E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
J. Scott Applewhite / AP
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins denounces gay marriage as a group of pastors from across denominational lines gather on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, May 24, 2012.
Conservative religious leaders rallying outside the Capitol Thursday promised to make the preservation of marriage as a union between one man and one woman an issue in 2012 campaign.
But with traditional marriage already having been made the law in most states, and with the federal courts -- and ultimately the Supreme Court -- likely deciding the constitutionality of these laws, it's not yet clear how the leaders will persuade the conservative base to get mobilized.
At the rally outside the Capitol, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, chided Republican leaders for not focusing more on the marriage issue: “The Republicans have said they’re not going to be distracted” by the same-sex marriage issue, but instead will focus on the economy as the theme of the 2012 campaign.
“The pastors and Christians across America are saying marriage is under attack. That’s not a distraction; that should be a priority,” Perkins said.
NBC/WSJ poll: Obama's gay marriage announcement a 'draw'
Republicans cannot sit back and assume they will win grassroots conservatives’ support on the issue. “If the Republicans want the support that’s going to be leaving the president (due to his backing support for same-sex marriages), they have to show that there is a clear contrast between the president and them,” he added.
Bishop Harry Jackson, senior pastor of the Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md., said President Barack Obama’s personal endorsement of same-sex marriages was merely a prelude: “Some further action will follow,” he said, not specifying what he thinks the action would be.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced last year that Justice Department lawyers would no longer defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, which federally defines marriages as solely between one man and one woman for purposes of awarding benefits.
Another section of the law says that states can refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 38 states have prohibited same-sex marriages, either through state law or by amending their state constitutions.
The NAACP recently came out in support of gay marriage. The panel discusses that stance and a new Washington Post/ABC poll that has the POTUS and Mitt Romney in a statistical dead heat. Chuck Todd also joins the conversation.
NCSL’s tally doesn’t include California, Maryland, and Washington. In California, a federal appeals court has ruled that the state constitutional amendment adopted in 2008 violates the U.S. Constitution, but an appeal is pending in that case. The Maryland and Washington legislatures have passed laws allowing same-sex marriages, but voters will either ratify or reject those laws in November.
Legal challenges to DOMA are pending in two federal appeals courts and the issue seems likely to come before the Supreme Court as soon as next year. Also likely to come before the high court is the constitutionality of California’s marriage amendment, Proposition 8.
Jackson recalled the power of the marriage issue in the 2004 election: “In 2004, George Bush won a second term in office by a shift in the vote” that occurred in Ohio and Florida, due in part to conservative alarm over prospect of legalization of same-sex marriage.
Perkins said that in Ohio in 2004, it was conservative activists, and not the Republican Party establishment, who put the marriage constitutional amendment on the ballot and mobilized voters to turn out and approve it.
In 2004, one-man/one-woman marriage referenda were on the ballot in Ohio and 12 other states and all were approved by voters.
A dramatic additional motivation for voters came only a week before the 2004 election with the announcement that Chief Justice William Rehnquist had been hospitalized for thyroid cancer. Voters knew that either Bush or his Democratic opponent John Kerry would likely get to fill at least one vacancy during the four-year term beginning in January 2005.
But whether the marriage issue, or the high court vacancy issue, will play as powerful a role this year as in 2004 depends partly on whether voters think they can do something to influence the outcome.
Obama: Gay marriage 'doesn't weaken families, it strengthens families'
Both Jackson and Perkins warned Thursday of Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s recent statement of support for bringing a bill to repeal DOMA to the Senate floor for a vote this year.
A bill to repeal DOMA was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, but stands no chance of advancing in the House even if the Senate were to pass it.
But such a vote could benefit both conservatives opposed to same-sex marriage and the proponents of it by giving them a recorded vote to rally supporters on. Depending on the state, senators up for re-election this fall might be put in a tight spot by such a vote.
And yet such a vote might be beside the point, if the issue will be decided by the Supreme Court anyway.
“Why is DOMA important?” Perkins asked the rally. “DOMA does two things: DOMA not only defines marriage for purposes of federal law, but DOMA is also the thin line of protection for the 30 states that have enshrined the definition of marriage in their constitutions and the other dozen states that have it in their statutes.”
Without DOMA, he said, the few states that have legalized same-sex marriage “could impose their definition” on the majority of states that outlaw same-sex marriages.
Perkins also drew a parallel between the abortion issue and the marriage issue. Legalization of abortion, he said was “thrust upon the country not democratically, not through the legislative branch, but through the courts -- and after 40 years it is not resolved.”
He acknowledged that the high court could strike down DOMA and find that there is a fundamental constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry. “The courts may impose a definition of marriage -- but they will never make it right and Americans will never accept it.”
Such a ruling, he said, “will make the abortion issue look minor.”
Leave a Comment:
Just what we need.Who the hell do these wack jobs think they are this is American and we don't need some right wing fruit cake minister telling us how to live.
I suggest that you clowns stick to your sheep and keep them in line and leave the rest of us alone
I agree, marriage is between whoever, how many and whatever you want it to be. Next the Democratic party needs to move on to making NAMBLA accepted. Thank goodness for the Democratic party and their progressive ways.
Bob, why can't youdistinguish between pedophilia and a relationship between two consenting adults? Is it some sort of cognitive impairment?
any impairment EngEsq is on your part. Concenting adults vs. Adult-child, seems to be a clear demarcation even if you feel the need to equate them.
Republicans and Holy rollers, first to cry get the government out of our business, first to invade with government to inflict their values on those who are not like minded. Look what they did as soon as they gained power in Virgina, vaginal probes anyone?
Steve,
I think Eng, is actually on your side here. He, like I, don't understand why some can't grasp the concept of informed consent. However, it is funny to see terrified, social conservatives, come up with all sorts of examples...
Can I marry my couch?
Can I marry my motorcycle?
Can I marry my Bud Light?
Can I marry my toaster?
Sarah I can't understand why some people don't get the concept of what love and commitment between two consenting adults means.
Newflash. These people ARE NOT CHRISTIAN. They're bigots hiding behind robes and white collars...
Thanks Sarah.
Steve, I'm sorry if my comment wasn't clear in this instance. I am continually dismayed that people like Bob equate a consensual adult relationship to something non-consensual. I should have expressed myself more clearly.
It's always amusing when two people on the same side of an issue start fighting because of lack of cognitive ability.
You will always find that religion of just about any type attracts bigots and people who hate anything different. Religion is about unblinking conformity without change or question. Those same bigots would rather we go back to women not having the vote with blacks and whites not being able to intermarry. It's weird these same types of bigots from the christian right were claiming that blacks and whites getting married was an assault on marriage and it was going to ruin the meaning of marriage. In other words they are recycling their racist views into bigoted gay hating views. I wonder what they will recycle those views into next when they lose this one too.
....sure; marry a sibling, a parent, a sheep or a corpse; get on with it....
That guy Tony Perkins they quoted for the story compared DOMA in the courts to the decision on abortion. While I am pro-choice, I can at least understand that people who are against abortion believe they are saving unborn children, and I can disagree and yet still have a little respect for their position.
The people who are fighting against equal right for gays and lesbians have no such basis for their opinion, they seem to be fighting to save an idea of what they believe marriage is. You want to tell me you're fighting to save babies, okay that's reasonable. You tell me you're fighting because God didn't create Adam and Steve, you wont get any sympathy from me.
I think "conservatives" FORCED gays into being married "officially" under State law when hospitals started denying visits to sick partners, and started refusing to allow domestic partners to take care of each other without the consent of the State.
Obama/Biden 2012
Geniel,
Well a sheep and a corpse are out, because of that tricky informed consent issue.
And, well, we have these pesky laws against incest, that won't get magically repealled if we allow same sex marriage.
In fact, the only difference between gay marriage and straight marriage is the gender of one of the parties, so please tell me, why is inherent within that one party's gender that would allow gay marriage to lead to all these things, when straight marriage doesn't?
...hey, I'm trying to be on YOUR side by removing all impediments to MATRIMONY - which infers FEMALES (guess that lets out males). And who am I to criticize the right of one man going up the p o o p chute of another man....
I believe that if churches want to be part of the political process they should loose their tax exempt status. When a church tries to tell you how to vote, they are no longer teaching their religion but are now a political party.
This modern "conservatism" is a form of mental illness. First, it isn't conservative. They claim to want less government intrusion, but they vote for MORE government intrusion. Want to get married? They want the state to pick your spouse, but only if you're gay. Born female? They want the state to insert things in your vagina and deny you insurance coverage for contraceptives.
These policies mandate more government intrusion.
Since March 2011, Republicans have submitted 919 bills that affect women's reproductive organs. That's an average of 2 and a half per day, all submitted by men. My favorite is the Arizona law that says life begins 2 weeks before conception (because the egg that might eventually get inseminated drops down at that time). Why would they pass such a law? My guess is to eventually regulate emmenagogues (drugs that help regulate menstrual cycles).
So congratulations, people of Arizona. You are now legally pregnant if you're not menstruating. I wonder ... does that include men? Or elderly women? Or little girls?
Sara, You know better than to ask a conservative a straight question, he will get all flustered and start asking if he can marry his sister too (ooops, he already did that!), because Faux News told him that's what he is supposed to do, so the rest of the stupid sheep will think "eeewwwww, we don't want people marrying______— (fill in blank with animal, vegetable or mineral of your choice)"
Usually people who ask those kind of questions have already had "fun" with their sister, sheep, corpse etc. Uh oh, now he is discussing the right of one man to go up the poop chute of another! He DOES sound like he knows what he is taling about.
Geniel,
Answer the question...
In fact, the only difference between gay marriage and straight marriage is the gender of one of the parties, so please tell me, why is inherent within that one party's gender that would allow gay marriage to lead to all these things, when straight marriage doesn't?
Genial...you really need to change your blog moniker dude because you are anything but...genial.
But you accidentally hit the nail on the head with your snarky response to Sara.
It's not about marriage. This has nothing to with marriage. This has everything to do with "gay sex" and the reaction of some to the notion.
But it here's a newsflash for you bubba (which would be a far better moniker for you by the way). What the real issue is, is equal rights and protections under the law. Currently gays are considered and treated like second class citizens. Because they cannot marry, their partners cannot inherit their property, they can't be placed on their health insurance, they cannot even visit their partner in the hospital if they happen to be in ICU or other restricted access floors. They can't file their taxes jointly or any of the other perks and benefits granted to married couples.
Here's another newsflash for you. The institution of marriage among heterosexual couples in this country is on the decline and it's got nothing to do with the gay marriage issue.
Before long, if you want to preserve the holy institution of marriage you're going to HAVE to allow gays to marry in order to keep your numbers up.
So, let's grow up and start acting like this is the 21st century and stop quoting prohibitions against a large segment of our society laid down by bronze age philosophers and scholars. A lot has changed in the last three thousand years.
And while we're at it let's remember that those same bronze age texts the evangelicals are so fond of quoting also advocated slavery, considered women as chattel property of their husbands and recommended stoning an adultress to death. Well...it's the word of God....so I guess we've got to do it.
WRONG!
This is a civil rights issue, not a "moral" issue and not a "gay sex" issue. Are we going to grant equal rights to ALL Americans under the law or are we going to create a group of second class citizens?
I believe the Constitution of the United States and it's amendments have already addressed that issue.
^^ Says it all folks ^^
Are you going to take your ball home with you too?
The Perkins et al are confused because they don't understand that marriage is a civil contract. As a civil contract, it can only be between two persons in a capacity to enter it.
They think a marriage is a spiritual blessing of some union. Then they get freaked out because they think the blessing might be given to all sorts of weird unions.
...and change your moniker to INSULTING "Smoke Blower!" I haven't seen that much toxic gas since the massive grass fires. Also, it would benefit you to Google the word, "brevity," because nobody is going to wade through that much b.s. It is hard to fathom why a group with so much contempt for conventional values would try to force traditional marriage to accommodate them but....they can marry whatever they wish as long as it doesn't cost we taxpayers...
Interpretation: "I can neither answer Sarah's question, nor respond substantively to any of Skip's points."
Excellent point, AlexG.
Another pont that gets overlooked by all of the right-wing hysteria is that allowing marriage equality under the law will have NO EFFECT on what any particular church considers "holy matrimony." Just as churches cannot dictate which consenting adult couples can benefit from the civil contract of marriage, no law can dictate that a religious institution must perform any particular holy matrimony ceremony.
Enlightened churches will embrace same-sex couples who wish to have their marriage celebrated in a religious setting. The backward, bigoted churches will refuse to perform same-sex ceremonies - and hopefully will continue to see their memebrship levels drop as more and more people open their eyes.
There is only one party that has consistently been in favor of LGBT rights since 1976 - that is the Libertarian Party.
Gary Johnson 2012
Exactly Ryan!!!
our government is for the people...ALL the people. it is not for religious groups to use to push their beliefs onto people who do not want them. this is highly inappropriate. millions of homeless and hungry out there and all can think of to do is push a religious political agenda. this is sickening, a true disgrace to the Christian religion
alex, i think you're wrong about one thing. the Tony Perkins of the world know EXACTLY what they're doing! this is all bout power for them and control over ignorant masses that make them RICH! these people are the most amoral creatures that ever slithered over the earth. they think that they can get enough of their ignorant followers to go along with them by using God as a tool, like a hammer to convince them that they are righteous.
you're right about the TRUE reason we need to allow gay marriage. CIVIL RIGHTS! once we start taking away the rights of any group of individuals because we don't like their lifestyle, it opens a pandora's box that will let out all kinds of evils.
I've spent my life searching for spirituality and what or if God is. I have found that we have all been duped since way before christianity ever began, into believing that God is somehow humanistic. if you ask a theologian is God a man, he'll say no, BUT then in the same sentence he'll talk about God as being angry, jealous, judging, etc. all human attributes. and yet, in the Bible, God describes himself quite clearly. "I AM THAT I AM. I AM THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA." that's not human, it's energy incarnate. until we evolve our knowledge about the true nature of God and stop laying on God the failings of our own species, we will always have the greedy, carpetbagging scum like tony perkins and the radical religious right to contend with. if they had their way, no one would go to school, they'd go to church and no one would ever question the church and we would be burning witches and heretics.
unfortunately for the radical right, people are running in droves from conventional religions. i read (I think it was in newsweek or time) that 16% of americans do not believe in organized religion although they believe in a higher source. this percentage is growing every day. i know it might sound a little like science fiction but if you read about the universe and how it works and the questions that are out there now about physics you might understand why i believe that the universe itself may have a consciousness, may be aware of itself. just because we need a brain with blood and neurons to have thought, doesn't mean that all life in the universe have to. and if God is the universe, then it would fit perfectly with what the Bible says and it would force us to take responsibility for all that we do. but, as long as people can say, God did this, or God did that, people will continue to fall victim to the radicals
Genial, since you wish to wade into sexuality with your irrational animus, there is NO sex act homosexuals engage in that heterosexuals don't as well. All acts are legal between consenting adults, as it should be. As you so colorfully phased it, some females take it in the p o o p chute too. Your rant is irrelevant.
Tell us, how does this affect you either way, who elected you as the p o o p chute patrol, why would you want to be & how is this any of your damn business?
Let's call it like it is, this is a last ditch effort to curb American liberties by a bunch of ill informed bigoted @!$%#s who quite honestly are too @!$%#ing dumb to reason with.
The bigots have actually made a pact that going into 2012, they would find haters like themselves and pay them to go around the differant states and spread hatred. Their goal is to spread lies about the President and incite hatred between the blacks and the gays. This is their so called confidential goal for 2012.
Their goal is to incite hatred across the nation in their attempt to drive the haters into killing off the gays.
I am so sick of these religitards aka - TERRORISTS sodomizing our constitution with their terroristic beliefs. The church had its chance before, and we called it the dark ages for a reason. If these people want theist law, ship them to Iran or Afghanistan.
Remember... we MUST make sure that only a man and a woman can sign a government backed contract dealing with property rights, asset allocation, hospital visitation, and inheritance. Only straight people should be allowed to sign a piece of paper, contractually binding two parties in a legal agreement.
If we start allowing gays to sign a legal document, contractually binding two parties regarding property rights, asset allocation, hospital visitation, and inheritance ... what is next? Allowing dogs to sign a mortgage contract? Obviously this is the logical conclusion that will result from allowing a group of people to sign a legal document.
PROTECT THE SANCTITY OF PAPER!!!!
"Religion is about unblinking conformity without change or question"
I'm part of a religion but I'm somehow magically able to accept different opinions. If a man and a man or a woman and a woman love each other I say let them get married if that's what they want. Im straight so with all that being said... or typed rather... please elaborate because I'm seeing logical fallacy so far.
Sorry Spicy, there were elections, but they were closed to women, homosexuals, minorities, people who can think for themselves, or anyone that possess an IQ over sour milk. I think that is why you and I were not aware of the candidates...
i have been thinking about this issue for a little while now, and i just thought of something.
How many of these preachers who are imposing the Christian version of morality on us have sodomized altar boys? At least gay marriage is consensual. Funny how the Church is all for separation of church and state when their pastors get caught for "going up the poop chute" of young boys without any punishment whatsoever, but when it comes to that happening between consenting adults, get ready to have your government shovel their religion down your throat. Got hypocrisy?
DrowningGrover
Newflash. These people ARE NOT CHRISTIAN. They're bigots hiding behind robes and white collars...
DrowningGrover,
Unfortunately, these people are in fact Christians. They do represent what the majority of all Christians believe.
The sad part of it is that Christianity doesn't have very much to do with the philosophy of Jesus Christ. Over the centuries Christians have murdered thousands of people in the name of Jesus Christ. In the Spanish Inquisition 15,000 people were tortured and killed. In Ireland and the United States, the Catholic Church protected and enabled hundreds of Catholic Priests who raped and molested thousands of children.
Christians missionaries in South America and the Phillipines killed thousands of people. Evangelical Christians have traveled world wide to spread their message of hatred and bigotry.
The only people that think Christians are nice caring honest people are Christians, everyone else thinks they are nasty, hypocritical, lying busybodies.
Sorry Genial, I didn't realize you had such a short attention span. Likewise, I didn't realize you were so thin-skined. I was trying to introduce you to the real issue which you so artlessly brought to light. The opposition to gay marriage really has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with "gay sex". Which, Bluto accurately points out, is no different than the practices of hetero couples. So, perhaps you should surf on over to the FOX NEWS web-site and BRIEFLY describe how the big bad liberals bullied you. Kinda made you feel like a second class citizen huh?
I hope that wasn't too many words for you. Thanks for backup Sara, have a great weekend.
EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL, IT'S THE LAW!
Ryan, what religion are you? If you're Christian you will be quickly be chastised as not being a "TRUE CHRISTIAN (tm)".
"I like your Christ, I do not think I like your Christians."
- Ghandi
That about says it all. I'm sure there are some good ones out there, too bad they get talked over by the obnoxious ones.
