P.S.:

FORWARD...

It shouldn't need to be a law, it should just be morally wrong!

There are a lot of things that are "morally wrong", but same-sex marriage or homosexuality are two that are NOT, since God created us the same as he/she (if you actually believe in such a god) created heterosexuals. And not just in the human race, but in almost every other species of non-plant life on this planet.

anti-trust proponent: that same god supposedly knows exactly what you will do, even before you are born. If that is true, and it is true that he/she doesn't accept homosexuality, WHY did that god even allow you to be born? Why did that god MAKE you that way? To punish you for your whole life? And people freely worship a vindictive god like that? And those people consider homosexuals messed up.

@ the Obama administration is involved in this why?!? More pandering to incredibly small % of the population to buy votes. Frankly, by doing this, hetero couples will be the ones left out in the cold, discrimination is being created here. (Just like many other "social" programs supported by Liberals. They excel at creating class warfare and inequality.)

I guess Liberals must be morally bankrupt, I can't imagine how they live with themselves otherwise...... It shouldn't be a surprise the most crime and poverty are in Liberal strongholds. You think you would get tired of that type of life. Instead, you want to rob the rest of us to pay for your "social programs" (entitlements) and take away our rights to curb the crime your beliefs have encouraged. How are those morals working for you now?

NMEast, God didn't make anyone homosexual. God gave everyone free will. Some chose the mental illness of homosexuality.

God created Adam and Steve

To Willowbrook: Please tell me how this discriminates against hetero couples - hetero couples already have these benefits. Furthermore, explain to me why you think it should be okay for a hetero surviving spouse to receive the social security benefits of a dead spouse, but a gay/lesbian surviving spouse shouldn't. Gays/lesbians pay into the same social programs that are robbing you, but I'll bet my next paycheck that when you reach the "entitlement" social security age, you'll be standing there with your conservative hand out waiting on your SSI check. And God forbid, if you or your spouse should die, the survivor should be entitled to the money the other paid in AND so should my same-sex wife if/when I die.

Willowbrook,

The president is involved in this because it is his job. Its something called leading. As to the pandering to the small % thing, well, ever hear about a guy named Lincoln? Besides, gay people do not give birth to gay kids, straight parents do, so I'm assuming that there are more straight people than gay (parents, grand parents siblings, friends) that would hope to remove the yoke of legalized discrimination from the necks of those they love.

Finally I really have to address the "victim" attitude. How are "hetero couples" left out in the cold? What discrimination is being created? Your arguments sound so much like the stuff that racists spewed in the 1940's, 50's and 60's, that I'm surprised you have the gall to write this stuff. DOMA is constitutionally and morally wrong as were Slavery and the "Jim Crow" laws that followed.

The entire concept of rights is a joke as they can be taken away at the point of a gun. Equality is the biggest lie ever foistered on the human race. Nobody is equal to anybody else, even in terms of the law. Rich folks get off with stuff that would send a minority inot prison for a long, long time.There are people more attractive than you, smarter than you, more courageous, etc. The concept of equality is bogus in the real world. Only in fantasyland do people actually believe that. Do you think the 1%ers believe in equality?

Nice post zachmom!

The true measure of morality is whether ones actions bring harm to another innocoent person. Unfortunately, we have redefined to conform to an arbitrary false set of standards by which all manner of evil is allowed in the name of selfinterest.

I grow tired of the religious right whining about things things never addressed while practicing that which he most strongly rebuked.

Republicans need to get over fighting gays and fighting abortions.

They need to focus on economic issues and enforcing the Constitution.

Those issues are campaign killers.

And I wish someone would focus JOBS.

@willowbrook, so when we protect Jews we protect a very small portion of the population, would you advocate removing those protections? Afterall, religion is a choice, they could be any religion they wanted including mainstrean accepted ones, but they chose to be a minority. So really they need to be placed in the same class as gays right?

Let's see, how many other groups can attack based your blatantly moronic arguments...

. 1996 law? Obviously the law is outdated, considering that the law was made in 1996, sometime in the last century? Wait, the law was actually made some time in the last millennium! That's OLD...& outdated.

.1. Freedom under the law & equality for all are constitutional principles.

2. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

Wasnt the Dems the sponsors for DOMA and Dont ask Dont tell? Kinda funny how they even admit they screwed up.. Yes it may have happened in the last Millennium but back then we actually had jobs and Ohh my god!!! Gas under a dollar fifty and actual pay increases, crazy isnt it??!!! The more advance we become the worst off we become...

@blutowski

Try having that conversation with any republican leader. I did, by the time elections rolled up, I switched to independent and had to call the police several times to have the dishonest hypocrites removed from my property.

I believe in equal rights for same sex couples. That type of relationship is their choice and should be equally respected under the law. But that type of relationship is NOT the same type of relationship between a man and woman. Two totally different types of relationships that must be distinguishable - that is why I am against same sex marriage. A same sex union needs a different name because it is different. The word marriage is already taken and it means a union between a man and a women. One difference is that married couples have the ability to have sex and create life. Same sex couples can not have sex and reproduce. They cannot conjoin in the same way. The human sex organs do not connect in the same way. Although the relationships are different and need different names, both types of relationships should have equal rights under the law because people get to choose how they want to live and the type of relationship they want to be in.

I grow tired of the religious right whining about things things never addressed while practicing that which he most strongly rebuked.

I can't say it any better than that.

President Barack Obama announced in 2011 that the U.S. would no longer enforce DOMA

Was announced that US would not defend DOMA in court against challenges. The president cannot override DOMA and order IRS and INS to recognize SS marriage.

@epitome:

Marriage is not about sex or childbearing. It's not a licence to have those.

Marriage is about love.

willowbrook@ the Obama administration is involved in this why?!? More pandering to incredibly small % of the population to buy votes.

You realize the absurdity of that statement right? If it's pandering to an incredibly small part of the population then it not going to represent much in the way of votes is it?

Wow some of you are living in a fantasy world. Marriage is definitely about a man and a woman. This equality argument is moot. God does not create people to engage in sin, they choose that them selves. Morality does not have an expiration date. Just because one believes something to be old does not mean it is obsolete. It is not republicans that continue to raise the issue of gay's it is the gay president. Their does not have to be a deity to know how unnaturally wrong this is. It is hereditary to know this is wrong.

These are nothing more than bi-sexual dysfunctional people, no different than a foot fetish or a peeping Tom. Just another perverted idea and that is all this really is. There are many that will never accept this for we know the truth.

Epitome,

I liked your post and the reasonableness that you used in your words. I would like to respond in the same spirit of your post.

There is a difference between legal marriage and Holy Matrimony. Legal marriage is a government contract between two people securing property and offering protections. No where is there a clause or question about having or raising children. Using the biological component as a qualifier would mean that only fertile couples with the intent of raising children should be considered. Same Sex Marriage would carry the same distinction as Interracial Marriage or Interfaith Marriage. The definition of "traditional" marriage has changed, and drastically, even within the confines of heterosexual marriage. I dare say, heterosexual marriages and families will continue to form regardless of who joins the club.

When we get to Holy Matrimony, that is different. Each religion and/or church has the right to perform or not perform a ceremony to whomever they wish. This is true for heterosexual, interracial, or interfaith. Creating a different, but equal, designation for same sex couples will fuel a feeling of those relationships not having the same importance or weight as a "marriage." We can see it on the boards here with the segregationist mentality. And if I can bring in children here, those of us who have children, they are going to grow up hearing how their family isn't the same nor worth as much as a heterosexual marriage. I think having equal but separate designations holds too many pitfalls from a legal and social context.

I would love to hear your thoughts! Thanks again for such an even worded and tempered post!

VERN ; Are you the one that they made all those Stupid Vern movies about?

Is there nothing that this pathetic, power hungry megalomaniac will not pander to in order to preserve and increase his power? Whe he came into office, and for almost four more years, he stated repeatedly that he was against gay marriage. Now, all of a sudden, he's all for it. Hey Barry, you won...you can quit pandering now.....you can't run again, thnak God!

I can't wrap my mind around how most people in the world say they are religious, yet many of those so called religious people support gay marriage, which was not allowed in the start-up of any religion I know of. Same goes for abortions, etc. When it comes to God, you can't cherry-pick what you want and don't want.

Pigotry

2. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS

Take note of the uppercase words. God didn't give the right for gay marriage. There weren't two Adams.

Epitome

NMEast - Have you ever read the Bible?

For you and all of the others proclaiming that homosexuality is 'immoral' and on that basis same-sex marriages should not be allowed.

Well... YOU LOSE because that bull@!$%# is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You DO NOT have the right to force your PATHETIC ARCHAIC beliefs in fables onto others. So if THAT is your argument... YOU LOSE!!

As soon as you mention some fantasy sky-claus or some buybull... you guessed it... YOU LOSE!!

Your worthless 'free will' arguments are as pitiful as your 'gawd works in mysterious ways' bull@!$%#.

Your RELIGIOUS beliefs have NO PLACE in United States law. And before you start your wretched wailing about the ten commandments, SHOW ME ANY OF THE SO-CALLED TEN COMMANDMENTS IN OUR CONSTITUTION! ANY OF THEM!

And while you're at it, explain how 'thou shalt not kill' from your gawd is also a law in that great religious bastion of North Korea, among hundreds of other places it exists in law without your ten commandments.

Sodom and Gomorrah was not about homosexuality. The scripture tells us that the greatest sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was they did not exercise one of the greatest laws of the time, hospitality. In social context, the act of raping a deposed general, king, or stranger was a show of dominance, not of homosexuality. The scripture tells us that the whole town turned up outside of Lot's door. This will mean women and children. This was not about sex, this was about dominance. One must read the scripture with a clear insight to the times, traditions, and cultures.

I am not an Obama fan, but his "pandering" is no better or worse than any other President. And if there are only 10% LGBT people in the country, even if every one voted, that in no way would be enough of a vote to sway any election in one direction or another. I think, however, there must be a large heterosexual group of people who support equality.

As far as cherry picking the scripture, you are absolutely right. You either live or die by the literal and fully encompassing theory or you use scripture as a guide post to a common sense approach to how you live life. One cannot take anyone seriously who picks out one or two Levitical Laws as the proof of their right while ignoring all the rest of them. One cannot use the words of Paul as condemnation without using cultural relativism of his words and understand that of which he spoke. Here is an example, the word "cool." Cool means low temperature. However, we have adapted it to mean something different in social terms as something desirable or socially exciting. "You are cool," can mean you are cold or you are popular. Without looking into the cultural aspect of it, you can make wrong assumptions. Paul was speaking of pedastry and of temple/pagan sex. He was not speaking of same sex couples. I believe your assumption that homosexuality was not allowed in the start-up of any religion to be erroneous and misleading.

Party-liners wreck the country

There weren't two Adams.

And according to your buybull, there was only one Adam and one Eve. And then they had Cain and Able, who married whom? Musta' been their SISTERS that them boys procreated with. And here I thought that the garden of eden was in the Middle East somewhere, not in Alabama, Mississippi, or the hills of Kentucky.

maninjapan78

The president is involved in this because it is his job. Its something called leading.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Right on Brother, Leading us straight to the inferno reaches, get this legislation passed and fast.

Repent or be damned, time is short and the choice is yours.

==========================================================

zachmom Gays/lesbians pay into the same social programs that are robbing you, but I'll bet my next paycheck that when you reach the "entitlement" social security age, you'll be standing there with your conservative hand out waiting on your SSI check..

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And don't forget all the bestiality in line behind them, remember there paying in to.

=======================================================================

I'm all for same sex marriage, the gays have as much right to miserable as the rest of us.

scuba, could you point out the part of the Constitution that addresses same sex marriage? If you could do it without the hate filled ranting that would be great.

On a side note, N. Korea is officially an athiest state, the rulers look upon formal religion as a threat to their power. Cheondoism, shamanism and Buddahism are the most popular. Most christians fled to the south quite a while ago.

On a double side note, thou shalt not kill is the law pretty much everywhere, you might be familiar with its current name of murder.

.Then you believe in the bible and the Bible says its WRONG

The bible doesn't tell you anything. At the end of the day, the bible is a book that contains fairly arbitrary stories. Some of which have more backing than others. Its how you choose to interpret those stories that will determine what you believe. Christianity, like most other religions, will derive whatever interpretation it needs to, to best serve its self-interest. Just look at its history.

I don't say this to insult your religion or beliefs, but you've got to get real. We need to start thinking with our heads, and not with some book that was written and compiled when people still thought the earth was flat.

rossj503Sodom and Gomorrah was not about homosexuality. The scripture tells us that the greatest sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was they did not exercise one of the greatest laws of the time, hospitality.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

WRONG,WRONG,WRONG,WRONG,WRONG, God had already decided Sodom and Gomorrah's fate long before and "hospitality" ?'s arose.

========================================================================

C

cannonballer

I'm all for same sex marriage, the gays have as much right to miserable as the rest of us.

scuba, could you point out the part of the Constitution that addresses same sex marriage? If you could do it without the hate filled ranting that would be great.

The closest the Constitution of the United States comes to addressing same sex marriage is the same that could be stated to be addressing the marriage of opposite sex couples:

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

On a side note, N. Korea is officially an athiest state, the rulers look upon formal religion as a threat to their power. Cheondoism, shamanism and Buddahism are the most popular. Most christians fled to the south quite a while ago.

And in such, the laws that so many of the religious ilk pretend 'came from the bible' exist in countries without any religious conviction, especially christian.

On a double side note, thou shalt not kill is the law pretty much everywhere, you might be familiar with its current name of murder.

I am quite familiar with the act of murder being against the law in virtually every society on Earth. That is a fact in point that many of the religious tend to overlook or ignore in their pathetic attempts to claim the U.S. as a 'christian country' due to it's (murder's) inclusion in both their bible and in our common laws.

My main argument is that if their claim of the United States being a 'christian country' and to post the ten commandments in our courtrooms is based on our 'laws' being based on those ten commandments and their bible, show me where in The Constitution of the United States is any of those ten commandments. They can't. They're not there. If the United States was created as a 'christian nation,' where are those ten commandments? Where is gawd or jesus?

The United States is not a 'christian nation.' It is a nation of people, some of which, many of which, happen to be christian. And they still have no right to try to force their religious beliefs onto others.

The idiocy of those that believe they have the right to legislate their religious belief onto others is so against the ideals of America that they are unpatriotic, hateful, moronic, and generally just stupid.

Not aimed at cannonballer, but to all, if you are reading this and are offended by it, you're part of the problem. Freedom OF religion is also Freedom FROM religion.

Rich folks get off with stuff that would send a minority inot prison for a long, long time

oh, you mean like Jesse Jackson Jr? Ten bucks says he gets to serve his time in a mental institution! Then p.Obama will grant him a pardon!

You and I would be serving hard time for MANY years!

1. Why is it a small %? Because most states do not recognize gay marriage.

2. Social security is not an entitlement. We pay into to it. Welfare, Medicaid, food stamps are entitlements. Answer this, many Seniorscannot get married because one will lose their Social Security benefits, (and Military benefits as well) leaving the couple in poverty. Is that good and right too?

3. The real push here has been to give gay non-married couples all the benefits of married couples. That's where all the non-married hetero couples will be discriminated against. (Incidentally, quite honestly, there are not as many "benefits" as there used to be as the govt. is preying upon married people as well. Doesn't it make you wonder why so many married families can no longer check "married" as their tax status?)

4. I'm against all "special group" extra rights/protections, except in the case of crimes against children. No special rights for gays, illegals ethnic groups, etc. The law should apply equally to all. That was how it was meant to be in the first place. Every time you give special group "extra protection, or rights" you diminish all those not in the group.

I notice none you you who posted to me commented on my second paragraph. Glad you like your morally bankrupt life, which is your right. But I shouldn't be forced against my will to pay for it or lose my rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

I am convinced the prophet had two letters in the wrong place when he said " the abomanation that causes desolation", I always wondered what he meant. It must have been " the obamanation cause he sure is causing desolation with his policies. How about addressing our debt and jobs and spending? I see the regulars above claiming this is unconstitutional,so is your demanding this gun ban,so stop pushing your bull onto us about that!

I have the perfect solution to the gay marriage issue. My solution involves no new taxes, no regulations, no new government agencies, and no government oversight at all. It seems to me that “small” government” Republicans should be all for it if, in fact, they want small government. So here is my solution ---

• If you’re opposed to gay marriage --- DO NOT marry a gay person.

