Same-Sex Marriages begin tomorrow in CT.

[SirNitram]

link

NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) — Connecticut state Rep. Beth Bye and Tracey Wilson hope to become the first gay couple to marry legally in their town of West Hartford on Wednesday.

For Wilson, it's both a personal and professional milestone. She's the town's historian.

"She'd love to be the first one in town," joked Bye, who as a lawmaker helped to shepherd Connecticut's 2005 civil union law through the General Assembly.

Bye and Wilson had a church ceremony with more than 150 guests to celebrate their civil union that year. On Wednesday, they plan to show up at town hall in street clothes, with their kids and a friend who is a justice of the peace to make it official.

"I think for us, we really were married three years ago in our church," Bye said. "But it feels different that our state is saying, 'now you're married. You have the same rights as everyone else.'"

Superior Court Judge Jonathan Silbert has scheduled a hearing at 9:15 a.m. Wednesday in New Haven to enter the final judgment in the case that allows same-sex marriages in Connecticut. Once the hearing ends, couples can pick up marriage license forms at town and city clerk's offices.

It's unclear how many couples will get married. The state public health department says 2,032 civil union licenses were issued in Connecticut between October 2005 and July 2008.

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Oct. 10 that same-sex couples have the right to wed rather than accept a civil union law. Only Connecticut and Massachusetts have legalized gay marriage.

The unions were legal in California until voters narrowly passed a ban last week. At least three lawsuits ask that state's Supreme Court to overturn the vote.

Constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage also passed last week in Arizona and Florida, and Arkansas voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents.

But in Connecticut, voters rejected the idea of a constitutional convention to amend the state's constitution, dealing a major blow to opponents of same-sex marriage.

"There's always that worry in the back of our head," Peg Oliveira said about the possibility of someday losing her marriage rights. "I don't see it going in that direction right now."

Oliveira, a 36-year-old yoga teacher and educational consultant, plans to marry Jennifer Vickery, a 44-year-old lawyer, on the New Haven green on Wednesday. Oliveira said marriage will make clear her spouse's rights to raise their 3-month-old baby if something should happen to her.

"We're thrilled and we don't want to wait one minute," Oliveira said. "I want to show the folks who worked so hard to make this possible that we are very grateful and we don't want to wait any longer to be able to say the words 'We are married.'"

Oliveira and Vickery did not enter into a civil union, believing the arrangement would have signaled to lawmakers that they had done enough.

"There's a world of understanding to the word marriage that simply doesn't exist with civil unions," Oliveira said. "The relationship feels validated by the external world."

Ross Zachs, a 44-year-old business owner in Bloomfield, plans to marry his partner, Michael Miller, 43, on Wednesday in West Hartford.

"It's really exciting," Zachs said, noting that they both grew up in Connecticut. "It is a long time coming. I'm glad I get to see this day in Connecticut."

Zachs said he and Miller had a commitment ceremony last year, but did not enter into a civil union.

"We wanted something equal to everybody else," Zachs said.

Zachs said he hopes one day that gay marriage will be recognized around the country. Despite the setbacks in other states, he cited polls showing younger voters more open to the issue.

"I'm hoping the pendulum is moving in the other direction," Zachs said.

The Family Institute of Connecticut, a political action group that opposes gay marriage, condemned the court decision as undemocratic. Peter Wolfgang, the group's executive director, acknowledged banning gay marriage in Connecticut would be difficult but vowed not to give up.

"Unlike California, we did not have a remedy," Wolfgang said. "It must be overturned with patience, determination and fortitude."

The state's 2005 civil unions law will remain on the books, at least for now. Same-sex couples can continue to enter civil unions, which give them the same legal rights and privileges in Connecticut as married couples without the status of being married.

State Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, co-chairman of the legislature's Judiciary Committee, said lawmakers will have to decide the fate of the civil union law.

"We'll definitely be taking this up," he said. The new legislative session opens in January.

A bit of good news on the equality front.

[Molyneux]

Good for them. Hopefully more states can follow soon - I'm especially hoping New York gets off its ass and does something about it soon.

[Singular Intellect]

What's the important difference(s) between a civil union and actual marriage?

