Heber Taylor’s editorial (“There goes the ban, and good riddance,” Daily News, Feb. 27) states, “The Daily News has long opposed Texas’ ban on same-sex marriages” and “government should stay out of the private lives of private people,” unless there is “a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose.”

Is there a legitimate government purpose in marriage? A license is required, and the marriage must be certified. Do you think this should be revoked?

Webster clearly defines “marriage” as “the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.” This “founding” is the sexual conception and birth of children. It is totally impossible for homosexuals.

Taylor argues the government should give homosexuals rights that other people have. As individuals and citizens, they have those rights. Does The Daily News recognize that other people’s rights can be restricted? Such people as firebugs, drunkards, rapists, child molesters, those who devote themselves to stealing, extortion, as well as homosexual marriage?

Does he support the banning of these? We should remember that there is a much higher court that has forbidden these activities and such like.

Jess Moonen

Texas City

(28) comments

Gary Miller


Al the misfits you list ae illegal except gay sex. Are you suggesting gay sex should be made illeagal? It was in many places but the courts overturned the laws against it. ( Remember the sodomy laws? )
Voters in 33 states made gay marrige illegal. The courts are overturning the will of the people.
Our U.S. Constitution gives every "resident" of the U.S. the same rights as all other residents except where it has been found illegal.
If Gay sex were declared illegal, as a public health hazard, it could be banned. That wouldn't stop gay weddings but they couldn't legally engage in gay sex.
If social conservatives had let domestic partnership laws be passed when gays were asking for them there would have been no reason for gay weddings. Domestic partnerships could have satisfied the constitution's equal protection clause.

GW Cornelius

Jess you are a mess. hope you see the light someday.

Carlos Ponce

Island Runner, I believe Jess HAS seen the light. "The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of deep darkness a light has dawned." I agree with IHOG "Domestic partnerships could have satisfied the constitution's equal protection clause." Marriage is a sacrament in my church. It is sacred to us. Take something you hold near and dear to you. Having somebody call something else by that name hurts. If there is nothing that you hold sacred in your beliefs then you will have no concept of what I am talking about.

Kevin Lang

Feel free to try to lobby for the elimination of the secular marriage contract. I'm sure you'll find lots of allies, especially when they realize what they're giving up.

I place lots of significance in the religious side of my marriage. However, I also place value in the secular rights and responsibilities, too. Regardless of how the secular rights and responsibilities evolve, I won't give up the religious significance of my bond.

Lars Faltskog

"The people in darkness have seen a great light. The Lord of our longing has conquered the night!

Let us build the City of God. May our tears be turned in to dancing. For the Lord our light and our love has turned the night into day!"

- "City of God" = = these bring back memories of college catacomb songs and prayers at the Catholic center!

Kevin Lang

Gay marriage has nothing to do with "individual" treatment under the law. It has everything to do with "joint" treatment under the law. Your argument needs to focus on those rights that married couples share jointly that gay couples are currently banned from sharing. There is nothing in the marriage codes today that requires one to be married to share parental responsibilities. There are, however, restrictions on the inherent rights of gay partners to share in making medical decisions, estate management, or even "spousal" separation.

Webster is NOT the law of the land. Webster is essentially an analogue of Humpty Dumpty.

If you go down to the courthouse to get married, your vows and the ceremony are secular. Just because you mention God, the Bible, Jesus, and a handful of Apostles doesn't make it a religious ceremony. Whether your church chooses to accept your civil ceremony is purely up to your congregation. The JP, through the powers vested in him by the state, can only grant you the marital rights of the state.

Just because the word is overloaded in the Secular and Religious Realms doesn't mean that both realms define it the same. In the secular world, marriage is essentially just a civil contract between two individuals.

Your Religious law may allow marriage between a 60-year-old and a 12-year-old. Civil law calls that a perversion--an illegal one at that. Should we make sure that civil law allows those marriages, too? The Mormons may be interested to hear your take on that. That could motivate them to return their faith's endorsement of polygamy.

Carlos Ponce

Without definitions, sharing a common language is worthless. You may call it evolution when words change, I call it language corruption. If it is a small furry animal that meows and purrs just because I call it "dog" doesn't make it so. The Constitution our forefathers wrote had the word "Lord" in it but secularists now say it does not mean Lord Jesus Christ. Who then was born about one thousand seven hundred eighty seven years earlier? (So they missed it by a few years.)
Just like you can make a "living will" you can make a legal document that specifies who can make medical decisions on your behalf and on who gets your stuff upon your death (even your cat). So why is homosexual marriage needed? So the neighbors won't think they are living in sin? Sorry but that is not going to happen.