@AlexG-1904848 - My point is that the relationships are two DIFFERENT types of relationships and the ability to create life is just one of the many differences. I know that marriage is not a license to create life but a marriage between a man and a woman can create such whereas a union between 2 people of the same sex cannot. Another difference is that male and female sex organs were created to conjoin in a way that the sex organs of 2 people of the same sex cannot. There are many other differences also. Both types of relationships are valid but they are different and need different names. They must remain distinguishable because they are not the same thing. It seems that many want to convince themselves that homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual relationships. The truth, which many do not want to accept, is that they are NOT the same thing. We can all choose what we feel is the best type of relationship for us but the fact still remains that these two types of relationships are, by nature, DIFFERENT and should be referred to by different terms to set them apart from each other. Marriage is a word that is already used to name the type of relationship between a man and a woman so same sex unions need a different name. Marriage may or may ot have the feeling of love involved. But if marriage is about the feeling of love as you state, does that mean that a daughter and father that shares that feeling of love (in a romantic way) should be allowed to get married? What about brothers and sisters that experience that feeling of romantic love towards each other? Should they be allowed to get married? We all know that there are people in incestuous relationships where both parties state that they love each other and it may be true that those feelings really do exist. But that feeling of love that they have does not mean that their type of relationship should be called a marriage. There are many different types of relationships. But we all know what marriage is because it has always been such - a union between a man and woman. We all know what the intended meaning of the word was when it was first used. I think that this is more about same sex couples wanting their relationships to be considered the same type of relationship as a union between a man and a woman. But even though some may want that, reality is that the relationships are not the same and will never be the same. The fact is that the male body was made to conjoin with the female body in a sexual way. The male body was not made to conjoin with another male body in a sexual way. The female body was not made to conjoin with another female body in a sexual way. Those are facts that will never change. There are many other differences that will never change. And that is why the different types of relationships should be distinguishable by name. The law can still state that both types of relationships have equal protection under the law - even if they have different names.

Hey, Confussed-1578043

It shouldn't need to be a law, it should just be morally wrong!

.

Politics is often amoral...having no relations to morality. And where morality does play some role in politics, people's moral values evolve...too.

Hey Pig, would you say the same about my 2nd amend. rights which have already been adjudicated by the Supreme Court? How about the 9th and 10th amend. rights of the people and states?

wow, this is a new one; the mandate for the dept. of justice, is to defend all acts of Congress against all Constitutional attacks, whether they agree or not with the law; we now have the Government of the United States attempting to overturn laws passed by congress and signed by the president; much as a lawyer representing a client and telling the jury , I believe you should convict my client, because i believe he is guilty, strange things going on.

Willowbrook-

I guess Liberals must be morally bankrupt, I can't imagine how they live with themselves otherwise...... It shouldn't be a surprise the most crime and poverty are in Liberal strongholds. You think you would get tired of that type of life. Instead, you want to rob the rest of us to pay for your "social programs" (entitlements) and take away our rights to curb the crime your beliefs have encouraged. How are those morals working for you now?

According to FBI statistics, the 10 most violent states based on four types of violents crimes, which include, murder and non-negligent manslaughter (known as voluntary manslaughter), rape, aggravated assault, and robbery, aggravated assault are:

1. Tennessee

2. Alaska

3. South Carolina

4. New Mexico

5. Nevada

6. Delaware

7. Louisiana

8. Florida

9. Maryland

10. Arkansas

I wouldn't consider these liberal strongholds.

Poorest states in the USA as of 2012 were:

1. Mississippi

2. Arkansas

3. Tennessee

4. West Virginia

5. Louisiana

6. Montana

7. South Carolina

8. Kentucky

9. Alabama

10. North Carolina

I wouldn't consider any of these to be liberal strongholds.

The top 10 states for teen pregnancies in 2010 were

1. Mississippi

2. New Mexico

3. Arkansas

4. Texas

5. Oklahoma

6. Louisiana

7. Kentucky

8. West Virginia

9. Alabama

10. Tennessee

I am really looking to see where the liberal strongholds are.

The top 5 worst states for high school graduations:

1. (Not a state but listed in the Department of Education) Bureau of Indian Education

2. Nevada

3. New Mexico

4. Georgia

5. Oregon

Still looking for those liberal strongholds of immorality and poverty.

Top 10 states who use the most food stamps.

1. Mississippi

2. Oregon

3. Tennessee

4. New Mexico

5. Michigan

6. Louisiana

7. Kentucky

8. West Virginia

9. Maine

10. South Carolina

Top 10 states with the highest murder rates in 2010

1. Louisiana

2. Maryland

3. Mississippi

4. Missouri

5. New Mexico

6. Arizona

7. South Carolina

8. Nevada

9. Georgia

10. Alabama

These moral and bankrupt liberals are where again?

The top 10 best states to live in 2012

1. New Hampshire

2. Hawaii

3. Vermont

4. Maine

5. Minnesota

6. North Dakota

7. South Dakota

8. Colorado

9. Wyoming

10. Utah

Can we be honest with one another for just a few moments and act like adults without name calling or being uncivil? Immoral behavior is not confined to a Red or Blue state. They are not confined to any particular religion or affiliation. Morality is fluid and changes from one group to the next, even within the same religious organization at times. I take no pride or sense of justification that these liberal strongholds do not show up on these lists. These are Americans that are suffering and harming themselves. More over, any American who smiles or rejoices in the misery of others needs to reexamine what it means to be an American in my opinion.

cannonballer - could you point out the part of the Constitution that addresses same sex marriage? If you could do it without the hate filled ranting that would be great.

The constitution doesn't directly address marriage even for opposite-sex couples, just like it doesn't directly address the right to privacy or any number of other things which have constitutional support. That's why we have a supreme court to interpret the constitution and rule on the constitutionality of the law.

However if a state is going to license marriages, the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection requires that a state grant them equally and not deny them without at least a rational basis (and none has been found to deny same-sex couples the right to marry).

Moreover, gender discrimination requires heightened scrutiny (ie, discrimination based on the relative gender of your spouse). That means the dumb bigots will inevitably lose on this issue for the exact same reasons they lost on the mixed-race marriage issue.

@rossj503 - Very respectfully, I would like to say that a union between a man and a woman is not and will never be the same as a union between 2 people of the same sex. By nature, they are different and that is just reality. Interracial and interfaith marriages are still unions between a male and female. A same sex union is NOT a union between a male and a female so the distinctions are not the same.

Yes, I am a believer, a follower of God but my issues with same sex "marriage" are not only based on my beliefs and values. Many non-believing men and women unite in marriage. My issue is that a union between a male and female is inherently different than a union between 2 people of the same sex. It is no coincidence that males and females are different from each other and can interact and conjoin in a way that 2 people of the same sex simply cannot.

I understand that marriage is a legal contract. The contract is formed between a male and female because they have chosen to come together in a way that only a male and female can to become one. I think that there should be a legal contract for unions between 2 people of the same sex but since the unions are, by nature, different - the legal contract between 2 people of the same sex should have a different name. It is definitely possible for the 2 different legal contracts to provide equal protection under the law.

I am sure that you understand the differences between the two types of unions. The ability to have sex and create life, the way that our sex organs were made to interact and conjoin - are just 2 of many differences. The bond between a man and a woman can not be replicated by 2 people of the same sex. It is not possible and never will be possible. However, 2 people of the same sex may be able to have a different type of bond. I just want these differences to be recognized by name. And the reality is that the term" marriage" is already taken to name the union between a male and female.

As far as children being raised in same sex unions, I would hope that you would teach a child that you raised that people are different and make different choices. I would hope that you would teach the child that being different does not mean being less of a human. I hope that you would teach that there are different types of relationships and unions. It is possible for us to respect our differences. Ignoring reality/truth and convincing oneself that something is the same when in fact it is not - does not respect the fact that people are different. It is okay to be different although it is true that it can be uncomfortable and often painful especially if the way in which one is different does not reflect the majority. So I hope that you would teach a child that certain aspects of life will be painful but that he/she should still embrace and love themselves. A person's measure of their own self worth can not be measured by others.

An example would be the black experience in this country. Is there a difference between being black and white? Yes - blacks have more melanin than whites. Does it mean that one has less worth than the other? No - BUT many people believe that blacks are less than whites. Although many people believe this, it is and has never been true. Have blacks experienced feelings of pain because people believe that they are less? Yes, blacks have actually been abused and mistreated bc of their different amount of melanin. Such is life. Some people will experience more pain than others and must be able to endure it. Although this is the black experience, there is not a tendency for blacks to feel less than others or shame because they are black. They may feel pain, anger and that life is unfair but not less and ashamed of who they are. This is why there has never been an epidemic of blacks committing suicide because they are black and not accepted as being equal to whites. Inherently, blacks know their true self worth despite what the majority believes. But this does not mean that circumstances and experiences that result from being black will not be painful, unfair or cause problems in their lives. Such is life. As a side note (reflective of my belief in God), many blacks are Christians because God makes it clear that circumstances in life does not define one's self worth. Although people may show favor or preference to one group over another, God does not. And God actually tells His children to expect pain, expect persecution, expect life to be unfair - but that if we are faithful to Him, He will get us through everything that we have to experience. He tells us that nothing in life, not even death - can separate us from His love. And this happens to be true despite the unpleasant feelings we have to experience while living on this earth. Of course, blacks that do not have a relationship with God have a much harder time dealing with the pain of racism.

I can understand that getting strength from God may be difficult for homosexuals since it is a fact that God states that His children should not engage in homosexual behavior. I know that knowing what God says can make certain people feel shame. But it is difficult for anyone to get strength from God when you know that you are not living the way God wants you to live. When I used to have sex outside of marraige, I felt a lot of shame even though everyone around me was doing it. Those feelings of shame did not stop until I stopped having sex outside of marriage. It's been 10 years now and since I stopped, sex has not caused me to feel shame. But there are other things that I do that cause me to feel shame. Just the other day, I used the s word to refer to a woman who was promoting having sex with multiple people. After calling her the s word, I felt shame because that is not the way that God wants me to be. So I went back on the blog and apologized for calling her a name. I also asked God to forgive me and help me to change that, although infrequent, wrong behavior of mine. Now I would assume that people who do not believe in God will not experience feelings of shame when they do something that goes against the way He wants His children to live. But I am not sure about this because I have always known the presence of God. For believers, shame is a reminder that we are not living according to God's standards for us. And if a person truly loves and wants to please God, of course going against His will cause shame. (Please note despite our sin and shame, the blood of Jesus allows all believers, even those who are sinners, to be saved.)

There is a difference between feeling pain because you are different and feeling shame bc you are not living the way you know God wants you to live. Some people experience both at the same time. I have at many times in my life bc I am different from most in a lot of ways. Whether or not a child that you raise will feel shame because of the homosexual environment that they are raised in is something that you will not be able to control. If the child does not develop a relationship with God, they will probably not feel shame but this child may become a follower of God even if the parents are not. If they do become believers, then I would assume that this will be difficult for the parents and child in some ways. Ex. - my parents were not married and my mother ended up marrying a married man. I love my mother and she is a great person. My stepfather is also a great person and I love him. BUT - I don't respect some of the choices that my mother has made. My mother thinks that because she felt feelings of love for my stepfather when he was married to someone else, that meant that they were supposed to be together. I understand her but I don't agree and will never agree because I know that followers of God should not be controlled by our feelings. All of the feelings that we experience are not of God and this is where denying our flesh, as difficult as it is, becomes important. Yes, she may have felt pain if she was not with the man that she loved but pain is a part of life. As a Christian, she should have made the choice to live God's way and not go for what she wanted or felt good for her. That is what Christians are called to do even though we don't always do what we should. I do understand that my relationship with God is different from hers. She thinks that God gives her all of her feelings and that if He did not want her to take another woman's husband, He would not have given her feelings of love for that man. My mother has gone to church every Sunday her entire life. She goes much more than I do. But her belief and faith is different from mine. She questions everything that God says that goes against feelings or thoughts that she has. She tries to justify her actions instead of admitting to herself that she has gone against God's will for her as a Christian. She may ask for forgiveness but she does not repent/change her viewpoint because she has convinced herself that there isn't anything wrong with it despite what God clearly states. She has convinced herself that God is OK with her choices. She has a relationship with God but she does not have an honest relationship with God because His truth causes her to feel shame. She avoids deeply studying the Bible bc it reminds her that there is a standard that God has set for His people and that she has chosen to live another way. Instead of taking it as an opportunity to learn and grow in her walk with God, she gets upset and feels uncomfortable whenever Biblical topics come up that indicate she made an un-Godly choice. And of course God still loves her but she will experience those feelings of shame until she is honest about the fact that her choice was not the way God wanted her to live and admits that her choice was not aligned with God's standards. It bothers my mother that I do not respect some of her choices. I accept her choices and don't love her any less because of them but I will never believe that God is ok with believers interfering with other people's marriages. Yes, many believers do such (as well as commit many other sins) but that does not make it ok with God. Now if somehow I did not experience the presence of God and was not a believer, I would assume that I would not have a problem with the choices that my mother made.

My point is that you cannot protect a child from the pain of being different and you can not control whether or not the child will experience shame. You can not prevent the child from feeling that the homosexual relationships of those raising them is different from heterosexual realtionship because the truth is that they are different. Being different and hurt feelings are both a part of life and whether or not the child is a believer will determine how they deal with those feelings. If the child becomes a believer, they may not have the same views of homosexual relationships as you do. And this may hurt your feelings just as my beliefs hurt the feelings of my mother. Dealing with hurt feelings is something that we all have to endure, homosexuals are not exempt. The child may also experience hurt feelings because they are different or because their households are different. Children raised by homosexuals are not exempt from hurt feelings. Such is life for all of us. I hope that the child that you raise will discover that God can help with hurt feelings and feelings of shame because life can be hard and painful - even more so when a person does not have a relationship with God to help them get through.

@ScubaGolfJim - My post asking whether NHEast had read the Bible had nothing to do with same sex marriage. It was in response to his statement that God made people gay to punish them and that He was a vindictive God. Everything that he stated about God was a lie and contradicts what the Bible teaches.

However, I do not think that a union between 2 people of the same sex is the same as a marriage between a man and a woman. Although I am most definitely a believer and I love God, my reasoning for this is based on the fact that the relationships are different in type/nature and should have different names so that they are clearly and easily distinguishable. And although it is a fact that the relationships are different, both are valid types of relationships and should have equal protection under the law.

It's apparent you read my 1st post in response to the lies stated about God, but did you read my 2nd post where I stated that same sex unions should have equal protection under the law? Your statement that my views on same sex "marriage" is based on my beliefs is false. Irregardless of one's beliefs, the relationships are 2 distinct types of relationships/unions and for that reason should be distinguishable by name.

Epitome - However, I do not think that a union between 2 people of the same sex is the same as a marriage between a man and a woman. Although I am most definitely a believer and I love God, my reasoning for this is based on the fact that the relationships are different in type/nature and should have different names so that they are clearly and easily distinguishable.

"Different" does not mean "the government has a rational purpose to discriminate". Mixed-race marriages are "different" from same-race marriages, and yet today we permit them even though they were once broadly denied because they were "different". Legal contracts signed by left-handed persons are "different" from legal contracts signed by right-handed persons, yet the government has no rational basis to deny lefties equal protection of the law or deny them the right to sign contracts.

The fact of the matter is that gays and straights have the exact same interests in the legal protections marriage provides, which primarily concern property and kinship rights. The Windsor v US case is a great example.

That's the part you bigots don't get - the government simply has no legitimate interest in the relative race or relative gender of your spouse. Plus you bigoted nutballs never did understand what equal protection requires, which explains why you're on such a losing streak in the courts..........you've lost every single DOMA case to date.

Irregardless of one's beliefs, the relationships are 2 distinct types of relationships/unions and for that reason should be distinguishable by name.

Let's put it in a way a bigot like you might understand........if there are two identical legal contracts with different names which apply to two different classes of citizens, the existence of the second contract is proof to the court of unlawful bias. Separate but equal is no longer a valid premise in America.

@shrekk - The legal contracts would be different. One would be a legal contract between a man and a woman (already commonly referred to as marriage). The other would be a legal contract between 2 people of the same sex. So the contracts would not be identical. The two different types of contracts would be open equally to all citizens. Each person would able to choose which type of contract that they wanted to enter into to based on the type of legal union they wanted to form. It is a false notion that the distinct contracts (one being between a man and a woman - the other being between 2 people of the same sex) would catergorize citizens into different classes. It would only indicate whether the relationship is the type between a man and a woman or the type between 2 people of the same sex. All citizens would have equal opportunity to enter into the type of contract of their choice.

Bigot: intolerant person: somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views.

I hate to disappoint you but the definition of bigot does not apply to me. I am extremely tolerant and accepting of other people's views even though I may not agree with those views. For example, I accept that homosexuality exists (has always existed and isn't going away) and think that same sex relationships are equally as vaild as heterosexual relationships although they are different types of relationships. And accepting another's views does not mean that you must agree with those views. I accept that same-sex marriage already exists and is law in some states. I even think that it will become law in other states. I accept the direction we are going because it is a reality and also because of the times we are living in today. Laws are laws whether they reflect my views or not.

On the other hand, it appears that you are unable to tolerate my views. Because of my views, you just called me a bigot and a nutball - both derogatory in nature and neither being true. It seems that you are unable to accept my views which are apparently different from yours on this issue. It appears that you refuse to accept that I have just as much of a right to my views as you have to yours. Considering such, who would term "bigot" most accurately apply to?

skrekk, #1.53- "biology" is rational, trying to change the function of gender IS NOT rational. The Government has an interest in upholding "rationality over irrationality" whenever it is possible. The "function" of gender is "only" equally protected in marriage being defined as being between a man and a woman. It is a definition that has existed well long before 1996 and that is a "factor" in any determination of the Court, just the same as "discrimination against Gays" had to first be shown to have existed for an amount of time. In that case, it was shown that discrimination against Gays could be shown to have been going on for more than 50 years. MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN has been going on and well understood for well more than 50 years.

