All those couples might still be married, but doubtful they're happy.

In an ideal world this would help promote gay rights.

But in this world, this data is about as helpful to marriage equality as bears in cod pieces gyrating on a moving float in the "pride" parade.

Straight or gay, monogamy is insane and causes a lot more problems than it helps. Unless your primary motivation is to conform and uphold the status quo, in that case, carry on.

@ Uganda - Is that what he did there? Wow, it's almost as if we read two different blog posts. I feel sad for your closed mind and obviously limited cognitive ability. The sadness is more for the people you knowingly or unknowingly victimize with your hateful ignorance than for you personally, I might add.

I think a ban on marriage and monogamy is in order. If you need a caretaker-in-waiting get a civil union. Most people are born into families that don't want to wipe up after you should you OD on meth, have a stroke from eating too much bacon, or get hit by a car. And, if such things happen to them, you don't want to be the one to sponge bath them either. Everyone should be allowed to appoint a friend with benefits as their legal guardian, personal chauffer, or hand servant.

That being said, all that is necessary is a civil union or domestic partner agreement. The State should get out of the marriage business since marriage is a religious act. What ever happened to separation of church and state? Why is my government approving Mormon or Catholic marriages? Does Brigham Young or St Peter need to see a couple’s State of Oregon Marriage License before they are allowed to be in their respective heavens for all eternity?

Marriage is pure fantasy and the State should keep its nose out of it. Marriages should happen in privately, if at all. Civil unions should be the only thing governments should touch with a ten foot pole. In much of Europe and Africa this is how it is handled. It works just fine, and no one is going to go to hell if your church marries you and the State doesn't.

President Zuma of South Africa just got married in an open field dressed in leopard skins and tennis shoes to his fifth wife in a tribal Zulu ceremony. Polygamy has pre-dated monogamy by thousands of years and it will certainly be around longer too. The right to take on a fifth domestic partner is enshrined in the SA Constitution which also allows gays to get hitched as well. I don't know, but if you are a gay guy there, you can probably have multiple domestic partners. But who could afford that? Sex is so much easier. Africa, at least parts of it, is lightyears ahead of the very backward USA in this regard.

What I object to most is being single with no dependants and having to carry the tax burden disporportionately compared to married and unmarried breeders and their offspring. I am being the most responsible by choosing to be self sufficient, keeping my carbon footprint to a minimum, and not contributing to population overload.

Why should I be put at an economic disadvantage by paying more taxes for everything from schooling to child welfare to divorce court? These breeders complaining about the costs of recalling Adams... please! What about the libraries, school lunch programs, playgrounds, and child safety seat testing that I have to fund but never use?

Level the playing field so that single people with no dependants are treated equally and fairly. In fact, we should be rewarded for NOT causing so many societal problems that spring up from MARRIAGE and having babies.

Banning marriage and banning monogamy (as a reason to justify divorce and take your spouse for everything he or she's got) is the first step. After that, let's develop legislation that stops rewarding breeders for procreating ad finitum. If breeders had to pay the real cost of having more babies, maybe they would realize that single with no dependents is the way to go. You DON'T have to be married and have children to be happy. But if you are childless, expect to pay handsomely for others to do so. Clearly, with less money to spend, my pursuit of happiness is being impeded by breeders. I want to be liberated from paying for their kids’ crap. And, breeders aren’t just straight people anymore. There are plenty of gay breeders too.

We don't need more breeding in America. Let's open our borders to any baby that would benefit from being here. We don't have to shrivel down our population to zero, but I wouldn't complain if we did.

All you breeders with kids are spoiled rotten by a system that is completely unfair and outdated. Get real, give it up, and stop being so co-dependent on your partner AND the government. There is NOTHING wrong with having multiple sex partners, a domestic partner if you insist, and never wanting or having a baby to feed. Be single and have legal sex with whoever wants to have sex with you. And, speak up a little bit, these breeders are getting a free ride from us. Tell them to get a clue. Ban marriage and ban monogamy.

If there's no monogamy there's no point in marriage.

'Marriage is only "defined" by monogamy—and procreation and kids and religion—when bigoted straight people want to deny gay people the right to wed.'

That's silly. You think that straight people don't define marraige for themselves and in discussion with other straight people? You think they only define it with the subject of gays comes up? Self-centered much?

