Why Gays Should Be Allowed to Say "I Do"





Ms. Dalton is the author of Theodore Roosevelt: A Strenuous Life, which has just been published in paperback by Vintage.

In The Music Man Robert Preston leads concerned citizens in singing the classic American moral reform ditty "YES, WE'VE GOT TROUBLE, RIGHT HERE IN RIVER CITY," and we keep singing that song as a nation. The current debate over our moral trouble here in River City resonates with progressive moral anxieties that troubled Theodore Roosevelt and his reform allies--resonates very well, indeed! But the danger to the moral fiber of America a hundred years ago was not gay marriage. Marriage was under siege then, but its imagined attackers were different villains!

Moral reform groups like the Woman's Christian Temperance Union (W.C.T.U.) believed marriage was jeopardized by Mormons who practiced polygamy as a danger to the institution of marriage. They had objected to Utah being admitted to the Union as a state because they believed women were oppressed by plural marriage. The Senate for a while refused to seat Utah Senator Reed Smoot over the polygamy issue. TR opposed polygamy because he believed marriage should be between one man and one woman, not one man and several women.

TR also opposed easy divorce, as did many religious groups, including the National League for the Protection of the Family and the Interfaith Committee on Marriage and Divorce because they believed it weakened the bonds of marriage. In TR's time many states would grant divorce only for desertion or adultery, but in Reno you could get quick divorces for incompatibility and other grounds. Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Baptists supported TR's efforts to establish national marriage laws to provide "all possible safeguards for the security of the family." TR especially hated the people of his own class--upper, that is--who engaged in scandalous affairs and then went to Reno to rid themselves of a succession of spouses. He took marriage seriously and believed that socialites did not. So he wanted to make it harder to get a divorce.

On December 3, 1906, in his Sixth Message to Congress--as State of the Union addresses were known at the time--President Theodore Roosevelt proposed a constitutional amendment to protect marriage:

From Mesages and Papers of the Presidents

The amendment was designed to defend the institution and to standardize American moral practices. It did not pass. In TR's time moral reformers feared that polygamists, serial divorcees, club women active in politics, amusement parks, demon rum, and many other threats would destroy marriage. When they complained about the danger to marriage posed by materialism and hedonism they may have been getting closer to the truth. TR also worried that poor working conditions and the failure to pay workers a decent wage might undermine morality and the institution of marriage.

I believe recent studies have shown that divorce often follows the loss of a job. It is not clear to social historians that the right to divorce undermines the institution of marriage. Despite the assertions you hear in today's equivalent to progressive moral reform circles that women working and women having more rights causes divorce, it is not clear that divorce is directly related to either. In my book Theodore Roosevelt: A Strenuous Life, I offer more detail on this.

Now, the more intriguing question is--does asserting federal authority over moral or personal questions really defend an institution like marriage, if, in fact, it is an institution in trouble. America's biggest experiment with federal moral reform was Prohibition and while it may have cut down on cases of hospitalization for cirrhosis of the liver for a few years and arrests for drunk and disorderly conduct, we pretty much agree it was a failure, if not counterproductive.

Legislating for morality may have worked in the case of civil rights, when enforcement followed the legal dictum, as in the case of discrimination in public transportation. But when it comes to saving the institution of marriage by picking on a very small percentage of the population (6-10 percent are gay or lesbian and only a small percentage of those people want to marry), why would any politician choose to take a stand against extending the blessings of marriage? Obviously, it's an election year and President Bush is playing to the Christian Right activists who got him elected.

Does anyone seriously believe that we will strengthen the institution of marriage by passing a constitutional amendment to keep a small group of people from getting married? I personally favor marriage and lifelong commitment as good institutions for most people, and I recommend it to my gay and lesbian friends who have long-standing loving relationships. It seems to me the federal and state governments should support legal attempts for people to maintain deep loving commitments toward each other, especially where there are children involved. So, although I would concede that many progressives like TR would probably line up behind President Bush's moral grandstanding in an election year, I think they would be wrong. In fact, what they are doing is pandering to the homophobes and gay-bashers who constitute more of a threat to our society than the couples who want legal rights to marry.

