Christie, get this through your head.

Constitutional issues can never be subjected to a majority vote.

Why? Because minorities would never have any rights whatsoever if that were allowed.

.

Reporter: "How are you today Gov. Christie?"

Gov. Christie: "Better."

Reporter: "Better?"

Gov. Christie: "Better bring me a bucket."

Christie Stands beside Obama like Hitler would stand beside Mel Gibson.

Its one thing to state an opinion, its another to take action.

Constitutional issues can be subjected to the majority-- its called an amendment. But it would be much better to let states decides such things so that desenting states dont get sucked into an amendment. Its much better to use the "laboratories of democracy" then let people move where they want if they feel so strongly about something. The main problem with people is their need to force everybody else to agree with them.

"... the key difference between you and the president is that while you support putting the civil rights of that minority up for a public referendum, the president is not in favor of that,” Capehart said.

This is exactly why Christie is wrong. If we allow everything to be decided by voters, we would lose many other fundamental rights just because it wasn't popular with the unwashed masses. For example, if we allowed voters to vote on whether to maintain the separation between church and state, we could very easily become a theocratic nation ruled by the Bible-thumping mob.

The issue of gay marriage is not a matter for us heteros to decide and impose our will on. It is a civil right that we need to respect. Voters in California also sought to engage in a "tyranny of the majority", and the Federal Appeals Court declared Prop 8 to be unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court will now hear the case, and even with the Conservative makeup of the Court, they will do the right thing.

No amendment necessary and in fact it would be an insult to my or anyone's intelligence to even for a second think the US Constitution does not already clearly contain the answer. It does and there is nothing that says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That belongs to the area of ignorance, stupidity and keeping your scared as sh^t mind in the sand, it's called "religion".

Obviously if you believe in Friar Tuck, Pinocchio, God and Bugs Bunny (I like Bugs, he is a fun FICTITIOUS), there is no logical reason for me to attempt to bestow knowledge, your mind is filled with cement!

Christie reminds me of Ambrose Bierce's definition of "democracy": "Four wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."

The Founding Fathers loathed and despised democracy as a form of government. They had seen "democracy" at work with Cromwell's Roundheads and the French Revolution and even in some of the Colonies such as Rhode Island. They well knew that democracy differs only in name from mob rule. That is why they made all important political positions in the country appointed rather than directly elected. The President, Vice-President, Senators, the Supreme Court, the Cabinet, and all important government positions were actually appointed instead of elected by popular vote. The only exception is the House which the Founding Fathers gave the shortest possible term of office. The Founding Fathers were especially disdainful of national or even local referendums.

What the Founding Fathers envisioned was a Repuiblic that was governed by mostly wealthy educated landowners, professionals, and scholars who would put aside partisan politics and the desires of their constituents and do what was right for the whole country. While issues were floated to do with federal government versus state government, not a one of the Founding Fathers had any interest in the people voting on issues or elected officials governing "by polls" as is done these days.

Virtually all the Founding Fathers believed strongly in slavery as an institution. One of their fears was that populist zeal would someday sweep slavery from the country. They had seen this happening more and more in Europe where slavery was being outlawed in country after country. So they "salted" the vote with the "3/5ths Rule" which basically counted slaves as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of apportionment, giving more representation in the House to states where there were large numbers of slaves and guaranteeing that slave owners would be disproportionately represented in such a way that slave states were always over-represented.

The idea that the people should vote on any issue is really not what the Fonding Fathers had in mind. And the idea that politicians should look to polls to see how to vote or what to do would have struck them as quite absurd.

For anyone criticizing Obama's inaction on the issue, don't forget that hardly a hand in Congress will touch the issue either. I think most agree it's a state issue, so for Christie to drag Obama into the mix, is like pulling a football referee into a ruling about baseball. Christie, how can you have so much gut, yet you're gutless.

Christie also stands firmly for ding dongs, ho ho's, and twinkies.......enough said........

Fat jokes aside, he is gutless, not Obama. He's employing a defense where you brand your nemesis with that which you do. It's called projection.

Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom.

Your narrow minded view of "traditional" marriage is wrong. Thousands of years ago same sex marriages existed. So get over your bigotry and stop hating those who are different than you.

To Kaitlin: There was a time when women couldn't vote or smoke cigarettes. When the law was changed to allow women those rights, were they extended to dog, cats and other pets? What nonsense that gay marriage means bestiality, etc.

Once again, a rightwingnut mischaracterizes us on the left. We do not give President Obama a pass when he denies equal rights to all Americans. In fact, Mr. Obama has been heavily criticized by many of us on the left on his stance on gay rights and how slow he is to show support.

So, please Mr. Christie, don't lecture us on how we support or do not support some of the president's policies. We can speak for ourselves without you mischaracterizing how we feel.

The traditional definition of marriage has stood in America, and around the world, for centuries, because all of the alternatives are illogical, if not perverse. Holding strong to the traditional definition of marriage is not "bigotry", or "hate", or anything else than placing a high value on our cultural traditions and beliefs.

Marriage has traditionally been MANY things. The whole, one man one woman thing is a relatively recent thing. Being for love is a VERY recent thing. The definition of marriage changes over time.

AND TRADITION NEVER TRUMPS CIVIL RIGHTS.

Your same arguments were used for miscegenation laws, and were found flawed then too.

EngEsq

very true, heck even today the definition of marriage in Inda is "our two families would work well together, you give me your son, six goats, and a laptop and Ill give you my daughter"

The only place Christie is light is lite in the loafers.

The problem is that way too many people walk around with a wedgie when it comes to the word "marriage." It used to be that 2 people who loved each other, or for whatever other reason, simply declared that they were married. Then the "church" saw that they could make money off of it and decided that people had to pay a fee to get married in the church. Government, not to be out done, decided they could also profit off of marriage and decided to charge a fee for people to get "legally" married. In order to encourage more people to pay the fee they started granting special rights, privileges and obligations. The presumptive purpose for marriage is that people "love" each other and want to live together, perhaps "forever." Note: There has never been any obligation for married couples to have children. The only restrictions on marriage have been that they must be for a "proper" purpose (whatever that is) and that you can only be married to one person at a time. Marriages have been invalidated when entered into for money, immigration or other "improper" purposes. "Love" is clearly a proper purpose. There is no doubt that gays can "love" each other and want to get married. The reason why someone would object to gays being married? They want to control someone else that has no impact on them. As people who know gays are well aware of, to deny gays the right to marry does absolutely nothing to straight people who object. In fact, straights wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Married or not, they will still live together. The only thing being accomplished by denying gays the right to marry is to deny them the "equal protections" of the law. Saying I can marry the one I want and you can't is juvenile and insane. Which gets to the point, people develop a wedgie over the word "marriage." Change the wording to "civil union" or "love contract" or whatever and a lot fewer people would have objections.

I've said it before, let the church perform the "marriage ceremonies" that they want to perform. But, if you want the special rights grant by the state, then get a "civil union" (or whatever) license. Everyone would be happy except for those thugs who want to control others.

What? The lead into this article reads:

" Gov. Christie: I'm with Obama on gay marriage "

I thought both of you were already married. Where will you be tying the knot boys?

Chris the elephant, thank God the Founding Fathers did NOT subscribe to your madness. From your silly ramblings, it's apparent that you've never actually READ the U.S. Constitution, or even its Preamble. Do you know what the first seven words of the Preamble are??? "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and Secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America." Chris, please note that the Preamble to the United States Constitution does NOT say, "We the wealthy educated land owners, professionals, and scholars..." What an incredible load of CRAP you're spewing today!

@ Kaitlin loves Austin

Within that same time period, inter-racial marriages were also banned for the same reasons you listed. Do you hold the same stance on those?

I think Gov. Christie was trying to prove a point and it worked. He gets bashed when he says he's against gay marriage. Obama does not get bashed even though he is also against gay marriage. And please I don't want to hear that Obama gets bashed too because he doesn't.

I understand that Christie and most Republicans are against gay marriage on "moral" and "religious" grounds. And I am certain that the Republicans are not hypocrites to their own religion, right?

That being said, there is another immoral sin being committed every day in this country. Gluttony.

It is time we also take a "moral" and "religious" stance against gluttony. These sinners are making a "lifestyle choice" to live a sinful, gluttonous life. They are an abomination to God's will. They continually desecrate their bodies... the temples that God created.

We can not allow these immoral, sinful, disgusting abominations to God's will, to enter the sacred institution of marriage. You can not force me to accept this disgusting, sinful, immoral lifestyle. This is not a simple sin... this is a deadly sin... and we can not stand by while these abominations make a mockery of our country and the sacred institution of marriage. Gluttonous sinners will raise more gluttonous sinners... when will it end?

Stand with me, Republicans... we must stop these sinful, gluttonous, abominations from desecrating our country and the sacred institution of marriage.

I am certain that you religious Republicans will agree that we can not support ANY sinful lifestyle. To that end, we must ask that Christie immediately dissolve his own marriage, as it is apparent that he is a gluttonous sinner... one who desecrates his temple to God... an immoral abomination to nature and God himself. Man was created in God's image, and Christie has made the lifestyle choice to desecrate that image. We can not allow this sinner to continue to spread his sinful lifestyle.

