YOUR COMMENTS

What matters is not the titles or labels - leave those to soup cans. What has always mattered is the responsibility, trust, and love that two committed individuals bring together, and if they choose to enshrine that in marriage. And despite the fact that you claim you aren't in favor of same-sex marriage out of "fear," any action that would bar societal inclusiveness and promote exclusiveness has fear written all over it to me. Marriage does not imply anything different than what it states - a union of two committed, loving individuals. By bringing biological factors and procreation into the issue, you wholly oversimplify it and refuse to acknowledge our current society. Today's technology and recognition of diverse lifestyles (and I don't mean gay vs. straight) makes all such factors open to all kinds of relationships, none of which are "one-size-fits-all." Beside the point, same-sex parents can and have raised beautiful children that are probably better off than many kids with straight parents.

This is a matter of basic human rights and makes us liars as a nation if we fail to uphold "liberty and justice for all."

This issue should require no justification. We are not fulfilling our promises as the USA if we continue to deny rights based on labels. And we call our society so "advanced."
- Molly, Bow

I was widowed very young. I am in my 50's and doubt I will ever remarry. I will receive a pension when I retire from a company I worked for in the past. When I die, no one will receive my pension money. Pensions, SS benefits, etc are for the man or woman whose spouse dies if they have been married for a certain length of time or in some cases are married when the spouse dies. Should they change the laws/rules for my situation and allow me to choose a friend or family member to receive the money? No, despite how much I may love that friend or family member.
As for having someone to make decisions for should I be unable to make them myself for some medical reason, all I have to do is choose someone, have them agree to make these decisions and have an attorney draw up the papers. I don't have to marry them in order for them to make decisions for me.
If you want someone to be cared for after you die, set up a financial account for that purpose.
Marriage is for a man and a woman and so are the benefits of that union.
- Shannon, Detroit, MI

Marriage is for one man , one woman. A hand goes in a glove, not a sock.
- Sharon, Cheyenne WY

Here's a very simple solution:

If you think of people of the same sex should not be married, then please go marry someone of the opposite sex. Leave others with differing views alone.

There! Problem solved.

I'm a straight man and I've been married to my wonderful wife for over 25 years. Massachusetts (5 miles form my house) has had legal same-sex marriage for many years now, and the deep abiding value of MY marriage has not been diminished one bit.
- Len Katzman, Portsmouth, Rhode Island

As a student of the Bible and future Minister to be..I have an all-together different approach...Same sex marriage is just fine. Number one...we are not to judge..period..not our role..God does that. Two...yes the bible says man and woman...but also speaks of love, respect, passion and care...if the same sex couple have all the same relations, love care and intent...then that love is as sacred as those of a male/female relationship.

I believe the mistake we make is in judgement...we are not to judge our fellow man...now this does not mean we ignore all that happens...but it means to have compassion, diligence in how we approach our fellow citizens and love for our fellow man.

As a student of faith...I find two major points of interest..looking at the bible as literal...or as the inspired word of God...this means that we do not have to take everything word for word...but possibly as metaphore...for example..maybe the seven days was 7,000 or 70,000 days to create...the fact is we shall not judge.

When I have a congregation that I work with to fufill god's word...my hope is that gay individuals will come to the church, not feel as though they must change, be ashamed or hate...I will have the greatest love for them and would protect their right to love as they wish...love is what God brings to us...that is the ultimate gift.
- Wayne, Manchester

Dear Jenny Swope... Your ignorance really really really scares me, and I'm hetro-sexual! I won't even begin to comment on the numerous falsehoods and errors you present as part of your logic in the OP-ED. I think a better piece would be on the leadership of the Catholic Church here in NH (Bishop McCormack), his history of protecting pedophile priests, and the fact that he still serves in the priesthood. While God may forgive him someday, not all the hundreds of victims who were abused by his cover ups and maladministration will. Signed... An Altar Boy Victim who chose NOT to sue the Catholic Church; my vindication will come when Bishop McCormack and the others meet their maker. I will forever live with this shame and hurt that he and the others caused, all in the name of Pope, Jesus Christ, and the Catholic Church.
- Brad, Claremont

"Personally, I'll consider homosexual relationships equivalent to marriage when homosexuals become capable of procreation" says Tom of Campton (because the sole purpose of all unions is to procreate, and anyone who cannot should be sent out of the village and shunned)

