If I answer 'No" does that mean I hate gay people? If I say "No", will I be labeled in comments below mine? If I say "No", will I be told to keep my opinion to myself? Will I be quoted some Old Testament verse and told how a book written years ago does not apply to today?
If I say "Yes" will I be reprimanded by Christians quoting the same Old Testament verse as a defense against same sex marriage? If I say "Yes," will be applauded by those who support this decision?
As in the past, this question will begin a comment argument with some hate-filled words defending one's position. Even Jeffrey Johns, who doesn't understand why people put others in "buckets", has created his own by referring to anyone who uses the "God" argument.
Voting is fine, but I don't think the Patch is a good venue for a discussion on this topic. Too may pseudonyms.

Get the state out of the marriage business. The state should define and recognize civil unions. Leave mariage to religious organizations to define and recognize whatever they wish with no binding on the state.

Who cares???????? Why this is an issue and even discussed boggles my mind. If two consenting adults are in a relationship and wish to get married why shouldn't they have the right to do that? Dragging this into any political type discussion is ridiculous. The government should not be making these types of decisions.

I agree with Walt, mostly. Not the "who cares" part, because obviously a lot of people do. It's discussed because it is not recognized as valid in most states and changes in the law needs to happen. Outside of the fact that marriage is a legally binding agreement, the government should not be dictating the qualities of the persons entering into said agreement.

I didn't vote. I suppose it's human nature to have opinions on various matters; however, the world would be a happier place if we kept those opinions to ourselves and respected the actions of others. In other words - in Biblical wisdom - "Judge not, that ye be not judged." Also, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." In truth, I DO live my life by those principles and they have served me well.

Pennsylvania law restricts marriages as follows: The couple that wish to be married cannot be related as first cousins, parent and child, siblings, aunt and nephew, uncle and niece, or grandparent and grandchild. A person must be at least 18 years old in order to get married without consent of an adult. A child who is 16 or 17 can get married with the consent of a parent. A child under the age of 16 can get married with the consent of a judge and a parent. Pennsylvania recognizes common law marriages prior to 2005. New Jersey permits first cousins to marry. Utah permits 15 year olds to marry. Utah recognizes common law marriages and permits first cousins over 65 to marry. New York permits 14 year olds to marry. Common law marriages are recognized in 12 states. Some states require medical certificates and blood tests. In North Carolina first cousins MAY marry, but DOUBLE first cousins may not. Double first cousins are very rare, as the couple have to be related as cousins through both parents. In Texas, you can have a secret marriage remarriage? The point of all this is that states have always determined the requirements for marriage. If the courts do invade this area then we should expect that marriage will be uniform throughout the country. I prefer that states continue to establish requirements and that marriages in one state must be recognized in others. I oppose same sex marriage on religious grounds, but religion is an argument without standing.in a US court.

Marriage is a function of the Church and should remain as such.

Switch to a flat or fair tax system so that marriage and taxation are no longer connected.

Want your union blessed by God? Go to a Church (or Temple, Mosque, Pagan Alter...whatever does it for you).

Want your union blessed by Government? Seek psychiatric care.

Dave,

If people want to live together, that's shiny with me.

If atheists wish to be legally bound by contract, I'm sure some lawyers would love to work out the details.

Now that the rules have changed, I would like to marry my cat

Incest results in birth defects. SS marriage does not. Constitutional rights do not go up for a vote, not in this country. You want holy matrimony? Go to a church. Otherwise, pls keep your nose out of other peoples' business.

Leave the sanctity of Marriage alone.
Marriage is between one man and one woman to form a family unit for procreation.

This push to redefine is not about ‘love’. It is about money, finances, taxes, insurance, and pensions.

If it is redefined, where are you going to stop? Should incestual marriage be legal? The money and benefits can stay in the family. Should marriages of more than two people be legal? Why is it not legal to ‘love’ more than one person? Should the marriage of a pet be legal? Who defines strange, over the line behavior?

Boys should not join the girl scouts. Girls should not join the boy scouts.
Marriage is between one man and one woman.
Leave it alone.

Unfortunately, we don't have equal rights -- yet.

Walter, you are correct These people are only drawing the lines that suit them. They don't allow anyone who disagrees to draw other lines.