Come on, Republicans... you are all about "morals" and "religion", right?

@Kaitlin, where in the preamble or the constitution does it say that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Don't push your traditional values on me, the constitution prevents you from doing that. The constitution guarantees freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

Gay marriage existed even in ancient times. This from wikipedia: "

Various types of same-sex marriages have existed,^[51] ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.^[52]

In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.^[53] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.^[54]

An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple.^[55]

The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.^[56] For instance, Emperor Nero is reported to have engaged in a marriage ceremony with one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus "married" a Carian slave named Hierocles.^[57] It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a so-called marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).^[58] Furthermore, "matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."^[59] Still, the lack of legal validity notwithstanding, there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, but the exact frequency and nature of "same-sex unions" during that period is obscure.^[60] In 342 AD Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.^[61]

A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on April 16, 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.^[62]"

Jo Ann, perfect example of the close-mindedness of the right: And I quote you, "...And please I don't want to hear that Obama gets bashed too because he doesn't." Just because you are not aware of the criticism, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Just wondering, do you follow what gays and lesbians think, or say or protest to be able to comment on the topic. My guess? Probably not.

Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom.

jshaefer

Same sex marriage did not exist has institution in Mesopotamia , not in Rome nor in Greece, the sexualrelation among people of the same sex was accepted , even sex with minors slaves, and also with animals.

Christy is right about Obama, he flip flop because he need the votes and the money of gays and lesbians. Obama is having a fundraising where he will get 1.2 millions from a group of 40 GTL all is about $$$$$$$.

And Kaitlin, thanks for reminding us how ignorant those on the right truly are. You are a shining example of all that is bad within the Teabagging Repugnant party. Keep up the good work.

Can't make the connection between melanin in the skin, to immoral behaviors. Many humans see gayness as conflicted behavioral issues, but how does this equate to protective skin 'shading?'

God Bless Governor Christie

Kaitlin,

Christie is a gluttonous sinner that is an abomination to God's will. He desecrates his own body... the temple of God, by choosing to live a sinful, gluttonous lifestyle.

Do you bless Christie because you are also committing this DEADLY SIN?

I am a moral and religious person, and I will not stand by while sinners force me to accept this abomination of nature.

Kaitlin,

Your logic is flawed on soooo many different levels.

1. Marriage is a contract (that's about all you got right), but it's a private contract between you and whoever the other party is. Just because others enter into the same type of contract, that doesn't mean the terms of yours are changed. If I get a different rate on my mortgage, does that change or effect yours??? No, obviously not.

Think of it like gun ownership. You engage in a sales contract when you purchase a gun, and you license it with the state, because the state has a compelling interest in your ownership of a weapon. That government interest in gun ownership is obvious, in marriage it's things like tax credits.

Than, it's your private weapon, and if I go an buy one for a different price, I go through the same process, but it doesn't effect you at all. As long as I have legal capacity under the law to purchase a gun, what difference does it make? This has nothing to even do with the terms of the contract. This is about the PARTY's of the contract, and who is allowed to be a party under the law.

And that brings us to the seriously assinine part of your post...

2. Legal capacity, is the giant fence running across the slippery slope, and your argument just ran smack dab into it. Homosexuals over the age of consent, are recognized as having full legal capacity under the law. In other words, they're allowed to enter contracts. Children, animals, and inanimate objects, however, do not have legal capacity and are not allowed to enter contracts.

Furthermore, because equal protection is a civil right, the government has to pass a test of strict scrutiny prior to limiting it, as they do when they don't allow gay people to marry. And that's what stops the rest of your argument from resembling anything close to logical. Incest between immediate family members, or really any incest at all, is based in power, control, and abuse. Please, find me enough cases of two relatives knowing they were related, having no history of abuse, and STILL wanting to marry, to justify legalizing incestuous marriage, and we'll talk. Until than, the government has a compelling reason to keep it outlawed. Polygamy or group marriage, again, doesn't garner enough attention for the government to justify rewriting tax law, insurance law, probate law, family law, yada, yada, yada... So that isn't something you should worry about either.

Sweet googly moogly, this gets more idiotic by the day. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married, otherwise keep your nose out of business that doesn't effect you.

Gov. Christie and President Obama are both correct. The discussion of marriage is always in terms of religious and moral views. Even gays want church weddings. Marriage is a church issue - and according to our Constitution - not a government issue.

The government should not be in the 'marriage' business at all. DOMA is a violation of the Constitution. The government can only provide for civil unions - no matter the gender of the couple. It is appropriate for the government to recognize same gender civil unions just as it recognizes mixed gender civil unions. In secular terms, a civil union is only a business contract, after all. Divorce is simply a mechanism to dissolve a business contract - and - divide the assets and liabilities (present and future) from that business partnership.

The gay community, liberals, and conservatives are attempting to violate the separation of church and state. Do not let government define marriage - that is the church's role. Do not allow the church to interfere with creating business contracts - that is the government's role.

Kaitlin, what a load of bs.

Let us all pray that the narrow-minded prejudice infecting the teavangelicals doesn't drag America back to the Dark Ages, where fear-mongering xenophobes controlled the masses, free to do whatever they wanted to repress people.

Since when is Obama the "Burning Bush," in regard to Gay marriage? Or, for that matter, since when is Obama the burning bush in any regard?

Christie is a coward, blaming his veto on Obama. It is simply unconstitutional to deny one Human Being those rights that are allowed all others. Homosexuals haven't broken any laws, pay their taxes, and work to make better communities where they live. And really, why should they bother when they are treated as 2nd or 3rd class citizens?

I am a heterosexual Catholic, but I am firm in regard to State and Church as separate issues. Any perceived connection between the two is disallowed, and strictly so, by the Constitution of the United States of America.

And you finger pointers.....clean that finger before you go pointing at others. Hypocrites.

Marriage is the union of two humans who can consent to marriage. Kaitland, you have my permission to marry a goat, dog or corpse IF THEY CAN GIVE THEIR CONSENT. It really should make no difference-- except to HOMOPHOBES-- whether they are same sex or not. Be sure they are the same species tho. None of this human-dog stuff. And be sure both parties are on the right side of the grass-- none of this live person-corpse business either.

It should be the union of two people who are committed to each other, can honor each other. Two of my good friends were homosexuals, and they were committed to each other and honored each other for 44 years. They are now next to each other in the cemetery.

I wonder if heterosexual couples are worried that their "gayness" will rub off on them and will destroy their own marriage. That's a crock of bull-- if your marriage isn't worth a flip it is noone's fault but your own.

The reason for marriage is companionship-- not screwing to populate this earth. When will narrow-minded persons get procreation out of their minds. Is that all some heterosexuals think about?

Do not let government define marriage - that is the church's role.

Nerm,

Every single man who has lost half of his assets in a divorce... every single man who has paid, and is currently paying, alimony checks to a woman he is no longer with... every single man who has lost his home to an ex-wife... will tell you that your comment is about 50 years too late.

The government has ALREADY defined marriage as a business contract... where have you been the last 50 years?

It never ceases to amaze me that a handful of people always try to draw some abstract association between interracial marriage and homosexual "marriage". What possible connection between skin color and homosexual behavior are they hoping to create out of thin air? As evidenced by bisexuals switching back and forth between sex partners of both genders, people obviously CHOOSE who they have sex with. People obviously do NOT choose their skin color. You really would be wise to stop trying to make the illogical, silly argument that homosexual "marriage" is some kind of "civil right". What a bunch of nonsense.

Guys, no one's going to win points by arguing this way. The proof of where President Obama stands will come if a bill legalizing marriage equality/ same-sex marriage comes across his desk in his last term. Governor Christie does have a point that President Obama has "hidden" on the issue. Like most politicians, President Obama's goal is to get elected. To take a stance solidly for or against such an issue is not done when one politically has something to lose. Should he be elected to a second term, he is more likely to support the issue as he would have nothing to lose. If he is not re-elected, he could still get legislation pushed through before January of 2013. But he is more likely to support when he has nothing political to lose.

Obama has been far from gutless on this issue. he had instructed the DOJ not to defend the DOMA laws, so that is very clear where he stands. Obama also pushed for the repeal of Don't Ask-Don't Tell, so despite his other mistake he has made strides to give GLBT Americans the same rights that we heteros enjoy.

The SCOTUS will rule soon on gay marriage and the precedant is clear from previous decisions. In 1967's Loving v. Virginia ruling the 9 Wise Robes stated that marriage was a right of all peoples, so gay marriage will soon be the law of all 50 states. The Conservatives are just as wrong about gay marriage as they were for equal rights for blacks and woman's rights.

We are not a pure democracy and the majority do not have the right to decide what rightsa minority enjoys That situation is known as tyranny of the majority and it is the reason that some political rabble rouser named Jefferson demanded that a Bill of Rights be included in the Constitution.