I think Epitome has made some great "rational" arguments throughout this thread and was really sorry to see you calling him/her a bigot! We have many problems in this Country because of the WRONG and IRRATIONAL "UNDEFINING" of things with a "PRESTO-CHANGE-O because I SAY SO" mentality in overreaching control!

I think you hear it in many-many comments all over these threads that People are angry with what is obviously a marketed-spin of "Progressive", like in Pigotry's 2nd post, "FORWARD".... Has anyone in this Administration even considered that there People who are pissed off and sick to death of BEING AGENDA PUSHED FORWARD instead of "rationally" taking care of and answering to what is right in front of us, first? The Democrats in California and this President and his Administration have gone too far and overreached in an effort to literally create "their own" Ideal Society that we're supposedly all in together, whether it applies or not. I think this President, more and more each day, shows his DETRIMENTAL mentality and trainings of a Community Organizer, like a dim-witted Social Worker, over a suposedly "legally" trained mind, with NO UNDERSTANDING that once certain things are changed there's NO GOING BACK! There is more gravity in that than in some same-sex couple feelings getting hurt because they went after TO TAKE OVER and undefine the Institution of Marriage instead of going after and having changes made to Civil Unions!

Epitome,

I know that we will never see eye to eye or even knee to eye on this subject. What I do appreciate though is the thoughtful dialogue and respectful approach. I believe that many have lost the ability to have these types of discussions without resorting to the more intrinsic instinct to respond. For that I thank you.

I would like to point out that I never thought that children being brought in in a LGBT home should feel shame. They shouldn't. A family is a family is a family regardless of who is what gender, color, religion, or age. My point was that by making separate but equal designations for legal purposes sets up an environment for built in intolerance and "less than mine" type of sentiment. We have not done a very good job in our country for inclusion through out history but have alway had to have a "them."

Our government was first set up that only landowners could participate in government. Then all men could. Then it was women, blacks, the irish, the communists, etc etc. There has always been a "them" to blame and the bible was used to condone many of the issues we see today as being unfair.

I also believe strongly that God does not withhold his love or salvation from LGBT people. I would love to have a thoughtful and meaningful discussion about that topic with those that would be interested in a civil discussion on the matter. Many of our oral traditions and interpretations of the scriptures have changed over time and I believe that this will also be one where many, not all, Christians will come to the realization that their beliefs were mal informed.

Again, I want to extend the most sincere and warmest thank you for your honorable and level headed discussion on this!

Willowbrook,

Except that straight unmarried couples can GET married and get those benefits. Gay couples, can't necessarily do that. YET.

Duh.

Everyone Else,

Well, of course marriage isn't in the Constitution, a LOT of things that we are legally allowed to do aren't in the Constitution, because the Constitution doesn't enumerate OUR rights, it LIMITS and enumerates the powers of the government. The only time the Constitution addressed citizen behavior and not government behavior was prohibition, and that didn't work out too well. So, what IS in the Constitution are limits to government infringement of our privacy, and equal protection.

First, there are certain "protected classes" laid out in the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. Two of them are race and gender. In the Supreme Court case Loving v Virginia, SCOTUS ruled that,

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Now this case was based on race, BUT to support gay marriage, all you have to do is change race to GENDER, another protected class. PLUS, the 14th Amendment has a little something called the "Privileges and Immunities" clause. Which means, you can't deny the citizens, their privileges, or immunities, based on those classes. In this case, that'd be gender.

So, since marriage is a legal (that means law) contract, that comes with PRIVILEGES, you can't deny citizens, without a damn good, already been shown to exist, reason, based on gender, among other things. So, if the state can't prove a reason, to deny privileges to people based on gender, they can't make that particular law.Now, put it together. If two gay people want to enter a contract, and the state tells them they can't, because of the gender of one of the parties, THAT'S A BIG NO NO.

Also, the logic that gay people are free to marry, just as you are, i.e they're free to marry one of the opposite sex, is the EXACT same defense that Virginia used in their defense, again just turn gender to race.

The court ruled, AGAINST that logic.

Second, you have an implied right to privacy, mostly through the 9th and 4th Amendments. In a the SCOTUS case Lawrence v Texas, the court said this...

The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

Third, AGAIN, marriage is a civil contract, that comes with over 1,000 benefits granted by the state. Most of these benefits deal with property, insurance, tax and probate law. Civil unions, do NOT grant equivalent benefits. In order to enter a legal contract, the parties have to have LEGAL CAPACITY FOR INFORMED CONSENT.

Furthermore, marriages are NOT religious, that's Holy Matrimony, which a church can NEVER be forced to perform against its dogma, due to protections in the 1st Amendment. This is why people can, and do, get married any day without ever stepping foot in a church.

Also, marriage has NOTHING to do with procreation. After all, we let people have kids OUTSIDE of marriage, and NOT have kids while married.

Fourth, there are very few limited reasons for the government to discriminate in law, against one of these protected classes, and in order to do so, the government has to pass the test of strict scrutiny, which is that compelling state interest mentioned in Lawrence v Texas.

So....

The real question, those making the case for continuing the gender based discrimination of DOMA is, what is that compelling state interest? And before we start talking about marrying appliances, nephews, sheep, or dead people, consider this...

We live in a free society, which means your "slippery slope" is only applicable when you want to expand government power, NOT when you're expanding rights. Ergo, the slippery slope actually works AGAINST the anti-equality argument. It's more logical and legally correct to say that banning marriage based on gender, could lead the government to presume they have the power to ban marriage based on other protected classes, i.e. race or religion.

And then ask yourselves this...

Why doesn't STRAIGHT marriage lead to any of that? And the answer is ALSO the answer as to why gay marriage won't lead to those things.

And technically, the burden of proof is on those limiting rights, (the anti-marriage equality folks), so you all should really be making the case, not us.

Sarah-

As I've pointed out many times all your arguments are ridiculous, "homosexuality" is not a gender and does not at all apply.

homo's are the first to challenge with this ridiculous argument and believe me animal marriage will follow and another of your arguments as in "mental capacity for informed consent" or some other stupid thing is also blown to "SMITHEREENS" because many species only partner with one in a lifetime.

yes, your legislation will pass and God will be here soon to judge.

As I've pointed out many times all your arguments are ridiculous, "homosexuality" is not a gender and does not at all apply.

Let me see if I can make this simpler for you, before you start slathering on the crazy sauce. The homosexuality is moot. DOMA doesn't say anything about homosexuality, it says "man" and "woman". Genders. The basis for denial of the marriage contract is the gender of one of the parties. That's why a gay man and straight woman, or vice versa, could go get married tomorrow. But two straight men or two straight women, couldn't. Because one of the GENDERS is incompatible with the law.

homo's are the first to challenge with this ridiculous argument and believe me animal marriage will follow and another of your arguments as in "mental capacity for informed consent" or some other stupid thing is also blown to "SMITHEREENS" because many species only partner with one in a lifetime.

And gay home ownership also led to animal home ownership. And gay's being able to contract with a plumber in order to fix their bathrooms, also led to animals being able to contract with a plumber to fix their bathrooms. And gay checking accounts have led to animal checking accounts.

yes, your legislation will pass and God will be here soon to judge.

You better get off the internet and get ready then.

Walter (and many like him),

Although I can appreciate and respect your beliefs, your assertion that gay marriage is going to lead to animal marriage is false. Let me explain why it's false.

Much like incest and polygamy, beastiality is illegal. Before those relationships would even be considered for marriage, the relationships would have to be legal first. And actually, the incest and polygamy people already have more rights than a gay couple has now. Let me explain.

Incest- These people are already protected under law because they are considered blood family. In matters of wills or medical decisions, because these people are already considered family. There is not a separation between what family is and not, so they pass the legal sniff test for protection. Don't believe me? There are hundreds of cases where a gay couple has had a will leaving their assets to a surviving partner. The wills have been overturned because the courts decided that the blood family should get the inheritance as the surviving partner was not family. They couldn't be legally married and were not blood related. Incest relationships already have this in place.

Polygamy- The first wife can legally be married and enjoy all the benefits. If the husband were to die, in most polygamy families, the first wife then becomes the head of the house. Since they were married and had the protection of marriage, then they legally, as a large family, are able to keep inheritance and all of that together. There are no laws to how many children a man can father in or out of wedlock. The mothers are able to claim depenedents and the father gets to write off child support. The children in the marriage are still legally tied to the family as a whole and no one has to adopt because they have the right to make as many kids as they want.

Now lets go to your argument about animals. An animal has no ability to bring in assets to a relationship. They have no way to indicate consent in a legal and binding way. They cannot sign agreements and cannot verbalize that consent. There are some animals that indeed mate for life with one partner, but not all species do this. Dogs, horses, pigs, etc (domesticated animals) don't tend to partner up for life sexually. They lack the ability to understand or grasp our concepts of social norms unless they are trained to do so. You don't train a spouse to sign a piece of paper or train a spouse how to respond in court proceedings.

Mostly, I have to say that these arguments are not logical nor are they meant to be taken serious. They are used to detract from something certain people do not agree with. Mostly, I find it offensive that you want to compare illegal relationships to legal relationships in order to try to prove a point. Furthermore, you try to compare relationships that are not only illegal, but enjoy more legal protection than gay and lesbian families are afforded.

Epitome - The legal contracts would be different. One would be a legal contract between a man and a woman (already commonly referred to as marriage). The other would be a legal contract between 2 people of the same sex. So the contracts would not be identical

Ummmmm.........how exactly are the legal contracts themselves different? What's the purpose for having the second identical contract other than bias against one of the classes? What you propose is like having a separate contract for mixed-race couples, merely because some bigots are offended by the notion of mixed-race marriage.

Just an FYI, this particular issue of "separate but equal" is precisely why the CA supreme court ruled their domestic partnership law unconstitutional. The ruling in "In Re Marriage Cases" found that they can't do precisely what you want to do.

I don't know how to explain it any better to a clueless bigot like you, but the government has no legitimate basis to have two "separate but equal" contracts for two different classes, other than impermissible bias against one of those classes (as the CA court ruled). It's like having "Jewish Unions" for Jews, and marriages for everyone else. That's why you bigots keep losing in court - you don't even understand what our constitution requires, much less how the law works.

Sarah

Let me see if I can make this simpler for you, before you start slathering on the crazy sauce. The homosexuality is moot. DOMA doesn't say anything about homosexuality, it says "man" and "woman".

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

that's right, and what your trying to change, so It says "man" and "man", and "woman" and "woman" or "HOMOSEXUALITY" WHICH CANNOT APPLY TO THE 14TH AMENDMENT.

READ THIS:

http://www.annarbor.com/news/opinion/the-14th-amendment-wrong-way-to-go-when-arguing-the-case-for-same-sex-marriage/

====================================================================

And gay home ownership also led to animal home ownership.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

there's no such thing as "Gay" home ownership-OR GAY CHECKING ACCOUNTS - another stupid post that makes no sense.

WHATS A GAY HOUSE?

=============================================================

yes, your legislation will pass and God will be here soon to judge.

You better get off the internet and get ready then.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

OH I'M READY, YOUR THE ONE THAT'S NOT, TRUST ME.

=====================================================

that's right, and what your trying to change, so It says "man" and "man", and "woman" and "woman" or "HOMOSEXUALITY" WHICH CANNOT APPLY TO THE 14TH AMENDMENT.

First, you completely abandoned your first premise. Nice try at deflection, but this one doesn't work either. Because we aren't trying to change anything. We're trying to enact contractual law under the Constitutional banner of equal protection. Namely, legal capacity for informed consent, applied equally in marriage contracts between protected classes.

there's no such thing as "Gay" home ownership-OR GAY CHECKING ACCOUNTS - another stupid post that makes no sense.

WHATS A GAY HOUSE?

And there's really no such thing as gay marriage either. There's merely the contract of marriage. Just like there's merely the contract called a mortgage. THAT WAS MY POINT.

If I hadn't had the incredibly painful experience of interacting with you before, I'd think you were being willfully obtuse. Now, I really think you HONESTLY don't understand what I was getting at. Keep thinking contracts Walter. Mortgages, construction and checking accounts are ALL contractual manners, just like marriage. They also have nothing to do with animals having the capability of contracting, just like marriage. So, by following YOUR logic, that allowing a gay person to enter a contract will lead to allowing animals to enter contracts, then that would apply to ALL contracts.

OH I'M READY, YOUR THE ONE THAT'S NOT, TRUST ME.

I don't give a @!$%# about your God. Remember? Seriously, you're wasting your time on this one.

Sarah-3043284

that's right, and what your trying to change, so It says "man" and "man", and "woman" and "woman" or "HOMOSEXUALITY" WHICH CANNOT APPLY TO THE 14TH AMENDMENT.

First, you completely abandoned your first premise. Nice try at deflection, but this one doesn't work either. Because we aren't trying to change anything. We're trying to enact contractual law under the Constitutional banner of equal protection. Namely, legal capacity for informed consent, applied equally in marriage contracts between protected classes.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

YOUR TRYING TO CHANGE DOMA.

===========================================================

there's no such thing as "Gay" home ownership-OR GAY CHECKING ACCOUNTS - another stupid post that makes no sense.

WHATS A GAY HOUSE?

And there's really no such thing as gay marriage either. There's merely the contract of marriage. Just like there's merely the contract called a mortgage. THAT WAS MY POINT.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So what is your problem with a Bestiality, what's your problem with my horse, dog and sheep, what premise to you have not to give them there rights, how many divorces does the animal kingdom have.

======================================================================

If I hadn't had the incredibly painful experience of interacting with you before

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\

what in the hell are you talking about?

time for some or your medicine.

===============================================

, I'd think you were being willfully obtuse. Now, I really think you HONESTLY don't understand what I was getting at. Keep thinking contracts Walter. Mortgages, construction and checking accounts are ALL contractual manners, just like marriage. They also have nothing to do with animals having the capability of contracting, just like marriage. So, by following YOUR logic, that allowing a gay person to enter a contract will lead to allowing animals to enter contracts, then that would apply to ALL contracts.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

years ago it would be stupid to talk about gay marriage, what is to stop incest and like with animals?

your touched by something, you belong to this world and that's fine, but God put me here to help people like you with seeing the truth.

========================================================================

OH I'M READY, YOUR THE ONE THAT'S NOT, TRUST ME.

I don't give a @!$%# about your God. Remember? Seriously, you're wasting your time on this one.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

that's pointing out the obvious

Read This:

www.end-times-prophecy.org/bible-prophecy-and-probability.html

and get back to me and explain how you don't give a @!$%#.

==============================================================

that's pointing out the obvious

And yet you continue to bring it up???

Read This:

www.end-times-prophecy.org/bible-prophecy-and-probability.html

and get back to me and explain how you don't give a @!$%#.

Yeah, still don't give a @!$%#. Say it with me... "Sarah doesn't, and will never, give a @!$%# about your God".

YOUR TRYING TO CHANGE DOMA.

So now you've also abandoned your second premise, and no we aren't trying to change DOMA. We're trying to over rule it for being unconstitutional. How is it unconstitutional, go read my first post. That's how.

You've officially and inanely, argued yourself in a circle.

So what is your problem with a Bestiality, what's your problem with my horse, dog and sheep, what premise to you have not to give them there rights, how many divorces does the animal kingdom have.

The. Fact. That. They. Don't. Have. Legal. Capacity. For. Informed. Consent. That's NOT the same as NOT having rights. Animals have rights. So do children. What they don't have is the mental capability or capacity under the law to make contractual agreements. Why? Because they're animals and children, and if you can't figure out for yourself the difference between the mental capacity of animals and children compared to adults, there's NO WAY, I'm going to be able to explain it to you.

what in the hell are you talking about?

The incredible ignorance you continue to vomit up all over Newsvine, even in the face of numerous posts and posters who have flat out shown you how stupid some of the stuff you post is.

But you are right about the medicine. I could definitely use a couple of Aspirin after reading some of this tripe.

ROSS

I think I've seen this post somewhere before.

what about stud fees and power of attorney for pets, if I want to marry my sister how does that hurt you, or my 3 cousins

that's all

Palm to face...

what about stud fees and power of attorney for pets

If something is being placed in the stream of commerce via "fees" of any sort, it DOESN'T HAVE LEGAL CAPACITY FOR INFORMED CONSENT, nor does it have full civil rights, as that would be SLAVERY.

Remember I said animals have rights, that doesn't necessarily mean Constitutionally protected CIVIL RIGHTS. If you can't figure out why humans have them and animals don't, you've raised the bar for crazy.