I ask because of this part:

Same-sex couples can continue to enter civil unions, which give them the same legal rights and privileges in Connecticut as married couples without the status of being married.

Now I'm completely behind gay marriage, but if a civil union does exactly the same thing...uh, what's the difference other than the title?

Is this a fight over words?

[Molyneux]

What's the important difference(s) between a civil union and actual marriage?

I ask because of this part:

Same-sex couples can continue to enter civil unions, which give them the same legal rights and privileges in Connecticut as married couples without the status of being married.

Now I'm completely behind gay marriage, but if a civil union does exactly the same thing...uh, what's the difference other than the title?

Is this a fight over words?

Only in the sense that most legal debates are.
One thing that springs to mind for me: Marriage brings federal benefits. Civil unions, because there are no federal civil unions, do not.

[RedImperator]

Same-sex marriage doesn't bring Federal benefits because of DOMA. Everybody knows about the Full Faith and Credit part of DOMA, but not everyone knows that DOMA also prohibits the Federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage of any kind, regardless of where it's legal.

So all that's left is the word, and yes, in places like Connecticut, gays and lesbians are fighting for the right to use a word. It's symbolic--"We are equal citizens, entitled to the same rights as everyone else, including marriage. Not something that's separate but equal, but actual marriage." It's not about taxes or visitation rights or jointly-held property, it's about recognition as citizens. I do think in places like the Northeast, full-rights civil unions were a good-faith attempt at compromise (unlike segregated public facilities in the Jim Crow south), but I've come around to the idea that gays should no longer have to accept compromises to their fundamental rights any more than anyone else.

[Singular Intellect]

Same-sex marriage doesn't bring Federal benefits because of DOMA. Everybody knows about the Full Faith and Credit part of DOMA, but not everyone knows that DOMA also prohibits the Federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage of any kind, regardless of where it's legal.

But it does't prohibit recognition of civil unions that, as I understand, grant everything anyhow?

So all that's left is the word, and yes, in places like Connecticut, gays and lesbians are fighting for the right to use a word. It's symbolic--"We are equal citizens, entitled to the same rights as everyone else, including marriage. Not something that's separate but equal, but actual marriage." It's not about taxes or visitation rights or jointly-held property, it's about recognition as citizens. I do think in places like the Northeast, full-rights civil unions were a good-faith attempt at compromise (unlike segregated public facilities in the Jim Crow south), but I've come around to the idea that gays should no longer have to accept compromises to their fundamental rights any more than anyone else.

You see I find this interesting. What we're essentially saying is that fundies are being irrational for something as trivial as the use of a word, yet turning around and fighting tooth and nail for...the use of a word. Why?

Bit of a double standard, isn't it? The gay community decrees the word will (help) define their acceptance as equal human beings (ridiculas, they are equal already and no single word use will change that), the fundie crowd declares it's a sacred tradition they don't want changed (based on stubborn ignorant beliefs).

We are essentially favoring one belief over another; I'm not seeing the logical arguement here. But I am seeing an arguement that the term is necessary for the perception of equality, which I'd strongly argue against.

It strikes me a bit like taking offense at describing a specific marriage as a 'gay marriage' because altering the description with the term 'gay' suggests inequality rather than simply a more informative label.

If 'civil union' and 'marriage' allow the exact same benefits and treatment, why the fuss over the terminology? For all intents and purposes, they become interchangeable terms. Whereas the term marriage would reflect between a man and woman, and civil union between two of the same gender.

[Samuel]

Same-sex marriage doesn't bring Federal benefits because of DOMA. Everybody knows about the Full Faith and Credit part of DOMA, but not everyone knows that DOMA also prohibits the Federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage of any kind, regardless of where it's legal.

But it does't prohibit recognition of civil unions that, as I understand, grant everything anyhow?

So all that's left is the word, and yes, in places like Connecticut, gays and lesbians are fighting for the right to use a word. It's symbolic--"We are equal citizens, entitled to the same rights as everyone else, including marriage. Not something that's separate but equal, but actual marriage." It's not about taxes or visitation rights or jointly-held property, it's about recognition as citizens. I do think in places like the Northeast, full-rights civil unions were a good-faith attempt at compromise (unlike segregated public facilities in the Jim Crow south), but I've come around to the idea that gays should no longer have to accept compromises to their fundamental rights any more than anyone else.

