd be great if the government got out of the marriage business altogether, and all couples of whatever persuasion had to obtain all the benefits currently afforded to married couples individually. Given that that is very unlikely to happen :-) the simplest approach would be to just let gayfolk marry.

grok: Someone wrote: "Who married Adam and Eve? What are you fools talking about? There wasn't even such a thing as marriage -- they were living in sin according to your dumb Christian morals." Guess what - according to that same Bible, these folks weren't even Christians! Catch up on the facts if you're going to critisize someone's religion... Besides, i always figured that if God said it was okay, then it wasn't a "sin" Another wrote: ""Moral decline", sheesh give me a break. The problem of our "moral decline", whatever the hell that is, has nothing to do with two men or two women getting married. And if you believe that it does, then grow up." You're right, in the "BIG PICTURE," such things probably don't mean much when taken only one-at-a-time... BUT, they're as much an 'indicator' of our morals and what we're willing to lower our standards to, as the spotted owl is an 'indicator' of IT'S enviroment. Most of the "ills" of our society can easily be traced to a lowering of standards across the board and on all issues. Who knows, if history hadn't proven such, then this would be little or no issue at all? And another: "Is it a matter of religious sanctity to you? Congress should make no law recognizing or restricting marriage as a religious institution -- First Amendment, simple and clear." Time for someone to get out their copy of the Constitution.... (is anyone REALLY this mis-informed???) Let's all recognize this "movement" for what it REALLY is - a way for otherwise non-legally recognized partners to derive financial benefits from inheritence, company, or governmental sources... no more and no less. The old adage "follow the money" REALLY applies here.... Otherwise, all we're talking about is people's ideas of "sin" - and those ARE protected by our constitution. Keep doing whatever makes you happy, but keep your hand out of MY wallet!

kennyo: Being a gay male haveing been in a relationship for 31 years, I do not agree with same-sex marrage. A few pesudo-marrages I have seen lasted no longer then if they had just moved in together until something more interesting came along. I would prefer to see laws passed giving tax breaks and medical rights to unmarried couples, homosexual AND heterosexual couples who have been together for a specific period of time. But, as long a there are bigots in government who lead with their own ideas and not what might be the best for the community, this issue will turn into a gay issue, and the hetero couples will lose out also. Case in point, Long Beach councilman Jerry Schultz, when the issue of rights for domestic partners was introduced, made it a gay issue using every bigoted cliche in the book, plus some really idiotic statements. So, with small-minded politicians like this throughout the country and in federal government - it will be not happen in our lifetime. Long Beach

TedDBdmn: As a young gay male who has been in a relationship going on five years, I want to know why our love for each other is trivialized. I've heard comparisons of same-sex marriage to absurdities like a human entering marriage with an animal. I'm outraged at that, and trash like that is only going to encourage me to fight for equal treatment for everyone: gay or straight.

channah: The government should have no say in who I or anyone else wants to marry. The person I chose to marry is not going to hurt you or affect your children, so why should you decide who I can marry?

dawnchristine: Same-sex marriages should not be banned. The government should not regulate who a person loves and respects.

ahnberg: I think it's okey for members of the same sex to live together, to marry and to do whatever they want. I don't think letting them go as far as adopting children should be allowed though, that's just one step to far.

kf0yn: The name of the bill in Congress is the "Defense of Marriage Act" Why does marriage need to be defended? Does the fact that I might want to marry John or Alex really have any effect on your marriage? BTW, marriage is about more than procreation. It's about recognition and encouragement of caring relationships!

Sossity: I don't think the government should have any say in who gets married to whom. Marriage is a personal commitment, and, frankly, we shouldn't have to ask the state's permission to get a marriage licence. That's just silly. It implies that the government doesn't trust people to take care of their own personal associations. However, because heterosexual couples are allowed to marry, it is discrimination on the basis of sexual preference not to allow homosexual couples that same right. If you oppose homosexual marriage for moral reasons, that's fine for you, but what gives you the right to impose your morals on anyone else? Everyone deserves to have exactly the same rights in marriage as everyone else, no matter what their sexual preference. No more, no less.

andreamer: First of all, for you who are arguing against this on religious grounds, you're talking as though being gay, lesbian or bisexual automatically precludes Christianity. It doesn't. There are gay people who grew up in just about every religion, and recognizing that they are not straight does not mean that they give up God. Sometimes the church casts them out, but sometimes the church is more reasonable than that, and there is always the Metropolitan Community Church...

