Why? What do you care if people get married? Just how does this effect your life one iota?

Four square behind discriminating against the military that protects you? Your patriotism is commendable...

Nobody is getting married here. Same-sex 'marriage' is an oxymoron which makes about as much sense as kosher pork. It it's not just about how it effects me, it isn't about me. This is about our communities, which these unions are destroying. If marriage means anything, then marriage means nothing.

Now, let's move on to the topic of incestuous 'marriage'.

Same-sex 'marriage' is an oxymoron

This is about our communities, which these unions are destroying.

I'd love to hear your explanation of reasoning behind those comments.

Crubs,

Marriage is a union between two people. If two strangers of the same sex getting married impacts your relationship at all, then you have a weak relationship. Gay couples and marriages do not destroy communities, it is the hatred and prejudice people like you spew that is destroying them. If what other people do in marriage impacts the quality of marriage as a whole, then it has already been destroyed by the all-night Vegas wedding chapels, celebrity marriages, and show like the Bachelor.

I'll never understand why politicians are so interested in my sex life!

Good to see that the Oligarchy is focused on the most important issues!

WHAT A JOKE!

Don't let them distract you, freedom is becoming just a word, you are owned!

I wish that the representatives involved and their constituents seek to discuss this with their gay family members and then vote with their hearts.

Can the republicans pass any bills of a social nature that does not take away rights from minority groups of any kind? I mean, they tried to attach this garbage to a spending bill just like they did to the so-called JOBS bills they passed. If they continue on this path to exclude people as oppose to being an "inclusive" party, I can see the republican party becoming like the labor party or the libertarian party... where people will perceive that a vote for a republican is just a throw away vote.

Hey republicans, gays are not going to go away! And no one cares what your bible says, this is a secular nation!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM

No one should have died over this.

The year is 2012 gentlemen, not 1950.

Same-sex marriages are becoming increasing common and eventually will be the law of the land in all 50 states.

.

Reminds me of segregated military bases and bans against mixed-race marriages. When will people stop discriminating against those different from themselves, but in every other way just as patriotic, hard-working, and in love?

Come on, Repugs... your homophobic, racist, sexist, and elitist hatred is showing! You can't even hide it until after the election? No, you're courting ignorant, hateful Americans just like yourselves and working yourselves into a frenzy over having a successful black (bi-racial) President about to win re-election.

Gays have always been in the military, and even gay married couples already proudly wear the uniform worldwide. Bans won't make them go away, but we can vote hateful politicians out of office!

We have a fiscal "cliff" looming in the horizon and they're wasting time on this pointless @!$%#? Until you're willing to send your sons off to serve in the military you have NO say in how people who are sacrificing their livelihood choose to find happiness.

Maybe we can deport this white trash from OK and MS.

Sens. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., and Roger Wicker, R-Miss how about actually doing something that actually matters to America? Just once? Mr. Wicker you complain about Federal government spending. Well how about your state giving back most of the Federal money you get? After all your state gets more Federal money than it pays in Federal taxes.

The Senators are gonna have a rough row to hoe with this one. People do not seem to understand that what is happening is not "same-sex marriage" but a very limited private contract that is, in no way, the equivalent of heterosexual equivalents. If two people of the same sex "marry" the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) forbids the federal government to recognize it in any meaningful way. Two men or women cannot file a joint return even in the case of one being wholly dependant on the other financially, such as an ill spouse.

Recently appeals courts have made several rulings against the IRS in cases involving jointly-filed federal tax returns (most states require that your state return be filed the same was as your federal return) and such things as inheritance taxes. The IRS is claiming that gay "marriages" are not valid where deductions are concerned, but are valid where penalties or additional taxes are concerned. But the appeals courts have all ruled so far that the federal government cannot "unmarry" a couple for tax purposes since the right to regulate marriage happens at the state level, trumping such things as DOMA and the IRS. In the view of the courts when a state marries two people legally, the federal government has no ability to fail to recognize the marriage.

BTW DOMA's most vocal advocates and co-sponsors were Rep Foley and Sen Craig ---- both gay and one a pedophile.

Equal rights for everyone...except gays--brought to you by the government.

Sen Inhofe is the one who wanted to jail climate change scientists too.

Surly -

Yeah, right. Next thing we know blacks (who are also a minority for population) or Native Americans or Hispanics, or Jews are going to expect equal treatment! The nerve!!!

Surley

And just how is this dictating to the 98% how to live their lives?

Seriously? You're speaking of pedophiles...not homosexuals. You're speaking of statutory rape....not homosexuality. Are heterosexual child predators recruiting heterosexuals? Seriously? Welcome to the 16th century.

Many people don't really care what the homosexuals do with each other and neither do I. What cracks me up is the phrase "gay pride". Why would a man be proud that he let another man sodomize him? We've come a long way from the Deliverance movie eh? I don't think ol' Ned was too proud.

Surly,

Everything you have said is absolutely false. They do not have all the rights we all do. If you feel that they have the same rights, then why don't you file 'single' on your next tax return if you are married and see just how their rights feel. Your sexual insinuations are absolutely false and made of fear and hatred. FYI heterosexuals also engage in those sexual habits as well. You also have the child things wrong as well, those are pedophiles, not homosexuals, and heteros are involved in that too. I am getting a little sick and tired of intolerant prudes thinking they know what is best for everyone. Hey, if you enjoy your sex in the same position with the lights off, then good for you, but don't dictate what others can engage in.

Surly, I'm not surprised by your statement that you are confused because you clearly have no grasp of any actual facts regarding this matter. You are fed by your own latent fears and are most likely a closet homosexual, you have been recruited.

PatriotTom

Yeah, right. Next thing we know blacks (who are also a minority for population) or Native Americans or Hispanics, or Jews are going to expect equal treatment! The nerve!!!

Please do not confuse people that are a race with people who make a choice. And I know the next thing I'll hear is that being gay "is not a choice," if it is not a choice; prove it.

Panther - comment 1.27 - I agree, it's a choice. I have a neighbor who chose to be blind. How do I know that? Well, I'M not blind, so it had to have been his choice. The liberal medical field is in on the conspiracy, claiming that he was born that way, but I know better.

By the way, how many studies have YOU conducted on this?

I am gay.

Have been since way before I even knew what it was.

I was not molested. Nobody 'recruited me" How ridiculous.

I did not choose to be gay, it just is...it took me a while ot be able to deal with it, and that was because of how hateful bigots acted.

I have no interest in sex with kids, matter of fact I will get you arrested if I can if I know you are doing it.

I don't want to teach your kids about fisting, to be honest, I don't want to hear about it or do it personally.

I and my husband do a heck of a lot less in public than I see straight couples do every day.

The 2%, 0r 2.5% or 4% or 6% figures I see bigots throw out are all lies.

You don't like gay marriage? Don't marry one. Problem solved.

What you bigots really hate is we will not 'ride in the back of the bus' anymore, we will not hide and let you demonize us, we will not go quietly. We will have all the rights you take for granted and we are not ashamed.

THAT IS WHAT GAY PRIDE IS

Respecting yourself

Refusing to be targeted

...and you really hate that.

Too bad, this is AMERICA...the land of the free.

You don't like freedom, then you can go.

Your kind is dying off anyway

It is just a matter of time now

Please do not confuse people that are a race with people who make a choice. And I know the next thing I'll hear is that being gay "is not a choice"

Even if it were true that homosexuality was a choice (I'm not going to bother to argue with you, when people have their heads stuck so far in the sand it's hard for them to ever pull them out), how does that in any way validate discrimination? Being a republican is a choice. Being a christian is a choice. Being a bigot is a choice. Should we take away constitutionally protected rights from those (dare I say "you") people too?

One might call your stance moronic. And I know the next think I'll hear is that being moronic "is not a choice," if it is not a choice; prove it.

they are playing with stuff in the corporately controlled media to get the gay vote...while the country goes to hell...it's just corporate america play'n the gay's...same as they do with the undocumented workers...hispanic vote...just play'n them for votes...some people are so shallow...oh well...

annnnnnnnnnnnd...so why is this more important that jobs? I'm confused...isn't it the red elephants who make a big deal about how a significant number of individuals are still unemployed?

just two more rightwing nitwits

When someone brings up that homosexuality is a choice, they tend to get stumped when I ask them "when did you choose to be hetero?" I mean if sexual orientation is a choice, then you must have made that same choice as well.