If something or someone needs a family member, owner or friend to be granted power of attorney over them, IT MEANS THEY DON'T HAVE LEGAL CAPACITY FOR INFORMED CONSENT.

if I want to marry my sister how does that hurt you, or my 3 cousins

We don't judge. Marry any family member you want to.

Sorry Ross, that one was too good to pass up.

Walter,

Animals used for stud, incurring fee's go to the owner of the animal. They have no capacity to make financial decisions and entrust that their owners care for them. The owners make a profit off of the animal. Animals cannot hold a POA as they cannot make any types of decisions. In human terms, it would be pimping out your pet for money. That's called prostitution in human terms. Can you see the difference between the animal world and the human world? You cannot make money, legally, off of your wife by selling her for sex. Neither can a five year old child hold the office of a POA, because of the inability to make legal decisions. Finally, beastiality is illegal. Trying to fashion an argument based solely on this fact does not work because of the illegal nature of the relationship.

Incest already holds more power legally than same sex couples due to the fact they are considered family. Again, this is an illegal relationship and in order for it to be considered for marriage, it would have to be changed to a legal relationship. Polygamy is illegal.

In all of you examples you are describing illegal relationships and they would have to be changed to legal before they can even be considered for marriage. Being gay is not a legal crime. You can believe it is a religious crime and that is your right to believe what you wish and honestly, I can respect your beliefs. I don't have to agree with them, but I do respect them. All of your examples and concerns however are comparing illegal relationships to a legal one and before the subject of marriage can even be approached, they must be considered legal first.

Decriminalizing homosexuals did not lead to decriminalization of these other types of relationships, nor do I think it will ever. In no country that legalized gay marriage did it lead to the decriminalization of incest, beastiality, or polygamy. I think we can expect the same response in America.

I can appreciate the strength of your convictions. I hold the same strength of conviction. I will continue to fight for you ability to believe and live your life within your beliefs and convictions. I know that my approval or disapproval of your beliefs has no impact on your beliefs, in fact, I believe the more people disapprove, it strengthens your resolve to stand steadfast upon your beliefs. You know what is right for you and your beliefs are not up for discussion. I ask that you consider that mine, and people like myself, stand just as strong in our belief that who and what we are is vastly different than what your belief system says we are. I don't believe it makes you a bigot any more than I believe I am anti Christian. No matter my belief, I do not have the right nor the authority to tell you that you cannot believe how you wish or to live your life how you wish just as I don't believe your beliefs should be used to prohibit me and my family from having a safe and secure family. And like you, my life is not dependent on the approval of anyone or thing because I know what I know to be true.

Epitome,

I would like to address one of your points in a response to another poster.

The two different types of contracts would be open equally to all citizens. Each person would able to choose which type of contract that they wanted to enter into to based on the type of legal union they wanted to form. It is a false notion that the distinct contracts (one being between a man and a woman - the other being between 2 people of the same sex) would catergorize citizens into different classes. It would only indicate whether the relationship is the type between a man and a woman or the type between 2 people of the same sex. All citizens would have equal opportunity to enter into the type of contract of their choice.

If I might, I would like to interject a thought about this. I do think it demoralizes marriage if two people enter into a marriage without commitment and love. With your example, you could have a two gay men and two lesbians marry the partner of the other for legal reasons, because it would be available to them, but love is not there nor is there a bond or commitment. It would be one man and one woman after all. Nothing in our laws state that you have to live with and love the person you marry, it's just a legal contract. But I would find that situation to be really disgusting and irreverent to marriage for that purpose.

Now lets say you have two men who are good buddies. They don't want to get married to a woman because they want to be foot loose and fancy free. But, since they can enter a same sex union, they can do that and still have all the women they want on the side. They would get all the benefits of the union, but they aren't partners or committed to one another. They just want the advantages.

In essence, what you're asking of gay people is to say that we have a separate marriage, but it's open to everyone. Even if it's being misused as a domestic partner type of situation and the bond of love isn't there. That seriously puts a low value on the committed and loving relationships of gay people.

In no situation will gay or lesbians be "man and wife." That definition is true. And no one is asking or mandating that any religious organization sanction or bless these unions. A Catholic Priest does not have to officiate or bless a Souther Baptist union, for example. What we are talking about is legal marriage, not Holy Matrimony. The scripture is clear that what belongs to the government is the government and what belongs to the Church is the Church. Federal marriage does not belong to the Church no more than Holy Matrimony belongs to the government. They are two very different processes and paperworks and designations. A straight couple does not have to have a religious ceremony and can go to the courthouse to be legally married. Many choose to not have a religious ceremony. The two are separate. Gays and lesbians fight in the military. They serve as policemen/women. They serve as doctors, nurses, fire fighters, emts, school teachers, and members of the community. They deserve the same legal protections and the same level of sincerity and reverence when they make the choice to commit to one another as any other union.

@ross - Thank you for the kind words. And thank you for being able to accept my different opinions and views as I accept your.

I actually agree with your post but it appears that you are including morality in the legal contract of marriage.

If I might, I would like to interject a thought about this. I do think it demoralizes marriage if two people enter into a marriage without commitment and love.

I thought that the point was to leave morality out of the legal contract though. Adding the requirements of love and commitment brings morals and values into it. I agree that making a covenant before God is something different from a legal marriage. And it commonly referred to as holy matrimony.

Yes, a man and a woman that had no romantic love or genuine commitment to each other would be able to enter into the legal contract of marriage - which has up until recently always meant a legalunion between a man and woman. The requirement would be that the contract be between a man and a woman. Many, and probably most, would enter into the contract because of their love and commitment for each other but that wouldn't be a qualifying factor.

Yes, 2 people of the same sex that had no romantic love or genuine commitment to each other would be able to enter into the legal contract - a legal union between 2 people of the same sex. The requirement would be that the contract be between 2 people of the same sex. Many, and probably most, would enter into the contract because of their love and commitment for each other but that wouldn't be a qualifying factor.

I want to be clear about what I am saying. I absolutely think that 2 people of the same sex that enter into a legal union should have the same legal protections as a man and woman that enters into the legal union of marriage.

Although both types of unions are equally valid and should be equally protected, it is still two different types of unions. One is between a man and woman while the other is between 2 people of the same sex. Both types of unions would be open to misuse and people would enter into one or the other just to get the advantages. That is true of marriages today. Many people get married without love and most definitely without commitment. That is the primary reason that they are so many divorces. Many people enter into the legal contract of marriage without making a covenant before God. Many don't think about or believe in God at all when getting married. Some people enter the legal contract of marriage just to gain another legal right - US citizenship. But their marriage is still a legal contract between a man and a woman. They are still legally husband and wife. With or without love and commitment, a marriage makes a man and a woman legally wed, legally husband and wife.

The legal union between 2 people of the same sex would make those 2 people of the same sex legally wed also. The difference would be that they would legally be husband and husband or wife and wife. It is not possible for 2 people of the same sex to be husband and wife. You stated this yourself.

In no situation will gay or lesbians be "man and wife."

My issue is that the word "marriage" already means the legal union between a man and a woman that makes them husband and wife. It does not mean that the husband and wife love each other or are genuinely committed to each other. It does not mean that they believe in God. It means that they have entered into a specific type of legal contract or legal commitment - a type that, by definition, only a man and woman can enter into.

Most people, who are able to be honest, know that the intent of marriage laws when the laws were writtenwas to create a legal union between a man and a woman that makes them legally husband and wife. That is simply truth and reality.

For some, like myself, this marriage issue is an issue of truth. It is not about denying anyone any rights. It is not about my belief in God and His Word. It's about the word "marriage" already having an established, defined meaning. Since marriage is a legal contract between a man and a woman which legally makes them husband and wife, 2 people of the same sex cannot enter into this specific type of contract because they are not a man and a woman and cannot legally become husband and wife. It is not possible. That is just truth.

To me and many others, marriage is a unique, specific type of relationship. It is the type of relationship that exists between a man and a woman and legally makes them husband and wife.

Same sex relationships are unique and specific also. The uniqueness and specificity of each type of relationship makes it impossible for one to be the other.

I understand that there are legal protections and rights that marriage affords a husband and wife. And I think that same sex couples that enter into a legal union should have the same rights and protections. This can be provided through law without redefining what marriage is and always was. Same sex couples can receive all of the legal rights of married couples through another specific type of contract, a legal contract between 2 people of the same sex which would legally make them husband and husband or wife and wife.

It is possible for sex couples to enter into a legal contract other than marriage which would legally grant them the same rights as married couples. Redefining marriage does not have to occur in order for same sex couples to receive equal rights.

DOMA can be amended to still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman while granting the same legal protections to legal unions between 2 people of the same sex. Such is possible and many civil union laws do exactly this. In NJ, for example, everything that pertains to marriage pertains to civil unions. The stature consistently reads "marriage or civil union". There is not one thing that pertains to one and not the other. The only difference is that a marriage is a legal contract between a man and a woman and a civil union is a contract between 2 people of the same sex. But it appears that there are many who, even if both federal and state laws were to grant equal protections under the law, still want same sex unions to be called marriage. Once again using NJ as an example, despite the legal validity of civil unions, it wasn't enough - our legislature recently passed same sex marriage (although it will be vetoed by our governor). Our legislature also refuses to let this go to the ballot but that's another issue. My point is that although people claim it is about legal protections, it appears to be about something else.

They deserve the same legal protections and the same level of sincerity and reverence when they make the choice to commit to one another as any other union.

This statement of yours was both honest and revealing. You refer to a "level of sincerity and reverence". This, I believe, is really what this issue is mostly about.

reverence:

And yes, I would like to have an honest, civil conversation about God and the fact that eveything that I know about Him, everything that He has shown me, everything that His Word states, shows that He loves LGBT people just as He loves all of His other children.

@rossj503 - Please help me to understand the overwhelmingly apparent anti-God sentiment of most making posts in support of gay rights.

And ross - it seems that you are a believer. How do you feel about the overwhelming hate and disrespect shown for God on threads of this type of topic? For me, it breaks my heart even though God prepared us this day. The Bible says in the end days, Christians will be persecuted. Blogs like this make me aware of all the people that hate God and Chrisitians. It also proves how accurate the Bible is. This is like 2 Timothy Chapter 3 right beofre my eyes. What do you think?

Oh please! Nobody would have anything to say about any of your Gods or Christians, if you would cease to use your Christianity and/or Gods as legal arguments for denying equal rights to your fellow citizens. There, literally, is nothing more ridiculous than the Christian persecution complex. You can worship as you please, but when you take it out of your church, home or heart and start putting it into the public sphere, be prepared to hear what everyone else thinks about it, because you AREN'T entitled to our agreement, or to our time, or to our ears. Like I said above, we don't give a @!$%# about your God. We're forced to address it, because time and again people try to force it into our legislation, just like DOMA or personhood amendments.

Apply the "but for" test. But for the use of your religion in a completely inappropriate manner, i.e. attempts to use it as a basis for a legal argument, what would any of us have ever said to you or any other religious person on this vine about your Gods? What's their "but for"? But for someone's homosexuality? Well what the hell business is it of anyone's what two consenting adults do in their bedroom? Your religion becomes our business when you attempt to take rights away from our citizens via it.

You're entitled to your religion. We're entitled to our opinion of it. If you don't like hearing that opinion, than I suggest you talk to your fellow "christians" about ceasing to use your religions in a legal argument. Here's a clue, people having an opinion of your religion when you use it to deny them rights, that's not persecution. Persecution is DENYING people rights. So please, show me where anyone has told you that you can't worship as you choose?

Furthermore, your overly lengthy post up there has NO legal basis. All of that typing and it boils down to nothing but your opinion of what marriage is. So try again, if you really want to have this conversation. Make a case, a legal one, without any reference to your God, with precedents, evidence, and statutes. Otherwise, continue to whine about your "persecution", but know that just about everyone sees it as pathetic.

@sarah, it is true that I was stating my opinion. I thought that was what blogs were for. I was not trying to make a legal argument. I was only trying to express my opinion as I thought I had the right to do. Everyone else seems to have the right to express their opinions.

People have called me names such as bigot and nutball when I have never stated anything mean or hurtful to anyone. Even you just called me pathetic when you don't know anything about me. My posts are being collapsed by the community as if I don't have the right to have my views heard. That feels like people are against me and don't like me even though I have done nothing to them. It feels like hate. That's what it feels like to me, hence the reference to persecution.

I have never done anything to you or homosexuals. That is the reality. Yet, I am being personally attacked.

Also, ross invited me to a discussion about God and His love for LGBT people so I was starting that conversation that he invited me to participate in.

Why are you so mean? What is it that makes you feel the need to disrespect me and God? What do you think that I have done to you?

Why can't people have a difference of opinion and still respect each other? And the "we" that you represent, is that "we" homosexuals? - the "we" that don't give a ... about God. I know a lot of homosexuals that believe in and have a relationship with God.

And by the way, no one who has ever met me or knows anything about me has ever thought that I was pathetic. You just seem to want to be mean to me and hurtful towards me even though I have never done anything to you.

Epitome,

Your post truly put a very large smile on my face. I must confess that I am enjoying our conversation greatly. I want to say upfront, I understand your point and feel where you're coming from. I think that we both have a genuine respect, and yes reverence, toward the institution of marriage. Even though legal marriage is separate from a religious ceremony, there is still a tradition we both are respectful of and hope that others entering into it also feel. For many, the simple truth is that a wedding and being married is a standard of commitment, whether the couple decides to honor that commitment or not is up to them.

Let me clarify that they cannot do so with each other because any gay man or woman can make the choice to marry someone of the opposite sex if they wanted to. They don't do it, not because they are denied the right to, but because they do not want to.

I think that much of the disconnect is a lack of understanding or acceptance that gay people feel they don't have a choice. It's not that I didn't want to have a wife and children, matter of fact I wanted my own family so badly. I'm not going to get into my own personal story here, but suffice it to say, I tried very hard to be straight through a lot of prayer, fasting, and begging God to change me that started at age 10. There is an honesty in LGBT people that we have to face. We are different. Not because we have a choice, but rather, it is who we are. I would also like to say that the "want" is not really a "want" but rather an inherent respect of what the institution of marriage represents. It would be dis-genuine of me, for example, to marry a woman. I could not love her the way a husband should. I could not provide her the comfort, the support, nor the energy required to sustain a marriage. It's not a "want," but rather, an honest assessment of my inability to be what a husband should be to a wife. Nor could she give those things to me. Marriage at that point becomes a mockery. If that's a value judgment, then it is. But we are brought up to believe that marriage is a full embodied commitment to the person you are marrying.

I will never look at a same sex couple and think it's the same as that unique type of relationship that can only exist between a man and a woman.

You are correct, the relationships are different based on biology. But I would argue, that biology is not what makes a good marriage. How many heterosexual couples enter into marriage only to divorce or annul it? Brittany Spears for example. I would certainly not compare that marriage to yours or any person who approached the idea of marriage with caution, reverence, and respect. To me, that is a much bigger issue than the fact that two people are biologically the same. My point is that every marriage is different, regardless of the genders of the participants.

Basically this movement is saying that the unique, legal relationship between a man and woman legally making them man and wife can no longer exist.

I couldn't disagree more with you on this. My marriage would have no effect on your marriage as it is a personal relationship that you and your wife have made. Nor should it. A marriage an entity built by the two people in it, not by the name of it.

Here is my main concern of a separate but equal contract. I used to say I didn't care what the name was as long as the protections were there. What I have seen in many states, like Oregon for example, is that everyone has access to the Domestic Partnership law. A brother and sister can become domestic partners, for example. It's being treated not like marriage, but instead, like two "friends" living together. I find this very disheartening and quite a slap in my face. My husband would not be a husband, but a partner, legally. This does not create family legally. It's not creating marriage equality. What it is saying is that I have a "friend" that I am living with. I have also heard from people that they want a Domestic Partnership/Union program that is also available to heterosexual couples as well. If you have been following the circus of the military and their giving benefits to gay and lesbian partners, you here this over and over again: "Then heterosexuals that aren't married and shacking up should be given the same rights." Can you see the thought process of where this is going? Can you see the sentiment of what a Domestic Partnership or Union would create?

I would truly enjoy a conversation with you about God and Christianity and LGBT people. Not to argue, but I find that I have a lot to learn and a lot to offer and the only way we grow as people is when we are willing to listen to our fellow man and exchange ideas. Much like our conversation here has been, which I am very thankful to have. We are not going to see eye to eye. We are not going to agree. But it is refreshing to see a civil conversation that opens up possibilities and thoughts. Thank you.

Epitome,

I fear that the conversation has constantly devolved to a place where it's never going to be fixed. It will always be much like children on the playground of, "But you started it."

I want to give you an inside thought of what it is like to be gay and to deal with some Christians. This is just a small part of my personal story that is so reflective of many LGBT people's experiences.

When I was a child, I went to my Southern Baptist Church every week. I rode the "church bus" and was picked up and taken to Sunday School and services. I loved going to Church. As I became older and more aware of myself, I also became aware of the words that were spoken from the pulpit. "It's better to be dead than to be a homosexual." "Homosexuals are filled with demons." There used to be a bible tract, a little illustrated booklet with a bible lesson in it, that was circulating around that even the Devil despised the homosexual. You grow up hearing these things and you develop a total hatred for yourself.

