Pilot opinion on gay marriage: Make it legal

In Sunday’s paper, The Virginian-Pilot editorial board came out in favor of legalization of gay marriage.

To deny marriage to any couple solely on the basis of the way they are born makes a mockery of America’s bedrock principles. To refuse marriage to gay people based on tradition or cultural norms elevates both above human rights.

It gives government too much authority over the most intimate relationship in an adult’s life without sufficient civil justification. If the NAACP and Obama’s endorsements were overdue, so is this one: Gay marriage should be legal across America, and it should be legal now.

At some point, I’m going to find all the right words to express what these declarations of support mean to me. But for now, just go over and read the editorial. And then read it again.


11 thoughts on “Pilot opinion on gay marriage: Make it legal

  1. Government should be out of the marriage business entirely — neither sanctioning it by forcing others to recognize them, nor prohibiting them to those who wish to marry a close relative, one of the same sex, or multiple spouses.

    The reason I oppose gay marriage is because the government will force those who think it sinful to recognize it as equivalent to heterosexual marriage. A business owner should not be forced to provide benefits to same-sex spouses if he offers them to opposite-sex spouses. A home owner should not be forced to rent to a homosexual couple. An adoption agency should not be forced to allow homosexual couples to adopt.

        1. Tell your imaginary friend God that ever since he gave us free will, there’s no telling what we might do, although I am sure he knows this already.

  2. No offense to gay couples but the definition of marraige is personal business and government has no business being in the marraige business. That said, why would two people of the same sex want to have a civil union named for heterosexuals? Is it the word Marriage they want or is it the benefits of heterosexual marraige or is it the activist value in redefining the sanctity of hetersexual marraige into an equivalence something of political value? Straight couples with traditional biblical upbringing traditionally see gay couples as wierd, perverted or grotesque and that is their right just as much as gay couples have the right to see them as homophobic or bigoted but that does not alter the definition of what marraige is in the minds of people who embrace traditional biblical values.

    If same sex civil unions with the same rights and privileges as married couples are what gay couples want, why are they demanding the term Marraige and not willing to come up with a term exclusive to gay civil unions? Not hating on anyone here, just trying to understand this issue since it is looking like it will be highly politicized by the Obama presidential run.

    1. With due respect, James, both the Virginia and North Carolina constitutional amendments say that any such arrangement “that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage.”

  3. Sorry, hit POST too soon. That such arrangements will not be recognized by the Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions.

  4. And so one more print outlet consigns itself to increasing irrelevancy and oblivion.

    Or more accurate, determines to run full speed into it.

  5. The bible has been used to justify pretty much everything, including slavery and interracial marriage. Sorry – I simply don’t buy that interpretation. Don’t be blaming God for your misinterpretation. The God I know is one of love, not bigotry and hate, More like this .

    1. That’s the God I know, too. He forgives all sin if we ask, and has paid the price Himself. It’s that asking that is so hard.

Comments are closed.