"I'm willing to bet in the next twenty years if this is allowed to continue will be the lowering of the age of consent so groups like NAMBLA can have their way with young boys and the heterosexual perverts can have their way with young girls. Look up the name Jeffery Curley and know that this group is free to exist and spread their views when they should be institutionalized." says Ross of Derry (because all homosexuals are of course pedophiles, and all heterosexual men secretly desire sex with young girls)

"I'm looking forward to the day gays can marry in New Hampshire. That will be the day my wife and I marry our dog, our cat, a pony, and my elderly aunt. Afterall, if its a denial of gays' civil rights to marry same sex....... is it not a denial of my civil rights to marry whatever, whomever, as many as I so desire?" - says Gus of Manchester (because homosexuals are not better than animals of course, they are not human beings, and the floodagates of incest will be opened as well)

"Gays can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned but please, don't use bigger government to try to extract more money for your deviation from the norm." says Sue (because anything or anyone unlike Sue is not the norm, and not one heterosexual married couple in the world has engaged in sex other than for procreation. None have ever played dress-up or committed sodomy...nothing remotely "deviant" ever happens in the heterosexual world)

Homoexuals are asking for equal rights, plain and simple. They deserve them. Anyone's particular morals, thoughts, feelings, religious beliefs, or ignorance should not stand between them and equality So get out of the way.
- Dorothy, Concord

Who could’ve predicted that some day we would have to write legislation defining what marriage is? Now I know in advance that a majority will disagree with my point of view and personal belief’s but here goes. Marriage is Holy joining between a man and a woman period, hence the reason it is referred to as Holy matrimony. Marriage like man was created by God and is Holy. It was designed to make possible so man ands woman could have a family relationship with each other and with God. Procreation is the natural result and part of the foundation of a family. I’m confident we can all agree that man and man or woman and woman unions cannot possibly naturally reproduce as a man and woman were specifically designed to do, however that’s not to say that same sex couples are not capable of raising children though I submit that it’s not ideal nor as God had intended. Marriage is a Holy bond whereas civil unions are a man made arrangement. This push for same sex marriage essentially boils down to homosexuals attempting to legitimize their union in the eyes of others. If this were not the case then wouldn’t they only be pushing for legislation that would attain equal rights and protection for them under law as afforded to married couples? I expect that I will be accused of being behind the times. However I fail to see how the passage of time makes something that wrong all of a sudden right when pertaining to ones beliefs and principles.
- Rob, Manchester

Gus, what you and your wife do behind your four walls is your business. However, if the law changes you will be able to lift your shades.
- Tom, Dover-Foxcroft, Me.

Instead of getting all red in the face typing a response like some seem to do, my stance on same-sex marriages is really simply.

If they truly love each other and want to be married, what's the big deal? Seriously. Because god says it's wrong? The same garbage that comes from a man-written book, also known as The Bible. The Bible to me is a giant game of telephone in that over the years, what could have really happened some many, many years ago have been changed to make for better writing. It's like telling a 5-yr old, "Hey, the puck is black" and by the time they pass it around the circle, the puck has arms, legs, and speaks multiple languages.

Furthermore, if homosexuals want to be married, awesome. They can also go through the horrors of divorce like the rest of us, splitting their possessions, visitation rights, etc.

I'm all for same sex marriages and I personally, don't care for the whole homosexual scene.
- Bill, Manchester

Whether or not NH legalizes same-sex marriage, our federal government will not acknowledge it. So why all this fuss and bother? People are fighting for rights, I understand that, people are fighting to be equal, I understand that too...but currently, the only thing same-sex marriage will earn is...a new name. Gays and lesbians will still have to pay taxes on the money that is paid by their employers for health insurance on their spouse. (The money that is paid on a same-sex partner is considered "income" or a taxable benefit by the federal government.) They still won't be able to file as married on their income taxes... If they cross the border of a state that doesn't acknowledge same-sex marriage or downright outlaws it...it will all be nullified anyways.

Honestly, marriage is what you make it. It doesn't need government approval. It should be an agreement between to loving adults, not a contract with benefits as it is now. And before anyone says I am a hater or a religious zealot... I am a lesbian. I have actually researched this topic extensively, spoken with friends and done a lot of thinking before I came to this opinion.
- Melissa, Concord

Jason(L'derry), you state "Get the government out of the morality business and leave that to society."