I was in sixth grade the first time I tried to kill myself. Why? "It's better to be dead than be a homosexual." I had heard it from my Pastor, who I thought hung the moon and the stars. "God detests the homosexual and casts them out." I prayed and fasted and cried starting at the age of 10 for God to take "it" away. Then the 80's brought us AIDS, "The Gay Plague." My last attempt at suicide was my sophmore year in high school. After years and years of praying, fasting, and begging, I was still interested in boys and not girls and it was clear to me that I was going to be straight. I was mercilessly bullied in high school. And not that i was "obvious," but that a note I had wrote to a little boy when I was in junior high school had been found.

You can't know or even understand the amount of hatred that is experienced from the Church when you're gay. You get disowned from the Church, from your family, and from society. Your whole existence is boiled down, not to love or companionship, but sex. It's no surprise to me that young gay people become drug addicts, alcoholics, and sex addicts. They are told from a very early age that God hates them, that salvation is never going to find them, and the simple act of loving someone is not important, it all comes down to sex.

When you are separated from God's love and God's salvation, you do have a tendency to find yourself responding in equal hatred and equal animosity that you have felt. I'm not saying it's right, but I do understand how it is this way. And let me ask you, how do you feel when people of the Church use such strong and hateful language against LGBT people on the boards? Walk a mile in our shoes and you might get a better idea of what it is like to be faced with the level of hatred, animosity, and vile that we have to deal with and how that could make one resentful towards the Church.

Epitome,

First of all, I gave you an explanation for why people are fed up with Christianity and Christians. Pure and simple. I have no problem with either of them, as long as they keep their religion out of where it isn't welcome. My problem can be summed up with your very question to me. How do you know I'm disrespectful to God? How do you know what my God wants from me? Your very question sums up my problem very clearly. The presumption that YOUR God, is somehow everyone's God, and that your concept of God dictates how everyone should act. What if my God thinks YOU'RE disrespectful? Did you even stop to consider that your concept of God isn't applicable to everyone and everyone's behavior.

As far as me being mean. You're too sensitive. That was a healthy dose of mind your own business and quit whining if you decide to not mind your business and get called out on it. Like I said, you aren't persecuted. When someone tries to take YOUR rights away, I'll defend you too. As it is, no one is, and the very religion you're crying about being persecuted for is the driving force behind the persecution of your fellow citizens.

I'm sorry, I have no respect for those who advocate for and support, or advocate for and support the people who advocate for and support UNequal protection and discrimination. That is NOT something I respect, nor will I ever respect that. There are many Christian people I respect. Those who advocate for equality and refrain from judgment. Sadly, they are shouted down by the crazy Christians.

Get out of people's bedrooms, or get your fellow Christians out of peoples bedrooms and ALL of you get out of our legislation, and watch the sentiment towards your religion change. I'd be willing to bet nobody would ever say anything to you about it again.

@ross - I am also enjoying our conversation.

My comment about everyone being able to marry people of the other sex was not meant to imply that I think you should. I understand the reason that you would not want to. I am just stating that it is a legal right that you have and have always had. It is not a legal right that you are being denied. Although I would not want to enter into a legal relationship with someone of the same sex, I would have the legal right to do so.

My issue isn't really about homosexuality. It's about changing what exists to mean something else. Marriage will no longer be the unique type of relationship between a man and woman if same sex couples can get married. There will be no such unique, legal relationship any longer. Why can't we keep marriage as it is - as a unique, legal relationship between a man and a woman making them husband and wife while same sex couples at the same time have their own unique, legal relationship - both having equal protection under the law? If marriage applies to same sex couples, what would be the unique, legal relationship that can only exist between a man and a woman? Such would no longer exist and I would not be able to enter into that unique, specific type of legal relationship between a man and a woman any longer because it would also apply to man and man and woman and woman. I feel that the union between a man and woman is unique and specific just as I am sure you see the union between a man and a man is unique and specifc. If they are both unique and specific, then they cannot be the same thing. Don't we both have a right to the unique type of relationships that we want to be in? It just so happens that the word "marriage" is already taken and has already been defined as that unique type of relationship between a man and a woman. I am just curious - let's say that the legal contract between 2 people of the same sex was called marriage and the legal contract between a man and a woman was called "unification", would you still want marriage or would you then want unification?

Regarding the comment about domestic partnerships - although marriage should be about love and commitment, it is a legal contract. Two friends who are male and female can enter into marriage just as two friends that are the same sex can enter into domestic partnerships. There is nothing in the marriage laws of NJ that state that you must have love and be committed to each other. So making same sex unions the same as marriage would not prevent what you want to avoid.

I understand your saying that that biology is not what makes a good marriage. But to me, biology defines marriage. It is that unique, specific legal relationship between a man and a woman. Whether it is a good relationship or not, it is still that unique, specific legal relationship between a man and a woman.

Does it matter that many want to be able to enter into a union that inherently means man and woman becoming husband and wife (a unique type of relationship for many reasons), one that is defined by biology? How would keeping such take away from the type of relationship that same sex couples have? Can't we both have the types of legal contracts that we want while still respecting the differences between them?

I know that we don't see eye to eye on this but I think we can both understand each other's views.

I can't wait to respond to your next post but may not get to respond tonight.

@sarah,

I was never in your business so I have no idea what you are talking about. I am not too sensitive. I am just a respectful person and your comments to me were disrespectful. You called me a name. My comments were specifically addressed to one person so doesn't that mean that you are in my business since it wasn't addressed to you.

I don't care about your bedroom. As an American citizen, I have the right to express my views on all American legislation. We live in a democracy. It is not your legislation.

And whoever your god is, I would never disrespect you, your god or your belief in your god even if I didn't agree with your religion. But everyone is different.

Have a pleasant night Sarah.

I was never in your business so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Then go back and read the posts, they're not that hard to understand.

You called me a name.

And what was the name I called you??? Please quote it for me.

I don't care about your bedroom. As an American citizen, I have the right to express my views on all American legislation. We live in a democracy. It is not your legislation.

Then you should have no problem with gay marriage. Right, it's OUR legislation and right now OUR legislation is discriminatory against people who are encompassed in that very "OUR". Imagine how they feel. You're pissy because people don't like what you have to say, you could claim that your religion is none of my business right? Well imagine if I and our country was telling you you couldn't get married because of that religion.

And whoever your god is, I would never disrespect you, your god or your belief in your god even if I didn't agree with your religion. But everyone is different.

But you did, in fact you didn't even stop to consider my God might be different from yours. Remember when you asked this...

What is it that makes you feel the need to disrespect me and God?

That directly implies that "God" is only encompassed by you and what you believe, ergo disrespectful to the multitudes of other people who may have different or no beliefs. After all, how can you claim someone is disrespectful to something you can't even prove exists.

Your long winded, holier than thou posts, are exactly that. Holier than thou, and you ain't holier than anything. Start by learning that. Than start by ceasing to support DOMA, and I imagine people will be a lot nicer to you.

Instead of whining about being "persecuted" and whining about people being mean to you, why don't you take a second for some inward self inspection, as to WHY people have @!$%# to say to you. Call a time out from playing the victim and go reread all the posts in this vine starting with the first one, and really think about it.

Epitome - People have called me names such as bigot and nutball when I have never stated anything mean or hurtful to anyone.

You have in fact said that gays don't deserve the same right to marry that you enjoy, and you base that view on the sharia laws of your cult. You're not just a greedy bigot but a Christofascist as well.

Fortunately we have a separation of church and state to prohibit what you want to do.

Marriage will no longer be the unique type of relationship between a man and woman if same sex couples can get married.

That's what I thought - it's all about you feeling privileged and superior to gays. What a crock of @!$%# you are, no different at all from the racists who opposed mixed-race marriage for the exact same reasons.

Why stop at marriage? Perhaps you'd also like to deny mortgages and driver's licenses to gays so that you can feel even more superior to them?

skrekk and sarah,

It's obvious that your feelings are deep. As is all of ours. I want to say something though.

Having an opinion does not make one a bigot.

Having a belief does not make someone a bigot or a fascist.

Quite frankly, you either believe that everyone has the right to their beliefs or you don't. Whatever someone's beliefs are, they, as Americans are entitled to those opinions, no matter if it is right or wrong. We CAN have meaningful dialogue without the slings and arrows, even if we do feel slighted. Whether you are Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, or Pagan, if we want to have our views recognized, then we need to respect the views of others.

This also goes to people like Walter and those that degrade the conversation into name calling. I wish these conversations wouldn't devolve into the name calling, the foul language, and the intense bitterness. When we participate in such actions, we harm ourselves and our own causes, no matter which side we are on.

Call me a faggot. Call me a homo. Call me weak. Call me a placater. Call me any name that anyone wants to. I'm stronger than a name and my belief that we are in the position we are because people on both sides have stopped talking to one another instead of at one another. But I do believe the vast majority of people, on BOTH sides of this issue, are like me and can have moderate and meaningful conversation like adults and can show modicums of respect and understanding.

It doesn't matter who started it or who said what first. I believe we can be bigger and better as a people. Who is going to join me?

rossj503 - Having an opinion does not make one a bigot.

Having a belief does not make someone a bigot or a fascist.

If you think you deserve certain legal rights which you want denied to a certain class of lawful Americans, you're definitely a greedy bigot like "Epitome" is. This situation is no different from those who thought mixed-race couples should be denied the right to marry.

And if you want the state to enforce your Christian sharia laws (as the Mormons, Southern Baptists and Catholic hierarchy do in regards to marriage), you're most definitely a Christofascist who stands in opposition to the 1st Amendment.

We CAN have meaningful dialogue without the slings and arrows, even if we do feel slighted.

It's not really a question of "feeling slighted", it's the fact that some Americans are currently denied full civil rights. If you want to have polite conversations with bigots, go for it. But those bigots are the oppressors not the oppressed.

@sarah,

There is no need for me to go back and read posts that I have made. None of my posts were about your personal business. I made posts about the topic at hand.

You called me pathetic.

No, I am not pissy about anything and I expect that many don't share my views. We can disagree and still respect each other.

Healthy debate is one thing and your comments appear to be something else. You are the one with harsh sentiments because I don't agree with you. You are the one who appears to be intolerant of the views of others.

Actually, it appeared to me that you didn't believe in God at all. But that does not mean that it is ok to disrespect the beliefs or non-beliefs of others.

No, I will not change my views or who I am so that you and a couple of other people on this blog can be nice to me. Who would do such a thing? Do you change your views or who you are so that people are nice to you? People, including homosexuals, who know me are nice to me because I am a loving person. I have the right to be me and will always be such.

I did not present myself as holier than thou and I am most definitely not a victim. You don't have the power to victimize me. You have no power over me at all. Your bullying tactics will get you no where and will actually hurt your cause. People will not pay attention to you because of the way you present yourself. It will have nothing to do with your sexual orientation. If anything, you are making a case for what many already believe - that evil is involved in this equation. Your mean spirited comments indicate just that - a mean spirit. And by the way, did you notice that my views on same sex marriage have nothing to do with my religious beliefs?

When did I ever say that I supported DOMA? I actually wrote that DOMA should be amended to give same sex couples equal protection under the law.

Sarah, I don't know you but it is obvious that you are unable to be pleasant and respectful when it comes to me. Whatever your reasons are, fine. I don't have anything against you and have never done anything to you. I know that you are not representative of homosexuals and that there is something else going on here specifically with you and others who are showing so much hate.

Have a pleasant day Sarah and God bless! This world is large enough for us to peacefully co-exist.

Skrekk,

It's been my experience that when I use anger and hatred as my emotion to counter anger and hatred, nothing gets solved. Over the course of my life I have had the opportunity to meet some really great people that didn't start out so great. Many people who don't like gay people simply don't know any gay people and go off of perceptions from TV and movies or from the pulpit,etc. Many are taught that we are going to fight them and not have any respect for them. Sound familiar? What does the name calling get us? What does the anger and bitterness get us? Does it progress the conversation? And again, we can't get what we want, which is respect, tolerance, and to be equal, if we first start by trying to silence others and belittle their rights to their emotions, beliefs, and ideals. That's what we are trying to get away from.

Those that scream and use sarcasm and name calling are most often seen for what they are. They will always be a part of the conversation. But they are usually the smallest part of the voice of the people, they are just the loudest. With over 50% in support of gay marriage now, I think that speaks highly to the direction we are going. We can be strong, have strong opinions, and not back down from what we know to be true. It doesn't mean we have to wallow in the mud to accomplish that. Arguing and name calling will not accomplish what we want. The true bigots are not going to be swayed through argument and name calling. It simply inflames them to say, "See! They are intolerant and hateful." How does that help our cause? How does that move the conversation forward. It just plainly doesn't. It HURTS our cause. I for one am tired of the constant negativity and fighting with people who are never going to be swayed. Instead, I hope that my voice, when used with reason and with facts, helps to educate and start a conversation with those that are open to discussion and realization.

But those bigots are the oppressors not the oppressed.

I disagree. They are oppressed by the very virtue of their irrational fear and hate. They are paralyzed by it. They feed on it and are consumed by it. All of this is going to be decided, and very soon, by the SCOTUS. And if the LGBT win the day, I fear that we will not be gracious and humble and accept the win with love and respect but rather a bloated sense of, "I told you so!" It's time for us to STOP the cycles of hate and be adults.

The average age for coming out used to be in the 40's-50's. Now it's down into the 20's. But even still, it's taking us, as a people, decades to come to terms with who WE are. But we are expecting a society to play catch up and they don't understand homosexuality or what it means to be us. We HAVE to be the bastions of good will and understanding while they struggle to reconcile this the same way we wished there would have been people in our lives to help us reconcile. Simply expecting people to accept our truth simply because we finally got it isn't a reality nor is it something we should expect. And the name calling, the bitterness, and the hatred is exactly what keeps us from moving forward.

@skrekk - I am sorry that you feel the need to resort to lies. I never stated that I felt gays should not have the rights that I have. I actually stated the opposite. My issue is that marriage is already the name given to the unique type of relationship between a man and a woman. Whether you want to accept that truth or not, it is still truth. The relationship between a man and woman is not the same as a relationship between 2 people of the same sex. It is not possible for it to be the same. But I have made it clear that I think both types of relationships, although different, deserve to be equally respected and equally protected under the law. My views on marriage have nothing to do with my religious beliefs.

And the fact is that there are many homosexuals who agree with me on the definition of marriage and don't think it should be redefined. There are also many homosexuals who love and have deep realtionships with God.

You stated another blatant lie when you said that I feel privileged and superior to gays. Where did that lie come from? Did you ask the gays who are in my life? Did you ask my family members who are gay and transgender? Who or what is filling your head with these thoughts?

And by the way, I am 40 year old descendant of an American slave. I know about discrimination. I know about racism. I know about being disrespected because of who I am. I have 40 years of experience dealing with such and it continues every day of my life. I still remember being an innocent 5 year old and being spit on and called the n word by white kids. I also remember all of the other incidents that I had to endure because of racism. Not only do I remember what has happened to me but I know what has happened to my parents, my grandparents, my ancestors and all the other members of my race. So there is nothing that you can teach me about the experience of racism and there is no need for you to bring that up. And by the way, despite my experience with racism and the many hardships I have had to endure due to such, I do not disrespect white people or hold any type of hatred for them because they are white. That would be just as ridiculous as the racism I had to endure. So be clear, you know nothing about me. However you, on the other hand, have proven yourself to be an intolerant liar who will be mean, hateful, and disrespectful to others that don't agree with you or when you don't get your way. It is your choice to live that way but it seems like a very unpleasant way to live. Thank God this world is large enough for us to peacefully coexist.

Have a pleasant day and may God bless you!!

My issue is that marriage is already the name given to the unique type of relationship between a man and a woman.

Marriage is just a lgal term and contract. Nine states currently expand that term to include same sex couples. once upon a time, marriage was just confined to people of the same race. Perhaps that was a "unique type of relationship?"

The relationship between a man and woman is not the same as a relationship between 2 people of the same sex.

Merely your opinion, as you cannot speak for others or their relationships. How a relationship is between two people, regardless of gender, is detwrm ined by them, not you!

And the fact is that there are many homosexuals who agree with me on the definition of marriage and don't think it should be redefined.

And there are many hoosexuals (and heterosexuals) who think it should be "redefined." But that is a matter for the courts.

However you, on the other hand, have proven yourself to be an intolerant liar who will be mean, hateful, and disrespectful to others that don't agree with you or when you don't get your way.

*SNORT* Hardly.

Epitome,

Well yeah, when you're whining about being persecuted while actively persecuting others. I'll stand by that one.

@Sarah,

I don't know who you think I am persecuting. And I don't know which actions of mine cause you think of as persecution. And I am not whining, I have felt hate towards me and felt that people are against me solely because I am a Christian and not because of who I am or anything that I have done, hence the reference to persecution. Those are my feelings which I am entitled to just as you are entitled to yours. A person expressing their feelings does not mean that they are whining.

