E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSJust one year ago the Gallup poll showed that for the first time a majority of Americans supported recognizing marriages between same-sex couples. In 1996 only 27 percent of those polled said that marriages between same-sex couples ought to be legal, but by last summer support had reached 53 percent.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney refuses to comment on any change in President Obama's personal views on same-sex marriage. NBC's Karen Welker, The Washington Post's Anne Kornblut and Democratic strategist Mo Elleithee discuss.
But a national sample of 1,000 Americans and the political outcomes in particular states don’t always match -- partly because it’s far harder to enact or undo a law than to express an opinion in a poll. And it is on the state level where this battle has been waged over the past decade.
Thirty-eight states have laws which define marriage as solely the union between one man and one woman. President Obama carried 17 of those states in the 2008 election, including Colorado, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and Pennsylvania. Twenty-eight states go further by having state constitutions that limit marriage to unions between a man and a woman.
Allen Breed / AP
Hundreds of people gather behind the state capitol for a rally supporting a constitutional ban on gay marriage April 20 in Raleigh, N.C.
Partly because the ballot battles over marriage were already fought in various states in 2004, 2006 and 2008 – with several states adding laws or constitutional amendments limiting marriage to male-female unions – marriage is not likely to be a defining and motivating issue for voters in most states in November of this year. But that doesn't mean the issue is vanishing from the political conversation.
This November, in only a few states will voters directly decide the status of marriage.
In Minnesota voters will decide on a proposed constitutional amendment saying that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid. Minnesota already has a state law limiting marriages to man-woman couples.
Maine voters will be asked to vote on a proposal to legalize same-sex marriages.
Why is the White House afraid to embrace same-sex marriage? Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign discusses.
And in Washington and in Maryland, the state legislatures have enacted and the governors signed laws allowing same-sex marriages – but voters can block enactment of those laws by referenda that will likely be on the November ballot.
Tuesday provides an early look at sentiment in one battleground state when North Carolina voters decide whether to approve a proposed amendment to the state’s constitution which says: “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.”
Obama has opposed the amendment: "While the president does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples," Cameron French, Obama's North Carolina campaign spokesman, said in March.
Paul Guequierre, a spokesperson for the Coalition to Protect All North Carolina Families, the main group rallying opposition to the amendment, said, “One thing that’s important to note is that if this is defeated, nothing as far as the law is concerned, changes. Statutorily speaking, marriage is already defined as between man and a woman and that would not change.”
As in Minnesota, under North Carolina law, same-sex marriages are already banned. So some voters may think the proposed constitutional amendment is redundant and vote against it. “That is one of many very valid reasons to vote ‘no’ on the amendment – and I think a lot of people will vote no for that very reason,” Guequierre said.
He said opponents of the constitutional amendment have not been making the argument that defeating it is a prelude to changing the law so that same-sex couples could legally marry in North Carolina. “We’re looking at the very short term and this is not a conversation about a possible change of law down the road.”
A survey of 534 North Carolina citizens by Elon University in late March found that 29 percent opposed any recognition for same-sex couples, while another 29 percent supported civil unions or partnerships, but not same-same marriages, and 37.5 percent supported full marriage rights for same-sex couples.
North Carolina is likely to be a hotly contested state in this fall’s presidential election, so Tuesday’s outcome will be yet another data point for analysts trying to figure out which way the state might go on Nov. 6.
Referring to Tuesday’s outcome, political scientist Mileah Kromer, assistant director of the Elon University Poll, said “It may force his hand to have to take a strong stance on the gay marriage issue here in the state, or it may guide him on how he wants to talk about it.” If the amendment passes, “he may not be in a political position to want to come out and take a strong stand for gay marriage.”
Gay rights and marriage equality advocates are working hard to defeat the North Carolina amendment. Evan Wolfson, president of the advocacy group Freedom to Marry, said it would “cement discrimination into the state constitution in a way that would deny loving and committed couples in North Carolina the freedom to marry” but also would deny any other family relationships such as domestic partnerships or civil unions.
Reacting to Vice President Joe Biden’s comment Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press supporting same-sex marriages, Wolfson said “I was really struck yesterday with his passion and the very personal way in which he talked about getting to know gay families… and thinking about his own values of fairness and treating others as you would want to be treated… And it is exactly why Freedom to Marry has called on President Obama to join that majority for marriage.” He added, “It’s time for the president to do the same thing” as Biden did in his statement on Sunday.
But Brian Brown, president of the conservative group, the National Organization for Marriage, saw it differently. Biden "just made gay marriage a major issue in the presidential contest in critical swing states whose voters have adopted marriage amendments -- including Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia and Nevada," he said. "We will make sure that voters in these states, and others, know that if the Obama/Biden ticket is reelected, our marriage laws will be at grave risk."