You see I find this interesting. What we're essentially saying is that fundies are being irrational for something as trivial as the use of a word, yet turning around and fighting tooth and nail for...the use of a word. Why?

Bit of a double standard, isn't it? The gay community decrees the word will (help) define their acceptance as equal human beings (ridiculas, they are equal already and no single word use will change that), the fundie crowd declares it's a sacred tradition they don't want changed (based on stubborn ignorant beliefs).

We are essentially favoring one belief over another; I'm not seeing the logical arguement here. But I am seeing an arguement that the term is necessary for the perception of equality, which I'd strongly argue against.

It strikes me a bit like taking offense at describing a specific marriage as a 'gay marriage' because altering the description with the term 'gay' suggests inequality rather than simply a more informative label.

If 'civil union' and 'marriage' allow the exact same benefits and treatment, why the fuss over the terminology? For all intents and purposes, they become interchangeable terms. Whereas the term marriage would reflect between a man and woman, and civil union between two of the same gender.

The word separate but equal comes to mind- what would it be like if only Christians could get married in the US and everyone else had to get "civil ceremonies"?

[Alyrium Denryle]

But it does't prohibit recognition of civil unions that, as I understand, grant everything anyhow?

I am going to spell this out for you, once.

Civil Unions Do Not Carry The Same Benefits as Marriage, which is recognized at the federal level. The federal government does not recognize civil union.

Bit of a double standard, isn't it? The gay community decrees the word will (help) define their acceptance as equal human beings (ridiculas, they are equal already and no single word use will change that), the fundie crowd declares it's a sacred tradition they don't want changed (based on stubborn ignorant beliefs).

No. It is not a double standard you thick-headed moron. In order to get the same legal benefits (even though civil unions in the US do not hold them) I am forced to use a separate legal framework, what does that say? It says that I am inferior, somehow not worthy of a real marriage but the powers that be decided to be magnanimous and grant me the same benefits because I scream if they dont.

We are essentially favoring one belief over another; I'm not seeing the logical arguement here. But I am seeing an arguement that the term is necessary for the perception of equality, which I'd strongly argue against. dont.

What would you say if a group of people got separated out from society. Say, school children of a certain skin color, say, asians. They are told that they cant be with the other kids, and are put in a different school. Even assuming that the schools were equal in every measurable way, would that be acceptable to you?

I am sorry but that is not acceptable to me. The belief that someone has the right to persecute someone else, and the belief that everyone is both quantitatively and qualitatively equal, are not equivalent beliefs.

If 'civil union' and 'marriage' allow the exact same benefits and treatment, why the fuss over the terminology? For all intents and purposes, they become interchangeable terms. Whereas the term marriage would reflect between a man and woman, and civil union between two of the same gender.

Seperate but equal is inherently not equal because by separating out one group for different treatment you are signaling that they are inferior.

[Singular Intellect]

The word separate but equal comes to mind- what would it be like if only Christians could get married in the US and everyone else had to get "civil ceremonies"?

I'd ask what the actual difference is aside from terminology. If the term marriage was generally understood as 'between two Christians", why am I going to fight tooth and nail to use that term as a non Christian? I wouldn't want it, it doesn't define who I am.

We talk about gay pride, recognition and symbolism which is great, but when it comes to the term marriage, suddenly it's a must have term that defines them when in fact what it does nothing of the sort.

It's fight over a term, so unless there's actually an issue of of equal treatment, I fail to see the problem.

Do we get so defensive when two labels like 'male' and 'female' are obviously seperate definitions but don't (ideally) affect equality?

Is saying 'gay marriage' bad because I'm adding a word to further define what I'm talking about?

With regards to equal treatment I'll crack down like a megaton hammer myself; but a fucking term/word? I'll mock a fundie for getting so pissy about it, but why is it okay to fight tooth and nail over it otherwise?

[JCady]

I think that same-sex couples have every right to get actual marriages and not "just" civil unions, but also that it is ridiculously selfish for them to demand that marriage be made the top-priority issue of the LGBTI movement when trans and intersex people have zero civil rights protection in most states.