Deleted scene "From Back to the Future" scene set in 1955
Marty McFly: "Doc, what if I go back to the future and I turn out 'gay'?"
Doc Brown: "Marty, you have a right to be happy!"
Both Marty and Doc referred to the same word but had no concept what the other meant. Are we communicating?

Lars Faltskog

Response to carlosrponce posted at 3:10 pm on Thu, Mar 13, 2014:

Well, there are those individuals who don't believe in the institution of marriage (straight, one-to-one, gay or otherwise). By sheer convention, it was in conformist fashion to embrace and accept the concept of a one man-one woman union. In different cultures and in centuries past, it was conformist and desired for old, rich aristocrats to have harems of young women (or young men or girls).

The concept of christian marriage is arbitrary, definitely not cast in stone. Think about it, ponce...if you and I were transplanted in some kind of African or Indonesian country, polygamy would be accepted and practiced.

Carlos Ponce

The concept of Christian marriage is not arbitrary for Christians. It has been written on our hearts. To non-believers we must spread His word. If they accept Christ's teaching we will delight with joy. If they do not accept His teachings we will shake the dust from our sandals and move on.
Note: Unless the language butchers have corrupted it also, the word "harem" refers to females. The closest historic male equivalent would be "stable."
As for a "polygamy", God created Eve as Adam's mate, not Eve, Susan, Elizabeth, Patricia, Wanda, Wendy, Hillary, Sybil, Charlotte, Deborah, Heather, etc. He could have populated the planet in no time but in His wisdom, God created the ideal helpmate - one woman.

Kevin Lang

Feel free to make it your life's work to erase all words from the dictionary that have multiple meanings. There are plenty out there. A lot are not just different in specifics, but complete opposites. This is not only true of English, but also Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. Do you want to cleanse the Bible of words that have two or more meanings? Have fun!

Most words that mean anything mean more than one thing. What a lovely world we'll live in when we get ourselves down to a language or 20 words.

Carlos Ponce

There is a difference between words with original multiple meanings and when you supersede a word's original intent with a different one. I like words with multiple meanings but people groan when I use them in puns. A bicycle can’t stand on its own because it is two tired.
But kids today giggle when they hear the Flintstones Theme song line "You'll have a gay old time." When I grew up, "gay" just meant "happy" with no references to sexual lifestyle. I still have dictionaries that define gay as happy. Why butcher a perfectly good word?
Marriage: the recognized union of a man and a woman

Kevin Lang

So, if a word is born with one meaning, it shouldn't have it's meaning changed, or new meanings added over time? Well, there goes most of the English language. I don't care what word we use to label the relationship. The meaning of the relationship is in the hearts and minds of the partners, not the word used to label it.

According to today's customs, Adam and Eve weren't even married. There was no priest, there were no witnesses, and no scriptures to read from. There wasn't even a language to speak the vows.

Carlos Ponce

"God created mankind in his image;in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.God BLESSED them and God said to them: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it."
Interpretation: GOD was the Priest. GOD BLESSED their union- a marriage.
"GOD said"- definition of said: past tense of say : To express in words.
God will speak to you if you will listen.

The English language is a mixture of words from different languages. That is why we have different words for the same thing: pail and bucket for example. Spellings and definitions were codified in this country in 1806 by Noah Webster. Adding new definitions to established words confuses the entire country.
President of the United States definition (1787-January 19, 2009) The elected leader of the executive branch of government of the United States of America.
President of the United States definition (Jan 20, 2009-Jan 20, 2016) a buffoonish, inept, person who was elected to lead the executive branch of the United States
What do you think of my (and several million Americans) redefinition?

Kevin Lang

None of us IS GOD, and none of us has the right to PLAY GOD. It is our role to act as we think God wants us to act. It is not our role to force others to act as we think we're supposed to act. Government's role is to establish the means to build and retain order in our society. I see nothing nothing in Gay Marriage that undercuts societal order. We are no safer by denying it, and we'd be no less safe if it's allowed. Whether God likes it or not is an issue He will take up with them come judgment day. Whatever gay men and women do is not going to affect our own paths to heaven. No one's going to force you to dump your wife in favor of sverige1, IHOG, or anyone else as a result of Gay Marriage being legally sanctioned.

