74 Comments - Warning Track Concessionaire - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 1:12 pm: Why should Iowa get marriage license fees from Illinois couples? - JL - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 1:17 pm: My answer is a resounding YES. I have yet to hear a convincing argument why two, committed people cannot access the same rights as two other loving people. To me this is not a religious issue, this is an issue of civil and human rights. History will look well upon us if we get this done. - Ahoy - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 1:18 pm: Absolutely! We need to allow same sex couples to marry or not recognize marriage at all. - D.P. Gumby - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 1:19 pm: “marriage” is a legal benefit. Either make it available to everyone or abolish it and let everyone have a legal civil union and a religious ceremony called “marriage” that is governed by whatever faith one chooses. But it’s long passed time for government to get out of the marriage issue. - MrJM - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 1:26 pm: Should Illinois amend its new civil union law to allow same-sex marriage? Because Deborah Mell’s union shouldn’t be treated as less legitimate than the union between Rod and Patty Blagojevich. – MrJM - dupage dan - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 1:27 pm: And if the churches are forced to perform same-sex marriages? It’s a litigeous society. How long before the first lawsuit is filed? Even if the law has provisions, the lawsuits will be filed. We have civil unions. That takes care of the questions regarding legalities. That is what we were told when the law was passed. No. - John A Logan - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 1:29 pm: I will take Iowa’s gay marriage law if I can have their right to carry law as well. - zatoichi - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 1:30 pm: It hurts no one. Change the fed and state tax laws and all the other items that are touched by legal ‘marriage’ rights and just be done with it. - Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 1:33 pm: Yes. Either everyone or no one. - How long before the first lawsuit is filed? - Red herring. We have a little thing called freedom of religion, a church can’t be forced to perform a religious ceremony for anyone. - Justice - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 1:35 pm: The church can call it what they may and treat it how they wish. Government, on the other hand, must treat everyone equal as to rights and benefits, and government should not be in the business of the church. If the government wants to be in the “religions” business, and dictate rights and benefits on the basis of “marriage” a religious act and union, then move even more into the foray and tax churches and all not for profit religious institutions. Either you is or you ain’t separating church and state. Let a person join with who they will, but treat all who join equal in the eyes of the law. - J - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 1:38 pm: We have civil unions already, so why not cross out “civil union” and replace it with “marriage”? They’re the same thing in every way except for name. - End discrimination - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 1:40 pm: Marriage is licensed and certified by the state, it should not be denied to loving pairs (or more-than-pairs) of people. In fact, we should end the practice of allowing churches to preform this civil function… it is a task of the JP and County Clerks and ministers who won’t do as the state says, shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate as effectively state actors. - OneMan - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 1:43 pm: Have to agree with Justice on this, what I think about it is to a large degree irrelevant. If you ask me you should be able to establish it between any two consenting adults with implications if the union is broken. But if you want to ‘marry’ someone because you are madly in love or because you want to help someone get on your insurance plan it shouldn’t matter. - wishbone - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 1:50 pm: Wow, the haters seem to be taking the day off. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 1:51 pm: wishbone, no. They’re just getting quickly deleted. lol - mokenavince - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 1:53 pm: I voted yes because the time has come for us to move on and turn the page. Live and let live. - Colossus - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 1:53 pm: Apologies for my non-sequitur post, it seems Rich already deleted the ridiculousness I was responding to. Rich, feel free to take down this and my 1:51 if you want to keep things clean. - Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 1:55 pm: Gaming trailer bill. - Montrose - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 1:58 pm: Yep. We took the first step, now we should take the second. I cannot wait for the day when it is the norm throughout the US and wonder what all the fuss was about. - Lance Stevens - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 2:02 pm: jeez 35% say no… really? I like the Church and State argument.. I agree with Montrose..”whats the fuss” - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 2:02 pm: It seems like civil unions versus marriage is a distinction without a difference. Given that the legal protections are essentially the same, and neither is recognized in other states, it seems like we’re asking whether we can call civil unions “marriages.” Unless I’m missing something, I don’t know what the difference entails, other than what we call it. Yes, we should do this. Why have two separate registries, one for civil unions and another for marriage, when it really, legally, is the same thing? - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 2:06 pm: TS, you’re banned. Don’t try posting here again. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 2:06 pm: I think the term marriage should be replaced in statute and tax code with civil union. Then allow churches/other organizations to define what marriage means to them. - Seriously??? - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 2:10 pm: It’s a question of equity and right now IL doesn’t have it. Marriage is a legal institution, not a religious one. Yet most of the arguments legislators use against same sex marriage are religious. How is THAT not a violation of separation of church and state? - Ray del Camino - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 2:12 pm: As others have said, if the state sanctions it, the state shouldn’t be about the business of discriminating against law-abiding citizens who want their relationships to receive the same government, um, “blessing.” The government won’t make your minister perform one of these same-sex marriages if he or she doesn’t want to. Should be a no-brainer. - JustaJoe - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 2:18 pm: In answer to the question - NO. Not for any particular religious reason, but for a cultural one, and for preserving traditional meanings of our language. The response from Anonymous at 2:06 is not a bad idea. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 2:19 pm: If I were a divorce lawyer, I would be lobbying hard for legal recognition of full civil union/marriage arrangements to encompass any two (or more) people. - Highland, IL - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 2:20 pm: Yes, gay marriage does not threaten my heterosexual marriage no matter what the wingers say. - Captain Illini - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 2:23 pm: I voted no only due to the fact that it seems redundant to have a Civil Union law and allow for same sex marriage, when, in law the effect is the same. If Illinois had not passed a Civil Union law, then I would have continued to support the aspect of Gay marriage. The arguments to me, though conservative, don’t hold water in regard to destruction of the tenents of marriage, since a very small percentage will take advantage of this opportunity. In the end, if two persons find love, and devote themselves to each other and make positive contributions to home, and society, then I don’t see what the problem is. - Its Just Me - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 2:24 pm: Yes. I’ve long tried to explain the differences between a legal marriage and a religious marriage. Most people think they are the same thing. They are wrong. - Down South - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 2:25 pm: Marriage is about one man and one woman so they can legitimize their birth children. No more or no less. Civil unions are for legal rights or issues. Who cares get a life. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 2:25 pm: I agree with JustaJoe. No. - Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 2:28 pm: Of course! Or, just make it all civil unions, because that is all a marriage license is. As has been already pointed out, churches can choose to marry or not marry whomever they choose. It has always been that way. I am not familiar with any lawsuits resulting from a Catholic priest declining to wed two Lutherans or a Rabbi declining to wed two Catholics, etc. - sonic infidel - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 2:30 pm: The first three posters said it better than I could have. I defer to them, but my answer was yes. - Aldyth - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 2:32 pm: It hasn’t been 1950 in a long time. Two consenting adults should be free to marry in all fifty states. - Aldyth - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 2:33 pm: And congratulations to Representative Mell. May she and her spouse have many happy years together. - Just curious? - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 2:41 pm: Same sex marriages should be legally recognized not only in Illinois, but across America. I really don’t know how anyone could be against this. Once it is legal and records tracking same-sex marriages, the data will only reveal how stupid we all are for wasting so much time on an issue that affects such a small population. Not to diminish the importance of this issue and the affected individuals, but this is only a political wedge issue and it works every time it’s played by Republicans. It’s red meat to their bible thumping