E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Patrick Semansky / AP
Zachariah Long, left, and Edward Ritchie protest against a gay marriage bill in February in Annapolis, Md. Thirty-eight states have laws or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. But four states -- Maryland, Maine, Minnesota and Washington -- will vote on this issue, with gay-marriage supporters hoping to net an historic win.
Same-sex marriage advocates have outraised their opponents in many state ballots but have ended up on the losing end in every case.
But this time, their adversaries are worried the large amounts of cash raked in by gay marriage proponents could tilt the balance in high-stakes votes in four states this November.
In Washington, same-sex marriage supporters have raised at least $10.5 million compared with $1.8 million for their opponents. In Maine, they have some $3.35 million as opposed to about $430,000 on the other side, and in Maryland, they have about $3.2 million while the anti-gay marriage camp has more than $835,000, according to public disclosure filings.
“The concern that I have is that the other side will be able to swamp voters with messaging,” said Frank Schubert, campaign manager for the four state campaigns opposed to same-sex marriage.
“I am worried ... about the particular disparities in Maine and Washington state and somewhat in Maryland,” Schubert said. “What’s occurred in the past -- that we’ve been able to win despite being outspent -- you know, is certainly going to be challenged this time by just the sheer disparity that exists.”
For 1st time, gay marriage may win statewide vote
From 2004-2011, all but one of 28 measures to either ban or limit same-sex marriage or partnerships on statewide ballots passed, according to the nonprofit National Institute on Money in State Politics. The one win for same-sex marriage campaigners was in Arizona in 2006 to strike down a constitutional amendment, but their opponents were later victorious at the polls in 2008.
Anti-gay marriage groups were outspent by their opponents in 17 of those contests but won nonetheless, according to Denise Roth Barber, the institute's managing director. “Regarding same-sex marriage, raising more money has thus far not equated to success at the ballot box,” she wrote to NBC News in an email.
Political scientists who conduct research on same-sex marriage votes have reached similar conclusions.
“A money advantage in any race is generally not what it’s blown up to be,” said Patrick Egan, an assistant professor of politics and public policy at New York University whose research includes public opinion on gay rights.
Research shows that a big-money advantage has moved votes by a few percentage points, but those effects tend to die out within a week, he added.
“Gay marriage is an issue on which a lot of people have made up their minds a long time ago and they’re not going to have their minds changed necessarily by a stream of advertisements. You can imagine a number of other kinds of ballot measures that are more confusing or more technical,” Egan said. “Everybody knows exactly what is meant by a ban on marriage or ... approving a law that would allow gay people to get married.”
But the fundraising continues for both sides. Paul Singer, a New York hedge fund titan and Republican, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, just announced $250,000 contributions each to the campaign to maintain Maryland’s same-sex marriage law passed earlier this year.
Like Maryland, same-sex marriage supporters are asking people in Maine and Washington to vote yes on the ballot, rather than in Minnesota, where they will ask them to oppose a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman (same-sex marriage supporters in Minnesota have raised $5.96 million this year, compared to $1.2 million for their opponents).
A yes vote “requires a heavier lift,” said Fred Sainz, a spokesman for Human Rights Campaign, a national nonprofit backing efforts to legalize same-sex marriage, including financially. “Whenever you’re trying to convince someone to vote yes it’s going to require more resources because the onus is on you to change the status quo.”
That has meant setting up a number of field offices in each state as well as running a ground campaign that involves volunteers going door-to-door to add a personal plea to voters.
Though they have ads and fliers, the personal touch is key to their work, with volunteers in Maine having now spoken to some 200,000 people about the issue since 2009, according to the state campaign. Similar work has been done in Maryland and Washington over the last 18 months, Sainz said.
“Our messaging has changed considerably over the years to now be all about family, love and commitment, and the establishment of a common human bond with the voter,” he said. “Explaining that narrative and that story takes time and money. … It is not a campaign that can be done in two months.”
Appeals court: Denying federal benefits to same-sex couples is unconstitutional
Despite marriage progress, gay couples face big hurdles to parenthood
Conservatives target Republicans who back gay marriage
Same-sex couple fights to stop deportation, gay marriage ban
Obama: 'I think same-sex couples should be able to get married'
The National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, is running a new fundraising campaign it began two weeks ago that it hopes will net an additional $3 million in the same-sex marriage battle.
“I’ve always said and I continue to believe that really what matters more than what our opponents spend is how much we spend and so my focus has been on working with the campaigns to improve their fundraising across the board so that they have the resources necessary to communicate with voters,” said Schubert, who is also NOM’s political director. “Even though we’re behind, we’re making good progress and I’m hopeful that at the end of the day we will be able to have a strong finish to each of the campaigns to get our messages out.”
Schubert said between 75 to 80 percent of their money will be spent on advertising, noting that they did not have the same infrastructure or staff costs as their opponents since they have a grassroots network through churches they can access.
“Our messaging is just now being delivered … because of the funding disparity,” he said. “I definitely can see a path to victory everywhere. A lot of the path does depend on us being able to raise the resources though … and so, you know, money is not an insignificant factor in a statewide campaign like this."
"I remain optimistic everywhere but that doesn’t mean I don’t have concerns,” he added.
Joel Page / AP
Rev. Michael Gray, a United Methodist pastor speaks on Sept. 10, 2012 at a rally outside of City Hall in Portland, Maine, in support of a same-sex marriage.
Kenneth Sherrill, a professor emeritus of political science at Hunter College in New York whose research includes elections and the politics of LGBT rights, questioned if NOM was facing any difficulties.
“They could be playing an expectations game or they could have data," he said. "It may also be that when you’re running a campaign that is appealing to pre-existing prejudices it doesn’t matter if you’re coming in late or if you’re getting outspent. There are certain attitudes that money can’t change.”
NOM’s opponents are also used to them coming out late in the game, such as in California during the battle over Prop 8, a citizen's a ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage that passed in 2008 but was declared unconstitutional on appeal (Schubert led the campaign there, too). That decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, which has not yet said if it will review the case.
Did Supreme Court justice tip hand on gay marriage?
“If you compare their fundraising numbers to our fundraising numbers right now it clearly shows that they are having a cash flow problem,” Sainz said. "What that means to me is that there are very few people that are excited about this issue."
But that does not mean it will stay that way, he said.
“The way in which they do business is that all of their money comes in late,” he added. “We would not be surprised if they flooded, you know, all four … with last minute money.”
Today, 38 states have laws or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Polls indicate that same-sex marriage may win this go-around, with a majority supporting keeping such state laws in Washington (56 percent), and Maryland (49 percent), and approving a citizen’s initiative in Maine (57 percent), according to September surveys. However, in Minnesota, 49 percent say they will vote in support of the ban on same-sex marriage, compared with 47 percent opposed.
The importance of these state votes is not lost on either side.
“This November we have one goal in mind and that is to take away the talking point from our opponents that we have never won at the ballot box,” Sainz said.
Schubert said if his opponents netted a win they could use the victory in arguments before the Supreme Court, which is expected to hear same-sex marriage cases during their current term. They may also try to qualify state ballot measures of their own to legalize such unions in other states “that would roll back protections that we’ve already enacted and would open up a whole new front for us to have to fight.”
“There’s a lot riding on what happens here in three weeks,” he said.
Leave a Comment:
This happily married Marylander is going to be proud to vote in support of gay marriage.
I'm right there with you Siara! I can't imagine why anyone would be opposed to any 2 consenting adults getting married. It does not affect them in any way. It really is pathetic that there are people out there actively working against equal rights for all.
It is sad that people want to control each other so badly.
Dear God, You people are actually very Stupid. It will not pass.
Dave, It's very close in most of these votes, and with aging demographics the fact is gay marriage will be allowed in most states in the next decade or so. Every day the number of voter eligible gay rights supporters increases, and anti-gay people die off.
I think I understand why the opponents are so distraught. It's kind of like how I will feel if Romney gets elected.
Values I hold dear would be violated -- it would be a hardship living for four years with leadership whose values are in so many ways opposed to my own. (I know, because I survived eight years of that not so long ago.)
Part of my value system is that people are entitled to their own beliefs -- but they are not entitled to force their beliefs on others. They do not have a right to tell other people who they can and cannot marry. And they do not have a right to determine for other people whether or not they will have children. As a matter of fact, I believe that marriage is a civil right, and we should not be voting on whether or not people have their civil rights!
"The concern that I have is that the other side will be able to swamp voters with messaging,” said Frank Schubert, campaign manager for the four state campaigns opposed to same-sex marriage.
Typical Republican tactic -- point at the other guy for doing exactly what you are trying to do.....
The church should keeps its nose out of this. Organised religion is no different than any other radical fundamentalist agenda, just like the Nazi party.
Interesting how those who believe in smaller government, fight "Obamacare" as government dictating health-care are the same people who think it is OK for the government to tell you how to live your personal life. Such hypocrisy!
Separation of church and state means laws should not be dictated by religious beliefs. Those who "wail" about this country being founded by Christians need to go back and read through their history. Their ignorance on this subject is very telling. Our forefathers fled here because they endured so much religious persecution in their home country (mainly Great Britain). Their intention was to ensure that would no longer be the case.
Same for me, as a happily married and pro family woman in NY. Being traditionally married does not prevent me from respecting others. A combo of fear and intolerance seems to have paralized the minds of folks opposing basic rights to others.
Yep! Just like atheism as well! Those bastards picket in front my house every weekend shouting "God doesn't love you...Nobody loves you." Religion or no religion... children don't need to hear that "Nobody loves them". Testimony to the extremes of society!
