I may have spoken too soon, I was looking at this page for several minutes and nobody had commented

North Carolina is just doing this to show their Republicanness, especially since the Dem convention will be in Charlotte this year

Apparently Billy Graham cares.

He says: "The Bible is clear -- God's definition of marriage is between a man and a woman."

Billy and I apparently have one thing in common: we're both Republicans. But where he apparently wants to legislate from his bible, I only ask that it's done for *all* Americans, for all religions...or none.

What Mr. Graham and others seem to forget is that among newly married heterosexuals between 20-24 years of age, there's nearly a 40% chance of that marriage failing.

So it seems to me we "heteros" have done enough to besmirch matrimony without worrying about what homosexuals will do to the institution.

Banning gay marriage on the basis of your religion is wrong, exclusionary and un-American. It's also heartless. That's my opinion.

Having said that, I've heard both sides of the argument and tried to keep an open mind. I only ask that my opponents on this issue--those that "care" enough to make gay marriage illegal--do the same.

But that's hard to do when you're opinion is based on a book that not everyone reads or believes in.

There is no constitutional right to marriage. No where in the constitution does it state that the marriage benefits are a right. But it does state “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise of it”.

The sneaky GOP put the vote for this state constitutional measure to take place during the primary vote, not during the much higher turnout vote that the actual election will have. They were thinking their party would have the higher turnout during primary vote, since the GOP was in the process of choosing their presidential nominee, where the Dems already have Obama. It is not turning out quite that way the planned since Mitt has the GOP nomination sewn up and the Democrat governor of NC decided not to run for re-election, spurring a big Democrat primary.

I just have to ask why all the hate toward a 93 year old man who speaks up for his beliefs? You are free to speak up for yours but you disrespect yourself and others by name calling and shallow analysis.

I agree that this is an unnecessary battle fought in a divisive way. Our laws protect everyone from ill treatment due to race, sex, age, or religion. The added laws have done nothing but increase the cost of litigation in some cases and not change a single persons mind or behaviour. The problem is a change in paradigm and the law has never been able to accomplish that change. This is a prime example of a non-issue wasting money, time, and resources for no actual real change.

We should respect individuals on both sides of the issue and spend our time in making sure more people have jobs, food, and a place to live...something the politicians in both parties are ignoring because of their selfishness.

Class dismissed.

Is anyone out there for separation of church and state?

it is unconstitutional to vote to deprive any individual of rights and laws provided by government. it's called equal protection under the law. marriage as provided by law has nothing to do with the teachings of a god or beliefs of its' followers. it is man made as concerning the laws. if this passes it will go to the supreme court. religion may dictate to their followers but not to the general public. north carolina has made some progress in recent years due to influx of northerners-----this proposed law is a giant step backwards. jesse helms would be so proud of you.

willowbrook,

I think you misunderstand me, and that's my fault for not being clear.

At no point did I "decry" religion. I believe in God, and that belief fosters structure, solace and comfort in my life and that of my family.

To those who embrace God, it should be no different.

What I "decry" are people trying to legislate to people of all walks of life--for all religions, or none--based on their personal religious beliefs.

My religion is my own. It is a personal relationship between me and my God.

I do not require anyone to share those beliefs or embrace God in the same way--or even at all.

My only yardstick for friendship is that a person is a good human being who cares about other folks. To my mind, that's the only true ticket to heaven.

Thanks for your response.

Condor07, how does allowing gay marriage affect the establishment or prohibit free exercise or religion?

How is marriage and taxes anyway related except as a status to file?

Married people pay less in taxes for starters, hence the different status.

Therefore people that don't want or in this case cannot get married are forced to pay higher tax rates. "Morality" aside, how is that fair?

@Notsosure10, It's very simple....the church AND his beliefs have no business in the making of laws in THIS country, remember? And if a representative for the CHRISTIANS is the voice du jour for law making in North Carolina, then it altogether possible that a group of another religion will be unfairly treated by bloatlaws....

Class dismissed

As if people like Newt Gingrich have a clue, about the sanctity of marriage. Although, he IS well practiced, in the area, of marriage. He's been there, many times. Billy Graham, on the otherhand spouts out dribble, from a MAN MADE BOOK, that was closely EDITTED, by the MEN who wanted others to follow them in their beliefs. Population control; simple as that...his book is his book, not mine or many other's. Churches (sic) like his take money from the elderly, and deppressed people, everywhere. You play to people's weaknesses and give them false hope, with blind faith to rely upon. What a CON, these churches are, today. If your church is the ONE TRUE church, then what about the different church, across the street? Two football teams pray to God...which one does your God answer? Mistcism and plain bull-@!$%#. Tax these S.O.B.s, into reality! Remember: "THE MORAL MAJORITY IS NEITHER !" . I would like to see The Republi-can'ts stick to the real issues, and give this social engineering a rest. Hell, they can't even run their own lives, and they want to run other's lives? I DO NOT THINK SO...

Hey Billy Graham, I don't want laws legislated from your bible. Ever. If we followed what the bible tells us, slavery would still be around, women would not have the same rights as men, etc. What a freaking joke. How is letting homosexuals get married threatening the institution of marriage? No one is forcing people who are already married to divorce and marry a member of the same sex. It doesn't affect them in any way. Juvenile idiots.

Government of any form has no right involving itself in a personal religious function. I thought we formed a federal government to uphold our personal liberty's of religion among all states as a union. That should be the only ISSUE here.. RON PAUL 2012

Ruken, first off you are simply wrong on the tax issue. Married filing jointly has a standard deduction of 11,900 while Head of Household is 8900 and single is 5950. So two single people each have the same standard deduction as two married people. A single parent - head of household actually gets the best standard deduction. Secondly, the solution to a problem of treating married and single people differently is not to make government sanctioned marriage more available. It is to eliminate all government sanctioned marriage and make the laws treat all people as individuals. That is the only answer. There will always be people who cant get married and therefore will always be treated "unfairly" in a system that rewards marriage...what next? tax deductions for ugly people and people with bad personalities because they have trouble getting married?

care4mycountry,mychildren,myparents - simple question... So when Virginia used to have a law that said inter racial marriage was illegal and against god, should the federal government have stayed out of it?

Ron Paul - a good GOP candidate for an America.. in 1896.

@ Shartorius - I did misunderstand your intent...we are pretty much on the same page. Thanks for clarifying...

You have to love people hiding their prejudice under the guise that it is against their god/religion. They cannot even logically argue their position.

Lord help the fools,as there too many to count.

Condora, while the Constitution does not address the issue of marriage, that applies equally to every citizen of the USA. It doesn't say that a man can't abuse his wife but we have laws against that. At one time wives were considered as the property of husbands and the husband could do what he wanted. But, as Americans, we grew and realized that this taken-for-granted male privilege was simply wrong and passed laws against spouse abuse. The Constitution does not have to address every specific issue; in fact, it cannot do so or it would be so cumbersome that no one could adhere to it. What it does do, however, is to promote the inherit value that every person will be treated equally under the law. That doesn't mean that we will always agree and it doesn't keep bigots from plying their trade. It just prevents bigots from writing their bigotry into law that applies to every person.

Sorry, care4, but granting "partners" the right to benefits, would involve the forced spending of both public and private funds on the part of a large majority of the country who don't even agree with the beneficiaries' "lifestyle". Besides, in a gay "marriage", both "partners" are free and able to secure employment where benefits are provided.

Notsosure10, We rail against what this ,93 yr. old, man is saying. So what, if his MAN MADE book says anything? What we rail against is him demanding that the bible is the last word, on anything. More wars and death have come from HIS RELIGION, than anyother cause, in history. By having, "The NEWT", by his side, sucks, ANY CREDIBILITY, from his position. THE ARROGANCE, OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS, HOLDS NO BOUNDS...TAX, ALL, POLITICAL CHURCHES, STARTING WITH "FOCUS ON THE FAMILY", in Colorado Springs, then to has beens like Billy Graham. He knows he lives a SCAM LIFE and he chumps the elderly and mis-guided out of their rent money...shameful...AGAIN, TAX 'EM 'TIL THEY LEARN TO keep thy religion to yourself...as it should be. Remember: RELIGION IS A MAN MADE, MAN WRITTEN, MAN RUN INSTITUTION...NOT THE SPIRITUALITY, THEY CLAIM TO PROFESS...

The Bible also states "Thou shalt not commit adultery", but that didn't stop gingrich!!

Gotta love those 'pick and choose christians'.

Religion has nothing to do with it for me, Satanick; science, specifically anatomy, has everything to do with it. When I took biology and anatomy, it became clear that the male and female reproductive organs have a very specific design for a very specific purpose......one that is quite natural. I take issue with what's not natural.

There is no constitutional right to marriage.

Well not per se... however, there is a provision for equal protection under the law. And if one individual, or couple in this case, is provided a protection, i.e. marriage, under the law... it would be unconstitutional for another class of people to be denied those same protections.

I may not agree with what religious side thinks about this issue however I will NOT ridicule, put down or try and dismantle their beleifs. Shame on you if you have. Their right to religious freedom falls under the constitutional amendments as marriage equality,

However if you are religious you don't get a free card to put other freedoms down. Start acting like Christians! Shame on you for using religion in such a negative way. You can not expect the United States to change its laws to suit your religious mores. The United States grants laws that offer protection and freedoms to those in the minority. There is no single religion in the US we have a range of different beleifs and doctrines. If you do not believe in marriage equality that is your right to do so and within the constructs of your own faith adhere to those beleifs.

Be polite and Christian do not judge how others live. Fight for the constitution which offers freedom and happiness to all, even if that means fighting for something you do not agree with. Because once we begin toreduce peoples freedoms and rights, yours maybe next.

I can't get over the conservative ideals of smaller government? Don't tread on me?

Anyways I am AMERICAN!

Screw liberals and conservatives!

I was lead to believe the constitutions main purpose was to support equality.

At some point this will go to the Supreme Court, and hopefully gay marriage bans will be declared unconstitutional...just like interracial marriage bans were treated.

I'm fine with a religious institution saying they won't conduct gay marriages, but I don't see why they feel the need to stop others from doing it. How would Billy G. feel if he was forced to adhere to some Islamic laws?

VetinVA..I know you did not direct your question to me but, as a firm believer in the seperation of church and state, this issue affects me. Governments did not used to regulate marriage. It was for thousands of years a matter of religeous and cultural practice. If you go back in this country even a mere 150 years you will find almost no governmental records of marriage...those records were kept by the various churches. Likewise in every culture in the world marriage has a religeous element to its practice...While in many cultures there is also political, monetary and class issues in the selection of a spouse...particularly tribal cultures where there is often an exchange of a dowry...my point is that in a free society marriage should not be regulated by the government...when the government infringes on the cultural and religeous practices of the people for its own purposes it is bad for government, religeon and the liberty of the citizens

spider-737231 -

Spider.... the majority of Americans (53%) support gay marriage. So your comment that a large part of the country doesn't agree is 100% mute.

Also, what you are saying.. I pay taxes, but I am not entitled to the same benefits of heterosexual couple because it would involve 'forced' spending of both public and private funds. Thank you, you just cemented my argument of "discrimination" against gays/lebians by heterosexuals that thinkg the same way you do.

If we go with your approach, my tax dollars should NO longer be used for any public assistance that heterosexuals (that think the same way you do) receive.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/21/us-gay-marriage-poll-idUSTRE74K0B520110521

Satanick; science, specifically anatomy, has everything to do with it. When I took biology and anatomy, it became clear that the male and female reproductive organs have a very specific design for a very specific purpose......one that is quite natural. I take issue with what's not natural.

So if something exists in nature, it is unnatural? That makes a whole lot of sense... Especially since the dictionary definition of natural is: existing in or formed by nature. Many different species of animals show homosexuality. It is not unnatural. That argument is weak. And who said marriage has to be about reproduction anyway? There are plenty of married straight couples who cannot or choose not to have kids.

Soggy @ 1.22

"the(y) rail against Graham for speaking about what the bible teaches on marriage and alledge his is acting political when it is actually the politicians who are trying to interfere with religeon."

Your statement is wrong in two regards:

1) first, marriage is not just a religious institution and historically NEVER has been and

2) the bill was introduced by legislators at the behest of fundamentalist Christians

Neither Graham nor his church have any obligation to marry gay couples if they chose not to but they also should not have the right to prohibit them from getting married elsewhere.

Just for the record, the majority of people with the same point of view does not make it the "right" view.

100% of all heterosexual men want more than one woman. This does not make it right.

Yes the good old nature debate,

Nature has a myriad of things that defy what people try and describe as "Natural". A cave fish that changes sex depending on the amount of females in the population. The Meerkat and chimpanzee where homosexual females help bring up children and homosexual males do the bulk of the guarding,

Also, I wonder, as we are on the "what is natural" debate then I am sure you would throw your cellphone away or even pass laws banning it, there is nothing less natural than what humans manufacture today.

@UnlostSoul,

You remind me of the church.....you're speaking for 100% of the heterosexual men..... I'm heterosexual and quite sincerely dont want more than one woman.....

In fact, I'm still on the fence about ONE.....

With that said, unfortunately for you my friend, you have a lot to learn about the political arena....the majority in fact DOES make it right by the code of law (which is what were talking about, not in theory).

spider-737231 - You are wrong when you say a large majority don't agree with what you called a lifestyle.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2251/social-issues-gun-rights-gay-marriage-abortion-presidential-campaign

Just because you are too old to cut the mustard, Jon-1697959.

Go ask the men yourself.

Quoting my FRIEND HERE: I THINK HE IS TOTALLY RIGHT!!!

""Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other
specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is,
how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend
of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can
you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don.t agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room
here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn.t we just burn them to
death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with
their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

So.. do you get to pick and choose what parts of the Bible you are going to follow??""

@UnlostSoul,

It hardly matters what anyone else has to say, even if I were as old as say, Graham; if even 1 doesn't agree with you, then your claim of 100% is a mathematical impossibility....so the Code of Law AND mathematics escaped you in your earlier years then?

North Carolina IT Companies: Move to the West Coast, to places such as Seattle where we will treat your employees with dignity.

This vote is a move backward and will serve to repel your best job candidates.