@gordy- yes, it is my opinion which I am entitled to just as you are entitled to yours. I have an equal right to express my opinion. I am not trying to convince anyone that it is anything other than my opinion. People usually express their opinions on blogs. It is a great place for doing such.

Yes, there are many unique types of relationships. I was referring to one specific type - the type between a man and a woman. Two people of the same sex can never be a man and a woman. Just as a man and a woman can never be 2 people of the same sex. That's the difference between the two relationship types.

Of course there are many people who think marriage should be redefined. My points were that there are people of all types on both sides of the debate.

It is obvious that we see things differently and probably always will. I accept your views and respect your right to your views. But the exchange with the both of you is not pleasant. People can disagree and still be pleasant to each other. I don't engage in this type of discourse. It is not who I am nor who I want to be. But like I said, I accept your views and respect your right to your views. I wish you the best being you and I will go on being me. Hopefully one day we can all celebrate each other's differences. Take care.

Epitome - I don't know who you think I am persecuting.

You're persecuting gays by wanting them to be denied the exact same legal rights and legal contracts you have access to.

Not only that but you seem to be an advocate of Jim Crow laws. You're no different from a racist southerner who thought it was OK to have racially segregated drinking fountains, and then whined that he wasn't harming anyone because both fountains dispensed the same water.

This is why you bigots keep losing in court, because you don't understand what equal protection of the law means. It's why the California supreme court ruled against you bigots when they found that their domestic partnerships were unconstitutional - it was the very existence of a second and identical contract which would apply to a different class of persons which proved to the court that the motive was impermissible animus.

No wonder you bigoted nutballs have lost every single DOMA case - you don't even understand what the constitution requires.

@skrekk

I accept your views and respect your right to your views even though I don't agree with them. You can continue to say whatever you want to say about me. That does not make it true. I wish you the best. Take care.

We've already been over this. It isn't you and it isn't your religion. It's your standpoint on DOMA and how you USE your religion. Read Skrekks comment above this. He hit the nail on the head.

I love how "Epitome" wants to politely discuss how to deny the civil rights of other Americans, a rather easy position to take when your own civil rights aren't threatened.

Epitome, are you a conservative also? Your logic would dictate that we have multiple laws on the books to do the same thing. That is wasteful. It also allows for even innocent omissions of the one term, marriage, from future laws which were intended to include both marriage AND union.

I propose a seemingly simple solution. We redefine marriage as a civil union. Under this union, you are granted all of the legal state given rights that are granted under a marriage for any two people who would like to enter into that contract. Then, you are free to go to your place of worship to get "married". And as a part of the civil union, no law may be created to affect any marriage, as that is a personal choice.

Thoughts?

ChrisFromCincy - I propose a seemingly simple solution. We redefine marriage as a civil union.

That's what marriage is in America - a civil union. The religious version is "holy matrimony".

The state doesn't recognize or care about "holy matrimony" or any other religious rituals no matter what they're called. Every divorced and remarried Catholic understands the difference between marriage and "holy matrimony".

What we really need to do is what France does and prohibit any marriage from being formalized in a church. Everyone should have to go to a government office to get married. We've made a very big mistake by allowing priests to act as proxies for a state witness and state officiant. For example we don't allow priests to grant divorces, issue driver's licenses or register property liens. There's no reason at all that any religious figure should ever be involved in a purely secular function of the state.

Vern in post 1.7 wrote in part: "God didn't make anyone homosexual. God gave everyone free will. Some chose the mental illness of homosexuality".

What a bunch of bull@!$%# from start to finish. Let's leave aside the busted failed assertion God exists much less can find his own metaphysical arse with a map, flashlight and both hands.

First, homosexuality is a natural part of the animal kingdom. Second, God manufactures everything; according to your stone and bronze age book of drooling stupidity. Everything includes sexuality.

'Free Will' is a cowardly and invincible Xian lie which does not exist. It doesn't matter how much I yearn for it. No matter how hard I flap my arms I cannot take to the air and fly cross-country.

Further, if my "Free Will" were to have your malevolent celestial universe spanning paedophile be wrong (and the tome demonstrates error from start to finish).

One of the fatal blows is based on the self-destructive "omni" characteristics. Omni equals all. Anything else isn't omni. One torpedoed omni destroys all others as well as said deity/ies existence.

Omnipotence and omniscience are both destroyed by the "iron chariots" debacle. Omnipotence is destroyed by the simple question; "Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?" Omni characteristics are such fragile constructs.

Time and again cowardly and/or ignorant Christians like you keep spouting the same busted drive-ad nauseum. There are trustworthy Christians, but your ilk aren't among them.

"Creator" deity constructs all have a fatal flaw. First, it asserts without objective evidence the universe was manufactured. Second, the oldest creator deity is Tiamat the Dragon at some 5,500 years of age. This alone, demonstrates all newer creator claimant deities false-such as yours.

Creator deities are broken logic. When this is pointed out some people drool about an "un-caused cause". This drooling doesn't help as it further demonstrates the universe doesn't require manufacturing either.

The last thing is your inane toddler level mewling about choosing homosexuality. (rhetorical question alert) How stupid are you? (Who's powering your metaphorical iron lung-and why?)

The whole world sees you've "chosen" the pig ignorant, immoral, and cowardly brain dead stone and bronze age superstition called "Christianity".

Free clue, sport, no one gets handed a "preconception" list to check off build "specifications".

Here I've deliberately shown you the terminal lack of courtesy you've shown others. I don't enjoy "mirroring" parts of your behaviour.

If homosexuality bothers you-then say so! People would respect your being up front rather than laughing at you. I'd be one of those folks. I really don't like writing responses like this.

Epitome in post 1.19 wrote;

"I believe in equal rights for same sex couples. That type of relationship is their choice and should be equally respected under the law."

Cool.

Epitome in post 1.19 wrote;

"But that type of relationship is NOT the same type of relationship between a man and woman. Two totally different types of relationships that must be distinguishable - that is why I am against same sex marriage. A same sex union needs a different name because it is different. The word marriage is already taken and it means a union between a man and a women. One difference is that married couples have the ability to have sex and create life."

Not exactly. There are couples who choose not to have children. There are couples who cannot have children. There are widows and widowers who marry who are too old to have children. This 'exception' is the driver for same sex marriage to have the same rights and benefits as do us hets.

Are you espousing that het marriages which cannot or will not result in children be renamed?

Epitome in post 1.19 wrote; "Same sex couples can not have sex and reproduce. They cannot conjoin in the same way. The human sex organs do not connect in the same way."

"Plumbing" is immaterial.

Same sex marriages can result in off-spring. Females can be impregnated the "old fashioned way" or with modern techniques.

Modern techniques and surrogates enable off-spring in male same sex marriages.

Epitome in post 1.19 wrote;

"Although the relationships are different and need different names, both types of relationships should have equal rights under the law because people get to choose how they want to live and the type of relationship they want to be in."

Marriage is marriage is marriage. The "separate but equal" doctrine was ruled unconstitutional decades ago.

Cheers

blade in post 1.24 wrote:

"So IF you dont believe in God, then how can you use the agrument that God made everyone in his/her OWN image??? "

Because its in a book many people venerate.

blade in post 1.24 wrote:

"You CANT have it both ways..Either you believe OR you dont, and IF you believe there is a GOD...CHRISTIAN God....Then you believe in the bible and the Bible says its WRONG..."

What the Bible says is immaterial in a non-theocratic country. The Bible says all sorts of; stupid, immoral, and plain wrong things. Supposedly there's about 613 laws for heterosexuals and 13 for homosexuals (the comic who came up with this one figures hets need more supervision). The Bible, in different places, orders opposite actions.

Do Christians have a problem wearing clothing of mixed fibres? That's an "abomination in God's eyes". Yes, its OT but it remains in effect as the earth as in "heaven and earth" haven't passed away.

blade in post 1.24 wrote:

"And IF you DONT believe in GOD, and thus in the Bible, then you CANT use that example that God made us ALL in his/her own image..SO WHICH IS IT???"

Its what the book a group of people venerate. So, the other poster can utilize it. Whether the other poster believes, or not, is immaterial.

Marriage is a right and is given to everyone. Everyone has the right to marry the person (s)he loves and wants to spend the rest of his/her life with. It is nobodies business who his neighbor is married to because they have the right to do so. Free will as given in the bible gives the believer or non believer to choose what road (s)he will walk, what journey he will take to fulfill his/her life; life and blessing or death and curse. It is all up to the individual; not to the population,

I guess it is fruitless to point out that marriage is not a right. It is a license, just like a driver's license or a business license or a liquor license. You meet the requirements of said license, you pay your fee that fattens the government coffers, and you get the benefits prescribed within.

I wanted to mention that for those that don't seem to understand what a right is.

Tim-874396 - I guess it is fruitless to point out that marriage is not a right.

Equal protection of the law is the primary right being denied, as every federal court which has considered DOMA has already ruled.

And in fact SCOTUS does consider marriage itself to be a basic civil right. That will be a factor when the Prop h8 case is considered.

@Tim, You should read the decision of Loving v. Virginia decision that legalized interracial marriage because in that case it declared that marriage is a right. Between that decision and the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment I don't see how the Supreme Court can do anything but decide that GLBT people have the very same marriage rights as we heteros have enjoyed.

The government cannot force a church to marry a couple that don't abide by their belief, but what religions reside over is matrimony and not marriage and that will not change after the Supreme Court decision. Marriage is a secular civil contract that is controlled by the state and it has been controlled by the government long before Christianity or other various religions have existed. There are many religions that support GLBT marriage and they will be able to perform matrimony rites for their members, just as many will refuse to do so.

If you oppose GLBT marriage then dont marry a GLBT person but you do not have the right to deny them to marry the consenting partner of their choice when you were permitted to do so yourself.

GLBT marriage equality will create many jobs in the wedding and travel industry and probably a few in the legal profession.

Before anyone says that the next step will be allowing people to marriage farm implements, livestock and their pets I want to remind that that is a slippy slope fallacy. You can only marry a consenting adult so until you dog, cat or tractor is a human in the eyes of the court and can give legal consent they cannot get married to a human in the US.

Party-liners wreck the country - When it comes to God, you can't cherry-pick what you want

So do you kill your disobedient children as Deuteronomy 21:18-21 requires? Or are you a cafeteria Old Testament Christian?

What other bizarre sharia laws of your cult do you think our secular government should enforce? The ban on eating shellfish?

Once the New Testament was created, the Old Testament was no longer 100% fully followed.

Christians, you can't reason with them.

When it comes to God, you can't cherry-pick what you want

You've never read the bible. A very good chunk of it is ignored completely.

Have you ever stopped to think about how odd it is to follow a book written and compiled during a time in which people still thought the earth was flat? Do you really want to follow the same habits and mindset of the people 2000 years ago. We have progressed. We have evolved. Why cling to the beliefs of old?

The Company

"A very good chunk of it is ignored completely."

I would assume so since the old testament is not 100% followed.

Them thinking the earth was flat is irrelevant to religion.

GLBT Bullshat !

Party-liners wreck the country - Once the New Testament was created, the Old Testament was no longer 100% fully followed.

So people no longer follow your imaginary friend's Immutable Word, or the Immutable Words were changed?

Sounds like people finally came to their senses and started to ignore your bizarre cult. Funny though that your imaginary friend had to revise the first edition of his Immutable Word.......apparently there were some typos.

On a double side note, thou shalt not kill is the law pretty much everywhere, you might be familiar with its current name of murder.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

mur·der

/ˈmərdər/
Noun

The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another

kill

/kil/
Verb

Cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

one has premeditation and one does not, not the same thing.

==================================================

skrekk

Party-liners wreck the country - Once the New Testament was created, the Old Testament was no longer 100% fully followed.

So people no longer follow your imaginary friend's Immutable Word, or the Immutable Words were changed?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I may remind you of the "SERMON ON THE MOUNT"
Matthew 5:17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come, I did not come to abolish the laws of Moses
or writings of the prophets, I came to fulfill them. I
assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest of God's laws will remain UNTIL
IT'S PURPOSE IS ACHIEVED.

=====================================================================

Them thinking the earth was flat is irrelevant to religion.

Point being, you want to form laws based on the habits and beliefs of people 2000 years ago. People who had little to no understanding of basic biology, psychology, physiology etc... This is not the standard we should adhere to. It just isn't. If you want to follow it, be my guest. But let everyone else, gay or straight live life as they see fit.

skrekk

Party-liners wreck the country - Once the New Testament was created, the Old Testament was no longer 100% fully followed.

So people no longer follow your imaginary friend's Immutable Word, or the Immutable Words were changed?

Sounds like people finally came to their senses and started to ignore your bizarre cult. Funny though that your imaginary friend had to revise the first edition of his Immutable Word.......apparently there were some typos.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I may remind you of the "SERMON ON THE MOUNT"
Matthew 5:17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come, I did not come to abolish the laws of Moses
or writings of the prophets, I came to fulfill them. I
assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest of God's laws will remain UNTIL
IT'S PURPOSE IS ACHIEVED.

NO, JUST SOME MISUNDERSTANDINGS ON YOUR PART!!!

===================================================================

Both the Nazi and the Communist brands of totalitarianism have attempted to separate marriage from religion.

In the Soviet Union and its obedient satellites marriage was reduced to mere registration, men and women being "comrades" with all sexual distinctions abolished. SS men were expected to undergo a marriage ceremony in which all references to Christianity were abolished in favor a quasi-religion of Nordic runes and worship of pre-Christian dieties like Wotan and Frigga.

To Himmler's great disappointment, a third of members of the SS opted for church weddings nevertheless. And when the Communist system ended and religion was no longer suppressed there was a rush to be married in a church or synagogue with feminism a dirty word in Russia and the former East Germany, much to the astonishment of the former Communist officialdom there.

Religious believers never will turn their backs on thousands of years of human history in which marriage and the family unit has always meant a man and a woman united to bring along the next generation.

The Company

Them thinking the earth was flat is irrelevant to religion.

Point being, you want to form laws based on the habits and beliefs of people 2000 years ago. People who had little to no understanding of basic biology, psychology, physiology etc... This is not the standard we should adhere to. It just isn't. If you want to follow it, fine. But don't make me.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Read This:

www.end-times-prophecy.org/bible-prophecy-and-probability.html

and get back to me and explain how these "MEN" knew the future and predicted these prophecies 900 years before they came true.

POINT BEING: God wrote the bible (divinely inspired) not men.

====================================================

Walter Orielly-

I decided to humor you and read the link you attached. And...I thought it was nonsense. The bible is not a diary. It is not a firsthand account of what these men witnessed. The stories and accounts in the bible were written many many years after the death of Christ.

Put another way, the bible was not written as events were unfolding. The bible was written after events unfolded. About 50-100 years after, by some accounts. If you choose to believe it is accurate and divine, your choice and I can appreciate that. But I do not.

the company- the people of biblical times did not think the world was flat, i don't know where you get that, in fact they knew it was round. Are you refering to the four corners? that my friend was east south west and north, they did not think it was flat.

Nungman - Both the Nazi and the Communist brands of totalitarianism have attempted to separate marriage from religion.

Actually the Nazis and Soviets hated gays just like you do.

And in the US all marriages have always been just a secular legal contract from the very first time a marriage license was issued, in contrast to the bizarre and legally irrelevant religious rite of "holy matrimony." Just ask a divorced and remarried Catholic to explain the difference to you.

Religious believers never will turn their backs on thousands of years of human history in which marriage and the family unit has always meant a man and a woman united to bring along the next generation.

Sounds like you're a member of one of the profoundly bigoted cults like the Mormons or Southern Baptists.

Many Christians and many major denominations don't share your homophobia, and they happily perform religious weddings for gays. Why should the government enforce your bigoted sharia laws about marriage and thereby deny the religious liberty of Episcopalians?

the company- the people of biblical times did not think the world was flat, i don't know where you get that, in fact they knew it was round. Are you refering to the four corners? that my friend was east south west and north, they did not think it was flat.

I am trying to understand how you could think this is true. Does it say in the bible some place that the world was round? Did Galileo spend the end of his life in house arrest because the world was known to be round? Where Columbus' crew afraid they might sail off the edge of the world because they ignored the teachings of the bible?

Think Clear

God created Adamina and Eve.

No, he's on his 2nd term and would have NEVER brought this up (in this manner) during the election. He's merely completing what was always on his agenda when he first took office and fulfilling his and the "dreams of his father"...it will only get worse from here on out.

