I get choked up looking at that photo posted up top. As a 26 year old heterosexual female, it is so heart wrenching seeing the tears of triumph on these kids faces when learning that who they are is acceptable to the majority. Kudoos to a step foward in a LOT of directions last night.

For those still stuck in the past - time to close the bibles and move on.

"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." - Ghandi

here in MD these peeps thought it would be shot down like it had been in all the other states.....WRONG....bout time too....this is only the beginning to the ending of discrimination based on sexual orientation:)

The religous right is a sad group of people that are afraid that someone with a better idea will change the mind of their friends and leave them all alone.

The sad thing is that if they would except the people with different ideas even thought they don't except the ideas, they would find themselfs living in a much happier world.

Don, you don't accept their ideas, so why should they accept yours? They are not the only bigots in the room. It's strange how blind a person can be. You speak harshly about the bigotry of others while expressing your own so clearly.

And Mike, exactly who has been denied this companionship you speak of? The answer? No one.

To Mike and all other heterosexual people who GET IT! -

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

from the bottom of my lesbian heart... :-)

This is truly only possible because of amazing people like you, who are willing to stand with us and fight for our equal rights. It's hard to convey my true gratitude, but I hope everyone who's been an ally and willing to cast a vote for equality understands how truly grateful we are.

thanks!

Ten years from now, people will wonder why there was so much resistance to just correct a wrong of denying people the same civil rights as heterosexuals based only on their sexual orientation. This will be seen as no different than women and non-whites getting the right to vote and the updating of new groups under the protection of discrimination.

And as cultures change, so do religious doctrines and acceptance of change. Most of the churches a decade from now will be supportive of same-sex marriage as a legal institution whether they choose to actually perform the associated religious services or not. The few that refuse to accept change and cling to the old ways will see continually falling memberships and face becoming irrelevant.

in the middle - every single gay couple unable to committ in marriage is being denied equal rights.

true, I dont need a piece of paper to prove my marriage to my spouse is real and lifetime lasting...but what that paper provides is more than just PROOF of a commitment, there are so many legal rights and benefits connected to that piece of paper...and denying me the right to marry who I choose, based on nothing more than your "religious beliefs" is exactly and nothing less than, denying me my right to companionship as I see fit.

I get it, you dont agree with gay marriage - there's a simply solution - DONT HAVE ONE.

timothy is DEFINITELY obsessed with gay sex. This article is about gay marriage, and yet he seems to feel the need to discuss male gay sex in some detail. Interesting. :)

What a nightmare these people have been put through by our society- just because of who they are-nothing else. Thanks for having the strength to stand up for your rights, making the rest of us idiots see the truth, and benefiting all of society as a result. This is only the beginning for you.

For all you conservatives, how would you like it if people took a vote on your rights?

in the middle-2260511

Don, you don't accept their ideas, so why should they accept yours? They are not the only bigots in the room. It's strange how blind a person can be. You speak harshly about the bigotry of others while expressing your own so clearly.

Your thinking is flawed. The people who opposed Hitler weren't Nazis. People who oppose bigotry aren't bigots. Don wasn't suggesting separate laws or fewer rights for people who support bigotry (which might give credence to your claim)...he was condemning bigotry itself.

And Mike, exactly who has been denied this companionship you speak of? The answer? No one.

True...no laws that bigots pass will ever prevent a single same sex couple from being together or having sex. And soon...no law you attempt to pass will prevent them from having the same rights as the rest of us. Equality. It's a good thing.

Timothy1Mi

So men penetrating other men is a "better idea" to you? One in 5 gay men walking around with HIV RIGHT NOW is a better idea to you? I'd hate to see what you think is a bad idea.

Marriage legality does nothing to alter who is having sex with whom...or who is gay and who isn't....so your concerns here have nothing whatever to do with the issue of same sex marriage.

One small word of advice though....you will be a happier person if you don't spend so much of your time thinking about gay sex. Either go have some if it interests you that much...or forget about it and live your own life, and let others live theirs.

What other consenting adults choose to do in their intimate lives...is none of your business. Unless you want the rest of us in your bedroom telling you what's permissible?

in the middle-2260511

Don, you don't accept their ideas, so why should they accept yours?

Fair question, but not the relevant one. The answer is that they don't have to accept Don's ideas, or mine, just as I don't have to except theirs (or Don's; I don't know what he thinks about everything). What I, for one, desire is a country in which all of our ideas are practicable according to our individual temperaments, and where state licenses and contracts are offered and/or recognized on a fair and equitable basis. This is, or should be, a matter entirely separate from what one's moral views are on the nature of the union recognized via said contract.

And Mike, exactly who has been denied this companionship you speak of? The answer? No one.

Basically true, as far as that goes. But the companionship my wife and I offer each other is granted a certain level of recognition by our home state. That home state will NOW be offering that same recognition to our gay brethren. I can think of no could reason why it shouldn't, which is why I voted for the measure, and am pleased that it passed.

Timothy1Mil

So men penetrating other men is a "better idea" to you?

My first thought was, "Better idea than what?" But that doesn't really cut to the heart of your error. The real problem is, nothing about legally recognizing gay marriage speaks to "penetration," since men have been penetrating one another for centuries, even during periods of time when the act itself was criminal. Indeed, even today, there is no less incidence of homosexuality in countries where it is punishable by death, like Iran and Saudi Arabia, than there is in more liberal climes like, say, the Netherlands or the U.K.

The matter under discussion is that, if same-sex couples wish to enter into committed relationships, consolidate resources, and form households--actions likely to decrease promiscuity, and thus make them less likely to engage in risky behaviors like unprotected sex with strangers or with multiple partners--should that action be met with the same benefits and recognitions conferred upon heterosexuals who do precisely the same thing?

One in 5 gay men walking around with HIV RIGHT NOW is a better idea to you?

In point of fact, I think a better idea than 1 in 5 gay men walking around with HIV (a doubtful statistic, but I'll grant it arguendo) would be to encourage those men to commit to a partner and build a household--to marry, as one might put it.

For all you conservatives, how would you like it if people took a vote on your rights?

I am a conservative, just not a Republican. I voted NO to the marriage amendment in MN. Please don't paint conservatives with such broad strokes. I think it is sickening (and unconstitutional) that we actually had to vote on a matter of civil rights. By the way, same sex marriage is still illegal in Minnesota, and I will vote to overturn that law when it comes up.

And Mike, exactly who has been denied this companionship you speak of? The answer? No one

Never heard of anti-sodomy laws, have you? The Supreme Court eventually ruled them illegal in Lawrence v. Texas, but it took until 2003 for that to happen. Prior to that, about a dozen states still had them on the books, and a handful of them were targeted specifically at homosexuals (i.e. only same-sex sodomy was illegal). Were they enforced, or enforceable? Mostly not, but their very existence was the problem.

That's just the sex part of it. Historically, there have been US laws against even being gay. In other parts of the world (most of Africa and the Middle East), there are still laws against being gay. So don't try to tell me that gay people have not been denied their rights. You're full of it.

There are several reasons for being against gay marriage, but as far as I can tell, they all boil down to "You're an idiot". Let's see, you can be against it because:

- You dislike homosexuals on principle. Idiot? Check.

- You believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. Idiot? Check.

- You think marriage is a "sacred" institution, definied by God as one man, one woman. Idiot (and historically ignorant)? Check.

- You believe that the existence of homosexual marriage will somehow cheapen your own marriage. Idiot (and logically deficient)? Check.

- You think that, since same-sex marriage is currently illegal, that that alone makes it "wrong" somehow, and therefore it should not be made legal. (And no, I'm not setting up straw men here -- I've seen people on this very forum say essentially this.) Idiot? Check.

Any others?

pj-965429 - I think it is sickening (and unconstitutional) that we actually had to vote on a matter of civil rights. By the way, same sex marriage is still illegal in Minnesota, and I will vote to overturn that law when it comes up.

Kudos to you for getting it. We need more conservatives like you.

History will look back, and consider that we are just now moving out of the "Dark Ages." Whilst being formally against homosexuality, leaders in the Church and the Senate and Sports, secretly lusted after the young and innocent without remorse. Now caught with their pants down, they have to concede that if sexually were brought "into the light" then, it would not have to exist in the dark corners of sick minds.

By the time of puberty, a child "knows" who he is genetically programmed "to love." Even said by Christ in Matthew 19:12 --

Jesus said some homosexual eunuchs
are born that way
from their mother's womb.

It is interesting to note that Jesus does not state or imply that born eunuchs exit the womb with genital deformities. Instead, Jesus makes a distinction between born eunuchs and eunuchs who have been physically castrated, whether by illness or by men.

Jesus makes a further distinction between born eunuchs and eunuchs who make a personal choice to voluntarily abstain from sexual relationships for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.

The distinctions below, so carefully articulated by Jesus, imply that born eunuchs are not required to abstain from sexual relationships such as a committed, same sex marriage. Some Christians believe that born eunuchs were often homosexual eunuchs. Abstinence from sexual relationships particularly describes the third class of eunuchs and possibly the second class but not the first class, whom Jesus referred to as born eunuchs.

This distinction becomes important when confronting Complementarian assertions that limit marriage to the Adam and Eve marriage paradigm. God does not assert that limitation in scripture. Instead, Jesus carefully exempts eunuchs from the Adam and Eve marriage paradigm. Eunuchs, according to Jesus, cannot receive His saying about Adam and Eve style marriage.

“He that is able to receive it,” [Jesus’ statement about marriage] “let him receive it.” 19:12.

Hope it doesn't take too long here. My opinion is that if two adults can legally enter into a contract (in this instance, marriage), we can't legally discriminate based on gender.