The most obvious example of the marginalization and betrayal of trans and intersex people by the "mainstream" LGBTI movement would be the recent federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), where at the behest of Representative Barney Frank the provisions which would have protected transgender persons were stripped out. Frank claimed that it was more important to guarantee that the Democrats pass gay rights than to "only" probably pass gay and trans rights, even though he explicitly acknowledged that it was symbolic at best due to the guarantee of a Bush veto.

[Alyrium Denryle]

With regards to equal treatment I'll crack down like a megaton hammer myself; but a fucking term/word? I'll mock a fundie for getting so pissy about it, but why is it okay to fight tooth and nail over it otherwise?

See my above post

I will be blunt. You dont have a fucking clue what it is like to have half the population sneer at you in disgust. I do. I am not going to take society saying "Here little child, you can have this, which we swear is fully equal to what we have, but isnt what we have (and isnt actually equal either)" lying down. Which is exactly what you are suggesting we do.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I think that same-sex couples have every right to get actual marriages and not "just" civil unions, but also that it is ridiculously selfish for them to demand that marriage be made the top-priority issue of the LGBTI movement when trans and intersex people have zero civil rights protection in most states.

The most obvious example of the marginalization and betrayal of trans and intersex people by the "mainstream" LGBTI movement would be the recent federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), where at the behest of Representative Barney Frank the provisions which would have protected transgender persons were stripped out. Frank claimed that it was more important to guarantee that the Democrats pass gay rights than to "only" probably pass gay and trans rights, even though he explicitly acknowledged that it was symbolic at best due to the guarantee of a Bush veto.

I stopped donating to the HRC because of that, so dont paint us with too broad a brush there.

[JCady]

I think that same-sex couples have every right to get actual marriages and not "just" civil unions, but also that it is ridiculously selfish for them to demand that marriage be made the top-priority issue of the LGBTI movement when trans and intersex people have zero civil rights protection in most states.

The most obvious example of the marginalization and betrayal of trans and intersex people by the "mainstream" LGBTI movement would be the recent federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), where at the behest of Representative Barney Frank the provisions which would have protected transgender persons were stripped out. Frank claimed that it was more important to guarantee that the Democrats pass gay rights than to "only" probably pass gay and trans rights, even though he explicitly acknowledged that it was symbolic at best due to the guarantee of a Bush veto.

I stopped donating to the HRC because of that, so dont paint us with too broad a brush there.

I'm not saying all gays are that selfish, but enough of the influential ones are that it's a huge problem for trans people. Especially when the gays rewrite the history of the entire movement to cut out the involvement of transpeople from the very start and make it look like we're some kinda "new" issue that is getting tacked onto gay rights.

[Singular Intellect]

But it does't prohibit recognition of civil unions that, as I understand, grant everything anyhow?

I am going to spell this out for you, once.

Civil Unions Do Not Carry The Same Benefits as Marriage, which is recognized at the federal level. The federal government does not recognize civil union.

So the issue is equal treatment, something I'm firmly in your corner on. Terminology is irrelevent in regards to that.

No. It is not a double standard you thick-headed moron. In order to get the same legal benefits (even though civil unions in the US do not hold them) I am forced to use a separate legal framework, what does that say? It says that I am inferior, somehow not worthy of a real marriage but the powers that be decided to be magnanimous and grant me the same benefits because I scream if they dont.

Let me put it this way; if Civil Union and Marriage were identical in every way but name, would you still complain? Why is terminology so important?

Is it impossible for women to be considered equal to men unless we allow women to call themselves men? It's a descriptive term, not an equality issue. Just as Civil Union could be adopted as the choice for 'gay marriage', or is saying 'gay marriage' an intolerant act despite merely a description issue?

What would you say if a group of people got separated out from society. Say, school children of a certain skin color, say, asians. They are told that they cant be with the other kids, and are put in a different school. Even assuming that the schools were equal in every measurable way, would that be acceptable to you?

No, because that act serves no logical purpose. You only build an additional school when the first one's capacity is reached.

Applying terminology to differentiate between different concepts is not illogical.

I am sorry but that is not acceptable to me. The belief that someone has the right to persecute someone else, and the belief that everyone is both quantitatively and qualitatively equal, are not equivalent beliefs.