Marraige isn't really defined by monogamy, and cheating is very common. But it is also generally grounds for an instant divorce with the adulterer on the losing end. So in a sense it can be defined (legally) by monogamy, and ended by the absence of monogamy.

I'm married and not monogamous. The point is that I want him to have all the hospital decision making rights and insurance and tax credits. I don't want my family to have that. Legally a male/female marriage can be defined however the participants chose. The contract is not broken automatically if one of them cheats. They can cheat. They can have kids. They can not have kids. They can do whatever they want with their marriage legally so we don't have to redefine marriage to include gays because it's always meant just whatever was convenient for the participants.

Do people not understand that one of the reasons some gay couples accept "open" relationships is due to the fact that they lack the stabilizing influence of marriage, which works a profound change to a person's status, both in the eyes of the law and in terms of the manner in which that couple is treated by society?

Marriage is about more than a collection of legal rights, benefits, and privileges. That is what is so important to the plaintiffs in the currently ongoing Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial in San Francisco. Marriage is about social status as well as legal recognition; getting married is a serious business.

Half of all heterosexual marriages collapse -- and the divorce rate for second marriages is even higher than is that of first marriages (somewhere in the region of 60%). Marriage has been unavailable to gay persons living in the US up until very recently (and then only in five states). When gay marriage has existed on absolutely equal terms with heterosexual marriage, then it will be possible to make meaningful comparisons between heterosexual marriages and gay marriages.

At this point, any comparison of attitudes has to take into consideration the fact that gay relationships are still not afforded nearly the level of social acceptance and support as are heterosexual relationships. Many gay men and lesbians suffer from depression -- and it is not unreasonable to postulate that this is in large part due to the lack of social support that gay persons receive relative to that which heterosexual persons receive.

Many gay men and lesbians (the writer included) are estranged from close family members as a direct result of the homophobia of those family members. It is impossible to make meaningful comparisons of this nature until the playing field has been levelled, and marriage is made available to both gay and straight couples alike.


PHILIP CHANDLER

jinx writes: "I'm married and not monogamous. The point is that I want him to have all the hospital decision making rights and insurance and tax credits. I don't want my family to have that. Legally a male/female marriage can be defined however the participants chose. The contract is not broken automatically if one of them cheats. They can cheat. They can have kids. They can not have kids. They can do whatever they want with their marriage legally so we don't have to redefine marriage to include gays because it's always meant just whatever was convenient for the participants."

*********
Response:
*********

You state that you are married, which makes it reasonable to infer that you are heterosexual. You want both you and your spouse to have a set of very important rights, such as hospital decision making rights, insurance benefits, and income tax benefits. You further state that you are not monogamous.

Fair enough – it is most certainly not for me to condemn you for not being monogamous (I am sure that you have your reasons). However, you then write that “…we don't have to redefine marriage to include gays because it's always meant just whatever was convenient for the participants”.

In other words, your parachute is open. Your attitude is clear for all to read – “I’m all right, Jack!”

Gay couples cannot yet marry in 45 states, regardless of the strength of their commitments, or the duration of their relationships. Furthermore, securing some of the rights that you (as a married heterosexual person) take for granted can only be done by gay couples at considerable financial cost (in the form of legal proxies, contracts, adoptions, wills, etc.). Even then, there is no guarantee that courts in some of the more backwards red states will honour these agreements – many gay couples have had their wills broken by family members (who in many cases have not been part of the lives of their gay late relatives for decades), who sometimes mount “undue influence” attacks on wills, or who ask state court judges to declare such contracts void due to their being “not acceptable to the public policy of the state”.

You want it all, but you want gay persons to have nothing.

I don’t think so!


PHILIP CHANDLER

Gai Winbag writes: “President Zuma of South Africa just got married in an open field dressed in leopard skins and tennis shoes to his fifth wife in a tribal Zulu ceremony. Polygamy has pre-dated monogamy by thousands of years and it will certainly be around longer too. The right to take on a fifth domestic partner is enshrined in the SA Constitution which also allows gays to get hitched as well. I don't know, but if you are a gay guy there, you can probably have multiple domestic partners.”

*********
Response:
*********

I was born and raised in South Africa, but I left the country of my birth in 1986 due to the disgust I felt towards the apartheid regime. I immigrated to the US, and became a naturalized US citizen in late 1994. I have nevertheless followed South African legal developments as applied to gay persons with great interest and enthusiasm.