Hi, Grandpa Skip!
It would make more sense to write laws outlawing those who get a divorce to NOT being able to marry again. It says so in the bible after-all.
Why make this an election year issue? What about jobs and the economy? Where are your brilliant ideas on those issues?
After Obama is reelected i hope to see some fundamental changes in the law with reguard to religion and their boundrys and state rights
"Whites should not be allowed to marry Blacks, it isn't natural".
"Jews should not be allowed to marry Catholics, it isn't natural".
"Norwegians should not be allowed to marry Swedes, it isn't natural".
"Nobility should not be allowed to marry Commoners, it isn't natural".
Those have ALL been used as excuses for why one person should not be allowed to marry another person. They are also 100% as stupid as saying that two men (or two women) should not be allowed to marry each other "because it isn't natural".
Bottom line: IF YOU DON'T WANT TO MARRY SOMEONE OF YOUR OWN GENDER -- YOU DON'T HAVE TO!!!!
I love conservatives.
We've got bigger fish to fry - like the economy...
...AND THIS IS SOMETHING YOU PLAN ON MAKING AN ISSUE IN 2012?
I have always split my vote and swore I'd never vote "a party line". I think I'm going to have to rethink my stance.
People are out of jobs and conservatives want to focus on gay marriage.
<rolling my eyes>
Hi Sara! You are a breath of fresh air and always a delight. Keep up the good work and have a great weekend. My wife, Marti, gets back from Washington state Sunday and the sun will shine once again in my world. I don't know who will be the happiest to see her. Me, or our three dogs. They've been looking for her all week. :-)
Adios
Obama/Biden 2012
Maybe all you conservatives can answer me this:
Do you believe in the separation of church and state?
If yes, then why do you try to bring religious arguments to the table in order to continue depriving people of their rights (women and right to medical processes/privacy; gays and right to marry; trans-people and right to live their lives; etc.)?
If no, then what the @!$%# are you doing in this country? Go back to Dumb@!$%#istan and leave us in peace.
Sarah post 1.1*:
Lead to what things specifically?
Sometimes I think, some of the more dogmatic religious leaders can end up doing more harm then good.... We need look no further then the Middle East for an example of this; but even outside. Take someone who has their kid murdered by a low life, and some who try to "console" them by saying stuff like "it's part of God's master plan", yadda, yadda... But not the most obvious "God allowed free will, and some sick bastard chose to do this" :o It's almost as if some are looking to take accoutability off the individual, and the choices they make, and for one going through this sort of thing, that would be among the worst things one could say.... If anything, it could cause people to blame, and even hate the "god" they thought chose that for them, vs. feeling as such about a sociopath such as Jeffery Dahmer, Son of Sam, etc who in matter of fact took the loved one's life.... And yet some honestly believe this sort of thing, even if it is the abosolute worst thing someone could say when people are also the most vulnerable, and in a state of grief most don't have to face...
But what if, a God, higher power, the universe, whatever isn't as some would assume. And what if we were given free will, along with faculties of the mind and heart because we were meant to USE THEM, and to grow and evolve as individuals. In this case, we wouldn't be meant to be automatons that believe something on faith alone, but are meant to gain not just knowledge, but understanding (and as some would have it, wisdom) along the way. Perhaps, just perhaps if we were meant to blindly follow, and to worship minus any of this, there would have been no need to descend into human existance in the first place; and just perhaps upon leaving this world we're meant to have grown as an individual, so we don't leave it as we had entered...
Now if that was the case, blindly trying to dictate terms by whch all must live, and demand conformity wouldn't serve. But it would deprive people of the ability to come to understand and to see, and the ability to mature and evolve as a person. The more I think of it, is the more I think that any kind of an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent being would want this, rather then a bunch of automatons who simply "do as they're told" and worship, without having grown along the way. Not to mention, that the idea of having a bunch of worshipers, who couldn't even be conversed with on a level beyond that, would seem absolutely boring to spend an eternity in the company of. That people are allowed to make choices, and even to make mistakes, in the course of living might be no accident, and might not be other then how anything would have been planned anyhow. If people emerge from it all a better person then they might otherwise have been, then perhaps, just perhaps in the eyes of this "God" many look to, it might well have been worth it. If such a being would care more about our own well being and our own development, then about whether people are "doctrinally correct" at every turn, that is....
Christians? Or Bigots?
I am willing to bet, Jesus would be ashamed, of the so-called Christians, of today. He befriended all and accepted a prostitute, as his friend. I believe Christians like to pretend, they are people of God but actually, they think they are God!
Why is it, when there are wars and fighting, it is mostly due to religion or greed. I think they are both the same thing. You must tithe to belong to a religion but you cannot be an individual.
Gays are not abnormal but they are in the minority. They deserve the same rights and privileges as any other human being because, that is what they are, human beings.
The anti-gay community, are either fearful they might be gay themselves or justify their feeling with the Bible. Honesty, might fit in here. Maybe religious zealots are full of hate and ignorance. How else would you explain their concern over what two consenting adults do behind closed doors? What about hunger? Poverty? Education?
How sad these Christians are, who consider gay marriage a priorty..............
Ok, enough of the 'Christians' attacking the gays, or people that don't slam gays. Enought of the other side attacking the 'Christians'.
One of the reasons people left their homelands and came to the United States was for religious freedom. That means gay marriage at the legal level should have NOTHING to do with religion. They can voice their opinion, but enough with the hate and gay bashing. No one is saying churches have to marry gays. The so called 'Christians' need to stop spreading hate.
I am a Christian, and I believe gay marriage should be legal. I don't believe in Christian churches allowing gay marriage. And I DON'T want our country to adopt a 'religion' because I don't want religious nuts trying to make our country the Catholic church of the middle ages.
IndieParty ... the Commonwealth of Virginia is already ahead of you. The state constitution prohibits the enforcement of contracts that give the "effect" of marriage. I have to admire Viriginia. It shows the true colors of those who claim that they're "trying to protect marriage", proclaim "why can't gays be happy with civil unions" and pontificate that "you can duplicate the benefits of marriage with the right contracts." I don't even want to drive through that awful state.
EngEsq both acts are equally sickening to me. A man with a man, makes me ill. and violating a innocent child, no death is to good for that devil..
TrueLGBT ... you've been told multiple times that the author of that study has repudiated it. It was not peer reviewed before publishing and it was full of methodological errors. Please stop quoting a study that no one, including its own author, supports.
THE Democrats seem happy now but I predict that once President Obama's gay marrriage mandate becomes law and marrried hetero men are forced to go out and find a gay partner in order to continue their hetero marriages there willl be a widespread outbreak of complaints from both the gay and hetero commmunites. THis is not even mentioning how irked all the wives willl be at having to share their husbands with another man. THe husbands, I predict, in some instnaces willl graduallly get used to having another woman involved in their marital relations.
TrueLGBT, I don't like the taste of coffee, because my parents, who used to discipline me, loved the taste of coffee.
Sound stupid to you? Well, your claims about the "real" cause of homosexuality are equally stupid. The fact is, I simply do not like the taste of coffee -- and the majority of those who are homosexual REALLY ARE born that way.
By the way, I can even come up with a few dozen anecdotes "proving" that the Sun really is the center of the known Universe...........
Wow, truelgbtwxyz...whatever...
Dude (or Dudette) get a grip. The discussion isn't about about the genetic evidence that gay men are "gay" because the gene that determines sexual preference is different in them.
This is a discussion about CIVIL RIGHTS and the imposition of religious beliefs to justify the denial of those civil rights to a large segment of society.
For YOU and poor Genial it's about whether being gay is a choice and whether gay sex is a perversion of god's intent when he invented sex.
You are both wrong. This is a simple civil rights issue. Are we going to grant equality under the law to ALL Americans or just to those who share your religious beliefs.
The Constitution has already addressed that issue and the answer isn't going to make you very happy.
Let's all remember this is the 21st century, shall we, hmmm?
Funny how the liberals love to call everyone a bigot and yet in doing so they are the ones really claiming the name for them selves. Liberals "hate" people that don't agree with their liberal idealology
The Religious Conservative movement is allowed to have its opinions and they are allowed to voice those opinions. I served my tour of duty in the Air Force to make sure everyone has that right. Yet the liberal base says that is all fine well and dandy as long as the opinion matches theirs. I wonder how all those soldiers that died defending our freedoms would feel about that.
Don't feed the troll, it will go away.
Ronald Hussein Reagan -- yet another ignorant Religious-Reich Right-wing Republican Conservative mouthpiece. I say that because there is NOTHING in your post to show whether you are being sarcastic or not.
I think you meant every word you typed.
BarryNJ -
Not only repudiated, but the author himself has denounced his own research, claiming that it was not only unintentionally harmful, but rather so riddled with bias that it doesn't even constitute science in his own mind.
TrueLGBT -
Cherry-picking the arguments of a lesbian psychologist also unimpressive. Post the whole argument, in context, or leave it out. Quote-mining can go both ways, and I can make you a complete ass (if you hadn't beaten me to it) using only your own words. Context matters.
Also, as far as I know atheists, we aren't "angry at God." Because it's rather hard to be angry at something that doesn't exist. Rather, we are angry at all the @!$%# that is caused by goddists (religionists, followers of god, whatever you want to call yourselves), using god as a crutch to stand in for your prejudice. Don't you think it's funny that your god hates all the same things you do? Kind of a convenient coincidence, no? And yet, you pretend that all you need is your god's "word," whether it's the bible, koran, or whatever other 'holy text' you believe in.
The thing is, we don't care what you think, how you feel, etc. We care that you seek to shove those who aren't like you down to the bottom of society with detriment to all. We care that all you have to say is "god told me so," and that answer is given privilege above scientific research and credibility. We care that you continue to persecute and harass us and other minorities in the name of religion (as a cover if not an instigator). We care that you continue to attempt to halt scientific research you don't find comfortable and use god as an excuse to put on blinders.
Basically, we don't care what you say about god. We care about the actions that you perform in the name of your god and your religion that harm us and others.
Gloryhound, I also served in the USAF to help ensure that EVERYONE is allowed to exercise their Rights. But it seems that you believe that only heterosexual Conservatives should be allowed to exercise their Rights -- because you claim that ONLY "liberals" resort to name-calling when someone does not agree with everything they say.
I'm a "liberal", and I served to protect YOUR right to say and think what you want. I am beginning to be very ashamed of it.
The answer to this issue is quite simple. If conservative religious leaders don't believe in gay marriage then don't marry a person of the same gender. End of contraversy. But where do these people get off imposing their extremist form of morality on everyone else?
Sarah, You THINK there are some???? !!! I am offended...!!!
"The Declaration of Independence endorses a person's rights to equality and states that every individual has the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Does that about clear this up??!!
Of course, they are entitled to their beliefs and opinions as well so be careful in your exhuberance that you don't become what you despise!!
You meaning "people on here of that belief!"
It's so interesting how anti-marriage-equality homophobes are so infatuation and obsessed with raping children. That says a great deal about them. No one in the pro-equality movement talks about raping children, but those in the anti-equality cult just can't stop yammering about it. I wonder why? No, I don't. I know why. It's because those opposed to equality are a bunch of evil, criminal perverts.
Funny that few here can hide their rampant bigotry for polygamy while still acting as if they are the judge, jury and executioners of those in favor of DOMA.
You will hear it all, its not practical, it would be too difficult to reform insurance laws, its not the same as same-sex marriage. You are the pot calling the kettle black and essentially the same person you are criticizing for not supporting this cause.
The bottom line is you dont have a leg to stand on if you dont get behind the country's legal right to engage in polygamy. There are plenty of consentual adults wishing to engage in it, isnt this your argument for same-sex marriage Sarah?
If you support one and not the other, you are essentially the same type of people that were conveniently laconic during the Civil Rights movement.
@ the quacked one, I to have spent time in the US Army protecting and defending the people of this country to have rights. These religious people are pissing me off. The gay people of this land have a right to be with whom they desire and they have a right to beleive on God in anyway they so desire. I don't know how "Quacked one" feels but I feel I had my rifle pointed in the wrong direction.
You people need to stop and take a good look at yourselfs and think real hard, ask God or do what ever it takes. Are you truly religious or are you Stupidly Religious? I got news for most of you, I don't beleive in Heaven or Hell, but "IF" there are such places I will see the "MAJORITY" of you religious hipocrits in HELL!
Although I don't have the Heaven or Hell concept, Doesn't mean that I don't believe in a higher power. If you are religious you have, compassion, respect, tolerance, forgivness, acceptence, etc. Now go forth and use the freedoms that many like me and my fallen commrads (some of these men, I grew up with), have given to you. Do not disrepect what we have done for you.
@The Quacked One, Thanks it is nice to know I'm not alone here with my thoughts. My wife is retired Army to and feels the saame way.
One thing you have to love about democracy is the bigots (pigots) against gays are not ashamed of themselves - these pigots will tell you they ARE bigots against gays and they ARE actually proud of their bigotry and challenge the victims (gays) in court.
So Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council actually thinks that two men wanting to share a life together and get legal protection is somehow a bigger issue than "baby killing"? That attitude is very revealing - regardless of what they say, it isn't about "saving marriage" or "saving innocent babies", it never was, it's all about persecuting the sinners. They see unwanted pregnancy as punishment for sinful women, and denial of legal partnerships and property rights as punishment for "those gays".
BTW, that also explains why they are so opposed to contraceptives and gay sex, as it evades what they see as the "natural punishment" of unwanted pregnancy. Since contraceptives (and Abstinence!) might fail, but gays never ever get pregnant (or have Abortions!), they see gay sex as somehow worse. Logic is not their strong suit.
Really a non issue for me. Keep the religious nut jobs out of the media spot light and get back to concentrating on the actual issues that need to be addressed.
For me it is balancing the budget and growing the economy.
Exactly. Legally, there shouldn't be any difference. Sure, two men can't have bear children, but then again, some male/female couples can't either, so that isn't a legitimate reason to deny rights.
Nor do we deny the right to marriage on the basis of "sin", lots of sinners get married all the time, with nary a peep of protest from the "religious conservatives".
Nor is it a matter of social approval, people we disapprove of for various reason also get married with no protests from the self-righteous. Getting married doesn't make them any more (or less) approved of.
Nope, it's all about punishing a certain type of "sinner" by denying them rights. As if they were somehow free of sin...
riley
What bigotry towards polygamy? Most people don't care. As long as it's consensual between all parties... as in, not forced... then who cares?
Have you seen the chicks in polygamy relationships? We should give the husbands an award for taking those ugly cows off the market.
Seriously, why the f*** do you care SO MUCH about the lives of other people? You are obsessed with the sex life of other people... what is your problem? Is it some low self esteem issue, rising from the disappointments in your own life, that makes you obsessed with other people? Go get some therapy or something. It's really sad and pathetic.
cdahl
Did you see how much money was pumped into the NY economy when they legalized it?
This issue can bring customers and money to small businesses in the marriage industry.
So, anyone opposed to gay marriage is anti-business... because they are directly holding back potential customers and money from small marriage businesses.
How can this country call itself free when these phony and unhonorable republicans constantly dictate our personal freedoms? The GOP = divide america. Only idiots will vote republican. Oh how we need a democrat congress.
Actually, those not in favor of state-sanctioned polygamy are standing on both legs, Riley. It is clear that you don't understand the legal basis for same-sex marriage: equal protection. Gay individuals are denied a right available to heterosexuals. That is, the right to marry the ONE consenting individual to whom they are sexually and emotionally attracted.
NO ONE is permitted multiple legal spouses, so no one is being discriminated against. In fact, if you don't want civil same-sex marriage, the solution is simple. Eliminate marriage. If heterosexuals can't marry, gays can't claim discrimination. If there is a slippery slope here, it began with heterosexual marriage.
And we dont need high courts going over their boundaries to change such laws. There is no checks and balance here, the supreme court or should i say judicial is supposed to be the weakest branch of the government .
Alexander Hamilton.
One of Hamilton's quotes from The Federalist Papers states that the "judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the constitution; because it will be least in capacity to annoy or injure them."
Hamilton later wrote: "The executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary on the contrary has no influence over either the sword or the purse, no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatsoever. It may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment, and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."
The framers of the Constitution, though unified in purpose, were not one in political philosophy. Many feared the rule of the "mob" hence the election of the President by way of the electoral college and representative democracy. These men would have more faith in the executive branch (albeit a weakened one). Others were much more democratic. Those, like Jefferson, believed that power came from the consent of the governed. He also advocated the rural over the national. Because of this, he would have felt that Congress, with its connection to the people (constituencies) and balance of power, would make it the least dangerous, though it signs the checks.
Nonsense. We can't get anyone "help" by denying them rights, insulting them, and persecuting them. It's as nonsensical as claiming to "help the obese" by insulting them with fat jokes,
And where does "emotional trauma" come from, if not from bullying and other external forces? No one but a masochist would "emotionally traumatize" themselves, so of course the trauma comes from outside. Denial of rights IS a form of bullying, and is not in any way a form of "support, resolution and help".
Blaming parents for being gay is just plain silly, both from the fact that many gays have siblings who aren't gay, and the notion that one must blame someone else for one's own sexual behavior.
As "trueLGBT" was so wrong on those basic premises, I see no reason to consider the rest of his anti-gay screed.
American Girl,
Not true. Hospitals cannot deny anyone if a "living will" is presented. Any person can have a living will and that person can name anyone they want. Hospitals have to abide by the person's living will.
Indieparty, My dog did sign the contract for his doghouse, and so far he's made every payment!!
@Indie Party
Are you schizophrenic? Im not concerned, Im just sick of the hypocrisy which to me is a much bigger issue than anyones sexuality. Nor am I concerned about yours. Im sure anyone staring in your bedroom window would get sick to their stomach about what you look like attempting to engage in what you deem sexual activity. You are most likely not far off looks-wise from what you are criticizing.
riley
Ahhhhhh... looks like I hit your little self esteem button dead on. What's wrong? Can't handle it when someone hits a little too close to home? LOL
Keep throwing those insults without defending your position... it helps your argument. No really, it does. LOL
I find it hypocritical of people who have been married and divorced multiple times to say marriage is sacred. Just because you are only married to one person at a time does not make it morally right. If they were seriously interested in the "sanctity" of marriage, they would try to eliminate rid of divorce, instead of limiting which consenting adults can marry.
TO: Ronald Hussein Reagan who wrote:
Yo, "marriage" is a State Law, NOT Federal Law, so it's not President Obama who has the say-so in who can and cannot be married. It depends on what State you live in.
Geesch!
How many of these "sanctity of marriage" people voted for or supported Newt Gingrich? A serial cheater and philanderer. These same people hate President Obama. Well, who better represents the sanctity of marriage, a cheater like Gingrich or a traditional family man like Obama?
I think the answer tells you it's not about "sanctity" of anything except control, manipulation, and bigotry.
