Bismarck, North Dakota News

" Wondering if... suggests that rather than attempting to apply marriage law to same-sex relationships if a domestic partnership or civil union model would be more accepted by lawmakers and the public. The domestic partnership model is one that is used by many Fortune 500 companies, public universities, and some local governments to provide some limited protections for gay and lesbian families. The civil union model is what Vermont has had since 2000, and it appears to be working very well. There is an important deficiency in both of these models: neither provides substantially similar protections to the institution of marriage. While domestic partnerships permit same-sex couples who meet certain criteria (living together for a certain length of time, commingling finances, jointly owning property, etc.) to provide some limited benefits, usually health insurance coverage for their partners (frequently at the couple's personal expense). A civil union legally entitles Vermont couples to enjoy the benefits of most, if not all, Vermont laws relating to marriage, including state tax benefits, inheritance rights, property rights, family insurance benefits, etc. However, there is a broad range of federal benefits that neither of these models have the ability to provide for couples who would register as either domestic partners or a civil union. Moreover, marriage acts as a social lubricant, giving those who are married social and economic advantages that are frequently intangible, but very powerful. For this reason, I argue that there is nothing that comes close to the marriage relationship in our culture. People who are shut out of any opportunity to place themselves within the context of the marriage relationship are at a great disadvantage in so many ways. "

" To "Beesh" it is apparent that you are attempting to use faulty secular arguements.Beesh, not one of your "secualar reasons" is only related to same-sex marriage. Each and everyone takes place in all aspects of society, and none of which would increase by legalizing marriage for same-sex partners. As for STD's the last study I saw stated that it was hetrosexual women who have the highest rate. Many homosexuals are in and have been in committed relationships for years, much longer in some cases than most marriages between hetrosexuals last. Personally, I have a friend who has just celebrated a 35 year anniversary with his partner. A cousin and his partner have just celebrated 22 years together. In my opinion those most at risk for contracting STD's in this area of the country are those young teens who are out engaging in risky sexual behavior, while their parents spend their days and nights at the local bar. This sadly is a regular occurance in this rural state. As for drugs and alcohol, there are facets of all groups of people who abuse these. Of course some among the homosexual population use these, but by far not the majority, just as with any other grouping of people. As for suicide again, any grouping of people, though it's little wonder why when you constantly have others screaming in your face that you are evil, damned, an abomination etc, while in some cases being disowned by your family, during your already confusing and difficult teen years that suicide rates would appear high. "

" Ya know, it is really pretty obvious when you stop to think about it. Gay and lesbian human beings are told they are awful, they have to sneak around to be who they truly are, some people go nuts at the thought of actually allowing GLBTs in commited loving relationship to be honored, they can lose their jobs, be hated by their unaccepting parents, be beat up, killed or worse. And then someone says they have a higher suicide rate than straight people and that they may be prone to alcohol abuse. No duh!! It is obvious why! The best way to make this work is to honor gay and lesbian relationships with marriage. It is time North Dakota. This is from a native, life long North Dakotan who is sick and tired of all the hate running rampant. "

" Beesh, did you even read those articles you posted in support of your argument? This one, http://www.narth.com/docs/nursing.html, describes the discrimination homo-sexuals face in attempting to receive healthcare. That hardly seems like an article you would want to cite in order to support your argument for further discriminating against them. To clarify, your current stance is that since healthcare providers discriminate against this group, and because some guy at your church said you should too, you think it is ok to discriminate against them. Does that sound right, cuz that's what I'm hearing? "

" More gay men getting married = more women for the rest of us. "

" To "Beesh" & "Never happen here": I live here as well and don't think it's right for the majority of the country's population to blindly follow a religion that makes absolutely no sense based, solely upon "faith". Furthermore, I find absurd to think that these individuals, incapable of thinking for themselves and leaning on their religious crutch, are attempting to control other peoples lives; much as their own lives are controlled by their "faith". It disgusts me to see these mindless sheep blindly following some zealot, screaming "praise jesus". You are the first to judge everybody you consided different, despite the teaching of your faith that only "god" an judge. Finally, you "condemn" these individuals to "hell" for their actions, even though you own religious teachings clearly state that is not for you to decide. What was that famous quote from your made-up book again? Something like "Let he who has to sin cast the first stone?" It's nice to see that a "good christian" like yourself follows your own teachings so well. Heterosexuals commit suicide, should they then be banned from being married? Heterosexuals abuse drugs and alcohol, should they then be banned from being married? Heterosexuals get divorced, should they then be banned from being married? Heterosexuals abuse children (more so that gays as a matter of fact), should they then be banned from being married? I hope you realize how stupid your arguments sound. Just because you are weak-minded and need a religious crutch to lean upon and provide you guidance, does not mean that your narrow dogmatic views hold any power over others. It would seem to me that if any group were to be excluded from marrying, it should be "christians". In that way, we prevent future generations of brain-washed bigots. "