The sight of Jacob Zuma, dressed up in a leopard skin, a tribal skirt, and tennis shoes, dancing with his breasts flopping and his cane upraised in his left hand as he sings a song named “Bring Me My Machine Gun”, makes me want to vomit. Zuma, for the record, has indeed married for the fifth time – despite the fact that polygamy is against the law in South Africa (if a white South African entered into more than one marriage, the law would punish him or her most severely). Although the South African Constitution is indeed the most liberal constitution in the world, and although it explicitly prohibits all forms of sexual orientation discrimination in both the public and the private sectors, Zuma has publicly announced that he would like to beat gay men senseless, and that he despises homosexuality. A disgusting phenomenon known as “corrective rape” has developed and has become commonplace in the black community – lesbians are raped in an effort to “correct” their sexual orientation.

Don’t take my word for this – Google the terms “corrective rape” “South Africa” and see for yourself.

Gay marriage is indeed legal in South Africa, and thousands of gay couples have chosen this option. However, both gay and heterosexual marriages are only permitted between two individuals. In other words, Zuma blatantly and totally unapologetically flouts the very laws that he, as the chief executive officer of the nation, has sworn to protect and defend.

I realize that this message is not “politically correct”, but I am sickened by the hypocrisy and the ugliness that is now unfolding in the nation of my birth.


PHILIP CHANDLER

Hold on Philip, you should also do a search on "Zuma apologizes to gay community". Zuma apologized for “hate speech” that he made as a young man when confronted about it in 2006, decades later. He actually said, "If I gay man was standing in front of me I would knock him down." This comment is horrible but not nearly as horrible as you spin it to be.

That you would continue to repeat your misrepresentation four years after he apologized tells me you don't really keep up with your homeland. You should. Zuma is legions ahead of supporting gay rights compared to Mbeke or even Mandela.

Here is what Zuma also said when he apologized, (he also said he respected) the "sterling contribution of many gay and lesbian compatriots in the struggle that brought about our freedom". Has any US President ever said that about gays in the Revolutionary or Civil War? Vietnam War? Or Desert Storm? No, not even Clinton or Obama.

He admitted to hate speech, something that is explicitly prohibited in every corner of SA and not very much at all in the USA. It is important to note that President Zuma committed hate speech before he ever ran for national office and during the apartheid era when hate speech was rampant. And, he issued his apology and commendation to gays well before he took office as President.

Don’t tell me you never said anything derogatory in SA before 1986. Maybe just a little too harsh to your domestic servant behind her back? Ummm… If I am wrong I apologize, but I cannot believe how utterly racist people, whites in particular, are still acting in SA and don’t even see it themselves. I could make a case about your views on Zuma’s wedding, but you already admit to being incorrect politically. You can add incorrect socially and morally too.

Everyone, even gay people are at least prone to homophobia, especially when they are younger. To not be homophobic takes exposure to more enlightened ideas. Even the Dalai Lama, who is about as peace loving and gentle as they come, doesn’t condone most gay sex acts.

When someone sincerely apologizes and sees the errors of their ways, its in poor taste, and counter productive, to not acknowledge their apology and the progress they are making toward an egalitarian hate-free homo-embracing ideal.

For all its faults SA has a far superior blueprint for social justice than the US Constitution has ever had or will ever have in our lifetime. SA is a much more dynamic than the stolid US in so many ways. The small GLBT lobby in SA gets a prominent ANC politician to apologize quickly once a problem is known. This can take years in the USA. Why? The SA Constitution has teeth by expressly prohibiting hate speech against the GLBT community. In the USA the structural and systemic constraints to passing any legislation, and enlightened all-embracing legislation in particular, is so burdensome on social justice lobbying groups that it is virtually impossible to make any progress at all. Our federal system of government has many strengths, but passing comprehensive legislation, especially concerning amendments to the US Constitution is incredibly difficult.

For the USA to really enshrine gay rights as it is in many democratic Constitutions worldwide, including the most comprehensive protections and benefits outlined in the SA Constitution, would take longer than acknowledging equal rights for women. The ERA (Equal Rights Amendment- women only) which is commonly thought to ensure women equality in America, NEVER passed.