@Barlow:
My city requires me to collect my dog's "payments" after him.
Genial-1884259, lose the username insults. You're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
No matter what side of the debate they are on, demopublican & republicrat politicians LOVE dividing issues like this because it completely diverts the attention of the public off of REAL topics.
pete, truer words haven't been spoken. Divide and conquor is the oldest trick in the book. It was used long before we were born, and probably will still be in use long after we pass from this life... Main reason, it works...
And is it any wonder, the party leaders this go around would rather speak about the economy rather then this issue. The reason being that among themselves, the Christian right, as so defined wouldn't necessarily have the votes alone to assure the election; or so the Republican leadership is concerned. They want the independent vote come November, and they have the concern that this sort of argument could drive the people in the center of the political spectrum to vote for Obama. Well time will tell, but there are a lot of Americans, not all of whch are in the Democratic party who would prefer that the government stay out of their bedrooms.... The Dems are more then happy to have this discussion be the political topic leading up to Nov....
Im amazed by how many people on here are just all up in arms over this.
You DO realize, dont you, that homosexuality is AGAINST the beliefs of most major religions, right? Everyone on here is all preachy about equality, have you forgotten about Free Speech? These people are leaders of their respective religions and it wouldnt be right for them to sit back and and just let something that is sacred be destroyed.
There are Gay Pride parades all over the US, but a rally against this lifestyle is just SO bigoted and closed-minded.......very hypocritical, dont you think? Ever stop to think how bigoted and closed-minded homosexuals (in general) are towards most religions??
Everyone thinks what they are standing up for is right. I guess, until everyone is dead, we wont all know, will we? But in the mean time.......Christians have the right to stand up for their beliefs. Even if homosexuals dont agree with it. Part of the Christian belief is that homosexuality is wrong. Allowing it goes against Christian beliefs, one more step in the wrong direction for this country. Every added sin makes us weaker, until one day the US wont have GODs protection anymore.....I sincerely hope I am gone from this world before that happens.
Every single day and night, unattractive, drunken straight people in bad sportswear get married in places like Laughlin, Nevada, yet we do not deprive them of their civil rights.
Throughout the bible men were able to have multiple wives. I'm talking about consenting adults here. If two women consent to be the wives of one man - what business is it of anybody? Yet the bible thumpers don't support this either!
David had eight wives. Solomon had hundreds.
It is time that consenting adults are left to their own devices. Whether two or three women consent to having one husband, or two or three men consent to having one wife - who's business is it but that of the CONSENTING ADULTS!
Many other countries allow this scenario - why in the world is the US behind the times? If three or four people love each other, are committed to each other - isn't that enough?
Bigamy laws have no place in a free society. Why in the world is polygamous marriage a crime? I believe the bible says to love one another.
Oh, I can think of one thing that's even MORE amusing than that:
The hypocrisy of mainstream christian America. They are all ready to vote into Presidency, a man who, all the rest of the time, they refer to as a member of a whacky, abominable cult.
@Indie Party
Arent you the typical basement dwelling internet troll who believes they are a master of misinformation. I dont base my self esteem on any of the topics you believe you have a pseudo-command over. I dont even care about anything other than your rampant hypocrisy whatsoever, I just find it comical that you are so quick to insult everyone who doesnt think and act just like you.
In fact you and Joseph Goebbels have more in common than you and anyone else here because you try to eviscerate everyone with insults that doesnt immediately conform to your viewpoint. Congratulations, you are two-dimensional and baseless in your meaningless rebuttal.
What position do I need to defend genius? The fact that you deny others their rights while championing your own cause? Even if you were to help grant polygamy to others you couldnt do it without insulting them all. You throw your pet word bigot around without looking in the mirror and then use a weak retort of "stay out of everyones sexuality"?
Youre neck deep in it, along with your bucket of blanket insults. At least Im just insulting you because Im sure deep down you realize you deserve it.
Nerve? The only nerve you hit is the myopic angry forum denizen who feels their viewpoint is the only one that exists.
lola007 gay pride events are to celebrate being gay. NOT to promote it. I take it you have never been to one because churches that are open minded and not judgmental attend them too! And gays are not supportive against the religious right because they are sick and tired of the same old song and dance of bigotry and hatred that they try and spew at the gay community. And the religious right try to spread their message of hate to their followers. People like you believe them. Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of man, but in today's world its used as a political tool to try and gain votes from conservatives.
Lola, you DO realize that we are not a theocracy, our freedom of speech has nothing to do with the beliefs of most religions. When you use a religious belief to deny civil rights you are trampling the constitution. It's un-American and un-conservative.
Remember, I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. You may not agree with homosexuality, but it is not your place to deny them the same freedom you enjoy.
Right on Beer!
Same thing goes for polygamous marriage. Homosexual marriage is not a crime - but polygamy is.
Why can't a loving husband love two or three wives? Egypt allows it - how can a backward country like Egypt be more advanced culturally than America?
Hootgib post 1.58
The question is who attached whom first?
This all started when straight people said that gay people shouldn't get married or at least use the term marriage for their relationship.
From their perspective Marriage is between a man and a woman. Study most of the words associated with marriage and they carry with most of them a procreation and male and female.
I love the hamarabi codes defense. Just because it is the earliest written found code of laws that permits "gay" marriage doesn't mean that homosexuality was accepted by all kings. Back then the king was the ultimate authority on laws. It doesn't mean that marriage always could be "gay" also, it just means it is the first recorded law permitting such a practice.
The big reason this issue has come to a head is because of the right to privacy laws. Before then, you could inquire about just about anyone's condition by stating your relationship. Today, without a durable power of attorney in your hands, the medical personel can tell you to pound salt in a polite way.
TXHorseman post 1.71.
Well put. It is amazing how we can delude ourselves to that our position/belief is superior to another by terming another's belief as hate, uniformed, outdated etc.
Jo Ann
The living will only gives life and death decisions to a named person(s). What we had to get, even though the wife and I are married was a durable power of attorney.
It is not necessary to get married, except that hospitals may not ask for the power of attorney and just trust that your relationship is as you say. They really shouldn't make that exception, because that is a lawsuit waiting to happen, but many do.
Freedman1
They were told not to by their laws. They were also told there would be consequenses, and their were consequences.
David had a son die and committed murder to have Bath Sheba. Not only that but his nation suffered judgements for his actions to which they were pleanty glad to over look his misdeeds.
Solomon may have had a prosperous life, but the kindom was terribly fractured by his many son's from so many wives.
Scott
In celebrating it, you are promoting it as a positive thing.
The living will goes beyond that if chosen. From visiting, to decisions on the patient's care, to life and death decisions.
A patient's wishes and rights are put in the living will. The living will gives power to whoever the patient wishes. It doesn't matter if the patient is married.
The same thing for a regular will. A married person can give all his/her monies, belongings, etc. to whoever they wish. Just because the person is married means nothing.
A perfect example is Whitney Houston. She wrote up a will giving EVERYTHING to her daughter and nothing to her husband at the time. If she would have died during her marriage to Bobby Brown he would have received nothing.
Why do we have to be bombarded on a daily basis, with these discussions, as if they were news?
That's not quite true. In a case of a lesbian couple visiting from the Northeast, a Florida hospital prevented a woman from seeing or making decisions for her dying partner, even though she had legal power of attorney. See: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/06/27/2279.
A social worker actually had the nerve to explain to her that they were in an "anti-gay state": http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/dcblog/2010/04/lesbian_case_in_miami_highligh.html
Gays face oppression and exclusion every day of their lives. And guess what, whether you like it or not gays make up about 10% of the population... meaning that you likely have a gay brother or sister or cousin or niece or nephew. And who really cares if they want to call it "marriage"... if for no other reason than the feeling of inclusion, it should be allowed.
But humanity aside, the Supreme Court argument is simple. You cannot afford certain portions of our population benefits at the exclusion of others based on something they were born with. Gays and Lesbians currently do not enjoy the same benefits, but they should.
It comes down to whether you call it marriage or not... and whether we put up with discrimination against our own family members. They have dreams... let them have a decent reality.
Barry, if the living will assigns a certain person to visit, make medical decisions and make decisions on life & death then this hospital was wrong and should be sued and the person will win.
Jo Ann ... this person did sue in federal court and LOST because the court ruled that there was no loss to the survivor (she had been admitted to witness last rites). If the couple had been heterosexual and married, the law would have recognized many grounds for loss.
This situation is an example of why contracts and signed documents can never take the place of civil marriage. This is especially true in a state such as Virginia which explicitly bans the enforcement of such contracts in a same-sex relationship.
I don't know how thorough this person's living will was. Maybe it left out certain things so the courts had to rule a certain way. Living wills, regular wills and civil marriages are all contracts.
In my opinion living wills are more powerful because the person's specific wishes are in that contract, not so in a civil marriage contract. I have spoken to an attorney because I want to be cremated. My husband is not in favor. The attorney told me and I quote, "put it in a will and there is nothing your husband can do about it".
I would bet that 60% of these Pastors are previously divorced and probably diddlng somebody since the divorce rate is higher in the church than with no-believers. I reckon we should stone gays now? Most of these Pastors are teaching false and anti-Christ doctrine anyway and most will say "Because I believe" but hardly ever "Because this is what the Bible really says".
I want SOMEONE to explain to me from a right wing position, HOW is this an attack on marriage? If you are gay, you are never going to marry the opposite sex, so it has no effect on marriage rates. Same goes for kids. That being said, many gay couples are now adopting, so that should play into the right wings hands... less abortions, more adoptions. Win-win. Except their bigotry gets in the way and ruins it for all... All in the same of being a "good Christian".
Hell, it might even help our insurance rates as it would put more in the pool.
If gay couples want to live together as part of a 'civil union', they should be allowed to do so, but why do they DEMAND that it be called a 'Marriage'?
I think that's Mitt Romney's dirty little boys at the conservative rally, they all look a little nutty l would say !
@TrueLGBT.....let it be known that there is nothing true about you or your posts. You are just another ignorant, hate-spewing, lying bigot who probably trolls these sites on behalf of the religious tyrants such as Tony Perkins and the others of his ilk. In earlier posts you quoted from BS articles that you attributed to the JAMA, attempting to lend credibility to those claims. In truth, those statements were referrenced and disputed in a review of literature by JAMA. The article was written by a homophobic bunch of BS peddlers called "Heterosexuals for a Moral Environment". Go back and tell your mind controllers that we don't buy their crap.
Jo-Ann ... the court didn't say that the hospital shouldn't have honored the documents, just that no damages resulted from their failure to do so. And, without damages, what's to ensure that hospitals don't follow the law?
After its outrageous conduct became public, the hospital did amend its policies, which shows that it knew that it was in the wrong. The federal government has also issued new regulations that require hospitals receiving federal funds to honor powers-of-attorney.
Well, this will bring out all the bigoted morons.
However, an item of interest that will eventually be revealed is whether or not the right-wing, constitutionally fundamentalist SCROTUS actually believes in applying the constitution to anything that does not benefit gun nuts and corporations.
"Equal protection under the law," is what the constitution guarantees all Americans, regardless of what some quack christian, or quack muslim, or just plain old quack whacko religious fanatic thinks.
There are so many laws wrapped around marriage that to deny 5 - 10% of the population the right to marry is so deeply unconstitutional and anti-constitutional that. if done by government employees, it amounts to treason.
CHASING
THE
DEADBEATS
Not paying Child Support puts a welfare strain on State's budgets.
Enough with gays.... THEY AREN'T A FINANCIAL PROBLEM.
Marriage is not a religious concept. Matrimony maybe, but marriage is and always has been about protecting property. Perhaps we should get rid of all marriage 'rights' for everyone, no more automatic protections for people who have decided to make a life together. Contracts (yes lets make lawyers richer) drawn up and designed to protect property and children. No more tax breaks for married couples.
In the event of a child being brought into the world, both persons must present at family court and proove they are fit to be parents. If both parties do not prove fitness, the baby is removed and given to a two parent home that has proved fitness. That means no more single parents either.
This is kind of meta, but I just don't get it. Why are the bigots always trying to invoke freedom of speech to shut other people up? In fact, what the @!$%# does freedom of speech have anything to do with this subject? Nobody's trying to take away your freedom to say bigotted things. We just think it makes you look ignorant and stupid (really stupid).
But here's the thing I keep seeing. LGBTQ people come out and start pointing out how the majority has been squashing their rights forever, and it's about time we put the equality of the Constitution into practice. Bigots come out and say all kinds of stupid @!$%#, from Obama forcing men to marry other men and women to marry other women and breaking up happy homes, etc., etc. People interested in equal rights come back, call the bigots bigots, show how they are bigotted, point out that equal marriage rights have been around in other places and those places have not been sent to the 9th level of hell.
Then bigots come out and say "you can't shut me up, it's my right to free speech," or some equally inane thing. Who was trying to shut you up? We answer speech with speech. As far as I can tell, it's mostly you who wishes you could shut us up. We're just trying to shout you down, as you're doing to us. Only thing is, the numbers are swinging our way.
Nobody is going to prosecute you for thought-crime. Having somebody call you a bigot is not equal to you going around and preventing people from the rights they deserve (because that would be equal). It's not even close. So take your "persecution card" and go home already.
Also, all the rants about the courts. Could go one way and say that the courts are there to protect our rights, and that's what they do. Rights, especially those in the Constitution(s), are not up for majority vote. There is a specific process for amending constitutions. But, now get this, the US Constitution automatically supersedes every single state constitution, by the nature of our government. So, if a right is given in the US Constitution, it cannot be removed by a state, no matter what.
Or, I could go the other way and point out what hypocrits the bigots are when they win a court case and scream from the rafters that judges are impartial and good, as compared to when they lose a court case and scream from the rafters that it's a librul conspiracy and the 'activist' judges have got to go. This would show that it's just politics as usual.
Thing is, I'm tired of both those arguments. Most religious people are unconcerned with hypocrasy. Oh, they give lip service to logic, but they don't really care about holding consistent philosophy. Comes with the cognitive dissonance, in my opinion, but you'd probably be better consulting a psychologist. Honestly, I think you should just act like a decent @!$%#ing person and not persecute other people for things they cannot change. Hell, I don't go persecuting people for their religion, and that is definitely something they can change. The least you could do is do others the same.
I always find it strange when people are looking into other peoples lives, and how those people live their lives... Shouldn't they be more interested with their own?
And it's never surprising when the dirty little stories come out later, that these same people are involved in a scandal... Usually sexual in nature and outside of marriage.
Some religions and countries in today's world allow 4 wives.
Okay; you and your parasitic comrades get out of my POCKETBOOK and I'll "get out of your lives;" do we have a deal?
Republicans think that they ought to be everybody's "judge".
One false move and Republicans are rough and ready to disparage ANYBODY.
Genial, are you being parasitic again? If you're heterosexual (which I doubt because of your reference to "up the poop chute"), you get 1138 federal benefits if you're married. Do you feel like a parasite?
The above comment (American Girl's comment) applies to Democrats as well, and it amazes me that there are so many ignorant people on this board that believe it is one party. Take for instance that the North Carolina vote was an open vote and that many Democrats who happened to be "minorities" actually voted against gay marriage as did the previous Democrat President and the current one until it was beneficial to flip flop.
The only argument that needs to made on this topic is, Do you believe in the constitution or not? Because the 14th Amendment coupled with the 4th,9th,& 10th (privacy issues) cover this already.
And American Girl,I might point out that the guy you support has not only continued the policies of Bush but have ramped up the civil liberties killing policies as well. So again let us try and not be ignorant ideologues.
Thank you Terry-Ca!! That is exactly what this is, butting into other's lives so you don't have to take care of your own, or to keep the spotlight out of your life, especially if you are doing wrong and you know you are.
It does not affect my life in any way if two men, or two women, get married. I try to spend as much of my time minding my own business, and trying to take care of my own problems, to be butting into other's lives. If we are supposed to all be equal, then let's all be treated equally. That means having the same rights and priviliges of the bigots and radicals!
....no, but YOU obviously are dyslectic or have some other READING disability...
The article reports,
"Perkins also drew a parallel between the abortion issue and the marriage issue. Legalization of abortion, he said was 'thrust upon the country not democratically, not through the legislative branch, but through the courts -- and after 40 years it is not resolved.'"
Abortion, like free speech, the freedom to own weapons, the President of the US, the freedom to vote and the United States Supreme Court, was thrust upon the country by the US Constitution. Abortion and gun rights were resolved in 1767 by the representatives of the American colonists who signed the Constitution.
I believe marriage is between one man and one woman, as GOD stated in Genesis.. Obama has it wrong.
I do not believe that GOD was once man and we can become Gods of a planet.. Romney has is wrong
I believe marriage is between one man and one woman, as GOD stated in Genesis.. Obama has it wrong.
I do not believe that GOD was once man and we can become Gods of a planet.. Romney has is wrong
Genial: Do you have ANY substantive content to offer as to WHY same-sex marriage should not be allowed, or are you just going to stick to poorly written name-calling?
If the former, maybe I can ask a simpler question than the one of Sarah's that you are so assiduously ignoring: What harm does gay marriage cause, and to whom?
Paul, explain to us how your religious beliefs trumps the civil rights of other people? If your religion requires the denigration & discrimination of other people, then perhaps it's time for personal soul searching.
I remember it reading "Land of the Free" I don't recall anything about "Land of the only Free to do what the Christian Church deems acceptable"
I support a legal union and I do not support a marriage union with promises made before the GOD who defined marriage.. Why do you, who do not believe in the Bible, dictate to us who do believe...Perhaps you can get "married" in a different belief system do not try and change our Bible belief system
Paul,
Awsome! That means you're in favor of gay marriage, seeing as marriage is the legal union. And don't worry, NO ONE is proposes "Gay Holy Matrimony".
Uh oh! Did someone tell you, you have to get gay married?
Why would we? Your Bible has nothing to do with marriage. Again, no one's advocating for "Gay Holy Matrimony".
Civil union does not have the same legal status as marriage. Change the legal status of civil union to what currently reads for marriage, change marriage to a ceremony status, holy matrimony if you will.
Then, take away tax exempt status of all churches, take away medicare payments to all hospitals with a denomination, take away all subsidies to said organizations.
Then I am good with it.
TO: De Tocqueville who wrote:
Maybe it's because of the constant hate speech coming from Republicans, the name-calling, and the never-ending complaint from Republicans that nobody is telling Republicans what to do, aka "Republicans have no leader" and also known as "Republicans aren't doing anything to get the economy moving again so let's blame the Democrats!"
Democrats' main complaint is that all Republicans want, and all Republicans are willing to do, is give more tax cuts to the rich.
Obama/Biden 2012
Hey Genial, you get out of my bedroom -- and I'll get out of your pocketbook. Oh, wait, I have never been in your pocketbook. If the thought of a man shoving his "member" up the back-side of another man offends you so much, maybe you shouldn't think about it.