Hey Nerm_L - great post. Your arguments made me pause for a minute. However, I'm not sure why the church should have sole dominion over defining marriage. In reality, the notion of "marriage" is changing with time (i.e., interracial marriage was banned at one time). These changes were not made based on church doctrine but by common law. Marriage was and will continue to be a changing "institution" and will reflect the will of the people over specific doctrines (I hope).

Indieparty,

That's a bad argument. What if someone came here and said, "Yeah, Gov. Christie should lose weight and be healthy - he's sinning." Does their lack of hypocrisy validate their views on the subject of gay marriage? Not at all.

Kaitlin,

I didn't bring up interracial marriage. How come you didn't answer any of my points? It's post 1.32. And really, you're worried about gay people dragging us back to the middle ages?

I'd answer that point, but I don't have time, my government mandated, transvaginal ultrasound is in a couple minutes.

Seriously? No...Really?!

Interracial marriages are a civil rights issue - you cannot select your race...homosexuality is a choice - and before you say iit is not then prove it. Homosexuality is biologicaly wrong as well as morally corrupt. Marriage is for men and women - if homosexuals want to join into some type of arrangement then it should be a civil union

Christie will say and do [pretty much anything to stay in office. After his veto of gay marriage, then flying flags half-staff on Whitney, it's time for this douch-bag to go and he knows it.

He's like a whale in the ocean. He goes where the food leads him. Hopefully one day he will choke on his own tongue. This man is just a disgusting pig that lives and feeds off the people of PA. Put him in the welfare line for an income and lets see just how he likes it when he runs outta food the last week of the month, or forced to eat scraps on a daily basis as the poor people in his state do.

Just harpoon this man's fat-azz and be done with it.

Christie is a flat out liar, Obama has stated that though personally supportive of "civil unions" but personally opposed to "gay marriage" he has also stated that if Congress were to send him a bill codifying gay marriage that he would sign it.

That's quite a bit different from Christie who via his veto has shown that he has no respect whatsoever for the representatives of the people of his state.

That's a bad argument. What if someone came here and said, "Yeah, Gov. Christie should lose weight and be healthy - he's sinning." Does their lack of hypocrisy validate their views on the subject of gay marriage? Not at all.

HChris,

A sin is a sin... this comes down to religious views of supporting a "sinful lifestyle". Christie himself is leading a sinful lifestyle... as defined by the same religion.

Why should we support one "sinful lifestyle" and not the other?

happy42xxx

Seriously? No...Really?!

Interracial marriages are a civil rights issue - you cannot select your race...homosexuality is a choice - and before you say iit is not then prove it. Homosexuality is biologicaly wrong as well as morally corrupt. Marriage is for men and women - if homosexuals want to join into some type of arrangement then it should be a civil union

Seek some help, after reading your post it's clear you need it. People are indeed born gay. We have gay animals in the wild as well. It's a part of our human and animal race.

Did you wake up and choose to be heterosexual? No. That is how you were genetically designed to be.

What will religious morons say next? The blind people chose to be blind as well, the people born with physical and mental disabilities also chose to be born that way also.

Go to a real school and learn a thing or two, because Sunday School only brainwash their sheeple into believing in stupidity and pray to the invisible man in the sky. Now I wonder who is really mental, gay people, or the religious ones that freely hand over their income to charlatans and pray to an invisible man for whatever.

It never ceases to amaze me that a handful of people always try to draw some abstract association between interracial marriage and homosexual "marriage.

The reason is really easy and people such as yourself try and hide the fact. IF we had put the numerous civil rights issues to a PUBLIC VOTE, they would have been voted down. If we had put segregation to a vote, people of color would still be sitting in the back of the bus. These same people would be exclaming it was "God's will". Pathetic.

Sarah, you are cracking me up today - quote of quotes: "If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married..." but even better, "...my government mandated, transvaginal ultrasound is in a couple minutes." However, you should know Kaitlin is offended by the word "transvaginal".

Hundreds of millions of Americans have entered into marriage contracts, logically believing and assuming that the nature of the contract would not be changed later on. Some very illogical comments have been made in this forum on that topic. It is unfair and unreasonable to redefine a contract after the parties are committed to it. If I happen to support the right to carry a concealed gun, and I apply for a concealed carry permit, that does NOT mean I would support the nature of the permit being redefined to include carrying a nuclear weapon. Traditional marriage contracts have been protected by constitutional amendments in more than 30 states already, and most of the remaining states (including Iowa, where activist judges have been, or are about to be, fired for inflicting homosexual "marriage" on their state) have begun the process of amending their constitutions. The People have spoken, again and again, on this issue. We have no desire to be drawn back into the Dark Ages, when "marriage" was conveniently redefined to allow homosexuals to rape young boys. God Bless Governor Christie, and God Bless America!!!

Kaitlin loves Austin

It never ceases to amaze me that a handful of people always try to draw some abstract association between interracial marriage and homosexual "marriage".

You mentioned that the traditional stance of marriage was between a man and a woman. During the timeframes that YOU MENTIONED interracial marriage was also banned.

ANSWER THE QUESTION

→→→→Are you cherry-picking the part of "Traditional Marriage" that suits your ideology? Or are you going to take "Traditional Marriage" holistically?←←←←

Interracial marriage wasn't legally recognized on a national level until the late 1960's in the case of Loving v. Virginia

So, please answer my question. Do you think that interracial marriage should ALSO be banned because it does not fit the original construct of "Traditional Marriage"

If you think so, that's fine, you can self-label as a racist too while you're at it.

If you don't think so, that's fine as well, but then it begs the question, if "Traditional Marriage" was wrong about interracial marriages, then why is it right about homosexual ones?

If you cannot answer the question without referring to a non-legally binding document, you cannot support your stance. The Bible is not part of Civil Rights and Common Law precedent in the US. So please support your stance with such reputable sources and not theological ones.

@IndieParty -- @jimsepa -- Couples are married by representatives of a church (minister, priest, whatever) yet those couples go to the government to dissolve the marriage. Why is that? Why doesn't the church perform divorces like it performs marriages?

A divorce court will dissolve the business contract between a couple and divide assets and liabilities (present and future). While your civil union (business contract) may have been dissolved - you may still be married in the church. Some churches do not recognize divorces performed by the government - just as some churches do not recognize marriages performed by the government.

People expect the government to accept a church ceremony but do not expect the church to accept the government's divorce?

Seriously? No...Really?!,

All I can say is...BOOM! Right on!!

Heres the problem

people need to seperate christian belief from politics...

this is not about rights, you can say its immoral

BUT thats a religious point of view

if a religion promotes hate and prejudice, and discrimination then you need to a less intense hobby

being gay is not biologiclly wrong

BUT christian believers wont have it

its a matter of forcing religion onto others, where do u see that all gays are christians?

YES, this country was found by christians

BUT also, free choice and religion

if your defence is telling people to leave this country if you dotn like it, then i can only tell you to makea time machine and go bak to the 16th century

Kaitlin loves Austin

It is unfair and unreasonable to redefine a contract after the parties are committed to it.

No one is redefining existing marriage contracts, you are mistaken.

If homosexual marriage is allowed in a state, it merely expands the breadth of eligible parties with which these contracts can be made...it does not change the function of the contract between any existing party.

If I happen to support the right to carry a concealed gun, and I apply for a concealed carry permit, that does NOT mean I would support the nature of the permit being redefined to include carrying a nuclear weapon.

Nice straw-man argument. Enjoyed kicking that one over? So let me ask you what DOMA was other than to more specifically define marriage in the first place? What was wrong with the original definition?

What if conceal-permits were "given more specificity" like DOMA acts as, and in this case mandated that you could only conceal less-than-lethal weaponry, or maybe even just props on your person instead of standard firearms? Would you be ok with that?

Anyway...you need to read up on ex post facto doctrines in the US. There are legal protections already in place for parties that enter into contracts prior to changes in laws where certain legalities change and there are only exceptions when there is federal intervention, such as the outlawing of slavery.

Sarah

Its a gay story. Good to see you back.

Thanks, Gov Christie, for causing some really amusing reading on this thread. It's fascinating listening to the gay/libs trying to attack Christie, but simultaneously defend Obama for taking an identical stand on this issue. It has resulted in some really wild logic, not to mention a whole lotta weak s**t being written!

Indieparty,

I understand what you are saying, but look at the inverse (or converse, I never can keep those straight) of your argument. You are saying "Why should we support one 'sinful lifestyle' and not the other?" Someone on the other side of the argument might say, "I don't support gay marriage OR gluttony." Does the fact that their positions aren't hypocritical validate their view that gay marriage should not be allowed?

Other questions I have: Many posters are saying that recognizing gay marriage doesn't lead to other types of marriage also being recognized (polygamy, for example). However, other posters are saying that marriage has been a changing institution over time (interracial marriage, for example). Both groups of posters are using their arguments to justify the recognition of gay marriage, yet the two arguments are opposite positions. Laws that recognize interracial marriage are being used by people to justify recognition of gay marriage. Doesn't it make sense then that, in the future, it is possible people would use the recognition of gay marriage to justify the recognition of polygamous marriage? After all, historically (or currently in some other cultures) marriage has not been necessarily monogamous.