Let's assume that your statement doesn't greatly over-simplify the issue.
Will your plan also get the gov't. out of the forced charitable contibutions business(aka welfare) ?
If your answer is yes, than we are on the same page. If your answer is no, than we are not even in the same library.
Given that most, if not all of our laws are based on morality, your suggestion seems unworkable.
People enforce their sense of morality on society via governmental force. The only question is, who's morals will be enforced ?
- Mike P., Manchester

Thirty-five years ago in High School I wrote a freshman physical science lab report without doing the required lab work. I justified my results by writing that, "My logical mind... tells me... they are true."

The teacher, alas, was also the football coach ha ha, and not a man to mince words. When I got the paper back I was shocked at the big fat "F" with my words claiming logic circled, and terse criticism of my naivete'.

That was the last time I loosely tossed around the word logic as an explanation for missing detail. I do thank the Brothers of the Sacred Heart for that lesson. Great teachers!

ps I previously posted this comment to the wrong article, please excuse....
- Peter Gendron, Nashua

Regarding Gay Marriage and the threat against religious liberties - there are a number of churches that perform same-sex unions (and have for years) that are not recognized, Metropolitan Community Churches for example. What about their 'religious liberties'? When denominations take tax money then they will be held accountable to state law, that means equal access for citizens. There is no threat to make churches perform weddings they cannot perform in good conscience. If they privately fund services, they can deny those services.
Do we really want it any other way? Oh, yes, some do. Some churches want to define their faith as the only faith and assert that view on every citizen - dispite the wide disperity in Christianity (and other faiths) in terms of their stand on this issue.
- Rev. Terri Echelbarger, San Mateo, CA

Ms. Swope says:

"Same-sex marriage implies that the roles of mother and father in children's lives are optional, interchangeable and dispensable."

As a married heterosexual woman contemplating motherhood, this sentence scares the hell out of me. Does Ms. Swope think it would be okay for the government to take other steps (besides discriminating against gay couples) to ensure that I fulfill whatever she thinks is the appropriate "maternal" role? Does she think the government has any legitimate say over gender roles in my marriage?

This to me is an aspect of the gay marriage debate that could use some more discussion. The opposition to gay marriage is about marginalizing gay people. But it is also about urging conformance to a rigid gender roles that many men and women have already rejected.
- Tina, Bedford

Gays can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned but please, don't use bigger government to try to extract more money for your deviation from the norm. There is never an excuse for bigger government, let alone your sexual preference! What's next, marrying your horse made legal so your employer can pay its vet bills?
Face it this is not about freedom to do what you want, but about MONEY. You lefty looneys continue to ruin NH.
- Sue, Manchester

Lot's of Christians accept gay people, and gay marriage, so please don't think all Christians agree with Swopes. Jesus was far more interested in love and inclusion than rules and definitions.

These modern church going fundamentalists are paranoid and have lost Jesus.
- Rob, Manchester

Your concern for what you call logical consequences comes from Fear. Opposition to creating true equality in legal marriage comes from fear, whether it is fear of having to explain it to your children fear of having homosexual couples adopt children, fear of having a homosexual couple sitting next to you in church.
When marriage is expanded to homosexual couples, that does not create a gateway for NAMBLA as other readers have said. We have laws to protect minors in our country. The basics here are that Civil Unions are telling homosexuals they are separate but equal. That should not be legal, it is the same as a Jim Crow law.
As for homosexual marriages hurting our divorce rates, or affecting the family unit, do you not see all around you there are people who are not married and co parent children together, or are single women who have children that do not know who the father is, or the people who are married for convenience of insurance, or military members in "contract marriages."
Civil rights is not about color, it is about equality for every one. Why in 2009 in the "freest nation in the world," is this still even a debate?
Get over your fears. Let others be. If your church doesn't want to marry homosexuals that's fine, but that doesn't mean those individuals cannot be married. Marriage is not religious, it is a social construct, and a legal contract.
- Danielle, Weare

Honestly, we gays did not crash the Roman Empire.

I have been trying to track down the origin of this mythology. Sally Kern expressed this with a reference to "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" [sic].