base. - Dead Head - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 2:49 pm: Yes, they should have the same right to be miserable as anybody. - dupage dan - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 2:54 pm: If same sex marriage is OK’d in this state - what was the purpose for which we created civil unions? Marriage was once the province of the church. The state became involved as a means to promote the creation of more taxpayers. Maybe the marriage thing could once again become the province of churches which could then make the decision, on their own, to accept same sex marriage or not. Civil unions would insure access to all the legalities of heirship, etc. In an age where less people are getting married and more are just co-habiting, I gotta wonder why all the fuss about marriage? Maybe people think they should have the right to do something before they become more enlightened and decide that the institution is archaic and should be disdained. Interesting. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 2:54 pm: Yes. First three comments - ’nuff said. - reformer - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 3:17 pm: JL Why should marriage be limited to two people? Just askin. Small town liberal, justice, Seriosuly If same-sex marriage is the right thing to do, then were legislators wrong in voting for civil unions? Were the majority of Republicans who voted against civil unions casting the right vote? - Earnest - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 3:27 pm: Yes. It’s just the right thing to do. I’m amazed how far society has come in its attitudes towards glbt folk in just my lifetime. In another generation or two the unavailability of gay marriage will seem as unbelievable as women not having the right to vote. - Bob - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 3:37 pm: Rich, I see you removed my post congratulating Rep. Mell and Her partner and urging the people of Illinois to be open minded to people who have plural marriages. I always thought that this blog was a vehicle to freely exchange ideas on politics, government, law etc. Plural Marriages are going on all over this country and I think it is a legitimate issue, many of the people involved are not open about it because they do not want to be put into the extreme category like Polygamist sect leader like Warren Jeffs. I understand that this is your blog and you certainly have the right to delete posts that are offensive but I don’t think that anything that I wrote was offensive. - siriusly - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 3:38 pm: I voted yes. For me its pretty simple. Human beings should all have the same rights and opportunities under the law, that’s what America means to me. - Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 3:44 pm: - Maybe the marriage thing could once again become the province of churches which could then make the decision, on their own, to accept same sex marriage or not. Civil unions would insure access to all the legalities of heirship, etc. - I’m actually in full agreement with you here, DD. The problem currently is that the state recognizes “marriage” for heterosexual couples and “civil unions” for same sex couples. While civil unions certainly improved the legal rights of same sex couples, I don’t believe the state should distinguish between one type of legal relationship and another. Personally I think the government, federal and state, should offer civil unions for everyone, let the word marriage be a personal or religious term. However, until that time comes, straight people shouldn’t have a monopoly on the word marriage. Yes, it may seem somewhat trivial, but words carry a lot of meaning. If the government continues to segregate, lots of people might see that as validation of their own prejudice. - Seriously??? - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 3:48 pm: @Downsouth: What about married couples who choose not to have children? Should procreation be a requirement of marriage? - Seriously??? - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 3:55 pm: Not to mention, the whole “separate but equal” thing was shot down quite a long time ago. - Wensicia - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 3:56 pm: I think Illinois should recognize homosexual marriage before the Supreme Court says it’s unconstitutional not to accept it, but I doubt we’ll see any movement in this direction from our legislators. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 4:02 pm: Bob, I think what is objectionable is the tired analogy to plural marriage that is used to suggest same-sex marriage isn’t any different. Some people go further and agrue that plural marriage or marriage to a child, or an animal or some other outrageous hypothetical is the next step if we allow same-sex marriage. Yes, plural marriages are occuring in this country between and among consenting adults. You’ll note that, even where this happens like northern Arizona, Idaho and Utah (and elsewhere), it is only the first wife who retains any legal standing or rights. The issues of plural marriage have nothing to do with same sex marriage, but are often used to inflame the debate. I’m not speaking for Rich, but am glad his is keeping the temperature low on this thread. - Cheryl44 - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 4:05 pm: It’s a disgrace Rep. Mell had to go to Iowa to have a wedding. She should be able to marry here. - Anon - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 4:10 pm: Two words: Civil. Rights. - dupage dan - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 4:16 pm: STL, Bestill my heart. Agreement is sometimes better than rancor. =Yes, it may seem somewhat trivial, but words carry a lot of meaning= I think that is very important on both sides. For many in the church it is not possible to accept same sex “marriages”. I understand why many gays would want a marriage certificate rather than a civil union “ticket”. I don’t know how to resolve the issue short of seperating marriage from the gov’t. - Esquire - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 4:21 pm: Will there be any unintended consequences? Will the longstanding Illinois ban on “Common Law Marriages” have to necessarily fall as well? Who can be bothered with all of that paperwork from the County Clerk anyway? Residents of other states can simply shack up and claim benefits later. Life is so unfair. - ChiPolCon - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 4:33 pm: A resounding YES! Why should Gay couples be exempt from the misery of marraige? All joking aside, congratulations to Rep. Mell. Just sorry you had to leave the state to do it. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 4:37 pm: I voted no but only because I believe the State should have no role in marriage at all. Civil unions are a contract. They create legal rights/responsibilities. Marriage is another. That is a religious ceremony. I was married in the Greek Orthodox Church. The idea that the State of Illinois has any role in that facet of our relationship is ridiculous. The State doesn’t compel me to show up for Mass on Christmas Eve? Why should it have any role in a sacrament performed in that church? We need to get rid of a state role in marriage for all people. To get married, I had to go to the County Clerk’s office for a license. That license could just as easily say “civil union” instead of “marriage” and it wouldn’t make a bit of difference between my spouse and I. The civil matter is different from the religious. We need to keep them separate. On a somewhat related note, I squirm whenever I hear a right winger talk government preserving the “sanctity” of marriage. How in the world can government sanctify anything? The government can recognize legal rights, but it can’t make something sacred. - Quinn T. Sential - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 5:04 pm: {I’m not speaking for Rich, but am glad his is keeping the temperature low on this thread.} There is a fine line between temperature control and censorship; especially if there is a common thread as to that which is being controlled. What if the majority; or plurality opinion was removed from polling results, and the results were published without an acknowledgement of the omission? A false impression is created about respondent’s opinions, and that is problematic on multiple levels. If ranters are removed; one can only hope they are removed equally from both sides. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 5:19 pm: ===There is a fine line between temperature control and censorship=== Actually, no there isn’t. Censorship is a government act. My deleting comments has absolutely zero to do with the government and everything to do with the fact that I won’t tolerate craziness on my blog. Yes, my blog. It ain’t yours. - Capt Amerika - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 5:53 pm: From Wiki The rationale for censorship is different for various types of information censored: Moral censorship is the removal of materials that are obscene or otherwise considered morally questionable. Pornography, for example, is often censored under this rationale, especially child pornography, which is illegal and censored in most jurisdictions in the world.[1][2] Military censorship is the process of keeping military intelligence and tactics confidential and away from the enemy. This is used to counter espionage, which is the process of gleaning military information. Political censorship occurs when governments hold back information from their citizens. This is often done to exert control over the populace and prevent free expression that might foment rebellion. Religious censorship is the means by which any material considered objectionable by a certain faith is removed. This often involves a dominant religion forcing limitations on less prevalent ones. Alternatively, one religion may shun the works of another when they believe the content is not appropriate for their faith. Corporate censorship is the process by which editors in corporate media outlets intervene to disrupt the publishing of information that portrays their business or business partners in a negative light,[3][4] or intervene to prevent alternate offers from reaching public exposure.