However, this is not relevant to the discussion at hand. Do you as a straight, married, religious person feel that government approval has anything to do with your being married in the eyes of God, your family, and your community? The marriage took place in the church, right? The license was just a formality, a bit of paperwork.

People already get married to members of the same sex. It happens all the time! They may call it a marriage, a commitment ceremony, a holy union, a handfasting, or some other term I haven't run across, but the idea is the same -- sharing their joy, love, and commitment with family, friends and the community, and possibly one or more dieties. And even those who haven't had a ceremony often consider themselves to be married.

Do you really think that whether you think they're sinful or not matters to these people?

What does matter is the issue of civil rights. People are trying to make this out to be strictly a money issue. Money is part of it. Another part of it is the guarantee that their families will not be broken up, that their children will not be taken away (and gay men and lesbians do raise children, and they're turning out fine.) Marriage would mean that hospitals could not keep loved ones out of a hospital room because they're not "immediate family". Marriage would mean that partners could get health coverage as a family. Being legally married to someone means you're no longer at the mercy of courts, insurance companies, and other institutions that can decide your fate based on the whims of whoever's in charge. The fact is, heterosexuals get a vast array of rights and benefits with just a blood test and a trip to the county courthouse. Couples of the same sex want these rights, too.

dante: I don't see any problem with same sex marriages. If two people want to live together and enjoy the privileges and obligations of marriage, then they should be allowed to. This whole "sactity of marriage" argument that the conservatives are offering is crap. It is a lame defense based on some outdated Judeo-Christian ideas on "family values". It is a cop out used to make hetero marriages look like the only credible ones. Straights are scared and this fear is manifesting itself in legislation like this.

Twinfinity: Grok wrote: "Is it a matter of religious sanctity to you? Congress should make no law recognizing or restricting marriage as a religious institution -- First Amendment, simple and clear." Time for someone to get out their copy of the Constitution.... (is anyone REALLY this mis-informed???)

Please excuse my obvious paraphrasing of the First Amendment. The original text reads, of course: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... I do hope I didn't step out of bounds by tailoring the text for this topic.

To emphasize a point I made before: No law in our country should even refer to marriage. (Commonlaw marriage by a judge is just stealth religion. And marriage licenses...oooooh. Just a heinous abridgment of our rights, and functionally incomplete. Why, I ask, can't the husband also change his name? Why can't either party change their first names? What a kludge. It's just an excuse to collect money.) Since the practical consequences of marital status are one's tax status, health benefits, and inheritance, it's time to: (1) eliminate marital-status codes in the tax system, (2) keep letting companies decide for themselves who gets health benefits (some companies would happily exclude spouses, and it should be their right to do so -- and the public's right to raise hell over it) but keep the federal government neutral on the subject (probably by covering only the worker and not any others), and (3) remind everyone to write up a will. Yikes, I don't have one myself...I'd better go do that.

CamilleU: I'd like to respond to a statement above about federal regulation of social institutions. Msattler states that "During the civil rights era it may have been justified because of the apartheid-like conditions that prevailed in certain parts of the country - real damage was being done on a human rights scale. This is different." How is this different? How is denying gay citizens (an estimated 10% of our population) access to the social institution of marriage any different from apartheid? Remember the days of "white only" and "colored" drinking fountains? Remember the arguments that, "Sure black citizens should have the right to vote, but that doesn't mean I want to share my drinking fountain with them"? Many of the comments to this Tripod survey ring of a similar surface "acceptance" or "tolerance" of homosexuality without the willingness to demand legal and social equality for gay citizens.