It is - of course - Gibbon's "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" wherein the author suggests that Rome fell for two primary reasons; Declining civic virtue and the rise of Christianity which are somewhat intertwined. Without going into a lengthy polemic, "civic virtue" has noting to do with sexual practices. It describes working together to achieve great things for society.
- David Hart, New York, NY

If the Federal Government granted the same legal benefits to civil unions as they do to marriages, none of us would care WHAT they called our "legal commitments"!
As things stand now, if I die, my spouse would not collect my veteran's disability or any of the money I've paid into Social Security. Should we vacation in a State that doesn't recognize our civil union, and one of us dies, the suvivor would not be allowed to claim the body, as by some State laws, this must be done by a "relative". These are just a few of the over 1,000 rights that are not granted to civil unions.
If civil unions truly granted all of the protections and benefits of marriage, there would be little reason to strive for marriage. And, why not designate the term "matrimony" for commitments made in a church, and call all other commitments "marriage"?
Our battle is about basic rights. The Supreme Court overruled the "separate but equal" claim over discrimination against African-Americans. Isn't it time to do the same for gays and lesbians?
- TA, Manchester, NH

So many conservative talking points, so little time. Brian and Jenny, you each have one vote, you also have one opinion. The only way to multiply the effect of your one vote is to present facts, and arguments. All I see here is unsupported assertions, wishes and attempts to make fear of the other a major decision point. Now that is a real "intrusion" into the lives of citizens.
- Robert, Deerfield

Interesting statictic: Massachusetts has had same-sex marriage now for a few years, with no apparent negative consequences. And what state has the lowest divorce rate in the nation? Yup, Massachusetts. I guess same-sex marriage must be good for everyone's marriage!
- RIchard, Manchester

Nicely written, a solid B for construction. But, where are the supporting points for the argument? F for argument!

This column would be respectable if the author started with, and indeed restated many times, "My religious convictions tell me...."

If such were the case we would have a heartfelt and honest plea, born of sincerity and as good as the prose contained therein, and possibly a very effective argument for some readers. Instead the author foolishly tries to hijack the logic train without using any logic at all. This is a mistake, one often made by novice writers whose emotions are held close to their hearts.

Ms Swope, it is honorable to plea for understanding and acceptance. It is not honorable to propagandize. The handlers at the Union Leader certainly know this, and were unkind to allow your sincere feelings to be posted as an analysis. You've been used.
- Marion, Newcastle

That there are unforeseen consequences is a given - we have seen that with the poorly thought out "civil union" idiocy. For instance, do gay couples enjoy "spousal privilege" in legal matters? That is defined as a benefit of marriage - something civil unions do not accomplish. Enjoy being "equal" though.

Why anyone would want the State to sanction something you can privately attain, gay or straight, is beyond me.

Remove the emotionalism from the issue, some thing we rarely do anymore, and what you have is one cadre of fools saying they want State sanction and another cadre of dunces saying the former does not deserve it.

The entire debate is moronic.

Give it to them, don't give it to them, what you end up with, no matter how you look at it, is further intrusion by the government, when with a lawyer you could accomplish the same thing.

But, as Kinky Freeman once intoned, "They (Gays) have a right to be just as miserable as the rest of us."
- William Simpson, Concord, NH

Swope says;

"By establishing civil unions or same-sex marriage, we are not simply allowing homosexuals to enjoy certain rights they were previously denied. We are changing our understanding of marriage to a point from which there is no turning back."

Good! I'm all for it.
- Gerard, Pelham

Ms. Swopes needs to get out of the 1950s and realize that gay couples are no more or less moral than straight couples. Marriage is not about pro-creation, it is about two consenting adults expressing their commitment to each other. Unless we are going to introduce a provision that the couple must agree to have children (and be willing to enforce it), then the pro-creation argument is a red herring. Get the government out of the morality business and leave that to society.

And, other than agreeing with the UL's washed-up and discredited philosophies, exactly what in Ms. Swopes background or education gives her the credibility of receiving a full editorial? This should have been a letter to the editor, not an editorial.
- Jason, Londonderry

Brian, I don't know if you've noticed, but the family unit as we knew it has already dissolved. Even in those homes where Mom and Dad are still married, they are often so busy with work and other commitments to really be parents. Should single parenting not be allowed either, since obviously I turned out to be such a horrible, person, you know, being a productive member of society who happened to be raised by a single mom? She loved me, supported me, and gave me everything I needed. How is that any different from being raised by two women or two men, who want to love and support a child?

I will never understand the argument against gay marriage. Some people WANT to make a life together. Some of them WANT children. That's so much better than people who get married because the condom broke. Biology shouldn't have anything to do with it. It's about maturity - and Gus, it's about consent. "I'm gonna marry my horse" is such a tired argument. No on is going to marry their horse, or aunt, or the 10-year-old boy next door. Bestiality and pedophilia are illegal because both parties can't give consent.