I am not gay, nor do I have any interest in being involved in a same sex relationship. But I have the cognitive ability to recognize that homosexual relationships are not destroying communities...heteros are doing just fine in destroying themselves. You mean to say that some white trailer trash meth addict who beats his wife and molests his daughter is much more preferred than two guys who simply want to live happily ever after?

I say bull@!$%#.

Technical Sergeant Leonard P. Matlovich (July 6, 1943 – June 22, 1988)^[1] was a Vietnam War veteran, race relations instructor, and recipient of the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star.^[2]

^{His tombstone reads:}

^{"When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one."}

^{Hasn't the military moved past that whole "Don't ask, don't tell" bs and since when did our military become non secular?}

man from uncle: your argument makes no sense, unless you are comparing blind to being gay; which makes no sense.

Frankly True: good for you, as long as you are happy. Also, just because I do not agree with something does not make me a bigot. If you use that logic, we are all bigots.

Nick_L: What constitutional rights do heterosexuals have that gay people do not? Whats with the name calling, is that how you deal with anyone that does not have the same opinion as you do?

plain bob: True!

Ojibobo: Heterosexual is natural, do I need to explain the whole reproductive thing? As far as the rest of your statement I never said they were destroying anything, anything except being free to think the way you want to.

For the record, I do not care if you are gay or not. I do not care if you marry the same sex or not; stop telling me I have to accept it or I'm a bigot or hateful. All this crap the LGBT movement brings up reminds me of the brown shirts tactics used in Germany before WWII. Stop telling lies and comparing yourselves to minority races who truly had to fight and die for equal rights.

Please folks...give me one reason why I should not be allowed to marry my sister, brother, mother, or father. Don't tell me the gene pool will be f-ed up because clearly marriage is not about conceiving future generations as homosexual marriage does not result in children. Don't tell be about incest...how does that apply now that marriage means a union between 2 people "in love". I can get fixed and therefore my sister won't get pregnant.

Do you want to marry your mother? Does your mother want to marry you? If either answer is "No", then no marriage. You see, it's simple. No matter what gender or how closely related or what race or which religion, both parties to any marriage must give their consent, freely given, and fully informed of the facts. If either one does not consent, then no marriage. Simple. Problem solved.

And before you go there, a polygamous marriage would also require consent from all involved, which should severely limit it. It's hard enough for two people to consent, 3 would be more difficult, and more than that would make it increasingly difficult. Again, problem solved.

What in the name of God do you people want to do to us next?

We don't want to "do" anything to you. Just stop sticking your nose into personal and private affairs that don't involve you at all. Is that too much to ask?

crackhoe: pleasuring yourself? "...on and on and on, but I think you get the picture..."

John, your question is a good one. With all of the things we need to address, we're focusing on issues which will not improve the standard of living, the economy, our national security or the fiscal health of the government.

Instead, our congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate, are more interested in dictating the private lives. In effect, the party which always talks about how great the US liberties and freedom are, would love to take freedoms away.

This doesn't directly affect me, I'm not gay. But, I do not like the idea of taking or restricting the freedom of anyone, especially based on sexual orientation.

The Republicans will continue to ignore the real issues in America as long as they can get more votes by perpetuating the bigotry and hatred against ANY minority group they can do it to and get more votes for it. Hell - they'd even do it against white middle age males if it got them more votes than it lost them!.

It's thier way of life. they think it's normal. They think it's ok to be bigoted and discriminate against folks in a willy nilly way.

What 'it' actually is: It's Pathetic.

My wife is a PhD research psychologist as are a number of our friends. To a person, they regard the gay-bashing such as goes on on NewsVine as a clear sign that the poster has problems with their own sexual identity. Normal heterosexual people are not threatened by gays. The people who are threatened are people with "bad thoughts" who think that gay-bashing will fool everyone into not noticing.

You have to remember that the most vicious anti-gay legislators every were Rep. Foley (R) (who was also a pedophile and a huge advocate for anti-pediphilia legislation) and Sen. Craig of mens room to-tapping fame. Any psychologist would have told you that both were gay well before they were "outed."

So rave away! We know you're really gay .....

These are the politicians little red herrings. As long as they can keep people stirred up over these "non issues" then they will ignore the elephant in the room -- the economy.

Frankly, the governemnt has NO BUSINESS in our private lives, no matter what our persuasion. Like "lost" this doesn't directly affect me, but whether or not my gay friends marry, nor not, has no more impact on my life than if my hetero friends marry, or not ... except perhaps a nice ceremony and party to go to,

I have YET to see one person who objects to this give a good reason why or how (aside from the Old Testament) a gay couple marrying has any impact on a straight couple's life.

No, not all their time. There is the time they spend voting to overturn the ACA again and the all the legislation to declare that it is really, really, really really illegal to use Federal funds to pay for abortions. Not like they have to worry about jobs or the economy or anything like that.

Actually both my Hetero and Gay friends impacts me a great deal! Like you I enjoy a good party and sharing it with people who are in love is simply glorious!!!

*rage*

Why must they keep sticking their Republican religious chocolate in my secular legislative peanut butter? Oh wait, that analogy won't work... it sounds delicious.

What part of this is about having government control over your life. I thought the repukes, in no way wanted the government to intrude into peoples lives and tell them how to live. The repukes must have a real hardon about what goes on consenting adults bedrooms. So they don't mind government control as long as it them making the decisions on what gets controlled. What a bunch of flaming hypocrites.

I am from Oklahoma and now live in Oregon. I can see that Mr. Inhofe is narrow minded as most Okie's are. I was that way before moving about the country and seeing people for who they are and now what they might be, which is what I suggest Mr. Inhofe to do. Now, while seeing to dudes kissing still blows my mind, who am I to break up happyness! So, Republicans, please keep on task even though my vote will not go your way!

No, this is what REPUBLICANS spend THEIR time on.

Let the Republicans keep showing their true colors as they promote hatred and intolerance. It's who these religious zealots are, and it's just one more reason why Americans will vote against them.

...because you just can't HATE ENOUGH...

Sounds to me like they just do not want Neil and Bob on the base.

"So help me God" is not in the Constitution. Actually, the Constitution explicitly allows for an oath to be sworn or for an affirmation to be affirmed, removing any religious significance, and in which case, "So help me God" would be omitted.

Hey, Tonto. Its the same of oath of office taken by the President, Vice President, Supreme Court Judges, Senators, Representatives, military members, and federal employees. Perhaps you missed that part in the swearing in of the all the Presidents since the time they televised. An affirmation, yes, may be made instead as a matter of conscience. However, very few take this option and so do otherwise swear out of some sense they are accountable to God for their actions towards another.

The presidential oath, as specified in the constitution: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The constitution requires an oath or affirmation for other positions, but does not specify the wording. That was codified in subsequent law. "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

It's pretty clear about the "no religious test" part.

Smoking dope is legal in some states, but not militarily on any of our bases. As for the picture mentioned in another, perhaps the spirit, if not the letter, of the oath taken was violated. Its a judgment call by his commander or a tribunal if the oath he took was violated.

An oath is not a test.

Whether you agree with or not, DOMA is still the law of the land. As such, the use of federal facilities for performing a marriage between two men or two women is illegal. Also, for a federal official to perform such a ceremony on government time is illegal. You may not agree with it, but that is the law as it stands today. Neither the President or anyone else in the government has the right to ignore a duly passed federal statute, whether they agree with it or not. One of my biggest problems with Obama is that he has repeatedly directed the justice department not to uphold certain laws because he does not agree with them. This is a violation of his oath of office. If Obama, or anyone else's for that matter, does not like a law they are free to work to get it changed. However until it is changed, or ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, it must be enforced. Our government can not survive if each President is allowed to unilaterally decide which federal laws they are going to enforce or not enforce.