Ahh, but Nerm_L, but some couples ARE married by the government (i.e., a magistrate or justice of the peace) and not a member of any church and yet the couple is regarded as being married. So we currently have a mechanism by which government could define marriage, regardless of whether it is recognized by any specific church or not.

Kaitlin, redefining marriage to include same-sex couples in no way redefines the marriage contract between heterosexuals. Is your marriage so insecure that it will somehow de diminished because Bob and Ted down the street get married? Will you and your husband's feelings for each other be somehow diminished?

Different societies have defined marriage to suit their needs. At times and in different societies, marriage has included incest, child-brides, polygamy, polyandry, concepts of ownership, and even on rare occassions same-sex marriage. And, homosexuality has never caused the collapse of a nation or society. Homosexuals have always comprised a small percentage of the population. The Roman Empire officially adopted Christianity, and imposed Christian morality, well before it's "fall." Throughout history, nations great and small were predominantly ruled by heterosexual men.

Christie, unlike Obama, has the gonads to stand for what he believes and won't flop over due to liberal loud mouth protests. That is a real man.

that does NOT mean I would support the nature of the permit being redefined to include carrying a nuclear weapon.

Well how come? I'm assuming because the threat level of a nuke is considerably higher than a gun, correct? Okay, for this argument to be applicable, you have to show the same relation between straights getting married, and gays getting married, exists in terms of threat, or your underlying reasons for not wanting personal ownership of nukes. And that's what you can't do.

That's the whole strict scrutiny thing. And I'm sure, this will also be about the time when you start posting unproven, paranoia and religion to prove the difference in threat level is the same.

And, go....

If you actually believe the bible we all came from incest.

I'm tired of all these white people thinking that gay marriage is on the same terms as interracial marriage or civil rights. I cannot hide the color of my skin at all. Gay people in the past (and the present) have been known to hide their sexual preferences. Stop thinking that this is the same thing. You have no right to piggyback on our civil rights movement.

Secondly, during the civil rights movement, we asked God to give us the strength to endure these tests. We knew we were right in God's eyes. Can you honestly say that gay marriage is what God would want?

i don't think fat people should have the right to marriage or have children.

With all of these bible-thumpers here today. I wonder what their stances are on slave ownership and "the rule of thumb"

Kaitlin loves Austin, care to take a crack at these while you're at it?

@ Unhappy-1583758

Because until the case of Loving v. Virginia, interracial marriage in the US was also banned.

Care to discuss?

Unhappy, civil rights are civil rights whether you can hide the difference or not.

Lawl. I still get a laugh out of uneducated twats thinking homosexuality is a choice.

When then, did you decide to find your gender of preference as "sexy"?

Jimsepa,

Lol, how can we NOT laugh at this crap, right? It gets more ridiculous by the second. And, please, tell Kaitlin I apologize, from here on out, I'll only refer to it, as my government mandated, lady parts, probing.

Is that better?

Kaitlin loves Austin Comment collapsed by the community

Hundreds of millions of Americans have entered into the contract of marriage, with the logical assumption that the terms of the contract could not be changed without their consent. None of us, including homosexuals, have any SPECIAL "civil rights" when it comes to marriage. For hundreds of years, and for venerable reasons that do not change over time, we are ALL entitled to marry one, and only one, qualified person of the OPPOSITE gender. We cannot marry a sibling, parent, or one of our kids. We cannot marry a group of people. We cannot marry an underage child. We cannot marry our dog, or an inanimate object - including a corpse. We cannot marry someone of the SAME gender. The traditional definition of marriage has stood in America, and around the world, for centuries, because all of the alternatives are illogical, if not perverse. Holding strong to the traditional definition of marriage is not "bigotry", or "hate", or anything else than placing a high value on our cultural traditions and beliefs. More than 30 states have already amended their Constitutions to reaffirm the definition of "marriage" as the legal, physical, and spiritual union of one woman and one man. Most other states, including Iowa where activist judges (since removed, or being removed) inflicted homosexual "marriage" on their state, have begun the process of amending their constitutions to permanently disallow homosexual "marriage". Let us pray that Governor Christie can allow the good people of New Jersey time enough to protect traditional marriage with a constitutional amendment. God bless America!

yep we can depend on those state to do the right thing especially when it comes to marriage like when the states also defined a marriage between a white person and black person to be Illegal. No matter if there is a difference betweeen race and sexual orientation as with so many other situations just that states cannot be counted on to respect the rights of all their citizens.

Couples are married by representatives of a church

Nerm,

Not true... you can have a marriage ceremony without a church representative. Don't believe me? Then why, throughout history, have captains of a ship performed marriage ceremonies?

The church has tried to claim ownership of marriage, but history PROVES that they have merely stolen (or adopted) the idea from previous societies. Ancient Babylon, for example, included marriage in their societal laws (Code of Hammurabi) and gave it no religious context. Christianity stole (or adopted) the idea when it came to Babylon.

Why doesn't the church perform divorces like it performs marriages?

Why does the church do half the stuff it does? Why does the church create rules that contradict their own teachings? Jesus Christ, we don't have time to open this box.

Now, why don't PEOPLE go to the church for a divorce? Well, some do... especially if the wife is getting the living s*** beat out of her everyday, and she has to convince the great "church" that a divorce in necessary. Why anyone needs to be "convinced" of that is beyond me, but that goes back to trying to understand why the church does anything.

I digress... anyways, PEOPLE don't usually go to the church for divorce because that is not the fairytale story. People grow up dreaming about this Disney-movie, fairytale bull-s*** about a big extravagant ceremony, a white dress, flowers, all attention on you, in a big church. It's an emotional experience, a big expensive party. It's the fairytale. When the fairytale does not end happily-ever-after, there is no extravagant story for divorce. No one fantasizes about that... except for married men (que rim-shot). So the divorce is very much a business process.

In actuality, the entire process is all business, but the emotional fairytale aspect makes people think it's more. Hell, what does marriage really do? Does it make you "love" the person more? So you "love" your mate more the day you get married as opposed to the day before? You don't really "love" them before a metal ring and big party takes place? Are you not able to be committed without the title of "marriage"? Some people say it is to prove their commitment and love to their friends and family... why do you need to "prove" anything?

Seriously, think about it. What does marriage do for you that you can not do without marriage? The answer: the legal rights as awarded by the contract from the government. That's it.

Take the emotional fairy-tale out of marriage and what do you have? A business contract. That is what it all comes down to. But people let their emotions run their life, and this makes them think that marriage is something more.

So the argument comes down to this... everyone should have the right to participate in the legal business contract, sponsored by our government. The religious aspect is purely an emotional, Disney-f***ing-movie fairytale. You want to run your life by emotions, and keep your fairytale... fine. But don't deny other people the legal rights of the contract part. And don't try to tell me that your little fairytale is anything more than an emotional excuse for an attention-whore party that gives you an ego boost.

I ask God to give me the strength to put up with the fundamentalists crap. Every night. And sometimes twice on Tuesday.

Kaitlyn...since you're so familiar with the preamble let me ask you this: Does it read, "We the People...except for the gays."? I don't think we learned that part. Also, you do realize the most infamous rape of little boys recently were done by christians, correct? So perhaps christians shouldn't marry because they rape little boys. Remind me who the savages are again? Is it the gays who just want equal rights and have done nothing violent or savage to obtain them or is it people like you? I think you know the answer to that question.

The bottom line is, you're wrong, nothing that you have written above or any forum here that I've ever read has ever been correct. Ignorant, bigoted, hateful people (I'm guessing you're a christian because you fit the bill of most who post on her) will never get it. Kaitlyn...it must be horrible to know that in your entire life you'll never be correct. I pity you. It must be miserable holding so much hate in your heart for something that is none of your business against a group of people who have never done you or anyone else any harm.

I'd like to hope you'll learn some day but most likely you're going to die only slightly smarter than your average retarded person. Best of luck in life because, apparently, luck is the only thing you might have on your side.

HChris,

I was simply pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of the religious right who uses a religious defense, while they themselves are violating different religious laws. I used to go to church, do you have any idea how many fat, gluttonous pigs I saw there. But like good little Christians, they all ignored that rule and focused on the gay rule... or whatever else they choose.

It's really disrespectful when you think about it. Christians today treat the Bible like a Chinese-take-out menu. They pick the parts they like, ignore the parts they don't like, and claim to be "right" or "hollier-than-thou". The hypocrisy of Christie and the rest of the morbidly obese Christians is disgusting. You would think they would learn from the verse "he who is without sin should throw the first stone"... but that's another one they like to ignore.

@jimsepa -- A judge or magistrate (or captain of a ship, for that matter) performs a civil ceremony, in legal terms -- not a wedding ceremony. A church may not recognize the civil ceremony as a wedding or marriage because it was not performed by a representative of the church. All parts of our society does not recognize those civil ceremonies as weddings or as true marriages - even between a man and a woman.