Kinda of like abortion. Till I or any other man can become pregnant, it's the women's choice. Same with gay marriage, what is the logical reason for not allowing it and please don't sometime tell me that God said so, because I haven't heard him speak to me yet on that issue. ( I believe in God by the way) or that the bible says it can's be so, because that bible was written by men, translated 100+ times, besides we live in an nation of equality, so let everyone be equal under the law.
And the church laws and canons inside the Church's please
So does that mean you support the Westboro Baptist Church?
Marie -
Actually, the Pilgrims came over to impose their own theocracy, because the British kicked them out. While you had wonderfully tolerant people come later, like the Quakers and those in Rhode Island, the Puritans were loudmouthed, crazy control freaks. It wasn't so much religious "persecution" they faced. Rather, people were still pissed at them over the Oliver Cromwell incident, and people were pissed that they were imposing their values on entire communities.
Later on, Jefferson himself spearheaded the movement in Virginia to remove it's state support of one church as the state church, and supported others in other states wishing to do the same. He effectively kept religion as far away from government as he could, as George Washington, John Adams, and particularly James Madison did as well.
Basically, the whole idea of "escaping religious persecution" came about later on as a better narrative. But the Puritans have never been an easy group to live with. Just ask the American Indians. If you can find any left up there in the Northeast. Or look around today. We still have blue laws prohibiting alcohol sales one day out of the week, forcing bars and other establishments to stop selling at a certain time of day, anti-drug laws, etc. No, the religious right of this country has always stood in the way of equality and progress, and probably always will.
Can you please tell Almight God why you are supporting same sex marriage! Can you also please tell God that He is wrong when He commanded us that marriage is only between a man and a woman. All these "constitutional rights and separation of church and state "reasonings" will be the demise of your soul. Do you have a soul? if you don't believe that you have a soul and there is no God, then I guess you will just go with your daily business.
Jesus is Lord and Savior. You will have a chance today to follow God and be saved.
DAWG... why are they protesting in front of your house? Are you something special? Are you a religious leader? Most atheists I know could careless about organizing a protest. They don't believe in God, but they also don't care what you believe. It is only when religious groups try to press their values and views on others that people get upset. Also, why are they bastards? Just because they believe differently than you do?
Hey Joe, will you please ask Almighty God why he made gay people, just so people like you can hate them and deny them civil rights?
This is NO ONE'S business and surley not the Governments! If you are worried about the Biblical side, it is not for YOU to decide. YOU are NOT God, so stop trying to be! Who or what sex someone loves and marries is between them and God NOT YOU. You are the type of people who cause bulling and predjustices. Why do you care? We can NOT tell ourselves who to love or what sex to love. Love is Love it does NOT matter who we share it with. Life is short, live it, be happy and let others do the same. Why don't you get serious about matters like Removal of a Minor from a state.? This is unlawful and takes away the custodial parents constitutional rights, like freedom to choose, freedom to make a better life and the list goes on. NO, instead of something important that truly affect someone's quality of life you go to battle over this! This that does not even concern you or affect your quality of life. Get REAL. MONEY? What does that have to do with anything? Oh, I know it always does, but why should it? No one should have elict money for any cause, yet we are always forced to. And YES I said FORCED and we sit back and let that be a part of the issue. Truly a sorry state of affairs.
good question gumdrop
Joe...I will happily tell your flaccid God how I feel about this subject...you just bring him to me and we'll talk it out. As far as your silly, little beliefs about the seperation of church and state, it is in the constitution whether you wish to believe that or not. You want to dictate someone's behavior, do it in your own home...outside of that, you, your invisible sky God, and your ridiculous church hold no domain over my life or the lives of my gay friends. Your religious freedom ends when it restricts the rights of others.
Joe 1858653, God never said or told you that you could be the judge of their lives. They answer only to God. I am a strong believer in God with every breath I take, but I also know he told us to forgive others for thier sins (since you are saying this is a sin). God loves ALL, he makes no discrimination that to is in the Bible. Think what you may but it is between God and the person. As for me, I believe they have equal rights to me and I wish them success in this battle that they should not even have to fight.
I believe that gays should have the same right at getting married and being miserable as the rest of us.............share the misery. Just kidding I'm happily married and everyone should have the same opportunity to do the same.
I just want to punch all of these "anti gay marriage" idiots in the face. Your idiocy is going to hand Obama the election.
Why are you bothered by what other people do when it doesn't effect you at all?
If we end up stuck with Obamas crappy economic policies because so many republicans get their panties in a bunch over this, I'm going to travel the country, and punch every "anti gay" idiot in the nuts.
Boy, aren't you guys ignorant!!! Google atheist groups in your area (if you live in a populated area). If you live in a city, you will NO DOUBT see dozens of atheist groups. There meeting places and times. They become members... Pay dues... Organize... and are politically associated. That makes them as fundamentalist as any religion I know of!
NO! I'm not a religious person and do not attend any church! I'm not smart enough to know if there is or isn't a God, god or gods! But guess what... neither ARE ANY OF YOU!
My comment is strictly that fundamentalism exists in ALL shapes and forms. Religious and otherwise! If a group or any group feels that they can organize and affiliate to gain an upper hand on everyone else, THEY WILL DO SO!
AND, from my experience ATHEISM is as bad as any religious oragnization I've come to know!
YOU CAN BELIEVE THAT SH#T as someone about stated!!!
If two people want to butt-fu_k themselves to death in the privacy of their closet and live under the delusion of not accepting what their genitalia is FOR - so be it, but spare me the garbage about their being born that way, NORMAL, or no threat to people who understand that marriage is historically, traditionally, and culturally a religious union designed to enhance the solidity of the family and perpetuation of the species. Spencer - start punching people that don't believe or support this crap in the face, and if you survive for more than 2 seconds it will be a miracle. What total crap from people that have the common sense and morality of a pile of sh_t. People are lulled into silence on this issue because of the threats and intimidation worthy of Nazi's that ensues when they raise objections to this garbage. Sexual preference as nothing to do with civil rights or any friggin thing else except stimulation and orgasm, and that's all this is about - a bunch of people with demonstrable sexual identity mental disorders trying to force those that are NOT ill to accept their crap or suffer the consequences. Well they better read up on the history of homosexuality and acquaint themselves as to what happens when the majority population had enough. Not pretty - and millions of Americans HAVE HAD ENOUGH! We're tired of having to deal with Gay and Lesbian fundamentalism and terrorism, and make no mistakes, that's what many of them are (terrorists) - trying to force social, political, and ideological change through coercion, intimidation, and the instilling of fear in those that don't agree with them.
oooOOOOOooo, does that mean that I can become a "card carrying atheist"?? You know that I get a toaster for every theocrat that I convert.
Leave god out of this - it's simple civil rights. We've had marriage equality in Massachusetts for over 8 years and know what? Nothing's changed. I'm still married - to a man, no less - (28 years) and it hasn't affected me in the least. If anything, it's good for the economy because gay people also have weddings, dinners, people visiting and staying in hotels.
Here's a question of the day. The Christians are fighting with all their might to stop gays from marrying, raising incredible amounts of money just to make sure two people in love can't wed. Now someone take that number, and divide it into the cost of a Cheese Burger or Chicken Nuggets from a fast-food restaurant, like McDonalds. How much money is that? That's how much money these "FOR THE CHILDREN! WE CARE ABOUT PEOPLE SO MUCH!" types are spending on this war chest" when it could be used to feed and cloth homeless/underprivileged children.
It's never been about the children, or God, or marriage, or anyone else. It's been about control. Married folks get special benefits that unmarried ones do not. It doesn't just extend to entitlements either. It's grasping at the final straws of a system they used to dominate, where their religion wasn't just something you kept in your home or in your place of worship, it was law for our very country. Their desperate for that old school fear and power they used to wield.
They lost when it came to getting equality for Blacks, and Women, and even Interracial Marriage. This will soon be a non-issue, and the people throwing all their support behind this will be written in the history books in the same section as the people who fought Martin Luther King Jr tooth and nail. History will remember you as a monster because you thought gays were icky and clung to the ideas of a book that you don't even listen to, picking 2 or 3 laws out of the hundreds God gave you, then swinging them around like one sin meant more than the other. It's repulsive.
WOW JP, did we miss our meds today? Aggressive much?
JP- wow! Where to begin with your hateful, misguided rant? Most gay people I know were most definitely born that way..I don't know many that would choose to be gay or lesbian and have to deal with narrow minded people like YOU. Being gay is no more all about sex than being straight is. Is being in a heterosexual relationship all about stimulation and orgasm? Please. No problem with trying to force social, political, and idealogical change....that's how civil rights and modern thinking evolve.
I agree. Let people boink who they want to boink!
Before I got married I lived with two girls for a few years. It was GREAT living in sin, LMFAO! I recommend it to anyone!
No one said it wasn't a civil rights issue! I didn't bring up God or god. Others did and tried to equate the issue to Nazism. Nazis by the way were atheist!
oooOOOooo, yes, at one time there was a such thing as card carrying atheist!!!
"Let me see your papers!" LMFAO!!!
You guys are amateurs, LOL!
I am for people being free to live as they wish and I don't see same sex marriage as a threat to anything. I do however see a contradiction in those who don't want the government limiting one small segment of the populations ability to live as they wish in this case, cheering the government taking control of every ones lives in other more critical aspects of their existence and believing ceding their liberty is progress. Quite a contradiction...
I am in full support of smaller government, but I can not understand how a party that claims to be for "smaller government" is so hellbent on government mandates for your personal life.
The reality is that the concept of "smaller government" does not exist in the Republican party. They are all about big government telling you exactly how to live your life. The only difference is they support big government for their ideals.