Denying equal rights is certainly persecution and I'll fight tooth and nail against it. But labelling someone gay and someone not (based on factual evidence) is not persecution. Similarily, labelling the partnership of man and woman as marriage and two same genders as 'gay marriage' is not persecution. Upon that logic, gay marriage having it's own term of 'Civil Union' is not persecution either.

Seperate but equal is inherently not equal because by separating out one group for different treatment you are signaling that they are inferior.

I'm arguing equal treatment but different descriptive terms, not different treatment based on terms. The only consistent way anyone could argue this would be if they were offended by the term 'male' and 'female' because they are two seperate terms to describe humans in general.

Equal treatment is a seperate issue and has nothing to do with terminology.

[Singular Intellect]

I think that same-sex couples have every right to get actual marriages and not "just" civil unions

See, this is where I take issue. Civil Unions obviously don't get the same treatment as marriage, and that's inequality right there and should be fought.

But what if Civil Unions gave identical rights and priveleges with the only difference being said terminology is to indicate what kind of partnership it is? Why is that offensive?

[The Spartan]

But what if Civil Unions gave identical rights and priveleges with the only difference being said terminology is to indicate what kind of partnership it is? Why is that offensive?

Because it still sets them apart. Get it into your head, Seperate but Equal is not.

[Singular Intellect]

But what if Civil Unions gave identical rights and priveleges with the only difference being said terminology is to indicate what kind of partnership it is? Why is that offensive?

Because it still sets them apart. Get it into your head, Seperate but Equal is not.

So by your logic then men and women can never be equal, because we describe them with those two different terms.

Funny; I've always held the view that actions speak louder than words and that this is the rational viewpoint. Apparently this is a mentality that has changed.

[Alyrium Denryle]

But what if Civil Unions gave identical rights and priveleges with the only difference being said terminology is to indicate what kind of partnership it is? Why is that offensive?

Because, you goose-rapist:

1) Gay vs straight relationships are not fundamentally different in their functioning. There is no reason to separate out the terms except for reason 2
2) To marginalize or single us out from the rest of the population.

The term is meaningless. We could call all relationships Wangdoodles for all I fucking care. But If the term has cultural weight behind it like marriage does (it has a LOT of connotations in our society fucktard) by denying us its legal use, you are denying us full participation in our culture. You are telling us that we are inferior members of our culture, second class citizens. Even if all the rights and duties are the same, the very existence of the secondary status is dehumanizing. Do you fucking get it now?

So by your logic then men and women can never be equal, because we describe them with those two different terms.

No you fucking retard. Males and females have different karyotypes, naughty bits, and psychological makeups. To the point that the classification of male and female itself has cultural weight and intentionally referring to someone as the opposite sex or gender is used to attack them. If you cannot make an intellectually honest or competent argument then keep your trap shut.

[JCady]

No you fucking retard. Males and females have different karyotypes, naughty bits, and psychological makeups. To the point that the classification of male and female itself has cultural weight and intentionally referring to someone as the opposite sex or gender is used to attack them.

I'm afraid I really have to call you on this. The gender binary classification of male/female is a not a simple biological fact the way you're implying; it's a sociological construct layered on top of an extremely complex set of biological qualities. That sociological construct is tremendously oppressive to transgender and intersex persons, and clinging to it as a basis to justify gay rights (because "men" and "women" should have equal rights) is a classic example of the way in which the gay rights wing of the LGBTI movement consistently (if often inadvertently) undermines the equally important issue of gender identity.

[fgalkin]

But what if Civil Unions gave identical rights and priveleges with the only difference being said terminology is to indicate what kind of partnership it is? Why is that offensive?

Because it still sets them apart. Get it into your head, Seperate but Equal is not.

Only if it's actually unequal.

Ideally, marriage for both heterosexual and homosexual couples would be either done away with entirely and replaced by civil unions, or be extended to cover both couples equally.

From a practical standpoint, civil unions provide the same benefits and are identical in all but name, and are less controversial to the majority of the country's populace. The LGBT community's insistence on the term "marriage" is what gets shit like Prop 8 passed in the first place.

Better take it a little at a time, than risk all and lose all.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Morilore]

But what if Civil Unions gave identical rights and priveleges with the only difference being said terminology is to indicate what kind of partnership it is? Why is that offensive?

