The Flag of Equal Marriage

The Flag of Equal Marriage is an evolving protest flag for equal marriage rights in the US. It includes one star for each state which recognizes and performs same-sex marriages. We want to see the Flag of Equal Marriage with all 50 stars lit up to match the American flag.



  • Billy Razzle

    Where’s the flag for legal pot?

  • Jessica Darko

    We’d have equal marriage rights if the government got out of the business of regulating marriage– or all personal relationships.

    The thing is, the leftists want government to have complete control over people’s lives.

    They don’t want equality, they want their class to be one of the chosen few.

    You don’t see them supporting polygamy, do you?

    “Equal” rights for gays, but not those evil mormons, right? Hypocrites.

    I’m in favor of gay marriage, but I’m really in favor of human rights… and too many of these “marriage equality” people are not in favor of human rights.

    • Moeskido

      Wow, what a truckload of generalizations and false equivalence. How do you carry that around all day?

    • Brian Mauter

      I clicked to this thread just to leave a similar comment. Well done, Jessica.

      Government should be out of the business of regulating marriage. Marriage is an institution of the churches. If one church defines it one way, fine. If another defines it another way, that’s fine too. I don’t agree with polygamy, but then again, I’m not mormon.

      How then do the legal and health-benefits systems acknowledge these unions? I don’t think they should. I know this becomes a complicated issue, but the definition of marriage in the legal system is proving to be complicated itself.

      • Lukas

        There needs to be some way for the government to acknowledge marriages (whether you want to call them “marriages” or not), due to all of the rights it confers.

        • Brian Mauter

          I agree with that.

          I would prefer to see the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony left alone by our government.

          • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/his-divine-shadow His Shadow

            I would prefer to see the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony left alone by our government.

            That’s your problem right there. There is nothing holy nor sacred about a social contract between two people, and the overwhelming majority of effects a marriage contract has on a relationship relates to the administration of and access to government services.

      • Moeskido

        Marriage is a legal contract between people that affects their economic relationship with the society they live within.

        You can hate government all you like, but in the end, involving a church in this process is simply a choice you can make.

        It shouldn’t be a requirement in a country that was founded with a document that includes the words “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

        • Brian Mauter

          Please read the last line of the Declaration of Independence.

          “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

          Our forefathers began that document with a bold statement of independence and finished it with a bold statement of dependence.

          • Moeskido

            I’ve read it, thanks. It’s not about dependence. It’s a concession to popular sentiment.

            The founders were deists who understood the strong feelings of religious people but absolutely stood for a complete separation of anything that might allow the presence of a state-sanctioned religion or, worse, a religion-sanctioned monarch. Adams, Madison, and Jefferson discussed this often among themselves, but knew they had to monitor their candor if they were to continue serving in public office.

            Perhaps you should try reading something other than your church’s interpretation of these texts.

          • Brian Mauter

            My opinion was not formed by reading my or any church’s interpretation of anything. That’s a pretty rotten assumption for you to make. I’ve never even heard the Declaration of Independence or Constitution talked about or analyzed at Mass. Instead sermons typically center around how to seek forgiveness and love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus ate with sinners, etc.

            My opinion could be wrong, but I’ll need sources, please.

          • Moeskido

            Nice to see you, too.

            You’re citing a notional “dependence” upon an unseen, poetically-described deity whose presence in the document amounts to little more than a rhetorical flourish. Congratulations.

            Remember that the Declaration itself was a statement about breaking away from a government ruled by “divine right,” a concept much loved by church-sanctioned monarchs and despots. But that’s just a sidebar.

            Your opinion was formed by an inclination to seek religious justification within a secular document that was meant to establish a secular government, and which was written by men who understood the political need to profess faith publicly, regardless of their private beliefs. That particular curse remains with us to this day, thanks to insecure Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike.

            And yes, they were men of faith, insofar as they were also educated men who took lessons from the teachings of many philosophers (one of them being the folkloric Jesus) who had important things to say about how we behave ourselves.

            For a source, start with the Jefferson Bible, the reasons why Jefferson undertook it, and the letters he wrote about it to people like John Adams, exhorting them to keep it private.

            I’ll wait patiently.