I guess that makes me a libertarian. But considering this election comes down to conservative or liberal, I will have to lean liberal. I just can not bring myself to support a group that wants to push big government in our personal lives. I do not want to live in a theocratic fascist regime, controlled by religious law. It is sad that we do not have a 3rd option. If Republicans would just leave people alone, I would vote for them . . . unfortunately I doubt that will ever happen.
DAWG
Nobody is picketing in front of your house for the simple reason that you are not that important, regardless of what your mommy tells you. YOU DO NOT MATTER. And because of that, you are not worth the time and energy to picket.
Being a delusional liar does not help your argument.
So, cmbookworm, let me ask you something. I am a prosecutor by living.
Is it a violation of civil rights to throw a 24 year old in jail for rape because he slept with a 16 year old?
Why are there laws which arbitrarily choose 16 as the age of consent?
There are many 16 year old girls who are more mature and make better decisions on a daily basis than does a 24 year old immature boy.
So, is the law governing age of sexual consent a civil rights issue?
I mean we are throwing an awful lot of young males in prison over this law.
There is no right or wrong answer... Your thoughts!
To all the people that apparently have their lives completely under control and have so much free time that they now feel the need to tell others how they should live their lives. Allow me to say that if I was fortunate enough to be in your position I can think of a lot better things to do with my time.
For the majority of the people that are against gay marriage, who are in a position like everyone else and find life often a struggle at times to find something to smile about. What gives you the right to deny to others, their right to show to the world, the person that is responsible for their smile each day.
I will freely admit that as married heterosexual male, a life long Republican, and a person who served over 10 years in the Marine Corps that I don't understand their choices and I probably never will, but to each their own. Everyone has the right to live their own life their own way with one caveat, I expect others not to interfere with my life or how I live it either. Just because they are different does not make either one of them better then the other and the door that is known as tolerance needs to be able to open in both directions equally.
If you were to ask around most people would tell you that they don't care whether you are in the closet or out of the closet, just so long as you stay out of their closet.
heaven or hell?
god or devil?
health or aids?
love or porn?
.
.
.
we need more research about finish point.
I never said they were picketing ME! Reading comprehension would do you wonders. Might even get you a job one day. They picket up and down the street in front of my house one Saturday every month.
A liar? Sure buddy know it all!!! If you can't see it or experience it then it must not exist!! A logic 101 class might help you with that premise of your argument!
You are what we call a SIMPLETON!
Lots of hate and intolerance by people demanding that others be tolerant and not hate. Spencer wants to punch some of them in the face. Wiping out intolerance by using intolerance one face-punching at a time.
Myspellchecker,
Don't worry... The spencers of the world ultimately end up across from me in court. We have nice living quarters awaiting them with three square meals a day! Clean cloths... And, as every facility throughout the country has... A BIG BUBBA just waiting to be his "friend". Bubba is just wonderful for adjusting attitudes, LOL!
Morrigan,nobody is violating your values.You have your values and are in control of them.But you should allow others to their own values also.After all that is what a free society of liberty and justice for all means.
Really?
You did not say your street, or they march by . . . you said YOUR HOUSE. That's it, that is all you said: YOUR HOUSE.
Now what else did you say? Oh yes . . .
Seems you would do well to take your own advice. Again, they do not picket YOUR HOUSE because YOU are not important. You do not matter. I know, reality is harsh to accept. Here is a tissue, go cry to your mommy now.
First off... marriage is NOT a civil right, it's a religious RITE. ANYONE that supports gay marriage is ANTI-RELIGION!!! How could you NOT be if you don't have respect for one's individual right to worship? The gay agenda, being at odds with most religions, hopes to take down religion and make the world secular. And no, I do not believe God hates gays.
Second. abortion IS murder. How can one say it's not? IF that fetus is allowed to live, that fetus will be a human being one day. HOW IS THAT NOT MURDER? Sure, some woman will pretend not to believe that and commit murder anyways, but right is right. Besides, how is it a woman's right???? IF she decides to have that child, the man is saddled with that responsibility. He has not choice in it... and if she decideds to murder her child, again, the man has no choice in it. He's saddled with the responsibility of his child being murdered by his/her mother. Talk about being a monster!!
Prove me wrong...
myspellcheck
No one is demanding that you be "tolerant and not hate".
You are free to hate whoever you want, no one can change that. Hate is an emotion you feel, and emotions can not be regulated, legislated, or taken away. You are free to hate all day long.
What we are demanding is that you provide equal laws and rights to everyone. You can still hate them, but by law they should have equal rights.
For instance: Maybe you hate black people. But the law says they have equal rights. That does not mean your hate changes, as you are free to hate. However, by law they are entitled to the same rights.
See the difference? You can hold on to the hate that you embrace and love so dearly, but by law they still deserve the same rights. No one is taking away your hate, don't worry.
@ Indie,
I do not hate anyone. I am merely pointing out the hate and intolerance of the people posting, which I took the time to read each post. As I pointed out as an example, Spencer wants to punch all those opposed in the face. If you cannot see that in the majority of the posts, then I do not know what to tell you.
The exception being Gtouch. However I am thinking of joining the movement to have all of his posts collapsed, since that has been very popular this week and I would like to get some marketing out during the the Collapse Gtouch Awareness Month. Everyone will be wearing black to symbolize our unity.
First off Siara,
Thank you for teaching me people from Maryland are called Marylanders. That was a head scratcher for me for awhile.
I will be most joyed if Romney wins the election, and each of these states passes gay marriage (Im libertarian).
If you dont like gay marriage, dont get one. Simple right.
Per DAWG: "A BIG BUBBA just waiting to be his "friend". Bubba is just wonderful for adjusting attitudes, LOL!"
Soooo, you are condoning homosexuality but you're against gay marriage? I'm confused - for or against? I think you're confused too. I think you've confused me! Maybe you meant to say you condone rape, not homosexuality. If you're a prosecutor then go prosecute in a real court of law, don't practice here.
*
Spellchecker.............ssshhhh...........I haven't been collapsed today. But the day is young.
myspellcheck
But he, and others, are not telling people to stop the hate and intolerance because that would be impossible. You can not stop an emotion.
So you can point out the fact that people are intolerant of other who are intolerant, but then you find yourself in a circle, going round and round.
The point is that people will hate and be intolerant, but that does not give them the right to restrict equality. No one is trying to take away the rights of the intolerant conservatives . . . they still have their full rights, despite the fact that we disagree with their lifestyle choice. These same rights should be extended to everyone, regardless of how you feel about lifestyle.
People confuse equality and hate all the time. Equal rights is what we are fighting for, NOT the legislation of emotions. It doesn't matter if you hate, or do not hate, homosexuals . . . your emotions are your own. But they still deserve equal rights under the law.
I'm Catholic, and I could care less if gays are granted the right to marry. There are many far more important issues in this election cycle for me to worry about than this. If Bob wants to marry Bill, or Jane wants to marry Jenn, then fine. Let them. Why should only straight people be miserable?
DAWG POUND
As a prosecutor you should already know the answer to that question, in regards to statutory rape. It is to do with the law considering that a 16 year old is not yet mature enough to make the decision without undue coercion by a man/woman who is much older.
This has no comparison with marriage equality, why are you really against marriage equality, lets throw away the red-herring arguments you throw around and hear the truth.
My god, would all you perverts please go back in the closet before some children see you? Try to have a little decency. What would your father say if he saw you sashaying around like that! My God, you're walking like an idiot. Do you really think flapping your wrist like that makes you feminine? Some people just have no morals.
Too late Gtouch. They collapsed you on the Bodies Stolen in Germany article. You almost made it.
You are living proof.
amazedandalarmed,
"My god, would all you perverts please go back in the closet before some children see you?"
That would depend on which children see them. There are gay children, too, or didn't you know that?
Micky...now that is really disturbing.
OilmanMDisBack!! banned, re-reg of OilmanMD. Not a good display name choice, it gave you right away.
Oilman,
"Sally honey...I can do this ALL DAY LONG!"
How much do you want to bet that Sally can do it all day long, too? She's pretty sharp.
Clever.
OilmanMD, seriously, just leave. Nobody wants your rhetoric on their side.
OilmanMDisBack!!! banned, re-reg of OilmanMD.
Of course. We're not going to make the registration process harder. The thing is, she gets paid to do this. Can't imagine what your motivation is to keep coming back, but it does speak well for Newsvine that people can't quit it.
I'd appreciate it if you tried another site. Maybe YouTube? They never seem to ban anyone.
Tyler,
"Can't imagine what your motivation is to keep coming back"
I think Oilman misses you and Sally. That's why he keeps coming back.
Or maybe its Stockholm!
I don't get why people would be opposed to same-sex marriage. Nobody is forcing you to marry same-sex, so if you aren't homosexual why would you even care?
Agreed. People need to mind their own business.
Oilman hit the nail on the head
Our population seems to have a hard time with change or anything they do not automatically fully grasp. If they don't get it, it is either wrong/wasteful/unmoral/et. whatever rationalization that works for them to reason why they shouldn't bother trying to understand something or adjust their mindset.
On the flip side of the coin. I see no reason why gay couples can't have an state recognized (and supported by their religion) union that is called something else if the real concern of the zealots is the use of the word "marriage".
What would I care that it's termed so long as its recognized by my state and church? I'm pretty sure my wife wouldn't mind either. We said our vows, have our rings and cert. and each other, does the word used really matter much beyond that?
To that end I feel both sides are full of stubborn people unwilling to budge.
Regardless, I agree with the mindset of, "If it doesn't affect your quality of life, why would you go out of your way to screw with what someone else is trying to accomplish"? Don't we have bigger things to worry about than raising tons of $$ purely for the purpose of quashing options for other people?