Related Links

  • Letter to the Editor of the Washington Post: On Dec. 12, 1912, Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry (D-Ga.) proposed this amendment to the Constitution:"Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians . . . within the United States . . . is forever prohibited."
    comments powered by Disqus

    More Comments:


    van h ellslinger - 2/6/2010


    Gays and Polygamists have a similar type of cowardice.
    They both need group sex to find peace from the fears of everyday life. Gays have a well known reputation for promiscuity and polygamists live a orgy lifestyle spreading bodily fluids from one to another. The sharing of the body sexually may create a frivolous relationship, but Gods love will never be had that way. If God supported promiscuity then the city of Sodom would not have been obliterate, killing all the people , men, women, and even infant children, the only time in Biblical history God annihilated even the children. Polygamists are the same kind of cowards as homosexuals, unable to live in the world without the orgy lifestyle.
    If we had adopted polygamy globally we would have had more wars, because women have historically given birth to more male babies. That’s why throughout history all wars were fought by men only, and male death rates have always been higher in every category. Polygamy would have caused more wars and the ferocity and intensity of the wars would have been much worse. Thank God for keeping polygamists from prospering. S.I.M.P.L.E. surplus intelligent male population life elimination! Men coveting women would have created a larger shortage of women in the prewar nations increasing the frequency of war.


    gem farrar - 3/18/2005

    gay marraige rulesss


    Sachi Edwards - 8/15/2004

    Promiscuity is high in the general male population.

    Whether or not homosexuality is a choice (and that has not yet been proven) is irrelevant...After all, aren't people of different religions and beliefs granted the same rights by law? Saying that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can become heterosexual is like saying that women shouldn't be allowed to vote since they can have sex change operations...they have to live with the consequences of their choices, right?

    Nothing prevents someone from marrying another person and having a sexual relationship with another (or several other) people, if all partners consent.


    Sachi Edwards - 8/15/2004

    "Oh, I see. Democracy is fine- just as long as you and the other progressives agree with the results."

    Well, isn't America a democratic republic (as opposed to a democracy)?


    Sachi Edwards - 8/15/2004

    "Oh, I see. Democracy is fine- just as long as you and the other progressives agree with the results."

    Well, isn't America a democratic republic (as opposed to a democracy)?


    Sachi Edwards - 8/15/2004

    Promiscuity is high in the general male population.

    Whether or not homosexuality is a choice (and that has not yet been proven) is irrelevant...After all, aren't people of different religions and beliefs granted the same rights by law? Saying that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can become heterosexual is like saying that women shouldn't be allowed to vote since they can have sex change operations...they have to live with the consequences of their choices, right?

    Nothing prevents someone from marrying another person and having a sexual relationship with another (or several other) people, if all partners consent.


    Josh S Narins - 4/6/2004

    I implore you, all of you, stop eating crustaceans.

    They are an abomination.

    Not content with snowpeaks, like the abominable snowman, crustaceans infest Fish Markets, Grocers, and Restaurants. Your Children will be Exposed to Crustaceans at the (boo!) Government Schools.

    Please read http://g-dHATESshrimp.com today.
    (replace - with o above)

    Crustaceans are a bigger issue than even abortion. The alliance of Gays, Atheists, Communists and Crustacean Eaters, a.k.a. Hitlery and the Dummycraps, must be stopped.


    Josh S Narins - 4/6/2004

    "born gay": wrong. proof: athens, sparta. treat women like dirt and you get dirty women and men who prefer something else

    "gay marriage": you don't like gays? get rid of your democracy, same proof, athens and sparta. Personally, I'd dump "true believers in the literal word" before gays, since the Bible treats women like dirt.

    "crypto-statism" : I say the government can't walk into Church and tell the Preacher who, before them, can marry.

    "bio-messiness": XXY, hermaphrodites, those who change by of their own volition, the government can't walk into Your Body and tell you what gender you are, and therefore, who you can marry.

    "polygamy": I think legislation distinguishing gay marriage and polygamy/polyandry is trivial, and the slippery slope people are grasping at straws. The government might not be able to really tell what gender you are, or what the Church can do, but the a Government (although the Federal?) could easily say "two people, max" (and through the tax code, they already do).

    "bestiality & children": canard. neither has legal will, so can't enter a contract in any event


    Josh S Narins - 4/6/2004

    I implore you, all of you, stop eating crustaceans.

    They are an abomination.

    Not content with snowpeaks, like the abominable snowman, crustaceans infest Fish Markets, Grocers, and Restaurants. Your Children will be Exposed to Crustaceans at the (boo!) Government Schools.