Zizzy, whoever you are, you got it right: If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one.
- Sarah, Keen

The legislature can pass a law tomorrow stating that we are all to start referring to pigs as dogs. While calling them dogs may make the pigs feel better, they are still pigs.

Calling a homosexual union a marriage doesn't make it a marriage.
- WS, Manchester

Jenny - excellent piece - very well put.

Dom, you need a quick brush up on your history. Marriage is not a civil institution, it is a vital social institution that is either regulated or complimented by the law - but the law does not define marriage, rather people and cultures have done that for the reasons jenny states above.

Second, the loss of "religious liberties" argument Jenny makes at the end of her op-ed is real - one only need to do their research in states where SSM is already legal due to judicial fiat. I can't imagine the loss of religious liberty flying well in the "live free or die" state.

Thanks for speaking out on this reality of this issue Jenny and for not being intimidated by those who claim to be "tolerant". For more research on this issue, please visit: www.nhcornerstone.org or marriagefactsnh.org
- Kevin Smith, Litchfield, NH

Hey Gus, the day your cat or horse can enter into the marriage by their own consent and certify that in front of the required authority, have at it. Your juvenile rant is sad.
- Stephen Boyington, Chester

Wow, what happened to that great 60's sentiment...".we don't need a piece of paper from the establishment to make our love legitimate."

Why are we so hung up on marriage, gay or straight ?

Unless you plan on bringing children into this world, marriage is a useless outdated institution
- Dan Bitterman, Concord

Why is gov't even in the marriage business? Marriage(compared to Civil Unions) is defined on religious terms. I don't want gov't anywhere near religion, especially if it settles on a religion that conflicts with mine. I think gov't should just stick to Civil Unions and let the churches deal with marriage.
This area of the country was settled by immigrants looking for religous freedom. If my church imposes their religious will on me, I'll simply switch churches. Where do I go if my gov't imposes their religous will on me?
Ms Swope can define marriage however she wants (And I view her beliefs as sincere). However, if her religous beliefs are used to define others' freedoms, well then we have a problem; a similar problem that the people landing on Plymouth Rock previously had.
- Breyer S., Manchester, NH

I'm looking forward to the day gays can marry in New Hampshire. That will be the day my wife and I marry our dog, our cat, a pony, and my elderly aunt. Afterall, if its a denial of gays' civil rights to marry same sex....... is it not a denial of my civil rights to marry whatever, whomever, as many as I so desire?
- Gus, Manchester

I agree with Jay and Tom and would prefer that my government endorse neither orthodoxy nor deviancy but leave certification of relationships to private institutions. However, Ms. Swope is rational, as opposed to a recent op-ed on the other side of this issue, which invited us to feel sadness, loneliness, and shame, and compared current state policy to Negro slavery. Thank you for reasoning rather than manipulating.
- Spike, Brentwood NH

No more Jim Crow Laws, legalized homosexual marriage is only right. The two entering into the union will both still be of legal age, so I don't see how it will open the door for NAMBLA.

You want the government out of your bedroom? Yet you still want to voice your own opinion in someone elses? The biggest issues from the opposition is fear, whether you admit it or not. You fear having to explain something you don't understand, or don't necessarily agree with. You fear having to see homosexual couples with happier marriages than you have. Most of the time the fear comes from your religion. If a church wants to say no homosexual marriages will be performed as a ceremony here, that is their right go for it. It's a separation of church and state in our fine country. For that reason stop pretending marriage is religious. How many people are married in "casual" ceremonies, by someone not a member of a church? Those are still marriages. Marriage is a social construct and a legal contract. How many people are married out of convenience? For health insurance benefits? Heterosexuals are taking advantage of marriage, treat it as a temporary thing, and have made the divorce rate the highest ever. In my opinion, why not open it up to homosexuals? It can't hurt our 50/50 odds, can it? It will allow us to demonstrate that our laws truly come from the separation of church and state. It will allow us to no longer have seperate but equal for any citizen.
The fact that "we are the freest nation in the world" and it is 2009 it disturbs me that this is still even a debate.
- Danielle, Weare

Wow what an interesting commentary. Jenny has done an outstanding job explaining everything that is wrong about the current debate surrounding "gay marriage". The first thing that gay rights activists and those who support the status quo need to understand is the fact that marriage is not a right to begin with. It is a priviledge created by the government. No one has the constitutional right to get married. Period. The people have the choice to create marriage laws through their representative bodies or they can choose to privatize the institution of marriage and have the churches provide the marriage license. Yes there are those in the gay rights camp who will say "oh, well we deserve equal protection under the law!!" What protections are you looking for? Again, marriage is not a constitutional right for anyone! Gay or straight! If I want to change current marriage law I will work hard to support and lobby politicians who support changing the law to include gay marriage. So stop abusing the 14th amendment!