As the struggle takes place at the ballot box in North Carolina and other states, the court battle continues over the 1996 federal law signed by President Bill Clinton, the Defense of Marriage Act, which says that no state shall be required to recognize marriages between persons of the same sex performed in other states.
Gay rights advocates are seeking to overturn another section of the law which defines marriage under federal law as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” Last month a federal appeals court in Boston heard arguments in a suit seeking to overturn that section of the law; a ruling is likely in the next three to six months. That case could wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court next year – yet another reminder of the importance of the president’s power to replace justices who die or retire.
The marriage issue could also be fought out in hearings before the Democratic National Committee’s platform committee: Wolfson and other marriage equality advocates are trying to persuade the party to add a marriage equality plank to the platform.
Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney has said he opposes same-sex marriages but also opposes discrimination against anyone based on their sexual orientation.
For gay rights supporters, Romney’s most objectionable statement came in February when he told the CPAC conservative convention, “On my watch (as governor), we fought hard and prevented Massachusetts from becoming the Las Vegas of gay marriage” – a reference to a 2003 ruling by the state’s highest court legalizing same-sex marriages. "When I am president, I will preserve the Defense of Marriage Act and I will fight for a federal amendment defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman,” Romney said.
Leave a Comment:
It is time for Obama to either be a decent human being and admit that Marriage Equality is the right thing, or continue his homophobic ducking of the issue that has marred his first term. Either way, he has my vote because I have no alternative. But by taking the low road, he is not winning ANY votes from ANYONE.
More than HALF of America wants this to pass, so regardless of Obamas or Mittens feelings on the issue, WE SAID YES!!!! Thats how it should be, a majority vote by the people should decide an issue this hot.
I, A conservative, say YES!!!
By the way, were you asked by a poll taker yea or nay on this issue. I never have been and none of my friends or family have and we are all Yes votes. WHO ARE THEY POLLING?? and how can I get in on the poll!!!
Yea, gay marriage.....now fix the economy please!!!
now you are just being nasty!!!! I did not participate in any poll asking if I would approve the law and I wonder if you did either!!! However, I own a small business and a good portion of my customers think this whole debate is ridiculous and that the law should be passed and we should move on!!! One poll says 53% are nay and another poll says 53% say yea. I just happen to live in a conservative area, very conservative, however, most feel this issue has gotten out of hand and the govt just needs to pass the law for tax equality of couples. Now stop being nasty and try debating with some maturity!!!
More than half support when it comes to answering a question in a poll, but when the rubber meets the road and the actual law or referendum is voted on states are now 38-0 AGAINST same sex marriage. The voices of the voters HAVE spoken.
I, a Conservative, say NO !!!!
And that is how something like this should be handled!!! Yes, I agree polls are different especially when they are not equal among the people being polled. But for such a hot issue they need to put it to a peoples vote and NOT overturn OUR vote. yea or nay, majority should rule!!! For many it is NOT political, it is a moral decision, therefore the little people NOT politicians should be the deciding voices!! All this flip flopping on an issue many already know their stance!!! Put it to the peoples vote who can not be accused of having something to gain monetary wise!! Get it DONE!!!
ScottWoods banned for making personal attacks EVERYWHERE.
No, thank you.
Economics only Repubicans are neither hot or cold, readlily embracing anything does not obstruct embracing of their only true g-d, $$$.
^ agnostic republican, YES, gay marriage and rights recognition!!! straight with lots of gay friends and a few family members. As a conservative, I recognize their rights to FREEDOM equal to mine in every fashion!!!
Every human has God like characteristics, not to be confused with BEING god, and IS therefore worthy of respect. The point is; the consequences of not mirroring the divine image should not be blythely brushed aside in the interest of self service; i.e. in this case the almighty $$.
Greed is every bit as unworthy of men and women as is the use of the body in anything less than that for which it was created (not evolved...)
Form to the left or to the right...but please stay out of the murky middle ground of ignorance ( A Gnosis=without knowledge)
Who are we to judge what you interpret as another creation of god!!!??? We are only here to treat one another fairly and equally. And just bc you do not understand what an agnostic is please do not attack it!!!
And i agree with your greed statement!! But money seems to be the real evil that corrupts the human soul!!! Imagine a planet without money and only equal trade, I know we would have greed still but at least it might even the odds and remove some of the lies we are told hourly by our leaders!!! Or it could add to our problems, but it sure might be worth it to try!!!