Solid and Blade, why oh why do conservative leading individuals forget a little thing called history, when it insuits them? People of a conservative bent are the first to yell "state rights", not knowing the historical background that was laid,by state right abuse, that have led to these considerations over the year. Go ask Jerry Lee Lewis, who married his cousin at a tender age , how he feels about your comments , not only about age of consent but whether first cousins should be allowed to marry nationally. Better yet, ask one of the black conservatives how they feel about interracial marriage and if it should have been overturned in the 60s. This is not my attempt to be pro or con with regards to same sex marriage , but, my disgust with small minded , uninformed individuals who sprout their opinions as fact and of historical import. And to get some imbeciles really off topic, people like Sean Hannity who ignore all the polling data that shows, by all sources, that the majority of Americans, including myself, agree that the our fiscal problems need both tax increases and program cuts. And please , this is not a troll. I am old enough to be well acquainted with fascism and one of the methods used by such movements is the changing of historical facts and to create a alternative history: remember the concept of the Aryan race? And ultimate result of the neo conservative movement is just that. And the ultimate oxymoron of the whole situation is that left bent individuals are called the facists! Oh, tree hugging "hippies" are out to kill your with flowers!Do people of this ilk even bother to listen to the words coming out of their mouth? The taking back of the government would involve a lot of killing of people who are not like them and I need not go down the list of the ethnic types. These distortions and lies have to stop. A democratic republic cannot survive with a balance of persepctives who are well informed by the facts, although they might differ on applied solutiions.

Oh and I laughed and I laughed..... No constructive analysis of my comments , but, name calling. It hurts when someone steps on yours corns, I quess, you see, I don't have them.

Steve,

Wow. So much unrelated misinformation in one rant.

Let me simply correct you on one of your incorrect points.

Fascism is not an economic system. It is a style of governing. It is neither left nor right but is best known by another name: dictatorship. It is certainly possible to have fascist socialists. Examples? Hitler's Germany, Stalin's USSR, Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain. The only real differences between these folks was....language.

Hitler's Third Reich and Stalin's Workers Paradise were simply dictatorships in which an already socialist government and society facilitated each despot's rise to power. By the way, there has never been a true "communist" nation. They were simply "socialists" supposedly on their way to communism but got stuck where they all get stuck: the dictatorship of the proletariat stage.

So, your lesson today is that most certainly can leftists also be fascists.

Oh, don't think that only whites can be racist. Any and all groups are plagued with them.

Your last sentence makes no sense.

No, your rhetoric is meaningless to most. What it really comes down to is morals and our countries morals are slowly eroding to the point where we'll have to accept everyone and every lifestyle. If you shove something down the media pipeline long enough people will begin to accept, ignore or just give in to it as the "New Normal". Though I do believe most people who are gay are actually born that way, the same can certainly be said for pedophiles and animal lovers (they won't let me post their real name). Have you ever watched the show Taboo? People are "born" wanting to marry things like their cars, fireplaces and even carpet (Ironic!). I don't have all of the answers to our so called social problems but I do know we need to tread lightly on what WE decide is acceptable and not acceptable.

Think about one issue in particular- Gays in the military. Don't ask, don't tell is the ONLY way to go. By allowing all gays to serve openly you most assuredly separate them AND allow them a right (openly) that heterosexuals do not have. That would be showing, bathing and billeting in the same area as their "preferred sex" type. Put them with women and you'll have issues etc etc...Either allow ALL barracks, showers and sh!tters to be CO-ED or keep the previous policy. Enjoy your salad...

well pigotry you should not have to many more relatives since that can't (thank god) make babies/////

If you cannot encompass a high level of conceptual analysis, the little boys table in on the right. I fully understand the difference between economic issues and social ones. I used that one element of misinformation, that happened to relate to economic concerns. I could just have easily talked about the concept that women (sic) only get pregnant if they were legitimately raped. From my vantage point , those forms of antiquated, demeaning , lack of factual validation assertions lend themselves to what I see as a growing , right leaning fascist movement in this country. I am not as afraid of the left as I am of the right, but, then you could have a left person, develop a vaccine to eliminate the "plague" of humanity on the planet ( they have made some good Sci Fi movies with that theme , check it out). I fully aware that fascism is not an economic model.I was referring to the manner in which social fear and uncertainty fuels such movements. To be specific I was focusing on fear and dehumanization of the other and the altering of historical facts that are hallmarks, as it were , of the ideology. I noticed that you did not touch the body of the observations I made about state right abuses leading to problems in this nation , in particular race relations. The gay rights movement got its impetus from the declaration by the Supreme Court that separate and not equal does not align with our basic principles as a nation. Women's right were also inspired by the same geminal seed. And , although the conservative banter has changed, the undercurrent of how the nation has been ruined by Supreme Court rulings that do not reflect the will of the people , goes on. My understanding of one of the basic principles of the democratic society we have is that the will of the majority does not override the rights of the individual. Again, going to back to the age of consent , it is a state right to determine the level, not federal ,for marriage, at least up to this point in time and I see no reason to alter that division, for age. Historically, southern and younger states , as a gross generalization , have younger consent ages. And ,yes, in some states , you can marry your first cousin. But, don't blame this facet of marriage as being related to the issue of same sex marriage. This is not only inaccurate but pathetic. Also, a little lesson on logic and set theory. You lack credibility when you take the attribute of a lower level of analysis and apply to a higher, to invalidate an argument. I was once making a point on the safety of both military and private labs handling bio-hazardous materials. Some idiot said I had no idea of what I was talking about because I had mentioned , in passing a virus and a bacteria in the development of my thesis. Your analysis of my thoughts are just a sophomoric and insipid. As a primer, start studding set theory and nalytical philosophy , so that you can keep up.

This is another distraction from the real issues. Spin Spin Spin round and round we go. This is ridiculous.

Agreed, more distraction from the facts that will cripple us, like the fed pumping 85 BILLION into the stock market a month for "optics".

It should be left to the states to decide. BTW, it was a Clinton signed bill. Why all the subgroups, were Americans, leave it to the states and keep the bloated fed out of it.

Also, for people who want to be KNOWN as different, why does everyone have to change traditional values and make it not so for a statistically small group of people.

Pigotry-----bacon fat, honey, give it a rest with sad jargon and political words traced back to other great socialists like Lenin and Mao who killed MILLIONS of people. Do you have an individual thought or are you one of the paid drones who post to give an impression of a majority that is also NOT that big?

Anyone here ever heard of Greece and seen their economy-----wait......we're all Greeks now.

I have nothing against gays at all. But WHY does the President of the United States spend more time catering to, pandering to gays, illegal aliens, than he does to the actual SURVIVAL of the country for ALL the people. He seems hellbent on knocking down every institution this country has held sacred since it's inception...religion, family, morals, self sufficiency, security, strong defenses, and this country's system of balance of powers. checks and balances in the government. He even ignores our Constitution. The Republicans want to get the country BACK ON TRACK, but Obama forever demonizes them and accuses them of everything he thinks will destroy them. Like a two (or more) party system or not, we MUST NEVER be "ruled" by just ONE person's ideology and heavy hand. That's NOT a free country, a democracy, that is a dictatorship

Yeah Bath House Barry and the Dems from IL want to also make it a state right to marry your animal. Well as the libs say everyone has rights. Crusty Redhead wants to marry her pig

HEY BARRY ECONOMY ECONOMY ECONOMY

Try working on that in a good way for a change, and that does not mean giving the money away.

Obama really loves to cater to the gay rights movement, doesn't he? Makes you wonder how many other "favors" he needs to pay back which got him elected. No wonder he doesn't have time to deal with the economy. When he isn't playing golf, he is spending all his time on social issues.

He seems hellbent on knocking down every institution this country has held sacred since it's inception...religion, family, morals, self sufficiency, security, strong defenses, and this country's system of balance of powers. checks and balances in the government. He even ignores our Constitution.

Aggie: So true! And yet during a crisis, he will quote from the bible and claim he is a christian. I think we all know the truth. He loves to flip flop. He is an unstable President. He never should have ran for office if he wasn't able to lead without influence.

Aggie-345886 - But WHY does the President of the United States spend more time catering to, pandering to gays, illegal aliens, than he does to the actual SURVIVAL of the country for ALL the people.

Unlike you, Obama believes all Americans deserve equal rights - as our constitution requires.

Sounds like you're just another greedy bigot who wants special rights for herself while other Americans are treated as 2nd-class citizens who are denied the rights you enjoy.

Pigotry @ 3.1: "Gays and lesbians are my brothers and sisters."

Are you calling all gays and lesbians pigs?

IMHO-2730490

WHEN YOU SAY ALL OF US THEN WHO COULD YOU POSSIBLY MEAN HAS BEEN LEFT OUT ??

Marriage isn't a right. Please stop using a false argument. It doesn't help you one bit...

SCOTUS has already deemed marriage is a right.

"All of us." seems to be self-explanatory. Unless you're not one of us. Are you?

Marriage isn't a right.

Refer to the SCOTUS case: Loving v. Virginia (1967). Seems like the SCOTUS did indeed determione marriage to be a right!

According to the CDC, a study conducted from 2006-2009 on Men Sleeping with Men found that:

• Men Sleeping with Men account for 49% of the 1.2 million people living with HIV in the US.
• 20% of Men Sleeping with Men who have HIV are unaware they have it and spread it to others.
• Men Sleeping with Men account for 61% of the new HIV infections in the United States.
• This is the only group in which new HIV infections are increasing.

For more information visit the CDC website.

This is a very dangerous/deadly lifestyle choice that needs to be banned, not celebrated, and not taught to our kids that it's safe, healthy and normal. It doesn't get better. You get AIDS and die.

Tim-874396

Marriage isn't a right. Please stop using a false argument. It doesn't help you one bit...

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says otherwise.

It's a violation of an individuals civil and Constitutional rights to deny same sex marriage, civil union, what have you.

I wounder how much Roberts will get paid for his vote on this one

It is time to open this up to everyone. My brother wants to marry my sister and have children. My neighbor wants to marry his bio daughter and have children. My other neighbor wants to marry their first cousin and they even want children. Another neighbor, he wants to marry his brother and they want their rights. The neighbor down the street, want it opened up so he can have 3 wives legally, so they can have lots of children. Another guy down the street wants to marry 3 guys and have all their rights. And we can call my street the new normal, because of the Supreme Court. Now if I were to marry two of my daughters, would I refer to them as my daughters or my wives daughters or just drop the daughters part? And would the children we have call me dad or grandpa?? I get all mixed up on these things.

Onemanonewomanmarriage

Please get your facts straight. According to the World Health Organization, the largest group of HIV/AIDS cases in the world are heterosexuals not gays.

Heterosexuals are no more likely than homosexuals to have extra marital affairs. You are assuming that the LGBT community is incapable of having a monogamous relationship.

You are also wrong with your facts on increases in infection rates among gays. The amount of new cases are increasing among heterosexual young adults and older heterosexual women faster than that of gay men according to the CDC and WHO.

Besides what does HIV/AIDS have to do with marriage, other than you trying to spread the same fear and misinformation that has been spread for years.

exactly, where does it end? I kind of like the cdc study. If it wasnt for the millions being pumped into finding a cure for aids, all we would have is lesbians....even eliminate a few bisexuals

Michael-4273928

As expected you have a narrow view of the reality of why this is an equal rights issue, and not a morality issue. If this was about morality then Heterosexuals would not pass the test, as they make up approx. 90% of the population and have about a 51% divorce rate. My suggestion is to take a look at your own life style choices and leave ours out of it. This issue is no different than when it was made legal for whites and blacks to marry......I know that may be hard for you to grasp...but try. This is equal rights under the law and nothing more.

lancepilot

We also wouldn't have people like you thinking that HIV/AIDS is just a GAY disease....Which it is not. HIV/AIDS knows no race, social standing, age, sex, economic standing or sexual orientation. Again please try if you can wrap your head around the fact that the worlds largest population of HIV/AIDS cases are heterosexuals...not gays.

• Men Sleeping with Men account for 49% of the 1.2 million people living with HIV in the US.
• 20% of Men Sleeping with Men who have HIV are unaware they have it and spread it to others.
• Men Sleeping with Men account for 61% of the new HIV infections in the United States.
• This is the only group in which new HIV infections are increasing.

I believe in education. It teaches you facts; not lies and/or propaganda:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hiv-aids/DS00005/DSECTION=causes

http://www.cdc.gov/std/hiv/STDFact-STD-HIV.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/basic/index.htm#spread

http://www.avert.org/hiv-causes-aids.htm

Thank you for your post for I have learned more about HIV and Aids than I knew before. I've heard the same propaganda you posted before, but research proved different and I learned so much more today.

Everything including the sky falling is Obama's fault. Now go forward chicken little republitard and spew forth your vitriol with your usual generosity.

Got to love this President! He has 4 years, two of which his party controlled everything, and he did nothing. He could have overturned the DOMA. Now that he can't get re-elected he's all for these things. Typical politician, concerned only about themselves. Worst part, 51% fell for this crap!

I don't have a clear opinion of this issue. What I See happening in the military is un married gay couples are getting benefits and unmarried heterosexual partners are bering denied those same benifits because they can marry and recieved the benifits. Where is the equality here. Two un married couples one get benifits and the other does not. To have true equality you have give everyone the same tratment.

Obama has suddenly realized that his popularity WILL offset his lack of success as we are now seeing in his job approval ratings. This is just another attempt to add to his ratings by asking the court to overturn this law regardless of the impact to the nation and to the people who are opposed.

[From the article] ... President Barack Obama announced in 2011 that the U.S. would no longer enforce DOMA,

This is false. Obama declared that the US would no longer defend DOMA. The US continues to enforce DOMA. That's a big distinction that is lost on many people.

What I See happening in the military is un married gay couples are getting benefits and unmarried heterosexual partners are bering denied those same benifits because they can marry and recieved the benifits. Where is the equality here.

@John ... you yourself have just given the reason why the policy is appropriate and non-discriminatory. Heterosexuals do have a route to receiving those benefits: marriage. That route is not available to gays. By the way, gay couples receive only a fraction of the military benefits available to straight marriage couples. I think the most outrageous act of discrimination is that the same-sex partner, even if married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, is not treated as next of kin by the military. They have no right to be notified first if their partner dies.

This is just another attempt to add to his ratings by asking the court to overturn this lawregardless of the impact to the nation and to the people who are opposed.

Perhaps you could share the impact to the nation. Equality is a positive impact. Benefits for all married couples vs. selective groups is a positive impact. The impact appears to be positive, so what's not to like?

Regardless of your stance on the issue, do you see the bigger problem here? Obama once again is deciding what laws to enforce and what laws not to enforce. The last paragraph in the article mentions that for those that deny this. Until the SCOTUS rules otherwise it is still law. Obama took an oath to uphold the law and is in violation of office. He must enforce the laws he has sworn to uphold, not what he decides to enforce. He should be impeached for violating his sworn oath to uphold the laws of the land.

Huskergal: Do you know where Onemanonewomanmarriage getting his information? It's not propaganda, its a fact.

http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/

By Risk Group

Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM):

By risk group, gay, bisexual, and other MSM of all races remain the population most severely affected by HIV.

• MSM accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections in the U.S. in 2009, as well as nearly half (49%) of people living with HIV in 2008 (the most recent year national prevalence data is available).
• CDC estimates that MSM account for just 2% of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, but accounted for more than 50% of all new HIV infections annually from 2006 to 2009. In 2010, MSM accounted for 61% of HIV diagnoses.
• In 2009, white MSM accounted for the largest number of annual new HIV infections of any group in the U.S. (11,400), followed closely by black MSM (10,800).
• Young, black MSM were the only risk group in the U.S. to experience statistically significant increases in new HIV infections from 2006–2009—from 4,400 new HIV infections in 2006 to 6,500 infections in 2009.

Heterosexuals and Injection Drug Users:

Heterosexuals and injection drug users also continue to be affected by HIV.

• Individuals infected through heterosexual contact accounted for 27% of estimated new HIV infections in 2009 and 28% of people living with HIV in 2008.
• As a group, women accounted for 23% of estimated new HIV infections in 2009 and 25% of those living with HIV in 2008.
• Injection drug users represented 9% of annual new HIV infections in 2009 and 17% of those living with HIV in 2008.

Estimates of New HIV Infections in the U.S., 2009, by Transmission Category

Prejean J, Song R, Hernandez A, Ziebell R, Green T, et al. (2011) Estimated HIV Incidence in the United States, 2006-2009. PLoS ONE 6(8): e17502. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017502

Roberts Court will do whats right, Equal Liberty for all !!!

I am a Liberal Democratic married to my female partner for over forty years .We have two children,four grandchildren, and one great grandchild.I do not find the choice of a male as my partner as being attractive to me,but I don't agree with gay ,or lesbian physical or verbal attacking as either fair nor attractive either.If the law of the land declares same sex marriage as legal,then I consider that it means ,in all ways.

Unhappy-1583758

from 1996 to 2012 CDC reports

To date all CDC reported HIV cases of MSM equal 541,330.

All Heterosexual transmission during the same period is 206,612.

All Heterosexual IV transmission is 274,522.

All Homosexual IV transmission is 79,048.

Do the math for yourself. As you can see the numbers are close between the two, with the Heterosexual community on the rise since tracking began in 1996.

These numbers came from the CDC and are current not from 2009. You can also see that the number of new cases is on the rise in older people as well as younger. It is also on the rise in IV drug users whom are heterosexual. The number of cases still remains high among African Americans, while the number of cases among white males has dropped.