To make matters worse, for the first time in US history, Congress then put a seven-year moratorium on states to ratify any amendment to the Constitution. Both Houses of the Congress “gave” equal rights to women in 1972 but it remains only statutory law and it is NOT a constitutional right some 40 years later!

Our federal system requires two-thirds of states ratify any Amendment to the Constitution. In a strict sense, women are “allowed” to be treated equally, but they aren’t guaranteed it as an inalienable right. The USA does not acknowledge that women are equal under the US Constitution. Only in 2009, after years of being ignored and in the closet, so to speak, the ERA is being considered again. If it passes both Houses, then two-thirds of the states must ratify it within 7 years. It could be 2020 before women in America are certifiably equal in America like they are in SA. And, it might not even happen.

The fact is, the SA Constitution already is so much more highly evolved, that the USA might need decades, not years, to “catch up”.

So just to be fair, which country, the USA or RSA will be more evolved and socially just in 20, 50, or 100 years from now? SA is already light years ahead.

That you would move to the USA where apartheid was invented is perplexing. You arrived here a mere 20 years after our very own apartheid ended. If you have seen progress in the USA, great. But don’t negate SA for progressing equally well. Social justice does not happen overnight.

Zuma apologized to the GLBT community and the nation because he saw the light, not because he had to. He apologized publicly and he has re-affirmed his commitment to uphold the Constitution that clearly is the most gay empowering in the world.

He supports gays to marry and to be treated on par with the rest of society.

The LGBT community there worked tirelessly to educate Zuma and the ANC to elicit these enlightened responses. To call Zuma politically expedient is silly since SA is not beholden to any entity like the EU for membership for example. With Mugabe to the east and now Kenya and Uganda making gay sex capital offenses, Zuma could have very easily snubbed the GLBT community but didn't.

You should support Zuma since he is more enlightened than 60% of even the Democrats here who think marriage should only be between a male and a female.

You shouldn't blame SA as a whole for corrective rape and many other ails that befuddle that country. SA doesn’t have Mormon polygamist compounds in which 60 year old fat guys repeated rape young teenage wives. How many American and European old farts go abroad to Asia as sex tourists? White folk ain't got no moral superiority over black folk, sorry. Even if they did, let's focus on how we can continue to enlighten bigotry where ever it is.

SA is multicultural as well as multilingual with 11 official languages- unlike the USA with one- English. The USA can't even bring itself to making Spanish a second language even though 20% of Americans speak Spanish as their first language. This isn’t only economically restrictive and foolish it is flat out bigoted. Every other country in the world teaches children a second language in early education and it happens to be English. Why can’t learning a second language in American schools be mandatory?

Look at all the positive developments in SA that the USA could learn from and vice versa.

I'm equally sickened by the hypocrisy and ugliness of the City of my birth. But what does such a statement solve? I worked diligently to rename 39th Ave after Chavez. I’ve been a homeowner for 20 years just blocks away. That is was like pulling teeth was insane. It should have taken an hour to do so at a city council meeting. My street has been renamed at least twice since the city began. Why stop now? It might cost money, but it also creates much needed jobs. I think it is awesome and we should start renaming a lot of things around here. I’d certainly would rather live on Liberace Ave. then boring old 47th Avenue!

You outline numerous problems but offer no solutions or suggestions. And, frankly, to err on political incorrectness, every white South African I have met is chock full of complaints but does not offer a single solution. They ALL have a very fatalistic view of SA, blacks, browns, coloreds, and any other ethnic group besides their own. Why is that?

When I did community work in Joburg, all the whites that would go help in the townships were Europeans and Americans. And, every single native white South African was very much horrified that I might get killed or robbed in Soweto. I didn’t. When I asked if they would join me, dozens of native whites resoundingly said no. I swear, over half literally rolled their eyes. And, you know this is the ugly truth.

Philip, it is not SA that should disgust you, it should be white South Africans.

Anyone who wants to have a tribal wedding in SA, Oregon, Hawaii, North Dakota, or California should be able to do so without you vomiting all over it.
Sure, for my cultural tastes, Zuma was a little silly at his wedding, but I thought it was cute and funny- not sickening. What is wrong with you?

I can’t tell you how many bachelor parties, weddings, and receptions in good old Portland (and Pretoria for that matter) that were as equally, if not more bizarre than Zuma’s. If a halfwit alien from outer space took a look see in either type, I don’t think either one would win a badge for decorum..

