Wow. Maybe a sense of proportion is called for.

Also, for people who think Salon is out to destroy Obama, or whatever - how many people read this site? Enough to sway the election? I doubt it. Anyway, judging by the letter-writers here, everyone has their mind made up already.

To fightthetheocracy:

I agree with most of your comments. Most of these "Republican Christians" are in for a big surprise. Jesus Christ has no political party. I also am concerned about the joining of church and state. One of the main reasons some of the original colonists came to the New World from the Old World was to avoid the persecution of forced state religion they were suffering. It will not work in a religiously diverse society. I am not optimistic about the future of religious freedom in the USA. There will never be a perfect nation while we are in this evil, sin-soaked world. Jesus Christ taught that His Kingdom is not of this world(John 18:36) The best one can do while alive on this earth is love GOD and love your neighbor as much as you love yourself and GOD. GOD IS REAL!

Salon.com's worst crime against humanity is not that it's a left wing website. Rather, it's the pretense that it's not.

Why pretend to be objective when most rational people know Salon is as far left as MoveOn.org but without the gonads to admit it.

I've been on both sides, on the left until I grew up and on the right since I did. I crossed over when I realized I loved the United States of America far more than I loved pretentious nations, and cultures, whose chief interest was to reduce us to their level.

So, please drop the objective pretense of such articles as this.

That's exactly the situation in Quebec - civil unions are the only legal thing (and gay as well as hetero couples are eligible), and any religious or other kind of marriage ceremony people want they are free to do on their own.

But this doesn't address Jim's objection. It removes marriage from the legal definition and turns it over to people to make of it whatever they want. Fine by me - but not for the Marriage Defenders.

I guess I just don't think it's worth having a big argument over a word. As for my crass language, I am so used to dealing with people who are militantly anti-gay that it sets off certain defense mechanisms. Shock seems to be the only way to get through to some people, at least that has been my experience. I am glad you are not one of them. As for whoever said the state should just grant civil unions to everyone and let them get "married" on their own, that's not a bad idea.

It seems to me that a sensible solution about "marriage," the word and the issue, is to decide that everyone who applies for a marriage license at some point in the process, if they want a legal relationship, turns in a form that creates a civil union, a state-created, secular "marriage" called a civil union. Those who want a religious ratification of that state-created civil union go to the church, temple, mosque, whatever, that they follow for a religiously blessed union called marriage, grand pooh-pah, or whatever, that is performed according to the religious rites of the institution the couple believes in. Thus everyone would start with a civil union, that would be the default setting, with all the rights and privileges now associated with marriage, and, then, if they want, the couple would have that union sanctified by the religious institution of their choice. Marriage then becomes, as it should, not a legal state, but a religious one, and a civil union becomes the state recognized legal relationship. In other words, everyone starts with a civil union and that is sufficient unto itself, and marriage is just an optional religious ceremony like baptism, confirmation, ordination, whatever, organized by religious institutions according to belief, tradition, and custom.

As a happily, monogamously, heterosexually married man, let me suggest that your standard definition of marriage is pretty narrow. For a broader definition of marriage (less attached to a specific context and applicable to humans throughout the world and across time), consider the following anthropological definition:

"Marriage: A culturally sanctioned union between two or more people that establishes certain rights and obligations between the people, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws. Such marriage rights and obligations most often include, but are not limited to, sex, labor, property, child-rearing, exchange, and status"*

*Haviland et al.

2008 Anthropology: The Human Challenge, 12th Edition.

Pastor Rick asked both Obama and McCain...."when the life of a human being begins" Obama replied...."That is above my pay grade"....This from a man who would be PRESIDENT ????? McCain...immediately chimed in with ...."at conception". OBAMA is a CHRISTIAN ???? And he want the Evangelical VOTE ????? I think NOT. Obama is working FAR ABOVE HIS PAY GRADE NOW !! Thank you John McCain for giving a truthful answer and not being coy or elusive as this SLIPPERY Obama continuously is !

You misunderstand. For one thing, I was only throwing out a question about words, which have power and utility to the extent that they mean specific things. Personally, I don't care if people start setting up housekeeping with animals. I love the English language because more than any other, it has a word for everything and if it doesn't, it'll make one up. Of course gay couples should have all the legal rights that accrue to marriage. But why hijack a word with such a long history of specific usage? If you think the importance of words is purely for dictionary freaks...fuck. I don't know what to tell you, we're just on different planets. And your insertion of the word "nigger" into the argument was uncalled for and completely unenlightening. I've spent all the time on this I'm going to. Cheers.

Sorry, I posted a reply addressed to Pete Kent that was really for Jim.