@muddlerfly,

I doubt highly *I* keep you employed mudder lol....like I said to unlostsoul, I have and want only one woman, and even that is arguable (mostly by me)

I still don't understand why this is up for debate. Marriage stopped being religious a long time ago.

Can any of your religious Christians please answer the following:

What is "religious" about a government signed document that legally binds the assets of two parties, including property, money, retirement, and valuables?

What is "religious" about this legal contract, recognized by the government, that views the parties as a combined, single entity, which often places them into a higher tax bracket for increased taxation?

What is "religious" about this government document which affects mortgage proceedings in that the lower of the two parties credit score is used in mortgage lending, regardless of how high the credit score is of the other person?

What is "religious" about this legal contract allowing collections agencies to come after the assets of one party member, based on the actions of the other party member?

What is "religious" about the allocation of assets, upon dissolution of said contract, equally among party members, regardless of initial investment of assets into the arrangement set up by the contract?

What is "religious" about the future alimony payments to the least successful of the two parties, for a time period relevant to the length of initial contract?

The entire concept of "marriage" has turned into a giant legal issue, similar to a business contract. It has more to do with a court house than a church. Yet the religious folks of this country spend millions fighting to maintain exclusive rights to this legal document which, more often than not, is financially detrimental to the party members involved... this entire battle defies all logic.

Jlaiz your post is great! That made me laugh outloud!

YELDARB27

I think it is important to support what you believe in for equality and freedoms. This is a war of words and one can not just sit by and let it occur.

I don't agree with using constitutional amendments to put discrimination into law and I am ashamed of other Christians who use religion as a foundation as reason to do so. The fact is being gay is not illegal, then why should people not be allowed to marry? Its about love, commitment and stability.

These are cornerstones of our society, and freedom is what makes this country great.

Every society has had to confront the question of legislating "victimless" crimes. Cultures will set a norm and try to impose that on others. For instance, in a truly free society, public nudity would be allowed. Maybe, even public sex acts. However, the people, as a majority, will set the standard. Yes, murder, robbery, rape, etc.. will be illegal, and not just because they involve a victim. These crimes would devastate the social cohesion required to maintain a society. But, the question becomes: Will the legalization of the "victimless" crimes, ALSO destroy our social cohesion?

Roadkill

The real question is how can marriage be measure of social cohesion and the corner stone of society when it fails 50% of the time and how does marriage equality allowing others to make public statements of relationships pose a danger to this cohesion?

30 states have already passed the amendment, it only takes 7 more, and the Constitution will be amended, civil contracts will still be allowed, but marriage between persons of the same sex will be forbidden.

Ah! Krestov gets my point. In my opinion, gay marriage would in no way "destroy" our society. Others have expressed, what I believe to be, unfounded fears of "slippery slope" and "influencing children". I'm NOT advocating public sex acts. lol! But, our society CAN accept MANY freedoms, without "falling apart"!

Saxon, Sorry you loose your citizenship card.

That is not how the Constitution is amended.

"Two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment."

Changes to a state's Constitution is not a vote for, nor a cause of, changes to the US Constitution. Sorry you'll have to become less excited.

@

ItsAboutTime-3704531 Here is our answer to this question you asked if we would like to uphold our republic as a nation.. as one nation..

Your question was as follows.

care4mycountry,mychildren,myparents - simple question... So when Virginia used to have a law that said inter racial marriage was illegal and against god, should the federal government have stayed out of it?

The FEDERAL government was to enforce the US Constitution and MAKE THE STATE stay out of our personal bussiness.. We can marry how we like under whatever religion we like!!! THATS OUR RIGHT

Saxon, with that kind of thinking, maybe the West Coast should merge with Canada and take our beauty, agriculture and IT strengths with us. :-)

When you are trying to make the Constitution serve the religious right at the expense of the rights of a minority, it only serves to harm the country as a whole. We already know what Romney and the Mormons did in California with Prop 8.

I'm not gay but i fully support gay rights and clearly the states that take the most progressive approach benefit economically and see success at attracting IT and other high growth industries. These old South states are going the way of the dinosaur.

Cultures will set a norm and try to impose that on others.

The irony is that this "norm" is simply the ability to sign a legal document, combining the assets of two parties.

Homosexuals will still be together, walking down the street, hold hands, kissing, and maintaining a relationship... they can not stop that.

Homosexuals CAN wear a wedding band on their finger. It is a piece of metal, molded into a circle, placed on the finger. They can even call it a wedding band, and no one can stop them from doing that.

Homosexuals CAN call their mate husband or wife... they can not stop what they say.

Homosexuals CAN act like a married couple, in every way possible, and maintain a relationship exactly the same as married couples.

The only difference... the ONLY thing that separates them... is a government endorsed contract that binds their assets. A document that places their financial assets in jeopardy. That's it... that's all they can stop. The relationships, the emotions, the actions, the commitment, the ceremony, the ring, the words used to describe the relationship... all of that will not change, you can not change it. The only thing they can stop is a piece of paper from the government... THAT'S IT.

truetexan

I'm a 15 year old (NOT) and I want to marry my cousin.

Luckily for you... MORE states allow you to marry your cousin, than allow gay marriage. This is particularly prevalent in red states.

And even BETTER news, in Texas (your state) you can marry your first cousin, but gay marriage is banned.

So now you can celebrate the fact that your desire is ALREADY allowed in your state. I am sure you will have a beautiful ceremony... just try to keep the retarded abominations you spawn off the public dime, ok?

And to the anti-gay marriage side tell the WHOLE STORY on homosexuality and the Bible. Stop taking several verses out of context and interpreting the Bible through the lense of Satanic bigotry. The Truth is the Bible supports both kinds of marriage, 1 man and 1 women, 1 woman and 1 woman, and 1 man and 1 man, and no support for anything else. God uses the sexual version of the word "Love" to describe the marriage between Jonathan and David......go ahead a get a CONSERVATIVE Bible dictionary and look it up!!! I did.

I have a lot of respect for Dr. Graham. I don't believe he's entirely scripturally accurate on some things, but he does have a right to his opinion. And I can certainly appreciate his holding fast to long standing traditions within his religious culture.

However a marriage is simply a union: Chefs speak of a Marriage of Food and Wine.. Businesses speak of a Marriage of Capitol and a Business Strategy... In some cases the term could be applied to a man and woman building a life together - but in other cases, perhaps a man and a man.. or a woman and a woman building a life together. They're asking nothing more as equal citizens to be able to participate in the exact same rites and rituals.

There have been perhaps thousands of same-sex couples who've tied the knot in the past several years, and oddly enough, I Still can't see where it's done any harm to society whatsoever. And I certainly don't see where it will do as much harm as our nation being 16 Trillion dollars in debt. Trillion?? Sixteen Trillion Dollars in Debt,, and this is what they choose to focus on.

But somehow, here in a supposedly Free Country (or what's left of it) we have people who'd rather direct their energies keeping Consenting Adults, who are not depriving ANYone of life, liberty or property or harming them in anyway, from saying "I DO"..

Amazing, idn't it?

truetexan - We are a nation built on Enlightenment principles, not Christian values. One of those principles is to keep our shared government neutral on religious issues so that you and I as individuals can make our own decisions on that matter.

Indy...I DONT WANT TO MARRY MY COUSIN. I am showing you YOUR stupidity!! The only abominations spawned here are from liberals.

Paul N...NO, its on CHRISTIAN VALUES!! Try reading some of the founding fathers papers. Go WAY back to the foundations of this country. OH, I forgot that might be to much for liberals to handle. Its called the truth. Live with it! "Gay Marriage" is wrong. You dont have to like it but its true.

KDC43...If you think its ok in the Bible then WHY does it say laying with the same sex IS an ABOMINATION? Try reading it once in awhile.

Homosexuals CAN act like a married couple, in every way possible, and maintain a relationship exactly the same as married couples.

Don't forget, that they CAN also have a religious ceremony as well - and be married under the eyes of God, or God(s) or Flying Sphaghetti Monster... in much the same way as any other religious person. It just depends on the church/religion under which they wish to perform the ceremony. Their religious ceremony, is just as legitimate as any other religious ceremony.... thank you Freedom of Religion.

It's when it comes to being recognized by the State that issues abound, and that recognition (as per the 1st amendment) cannot be contingent WHATSOEVER upon a religious reason, because doing so would be unconstitutional.

Mr. Graham's words and the rest of the rhetoric surrounding the reasoning to ban gay marriage is CLEARLY religiously based. I mean, they don't even try to hide it. There is NO other logical or moral reason outside of religious doctrine to ban the state recognition of gay marriage. If you have one, please provide it - I'd like to hear it.

So, for those who support such a ban, they are in fact admitting quite openly that they are willing to violate the United States Constitution by legislating their religious beliefs into law. The fact that they so flagrantly do this, and that the media isn't calling them on it - is astonishing. Instead, the media complains about possible complications for health coverage and whatnot... I mean... wtf? How about the OBVIOUS violation of the Establishment Clause? Isn't that reason enough to vote against? For brain-dead Americans, I guess it's not enough...

NO, its on CHRISTIAN VALUES!! Try reading some of the founding fathers papers. Go WAY back to the foundations of this country.

Lol you first, I'd suggest startng with some Adams, Jefferson, maybe some Madison as well...

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." Treaty of Tripoli - submitted to Congress by John Adams and ratified June 7, 1797

I forgot that might be to much for liberals to handle.

You obviously have projection down to an art form.

truetexan - Don't bite off more than you can chew. Madison's Notes on the Convention has been regarded as the best source for info on the Constitutional Convention since they were first published. No where in those notes will you find them asking WWJD. No where will you find them looking towards the Bible or any other religious text for guidance in how to shape this nation. Instead you will find lots of references to Enlightenment philosophers and ideas.

Sure, they might have punched up their personal correspondences with flowery religious language, but they did none of that when dealing with the nuts and bolts of founding this nation. There are no gods in our Constitution. And the Constitution trumps personal letters and personal opinions.

truetexan

YOUR STATE allows you to marry your cousin. How is that my "stupidity"? YOUR STATE ALREADY ALLOWS IT.

Unfortunately, you have proven your stupidity to everyone here. You make a "what's next, marrying your cousin?" comment, yet you lack the intelligence to know that is ALREADY LEGAL... in YOUR STATE. So who is really showing their stupidity?

LOL... you made a comparison argument against something that is ALREADY LEGAL. Seriously, how dumb can you be?

truetexan

However the founding document of this country, the Constitution does not mention religion nor god. The founding document states the union is based on freedoms and equality. Its OK if you believe otherwise that is your right.

Marriage equality will have zero effect on your marriage or your religion.

Sure, they might have punched up their personal correspondences with flowery religious language, but they did none of that when dealing with the nuts and bolts of founding this nation.

Exactly, because unlike knuckleheads today - they understood that maintaining secularism in government was absolutely necessary for protecting the purity of both their religion, and their government.

Even the most ardently religious forefathers were smart enough to know that their OWN freedom was dependent upon SECULAR governance. Apparently, many Americans are far too many generations removed from the theocracies of the past; and we have lost the wisdom our forefathers gained from their experiences with tyranny.

indieparty,

you hit the nail on the head. legal 'marriage' is just a civil union and has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. many people don't believe in organized religion and last time i looked we were a FREE nation, not a theocracy, so civil unions are necessary so that those people get the same civil RIGHTS as people married in a church.

on the religious side of this, people have been so brainwashed for so many thousands of years, how do you get to them. how can anyone believe in God and the teachings of Jesus and be so full of hatred for his fellowman. everything in the ten commandments boils down to loving one another and treating each other with dignity and respect. Jesus said that we should NOT judge one another, yet the same people who profess such holy belief in God, spend most of their time judging others. Oh thou hypocrits, think not that God sees your acts!

personally, i believe that "God" is the creative source of the universe, the consciousness of the universe, not some guy sitting on a cloud with a septor in his hand waiting to strike us all dead. the bible is as much metaphor and allegory as it is fact. we have to understand that things written thousands of years ago for people who believed demons and magic, may not apply today when we understand more how the natural world works. the creative source of the universe brought the universe into being and everything is done in a positive manner. how can anyone can believe in God and in the same breath accuse gay people as being abominations. so, God creates abominations or maybe makes mistakes? no, God doesn't make mistakes, we do, to our detriment. and the biggest mistake we have made is become stagnant in archaic religious ideals although the truth is right in front of us. but, i also understand why this is so. Power. you see, the rulers of religion have an a stranglehold over the hearts and souls of people for millennia and they aren't about to give up all that power without a fight. when Jesus came along to tell people that they didn't the pharisees to be one with God, they had him crucified and in no time, new people coveting power took the teaching of Jesus which are beautiful and twisted them into something ugly and violent and have since kept the populace hostage with fear of eternal hell. and of course, they have installed themselves as the only means of getting to heaven. hypocrits all!

is turn about fail play? if religious organizations wish to interfere with the laws governing this country are they willing to have the government treat them as a for profit business and tax them like any other business. time for a re-accessment regarding their tax status. when it comes to money they like ''separation of church and state.''

The problem is humans are living way too long. These 2 old relics need to go the way of the dinosaurs so intelligent life can prevail.

Indy...your thick head just doesnt comprehend does it. You side step my points with your jibberish.

Paul N...I havent bitten off more than I can chew. The fact that GOD is in most ALL of their decisions is a fact. They didnt mention "WWJD". But they asked for guidence from the "creator", They prayed to "GOD" many time when making decisions. We are founded on Christian values wether you want to admit it or not. Sorry! You are correct in saying there are no "gods" in our constitution but they sought inspiration from one GOD.

truetexan....you should change your moniker to trueneaderthal. First, we are not talking about anybody marrying their cousin, a dog, or a rock. As those questions come up, we will vote on them. We are only talking about gay marriage here. Secondly....our forefathers founded this country because they were being persecuted for their religion back in England. They crafted our laws here to directly avoid that sort of thing happening here. Religion played no part in the creation of our laws. And lastly....yes, the bible does say that homosexuality is an abomination. But....it also says that eating shellfish is an abomination, that I can sell my daughter into slavery if I so choose, and that I can own slaves myself, providing they are not from my own country. Why don't YOU try reading that sacred book of yours sometime!