It's ok if you don't like what some people do in their bedroom- just stay out of there and everyone will be fine. Accepting that same sex marriage should be just as legal as different sex marriage doesn't mean that they will force churches to perform ceremonies. It doesn't mean that you'll be forced to marry someone of the same sex. It just means that every adult has an equal right to enter into that contract between two adult humans.

My hubby cringes when he sees a same-sex kiss on tv, but we both understand that giving everyone this very basic right will have absolutely no affect on our marriage. (by the way, not too long ago it would have been illegal for us to marry- he's primarily of African heritage, and I'm very Northern European).

inmissouri - Hope it doesn't take too long here.

I'm pretty sure that SCOTUS will issue a Loving v Virginia style of ruling before either your state or my state of Wisconsin does the right thing. It won't happen this session, but it will happen within the next few years.

shrekk- i'm sure you're right. too many people just have to be smacked into the current century.

Not to burst the happy bubble, but what happens or does not happen at the ballot box regarding gay marriage is completely insignificant and will not be remembered in any history book anywhere.

This issue will be decided by the United States Supreme Court.

Once brought before the Court, the decision to strike down impediments to gay marriage as unconstitutional will come so quickly the justices' coffee will not have a chance to get cold.

Even that day will be lost to history quite quickly. After all, how many of us can name (without looking it up) the day misogyny laws were declared unconstitutional?

Mike, you are so right here. If only everyone could find it in their hearts to feel the same way, to respect everyone simply because they are human, this whole world would be a much better place.

In early 1968 (yes, you read that right, 1968, almost 45 years ago), the then Justice Minister (soon to be Prime Minister) of Canada, said that the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. He was right then and the voters in those three states are right now.

This hetero thanks you for putting it so well.

My wife said to me that if one of our children would turn out to be homosexual that she would want them to be able to be in as committed a relationship as we are. That she would want them to be happy and have the same civil rights as the two of us enjoy. I never thought of it that way. I couldn't come up with a single reason how voting yes for Q6 would have any negative impact, and voted yes.

For those who opposed it because of religious beliefs, it was specifically worded (here at least) that no religious organization could be forced to perform a marriage ceremony for same sex marriages. I think that's really what nailed it and helped this law pass.

For those of you in the LGBT community: Enjoy the right you shouldn't have had to fight for, and be a good neighbor. That's what really matters to me.

All these states who passed laws for gay marriage rights are still being prejudiced. Why wasn't polygamy also in the bill? Are you all saying that those who want more than one spouse, should have that right denied for them? I want your honest opinion why people on here have been fighting for the LGBT community but not for the Polygamy ones.

filbert, as you have probably been told many times, the legal issue here is equal protection under the law. Since no body can be polygamous, there is no issue of equality there.

" ... For all you conservatives, how would you like it if people took a vote on your rights? ... "

One on their right to marry? And one to keep them from breeding? Or where they can live? And their right to vote? How about we vote to make them 3/5ths of a person? No?

Why not. They want to restrict these rights of others. They want to restrict others right to choose. So why not deny them theirs?

Where do I sign up?

There needs to be a National Vote whether to legalize gay marriage or not. You can't have individual states doing their own thing because it is not fair to the country as a whole. It's like saying redheaded people can marry in California, but they're not allow to marry in Virginia. I will support whatever the decision is but for heaven sakes lets make this a national vote. I do not believe this should be a state right but a National right. Until that happens there will never be peace in these nation. President Obama is in the position to make this happen - get it done!

For all you conservatives, how would you like it if people took a vote on your rights?

Do not presume that all, or even most, conservatives oppose gay marriage.

ROCCO1, we shouldn't have a national vote. We shouldn't be having state votes. We should not be voting on civil rights!

Jack TX - Do not presume that all, or even most, conservatives oppose gay marriage.

Polls show that conservatives overwhelmingly oppose marriage equality (ie, 74% of the GOP). Sounds like you're one of the very few sane ones.

There is something distinctly un-American about any group of American citizens endeavoring to deny equal rights and equal protections to another group of American citizens.

Such efforts are not an example of "the free exercise of democracy," as they so frequently argue, but rather are merely a demonstration of bigotry, based in profound ignorance.

Human beings are just human beings. We are all the same. And one clear tenet of being human is that "the heart wants what the heart wants." Anyone who does not understand these basic truths has personal issues far more troubling than are those issues they perceive with others.

ROCCO1-604435 - There needs to be a National Vote whether to legalize gay marriage or not.

That's just as bad as having states vote on whether their minorities should have full civil rights. You shouldn't be voting on other people's civil rights, especially since disfavored minorities usually don't fare well.

This issue will be dealt with by the supreme court in the next few years, exactly in the same way they dealt with the mixed-race marriage issue in 1967.

skrekk - I know of no other way to resolve this in a fair manner. If what I am reading is true I think it would pass on a national level. If it gets rejected, then you could push it to the Supremes. But try the vote first - you may be surprised, and even mildly shocked at the results. Remember, serving openly gay in the military is now acceptable. That is a Federal protected right. Eventually, the armed forces will have to move to the final step, allowing same sex marriages. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The country is moving in that direction and the President supports it. It is a freight train that is unstoppable.

ROCCO1-604435

"skrekk - I know of no other way to resolve this in a fair manner. If what I am reading is true I think it would pass on a national level. If it gets rejected, then you could push it to the Supremes..."

Rocco, I know you mean well, but Americans should not proceed down the road of voting on civil rights (or any other National issues referendums). There isn't even a Constitutional process for doing what you suggest.

In 1787, during their Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the founding fathers discussed the idea of National Referendums and they rejected it. They were wise enough to know that the referendum process -- on a National level -- would lead to bad laws based in emotion, not in logic. The making of National Laws was left to the purview of the Congress, and the election of the representative members of Congress was left to the purview of "the people of the several states."

Rights are rights, and under the US Constitution and its amendments they apply equally to all of us. This is precisely why the Equal Rights amendment was unnecessary; it by definition was redundant to the equal protections clause of the 14th amendment "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. What IS needed is for the Courts to uphold the Constitution and strike down these unconstitutional laws of the several states.

There is no process, no vehicle in the United States for a National referendum, our Constitution does not work that way. The only National votes are for President and Vice President. The rest is left to the Congress and to the Courts.

You are correct that this needs to finally be disposed of by the Supreme Court; and once it reaches the Court it will be disposed of quickly.

.

Yes, let's keep marriage as God intended it in the Bible. Between a man, his slaves and concubines, and the woman he rapes -- as long as she doesn't have an abortion!

So why don't all these gays and lesbians leave the country ... go someplace else on the planet ... leave the planet. Don't care! Otherwise get help and insist that the government spends as much to treat your genetic anomaly as it does killing babies. Totally sick of this nonsense!

Rocco

There needs to be a National Vote whether to legalize gay marriage or not.

There will be. There are 9 people in America who will participate in that election.

to jeff wambolt 6969-----The forum topic of conversation is same sex marriage....I doubt the comments would have been collapsed if Timothy had something intelligent or relevant to contribute....as for you.....You're a disgusting human being and I will pray for you...this world would be a better place without your presence...

to commento508 ----Get help for what??? Seems clear that you may need the most help of all...Please don't reproduce...either one of you ....Two of you is more than enough in this world....

Over the years I have seen my thoughts come around -- almost pi radians -- with regard to these issues. It's a little bit like studying science and mathematics where 90% of 'understanding' certain ideas is simply getting used to them.

Do not presume that all, or even most, conservatives oppose gay marriage.

I think that's fair. What we can say with some certainty is that the republican and tea parties have yet to run a high-profile national candidate who is NOT opposed to gay marriage.

My hope is that this election will serve as a lesson regarding the American public's views on social issues--that opposition to gay marriage, health coverage, contraception, and abortion simply doesn't fly with the electorate, and that the average voter (outside of certain subsets of the republican base) might be more receptive to the conservatives' economic message if voting for a republican didn't have to mean voting for the contemporary equivalent of a segregationist.

So why don't all these gays and lesbians leave the country ... go someplace else on the planet ... leave the planet.

Because we'll keep making more. The percentage of people in any given culture, as well as in any given mammalian species, remains remarkably constant; it's decidedly resistant to efforts to reduce (or increase) its incidence.

Don't care!

Then why comment on it at all?

Otherwise get help and insist that the government spends as much to treat your genetic anomaly as it does killing babies.

Ignoring the ostensibly "clever" dig at abortion, I have to wonder whether you think I should also treat the genetic anomaly of my left-handedness.

Totally sick of this nonsense!

Then why do you continue to spout it?

skrekk

pj-965429 - I think it is sickening (and unconstitutional) that we actually had to vote on a matter of civil rights.

> Kudos to you for getting it. We need more conservatives like you.

Skrekk, there are TON's of people who consider themselves conservative and who vote Republicans, but who are not automatically racist, bigoted, or religions fundamentalist. The Democrat election machine and it's ''branding'' of the issues won't include that in it's ''messaging'', because they are (well, actually both sides are) really fighting over about 5% of the voters in the middle. They don't want anyone to think that there are any moderate, socially liberal Republicans (or any fiscally conservative Democrats). The Democrat election machine want to 'spin' and label everything as 'hate' and 'bigots' and 'Christo-Nazi' and 'anti-' everything. Those negative labels work. It's interesting for example that the Abortion debate used to be ''Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life'' 20 years ago, and then it went to "Pro-Choice vs Anti-Abortion", and now the Pro-Life side has been re-labeled as ''Waging a War on Women's Health''. That ''spin'' helps people think that most people who are opposed to Abortion have the oppression of Women as their first priority. In reality, many people simply want to (in their minds) protect babies. I'm not trying to get into the debate on the issue - I'm just trying to point out that both sides will ''label'' the other side with their own terms, and people's opinions are often formed by how effectively they can 'message those labels' to the public.

