Gavin Newsom, the 40-year-old mayor of San Francisco who famously made gay marriage legal for a brief period in 2004 before the California Supreme Court stepped in, is engaged to his girlfriend, the actress Jennifer Siebel, 33. (You can learn everything you've ever wanted to know about her, from the death of her sister to her affection for Jane Goodall here on her personal website.) Mayor Newsom's formal engagement to a woman (he proposed while they were vacationing in Hawaii -- how much more old-fashioned can you get?) just goes to prove how traditional marriage will continue to thrive in spite of the existence of gay marriage -- as will affairs and divorce, which Mr. Newsom also knows something about.
Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for years now, with no evidence of damage to the institution of marriage. As of this week, New Hampshire is upholding civil unions. Meanwhile, all of us straight married people have not had our rights infringed upon by the slow extension of marriage to our gay counterparts, have we?
And we suspect that even if (when?) gay marriage becomes legal across the country, there will be no end to the nuclear family -- nor the bickering car trips and in-law visits that go along with it. Being married is wonderful and hard, and more people should do it, not less.
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 2)
16. Well, the short answer on what rules are gone(for lack of a better term), I would say start with the source-- the Bible. I understand that probably you were looking for something a little bit shorter, maybe even something with bulleted points.. If you seriously are wanting to learn a little more about this, I can try to find a book or website that talks about it. Let me know.
To answer your second question, let me start by saying this can definitely be a tricky subject. Personally, as a Christian, I am obligated to follow my governments laws and the commandments of the Bible (The Bible commands me to follow law of the established government over me). I don't believe I have any obligation to follow laws set forth by other religions if they are not laws of my government.
I'm guessing you are asking about the flip side of that. If a religion requires it's following to kill people of other religions, then I should understand why they want to kill people simply because I am of the mindset that if I have to follow my religion, then they would have to follow theirs. It just happens (in this theoretical example) that this action is in sharp contrast to my religious believes. Also, if those people are given religous freedom in America, how can we tell them they can't follow their religion??
Christianity teachs respect and love for all people. I cannot force you (or anyone else) to believe the same things I do. History has proven that over and over.. people have tried using force for a long time (Christian and non-Christian) and it never really changes people's opinion. It might cause someone to say or do that which is expected of them to avoid punishment, but that's about it. All I can do is try to love the people around me and show them someone cares.
That's precisely why argueing on the internet seems frivolous to me. No one is ever going to change anyone's opinion. Also, this is why politics is such a hard thing for me--it's not possible to regulate morality or a belief system. But at the same time, I, as a Christian, want to keep people in office that will stand up for what I believe. A perfect example of that is abortion. Abortion stops a beating heart, so I consider it murder. I want people who will protect the unborn child to be in office--my goal is not to push my believes on someone who wants to have an abortion. If abortion was outlawed, that would be the case, though. It's like a lose-lose situation.
Seems like a lot of rambling, but not much answering.. sorry if I answered something you didn't care to hear about.
Nathan at 8:57PM on Jan 4th 2008
17. Hey, Alan, I forgot to mention--thanks for the chance to explain my beliefs. Most people immediately tune me out when they find out I'm a Christian.
Nathan at 9:14PM on Jan 4th 2008
18. #16 - Nathan - I do appreciate that you are taking the time to get back to me. While I have never read a commenter write that they suddenly realized they have been wrong all these years, my own views have matured as a result of reading the back and forth. For the handful of nut cases out there, the opportunity to vent may keep them out of the clock towers. So that's good on both counts.
Abortion is a good example. The discussions I have read have helped me understand why people feel the way they do. On that subject, too bad we can't work together to eliminate unwanted pregnancies. My opinion is that, "Just say 'No!'" programs won't work.
Unfortunately, your guess about my question was not correct. I was looking for Nikki's thoughts on why, if the New Testament limits on a marriage being one man and one woman should be our secular law, should the Torah's dietary laws or the Quar'an's prohibition of alcohol not have the same weight. I will guess that your answer will not match Nikki's.
For your offer to find a website showing the Torah's religious laws that have been dropped, I do have an intellectual curiosity, but would probably just look for the ones that still apply, but are not being followed in order to call a select group of people claiming religious grounds for being our leaders, hypocrites. I will assume that you have better things to do with your time.
alan at 9:28PM on Jan 4th 2008
19. Holy cow, I've posted 2 responses and neither one is showing up.
The answer to your question is they should not be implemented into our law. This not because one religion is better or more right than another, but because our government was setup for our elected officials to create laws in accordance with the will of the majority of the people. (If one cannot make decisions that is good for all people, the decisions should be made in a manner that will benefit as many people as possible). In regards to the same-sex marriage, eventually the public opinion will sway one way or another and the majority will rule out, just like our system wad designed to do. WHY people believe what they believe has no importance in the answer to your question. I'm sure Nikki is doing what she can to try to persuade people to believe like she does, just like you are trying to pursuade her to believe like you do (I assume that is your intentions, forgive me if I am mistaken.).
I mean seriously, do you see Americans letting someone take away their beer?! :)
I appreciate your honesty in regards to the rules that "religous" leaders are supposed to be following. I would prefer not to spend my time researching something that will be used to run someone's name thru the mud. I do enjoy intelligent conversation with people who have different opinions than me. An organized exchange of information is always a good thing for anyone who comes to the table with an honest intent to figure out the truth and not to prove himself/herself to be right.
Nathan at 11:56PM on Jan 4th 2008