Society uses the term 'married' in a non-legal sense. 'Married' defines the social status of a couple - and - that social status is not dependent on any type of ceremony or business contract. 'Living together' also denotes a specific social status. 'Living together' will likely not be recognized by any church as a marriage; however, may be recognized by the government as a civil union.

The gay 'marriage' issue is more about social status than legal definition. The attempt to have government define 'marriage' is mostly about government mandated social status. That is not the role of government.

The government should recognize civil unions for same gender couples just as it does for mixed gender couples. Society will either accept those civil unions as 'married' or as 'living together' - and - government cannot change that.

The issue is uniform application of legal standards - not social status - not morality.

Do not let government define marriage - that is the church's role.

No, the church gets to define "holy matrimony" which is the religious portion. The government defines marriage, which is the legal contract.

Marriage equality does not attempt to re-define holy matrimony, or in any way tell a church which couples must be allowed to enter into holy matrimony - that would be a violation fo the spearation of church and state.

Conversely, religious beliefs cannot be used to define the legal contract of marriage. As SCOTUS has held, marriage is a basic right - not something to be subjected to a popular vote.

I sincerely hope that, once he is re-elected this fall, President Obama will come to the forefront and help lead the fight for quality - though correctly refusing to defend DOMA is a good start. In the meantime, Christie had a perfect opportunity to lead, and he blew it.

Indie,

I couldn't agree more. If only achieving the kingdom of paradise could be done by simply hating gays, right? That's why my family does it the right way...

Like Proverbs 30:17. After my sister talked back to my mom, she was staked out in the back yard so that the Ravens could pluck her eyeballs out and the Eagels could eat them.

happy42xxx

Interracial marriages are a civil rights issue - you cannot select your race...homosexuality is a choice - and before you say iit is not then prove it.

So do you choose to be straight? Would you be gay if you weren't religious? LOL

Here's some REPUTABLE SOURCES FOR YOU

First

Second

Third

Fourth

Fifth

There is also a discussion by Dr. Kieth that environment also plays a role in sexual orientation, but his discussion revolves around platitudes and certain observations with regard to psychological trauma and or isolation having an effect on sexual preference...This does not rule out genetics in any way, it just shows that human brain function is more nuanced than just basic genetic predisposition.

Care to support your argument with anything other than religious edicts? Please discuss not just the political, civil and economic importance of denying homosexual marriage, but also go ahead and discuss how sexual preference is a choice

...but also go ahead and discuss how sexual preference is a choice exclusively

Sarah,

Ouch... Was your sister talking back in church, as opposed to Corinthians 14:34? That's even worse. I only hope that you remember to remain silent. We would all miss your posts.

Indie,

Oh, yeah, and then there's my father's continuing attempts to sell me. He's currently asking for 25 Shekels and a goat, but he's thinking he may have to come down from that price.

Kaitlin,

Please stop imposing your parochial views onto others. You want to protect the sanctity of marriage? What's so sanctimonious about an institution that ends in divorce 40% of the time in the US? Evidently some people, like Newt Gingrich, think it's very important to protect while they see other people on the side. And how is a dishonest relationship on higher moral ground than two men or two women who are in honest relationships? It's times like these that I'm reminded of Ghandi's view on Christianity: "I'd be a Christian if it weren't for the Christians."

As for your comments about gay marriage harming society. Wow. Does you have to try to act that bigoted or does it come naturally? Read up on some history. I'm serious, learning about history could be very instructive here. You'll find that dynasties, reigns, empires, etc. ending had more to do with war, rebellions, coup d'etats, natural disasters, famines, droughts, colonization, and religion than with the details of legally binding agreements between consenting parties.

...but also go ahead and discuss how sexual preference is a choice exclusively

They should also discuss how attraction is a choice... seeing how attraction is caused by the release of dopamine and serotonin in the brain.

Obviously if being attracted to the same sex is a choice, then homosexuals have direct super-human control over the chemical releases of their brain. Unfortunately us mortal, heterosexuals, do not have such control.

IndieParty,

I agree to an extent. Being a Christian myself I shudder at the rhetoric being used by some of my fellow believers. I think all people tend to label issues they don't have as the 'bad' ones. My own personal view on the subject is that immoral sexual acts (homosexual or heterosexual) are sinful. I know we would probably have different standards of what constitutes an immoral sexual act, but that is most likely a discussion that serves little purpose. With regard to homosexual acts the Bible is pretty clear they are considered sinful (not being a Christian you can, of course, disagree). That being said, as a heterosexual man, I am at a loss to understand homosexual sin. Because I am not attracted to men, I am not tempted in that way. Because I am not tempted in that way, I do not understand it. And because I do not understand it, I leave it up to those who do understand it and God.

Additionally, I am in favor of gay marriage on constitutional grounds as well. I would not want members of another religion dictating how I behave based on their own religious values. Heck, I wouldn't want other CHRISTIANS dictating how I behave based on some of their religious values. We don't all have the same opinions.

Sarah,

Ahhhh... I'd pay that much for you. Unfortunately I am only allowed to buy slaves from a neighboring country (Leviticus 25:44), and as we are both here in the US, I'm out of luck.

Here's hoping a nice Canadian takes the offer, because you wouldn't want to end up in Mexico... I hear the drug cartels are tearing that place up.

Indie,

Plus, if I ever tried to run away, I'd have to get back across the border and that would mean I'd have to leap the double layered electrified fences, evade the unmanned drones, and swim across the moat full of Alligators and Electric Eels, that the Republican party wants to build on there.

That'd be tough, you know.

HChris,

Then we are on the same page. The "immorality" of any act is subjective and personal to each person... and it should stay personal. You look at the temptation aspect, I look at the scientific aspect, and we come to similar conclusions... it's not our place to judge others or tell them how to act.

As far as marriage, it stopped being religious when the government stepped in and turned it into a business contract. (Although one could argue it was not religious to begin with.) So from the government's point of view, everyone should have access to the same contract. For churches, let them decide how to handle the extravagant, ego-boost party that a marriage ceremony has turned into. As long as people have equal contractual rights, by the government, the emotion-based ceremony is irrelevant.

Real nice Unhappy, you want to deny others the same rights you (apparently) didn't have and had to fight for. Your a class act.

First I agree a vote by the populous (i.e. majority rules) can't determine this issue, it must be judicial.

Second, since when is marriage a right? If it is a right, why are there so many single and lonely ugly people? It is insulting to compare the prima donna demands for gay marriage to the civil rights movement, where civil rights actually were issue. Civil unions and marriage may be "separate" but so are mens and womens bathrooms. Why not have some gay pride and establish a union representative and unique to the nature of the homosexual relationship instead of forcing everyone else to alter the existing institution of marriage? OWN IT and make it as special, distinct and precious as it is!

Whether social, political or gov sanctioned - marriage has always been between a man and woman. Sure, historically homosexual behavior has always been with us (just like murder, theft and slander), but I certainly wouldn't insult the homosexual community by saying that it is natural just because animals do it. Animals eat their own feces too, but that doesn't mean it acceptable human behavior. I think it was Dave that listed all these Wiki examples of historic homosexual unions, but failed to note that his reference also cited that in every case these weren't legally recognized unions.

Finally, sexuality is a choice - you choose your partner. Sure you can say it is genetic if you want, but then everything is genetic by that standard; including my preference for vanilla ice cream over chocolate = so it's an empty argument. If you want to say my attraction to Italian men is genetic = fine. If you can look at your partner and say, "I love you because of the way the my RNA sequenced random amino acids" = fine. Most people believe love involves the mind, body and spirit - the essence of a person that is about who they are, what they believe/want and the choices they make. But sure, be unromantic and say it's just chemicals and genes, I'm sure your partner will be flattered if you put that in your wedding vows.

The government has had a historic interest in marriage because male/female coupling leads to offspring and more offspring equals larger armies with which to dominate other governments. In this day and age, homosexuals can raise children thru alternative means of conception and/or adoption. Today the government probably does need to stay out of marriage - but then who has authority for civil unions? Although some churches are/would be willing to perform homosexual unions, they won't all be and they can't be forced.

Califg: The Supreme Court defined marriage as a fundamental human right in Loving v. Virginia. The fact that some people can't find (or don't want, perhaps) partners to marry is utterly irrelevant (and I suspect you know that).

Why not "own" civil unions? Why didn't black people "own" separate water fountains and separate waiting rooms?

Though talking about things like RNA (I'd put pheromones before RNA, personally) may not be very romantic, but that doesn't make it less applicable to what happens in the brain chemically when you fall in love.

CalifGina

The government has had a historic interest in marriage because male/female coupling leads to offspring and more offspring equals larger armies with which to dominate other governments.

Is that why the government prevents the sterile from marrying the fertile? How many marriages has Uncle Sam nullified because they didn't sire children? Which youth did they arrest when they didn't volunteer for the armed forces? What prison do we keep all of the parents of disabled children that cannot serve in the military...

...yeesh! Such a burden on society, no?

/end sarcasm

BTW, SCOTUS also ruled...specifically mentioning IN FACT, that marriage is also not about procreation.