These 'labels' are very effectively stuck on Republicans all the time - with a huge broad brush. Certainly some people are hateful racist bigots, and certain some of them have your bedroom activities as their top priority - but there are MILLIONS of day to day average people who vote Republican, but are normal, nice, people - without any hatred for anyone. There are many Republican voters who are fiscally conservative, and are socially liberal - just like there are many Democratic voters who are socially liberal and yet are fiscally conservative.

My point is - neither side should paint the other side with a great broad brush - not every Democrat is a lazy, drug using, unemployed moocher. Not every Republican is a mean, White, racist, Millionaire. :)

I'm Canadian, but if I were an US Citizen, I'd vote Republican. That's because of my fiscal conservative outlook, but NOT because I'm religious or bigoted. OBVIOUSLY, marriage equality for gay and lesbian men and women is a basic right. It bothers me when I hear it called ''gay rights''. Was emancipation about somehow awarding Blacks a new ''Black right'' that they didn't previously have, or was it simply about recognizing that they were human, and therefor always should have had human rights? Was Suffrage about awarding

skrekk

Jack TX - Do not presume that all, or even most, conservatives oppose gay marriage.

>Polls show that conservatives overwhelmingly oppose marriage equality (ie, 74% of the GOP). Sounds like you're one of the very few sane ones.

But the assumption (or the 'spin message') from the Democrat camp is 100% of that 74% would be because of 'hate' or 'bigotry' or a 'War on Gays' or 'Biblical Principals' or some other message that makes all Republicans or anyone who doesn't vote for it seem evil.

There are people who are not ready to vote for gay marriage, sometimes because there isn't really a plan on how to manage the enormous financial cost to the country. There are other people who are not ready to vote for gay marriage, because they believe it'll open a gateway for Bigamists and Pedophiles and Incestuist to challenge the courts. I would find myself falling into those categories - I think that Marriage Equality is obviously needed, but I also think we need to be careful and word all the laws very carefully to make sure that it doesn't open the door to unintended consequences.

I think that's very do-able, Jonathan Rauch's book on Gay Marriage has an excellent chapter on the Bigamist/Pedophile/Incest point - but the fact is that we'd need to do it carefully and correctly - and sometimes people who won't vote for it are concerned about these consequences, and are not always hateful bigots.

But the assumption (or the 'spin message') from the Democrat camp is 100% of that 74% would be because of 'hate' or 'bigotry' or a 'War on Gays' or 'Biblical Principals' or some other message that makes all Republicans or anyone who doesn't vote for it seem evil.

No, not evil. Just woefully, unconscionably wrong.

There are people who are not ready to vote for gay marriage, sometimes because there isn't really a plan on how to manage the enormous financial cost to the country.

What financial cost? Please be specific.

There are other people who are not ready to vote for gay marriage, because they believe it'll open a gateway for Bigamists and Pedophiles and Incestuist to challenge the courts. I would find myself falling into those categories - I think that Marriage Equality is obviously needed, but I also think we need to be careful and word all the laws very carefully to make sure that it doesn't open the door to unintended consequences.

Personally, I support legal recognition of polygamy also. And while I'm morally opposed to incest, I'm not sure there's a rational, empirically demonstrable civic utility served by either criminalizing it or refusing to recognize certain kinds of co-habitating incestuous unions as marriages. Indeed, marriage between first cousins is already legal in several states. In my opinion, marriage between parents and adult children would be proscribable under both domestic abuse and sexual harassment laws, given the power differential.

Pedophilia runs afoul of empirically demonstrable patterns with regards to brain development, and how it's affected by sexual contact between adults and minors. Some mobility in the age-of-consent may be warranted, but I think the notion that pedophilia could find a "back door" in current marriage law is spurious.

Posted under wrong comment string ... wtf?

There are people who are not ready to vote for gay marriage, sometimes because there isn't really a plan on how to manage the enormous financial cost to the country.

Enormous financial cost to the country? No more so than allowing Asians (4.8% of the population) or Blacks (12.6% of the population) to marry each other. Should we also forbid these two groups from marrying because of the "enormous financial cost to the country"?

I assume you and these other people talking about the "cost" are referring to taxes. Not every married couple see a reduction in taxes for being married. Ever hear of the term "marriage penalty".

Assuming that homosexuals make up about 5% of the population and about 75% are of marrying age at any one time and every single one of marrying age gets married, you are talking about less than 6 million marriages.

because they believe it'll open a gateway for Bigamists and Pedophiles and Incestuist to challenge the courts

Jonathan Rauch's book on Gay Marriage has an excellent chapter on the Bigamist/Pedophile/Incest point

If it suggests that there is a legitimate argument for each of these because gay marriage is allowed then it is not even close to being excellent, just woefully misinformed or purposefully conflating. None of these are even remotely comparable to gay marriage on the same grounds as gay marriage is to heterosexual marriage. Let me explain.

Homosexual:

Homosexuals are forbidden marriage, presumably to a person they are attracted to and in romantic love with, simply because the genders of the party match and for no other reason. At its core, it is a gender based determination on who can and can not marry. Gender based discrimination. A male-male/female-female couple are not being treated equally to a male-female couple when it comes to marriage.

To put it simply, as an individual, a homosexual has all of the rights (theoretically) provided to all individuals in the United States. However, as couples, homosexuals are denied the same rights, which are granted to heterosexual couples in the United States.

Simply change the gender of one person in a homosexual relationship and you would have a heterosexual relationship.

There are no laws prohibiting homosexual relationships, only laws prohibiting the relationship from becoming one of marriage.

Bigamy:

No one regardless of age, ability, gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality or any other class or category you can come up with is allowed to enter into multiple marriage contracts at the same time. Therefore it can not be approached via an argument of equality.

Their only recourse is have the Federal anti-bigamy laws repealed and all marriage laws restructured to account for plural marriage.

There is not any characteristic you can change in a plural relationship that would make it a two person relationship.

Pedophilia:

No one regardless of age, ability, gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, or any other class or category you can come up with is allowed to marry another person who has not reached the age of consent. Therefore it can not be approached via the argument of equality.

Age of consent determines whether or not a relationship can be considered of a pedophilic nature. There are laws against pedophilic relationships.

Their only recourse is to attempt to lower the age of consent which is determined on a State by State basis.

Even if the age of consent is lowered, pedophilia, by its very definition, is an attraction to youth, innocence, and vulnerability. Everyone eventually grows up. Thus such a relationship would probably never last and even if it did, would not be a fulfilling relationship for either party, especially the pedophile.

Incest:

No one regardless of age, ability, gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, or any other class or category you can come up with is allowed to marry another person who is a immediate family member. Therefore it can not be approached via the argument of equality.

Besides, incest is not a state of being (such as sexuality or gender) rather it is an action. Unlike homoesexuals being attrated to someone because of gender, people are not inherently attracted to other people simply because of familial relationship. Most incestuous relationships are a result of coercion and manipulation.

Also, there is the heightened risk for congenital birth defects and conditions because of the close familial relation.

Honey let me tongue you butt I need some normal love. Oh goodie recycled corn lets play tonsil hockey mmm me love you. Bobby please bring the habittrail tube and your gerbil mommys gonna make love to daddy. Billy take off the bicycle seat so mommy can use it to make love with daddy.

Its amazing that two women in love buy toys shaped like a man and sometimes strap them on. But they don't desire men in anyway.

As a youth I heard many friends talk about gay guys giving them money, letting them drive their cars, etc... I had several fahkets try to touch me. I told my buddies parents to keep the freak away from me. Another guy I called the cops on and he went to prison because he forced a young male age 12 to perform acts on him.

Psychologists and criminologists have concluded the exposure to sexual acts, especially the wrong kind, coupled with a little neglect from folks has created some of the most dangerous serial killers ever. With body counts of 10-30 victims. Sometimes they work in teams. Both having similar childhood experiences. Sexual abusers are more likely to abuse. Browse some gay sites and see how quickly they navigate to boys or men that look like very young boys because thats the gay norm.

Some of the most horrific scenes I have seen are gays wronged. Jilted or angry flame flame stabbing his former flame (pun intended) 10-25 times in the face is not uncommon. In one case the knife was driven 6 inches into the ears on both sides. Considering a 5 inch blade was used that is beyond violent. That is triple nutball psycho from hell gay rage. And the killer was about 130lbs. Gay murder scenes are make hellraiser and Freddy Kruger look like kindergartners having fun on the playground.

Don't matter they will always be freaks. With a black president, blacks voting in record numbers, and blacks being predisposed to group sexual encounters of all genders it was sure to pass. Don't hate on me for being truthful. There are plenty of studies indicating this is the norm for dark skinned societies. Its why aids runs some rampant in some parts of Africa. Which by the way is where it seems to have originated in the first place.

I am so sick of hearing people on the religious right try and spin this bigotry as if they were the victims!!!! You are all full of $hi!t so just give it a rest.

There is a BIG difference when gay supporters slam the views of Christians, because it directly affects their own life and happiness. Me telling you that I want to keep God out of the gov't isn't bigotry. It is reaffirming my first amendment rights. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion. Religious views have no place in legislation because THAT IS THE LAW. So I am entitled to HATE your anti-gay marriage initiative. It threatens my rights as an American citizen.

Give me one example of how gay marriage rights hurts Christians and I will admit I am a bigot. Can't do it, can you? Allowing it would not cause harm to you physically, it won't cost you anything financially, and it won't violate a Church's right to refuse to marry 2 people. NOTHING WILL CHANGE FOR CHRISTIANS. Do you not get that? Are you really that slow?!?!