Lars Faltskog

The last paragraph of this letter is erroneous. There is no such thing as a "much higher court". That concept is pure fabrication.

I have not seen a so-called higher power come and speak to me to say that one lifestyle is more sacred than another. We seem to forget that in this big wide world there are other cultures who have practiced polygamy.

There are other more similar cultures to ours who practice monogomy, yet they don't have the greek system of democracy that allows the process of going to a courthouse to cement the "sacred monogomous man-to-woman" relationship, much less a christian-type church to insert the holy gods that are to bless your lovely union.

Let's get with the 21st century. Gay marriage is here to stay. If you don't like it, then maybe there's a remote area in Idaho where you can set up a fortress and bring your followers, a la David Koresh-style.

Carlos Ponce

"I have not seen a so-called higher power come and speak to me..." Seek and ye shall find, sverige. We don't need to go to Idaho. Texas does not recognize same sex marriage. And if one day it is forced upon us by the courts, so be it. As for me and my house, we will follow the LORD. Joshua 24:15
Remember what the Jews sang to the Nazi prison guards at the internment camps "meine gedanken sind frei".

Lars Faltskog

Response to carlosrponce posted at 8:17 am on Fri, Mar 14, 2014:

Updated Definition:
- President of the United States definition (Jan 1969-August 1974, Jan 1981-Jan 1989, Jan. 2001-Jan 2009) a buffoonish, inept, person who was elected to lead the executive branch of the United States -

EXAMPLES: Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush
(Pictoral examples forthcoming)

Carlos Ponce

Perfect Presidents, far from it. I used hyperbole to illustrate the fallacy of redefining established words and phrases.
Richard M Nixon was guilty of poor judgement but put the greater good of the country ahead of his own when he resigned. There is an old Vulcan saying : " Only Nixon could go to China" - Star Trek- The Undiscovered Country.
Ronald Reagan lived up to his part of an agreement with the Democrats in Congress, the Democrats did not, therefore running up the debt. He is guilty of being too trusting.
George W. Bush was guilty of thinking he could help the economy through the Stimulus Package of 2008. Not conservative thinking. More ProLib thinking. The Leftist media hung "Weapons of Mass Destruction" on him like an albatross although this intelligence first appears in the Clinton administration. The Lefties forget that Clinton bombed Iraq from December 16, 1998, to December 19, 1998 in Operation Desert Fox .
To read Clinton's own words go to:
"The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program"."And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them." All this and more from WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON! not George W. Bush and yet the Democrat donkeys think George W. made up "weapons of Mass Destruction". Give me a break!

Kevin Lang

For just a narrow time slice, the 21st century has already seen a number of new meanings being added to established words. Typically, it follows a path of someone coins the new meaning, it develops a following, that following grows, and eventually becomes part of the vernacular. For example, I don't recall hearing "text" used as a verb when I was growing up. For a time, "airplane" indicated a propeller aircraft. Then, we called them "jet airplanes" and then "jets", and now we're back to calling them all simply airplanes.

Carlos Ponce

A noun can become a verb if it exhibits the characteristics of that noun. Take the word "dog". If you are pursuing someone closely that person may turn around and say "Don't dog me!" Or flag. "Please flag the important steps in your report." I still call propeller driven aircraft "airplanes" and those with exhaust thrust "jet planes" and those that simply ride the air , gliders. Calling a jet an airplane is really inaccurate. It's like calling a refrigerator an "ice box" - similar but not really.

Kevin Lang

Huh? Please tell me one thing in the word "airplane" that denotes the method of propulsion. You're more than welcome, as am I, to let a word mean however you choose it to mean.

Do you also object when they call certain corporate partnerships a "marriage" and the acrimonious dissolution of those partnerships a "divorce". From a civil standpoint, if it looks like a marriage and acts like a marriage, why shouldn't it be called a marriage?

It is just a word. The word is not what glues our spiritual relationships, is it? If so, doesn't that make the relationship seem pretty shallow?

Look at the word "love." I can love God, I can love my wife, I can love my parents, I can love my friends, I can love my community, I can love my community, I can love the weather, I can love humanity, and I can love my job. If all of those usages were to mean the same thing, I can certainly see God and/or my wife getting a bit bent out of shape out of all of that loving. And, when I "make love", which of those forms of love am I emulating? Well, I know, but for those that don't like words to mean more than one thing, it might be a bit confusing.