@True Patriot-445959, you are wrong about Mormon marriages. There are two types of Mormons; The Reorganized Church which still practices multiple marriages and the Mormons that followed Brigham Young to Utah, which do not have multiple marriages.
If a Mormon, male or female, are divorced they are facing excommunication from the Church. I will not go into what it takes to once again be accepted into the Church.
I have to say that if you read history, empires fell because of same sex relationships. I am afraid that our world is looking at its own destruction. Same sex relationships cannot produce children naturally so the human race will be destroyed at this rate. I do not agree with our government about the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy of our military or them allowing the marriage of same sex partners. It should never have been allowed.
Are you suggesting that if we allow this that people will start turning gay everywhere and the human race will cease to exist?
Or it could be viewed as a natural population control and contribute to the assistance of children who were unwanted by their parents, or born to parents unable to care for them. In the old days thousands of years ago, a woman unable to conceive a child was cast aside and a women not wishing to care for a child she gave birth to could be stoned. We eventually figured out how to work through those issue without stoning and casting wives aside. We can work past this too. There is an upside to everything!!!
Which empires would those be? If you're referring to Rome, it fell after same-sex unions were banned and Christianity was made the state religion.
or you could say they fell bc of over regulation and taxation!!! its all about perspective!!! :)-
Like ancient Rome, our fate is on the same path with ethical and moral decay and corruption on all levels. As the gay movement grows so does the moral decay of our society's values hence the assault on marriage meant for a man and a woman.
Let them have their gay unions and domestic partnerships with benefits but leave the term marriage for heterosexuals as it was always meant to be.
Ummmm.......Rome fell after same-sex unions were banned and Christianity was made the state religion. Hopefully America won't follow Rome down the road of Christofascism.
Actually, the early Roman's had a high ethical code before Christianity and as they became more cosmopolitan, adopting different cultural influences through their conquered states, did their morality begin to erode. Apathy soon followed and an entitlement mentality (bread and ciruses) led to further degeneration.
As for Christinaity under the Roman Empire: The first four hundred years of Christianity was met with brutality and severe persecutions under Rome. By the time the persecutions finally ended or subdued, the Empire was already in total decay and divided into East and West.
You make a good point. Theocracies usually don't work...whether the object of worship is a pantheon of gods with fallible human charteristics (e.g. peavish Zeus, lascivious Dianna) or a true man/God (Jesus Christ).
However: "Christofascism" ? Does anyone question the character of Christ; howevermuch , His followers may lack His grace, thereby demonstrating their need for His good services. Therefore may I suggest in the spirit of mutual respect for personhood, over against personal conviction on issues, that wisdom sugggests that perhaps we should all take a deep breath and "render unto Casear the things that are Casear's and unto God the things that are God's." unto God.
Flyboy, if you think our secular government should be enforcing your Christian sharia laws (Canon laws, anti-gay laws, etc), you are indeed a Christofascist.
Your imaginary friend and Jewish zombie are irrelevant to the government.
Do you KNOW who is GAINING MOST from same-sex marriage?
DIVORCE ATTORNEYS.
I KNOW one. His business has DOUBLED--now that he does SAME SEX **AND** opposite-sex divorces.
In FACT, there are sociological studies that show that gay men are FAR more likely to "stray" than straight men, as are gay-women.
Now your lying to back your personal views against gay marrage. I'll admit, his business probably has increased, but doubled. Come on.
The most likely scenario is that the majority of your friends clients are straight couples.
Also, you have no real proof to back your argument that gay men and women are more likely to stray.
I have no problem with them being united in some sort of ceremony. Just don't call it a marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman. Call your ceremony something else. Make something up.
When an antique dealer takes the top off one old table and puts it on the base of another old table, that's called a "marriage" too. The new table is a "married piece". No one OWNS the word "marriage".
Did your grandfather or great grandfather say that he had no problem with women voting, so long as they didn't CALL it "voting"?
Sorry sir, but equality doesn't = people outside your realm of reality have to "make things up" in relation to their lives in order to please you, so that they can live "sort of like" you. They work, raise families, build schools, create art and music that you enjoy, treat the sick, write books, fight in wars, pay taxes, and live under the same Constitution that you do.
I agree ! and they don't leave it there either !
The next thing they do is the ultimate in child abuse - they adopt innocent children and bring them up in their twisted bizarre lifestyle ! These people should be sent to prison !
Good ol Dog, adopted children are abused by heterosexuals. Spouses are beaten and killed by heterosexuals. Incest occurs between heterosexuals. Heterosexuals expose their kids to drugs, cigarettes, and alcohol. These people (all heterosexuals, using your "logic") should be sent to prison!