HIV will still exist as long as extramarital sex is legal and as long as heroine addicts share needles. That is how the virus is spread!!! It isn't exclusive to homosexuals and it certainly isn't more present in cases of committed homosexual relationships. If you really believe otherwise then I am sorry, but you are a hopeless dumba$$ as well as a bigot!!!

There is the difference. Start accepting that the Christian views on this topic are not only wrong, but they are not constitutionally valid. So get over it and look for a different group who souls need saving, because Americans want you OUT of their bedrooms!

As a youth I heard many friends talk about gay guys giving them money, letting them drive their cars, etc... I had several fahkets try to touch me. I told my buddies parents to keep the freak away from me. Another guy I called the cops on and he went to prison because he forced a young male age 12 to perform acts on him.

Somewhere, someone lied to you. These are not homosexuals, these are what are called pedophiles. Pedophiles are sexually attracted to children(generally prepubescent). Anatomically prepubescent males and females are quite similar, and males are less likely to say anything about it due to social taboos.

Browse some gay sites and see how quickly they navigate to boys or men that look like very young boys because thats the gay norm.

This is of course what you've been informed, however I think you'll find if you actually got to know real homosexual men their tastes range as much as heterosexuals do.

Some of the most horrific scenes I have seen are gays wronged. Jilted or angry flame flame stabbing his former flame (pun intended) 10-25 times in the face is not uncommon. In one case the knife was driven 6 inches into the ears on both sides. Considering a 5 inch blade was used that is beyond violent. That is triple nutball psycho from hell gay rage. And the killer was about 130lbs. Gay murder scenes are make hellraiser and Freddy Kruger look like kindergartners having fun on the playground.

I have seen just as bad murder scenes involving straight couples.

Don't matter they will always be freaks. With a black president, blacks voting in record numbers, and blacks being predisposed to group sexual encounters of all genders it was sure to pass. Don't hate on me for being truthful. There are plenty of studies indicating this is the norm for dark skinned societies.

Discriminatory and untruthful racial profiling. Not cool.

. Its why aids runs some rampant in some parts of Africa. Which by the way is where it seems to have originated in the first place.

Wrong. Aids runs rampant in Africa due to lack of education and the incorrect belief that having sex with virgins(raping young children) cures it.

Let's also not forget that when medical groups go to Africa to explain how to prevent AIDS and to distribute condoms....they are followed by religious nut jobs who tell them that using condoms is sinful.

Almost as if they want them all to die of a preventable disease...

The wages of sex is death.

Browse some gay sites and see how quickly they navigate to boys or men that look like very young boys because thats the gay norm.

Browse some straight sites and see how quickly they navigate to girls or women who look like very young girls wearing pigtails. Just sayin.

in the middle-2260511

Don, you don't accept their ideas, so why should they accept yours?

The difference is that the anti side has their boots on our necks whilst we really just expect to be treated as equal citizens. They are trying to IMPOSE on us and we are refusing the gun to our heads. These are not equal but opposite ideas.

I really don't give a hoot what they think or feel as long as they stop trying to vote against me. I am not trying to vote against them nor against their beliefs. They are the aggressors, not us.

JSF - I am a heterosexual female. Would it IMPOSE on you if I married a man? What's it to you? I don't want to be friends with you - just marry who I choose to marry. OK?

Why would it IMPOSE on you if two men married or two women married? They aren't asking you to have gay sex. They probably don't need you as a friend. So, what's it to you?

I'll see you there.

Yeah, we've heard that before..you know, dancing and smoking and wearing skirts above the knee were going to send us all to Hell also. lol. Maybe you can start a petition drive to pass laws to force everyone to go to church, tithe, withhold premarital sex, etc...after all, you'd be a hypocrite just to be obsessed with gay sex. :)

Cheers!!!

We're going on a road trip??? Yay! I love road trips. Shot gun.

Get back to your cave, Alan.

ALAN; Since you believe in hell, you believe also that God is perfect. Gay people are born into every culture on every corner of the earth, even in country's where you are imprisoned or killed if your sexual preference is discovered.

The publican party wants to live in the 40's 50's and 60's is as dead as the dinosaurs. The Grand Ol White Boys party hopefully learned an important lesson in 08 and 12. America is made up of many cultures, races and sexual preferences. Don't believe me, check out the folks waiting for romney to speak, all white. Then check the democrats waiting for President Obama, That's what America looks like. ALL PEOPLE created equal, perhaps you heard about that! Get used to it or move ur small minded ass to Iran where they think and believe like you.

So you know, I am a white married hetrosexual with 2 grown sons and a wife of 35 years. Get a mitt and get in the game or sit in the dark and pout.

now jeff...

You know no one is "born" gay. Being gay is a choice....and a sinful one indeed....

What does everyone have on their IPods??? No road trip is complete without good music, you know.

doc: wrong. No one chooses their sexuality. Or maybe you can tell me when YOU sat down and intellectually decided whether boys or girls (or both!) turned you on? lol. Of course you can't, it just happened, beyond your control.

Having gay sex is (kinda) a choice..just like having straight sex is (kinda) a choice (after all..everyone could "choose" to be celibate...)..but "being gay" is a sexual orientation, which isn't a choice.

Why is it there are people who go to church and pay money to be taught how to hate? And what kind of churches are these? The "traditional" family dates back just over 100 years, about the only good that came of yesterday was Question 6.

Alan-1380274

Two things, don't you dare judge others and don't you dare to presume to know the mind of God.

vermontguy really IS immune to my sarcasm........

Well Alan...someone else's road to hell is none of your business. But, it is always fun when one of you Westboro knuckledraggers opens your mouth...you guys are damn near as entertaining as Honey Boo Boo...and about as bright.

Robin Steele - Why is it there are people who go to church and pay money to be taught how to hate? And what kind of churches are these?

Mostly it's the very same churches which preached against mixed-race marriage.

Bigots don't change their stripes.

doc: oops. the ratio of sarcastic people to bigots tends to be low in these threads, so my "sarcasm meter" wasn't functioning well. My apologies.

So WHY was Brian Brown seen coming out of a gay bathhouse in Oakland, CA last Saturday night??

Sarah you make me laugh, I LOVED your post I saw earlier (can't remember the thread) where you said we'll all now be forced to gay marry and drive hybrids, I'm cool with marrying a woman (my husband may not be though lol) but I will NEVER drive a hybrid!

@doc that's because your comment was just stupid

@doc:

see Poe's Law

Sarah said;

What does everyone have on their IPods??? No road trip is complete without good music, you know.

Here's one of mine:

This one goes out to the man who mines for miracles
This one goes out to the ones in need
This one goes out to the sinner and the cynical
This ain't about no apology


This road was paved by the hopeless and the hungry
This road was paved by the winds of change
Walking beside the guilty and the innocent
How will you raise your hand when they call your name?

We weren't born to follow
Come on and get up off your knees
When life is a bitter pill to swallow
You gotta hold on to what you believe
Believe that the sun will shine tomorrow
And that your saints and sinners bleed
We weren't born to follow
You gotta stand up for what you believe....

'We Weren't Born to Follow'--Bon Jovi

1st,

Thanks, sometimes the material some of the posters give me is just too good to pass up. :)

Amanda,

I have "Onward Christian Soldiers" and "Old Time Religion". I feel those would be fitting. I also have "Damn It Feels Good To Be A Gangsta'".

Well rounded, I know.

" ... and don't you dare to presume to know the mind of God. ... "

And why not? You do. As does the rest of your cult.

If Hell is a real place, I'd rather be there if It's filled with your so called "Christians". Because it seems they are already trying to make Hell on earth.

Living in a state with gay marriage, I'm not aware of anyone trying to force a church minister to perform a wedding against their personal beliefs. Everyone I've known has been happy to have a secular marriage at a town hall or with a JP, and/or there are also always a few ministers willing to do one as well.

thanks for your beliefs. I'm also very libertarian on social issues.

Well then there should be no issues with it at all.

Just curious for numbers.

What percentage of homosexuals (gay or lesbian) actually want to get married? Maybe I have a common misconception, but it was my understanding that monogamy was not paramount in the homosexual lifestyle. Does monogamy vary or fluctuate based on being gay or lesbian. I know straight men tend to cheat more that straight women. Do those trends overlap into the gay community?

It always seems like a bigger issue, but I have talked to many of my gay co-workers and they act like they never want to get married.

The First Amendment protects churches from ever having to perform gay Holy Matrimony.

Does the percent of those who want to marry, really matter? I would think this is about those who do, regardless.

maybe it's because it was NEVER a possibility till now...

mao: that's an interesting question. I think there is a bit of "chicken and egg" going on here. "getting married and settling down" probably isn't a big part of a lot of gay relationships...but was it because it was never an option, and the scorn gay couples received altered their views on relationships (needing to hide them in many cases, etc)?

I think the percentage of such relationships will go up over time as the implications of gay marriage permeate our society.

Maobama Critic -- I appreciate your ability to differentiate on these issues even if I don't agree with you on the other issues (Romney, voter ID, etc). I have also wondered how those that profess individual freedom/liberty are so feverish in their attempts to restrict others! Those that hold the Constitution then don't believe/practice/support the part about the separation of church and state. For me it is that simple, the churched can do what they want -- but don't impose that upon the rest of the population! I don't want to be married in "their" church - but why do they have a right to block me on the steps of the courthouse? Guess in WA State (and others) we are in fact taking back our Constitution!