99zjg: Tax breaks? Sanctity of marriage? I don't see how anyone can argue that marriage has always been sacred and only now is it being threatened by weakened American morals, etc. For thousands of years marriages have been arranged (forced) between children of different clans, kingdoms, tribes, countries as pacts, cease-fires, business deals, and appeasements. When an English prince and French princess marry, it is for love or politics? Perhaps in cases such as this, god's approval is given through his divine highness, the king. I agree that marriage should be a loving union between two consenting adults, but it has never been just that. A loving, committed gay marriage is infinitely more sacred than a hetero marriage that never had a chance. As a heterosexual male, I believe that giving a legality to marriage trivializes the love behind it and weakens the "institution" of marriage. The government, by creating a legal status for marriage, not only validates, but encourages the abuse of marriage that is so evil. With marriage carrying a legal status, I'm sure that recognition of same-sex marriages would allow hetero-roommates of the same sex to marry as a business venture. However, when marriage is nothing more than a statement of lifelong love and commitment between two (fertile or infertile, male, female, or half-and-half) people, the Good Lord will be happy.

delmonteM: well let me first say I feel that anyone has a right gay or otherwise to get married the main reason that congress is voting against same sex marriages is that every one of them feels that jesus or god does not condone being gay and I couldn't agree more I am straight my self and proud of it but the point is we built this country on the basis that everyone has a right to there religious opinion and I feel gay people everywhere are being denied that right and mind you one of my friends is gay and although I personaly could not date another man I would not even for one second deny that he has a right to pursue his own sex preferance that is what the word fredom is all about and i think capitol hill has lost sight of that word.

nightbird: I think same-sex marriages should be allowed. Think about it, what if the shoe was on the other foot. What if the whole world thought that same-sex marriages were the norm and different sex marriages were sick and preverted? How would you react? If two people really love and respect each other for who they are, and want to share their lives together, then let them be happy and live in marital bliss.

rwgaston: This answer takes little thought. the answer is NO. Let's stop this foolishness and get back to basic values. what species other than man experiences such rot. This is not acceptable from a biblical view nor a moral view. Let's get this nation back to the values that made it at one time a great nation. I realize that this is not the politically nor the socially acceptable answer.That's too bad. Why lend respectability to one more immoral act?

GooRoo: GooRoo

Same sex marriages

Is, to me just another area where self appointed authorities can say to another person "You should think and live like me!" Just another excuse to get up in anothers face; no matter what the case is.

The the sooner we all stop that type of thinking the sooner we can all *live* period. Then we will be able to live out our own destinies. This, of course takes into account that "you have the freedom to swing your arms as far as you wish to, as long as they don't hit me (physically) in the nose."

Paul McCartney said it best, that we have taken the idea of "live and let live" to "live and let die".

And if I did the HTML properly...this shouldn't look too bad!

krupp: Anyone who doesn't admit that our modern notion of marriage is grossly different from what it was once "intended" to be is either ignorant or lying. Things change. Marriage is one of them. Deal with it. I think it is a crime that same-sex marriage isn't already completely legal.

hjacobs: Same-sex marriage is as stupid as same-sex motherhood. Don't get the "special" status of marriage confused with an ordinary secular contract. Marriage requires husbands and wives-- ordinary contracts don't need them. Why change the meaning of the word, "marriage"? H.Jacobs

Big_Toe: I am in favor of the Government's decision to pass this particular bit of legislation. Not that I am in favor of not recognizing same sex marriage, but because this bill will stop a few people from making an end run around the constitution, and dictating to state and local governments, and their communities what they can, and cannot accept as moral, or just. With this bill, the issue must come before a public mandate, not the interests of a few loud voices.

JLAM: I think same-sex marriages are gross and I think it should be banned.

eric_p: They should NEVER be tolerated. Same-Sex marriages were never meant to be! It's a contradiction towards everything the human race is. We are living in a world that must become more efficient Losing society to such a childish, thoughtless, disgusting concept of mating with our own kind. It's almost a horror movie or something off X-files or Star Trek Why does the "responsible, modern" government even consider such an idea? Because some humans have rights too? Well They're NOT Humans! Thank you for this opportunity to express my opinion

benjie: Same-sex marriages are condemned in the bible, so I think this bill would finally address that fact.