[5] We all know that Rich censors. Sometimes its for the right reasons nut jobs/racists but Rich will also delete comments or write columns or topics to curry favor with Speaker Madigan or some of his advertisers. This is Rich’s forum, His rules, Rich is a political operative, one of the best. - walkinfool - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 6:24 pm: Allow yes. Require religious institutions to have them, no. There is no real risk that churches will lose suits brought to require them to perform religious ceremonies not consistent with their tenets. (Not even close to the adoption state contract issues, so don’t even try.) - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 6:37 pm: ===one can only hope they are removed equally from both sides=== Dude, I’ve been deleted by Rich more times than I can count. Most people who post a lot of comments here can say the same. And it’s his blog, he can do whatever he wants with my comments, yours, or anyone’s. I’m just grateful he gives us a forum to talk about this stuff and yes, that he deletes stupid comments, most often to avoid a flame war or pie fight. Let me know if you start your own blog, and then you can have whatever rules you like. - bored now - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 6:44 pm: i believe in the institution of marriage. everyone should be able to marry (with very, very few restrictions — children under the age of consent, etc)… - Mongo - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 6:53 pm: Absolutely. Women and women, men and men, women and men, should all be able to marry one another, absent some comelling argument against such a union (not of an age to give consent, etc). This is such a ridiculous argument. And btw who the heck quotes Wiki!! - Quinn T. Sential - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 6:56 pm: {Actually, no there isn’t. Censorship is a government act. My deleting comments has absolutely zero to do with the government and everything to do with the fact that I won’t tolerate craziness on my blog. Yes, my blog. It ain’t yours.} Actually; there is, but because it is your blog you do get to draw the line wherever you want it to be. According to Merriam Webster’s Dictionary however drawing the line is not limited to a government act, and as a consequence; according to Webster’s definition you are a censor, and what you are doing by deleting comments is censorship. I have no objection to the romoval of patently offensive comments, and I actually enjoy the limitations of national party talking points. I do have concerns however; for you, not for me, if only one viewpoint is allowed to be expressed. But as you say it’s your ball and anytime you want to pick it up and go home if you don’t like how the game is played you are free to do so. I like to think your above that behavior however, and my only comment is that if the crazies are filtered out it is better to do so on both sides of the issue so that I rationale discussion can still take place. - Gregor - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 8:05 pm: I’m still trying to get over the fact that the Supreme Court thinks a corporation is the same as a person now. I consider the Gay Rights thing to be a Civil Rights issue, and whenever I hear a “they shouldn’t be able to…” kind of argument, I substitute “Blacks” “Chinese”, or for whatever was in the fill-in-the-blank, and I listen to how that sounds. Usually, it sounds wrong. Very wrong. I’m Catholic, and I think Civil Unions are fine for any folks living outside my faith. I’m actually okay with them *inside* my Faith as well, but I respect my Faith’s choice not to solemnize such a union. I’m not worried the church would be forced to accept civil unionized couples. For me the issue is, does the Civil Union law actually give all the same rights as a conventional marriage performed in a courtroom by a J.P. - or does it not? Update the listed rights, make them the same as conventional hetero couples, and call it whatever the heck you like. If you look at marriage stats, the divorce rate alone will tell you that the so-called “sanctity” of marriage is largely obsolete in the hetero community. Its a human rights issue, is what it boils down to. If a corporation can have a right to free speech and to support candidates, actual flesh-and-blood people certainly have a right to love one another, and legally bind their property and rights mutually to each other. They DO call it “the Marriage Contract”, after all. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 9:37 pm: QTS, you’re making empty allegations here. No examples, just blah, blah, blah. If you think I’m favoring one side or the other, then for Pete’s sake say so and offer up evidence. Otherwise, bite me. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 10:23 pm: ==Marriage was once the province of the church. The state became involved as a means to promote the creation of more taxpayers.== Say whatsit? When did the state do that? Who was behind it? Surely, there must have been a debate on such a controversial topic as to “create more taxpayers.” Like the Matrix or something. I voted yes, for reasons that have been stated. Still, 47, on the federal level, civil unions don’t give partners the same rights as marriage. Civil unions don’t cut the mustard when it comes to Social Security, for example. That’s due to the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act. It was pushed by Speaker Newt Gingrich and signed by Pres. Bill Clinton, two legendary champions of the sanctity of marriage. You can’t make that stuff up. - Quinn T. Sential - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 10:36 pm: Rich: I am not make any allegations, I am simply responding to what you said yourself: {- wishbone - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 1:50 pm: Wow, the haters seem to be taking the day off. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 1:51 pm: wishbone, no. They’re just getting quickly deleted. lol } You indicated that you were deleting people quickly. I was just responding that deleting people simply because they don’t share your opinion would be censorship, and my hope was that if you were deleting people that were ranting about this that you would be even handed in doing so. The people on the polar opposite sides of this issue can both get out of hand, and they each view each other as being extreme. They’re both right, but if only one side of them is being deleted then service you feel as though you are providing us by sparing us, is only half a loaf. - Downstate Commissioner - Wednesday, Aug 31, 11 @ 10:42 pm: Voted No, but ONLY because the civil union law was just passed. Let it work for a while, then amend it. I personally feel that marriage should be a religious term, and civil union a legal term, to the extent that a civil union could be accomplished just by filing papers at the County Clerk’s office without involving judges, ministers, ship’s captains (!), etc. If you wanted a religious “marriage”, then the civil union forms would serve as the marriage license. - What planet is he from again? - Thursday, Sep 1, 11 @ 8:21 am: QTS: “I was just responding that deleting people simply because they don’t share your opinion would be censorship . . .” Where does it show that they don’t share his opinion? The poster could agree with Rich 100% yet express it in a way that Rich has no choice but to delete it. Surely you know someone you agree with, but wish he/she would just shut the heck up. - Curious - Thursday, Sep 1, 11 @ 8:42 am: This is really going to mess up some jokes. Why do married men die before their wives? Because they want to. How will 2 guys decide? - Joeverdeal - Thursday, Sep 1, 11 @ 9:04 am: It seems reasonable for any sort of “social arrangement” of this sort to exist….between any combination of genders or between groups of people. Why should government have the power to decide if two homosexuals “marry” or if one woman marries two guys….or whatever??? Why should government control whether or not cross-species marriages take place? Such relationships might encourage further evolutionary progress!! - LouisXIV - Thursday, Sep 1, 11 @ 9:38 am: I voted YES. Many posters noted, correctly, that the Civil Unions law gives people getting a civil union all of the rights the State of Illinois can give to married couples. However, the federal government does not recognize civil unions (and does not even recognize legal same sex marriages thanks to DOMA). When DOMA is repealed or, more likely struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, there will still be no requirement that the feds extend federal rights to people in civil unions. The feds would be required to extend those rights to same sex married couples. Since Illinois wants to confer all of the benefits of marriage on same sex couples via the civil union law, the law will have to be changed to a marriage equality law in order to allow same sex couples to enjoy equal federal benefits once DOMA falls. As for the argument that churches should not have to marry people they don’t want to, the equal marriage law, like the Civil Unions Act, would only impact civil marriages. Religious ceremonies would not and should not be required of religions that don’t believe in same sex marriage. - Steve Downstate - Thursday, Sep 1, 11 @ 10:32 am: Simple fairness. Equality under the law. (Not to mention that I’m pro-family. When someone wants to form a family and make the commitment as official as can be, why should I object? Gay couple, straight couple — it’s still a family, and a marriage is a marriage.) - Observer of the State - Thursday, Sep 1, 11 @ 10:55 am: The civil right of marriage should be open to all committed adult relationships. The argument that it would force religious institutions to sanctify the marriage is just erroneous. The Catholic Church for many years continues not recognize a civil divorce and will not sanctify a marriage of someone previously married if it is judged the first marriage was valid. In order to remarry in the Catholic Church someone must obtain an annulment from the Church. The civil divorce is pretty meaningless to the church though to comply with the law they do require a civil divorce before issuing and annulment. If the church can ban remarriage of a man and a woman then it can certainly ban gay marriage regardless of the law. In fact a priest is not obligated to marry anyone in the church. By discretion a priest can refuse to marry anyone for any reason. Civil marriages are a human right and religious objections should not enter into the law. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.