Then you have those "stay at home moms" who go to church every Sunday and are told that if gay people are allowed to get married, the sky will fall and our children will turn into evil little monsters who will go on to destroy the world! Oh my God! Maybe Jenny should go do some research and take a look at divorce rates in this country because they are not numbers worth bragging about believe me! According to government statistics released in 2003, 43.7% of custodial mothers and 56.3% of custodial fathers were either seperated or divorced and in 2002, 7.8 million Americans paid about $40 billion dollars in child and/or spousal support and 84% of the payers were male. Why is Jenny refusing to talk about that?

And for whatever reason, Jenny believes that if gay people are allowed to get married, that women will suddenly stop having babies and there will be no more procreation because there will be no more "straight" marriages! How will gay marriage stop straight couples from getting married and based on divorce statistics mentioned earlier, what is the current institution of marriage doing wrong to cause so many broken families? Has Jenny ever considered the negative impact divorce has on children? Gay people have not even had the chance to screw marriage up yet!

Maybe we should take a look at our society as whole before picking and choosing who to blame for its ills!
- Nathan Morin, Berlin

The lack of facts in this article is disturbing. It's nothing but suppositions. There are a number of states where same sex marriage and civil unions are legal and have been for years. How bout you support your arguments with statistics of how hetero marriage is crumbling in these states due to same sex marriage. Oh wait it hasn't happened.
- Tim, Manchester, NH

As a gay man it is all about rights for me. Please keep the word "marriage" because 1/2 of you who are slamming the gay community for "breaking down the family unit"....please explain to me why 50% of people who sign a "marriage" certificate end up divorce court? That is an amazing family unit!
- James, Derry

Ms. Swope is misinformed about Catholic Charities decision to get out of the adoption business. Before Cardinal Sean O’Malley became archbishop of the Boston Archdiocese, Catholic Charities did not discriminate in its adoption work, but placed a priority on meeting the best interests of each child. Catholic Charities sometimes placed children with single adults, and with gay or lesbian couples, in addition to traditional married couples. When the Archbishop learned that Catholic Charities had been placing children with gay and lesbian couples, he sought to end the practice, and sought an exemption from the state’s antidiscrimination laws. It had nothing to do with Massachusetts’ legalization of same-sex marriage. The state refused to allow Catholic Charities to begin discriminating against gays and lesbians, so the Archbishop closed the adoption service (which was transferred in its entirety to a private adoption agency).

Right now, there are 129,000 U.S. children in foster care waiting for adoption. Tens of thousands of these children “age out” of foster care every year, without ever gaining the stability of a permanent, loving family. Teens who age out of foster care are at high risk for homelessness, unemployment, drug abuse, dropping out of school, violence, and early pregnancy, often perpetuating the very problems that put them into foster care in the first place.

Single parenthood is hard. A two parent household provides significant benefits for the child and the parents. But some of these children have been traumatized and abused by an adult of one sex. If you will not consider a same-sex couple as potential parents for that child, you are requiring the child to either face the challenges of a single-parent home or age out of foster care without finding a home.

These are our children, their daily basic needs for food and shelter funded by our taxes. If they age out of state care without ever finding a permanent adoptive family, we as a community may need to provide a lifetime of care for them – from homeless shelters to prisons to emergency medical care.

These children want and need what the rest of us take for granted – the chance to grow up in a family where they know they belong and are loved. We do not have enough adults, in traditional households or not, stepping forward to meet the need. How can we tell these children that we would rather have them grow up without a family at all because you don’t like the sexual orientation of the adults who are willing and able to give them a safe and loving home?
- Janice Halpern, Boston, MA

Oh Jenny, get over yourself. I'll never understand why folks like you get yourself all in a tizzy over some gays or lesbians getting married.

You never seem to be bothered by the hijinks and shenanigans that heterosexuals engage in while married but the very idea of queers getting married freaks you out.