In this regard, the Supreme Court has already ruled in no uncertain terms that "marriage" between persons of the same sex is not a civil right under the constitution.

This is the current law of the land as later affirmed by DOMA. Thus, the argument that it is a civil right has no basis in nature, fact, law, or the constitution.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on DOMA, and several lower Federal courts have ruled against parts or all of it in various decisions.

Whether you agree with or not, DOMA is still the law of the land. As such, the use of federal facilities for performing a marriage between two men or two women is illegal.

But, what's this part of the proposed restrictions that bans "marriage-like" ceremonies? I thought that right-wing WANTS gays to settle for civil unions instead of marriage, on the grounds that they are the same, just different.

Perhaps you missed that part in the swearing in of the all the Presidents since the time they televised.

Televised? George Washington added "so help me God" to his oath when he was sworn in and subsequent presidents have followed suit. However, it is not required and certainly may be omitted. There's a difference between law and tradition.

You're mixing apples and oranges. Of course, the court hasn't ruled yet on DOMA. And, when they do, I believe they'll recognize this to be extra-constitutional issue to be decided by all of the states by a constitutional referendum as the equal rights amendment for women. To do otherwise, could be preceived by many being discriminatory against the woman's movement in favor of the gay rights movement. This is a political issue requiring political rather than judicial remediation.

the use of federal facilities for performing a marriage between two men or two women is illegal. Also, for a federal official to perform such a ceremony on government time is illegal.

DOMA does not say that at all. The law as written defines marriage for the purposes of federal law as being between one man and one woman. It says absolutely nothing about the use of federal facilities.

Technically speaking, under DOMA, a lesbian couple can get married at any facility that will host their ceremony. It's just that their marriage will not then be recognized by the federal government.

Likewise there is no law forbidding a federal official from voluntarily taking part in a marriage ceremony that all participants understand will not be enforced by the federal government, as long as no claims are being made to the contrary.

If DOMA actually outlawed what you suggest it does, there would be no reason for Rep King, et al to pass other legislation.

Republican logic:

How dare we allow a federal facility, and a federal official, to be used during the signing of a state-based contract dealing with property rights, asset allocation, inheritance, hospital visitation, etc. The thought of a federal facility and federal official overseeing the signing of a government document is outrageous.

It makes sense... as long as you don't think about it.

I believe they'll recognize this to be extra-constitutional issue to be decided by all of the states by a constitutional referendum as the equal rights amendment for women.

Why would you think that, when the Court has already ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and that has been found to apply in all of the DOMA and Prop H8 challenges, as well?

Furthermore, we do not vote on civil rights in this country.

So help me Zeus

Yes, between a man and woman, but not a so called marriage between persons of the same sex. Further, your argument is baseless, so called marriage between persons of the same sex is explicitly, nor implicitly in the opinion of most Americans, not a civil right under our nation's constitution.

“President Obama and his administration are dismissing their responsibility to uphold the law of the land by unilaterally deeming DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage) unworthy of enforcement,” Inhofe said.

I would expect better from a sitting Senator. Words have meanings, and his job is based around using words. The Obama Administration is enforcing DOMA, they have chosen to not Defend DOMA in the courts. Either Mr. Inhofe is being sloppy or he is being intentionally ingenious.

Why are two Republican Senators trying to tell the Milatary that they can't use the Chapel for same sex marriages.

I wish our Congress would do what they are chartered to do under the Constituation and quit trying to legislate against Gays.

I am not an expecrt but Iwas in the United States Airforce between 1954 and 1958.

We had Gays in our Squadron and no one seems to care and it did not make me a bad person for associating with Gays. What is the big deal with these Politicians and Religioust Fanitics concerning Gays. Napoleon's army had Gays and I expect the Crusades had Gays. BIG DEAL.

During the Iraq and Afgan wars Gays were used as interpertors. They are highly educated and spoke different Languages. If we had made the Gays leave the Service it would have seriously impacted our intelligence operations in Both Wars.

Get a life and leave the Gays alone.

Carl,

Thank you for your service and wise words.

retros

Like Erin said, "...we don't vote on rights in this country."

In states where same sex marriage is legal, discriminating against some American Soldiers by denying them the ability to marry on base while allowing other American Soldiers to marry is not likely to withstand court challenge.

Ryan

Would you really want your kids to witness a man and another man being romantic with each other in public?

This may come as a shock to you, but you DO NOT need a marriage certificate to be "romantic" with another person in public.

What... you think only "married" people hold hands and kiss in public? Are you mentally challenged? If anything, married couples display LESS of that "romantic" behavior.

Guess what, Republican... two men can hold hands and kiss right in front of your kids, whether they are married or not. How does that feel, Republican? That's right, Republican... you can't stop them.

between a man and woman, but not a so called marriage between persons of the same sex.

The ruling in Loving v. Virginia never stipulated that it was limited to a man and a woman, and that same ruling has been found to apply in EVERY challenge brought so far against DOMA and Prop H8.

Further, your argument is baseless, so called marriage between persons of the same sex is explicitly, nor implicitly in the opinion of most Americans, not a civil right under our nation's constitution.

WRONG. My argument is not "baseless," since it has been applied successfully in all of the current challenges to laws against gay marriage. And the Supreme Court says that marriage IS a "basic civil right," and they did not limit it to persons of different genders. Moreover, "our nation's constitution" does not mention marriage at all, either same-sex or opposite-sex; it was left to the Supreme Court to interpret it as a civil right.

In addition, the majority of Americans support legalizing same-sex marriage.

A whole bunch of you people need to turn of the computer, go outside and some fresh and talk to people.

The real problem is the bunch of baboons in our government that YOU elected.

Sad part, way to many people lack the knowledge to cast a vote.
- paying attention
- studying the pros/cons of both sides

Maybe there should be a poll test.
Just a few questions about the issues [from above] and if you don't know --- no voting.

That nonsense about fraud.

Easy fix, ultraviolet ink stamp that can not be washed of but fades out in a couple of days.
[remember the Iraq woman and here purple finger]

It's easy to say that marriage is not a "right" when you're allowed to do it...frequently it's only when our rights are violated that we realize how valuable they are. I have an incredibly hard time wrapping my brain around the fact that a group can claim to stand for smaller, less interfering government, but simultaniously refuse to let me marry the woman I love because...it violates some weird definition of what men and women are "supposed" to do. Who are you to make the call of what I'm "supposed" to do? Frankly whether I get married, have casual sex, become a martyr, or burn in hell, it's nobody's business but my own. I don't use my gayness to impeed on the reigious freedom of others, why do they have to use their religioun to impeed my gayness freedom?

Also, gays have been around forever. seriously for EVER...every culture has them (er, us), and homosexuality is just as rampant in the animal kingdom...how anybody could say that it's "unnatural" boggles the mind.

Retros said:

marriage between persons of the same sex is explicitly, nor implicitly in the opinion of most Americans, not a civil right under our nation's constitution.

YES IT IS.

My belief system has a precept that says 'All acts of love and pleasure are My gifts.' We acknowledge that sometimes two guys and two girls can express a wish to share the Goddess's gifts with each other. To this end, we have sects for the lesbians (Dianics) and gays (The Minoan Brotherhood). If two Dianics or two Minoans decide they want to spend the rest of their lives celebrating the Great Mother's gift with each other, our priests and priestesses can marry them.

But then when the government refuses to acknowledge that they are married in the eyes of our Goddess, they are violating our Constitutional First Amendment right to practice our religion as we choose.

I have asked this repeatedly of those who oppose same-sex marriage equality--give me a Constitutionally sound reason why my religion should not be free to practice as we so choose.

And no one has yet been able to give me an answer to that.

We have people out of work with no jobs in sight. Gas and food prices going through the roof. We're fighting wars that never should have been started and these old farts are taking up valuable time worrying about who is marrying who. No church or minister has ever been forced to preform a marriage between a same sex couple. What will their next stupid move be, decide which religions have the right to marry under Federal law. These fools need to spend their time working on solving the problems that need to be solved and stay out of everyone's bedroom.