I'm a 15 year old (NOT) and I want to marry my cousin. I want to marry my aunt...pick and choose a title. Whats next? And for you people who are complaining about seperation of church and state, you have no idea what it is intended for. Our nation IS...IS a nation built on CHRISTIAN VALUES!! Just to bad people do NOT know our heritage anymore. Can you say "dumbing down of America"?

truetexan, I disagree with everything you say, but let me suppose for a moment, that even a modicum of what you say has validity....and the ONLY single phrase you uttered is CHRISTIAN VALUES...

There is a seriously important distinction (and SHOULD be one) between VALUES and MANDATE....

I was in the service of this country for 20 years, and at almost 40 years old, there is one thing I can assure you I know....what LIBERTY means, and it's very simple in fact, much more simple than you could imagine....it goes something like this "Your Liberty ends when it begins to encroach upon mine".... and THATS all.....those are my VALUES speaking, and simply don't want bible thumpers who OBVIOUSLY have a skewed perception of reality even in the face of some of the most brilliant minds who have ever lived, their conclusions about life, speaking for an entire country. THAT is what this country was founded on, our ability to NOT let religious zealots with some alternate vision of reality get mixed up with solid decision making.

I know all the salient arguments have probably been addressed (i.e. those about "fornication, bestiality, and polygamy), though probably not as I would have done.

Frankly, I'm just here to jump on the tone trolls.

For those of you who keep decrying the "incivility of politics in this day and age," I've got one word for you: history. You think politics is bad now? Try having senators get into boxing matches, representatives attacking each other with sticks and canes on the House floor, and people getting into all-out brawls on election day. Yeah, THAT's incivility.

As far as the "you call people names, and that's inappropriate," types, what's appropriate about singling out a group of people based on their sexual preference for discrimination? How is calling someone a bad name, like 'bigot,' even remotely close to telling someone they can't marry who they love because who they love isn't really gelling with what you believe some mythical sky-daddy told you?

Seriously, get a @!$%#ing clue. Billy Graham isn't some high-and-mighty benefactor. He's been detracting from civil rights for those whom he considers "wrong" for 93 years now. Call a spade a spade, and call a busybodying asshat a bigot.

Oh, and those who have dubbed themselves as the anti-PC police in order to seem "cool," or "edgy," or what-the-@!$%# ever. Those who claim that, "noticing and pointing out racism only creates more racism," or the equal trope for LGBT people, or other minorities. Yeah, you really need to go suck on a tail pipe. I'm serious. Those last two brain cells aren't going to kill themselves.

Why should the government or other people decide who can marry whom? As long as they are consenting adults, let them have it.

I havent bitten off more than I can chew

Way more than you can chew - people provided you citations, maybe you should check them out instead of making goofy "FACT IS THAT IS A FACT!" assertions. Lol, you write like an 8th grader.

Shuklack....I must disagree with you....you have insulted all 8th graders!

the constitution can be amended by 75% of the states passing a constitutional amendment, then Congress shall cause a convention to be called, and submitted to the states for final approval ARTICLE V , Constitution of the United States, I was not stating my agreement or disagreement just pointing out a fact, that they are now within striking range for a convention on gay marriage.

truetexan - Your god is one of those gods which didn't get worked into our Constitution. You can repeat your Christian values myth over and over but it won't change history or change the facts. We were founded upon Enlightenment principles. Where did the idea of natural rights come from? Where did the idea of the three branches of government come from? The social contract? The Enlightenment's fingerprints are all over our Constitution. Take off your blinders and accept that truth. And then thank them for protecting your freedom to worship your god as your see fit.

North Carolina IT Companies: Move to the West Coast, to places such as Seattle where we will treat your employees with dignity.

And tax the heck out of you to pay for the social programs, transit system, etc........

I've always wondered where the majority of religions would be if they could have diagnosed schizophrenia way back when. "I'm hearing voices! And it's the voice of God! Look, he set that bush on fire!". "Sir, come with us, we're going to make you well again...".

That said, I kinda wonder what the difference between the hobo on the street with an "end of Days" cardboard sign in hand and a preacher is. Both claim to be messengers of God, both only seem to see hellfire and brimstone, I guess you have to be a rich to hear the Voice of God...

Where does it say in any version of the bible that it is ok to rape little boys by minnisters or priests? Then these same people say men/women relationships only........Something wrong with taking ANY advice from these people wearing costumes and pointy hats!

No wonder this country in going down the drain. Of course there is a diff. between values and mandate. The problem is people (as shown here today) have no GOOD values. You can marry your dog for all I care. It doesnt make it right. The people here are the product of a (as I have already stated) dumbing down of America. Ya'll have a good day. God help you.

truetexan

Indy...your thick head just doesnt comprehend does it. You side step my points with your jibberish.

Translation: "I made a stupid comment about marrying a cousin without the knowledge to know that is ALREADY LEGAL. Now I am trying to divert the conversation so that people don't see the obvious lack of intelligence in my original comment."

Keep trying to divert the conversation, buddy... but I won't let you forget how WRONG you were with your "marry cousin" comment. I will keep pointing out the stupidity of that comment, coupled with FACTS regarding your own state, to discredit everything you say.

Fun Fact: Not only does Texas allow you to marry your cousin, but Texas was also the great state that allowed a 50 year old man to marry a 15 year old girl... can we say "supports pedophilia"?

So tell me, truetexan... how are those "Christian morals" working out in the state of inbred marriages and legalized pedophilia? But hey, at least gays can't get married, right? You texans must be so proud.

saxon - All those state amendments would need to say something to the effect of "we amend our state's constitution AND vote to call together a convention to amend the US Constitution." The second part isn't assumed or automatic.

alessa

we have to understand that things written thousands of years ago for people who believed demons and magic

Excellent point. What people always fail to remember is that the Bible was written by ancient man, according to their knowledge at that time. Naturally their interpretation of the world would differ from ours... yet people hold on to their writings as absolute truth.

Unlike you, truetexan, I am bouyed by how good the values are of most of the people on this thread. Most of them have shown to be very good people, because they are not supporting the hideous act of discriminating against anybody because of the way they were born. Most intelligent people believe that homosexuality happens as a result of the way that a person was born, and is not a learned response. And I've seen much more compassion on this thread than in many others I have seen where religious morons wish to wipe gays off the face of the earth for the heinous ways! The only dumbing down I see is coming from you and your bible-thumping ilk that wish to pretend that we are under the control of an invisible sky creature and need to repent or die!!

JC-1439099, Companies in Washington State seem to be doing just fine. We'll happily drink North Carolina's milkshake, take their IT business and they can sit around passing man on dog laws.

Oh and we have no state income tax either.

My point is this is an economic choice too and the further right North Carolina and all these other red states go, the more outdated you become.

@truetexan,

You know what, in some ways I agree with you....we HAVE no GOOD values to a larger degree, reality shows rife with everything that has stood counter-intuitive to what we have always believed (ie., some meaningful relationship can be developed in DAYS time on a public network), role models for the public that seem to ESPOUSE marital infidelity instead of embracing FIDELITY, but listen to this for a moment and try and take christianity out of the mix for just a moment and replace it with islam.....NOW write an article about how Imam of your choice wants to disallow Heterosexual marriage because the Quran says only homosexual unions are sanctioned by "god"......and what do we have? Radical islamists trying to force their way of life down the common peoples throats.

The sole purpose of marriage is protection of the children of the union. The homosexual union is biologically incapable of producing any child of the union. Because of the physical impossibility of producing a child of the union, the union if made is subject to annulment at any time. Secondly, if a child is brought into the union, the child is subject to abandonment at any time by a simple paternity test.

Neither of these concerns affect the social status of homosexuals proudly announcing to heterosexuals that they are 'married' but the marriage union is not a social status, but solely a procreation contract. Homosexuals are physically incapable of procreation within the union.

Try complaining to mother nature.

@lilian101,

You know whats funny Lilian, my twin sister and I are adopted, my mother and father couldn't have children biologically nor was their any procreation process that validated our family. Somehow though, my mother and father were, in fact, married, and somehow we were, in fact, their children..... I'm thinking now, based upon your input, they werent married.....theyre going to be sorely disappointed when they get the news.

lilian, will you next pass a law against infertile couples? Couples who marry later in life? They don't procreate either.

Will you be putting a procreation requirement in the constitution next? Fertility tests? Ever read The Handmaid's Tale? That's what the Republican Party has become.

indieparty...I repeat...your thick head just doesnt comprehend does it. You side step my points with your jibberish. I am not trying to divert from anything. Your just to stupid to understand I was being absurd, showing how absurd gay marriage is. You truely are one stupid lib huh!

BTW, The U.S. constitution has ONLY the rights given under the U.S. constitution and ANY other powers are the states. Called states rights so your arguments here are mute anyway. Indieparty go have an "inny" party with your neighbor for all I care. It sounds like your a sicko anyway.

lillian....I've heard this same stupid argument many times before. My wife and I can't have children, so does that make our marriage anything less? We've been married for 23 years. It's because we love each other and have made a commitment together and has NOTHING to do with children.

What's wrong with you??

RhondaLucky,

I guess fiction is more palatable then facts here. What you posted are dead on facts. Yet most don't and won't accept those facts. More evil has been done against mankind by godless men and woman then "God fearing people". What scares me more than ever is the anti christian spirit that is arising here in the United States. The US and Christians are totally ripe for persecution and Christians being taken to death camps. Believe me its coming and there are from what I am seeing here a lot of people who would be right at the front of the line to behead us or shoot us. Scary that the Book of Revelation is coming to fruition.

stevefoo, there is absolutely nothing wrong with you. There is something very wrong with lillian.

The sole purpose of marriage is protection of the children of the union

Over 50% divorce rate in heterosexual couples... more children now live in single parent households than dual-parent.

How's that "protection of the children of the union" working out for you?

Last time I checked, if you score a 50% on a test, you get an F ... as in FAIL.

Stevefoo, You forgot the "L" at the end to complete stevefool. No one said anything about wiping gays off the face of the earth. Get a grip. You are in need of help.

Indieparty...like I said, lack of values. GOOD values. Something NOT being shown here today. No wonder we are in the shape we are in. Thank you for supporting our moral decline.

@TheSwordNPen79,

That reversal game wont work here.... "boohoohoo, everyone is out to get us and we're being persecuted" crap.....No one is looking to persecute the CHRISTIANS, the CHRISTIANS themselves are persecuting another group, the gay and lesbian group.....they are rallying to forbid, by law, a union that is recognized.....Last I checked, I didn't see any articles on MSN about how there is a gay and lesbian pro-marriage uprising to behead christians.....if I ever hear of one though, I promise I will come back here and apologize....

BTW LMAO at the book of revelations.....if you really go back to your history, that book was written at a time where it was likely reflecting the authors PERSONAL feelings about how life was treating HIM, not as some religious pretext....although, I will concede that, by now, his revelation has come to pass.

TheSwordnPen

Oh... so the MILLIONS of people slaughtered in the crusades by "Christian" people, the thousands of women burned at the stake for being witches by "Christian" people, the homosexuals beaten each day by "Christian" people... that is all perfectly "ok" because someone else was worse?

Someone else killed MORE people than you Christians, so we should just ignore your history. It doesn't matter how horrible, how vile, how disgusting, how EVIL your religion has been in the past... because someone else was worse.

Wow... I didn't know there was a contest for who can kill and torture more people.

The US and Christians are totally ripe for persecution and Christians being taken to death camps.

Yes, the religion that is currently making the majority of laws in our country... the religion that is actively trying to oppress other people... the religion that currently maintains the most power in our country is at risk. Right. You better check your tin-foil hat, I think it is slipping off.

But no, you are absolutely correct... people demanding that everyone be treated equal is the first step to "death camps". That's like when people demanded that slavery be abolished, and that we should give african americans equal rights... that immediately led to "death camps" for white people. Oh no, wait... that did not happen.

But hey, even though history proves you wrong... I'm sure your crazy conspiracy theory will come true THIS TIME.

TheSwordNPen -

Getting your persecution complex warmed up already? I mean, what's next, not allowing Christians to fire atheists over faith-based disagreements? Forcing preachers to stop inciting violence against abortion clinics, gays, atheists, and science teachers? Forcing preachers to actually, you know, abide by the 1st Amendment and the tax code that came out of it, forbidding them to publically politick for or against a candidate, or they have their tax status revoked?

Yeah, I don't really see any of that happening any time soon, even if a lot of it is already illegal. And if it did? That's what we call levelling the playing field and playing by the rules.

See, this is why it's so hard to take any Christian in America seriously about them being persecuted. Sure, you get the odd "heretic" shunned out of a community of, you guessed it, other Christians, for whatever reason. But you don't get atheists in power abusing that power to persecute Christians (what atheists in power? you tell me, I know of none except 1 senator). You're just a bunch of whining, butthurt morons to me. Can't come up with a decent, non-fictional occurence of an actual persecution. All this "persecution" is just you being stripped of your superiority and de facto status of dominance in favor of more equitable treatment of others.

And that is why I fart in your general direction.

Jon,

Don't you dare even say that I persecute Gays and Lesbians. You don't know me or what I believe or don't believe. As for your statement about the Bible. Well I will just say this to you. I believe it is the WORD of GOD and I believe what is written in that book. I have lived my life on both sides of the coin. I will say this to you. I received more Blessings from following God's word then not following it. I also believe in the what the LORD gave us through the Cross of Christ. That is called Mercy and Grace. What that means for you that don't follow the Word or Believe it. Is that GOD sent his Son to take the all sin upon himself so that all those 613 Leviticus laws would not have to be applied and followed. As he said he did not come to do away with the Law but to fulfill it. That means we live in a age of Grace and Mercy. That means we are to love the sinner and hate their sin. I love all gays and lesbians. In fact I have a daughter who is Lesbian. So do I hate her.No I don't I just disagree with her life style. Do we get along. Yes we do and we get along very well. Interesting when my daughter needs or wants prayer she always calls me or her Grandmother. Why doesn't she call any of those who are a part of the Gay Lesbian community to pray for her. You answer that one.

TheSwordNPen79...All I can say is AMEN!!! I to have been on both sides and I know where I should have always been.