By the way, the Capitalist love of MONEY is deeply offensive to God, Jesus and all the other Christian deities. You don't see monkeys, dogs, cats, fish, penguins, eagles, squirrels, or any other animal amassing large amounts of MONEY, do you? It's because it just ain't natural..............
Liberal Democrats call a tax a tax -- Conservative Republicans (as well as Tea-taggers) call a tax a "fee". Liberals want to make things that harm other illegal -- Conservatives want to just control what people are allowed to do in their lives. Liberals tend to believe that helping others without having to be paid to do it is the Moral thing to do -- Conservatives tend to believe that if they don't get paid, they ain't gonna help even Jesus Christ.
With that one exception, Liberals and Conservatives believe in BIGGER, and MORE INTRUSIVE government.
So, was the thought about the Catholic church who has been involved in more scandals about priests corrupting alter boys; or tales surrounding politicans such as Tom DeLay, who wasn't less apt to get caught with his pants down, then was Bill Clinton?
What is ironic is too many people forgot how many gays have served, fought, and died for the freedoms we have. Yet those on the right want to continue dening those very rights to gays. I know it seems like an illusion but we should be striving for equality for all Americans.
TO: paul-1162416 who wrote:
I think GOD also said "judge not, lest ye shall be judged".
In any event, it's probably better to let the "damned" handle their own "damnation", if that's what you think about gay marriage.
I am so sick and tired of the religious right, the tea baggers and conservatives and all their decrees for all of us. Just mind your own business, live your own personal life the way you want to, and leave the rest of us alone. Intolerance is rampant in this country, and I for one am deeply offended by it.
American Girl,
You are smarter than that, what's with all the Republicans labels. ALL??? Pretty inclusive word. The all you see are vocal, often small groups holding on to "values" as they see them. By the way, they do have that right. If we were all the same there would be no reason to vote on leadership.
Allow me to point this out the Founding Fathers of this country wrote it very well to keep govt. and church seperate. What is going on in NC is a fine example what happens when you cross that line of govt with religion. I don't know how religious the Founding Fathers were but am amazed as to how they perceived this could happen and what the result would be. If the leadership of NC allows the church to dictate to it, they will fail as a state. They will have failed their populance and this country.
That's fine. Civil marriage has nothing to do with religion. I wish people would get that through their heads instead of trying to drag the bible into the discussion. If your church is debating allow same-sex couples to wed, fine. That's the perfect place for the bible. But, it has no place in a discussion of secular, civil marriage. None whatsoever.
No one has yet to explain without jumping up and down and waving a bible around how the same sex marriage of one couple is supposed to affect the marriage of a straight couple. People need to get their minds out of peoples' bedrooms and worry about how the economy is going to hell. The is about equal rights not religious views. What happens next, only certain religions will be allowed to be married, or certain churches. Get a life and stop trying to live everyone elses.
Paul - What if a church/pastor has no problem marrying a same sex couple? What if a same sex couple goes to a justice of the peace? Do you have a problem with this? Allowing same sex couples to marry will not change your life in any way. There is no gay army that is going to descend on your village and water board you till you give up and become gay. Relax - rarely do sanctimonious people have much credibility.
In a nation of religious freedom, you are free to believe or disbelieve any religious doctrine you want. But so does everyone else! We're free to disbelieve what you think God said about marriage, just as you're free to disbelieve Mormon doctrine. For that reason, religious doctrines should not and cannot be the basis of our common law, with thousands of different religious groups in the US, we cannot come to full agreement about any religious doctrine. Instead, we base our laws on basic secular concepts that we can all agree on.
We don't, but by the same token, you don't get to dictate what we believe, either. If you want to restrict yourself to "biblical marriage" only, fine, go ahead, we won't object a bit, but you don't have the legal right to restrict others to your beliefs. People of all faiths get married, including ones that don't follow your bible. Atheists who don't believe in God or any biblical definition of marriage also get married. Is two Atheists getting married (without religion, obviously) dictating your beliefs? I don't think so!
If "Civil Unions" granted exactly the same legal rights that Marriage now does, I'd have no problem with that - I certainly don't need some silly religious ritual to express my devotion to the one I love. Problem is, Civil Unions do NOT grant the same legal rights, especially at the Federal level.
Worse, many of your fellow bible-thumpers are doing their worst to deny even the few rights granted by Civil Unions, and have made their hatred of "those sinners" quite clear. The recent North Carolina proposal didn't just ban "gay marriage", but also banned anything remotely resembling marriage and banned any sort of "marriage rights" to same sex couples. Then came that preacher calling for rounding up gays and putting them in death camps.
With religious zealots unwilling to agree to a reasonable compromise for civil unions, it looks like it's going to be an "all or nothing" battle. Don't blame us if you loose the Gay Marriage battle.
jesus h nipple -- do ANY of you EVER learn from history?
First -- it is unconstitutional to vote on civil rights in America. This is a Constitutional Republic. And its ONLY because of the stranglehold that christians have on our government that this continues to be allowed, state by state. AND, by the way, this is exactly what mainstream christian america tried in the 1960's, trying to ban interracial marriage. They were wrong then, they are wrong now.
paul 1162416 the bible was written by man and is all based on interpretation. The weak minded can always be persuaded to believe anything. Until you have a mind of your own, you will believe what ever your religion dictates. Religion is nothing but a business.
American Girl
No. What is a bigger concern is that the left, though they don't claim to be everybody's judge, they sure are the first to scream "foul!"
truth hurts at times
Nor is it the land of the free to do what the non-christian population deems acceptable.
Sarah
Apparently you don't comprehend what the Bible teaches. Most people don't fully comprehend what it teaches. Though English is perhaps the richest language in the world for quantity of words, there are no precise words to properly describe many of the Greek and Hebrew expressions.
Marriage is the secular equivilent to a man shall leave his mother and father and cleave unto his wife and become one flesh. Marriage originally was a concept rooted heavily in custom, usually in the form of marriage contracts arranged between parents. Religious institutions and Governments picked up the term as towns and cities became larger.
DB Akron
nice spin. you missed a word. must be a reading comprehension issue, unless it was intentional. the word "only" is key in that statement. non-christians are not attempting to stop christians from practicing their religion or marrying whoever they want or anything else. are christians "ONLY" free to do what the non-christian population deems acceptable? nope. they are free to do as they please (within the law obviously...oops i forgot they are allowed to molest children without fear of punishment, sorry that is an entirely different issue) Or are you trying to say that christians lobbying OUR government to try to force everyone who is not christian to abide by their beliefs is somehow reasonable or acceptable? who is trying to force christians to abide by beliefs that are not their own?
FrogMorton
WRONG! Ratifying the bill of rights was about voting on civil rights. The constitution left us to be able to vote on new amendments which could further define rights of the citizens or government.
Genial-1884259 Comment collapsed by the community
Great post. I guess it really comes down to money for you folks, doesn't it? You seriously feel that you've purchased the right to interfere? What a joke.
Al-3776074 "Some religions and countries in today's world allow 4 wives."
And in the USA, we just had a case of a 27 year old 'man' who had 30 children by 11 different women (4 in one year by different women). Of course, he wanted the taxpayers to support them because he couldn't afford to pay for them.
The GOP TeaBaggers are putting the rug out from under the lives of so many people by them supporting the 1%, this is Nuts !!!
ROY WILSON, only you would twist around a story like that in your neo-conservative-agenda-deranged mind, and in response to another comment, run a right-wing deflection tactic, and claim it's about the taxpayers.
I read that article about that Tennessee man that had a lot of children and nowhere does it imply that the taxpayers would have to pick up the bill.
He has been motivated by himself, his ex's and by others, and is now pleading the court for a break from his child support payments.
http://bostonherald.com/news/national/west/view/20120519man_who_had_30_kids_with_11_women_wants_child-support_break
All Christians - those who believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ- should look to his words about the importance of marriage as the union of one man/one woman. His words are:
That's right! Jesus had nothing to say in condemnation of same sex marriage. Yet Christian "leaders" proclaim it a sin. I'd rather follow what Jesus actually said: Love God, love your neighbor as yourself, judge not lest you be judged.
If this were a religious issue, that would be one thing.
This Debate is SOLELY Civil. No country based on equal rights can deny them just because a citizen is gay.
"Marriage" is the term the government uses to mean two people joining their finances. The government doesn't look for proof that you're in love. It doesn't demand that you have kids.
But jesus views is not to re ripped out of context from the bible, and jjust make it mean or not mean anything. Jesus is part of the bible in its entirety , and from a biblical point of view, God said that is was NOT GOOD that man was alone, so he tried to find him a partner. The animals didnt fit the bill, none were like Adam, so God puts adam to sleep and takes one of his ribs to form woman. To be part of the flesh of man, to be part of each other, to be in a holy union before God, to make kids and pro create , to each have their roles in life. It could not make any more perfect sense. So from a biblical point of view, woman and man were made for each other, and from a scientific point of view, male and female were meant from each other, and from a social point of view, man and woman and the ideal family setting, BUT from todays left wing, non religous, politically correct point of view, we HAVE to accept same sex being together and that is nobodies right to make me accept something that is not right. I accept the people, I love them, and are fine with them, but I disagree with their lifestyle, and believe in Pro marriage.
As for the judge not lest ye be judged, that is not the only passage in the bible. That is talking about the hippicrates out there who judge people for their sins and yet are doing the same sins themselves. The bible is quite clear that a chrsitian is to judge other christians to help keep them accountable to the word of God. So if my fellow brother in christ is having issues with infidelity or porn, then I have the right to rebuke him, and let him know he is being sinful and that he should quit what he is doing, but I better make sure that I am not doing the same sin myself before I go tell someone about theirs.
Of course, Crossfit, your argument is based entirely on a bias toward your book, the Bible, your story of Creation, Crucifixion and Resurrection. There are many other stories on the planet, rather more based in reality, I might add, that still had marriage, relationship rights. Some did not distinguish mates, tho', homosexuality was rare. Nevertheless, today marriage is a contract with your state and you and your partner. No different than any other codified contract. It has rather less onerous consequences, given divorce allowances, and some benefits attached to it as a legal status. How anyone could consider telling two people of emancipated age whether they can or should agree to the legal terms of the marriage contract or not is beyond me. Who do you think you are, God,..... or something?
If you don't believe me, ask yourself this, whatever church ritual and words you said at the wedding, what is the state's position on your rights at the divorce? Unless you get a pre-nup, marriage is a marriage is a marriage.....
"Ryan, what religion are you? If you're Christian you will be quickly be chastised as not being a "TRUE CHRISTIAN (tm)"."
Would I? There are plenty of christians who would do chastise but to be honest, if the Christians that I know personally had to have an opinion on it, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority were ok with it as long as it didn't happen within their church as well. I know for a fact that from conversations I've had with them that many are ok with gay marriage. I do know quite a few Christians but NONE of the ones I know go around busting out bibles and quoting scripture either... except maybe to each other on sundays lol. They (the christians I know) don't go out on the streets forcing their religion on people either. From experience I can honestly say there IS a difference between this bible thumping stereotypical christian condemning everyone to hell and the many level headed people who believe it's right to be Christ-like. Both call themselves Christians. If Christ is real, the last I heard he pretty much wants us to love each other. Anyone who really loves anyone knows love takes understanding. If God is love, or in at least some sense good, understanding should simply come with that.
typo. too late for me to edit previous post.
"There are plenty of christians who do** chastise (for reasons like that) but to be honest,...."
Besides they can say whatever they want. That won't change my choice to believe in a purpose.... especially since there really is ultimately no point not to whether you be religious or atheist.
TXHorseman: I like your style and your logic and concede that minority of Republicans have a right to hold onto old values, yet I have to point out that holding onto personal values and legislating that a whole, diverse country hold onto your old values are two different things! These Republicans DON'T have the right to blatantly lie about, attempt to criminalize and discriminate in legal protection against lucid, consenting, adult, equal citizens due to their personal religious "values". Values are how one lives one's OWN life, not how one should live mine for me. Keep government out of my bedroom, keep your mind out of my bedroom, if you disagree with gay marriage, don't marry a gay person but keep your Jesus-blood-stained hands off my Constitutionally Protected civil rights!
Let's start with is: ismarraige a privielge-like a driver's license, or a right? Priveleges are like ""I'll reward youif youeatyour broccoli.
Right are somethignthat stand apart is sofacto-that is they exist because the exxist.
If marraige is a privelge-which can be withdrawn at any moment-what happens to the "right tolife? If marrageis the creation of famlies and there by life ,one says by implication life is a privelege not a right too.
And just how will the "right to lifers" like that. Moreover if marriage is a privilege this can be used to justify a one child policy like China's-on ground priveleges havel imits.
The dumbing down of marriage to privelege raises the prospect of "training wheel marrages" as in teens getting privsional licenses before full statusis granted. We wonderhow that will go over..
Then there is th eidea that marrage is a quick ticket to sex, If marrage is a privlege one could resrtic tsex to certain practices-in other words a secualar marriage manual of socialy accptable positions-enforcable by be room webcams.
Indeed how else can enforment be isntituted?
Laws arre effective onlyif they are enforced. So tools are needed for enforcement.
If marriage is a privilege, then should those who fail at it (divorced straight people) be denied that privilege a second time?
Arlin, I've read your comment twice and still can't understand what you're saying. But I can tell you this: Marriage is a right. That was decided by the SCUS, so that is a settled matter. Loving vs. Virginia 1967 et al.
Well said Capecodmom.
I think I have the solution that would satisfy everyone on this issue:
A. Back off and let those men who want to marry men, marry men.
B. Allow those women who want to marry women, marry women.
C. Allow those folks who want to abort their babies, abort their babies.
D. In three generations, there will be no Democrats.
Damn - I love it when a plan comes together.
Quite frankly I would be in favor of removing all these marriage laws, moving all the perks from IRS tax credits, to co-signing on insurance, and move them all to civil unions. And then getting the government out of the marriage business altogether. Religion can keep marriage, and in this way laws, as well as legal perks would all refererence civil unions, and not marriage itself. In this way, iin the eyes of the law, all heterosexual unions would be civil unions as well...
On the basis of seperation of church and state, the gov't can get out of the marriage busness for all couples, altogether; along with all these touchy issues that can come from it. And then the government would be out of the bedroom for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike....
The SC(R)OTUS has already ruled. Discrimination against people by race, religion, gender or sexual preference is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Get it. Government has no business telling people who they can marry. Or do the cons think their argument will be upheld with "judicial activism", by radical Republican judges. Just think about that "Republican judges"(thats what the R stands for in the middle of Supreme Court of the United States), is that what the court was supposed to be. I guess you think President Obama is only 3/5ths of a person. Keep your moral judgements. You've been told by the book not to judge others, lest you be judged for your bigotry, greed and downright nastiness.
TrueLGBT, even the author of the "studies" you quote from has DENOUNCED their own work. Why do you insist on perpetuating the lie?
LMAO @ "TrueLGBT"
Shut the F#@k up already! You're a proven troll. I'm gay, and I haven't been through any emotional trauma. I don't know what your fascination is with trying to convince people here that gays aren't born that way, but I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that they ARE INDEED. I was born that way. Nothing happened to me after birth that changed me from hetero to gay. You are either a misguided, ill-informed sad individual, or you're a lunatic troll that has emotional issues and denies your own sexuality. Either way, SEEK HELP!
@pride and Joy, you have it wrong, if the republicans keep going like they are there won't be a United States of America in a few generations.
NBC you need to grow some hair and tell that forgien company that owns you to kiss your ass, your are going to print the truth to the people of this country reguardless what pressure the republican party puts on you. You talk about freedom of the press. You need to exercise that right. Yes I know the Dan Rather Story. You should be ashamed of yourself. Who cares about George W bush and the National Guard, all these senators sons, etc. Serving in the Guard was just a wash so they could say "I've served my time." As to the board of dirictors, get rid of that CEO. I'm for hire and I believe in kicking ass and taken names, and tellign the people the truth. So much is being hidden from the people right now because you are afrad to take the buul be the horns and use the freedom of the press, a Right that was given to you by the soldiers of the Nation, past, present and to come.
Because the truth doesn't support his position. As with Tony Perkins, only lies support his pathological hatred of gays.
because that's what trolls do. see they all suffered some trauma during potty training.
Perhaps some are hoping that they can do one of the following:
- Pull a stonewall Jackson and say "if that's the court's decision, let them enforce it"
- Pretty much what Congress has done since the ruling wrt Legislative vetoes which have accompanied bills (like the War Powers Act) which accompany broad delegations of legislative power without clearly defined uses for those powers, spelled out in statute; essentially ignore the Supreme Court. The earlier case was INS vs Chada if I'm not mistaken, but it was an immigration case where a legislative veto was called on the Executive...
- Perhaps some are hoping that if they can keep the issue in legislation (knowing it takes time for stuff to go to the courts), and if further, they could restrict the Supreme Court's appellete jurisdiction, so they can't hear certain type cases, they can prevent a ruling. And yes, it would be a bit of a parlimentary trick, if you will, which the Constitution allows, through a check the legislature has on the judiciary....
This might account for Congress and states continuing to pass certain bills, even if the high court has given their own precident on the matter. Not so much for people who post refudiated studies again and again however....
NCC - There are just some people - regardless of the facts - who still believe that the world is flat, that dinosaurs wandered the earth with humans, that there is no such thing as evolution and that same sex marriage will somehow ruin everyone's life and will eventually lead to a global disaster. More hate, death and misery have been perpetrated on humanity in name of religion than anything else. I don't understand why so many people on here think that gays and abortion are the central issues that really matter to most people. Such a waste of energy.
Wow. Another republican without any critical thinking ability, or logic.
Regarding A&B: Whether they can marry or not, it will have no effect on the "generations". They are still gay.
Regarding C: according to the Right Wing anti-abortion website "Abortion NO!" -- http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html -- the vast majority of women in the US who get abortions (over 2/3) are christian evangelicals and catholics. WHOA! So there goes another of your lies...
Regarding D: the above shows your conclusion in "D" to be an EPIC FAIL... typical of any conclusion ever drawn by a republican.
In fact, ya know what's hilarious to me? The hypocrisy of mainstream BuyBull whack-jobs...
...because your hate for Democrats is so intense, that you are all rallying behind a presidential candidate who, all the rest of the time, you call a vile, whack-job mormon Cult Member.
You guys are so busy, sitting in the corner, rolling your own poop into little balls to throw at people, you didn't realize all this time that you were licking your fingers.
Right because all gay and lesbian relationships are what produces the next generation of gay and lesbians. Never ever heard of a gay couple havin a baby w/o outside intervention.