"yeah...we know there are homeless starving people...but uhhh...we're putting these SIX MILLION dollars towards fighting against gay marriage."
Because that's a real good use of time and resources in a down economy...
For ten years I lived next door to a lesbian lady. In ten years the fact she was/is a lesbian affected me in absolutely NO way at all. Live and let live.
Because people are intolerant bigots and like most people who subscribe to a particular brand of religious lunacy, their deity tells them they are right and everyone else is wrong. These hypocrites; (mostly old white male, republicans) think women should be subservient and kept in their place and that alternative lifestyles are a crime against nature.
When this generation of ignorant old homophobes are dead, there will be equality in this country and not before.
Solymnar:
I agree with you and UDunnoBro while also wanting to discuss the whole @!$%#storm over the term "marriage". For some reason Christianity (the most vocal against gay marriage) seems to have forgotten that marriage is the legal contract and Matrimony is the sacrament they are trying so hard to defend. Anyone should be able to be legally married but they want a monopoly on the word after it was adjusted for religious sacraments. They never want to here how "marriage" used to be simple trade of a daughter for something in the most basic of forms. They wanted to change the definition for thier use but refuse to let it evolve past what they want.
It's a club mentality - "we don't want those Homosexuals joining our marriage club....."
Ironically, the divorce rate is about 50% and marriage is becoming less common amongst straight people.
For the same reason people were burned at the stakes for being "witches".
@zflynn
And are you advocating we now burn homosexuals?
That xenophobia is rooted in misogyny and rigid gender roles in regards to sex. Note how quickly the comments from bigots devolve into lurid tales of anal sex, rather than discussing the issues that marriage actually concerns - joint liability, inheritance, property rights, legal kinship, etc.
It's almost like the bigots think marriage is a license to have sex, and that denying that license to gays will keep them from having sex. These nuts are either completely delusional or truly naive.
That's a huge aspect. Equality for gays is what threatens these neanderthals, just as equality for women and blacks still threatens many of them.
It's exactly why the former governor of Hawaii vetoed their civil union bill, and justified that veto by saying "It was too much like marriage". The whole intent is to keep gays as 2nd-class citizens.
Agreed. Good God, when will this silliness end? Allowing a MINORITY of people - gays and lesbians - to get married, does NOT change marriage for the rest of the world! Most people are straight, and most of them will get married and have kids. THAT WILL NOT CHANGE. To be REALLY traditional, I suggest that these paranoid or self righteous anti-same sex marriage lunkheads go back to marriage the way it USED to be: arranged by the parents, with the couple having to be of the same race, social class and religion, with kids being mandatory, with wives not working outside of the home, with no chance for divorce, and with the husband having the legal right to beat his wife.
UDunnoBro,
"I don't get why people would be opposed to same-sex marriage. Nobody is forcing you to marry same-sex"
Yes, exactly! It looks like those two young men in that picture who are holding signs saying, "Honk for Traditional Marriage" are afraid that if gay marriage is allowed, it means they are going to be forced to marry other men. Don't they know that gay marriage only applies to gay people?
It's really very simple, we don't want a perversion to be treated as normal. If being gay was treated as normal and it corrupted just one child because of that, it would justify dedicating ones life to forcing homosexuality back into the closet.
Nikolaus -
Don't forget the wonderful wedding night (still carried out in some places, like South American nations) where the parents of the bride and groom got all up in their business while doing the horizontal mambo to officially ensure the marriage is consumated.
Seriously, though, it started out as a tribalism thing. Other tribes allowed, and even encouraged, homosexuality as a healthy expression of sexuality. Of course, they also allowed what we consider statutory rape in some of those cultures, but we already have separate laws for that. Homosexuality was discouraged for the tribes of Israel (before Israel, of course) as an identifying marker that "those people do this, therefore we won't." Also, see laws regarding clothing of mixed sources, planting crops in fields, sacrificing animals instead of humans, not allowing piercings or tattoos (have you seen the guy with Leviticus 22:19? If only he'd actually read the book, he'd see Leviticus 22:26, I think, proscribing what he'd done to his body), etc.
Of course, this ban did not pertain to raping conquered enemies on the field. That was seen as a form of dominance over other men, rather than an expression of love. That's one reason I can think of for biblical support of prison rape.
amazedandalarmed,
"It's really very simple, we don't want a perversion to be treated as normal. If being gay was treated as normal and it corrupted just one child because of that"
Wake up! The world is full of gay children! Where do you think gay adults come from? Do you think gays hatch out of eggs or fall from the sky like meteorites?
Definition of marriage is between a man and a woman...
When you take an institution such as marriage- between a man and a woman and allow gays to change that institution.... where does it end.... Some friggin guy will want to marry a child-How many of you people would say that is sick?? or will want to marry an animal- not sick enough for you yet?
Let the gays who cry about the boyscouts (private institution) not letting gays join- FORM THEIR OWN CLUB THE GAYSCOUTS and be done with it..... stop the 2% of the population from changing the 98%.. ENOUGH.
Also, why is it okay for women to join mens sports, gym, organizations..... but when done in reverse- it is not okay.
Barriers exist in the world today- to keep people at a distance from another group.
Too many of you people twitter the world when you take a dump. This is what is wrong with our society.
NO MORALS=messed up society NO barriers= too much information- Thank you.
Of course not, they are children corrupted by adult perverts into being gay.
it's been my experience that the most hysterical, homophobic people, such as amazed and Dave here, are so hysterical and vocal because they are struggling with their own homosexual tendencies. Amazed, Dave, is there something you want to get off your chest? You'd feel a lot better if you dropped all the hysterics and just came out. You know your really gay. C'mon, just get it out. Really, we don't mind.
So when did you decide you were straight?
Tam..you don't decide to be normal. You don't decide to refrain from being a murderer or from becoming a thief or from behaving like a pervert. If you are raised right and not mentally ill or corrupted in some way, you simply try to be a reasonably decent, straight human being as a matter of course.
amazedandalarmed
A faulty argument at best, although I'll argue you don't choose to have blue eyes, just like we do not choose our sexuality.
The choice factor is a favorite of the anti-marriage equality troop, believing that a group of people who choose their lifestyle should not be afforded equal rights. Remember religion is a choice, do you think it should too not be afford equality?
amazedandalarmed,
"Of course not, they are children corrupted by adult perverts into being gay."
I can see you yet have a great deal to learn about how the real world works. Are you still a child yourself by any chance?
Krestov-- Freedom of Religion is a basic of this society, but not absolute...if your religion involves sacrifices or public perversions or harms children in any way, they should not be allowed in our society.
..and it is ignorant to equate having blue eyes with a man acting like a caricature of a woman and letting another man enter his rectum. That is a choice. If for some reason you don't like women, you could be a decent human being and do without.
Children are far more likely to be corrupted by your ignorance than by Gay people. Hatred is contagious, gay isn't.
amazedandalarmed
And you are obviously ignorant of sexuality in nature and humans if you think what you do.
Micky...nope, I'm in my 60's.
Krestov-- I admit I don't automatically accept whatever is currently fashionable nor do I try to be politically correct, but that does not make me ignorant.
I simply do not believe an accident at birth or a gene mutation causes anyone to HAVE TO have perverted sex. Sure a very, very small number are genetically flawed and not quite totally male or female, but nothing is forcing them to engage in any sex of any kind for that matter. It is a choice.
amazedandalarmed,
"Micky...nope, I'm in my 60's."
Then you should know better than to say the things you do. Gays do not become gay through being "corrupted" by adult gays. The concensus among them is that they are born that way. I don't know if that is true or not. I personally don't believe we have enough scientific evidence yet to prove conclusively that it is true at this point in time, although there is some. But it is the concensus among gays based on their own experience that they are born that way because they cannot ever remember a time in their lives when they were not gay. I think it would be wise to listen to them. I think most of them will tell you they did not become gay through being "corrupted" by an adult gay. You might be able to understand that, too, if it were not for your own hatred.
Micky..I can safely say I don't hate anybody, not can I remember ever hating anybody other a very big older bully when I was a child. I certainly don't even dislike someone I haven't even met, but I do consider certain behavior distasteful and harmful to children. I have absolutely no problem with homosexuality if it is kept TOTALLY private and kept away from children and definitely oppose our children being taught it is cool or even normal. The ACT of homosexuality among men is disgusting to me, it seems to strip the humanity of anyone who practices it, it is asking for disease and mental anguish and stress...no decent parent would ever wish it upon their son nor even want their son exposed to it.
amazedandalarmed,
"I have absolutely no problem with homosexuality if it is kept TOTALLY private and kept away from children and definitely oppose our children being taught it is cool or even normal. "
I'm glad you hear you don't hate gays, but I am not convinced of that. You say you don't hate them, but it is obvious you would prefer that they did not exist. And as for your children, it really does not matter what they are taught. If they are gay, they will be gay whether you like it or not.
"The ACT of homosexuality among men is disgusting to me"
I can't argue with that. The ancient Romans had a saying, "De gustibus non est disputandum", which means, "There is no arguing about taste". There are plenty of things I find disgusting which you might love. I hate boiled okra, for example. I think it is the most disgusting vegetable I have ever eaten. It's like eating mucous, all slimy and everything. But I have no objection to others eating it at all, and I would certainly never try to ban it. So just because you find homosexuality disgusting does not mean it is wrong. It only means you should not engage in it any more than I engage in eating okra.