USA weddings? How about: Massive drunken forays, grooms and best men going to disgusting (a good word for this tradition) strip bars for all night table dancing (and worse), women with their over priced, gaudy, and frankly very ridiculous outfits, and more drunken escapades at the reception (just watch YouTube for your source material).

I don’t hate white South Africans Philip. I’ve had countless South African friends and several short- and long-term affairs with oddly enough, mostly Afrikaaners. What can I say? I love people in spite of their bigotry, not because of it. And, Africans, white or black or brown or whatever, are the best lovers. I’d bet you’re pretty good too. There is something about all that unresolved racial angst that I find intriguing, but that isn’t the sexy part of your people.

And as far as Zuma’s five wives… these are wives according to the Zulu tradition and are not acknowledged as “married” by the State. From what I understand, the State documents and enforces civil unions and since Zulu tradition allows for multiple spousal dependents, the tradition is protected under the Constitution. The State does not count five wives, it only counts as many civil unions as Zuma wants to document that way.

Frankly, even if he is the President, it is a highly private and personal matter and none of anyone’s business but his wives and him. That traditional cultural values and practices are explicitly protected is noteworthy. Had the Mormons not been subjected to restrictive monogamy laws as a condition for obtaining statehood, you can bet the Mormons would be fully open about their polygamy. Their Church outlawed it solely because they wanted to join the USA and the USA would not let them in unless polygamy was outlawed.

The point here is marriages are private arrangements, be they Zulu marriages, Mormon marriages, or gay ones. They are cultural and maybe even spiritual in nature and should be kept in strictly a religious, tribal, or traditional setting and expression.

Where the law is concerned, it goes to the contractual obligations the State is willing to uphold between individuals and that such laws should reflect that the binding of such contracts to ensure the mutual benefit of both or multiple parties.

Only 18% of Russians of legal age get married these days because there is no cultural, social, economic, or religious benefit for getting married. In fact, marriage is a burden, an extra layer of bureaucracy that few people want to endure.

Children are protected because the State doesn’t care if the man is married or not. If he is the father, he either sticks around or pays support. If he doesn’t he goes to jail. Deadbeat dads, unlike here, can’t even leave the jurisdiction their kid(s) live in.

Many, many people get married in the Church privately and avoid getting registered as married by the State. Its just an unnecessary expense and serves no purpose. Its like having a car, being allowed to drive it without any paperwork, and getting a license for no reason, you know, tradition, that‘s all.

I agree gay couples are not seen as social equals with other married couples and this is unfortunate. But this really is approaching this problem backwards. No couple, married or not, is socially superior to a single person. If this was the cultural norm, and it should be, your argument about embracing gay marriage, or any marriage, as culturally and socially desirable just doesn’t hold water.

Single people have been discriminated against since day one. I would support public funding to take on social engineering in a way that focuses on the inherent goodness of being a single, self sufficient, responsible, and self actualized.

That marriage, if anything, is nothing more than extra seasoning to a single person’s life and not the end all. If a few very unusual and rare couplings are able to make their marriage a full meal, great. But this certainly should not be expected and definitely not encouraged by the media and the State. Why, because throughout history this is the truth about marriage and to expect otherwise is just plain ignorance.

Why do schools dare to even tell young adults, “You should never have sex until you are married.”? This is insane. That is like telling someone you should never play sports until you are signed up my the Major Leagues.

All you have to do is watch the Australian movie, Muriel’s Wedding to see how toxic, unfair, and victimizing the institution of marriage is to a very large, and unfortunately silent, minority.

Ban State-sanctioned marriages and ban monogamy as a legal condition of marriage. These are archaic practices that treat women as property.

The institution of marriage did not originate as a spiritual necessity to a religious union meant to “protect the children” from being bastards. In the middle ages most of the population was poor illiterate serfs, peons, and yes, to put it rather bluntly, low lifes. The vast majority of humanity didn’t even bother getting married because they were too busy surviving.

Marriage was reserved for families that had assets and wanted to protect them for future generations. Marriages were arranged and political in nature. Royal marriages weren’t romantic, they were business deals. Every single royal I have read about had lovers on the side, or at the very least, their parents had lovers on the side. Romance was prolific, but it rarely happened between two married people exclusively.