Nice try...but no cigar

I think the last government to utilize marriage for the purpose of breeding pairs was Nazi Germany, and before them, Lycurgus of Sparta

....Sarah, I think "government mandated lady part probing" is acceptable in mixed company. And, yes, you have to laugh at all the junk; but I have to tell you, I'm hurt. I was just accused on another thread of not being able to see past Obama's scrotum!! I tried to explain I haven't thought too much about "it", but I think I might have protested too much.

props to anyone on newsvine dropping "Lycurgus of Sparta" in a post.

Jim,

I'm so sorry, and don't worry, the only people who can't see past Obama's ball sac are the Republicans, since they're literally lying down and allowing him to rub it on their faces when they engage in the crazy sh** they've been pulling this month.

Perhaps that was too x-rated for Newsvine, but I had to go with it.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Glad you went with it!

Obama isn't criticized for not taking a stand on gay marriage??? Clearly, Mr. Christie has very selective sources of information. The general conclusion to those criticisms is that at least he may be movable on the subject. What are gay rights activists to do...embrace the Mormon on the far right Catholic on this one instead?

The first thing I thought after hearing both Obama's and Christie's stand on gay marriage, is "Playing Politician". Both of these dudes are intelligent, they both know that legally, marriage equality is the only answer and inevitable. And both want to get reelected.

Christie wanting to veto this, plays to his base. Than he wants to put it to a popular vote, wrong but I get why, because that way, whenever and however marriage equality comes to NJ, he has an out.

Same goes for Obama, with the disclaimer of what he thinks marriage is, which makes him look more centerist, while simultaneously not upholding DOMA, which plays to his base.

It looks like Poli Sci 101, if you ask me.

I get to hate a Republican and a Democrat, not bad. You are totally right about your analysis. Just one thing. If you ever go to a buffet and see Christie, DO NOT GET BETWEEN HIM AND THE FOOD! On that he has no problems.

Matt,

That randomly made me think of the SNL sketch, with Farley in drag, screaming, "BACK OFF I'M HUNGRY!!!!"

Lol, sorry, so off topic, but I couldn't help it.

I'm sorry, but the words "Christie" and "marriage" really shouldn't be read together before breakfast... :p Obama personal beliefs on this matter don't influence the way he governs.

I don't think that Obama is being particularly coy. I have read his position papers on the subject and Holder's position papers and it seems pretty clear and straight-forward. But you do have to remember that while the right tries to characteize Obama as a "community organizer", he was, in fact, a Constitutional Law instructor in a major law school for 12 years. He must have been good at it because he was offered tenure at least three times and turned it down. No school of university offers tenure lightly.

If you look at it as a Constitutional scholar would, it becomes an issue of separation of Church and State. In that strict and legalistic view, marriage is a religious rite or sacrament. Government simply has zero role in advocating for it, opposing it, or defining it. That is left up to the religions themselves. For example, Mormons and many Muslims believe that multiple marriages are okay. You may notice that of the estimated 200,000 plural marriages in the LDS church, none are actively prosecuted. This is because they are religious marriages with no matching civil union.

Civil Union, on the other hand is a legal construct. It is nothing more of less than a contract between two people that has implications for the government and under the law. It creates a priviledged legal state between two (and only two, regardless of religion) people. To a Constitutional scholar, civil union, is just like a credit card contract or an agreement to sell something. Religion has absolutely no place and no say-so in contracts of any type, let alone civil unions.

If you look at it this way, Obama is not being coy at all. He sees a role only in the regulation of civil unions and none whatsoever in regulating marriage. Both sides in this debate have gone out of their ways to blur the line between marriage and civil union, but they are not the same thing. Most people in this country are now "married" in civil unions that are not sanctified by churches. But those who are married in a church should remember the part the minister says, " ... by the power vested in me by the State of ____— ..." and realize that the minister is conducting a civil law function concurrently with his religious function.

The government doesn't really care who you marry and churches should not really care who you contract with in the secular world. It's really that simple unless your goal is to control the behavior of other people without regard to your own. If you're against "gay marriage" don't marry one.

Pedestrian,

On that you are completely wrong. Obama has a personal belief on many things. For example he has a personal belief that birth control should be free and every business should provide birth control. Not here to argue whether it is right or wrong, but all politicians make decisions based on their beliefs. That is why it is important to vote for the person who's beliefs most closely match your own. What you are talking about is religious beliefs versus moral beliefs. I think it is right for a politician to make decisions based on their moral beliefs (whether they believe that life begins at conception or it begins at birth) but not right to make decisions based on their religious beliefs (a hindu president prohibiting the cattle industry because he believes cattle are sacred).

Obama has a personal belief on many things. For example he has a personal belief that birth control should be free and every business should provide birth control.

bo, you're wrong again. Nobody said anything about birth control being FREE. I wish you would stop repeating talking points and do some research. Organizations that employee people offer them a range of health care choices. Those choices need to include birth control as it is considered integral with regard to womens health care. What Obama did was ensure that all employees, regardless of who their employer is, have access to birth control through their health insurance. 19 states already require this - it's not new. It has nothing to do with religion or Obama's personal beliefs regarding birth control.

Free/accessible same difference here, I'm not trying to argue whether it is right or not. Just that he has his beliefs and other politicians have theirs. He is trying to force a company to provide something that is against it's (owners) moral beliefs which is against the constitution. He can't force me to provide coffee for my employees because I'm a Mormon. But if my employees decide that they won't work for me if I don't provide coffee, then they don't have to work for me. But they can't force me to provide coffee.

Chris - Before you start making comments about Mormons and the LDS church, please make sure you know the facts. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) does not allow plural marriage. Anyone found to be in a plural marriage is excommunicated. You are referencing break-off sects of Mormonism that cannot and should not be identified as a part of the mainstream LDS church.

No, Bo. Free and accessible are NOT the same thing, no matter how much you wave the constitution around. "Free" means someone else pays for it, while "accessible" means that you have access to it, just like any other prescription medication covered under your plan. And guess what - he CAN force you to treat your female employees in a fair and equitable way. Last I checked, coffee wasn't a medication.

abortion isn't medicine either!

If you look at it as a Constitutional scholar would, it becomes an issue of separation of Church and State. In that strict and legalistic view, marriage is a religious rite or sacrament.

I was married by a JOP. My marriage license says "State of Nebraska". I hold religion in disdain. Marriage is not and has not for a long, long time been in any way religious at it's core. You want to make it religious for yourself, great. Whats the first question your priest or preachers askes you? Do you have a marriage license? Try not getting a marriage license from the state and see if God helps you out!

fact-marriage came before christianity

its not a religious contract with god

it is a tradition

anyone who claims they invented marriage is fukin stupid...

get over it, stop being so self centered, theres only a few religion out of hundreds that oppose same sex marriage, which begs the question. is your god a sadist?

I think that the greatest arrogance of humanity is that it claims to even remotely understand what God thinks and wants

Dear Kaitlin Loves Austin, What a SHAME that your SO Ignorant. Marriage was a Transaction between the Womans family & the Mans family of Marriage, which was a BUSINESS DEAL the Womans family gave the Mans family Cattle & Chickens as a purchase price & the WOMAN was SUBSERVIENT & Did what she was TOLD. I guess your Ignorance enables to you know this. NOT only was it a Business Transaction, But up until the early 1900's in the US NO-ONE could marry outside of their RACE. The Marriage Laws were changed to accommidate Marriage outside of race as well as the Marriage Vows were change to not say the WOMAN WOULD OBEY, If they were still that way you would NOT be allowed to DRIVE, VOTE or Have a VOICE. I believe the CONSTITUTION dictates that ALL AMEICANS are entitled of LIFE, LIBERTY, & the Persuit of HAPPINESS. It's sad how so many feel that what they believe everyone should believe. Thats why we left ENGLAND..... So for those of you discriminating, may one day you are discriminated for your ignorance & persuit of shoving your Ideology down someone elses throat. BTW may you bare a GAY Child and learn some TOLLERANCE.

tlb1974 - no, elective abortion isn't medicine. However, if you're pregnant and your fetus dies and suddenly you've got an infection that is going to kill you, you better hope your doctor values your life enough to put his religious dogma aside and do his effing job. For many women, the pill IS medicine and is used for many uses other than preventing pregnancy.

Bohnman and Pedestrain: You both are referring to birth control being free or accessable.....it is now required per Obama and HHS that FREE birth control be provided by private employers. I have a link if it will load:

@stefie312,

I did check the facts. While "mainstream" LDS leaders renounced plural marriage, it is still practiced by any number of Mormon denominations. It is even more widely practiced in Mormon communities overseas, especially in Mexico because in the 1890's a lot of Mormons who were in plural marriages fled overseas to avoid prosecution. There are currently an estimated 200,000 plural marriages involving Mormons in the United States and many more abroad. I purposefully did not distinguish between "mainstream" Mormons and less-than-mainstream Mormons. The reason for this is that polygamy was always controversial with the LDS church even when it was openly practiced. But there is an LDS doctrine called "exhaltation" that is associated with the highest levels of the Mormon heaven. The theological issue is that while officially the LDS church forbids polygamy, it is with the understanding that one can gain exhaltation access by merely believing in polygamy.