I believe some Americans are confuzzled right now, I am. The Republican party has nominated a Mormon for President. Mormon's believe in Polygamy( Marriage to more then 1 wife). The Republicans are actually trying to get law in place defining marriage to be between 1 man and 1 woman by voting a man in office who believes in a faith where he can have more then 1 wife? Does that mean if Romney wins it could be the first time we have 1 president and numerous first ladies, or is there some sort of list of who would be the first lady. Can the first lady be replaced if Romney decides to be a polygamist after becoming President . Does he practice polygamy right now? I have alot of questions for Mr. Romney that are not being asked by anybody, including people that ran against him. I cannot believe that no Republican, candidate for President, news reporter has bothered to ask these questions of Romney. How can I vote for a Republican being this confuzzled when I look with both eyes , hear with both ears, and decide with 1 brain.
Majority America. I am a democrat so I will be voting Obama. However, regarding your questions/concerns. Romney has 1 wife who he has been married to for many years. Almost all Mormans do not practice polygamy.
U.S. law allows you to marry one person at a time. The first lady is not an "official title". Whoever Romney is married to would be the first lady. If any president got divorced and remarried during their tenure as president, then the first lady would change to the new wife.
Poligamy...what a concept! Man has the honor and privelege to marry a bunch of women....the hair begins to stand up on the back of the neck as I imagine that!!
What in the hell would inspire a man to want more than one wife at a time?? The natural jealosy that would be present in any threesome or greater number of people.
Imagine if you will...after a hard days work you come home to your twentytwo kids and five bickering...nagging...wives! The Horror!!
You are kidding, right? Those aspects of Mormonism were very secular within the church and not generally adopted. We have much more important arguments to make regarding important issuesfacing this country. This is exactly what you liberals do each time an intelligent discussion comes along. You stray from the facts, throw out opinion, inuendo, and otherwise attempt to divert the discussion since you cannot defend your position due to the lack of facts...
See Working American, I find your argument funny: it seems that all conservatives have to fall back upon when discussing this issue is religion and the Bible. There really isn't any rational explanation as to why to people of the same sex can't get married. In fact, if you look at the lawyers who have gone to court to defend same-sex marriage, you'll find that they are generally conservative republican lawyers who, through a rational thought process, have discovered that exact thing: there are no true reasons (by true I mean aren't based on a few lines in a 2000 year old book) to continue to discriminate against these human beings. In fact, the benefits of allowing them to get married are far greater, from a social and monetary standpoint. I mean seriously, look at who is leading this charge: religious conservatives. Do they have rational reasons why they are against it? Of course not. They just say it's God's will. First of all, who the hell do they think they are to know what God's will is? Second, why do they continue to try to take us backwards in terms of progress? Do they not realize how similar they are to the Muslims they rail against and call for us to conquer? What is this, the Crusades? Why can't they understand that we are in the 21st century and that kind fo stuff just doesn't fly anymore? It's like the more you try to help them get a grip on modern times the more they fight to keep their heads in the sand. I just don't get it.
...it appears that YOU are the one confused here; better reread your note and edit it, especially considering plural marriage...
Geniel,
Same goes for polygamy...
Let me ask you, why doesn't STRAIGHT marriage lead to polygamy? The only thing that would change in regards to gay marriage, is the gender of one of the partners, so what is inherent in that one person's gender, that leads to polygamy?
Now, that statement is a laugh. It is the anti-gay crowd that loves to proclaim that the next logical step after same-sex marriage is marriage with animals. It is also the same crowd that can't muster any validated facts to support its position. Ask anyone how same-sex marriage will destroy anyone else's marriage, and you'll get silence (or some irrelevant bible quotes). So, I'll ask you ... what terrible things will happen if same-sex marriage is legal?
Genial cannot answer the question. There is a good reason for that.
No Barry, it is both sides unfortunately.
Again, all one has to do is ask if you believe in the Constitution? If yes then the 4th, 9th, 10th (Privacy issues), and then the 14th with the Equal Protection Clause say that we have no business interfering with marriage.
.....Sarah, plural marriage IS polygamy; there apparently is no limit to the ignorance of you and yours. Ploygamy is marriage to several women at a time, NOT several women (or men, 'gay' or 'straight') ONE AT A TIME...I'm done with you and your gross ignorance. Genial, gone.
Geniel,
You didn't answer the question, though???
Let me ask you, why doesn't STRAIGHT marriage lead to polygamy? The only thing that would change in regards to gay marriage/straight marriage, is the gender of one of the partners, so what is inherent in that one person's gender, that would then lead to polygamy?
Come back! Answer! Please! Pretty please!
I do not like Romney - to me every time I see him I feel like I am watching Pinocchio. However, I believe Mormon's no longer condone Polygamy and believe marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.
I believe this is not a Religious issue but a civil rights issue and agree all these Religious Institutions should loose their tax exempt status as they have become too Political.
The arguments in favor of gay marriage (which I support 100%) also work in support of polygamy which, btw, doesn't have to be one man with many wives, it could be any combination. And why not? Surely few people would choose that lifestyle but for those who would why should we deny them the right? Marriage at its core is little more than a legal contract, a contract involving more than two people would certainly be more complicated but hardly impossible. We view polygamy with the same bias as many view gay marriage, why is one biased viewpoint wrong and the other not?
Sarah, why do you insist on adding a qualifier to the word marriage. This nation defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. There is no "gay" marriage, there is no "straight" marriage. Gays are desperately trying to normalize themselves. First they kept beating the drum of "we're not queer or homosexual, we're gay." Now it's let change the definition marriage to suit our desires.
3Thirty,
Well, allow gay people to marry, and then we won't have to make that distinction in order to hold a coherent conversation. I can't believe I'm saying this, but you're right. Marriage, SHOULD just be, marriage. Too bad you conservatives insist on making a big deal out of "gay"...
Continuing, the "gays" aren't forcing anything down your throats, the conservatives do. We advocate for NOT using "gay", NOT caring, NOT legislating based on sexual orientation. As in treating them the same as straight people.
In order to stop us from doing that. In order to stop us from repealing laws that SPECIFICALLY make an issue out of being gay or not, the right uses they're Bibles, morals, and religions. When, quite clearly, in our nation, those things have no standing.
It was the right that legislated homosexuality. DADT, DOMA, sodomy laws... It is the right that's fighting to keep legislating homosexuality. They need to stop using it as a political issue, and we will then cease to say anything about their methods and how they go about using them or defending them.
Polyandry is a women with more than one husband.
Why would any woman want more than one husband?
My wife is too busy trying to get rid of the husband she already has.......
Well, if you look at the birds that practice polyandry such as emu's, they leave once the eggs are laid. Maybe their on to something?
People such as Genial refuse to answer questions because they know they are unable to answer them -- and then they get all bent out of shape because someone has shown the world what tools (or is that "trolls"?) people such as Genial really are.
Go home and cry to Mommy that the big, bad people are showing just how illogical and ignorant you really are, Genial.
Genial seems to lack some comprehension skills, which explains his opinions.
3thirty3, why do you and the rest of your bigoted crowd continue to insist that you know more about what God intended than God himself? NOWHERE in that Bible of yours does it say that a CIVIL MARRIAGE is to be only between one man and one woman -- that is only what your crowd wants it to say.
YOU ain't trying to force YOUR religious beliefs down anyone's throat, right? Actually, you are -- by working to legislate whether two consenting adults can marry one another based solely on YOUR religious beliefs.
Hey, 3thirty3, I don't want you Religious-Reich Right-wing Christian Fundamentalist Tea-Tagger Republican Conservatives to be able to eat pasta, because it offends the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may His Noodly Appendages forever wave). Maybe someone should legislate who is allowed to eat pasta........
Just to share with those who maybe don't know. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints stopped the practice of polygamy in 1890. The math says that was 122 years ago. No "Mormon" or member of the Church today practices polygamy. Some one above said "Most" don't. Know that would be all don't. You couldn't be a member of the Church if you did. Less than 5% of the small membership back in the mid-1800's were called to practice this Biblical teaching. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were commanded by the Lord in the Old Testament to have more than one wife. If you could go back in time or have these prophets brought to you today, would you critizise them for obeying God's word to them? I don't think you would. All the Christians I know accept all of the biblical prophets and the teachings from them in the Bible. Old & New Testament included. So we have a long detailed record where God has asked his children to do certain things at certain times. Now I guess if you don't believe in Christ or His use of Prophets like these men and others like Moses,Noah,Ezekial, and many more- you could definitely have a different perspective concerning polygamy. If you however do believe in Christ and His Father one would think that God didn't condemn the practice but commanded many through out history to live the law. Hope this clarifies to some.
Marriage is between one man and one woman. Legal rights can be obtained by other couples by consulting an attorney. Homosexuals took the word "gay" and gave it deviant meaning. They took the image of the rainbow and made it part of sex-ridden parades that no decent person would attend, and now they want to take marriage and turn it into "one size fits all". The problem is, "marriage" isn't just a nice word or a pretty picture. It already has a definition.
I thought the mormon faith didn't support polygomy anymore, though.
NotAnArtist: you are correct. In 1890 it was abolished. Some, such as MajorityAmerica, are either mistaken in their understanding, or they are trying to deliberately deceive.
Jacksonhole, the Mormons decided to stop practicing polygamy because it was illegal by FEDERAL Law. If they continued polygamy, UTAH -- a MORMON state -- would not have been allowed to join the Union.
Yes, it really is true.
p.s., the Fundamentalist LDS folks still practice polygamy. They claim they do it because of "freedom of religion" and "it is God's will". Do the research.
God commanded my gay friend to get married...
reader, you are flat wrong. The word "gay", which used to mean "happy", was bastardized by so-called "Christians" as a means of demonizing those who are different, i.e., "That is so gay". It means "Stupid, horrible, outrageous, NON-CONFORMIST".
The Rainbow flag/banner is used to show that the WHOLE (society, or whatever you want) is made of individuals -- and individuals do not need to be exact copies of each other for the whole to be acceptable.
Stop trying to DICTATE what everyone else is allowed to believe. Stop trying to DICTATE how everyone is to live their lives. Stop trying to LEGISLATE morality. Stop trying to use Government to tell everyone else what to do.
Falconer33 - Do you know where I can find this Polly Andry? And do you know if she's attractive?
I believe there is genetic pre-disposition for homosexuality and I believe it is possible for 2 people of the same sex to legimately share a loving experience. My own angst with the issue is the visual in my mind's eye when I hear gay rights is the Gay Pride Parade in San Francisco showing the full nudity,permissive and openly sexual suggestive behavior in front of kids and on TV. I've been there .. seen it.. it is condoned and accepted as "normal"
This is the message I recieve .. this is the projected idealogy that concerns me as well as other people.
I do not see a parallel in the straight community, based upon love or partnership, where there is a parade or event displaying the same behavior ....
Forgive me in advance, this is how I am wired ...
I will take my punishment now for sharing an opinion that is counter-culture.
No, punkin, it doesn't. Already over 10% of the states reject your definition here, and that number is growing. Soon, the US Supreme Court will make it a civil right, just as it did with Interracial Marriage, when you haters in the right-wing were trying to ban that. You were wrong in the 1960's about interracial marriage, and you are wrong now.
Cheers!
Correct, they had a "revelation of convenience" to fit in with the rest of the US back then. Of course, some lusty old goats with harems didn't like that, so they left the church and formed their own polygamous cults, some of which are still in existence.
Then in the mid 70's the Mormon church had another "revelation of convenience" to admit those with African ancestry into full "priesthood" membership, again to try and fit in better with society, a decade after the Civil Rights era. Don't know if any left to form their own racist cults, but it seems likely...
Now I'm wondering what their next "revelation of convenience" will be...
Sarah @ 4.15: "We advocate for NOT using "gay", NOT caring, NOT legislating based on sexual orientation. As in treating them the same as straight people."
I advocate NOT changing definitions to suit your need. Conservatives have been forced by the liberals, especially liberal justices, to turn to legislation. No one ever imagined that groups of whiny people would want to redefine the basic tenets of our culture.
The Quacked One @ 4.21: Wow, lay off the Red Bull. First, where did I say anything about religion or GOD? That's right I didn't. You just flew off the handle with your atheist guns a blaz'n. I also want to ask you who is trying to force something down someone's throat? That's right it's the gay community with their liberal, "if it feels good do it," buddies. Conservatives are just trying to keep the definition of marriage from being twisted into something it is not.
@RJM-617712
I get exactly what you mean regarding the over-sexualization of gay pride parades. I'm a gay man myself and feel that sex is something private, and that sex is not what defines us as gay people. I've never been to a pride parade and don't really have a desire to -- even though I know that there are many "regular" people who go to the parades, the parades are unfortunately known (and stereotyped) by the few who over-sexualize it. (Kind of like how the extreme right-wing Christians unfairly give all Christians a bad name.)
But please don't let this impact your view on gay people in general and on what rights we should have. There are proportionally just as many gay people who have just as "strict" or "wholesome" of views on sexuality/morality as do straight people -- the sole difference being the gender of the person you love. Straight people don't have a monopoly on "morality" -- many gay people value commitment and monogamy too. One big reason we want to get married!
One of the big problems today is that gay kids/teens growing up don't see a future place for themselves -- they are taught by their families and churches about various morals: abstinence until marriage, commitment to one person, strong families, etc. But because society doesn't accept having those things with someone of the same gender, young gays instead think that the only option is to go in the complete opposite direction: lose those morals completely, over-sexualize their life, be promiscuous, etc.
Having gay marriage and fully integrating gay people into society is the best possible recipe for reducing promiscuity, reducing HIV and other STDs, reducing gay teen suicides, and yes, reducing the sexual stereotypes and public displays thereof.
And despite what the far right says -- gay marriage will not lead to more people being gay. Just like banning gay marriage (or going further and trying to criminalize being gay itself, e.g. the NC pastor who wants to round up the all the gays thinking that they'll just die off and we'll never have gays again!) isn't going to result in any less people being gay.
Arlin,
I am a little confused with your argument.
What is the point you are trying to make? I cant understand your comment
6 deleted, bfitz calling someone - presumably the POTUS - the 'HNIC'. Lose the racism.
You're suspended for a week for violating #5 of the Code of Honor - repeatedly.
Good thing we are a country based on constitutional laws and not mob rules.
Otherwise we would still have slaves and women would not be able to vote or serve in the military.
Of course it's different bigots always find a way to justify their bigotry.
Freedom of religion means that no church can be forced to sanction or perform same sex marriages.
Same sex marriages are civil marriages, just like ALL marriages. You don't need a preacher to get legally married. I'm sure these Talibaptist preachers would tell you that you don't need a marriage license from the state to be married in the eyes of God.
It boils down to freedom of religion. You can't use the government or enact laws to force your particular brand of superstition on everyone else.
You can't override my freedom by voting on it.
You can't enact Christian Sharia law in the U.S. I'ts unconstitutional.
That doesn't mean that this wack job Supreme Court won't twist themselves and the Constitution into a pretzel to justify religious discrimination.
But, Sam, as I'm sure you realize there is not one argument that anyone can make against gay marriage other than a religious one. And those, thank goodness, don't hold any legal sway in the US.
What has gone so wrong that the Republican party has been virtually destroyed by a bunch of ignorant, ranting yahoos and at the same time a different bunch of yahoos are destroying what was once a respectable religion?
once a respectable religion? The one that burned heretics? Crusaders, witch burners? The one that covers up child rape? Earth revolves around the sun and if you disagree you will be punished? Learn your religions history.
What has happenned? The first thing would be to look at the matter that each political party has more then 1 core constituency in it. In truth, there wouldn't be a way to have a 2 party system unless this was the case, because there's often more then 2 positions on the issues among voters as a whole. Paleo-cons and neo-cons aren't always on the same side wrt many issues; and many monetary conservatives can be a bit more liberal wrt social issues then the Christian right, etc...
But from here, one would essentially have to follow what has happened with the "Patriot network" as it would be called within this country. In the 1990s, they weren't main stream, and in large measure stayed outside the political parties. Some of these included people such as Timothy McVeigh (who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma city in 1996), some who wanted another Wacko showdown with the FBI and ATF, and those who didn't believe they should have to get a drivers liscense to drive on public roads or pay income taxes, as and herein is where the argument about the unconstitutionality of the 16th amendment establishing the income tax came in. Now how, an amendment to the Constitution could be unconstitutional? Well this was the same issue the Tea Party supported candidate in Deleware stumbled upon, and also what left her the 1 such candidate who lost the election in 2010 in DE... People couldn't quite fathom how she could run a campaign on the Constitution, and yet when quized upon it, have no idea what the 16th amendment was, and didn't seem very familiar with the content of the Constitution itself. The Deleware voters gave their response...
This isn't to say there was no arguments among them either, but in any case some of their methods and some of their arguments did seem a bit radical for the days leading up to the 1990s. I remember running into some members of the Patriot Network back in the early 90s when I was vacationing in Montana. One of them was trying to convince me that there were hidden tracking devices in $1 bills to allow the government to keep tabs on everyone through their money. The irony is, today, such would be possible with computer searches of the financial networks for CREDIT/DEBIT CARD PURCHASES, and electronic transactions; however through $1 bills seems rather a stretch. The same sort of stretch that would be needed to not be left scratching one's head at arguments from lunar landing deniers and 9/11 conspiricy theorists.
But here's the thing, sometime during the last decade, it seems many at this end of the political spectrum has found their way into the Republican party. This isn't to say that the longer time members aren't there (they are), or they don't have different interests. But I think this in part, has something to do with the dynamic we're seeing today. And yet I find myself also back, to what some had said in the 1990s, which is, not every one of their ideas necessarily has no merit (minus some of the revisionist stuff, that seems so far fetched, it would be hard to swallow); but their methods can be at times rather extreme... Welcome to the new melting pot, I guess....
Marriage..that is the union of a man and a woman IS a privilege..the "rights" come into the picture when you see how many a couple gets by signing a LEGAL document joining them..how many Straight couples do you think would get married if they didnt get all the rights that came w/ it..if in that they had the same limitations as same sex couples..i.e. having to remarry over and over if you move state to state..take away all the Legal (Laws)Rights, and I think you would see a drastic change in the opinions regarding Rights vs Privilege
Been out, you make up these comments as you go along? Marriage is a right. If you don't like that, tough. It was decided by the Supreme Court. Go argue with John Roberts.
Bobber, what have you been bobbing for/on? Privacy and therefore Abortion was also decided, yet you people still assasinate doctors for doing it? And, you're correct: marriage IS a right to ALL citizens according to the court, yet gays may not marry one consenting adult of their choice....why is that? Don't say "Majority" either, you just threw that argument away when you said "Marriage is a right. If you don't like that, tough." If the "majority" doesn't like the gays' right to get married, tough.
How can conservative Republicans, that believe marriage to be between 1 man and 1 woman, try to elect Romney to be President when he follows a faith where he can have more then 1 wife?
I agree, marriage is between whoever, how many and whatever you want it to be. Next the Democratic party needs to move on to making NAMBLA accepted. Thank goodness for the Democratic party and their progressive ways, don't we would be stuck in the past.