When I used to work in a restaurant we used to be able to coin the phrase to "marry the catsup bottles and salt shakers", and when I worked as a bartender we would marry the lower shelf liquor bottles...vodka to vodka, gin to gin..etc., to marry simply means to join, the holy matrimony part simply comes after i.e. "as to join in holy matrimony" Not all marriages are done in a church, and a judge with a bible in a court or office setting doesn't replace that...it's simply a legal marriage as define by whatever current laws are on the books at the state/fed and local level. If we left individual rights up to the will of the majority..we may still have slavery in the south, women may still not be able to vote..the list can go on. This is what the fight is for, it maybe recognized at a state or local level, but does not have the same rights at the Federal level...rightfully it should be equal across the board or we have inequality. Gays are not forcing anyone to accept their way of life, nor putting anything in anyone's face any more than other non-gays are when they walk hand in hand, or kiss and embrace or showing love and support of who they are with in a public place...we simple accept it as the "norm". We now have to be in the forefront to get equal rights..to accept something less is like accepting that you are less equal and not deserving of the rights giving to others who are also "married" such as any benefits extended if that be the case. Like others in our past thereis only one way to put it out there...act up, protest. There will always be disagreements between those of different beliefs...look back in history..some not too long ago, and as always the dam middle east. I second that this fight should not even be having to take place in this day and age. So many hypocrites and bigots...but that's those with their rights to be such as well. When will it end...When we cause our own extinction I guess.
I recall the same issue with the word "Olympics"...the phrase Gay Olympics could not be used...not because they were prejudice so they say, but because the word "Olympics" was synonymous to a particular group. However, they did allow the word to be used in "Special Olympics" because of who the participants were...precious and special with limitations. My point is that no one should "own" a word that has more than one definition or term meaning. Prejudice is a right...means nothing more than a choice...gay/straight men/women are predjudiced against having sex with anyone they are not drawn too. So if this is about "owning" a term used to think your marriage situation is more "holy" and thus acceptable that someone else's because it's the so called "norm" then it's time for a change and a new chapter in the books. Just saying...
amazedandalarmed
Your knowledge on genetics is rather lacking, however, I can tell you that human sexuality as with all sexuality in the natural world is genetically linked. Also why constantly imagine what two men or women do with each other. We are talking about marriage not sex.
Also another aspect is I assume you think children who are around gay men and women are more likely to be gay themselves. Nope, not the case. Children raised in house holds with two parents of the same sex are no more or less likely to be gay.
By your logic children raised in a single parent family should be asexual ;).
Krestov,
"Also another aspect is I assume you think children who are around gay men and women are more likely to be gay themselves. Nope, not the case. Children raised in house holds with two parents of the same sex are no more or less likely to be gay."
That's right, but in amazedandalarmed's mind, homosexuality is a contagious disease. You can't allow children around gays or they will catch it, and then they will have to spend the rest of their lives suffering from feelings of shame and guilt which he/she no doubt believes all gays must suffer from.
amazed and whatever.... who are you to dictate what's normal. To me, it's your outpouring of hatred and narrow-mindedness that I find perverted.
Michael Gray. You are disgusting. I can't believe you're a "Certified" preacher.
All I will say is COME ON JESUS !
I wouldn't hold your breath...
actually, for everyone's sake, please do.
Come on Jesus. Does he play for the Yanks?
If you read the Bible, you know that Jesus was a liberal.
Feed the hungry. Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. Blessed are the peacemakers. Whatsoever you do to the least of your brothers, that you do unto me.
We don't actually know what his attitude was toward homosexuals. However, given that he found joy in the presence of many different 'marginalized' people, I'd expect that they numbered among Jesus' friends.
Do not judge, lest you too be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Morrigan, yes, Jesus was drawn to sinners. And yet, like He told the adultress, "Go and sin no more". Yes, Jesus called for us to feed the poor. He did NOT say the government, He told US to feed the poor. Yes, we are to forgive, yes, we are to love gay people. BUT, loving them doesn't mean that we must accept the sin as holy and good. It's NOT!
This is a civil marrage; not a religious one. Religion has NOTHING to do with it. It's just like the 50's with civil rights.
Forget your religious rants; it has nothing to do with religion. These folks are not asking to be married in your churches.
Dave...Jesus did come on...right after I did last night...as soon as he finds one of you who can read and write above a fifth grade level he's going to advocate his new lifestyle in the new bible. Pity you won't be able to read it...it'll be high school level litreature.
Come on Jesus?
Why would you encourage others to come on ANYONE?
Pervert.
It seems some of the "devout" mostly use their bibles to beat others over the head for imaginary "sins".
Morrigan's above post is right on the money. The term "being Christian" used to mean showing kindness and understanding, not vindictive, brutal intolerance.
morrigan-1568233,
Jesus couldnt have been liberal. He was never in favor of stealing more money from people to give to the lazy. He was for personal responsibility, something liberals seem to hate now adays.
Hey, folks -- while I do not agree with Linda M's comment, I see no reason why it should be collapsed. She clearly believes being gay is a sin. I firmly believe that it has nothing to do with sin. Neither of us should be collapsed if we express our beliefs in a reasonable and respectful manner.
No, Mr. Burns -- Jesus was not in favor of stealing, period. However, I have never heard anyone quote him as saying that the poor were poor because they were lazy -- "Blessed are the poor....." And he expected people to be decent enough to help those who were less fortunate. And as far as I can see, he never talked about "personal responsibility!"
Mr. Burns - I always find it kind of funny when people say things like..."Jesus was not in favor of stealing more money from people to give to the lazy...."
It's funny because this means that you equate taxation to STEALING but Jesus clearly states throughout the New Testament that his followers should pay what ever taxes they owe. He does not say fight taxes or only pay them if you think they are fair... Maybe that's because Jesus kind of advocates for giving away pretty much all of your money and worldly possessions. It may not be popular but it is the true Christian way ;)...
Google search "Jesus on taxes" for your verse of choice :)
Why is the USA which is so technologically advanced so backward on social issues like health care, gun control and now same sex marriage. Grow up and join the rest of the world here in the 21st Century.
USA backwards for gun control, how lame is your brain?
Dave, people who describe a culture as "backward" must understand how they must look form the other culture's angle.
OK, I looked....yup, devoutly religious people are DEFINITELY BACKWARDS!!!!
Not true at all. Many devoutly religious people are socially liberal. "Devout" doesn't mean "unthinking". For these people, reason and intellect come from God too.
It is not prejudice to support the traditional definition of marriage.
Governments cannot change what a higher authority has wrought. Like it or not, this action defiles the sanctity of marriage.
Like every other civil right, the fed.gov and state(less) government are on board to destroy them all. Anarchy is coming if the Democrooks and Republicons are not eradicated from the nation.
Ummm, sure they can. For example, you can't kill your disobedient children. Oh, and the bible is made up anyway.
Everything is not ok just because you or someone else wants it. Perversion is one of those areas.
it is most certainly prejudicial to PREVENT others from marrying. You don't support gay marriage? don't marry someone who is gay..but allow others the FREEDOM to do so. duh.
this is a discussion of SECULAR marriage (the marriage contract between two consenting adults), not the SACRAMENT of marriage, so your point about "the sanctity of marriage" is irrelevant.
What is the traditional definition of marriage and who gets to define it?
It is absolutely prejudicial to deny equal rights to anyone. YOU do not have to marry a same sex partner. But to prevent another from their right to marry the consenting adult of their choice is unethical, disgusting and discriminatory! "Christians" should be ashamed of themselves as I'm sure God is!
The U.S. is a secular republic, not a theocracy.
NC, I have seen and heard more people pervert the teachings of their various religions that anything else. So does that make them "perverts"
And yet we have a Representative (from, I think, Tennessee,) advocating that very thing. He did say that it probably wouldn't happen very often, but that there still should be a government process for it.
Blue N Gold:
Even if we bought the whole higher authority thing, you only have the sancitity of the sacrament of Matrimony. That's the actual religious term.
Also the traditional definition of marriage started way before your particular cult did. It was an exchange of a daughter to another tribe for peace or some other reason that was beneficial to both parties.
The bible is not a reliable source of information, any text which tells you that snakes(gen 3), donkeys(num 22:28), trees(jdg 9:8-9) and burning bushes talk(ex 3: 2-4), bats are fowl(lev 11:19 & Deu 14:18), rabbits chew the cud(lev 11:6), there was a global flood(gen 6 -9), and PI = 3(1kings 7:23 & 2 Chn 4:2), can only be a fairytale, and thus not a source of factual information.
And your solution, of course, is a Christian theocracy. Good luck with that.
Blue N Gold, what a dope you are. The government's main interest is that you each can be claimed legally and financially responsible for each other and this to include the offspring you may produce...including any "gay" children resulting from your holy matrimony/martimoney. Other than that...the government could care less.
If you vote for same sex marriages then you are just a big sinner as those who do this type of thing. Marriage is not meant to be same sex. The purpose of marriage is procreation. You cannot create children by being two men nor can you by being two women.
Vote Romney/ Ryan for Family Values.
the purpose of marriage, LEGALLY, is NOT procreation.
Your poor reasoning ability does not justify withholding equal rights to gays.
1) that sad.
2) we don't require procreation, fertility etc, for people to be married.
You have no leg to stand on.
The only fact that matters here is that this nation was founded on the priciple of a seperation of church and state. This was done so to prevent one religion form dictating public policy for the entire nation. Because of this, using religion as the conerstone of the argument against same sex unions invalidates your argument. If said religion does not want to recognize these unions or conduct the ceremonies that they should be able to do so. But the church does not govern this nation or at least it shouldn't.
Thank you for telling us all what the purpose of marriage is. Of course, by your definition, if a man or woman is sterile - through no fault of their own - they shouldn't be able to get married, since they can't have children. Oh, wait - they can adopt. Just as gays couples can.
Learn to differentiate between a marriage rite, performed at some religious institution, and a marriage, which is a legal right, open, for example to an atheist couple that believes in none of your religiously based fantasies.