Oh one more thing...

Rep Steve King, from Iowa?

Same dude who got all of us animal rights people upset last month when he said there was no difference between a dogfight and a wrestling match, if it's legal to take your kids to see a wrestling match, it should be legal to take your kids to see a dogfight? Then when the outcry started he said his comment was taken 'out of context' by The Humane Society's anti-meat-eating agenda?

It sure is.

Okay, so chalk this down as another reason why I don't agree with the Republican platform.

Lady Cat said:

What will their next stupid move be, decide which religions have the right to marry under Federal law.

They've already done that--actually they've done more than that, they've decided which sects of which religions can and can't marry. Our Dianic Wiccans and our Minoan Brotherhood can't marry, but every other Tradition in my belief system can.

To be fair, there are sects of Christianity that do perform same-gender marriages, Unitarians, and I think Episcopals do, there my be a few others that I'm forgetting here--but the same underlying violation of 1st Amendment rights runs straight through all of them.

I'm actually surprised that the violation of First Amendment rights hasn't been brought up already by those sects of Christianity that accept same-gender marriages.

Homophobes just need to accept the fact that marriage equality will be legal throughout the great United States of America in short time. It's going to happen; they can't stop it. People of the same sex will be able to get married, with all the rights, benefits (and consequences) thereof.

So they better prepare themselves emotionally, psychologically and even religiously. That means if homophobes don't approve of same-sex marriage because they say their god says so, and they own, let's say, a floral business and a same-sex couple comes to them for their wedding, the homophobic owners will have to cater to them, or else lose their business. Bigotry, hatred and prejudice, even based upon religion, is not recognized by our Constitution - only the equal protection of the law. So, if homophobes think their god will send them to hell for doing the floral arrangements, then they face two choices: do it and go to hell, or not do it and lose their business and end up impoverished (they can always ask their god to keep them financially sound without having an income).

It's happening, you gay-haters. You must accept it if you want to deal with the public in your business world. Make you choice. Go against your god and burn forever, or go with America and thrive. America, in its Constitution, recognizes no room for your god. If you don't like it, move to a country more suitable to god-butt-kissing, like Saudi Arabia. You always have that freedom of religion to do so.

hypocrite said:

Gays are a sinful abomination to God.

In the desert of the Southwest, there is a species of lizard called the whiptail lizard. Centuries agao there were both male and female of the species but as the climate changed and the Southwest turned into a desert, all eggs laid hatched out females (ask any herpetologist--warmer temps hatch females, cooler temps hatch out males.) Today the species continues to survive and thrive as entrely female--there are no males left.

A zoo in Canada had two male penguins who decided to mate (peguins mate for life, unlike humans.) The zoo made sure there were plenty of males and plenty of females to choose from; yet for some unknown reason these two boy penguins decided to pair up, and later adopted an orphaned baby chick and took turnes feeding it, raising it to adulthood. None of the other penguins cared; they treated the two boy penguins and their adopted chick just like any other mated pair with babies.

Would these lizards and these penguins be an abomination even if it's God that made them that way? Given that they have no higher brain function capability, would you consider them as having 'chosen' to sin?

Your Bible says that God said "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is an abomination," I assume this is the passage you're referring to. However, that passage says nothing about two girls. If all same-gender relationships are an 'abomination', why does God have a double standard between guys and girls? Two gays hugging raises an outcry; two Victoria's Secret Angels hugging each other generally raises another part of the male anatomy. Why would that be? What's the difference?

I'll bet God is coming at the end of 2012 like the myans predict

Scientists digging in some very old Mayan temple ruins tearlier this year found another stone tablet, set up the exact same way as the stone tablet that we currently consider the 'Mayan Calendar' which is set up for one baktun, a period of about 7,000 years, and is scheduled to end somewhere between 12/2012 and 5/2013 (given the difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars.)

The new tablet found this year picks up where the current one leaves off, indicating the world will continue to exist for another baktun of 5,000 years.

to cleanse the earth of these great sinners and their supporters.

Your own Bible says that 'all have sinned and come short of the glory of God'. And while were talking of sins...your Bible says 'It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.'

What do you think God thinks about your Pope's gilded palace and personalized Prada slippers?

hypocrite said:

Amanda, saying that gays have first amendment rights is like saying pedephiles have first amendment rights or animal sex lovers.

That is not a refutation, or an answer.

The issue here is whether the two parties can consent to a marriage. Children cannot legally consent to a marriage, and niether can anmals, therefore this is a non-argument.

I'll ask the question again: Is there a Constitutional reason why certain practitioners of my religion cannot practice their religion as they so choose?

Amanda, saying that gays have first amendment rights is like saying pedephiles have first amendment rights or animal sex lovers.

You obviously have no clue about "legal consent" and its meaning, and that's why you compare apples to oranges.

BTW, the bible does not make our laws; we are a secular nation.

DCogito,

Thanks for pointing out what DOMA actually says. Many on the right seem to think it somehow "outlaws" gay marriage. It doesn't. Likewise there is no case of the Federal Government under Obama "not enforcing it". To not enforce it would be for the Federal Government or one of its agencies to recognize gay marriage. The only Federal agency that really is effected routinely is the IRS and absolutely, they don't recognize it. Also at times effected are things like Social Security and government pensions that have some spousal benefits. Gay marriage isn't recognized. The fact is that Federal Judges can perform gay marriages and not technically be in violation of the law.

DOMA is actually a useless and primarily weak law. The part, (section 3), which has some restrictions of rights has already been found unconstitutional in 7 or 8 Federal Courts and it is highly unlikely that it will be allowed to stand once it gets heard by the Supreme Court. DOMA is a flawed law and in reality doesn't restrict gay marriage in any way, it just says it isn't recognized for legal reasons associated with a spousal relationship.

@ Former Marine Sgt. :

I can't believe you were in the same Marine Corps as my oldest son. I think he would have splattered you across the barracks floor if you would have said there what you said here. If you were a Marine, you've changed... A LOT !!!!

This is all they have to worry about? Really? GET TO WORK, GOP!

From USA Today:

Just 61 bills have become law to date in 2012 out of 3,914 bills that have been introduced by lawmakers, or less than 2 percent of all proposed laws, according to a USA Today analysis of records since 1947 kept by the U.S. House Clerk's office.

Congress' historically low approval ratings hit 10 percent Tuesday, according to Gallup polling.

In 2011, after Republicans took control of the U.S. House, Congress passed just 90 bills into law. The only other year in which Congress failed to pass at least 125 laws was 1995.

These statistics make the 112th Congress, covering 2011-12, the least productive two-year gathering on Capitol Hill since the end of World War II. Not even the 80th Congress, which President Harry S. Truman called the "do-nothing Congress" in 1948, passed as few laws as the current one, records show.

The difference between 1995 and now is that Republicans rebounded in the second year of the 104th Congress in 1996, churning out 245 laws with a Democratic president, including a tax-cut package, a minimum-wage increase, an overhaul of the nation's welfare system, and requiring law enforcement to disclose where sex offenders live.

Oh, yes.

Let's resort to violence if someone says something we don't like.

Great idea.

With you as a father, your eldest is probably a big puss.

FormerMarineSgt speaks wisely.

There is no Marine requirement that their members all be neanderthals.

He's a thinking-man's Marine.

We need more like him.

Ryan in TX - Male homosexuality will never be accepted in America.

Really? Texas is America? Yeehaw!

You know, it's accepted just fine in my state. Texas may catch up in 100 years or so - that seems to be how it goes.

I stopped reading the comments quite quickly because the first two were SPOT ON correct and the third by Chris-749391 was EXACTLY!!!

I believe the story reported that the ceremony could be done on bases in states that allow same sex unions (marriage) but not in states that discriminate don't allow same sex unions (marriage).

As for chaplains performing the ceremony, they, as well as any minister or priest can refuse to perform the ceremony for ANY reason. This is not a requirement of their "jobs".