I did make one mis-statement however: instead of 200,000 plural marriages, I should have said 200,000 people involved in plural marriages, a much smaller number.

My point was only that you cannot successfully prosecute someone for plural marriage since marriage is a religious rite or sacrament. As long as a plural marriage is done within the religious context, the government has absolutely no business determining the parameters of that marriage. In the same way, if the government wants to limit civil union, it can also do so without regard to religious strictures. The two are separate institutions that can quite happily co-exist.

Pedestrian,

Those women still have access to birth control. It just may not be under the health plan provided by the business. That's my point. Insurance is just a perk of a workplace. No different than coffee is. I don't have to provide health insurance, and I don't have to provide coverage for birth control if my religion tells me I shouldn't do it. What Obama is doing is forcing those businesses to provide coverage that covers birth control even though it goes against the employers religion.

On your last point Chris,

I can agree. The Venezuelan marriage system is just that. A union by the state, then marriage by the church (if desired). Now if we could just get the crazy religious that don't want gays to be legal partners and the crazy gay's that won't accept anything but the word marriage to compromise, we could get this whole issue behind us and start healing the country.

lifeishard and bo: Nobody is promoting anything for FREE. Women should have access through their health care provider to birth control, just like any other medication. Their employer cannot discriminate against them because of religious beliefs. They pay whatever deductible their plan states for it, just like any other medication. It's not rocket science.

Pedestrian: You are missing the point. We as a country are now required to offer birth control FREE to everyone. We the taxpayers will pay for it, even for rich people, women using birth control for other problems not related to controlling pregnancy. It is now being given FREE to all women. Google it. I have no problem with women who cannot afford to pay for it, but we the taxpayers are paying for everyone. Not just birth control, but all reproductive services. Go to the Maddow blog. She has a specific article about it.

And we wonder why healthcare costs are skyrocketing.

Pedestrian,

That is where you are wrong. The can discriminate in what services they provide. Whether it is based on religion or not. What Obama is requiring is akin to a Jewish or Islamic butcher being forced to provide pork in the shop because people want pork. It is wrong and against the constitution.

No, life is hard, nobody is advocating FREE anything. Stop believing what you're told and do a little research. Employers are required to offer insurance to their employees that includes birth control just like any other medication. Funny how I don't hear you all crying about insurance covering viagra, but let some woman have a medical need for birth control and suddenly the sky is falling.

The taxpayers are not paying for these healthcare services. No more than taxpayers pay for anything else that is covered under health insurance plans. I don't know where you get your information, but it certainly isn't from the real world. The *mandate* is for insurance companies provide birth control without a copay, the same as they provide any number of other services without a copay. If we were under a single payer system you would be correct. We are not, much as the real progressives in this country wish we were. The requirement that individuals all have health insurance was a sellout to the right, and everyone would do well to remember that.

Okay, Bo. Tell me that you didn't just equate providing women with a means to attain fair and equitable health care with forcing someone to engage in an act of commerce which conflicts with their religious beliefs. It's not even in the same ball park and I can't believe you don't see the difference. 95% of Catholic women have used some form of birth control at some point in their lives. Why don't you explain to them why they're not entitled to fair and equitable health care according to the Constitution. 19 states already have this very same law on the books - adequate health insurance coverage can not discriminate. I suppose you support the right of a business owner to hang a "No negroes served here" sign too, as long as they can defend it by citing a bible verse.

First of all, that's a bogus study about 95% of Catholic women. They excluded the ones that wouldn't use birth control.

Second, Women have the means to attain fair and equitable health care. They can purchase a rider to cover birth control, they can buy the non-covered drugs at the purchase price. My wife uses birth control, so I'm personally not against it, but I am against forcing someone to provide something that they feel is morally wrong.

No I wouldn't support the sign that you suggested.

Since the purpose of marriage is procreation, how can there be a gay marriage?

Pedestrian:

DO THE RESEARCH:

An Obama Victory: Co-Pay Free Birth Control Becomes a Reality For Women

Yesterday the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) required all new health insurance plans to cover birth control for women, annual well-woman exams, breastfeeding tools, and a range of other services without co-pays, co-insurance or a deductible as a part of the Affordable Care Act. The guidelines, which were developed by the nonpartisan Institute of Medicine, are major) because they expand the definition of women's preventive care and reduce out-of-pocket costs for essential healthcare.

This is from HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in her statement on August 2, 2011. colorlines.com is the website.

Also:On Friday, President Obama reinforced his commitment to ensuring all women have access to no-cost contraception, regardless of where they are employed. Despite blistering attacks from Republicans in Congress and conservative pundits, the President refused to play political games with women's health and stood firm in his commitment to provide access to birth control for those who want it. Women who work for employers that opt out of covering contraception can now go directly to their insurance companies at no cost.

This is from the Young Democrats website.

Pedestrian and Terry ,you both need to do the research before you preach.

life - read your own links slowly. You are referencing new health insurance plans, not existing plans. This is completely separate from the issue regarding religious hospitals/schools/etc. excluding birth control from plans for employees. Since I just paid for the next six months according to my co-pay, it looks like you're jumping the gun a little.

Pedestrian,

Since the purpose of marriage is procreation how can there be gay marriage, and marriage to women over the age of 40, and marriage to people who are sterile, and marriage to people who don't want kids...

Sarah: marriage to women over 40 would still be cool. My great-grandmother had the last of her 17 children (all singletons--no twins or triplets or anything) at age 52. Given the odds back then, it was unlikely, but all her children survived infancy and all but two (one killed in an accident at age 12 and one died in the Typhus epidemic in the 'oughts, aged 7) lived to be adults and all but one other (killed in WWII) lived past 70. One (like she did herself) lived to be days short of 100 and the youngest one is still alive.

DSLSCA,

Holy crap, really? I mean, that just totally boggled my mind. I can't even imagine having A kid, let alone 17. God bless her.

But anyhoo,

Franklee,

Strike women over 40, they can still get married.

Plus, I totally just realized that it was FRANKLee, that was making that ridiculous argument, not Pedestrian. DOH.

And my grandmother was the oldest of them. As the oldest (and a girl to boot), she got roped into caring for all the others as they came along. So, to get out of being a free day care center, she got married at age 15, but nature got the last laugh on her as my father was born nine months and four days after she got married. Somehow or another, he managed to be an only child. None of the 17 siblings had more than two kids.

Why any women over the age of 40 would WANT to have kids in this day and age is beyond me. I'd rather NOT be 60 years old with a 20 year old to worry about. Sounds like her kids weren't real fond of having 16 siblings to deal with!

Sarah - boggles the mind how the right wants to control our personal lives, doesn't it.

Is Christie announcing his engagement?

Christie looks for ways to get his name in the press. I wouldn't doubt he would announce it just for the photo op. Maybe the rest of the country will start to see through his act.

Christie does love those photo ops, almost as much as Golden Corral buffets.

No, it's not a state issue; it's a Constitution/Bill of Rights issue. The Constitution ALWAYS trumps the states.

Rick-in-SD - No, it's not a state issue; it's a Constitution/Bill of Rights issue.

It's a federal civil rights issue in the same way that mixed-race marriage was a federal civil rights issue, but NoNoNe is correct that Obama himself can't do squat on whether an individual state permits gays to marry - but he can do the right thing on federal issues like DOMA.

Incidentally, yesterday DOMA was found unconstitutional in the 9th circuit (again).

http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2012/02/22/breaking-california-district-court-rules-doma-unconstitutional/

It's a federal civil rights issue in the same way that mixed-race marriage was a federal civil rights issue

It most definitely should be a Constitutional issue. The 14th Amendment provides for equal protection under the law, and the Anti-Discrimination Act protects sexual orientation and gender. Those laws are incompatible with DOMA.

The unfortunate truth is that it doesn't prevent the states from keeping LGBT Americans second-class citizens until the courts step in and stop it.

Are you kidding? That was the most braindead obvious decision ever made. There would have been bigger consequences for him if he said no-- like bubba did.

That was the most braindead obvious decision ever made.

I don't know, there was serious doubt over whether Bin Laden was at that residence, and the operation required us to send special forces deep into another sovereign nation without their consent. Typically actions such as those could lead to war, and it was a tough call.

I'm not sure if I would caracterize it as courageous, but a tough decision none the less given the facts as I'm aware of them.

It was extremely courageous (politically) as in if the mission failed, it would have been a political nightmare as the same Republicans who hack away at all of the good things that President Obama has done, would be screaming bloody murder about how he bungled it; they were'nt screaming when Bushco dropped the ball pulling majority of military resources out of Afghanistan in 2003 to wrongfully deploy in Iraq uner false prestense of "WMD". It was Obama who got Osama, not Bushco/they wanted to keep that American public afraid of the big bad wolf, because fear justified their illegal & immoral actions for the better part of 8 years, allowing them easier control of public perception...

Obama's decision to get bin Laden was probably one of the ballsiest decisions made, it could have gone terribly wrong so easily (and almost did, but his planning saved the day). The right can't stand the fact Obama got him.