LMAO at all of you who think I am some cookie cutter Christian. For one I don't believe in the tax exemption status that Church's receive through the 501-3C law. It takes control away from the preacher and places them under the thumb of the Federal Govt. FACT a Church was Shut down for not abiding by Fed guidelines in order to keep that status. I don't believe in the One World Church and its False Prophet the Pope, or the Harlots who keep running around and giving Jesus a black eye. That is all those divisive Churches who came out of Catholicism. Everyone of them practices paganism and they don't follow the word. Oh yea call me crazy. I am crazy for Jesus and the TRUTH. The Truth will Set you Free. Keep on believing in the Whore Church that Jesus names and calls the Mother Of Harlots. They have fleeced the flock and taken the poor money in the name of Jesus and all this time he told us to feed the poor, widow and stranger within our gates. This is pure and undefiled religion. I say sell all those buildings that are doing nothing but taking up space and resources and give that money to the poor and see what happens.

truetexan......you do know those are zeros in my moniker and not alphabetic 'o's, right? I'm not surprised you didn't know. The only thing more atrocious than your warped ideology is your spelling! For future reference, YOUR is your, and YOU'RE is you are. To stupid should be TOO stupid, and truly is not spelled with an extra 'e'. Now, if it were only as easy to convince you of how ridiculous your arguments are.

kdc43

- "God uses the sexual version of the word "Love" to describe the marriage between nathan and David......go ahead a get a CONSERVATIVE Bible dictionary and look it up!!! I did."

Jonathan and David were never married. Rather, David married his sister, Michal. Obviously you didn’t look it up. (1 Samuel 18: 20-27)

IndieParty

"in Texas (your state) you can marry your first cousin"

According to the NCSL, a Texan cannot marry his/her first cousin. ()

Get your facts right!

According to Billy Graham's ad, he says the Bible is clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.

WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT?? WHERE?

I never realized that this minister was a complete FRAUD since he obviously hasn't read the BIBLE!

I wonder if Mr. Graham would approve of one man marrying multiple women, like Abraham or King David? I love the bible, but Mr. Graham may not be understanding it correctly.

Also, whats the big deal if a gay man marries a gay woman? I don't get the controversy. Have a nice day, neighbors!

Why do all you bible thumpers keep glossing over the questions that have been asked here??? We (the non-bible believers) want to know why you are focusing so sharply on the part of the bible that states that homosexuality is evil and completely sidestepping the parts of the bible that discuss slavery, killing people for slight infractions, and even eating shellfish! What is wrong with all of you? Why do you refuse to answer that?

If you think its ok in the Bible then WHY does it say laying with the same sex IS an ABOMINATION?

This sentence is 100% irrelevant. A complete waste of your time to even type it.

We do not live in the United States of Christianity. It is not the only religion out there. Nor does it have a place in shaping laws and policies.

If you want to keep banging your Bible about it, you need to let other religions shape laws as well. What laws should Islam get to pass? How about Scientology?

Believe what you want, but check that belief at the door next time. It has no place in shaping our laws.

Not everybody from Texas is as moronic and repetative as truetexan, he makes a bad example of us all. Of course I would like to point put that marriage existed way before that bible he pretends that he read. So how marriage is defined should depend on the country's people really.

@TheSwordNPen79,

Sword, dont you dare say that I alluded you had. I said that, by way of Graham, the Christians are rallying against Gays and Lesbians as a group....not that you personally are. Frankly, what you believe or disbelieve is of little consequence to me....as it should be....

But let us not let your misinterpretation of what I had said detract from the real point here.... ANY religion or religious group has no right sticking their noses into creating LAW here in THIS country....full stop.

TheSwordnPen

I don't believe in the One World Church and its False Prophet the Pope, or the Harlots who keep running around and giving Jesus a black eye. That is all those divisive Churches who came out of Catholicism. Everyone of them practices paganism and they don't follow the word. Oh yea call me crazy. I am crazy for Jesus and the TRUTH. The Truth will Set you Free. Keep on believing in the Whore Church that Jesus names and calls the Mother Of Harlots

WOW... your little angry rant sounds eerily familiar. Where else have I heard these EXACT words?

Oh that's right, from the Westboro Baptist Church. You know, the one that protests at solider funerals.

You are repeating, WORD FOR WORD, the exact same thing that the leader of Westboro Baptist preaches. So that means you are either a member of that f***ed up church, or you simply ascribe to the same beliefs that they do. So which is it?

Or are you are too busy making up your next "God Hates F***" sign to respond?

Honestly, I feel a little sad for people like you. All that hatred in your heart, consuming your soul. It's a shame.

Why do all you bible thumpers keep glossing over the questions that have been asked here??? We (the non-bible believers) want to know why you are focusing so sharply on the part of the bible that states that homosexuality is evil and completely sidestepping the parts of the bible that discuss slavery, killing people for slight infractions, and even eating shellfish! What is wrong with all of you? Why do you refuse to answer that?

I love the bible so I would like to answer that. The rules against eating shellfish was part of the old covenant God had with the Jews. When Jesus came, he enforced the old covenant teachings throughout his life. It was only the day before his death, when he instituted a new covenant. The new covenant replaced the old covenant by the time of 70 c.e. Thank you for asking, neighbor.

@stoopid,

Stoopid, you talk so matter-of-fact(ly) as though there is some documented proof of a "Sit-down round-table discussion between the Jews and GOD"..... I would challenge ANYone here to find documented proof of said round-table discussion in which (as far as I know) is about the only way some credible covenant can be formed in the first place.

Lacking that, it is simply one man's interpretation of what ANOTHER man had written before him in which (likely) all that REALLY happened is one of his concubine got ill from shellfish and couldn't get laid that night, so instead decided that GOD thought it was a bad idea......gimme a break, do better than that.

@Jlaiz

So.. do you get to pick and choose what parts of the Bible you are going to follow??""

No but if you know anything about history and the bible, you quoted ALL Old Testament verses. Its not rocket science that the Old Testament was based on the old law that was eradicated when Jesus gave free will to all who used to practice the Law as introduced by Moses because the societies were practicing rampant homosexuality, bestiality, sodomy, necrophilia and pedophilia. It was needed.

The New Testament became more of a guide when Jesus spoke about freewill and having personal choices. Every choice comes with a consequence - live with it, Big Boy Rules.....

Well stoopid....if that is the case, then isn't Leviticus (where homosexuality is called an abomination) part of the old testament? Why are we still talking it then?

riley-1759556,

Call me crazy riley, but you cant really use "freewill", "personal choices", "Law" and "consequences" all in the same sentence without sounding like some "false prophet".

stevef00

Well stoopid....if that is the case, then isn't Leviticus (where homosexuality is called an abomination) part of the old testament? Why are we still talking it then?

This is what I like to call... CHECKMATE

You are exactly right, steve. Unfortunately, this is how EVERY conversation with a Christian goes:

Christian: I am against homosexuality because the Bible says it is an abomination!!!!

Rational person: Oh really, where exactly does it say that?

Christian: In Leviticus, right here, let me read it to you, "Thou..."

Rational: No, no... you don't have to read it, I'm good. Now, I may be mistaken, but I am pretty sure Leviticus ALSO supports slavery and considers eating crab the same as homosexuality, as well as a host of other retarded laws, like wearing clothes of different crops. So naturally, you follow those laws as well.

Christian: No, I do not support those laws in Leviticus. When Jesus died, he died for those sins and we no longer need to follow them. Let me read it to you, "And thou say-eth unto..."

Rational: Whoa there, buddy... seriously, don't need to read it. I'm good. So if we no longer need to follow Leviticus laws, why are you still following the one regarding homosexuality? You just told us that those laws no longer apply because they are old testament... so why are you trying to apply an old testament law?

Christian: Well... uhhhh... you see.... uhhhh.... the thing is.... there was this passage in the new testament that says, "For thou..."

Rational: I'm going to stop you right there. This whole thing started with YOU quoting Leviticus... but now you are changing your story. Why did you originally quote Leviticus when you KNOW that you no longer follow those laws?

Christian: Uhhhhh.... well marriage is for procreation, and homosexuals can not procreate... so it goes against nature and...

Rational: What are you talking about? We were just discussing the Bible and now you are talking about marriage for procreation. What about infertile couples? Wait... no, I'm not going to get sidetracked by your diversion. Answer the question: Why did you quote Leviticus when you KNOW that you no longer follow those laws?

Christian: Uhhhhhh.... homosexuality is a choice, and they make the choice to...

Rational: You're not going to answer the question, are you?

Christian: The lefty media is forcing this lifestyle on us, and creating a WAR on Christianity.

Rational: Oh Jesus Christ *face palm*

Christian: How dare you take my Lord's name in vain. You sir, hate Christians.

Rational: F*** it... I'm done.

Christian: Whoo-hoo I win.

That pretty much sums it up.

Riley....you do know that there are people out there that believe the entire bible word-for-word, don't you? Wouldn't your religion be better served if you got some of that silly stuff out of there. Might make your arguments flow a little better.

I believe majority of our churches and clergies do not deserve their tax exemptions. The churches and their leaders continually use their worshipers' (tax deductable) contributions in political issues such at immigration, individual rights (gays and women) instead of intent.

If that is the cause, a specialized PACT or intity should be formed for specified tasks.

Bill Clinton talking about marriage? What does he know about marriage? He is a political animal and so is the Hillary Clinton. I have seen Bill Clinton with his whores in Port Douglas, Queensland, Australia. He has as much interest in marriage as Hillary has with living with him.

Marriage has always been and will always be one man and one woman. Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end and a mistake of nature. That homosexuals can live together, have rights equivalent to heterosexuals fine, but the perverseness of changing the English language for the desire of 2% of the population is ridiculous and it is a reason for divisiveness. You can't call a white a black and you can't call a black white. Simple common sense. Try calling an Arab a Jew or a Jew an Arab and see what happens.

TO THE MODERATORS:

I want to know why comment #1.12 was collapsed.

To all the religious fanatatics and fake, hate filled christians who post here: I would like you to tell my why your superstitions should form the basis for any law in the United States.

Isn't it possible to let the religious folks keep their definition of 'marriage', and assign something similar to gay couples with exactly the same rights as hetero couples? I really don't think that anyone wants to take away gays' rights as people, but I understand that the hetero Christian folks see 'marriage' as a bastion of their faith. Besides, a lot of gay people aren't religious anyway. Just a thought.

What argument needs to be better? Silly stuff I take it means older traditions, norms? Doesnt that change with time and progression? Jesus knew that too and provided.

As for consequences....they happen when you make a choice dont they? Good, bad, you name it. The Law was the Old Testament, consequences are a part of life. See the difference? If you crap on your neighbors lawn there are consequences....why do I need to spell this out like its 3rd grade math?

Bill Clinton - a man who has been unfaithful to his wife.

Billy Graham - a man who has been faithful to his wife.

Based on only this which one would you choose for a father? Don't lie either.

I know the majority would choose Billy Graham. If not, then this is proof this country is going down.

sotired-1320831 - You mean separate but equal? We already tried that. Besides, some religious folk don't mind sharing the word.

Jo Ann - If I had to choose based strictly on that one question, I would pick Graham. But what sort of family life can I expect from Graham given my being an atheist? Would I be shunned or welcomed to family functions?

Jo Ann....if that were the only criteria, then sure, you may be right. But, it's not. Bill Clinton doesn't hate people because some book says he should and Billy Graham has a warped view of reality when it comes to something other than religion. Based on that, I would absolutely choose Bill C over Billy Graham. You need to base your arguments on something more than just one set of criteria.

Riley....it's not simple 3rd grade math. It's quite complicated. Either you believe in the invisible creature in the sky theory or you don't, but your basis of faith has to be based on something. You chose a manuscript that was written years ago, by man, that has been interpreted by many different religions to mean many different things. Fine....but don't make me sound like I am some sort of idiot because 'I just don't get it'. I am way too logical to allow myself to believe that some force is controlling anything down here on earth when there is really no proof either way that god does or doesn't exist. I choose the latter...which is my right. You can choose the former, and that's fine. All I was saying before was that your argument for belief would be made a lot easier if you didn't have to purport that god flooded the entire earth higher than the tallest mountain with 40 days of rain and that a talking snake convinced a woman to take a bite of a fruit forbidden to be eaten by god, etc.

Paul,

I think you mean civil unions. They didn't have all the benefits of married folks.

sotired - No, I was talking about segregation where we had separate but equal. We were awesome at separate but failed miserably at equal. Your solution to create a separate classification that is equal to marriage will suffer the same fate.

You know what amazes me about the 'vine in general? Look at how many comments get collapsed just because of a differing point of view. Not because someone used bad language or said something offensive but just posted an opinion that some other people disagreed with. There are some pretty thin-skinned people here!

Paul, you would not be shunned.

stevefoo, Billy Graham doesn't hate. That is such a strong word. Have you sat down with him one on one? How do you know he hates? Please, don't listen to what other people say. Study the man and judge for yourself. Don't let others put words in your mouth. If after studying you still feel that way towards him then fine.

Time to address some points made in this thread.

You can marry your dog for all I care. It doesnt make it right. The people here are the product of a (as I have already stated) dumbing down of America. Ya'll have a good day. God help you.
Yes, letting gays get married is just the same as marrying a dog. This is a great demonstration of a non-sequitur logical fallacy. Since you probably don't know what that means, it translates to: does not follow. 'Dumbing' down of America huh? I think your posts indicate a severe dumbing down of critical thinking skills and logical thought process.

I love all gays and lesbians. In fact I have a daughter who is Lesbian. So do I hate her.No I don't I just disagree with her life style. Do we get along. Yes we do and we get along very well.
Then what the hell do you care if gays are allowed to marry? I do not agree with religious people but I still think they have the right to believe as they want. You can disagree with someones lifestyle all you want but that does not make it OK to discriminate against them.

The US and Christians are totally ripe for persecution and Christians being taken to death camps

HAHAHAHH. Funniest comment I have read all day. The Christians are a majority in this country and are in no way being persecuted. Don't even try to feed me this line of @!$%#. You can't even become president of this country without being a Christian. You Christians are so oppressed that the government doesn't even tax your institutions. What a joke. Non-believers get all sorts of religious @!$%# shoved down their throat every @!$%#ing day but the moment anyone takes a stance against religion people get up in arms.

Based on only this which one would you choose for a father? Don't lie either.

I know the majority would choose Billy Graham. If not, then this is proof this country is going down.

No way in hell I would want that fool Graham as my dad.