          • Brian Mauter

            Look, if there needs to be a union of some kind to satisfy some legal construct, keep it. I think it’s an idea that has outlasted its time though. I still wish for something better and I honestly believe that’s what the fuss is all about.

            For example, let’s frame this under healthcare benefits for a moment. Why are my options limited to self, self+spouse and self+family? Why can’t it simply be the number of persons in my household? If my parents live with me, why can’t I put them on my health plan? I’d be paying more than others, obviously. Why does it have to be framed within the notion of marriage?

            I don’t automatically consider government == bad. That’s ridiculous. If the state wishes to tell me how I must marry, then that’s bad. Does that make our government bad? No. Unfortunately though, our freedoms (you called them curses?) do seem to be starting to erode. The state already forces my religion to support health practices that directly violate our beliefs.

            What say you on the right to bear arms? I know that’s not in the Declaration, but is that just another rhetorical flourish that we Southerners cling to?

          • Moeskido

            Gee, thanks for allowing the rest of us to keep our legal construct. Mighty generous of you. Keep wishing for something better, whatever that is.

            I see you’ve realized that actual history doesn’t support your mythical beliefs about the founding fathers’ intentions, and so you’ve lost interest in discussing the secular origins of our government. Or perhaps you’re pretending you never brought that up in the first place. Or you just didn’t want to do the research. I can’t say I’m surprised.

            I’m not very interested in following you around while you flail and evade, trying to find an unrelated distractor issue that somehow supports your original objection to the original core of this conversation. Let’s try and stay with that, okay?

            Marriage is a contract for a legal union that provides certain rights and responsibilities. Involving the church with marriage is your personal choice, but it’s not for everyone. People who choose differently than you aren’t somehow lesser for it, and shouldn’t be treated as such.

            This government creates a structure whereby we all agree to support each other to provide goods, services, and standards regulation (something which people in southern states could be a little more grateful about, considering where most federal money gets spent). Some call this “civilization.” There are many things government does well — and did a lot better before the past thirty years of steady degradation by private interests — and there are many things government could be a lot better at.

            But this government also supports your right to practice your beliefs, a privilege which you don’t seem prepared to extend towards others, or you wouldn’t have tried to interpret its core documents to favor you.

            Your right to marry (or to divorce and remarry) is not affected in the least by realizing that human beings other than yourself have always had the same rights, if not for the restrictions imposed upon the rest of us by a relative handful of easily-frightened bigots.

            (Incidentally, I used the word “curse” to refer to the hypocritical expectation that people in public office must publicly profess their faith or be considered somehow untrustworthy. I’m guessing you found that difficult to accept, so you deliberately misattributed my intent. Good work there.)

            The state isn’t telling you how you must marry. It’s telling you that you have no right to keep other people from doing so. It’s telling you that the definition of the term is not subject to your religious approval. You said something about eroding freedoms. If that referred to your ability to restrict the rights of others… yes, that “freedom” is eroding.

            You might recall that a few decades ago, the state told your grandparents’ generation the same thing about people of different races.

      • lucascott

        “Government should be out of the business of regulating marriage. Marriage is an institution of the churches.”

        As someone in a same sex partnership, my partner and I agree with this. The issue shouldn’t be about marriage. That’s a loaded term.

        No state or even company should have the power to deny any domestic partnership or the legal rights of those partners. Anyone in a partnership should have the same rights to inheritance, divorce, health insurance, adoption etc. Whether it is a male/female, two males, two females. And things like adoption should be based on factors of intelligence, etc regardless of sexuality. There’s many a kid being left by social services in crappy hetero couple based conditions because they don’t want to put in the kid in a loving foster home that might ‘turn him gay’. Better alive and gay than dead because his real father like to beat him to a pulp. Etc.

        If the church wants to keep the term ‘marriage’ all sacred and such, let them. Take it out of the legal language. Then again, if L Ron can create a church so can the gays and they can then ‘marry’ whomever they like.

    • Lukas

      “the leftists want government to have complete control over people’s lives”

      You don’t see “leftists” legislating people’s sexuality. Leftists typically want the government to help people, not to control them. It’s the right wing who usually wants a strong government that controls people’s behavior.

  • JDSoCal

    Oh how lovely. Meanwhile, bigamists rot in prison…