The percentage doesn't matter. All heterosexuals don't want to get married either, nor do they appear to be particularly monogamous (married or not). Personally, I don't think that being married should grant anyone special benefits, why are married people deserving of such but single people aren't? But since it does then the gender of the people involved should be irrelevant. This should have been a non-issue from the beginning, there is a recorded same sex marriage that was performed in a chapel in Spain in the 1600's. Should never have been an issue for a civil marriage, if the churches want to be picky, that is their business (they make up the rules as they go along anyway).

Maobama Critic -- in response to your "question" about who wants to get married.

There is some irony for me in support Equal Marriage rights. I have viewed the (historic) institution of marriage w/ a jaundiced eye; not wanting to support/participate/be a party to such a patriarchal practice. However, I have evolved my thinking on this and realize that I have and want the ability to form/commit to a lasting relationship not only in the eyes of my family/friends but also by law. It is meaningful to be able to make that commitment. I don't know if I can communicate in words how different it is to think that I can marry today, having come of age/out during a time when that was the pinnacle (just coming out) and didn't even think to stretch to other things. Gays/lesbians have always formed long-term relationships - as well as short-term -- not unlike straight couples. I might comment that the pressures of living a life where that commitment/relationship is not recognized-to-actively-discriminated against is "stressful". However, I have many, many, examples of gay/lesbian couples that have been together for 20+ to 30+ years! The short-term, one-night type of relationship is something that happens but is also part of the negative mythology of detractors.

Perhaps more importantly, the younger generation will grow up with marriage/commitment as an equal option -- what a refreshing idea!

Actually monogomy is just as prevelant in gay relationships as it is in straight ones. Marriage is important to the gay community for many reasons, currently hospitals can turn one partner away when the other is in the hospital, we're taxed on employee benefits extended to partners, and for me the most important thing is that my social security dies with me, instead of going to make things easier for the person I share my life with. Marriage actually comes with a lot of rights that are taken for granted, some of these can be obtained through lawyers by same sex couples, others cannot. It isn't fair to treat one set of taxpaying citizens differently from the rest of society. Some people like to say we are asking for special treatment, what we demanding is equal treatment.

Maobama Critic - Marriage is a religious ceremony and should be left to the clergy conducting the marriage as to whether he/she will perform the ceremony based on personal belief.

You've confused the secular legal contract of marriage with the irrelevant religious rite of "holy matrimony". Just ask any divorced and remarried Catholic to explain the difference to you.

My question is if you really believe marriage to be a religious issue, why do you think the government should deny the religious freedom of churches which recognize and bless marriage equality? Why should the government adopt the views of bigoted churches? That doesn't seem to be the libertarian thing to do.

As a libertarian myself I see what MC is saying, I'm married and had theh whole married in a chaple by a chaplain experience, but I would be just as comfortable if they called it a "union" instead of "marriage" I don't really see the difference in either word.

I will admit I used to be anti "gay marriage" but over the years I've come to see, it will never affect my life in any way, I'll still be a heterosexual married to a heterosexual.

But marriage is also a civil act and civil recognition. No one is required to marry in a church/synagogue/mosque, it's done all the time at city halls around the country. Let me say, I am gay and I have no problem if a church wants to restrict recognition of marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman. Fine, there are other churches that are more forward thinking and that do recognize same-sex marriage as a religious function that I can choose to attend. But for the evangelicals and the other churches that want to also restrict marriage to only a man and a woman on a civil level, that's where they step over the line. That is where they are infringing on my civil rights and that is wrong.

1SGFitzsWife4ID - but I would be just as comfortable if they called it a "union" instead of "marriage" I don't really see the difference in either word.

If you really don't see the difference then you should get divorced and get a civil union.

Good luck getting your civil union recognized internationally, by the feds, by your employer, by your insurer, or across state boundaries.

Thanks to you all for your input on this subject. In the spirit of things, I may change my moniker for a while. At least until I see the POTUS exhibit "Maoish" tendencies again. It is easy to get caught up in the rhetoric of what appeared to be a tighter election than it actually was.

Its time for the House, Senate and the POTUS to meet in the middle and get things done. The trick is that you can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all the time.

Legislation that limits liberty, whether its the enactment of the Patriot Act, or trying to ban gay marriage is not the way to go.

How will the people ever trust their government if their government does not trust them?

Maobama Critic - "Marriage is a religious ceremony and should be left to the clergy conducting the marriage as to whether he/she will perform the ceremony based on personal belief."

This is a fallacy; neither church nor religion are required to be married, and at no point would they ever be required to be involved in the issue any more than they wanted to be. Marriage is the certificate you obtain from the state, and the ceremony can be performed at the courthouse. My wife and I were married at our county courthouse, with no involvement from the church or any religious influence whatsoever. Based on this, I do not see any reason at all that the church's beliefs or doctrines, even if widely held and supported by a large majority, should be forced upon people that do not follow them.

Bottom line to me is that our governmental representation is meant to support 100% of the people, not just the ~80% that are Christian or the ~50% that voted for them, and they should not be trying to pass laws or enforce prejudices or religious doctrines upon everyone they represent based on the religious majority that puts them into office.

Maobama Critic, I miss those like you that used to make up the grand old party. I can discuss foreign policy, economic policy, and environmental policy with republicans, and while we still disagree, we can also come to many bipartisan results and compromises. But the uber social conservatism in the republican party needs to go.

okay Shrekk I'll divorce my husband and remarry him using a JP

"will not try and force clergy that does not agree with gay marriage to marry them"

I think most of the new round of laws explicitly make that clear. I doubt it would ever have been a problem anyway.

1SGFitzsWife4ID, being married by a JP would still be a legal marriage, not a civil union. A civil union was the term made up to attempt to make "separate but equal" somehow work again.

Maybe I have a common misconception, but it was my understanding that monogamy was not paramount in the homosexual lifestyle.

This is a common misunderstanding, there is as much a homosexual lifestyle as there is a heterosexual lifestyle. Everyone is different, everyone wants different things for their life. Being a nudist is a lifestyle. Living "green" is a lifestyle. Living like a slob is a lifestyle. There is no living like a homosexual or living like a heterosexual.

Maobama Critic,

I am also libertarian leaning and apparently a fellow Minnesotan. I voted for Gary Johnson while expecting Obama to win our state. I voted NO to both constitutional amendments. I am curious how you came to the decision to vote for a constitutional amendment for voter ID. I was back and forth on that one and decided that it should be made a law but not part of our constitution.

What percentage of homosexuals (gay or lesbian) actually want to get married?

Does it make any difference?

Maybe I have a common misconception, but it was my understanding that monogamy was not paramount in the homosexual lifestyle.

Well, not all marriages are monogamous. But really, in my observation, male homosexuals are men; that is, they're more promiscuous than women, and there are no women in the sexual equation to slow things down. That said, it seems that anything that encourages some kind of settling down--and thus less in the way of unprotected sex with strangers or multiple partners-is a net positive.

Does monogamy vary or fluctuate based on being gay or lesbian. I know straight men tend to cheat more that straight women. Do those trends overlap into the gay community?

In my observation, yes. I have no statistics to offer.

" ... Marriage is a religious ceremony ... "

BBBBBUUUUUUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

Wrong!

Tell me just how many States there are that ONLY recognize marriages preformed in/by Churches? I know of none. And how many States require you to get permission, a license, from the Church to get married? Again, none that I know of.

In fact, no State can do that. There's this little thing called the Constitution that specifically says that they can't. Separation of Church and State is not exclusive to the Federal Government. But applies to all governments. State, County and City included.

Then there is that fact that in most, if not all, States, that requires you to get a license from the local government to get married. And that you pay a fee for that license. That without said license, States refuse to acknowledge that you are and deny you the benefits of being married.

So if I don't need the Churches permission. If I don't need to be married in/by a Church. If the Church really has no say in it at all. Then just how is marriage a religious institution?

And why should anyone give a @!$%# what some religious fundamentalist nut-ball says about it?

There is no such thing as homosexual holy anything. I pray you will find out the truth about what God says about the proper marriage and the proper sexual conduct.

WE will all stand before God one day and you will not have an argument that God created you to be a homosexual. God created you to be men who marry women and women to marry men. If you go against God you can only blame yourself for your eternal destination.

It doesn't matter what a human being says about homosexuality, it does matter what God says.

Actually, Debora, it is not for YOU to say what is holy or not. Since approximately 70% of all homosexuals identify themselves as Christians, who are YOU to say they're not?

Just because you believe God exists does not make it true. Furthermore, God and the bible do not make our laws (as I have told you repeatedly); our laws and government are NOT based on imaginary sky friends and fairy tales.

It doesn't matter what you say about God and his/her views on this; what matters is that homosexuals are treated equally.

Erin, I'm truly no too worried about what you have said. God's words are truth, your's are not God's. Just because someone says I was born in a garage doesn't make them a car. Just because someone says they are a Christian doesn't mean they are saved by the grace of God.

Father God's views on the matter of homosexuality do matter and they will answer to Him one day.

Debora, have you read the original texts, or are you reading the modern edited and re-translated version? Have you ever heard of the Council of Nicaea? The Gnostic Gospels? There is much debate about what constitutes "God's words," but I would have to think that hate, scorn, and judgement are things He disapproves of not matter what.

I don't hate, I don't judge. I tell people the truth and if they don't want to hear it they can face God one day with the knowledge that they turned against His perfect teachings.

I read the King James version of the Holy Bible. God gave those men; who translated from the orignal languages, a special gift and I enjoy God's word very much, that is all I need.

I am RIGHT because I say I am RIGHT.

Believing that "God's words are truth" does not make it so, either, Debora.

But YOUR beliefs are just that -- yours. They are not for everyone to live by.

Just because YOU consider yourself a Christian does not make you one, either.

God's views on anything do not matter to many people, Debora; you would do well to remember that.