Well stoopid....if that is the case, then isn't Leviticus (where homosexuality is called an abomination) part of the old testament? Why are we still talking it then?

Yes, I can't defend what others do. I don't know why a Christian would quote something from the Old Covenant, but I can guess. I would think it would be more relevant to couch the issue as one under the New Covenant--namely the provision against fornication. But then, the term fornication is not really defined. The word refers to sexual misconduct, but that begs the question, what is sexual misconduct? Perhaps going back to the Old Covenant helps to determine what is sexual misconduct. So then, my guess about why others refer to leviticus is because homosexuality itself is perceived as banned under the New Covenant, but relies on Old Covenant ideas to define the terms of the New Covenant. On this line of reasoning, shellfish are not banned under the New Covenant, and therefore there is no reason to go back to the Old Covenant to define shellfish, or human/shellfish relationships. I am not sure how I got into the position of explaining other peoples points of view, but that is my guess. I personally don't care what others do, homosexuality is not my issue, and I will not be judged based on what homosexual people decide to do. I try to have a personal relationship with God, not condemn others.

JoAnn....you need to read my comment again. I did not say that Billy Graham hated anybody....I said that Bill Clinton did NOT hate people because a book told him to. Of course, his statement that all homosexuals should be castrated doesn't show a whole lot of love. I happen to agree with Satanick....I wouldn't want that crazy warped religious fanatical nutbag as my father, ever!

Paul,

I see. I still think racial tension is (was) much bigger than sexual orientation differences.

Jo Ann - Then if Bill Clinton accepted that you held a different religious belief and Billy Graham would shun you and not allow you to attend family functions, and that was the only criteria by which you could choose, which would you choose as a father?

Don't lie either.

I feel like the majority would pick Clinton. If they don't, it is proof those are some twisted individuals. Who would choose a family knowing it wouldn't accept them?

sotired - Perhaps that is true. But the fact remains that we failed at separate but equal before. Why should we believe we would get it right this time? Further, what justification is there for it? Like I said, some religious folks support same sex marriage. Why aren't their desires taken into account? Why is it always the opposition which is given the title of THE religious position?

stoopid

I will not be judged based on what homosexual people decide to do. I try to have a personal relationship with God, not condemn others.

Better question for you:

If Jesus were here, right now... would he stand with the crowd of Christians, throwing stones at homosexuals (metaphorically, of course)? Or would he stand with the oppressed minority, the homosexuals, who suffer the hatred and rage of the Christian majority?

If you are a true Christian, then you already know the answer. So the question simply becomes: Do you stand with Jesus, or with your Christian brethren who are throwing the stones?

Or, perhaps a better analogy... do you join the priest, who walks by a beaten and robbed man, and does not help? Or do you join the good Samaritan to help the stranger, even though you may not agree with the strangers lifestyle, heritage, or whatever?

You are right, it is not your place to condemn... but are you helping the oppressed? Or ignoring them with the priest?

care4mycountry,mychildren,myparents

The FEDERAL government was to enforce the US Constitution and MAKE THE STATE stay out of our personal bussiness.. We can marry how we like under whatever religion we like!!! THATS OUR RIGHT

Yes, you can marry under whatever religion you like. No problems there. However, marriage is recognized under the secular laws of the United States of America. No state should be allowed to say who can and cannot marry someone. This will go to the US Supreme Court and when it does, any state that has laws stating marriage is between a man and a woman will be overturned. It may not happen in a year, 5 years, or longer, but trust me it will happen.

P.S. Ron Paul wants the states to be able to decide rights like this based on his religious beliefs. That is a clear violation of the US Constitution, amendment #1.

Religion has nothing to do with it for me, Satanick; science, specifically anatomy, has everything to do with it.

Ah, the old "it's un-natural because the parts don't fit" argument. To begin with, the parts DO fit, and very well, almost like they were made for each other. If they didn't fit, gays would have given up on sex a long time ago, and that obviously hasn't happened.

Secondly, it is natural, gay sex is found throughout nature in many different species. What we don't find in any other species is "marriage" (of any type) and "religion", should we ban those for being "un-natural"?

Saxon, you still didn't quite get it, read Article V of the US Constitution again. There are two ways to propose an Amendment to the US Constitution - by a vote of 2/3rds of the Representatives and 2/3rds of the Senate, or by 2/3rds of the state legislatures calling for a Constitutional Convention. (BTW, there hasn't been a "Constitutional Convention" since the original one that wrote the Constitution and added the first 10 amendments) Once proposed, it must then be ratified by at least 3/4 of the state legislatures to become a US Constitutional Amendment.

This vote is to amend a state constitution and is not a proposal to amend the US Constitution, it doesn't matter how many state constitutions gets amended, it won't change the supreme law of the land.

@ITSABOUT TIME. I think you've been mislead, probably by a reporter twist.. He says its not a government function and puts it in writing.. LISTEN TO this video from the debate.. I was so impressed.. He will add a but, at the end of the reply.. but REALIZE.. its only if we can't come together and just protect our liberty's as a group.. He can only do what we want as a whole but that's good leadership to want to help guide us towards protecting personal libertys.. and is willing to lead by example and put his personal beliefs to the side when it comes to the constitution.. Just follow the rule of law and stop having all these arguments and start enjoying liberty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3PXANu7mUc

Jo Ann - Then if Bill Clinton accepted that you held a different religious belief and Billy Graham would shun you and not allow you to attend family functions, and that was the only criteria by which you could choose, which would you choose as a father?

Paul N, has Billy Graham ever done that? If so, to who?

IndieParty: I for one am against gay marriages. God said it is wrong, so therefore it is wrong. I don't care about being persecuted as a christian either. Christians in other parts of the world are being persecuted for standing up for their beliefs. To me this is no difference.

If you are a true Christian, then you already know the answer. So the question simply becomes: Do you stand with Jesus, or with your Christian brethren who are throwing the stones?

I stand with Jesus. Unfortunately for you, Christ would not stand with those who are homosexual. I can quote many verses on Christ in that matter. How many verses can you quote? If you can't quote any, then you know you are in the wrong. Jesus would condone this act of homosexuality whether you want to believe it or not.

"Haven't you read the Scriptures?" Jesus replied. "They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.' And he said, 'This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one. Mathew 19:4-5

Jesus would absolutely NOT condone this act of homosexuality. ( sorry, my mistake)

Okay--first, marriage is a right that is (implicitly) guaranteed by the Constitution, according to the Supreme Court. Look up Loving v. Virginia.

There have been same-sex marriages in the Christian tradition. The Catholic church even had liturgies to celebrate such marriages. Look up the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

There is a European tradition of official same-sex marriages. The Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) had a same-sex marriage, and other such marriages are recorded as having taken place in Ireland in the late 12th and early 13th centuries.

Many cultures--European, African, Native American--have practiced same-sex marriages and this has been documented as having taken place as late as the 19th century. Restrictions on same-sex marriage are actually relatively recent.

Marriages have never been specifically about sheltering children--they were about passing along property, for the most part, and legitimizing sexual relationships (generally for the purpose of passing along property to one's beloved and the children one shares).

Homosexuality has never been a leading cause of infertility. Plenty of gay men and women have children--they do not have them (well, not biologically--not yet--though the technology is already in the experimental stages) with their same-sex partners, but they still have children, and those children belong to them just the same.

The main problem for people in the US is that they are terribly literal--they cannot understand that the word "marriage" applies to both a civil right and to a religious rite. In fact, I don't think that many could quickly explain the difference between a right and a rite.

It would be best to just do what they do in Europe--have one ceremony that is a civil ceremony (and call it a "civil union") and then a second ceremony that is a religious ceremony (if one wishes, and call it the "marriage"). Don't be terribly surprised that not a few religions will practice same-sex marriage if it is left up to them.

The law that is being discussed here is unnecessary--while it is not intended to harm people who are in domestic relationships that are not marriages, it will. It's happened in the past in other states that have passed similar laws (I think it was Ohio, but I'm not sure). Elderly people living together won't be able to make decisions for one another and might be barred from staying together in rest homes; young couples who are shacked up might not easily be able to help each other or one another's children. A person of ill will can easily use this law to prevent being prosecuted for "domestic violence" when s/he can claim s/he doesn't have a "domestic relationship" with the other person and probably will at least create a headache for those who wish to prosecute.

I don't mind if people want to take the word "marriage" and revert it to its original meaning as a religious rite--but let's not pretend that the Supreme Court didn't rule a long time ago that marriage is a right, that there haven't been same-sex marriages in the Christian tradition, and that there have never been same sex marriages in any culture (or that marriages had to do and have to do mainly with children). It isn't fair to those of us who are arguing on the basis of facts that the rest of you are trying to make up your own.

Marriage is a right guaranteed by the Constitution (according to settled constitutional law). The Christian church has practiced same sex marriage. Many (if not most) cultures historically have allowed some same sex marriage. Marriage has never been about the raising of children, principally. Those are the facts. Now--go ahead and discuss.

As pointed out by only one other poster, Marriage started before religion. Religion got involved with marriage during the Christian "Rule" (when anything was to be considered "legal", it had to be "Sanctioned by The Church".

Marriage started out as a Binding Contract between two Ruling Families that agreed to join forces. It is unknown if the married couple even liked each other. The couple did not join to procreate, though that was the intention of the Families. Basically, "Marriage" is just the name for the Binding Contract between two parties who have agreed to join forces, nothing more.

I don't recall anywhere in the Bible where it STATED that any couple was married. It does speak of MAN and WIFE, but never marriage. Please cite any verse where the actual word "marriage" is used if I am wrong. The only thing I recall is the use of the word "joined".

And remember, the Bible has been mistranslated by "interpretors and edited by many Authorities. The King James Version is so-called because King James had it edited to his liking: he had things removed, added and translated to what he wanted. His was the last major rewrite of the Bible. Since very few of the original writings exist wholly intact, who knows what is truly what.

I'd like to point out that None-Mormon Christians consider Joseph Smith a "crack-pot" because "God spoke to him". Well, if that is true, then how come those who the Bible says God spoke to are not also crack-pots? Not only do right-wing Christians pick and chose verses to believe in, they also pick and chose what crack-pot to believe (no offense meant, just pointing out how fickle Christian belief is). I thought I heard at one time Billy Graham saying God spoke to him in dreams during his sermons. We know without any doubt that he IS a crack-pot.

Side note: the bit about fornication refering back to the "Old Covenant", well again, if you believe that, then either you are picking and chosing or you must believe all parts of the "Old Covenant" still hold true.

So, by virtue of our US Constitution, and the fact that Religion does not have any legitimate claim to the "Institution of Marriage", same sex marriage must be recognized the same as opposite sex marriage: good, bad or otherwise.

If Jesus were here, right now... would he stand with the crowd of Christians, throwing stones at homosexuals (metaphorically, of course)? Or would he stand with the oppressed minority, the homosexuals, who suffer the hatred and rage of the Christian majority?

If you are a true Christian, then you already know the answer. So the question simply becomes: Do you stand with Jesus, or with your Christian brethren who are throwing the stones?

I would not be so presumptuous as to claim to know the mind of God. I don't accept your premise at all. Nor is it even possible that Jesus could be here now, nor will it be His role to appear again as a human being on this world. When He was here the first time, He had the power to correct all injustice, but He surely did not. There is no record of Him at all defending homosexual lifestyles, or fighting for women's rights, or for the rights of sex workers, etc. He had the power of God and could command all the angels in heaven to accomplish any such thing, but He did not. Though he associated with sinners, it was because they needed help the most; it was not to justify/protect their behavior. He loves the sinner, hates the sin.

I simply don't know how God feels about homosexuality at this time, and therefore I don't take a stand either way. I would not tolerate a physical attack on anyone, and would defend a homosexual against a violent attack, but I'm not disposed to take up their cause in the least. When Jesus was on earth, a gentile woman asked Him to cure her daughter. He replied to the effect of: "what? don't you know I'm here for the Jews, I can't waste my time with the gentile dogs." This gentile woman was showing faith, and He gave her that tough response, although he ultimately did heal her daughter. He had a specific job to do, and that was to reinforce the Old Covenant with the Jews. He made the law stricter for the Jews (making divorce more limited, making it easier to commit adultery by only THINKING about it, etc.) He was not sent to correct all injustice, or protect sinners. I don't know what He would do in any given situation. If I always knew what He would do, then I would always know what is right. I don't. Clearly, he befuddled most people when He was here, because He did not meet their expectations in the least. Thanks for engaging with me, neighbor.

There is no constitutional right to marriage. No where in the constitution does it state that the marriage benefits are a right. But it does state “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise of it”.

Your right, but there is a basic civil right to privacy via the 9th and 4th Amendments.

For all you fans of "strawman" arguments...

The polygamy/group marriage argument: Fails. There isn't enough public interest to support the complications surrounding accross the board legal polygamy. We would have to spend the time and money rewriting tax law, insurance law, family law, probate law, yada, yada, yada.

The pedophilia/inanimate object/besitality argument: Fails. Children, animals, and random objects lack recognized legal capacity under the law. They can't consent, they can't contract, they don't get to vote, yada, yada, yada. Continuing, homosexuality is not a mental illness, it's not listed in the DSM-IV and has no negative impact on society.

The incest argument: Incest is based on abuse, power, and control. Show me two immediate family members, who had healthy, non-abusive upbringings, know that they're related, and still want to marry, and I'll say go for it.

The marriage is religious argument: Fails. Marriage is a contractual property agreement predating all organized religion. You're thinking of Holy Matrimony. Nor is the public or society a party to the contract. The consideration is only between the two legal adults. That's why society doesn't get a share in everyone's divorce, we don't sign the lisense, we don't get the kids every other weekend.

The majority rules argument: Fails. We're a Republic, we don't vote on civil rights, and marriage is a civil right. SCOTUS has ruled in one 14 different times. This means you need a reason that passes strict scrutiny to prohibit marriage. None of the following are legal reasons... The Bible, your personal beliefs, Jesus, God, religion, your morals, unproven paranoia.

The state shouldn't place no religion, above religion: Fails. Nothing doesn't equal something. Overturning religious based legislation, in no way supports Athieism. Again I thank you Indie for this fantastic example... If you're pushing against a wall, and you stop, does that mean the wall is now pushing you? No. If a lack of religion constituted a support of Athieism, we would have to write disclaimers on every single, non religious, thing in the country.

