It's basically telling gays and lesbians that we're not accepting them into our communities.' 'I think it should be legalized because I don't think there's any basis for differentiating between genders with regard to civil marriage.
I'm very liberal, and I'm not religious — so I think as far as the law is concerned, religion shouldn't play any part.' 'Even in my family there are disputes about same-sex marriage.
I'm thrilled that the marriages haven't been overturned yet.
It's both a political and a legal issue: the law has tools that should allow such marriages to stand, but politics will probably prevent people from applying the law that way.' 'I'm against it because I am religious, and it's part of my beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman.
The prohibitionist argument is in fact a biblical one; the heart of it was stated by Dennis Prager in an essay in the (“Homosexuality, the Bible, and Us,” Summer 1993).
When the first books of the Bible were written, and for a long time thereafter, heterosexual love is what seemed at risk.Lifting bans in those areas, while also disallowing anti-sodomy laws and providing information about homosexuality in publicly supported schools, would put an end to the harm that gays have endured.Beyond these changes, Sullivan writes, American society would need no “cures [of homophobia] or reeducations, no wrenching private litigation, no political imposition of tolerance.” It is hard to imagine how Sullivan’s proposals would, in fact, end efforts to change private behavior toward homosexuals, or why the next, inevitable, step would not involve attempts to accomplish just that purpose by using cures and reeducations, private litigation, and the political imposition of tolerance.Leviticus puts the matter sharply and apparently beyond quibble: Thou shalt not live with mankind as with womankind; it is an abomination. Sullivan suggests that all of these injunctions were written on the same moral level and hence can be accepted or ignored .He does not fully sustain this view, and in fact a refutation of it can be found in Prager’s essay.My religion says it's not OK, but I personally sympathize with [those couples'] frustrations.We should respect what other people want to do with their lives — whatever makes them happy, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.In 1993 the supreme court of Hawaii ruled that, under the equal-protection clause of that state’s constitution, any law based on distinctions of sex was suspect, and thus subject to strict judicial scrutiny.Accordingly, it reversed the denial of a marriage permit to a same-sex couple, unless the state could first demonstrate a “compelling state interest” that would justify limiting marriages to men and women. But in the meantime, the executive branch of Hawaii appointed a commission to examine the question of same-sex marriages; its report, by a vote of five to two, supports them.The legislature, for its part, holds a different view of the matter, having responded to the court’s decision by passing a law unambiguously reaffirming the limitation of marriage to male-female couples.No one knows what will happen in the coming trial, but the odds are that the Hawaiian version of the equal-rights amendment may control the outcome.