    Please read http://g-dHATESshrimp.com today.
    (replace - with o above)

    Crustaceans are a bigger issue than even abortion. The alliance of Gays, Atheists, Communists and Crustacean Eaters, a.k.a. Hitlery and the Dummycraps, must be stopped.


    Nancy Tann - 3/3/2004

    I think this whole polygamy argument takes the focus off gay marriage quite handily.


    Name Removed at Poster's Request - 3/2/2004

    Thank you, Derek, that was well put. I thought the last paragraph was especially strong.


    Tim Fisher - 3/2/2004

    'least of all minorities that are minorities because of whom they choose to have sex with'?

    Er... no. They are minorities because they are born gay, whether they have sex or not.


    Jesse David Lamovsky - 3/1/2004

    Oh, I see. Democracy is fine- just as long as you and the other progressives agree with the results. If you don't, than it's time for judicial tyranny- all in the name of "protecting minorities" (in this case, the made-up "right" of one man to "marry" another) from us mean beatle-browed right-wingers. Heads-you-win, tails-I-lose. Pretty neat (if you're a progressive).

    By the way, as I understand it, the U.S. Constitution is simply a document that clearly delineates the parameters of the authority of the Federal government. It says absolutely nothing about regulating moral affairs in the states. Certainly it says nothing about "protecting minorities", least of all minorities that are minorities because of whom they choose to have sex with. I like to think I have a fairly good understanding of the Constitution. Do you, Mr. Ball?


    Derek Charles Catsam - 3/1/2004

    Beyond the stupid attempt to draw an analogy between gay Americans and polygamists (Do some people here really not see the difference? Are the rudiments of suspect categorization, strict scrutiny, classes of people, and underlying historical questions of bigotry actually lost on these folks? I find it especially interesting when people who have fought the good fight here against antisemitism -- a fight with which I have joined consistently on HNN) I find this whole argument to be playing out perculiarly. first off, I do not see this as an issue of state or federal rights as much as of civil rights. denying rights and priviledges to straight people and not to others is prima facie a form of discrimination in violation of the 14th amendment. One can make the monumentally stupid argument that polygamists are somehow an anologue with gays, but that doesn't make it true or right. Sexuality is not simply something one does, but is an inherent part of who one is. That many conservatives now are going to try to use the constitution to legislate reveals to an enormous extent not only their hypocrisy, but more to the point, their bigotry. Further, I don't buy this State's Rights argument either, inasmuch as whenever anyone raises the question of States' Rights, one ought to ask the simple followup question: the states' right to do what? We established long ago that the states do not have the right to violate the 14th amendment.
    I further wonder exactly how committed gay couples deciding they want to get married does anything but strengthen the institution of marriage. If your marriage is threatened by gay ceremonies, you need to look in the mirror and ask yourself about the strength of that relationship to begin with. Straight folks are doing just fine making a mockery of marriage on their own, thank you very much. I am curious as to whther this amendment will include criminalizing adultury and divorce in order to protect marriage, or if it really is simply open season on a particular group of people who want to express their love and commitment in the traditional way. I think I know the answer.


    David C Battle - 3/1/2004

    Think about all those secret polygamists out in Utah paying taxes, and his wives without medical insurance! It's a travesty.


    David C Battle - 3/1/2004

    I've never hear of polygamy involving goldfish. But I have heard of polygamy involving people, all capable of granting their consent.

    And how long, I wonder, before consent is no longer necessary for the moral relativists such as yourself.

    It's all relative isn't it?


    Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach - 3/1/2004

    I have no problem with gay marriage personally, but given the moral/religious/ and person sensitivities to the subject, I think the States should be allowed to decide. So long as at least one state accepts gay marriage, let the entire gay community of the country either move to that state, or use the democratic process to change the law.

    There should be no federal law, and certainly no constitutional amendment, which would do exactly what conservatives have been complaining about for years with abortion: ramming a national edict down the throats of every American in the country.

    I should point out, by the way, that I have nothing against Bush proposing such an amendment: that is also a part of the democratic process and I plan on urging my Congressmen to reject it (does anyone really think 2/3 of the Senate will actually ratify this thing? Think again). What is happening around the country is a tribute to democracy: Courts are invalidating laws that are counter to the State constitution (as is their most important obligation) and the people of that state are responding by pushing through State Constitutional amendments. This is how the system was meant to work and it is doing that just fine.