HEY! MSNBC!!! Guess what? A couple of Post It notes on my monitor cover up the FREAKING ANNOYING ADS that you have moving down the screen beside your news stories as I scroll through them. You think putting moving ads in our faces will make us BUY something? Ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!! WRONG.
don't you love the fly through the CENTER of your page ads??? I tell you what, my credit card just jumps at those!!!
I could care less which side wins.
Just pick a side and vote already!!! :)
Helllo, economy sinking here!!
Where are they doing these polls? Cause its certainly not in states like Arizona. Voters here voted against same sex marriage by a very large margin.
Needs to be national vote!! End the whining already!! Either way, just get it over with and off the table of issue!!!
Sorry, but we don't vote on equality issues. Plenty of people would vote FOR things like segregation, keeping women in the home, Christianity as our "official" religion, etc. I honestly don't understand the hatred that people have re: same sex marriage. Most people are heterosexual, most of them will have kids, and life will go on. Same sex marriage would change none of that. Gays and lesbians pay taxes, vote, fight in wars, teach, heal, build, create, and contribute to a way of life that we ALL benefit from. Churches would have the right to bar same sex marriage, but the state is not the church. We all have a right to live our lives, equally, not because a piece of paper "says" we are equal, but because we ARE.
I agree in part, however once the dog gets the bone between its teeth you have to deal with it and the govt picked up the bone and made it an issue!!! There are alot of things the govt should have kept its nose out of and I am afraid this might be one of them. So we gotta solve it!!!
U know what scares me? The idea that the people we voted for and put in office can not decide on this issue even when people are screaming for a decision. What does that say about we, that put them there? I wish a states decision would be upheld but apparently we are at a crossroads of power struggle, so we have to play the game.
Actually the voters of Arizona wisely rejected a referendum banning same-sex marriage, prop 107 in 2006. Then in 2008 they foolishly enacted a ban with prop 102.
Don't worry though, such bans will be overturned by SCOTUS in the very near future, just like Arizona's ban on mixed-race marriage was overturned by the courts.
Same-sex marriage=sickness, aberration, immorality, sin.
Period!
You deserve to be lonesome.
Exclamation point!
Did you notice how Caucasian populations substantially decrease during times of great demonstrations to support homosexuals and lesbians?
So, perhaps many Caucasian Americans have stopped, looked around for a moment and thought, "Damn, our families are so small! In fact 10 times smaller than our grandparent agrarian families!"
And...it's really kind of icky anyway.
Don't be icky.
Be naturally men and women, as God put us on this earth to be and procreate under the sanctity of marriage.
Huh. You are one looney girl. Familes being smaller today has nothing to do with the gay marriage issue. Neither does the decline of the caucasian population. If that is even the case.
I swear, some of you people are just insane comeing up with these wild ideas.
Yes, theoretically it is supposed to be bc Caucasians have seen the problems with PAYING for a large family, etc. Over-population is another issue we are supposed to be comprehending at a faster rate. We looked at china and did our own population control. There are tons of reasons for our lack of procreation on a level as large as our parents and grandparents. I personally only have 2 but I am 1 of 7!!!
Mackie, if you really believe that, then do all that you can do to fight same sex marriage, and have a gazillion kids. That'll show 'em. Just don't expect gays and lesbians to pay for their schools, treat them in hospitals, save them from fires, fight for them in foreign wars...
Okay, can we all agree they need to put it to a NATIONAL vote and accept the outcome no matter what? So we can move on!! If they lose the vote, then they lose the vote, if they win it, then they win it. Put please put it to a vote on the large scale and don't overturn it, we are getting sick of that!!!
I am sorry folks but to me this is a tiny issue and we have massive issues to deal with instead!!! We citizens are more than capable of checking yea or nay, apparently better than our politicians!!!
All that's left to do is build a golden ox and have orgies in the streets.
Great, why don't you go down to Home Depot, pick up supplies, and get started.
That or just pick up a good 2x4 and be ready for any flamer that might be walking down the street...............................
Hope that flamer has a gun.
Ok so we've covered a faux war on women so now we're going off on the faux gay benge issue to distract and not talk about President Obama's record.
Or is President Obama's record all George Bush's fault?
ummmm gonna have to plead the 5th on that one!!!
Maybe 'Z' all of the above!!!???
Obama's record? Pretty good.
Got that ben Louden guy and quite a few other terrorists.
I am working more and making much more money than just 4 years ago. Still not where I was during the Clinton years.
He's looking pretty good.
Just more wacko's crawling out of the wood work again.
Where You From Boy?