So Debora, the answer is no, you haven't heard of the Council of Nicaea or the Gnostic Gospels, and you have no idea why I even brought them up.

I have faith, but I also have the ability to think rationally. Your faith is blind and that can be dangerous.

Erin, I'm truly no too worried about what you have said.

You make it clear that you care nothing for the beliefs or feelings of other people.

God's words are truth,

Which god? There are thousands. All invented by men. All "conveniently" having the same likes, dislikes, beliefs and commands as the people who choose to believe in them.

your's are not God's.

Are you sure? How do you know? Didn't your god say he'd be back? How do you know that the next person you dismiss with your "holier than thou" crap isn't an incarnation of your god?

Just because someone says I was born in a garage doesn't make them a car.

No more than saying that you know what god is, what god thinks, and what god wants...makes it true.

Just because someone says they are a Christian doesn't mean they are saved by the grace of God.

Or honest. Or kind. Or compassionate.

Father God's views on the matter of homosexuality do matter and they will answer to Him one day.

It's precisely this kind of "religious" thinking that is driving people away from religion in droves. Arbitrary judgment and hate. It's anti-social, anti-American and childish.

You could, if you chose, decide to focus on "love your neighbor" instead of "judge others as not as special and holy and saved and wonderful as you".

You could, if you chose, decide that since you wear blended fabrics, eat shellfish and do work on Sundays, that you would treat the prohibition against homosexuality the same way....as not important...and ignore it.

Don't blame your religion for YOUR choice to be hateful. Your religion does give you enough options to choose love instead.

GOD talks to ME. EVERYTHING I say is RIGHT.

I love that some faux Christians believe that they can say and do anything as long as they include the disclaimer, "I don't hate or judge the sinner, I hate and judge the sin" or "I speak the truth".

Well, if that were true, you would simply not partake of the sin and refrain from telling the "sinner" what you think of is. AND truth is SUBJECTIVE.

Yes, Debora, you DO hate and you DO judge.

No God is right. Sarah, you are not making since, you don't know me you are judging me because you are blinded by satan's lies. So please young woman be careful to find out the truth before you tell people how they feel.

God speaks to us through the written work of the Holy Bible. I don't hear him talking outloud Kozakura, maybe you hear voices but I don't.

Truth is God. My faith is with God, that is not blind that is faith in the Almight who created heaven and earth.

Debora- Your views about god are just that, YOURS. You say you follow the word of god, but you come on this blog and throw your views in everyones faces. You are being so judgmental and condeming everyone that doesn't share your beliefs. Lets say its like Santa... your told he's real when your a kid and lied to about being good or you wont get toys right. then you get older and you learn the truth. Hmmm sound like orginized religion to me. Believe in what ever you want but keep that crap to yourself unless you want people telling you their take on it.

What Debora....and so many like her....fail to grasp, is that when you invoke god to atheists or even to theists who disagree...it's like invoking the tooth fairy. It's completely meaningless. She waves her god around like a big stick that will win her arguments for her...but all it does is make her look like she's flailing around without the ability to form a single cogent argument of her own.

Also, like many other theists, she seems incapable of understanding the vast difference between religious beliefs....and laws. Religion is voluntary. Pick one or two or three or none...whatever you want. Choose to follow religious rules if you want.....or don't. It's entirely up to you. Laws are mandatory. We must all follow the laws, regardless of our beliefs, or suffer the the real world consequences. (not imaginary consequences that only take place after you die...nudge, nudge, wink, wink.....pass the basket...one born every minute).

Debora would not want us to pass a law saying that she had to follow a different religion or have no religion at all. She would understand that to be an infringement of her basic rights. Yet she sees nothing wrong with trying to pass a law saying that other people have to be a different orientation. (as if they could) or never act on their orientation at all.

It doesn't matter what's written in your book Debora. It really doesn't. You are free to find it important and to live your own life according to it, if you want. You are not free to try and impose it's asinine rules on everyone else. If you really believed that there was a god who intended to punish anyone who broke the rules....then why do you think he needs you to go out into the world inciting hatred and alienating people from religion? Can't he do that himself?

You can pass all the laws you want Notkidding. I don't follow a religion I follow Jesus Christ, He was God in human form. Not a religion.

Deora...judging is a sin...you ARE judging others beliefs and practices...

My Christian beliefs say do not lie...so what part of a gay person lifting a hetero life is not lying...they marry, have children build their community as a straight person, yet they do not fully love their spouse and detest the life they have created on a lie....

Loving someone is less of a sin than lying and dragging innocents into that lie....

I will be in heaven....pray for YOUR sins or I may be waving goodbye to you as you are kicked to hell.

WAIT, WAIT, WAIT! Isn't Christ said to be the "Son of God?" Deb? Do-you-know-what-I'm-saying...

You're right Deb, I AM judging you, but the kicker here is, I didn't feel the need to first claim I wasn't. I'm judging you based on your posts and there complete lack of relevance to law in our country and there attack on citizens who you neither know, nor are hurting you.

I'm judging you, and finding you lacking. But who gives a @!$%#, right? Because that's just my personal belief.

Just like we don't give a @!$%# about your personal beliefs or religion. If your response to a legal issue, in a secular nation, is nothing but irrelevant spouting of personal biblical interpretation, YOU'VE LOST THE FIGHT.

There's no fight on this side Sarah. Jesus Christ was victorious, the fight comes from satan and his followers. Jesus will be totally victorious in the last battle also.

"LALALALALA logic begone! i can't hear youuuuuu! i am perfect! i am the mouth of god!"

Deb,

Your Biblical battle is STILL irrelevant. The fight here and now, is for equal rights. And you've lost. Take comfort in whatever you want, you can't turn back the clock of social justice. I realize this must make you feel futile, but it's the truth. All your Biblical quotes and religious beliefs mean NOTHING to anyone but YOU.

And when I'm burning in hell, or wherever it is YOU ASSUME I'm going, feel free to say "I told you so". Until then, either make a relevant argument, or continue to panic.

P.S. I'm still judging you. At least I have the balls and the honesty to admit it.

Debora, you do understand that this is a secular nation and religion does not make, nor influence our laws, right? You do not have to agree with the laws of the land, but you do have to abide by them.

Any of this sinking in?

You can pass all the laws you want Notkidding. I don't follow a religion I follow Jesus Christ, He was God in human form. Not a religion.

Of course you follow a religion. The character in the book known as JC is not watching TV with you in your living room or friending you on FB. Someone telling you it's a god, doesn't make it a god....nor does your believing it's a god make it a god. What you "follow" is a book of stories, chosen by men from a much larger pile of stories, and made into a book that would encourage the people to do what the men wanted...and not do what they didn't want. A religion.

In that story book, one of the characters is supposed to be a god, and that god shows up, talks to people, smites them rather a lot, sends floods to murder nearly every man, woman, child, animal, bird and insect (sinning insects!!), turns innocent women into pillars of salt but calls their husband righteous when he rapes and impregnates their virgin daughters, sends bears to tear apart small children for teasing a bald guy, walks in the garden with Adam, talks to Moses on the mountain....and so on.

Haven't you ever wondered...why this god never showed up in any other books? People were writing all over the place...but no one has a single story about this god that was supposedly showing up all the time and doing all this stuff. You would think that other people would write about it...particularly that one story where all the dead people climb out of their graves and walk around town for the day, or the one where the earth stopped spinning for a day (which, aside from being impossible, would have killed everything) No one else even noticed it....perhaps....because it never really happened.

Or have you ever wondered why god stopped showing up after the book was written? He was coming around all the time, telling people what he wanted....and for the last 2000 years, not a peep. No burning bushes, no staffs to snakes or wholesale slaughter of first born's, no parting seas or fresh commands of any kind. Nothing. Silent as the grave. Of course, people can pretend the voices in their head are god...if they want. Or they can pretend every coincidence or event is some sort of coded secret message from god...if they want. But it's not really the same thing as having him just show up and make things clear, like he used to.

You will believe what you want...and you will attribute your own feelings to whatever you want....I'm not trying to change what you think or believe (even if I could) because your beliefs serve you and don't harm me. They aren't any of my business.

When you try to harm other people with your beliefs, as you do here...then you've crossed a line. You want to limit the rights of others, and use your religion as your justification. So now, in order to secure equality for those who need it, we have to address your religion. You force the rest of us to attack your religion in order to prevent people like you from using it to oppress others.

And then...you will triumphantly claim you are being persecuted for your faith.

Sigh.

Awesome NotKidding, great post.

Somehow tracker didn't tell me there were posts.

Agreed, very well said NotKidding, particularly:

And then...you will triumphantly claim you are being persecuted for your faith.

Thank you both :)

agree.....I am so proud of my fellow Marylander's!!

The MN idealogues wanted to put it into the State Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

We stopped it.

November 6th, 2012 was a GREAT DAY FOR DEMOCRACY on sooooo many levels.

The MN idealogues wanted to put it into the State Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

We stopped it.

November 6th, 2012 was a GREAT DAY FOR DEMOCRACY on sooooo many levels.

It was the most important thing that we went to the polls for. My only disappointment is that Michelle Bachmann won in the 6th district, again. It must have hurt the old white men in that district to have to vote for a woman, but it is basically the retired folks district.

Yeah, not sure how MB kept her job... That woman is NUTS and so uneducated it's plain scary!

However, Alan Grayson is back in, Allen West is out. Claire McCaskill is in, Scott Brown is out... so there is a lot to look forward to.

Except that marriage is NOT a religious term. It's a legal contract, and always has been. It was around way before mono-theism, the Bible or Jesus.

You would be thinking of Holy Matrimony.