The I don't want it in my face argument: Fails. Get over yourself. There are just as many people out there that don't want your relationship in their face either, does that mean you should live in a closet? No. Get over yourself. If you don't like something, don't pay attention. Not being able to unjustifiably force people to conform to how you want them to be, isn't an infringment on your freedoms. Call me when someone forces you to be gay or have gay friends, or like the gay lifestyle. Until than, get over yourselves.

The it's unnatural argument: So are a lot of things you don't argue against. Like babies with health issues surviving. That's not supposed to happen according to "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" either. Nor is marriage about procreation. Look at all the couples who don't want/have kids, and all the single people who do.

And no, the 10th Amendment and the founding father's "religion" has nothing to do with this...

Religion, being part of our Founding Father's personal lives, and being part of how our Founding Father's wanted our nation to be ran, are two very different things...

James Madison...

"Strongly guarded is the separation of religion and government in the Consitution."

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

Ben Franklin...

"I have found Christian dogma to be unintelligible."

Thomas Jefferson...

"I contemplate with solemn reverance the act of the American people which declared that their legislature 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

And, my personal favorite, from the Treaty of Tripoli, written by John Adams, and ratified by congress...

"The United States was, in no sense, founded on the Christian religion."

Finally, not that you brought it up, Curt, but I'm sure someone will...

And don't even give me that 10th Amendment, Mike Huckabee, crap. The 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states. Ergo, the 1st amendment to the states. Argument that the 10th gives the states the right to name a religion would of been valid in, oh 1860 or earlier. In fact, the 14th basically makes the 10th almost null and void. An issue regarding the 10th hasn't even come before SCOTUS since the '60's when they tried to use it to stop desegregation.

So please, explain to me how two people entering into a contractual property agreement, infringes on someone's freedom of religion?

No one is trying to force their beliefs or lifestyles on you. In fact, the complete opposite is true.

WE don't use gay relationships as an issue in politics, the right does. We advocate for NOT using them, NOT caring, NOT legislating based on sexual orientation. As in treating them the same as straight people.

In order to stop us from doing that. In order to stop us from repealing laws that SPECIFICALLY make an issue out of being gay or not, the right uses they're Bibles, morals, and religions. When, quite clearly, in our nation, those things have no standing.

It was the right that legislated homosexuality. DADT, DOMA, sodomy laws... It is the right that's fighting to keep legislating homosexuality. They need to stop using it as a political issue, and we will then cease to say anything about their methods and how they go about using them or defending them.

The polygamy/group marriage argument: Fails. There isn't enough public interest to support the complications surrounding accross the board legal polygamy. We would have to spend the time and money rewriting tax law, insurance law, family law, probate law, yada, yada, yada.

Stanley Kurtz, a fellow at the Hudson Institute, lamented the modern arguments increasingly being made by various intellectuals who call for de-criminalizing polygamy. Kurtz concluded, "Marriage, as its ultramodern critics would like to say, is indeed about choosing one's partner, and about freedom in a society that values freedom. But that's not the only thing it is about. As the Supreme Court justices who unanimously decided Reynolds in 1878 understood, marriage is also about sustaining the conditions in which freedom can thrive. Polygamy in all its forms is a recipe for social structures that inhibit and ultimately undermine social freedom and democracy. A hard-won lesson of Western history is that genuine democratic self-rule begins at the hearth of the monogamous family."[97

Utah lawmakers have decided to move forward with a bill that would legalize polygamy.

Current Utah Law (Article 3) states that ”polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.” But according to Article 3, you can hold whatever religious beliefs you want. Utah will never prosecute you for your religious beliefs. However being a polygamist and acting upon your beliefs is completely out of the question.

That’s been the conundrum for Utah lawmakers… until now. “We have to change the laws to match the beliefs of our citizens and a man having more than one wife, just makes sense!”, said Utah Speaker of the house, Blake Smith (D).

Over the years, authorities have looked the other way with regard to polygamous behavior and have instead focused on any abuse of children, kidnapping or any other domestic abuse.

The amount of life insurance needed to cover multiple families can be staggering, and in order to be properly insured, all “spouses” need coverage in order to provide funds in the event of their deaths. Marty Levy, an independent life insurance broker in Los Angeles, says it is important for people with large families to set up life insurance trusts that will be administered responsibly in the event of their death.

Coverage could be purchased through one very large policy or several policies. While it is not impossible, it is very difficult to add "spiritual wives" as beneficiaries to life insurance policies, adds Levy. To do so, you must demonstrate that the women have an "insurable interest" in the policyholder. "It's tough to underwrite, but it can be done.

Some polygamists rely heavily on emergency rooms and social service programs to take the place of health insurance. "They will seek help from different welfare programs," Llewellyn says. "A lot of them will accept that resource because it doesn't cost them anything."

riley, this was originally published by "Weekly World News" as a satirical piece. It is not true and was originally published a year ago.

A George Washington Law professor is attempting to decriminalize it first. The LA Times ran a long article referencing his and other legislators dialogue about how there will be precedent to push legalization once it is decriminalized. Excerpts from dialogue can be seen below.

The hypocrisy of the homosexual-rights movement is obvious. Those of us who believe that homosexuality is a "taboo sexual practice" have been accused of being homophobic; I'm not afraid of homosexuality or homosexuals, I simply believe that it's wrong, whether one argues a biblical point of view or an evolutionary point of view (which would say that nature herself has chosen homosexuals for extinction).

Now homosexuals are showing their own "polyphobia," narrow-mindedness, and prejudice. They want to invade other people's bedrooms and control behavior which is none of their business.

The insurance piece was not satirical.

Riley, your attempts to pass of the ridiculous story about polygamy is evidence of either 1) your gullibility or 2) your willingness to spread lies to further your own voice.

Either way, your credibility is shot. Homosexual's are not the ones decrying polygamy... you are. Most of the people that I know who support equality in marriage couldn't care less about polygamy. However, if is YOUR favorite argument against same sex marriage.

The only thing you have proven is your ability to use the "copy/paste" feature in windows. Failure you use quotation marks also evidences your penchant for plagiarism. Even your above "response" was copy/pasted from someone else! lol

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/08/legalize-polygamy.html

You have proven yourself to be disingenuous and a thief. By the way, you should really check the dates on the idiocy you post... those articles are a year old and time has proven them to be unfounded.

Just my 2 copppers

I referenced that it was someone else prose. I also state the portions of it are not satirical but you make no reference to it whatsoever and use the first paragraph to judge the remainder of the post. Point taken tough guy, it was a satirical piece but portions of it, including the George Washington school of Law professor were not and the "copy and pasted" portion was mentioned to be "Comments Reference Below" You conveniently make no mention of that in order to bolster your one-sided and opinionated judgment. You are something special, calling me out. Im sure if I bothered to take a fine tooth comb to all your incoherent ramblings they wouldnt hold much water either.

Get off your high horse, I didnt use "Quotation Marks" on an internet blog...poor me. I guess Im subject to litigation because we ALL know that everything posted, written, referenced to on the internet is always legitimate. Its an opinion, get over it. It wasnt meant for you, it was simply a rebuttal to the claim that homosexuals have a right to marry but every other special interest group does not.

I invite you to take a fine tooth comb. You will discover that words that are not my own are clearly marked and appropriate credit is given. If your words are to be given any weight, you must first practice honesty. Whether you are subject to litigation or not is not at issue, your integrity is. You did not simply "copy/paste" someone's article... you even stole comments that other people had made on that article and passed them off as your own. Again, this brings your integrity into question... and renders anything else you say worthless.

Reread what I wrote...never did I pass anything else someone wrote as my own. I simply neglected to add quotation marks. Half the arguments on Newsvine are worthless, yours non-withstanding. Congrats for having the upstanding ability to use "QUOTATION MARKS" in your diatribe. That is so commendable then I must believe everything post introduction. Laughable.

In addition, you chose me to scrutinize simply because you have an extreme liberal viewpoint. Never would you chastise your own ilk. They, of course, are well above reproach because there is safety in numbers. Your viewpoint, your perspective and your advice are as worthless as anyone demanding credibility on the internet. Subservience to your hollow demands for integrity on the web is as meaningless as someone printing off their own college degree.

You know what? You may have the last word on the plagiarism issue. It simply isn't worth it. I simply assumed that you wanted to be taken seriously as a credible contributor to the conversation. My mistake. I chose to address you post because you attempted to pass off satire as legitimate news. I actually do not care whether polygamy becomes legal or not. The tax code would be a nightmare to unravel but.. hey, whatever, right? Your tax dollars at work...

As for my "extreme liberal viewpoint" I suppose that is subjective. To TPer's my view might be considered extreme - the left would classify me as too conservative. But you will believe whatever you like... negative, no doubt - because you are angry at being "called out" for your lack of integrity. In any case, the rest of this conversation is yours. Enjoy.

Angry? No. Mildly amused, curious, surprised that someone would actually care. Does anyone really think that all the shared viewpoints (plagiarized or not) would actually change someones mind? Not just no but HELL NO. In fact they probably become more staunch in their stance.

Do I care how people take my typed word? See above. I do it for the same reason everyone else does, to reinvigorate my self appointed views. Its just all fluff and written word is just someone hiding behind their own keyboard.

VenInVa - The 1st amendment has nothing to do with my argument with gay marriage. I stated it,
as an argument against those who stated they wanted to tax the churches.

Also my argument against gay marriage is not based on religion either. My argument is
that it is good for our society to left up heterosexual marriage over other
type of relationships, because it is the building block of our society.

Condor07

That doesn't make sense if the building block of society fails 50% of the time then you have lost the argument already.

Allowing marriage equality strengthens families and builds communities. Please tell me how marriage equality will (1) effect you and your marriage and (2) destabilize society.

Actually, having a society more accepting of homosexuals will cause the divorce rate to go down. Many closet homosexuals fight who they are out of the fear of being different. They get married and have children, only after years of frustration, of not being truly compatible, they divorce.

marriage is a religious function.. State government has no right butting in.. And the only job of Federal government is to make sure states have no right ruling on it in any way up or down.. Its none of the federal or states business... Its up to us and whatever religion that wishes to join us in HOLY marriage.. If a priest of some Talmudic or Catholic priest wants to do it for you its up to them.. If they don't do it I'm sure some ones would.. This is a bunch of bull that we are even arguing over our personal liberty's and which crook gets to dictate over us.. That's tyranny.. Lets oppose tyranny.. Vote Ron Paul to restore our republic for which we stand.

Care4 - I am glad to see you are consistent with the Libertarian platform. :-) I wish your Libertarian candidates could say the same.

Two things;

1. Sorry Billy, nothing is clear in the bible. It was written to be the height of ambiguity. Too bad no one knows who wrote it but it sure has a lot of editors. IT'S A POEM FOR GOD"S SAKE>

2. I don't know how Ron Paul got into the conversation, but if you Libertarians want to see a libertarian society in full career, I suggest you get on a plane to Mogadishu. The sooner, the better.

Um... first of all. F$%# the churches. Second of all, F#$% the churches. They're not paying taxes, they're trying to take over our very democracy with their own rules, regulations, and rituals, and you seem to forget separation of Church and State, which they all scream about undoing so they can get their holy word made the only word. That doesn't say to me "Freedom of Religion".

Freedom means you can pray to whatever God you want and peacefully do whatever Rituals you wanna do, so long as you aren't sacrificing Goats to the Blood God. What they ARE doing is stripping certain citizens of their rights using their biblical word, which to me says "hostile takeover by a secondary power", rather than "peaceful religion".

I firmly believe they lose all rights when they start trying to influence our politics, laws, and our very way of life by forcing us all to become Christian by messing with the system. That's Theology, not Democracy.

What they ARE doing is stripping certain citizens of their rights using their biblical word, which to me says "hostile takeover by a secondary power", rather than "peaceful religion".

Utter rubbish. What they are doing is conveying what they believe to be God's will to the people that believe in that religion. Those same people will make up their minds and cast votes, just like any other citizen. If you believe that being offensive towards people's religious beliefs will somehow make them more likely to vote the way you would like, then by all means, continue your rants.

I firmly believe they lose all rights when they start trying to influence our politics, laws, and our very way of life by forcing us all to become Christian by messing with the system.

Nobody is forcing anyone to become a Christian. In fact, that is impossible. Nobody can be forced to be a Christian, it requires a willing choice.

What you really object to is that they have a different sense of what is right and wrong than you do. And, yes, that may come from their religious beliefs. Would you consider it wrong for an American Indian to vote for laws that more closely reflected his beliefs? How about a Muslim? A Hindu? A Buddhist? To suggest for one moment that people will ignore their beliefs when considering their position on a matter is simply naive. And to think that it is only Christians that do so is even more naive.

Nice try JC, but look at the current war of homosexuals. Why is there a war? Because the religious wrong believe it's immoral. There are state laws that try to stop homosexuality, I've seen states that won't allow sodomy between unmarried couples, meaning legally gay couples can't have sex. Look at the constitutional amendments that constantly seek to undermine and even rip rights away from anyone who isn't straight, or the attack on Abortion all by the religious. Quite simply, yes, they are trying to force THEIR beliefs onto me by changing our laws to what's in their holy book.

This isn't voting for laws that look nice either. They're actively getting out there and trying to change the laws to be more like the Bible, even when it doesn't effect them, much less when no one's getting hurt. For instance, the laws of murder are great, if you kill you go to jail. That's one law most societies seem to agree on. However, Christians and other religious folk are going out of their way to try and make being Gay illegal in some form of way, and to strip people of their rights, all by quoting their "good book".

Try to tell me that doesn't look more like hostile take over by a secondary state trying to become the big dog. I can tell you now that if we got an Evangelist in the White House, the first thing to go would be choice.

marriage is a religious function

Wrong. Holy Matrimony is a religious function.

Marriages were taking place before religion came to be.

I can tell you now that if we got an Evangelist in the White House, the first thing to go would be choice.

What a load of garbage. I suppose our Congress and Supreme Court would simply look the other way. Get real. Our President is not a King or a Dictator. They don't get to "decide" how things will be. The hyperbole really is very unbecoming.