So if you're infertile you must immediately get a divorce.
And I certainly hope you've never engaged in sex for recreational purposes. You'll go to hell for that.
For you marriage is not meant to be same sex, and that is fine, no one is forcing you to marry your same sex. The purpose of marriage is not procreation, you don't have to be married to have a baby. It is to protect property and inheritance. Marriage was not a religious invention, it has always been controlled by civil laws.
Hey Benjoh, my wife had a hysterectomy. I am divorcing her tomorrow!! LOLOLO
So infertile couples and menopausal women should not be married? Or if they already are, then they shouldn't have sex? Huh....I thought sex had a lot of other purposes. I know people who are married and don't want children, and they have protected sex all the time.
Gumdrop, you slay me!!!
TamL - what total crap. Marriage is derived in Western Civilization by teachings in the Bible. You do know what that is right? Go back to school before you attempt to pandar to people that know better. Oh, and KJ28, if you mouthed your BS with the people that discoverd this and settled this nation you would be dead in about an hour; if you did the same with most of the founding fathers in support of same-ssex marriage you might live a day or two longer. Spare your historical treatise on the nature of the founders of this nation and most of Western Civilization. It is VERY clear how they felt about immorality. THEY DID NOT TOLERATE IT IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM!
JP, so really? No one in human history got married before the Bible was written? How amazing...
So if you choose, as a couple, NOT to have childrenm you're less married? PUH-LEASE!
Western Civ doesn't include the Greeks? Cuz they had no problem with homosexuality. Indeed, Plato's take on it was that people were created male/male, female/female and male/female. Somehow the 2 halves were separated, so now we look to find out other half. (sorry, I've butchered this, I think it's in his Dialogues...)
Are you saying we should prohibit marriage for post-menopausal women, men who have had vasectomies, woman who have had tubes tied, and anyone found to be infertile?
Are you related to Todd Akins?
WRONG. Civil marriage predates organized religion by thousands of years; there were provisions for marriage found in Hammurabi's Code and the Hittite Laws. Furthermore, our laws and government were based on English common law, and documents like the Magna Carta, NOT the bible.
Practice what you preach (BTW, the word is "pander," not "pandar").
We are not, and have never been, a theocracy; we are, and have always been, a secular nation. THAT is what the Fouding Fathers expressly intended for this nation, which is why there is a separation of church and state built in to our laws.
Sure, you don't want to us provide facts about the founding of this nation, since they completely DISPROVE your bull@!$%#.
BTW, what does immorality have to do with gay marriage? The only "immorality" here is your ignorance and bigotry.
JP people were getting married a long time before Christianity. And believe it or not non-Christians are also allowed to get married. Bet that chafes your a$$.
HONK! HONK!
Honk if you enjoy being unpatriotic and denying other americans civil rights just due to your own biased, bigoted beliefs.
Christians are such patriots...they would deny the rights of other Americans because it doesn't fit their belief system regardless that a percentage of other Americans don't believe the same way. They cry for smaller government and then proceed to tell their citizenry how to live.
Notice it's 1 man and 1 woman, we don't want there to be any confusion, like 2 men and 3 women or 1 man and 20 women, or one man, 2 wives and 5 concubines. This isn't old testament times anymore.....or is it?
Old testament:
Pros: Multiple wives :)
Cons: No shrimp :(
NO lobster bisque for you!!!!
Go to a Muslim country and demand Gay Rights.
Just stop shoving the 2% poplulation issues down our throats!!!!!!!
SICK OF THIS CRAP ALREADY!!!!
someone tell the GAYS THAT EVERYTHING IS NOT A FASHION SHOW. STOP THE DRAMA.
Sounds like you're a member of the Christian Taliban and want America to be more like Saudi Arabia.
So what you're saying, DaveM, is that you wish this country was more Islamic? Why don't You move?
Nope not Christian or Muslim. Buy apparently, you missed the point.......
Does gay marriage really matter? What will it change for you? Will you be better? worse? wake up different?
NO to all of the above.... GAYS politicize everything, whine, cry, shove it down people's throat until they get their way. All the while flaunting being GAY to everyone. Politicians love to cowtow to them to get the vote
Learn to be happy with yourself first. JOIN THE GAYSCOUTS.........stop trying to change AMERICA into Sodom and Gomorrah.
Funny how you attack, but expect everyone to be sensitive to YOUR needs.
SKrekk and tag- I am happy that you are gay. really.
It'll mean that my gay daughter will no longer be a 2nd-class citizen and will have the same rights my wife & I enjoy.
The only ones who are shoving their crap down other people's throats are whiny bigots like you. Apparently you can't tolerate it when the people you hate have the same legal rights as you.
Why would we want to let people make their own decisions on who they would want to marry. It's plain silly that we even have to have a law about this. Oh, right, need to spend money on lawyers, courts, and politicians, keeping the economy going. got it
You want an answer, here it is, it's UNNATURAL, it cannot procreate, lets put 100 'gay' married couples on an island and 100 historical married couples on another, pay a visit in 100 years. But the major point is God created them male and female, Adam and Eve. But you go ahead and justify your perverted behavior. It's reasoned most gays were abused when young, it's probably true. call us all the phony names you want, but you can't call us perverted q u e e r s, etc. Sad when those who do wrong think they are right.
Others find YOUR behavior "unnatural."
Not according to HISTORY! But that doesn't count in your eyes does it, how sad. Pedifiles think they are OK too, I don't agree with them either.
Yankee Boy,
But those who find his behavior unnatural are perverts. No one cars what the perverts think.
Don't care about your fake god. Reason and logic say there is nothing wrong with this. It's 2012, put the bible down and pick up a book.
It didn't take long for the "pedophile" post to show up from the usual haters and bigots. How lame.
And I see this "put gay men on an island" stupidity has shown up too.
None of this has anything to do with americans having equal rights to a secular marriage contract.
being obsessively interest in what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms is unnatural. Grow up.
Homosexuality is not "unnatural." You poor reasoning ability does not justify denying civil rights to homosexuals.
Hey Sam, perverted is what you do in private with a duck, that is unless the duck is consenting :)
Sam...if it'll get 200 people just like you out of the country, I'm all for it. When will you be departing...me and Jesus will bake you a farewell cake. Don't let the flag hit your a** on the way out, either.
sam-790083, you are suspended for a day for violating rule # 5 of the Code of Honor.
Well looks like the hetero mankind "group" got the procreate down to a fine art now with 7 Billion of us trying to kill off the very planet we need to survive on. So just maybe since mankind seems to come up with a medicine for every germ or nearly every ailment thrown our way as mother nature's way of "thinning our herd" that a variety of mankind was created that will not reproduce and can live amoungst those who do...or can it be possible for a creator to be so smart? Haters just excercise your right to hate and we will excercise our right to "Annoy the fuk out of you" if you tread on what rights we should have to make us all equal under the guise of "equal rights under the law".
You should not be permitted to use the power of the state to force your personal and religious views on others. This is not the Taliban America. Yet.
Why not? The LGBT folks are trying to force their opinions on normal people.
stupid post by NC. is anyone trying to force you to marry someone you don't want to, or not be able to marry someone you want to? of course not. NOTHING is being "forced" on you.
NC, if how common something is defines normal (as your posts suggest) then you are not normal. The majority of Americans are fine with gay marriage. We are the "normal".
NC - yeah, the same way abolitionists forced you to consider black people to be human beings with rights equal to white people. Get over your backwards prejudices.
Nobody is "forcing" their views on you...you don't like it, don't do it.
At one time it wasn't considered "normal" for women to vote - after all they were the property of their fathers or husbands.
Yankee Boy - and you should not use the power of the state or intimidation, coercion, and the instilling of fear to force IMMORAL and ANTI-RELIGIOUS views on others. If anyone is "Taliban" like in this nation it is the Gay and Lesbian lobby and their supporters that label everyone that disagrees with them a bigot or racist, pickets their homes, ostracizes their businesses, and threatens their families and right to freedom of speech. Try writing an article in a major newspaper not support gay agendas and see what happens, and you better have a gun handy in your home.
Wow, take a chill pill - how does this hurt you personally? If you think the gays are all going to hell, then you should be pleased to leave them alone to sin at will.
And I hate to tell you, but interracial marriage was also illegal in many states because "you don't see blue and red birds marrying do you? It's against god and nature!" People always pull the religion card when they want to deny other people their civil rights.
Morality is subjective, which is why it is not legislated. Your bigotry is extremely immoral.
As far as religion is concerned, no law can be enacted that promotes a personal religious or moral view -- look up Lemon v. Kurtzman. Gay marriage is not "anti-religious".
What rights will be denied to you when gay marriage is legalized everywhere, JP?
In a previous post, I stated that marriage is not a civil right, it's a religious RITE. The gay agenda pushing for "tollerance" shows INTOLLERANCE to people's religions. So say I MUST accept their views is just as bad as the gay agenda dimissing my values for the rite of marriage. YOUR president oboma stated in the begining of his failed term that he wasn't for gay marriage, and that every American has the right to a civil union, which should be enough (his words).
Sounds like you've confused marriage with holy matrimony.
In America marriage is just a legal contract. What country do you live in - Iran?
My gay friends agree that the State should not force any gay into a marriage because marriage is for heterosexuals and my gay friends say they want civil unions to be the norm. I agree.
Bigot of Steel, perhaps your hypothetical "gay friends" would like to speak for themselves about whether they want to be subject to Jim Crow laws?
I don't have time to explain this to you right now. So I will give you the basic rundown. Marriage is a God thing, One man one Woman period. That is why people have a problem with it. If you want people to not have a problem with it you will have to call it something else. Its really pretty simple.