There's only two things that come from Oklahoma, and thats Steers & Queers.
I don't see any horns?, so you must be queer.
Honestly, I don't think any special interest group should govern our rights as Americans.
Gay People deserve the same rights to live as everyone else. You'll find that most Gay People are no threat to anyone else. If you choose to engage in bisexual activities with no protection, then you have yourself to blame if you contract AIDS.
Tell the Media & Politicians to focus on real Issues, like the need for Jobs, Jobs & more Jobs!
Freddy Mercury, Joe The Plumber Coalition, Heartland, USA
Why can't they have the same equal chance TO BE AS UNHAPPY as straight married people. I don't know about you BUT I believe about half the marriages are NOT good. People get married and / or stay married because 1. it beats being alone, 2. pressure, 3. all the friends are married, 4. money, 5. children, 6. fear of being alone, and 7. religion. I am sure there are some very good ones: at best 25%. Too many factors: 1. youth, inexperience, and naivity, 2. people change as they get older, 3. nothing really in common, 4. emotional and mental issues, 5. alcohol and drugs, 4. money problems, 5. incampatiblity. I do NOT know why gay people can't get married. IT'S ABOUT A LEGAL CIVIL CONTRACT over rights and privileges and property. IT SHOULD BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LOVE OR RELIGION. That's why, UNLIKE IRAN OR SAUDI ARABIA OR AFGHANISTAN, we have SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Thank God, or Allah, or Buddah, or whoever for that.
I am a democrat and I really dont care what the Gay community does behind closed doors as long as it is between two adults...Do I think its wrong before God who meant for us to marry and die with our heterosexual partner, Absolutely! And for the record you were not born different you chose a different path that led to your perverted lifestyle. And secondly, if all you care about is "Love" then why are you beating down the door of every school in this country to promote your lifestyle and actually trying to recruit as early as 7th and 8th grade. Kids at that age do not need your message to try and persuade them into your pit of freakness, they have enough peer pressure and your crap needs to stay in your closets. And just so you know I am the parent that stands up at every school function and board meeting and blocks your efforts.
You are also totally uninformed over every point you try to make. Homosexuality is not a choice nor is their love perverted. As for the recruitment, be assured it occures only in your own feeble little brain. Perhaps thou doth worry too much....
You are one, sick dude. You say you "don't care", then you yap about God, perversion, crap, and recruitment of children. Have you ever had an original thought in your head, or do you just judge others based on assumptions, stereotypes, and religious beliefs? I wish to God that you could be retroactively deprived of every good thing and benefit that you have ever received in life from a doctor, nurse, paramedic, friend, teacher, fireman, soldier, or stranger, who happened to be gay or lesbian. You know nothing of life, people OR "humanity".
I love reading the comments for articles like this. The bible thumpers come out of the woodwork like cockroaches and start spouting their nonsense. If you crazies honestly think denying SSM to the gay community is somehow going to make us go away or live our lives any different I've got a big news flash for you.
I am AS STRAIGHT as one can get. I LOVE WOMEN. But, I am sick and tired of the right wing political and religious nuts who have been out screaming. out insulting, out obnoxiousing (is there such a work), out calling in to radio and TV, out rallying the rest of us: in other words, BULLIES. That's what they are and that's all they are. It's not about faith or God, it's about domination. So, the republicans and their right wing, ideological, Tea Party nut cases WILL NEVER get my vote AS LONG AS they want to take us back to the Middle Ages WHEN the church ruled with absolute power, a time in human histroy they call "The Dark Ages."
Thanks Bill...I wish society had more people like you. You are obviuously comfortable in your own skin and have the common sense to not be misguided by people who use religious doctrine in an attempt to control everybody else. Kudos.
The one thing I respect Obama for is his stand on gay marriage. He may have to change his position, but if he does, he will hold his nose doing it.
What do you think Obama's stand is?
Just an FYI, he came out in full support of marriage equality in 1995. His current politically ambiguous position is just for the ignorant and gullible.
This just shows the powerful force in the media. I'd like to see a door to door videotaped survey asking the same question.
I say that, because I recently discharged from the military (2007) and I hardly knew of anybody who approved of the DADT repeal. Now that I have discharged and the DADT repeal is in place, all of my military friends can't believe the survey data results when the large majority of military members, across branches and bases worldwide strongly opposed the repeal. However, the media and military say that the majority approved through surveys.
This goes for the same on gay marriage. I know of few people who approve of same sex marriage. I have lived in Florida, Indiana, Texas and Maryland and the majority of people are against it. Even now, working near Texas A&M University, a young, highly diverse college town, the stance is the same.