Mur: responding to "snapple" -- our Founding Fathers would be turning in their graves if they found out that we have given blacks and women the right to vote. Times change. If marriage is just to create babies, why not pass a law that requires couples to produce at least 2 children or be fined? Why not set the best studs to the best mares? Gee, was Hitler wrong after all? Love between two people is not going to hurt me. Let them do what they will.

DCDan: In an earlier message, Grok made the incredibly hypocritical statement that gay marriage is solely a way to derive financial benefits and that gays should keep their hands out of straight America's wallets. If you truly believe that (which I doubt, because the argument is so ill-conceived), then the question arises: what, exactly, would I be taking from your wallet that you aren't already taking from mine? This sounds to me like SPECIAL RIGHTS for heterosexuals! Listen, dear, if you want to argue the economic aspect of this issue, don't attempt to bring "special rights" into it. Heterosexuals have no room to talk about the "pink menace" of gays gaining special rights. We just want the same rights you have.

sandro: I feel that the federal government who hasn't had any part of deciding standards for marriages should keep out now. People say that one can have the seem type of situation through a contract or domestic partnership situation. This is simply not true, through marriage you recieve about 213 or so additional benefits. If they with to have marriages reserved for heterosexual unions then they better offer same-sex marriage wouldbies some better deals. This is blatantly un-constitutional, discriminating and denying the constitutional rights of millions because of religious beliefs.

Gaveedra: I think it is truly o-kay to have same sex marriages, what is so big we have already recognized that their are gays and lesbians with the same rights as everyone has this is simply the next step, if they are in love let them be.

valarie: I feel that it would break down what little ethics that people still have I have nothing against gay people I just feel that people should keep their sexuality to themselves. If people are worried about their assets and other things going to someone else when they die that is what they make wills for and also you can buy an insurance policy and make anyone a beneficiary. I see no reason to change things now.

JStorm: Should same sex marriages be legal? It is truly unbelievable how some people just love to force their religious and moral opinions on other people. Why should it bother you if someone of the same sex gets married. Will you lose sleep over it. If it does, you should seek some help. Is it the godly thing to do? Well, a lot of people dont believe in the same god that you do. Is it socially correct? I dont think that any of us have the right to decide that. I read through most of these letters and I'll tell you who I think was the most dead on. No opinion. Its not my place to say if it's right or wrong. Will it affect my children? I don't think so. As a responsible parent, I teach my children what is right and wrong. And I give them the chance to make their own decision. I'm really tired of people trying to force their opinions on me and my family. Get a life and stay out of everyone else's. If we start creating laws based on individual and personnal opinions, this country will be no more than a dictatorship.

thought: Whether they are born with the trait, decided the lifestyle was for them or whatever it was that made them how they are, homosexuals are simply, just as any other person in the US, excercising their freedoms and experiencing life in a manner in which they find suitable for them as individuals. Laws cannot stop love, and I, knowing several gay people, know that they do love and care for each other as I do my girlfriend.

KatCam: Same-sex marriages should be recognized. A license makes it legal to the public, but what really matters is that it is a union between two people who love each other. It shouldn't matter what gender you are. Nowadays, more people are letting their sexual preferences be shown and I am 100% supportive. Hiding in the "closet" is not necessary anymore. Americans in particular need to lighten up and accept the fact that two people of the same sex can love each other and have the most beautiful relationship. Many Fortune 500 companies are getting the right frame of mind by now offering benefits to the same sex partner/spouse. Just because you believe that marriage is between a male and a female, doesn't mean that everyone believes that. A marriage is between two people whom are commited to one another and are there to support, love, and fulfill each other's needs, what ever they may be. American's need to accept the fact that some same-sex are sometimes more "binding" than heterosexual marriages.