My only concern lies with churches. It is not inconceivable that a homosexual couple would wish to have a traditional “church” wedding, and it is equally possible that some churches might refuse to marry a gay couple. This could raise issues such as the church’s right to refuse to host a gay wedding, whether or not it is discrimination, or a hate crime, and so on and so forth…

While homosexuals should be allowed equal rights, I do not believe that churches should be required to marry a gay couple if the reason for the refusal is based in their theology.

I am concerned that with the legalization of gay marriage will come the persecution of fundamentalist Christian churches who disagree on a religious basis with homosexuality. This is an issue that is rarely talked about, but it needs to be addressed, because I disagree with the government’s interference with the church just as much as I disagree with the government’s intrusion into the personal lives and sexual preferences of individuals.

Furthermore, in this instance, the GLBT as a community is not asking for anything at all. It is the state government asking for our permission to “get in the first punch” if you will. If they pass this ammendment, then they will not have to deal with anyone asking for any rights later that pertain to this subject. Because they already took the right away before they could ask.

This, I believe, is not EQUALITY. This is not FAIR. This is not JUST.

Are we really going to let our own government dictate how and when we enter into the 21st century of enlightenment. That decision should be up to each and every individual, family, and community. Not the business men who want to keep the cold war on sexuality alive so they can make more money on it.

OH! By The Way, this ammendment will not only affect the GLBT people of Idaho, but also it will keep any other person that has been married previous from ever marrying again or being recognized by the state if they have already. They don’t mention that part of the wording of the ammendment.

As a Reverend, I say let the judgement be made by whatever higher power each of you believe in do the judging, not us.

As a human being that lives on this planet and in this state, I say let no law ever take anyones right to equality away. Nor, prevent anyone from requesting equality under the law.

Rev. Thomas Cox

One thing I do wish this debate would avoid is the emotional aspect. Stick to technicalities and shy away from degrees of love. Homosexual partnerships are human too and are no more guaranteed “til death do you part” than heterosexual partnerships. Kick the tired divorce rate argument.

EQUAL rights and NO discrimination for any reason.

As for the insurance rates going up: Yep, probably. But if the way to solve that is to ban certain people from enjoying the benefits of marriage/insurance, why make it only gays? How about left-handed people? Non-Christians? People of certain heights or weights or eye colors? And definitely (and the R’s probably would go for this one) anyone who reads The Guardian?
Makes about as much sense.

I too am opposed to the amendment. Perhaps it could be shelved for a time when the world really has no other problems, when all children are safe, well fed, well insured, etc. etc. etc. When this happens perhaps then we will be able to debate this “moral issue”. Until that time no one is able to cast the first stone.

I was amused by the suggestion that a couple could declare whatever gender they wanted at the marriage license bureau. I wouldn’t want to be the clerk in that office. You would know they were lying, but what could you do about it?

Lena – you don’t want to buy mortgage insurance….it is a nearly useless and expensive way to purchase life insurance. You can certainly have insurance on each other without attaching it to home ownership. As an old escrow officer I can tell you that having closed thousands of real estate transactions, the only time a client purchased mortgage insurance was because one of the couple already had a terminal illness. (We barely got the deal closed in time.)

You can jump through all kinds of legal hoops to get something resembling a civil union but it would be much easier just to get married. That would take care of most of your issues about inheritance, etc. That is one of the main reasons that gay people want to get married, after all. (Besides the “recognition” factor.)

Did I miss something? In her micro-soap opera, is Lena anticipating her good-time Charlie will croak soon, and if so, WHY? An even greater WHY is how Lena thinks her boyfriend’s employer must cough up more in order to extend benefits to her. Health insurance ain’t free, and as a self-employed person, Lena should respect employers not wishing to have their pockets picked by temporary affiliates of their employees who have a sense of entitlement. Lena is providing her own insurance, so? Stick to the ISSUES, not the dirty laundry.

Either way it will be a boost to the economy!