Um, no. Marriage is between two adults, with legal capacity for informed consent. That's pretty much it, thank you 14 Amendment and equal protection. Legal capacity and informed consent... Ta Da!!!
And before you start in on polygamy...
Let me ask you, why doesn't STRAIGHT marriage lead to polygamy? The only thing that would change is the gender of one of the partners, so what is inherent in that one person's gender, that leads to polygamy?
Bob, you keep saying this over and over, and people keep correcting your faulty logic over and over. It's almost like you're willfully stupid.
The difference between two consenting adults entering into the contract of marriage is one thing. An adult and a child, or an adult and a dog, or an adult and a toaster is NOT that thing, it's something else.
Enough is enough, Bob. Shut it down.
consenting adults, bob. holy christ figure out what it means.
Bob, bob, bob-How many times have we asked you not to try and recruit any new "boys" to your club from this blog? We know you are a big supporter of NAMBLA, and you want to make everything you do legal, but you cannot do it on here. There are your magazines to advertize in if you desire, but quit coming on here pushing your own agenda!
Krullolon, I think you hit the nail on the head. It seems that in the face of overwhelming evidence of the societal benefits of having no discrimination and equal rights for all, they are willfully stupid. And that is the most infuriating part... They have no rational reason to deny equality, so they simply stay with their faulty arguments and shut their eyes and hold their hands over their ears. I'm still waiting for a non-religious argument backed up with supporting data as to why they believe same-sex marriage will lead to incest, polygamy and bestiality, as they continue to assert. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, but instead of doing what logical, rational people do when they are presented with such evidence that makes them rethink their position (which is not flip-flopping as conservatives would have you believe, but simply using new data to alter a perception), they simply talk louder and get more manic. You know who does that? Children. Like, very small children.
Why does it have to be two adults? Why can't a man have two wives (or a women two husbands, so we ensure Equal Protection)?
Let's take Bob's case a little more seriously. If Marriage between any two consenting adults is ok, why not marriage between an adult and a minor? I mean the heart cannot be denied right? Just because a person is younger doesn't give us the right to discriminate against them and prevent them from being with the person they love does it?
I am in no way advocating this. I am merely using the emotional appeal of the left to support a position that most will find as extreme as some do the idea of gay marriage. If Gays can have it why not others?
Sarah? why not? We could change the age of consent to eliminate this institutionalized age discrimination that has plagued our country since its inception. Who is with me? Or are you all bigots?
MindCrime/Bill,
The answer to your question, is in the answer to MY question...
In fact, the only difference between gay marriage and straight marriage is the gender of one of the parties, so please tell me, what is inherent within that one party's gender that would allow gay marriage to lead to all these things, (i.e. incest, polygamy, pedophilia, marrying inanimate objects) when straight marriage doesn't?
I'm not claiming gay marriage leads to polygamy. I'm asking what permits the government to proscribe it.
You are quite correct. Bob is being a mumpsimus.
mump·si·mus/ˈmÉ™mpsimÉ™s/
Noun:
Mindcrime,
The fact that we would have to rewrite tax law, insurance law, probate law, family law, contract law, yada, yada, yada, as well as the fact that it is mired in child abuse and domestic violence.
But all of that is moot, because gay marriage wouldn't lead to it. If anything, the threat of polygamy holds more water in banning religion (not that I'm advocating for that, just logically speaking) then it does in banning gay marriage.
So that's the reason--because it would be "too difficult" to deal with polygamy? You are the one talking about "strict scrutiny" (in a post below)--since when have we ever let the state or feds off with "it's too hard" when dealing with strict scrutiny--which has been called "fatal in fact"---?
And again--you have me confused with a bomb-throwing abolitionist on this--I'm just asking a legitimate question (I'm not a polygamist either by the way)
Mindcrime,
First, the question is off point, seeing as it wouldn't lead to polygamy. Then, with a basis in abuse and an onus of rewritting pretty much all of our state/federal laws, I think that explains it pretty well. Furthermore, I wouldn't really have a problem with it. SCOTUS did, way back in the day, which has led to the standing we have on it now, i.e. the onus of rewriting everything. But the limited number of people who would engage in it, are welcome to, as far as I'm concerened, however then what happens with the 1000+ benefits that marriage bestows?
Why polygamy is illegal has NOTHING to do with gay marriage. It's more of a 1st Amendment issue. That's why it's such a strawman, here. Unless someone can answer my original question, which would be the link between the gender of one party and polygamy, bringing this up is nothing but a distraction.
It's not like we going to legalize gay marriage, and then the next day a shload of people are going to be screaming about wanting to marry numerous spouses. Those who want to engage in polygamy, already do, albeit underground. That won't change with the legalization of gay marriage, unless you can find a link between the two.
mindcrime: do you have any comments to offer on the subject of same-sex marriage, or are you just going to stick to the standard playbook of opponents by changing the subject to talk about something else? Do you believe gay marriage would harm anyone? If so, who, and how?
You were the one who brought up the "informed consent" issue above--I personally don't give a rip who marries who--but I get tired of the "informed consent" argument because it isn't a panacea--the "progressive" folk who trumped that argument still ignore the fact that they have substituted one arbitrary classification for another (the number of spouses rather than gender)--I'm just tired of hearing that logically-unsupported argument over and over.
I'm still trying to figure out why homosexuality would ever lead to polygamy, unless you had a homosexual Mormon, which would be a whole truckload of interesting (and familial and spiritual conflict) to begin with.
Dave--I see you have joined Sarah in assuming that, just because I am trying to suggest that people on both sides use some illogical arguments, not just the abolitionists, that I am one myself. Again--I DO NOT CARE who marries who--but would like to see this whole polygamy/incest/pediphilia arguments just go away because neither side handles it at all--
So then, mindcrime, you're just trolling without actually offering anything to the discussion? You sort of seem like you're saying the right-wingers' arguments against gay marriage are bogus, but you're so argumentative about it, and so intent on talking about issues that aren't gay marriage, it's entirely unclear what, if anything, you might actually be trying to say.
No, Dave. I'm saying everyone is so busy being polarized and "certain" of what "the constitution requires" that they aren't listening to each other anymore, and, perhaps just as sadly--aren't listening to THEMSELVES anymore--just as you aren't listening to me--you are hearing me through your narrative, which is fine, but too bad. It sounds like your problem with me is, I'm refusing to take an extreme position either way,but instead advocating that people thinnk about their positions on either side of the issue.
I'm trying to listen to you, mindcrime; I just can't for the life of me figure out what your point is. It's not that I'm saying I have no narrative, I'm just trying to draw a bead on yours.
My overriding point on this issue is not based on the Constitution; it's based on an aversion to victimless crimes. Opponents of gay marriage have yet to articulate a single way in which it would bring the slightest harm to anyone, at least without invoking the supernatural, which is, and should be, irrelevant to the promulgation of public policy.
Mindcrime,
No offense, but you sound kinda pompous. Informed consent under the law, in legal consenting adults, what's to not understand about that position? What's to not understand about there being NO LINK between polygamy and the gender of a single party within a contract?
That's the answer to the ridiculous arguments used to ban gay marriage. The rest is a distraction.
Interesting you call me pompous--it was your earnest, yet still "smartest person in the room" comments that finally got me to say anything at all. You are right--the animals, pedophiles, inanimate objects arguments are all ridiculous. I agree whole-heartedly. My point is--the polygamy argument is an example of the proverbial blind squirrel finding a nut every once in awhile. The abolitionists stumbled on it, most-likely by accident. I suspect there are consensual polygamous relationships (whether self-styled as marriages or no). There are plenty of people saying same-sex marriage should be legal, but still say the state should be able to proscribe polygamy. That strikes me as a somewhat "pompous" position to take, because we are saying "live and let live" to homosexuals, but appointing ourselves judges regarding another form of relationship "traditionally banned." And one that, on its face, doesn't appear to harm anyone either.
And because I can't make this clear enough--for the last time--I DO NOT THINK GAY MARRIAGE LEADS TO POLYGAMY--I don't understand why you still think I don't get it.
Dave--I agree--we can't make laws by reading the Bible or any other text and saying--here we go--this is the law. I think your question is the same question that was on the judge's mind in the Proposition 8 case--and one that will have to be answered, or DOMA will probably be ruled unconstitutional.
Not using your mind should be a crime.
Here in Massachusetts, same-sex marriage has been legal for almost 10 years. I haven't seen a single incident of a man marrying a lamppost or a four-year-old or a dog or a sheep or an ice-cream cone. How long does it take for this "slippery slope" into madness to take effect?
sarah-3043284,
You are so right. I mean, if gay marriage leads to all this other stuff, when we really need to get rid of hetero marriage because that leads to gay marriage and then everything else. But the slippery slope argument only works I guess when it's applied to others.
The religious crowd really need to move to a country where the government has the right to push religion on others.
How can the Conservative Republicans, who believe that marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman -- "till DEATH do us part" (not divorce), continually support all those politicians who have been married two, three, four, SEVEN times?
Oh, right, they're Republicans.
To Majority who posted 9.0: Get educated please. Just to share with those who maybe don't know. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints stopped the practice of polygamy in 1890. The math says that was 122 years ago. No "Mormon" or member of the Church today practices polygamy. Some one above said "Most" don't. Know that would be all don't. You couldn't be a member of the Church if you did. Less than 5% of the small membership back in the mid-1800's were called to practice this Biblical teaching. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were commanded by the Lord in the Old Testament to have more than one wife. If you could go back in time or have these prophets brought to you today, would you critizise them for obeying God's word to them? I don't think you would. All the Christians I know accept all of the biblical prophets and the teachings from them in the Bible. Old & New Testament included. So we have a long detailed record where God has asked his children to do certain things at certain times. Now I guess if you don't believe in Christ or His use of Prophets like these men and others like Moses,Noah,Ezekial, and many more- you could definitely have a different perspective concerning polygamy. If you however do believe in Christ and His Father one would think that God didn't condemn the practice but commanded many through out history to live the law. Hope this clarifies to some.
Hey Jackson, see my reply to you in a previous thread..... It's about how the Mormon state of UTAH got admitted into the Union by giving up polygamy.
Some please start a petition to the IRS to pull the 501(c)(3) from FRC and all other religious entities that are hounding the congress-critters.
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petition-tool/petitions
http://www.ipetitions.com
http://www.change.org/petition
http://www.petitiononline.com
http://www.gopetition.com
Then put the link in here every day -- I'll sign it.
If religions want to play politics then they can pay just like we do ! ! !
They are allowed to do simple NON-PARTISAN activities like using their bus to go through the neighborhood and take people to the voting location.
Or telling the sheeple that it is there duty to vote and they should exercise that right.
CAN NOT SAY ANYTHING IN SUPPORT OF OR AGAINST those on the ballot.
Have they all forgotten the saying.....GIVE UNTO CESAR THAT WHICH IS CESAR'S AND GIVE UNTO GOD THAT WHICH IS GOD'S.
Amazing how psychic the ancients were, they knew about separation of church and state long before the constitution.
Bob, it comes to one matter, laws aren't the only means by which a society governs itself. Customs, mores, and traditions also come into play. Just because the law is changed, doesn't mean that behavior would change, in a way where something is viewed as offensive. People view pedophilia as offensive, and so a change in marriage law would NOT result in people shuttng down their own conscience and doing something they would feel uncomfortable with.
If we are having this discussion wrt same sex marriage, it would be because the thinking of many (and to the point many among the youger generations) is not where it was for many in the more Victorian age. The same also happened wrt inter-racial marriage, to the point that today it is practically a non-issue.... Perhaps, just perhaps the reason we would be talking about this wrt gay marriage, and not these other matters you mention, is because such a debate would be representative of a change in consciousness on the matter. In this way, this redefinition of marriage would be a reflection of where our society has headed/is going; whereas your alternative questions would not be representative of our society or our culture, even among the younger generations.
The truth is, the age of consent hasn't always been what it is today, and there was of course a very good reason behind this (albeit in those days arranged marriages were also customary). The human life span was not always what it is today, with modern medicine either. Not that many millenia ago, infant mortality rates were much higher, and to live into one's 70s or 80s would have been unheard of. People tended to die young, without access to antibiotics, modern medicine, and much in the way of medicine outside herbs and trepedations where stone tools were used to poke holes in the skull. I'll leave it for another discussion if they were trying to "let the demons out" as some anthropologists had speculated in years gone by, or if there was some other understanding going on (as some more recent day hunting/gathering tribes had explained when questioned on the matter). People had to work early in those days, and if they didn't have their kids earlier in life, they might not have been alive when they grew up (at a time where living into one's late 50s could have been a rarity at best)....
But we as a species aren't where we were then, and more has changed then a simple lengthening of years, as medicine has allowed us to live longer. Many people who are 18, or even 20 havenn't yet come to a place where they understand some of the choices they might make, and so they learn the hard way. I couldn't imagine lowering the age of consent, when many just entering college aren't always are of the long term consequences to choices they're making the day they leave their parents homes; and then are left spending years to a decade cleaning up the mess they're left with. But this phenomina was also not as common when it was pretty much understood that kids would work the family farm, or what have you either. Or would apprentice themselves to their parents, and continue the family occupation, etc It's a very different world today, then then; and this to would be a reflection of our times as civilization has progressed....
Same here. Which is why i'm simply choosing: Equality under the Law
Nothing extreme about that at all.
Bill Deacon If being against child molestation means I am a bigot then fine I am a bigot. However I can not believe that you don't see a difference in two consensual adults and child molestation. Seriously? Have you ever thought about counseling? It may help.
This is response to jacksonhole 9.28. You need to educate yourself on a person like Warren Jeffs who claims to be a prophet :
http://articles.cnn.com/2007-11-20/us/jeffs.sentence_1_warren-jeffs-polygamist-sect-leader-allen-steed?_s=PM:US.
He was supposedly a prophet and President of the Fundamentalists of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. This has happened in the last 5 years in Utah, not a 122 years ago and I ain't the only one that thinks these questions need to be asked of a man running to be president of USA. He is finding support by conservative Republicans that believe Mormonism is a cult. My point isn't that he is like Warren Jeffs, it is the fact that noone is asking all these candidates questions because it is off limits. I really don't think most Americans care for either of the candidates we are left with and I just can't believe during the Republican Debates someone never brought it out to be questioned. If you think Obama isn't going to ask about it after being attacked by who he follows Religiously then you are mistaken. The Republicans need to be ready for it because I think it will be brought up when the debates start and I still don't think Romney was the best choice to take Obama and be President.
Get a life.. Warren Jeffs has nothing to do with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. He is a professed leader of a break-off of a break off of a break off that goes back many years. It would be like railing on a Baptist Minister because they broke away from the Catholic Church as a protestant religion. Jeffs moved to Texas many years ago. You're the one who needs educated on such matters.
Your post states that "The math says that was 122 years ago. No "Mormon" or member of the Church today practices polygamy. Some one above said "Most" don't. Know that would be all don't". Your comment is wrong, Warren Jeffs is a mormon that practiced polygamy in the last 5+ years ago and that group of mormons probably still practices polygamy today. Those are the facts, there are mormons that still practice polygamy. From what I have read that group still calls themselves mormons and the news reporters still call it mormonism, or mormons.
Most couples straight or gay are not married, so who cares!!!!
Mindcrime,
The fact that you get it, and continue to poke, is why you are pompous. Sorry that my being smarter then you threatens you.
Sarah:
You have strong, cogent arguments and a very quick parry/pivot when confronted with nonsense and attempts to distract from the issue at hand and I must implore you to NEVER stop posting on forums such as this...it may seem like "a little bit of fun" but if we'd had this forum in the 80's, equality would already be the law of the land. And rightly so. You have no idea how many haters become non haters when YOU, yes you, help them work it out in their head why equality in America must apply to ALL non-criminal citizens of majority if we are to continue to have a free country. I wonder, are you a lawyer? You'd make a good one, Thanks again.
@ Bob Spade..I'm assuming ur being sarcastic. No one , on either side, is saying "anyone" who wants to should be able to marry. If ur going to be a smartass, at least have ur facts right...how would you know about NAMBLA btw..are you a member?
What the hell is NAMBA? I see it on these vines all the time, but never have heard of it anywhere else.
It's the North American Man-Boy Love Association -- a grotesque club for pedophiles, and it's what conservatives have used to incite fear and loathing against the gay community for years.
North American Man-Boy Love Association.
Oh, thanks for the clarification. You'd think the FBI would be all over a group like that, and rightfully so.
I don't think they actually exist. It's a paranoid, conservative thing...
The FBI inflitrated decades ago, at its peak it only had 300 members, and it was focused more on statutory rape and getting rid of rage of consent laws, not creepy, "Come here kid, I've got some candy for you" type stuff. I mean, still gross, don't get me wrong, but obviously miscontrued, for the purposes of paranoia, by the right. And they were NEVER an LGBT organization.
The right, uses it to stir up the "I Hate Gays". That's all.
No one has to stir it up lefty every body despises, the drones/biological perversions
According to South Park, it is also the acronym for the North American Marlon Brando Look-alike Association.
ENSESQ Well it is a real advocacy group and as disgusting as it is too you, it is no more disgusting than gays are to others. Since they are already advocating for pedophilia as a natural expression of their sexuality (they are born that way you know) it is only a matter of time before they demand their rights. Will you stand up for them?
No one has to stir it up lefty every body despises, the drones/biological perversions
Archie - you're contradicting yourself.
In view of recent legislative attempts, it is clear that conservatives are the ones who are disturbed by sex.
More mental illness is caused by sex and religion than anything else. Maybe conservatives should seek mental help immediately.
Archie wins for most ignorant, stereotyping, bigot award. Good job schmuck.
Now that you've had your time on your soapbox, can you please address the issue of informed consent, which makes this alleged pedophile group (along with interspecies marriage) completely out of the discussion? Your analogy is fatally flawed. Do you have any arguments that will actually withstand the slightest scrutiny?
And that differs HOW from the Pedophile Catholic Cult?
I'd be willing to bet that 1000-times as many kids have been raped, molested and abused by catholic leaders, in a church, an arm's length away from a BuyBull, than have ever been touched by a NAMBLA member.
Wait. I just realized how the two differ. One is despised by all. The other continues to be protected by its followers who still throw millions of dollars at it to feed the child-raping machine (and, by the way, they are STILL catching its priests raping children, despite the fact that we all know about it...) And, the protection of these rapists extend all the way up to #1, the pope.
Of course not. NAMBLA is irrelevant to the discussion of same-sex marriage who can enter into a legal contract. Same-sex marriage is between two consenting adults. NAMBLA advocates sexual relations with a person who can not legally (or emotionally) give consent. This is a situation where their demand for "rights" infringes on the rights of others, an unacceptable situation. Same-sex marriage does not infringe on anyone else's rights.
Conservatives cry that democrats are making gay marriage a distraction, and yet it is well documented that few issues bring out conservative voters more than this one.