I do have time to explain this to you..since this is a simple concept. In america, marriage is a secular, legal contract between two consenting adults. You can get married in a town hall, for example.
Marriage is a legal thing, so views of religion are irrelevant.
Twins and Vermontguy, it is both, that's why both sides have an argument. I think Twins suggestion that it is simply called something else would dramatically reduce opposition to the concept. It is really shoving it in religious people's faces to name homosexual unions after a " holy sacrament". Equality must include freedom for people's religious beliefs and where possible accommodation.
but why do christians get to "own" the word marriage? why can't they change the word if they want to..you know, to something they ALREADY use like "Holy Matrimony" to refer to the religious aspect of marriage. They already have the solution in hand..but they are too obstinate to use it.
The problem with giving gays "civil unions" and straights "marriage" is that these "separate but equal" deals rarely work out.
FALSE FALSE FALSE! I'm married, and became so in a secular ceremony on a lake-shore. No god required.
In contrast, people who go through a ceremony in a church without a state issued license are NOT married.
I will give YOU the basic rundown. Civil marriage predates organized religion by thousands of years, and in this secular nation, legal marriage is and has always been strictly a civil contract. Furthermore, same-sex marriages were legal in quite a few ancient civilizations, and our own Native Americans performed same-sex marriages. PERIOD.
YOU don't own the word "marriage". It's really pretty simple.
Sorry marriage is a civil construct, to protect property and inheritance. Holy Matrimony is a god thing, something completely different, but which god?
So, only christians should be allowed to get married? Is that your argument? Well, it won't hold water in the USA but try it in some backwards theocracy with a slack jawed dictator...they LOVE people like you.
Rapper M Jones... that's just stupid. It's NOT only Christians... it's just about every religion that worships God. Who said, except your bigotted ass, anything about only Christians?? Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Catholic, they all are against non-traditional marriage. So what, 3 Billion people are wrong, and YOU'RE right? Damn... full of yourself much?
Actually, Sadden American, 71% of US Catholics support same-sex marriage.
BTW, there are many Christian denominations that support and perform same-sex marriages.
Perhaps if you'd stop pulling "facts" from the encyclopedia of your ass...
Unless you happen to have descended from a polygamist sect that was moved from Utah to Mexico by your grandfather.
I'm still trying to figure out how my marriage affects anyone else EVER unless I decide to cheat.
Doesn't matter who I am married to. AND Why do we need laws governing sex with animals?
You Biblical wierdos want a bandwagon to jump on ----- Jump on that one.
Unless it is OK with you to have (nonconsentual) sex with our four legged friends.
This Marylander is beyond excited to vote for marriage equality next month! :)
You have the choice to be an idiot!
why does that make brittany an idiot? allowing others equal rights is idiotic?
poolman has the choice to be a homophobic bigot.
vermont, I don't have the choice to hate the homosexual lifestyle, I was born with high moral standards and since I was born that way and it was not a CHOICE, your homosexual lifestyle is a violation of my civil rights!
Poolman, your moral standards are actually pretty low given the bulk of logically derived codes of ethics. Also, your reasoning skills are sad. Unless someone is making you enter a gay marriage, attend a gay marriage, etc. your civil rights are not impacted in the least. Period.
Now go back to cleaning someones pool.
Based on your post, you were born with NO moral standards.
Homosexuality is not a lifestyle, nor is it a choice. And how does it violate YOUR civil rights -- especially your right to be an idiot, which you're exercising so freely here?
poolman,
If you were truly born with high moral standards, you would know that it's wrong to discriminate.
And how is the homosexual "lifestyle" a violation of your civil rights?
Go back to cleaning pools.
He believes it's a violation of his "civil rights" because it personally offends him. However I don't recall anything in the Constitution that guarantees anyone a right not to be offended.
I personally find poolman offensive, but I'm willing to put up with it.
WOW... dude uses the same verbage of the Gay Agenda, and everying calls him a biggot and offensive... what's that say about the Gay Agenda's position??
Sadden American,
Because he is using the same "verbage" of those of us who support SSM, he is acting bigoted and offensive by trying to denigrate the idea of equal protection.
And the only "Gay Agenda" out there is to be recognized as equal citizens under the law. How can one not support that?
As to this "gay agenda" I agree with Hambone. The only group of people I see trying to change a person's sexual orientation are straight people-ever hear of those "therapies" or camps designed to make young gay people straight? There is no equivalent programs to make straight people gay.
poolman1, you are suspended for a day for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
I support same sex marriage as I feel this issue is between the two who want to get married and none of my business. I just can't wrap my brain around why there are those opposed to this. Really, how will this negatively impact those opposed to it? Is this just the Bible thumpers attempt to force their religious ideology on others? If so then they are like the Taliban of the US.
The government at many levels (federal, state, local) supports marriage. This support has developed over time as legislators have passed laws (tax laws, inheritance laws, visitation rights etc.) to the advantage of married people. As we evaluate adding to the definition of marriage I think it is important to look back at why government's made the decision (again and again) to pass laws that benefit married people.
Our economy has several features that require a steady influx of labor (Social Security, group insurance plans, productions, etc.) and a steady influx of consumers. This has been achieved primarily by procreation (supplemented by immigration).
Supporting marriage supports, not only physical procreation, but the support and education these new workers/consumers require. This is why marriage is good for our country.
These benefits are not solely the purview of traditional marriage. Single people, un-married couples or same-sex 'married' people can provide some or all of these advantages. But how should we as a society determine the advantage to society of providing advantages to influence people into specific relationships? Is it better for the country to have 'married' same-sex people as opposed to domestic partnerships or just co-habitating? How?
If the issue is fairness, than laws that benefit married people should be reduced or eliminated. We should not add a new group to benefit from the married advantages. If fairness is the issue, why do we discriminate against single people, or potentially groups greater than 2.
Sounds like you'd also support whites-only drinking fountains.
jje,
You write well and make points, however this is where you falter. "But how should we as a society determine the advantage to society of providing advantages to influence people into specific relationships?" There is not and never has been any attempt or wish to influence anyone into any type of relationship. This is the fear of the uninformed that there is some plot afoot. At this point your argument becomes fear based and devoid of any factual reality.
YB..Every law is just that. Why are you so perverted and depraved that you cannot see it. Oh yeah, St paul wrote that God let these 'people' go on with their perverted passion, it's exactly what we see today, He said their brain are basically 'seared' thinking they were right in their actions. But judgement awaits, sorry for the bad news, but you can turn with His help.
Is St. Paul the spokesman for your god?
Or was Jesus?
I'm happy to know that you never have sex without the express purpose of procreation and do not enjoy it one bit; your god would be proud.
How about you let the rest of us use that "free will" your god gave us and choose our own path?
WDColorado baned for death wishing all homosexuals.
No, thank you.
sorry but need to get back to work...
I was born with my high moral standards! It was not a choice for me to make, I was born with high moral standards! Therefore anytime I see the disgusting act of two men holding hands or doing more than that, or two women holding hands or doing more than that, they are violating my civil rights as an individual born with high moral standards!
Your poor grasp of logic does not support your claim that your civil rights are being violated.
people like poolman always think THEIR view of morality is superior to others.
Personally, I find it very IMmoral to deny other americans equal rights.
and yes, gays are not violating his civil rights. how stupid.
vermont, What about equal rights? It is not my choice to morally superior to homosexuals, I was born that way and homosexuals violate my civil rights by being homosexual! I guess you don't believe in equality! You moralphobic bigot!
vermontguy - You are so right! I find it completely immoral and unethical to deny equal rights to any person! I think poolman doesn't really understand the meaning of "morals", because he certainly has a serious lack of them!
you have no "right" to impose your views on others. No civil right of yours is being violated. scotus ruled, in lawrence vs texas, for example, that gays have the CONSTITUIONAL right to be gay.
Your view of your own personal morality is completely irrelevant...you must be a "legend in your own mind". lol. :)
Maybe you should educate yourself so your posts are so stupid? Just a thought...
vermont, Ahh the old double standard! Your parents and society have failed you!
no double standard. your brain has failed you. :)
no one has the right to have their personal bigoted views forced on others in terms of limiting other's beliefs. You are welcome to beleive what you want, but restricting freedom has to have a basis in causing problems to others, not being based on bigotry.
for example, child molestation is not a "right" for molesters because those actions hurt others.
stealing is not a "right" because those actions hurt others.
gay marriage doesn't hurt others..other than their bigotry.
Poolman, I'd just stop if I were you. I was going to respond to you thinking you were making hyperbolic statements to inflame discussion, but have now come to realize you are retarded. Each comment you make only serves to announce to the world that you are incapable of complex reasoning.
I don't say this out of condescension, but rather out of pity.
You were born with NO moral standards -- and you have obviously made the choice to keep NO moral standards.
Actually, YOU are violating OUR civil rights as intelligent individuals born with high moral standards.
Don't look. Problem solved.
Next.
Hey Poolman, I am sure you were born with moral standards, but who told you they were high? Honesty, no one is born with moral standards, they were all taught their morals when they were young. Normally as we mature we are able to differentiate between taught morals and true morals.
Actually, moral standards are taught. I also have high moral standards, which is why I am for marriage equality. Some straight people enjoy bashing gays for being evil, having casual sex with multiple partners, not being able to commit, etc. (huh, sounds like some straight people I know) and I think it's annoying them to find out that gay people have loving, committed relationships.
Casual Sex and Multiple Partners? Not just for gays anymore :
Poolman, you were born with a low IQ. No doubt your belt size is higher. Higher than your moral standards too. It brightens my day to know you are miserable about this. Carry on.