" To a point, everyone of "Beesh"'s comments on the state of gay relationships are INCORRECT. There are no nationally recognized studies on the viability of gay and lezbian relationships. "

" We live in the country, people here do not believe it is right for same sex marriage. The thought of it to most people disgusts them, me included. Do what you want to do but don't expect the same benifits as real married couple. Or move to another state because it's not going to happen here in the great state of ND. "

" But prepare to be pounded. "

" Websites addressing secular concerns about gay unions. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1 http://www.narth.com/docs/nursing.html Seems there are more down sides than upsides. "

" To Megan, Keri and Deb, In other posts I have given a secular reason why the gay lifestyle and their marriage is a detriment to society. Gays and Lesbians have a higher suicide rate than straight people. Their lifestyles and practices make them more prone to injury and illness. STDs are rampant in the sexually active gay community. The rate of alcohol and drug abuse is higher than non gays. Monogamas relations and now after the illegal unions in Massechusetts and Washington state, have a divorce rate that is at the same rate as hetorsexuals. The chances of child abuse is a concern in same sex relationships. The courts have no ways of mediating gay breakups because they are not recognized as married or even common-law relationships. There are the secular reasons. Now about the viseral comments by Meagan. I hear you all calll us "religious bigots". That is interesting, because the religious community is not out to destroy any gay person, we are out to educate and direct them back to a moral lifestyle. Your condemnation of us only lends me to believe that you are "non-religious bigots" The reason marriage does not seem to be sacred anymore is because it has been hijacked by spineless clergy who don't want to 'rock the boat", by litigators who bottom feed on cases to allow everything under the sun to be considered normal, by people like yourself who immediately condemn us for actually doing what is right. This fear of what's right is apparant in your language. Don't be chastising the mirror that points out your flaws. Fix the flaws. "

" I just want to encourage all Christians out there to continue loving the Lord. That is all that matters here. It is all in the Lord's hands. Seek wisdom and truth and understanding in his Word for yourselves. Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding, in all ways acknowledge him and he will make your paths straight. "

" Finally someone has stood up to the relgious bigots that seem to abound here in ND. The idea that marriage is "sacred" is such a joke. Half of marriages end in divorce, yet how often do we hear that divorce is tearing up the moral fabric of American these days? Not too often anymore, because it's become so routine, so to suggest that this "sacred institution" needs to be upheld is laughable when so often it fails. Ms. Miller is right when she says that if marriage were really about procreation, then 80 year old would not be allowed to get married. People have a problem with gay marriage not because same sex unions are not based in procreation, but because they are so entrenched and brainwashed in their own religious ideaology that they simply cannot see past it seek to impose their personal beliefs on others through our secular justice system. In the US you can believe whatever you want, but you cannot force your convictions onto others through by sanctioning them into laws onto others who don't share them. Do churches have the right to refuse to marry two persons of the same sex? Absolutely YES. If churches want to discriminate based on such silly things as a person's sexuality, the hat they might be wearing that day, or their favorite flavor of ice cream, they are entitled to do so. The first Amendment provides for freedom of speech and a church's members have every right to establish any rules they wish concerning their beliefs. Does the US government have the right to deny any same sex couple one of the most important rights as citizens? Absolutely NOT. Our founders included the Establishment Clause for a reason, to keep our government secular and out of the hands of the church, as they had experienced under England. Religious beliefs have no place in government, so even though all these Christians wish to force their own outdated beliefs on everyone, our wonderful Constitution forbides it. That is the whole problem these people have with gay marriage; it contradicts their religiously brainwashed view of the world and they are so indoctrinated that they cannot be open minded and see that all citizens of the USA deserve to be treated as first and not as second class citizens, as our homosexuals now because our government denies them a basic right of their citizenship simply because of their sexuality. It is no different than discrimination against African Americans in the twentieth century. I won't ask anyone who believes that gay marriage should be prohibited on the basis of their religion to agree with me, because they will never be able to shed its control over their own true thoughts, but I will quote Bob Dylan in saying, "the times they are a changing", and someday in the not so distant future gays and lesbians will be able to claim their full rights as citizens, and there's nothing you can do to prevent it. "