Let's be clear about one thing: marriage is a TERRIBLE institution for everybody. The very idea of chaining yourself to another person and losing your independence and freedom is a horrible one. However, if two gay guys or two lesbians want to ruin their lives this way then let them!

The real winners here are the caterers at the beginning of marriages and the divorce lawyers at the end of them. Gay marriage in NH will mean a growth market for both industries and that's a good thing for our economy.

The best possible solution to all of this is to remove the state from issuing any kind of marriage licenses. I'll never understand why the state is involved in the first place. Get the state out of the marriage business and throw the issue back to the churches. Each church can make up its own mind and the state can simply issue generic civil unions documents for all couples to cover legal rights and responsibilities. End of problem for all concerned.

To all the gay and lesbian couples out there who are desperate to be married...be very, very careful about what you wish for...you may get it...and you may find that having it is not nearly as satisfying as wanting it...you've been warned.
- Jim, Wilton

There are so many false assumptions and conclusions I am not sure where to begin. She ignores heterosexual and homosexual marriages that do not want to have children. These marriages are also about love, mutual respect, and support. Same sex couples are families too, and our marriages, as well as childless heterosexual marriages, if successful will also benefit society. There is more to marriage than just a “procreation potential” and same sex marriage would not take away from this. This writer does not explain how same sex marriage would interfere with her marriage, how it would destabilize relationships, how it would cause “government interference” with her relationship, and how the use of reproductive technology would change - unmarried woman are already are having children using this technology. This writer uses scare tactics to imply that the government will control religious institutions and allow more people in a relationship. She simply does not prove how redefining marriage would be a detriment to society.
- Bill, Amherst

The hidden part in the so called gay marriage agenda is how it will affect religion in our nation and the freedoms granted religion in the constitution. It has already affected adoption agencies that were forced to let gay couples adopt or face law suits they could not afford to fight. The result was the closing of adoption centers and the loss of the freedoms to those of faith to practice their faith. But then we give away our freedom of choice to judges and radicals in government on a yearly basis these days like its cheap wine.

I'm willing to bet in the next twenty years if this is allowed to continue will be the lowering of the age of consent so groups like NAMBLA can have their way with young boys and the heterosexual perverts can have their way with young girls. Look up the name Jeffery Curley and know that this group is free to exist and spread their views when they should be institutionalized.

Why is it why we never hear from the gay people in society who do not believe it is their right to take marriage as their own? They do exist. Like the stimulus bill some of us will figure out what is really going on after its too late. It’s harder to go back once you go down the hill.
- Ross, Derry

I guess freedom only applies to those who choose to live their lives in a manner that is approved by homophobes. If you are against same sex marrige, don't get one and mind your own business.
- Zizzy, Manchester

Gays are not the only people denied the right to marry in our nation's history. Slaves couldn't marry, so they devised their own ceremonies, like a lot of gay people today do. The courts did not protect slave rights, and a lot of pulpits examined scripture and found slavery morally permissible. but of course, this was "not out of hatred or fear", but "because of the negative social consequences that logically followed the end of slavery". There were in fact major consequences. And it was still the right thing to do. When we as a society look at members of a minority group and declare ourselves superior to them, it is a real bad thing.
We have been down this road before, first by disallowing slave marriage, and then by outlawing interracial marriage. Those racist laws had nothing to do with the ability to procreate, but only with the diminished class status of people denied the right to marry. It's really easy to come up with excuses to treat minority groups differently. It's harder to accept the reality that none of us are born superior by virture of our race or gender or sexual orientation.
- kerry, londonderry

I agree with Jay in Nashua - get the government out of the marriage business. I'm tired of this absurdity.

Personally, I'll consider homosexual relationships equivalent to marriage when homosexuals become capable of procreation.
- Tom, Campton

Nice job Jenny S. and a well put article. It is a healthy thing to draw a line in the sand and solidly define correctness in any issue and especially marriage as between a man and a woman. Discernment in deciding and ruling on issues in this nation is something that has all but disappeared and leads us to a far liberal, 'open minded' agenda that is evidently dividing our America. Remember... one can be so open that his/her 'brains may fall out'.
- Tom, Manchester, Manchester, NH

So many conservative talking points, so little time. Brian and Jenny, you each have one vote, you also have one opinion. The only way to multiply the effect of your one vote is to present facts, and arguments. All I see here is unsupported assertions, wishes and attempts to make fear of the other a major decision point. Now that is a real "intrusion" into the lives of citizens.
- Bob, Deerfield

"-- Increased intrusion in family life. Marriage has historically been considered a private institution which normally enjoys freedom from government interference."