    Alan R Ball - 2/29/2004

    Anyway, if progressives have so much confidence in the goodwill of the people, than why are they so afraid to put issues like abortion, affirmative action, and gay "marriage" before the voters? When have we, the people, ever had a chance to vote on these issues? Why must these things be forced down our throats by unelected judges?

    I would guess, perhapst, to protect minorities?

    If left to the voters, I guess the Brown v. Board decesion would have taken a little longer?

    Unelected judges? That's the Constitution for you...always getting in the way.....


    Tim Fisher - 2/29/2004

    It is a personal choice (like abortion, or like homosexuality itself)?

    Like i said earlier, homosexuality itself is not a personal choice. People are born gay and i welcome that they are more accepted these days than in the days when many gay people were forced into denial and got married to members of the opposite sex. As you can imagine, these would have been pretty miserable marriages for both sides, and even worse if there were children involved.


    Brandt Driscoll - 2/29/2004

    The democrats unfortunately do not deviate much from our president. They oppose same-sex marriage. They are content to have states discriminate against couples based upon gender.

    Only Ralph Nader and I presume Congressperson Kucinich support the idea of not restricting marriage to heterosexuals. Another indication of the limited choices we have in this duopoly. I note that the gay and lesbian community is going to give the democrats a pass. While it may be strategically wise to ignore a lesser of two evils, I would have hoped that the democrats would be pressured to drop their discriminatory treatment against homosexuals as well.

    I also argue that polygamy is not more or less inappropriate than other forms of consensual marriage.


    Jerry Lee Bowyer - 2/29/2004

    Her definition of which marriages should approved by governments would seem to include much that is not currently on the agenda of anyone who is a regular panelist on the Jerry Springer show (yet). Still, it was interesting to see the stuff about TR. I wonder how long it will be till the left drops him as their favorite Republican.


    Brandt Driscoll - 2/29/2004

    I would not restrict it to two people. I think for us to deligitimize the possibility of possible married partners is restrictive thinking. Many cultures practice polygamy and polyandry.


    Jerry Lee Bowyer - 2/29/2004

    This history is fascinating and well researched, as we would've expected, but what precisely does the history of TR's involvement have to do with the 2nd part of the essay which seems to be a series of unargued assertions against GW's amendment. Increasingly this board is filled with historians who use their status as historians to simply bash bush. It's become a sort of moveon.org for people with PhD's.


    Robert H. Holden - 2/29/2004

    It is hard to take Kathleen Dalton's argument very seriously. She seems to want the reader to think that that "history teachs" that the federal government cannot (or should not -- it has hard to tell) regulate marriage. But the evidence she submits is practically nonexistent, and by the end of the piece it is clear that she really isn't interested in doing anything but announcing her opposition to "homophobes and gay-bashers." A cathartic experience for her, no doubt, but rather disappointing to her readers.

    A more serious matter is her opinion that "I personally favor marriage and lifelong commitment as good institutions for most people, and I recommend it to my gay and lesbian friends who have long-standing loving relationships. It seems to me the federal and state governments should support legal attempts for people to maintain deep loving commitments toward each other, especially where there are children involved."

    Now, THAT is interesting. Ms. Dalton, please, please give us your reasons for favoring "marriage," "lifelong commitment" and "deep loving commitments" and especially for your astounding idea that the government should "support" people in their efforts to live this way.

    Could this be something you learned in the course of your historical research? Are there other reasons (i.e., non-historicist ones) that lead you to believe these things? Why aren't you worried about the dangers of legislating morality? Please tell us more!


    Jesse David Lamovsky - 2/29/2004

    Mr. Fisher,

    As for as the controversy surrounding Judge Moore is concerned, whether you think the Ten Commandments are relevant or not in this day and age (and in this day of legalized baby-killing, I suppose you're right- they aren't) is in itself irrelevant. The display of the monument passes muster with the U.S. Constitution and, as far as I know, the Alabama Constitution as well. The removal of the monument by Federal authorities, on the other hand, was in clear violation of the 1st, 9th, and 10th amendments to the United States Constitution. Nuff' said.

    Like you, I am straight, and I certainly do not consider myself a "homophobe". I have no religious sentiments, and I like to think I treat people as individuals. Unlike you, however, I believe that the majority of people in this country, while tolerant of homosexuality and homosexuals, are not ready to take a position of advocacy toward the practice. Allowing gays to "marry" would constitute just such an advocacy.

    Anyway, if progressives have so much confidence in the goodwill of the people, than why are they so afraid to put issues like abortion, affirmative action, and gay "marriage" before the voters? When have we, the people, ever had a chance to vote on these issues? Why must these things be forced down our throats by unelected judges?