Exactly! How many billions were spent by Bush/ OBAMA GOT Bin Laden!!! The right is sickening...

Obama didn't get anyone. It took years and years of intelligence work to discover where Bin Laden was and then the extraordinary training of the Seals to accomplish it. Remember, there are criminals in our own country who have never been caught- so it wasn't Obama who got Bin Laden - it was the cumulative efforts of hundreds, if not thousands of people over years.

Remember, there are criminals in our own country who have never been caught-

You are so true in this statement - George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld etc etc etc...

Just remember one thing. It was the current POTUS/Obama who authorized the mission & made the call to eliminate arguably the single most wanted & hated man in United States history. All the righties can stick that in their craw, cause you can't take that away from the man - President Barack Obama!!!Go Obama 2012!!! The only choice & chance we have.

baliman, whenever you get through hating on this President, it was him who called the shots to put that operation in effect. He is the C I C, who studied the intell and decieded when to go in. Please don't let your hatred of the President mute these facts. Oh, you can turn rush back up now......Clown.

A loud mouth and a much louder passage of gas, after the multitude of buffets he attends. I used to think he was a bull in a china shop but I realize he is a bull elephant.

Ziiiiiing!

hehehe, nice!

Too bad Gore sucked so hard that he lost his home state...but that's beside the point

Lapse,

Nope,

He decided to use his legal right to veto something that he did not support so that he could allow the state to choose. He could have just vetoed it and told all of the republicans to vote no on bringing up an amendment.

The electoral college is the way it is. If it were by popular vote, the strategy would be different. Get over it. Quit whining about something that happened 10+ years ago.

bohnmann

Get over it. Quit whining about something that happened ## years ago

I bet you're a hit with the NAACP and the Wiesenthal Foundation!

LOL

It is unfortunate that many Americans still need to wait for their rights to be respected. Were we to follow the Constitution to the letter, which incidentally we are supposed to do, this would not even be a discussion. We never would have allowed anyone to stoop so low as to allow slavery, anyone who is a citizen could marry any other adult citizen, etc. Where is sex discussed as carrying any special weight, above the constitution. It's ridiculous at best and 180 degrees from democracy. The supreme court, whenever it finally is asked to and takes up this argument, should be able to come to a unanimous decision that marriage is a legal union between any two consenting adults. Religion must stay out of this since man made religion and man made marriage to preserve the religion/s.

I agreed with you all up until you said "man made marriage to preserve the religion/s", Matt.

Marriage has existed long before religion, and it has never existed to "preserve" religion.

You don't read much do you as to where Pres Obama stands on the aspects of gay rights and marriage? Read the last two paragraphs:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20012768-503544.html

Obama has always tried to avoid being drawn into his views on this.

Obama morally objects to homosexual marriage, but guess what, he can draw a distinction between religious ideology and political discourse...that's why he is not supporting DOMA

Every time someone claims that being gay is a choice....they are effrectively saying that they know better what is in someone else's head or heart than that person does. That's some serious arrogance on their part.

I always challenge these people to proove that sexual orientation is a choice by becoming gay themselves. If they are so damn sure that they are right on this issue they should be willing to proove it, right?

I have yet to hear from one person who identified as straight and became gay to proove that sexual orientation is a choice, so the people who make these baseless claims are not only arrogant but cowards.

If being gay isn't a natural variation in humans, prove that.

I always tell everyone that says being gay is a choice to tell me when they made their "choice" If it is a choice, we all had to make that choice. ...straight...gay...

What day did you make your choice? I don't think so, who would "choose" to be mistreated.

The people who think it is a choice are the ones who cannot understand that just because I can choose to be celibate, I will always be attracted to only women. They are typically mentally deficient...

Secondly, it being a choice or not is pretty much irrelevant. It was a "choice" in Loving to be attracted to and marry a person of another race (here they even were able to be attracted to people of the same race), and yet the court found their marriage a right.

so now gays have a screwed up gene huh!

To claim that homosexuality is a choice is also claiming that heterosexuality - all sexuality - is a choice. People who make this claim are basically saying that homosexuals can choose to be straight. That's like saying a straight person could choose to be gay. But, when someone is turned-on by the one and repulsed by the other, it really isn't a choice.

Sally Ann,

While I find many of the posts involved in this discussion to be overly emotional and irrational, you did manage to make a logical point that I felt the need to comment on.

"And if anyone thinks the being gay is by choice, not a screwed up gene in the body..."

I find the terminology you used to be bold, almost presumptuous (bold to the point of rudeness), yet accurate. I am in no way a geneticist, nor is my opinion in this matter rooted in any religion. If homosexual tendencies are genetic, then it would appear that a "screwed up gene" would be responsible.

The reason for this argument is because the goal of living organisms is to reproduce and perpetuate a genetic line. Seeing as how two males or two females cannot perpetuate life, then a "gay gene" would need to be a genetic mistake, or at the least an aberration. If not, and the gene was passed down through generations, and ended up becoming a prevalent force within the gene pool, then the affected species would see a decline in population.

While the science governing genetic vs environment vs choice vs trauma is hazy at best, there does appear to be a genetic predisposition for homosexual attraction, just as there is a genetic predisposition for being overweight, for being athletic and for being bald. The problem is that we are trying to regulate social issues with a government that is composed of elected representatives.

If we want to be serious about equality, then we need both sides of this issue to tone down the anger and rhetoric. Why should a Christian be accepting of a homosexual if the homosexual is not accepting of the Christian? Conversely, what gives a Christian (or any religious follower) the right to judge a homosexual (or any person with a different sexual preference that does not involve children, animals or other "innocent" beings)? If I am not mistaken, the Christian religion teaches that believers should not judge, but should leave judgment up to God.

The issue at hand is do we believe that the government should regulate what happens between two consenting adults? Do we believe that if a popularly elected representative votes in line with what his constituents agree to should be allowed? While the truth is some form of homosexual civil union or marriage or matrimony (all terms used in various posts within this thread) should be recognized by the government and by companies (tax purposes, insurance benefits, next of kin, medical decision making etc), ultimately it will be decided by the majority. Remember, if it goes the judiciary route (Supreme Court) then it will be determined by the representatives appointed by the Electoral College winner, who won the popular votes in the majority of those Electoral College areas.

So like it or not, the majority through their various appointees will always have the final say on any social issue. It is all a matter of how the issue is answered, when it is answered and who receives the blame from the side that does not like the answer.

One last point that I would like to address. After reading many different threads and many different posts, I feel like a key concern for those that oppose homosexual marriage is that if the US recognizes gay marriage, than the refusal to perform homosexual marriages would open up churches to lawsuits. While I am sure that many current proponents for homosexual marriage would disagree, and say that they only want the marriages to be recognized by the government and by companies, the religious opponents will still be fearful.

I will now clearly state my stance, so there is no chance for confusion. I am not opposed to homosexual marriage, provided it is not forced upon churches (meaning that a church be legally required to perform a ceremony they are fundamentally opposed to). I support the idea that the government should not intervene in determining the definition of marriage. If two consenting adults who are found to be of sound mind want to be married in a civil service, a religious ceremony performed by a church that supports homosexual marriage or by any other legally appointed authority, they should be allowed to.

Very well put, and I would add that if we put slavery, interracial marriage, and denying women the right to vote up for a vote, none would pass, but there would be a small percentage in that favor. One would be surprised what some people in this country would vote for. Civil rights are not up for a popular vote. There are too many bigots in this country.

While it would be wonderful to have a public vote come down on the side of fairness and equality for once, it is still wrong and dangerous to our country to put the civil and constitutional rights of American citizens up for popular vote.

Too many people in this country think we are a true democracy. We are not. We are a constitutonal republic with a representative democracy. A true democracy is mob rule.

By playing into the "let the people decide", we would helping to perpetuate a very wrong and dangerous misconception.

Merrell, should Mississippi vote on whether to allow mixed-race marriage?

So, what you are saying is Christie is a cannibal? He is a pig, isn't he?

interesting point. and of course such behavior would bring back the threat of trichinosis!

Matt::: Right on! Some people think that two people of the same sex cannot commit to each other, cannot honor each other. To some, the only reason for marriage is to procreate. They wonder how two people of the same sex can screw. Well, it really is none of their flipping business. I wonder at times how two people of the opposite sex can stand each other enough to have sex.

I'd like to put pay raises for the congress, president, and governors up for votes.

@ jorlwebb

Because it doesn't serve his agenda of setting the stage for himself with conservative(tm) voters in the 2016 elections.

Typical leadership willing to put things to a popular vote until the results don't go their way.

I seem to recall that Saddam Husein had similar elections

I believe the eau de closet you're smelling is coming from Bachman's husband

Victor,

Disappointments of his presidency? Disappointments? If a conservative took the same stance he/she would be lambasted with all kinds of charges from disenfranchisement to crimes against humanity.

The hate shown by both sides to one another with no hint of cooperation to reach some sort of compromise will be the downfall of our system of government. But that seems what so many now want.