The Frinklin and Fred Show

Frinklin, Marriage is the central institution of our society. It's the rock that the rest is built on. For the past 4 decades, we have been running it down. As far as I'm concerned, the gay marriage proposal represents a further move to try and water down what marriage is and why it's important. I think many, many social conservatives feel likewise.
In the past, liberalizing divorce laws or equating couples living together with married couples was rationalized in this "it doesn't harm anyone; why shouldn't we be able to do this" manner. Well, that's not quite true. As marriage has been run down our birth rates have fallen to unacceptably low levels; the numbers of children raised in single-parent households has exploded and more and more people are living and dying lonely lives.

All of these changes have been bad for society. It may not have been obvious when the process started, but it's glaringly obvious now and for many people it's time to take stock and reassert the importance of marriage.

And marriage, which has been around for thousands of years, is a man and a woman. If society wants to rearrange the benefits it provides to people who form other types of relationships and unions, so be it, but marriage cannot be redefined.

I would argue that divorce is a far greater cause of lonely lives and single-parent households. If you want to decry the liberalized divorce laws, that's fine. But don't try to argue that Rush Limbaugh (3rd wife), Newt Gingrich (divorced his cancer-stricken wife in the hospital), or Brittney Spears (need I say it?) are less of a problem than Roger and Joe, who have lived together for 22 years.

I have personally known 9 same-sex couples for the past 9 years, 6 of which have children. Only one has broken up in that time, which is a far better rate than "straight" couples. How does this belittle, harm, or otherwise affect my wife and our 2 children?

Before you attack gays and lesbians, let's try to figure out why marriage in general is failing at an historical rate. Get the divorce rate down to the low teens, and maybe we can have this discussion. As for me, any stable family is a good family.

I'm just going to go ahead and get on my soapbox here instead of doing it at Sports and Bremertonians.

I now live in Arkansas, which is located in the Bible Belt. I lived mainly on the West Coast for the majority of my life (21 years) until I moved to Arkansas last year.

75 percent of Arkansas voted to ban gay marriage. I voted against it, simply because I don't see why this should be a huge issue. There are much bigger issues in this state and this country than worrying about whether two gay people get married or not. I'm not saying that I'm in favor of gay marriage. I'm just vexed that we are making this a huge issue, especially when there are much bigger issues.

Arkansans for the most part puzzle me. They complain about the education in this state, yet they vote down a bill that would have helped it. They're more worried about their bibles and their guns rather than worrying about the schools and the economy.

I'm just glad that I have diversions in my life. This is one of the few times I'll ever talk politics. If you've reached the end of this, go grab yourself a beer. You deserve it.

"Moral values" doesn't necessarily equal gay marriage. Yes, that was a part of it, and the gay marriage amendments did wonders getting out the conservative vote, but many things fall under the umbrella of “moral values”. Perhaps the most important in this election was the moral value of stating what one believes and showing some sort of integrity. John Kerry was sorely lacking in that category and I would guess that was the single largest factor in the minds of Bush voters. (A question of that sort was absent from the exit polls, causing many Republicans to lump it in with “moral values” and many others to simply stop filling out the questionnaire- or at least that is one of the many theories put forth to explain the over-sampling of Democrats.)

Irish Eagle--Seriously? Allowing poeople who love eachother enought to want to declare it publically is "watering down" marriage? How can you state your own heterosexual love "more" and "better" than two gay people's love? Further, while marriage and divorce are, obviously linked, allowing more people to marry does NOT equate liberalizing divorce laws.

And--where to you get the idea that we have "unnacceptably low birth rates"? Last I checked, we weren't running out of people anytime soon. Have I missed all the folks out there lobbying for higher birth rates? No. Because we have plenty of people on this planet. In fact, we even have birth control to stem the flow of them! Also, marriage doesn't magically allow people to have children. If someone wants to have a child, they can! Is there some new rule that doesn't allow gay people to concieve children? Last I checked, lesbians are still able to conceive, and gay men have just as potent sperm as straight men.

While I wouldn't scoff at the idea of civil unions for now, it reeks of "separate but equal." People are people, and love between two consenting adults should be recognized as they see fit, not as you see it.