Carlos Ponce

Historical usage defines an "airplane". Yes I do object "when they call certain corporate partnerships a 'marriage' and the acrimonious dissolution of those partnerships a 'divorce'. Although the English language has multiple words for the same thing bucket and pail for instance, we can learn from the Greeks when it comes to the word "love".

Kevin Lang

You mean the history consisting of the time when the only option for propulsion was a reciprocating propeller engine? Most of the people alive today have know far more years during the jet age than during the propeller age. Just because we first started using the word when there were only propeller drives, doesn't mean that's the only type of aircraft to which the word can refer.

So, now you want us to switch to Greek? You think that ancient Greek doesn't have the same problem in other areas--areas that you'd also have objections with? As humans evolve, so, too, does our language. However, our essence transcends language. That essence is where our spiritual marriage resides. No meanings that the secular world places on the word "marriage" describes the spiritual meaning, and it certainly doesn't change the spiritual sense. Two completely different realms.

Carlos Ponce

Since the Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek I would not have problems with these since God pre-ordained that His word be written in these languages -no loss of meaning from the original writings. I have a friend who teaches these languages in a seminary in Illinois. He and I took the same German course in high school. Sprechen sie Deutch? Nein? Das ist schade! In Heaven there will be no misinterpretation of God's word. we will all speak Hebrew.
Historical- The word "aeroplane" first appears in the GDN on page 4 of the March 15, 1876 edition. The article reads: "The San Francisco (Cal.) News Letter says Marriott's Aeroplane Navigation Company has been incorporated with $10,000 capital divided into 100,000 shares. The objects of the incorporation are to navigate the air by vessels or conveyances constructed for that purpose and carrying of passengers, merchandise, dispatches, etc. from one place to another." In 1903 Orville and Wilbur Wright created a flying machine. It had a propeller and was called an "Aerostat" (GDN January 17, 1904 Page 31). The word airplane first appears in the GDN on November 9, 1916 on Page 1.
So airplanes have been around since 1916, 1876 if you include the spelling aeroplane. The concept of the jet was developed in the 1920s but the Germans had a working model in 1939. Granted, the 1876 model was a dirigible with a propeller used to steer.

Lars Faltskog

See "We Did Stop" video. It has brief visuals of Ronald Reagan!


Lars Faltskog

Response to kevjlang posted at 1:53 pm on Fri, Mar 14, 2014:

The jist of what you have commented allows me to cement the kinds of things I've been saying all along. When we start to try to make determinations of what God thinks is "right or wrong", then we get even messier in the delineation between what's legal versus moral.

In some families, a mixed race marriage is deemed "illegal" as well as "immoral". We had laws in the 60s that put an end to that insanity. I think we've made great strides over the decades in realizing that in the "christian" sense, it may not be a bad idea after all if a "mixed marriage" between a Protestant and Catholic occurs. At least they're both "christian" in a sense. Nowadays, to have two people compatible in regards to goals in life and staying power in keeping the relationship healthy, the strict religious adherences go by the wayside.

Same, IMHO, in regard to gay/lesbian marriages. Our millenial generation definitely will take no stock in condeming gay marriage, and as we see, the Generation Y (as young adults) have no problem with it, with extreme exceptions of fringe ultra-conservative folks. They are the kind who, these days, have no other option than to stay with their small enclave of their worshipping centers. The bottom line is that even our deep south states like Mississippi have a preponderance of citizens who see no problem with gay/lesbian marriage. They, like the rest of us, admire anyone who wants to be happy. God wants us to be happy too and I doubt if he is condemning of all of this. What he does condemn are the basic human tenets of "right and wrong" - condemnation of murder and stealing.

Carlos Ponce

"Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' "For many are called, but few are chosen."Matthew 22:14
"For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect."Matthew 24:24
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.Matthew 7:13
The Word of the Lord

Kevin Lang

Bottom line for me is that as long as heterosexuals want to keep working at diminishing the perceived sanctity of marriage, I don't think heterosexuals have any room to talk about how gay marriage will diminish it. If God joined you together, I don't think you have anything to worry about in regards to the civil definitions. Now, if your church decides to start sanctioning it, take it up with them.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.