Millions of (heterosexual) couples are married outside of a church or place of worship, by JPs and other such people, and get to call themselves married. Marriage is not a religious term, although it can be; it is primarily a civil contract.

And, not allowing married couples (gay or straight) that marry outside of a church to call themselves married opens up doors to a myriad of problems when they travel abroad, where they are likely to be denied the rights of married couples (marriage is generally considered valid reciprocally among countries, but not so "legal partnerships", I believe.

You would be thinking of Holy Matrimony.

To be fair, Sarah, Holy Matrimony may be the correct religious term in Christianity, but not in other religions, where it is actually just plain marriage.

It's rather moot because the issue here is civil marriage, not religious marriage, but I do think it's worth pointing out that it's not as simple, logistically, as differentiating between Holy Matrimony and marriage.

Amen. There is nothing to be gained nor is there any moral reason for the government to attempt to define marriage. Ultimately this, like many things in life, is a matter of personal choices and religious beliefs. I would even go a step further and say that the government should simply recognize "family units" and not get into the business of trying to dictate who in the family has what sort of relationship (other than assuring proper guardianship of minors). Frankly if -- say -- two platonic friends decide to form a family and raise children together, it is not for the government to say whether they have the "right" kind of relationship. Ultimately, what business is it of the government who is having sex with whom (excepting cases of abuse, of course)?

Aviye - I think the biggest controversies was the use of the term "marriage." Leave it to the religions to decide on what they believe constitutes marriage and just call it a legal partnership

You've confused the secular legal contract of marriage with the irrelevant religious rite of "holy matrimony". Just ask any divorced and remarried Catholic to explain the difference to you.

getting hung up on the word marriage is a red herring...

im not sure why any ONE specific church owns the word, and there are churches who are open to gay people...

if a church doesnt want to perform gay marriages, then by all means, DONT.

catholic churches wont marry non-catholics and you dont see anyone beating down doors of the catholic church to change that...nor do you see catholic trying to force the govt to say non-catholic marriages arent "real"...

im not sure why so many christians think it's their job to tell gay people how to live...

god gave man free will, if it was good enough for GOD - why isnt it good enough for modern christians?

I'm a Christian and I don't want to define what marriage is or tell any of the LGBT community how to live. In fact, I have several gay friends and I just attended a union ceremony last year for two of them. I fully support them having the ability and same rights as heterosexuals. My only concern is that we will likely see a rise in discrimination cases due to religious groups refusing to marry a gay couple or not allow to use their worship space. (I'm actually surprised something along those lines hasn't happened to the Mormons already since only Mormons can enter their temples after it has been consecrated.)

The irony is that when gay marriage was not legal, many straight married gays, unknowingly or for convenience.

But then why is it a federal offense to have more than one spouse? I mean, if its in the bedroom, why is it a federal law and why have there been no push to overturn this law?

I don't think it should be, no more filbert. If you can take care of more than one woman, (and can deal with the headache) by all means, have at it. There is no legitimate push to over turn it because there aren't enough people pushing for it. Same way that gay folks are just now being allowed to marry in some states because more of them are pushing for it. It has also become more socially acceptable to where heteros are in support of it as well. Now if we could only get more atheists to come out of the closet...

@no more filbert:

If you think the communal property, divorce and custody laws are complicated with just two participants, think how convoluted they would become with group marriage. It's not possible to make them work if all parties are considered equal, as they are in US law. Only in countries where women are limited in rights, it's possible to come with legal framework for polygamy.

I think that is the main issue, Alex. I have nothing wrong with polygamy, but I can see where it can get real ugly in the courts.

Cappy- I don't think multipule spouses will ever be legal for to reasons. 1. It goes against the religious beliefs of most voters. 2. The government knows that more than one woman will just get you in trouble. Just ask Bill Clinton LOL

This.

Anti-depressant sales will skyrocket there. Obama elected, all 4 referendums went the wrong way...time to hide the knives and guns.

Yeah, let's just sweep those other 32 victories they had under the rug!

Nobody is doing that, Timothy, but if you are going to respect the vote you have to do it in al cases.

the obvious point is that those victories were in the past..and with the rapidly changing support for gay marriage, are mostly going to be irrelevant and overturned in the future, either by vote or SCOTUS.

those opposing gay marriage have already lost, demographics have doomed their cause to restrict rights. Like a chicken with its head cut off and still running around, many of them don't realize it..yet.

Count down those 32 and weep. Face it, the demographics on this issue are changing. Whether it be through court action, or popular vote, gay marriage will be legalized nationally soon. :)

A very good point....What is important to note here is religion has turned its back on the gay community, not the other way around. One has to wonder if they did so to fill their collection boxes with money from those with irrational fear or intolerance. The rationale did not come from their fictional bible unless someone bent one of the 38 interpretations to suit his own purpose. We have to come to the conclusion the whole tactic was based on groundless greed. It is then no wonder the election had to be in part, a repudiation of religion itself.

There are people who are generic. They make generic responses and they expect generic answers. They live inside a box and they think people who don't fit into their box are weird. But I'll tell you what, generic people are the weird people. They are like genetically-manipulated plants growing inside a laboratory, like indistinguishable faces, like droids. Like ignorance. Like you.

Have you ever been curious about why the founding fathers intertwined freedom of speech with separation of church and state in the first amendment?

If the concern was government threatening freedom of speech, then speech should have been included in the second amendment. The second amendment provides citizens the mean to protect themselves from government.

The fear was that religion could subvert our secular government and deny citizens freedom of thought and speech - as happened throughout the history of Catholic Europe. The first amendment was written to protect our government and our citizens from religion.

Was this a victory for LGBT - or - was it a repudiation of religion imposing itself on government?

Why not both?

Advancing liberty and freedom to all our citizens is always a victory.

However, do not ignore that LGBT civil rights were only a part of the overall election contest based on social issues. There were other social issues that intruded into the overall election, too. Those social issues based on evangelical justification were repudiated, too.

That is why I believe the history books may have more to write about this election than only the LGBT civil rights issues. The LGBT victory is only one among many victories from this election. The LGBT movement may have been the tip of the spear - to protect and strengthen our secular form of government.

The LGBT movement may have achieved something far greater than they recognize.

I do look at it is primarily a vote against theocracy.

Nerm_L - However, do not ignore that LGBT civil rights were only a part of the overall election contest based on social issues. There were other social issues that intruded into the overall election, too. Those social issues based on evangelical justification were repudiated, too.

It's hard to draw a distinction between theocratic motivations and archaic, regressive social views. For gay rights, abortion and contraception the link is pretty clear, but when it comes to the bizarre white male Republican fascination with rape, is it patriarchy or religion that's the motivating factor?

Regardless, I agree with you. The election was a broader repudiation of the GOP's culture war - everything from abortion to xenophobia.

"is it patriarchy or religion that's the motivating factor?"

maybe it's just biology.

When the ballot question asks only yea or nay to same-sex marriage and is not tied to a candidate or party, it has nothing to do with repudiating government and everything to do with supporting same-sex marriage.

@jock59801 -- What you say may be quite true. The problem with history is that it can be difficult to recognize when you are living within it.

Personally, I believe the LGBT movement has achieved something not only for themselves - but - for all of us. I feel that all of us should say 'thank you' to the LGBT movement.

We may need to wait for the history books to be written before we will know exactly what the LGBT movement has achieved.

I think it was very soundly a civil rights issue, at least in the case of Minnesota's vote. There was a marked division between the urban areas of the state and the very high church per-capita outlying rural areas when it came to the overall vote; at last glance a large portion of the counties in the state were over 50% Yes, with a handful over 70%.

There's no way that we would have succeeded with the No vote here if it had been drawn strictly across the lines of religion, and looking at the election results there's no mistaking the influence when comparing the Yes votes to the counties that voted that way. If it had been a referendum on religion it would have passed easily, but it didn't, and I'm grateful for that.

T.A. Clark - There was a marked division between the urban areas of the state and the very high church per-capita outlying rural areas

I'll be interested to see how the vote breaks out on religious identification, given that 71% of US Catholics support marriage equality. I suspect the vast majority of the opposition came from evangelical protestants.

I don't know, it'll be interesting to see. I think the widespread success of same-sex rights yesterday is a good indication that perceptions are changing for everyone, but that happens much more slowly in rural areas than metropolitan ones.

I strongly believe that this will speed things up everywhere, though, and it definitely feels like the right track since we're at least open to real dialog about equalizing rights now with the MN amendment defeated. The vote was very, very close, though, and there's a long way to go.

I'll also through a little feminist theory in there and gender equality. The less people see "feminine" as weak or bad, the less they fear and demonize the stereotype of the effeminate gay man.

Coupled with media acceptance of gay people, I think it's a casserole of all these things.

Let's see. Huh. I think ... I think that .... I'll go with B. Yes. Definitely B.

B) ... a repudiation of religion imposing itself on government?

Yep. That's it. B.

When I get the message on my Windows computer "You have commited an illegal operation.", should I sit there and wait for the police to show up at my door or shut down the computer and make a run for it?

I have always done the latter but do feel a little guilty about it.

@Tony:

You're lucky it didn't say "Seven days"

Yep - on November 20th SCOTUS decides whether to hear the DOMA and Prop h8 case.

and Washington..which starts with an upside down M...hmmmm....the sexual implications are obvious!

The M's got it goin on!

What is it about the letter 'M'...

Would you like to do the math? Good! Me too!

8 States begin with the letter "M' so the odds are 4:25, but then we have to multiple that by 7:49 for the second then 1:8 for the third. The odds are pretty high, about 1 in 500

However, if we take into account the number of States that have already have a Constitutional prohibition, our beginning sample size is reduced to 20 but so is our number "M" States, now only 4.