That's not equal rights. Equal rights is when everyone gets the same protection of the law, not just the people you like. SS couples' right to marry does not deny you your rights in any way, except the right you think you have to tell other people how to live. Thanks. I am proud to be one of "these people."

As a Salisbury Twp resident who happens to be part of a same sex marriage (Church wedding of course) it warms my heart to know that we chose a safe and supportive place to buy our home and raise our kids. Thanks neighbors.

Maynard, when I used the term "these people" , I meant those who showed their intolerance of others viewpoints by using insults, namecalling and accusations . If you are proud of being intolerant, it's OK . You and I differ in the way we see this issue. . It's a discussion.

Jennifer, any who has tolerant neighbors is fortunate. Hopefully, you will be as tolerant of them if they disagree with your viewpoint. Is there a difference between "raising our kids" and "creating kids"? I think there is. You might see it differently.

creating a family and creating children are 2 different things. I support anyones attempt to live in any type of family structure, regardless of sexual orientation, racial or cultural difference. I don't set their rules or guidelines. They can create a family according to their own wishes and design. I don't believe 2 people of the same sex can create children. If you disagree, it's OK.

The same-sex marriage debate is not about the ceremonial aspects of marriage. It's not about the faith of the parties, nor is it about raising children or buying property or the vows exchanged or the officiant. Those are all personal aspects of marriage, and nobody that I know of wants to deny anyone any of those personal choices or vows.
The debate is centered on the fact that there are state-sanctioned benefits associated with being a party to a marriage contract. And in most states, same-sex couples are being denied those benefits as a matter of their gender when applying for a marriage license. Strictly speaking, this is not about sexual orientation, as nobody checks that when applying for a marriage license. However, the choice of who one would like to marry typically follows their sexual orientation.
It's been less than fifty years since the Supreme Court ruled that states can not prevent interracial couples from marrying. I predict that fifty years from now, we'll look back on those opposed to same-sex marriage in much the same light as we see those opposed to interracial marriage. The Supreme Court will ultimately uphold the rights of same-sex couples to marry and such marriages will be afforded the full and faith and credit of the Constitution.
Unless those opposed to same sex marriage can demonstrate what damages they endure as a matter of such unions, their opposition is without merit and should not be used to preclude others from enjoying the same rights.

Before I went on Medicare, I lost my Beth Steel health benefits but then married into benefits. My wife was a municipal worker. If you were a taxpayer at that time, you helped pay for my benefits. If you were oppossed to that situation, I could understand your opposition. I can also understand a same sex couple trying to get taxpayers to pay for their benefits. If the law says it is OK, as a txpayer, I will have to pay. I may disagree, but Ill have to pay regardless. Is my opposition with or without merit?

It’s about full faith and credit: getting married in Vermont and knowing that union, that civil contract, will be respected in Oklahoma; it’s about visitation rights and medical decisions, property and inheritance rights in the absence of a will, tax benefits, such as being able to give tax free gifts to a spouse and to file joint tax returns, visiting rights in jail, the ability to create life insurance trusts, compulsory testimony, all these and more are example of rights associated with being a party to a marriage contract.
We all pay taxes, Hugh, and sometimes we really, truly disagree with the things our tax dollars are used for. We all know that feeling. So no, your opposition carries no merit. Your rights are in no way limited by allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Or come up with anohter word, like "Sodomarriage"

I notice the majority anti-same sex marriage are males. Hmmmm. I think homophobes are usually most insecure with their own sexuality. I've always been of the premise that the biggest homophobes are usually in the smallest closet. Here is one for you all - what about Hermaphrodites? Who the hell can they marry? Marriage and state should NOT mix.

In 2012 it baffles me that so many are bigots. People that love each other should be welcomed, not made to feel less than human. Your book of faith teaches to love. Practice what you preach. Peace.Iowa

This is a very interesting exchange of thoughts on a complex subject (without much name calling). I see that the major issue is for commited partners to be allowed the 1000+ legal rights that traditional married couples enjoy and depend upon. If this one issue was give to SS couples the vast majority of problems would be solved. The are already laws regarding beastiality, polygamy, etc., so let them stand. This leaves us mostly with an issue of semantics, i.e.-marriage v. civil unions v. ???.