    And please, Mr. Fisher, don't tell me that getting married is a basic human right. It is not. It is a personal choice (like abortion, or like homosexuality itself). Far be it from me to cast aspersions on peoples' choices, but let's not confuse them with rights. To amend a state, or a national, constitution to include codifications of the "right" to marry for homosexuals is to put the government not in the positition of defending natural, god-given rights (one of its few legitimate functions), but of advocating and protecting a particular personal choice- one that a great many people find immoral and repugnant.


    Nancy Tann - 2/29/2004

    I think it should not be that hard to define marriage as between two committed, hopefully monogamous people. Has it occurred to anyone that gay people could be polygamous, too?
    Most gays and lesbians long for a lifelong partner. No institution in mainstream society supports us in that. My partner and I had a religious ceremony 20 years ago. But it would be nice if we could share some of the same legal rights straight couples have.
    We pay the same taxes, after all.


    David C Battle - 2/29/2004

    However, our argument has digressed from the original debate about whether or not gay people have the right to marry.

    It only digressed because your thesis against polygamy was 1) gays are not immoral, polygamists are, and 2) gays did not "choose" to be gay.

    My thesis is that gays and polygamists are equally moral or immoral, and that the fact that gays did not choose to be gay is irrelevant. Therefore, if depriving gays of marriage is wrong, then so is depriving a polygamist (especially if it's based on his religion).

    Already there are lawsuits filed by polygamists using the very same logic that the liberal courts are using to marry gays.

    Slippery slope. Do you think that there are no consequences? Exactly what kind of utopia will this look like in 20 years?

    Based on equality, you say.

    Yes, but what will it LOOK like? I shudder to think.


    Tim Fisher - 2/29/2004

    OK, i accept that you didn't mean to compare gays with rapists and maybe you have a point about dangerously high levels of promiscuity in the gay community. I hadn't heard of bug chasers before you mentioned it and did a google search for it and was shocked by what i discovered. People intentionally infecting themselves with AIDS? There is something seriously wrong with that.

    However, our argument has digressed from the original debate about whether or not gay people have the right to marry. It is clear that those gay people who want to marry are trying to move away from the association with the promiscuous gay lifestyle and settle down in a stable monogamous relationship. Now that you have shown me how damaging promiscuity in the gay community may be, I am even more of the opinion that gay couples should be afforded the same rights as straight couples with regards to marriage. This may not be significant but it would be a step in the right direction in discouraging promiscuity.


    Tim Fisher - 2/29/2004

    OK, i accept that you didn't mean to compare gays with rapists and maybe you have a point about dangerously high levels of promiscuity in the gay community. I hadn't heard of bug chasers before you mentioned it and did a google search for it and was shocked by what i discovered. People intentionally infecting themselves with AIDS? There is something seriously wrong with that.

    However, our argument has digressed from the original debate about whether or not gay people have the right to marry. It is clear that those gay people who want to marry are trying to move away from the association with the promiscuous gay lifestyle and settle down in a stable monogamous relationship. Now that you have shown me how damaging promiscuity in the gay community may be, I am even more of the opinion that gay couples should be afforded the same rights as straight couples with regards to marriage. This may not be significant but it would be a step in the right direction in discouraging promiscuity.


    David C Battle - 2/29/2004

    No, I wasn't comparing them to serial rapists. I was explaining to you that "choice" is irrelevant, only a persons decisions. Follow the logic please

    I'm not only talking about AIDS. Other diseases are far higher in the homosexual community. Do a google search yourself. It's not secret information. Not to mention the bug chasers.

    And yes, promiscuity is WAY higher among gay males. To be fair to lesbians, they don't appear to follow those patterns.


    Tim Fisher - 2/29/2004

    If you are talking about the AIDS virus as the disease that the gay community has spread, I would like to argue that it is more commonly spread in the developing world by heterosexual relationships, where condoms are not prohibited or not available becuase of strict adherence to catholic teaching.

    Comparing gay people to serial rapists is totally irrelevant to a logical discussion, unless your aim is to make gay people sound as bad as you possibly can, by making up questionable analogies without using any real facts. We all know who the victims are from serial rapists who do not choose to hate women. Who are the victims of gay people? Their consensual partners?