What a load of garbage. I suppose our Congress and Supreme Court would simply look the other way. Get real. Our President is not a King or a Dictator. They don't get to "decide" how things will be. The hyperbole really is very unbecoming.

War in Iraq, Obama's Health Care, the Patriot Act, if you want classic examples, the Vietnam War...

Perhaps I'm confused. Which of those was done without the consent and authorization of Congress? The President does not get to dictate....

Jo Ann - I see now I misread your answer about shunning. Thus the confusion over the useless question I put forward to demonstrate the uselessness of your question.

Rob1234567

Have you ever considered going on the stage? Do you still have a day job?

Hear, hear - spot on!

The real thing to do is eliminate marriage from all civil code (meaning all state and federal laws) and ONLY deal with civil unions. Marriage is a religious endeavor, and the government should not be involved in it. Of course, the reverse is also true. So, remove the term marriage from all civil laws, and ONLY have "unions". This is the proper separation of church and state.

I agree that religion and churches have become so political - and filled with hate - maybe they should also get the opportunity to hate taxes. What they are doing clearly violates their "tax exempt" status and clearly the money would help create jobs and prosperity - and maybe teach them that hatred, bigotry, and becoming political action committees has consequences. They do more to justify bullies actions that any other group in history.

Amen.

The right of conscience and free exercise thereof as expressly provided for in the very 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution dictates that not only do we have the right to vote our conscience, but also guarantees said vote will be counted as equal to every other vote irregardless of Religion, Race, or Gender - the three classes afforded heightened scrutiny/immutability under the U.S. Constitution.

The left has declared war on the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion; the only things standing between them and us.

Amendment One as written would disallow civil unions and domestic partnerships, or any other type of domestic union.

The simple fact that some religious leaders are using religious laws to make their argument in favor of this legislation should make it invalid.

If a religion were to endorse same sex marriage, then this law would violate people's religious rights.

There is only one way to settle this argument and no one seems to want to do that. Since the "marriage license" is a civil matter and not a religious matter, change ALL 1400+ laws relating to "marriage" to read "civil union" and include a clause in that law that all prior "marriage licenses" are to be known legally as "civil union licenses" and controlled by all such laws amended to read civil unions. That would then make all unions eligible for the various state and federal benefits of being in a "committed" relationship, not just the "one man/one woman" relationships.

PP, where did you ever get the interpretation that the First Amendment would ban any civil unions or domestic partnerships? That amendment guarantees your right to freedom of (and from) religion, as well as freedom of speech. It does not set any guidelines for laws relating to "marriage", unions, or any other term for committed relationships. If it did, the SCOTUS would have ruled all 1400+ laws unconstitutional decades (and centuries) ago.

There is no law citing a separation of Church and State. Never has been a law, amendment, edict, etc.

I'm for equal rights for gay couple unions. But I'm pro-marriage between a man & woman.

The gay community is looking for the 'benefits', opting to push for 'marriage' as a fast-track way of achieving the supposed 'benefits'.

Because there are legal benefits of marriage over a union. Give the benefits to unions as well, and then we can all go home.

I don't think religious institutions should be exempt from taxes. I also don't think giving to churches should be tax deductable. That would prove just how dedicated to something prople really are. The only things that should be tax deductable should be contributions that directly help the needy, not to some preacher so they can drive around in an expensive car and stay at 5 star hotels.

I don't understand why is it when it is time for election. Everything is centered around being Gay. Who cares what peoples preferences are. Lets get to the real issues. jobs,jobs,jobs. Let God handle the a Gay issue. Not might right to judge.

There is no law citing a separation of Church and State. Never has been a law, amendment, edict, etc.

/palmface

reread your Constitution, you missed some important parts...

PP, where did you ever get the interpretation that the First Amendment would ban any civil unions or domestic partnerships?

PP didn't say "the First Amendment," s/he said "Amendment One," which is what the NC referendum is called.

Homie D Clown

There is no law citing a separation of Church and State. Never has been a law, amendment, edict, etc.

I'm for equal rights for gay couple unions. But I'm pro-marriage between a man & woman.

The gay community is looking for the 'benefits', opting to push for 'marriage' as a fast-track way of achieving the supposed 'benefits'.

Homie (please) don't play dat.

Gays aren't looking for benefits via marriage any more than straights are. They are looking for the same right you have (to marry the person they love). WITH marriage comes various rights that you cannot get otherwise.

I'm not gay, I am Christian AND I believe that religion DOES NOT have the right to block government in this issue. Christian denominations can easily continue to follow thier beliefs without imposing those beliefs on all in society.

An open question to all who read this:

Where in the Bible does Jesus say that it's ok to FORCE others to be part of God's love? To FORCE others into acting as if they beleive? I know of many places where Jesus spoke and said to LIVE BY EXAMPLE and they will come to God. And if I'm not mistaken there's places where he speaks of the wrongs that some do in pursuit of forcing others into beliefs.

I ask those questions to help me understand why these folks think it's ok to pervert the words of Jesus into a mystical right to FORCE others to think, act and believe the way that you believe in Jesus?

I totally agree with you stance. The major issue with civil unions is protecting the legal rights of consenting adults who have made the decision to spend their emotional and fiscal lives together without the spectre of a disapproving family interfering with their wishes by barring their partner from access to them if they are incapacitated or preventing their partner from being heir to what they have jointly acquired during their life together. That to me is not an attack on the instution of marriage. This law will enable retribution on the survivor and punishment for the couple who have made this choice. If they offend God by making the decision to be together, no mere person or organization has the right to legislate punishment.

Spot on, FormerMarineSgt. I can't answer your question because Jesus never spoke on this topic, at least not recorded in the bible (to my knowledge). The occasional references to homosexuality are not uttered by Christ. Jesus was too busy hanging out with the poor, sick, tax collectors, and prostitutes and protecting them from close-minded individuals.

I think it is ironic that Christ and modern day Christians would not hang out in the same circles.

There is no law citing a separation of Church and State. Never has been a law, amendment, edict, etc.

You are incorrect. The separation of church and state is in the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

There you go.

Jesus did speak out on this topic actually. Matt 19:4-6 where Jesus quotes Genesis where God made them male and female and then says "for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh".

The creation of male and female is the basis for marriage. The only way one gets to anything else is by corruption/sin. One has to deny creation and embrace a fallen, sinful creation. One we are told not to follow (1 John 2:15,16).

Not to mention if you believe Jesus is who He says He is, then all those nasty Old Testament verses were also stated by Him.

Jesus did hang around sinners. But they were the sinners that followed Him and changed their lives. They were repentant about what they had done, they didn't embrace their sins. The sinners that did not follow Him did not change their lives and Jesus was not around them. Jesus said to follow Him one must deny yourself, not embrace yourself (Matt 16:24).

You are very wrong about Matt19:4-6, Jesus is answering a question about divorce--not homosexuality. This is just another example of the religious right trying to twist the words of the bible so that their god continues to hate the same people that they do.

If Jesus was so against homosexuality why did he bless the Roman Centurion and his lover when he could have taken the opportunity to condemn them?

Jesus did speak out on this topic actually. Matt 19:4-6 where Jesus quotes Genesis where God made them male and female and then says "for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh".

Jesus is not speaking about "gay marriage" or homosexuality at all here. If Jesus is what you think he is, then this would have been a great moment to remind people that "[homosexuality] is an abomination." He never does that. Pointing out the typical biological behavior of male and female humans is not the same thing as saying "do this or suffer." Everything else religious people infer from this is exactly that - an interpretation. Funny how your quote here isn't used to force single people to find spouses or condemn divorce, it somehow only magically applies to the "sanctity" of the "definition" of marriage. That's a sure sign of a human manipulating the intent of something written.

The creation of male and female is the basis for marriage. The only way one gets to anything else is by corruption/sin. One has to deny creation and embrace a fallen, sinful creation. One we are told not to follow (1 John 2:15,16).

According to Christian belief, there is no "falling" into a sinful existence. You're already there. Whether your "sin" is homosexuality or something else, you are, by your own beliefs, as sinful as any homosexual out there... no more no less. The point is, we do not have civil laws in this nation in order to punish people for "sin." This nation is not supposed to be, and was never, a Christian theocracy. Judgment for "sins" is, according to Christian mythology, reserved for [G]od alone, not some preacher, some lawmaker, or some court.

Not to mention if you believe Jesus is who He says He is, then all those nasty Old Testament verses were also stated by Him.

If this is true, then surely you reject shellfish, since eating them is also an abomination. I suppose eating shellfish is a sin, then? Mixing cloth? Depending on the mood of a given Christian and what topic you are discussing, the "old laws" are either entirely replaced with the new covenant or Jesus actually came to "reassert" the old laws. Well, which is it? Jesus said that nothing that you put in your mouth can make you unclean... so apparently shellfish is okay to eat now. Where did he actually say that homosexuality is still an abomination, or is that one of those things that squeaked through the theological changeover? I know that Paul condemns "lying with another man as with a woman," but where specifically can any such thing be attributed to Jesus?

Jesus said to follow Him one must deny yourself, not embrace yourself (Matt 16:24).

And yet those who insist on making their religious viewpoints into law insist on everything being the way they want it to be. Have they ever thought of denying themselves the political satisfaction of making the lives of other people conform to their own wishes, or do they take "PRIDE" in using the political system to keep entire groups of people from living according to their own free will, which was given to them by the Christian god, according to your own beliefs?

I say lets follow everything the bible says... We can take Canadians as slaves! And Adam and Eve were not married.

The Bible also says those that succumb to gluttony should take a knife to their neck.

So where's your criticism about 2/3 of the country that's overweight or obese?

Ha! Ha!, the Bible ALSO says to mind upir own business too, but who pays attention to THAT?????

Does that mean I'm going to burn in Hell for all eternity because I had shrimp scampi for dinner last night?

Oh boy, and I guess I'm REALLY in trouble because my best suit is a cotton/poly blend! YIKES!

Get me to a nunnery!

Hate to break it to you, randyk, but the US is not governed by the bible, no matter how much you and your co-religionists wish it were.

I should also note that the Bible is okay with abortion. It too did not consider a fetus a person.

Well, I guess you told us all.

The bible also states that all adulterers must be stoned to death. Anyone who curses their mother or father shall be stoned. Oh... and let's not forget the dietary restrictions...

Once again this is something the church, any church, should not get into. Separation of the state and church is the reason America is here today. Anyone, or church that over steps or blindly get into these problems are doing nothing but destroying our founding fathers principal. I left the Southern Baptist simply because powerful "Religious" leader (i.e. money hungry, greedy) started to change the Baptist doctrine. When individuals like Jerry Falwell, annual income when alive, 8.9 Million Dollars and lived in a Guarded estate worth $5 Mil, James Dodson, annual income of 138 Million Dollars, Pat Roberston, annual income of $459 Million Dollars a year, thats just to name a few,,,,,most large ministerys are taking in Millions of dollars from the "humble". The religious community need to look at their leaders. Bible calls them false profhets, "Mat:7:15 "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheeps's clothing but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Billy Graham was in my opinion the one untouchable leader in the Christian world.

Excellent point, Toasty. As always. I used to consider myself a Pro-life democrat (before that, a Republican). I went to my catechism and the bible to see what scriptures denounce abortion. The ones that are used by Pro-life organizations actually describe the importance of the woman's life over the fetus. There are no descriptions of abortions as we know it in the Bible. The one line that could be considered anti-abortion (after the rest are closely scrutinized and disqualified for being irrelevant) is the lamentation of a man that was in a fit, asking for God's forgiveness. He describes being sinful since the moment he was conceived. It was hyperbole.

Ask a Christian which scriptures speak against abortion...to my shock, none really apply.

randyk - You're right. This American doesn't care what the bible says. I respect yours and everyone elses religious beliefs until they are perceived or used in secular law.

Since you are 'fond' of using the word of god and saying things about the bible... here are some other things to consider:

Dear Dr. Laura

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other
specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is,
how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend
of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can
you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don.t agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room
here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn.t we just burn them to
death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with
their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-2945.html

So.. do you get to pick and choose what parts of the Bible you are going to follow??

Religion and churches have become disgusting and dishonest and so political - and filled with hate - maybe they should also get the opportunity to hate taxes. What they are doing clearly violates their "tax exempt" status and clearly the money would help create jobs and prosperity - and maybe teach them that hatred, bigotry, and becoming political action committees has consequences. They do more to justify bullies actions that any other group in history.

It's about time:

I have a question for Dr Laura too.

I want to go out and rape a woman. Do I really need to pay 50 schekels to the woman's father and then take her as my wife?

No, we should just throw out the bible and do whatever we please.

Let's all run out and murder, commit adultery, steal, lie, sleep with mothers, sisters, brother, aunts, and uncles like the heathen do. Why do we need rules? Science says we are just monkeys anyway.

Lets just live like it.

Now pass the dope and strip.

@ UnlostSoul

Because, as we know, atheists are all naked, murderous mother-rapers, right? Because only the fear of Sky Daddy keeps us in line? Jeez, talk about projection!

It's always worth quoting Steven Weinberg: "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion."

UnlostSoul,

Where in the bible does it say anything about "dope?" The closest thing in there is regarding alcohol, which is a sacrament. Other than that, people only seem to be able to find one passage: that the body is your temple and defiling it is sinful. Welllll, I suppose that eating twinkies, or foods high in cholesterol, or working out so hard you hurt yourself, or being fat, or smoking cigarettes or doing anything considered "unhealthy" is therefore defiling one's body and a sin. What, though, if you bake some weed brownies and have a good night... there are no ill health effects from that (never killed anyone... hasn't been shown to be unhealthy). So, then, since alcohol is poisonous and is a sacrament, and is NOT considered defiling one's body, then none of those other things, especially perhaps eating some weed, could reasonably be considered to be sinful. I'm sure you'll disagree, but I'm also sure that it will be based on personal preferences and biases rather than anything logical or truthful.

UnlostSoul - You crack me up. Just because you need a god to keep you from being an awful person doesn't mean I have the same fault. I am good for the sake of being good. It isn't because I fear a god's punishment or crave a god's reward. I am just good. I'm so sorry you can't understand that.

The "historic" definition of marriage has already changed TONS of times. This one is hardly unprecedented.

