Marriage

I was reading on Outside the Beltway how Michael J. Totten applauds Andrew Sullivan's decision not to vote for President Bush's reelection based upon the President's stand on gay marriage.

I applaud Andrew Sullivan for placing his vote based upon an actual issue. I don't support his position and I disagree with statements he made.

"Bush's endorsement of antigay discrimination in the U.S. Constitution itself is a deal-breaker. I can't endorse him this fall. Like many other gay men and women who have supported him, despite serious disagreements, I feel betrayed, abused, attacked."

Statements like these are disingenuous. The fact the President does not agree with changing the definition of marriage doesn't connote discrimination, nor is it fair to say it is ANTI-anything. I find it unfair to consider his desire to put the matter before congress somehow discriminatory or anti-anything. There is nothing discriminatory about wanting to preserve the definition of marriage. It would be just as easy, and just as ridiculous, to call Andrew Sullivan Anti-Marriage.

Andrew Sullivan is playing the victim a bit hard too, in my opinion. I have never met the man and I am trying to disagree respectfully. I have to say though, straight people as a whole worry a lot less about gay or straight than you might think. It should also be noted that the President has never given anyone reason to believe he would support gay marriage. He's always been quite clear on that - so I don't understand the feelings of being "betrayed, abused, attacked."

Voting for John Kerry makes even less sense, if the reason for the change in vote is this one issue. John Kerry doesn't support gay marriage either. He's made that clear in several speeches. The difference is, Kerry can only promise what he will do or not do. He doesn't have to actually DO anything to get your vote. I am not sure I'd find that very reassuring. I heard him totally suck up to a gay interviewer for a show that was intended for a gay audience, but check every answer on the subject he has made before that interview. Against gay marriage.

I do not support changing the definition of marriage, but I am sypathetic to several of the issues I have heard raised to support federally endorsed gay marriage - things like survivorship and deathbed decisions.

I would be much more comfortable with leaving the institution of marriage to the churches and changing any necessary legislation to ensure that benefits are not automatic for anyone. If you can find a church to marry you to someone of the same sex, and some churches do, so be it.

Any of the benefits you want as a life partner to someone else - be it your 90 year old twin sister, your soulmate, your partner or your spouse - should require the same criteria to establish. Civil benefits don't make a marriage. You want to talk about seperating church and state - there is your chance to do it.

I don't fear gay people marrying. While society doesn't benefit in the traditional sense (kids) from a gay union, there are a lot of man-woman marriages these days not benefiting society either.

What I fear is laws being created by judicial fiat, rather than allowing the checks and balances we have been assured by the structure of our government. If only one branch of government is involved, this will be another issue decided upon without allowing the people to be heard.

That's not right.