'The View': Portia de Rossi vs Elisabeth Hasselbeck?

Kudos to Portia!

Some folks need to keep in mind that marriage is firstly a civil matter in America, as marriage licenses are issued by and recorded in town halls, NOT church halls or mosques or temples.

In 2005 CT passed a civil union law, and in 2008 CT passed a marriage equality law. My spouse of 30 years and I were married in 2008 after a civil union in 2005.

Onward to equality,
Joe Mustich,
Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut, USA.

Call me old-fashioned - or just plain "politically incorrect", but I disagree completely with all this insanity!

In keeping with centuries-old tradition, what is it we hear at weddings? "Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to join this MAN and this WOMAN to be joined together in HOLY MATRIMONY"..."I now pronounce you HUSBAND and WIFE"..."You may now kiss the BRIDE"!!!!

That's right, "bride" - NOT "BRIDES"! There IS a distinction there, no matter HOW gays try to "normalize" their unions to the rest of us. They are NOT the "same thing", no matter how they try to convolute this issue - and they never WILL be.

I am NOT a Republican, a church-goer, or even particularly conservative in most regards. But I AM a defender of traditional values, and I resent that some people today would say that makes me a "bigot". I am not. But right is right, and wrong is still wrong.

Marriage, per se, is still regarded by most to be both a spiritual (i.e., "religious") union - as well as a legal bonding.

Since gay unions are not sanctified by religion, nor by tradition, it would stand to reason that we should refer to these unions as something separate.

I have no problem in granting gay couples "civil unions" and all the legal protections granted married couples. It's their right to live their lives according to their own morality, but for them to DEMAND that the rest of us now validate their lifestyle by calling it a "marriage" is just plain wrong.

And anyway, in most people's minds, at least - a gay couple could NEVER really be "married", anyway - even if the law in a few states say otherwise. By the way, the few states that do allow gay "marriage" did not achieve this status through popular vote. I do believe the majority of U.S. citizens feel pretty much as I do on this touchy topic!

Hasselbeck's analogy is pretty insulting, in my opinion. Once upon a time in this country (and still in many countries) being a man held several legal rights and privileges denied to women, however when women started gaining what was long overdue to them there wasn't an entirely new legal category that had to be created because "rights" had always been something that men had, not women. Women didn't gain "civil allowances", they gained RIGHTS. Anything less is a case of "separate but equal", which is unconstitutional.

This whole debate over the word marriage is ridiculous. Many gay people are already getting married by their religious leaders or by secular members of their communities. These relationships have exactly the same kinds of difficulties and challenges and joys of what we call "marriage" in this culture. The only difference is that they're being discriminated against by the law.

The definition of marriage is, and has always been, fluid. Which is why anyone who has actually studied anthropology and history understands that this whole debate about the inherent definition of marriage is laughable.

Just let them get married and be happy and work on minding your own business, Hasselbeck.

@ Shelley -

Actually, you're wrong on all counts. A couple friends of mine were just married two weeks ago by their traditionally trained rabbi, and their wedding, though no legally recognized, was well attended by members of their religious community.

As far as tradition goes, that statement has no meaning. In our own culture, throughout history, we have had multiple forms of marriage that are no longer legally recognized. Other cultures throughout the world have different definitions still. Same sex marriage is one form of marriage that has been recognized throughout history, and cross-culturally.

As far as gay couples go - I really don't think they give a crap about what people like you think about them and their relationships. I think they'd actually just prefer it if you left them the hell alone.

P.S. also note that your little "centuries-old traditional" wedding speech is actually a modern, egalitarian incarnation (thanks feminism!!). Originally they would have ended it by pronouncing them "man and wife" instead of husband and wife, implying not a partnership, but a hierarchical relationship. Furthermore, where did the little traditional bit about the woman swearing to "obey" her husband vanish to?

@Shelley

You want to talk about traditions? Traditionally, marriage was a way gain political and economical benefits. If our world was set 300 years ago, you would be the equivalent of a slave owner. Freedom of the slaves was not sanctified by religion or tradition. If anything, religion and tradition dictated that slavery was moral and well supported by Scripture.

Nobody will call you old fashioned, nobody will call you politically incorrect. I call you ignorant and uneducated. Your logical fallacies only fool the people as daft as you to anybody of higher intelligence, you are the definition of a moron.

I am no supporter of traditional marriage, but then again despite what these people will keep telling you, traditional marriage is rare in our society. I am a supporter of modern partnerships we call marriage, yes, be they between a man and a woman or two people of the same sex. Love is wonderful, commitment is wonderful, but "traditional marriage" was little more than socially acceptable violence and institutionalized oppression.

"But right is right, and wrong is still wrong."

as according to YOU, right Shelley???? NOT EVERYONE FEELS THE SAME AS YOU, or you didn't figure that out yet???? :(

She's a homophobic prude...please go away and never come back - ever

@Shelley: One of the most basic purposes of civil rights is to protect MINORITY interests. Civil rights are NOT doled out by popular vote, lest no minority could ever gain rights!! jeesh, perhaps you should get better informed and educated opinions before you go piping off.

Elisabitch's men/women example isn't even a proper analogy. She can't even see how dumb she is herself.