Technical Sergeant Leonard P. Matlovich (July 6, 1943- June 22, 1988) was a Vietnam War veteran, race relations instructor, and recipient of the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star.

His tombstone reads:

When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one.

Hasn't the military moved past that whole "Don't ask, don't tell" mentality? When did our military become non secular?

I can't believe you were in the same Marine Corps as my oldest son. I think he would have splattered you across the barracks floor if you would have said there what you said here. If you were a Marine, you've changed... A LOT !!!!

Then your son does not believe in the Marine Corps or the United States Constitution. Given your words, there is a great deal of justification for your son to be investigated for behavioral health problems as a threat to his fellow servicemembers. And there is no place for him in this nation's military.

Semper Fi, FormerMarineSgt, from the USAF.

@ Hypocrite ...

If you truly believe that homosexuals are a "sinful abomination to God" -- you have every right to believe that. Freedom of religion and all.

But, if you DO truly believe that ... I hope you don't eat shrimp, have a tattoo, wear cotton-polyester blend clothes, or play football (with a "real" leather ball), eat sausage, get a divorce or wear gold. ALL of these things are also a "sinful abomination to God". If you do any of these, then you sir are merely a "pick and choose" Christian ... aka, you live up to your "handle".

Semper Fi, FormerMarineSgt, from the USA ...

A "thinking man's Marine" ... we need you back INTO service!

Of course, the court hasn't ruled yet on DOMA. And, when they do, I believe they'll recognize this to be extra-constitutional issue to be decided by all of the states by a constitutional referendum as the equal rights amendment for women. To do otherwise, could be preceived by many being discriminatory against the woman's movement in favor of the gay rights movement.

The Supreme Court will either rule on the cases or decline to hear them, in which event the lower court rulings (which have invalidated DOMA) will stand. They won't claim that they don't have authority in this issue. The ERA was not put forward for ratification because the Supreme Court demanded or suggested it.

How can striking down DOMA be considered as discriminatory against the women's movement?

With the spread of gay "marriage", DOMA is very necessary. Marriage between two men or two women is not even possible, much less morally acceptable. Homosexuals would have everyone think that it is no different from normal marriage. It's just another example of the moral deterioration in our society and needs to be stopped. It's sad that so many people now consider what's morally right to be wrong and what's morally wrong to be right.

Kevin.....

Just relax and go suck you a dick.

Go ahead.

We won't make fun of you, ya knothead.

Is that the best you could do?

Kevin:: And just what is wrong with marriage between two adults of the same sex? Unless, of course, a person thinks that the main purpose for marriage is to produce a whole lot of brats. If that is the only reason for marriage, I guess the chaplain who performed the marriage of my husband and me committed a sin-- he knew we didn't want to produce children.

WTF is wrong with two adults of the same sex wanting companionship or the feeling of being loved? Or is that exclusive to a male/female marriage?

I'm afraid your bigotry is showing, just like those two republithug congresspersons-- and many more like them. Is it OK with you if an African-American wishes to marry a white? Do they need your permission?

Kevin - Marriage between two men or two women is not even possible.

Really? Is marriage between a man and a woman who can't have kids possible?

Or a veteran back from the war with...you know, injuries - can he "really" get married?

Is marriage between a black man and a white woman possible?

What planet do you live on?

You both make too many assumptions. My wife and I are different races. There is nothing wrong with people of different races getting married. Mixed race kids are always adorable anyway. Nothing bigoted about being against homosexual marriage. God has told us that homosexuality is wrong ( just remember what happened to the people of Lut(Lot) in the Cities of the Planes) and yet it is practiced so openly now. That's what is morally wrong.

I live on Earth. What about you?

What Kevin? The story of Sodom and Gomorrah was about not being hospitable to strangers. Lot offered up his daughters to be raped because Lot was the ONLY one who brought the strangers (angels) into his home. The townspeople, being the "trusting" souls they were, wanted to kill the strangers. This is why God spared Lot and his family, except Lot's wife looked back at the destruction of the towns when she was warned not to so she was turned into a pillar of salt. Nice fairy tale.

Question, think about how you dressed yourself this morning. Did you make certain you did not but on fabric that is made of more than one type of fabric? I sure hope you ate nothing that was cooked in it's mothers milk today or eaten any bacon or heck, even a bird that had no feathers.

Man wrote the bible to control you and I see it is working. What I don't understand is why do you cherry pick that great literary work?

So what you're saying Kevin is what you want to do there is nothing wrong with, but what you don't like there is.

And you can pull your fairy tale God into it all you want but you are following the words of a being that....

Killed all the first born of an entire nation because of one man....

Turned a woman to salt because she looked in the wrong direction...

Wiped out almost all of humanity with a flood....

The list goes on.

That's who you are taking you cue from.

If you are gonna take your beliefs from a fictitious character, you might as well make it Daffy Duck because he makes more sense than your God.

There is nothing wrong with people of different races getting married. Mixed race kids are always adorable anyway.

There is nothing wrong with two people of the same gender getting married, either. But what does having kids have to do with marriage?

Nothing bigoted about being against homosexual marriage. God has told us that homosexuality is wrong ( just remember what happened to the people of Lut(Lot) in the Cities of the Planes) and yet it is practiced so openly now.

What is bigoted is that you seem to think that everyone should live according to your beliefs. Furthermore, whatever God tells you is irrelevant to our government and laws, since we are a secular nation, not a theocracy.

That's what is morally wrong.

Morality is subjective, which is why it is not legislated. I find your bigotry immoral.

rednawt3,

The story of the people of Lut was about homosexuality. The people of the Cities of the Plain were told that they had women who could be their mates and should not be going after men to satisfy their lusts. The people in these cities didn't listen to their prophet and even went so far as to say that they did not want to be pure. Lut was told to leave because those cities were to be destroyed for their sins. His wife, however remained behind with the sinful bunch in the cities and was destroyed with them.

Johnny,

I'm sorry that you're so down on religion. No one is forcing you to follow a particular religion, but you should not make fun of the religious beliefs of others as if you are right and everyone else is wrong.

ErinNJ,

Yes there is something seriously wrong with the idea of two men or two women getting "married". If same sex "marriage" is ok, then why shouldn't brothers and sisters be able to get married? Why shouldn't other sexual perversions be legalized?

Morality is not subjective. If it were, anything would be OK as long as the individual doing felt that is was OK in his own morality. Even rape and murder could be justified with such a distorted view of things. What is there to say that it's not OK to hurt other people for whatever reason if morality is subjective? Laws against those things would not be possible since they might violate an individuals subjective morality.

If morality is not subjective, then you should live in accordance with the beliefs and values of my religion rather than your own. You should comply with the principles set forth by my faith even if you find inconvenient or otherwise don't appreciate them - you should comply with the principles of my faith even when they contradict those of your own faith.

Keep your religion to yourself - have it affect your own body, your own mind, your own relationships with your family, and your own worship - and I'll keep my religion to myself.

Sexual relationships between brothers and sisters are illegal (for medical reasons), while homosexuality is not -- you compare apples to oranges, as so many "good" bigots do. That is why such arguments are called slippery slope arguments, and why they always FAIL.

Morality most definitely IS subjective. For example, I find your willful ignorance, bigotry, and propensity for spreading lies and misinformation immoral. Many people find fornication immoral, while others do not. "Hurting other people" is something that involves victims, and that is legal, not moral. Laws do not reflect the morality of everyone, since that is impossible.

Yes there is something seriously wrong with the idea of two men or two women getting "married".

How about you try and actually say why its wrong? Is that because you can't?

If same sex "marriage" is ok, then why shouldn't brothers and sisters be able to get married? Why shouldn't other sexual perversions be legalized?

Legal consent ends every one of your arguments except incestuous marriage. Personally, I don't give a @!$%# if they get married, so long as they can legally consent and they accept the dangers to any offspring.

Kevin,

but you should not make fun of the religious beliefs of others as if you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Really now?

You who say your religious beliefs tell you that you are right on the subject of same sex marriage and those in favor of it are morally wrong as if you are right and they are all wrong, are gonna lecture me?