So, WHERE are these majority results coming from. Cause, Im certainly not hearing that stance on the issue. I say the books are being cooked to suit politically correct agendas and media bias.
Try asking around OUTSIDE of the trailer park.
It is a state issue not federal. Put it on the ballot of the state you wish to have queers marry and live with the result. North Carolina is now lost to Obama for sure. Perhaps their are enough federal employees in N. VA to carry the day for Obama, but the rest of the Once Great State of VA will not carry Obama's water on this issue. They still go to church! Yep, clinging to their "guns and Religion" in this sad secular-humanistic leaning country. They fear God more than government:)
William,
Im the furthest thing from a redneck. Im not even Republican AND Im an athiest. Wow, can't even make that up can you? Haha.
See, I work for the federal government now as a civilian. The gay agenda is shoved down our throats. We are required, by Obama, to have LGBT Program Managers at each location in each federal agency. Well, they have posted the position and reposted it on a volunteer basis for over a year and havent gotten ONE volunteer...NOT ONE!! Nobody wants it, nobody agrees with it...yet, its mandated.
Thats my point. This crap is jammed down everyones throat and forced upon us as if we should embrace it willingly...it's exhausting.
"There" certainly might be enough for "they're" numbered in the millions in "their" state.
rob: you post "the gay agenda is shoved down our throats"...what's the chance that "your friends" are an unbaised sample of the country? lol.
People tend to have friends who have the same opinions on issues like this...that might explain why you don't find many people telling you the opposite of what you believe.
PS - "shoved down your throat"? lol, the irony of that expression in this context.
Vermontguy,
If you read my earlier post I clarify that I have come from a diverse background and diverse life. I was in the military for 12 years where you are exposed to different cultures, people from ALL over the nation and must try to co-exist as a unified team. I even lived in other nations with American military men and woman. Then I transitioned into the federal system as a civilian where the same is generally true. We come from all over. I have lived in the north and then transferred to the south of the U.S.
In ALL of those settings over the past 16 years, I have rarely encountered people who did not oppose homosexuality or gay marriage on a majority. Period. As unprofessional as it may sound, when the morning meetings ensued and the topics were covered...such as, "We need to appoint a LGBT Program Manager", or "DADT repeal surveys are due"...the groans, the muttering of words, the faces cringing all told the truth. Few, if any approved.
rob: you may "come from a diverse background", but you clearly how strong opinions, and, again, those with strong opinions tend to have friends with similar opinions.
And 16 years ago, I'd agree, there wasn't a "majority" support for gay marriage. Its only been in the past couple of years, so your experience over the "past 16 years" isn't relevant to today's discussion.
And the military is not diverse as far as opinions relative to general society, so you are already starting from a biased group.
As far as "groans" from mandates, I hear that all the time too...no matter what the mandate is.
Just like slavery and women voting, 50 years from now students in history class will sit back and wonder how their grandparents could have been so backwards and intolerant.
Really? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Considering that every single one of those students sitting in class in 50 years will have been conceived through heterosexual encounters.
What can gays produce? What can you give to society in terms of procreation? Can you raise a child of your own blood? Can you breast feed your own child? Can you carry on your family name? NO.
Gays need to thank their parents for CREATING them. You know, the heterosexual MEN and WOMEN whom you called Mom and Dad?
rob, your post has no bearing on whether or not gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to marry and enjoy the same rights as married couples do. thats what this fight is about.
rob: who knew that sexual attraction and reproduction are identical? Gee, I thought that, oh, lesbian women could have babies and gay men could be sperm donors. Guess I was worng. :)
Clue for the cluess: homosexuals are creating kids. They've figured out how to do it, maybe you should pay attention. :)
Yeah, you can create kids. Through a lab!! Sad, pathetic and unnatural. One of you in that relationship will be missing. The child will not look like one of you, the child will not have your blood, your face...etc. It's funny, you choose to engage in the exact opposite of what heterosexuals do sexually, but you want your lives to be exactly the same as ours in every other way.
Also, pittsburgh, why aren't polygamists and mutual incest afforded the same rights?
Rob, why is it that people with your opinion seem to have a fixation with gay sex? Love and marriage have nothing to do with sex and procreation. Although some who are in love and married may choose to do both, others do not.
"through a lab"? lol, again, its not like, oh, gay men and lesbians can have actual sex with people they aren't sexually attracted to.
oh, that's right, they can. :)
and are you saying that infertile heterosexual couples who use artificial techniques are "sad, pathetic, and unnatural"? wow, you are hateful. :)
and you find it odd that homosexuals want their lives to be like heterosexuals in non sexual ways? lol, what else would you expect?