So traditional marriages, save for the last hundred years or so, were living hell holes for women, much like they are still practiced in places like Saudi Arabia.

Be completely honest with yourself. Can you really say, for the last three generations of your immediate family, that every single ancestor or yours was happily married and monogamous?

Marriage and monogamy is a crock. And, even if it weren’t the heterosexual marriage should not be construed as superior to other marriages, and no marriage is ever superior to the sacredness of the individual. The individual is complete. No one is able to complete another person. It is not chemically, biologically, physiologically or otherwise possible. That it is “spiritually” possible is the same as saying that it is possible only as fantasy.

Fantasies, like porno and thinking the next beer is going to feel even better, for some people, are compelling. But fantasies aren’t real. If you understand that and still want to engage in them, so be it. I think its great, as long as you know it is make believe.

If you were really interested in equal rights for everyone, you wouldn’t think for a moment that marriage is morally superior to a person living singly.

I have multiple satisfying relationships, sexual and otherwise, with dozens of consensual adults. My demeanor and taste limits my sex life considerably, but that’s personal. Irrespective of my sexual expression and proclivities, a self actualized single adult has the widest availability of relationships to explore.
I know this is going to sound all to new agie here, but with open hearted relationships, the sexual need diminishes substantially.

It’s a completely different topic, but in truth, I think sex is used to bond disparate individuals when other types of bonding are too difficult or costly to obtain. Gay men love to bond quickly and rather effortlessly. Setting up house, dating, going on holidays are too involved. Instant bonding can happen in a heartbeat. And, to judge one type of bonding as being superior to the other is very culturally biased and arrogant.

Given this freedom and lack of constraint, isn’t it most interesting that a hot guy like me should be swimming in offers. Yet, with so many friends of different interests, my sex life is relatively uneventful. And I do have just as intimate of a love life as the most successful marriages out there. The only difference- I never measure my self worth in terms of success in personal relationships. I just have personal relationships or I don’t. Yes, life can be that easy.

Consider a life partner that you love with your entire soul. If it really is a life partner and your love for him is endless, and it is completely mutual, no piece of paper or contrary law is going to stop you from loving that person forever.

Given that you are actually in such a situation, doesn’t it irk you a little bit that married people are treated to more privileges, get rewarded for marriage and having kids (both by companies and governments), and may in fact look down on you for not “taking the leap” into State-approved religiously-sanctioned marriages?

It should. Equal protection under the law and equal benefits under the law are inherent birthrights. Just because married people and their kids want to have it differently doesn’t make it right, or legal. Single people are discriminated against and pay a disproportionate share of taxes to support other people’s dependents.

If you are married, get a divorce. You partners’ reaction will be a good indicator of what they really think of you. If they just shrug their shoulders and say, “That’s fine. What’s for dinner, honey?“ they are a keeper. If they take you for all you got, let them take it and be done with them.

If you are single, stay that way. Invite short term relationships into your life and expect nothing more. If you get more, enjoy it. If it lasts “forever” be grateful that you never did get married because it surely would have ruined it.

Life is amazing and relationships that are spontaneous and “organic” are the most rewarding. Marriage might seem like a great fertilizer, but it really is just a poison that burns in the end. Divorce, of course, is an insecticide and pesticide, but if you get too much, your relationship garden will be a toxic waste dump. Relationships that are free of external constraints, artificial amendments, and virulent plagues will contribute immeasurably to one’s life.
Poisons and plagues are brought on by over indulgent feasts and then drought-stricken famines, that violently wax and wane like a vicious unstoppable roller coaster.

Be yourself and know you are individual and quite unique. If you want, be open to sharing your individuality with someone else. If not, don’t bother.

Calm yourself Philip. I am for gay marriage. For me it's either a legal contract and should be open to any adults with the money to pay for the license or it's a religious ceremony and then it should be kept in the churches and the government shouldn't have anything to do with it. I'm actually for changing the marriage contract name to something else for everyone so all that civil unions crap can just go away and religious people can keep the term marriage if they want. Gay people would still be able to be married in churches that will preform the ceremony and those of us who just want to enjoy the legal benefits can.

Thanks jinx for your one paragraph... I wish I could be as concise as you. Alas, I am my namesake, Gai Winbag.