Perfect argument for sending marriage back to private institutions (i.e. - "The Church"). Get the government out of my bedroom - straight, gay, I really don't care. You want equality, then no legal/government recognition of marriages at all. That's equality for single people, married people, gay people, straight people, poor people and wealthy people. Why should, if we make the same amount of money, I have to pay into the tax system because I'm single and you get a refund simply because you're married? That, to me, is the predominant government intrusion in marriage. Yeah, the other roughly 1099 benefits are fine, but unnecessary.

Wait. Wait. Somebody's going to say, "What about protections?" Protections for couples from being held accountable in a court of law based on spousal privilege, and protection from denial of visitation during hospitalization - hey, you can fill out this paperwork for insurance, but you can't visit your spouse, so sorry.

You know, I have a great deal of respect for stay at home parents - and I use the word "parents" not because I need to be sensitive to "gay issues" (obviously this term is a misnomer as all issues affecting the LGBTQ community have an effect on society at large), but because I know both stay-at-home dads and moms - but these arguments are a bit antiquated. Coming from a divorced-home, I really don't put much faith in any marriage as a tool to right all society's wrongs, to prop-up or provide moral guidance to society. Family units ARE a flexible item. Marriage itself is an antiquated system based on possession and sale of a woman.

You know that old saying, "Give me liberty or give me death." Well, "Give me freedom or give me equality."
- Jay, Nashua, NH

There is admittedly some disagreement within the Gay community over what's more important, the word "marriage" or the benefits and responsibilities that are connected with it. As someone who prides himself as being nothing if not diplomatic, I would take simple legal equality under the law, even if the operative term is "civil unions." If social conservatives simply wish to reserve the term "marriage" for heterosexual couples, they can have it, as long as Gay couples are treated fairly.

Here's an example of how the current system is not fair: According to a statement I recently received in the mail from the Social Security Administration, my married spouse would be eligible for over $1400 per month (after retirement) in the event of my death. I think anyone would agree that $1400 per month is a pretty hefty chunk of change. However, it is money that my significant other would not be eligible for, because we would not be allowed to get married. I would like to provide for the financial well-being of my spouse, just as I'm sure any heterosexual would, but in essence I'm throwing away money on a fund that my partner cannot take advantage to in the event of my death.

At the root of this discrepancy is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was signed, to his eternal shame, by Bill Clinton. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in California or Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government, and any such couple becomes magically “UN-married” once they move to another state. So frankly, even married Gay couples in California and Massachusetts continue to be second-class citizens in the eyes of Washington.

At the very least, the federal government should allow Gay spouses to file joint tax returns and to designate one another for survivorship benefits under Social Security. If a "civil union" would allow us to do this, I'm all for it. If not, then nothing but full marriage equality will suffice.
- Chuck Anziulewicz, Spring Hill, West Virginia

This simply does not compute:

"the negative social consequences that will logically follow its legalization."

There will never be any logic involved in the opposition to granted rights such as same-sex marriage.

btw Brian--thanks for the reference to the Roman Empire...et tu Brian? Funny stuff!
- JB, NB, NH

You say you're against same sex marriage not out of fear or hatred but because of the negative consequences. Don't you see that your inability to perceive or acknowledge any positive consequences is a direct result of your fear and hatred? Matrimony is a sacred institution. Marriage is merely a civil institution, and in no state is there a procreation requirement.
- Dom, Weare

An excellent article! Homosexual unions are not families which, of course, are the basic unit of society. When the family units breakdown, society fails. We only have to look at the demise of the Roman Empire to see this. What's next? Shall we do away with the terms "mother" and "father" and simply refer to "parent"; do away with "husband" and "wife" and just say "partner". Let's continue defining marriage just as it is - a union between a man and a woman.
- Brian, Farmington

Different strokes for different folks. I could care less how others live their lives. I see nothing in this writing that indicates my heterosexual marriage would be less meaningful if my neighbor wants to have a homosexual marriage.

"Same-sex marriage implies that the roles of mother and father in children's lives are optional, interchangeable and dispensable."

Review current family law; this logic already applies and predates same sex unions, marriages, or whatever it's called this week.
- Alan, Haverhill