You really don't have a clue, do you? All you do is post biased nonsense about something you obviously know nothing about.
Rick,
Love and marriage have nothing to do with procreation? Haha. The very foundation of marriage is BASED on procreation within a civilization. Men were no longer nomads and wanderers. Humans lived in groups, villages and small societies for survival. As such, social unions were encouraged to produce offspring in a more systematic manner to reduce fighting and undue burdens. In fact, "single and childless men and women were treated with scorn".
Rob-
Do you consider it pathetic and unnatural when heterosexual couples use IVF or when they adopt? Obviously, you have no respect for people who choose alternative methods for having children.
Do you know what is pathetic and unnatural? Hatred towards a group of people because one does not agree with their private life.
Rob, we are a few centuries past your scenario.
rob hasn't noticed that plenty of people have sex and/or get married with no intention of having children (in fact I'd say that nearly all sex is for fun, not procreation.
And people are having children with no intention of getting married.
he doesn't get that sexual attraction and procreation aren't at all necessarily linked...well, not since we were living in caves. :)
It is obvious that the homosexual community pick and choose ONLY what suits their agendas. Everyone draws a line in the sand...therefore we are ALL bigots and we ALL discriminate.
At least I have an argument with some solid backing. The only argument gays have is, "It's wrong to tell me no, its wrong to disagree with me, it's wrong that I cant be gay". Even the Constitution didnt address the issue because they never, EVER thought it would be something allowed or even addressed in our society. Logic goes a long way.
However, even the Constitution or man made laws cannot fight with the laws of nature. Homosexuality is not natural. That CANNOT be argued. We live in a society of such convenience, technology and prosperity, that we have the time and ability to worry about such a worthless topic. If society were to be demanded to regress in any way, shape or form...you would be history.
Based on the natural history of our world, regress is much more likley than progress. The world has regressed many more times than it has progressed. Therefore, homosexuality is a sign of the times and is finite in human existence. Heterosexuality will remain for ALL of human existence.
Rob
It was based on property and alliances that is why marriages were arranged.
Here's how people will view ignorant bigots like Rob 50 years from now:
Rob,
You say it is impossible to argue that homosexuality is natural. Yet, homosexuality has been documented in over 1500 species AND in approximately the same ratio as human homosexuality. So, actually, it seems quite natural. Also, what are these "logical arguments"? Because I've never come across ONE single non-religious, logical argument that even comes close to being a reason to deny people their rights. I see you've brought in procreation already. Yet elderly and infertile couples are allowed to marry. Should we all take fertility tests before being granted our state marriage license? Or is that really none of the government's business? Finally, I see you've gone down the "if everyone was gay, the world would end" road. First of all, if everyone was gay, and we had current technology, the human species would be just fine. It might even be better, since the only babies created would be wanted and cared for. Second, legalizing gay marriage isn't going to "turn" EVERYONE gay. So that argument is just ridiculous.
Man is "evolving" on queer marriage? God has not changed. His instruction on aberrant sexual behavior is very clear. "Go forth and multiply" Not go forth and sodomize... Biden at least was honest in his support of the homosexuals and all the others. I sure this position will help Obama with the Black and Hispanic voters. They really stand with the right to marry for queers!
Huh???
Do you walk to school or carry a lunch??
You must be a loving christian , the bitterness, hatred and sarcasm just cry out your quest to be more like the Son of God and follow his teachings of tolerance and love without judgement.
Did you catch the subtle sarcasm??
And the good news is, Hot Daddy, that the opinion of your god doesn't particularly matter in this country.
Tolerance of repeated sin? Public approval/endorsement of a aberrant lifestyle?
Degrading the institution of marriage? Do you think the God of the Old Testament is now dead? What did He to Sodom? Is the Bible clear concerning homosexuality? You betcha! Is homosexuality a choice or a defective gene?
As a fiscal and social conservative, neither myself, my wife, my children, nor my grandchildren are buying into the "civil rights" argument that your "community" are pushing. Marriage is not guaranteed in the US Constitution. It is a state issue. There are states who have embraced homosexual marriage. Please go live there and vote Democrat. You may live there with no fear of people like me and mine bothering you as we would NEVER live in a state that would allow such a blasphemous law to pass. Try Vermont I believe:)
Hot, Historical documents show that the god of the old testament was made up, fabricated from a compilation of previous gods. The biblical story of Sodom had nothing to do with "sodomy" or homosexuality. The actual biblical texts say nothing about homosexuality (only translations do). Scientifically, homosexuality is neither a choice nor a defective gene. "You betcha" is a Palinism commonly repeated by people with no substance behind their opinions. Unless they are home-schooled, uneducated and unexposed to other people, it's pretty much guaranteed that your grandchildren will have no problems with same-sex marriage. The US Constitution guarantees equal application of all laws. You should begin exploring the application process for an Iranian visa.
