The issue of gay marriage, including the amendment to the Texas Constitution that specifically denies recognition of same-sex marriage, appears headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. Some people compare the gay rights movement of today with the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Is this an apt comparison pointing to loss of individual rights, or are there valid reasons to say recognition of gay marriage is not a right?
The most important factor is what does the Bible say about the subject?
What is right and wrong must be determined by the word of the God of creation. Any acceptance of behavior contrary to his written word is disobedience. It doesn’t matter that the behavior is acceptable to Dale Hansen, Ellen DeGeneres or Barack Obama.
— Billy Caldwell, Fort Worth
Defenders of segregation in this country started out using religion (the Bible) to defend black Americans’ second-class citizenship.
When that didn’t hold up, they used the “it’s tradition” defense, claiming that integration would destroy society.
Finally, they resorted to states’ rights.
Sound familiar?
— Lisa Daly, Bedford
I would never treat a gay person with hostility or rudeness. However, the Extreme (Supreme) Court, liberal judges or some gay rights group can cook up all the laws and regulations they want.
The Lord gives us the leeway to live our lives as we please.
It is evident the current liberal administration considers the Bible obsolete, the same as it does the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
— Jerry Johnson, Fort Worth
There are two issues with gay marriage; the marriage itself and children adopted or awarded.
The child issue is far more important than the marriage issue. Evidence is accumulating that children of such marriages become gender-confused at a far greater rate. A boy needs a father to learn to be a man. He cannot get this example in such marriages.
Read the biographies of grown children of gay unions. The harm done to children in such unions is far more important than the union itself.
— Curt Lampkin, Azle
There are laws created by God, natural and spiritual laws, which cannot be broken but can be defied with unalterable consequences.
Marriage was ordained by God as a union in flesh and heart of a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation with the benefit of fellowship and companionship. To defy God’s established standard is a moral wrong.
We are already seeing the negative affects of this in our nation: divisions, disorder, and confusion in our courts of law, and policies for businesses, education and the military.
May we open our eyes and humble our hearts to God who established these eternal laws for the very purpose of peace and order over his creation.
— Kathy Drennan, Fort Worth
There is no doubt that gay marriage is a civil and human right.
A wise person once stated, “There can be no freedom until we are all free, and no equality until we are all equal.”
To limit “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” to anyone is an affront to what our country is supposed to stand for.
— J.W. Sullivan, Arlington
I have been and will continue to drink the straight Republican Kool-Aid. However, many of my dear friends who claim to be constitutional conservatives seem to overlook that gays and lesbians have the same rights as any other citizens.
Not allowing them to marry is unconstitutional.
Many say this is a religious principle. And I certainly understand that, but this decision is about a citizen’s right based on legal equality, not morality.
My educated guess is that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in favor of allowing gay marriage in short order.
— Gary L. Horton, Keller
Calling same-sex unions “marriage,” whether by legislative act or judicial decree, does not make them so, unless one first denies what virtually all human cultures and religious traditions have affirmed: that marriage is, by its very nature, exclusively heterosexual.
Surely we can uphold the right of same-sex couples to enjoy the full benefits of domestic partnership without presuming to “redefine” marriage which would set an unfortunate legal precedent for even more outlandish “redefinitions” in the future.
— James B. Misenheimer III,
Trophy Club
Do partners in a same-sex marriage have the right to offend the sensibilities of those whose religious beliefs hold that marriage is between one man and one woman?
Since no Texas law forces any citizen into a same-sex marriage or denies recognition to the religious vows of one man and one woman, what’s the problem with gay marriage as a civil right?
For civil society to work, citizens often have to get out of their comfort zones and adjust to new social realities.
— Sarah Dolbier, Fort Worth
No, I do not believe that gay marriage is a civil right. Race and sexual preference are not even in the same universe. Legally recognized civil unions should adequately afford same-sex couples the rights they are demanding.
— Vicki Tidwell, Burleson
There is a straightforward “secular” reason why gay marriages should not be recognized.
States recognize marriages for the purpose of providing specific privileges because of the perceived benefit to the state. The benefit to the state of marriages is the procreation and raising of children. There is no other reason why the state should be compelled to provide those special privileges.
Gays cannot procreate; ergo, no marriage benefits. Also, the state has the right to make a determination as to the best arrangement for raising children.
This is not a question of “rights,” but of the state being able to make prudential distinctions.
— Thomas F. Harkins Jr.,
Fort Worth
One has a tendency to segregate against what does not fit in one’s level of acceptance.
Civil rights was mainly about pigmentation of ones skin. It was easy to see whom to segregate.
Can anyone really tell who is gay and who is not? In my days in the military we had open squad-bays, one slept in the bottom rack the other on the top rack, community showers, community restrooms. As I think about this today it really was one for all and all for one. Yet no one crossed our personal space.
AZ Gov. Jan Brewer was using religion as the reason for almost signing a bill that would allow vendors to not serve gays. That, in my opinion, would be open discrimination.
Live and let live... you may have to answer to a higher court tomorrow.
— Joe Rodriguez, Arlington
No other people in American history have experienced the level of injustice, cruelty and disdain as have African-Americans. Based on centuries of mistreatment, I am convinced that if homosexuality existed only among African-Americans, there would be no herculean effort, as is now being employed on behalf of gays and lesbians, to end inequality and discrimination.
As African-Americans continue the ongoing fight for equality, justice and recognition of their civil rights, gay and lesbian Americans, now engaged in a fight for the same, have remained shamefully silent in their lack of public support and acknowledgment for the African-American struggle.
— Peggy A. Shelton, Fort Worth
Comments