" Ms. Miller, I completely recognize and agree with much of the fight for homosexual marriage. However, there are two concerns that I have and would like to add to your article. Firstly, I have never heard procreation as a reason for denying marriage in this argument. Perhaps I live in a cave on this issue or I have never listened to the argument because it is ridiculous. However, on said issue, I think it is important to recognize the psychological and developmental importance of having a male and female rolemodel in a family raising a child. If same sex couples accept this and make sure their child (should they adopt) has adequate role models of each sex, then I have no problem. Let me point out that I think it is equally important for single parents to provide a second role model to their children. My second issue is with the attack on those against homosexual marriage. I know many who are against it because their religion explicitly prohibits homosexual behavior. They are taught to be accepting and loving towards everyone, including sinners, but to them homosexual marriage is the equivalent of taking the locks off the car door and leaving the keys in the ignition; in other words, love the sinner but don't make sinning easier for them. I am not saying that this is my opinion, but I think in all this acceptance banter we all need to realize that the arguments against are not an all ignorant, bigoted attempts to make everyone the same and ostricize those who are different. The opponents are just as passionate and in love with their faith (at least the ones I know; I know there are some out there who are ignorant, bigoted etc)and sometimes the delicacy used towards the proponents is not echoed towards the opponents. Take it or leave it, that is their faith and they have every right to fight for what they believe in, just as much so as the gay community can fight for their beliefs. Sensitivity is not one sided. "

" Following are actual excerpts from Loving vs Virginia 1967, Supreme Court Summary. Based upon the Supreme Courts ruling, regarding interracial marriage, please pay special attention to why's behind the decision. Please, feel free to research the case for yourselves, in which it states, "no legislative reasoning for denying marriage" as well as arguments from the bible for preventing. I have yet to hear a single arguement against same-sex marriage that is secular in nature, remember personal religious beliefs are just that personal. Hence, by this case, Same-sex marriage will eventually prevail legally at the national level. For those with personal religious reasonings only, please remember that the majority of our founding fathers were in fact deists, also if you might recall the Treaty of Tripoli, begun under Washington and completed under Adams, "As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." If you will recall the Bill of Rights was designed to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority, when that will would infringe on the rights of the minority. Please, remember that if nothing offends you each and every day.....you do not truly live in a democracy. RICHARD PERRY LOVING et ux., Appellants, v. VIRGINIA 388 US 1, 18 L ed 2d 1010, 87 S Ct 1817 Argued April 10, 1967. Decided June 12, 1967 A husband, "a white person", and his wife, a "colored person," within the meanings given those terms by a Virginia statute, both residents of Virginia, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws, and shortly thereafter returned to Virginia, where, upon their plea of guilty, they were sentenced, in a Virginia state court, to one year in jail for violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. Their motion to vacate the sentences on the ground of the unconstitutionality of these statutes was denied by the trial court. The Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed. (206 Va 924, 147 SE2d 78) On appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the conviction. In an opinion by WARREN, Ch.J., expressing the view of eight members of the court, it was held that the Virginia statutes violated both the equal protection and the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause. These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State "

" Hallelujah! Finally, on this beautiful Sunday, someone speaks the truth! THANK YOU Ms. Miller! My meth addicted neighbor and his wife were issued a marriage certificate without question and that is fine in America. But if my gay uncle wanted to marry his partner, with whom he has been in a loving and committed relationship for 20 years, they would be tearing apart the "moral fabric of America." Thank you for clearing up the problem, Ms. Miller! "

" maybe we need to make a law that would address that kind of partnership, instead of that type of relationship falling under the law of marriage, perhaps it would be better to make a new law so that same sex partners could still make a legal commitment to each other. Recognizing difference is important, but it does not always have to be negative. the old laws of marriage could remain and a new law could be added to benefit those who wish to make a commitment to a partner of the same sex. "

" So much for breakfast... "