Using the same methodolgy 1:5, 3:19, 1:9 which comes to about 1 in 333.

Sorry, Got my geek on boys (or girls)!

you're over thinking it JMO

considering the fact that prior to last night, gay rights amendments were like 0-32

Actually it was 1-31 or 1-32. The bigots lost a round in 2006 with AZ's Prop 107 (very similar to what happened in MN yesterday).

you're over thinking it JMO

No, just being a little light-hearted and silly after a month or so of political bickering.

I am sad no one caught or bothered the mention to "The Big Bang Theory" references.

LOL...I do trust Jesus.....he did a nice job putting the gutters on the front of my house...unlike the uneducated hillbillies who did it the first time...

Who could forget The Jesus on The Big Lebowski

I was going to f__— you on Thursday, now I'm going to f__— you on Saturday.

Nobody fvcks with Jesus

Nor does it say that he was white.

In fact wasn't he kind of brown?

OH NO!!!! Jesus was a scary brown guy! Run for your lives!!!!! AAAaaaaaaaaa..........................!

Careful, some of the conservatives are "fragile". They're very fragile!

learn the meaning of the word magnanimous, then try again. You lefties are supposed to be sophisticated geniuses, right? Hahahhahahah.

Well we did manage to kick your ass all across this nation yesterday - even in f-ing swing states LOL!! I'd say that's pretty sophisticated. Now go back to lighting your crosses on fire so we can run this country.

I wondered what he meant by that too.

Chesty, I realise it is an easy habit to get into, but please remind yourself that one person is not "you lefties."

jock, you know you seem like a pretty good guy. Too bad you're a leftie. Where did you go wrong, bro? Ah...your parents...it was inherited from people who probably thought a lot differently than lefties today.

Mike, nice 1 1/2 pt win against a RINO. Good job. Let's go for 4 trillion more in debt thru 2016.

Does your contribution to this column lie in correcting grammar and spelling chesty? Is that because you and your hateful rhetoric towards gay people was rebuked last night? Get a life my friend and try interjecting something constructive to add to the conversation.

Chesty, I have no idea what you think a "lefty" is, but it doesn't resemble anyone I know.

sb, just keeping some of your knuckledragging gay sophisticates in line. Isn't that magnanimous of me?

Chesty: Those must be some really sour grapes your chewing on.......

Chesty is not intelligent enough to understand how we got to where we are today. Under Bush43 we engaged in 2 unfunded wars, an unfunded prescription drug plan, and a ruined economy because of 5 unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy, and a bank bailout.

Bush43 ruined this country's economy and squandered, stole, the treasury by giving Haliburton no bid contracts.

It's ok Chesty, I understand that you were probably only about 13 or 14 when Bush43 left office and you really understood nothing of what transpired from age 5 or 6 to age 13 or 14.

chesty is a "legend in his own mind". He thinks he is keeping his opponents "in line"...when the reality is he's just providing free amusement. lol.

He's a bitter hater, you'll have to forgive him, for he knows not what he does. :)

Mike i think chest tried to chew on something and got rebuked. Why else would he enter all these conversations concerning gay people? At least his is personal in origin so perhaps we should blame education and experience rather than the bible this time.

Sophisticated??? No. I drink wine out of a box. I am pretty damn smart though. :)

Sarah,

I drink wine out of bottles with screw off caps, cheers, clink, here's to the next 4 with 44.

You do realize we are not and have never been a "Christian" nation, don't you?

I mean if you want to secede and start a theocracy that's your business, but don't pretend that you are carrying on in the name of what the founders of this country intended.

"We Don't Agree on Right and Wrong Anymore"

We never did. that's why we have the First Amendment.

I'd be careful, the last time states tried to split of for the sake of traditional values they got their rears handed to them militarily.

We were always a religious freedom nation, populated overwhelmingly by Christians and founded by a bunch of guys who were all either Christians or believers in God who respected the Bible.

But let's not get sidetracked.

Chesty you obviously know nothing about how America is governed - which includes the Christians. The Bible doesn't govern our country, the Constitution does. Seems you need some schooling here before you keep on with these rambling "God said this, God said that" rhetoric. In fact the Constitution was devised to protect each and every person from that kind of rhetoric.

Chesty, you are correct that we have always been majority Christian and that majority has gotten smaller. But that's the way it goes. People have the right to make up their own minds.

I can just see it now. Half of us will live in some sort of harmony and build a beautiful world while the christians on the other side bicker about left handed people or redheads because all the gays are gone....all open to biblical interpretation of course.

Not getting sidetracked, Chesty, you are the one that mentioned wanting to live in a Christian nation.

Since my place of worship and belief structure is not Christian, I guess I won't be welcomed there, but then again it sounds like I wouldn't want to live there, and you clearly have no desire to have me live there, so enjoy your little theocracy.

Personally, I'll take a diversified community with mutual respect for each other's rights, aplace where the majority does not have the right to overrun the minority, over that any day.

Ha - Chesty you are clearly a moron. Those 'guys' who constructed the Constitution, many of whom were Christian, enacted that document to free people from religious persecution you fool!!! For example, since they had to live their lives in the closet their goal was lay the foundation for a place of true freedon. They didn't believe their own beliefs should be imposed on others and they themselves developed the Constitution to remove religion as a governing body.

Do you want some links on the subject so you can read up on it - because I have them? This is EXACTLY why us "Libs" as you call us will continue to fight and win because you don't even understand our own history and why they so desperately needed the Constitution to live their lives freely.

Let's split up.

What a singularly sad comment, out of many, coming from someone I can only assume by his screen name is a former Marine.

chesty, feel free to start your own country...take your ball and go home and pout, we'll cheer for you! :)

founded by a bunch of guys who were all either Christians or believers in God who respected the Bible.

You mean guys like Thomas Jefferson who saw so much ignorance, absurdity, untruth, charlatanism, and imposture in the Bible that he wrote his own abridged version, correct?

This is Why America Should Split Up, We Don't Agree on Right and Wrong Anymore.

I think someone said this when slavery ended...

Where'd Chesty go!!??? I miss him.

Yes, Chesty, let's NOT get sidetracked...

Your 1st Amendment has a little something called the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.

See...

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71 , 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Burstyn v. Wilson , 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)

Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.

Torcaso v. Watkins , 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

Engel v. Vitale , 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, isunconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp , 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas , 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)

State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Lemon v. Kurtzman , 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Stone v. Graham , 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree , 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)

State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard , 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)

Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

Allegheny County v. ACLU , 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violatesthe Establishment Clause.

Lee v. Weisman , 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)

Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

So, that 1st Amendment, is what decrees religion HAS NO legal or governing standing. You can practice it, but you CAN'T govern with it.

Thomas Jefferson

"But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.) is a most desirable object."
..........To W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819

"The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
..........Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, January 1, 1802

And

John Adams

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
..........To F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
..........To Thomas Jefferson

"What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels, condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are the forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because suspected of heresy? Remember the 'index expurgatorius', the inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter and the guillotine."
..........To John Taylor

And

James Madison

"Every new and successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance"
..........James Madison, 1822, Writings, 9:101

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history"
..........James Madison, undated, William and Mary Quarterly, 1946, 3:555

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

And...

Benjamin Franklin

"I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity."
..........Works, Vol. VII, p. 75

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.
-- Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758

"As to Jesus of Nazareth...I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity."

It's so funny I wrote an aricle stating the truth about the all the hype about the gay garbage an it somehow disappeared. Well so anyway it's gonna be just like the days of sodem & gomorrah God will not let you by with this nonsense for long making a mockery of his word watch out his beloved nation is headed for despair because they are going against is word stand strong Christians an hold on to his word an what you know is right for the end is nigh

You know Chesty, no one is stopping you from trying to make your own country. Go for it. Let us know how it goes.

It's so funny I wrote an aricle stating the truth about the all the hype about the gay garbage an it somehow disappeared.

Maybe gawd is trying to tell you something?

Well so anyway it's gonna be just like the days of sodem & gomorrah

You people really should read your bibles before you spout this crap. The story of Lot....a pimping, raping, incestuous, lying, drunken, pedophile...saved by gawd because he was "righteous".

Right. That's the story you guys trot out to make some "moral" point about sexual orientation. EPIC fail.

And the roving bands of homosexual rapists? They only exist in that one story. Never mentioned anywhere else in history, no one on the planet has ever seen or heard of one....just invented by the raging homophobes of religion. But don't let facts or reality get in the way of your chosen beliefs.

God will not let you by with this nonsense for long making a mockery of his word

No sane person could keep from mocking utter nonsense like that. If gawd only loves morons...why does he keep sending tornadoes, droughts, floods and hurricanes to the bible belt?

watch out his beloved nation

This is his "beloved nation"? Is gawd an American?

is headed for despair because they are going against is word

If we are going to have a free and equal nation, then we have to keep your gawd out of our laws and our politics. He doesn't believe in equality or freedom...he's all about control and bigotry. I really don't think he's American.

stand strong Christians an hold on to his word an what you know is right for the end is nigh

No...unfortunately...it's not. You xians have been saying that for over 2000 years. Jesus said it would happen before his generation passed. It didn't. He was wrong. Or he lied. Or gawd changed his mind. Or it was all just a bunch of hooey to begin with. It's never going to happen. Never. But you are free to think it will. It's America...the land of the free. You aren't free to treat your fellow citizens as second class because of what you think. The very same freedom that lets you believe and worship however you want....keeps you from imposing any of those beliefs on others.

What that means...is that your religious beliefs are completely irrelevant in a discussion of civil rights.

CP- The crap that is coming out of your mouth is dispicable. The fondation of this country is for people to be free to do what they want within the confines of the law. If you dont like it get the hell out.