    I do not agree that the promiscuity in the gay community is out of control. But i do agree that it is unhealthy if safe sex is not practised. Surely in this case long-term partnerships should be encouraged, whether marriage is involved or not, as a means of reducing the promiscuity in the gay community.


    David C Battle - 2/28/2004

    There's far more reason to view homosexuality as being immoral than there is polygamy. We can start with the out of control promiscuity in the gay community, and the disease that it has bred.

    And regarding "choice", the fact that they didn't "choose" to be gay is as relevant to a logical discussion as a serial rapist not "choosing" to hate women. In both cases, their mental inclinations aren't at trial here, only the decisions they make based on them.


    Tim Fisher - 2/28/2004

    I do not find it worrisome that more and more people are accepting homosexuals, even if they do 'deviate' from normal sexual preferences.

    However, i do find it worrisome that a Supreme Court judge was using the ten commandments as his reference point to judge modern trials. The ten commandments are just the ramblings of one man more than 2000 years ago. What relevance do they have in the modern world? True, if President Bush actually followed the 10 commandments we wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but that is another argument.

    In the modern world, most people are accepting of gay people and are not worried that they may finally be allowed the same rights as straight people. But if the mayor of San Fransisco is in violation of the laws of his own state maybe he should forced from his position. Why hasn't he been? Maybe Bush realises that this would cause an uproar from a very loud minority of people who are gay and also the majority of Americans who are like me, straight and not homophobic.


    Brandt Driscoll - 2/28/2004

    I believe unlike that polygamy would reduce the likelihood of marital infidelity and would provide greater religious toleration for Mormons or secularists who wish to have live-long relationships with more than one person simultaneously.

    I think marriage is not an institution worth defending by restriction but an institution worth defending by inclusion. Separate but equal proved to be ineffective with regard to apartheid; I construe such an approach to civil unions etc. as equally deficient in terms of justice.

    With regard to the sarcastic utterance that gay marriage legalization would lead to the slippery of slope of human-animal marriage, I think not. There has to be an element of consent and a human and a goldfish could not satisfy the consensual requirement.


    Tim Fisher - 2/28/2004

    Let polygamists marry? By definition, they already are! A polygamist is a person who is married to more than one person at a time.

    Sources:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=polygamist

    http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/polygamy?view=uk

    I'm being pernickety though and it is an easy mistake to make. However, I do not think that people should be allowed to get married to more than one person at a time and I do not think it is hypocritical of me to support gay marriage and not support polygamy. Polygamy is an immoral life choice but people are born gay (do you really think that someone would choose to be gay?) and if two gay people are are in a loving, long term relationship why shouldn't they be entitled to the same rights as someone like Britney Spears who can get drunk and get married in Las Vegas, only to have the marriage annulled a few days later. People abuse the sanctity of marriage all the time, for all different reasons be they money, immigration, polygamy or drunkeness. We can get married for the wrong reasons if we want, so why not let gay people get married for the right reasons. I'd be suprised if anyone noticed the difference.


    Jesse David Lamovsky - 2/28/2004

    No, the world will not end if a few gay couples get "married" in San Francisco. It is a distinct possibility, however, that advocates of gay "marriage" will try and use the Supreme Court to overturn traditional marriage laws throughout the land, a la Roe v. Wade. Which means the lobbying mouthpiece for a group that comprises something like three percent of the U.S. population, a group seen by most Americans as deviants, will be able to use a few judges to checkmate the votes of the majority. That is worrisome.

    Here's a puzzle: Roy Moore places a religious monument in the Alabama Statehouse- an act that in no way, shape, or form violates any law, including the U.S. Constitution- and the monument is wheeled away and Judge Moore himself is ousted from his Alabama Supreme Court post. The mayor of San Francisco, on the other hand, is in violation of the laws of his own state, and he's not only not arrested, or forced from his position, but he's lauded as some kind of hero. What gives?


    David C Battle - 2/28/2004

    Like I said, let the polygamists get married too, lest you be accused of hypocrisy.


    Tim Fisher - 2/28/2004

    Why is the world coming to an end? Why should it worry you that gay people are allowed to marry? What possible difference can it make to your life?


    David Neal Larkin - 2/28/2004

    As long as we are at it, lets go ahead and marry animals and let grown men marry children. As long as the man and the child think its ok...

    The world is coming to an end. I fear for my 3 month old and his future...


    David C Battle - 2/28/2004

    Then let polygamists get marry too.

    Welcome to Utopia you fools.

  • History News Network