So they cry foul "it's a distraction!!!" while still capitalizing on it for all it's worth for extra votes. Pathetic.
This group is nothing more than homophobic bigots.
"When the human race has once acquired a superstition, nothing short of death is ever likely to remove it." --Mark Twain
The next generation will wonder why this was ever an issue.
Hopefully, some day we will even have a openly Gay President!
Job1 says
"Hopefully, some day we will even have a openly Gay President!"
Fine with that, but I'd really like to see an openly non-believing President!
Yeah, but as much as our kids or grand kids might wonder about some things we consider today; I would also be hesitant to point fingers on such phenomina, for one simple reason. Do any of us know what we ourselves might consider to be so, which our descendents a millenia or 2 down the road might be left wondering about. It might not even be something like this, it could be something along the lines of discoveries that throw out some of our currently accepted ideas about life, the universe, what have you. Hell, it wasn't many decades ago people thought the idea of planets outside our solar system would be far fetched, and now the astronomical community is reporting the discovery of new planets at a fairly rapid pace (more then just a handfull a year)...
As much as I do, yes think that in a centuries time many might be left wondering about us on this issue, there might be all kinds of things that you, I, or whoever else might not question, which in time might prove otherwise... I don't discount the possibility; so in the end if I were to judge harshly, I too could find latter generations reflecting pretty much the same back in my own direction....
As a professor I had for a class I took in cultural anthropology once put it, our bodies today are the museum models of tomarrow. In time, some civilization will be digging us up, wondering who we were. I would actually shudder to think how they might view us, if they hold some of the self same principles we look at all past cultures, aka figure everything must have religious significance, and couldn't be a matter of practical import. We could end up with them thnking that McDonalds containers are so common, because people worshiped at "the temple" of the golden arches, also called Ronald McDonald house /rofl
Well, human thought should progress over time, and matter of fact I'm grateful for it. If everyone stayed where humanity was in ages past, we might still be drawing in caves or something, and might not even know what comfy chairs are :o Yes, some do seem to be holding onto their traditional views wrt marriage, but I'm sure if we were left looking back at ourselves from whatever discoveries humanity might make within the next 5,000 years we could be left seeing areas (though perhaps other areas) where we also would have a bit of growing left to do, against the backdrop of what our descendents will have undergone....
The pilgrims came to this country to escape religous persucution . They came to this country because englands courts and parliment told them you have to be this or be that and that the king and courts and church knows what is good for them . They came to this country to escape from a goverment forcing them to do something . Now we have a supreme court deciding what is MORALLY RIGHT OR WRONG . I believe homosexuality IS a sin . But it is not up to myself or any other church ,person or goverment entity to JUDGE this , in the end these people will have to answer to god and god only . The goverment SHOULD not get involved in this at all, no sanctioning or anythign else . Allow them to have CIVIL unions , where they can get benefits as hetrosexual couples . But do not allow the legal sanctioning of marriage .
Actually, the puritans (a/k/a pilgrims) came to this country so they could enforce their version of religion. The puritans make today's religious leaders look like total heretics.
IMO: these right wing religious fanatics just want to impose their view of religion on everyone else. For that reason, they don't want to allow anything that does not fit their little minds concepts of what love is or what people should be doing.
Just as it took the Supreme Court to establish that blacks and women are people with equal rights to white men, so also it will take the SC to establish that homosexuals are people with equal rights to white men.
Pale, stale, males will not be ruling this country forever. When they eventually become the true minority, the new majorities will remember the centuries of abuse the old white guys have laid on everyone else.
Ooops, I meant to post this up here...
Seperate is not equal, and marriage is not religious. You can "not allow" Holy Matrimony all you want, but everyone, thanks to the 14th Amendment, is equal under the law, which is where marriage falls.
That's why tons of people get married without ever stepping foot in a church. That's why you don't lisense your marriage, or receive benefits from the church. That's why you don't file for divorce with the church, or go through divorce proceedings in the church.
Keep Holy Matrimony and deny it to whoever you want, that's your freedom under the 1st Amendment. Marriage, is a different story.
stoneemall
It is irrelevant why the first settlers came. The second, third, and fourth waves came for various reasons. When this country was formed some 100 or more years after the first settles it was formed on freedom and equality.
This country was not formed on religious freedom it was formed on equality, which of course involves religion. Religion is supposed to involve a personal relationship with yourself and God, keep it that way.
Preventing marriage equality wont prevent people being gay. Also if you give people civil unions that's like telling people they can sit at the back of the bus.
Civil Unions are a blatant cop out for a few people uncomfortable with their indefensible stance on marriage.
I thought the puritans came to north america because they were run out of england.
I thought the Puritans came here for the freedom to burn women alive as witches.
True...once the English folk were tired of being persecuted by the Puritan zealots they started persecuting them back and forced them to escape to the Americas where they proceeded to set up their persecutions anew, this time focusing on each other, strangers and especially Native Americans.
Tony Perkins and his ilk are basically direct descendents of the same hallmark self-loathing and weak faith insanity behind homophobia.
I don't even try to argue the facts with them anymore because you can't be rational about irrationality. I just see them as control freaks, insecure and scared of life.
If a church will grant a ceremony, gays have EVERY right to Holy Matrimony. ALL marriages should be considered Civil Unions with the same rights & legalities as are extended to what is now called Marriage. Then, if a couple wants to have a religious ceremony, that would be their priviledge in a church of their choice.
OT, but both the cons and liberals in this thread are displaying some real historical ignorance. Puritans were English protestants that wanted a real protestant church and not just a separate English Catholic church. They wanted to "purify" the church of England and rid it of "Papist" influences. Theologically they were Calvinists, like Presbyterians. The Pilgrims who settled Plymouth were Calvinists who wanted to separate from the Church of England, which was forbidden. Anyway they settled Plymouth Colony and the Puritans a short time later established Boston and Massachusetts bay Colony. They later absorbed Plymouth. Oh yeah, during the English Civil War the Puritans got the upper hand in England and Scotland and overthrew the king.
Yeah they were religious zealots, typical of the reformation time period in Europe. They never burned witches in the US, we had a short witch hysteria in Salem that was a joke compared to the witch-hunting that went on in Europe for centuries by all manner of Catholic and Protestants. They didn't found the US, but they did establish New England. They became Congregationalists and Unitarians, the latter ironically is uber-liberal. They also started town meeting govt. public schools and libraries and founded Harvard. Their descendants were also big into abolition. At the same time they were bigoted towards my Catholic immigrant ancestors and were pretty moralistic and dour.
Yeah, history is messy, use it properly. For the record I have no problem with gay marriage. BTW all marriage is a civil contract in the eyes of the law, religious leaders are just given the power by the state to witness the contract. Something else everyone is missing.
Actually, it's a somewhat sad state of affairs, but after the pilgrims came to escape religious persecution, the Puritans then went on to impose that self same form of persecution on various groups such as the Quakers. And then the Salem Witch Trials occured, and we had all of that history. And this is to say nothing of what happened wrt Native culture, and Native beliefs, as some sought to "save the savages" as they viewed them in those days.... A history that mind you, the founding fathers were aware of at the time this country was being formed. And a history that might well have weighed upon their thinkng to some degree or another, when for instance they were considering the first amendment...
However, even then, the founding fathers were also a product of their times, if one just looks at the whole slavery issue, among others. It ws for generations yet to come, before that one finally got addressed....
The history didn't end then however, as some towns had their versions of Jonathan Edwards, who were the real hell fire and brimstone type of preacher, until his contemporaries got tired of him, and chased him out of town....
In that case, perhaps the simplest solution would be for the Government to get out of the marriage business altogether and license only civil unions. That would leave "marriage" as a strictly religious ritual with no legal significance, and the church could then decide and enforce their own rules on marriage.
The Supreme Court doesn't decide what is morally right and wrong. That's up to you and your church. In issues such as this, the Supreme Court is deciding what is constitutional.
No, we never burned them. But, we did hang them. And, at least one man was crushed to death in a failed attempt to make him confess.
republicans have gone to far right... history will show that they were on the wrong side of this issue. Thier moderates are being pushed out and they will lose conservative leaning independants. Republicans will nominate a mormon and lose thier most reliable base.
its a shame conservatives dont choose their beliefs based solely on what they think will be popular in 40 years like liberals do. And just ask Corey Booker and Arlan Specter about how moderate and accepting the democratic party is.
QUacked - I am guilty of violating the number one rule of the internet - Never use sarcasm - people are just too smart for it. I admit it is difficult to detect sarcasm when some of the serious posts are so over the top.
Almost by definition, conservatives are on the wrong side of history when it comes to social issues. They moan and groan and fight, but they ultimately lose and we look back on them and wonder how they could have been so cruel to fellow human beings.
It must be terrible to live in terror of the future.
Seperate is not equal, and marriage is not religious. You can "not allow" Holy Matrimony all you want, but everyone, thanks to the 14th Amendment, is equal under the law, which is where marriage falls.
That's why tons of people get married without ever stepping foot in a church. That's why you don't lisense your marriage, or receive benefits from the church. That's why you don't file for divorce with the church, or go through divorce proceedings in the church.
Keep Holy Matrimony and deny it to whoever you want, that's your freedom under the 1st Amendment. Marriage, is a different story.
...Google the term, "brevity"....
Google the term equality.
Sarah you will be right IF the Supreme Court decides homosexuals are a suspect class. I'm not sure this Court is prepared to say that homosexuals are, to quote Lady Gaga "born that way...." when the psychological community is divided on, albeit mostly in favor of, that position.
SJM
Mindcrime,
We also have a 9th and 4th Amendment, which encompasses an implied right to privacy. Since no one is hurt by homosexuality, since homosexuality has no negative effect on society, (post all the faux science you want conservatives, the scientific and sociological community knows this to be true), then there is no reason that passes strict scrutiny, to invade the privacy of however many people are gay.
Sarah:
You are assuming Lawrence went further than it did. The Court explicitly declined (in very clear terms)to decide the fate of same-sex marriage. Your statements are a good capitulation of the petitioner's briefs in the same-sex marriage cases, but don't keep acting like this is a settled issue. Anyone who thinks they "know" what the current Supreme Court will do with this issue is fooling themselves.
Mindcrime,
I don't know what SCOTUS will do, BUT I DO know what it SHOULD do.
I think the more relevant case would by Loving v Virginia. The decision stated that marriage is a civil right that cannot be restricted to preferred groups by state law.
I'm a little worried SCOTUS might let corporations marry!
mindcrime, it doesn't matter whether homosexuals are born that way or not -- what matters is the THEY ARE HUMANS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Or do you somehow believe that certain groups of people are "not legally human"?
Genial; Google the term "HONESTY". So far, you have been very much less than honest.
Wow. Every time i read one of your posts, you redefine WHACKADOO. Are you aware that RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE is a choice, but it is a protected class? You are not BORN a particular religious belief, but that choice is protected constitutionally. AND, it's a choice that people make and change throughout their lives...yet, it is still protected CONSTITUTIONALLY.
Why is it that every time a right wing coward starts talking about the civil rights of gays, they make it an issue about "choice"?? The factor of Choice vs. not-Choice is simply not germaine to it being a constitutionally protected class!
Criminy. Another failed student of US History 101 and Civics 101.
Blah, blah, blah. Now, get into the kitchen and make me a sammich! ;-)
Tony P is a real nutcase and assumes that people listen to him.... but then people assume that we listen to the GOP also.
Tony Perkins is a Professional Conservative. These are individuals (frequently with religious credentials) who have created lucrative careers out of pushing the values of certain narrow minded people into the law. Almost without exception, these guys have no real jobs, but live like millionaires with limos, private jet travel and multi-thousand dollar suits, all at the expense of the sheep they have learned to manipulate.
It goes further than that CAL. Tony Perkins is a professional hate monger. He presides over what the Southern Poverty Law Center has classified as a hate group, The Family Research Council. This puts them in the same company as the KKK & Aryans. In fact, Tony Perkins actually purchased the mailing list of the KKK a few years back. The only "research" they do is based on pure animus while waving a bible in the air as justification. No true Christian should listen to their hateful, bigoted lies.
When the Bishop takes over he will set those Evangelic Christians straight. The LDS has a lot of pay back to do.
NAMBLA = North American Man Boy Love Association.....no?
A group your husband belongs to?
Marla-3071717
I hope this was a real question and not some sort of dig.
If this was a dig then shame on you Miss, shame on you, how are you comfortable putting people into a box like that?
NAMBLA=North American Marlon Brando Lookalike Association.
NAMBLA = Catholic Pedophile Cult.
At least, that's the NAMBLA that many American BuyBull believers provide with millions and millions of dollars and unending support.
I don't understand something here. Someone help me out.
If people are supposedly born homosexual and it is a completely normal trait, why is the Gay and Lesbian associations cringing when someone claims the exact same thing with bestality and pedophilia?
Also, someone on here made a comment about how catholics are evil because they are molesting boys. Had that same person said the same thing about homosexuals or blacks, of which I am certain there is a higher probability than catholics, then that would have been unacceptable then, huh? I think it might have even been considered ignorant.
Geez-- chill, people-- I was just answering a question from above.
Are you admitting that you don't see the difference between sex involving two consenting adults and sex between an adult and non-consenting children and animals?
Are you admitting that they just may be born that way, and that the Gay and Lesbian organizations are hiding something?
It doesn't matter whether or not they're born that way if their actions infringe on the rights of others. Civil same-sex marriage between consenting adults doesn't infringe on anyone's rights.
Surely, you can see the difference.
If you'll re-read my posting, you'll find that that wasn't the question nor the point.
btw, Monkeys are capable of communicating and signing, and there is at least one gorilla that is known to have an IQ of at least 80. So if they give consent, you're point seems to be that we should allow bestiality. A ridiculous point nontheless, but then again, you started it.
Conservatives believe that because SCOTUS is right-leaning it will rule against gay marriage. However, what they are overlooking is Lawrence v Texas. There were not six liberal justices on the bench when SCOTUS ruled against Texas 6-3.
Government has no business in determining how many or in what combination consenting adults wish to "marry" or otherwise partner. Polygamy, polyandry, same sex all should be legal, actually the law doesn't need to address them at all, beyond the consenting adult limitation.
Good luck with figuring out the legal framework for inheritance, custody and separation issues in group marriage.
Alex, the law already covers all that. When there is no Will, everything gets divided equally amongst all living immediate relatives -- and in the case of polygamy/polyandry, spouses.
@Quacked:
With the marriage being a contract, will it require a consent of all other spouses to marry one more spouse? If a husband dies in a polygamy (or a wife in polyandry), is the whole family considered dissolved? If one spouse leaves the family, how is the property divided?
Yes. Marriage requires fully informed consent from all parties involved, that's true even with the standard "just 2" marriage.
Nope, no more so than a widow (or widower) with children would be considered a "dissolved family". Now whether the remaining same-sex partners would choose to stay married is another issue, but same-sex marriage will probably become fully legal before polygamy is.
In a community property state, the property is divided equally, so someone divorcing from a "4 spouse" polyamorous marriage would get 1/4 of the joint assets. It gets more complicated in non-community property states, but even there equal division in divorce is common.
Personally, I have no intention of getting into a polyamorous union, but I have no problems with others choosing to do so.
Another poster said this a few days ago:
"Only republicans could believe that equality amounts to tyranny."
Seriously people, if DOMA is repealed and state amendments against same sex marriage are deemed unconstitutional, the sun will still rise in the morning. Kids will still get picked up for school at their bus stops. Dogs will still chase frisbees in the park. Life will go on. There will be no tyranny or society coming apart at the seams. Perhaps if everyone focused on what actually affects their own lives instead of telling others how to exercise their freedoms we could move on without all the doom saying and hysterics?
This. Remember the big loud nothing that followed the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell?
Yeah, but conservatives still swear the repeal of DADT shook the very foundations of America. Whatever! These people would call a breeze a hurricane if it helped them fleece their flock. How many 1st world countries have openly serving gay militaries? I don't see them collapsing!
equality doesnt lead to tyranny, but using a massive central government to try and forcibly legislate one groups idea of equality usually does.
Only liberals could convince themselves that all powerful governments are the defenders of freedom, not the enemy of it
And, jackofspade, only Conservatives could convince themselves that governments that do not regulate Commerce, Business, etc are the defenders of Society, instead of the bane of Society.
Preachers full of hate. Who would have thought this would happen. It is very hard to tell the difference between religios extremists.
Only Liberals would think you could encourage economic growth by smothering small business. Every time you pass a new regulation, large companies laugh because they can survive it, but their smaller competition cant, so thank you liberals for massive corporations :D
Another republican with a short memory...
Seriously, you can "blame the DEMs" all you like for this economic disaster we're in now... It's simply ridiculous. You had a GOP Controlled White House from 2001 – 2009. And a GOP controlled Congress (BOTH houses) from 1995 – 2007. The banking collapse initially started in 2005 when the first wave of defaults began to show up; it picked up speed by 2006, and was in full swing by 2007 when huge mortgage banks (like Countrywide) began failing.
AND, try this scenario: Even if you could show this was due to Democratic controlled policy before 1995 (which you cannot) – then, with 12 years of full GOP legislative control after that in BOTH HOUSES and in the White House for almost a decade, why the hell didn't the GOP solve the problem before this happened instead of ushering it in? You keep claiming the GOP is brilliant, with all the talent – then what the hell happened for the 12 years they controlled both houses and the Executive Branch? Didn't they have the talent and smarts to FIX ANYTHING? Or, were they just hoping their false economy would make them look good long enough to ride it out?
The car drove soundly into the wall. GOP Pres Bush was in the driver's seat for all that time, as was the GOP Congress. How long you gonna try to blame this crash on someone else? When do you cowards grow your cajones enough to man-up and own your crap?
hearing democrats talk about cajones is always hilarious, they seem to be obsessed with trying to prove their manhood.
you know why the banking collapse happened? keynesian economic policies of low interest rates encouraging malinvestment, policies advocated for decades by democrats, and still being encouraged. Yeah the GOP was in the driver seat, but the car crashed because they took the kids advice on how to drive it. The worst mistake of Bush's presidency was failing to be a fiscal conservative in any sense of the word.
Good point. Supposedly, military personnel were going to resign in droves (or not re-enlist) when the DADT was repealed. Someone, I don't think that happened since the GOP would have seized on it if it had.
Gay will do everything to prove they don't sin- but they can't they can't be married in the eyes of God so they can't be married in a church as it would be a great sin to them and to the preacher doing it- If the people in the USA don't want gay marriage then they sould be respected not to be forced to go through courts---the people vote it out-it should stay out- man and woman only as marriage-
Why would anyone want to be married in a church? And why would anyone hold themselves to the definition of what is and isn't a sin according to an old book full of magic and monsters? Since when is a church the only place to get married? Do you eat shrimp? Congratulations, you are a sinner too! Or are you the kind of christian who cherry picks the sins you want to ignore because the immutable word of your god isn't really immutable as long as you don't want it to be?