"If a circle were square, what would be the difference of its side length and radius?"

The very act of separating the two signals that they are different and require different policies. By segregating marriage, not only are you telling gay people that they are separate from heteronormative straight people and thus inferior, you are also giving bigots in government and industry a way make gay people's lives more difficult if they so desire. Imagine the health insurance providers who decide to drive up premiums for people who mark "civil union" on a form based on bullshit AIDS logic, or the fundie in government somewhere who raises a stink when some form only has a box for "marriage" and not "civil union" and two men decide to tick it. I'm sure other people can come up with better examples, but the point is that if the legal effect were identical, they would have to be the same status.

It doesn't matter if the law decrees equal treatment, equal treatment won't happen without infinite enforcement. The act of separating the two partnerships signals to society that unequal treatment is appropriate. It's the Jahn-Teller effect of social institutions: equal-energy social states cannot be unequally occupied or they will distort and separate.

[Morilore]

But what if Civil Unions gave identical rights and priveleges with the only difference being said terminology is to indicate what kind of partnership it is? Why is that offensive?

Because it still sets them apart. Get it into your head, Seperate but Equal is not.

Only if it's actually unequal.

It always is, that's the argument you're trying to refute here.

Ideally, marriage for both heterosexual and homosexual couples would be either done away with entirely and replaced by civil unions, or be extended to cover both couples equally.

From a practical standpoint, civil unions provide the same benefits and are identical in all but name, and are less controversial to the majority of the country's populace. The LGBT community's insistence on the term "marriage" is what gets shit like Prop 8 passed in the first place.

Better take it a little at a time, than risk all and lose all.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

No, from a practical standpoint, segregating marriage is a way of enshrining inequality into the law and locking gay and intersex and transsexual people into a legal underclass. Separate-but-equal is not a step forward, it's a step to the side, deflecting the concerns of the marginalized group with a sugar-polished turd.

[JCady]

As currently written, California's domestic partnership law officially gives domestic partners "the same rights, protections, and benefits" as married couples.

However, an examination of the actual law shows that this is not strictly true; it gives domestic partners the same "rights, protections, and benefits" in specified areas of the law, not categorically. As originally written, the domestic partnership law only gave domestic partners hospital visitation rights and spousal-equivalent health insurance for public employees only. This was slightly expanded by several bills in the 2001-2002 legislative session, and considerably expanded by the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003, but it's still not fully equal.

[General Zod]

Only if it's actually unequal.

Ideally, marriage for both heterosexual and homosexual couples would be either done away with entirely and replaced by civil unions, or be extended to cover both couples equally.

From a practical standpoint, civil unions provide the same benefits and are identical in all but name, and are less controversial to the majority of the country's populace. The LGBT community's insistence on the term "marriage" is what gets shit like Prop 8 passed in the first place.

Better take it a little at a time, than risk all and lose all.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

You realize the exact same argument applies to interracial marriage, right?

[JCady]

Only if it's actually unequal.

Ideally, marriage for both heterosexual and homosexual couples would be either done away with entirely and replaced by civil unions, or be extended to cover both couples equally.

From a practical standpoint, civil unions provide the same benefits and are identical in all but name, and are less controversial to the majority of the country's populace. The LGBT community's insistence on the term "marriage" is what gets shit like Prop 8 passed in the first place.

Better take it a little at a time, than risk all and lose all.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

You realize the exact same argument applies to interracial marriage, right?

The parallel goes further than that:


In 1948, four activist judges of the California Supreme Court blatantly disregarded the opinion of California voters and handed down an outrageous verdict saying that the government had no right to ban marriages between partners of different races. Those left-wing radicals arrogantly proclaimed that marriage is a fundamental right and that it is fundamentally unconstitutional to deny it to a couple based on their race, even though the Bible clearly says that it's a sin to be unequally yoked!

In 2008, four activist judges of the California Supreme Court blatantly disregarded the opinion of California voters and handed down an outrageous verdict saying that the government had no right to ban marriages between partners of the same gender. Those left-wing radicals arrogantly proclaimed that marriage is a fundamental right and that it is fundamentally unconstitutional to deny it to a couple based on their gender, even though the Bible clearly says that it's a sin to be homosexual!