Hypocritcal there don't you think?

And I wasn't so much as making fun of you as pointing out the kind of god you are choosing to follow. Tell me I'm wrong there, tell me those things are not in the Bible. Tell me that's not the same being that you are taking your clue from on same sex marriage.

Go ahead make my day.

For folks who are ready to admit that the church has been wrong for years...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-lose/what-does-the-bible-reall_b_990444.html

http://www.uureading.org/worship/worship/sermons/sermons-archive/1188-god-and-gay-marriage-what-the-bible-really-says-about-marriage-equality

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/15/my-take-what-the-bible-really-says-about-homosexuality/

Folks who want to wallow in the delusion of reactionary religious dogmatism can simply admit that and bypass reading these articles.

I'm not surprised that both sponsors of the bill are Republicans...

It will never get through the Senate. I think it's insulting to our service members...

McRob, a person's sexual orientation, including yours, isn't a "view, opinion, or belief". Most people are heterosexual. A minority of people are homosexual. Members of that minority pay taxes and contribute to society as doctors, nurses, teachers, builders, firefighters, cops, mechanics, politicians, architects, writers, artists, musicians, and more. They deserve every right and protection as citizens, that members of the "majority" get. You benefit from their efforts, expertise, and in some instances, self sacrifice. You know friggin "clueless" alright.

The only law that would stand is to ban all marriages on base.

This is the ONLY way to stop that "awful" gay marriage thing. Maybe another congress crook will submit a bill that outlaws heterosexual marriage as a tit for tat. That would sure get all of the religious and conservative panties in a bunch.

It is way past time for all of these holier than thou lawmakers to resign from congress and go full time into the church business. Religion seems to be more of the proper field for their deluded social views than what congress is. Who someone marries is NOT government business, it is strictly a decision between 2 people who love each other.

If the church doesn't want to bless that union, don't. Don't try to shove your religious views down the throat of anyone else and there will not be a problem.

Nik,

McRob, a person's sexual orientation, including yours, isn't a "view, opinion, or belief". Most people are heterosexual. A minority of people are homosexual.

You seem to not understand the difference between constitutional protection of laws discriminating against a minority, and the dictionary definition of a minority, and therefore want to attack my comment. Let's suppose my hobby is to collect ivory elephant tusks. Not many people do that, and by a dictionary definition, that makes me a minority,,,,,,, BUT THAT DOES NOT EXCLUDE ME from laws governing the possession of elephant tusks. Every single law in the book affects some portion of the population that has something in common but who are less than 50% of the population. That does not mean you can throw all those laws out based on the constitution. GET A CLUE!!!! There are plenty of legitimate arguements supporting gay marriage, I just attacked one that wasn't, and evidently it got you riled.

I think this guy has no clue what the definition of Republicanism is. This isn't mob rules, that would be pure democracy.

you know where you can shove that elephant tusk.

tag...as a Republican I would really prefer our Congress work on a way to keep hostile forces from attacking and murdering in our Embassy's around the world. I would like to see our Congress work on reducing our deficit and increasing US employment through private sector jobs. I would like to see them tackle immigration reform and to encourage prosperity in this country instead of pointing fingers at each other...but that would require the obstructionists on both sides to sit down and shut up so that sounder minds can get us back on track. I don't think we are so far gone that we can't recover nor do we need to heap pain on some and shower others with subsidies. There is a logical and reasonable path forward to get back to American prosperity and ingenuity.

Our government needs to stay out of the bedrooms of consenting adults because some things, in a free society, are just not their business. Our Government needs to get out of my ability to choose what I will or will not do with my own body or the product of my body before that product can sustain life without me. I also don't believe that federal funds should go to support any choice I may make about my reproductive capability. Again, my choice, my body, my responsibility. Perhaps if more women clamoring for their rights would assume that responsibility there would be less of a need for debate.

I am in favor of same sex civil unions and believe that opposite sex civil unions should be the extent of where our Government gets involved in the interpersonal aspects of our lives. A civil Union is a reliable legal contract and two consenting adults should be able to enter into a legal contract. That legal contract has been really watered down over the past few decades so it really isn't all that special any more. I also do not believe that a State should have any bearing on who is joined in a Religious Marriage. That is up to the congregation of a fellowship and really should not be tied to the intrusion and licensing fees of a State.

I don't believe that the far right is ever going to get the necessary support to over turn Roe v. Wade nor overturn the recent military policy for any GBLT individual to proudly serve their country in uniform. Hero's come in many forms. It is time that we, as a nation, request that our legislators and elected officials work on the substance of our nation and stop trying to control the individual freedom narrative.

@tag ... if got it exactly right. The right-wing will tell you that they have nothing against gays and why, oh why, can't gays accept the reasonable compromise of using the term "civil unions"? But, at every opportunity, such as the recent vote in NC, the right-wing invariably wants to ban civil unions, too. Sheer hyprocisy. In their view, civil unions are a compromise only when marriage equality is on the horizon.

As a Democrat I completely agree with Txmom32. Our elected officials need to focus on those issues that totally affect us all as citizens of the United States of America and not worry about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. The DOMA act was nothing more than to try to save an institution that was already failing and to try to make people believe that LGBT tax paying people were going to be the distruction of that institution. Well I think they have done a great job of dooing that all on their own.

I served my country honorably first as a soldier than as a spouse and I have known many marvelous friends both straight and gay who have fought for our freedoms unselfishly and honorably. Some of the same gay soldiers that were first responders picking up body pieces at 9/11 who came back to post still having to hide who they were. I thank President Obama for abolishing the dont ask dont tell for the military. To deny them the right to marry or have civil unions on base is just plain wrong. If they can fight and YES die on foreign soil for all of our liberties why can't those same courageous men and women have the opportunity to unite with whom they love on the same posts and bases that they live, work, and serve? And if the chaplains have a problem with marrying them allow them to have outside clergy who will.

I have sat in many friends home on many bases and posts just to have gatherings of friends some of whom were same sex because they had no where else to go just to socialize together. Mainly because they were too scared of reprocusions of being seen going into a gay/lesbian bar. Our leaders need to stop watering down the issues that really matter like the economy, jobs, women's rights, healthcare, and veterans benefits and needs and stop throwing the issues of same sex marriage and love into the game.

Who we love is an individual decision inwhich no government should have the right to dictate to us.

If the government could get and stay in our underwears they'd camp there because there will always be business activity and a buck to be made or taxed.

Yet getting married on base is a way to call for that kind of attention.

Karen Barker:: Thank you for your service.

Susie-- military daughter, spouse, mother, mother-in-law, grandmother of military. And former volunteer at a V A hospital, also state veterans cemetery. And presently a volunteer at a vet center. My blood isn't red-- it is OD.

tx mom: In reading your post, you aren't really a republican, are you? You're much too broadminded, too liberal (making no rules for others), too accepting of others. Why, you sound nice. You're the first republican that makes sense. I feel no hatred from you. Your post was a pleasure. Got any relatives to send to Congress? Thanks for posting. I'd swear you're a Democratic.

OBAMA-BIDEN 2012

Romney 1040 what are you hiding?

earthgirl...yes I am indeed a Republican and a Christian. I don't vote for social agendas as our Bill of Rights pretty much guarantee that we live free. I vote for economic reasoning, I vote for a Federal government who will protect our nation and our people. I vote for the candidates who wish to build our nation through industry and business to keep America on the cutting edge of the economic drivers.

With regard to the social end of the spectrum, we are a free country and because of that no one has any business in another citizens bedroom. The Federal Government has no authority over who and why anyone chooses a partner. The Federal Government has no authority over what any woman chooses to do with her body or what any man chooses to do with his body. In short Americans know how to live a good life and each has a right to the benefits and consequences of those choices. I don't know how this makes me appear to be a Democrat.

Romney/Ryan 2012

Obama where is your backbone and have you ignored intelligence while our embassies burn?