No one anywhere has ever suggested that the church be forced to marry gays. Also, the extent of civil rights of minorities cannot be decided by a majority vote. THAT is tyranny. That is how it goes down in countries like Pakistan where one religion votes to make the other illegal, or in places like Ruwanda where one tribe votes away the rights of the other. THIS is America, and here we have a Constitution that protects and ensures the rights of minorities of all stripes. You cannot decide who gets to be married by a bigoted show of force at the polls. This will be decided in the courts by measuring it against the Constitution.
Tone down the hysterics and fill your mind with facts. You'll breathe easier.
Who the hell cares about god but scared people who want to be told there is a reason for everything and that reason is some mythical creator in the sky.
And Bucky, the exact same thing you have just said was said by whites when it came to blacks for many things and it took the courts to tell the majority THEY WERE WRONG! If not for the courts you would still have separate white and black drinking fountains and dining areas in restaurants and bathrooms and a horde of black only laws.
The courts are used to reign in the excesses of the majority and the mob and that is how the founders wanted our country to work and not this fantasized version of the constitution that never existed that conservatives cry about.
Who speaks for God, you? There was a time when a regional majority in America would vote for slavery. There was a time when the males in America stood against women's right to vote. By the way, your claim of sin is not an overriding argument against freedom. A percentage of human beings all over the planet have an instinctive homosexual orientation. They too want the right to make lifelong commitments to their loved ones and live under the same Constitution in America as everybody else. The sin is to dehumanize and condemn them as unfit human beings over and obsession on their sexual expression, a act common to all human beings. Marriage is not sex. Marriage is relationship and commitment. It is a civil right and an expression of commitment between adults, and it comes with legal rights and responsibilities. Marriage should be celebrated, not prohibited by gross sectarian overreach, biological/psychological/sociological ignorance, and crotch sniffing hounding.
I spoke with God last night, and he told me he agrees that marriage should be allowed between 2 consenting adults, and said to quit reading that crappy old book about him, cause it was an unauthorized biography and full of lies. He said he believes in equal rights for all of his people, and if the wing-nuts don't tone it done, he may turn them into a pillar of sh*t.
Sandy--I am (at least I think) fairly rational, am college educated, graduated number one in my professional-school class---and I believe in God. Not because I am irrationally afraid of the unexplained, not because I am stupid, and not because I am ignorant or uneducated,as so many anti-spiritual folk tend to claim---calling religious people names or making fun of them for believing what they believe is simply a more-elitist form of bigotry....
As far as I am concerned you can keep the term "marriage" in the church.
The real issue here is about benefits and rights. The gov't has used "married" as a convenient definition over the years to assign benefits, rights of inheritance, and numerous other things that should be changed to include civil unions.
If you did that and gave civil unions all the legal rights that "married" people have, then you could take your defintion of church marriage and do whatever you want with it.
gwarth2
Guess what, not all people who believe in god or preach the gospel feel the same way you do it. There are many gays/lesbians who are now married in the church and it was recognized by god.
Says who? Says you? Marriage is between two consenting adults nothing more nothing less. You can believe what you want, but this is the United States of America. It's We the People, not We the People Unless you are Gay.
Newsflash! There are churches that perform same-sex marriages. And, if marriage is strictly a jusaeo-christian institution sanctioned by God, as so many of you people claim, why aren't you screaming to prevent non-Christian from marrying. If two people (man and woman) can only be married if sanctioned by God, what about two Buddhists, or two athiests?
Too late, already done.
TnDan
Don't give the haters any more stupid ideas!
lmao
Something is a "sin" only if you happen to believe in a god that would make it a "sin". gwarth2, your "argument" is not only illogical -- it is irrelevant.
Say, gwarth2, how about if all laws were based on the Holy Scriptures of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or even the Quran, or any other "Holy Book")? Would you like that -- or would you call that having someone else's religious beliefs rammed down your throat?
Good luck leaving children in the family tree via butt sex.
Many people dont care about your hate churches and what they preach, and they sure as hell dont want to get married in your cult building.
PS: millions of BuyBull-believing Americans already belong to many christian, methodist, episcopal, even jewish congregations that already marry gays and bless their marriages in the eyes of THEIR god. So -- you can grow up, now, and get over it.
Marriage was never restricted just to those "free of sin", so what some church thinks is "sinful" doesn't really enter into it. Your religious rules don't apply to those outside your religion.
what about individuals who are both male AND female, so called hermaphrodites?
who are they supposed to marry???
Church marriages are irrelevant to the discussion of civil marriage. It is amazing how many people can't grasp that simple concept. But, there are chuches that do perform same-sex marriage. Aren't you infringing on their religious freedom by refusing to recognize the marriages that they perform?
The "right" is all about denying Americans their rights across a broad spectrum from women's choice rights, to marriage rights, and to voting rights. The only part of the Constitution they know about is the second part of the second amendment, and they adulterate the historical meaning of that. The religious right feels so perfected that they have become little gods of their own. Jesus' greatest confrontation was with self-righteous, oppressive, legalistic, hypocrite Pharisees. He also became enraged with swindling money exchangers in the temple courtyard. That is arguably the same for those in churches or synagogs that are unrepentant.
Fundamentalists rail about the Antichrist, the human substitute for Jesus and his message. A collective antichrist of moralistic meddlers that innovate judgements for God to use against others could easily qualify as Jesus' evil twin. The most comprehensive teaching throughout the Bible is care for the vulnerable, oppressed, outcast, and needy. The antithesis is today's proud and heedless "social conservatives", who now stand for taking food from children, abandoning the elderly and disabled, and polluting creation and commerce.
These folks are not followers of Jesus as they pompously parade their braggadocio, "What would Jesus do?" and contradict the clear message of what Jesus told them to do and what not to do. They just don't get it. They also contradict the absolutes that the Founders and the Constitutional Congress held to be self evident. Apparently these folks don't think or understand Jesus and American a priori assumptions that placed freedom above the "Divine right of kings" and focused on just government, not moralistic tyranny and sectarian urges.
Well said!
Very well said! Can I quote you?
Rightdirectly to the point.The "right" won't understand it though.
I can't believe this dribble, stright out of the Democratic play book. The term you never get is "Responsibility" A woman has a choice to have sex (if forced then it is called Rape, which she has legal due course). If she concents, then the Tax Payers should not have to pay for her drugs, Abortions, and other "rights" democrats claim she has. Let her pay for those items, not the tax payer. We are for Civil Unions for gays, not Marriage which is between a Man and a Woman. a religious term. All citizens have the right to vote, it is not hard to regester to vote. Most states offer free ID's. It is funny how democrats try to hamper the military's right to vote though (since they are the ones that help preserve it). In the past Chirches and Charity Orginazatons took care of the poor and the needy. They did this by donations from the people. Of course Democrats didn't like this, they want the Government to do the work the Chirches and the Charites did. The problem is the Government doen't do a very good job of it, and does so at a much higher cost. Now the taxes are so high that people can not afford donations. The Constution makes no mention or regulation, that the Government take care of the poor, Thsi is a recent invention. Jusus commandment was to love your neighbor as yourself. God gave us free will, Forced taxation for government social programs is neither, as it is controld by the bloted Pharisees. Steeling from people to pay others is not right either. I can tell you do not understand Republicans and Independants. For me the Tea party is one of the few groups that have the right idea. And since the Democrats hate them so much I know I made the right choice.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. This is accepted worldwide since the beginning of time. Civil Union is between other couples. If you make gay and marriage equal, you normalize a consciously chosen lifestyle that is not normal. It is not genetics or anything else.
If they can keep normalizing gay lifestyles, it will tell your kids and grandkids that gay lifestyle is normal and heterosexual lifestyle is not normal. It is that simple of a plan for the gays. Any gays who try to lie about how it is all about equality is lying.
Liberals will lie and make up any facts to get their way, look at Obama and the Democrats.
Now you're on my turf. Care to back up your conclusions about the regulation of sexuality in development? Do you have any evidence that genes do not regulate sexuality? No you don't. We have evidence to the contrary, however. So maybe don't use that line around people who are informed or else they will back you into a corner on it. And if your argument can be backed into a corner, then it really is problematic now isn't it?
Kids will be attracted to whomever they are attracted to. Did you choose to be attracted to women? I sure didn't. It just happened one day. It is the same for gay people. Many gay children who are tormented in school are still virgins - so what choices have they made? They are simply who they are and for that you would punish them?
Mr. Adams,
Are you then dismissing the Old Testament, where most of the prophets had multiple wives? How does that reconcile with your view that marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman since the beginning of time?
George...You're an Idi0t..
George Adams-5483393
Actually marriage has changed and has not been this magical unchanging tradition. Once it was all about land and goods once it was about marrying to have a child and once the child was born ending the marriage to marry another. In some cultures in the past two men or two women could get married. Today there are countries where the same can happen.
This unshakable unchanging concept of marriage you are selling does not exist today and did not exist yesterday,
George Adams...To what "lifestyle" are you referring? The one where I get up every morning to go to work? The one where I pay my bills on time? The one where I help my neighbors? The one where my wife and I raised our son? Or do you mean the one where I do the grocery shopping, clean our home and take care of our property? See, my "lifestyle" is shockingly like yours, I would believe, so please stop trying to make it sound so different.
As far as "marriage" is concerned, I married my wife (I'm female), and no one can tell us we are not married, because we believe we are in every way. We have a committed, loving relationship that our straight friends envy.
As far as I am concerned you can keep the term "marriage" in the church.
The real issue here is about benefits and rights. The gov't has used "married" as a convenient definition over the years to assign benefits, rights of inheritance, and numerous other things that should be changed to include civil unions.
If you did that and gave civil unions all the legal rights that "married" people have, then you could take your defintion of church marriage and do whatever you want with it.
George Adams-5483393
So in other words.. you feel its appropriate to protect heterosexual rights to discriminate against gays/lesbians, because you don't believe in equal rights for everyone. Sorry to disappoint you, but gay marriage has been around since the dawn of time as well.
I see.. so when a child commits suicide, is murdered or bullied, that must be alright, because its the wrong lifestyle. Here I thought we taught our children that tolerance is the right choice even when you don't like or agree w/someone else.
LOL. There is nothing to lie about here. The United States is based on equal civil rights. Its not based upon "We the People, Unless You are Gay".
Mr. Adams has admitted what so many conservatives are afraid of - one day their son/daughter will come to them and say "I'm gay. and that's okay." No longer would they be able to force them to conform to their own standards.
Saying gay marriage is normal/acceptable DOES NOT equate to saying straight marriages are not.
George Adams, I'm guessing you're either a gap-toothed idgit hillbilly whose idea of "normal" marriage likely includes cousing, siblings and offspring (as
long as they're of different genders), or you're about twelve years old... or
perhaps you're simply one of the new mainstream conservative intellectuals that
seem to have a disproportionate a voice these days... which is it, Georgie boy?
Lemme’ guess, you're just bent out of shape 'cuz your boy, Newt, failed yet
again. I feel your anger. I'd be pissed off too if I was a slack-jawed yokel,
bumpkin or pod, such as yourself, whose party was destined to be pwnd by
either a black man or a woman. Looks like it might just happen again, boys...
time for a little socio-political introspection perhaps? Life is change,
whether you like it or not. Embrace it and it’ll be a lot easier on you, there,
big guy. LOL...
You don't now how bad I wish it were true..I mean I think it's about equality, but I would LOVE to be surrounded by more gays (we are a pathetic 2-3% of the population), but accepting gays won't make more of them and won't do anything to straight couples.
George:
"Liberals will lie and make up any facts to get their way, look at Obama and the Democrats."
That is false. Why not try "Conservatives will lie and make up any facts to get their way, look at Romney and the Republicans."? That seems to be much more accurate.
Just look at the abortion law the Republicans in Kansas are trying to pass: rt.com/usa/news/kansas-lie-women-abortion-241/
They want to give/make doctors lie to their female patients to prevent them from getting abortions.
The Republicans have gone MAD!!!! Stop the madness! Obama/Biden 2012!!
Exactly. There is no gay gene. They just have their plumbing mixed up.
Hey George, here is one for you. The Roman Catholic Church condoned and presided over same sex marriages in the 12th and 13th centuries. Kinda ruins your argument. Just Saying!
Wow, you're wrong right off the bat. Marriage, "in the beginning" -- was about property, not love. And, in our current world, a growing number of US States and many countries in the World already have legal gay marriage.
So, you're wrong on so many points, George, that your whole post isn't relevant.
Cheers!
Why is it an either/or situation?
This whole thing wouldn't be a problem if marriages weren't recognised as something special by the government. I don't see why they should be. I don't see why you should get a tax break or tax penalty for being married or even having children.
Like everything else the State wants taxpayers so they promote Marriage (sorry gays can not produce children) to increase the number of little tax payers. They give tax brakes to everything the government wants to promote.
Gays can and do produce children, and they can certainly raise them. According to the New York Times, in the last census 25% of same-sex households were raising children.
By what measure - morally, historically, or physiologically - should so-called 'gay marriage" be acceptable to society?
Equality.
Gay marriage, or as it used to be called, marriage, has evolved drastically over the millennia. Up until Victorian times, two men or two women would have been married in church, and welcomed by the community.
Check out this article:
It is from LiveScience, it's not a liberal publication, and has no political or religious associations. It is not propaganda (like Fox News) and was not published with any agenda.
The United States Constitution.
As far as I am concerned you can keep the term "marriage" in the church.
The real issue here is about benefits and rights. The gov't has used "married" as a convenient definition over the years to assign benefits, rights of inheritance, and numerous other things that should be changed to include civil unions.
If you did that and gave civil unions all the legal rights that "married" people have, then you could take your defintion of church marriage and do whatever you want with it.
unfortunately, these people get all bent out of shape when someone suggests an alternate but equal arrangement. They want to be considered "normal" so they want the same rights as everyone else. I don't think it would be such a big deal if they just accepted that they are not "normal" and take the alternate arrangement. I don't know how anyone who just looks at the design of the human body can think that homosexuality is normal.
john o'connor
Replace "normal" (whatever that is) with "equal" and re-read your statement.
Either way, it says more about you then it does about "them".
Simply put, it's none of your fkn business what I do with my life or the decisions I take with it. This is not about being a republican, democrat or even a religious fanatic. It's simply hypocrisy. While the decisions people make do not hurt others or infringe on others lives what should it matter to anyone else. Being straight or gay hurts NO ONE ELSE in any way. If the argument is "but the bible says" then I will quote it myself... "you shall treat they neighbor as thyself would like to be treated" or how about "Judge not, and you will not be judged: condemn not, and you will not be condemned" What happened to the lesson of the stone throwers? False Christian oppress others!
They want the same rights as everyone else? Outrageous! Where do they think they are, America?
As for gays getting "bent out of shape" when someone suggests an alternate arrangement, do you have to be reminded that over 20 states explicitly ban civil unions, too? So much for "we don't mind if they have rights, just don't call it marriage." It appears to be the christo-taliban than gets bent out of shape over alternative arrangements.
Politians pass no civil unions, so that the only other alternative is Marriage. Then they want to force Gay Marriage. Why is it ok for the people to vote for gay marriage (like Mass.) and not ok for people to vote not to have it like California? Why the double standard? It is just gays don't like religion, but want to use it's terms to help justify their living in sin (according to the chirch).
Genial - What other people do which has no affect on you is none of your business. It's called basic freedom to do as you choose so long as it doesn't harm others and same sex marriage does not harm you in any tangible way - only in your imagination.
Theo - EXACTLY! What happened to the tolerance this country was founded on? The religious right has found another way to impose their version of religion on everyone else by pulling the puppet strings the GnoP. The Tea Party is going to be the end of that party!
I am f**ing fed up with thes ignorant, sob, right ,wing ,teabag hypocrits. With one side of their mouth they scream they want less government 1ntervention - that's for their Big business and rich friends while at the same time with the other side of their mouth they scream they want the government to insert (pun intended) themselves into the bedrooms and lives of consenting ADULTS and tell them what to do and with whom. They are exactly what is wrong with this country and if they fell of this planet within the next 10 minutes it wouldn't be soon enough. I have been on this earth almost 69 (no pun - real) years old and I have never seen so much Cr*p spewing forth from the mouths of the people who mistakenly think they can run this country. I'M FED UP WITH THESE BUFFOONS and that includes all those jacka** preachers who stand around and tell you how holy they are and how holy you must be al the while holding out their hands to take you money. HYPOCRITS I SAY
One of those ignorant, right wing,teabag, hypocrite,backwards, unprogressive, stuck in the stone-age SOBs happens to be Jesus Christ. Lucy, you gonna have a lot of splainin to do.
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -
-- Mahatma Gandhi
Gandhi? He slept naked with little girls. Not exactly a poster boy for morality.
Gandhi slept naked with little girls....???? Are you out of your alleged mind??? Where do you Wrong Wingers get this crap? Is it beamed into your head-tapioca from Uranus via the fillings in your teeth? If you knew ANYTHING about Mohandas Gandhi (other than how to spell his surname), you'd know that the man was pretty much asexual by age 40, and 100% faithful to his wife since they were married in their early teens (unlike fundamentalist "preachers," who are mostly adulterers). I see in you the ultimate Conservidiot "philosophy": throw as much $hit at the wall (like a caged monkey) in the hope that some of it will stick long enough for the slow and stupid to bobblehead, "Yup, yup, that's what he said, George, that's what he said!"
It takes a special kind of mind to confuse Mahatma Gandhi with Michael Jackson.
Oh, then you forgot one other adjective: mythical cult creature. jesus is that, too.
and, please put your mythical cult creature in its proper context.. according to BuyBull stories, he was the liberal in his day -- bucking the establishment, helping the poor (not screwing them over), denying wealth and not hoarding possessions (unlike today's typical right-wing christian), friendly with prostitutes (oh, well, ok...he's with you right-wing guys on that one...); and though you list him as a hypocrite, there was no indication in the cult stories that he didn't follow his own rules. as for all of his modern day followers, there are very few that you adhere to, so you win the hypocrisy label.
We dp not have a problem with gays doing what ever they want in the bedroom. We just don't like it when they (who don't believe in religion) want to take a religious term "Marriage" and pervert the term to include gays, which Religion deems as a union of a man and a woman. Some of us still place importance of Names. So before you start calling people names because you have not intelligent to discuss topics in a rational manner. Of course Democrats like to call increases "cuts" when ever they do not get to spend as much as they want.
The word "marriage" has no known origins in religion. It is a legal or social contract that can be formalized in a religious ceremony, but no secular society (i.e., a society that separates church from state) requires this. The current debate has to with whether gay people have the same right to obtain a marriage license as anyone else. It would not force priests to marry anyone.
Moreover, the blanket statement that "Religion" deems marriage as a union between a man and a woman is simply not true. Unless of course you believe that anything other than a conservative practice of religion is not religion.