I suppose then (since we're using the historical definition of marriage) the religious right should have no issues. Marriage of course existed long before it was considered having anything to do with religious ceremony. Its oldest use is of a binding legal contract between two individuals - could be opposite gender or same gender. Only once the Catholic Church hijacked the concept (along with hundreds of other pagan / civil ideas) turning it into a sacrament does marriage have anything to do with the church.

You will also find it interesting reading to know that the reason the Church got involved in the legal/civil aspect of marriage was for control over those legal contracts. It has always had nothing to do with god, holiness or the bible and everything to do with control over how people interact with each other.

And the Bible doesn't run our country. Don't understand why they keep trying to make laws based off religion.

Dont forget stonings and murder of non-Christians

....and the abomination of eating shellfish and wearing polyester.

Not only rights to do such things, but sometimes even the requirement. If your brother is killed before he can father a son, you are obligated to marry his widow and father a son with her.

Also, if you divorce and marry again, you are by definition an adulterer......I'll start gathering stones for your stoning now.

And I find it interesting that they want all this anti-gay stuff, but ignore cheeseburgers (Leviticus and all).

Where's the constitutional amendment to ban cheeseburgers?

I LOVE you guys who have actually read Leviticus and don't ignore the hundreds of other verses that way too many "Christians" love to ignore. If we can ignore/reinterpret the milk/meat, shrimp, wool/leather, marrying your sister-in-law, plural marriage, slavery, etc, etc, etc, admonitions, why can't we reinterpret the one verse about homosexuality.

Sandtrich, full of lies and hate today, at least you are consistent.....

have a great week.

sandtrich,

There are many things the Bible says however you are quoting out of context to the whole book. This is the same book that says there is now no longer male or female, slave or free, Jew or Gentile...all are equal in God's sight. I can take any book and quote out of context to make it say anything I want...I can do that with the Constitution as well. The fact is the Bible is not silent on polygamy and in the New Testament makes a case for all church leaders to be the husband of one wife. It shows a progression that matches the progression of understanding in a Christians life. The Bible is not silent on the issue of women in leadership as well...in the Old Testament Debora was "the" leader in Israel ordained by God for the purpose. So many want to believe the Bible is just a collection of old useless stories that they miss the truth. The truth is it is a long story from beginning to end about a God that loves us and is willing to be misunderstood, misrepresented, beaten, and nailed to a cross so we can have the freedom to choose life. God the Father was not punishing his Son for our "sins" he and Christ were forgiving us in the only way possible by taking the consequences on themselves.

Let me put it this way...if you forgive someone for stealing from you does it cost you something? It cost you the value of the stolen items...correct? If Jesus was forgiving the world for taking something from him...our close relationship as sons and daughters...would it cost Him something to forgive us? It cost Him his life so you could have the life He intended for you in the first place. The context and comprehension of the context is important in understanding the total message transmitted.

Come let us reason together is and invitation to examine the whole story in context.

Judy1217 -

Thanks for your post #8.5. I am not Christian, but I read the Bible daily. And it is packed with some very strange stuff. The Old Testament has no less than 613 commandments, and most Christians I know only claim to follow the "ten". The LORD thy God orders people to put railings on their roofs, to have only one measuring device, to not yoke an ass and an ox together, to not plant more than one kind of seed in your garden, to only carry one weight ... very silly stuff. My Christian friends all say they don't have to follow those, but some still want to follow the "homosexuality is an abomination" paradigm.

It seems rather hypocritical to me.

I wish you the best.

Atlas shrugging
Sandtrich, full of lies and hate today, at least you are consistent.....

have a great week.

Good day, Miss Rand. Shed some of your great myopic intellectual babble with us.

Uh Jim, if you read the bible daily and spout the rhetoric, you ARE a christian, or the victim of some other form of mass brainwashing. Just because you don't assume the title doesn't mean you are different. Gays have every right to marry, love and be happy, and my marriage of 20+ years won't be affected by gay marriage. Why would anyone else's? If you think gay marriage threatens straight marriage, then your marriage was in trouble already.

All these baby boomer conservative christian republinazis just need to hurry up and die already. Your time of intolerance and hatred is over.

I don't really believe that Billy Graham, said any of the things he is supposed to say. He had a stroke a while back and is 93 and I believe that he is being manipulated, by his son. His son is one scary, mean, angry, man, who gives Christians a bad name. He has been running his Father's ministrey in to the ground. This law they want to pass, also says no domestic partnerships, or any other kind of law that can help people in matters of property and rights when a partner dies. Gay people only want the same rights as other people who love one another and want to share each others, lives and be protected and have all the benefits, of any other marriage. We only recognize civil marriage in this country. Religions do not control the legal benefits of marriage. Religions, do not have to marry anyone if they don't want to. Marriage in this country, is a legally binding contract, that has no bearing on religion at all. As for that crap, that marriage is about procreation, why do people get married who are not having children, or in-capable of having children, allowed to marry?

Jim 311 Thank you for your acknowledgement. Isn't it interesting that the Ten Commandments make no mention of homosexuality, yet they are considered God's most important commandments? Nor does Jesus make any statement. My way of thinking - if it's not one of the Big Ten and it doesn't come from Jesus, it's not an issue. My best wishes to you, too.

Middle Finger,

All these baby boomer conservative christian republinazis just need to hurry up and die already. Your time of intolerance and hatred is over.

Don't you think it's a bit brazen to say you want people who believe differently than you do, to die.... and then suggesting that THEY are the ones that are intolerant and hateful? You seriously need to look in the mirror......

Is this the voice of experience speaking? (sarcasm)

Awwww, he got a BJ and you didn't. Get over it.

What's Newts? Infidelity for everyone!

Bill Clinton's idea of sex aside, he is here demonstrating more Christian charity than Billy Graham, whose profession it is to do so. The problem with so many religious right-wingers is that they are not Christians at all, really, they are Old Testament-arians. They want to restrict, constrain, judge, punish and bring down hellfire on everyone like the biblical patriarchs. (Ooh, it feels so good to be Holier Than Thou). Christ's birth was supposed to signal a rapproachment between the god of the OT and the people of the New, wasn't it?

You are truly digusting.

Amen!

It doesnt Tampa. You make an excellent point --- If you dont like gay marriage, simply dont marry your own gender.

Additionally, if you don't like gay marriage, don't support it.

why do they have to be "married"?

and what point does it stop? What if I want to marry a man AND a woman to myself? Is that polygamy?

@jw101, yes that is polygamy. There is no need to worry about where it 'stops' because it doesn't require any change to the way the law stands now. You can be married to one person at a time. The only thing they want is to be able to do that exact same thing with the person of their choosing.

People should be allowed to marry whom they love regardless of the gender.

I'm in love with three women. Can I marry them all? Just asking.

Sure, Mr. Steady. As long as they all consent, go right ahead.

You can be legally married to one of them at a time, but you can have as many religious marriage ceremonies as you can afford. There, see, wasn't that easy?

But it's not so easy, see? Why can't I be legally married to all three of them at once? If the government is obligated to allow gay marriage as many here are saying they should be, then they should allow polygamy. If they allow one and not the other I say it is unfair. I want equal rights. I want to be allowed to marry whomever I love and as many as I love. And I want the benefits to go along with it, like claiming them all three as dependents on my tax return since none of them work and I would be supporting all of them.

Mr. Steady ~ so, if you are allowed to marry multiple women, will you support gays the right to marry? Start a movement, man.

Steady - You cannot claim your spouse as a dependent on your tax returns whether they work or not.

But you see, that isn't 'equal' rights. All they are asking for is for the laws that already exist (that people can only be married to one person at a time) be extended to them (so that they can also be married to the person they wish to be married to). Your bogus scenario would require the laws to be rewritten.

All they are asking for is for the laws that already exist (that people can only be married to one person at a time)

Actually, most of the laws that currently exist specifically say that it is between one man and one woman, not "one person".

The people have spoken LOUD and CLEAR !!! NO MARRIAGE for HOMOSEXUALS !!! Respect the vote !!!! ( in anticipation of the landslide vote ) I guess America isn't ok with gays and marriage like the Libbies say , hu ? Now put it to a vote in the other 20 states like Massachusetts , which by the way already voted once on it and our LIBERAL legislature refused to act on it !!! LOSERS !

Sorry, some old dude who bought too hard into ancient fairy tales shouldn't be an authority on how others can manage their lives.

If they want to preach politic's. Its about time we tax all places of worship, or in my eyes all places of bigots

Kuhao- Your argument is idiotic. Please stop repeating yourself. Do some research and you'll find how dumb you sound when you say this. Yeessh.

Zona - do you believe that by disparaging their religion you will somehow get them to agree with you? Or, do you think they will suddenly abandon their strongly held beliefs because "you" think it's a fairy tale? Perhaps a more persuasive argument would be more effective..... assuming you can come up with anything other than derogatory remarks.

The Bible also says those that succumb to gluttony should take a knife to their neck.

I guess the 2/3 of the nation that is overweight is in trouble then, right?

The Bible gives you choices for a healthy long life in the way you eat and live. It is consistent with what science tells us about diet, exercise, and lifestyle issues that give longer life. You can look at any issue as the glass is half full or half empty. The choice is yours to make and is in your best interest...but it is your choice guaranteed by Jesus himself. He is not about force, coercion, lies, misdirection, or temptation. He is about the "truth" that will set you free in all ways. Check it out sometime and you will understand. It is not about denomination or brand.

Just a hint context to time and place will help you understand much of the advice given. Wool and cotton wear differently and expand and contract differently and absorb water differently. It was advice given to make clothes last a long time in the environment the people lived in. In fact in 40 years of wandering in the wilderness their clothes and shoes did not wear out...read it for yourself before making conclusions. Some would see that as a miracle or evidence of good planning...the choice is yours...believe or not it is a choice based on reason, conscience, and free will not force or coercion.

When it comes to ignorance on history AND the bible, Billy Graham leads the pack. Only narrow minded bigots (include here ALL of the GRAHAM family) could conclude that marrage has ALWAYS been between one man and one woman. Instead of beating your bible, read the damn thing with your eyes open.

How many wives did Abraham have? Marrage has ALWAYS been between one man and one women.

How many wives did Issac have? Marrage has ALWAYS been between one man and one woman.

How many wives did Jacob have? All sisters, mind you!

How many wives did solomon have? And the wisest of men, until of course, Billy Graham was born.

Always is a long time and everywhere is a big place. The TRUTH, the whole TRUTH and nothing but the TRUTH is there has NEVER been a world wide definition of marrage as being between only one man and one woman. ( There were no neptuals in the garden of eden. ( If you had only one man and one woman, what would be the function of marrage? ) In fact, the case could be made that Adam and Eve were the first couple in judeo christain history to be living in sin.

If you are an evangelical christain it is perfectily ok to say in OUR tradition and under the bushel we live, marrage has always been between one man and one women. When you come out from under your bushel you will find that there are almost seven billion people on the planet MOST of them are NOT christian. and donot adhere to your traditions.

Less than 70 years ago, there were still states in american where it was ILLEGAL for a white women to marry a black man. I suspect, given the opportunity, the good people of South Carolina would add an amendment to the constitution to define marrage as a union between one man and one women of the SAME RACE. And fifty years ago the catholics and the jews would have added AND THE SAME RELIGION.

If gay people want to committ themselves to protect one another; for better or for worse, for rich or for poor, in sickness or in health for life, why would anyone but ego-centric nut cases what to prevent it.

Carl A. Sciame

The old testiment also says that parents can kill their children and women should not leave the house during their periods. Jesus Christ would cry if he saw people using his name to do anything other than loving and taking care of one another.

Nope. gay babies come from genetic misfires, and from being raised by single moms or by a grandmother... everyone knows this. Ask Clay Aiken...

Got any peer-reviewed evidence to support that assertion, Homie?

No, I didn't think so. Why don't you let the grown-ups talk for a while...

Homie, you truly are a clown, but also a bigger idiot than a clown. What a racist, intolerant, backwards country f*ck. You give true rednecks a bad name.

What's next - a shotgun and some Coors; time for some gay bashing?

You make me want to puke.

Only heterosexuals have babies.Homosexuals make experiments.

Still with the Bush hating?

Bush started several successful aids and malaria relef efforts in Africa with international support, started a Medicare drug coverage program (which seems to be the opposite of your statement of cutting services to the old and sick), went to war with a group of terrorists who seeked to end America, and took away one of the world's most inhumane and genocidal dictators.

He's busy trying to figure out how to become a poor man since"It is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven"

newbook need to write a newbook.....even the other libs have stop blaming Bush, lol. i think they are afraid of the blaming Obama that is to come....

have a good week

Actually it was Obama and company that cut the Medicade and Medicare. The Congress/House approved the wars, All the Dems and Reps. jumped in feet first.

So you are the reason I'm getting fat. Stop eating those doughnuts!!

I loved the doughnut line. Brilliant!

The world is chock full of hypocrites. Not to mention those that want to impose their interpretation of the bible down your throats. I am grateful that I can form opinions based on my thoughts and beliefs and not on some collection of stories.

...sigh.

PLEASE - reread the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.... THERE IS NO 'Separation of Church and State'. PERIOD. The intent of the First Amendment was to keep the State out of the Church's business, NOT to keep the Church out of the State's business.

Homie....if the church wants to play politics, they need to pay admission like everyone else.

cdpulani - they have paid admission. The government is attempting to step into an area where they aren't allowed.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

How is that not the VERY DEFINITION of "separation of church and state? Hell, I challenge you do come up with a BETTER definition.

Homie, what admission is that? Last time I checked, churches don't pay taxes.

"Concress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Homie, what that means is that Congress can not make a law based on religious beleifs, nor can Congress prohibit anyone from following the religion of their choice.

His bible is not the same as my bible so who do you listen too. The Bible has been edited time and again and prior to that handed down by word of mouth. Check your history and you'll find that everytime a king didn't like something in the Bible he didn't like the Bible was then edited and has been so many times who knows what the original text was.

Lady Cat,

Actually the Bible has been edited many times to keep the word usage relevant to the times. I will give you an example. The term fagot years ago meant a burning stick or cigarette and now it is a derogatory term. So as word meanings change the Bible has been carefully translated to maintain the original intent of the original language to the time and place. Quite a remarkable book and is a great story from beginning to end. It has been reproduced and translated more than any other book in history and lead to the development of the printing press by the way.