BarryNJ...wow so think it through logically....In order for two individuals to legally enter a partnership it is demanded by any state to pay a licensing tax...that is a civil cost for a civil purpose. Any two people should be able to enter into that civil partnership. The overlap of church and state is that the State requires before a Church is allowed to perform marriage rights for two people they must purchase that license. This is the civil rub...States are discriminating against some people in this process. That is unreasonable for a state to make this slight. So yes civil for any who wish to enter into a legal contract and let the congregations sort their own business.

The overlap of church and state is that the State requires before a Church is allowed to perform marriage rights for two people they must purchase that license. This is the civil rub...States are discriminating against some people in this process. That is unreasonable for a state to make this slight.

@txmom32 ... there is no infringement on religious freedom because a license is not required of anyone before a church performs a marriage ceremony. The state will not recognize the marriage, but the church is free do marry anyone that it chooses, as many times as it chooses.

Barry you are wrong. Most clergy will not perform the marriage rites for a couple without the License from the state and then they must submit documents to certain government offices to confirm the ceremony so yes the government is intrusive of the church.

Barry you are wrong. Most clergy will not perform the marriage rites for a couple without the License from the state and then they must submit documents to certain government offices to confirm the ceremony so yes the government is intrusive of the church.

That's only if you want the marriage recognized by the State. If you don't, nobody cares. A clergyman who refuses to perform a marriage because there's no license is doing so of their own volition, there is no requirement that they have it under law, the marriage simply won't be legally valid.

allswell...Please let me know any,just one, Methodist Minister that will perform marriage rights without a State license? To my knowledge it is illegal for a minister or pastor to do so. Clergy members who are themselves licensed by their respective states must report the unions they create to the State. So obviously there are those who care.

You can't just make stuff up to suit your own narrative. I can't seem to paste my source here but if you google usmarriagelaws.com you will find the requirement for all 50 states. Most states infatically require Clergy to be licensed through them even before they are allowed to perform the religious service of marriage and further to record and report all marriages to their respective States. There were three states that were vague or so complicated that they reference another location to get the rules. By and large all states require a marriage license or some sort of reporting to a state or local authority. Based on this reference Maryland is rather vague and possibly does not require a filing more research would be necesary. Tennesee, Virginia and West Virginia seem to have a very complicated system for Clergy in general, is not specific about requirements in filings on marriage.

So again I will say it is time we get STATE our of Church business. You can't say separation of Church and State if either is making demands of the other.

allswell...Please let me know any,just one, Methodist Minister that will perform marriage rights without a State license? To my knowledge it is illegal for a minister or pastor to do so. Clergy members who are themselves licensed by their respective states must report the unions they create to the State. So obviously there are those who care.

You seem to be confusing issues here.

A) Clergy can perform the marriage ceremony without a license. The marriage is simply not valid.

B) In order for a marriage to be legally valid via clerical ceremony, the license has to be signed before the ceremony.

Anyone, licensed or unlicensed, can perform a marriage ceremony. It only becomes illegal when the parties "married" try and claim legal marriage from said unlicensed ceremony.

So again I will say it is time we get STATE our of Church business. You can't say separation of Church and State if either is making demands of the other.

The state isn't in the Church's business on marriage, churches can "marry" whoever they want. They just won't be valid legal marriages, and if one of those parties claims they are, that's when the punishing starts back up the chain.

allswell....I am not confusing any issue... I do think you are just blowing smoke. Before a member of a church can preform marriage rites they in many cases must be licensed by a state and they also must complete a marriage license to be recorded with a state or local governmental body. Again please name just one Minister or Cleric who is willing to break the law. Again I offered you a valid source that supports my discussion. There is an absolute intrusion by the State authorities into the business of the Church.

How is it an "absolute intrusion by state authorities into the business of the church," when legal marriage in this country has always been a civil contract (which is a state issue), not a holy sacrament? In addition, civil marriage predates organized religion by thousands of years; religion did not involve itself in marriage until around the mid-1500s -- so religion has NEVER had any kind of "ownership" of marriage.

Again I offered you a valid source that supports my discussion.

No, you offered a valid source for legally binding marriages, not marriage ceremonies that aren't legally binding. Those can be, and are, performed by anyone of any religion to anyone at anytime.

Erin in NJ ....Marriage (between a man and a woman) can be traced back through the history of pagan times ...it can be traced back to the origins of the Old Testament of the bible and Judaism (before 2000BC)..Islam (500AD). Looking to the Buddhist faith (roughly500BC) and there commitment service of Marriage. The Hindu faith(1500BC) is very specific about marriage.

So in going back to Ancient Greece Marriage was between a man and a woman and homosexual liaisons were only permitted by a narrow definition of person, time and place through pederasty. In ancient Roman times marriage was again between an man and a woman.

Mesopotamia had the Hieros gamos which is assumed to predate Mesopotamia and is between a man and a woman.

Note that instead of broad stroke comments please add specifics. Most civilizations observed some sort of religious belief system and these systems were tied to faith and civil commitments or contracts.

The purpose of marriage in ancient civilizations through time is to bind a man and woman together to create a family and produce children. Something that a same sex partnership cannot physically provide between themselves.

As for being an intrusion...Separation of Church and State. The State has no right to intrude in the religious rites of a Church. The Church has no right to intrusions of Civil law. If you don't understand the difference between religious rites and Civil law then you are confused. Perhaps you should check on historical facts from ancient times.

Allswell...If you do not hold faith based beliefs fair enough..but by that simple fact you should at least acknowledge that Civil law and faith based rites are two very separate and distinct social sets. The American Civil laws have never acknowledged same sex Civil Unions even though several states do, personally I have no argument against same sex civil Unions as it applies to a contractual agreement between consenting adults sharing a household, assets and mutual legal responsibilities. As democratic social order dictates it is to the majority to determine the laws of a society. In our Republic many individual states have come to a majority agreement that civil unions are extended to same sex partnerships. Where the Law is flawed is their intrusion into religious marriage. The Nation should adhere to a free,fair and equal civil accommodation to partnership as it refers to a business transaction between consenting adults. The Government clearly oversteps when it attempts to co-mingle faith based rites with civil order.

The purpose of marriage in ancient civilizations through time is to bind a man and woman together to create a family and produce children.

Historically untrue, still. Production of offspring and child-rearing at no point requires a marriage or union. Marriage was founded as a civil function to dictate social status and ownership, including that of the offspring (children inherit the status of their parents if socially recognized as their legitimate child, legitimacy being socially determined by civil marriage).

Where the Law is flawed is their intrusion into religious marriage.

No religion is required to marry anyone they don't want to. Your premise is fundamentally flawed. They can also marry anyone they want, without a license; it simply isn't legally binding or recognized.

The Government clearly oversteps when it attempts to co-mingle faith based rites with civil order.

Except its religion that is seeking to shove its head up the ass of government and dictate what the civil institute of marriage means federally.

So in going back to Ancient Greece Marriage was between a man and a woman and homosexual liaisons were only permitted by a narrow definition of person, time and place through pederasty. In ancient Roman times marriage was again between an man and a woman.

WRONG. Same-sex marriages were legal in ancient China, Greece, and Rome -- just to name a few civilizations, and they were civil contracts, not religious rites. Furthermore, civil marriage predates organized religion by thousands of years; in fact, provisions for marriage were found in Hammurabi's Code, which predates the bible. And in this secular nation, legal marriage has always been strictly a civil contract.

The early Egyptian and Mesopotamian societies that are considered important antecedents for Western culture apparently not only tolerated same-sex relationships, but also recognized such relationships in their culture, literature, and mythology. Evidence of same-sex marriage is at best indirect in these ancient societies, however. One finds slightly stronger and more direct evidence of same-sex marriages in Greek and early Roman culture, in imperial Rome, and in Western Europe for much of the Christian Middle Ages.

Because there are so few surviving records pertaining to family and sexual matters, we know little of the most ancient cultures' specific practices, namely, those of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and their environs. However, after examining the few pertinent records (including legal documents), as well as the literature, myths, and artifacts of this period, one might tentatively conclude that most ancient cultures did not prohibit same-sex relationships, nor did many stigmatize them. Although the evidence is debatable, some of the ancient cultures may have treated same-sex relationships similarly to marriages involving different-sex partners.