Demographic polls suggest otherwise. Future generations are becoming increasingly open to the prospect of gay marriage. If your grand kids actually think as you do, it will be akin to the white-supremacist kids of today who are totally out of like with their contemporaries.
By the way, do you live in a trailer? I have this very vivid image of how you must look, and I want to figure out if I'm totally off base or not.
How I look? LOL No trailer. Farmer/Rancher. Ex-Jock.
Ah, farmer rancher and ex-jock. Same thing really.
I still feel sorry for your kids and their kids.
Hot Daddy's kids likely already know he's a bigot, and are ashamed of his views.
where the heck is our supreme court on this issue? they should have long declared these laws unconstitutional. discrimination based on anything is unconstitutional. its ridiculous that in 2012 we have to deal with this issue. tell me one non-bigoted reason that gays and lesbians shouldnt be allowed to marry? dont give no religious bs as that is all religion is, bs.
this should not be a voting issue as we are talking about rights not laws of governance. its ridiculous that the US Supreme Court hasnt stepped in yet.
It takes time for any issue to reach the court, but now that there are married gay couples who are treated unequally under the law the issue is coming at SCOTUS from multiple directions. They will deal with it, likely in the next 2 years.
Let's get rid of tax breaks and social security benefits for married couples so that unmarried individuals are on an equal status. I think most of this controversy would disappear if that happened. What this article fails to cover is the cost in lost taxes and increased spending for social security if gay marriage becomes legal nationwide. This would bankrupt social security much more quickly than current projections. It would be interesting to find out how many marriages happen today purely for economic reasons rather than love. I would bet that the number of gay marriages for economic benefit rather than love would be significant. I am all for equality but let's curb the abuse before we expand it.
What? You seem to be really stretching for reasons to object. One pays into and receives Social Security regardless of marriage status.
Its a reasonable, and interesting, discussion about tax breaks for married couples.
However, lets be realistic...maybe, oh, 5% of the population is gay, so allowing gay marriages isn't going to break us, one way or another. I'm far more willing to bet that "marriage abuse" (marriage for economic reasons only) by the 95% who are heterosexual costs are more than the total cost of allowing gay marriages.
I am not objecting to gay marriage for reasons of love and yes I agree there is substantial abuse on the heterosexual side. What I am suggesting is to end the tax and social security benefits for marriage not individuals. Yes individuals pay in and deserve the benefit. I know of heterosexuals that married when one was dying only to give the other the social security benefits that are paid to the survivor. I think straight people of the same sex would marry in order to give a friend the benefits.
randy: straight people hardly need to recruit someone of the same sex for sham marriages. Plenty of opposite gender people wiling to participate in such without introducing the "shock value" of a same sex marriage.
Again, I don't see how same sex marriage is an economic issue.
@vermont guy
OK, let me try again. I am proposing to eliminate tax breaks for married couples of any gender and social security benefits for married spouses of any gender prior to legalizing same sex marriage because it is easier to be preemptive than it is to attempt to take something away after it has been granted. I disagree that same sex marriage is not an economic issue. Yes heterosexual sham marriages are out there and can be achieved without same sex marriage. My concern is that if same sex marriage is permitted prior to the elimination of the financial benefits of marriage, the abuse will most likely grow. The SS system is already going bankrupt and if there are new ways to abuse the system, people of all walks of life straight, gay or whatever will abuse it if they can get away with it. Hear is another way of looking at things, why should two people just because they want to get married have state and federal financial benefits that don't apply to single people?
Randy..."easier to be pre-emptive than it is to attempt to take something away after it has been granted." A true statement, but hardly applies here. You make it sound as though the incremental amount of SSM marriages is somehow going to break the bank (which is broken already).
Good luck trying to find a single Congressman willing to introduct legislation to eliminate these tax breaks. After all, it's not as if the middle and lower class aren't getting f*cked in the ass hard enough by the 1%ers in the base case right?
Funny that Randy is only concerned about the benefits married couples receive when it's Teh Gay who want to get married.
I wonder if he expressed the same concern when mixed-race couples wanted to marry?
Randy, are you seriously proposing that homosexuals not be allowed to marry because they would then be entitled to the same protections and benefits as heterosexual citizens? So discrimination is okay, as long as it results in groups you don't belong to paying more in taxes, and getting less back in return? Not only are you really reaching, but that's just downright mean!