Religious zealots are NOT "supporting traditional marriage." Gay marriages have no effect on traditional marriages. The sole purpose and effect of preventing gay marriage is to punish gay people. The myth that the religionists "support traditional marriage" is partly due to dishonesty and partly due to the fact that they reason so damned poorly.
If you are expending time and mental resources worrying over who is in someone else's bed, conditions must be deplorable in your own! I've been a practicing heterosexual pretty much all my life, (near 70), but I do not believe that heterosexuals should have a monopoly on misery. May the blessings of Zeus, Athena, Neptune, Pluto, Thor, the Cookie Monster and the scaley bark hickory in my backyard rain down heavily upon each of you.
My neighbors two doors up the street are a gay couple. My neighbors directly across the street are a male/female husband and wife. The ones across the street have a long history of domestic issues, their children are out of control and their yard resembles Sanford & Son. The gay couple on the other hand are quiet, respectful and a delight to socialize with. What goes on behind their bedroom doors is none of my business, but from what I see from my front yard, my choice is clear.
A good example of why prejudice and stereotyping doesn't work. There is the oppurtunity for greatness and disfunction in any relationship. To deny any couple a chance because sometimes they fail is wrong. Given the divorce rate, it would make more sense to eliminate marriage altogether. I prefer to give everyone a chance.
By statistical average, I should not be married any more. My wife and I were both 17 when we got married and welcomed my oldest son a month later (my son at 4 or 5: "Boy, I bet you guys were surprised!") We celebrated our 26th anniversary last month and my boys will be 26 and 22 later this month. At the same time, all 3 of my brothers have been divorced at least once. Go figure.
Nothing is more devastating to family values, society and the economy than divorce between one man and one woman.
Is it worse than divorce between one woman and one woman?
I think B70's point was that, if you want to worry about family values, you should start with the 95% of families (heterosexuals) and worry about their issues.
I agree that divorce is very bad, but quite a bit of attempts have been made and will continue to be made to reduce/prevent divorce. It is a major source of societal, economic and emotional hardship for all involved. My religion (I'm Roman Catholic) doesn't even allow divorce, per Jesus' direct statement on the topic.
But because a thing is bad, does not mean all other things should simply be ignored. Hunger is worse than ignorance, but I don't think we need to successfully feed every person on the planet before we are justified in educating any.
Two same-sex people getting married hurts no one but it does offend the conscience of the average "boomer". Your kids don't mind. Let younger people build a world that works for them, not some rerun of the "Brady Bunch" that jives with our outdate view of the society.
Can someone answer a question for me? If gay marriage passes how will that affect religious establishments such as churches? I am definitely for equal marriage rights for all, I just don't know how that will work when it comes to marriages in churches. The government can't force a church to do something it doesn't believe in, can it? And I'm athiest, haha! Will this turn into the something similar to the contraceptive fiasco? I just want to make sure that EVERYONE has the right to believe what they believe, no matter which side of the issue they're on (so long as they're respectful of course).... Thanks guys!
Churches will not be obligated to conduct marriage ceremonies inconsistent with their teachings. The law affects ONLY civil marriage - which is the only kind of marriage that the government has any interest in.
@Fallible: Awesome, thanks! :) That's exactly what I was hoping to hear.
That is a common fallicy put out by the bigots. They are not required to marry any hetero couple who walks in the door, why would they be required to marry a same-sex couple?
And as to the contraception fiasco, no church or religious employer is required to buy any service or prescription. However, they must provide the oppurtunity just like every other employer. Nothing imposed but equal treatment to all employed.
Thanks! The Separations Clause protects churches from the government interfering with religious organizations. Yet, when churches and religious leaders spend millions seeking laws to prevent same sex marriage, no one seems to get upset. I found a huge opportunity for taxation that will bring billions to the federal government. Start taxing churches and religious holdings. Why is it that churches can get political and not pay taxes? If corporations are people, and corporations pay taxes, then perhaps churches should pay taxes.
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Period! Marriage was created by The creator of heaven and earth, created for a man and a women. Adam and Eve was the first. as God gave Adam a wife to bring forth children and be fruitful. A gay marriage cannot be fruitful. That is not what God intended. What you do and how you live your life is you choice. But this country was founded in God we trust. I have gay friends and family members. And I'd tell them the same thing. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. NEVER CHANGING! And to think if eveyone was that way there wold be no creation on earth. Sorry but thats what it is. And thats what I believe.
There is religious marriage and there is civil marriage. The state has no interest in what happens in a church. What you believe is irrelevant to the law. If you don't want a homosexual marriage, don't have one.
"In God We Trust" was not made the U.S. motto until 1956 in a response to the 'threat' of Communism. This country was not founded as a theocracy, nor was it founded on Christian principles. We are a secular republic.
If you intend to make an argument with the fiction of the bible, you make no argument at all.
HOW do you know what G*d intended. Your statement assumes facts not in evidence as they say in court. If you want to believe the hogwash you spew that's fine, but don't expect everyone to follow your fallacious thinking. You have done nothing but distort the essence of belief in a deity and have fewer facts in your reasoning than romney during the last debate.
Oilman that freaking awesome!!
Oilman--
In regards to #1--How can anyone find roasting BBQ offensive. Clearly you need a better class of neighbor!
Holy Toledo holyspiritio,
You're taking your cue from a book that condones murder of infants, incest, and genocide.
Period!!
Do you scripture quoters have a clue where the bible came from? All the different languages, translations, transcriptions, cultures, and hundreds upon hundreds of years that it evolved from? You do know for instance, that many scribes changed the meaning of texts just because they thought it should be a certain way. Thousands of similar circimstances have altered the writings from their original form. And you are going to pick out a line or two, ignoring the meaning of the book as a whole which is to love your fellow human beings, and use that as justification to deny equality under the law to a group of your fellow citizens. No wonder you need a book for guidance. You are dumb.
WRONG. We are, and have always been, a secular nation, not a theocracy.
God does not make our laws.
BTW, civil marriage predates organized religion by thousands of years.
I always wondered....if Adam & Eve had two sons, and Cain killed Abel then went into the Land of Nod, then did A&E have other children? And did those children have sex with each other? Or with their parents?
I always like the biblical passage with Noah's daughters getting him drunk and having sex with him. Nice manners, people.
Don't quote leviticus unless you plan to stone your unruly children. You guys only drag out the old testament to support your bigotry, but when the other less nicey nice versus are quoted, you say the old testatment no longer applies.
Oilman - That was awesome!! I would not have had the patience to read through so much Lev nonsense to compile such a great response/point.
Leviticus 18:9 - "Do not have sexual relations with your sister,a)" class="crossreference"> either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere."
And yet Abraham (THE FOUNDER OF THE JUDAISM and, CHRISTIANITY by-proxy; see the children's song "Father Abraham" or the fact that Christianity is referred to as one of the 3 major Abrahamic religions...)
in Genesis 20:12 reveals that his first and MAIN wife, Sarah, (because he does have more than one) is his sister.
The founder of your religion laughs in the face of Leviticus... and God never persecutes him for his sin against the laws in Leviticus.
Seems, as Abraham actually talks to God frequently throughout Genesis, this topic would have come up if it were worth noting.
I'm not advocating marrying or sleeping with your sister (ewww :S) but, there are lots of other "laws" listed in Leviticus too... it's so funny how these "REALLY IMPORTANT LAWS" never seem to be mentioned by Jesus or directly by God... Even though they are "REALLY IMPORTANT"
Through the ages those professing the love of God have caused pain onto others. History speaks of the heretic trials, burning at the stakes, those refusing to change from Muslims, Jews to christianity, Salem witch trials, basing slavery on bible phrases, pologomy, hangings of gay folks in Iran, gay bashings, murder of Mathew Shephard due to bigotry............when will it end? Many have forgotten the main commandment from Jesus........to "Love one another as you love yourselves." Obviously there are still many self-loathing individuals out there.
Even a 3 year old can tell its not the same, why should we be forced to pretend it is. This cause will go a lot farther and a lot faster if a word (not marriage) were used to describe these same-sex unions. A concession like using a different word would sway many people, like me, who aren't against fellow Americans rights and privileges, but merely happen to be against changing definitions of a word. Yes it sounds ridiculous to be hung up on such a rigid point as finite word meanings, but like gay Americans, I'm entitled to my opinion. My opinion is that we can provide equal rights, but lets not pretend that it is the same. Its simple to recognize that there IS a difference, so stop acting like its the same thing.
Separate is not equal
willie: why not? SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a fundamental civil right, in LOVING vs VIRGINIA.
what makes you right? lol.
I'm a big believer in compromise. In our society "marriage" has two meanings.
1) A non-legal contract between two people and GOD that is not legally binding, but may be "spiritually binding" (whatever that means).
2) A legal contract between two people that is legally binding and is recognized by the STATE.
These are really two different things, but in our society, we haven't worried about it till now.
If I thought that calling the legal contracts between gays "civil unions" would solve the problem, I would be all for it. If gays didn't like the term, I would invite them to suck it up. But I'm pretty sure this is not the case. There's every reason to believe from history that people and corporations, etc. will find some way to circumvent the law. Therefore, what we call it matters.
Ideally the state would not recognize marriages at all and leave that term for the religionists. The state would only recognize civil unions (for anyone, gay or straight). But that's hard to do. Marriage is too embedded in our civil society. The only reasonable, fair thing at this point is for the state to have one contract - marriage - that any two consenting adults can enter into.
There is no good reason to deny this right to homosexuals that we take for granted for ourselves. Barring homosexuals from marriage doesn't harm "traditional" marriages; it has no effect whatever.
And you will go a lot farther when you realize that you don't own the word "marriage".