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2503&context=fss_papers

As for being an intrusion...Separation of Church and State. The State has no right to intrude in the religious rites of a Church. The Church has no right to intrusions of Civil law. If you don't understand the difference between religious rites and Civil law then you are confused. Perhaps you should check on historical facts from ancient times.

Since, as I said, legal marriage in the US is strictly a civil contract, not a religious sacrament, it seems that YOU are the one who doesn't understand the differences between religious rites and civil law (that, plus the fact that I am a former paralegal). It would seem that YOU are also the one who needs to check her facts -- and not just those from ancient times, but US history, as well.

You know what they say about people who live in glass houses...

I agree but actually NBC has once again used sloppy inaccurate reporting. Only one of them is a Senator, the other is a Representative. Miranda Leitsinger: go do something you are competent at.

They are both Senators. You are incorrect. Miranda Leitsinger got it right.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

JLman said:

I invite these Senators (and the rest of their supporters) to find a hobby or a worthwhile cause to invest their misguided energies.

Steve King of Iowa got all of us animal rights people in a tizzy last month when he said that he didn't see a difference between a dogfight/cockfight and a boxing/wrestling match. If it's legal to take a child to one, it should be legal to take a child to the other. Putting animal welfare (banning dogfights) ahead of human welfare (banning wrestling matches) indicated we 'had our priorities mixed.'

He'd offend far less people if he just concentrated on banning boxing, wrestling, martial arts/MMA fights, dogfights and cockfights. That would also take LOT of energy and help reduce instancesn of this unfortunate foot-in-mouth disease. (dentopodiatry)

lack of commonsensedude....

I don't pack fudge

I don't eat fudge

I don't eat any kind of candy or sweets.

The real question is how old are you, such a totally immature comment indicates you either are a child (If so your parents are not very good letting you play on the web like this) or that you are of a very low intellect that you still resort to silly playground bullying name calling. And sexually obsessed.

If that is the case

No milk and cookies for you

Tag....

Howz that crow tasting?

You've obviously forgotten all of Oblabla's promises though, How convenient.

you've obviously overlooked the fact that calling the president 'Oblablah' marks your comment as worthless drivel from another brain dead Fox Noos zombie

Apparently, many have forgotten the 2010 jobs promises. Romney is still getting a group to listen to his lying rhetoric. The almost 2 years of nothing from the repub/tparty, but they did and are keeping their promises to their big money boys - one-term for our President Obama. They are disgraceful. The repub/tparty has thwarted all efforts of President Obama to get this country to an upward swing, but despite their opposition, Prez Obama has managed to move the U.S. forward, economically, socially and morally. What a guy!

I have to be blunt and confess that the LGBT issue was far from our minds. It was Prez Obama's talking of equality and all it entails that had us pause and think. Then we talked about it here and there and really, the sexual orientation of a person made no difference in our lives before. We now have joined the ranks and support LGBT orgs. We had no idea of the untold difficulties and sorrow was caused for which we are also to blame for not paying attention to what was around us. As the IRA says, ignorance is no excuse.

OBAMA-BIDEN 2012 and a strong Democratic Congress

Romney 1040 what are you hiding? rather cowardly, aren't you?

Emma: Yes, and if you're same sex, marry on a military base if you want and have a good life. If you're not allowed, we'll just have to ban ALL marriages on military bases - no discrimination in our U.S.

OBAMA-BIDEN 2012 and a strong Democratic Congress

One minor correction - the administration is enforcing DOMA, just not defending that blatantly unconstitutional law in court.

I think if DOMA actually makes it to SCOTUS, it will be struck down as unconstitutional -- it goes against Full Faith & Credit.

The question is, does SCOTUS have the guts to HEAR the case(s)?

Sorry BETH while I wish you were right it will be upheld by SCOTUS 5-4 Roberts,Scalia, ALito, Thomas and Kennedy vs Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer.

Holly: Good point on that. It's important to vote for re-election of President Obama because the appointment of another repub/tparty justice would totally screw our country for a very long time. Tho the SCOTUS were to be non partisan, Thomas and Scalia especially, and Alito have not lived up to their resonsibility or their oath. Have to hand it to the Prez again, he looked for, appointed and expect his appointees to stand by the Constitution as it was intended.

OBAMA-BIDEN 2012 and a strong Democratic Congress

Hey jerk off! What have you done for this country LATELY? Are you telling me that you are too stupid to know where your tax dollars go?

The question remains, WHO elects them? How do they win elections? We know there is no or very minimal voter fraud. Are the votes counted correctly? Are the machines working? Are votes pulled out of thin air, as in WI? Be watchful during the Nov. 6 election. Never put anything past a repub/tparty. Their integrity goes as far as a buck.

well, if all marriages are forbidden on base, I agree. are they? if not, why is your statement correct?

except homosexuality isn't a choice dummy, you can try to debate it all you want

doesn't change the fact that homosexuality is not a choice.. unless of course you can answer the question of the exact moment you CHOSE to be heterosexual and if you are still choosing to do so today ?

obviously, you didn't choose it

so again... vermont isn't the dummy.. you are

Wow laughs

I would debate with you but you are clearly out of ammo.

vermontGAY? lol, what are you 12 years old? 11? :)

Laughsatleftisthalfwits - Because choosing to be a sexually deviant pervert is not a civil right dummy...

The US supreme court disagreed with you in Lawrence v Texas, 2003. They said even "perverts" get equal protection of the law.

No wonder you dumb bigots are always losing in court, because you don't understand the basics of our constitution.

And calling someone (and I quote) "a sexually deviant pervert is not a civil right dummy..." (#17.2) is respectful HOW Sally??? If your going to use your power as a moderator at least use it fairly.

Sally, no. I will NOT respect someone who is an enemy of the United States Constitution. See, I took an oath to uphold and defend that document - with my life, if necessary, against ALL enemies, domestic and foreign, smart or dumb as the morons posting on this board.

I will NOT respect a deluded religious nutwhack. Yes, I respect that they have the FREEDOM to believe in crap - but I don't have to RESPECT THEM FOR BELIEVING IN CRAP.

2+2≠5. It's not open for debate. I don't have to respect you if you believe it does. 2+2=4 and that's all there is to it. Believe otherwise and be ridiculed. Don't like it? Well, either become smart and drop the delusion, or learn to live with the dunce cap on your head.

So no - we will NOT respect people who don't believe in the Constitution, or truth, or what's right. We will put them in their place, where they belong.

Jack, been a pillow biter long? NOBAMA in 21012!

Wrong! The MAJORITY of military members are not happy about having homos in our ranks, and we definitely don't want to have "weddings" on our installations. Take that somewhere else.

twis:: You speak for the majority of military members? I read an article that stated that having homosexuals coming out has NOT deteriorated the military. It has not caused any trouble either.

I hope to God that the next time you find yourself in an emergency you have enough sense to not ask the guy that is there to help you if he is a homosexual. And if you do ask him, he leaves you to your misery!

Twis, you have ALWAYS had "homos" in your ranks.

I have plenty of gay friends in the military, and they have yet to encounter problems... I'm guessing you're not actually in the military.

Seriously? You're comparing this to incest? Do straights have the right to marry their brother or sister? In some states they can marry their first cousin, if you're so interested. Gay people only want and deserve the same rights straight people have, not more, not less, not different. If you want to take up the "incestual right to marry" fight, have at it!

scotus in Lawrence vs texas did, in fact, rule that homosexuality is a right. lol. you ignorant dolt. :)

except homosexuality isn't a choice.. which makes YOU the ignorant dolt.. i thought we discussed this already.. your "belief" that it is a choice doesn't make it a fact

the fact is quite contrary to your "belief"

Sally, laughs is at it again. Why do you let him get away with it when you shut down a reasonable response to his bigotry. (Note I didn't call him a bigot!)

Ferro - I guess we can see which side of the debate she's on. I almost hope I get banned if the moderator is going to side with bigots and hatemongers.

POS?there's a little santorum on your duvet deviant