Please use current data if your going to try and say that HIV/AIDS would become more of an issue if Gays & Lesbians are allowed to marry.

HIV transmission has nothing to do with marriage in the first place. It shows a lack of understanding about the transmission of HIV and what marriage really is. If you are a heterosexual you are at more risk than that of a gay or lesbian in contracting HIV at the present time.

So for all of you that think that HIV has something to do with marriage tell me exactly how one has anything to do with the other?

Last time I checked, the judicial branch, not the legislative one, was responsible for determining what is and is not constitutional. The Obama administration is once again exhibiting typical asinine behavior, by stepping over their boundaries, and hoping lame duck legislation, or political pressure, will win again. I hope the SCOTUS effectively tells them to go jump in the lake.Homosexuality is an ideology that has yet to be substantiated conclusively by science. Marriage is only fundamental as it pertains to procreation. Yes, exceptions are made for the elderly or infertile -- a minute percentage of those married, but they still fit into the definition. Homosexuals can never biologically reproduce without using alternate means. We can argue the rhetoric about equality, but regardless of anyone's gender Identity, no one has the right to marry someone of the same sex. It's just more of the homosexual community demanding something based on the assumption homosexuality is legitimate.

ItIsWhat!t!s

These are the same arguments made when the challenge was made about whites marrying blacks. It doesn't hold water. This is an equal rights issue. Science has not found at "Gay Gene"...Hitler tried to find it.

Your assumption is that the study of human sexuality has not looked into homosexuality. The Kinsey Institute, Masters & Johnson, as well as many reputable scientists have determined that we are born this way and it is not any more "legitimate" or a lifestyle choice than your own.

If your not gay then why worry about it.

Heterosexuals are the last people that should be giving advise on marriage when over 51% of them fail.

Pay attention as to why your marriages fail and leave the rest of us out of it.

Refer to the SCOTUS case: Loving v. Virginia (1967). Seems like the SCOTUS did indeed determione marriage to be a right!

Marriage is a civil liberty, not a right. Big difference. Without a proper framework the concept of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is basically anarchy. Loving Vs Virginia only applies in that context because, regardless of skin color, biology works the same way. The state has no legitimate reason in restrictions of marriage based on skin color. Homosexuality is a horse of an entirely difference color. It's never been conclusively established as completely biological, What's the compelling state interest in allowing gay marriage. Defining marriage based on the concept of love. One reason why the elderly and infertile are allowed to marry.

ItIsWhat!t!s - Last time I checked, the judicial branch, not the legislative one, was responsible for determining what is and is not constitutional.

True, but it's the Executive branch which decides which laws to defend in court and the Executive's highest obligation is to defend the constitution, not to defend any particular law.......especially one so blatantly unconstitutional as DOMA where every single federal court has ruled against it, the President who signed it now says it's unconstitutional, and even the Republican who authored it says that it's unconstitutional.

Every other President has made similar choices about a variety of issues, and chosen not to defend particular laws and to file amicus briefs opposing those laws.

With more states passing the right to marry, the federal government will have to pass law to include gay marriage as states have to recognise other states legal marriages, even if gay marriages are not allowed in some states. This issue has already been addressed when states refused to recognise interracial marriages.

Other countries around the world already have laws on the books that allow same sex marriages.

ItIsWhat!t!s

What's the compelling state interest in allowing gay marriage.

There are some 1100 state and federal rights that married heterosexual couples have that same sex married couples do not have.

The compelling reasoning is that those states that do not currently allow same sex marriages as well as the federal government are in violation of same sex civil rights, while other states allow and recognise same sex marriages.

The laws regarding marriage are to be consistent as to not violate constitutional rights between state lines and the federal government. This issue was taken up by the courts long ago when interracial couples wished to marry and some states said yes while others said no. The federal government stepped in and said yes all states as well as the federal government must recognize the marriages as a constitutional right. This is the same issue at it's base. It has nothing to do with skin color it is the base legal issue where some states recognize the marriage and others do not. Do you get it?

AGAIN...

Well, of course marriage isn't in the Constitution, a LOT of things that we are legally allowed to do aren't in the Constitution, because the Constitution doesn't enumerate OUR rights, it LIMITS and enumerates the powers of the government. The only time the Constitution addressed citizen behavior and not government behavior was prohibition, and that didn't work out too well. So, what IS in the Constitution are limits to government infringement of our privacy, and equal protection.

First, there are certain "protected classes" laid out in the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. Two of them are race and gender. In the Supreme Court case Loving v Virginia, SCOTUS ruled that,

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Now this case was based on race, BUT to support gay marriage, all you have to do is change race to GENDER, another protected class. PLUS, the 14th Amendment has a little something called the "Privileges and Immunities" clause. Which means, you can't deny the citizens, their privileges, or immunities, based on those classes. In this case, that'd be gender.

So, since marriage is a legal (that means law) contract, that comes with PRIVILEGES, you can't deny citizens, without a damn good, already been shown to exist, reason, based on gender, among other things. So, if the state can't prove a reason, to deny privileges to people based on gender, they can't make that particular law.Now, put it together. If two gay people want to enter a contract, and the state tells them they can't, because of the gender of one of the parties, THAT'S A BIG NO NO.

Also, the logic that gay people are free to marry, just as you are, i.e they're free to marry one of the opposite sex, is the EXACT same defense that Virginia used in their defense, again just turn gender to race.

The court ruled, AGAINST that logic.

Second, you have an implied right to privacy, mostly through the 9th and 4th Amendments. In a the SCOTUS case Lawrence v Texas, the court said this...

The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

Third, AGAIN, marriage is a civil contract, that comes with over 1,000 benefits granted by the state. Most of these benefits deal with property, insurance, tax and probate law. Civil unions, do NOT grant equivalent benefits. In order to enter a legal contract, the parties have to have LEGAL CAPACITY FOR INFORMED CONSENT.

Furthermore, marriages are NOT religious, that's Holy Matrimony, which a church can NEVER be forced to perform against its dogma, due to protections in the 1st Amendment. This is why people can, and do, get married any day without ever stepping foot in a church.

Also, marriage has NOTHING to do with procreation. After all, we let people have kids OUTSIDE of marriage, and NOT have kids while married.

Fourth, there are very few limited reasons for the government to discriminate in law, against one of these protected classes, and in order to do so, the government has to pass the test of strict scrutiny, which is that compelling state interest mentioned in Lawrence v Texas.

There's also a little something called The Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution, which states that each state has to recognize and respect the legal matters of every other state. Therefore, leaving this up to the states DOESN'T work, because if you get married in CA, the Constitution states that NC, who has a state amendment AGAINST gay marriage, has to recognize the marriage contract from CA. Now, how do you suggest THAT works? Also, NO we don't leave civil rights up to a majority vote. We're a Republic, meaning the rights of the minority are protected from the whims of the majority. See above for ALL the NUMEROUS reasons this IS a civil rights issue.

So....

The real question, those making the case for continuing the gender based discrimination of DOMA is, what is that compelling state interest? And before we start talking about marrying appliances, nephews, sheep, or dead people, consider this...

We live in a free society, which means your "slippery slope" is only applicable when you want to expand government power, NOT when you're expanding rights. Ergo, the slippery slope actually works AGAINST the anti-equality argument. It's more logical and legally correct to say that banning marriage based on gender, could lead the government to presume they have the power to ban marriage based on other protected classes, i.e. race or religion.

And then ask yourselves this...

Why doesn't STRAIGHT marriage lead to any of that? And the answer is ALSO the answer as to why gay marriage won't lead to those things.

And technically, the burden of proof is on those limiting rights, (the anti-marriage equality folks), so you all should really be making the case, not us.

I mean seriously, we've been over this SOOOOOO many times. You'd think that some of you would have either gotten it, or presented a valid argument by now. Alas, we're still waiting.

Steve,

We don't have to present a compelling state interest in ALLOWING gay marriage, as we're expanding rights. The government has to produce a compelling state reason for NOT allowing it. ItIs, knows this, as I've told It 1,000's of times. :)

So Sarah and Broke back mountain Steve- then it's ok with you two if brother and sister marry and have children? It's ok with you if one guy marries three women and have kids. It's ok with you two if father and daughter marry and have children? How about the three guys wanting to marry, that is ok with you two also? If we are going to open the door to sick stuff, then lets go all the way.

Michael,

I mean, did you even read the post before responded?

So Sarah and Broke back mountain Steve- then it's ok with you two if brother and sister marry and have children?

Why doesn't straight marriage lead to incest? Why is changing the gender of a party in a contract going to lead to the repeal of incest laws? Why can't a brother and sister marry now?

There's your answer for that one.

It's ok with you if one guy marries three women and have kids. It's ok with you two if father and daughter marry and have children? How about the three guys wanting to marry, that is ok with you two also?

Why doesn't straight marriage? After all, polygamy is traditionally a MAN with numerous WOMEN, ergo it has MORE in common with hetero marriage. This would be a valid argument IF gay marriage had to do with the NUMBER of PARTIES in a marriage contract. It doesn't. It has to do with the GENDER of parties in a marriage contract. Why would changing one of the genders in a contracting party lead to the repeal of our current polygamy laws.

There's your answer to that one.

You do realize, that the statutes outlawing both polygamy and incest, have nothing to do and are not linked in anyway to DOMA or gay marriage. There separate entities. And read my first post to understand why the slippery slope doesn't work here.

And God bless Steve, he seems like a great guy, but he ain't Jake Gllyenhaal or Heath Ledger. Sorry buddy! :)

Next.

"One" in post 6.8 wrote one item after a bunch of irrelevancies; " This is a very dangerous/deadly lifestyle choice..."

Its really too bad you promoted your invincible ignorance, dishonesty, and bigotry in such a public forum. Especially, when such rubbish has been shown to be false multitudes of times.

You would have gotten respect for saying you were personally bothered by gay, and bisexual, sexuality. In your writings you've demonstrated nothing but contempt for fellow Americans with the busted drooling idiocy you closed with. In light of your demonstrated contempt I will reflect your attitude right back to you.

Please show me the "checklist" you were presented with before you were a twinkle in your parents eyes where you could make myriad choices concerning; place of birth, parents, intellect, body type, hair and eye color, skin color, sexual orientation amongst myriad other things.

Neither I, nor anyone I know, has ever been presented with choices to make. It would have been easier if I had been born into a wealthy family in some ways. Too bad I had no such option.

Then again, everything I've accomplished in my life I've done myself. Nothing was handed to me. Many others have done what I've done based on hard work.

I'm not angry at you. I don't even hold you in contempt. What I do have for you is abject sorrow and pity.

What is the majority cause of teenage pregnancy? The objections of superstitious parents against myriad aspects of education.

What's a hefty part of the spread of HIV-see above. See also male/female intercourse after one partner was infected when another had intercourse when s/he wasn't aware of being infected. Yes, there have been incidents where others were deliberately infected.

Other aspects of things show in the main part of your post which is told over and over and over again-even when they've been objectively demonstrated false-ad nauseum.

If you're female, do recall its been until relatively recently, the ladies have escaped being property. Many Republican legislators are stridently working to rescind this and shift back towards a theocracy. Of course, what the Bible has to say is immaterial. (It, and every other tome, is immaterial anyway since the US is not a theocracy).

If a theocracy is what you desire-feel free to select from one of those mid-eastern "garden spot" nations. Iraq would be a fantastic selection for you, as would Saudi Arabia. The US isn't a theocracy, nor was it set up to be one. The Founding Fathers were quite aware of the inhumanity of said states. Such were current affairs and/or recent history. The mid-east continues to objectively demonstrate the same state of affairs.

Many of the insanely stupid idiocies have been demonstrated to be of no more substance than a "rancid pickled egg" fart.

Would be theocrats simply recycle the same stupidities with a different name in the target slot. It was done via "mixed race" marriages until it was overturned in the mega ironic 1967 (iirc) case of "Loving vs. Virginia".

Marriage isn't for procreation purposes. Many couples choose not to have children, or cannot. There are those who are widowed/widower/divorced who again marry who are too old to have children.

If folks like you legislated and enforced the above procreation requirement in male/female marriages; you'd have a bit of an argument, but not much. Female pairings can become pregnant via "turkey baster" or the "old fashioned" way. Male parings can via sympathetic female(s) or surrogate mothers.

Folks have made excellent arguments on how a gay brother among brothers can enhance the survival of familial genes. If you're interested they can be read on the net.

Sarah-3043284

Love ya ;-) thanks.

To the narrow mined,

I am a proud gay man and I am married to another man. My husband & I are not ashamed of who we are or who we love.

I'll say it again so you can understand....With a heterosexual divorce rate of over 51% I suggest you take a good hard look at why your marriages are failing before trying to dictate who should be married.

Sarah., # 6.39.

Re:

In the Supreme Court case Loving v Virginia, SCOTUS ruled that,

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

I truly wish everybody would stop using that one. Your existence, as everybody else, came from a pairing of two opposite genders, regardless of what floats your boat.

Species SURVIVAL is very easy to figure out. Three of each gender, all fertile & health. Three islands, exactly the same but separated by too great a distant to cross.

Two men on island one. Two women on island two. One man and one women on island three.

Any guesses in a hundred years which island would have a living existence and surviving human species upon it.

So one could interpret the Justice as saying that there is a govt need for producing couples. That would exclude same gender couples.

Expected better legalese.

So one could interpret the Justice as saying that there is a govt need for producing couples. That would exclude same gender couples.

Under the First Amendment, one could say that, but one would be wrong. Civil rights are not predicated on biology, or any capacity to reproduce. It's irrelevant to our fundamental existence and survival as individuals. If it weren't, then there would be a requirement for fertility testing, and the infertile would be banned from marrying. Which would be just as absurd.

Myown,

Marriage has NOTHING to do with procreation. This one is easy. There is no obligation to procreate when you get married. There is no government expectation of it. If there was, why do we allow infertile people to marry? Why do we allow people who are too old to have children to marry? Why do we allow people to marry who don't want and never have children? Where on the marriage license does it say anything about procreation? Why aren't people who marry forced to procreate?

Also, people who AREN'T married can and do procreate.

Also, GAY people can procreate. Gay doesn't mean "infertile". They can still fertilize eggs and carry children in their wombs.

So one could interpret the Justice as saying that there is a govt need for producing couples. That would exclude same gender couples.

No one couldn't. For ALL of the reasons I listed above.

Regardless of your stance on the issue, do you see the bigger problem here? Obama once again is deciding what laws to enforce and what laws not to enforce

@The People's Voice ... the article's statement is wrong. Find any reputable source where the Obama administration has announced that it will not ENFORCE DOMA. You can't.

Marriage has NOTHING to do with procreation. This one is easy. There is no obligation to procreate when you get married. There is no government expectation of it. If there was, why do we allow infertile people to marry?

@Sarah ... procreation as an argument against marriage equality is so easy to refute that one has to wonder why people even bother using it. I guess it is proof of the lack of valid arguments against marriage equality that they are forced to recycle the same excuses over and over again.

myownthoughts56 - I truly wish everybody would stop using that one. Your existence, as everybody else, came from a pairing of two opposite genders, regardless of what floats your boat.

Maybe you should stop using procreation as an argument, since the supreme court already ruled in Turner v Safley that the right to marry has nothing whatsoever to do with procreation?

There is nothing in the law that states a man and woman are obligated to procreate within that union to qualify for said union. Furthermore, procreation is not limited to being married. LGBT people are created by biologic reproduction. Gay people cannot reproduce with a same sex partner. Yet, there are more and more gay people coming out. These are the inevitable truths.

1. Procreation is not limited to marriage.

2. Procreation is not a mandate or obligation of marriage.

3. Gay people cannot reproduce with their partner, therefore, do not create more gay people.

4. Gay people come from heterosexual mating.

The idea that procreation and marriage have a unifying tie is not true and does not pass the litmus test for barring gay people from marriage.

Tim 6.48; Sarah 6.49; Barry 6.51; skerkk 6.52; rossj 6.53:,

NOT ON POINT. please re-read the post. An ON POINT counter would be to rationally refute the Justice's comment that marriage was... fundamental to our very existence and survival.... Which of course would remove it as a needed....Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,.

Several of you deflected into the worthless and silly. Please ask yourself honestly what the Justice meant by their statement in the decision.

Factually, a homosexual couple does nothing for the continuance of existence or survival of the human species WITHOUT outside assistance. It is called biology.

Once again, a bad citation as it allows the opposite interpretation for the discussion herein.

Sarah: By the time the bar screws 'esq' on to you, you will be able to 'do' exactly that upon command (once the check clears). I'd like to use an 'lol', but I can't.

MyOwn,

NOT ON POINT. please re-read the post. An ON POINT counter would be to rationally refute the Justice's comment that marriage was... fundamental to our very existence and survival.... Which of course would remove it as a needed....Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,.

No that wouldn't be on point, because the justice who wrote Loving v Virginia wasn't thinking about same sex marriage, so whatever his reasonings behind that comment, they are moot. Procreation played no part in the argument as it was about race.

Since none of us ARE the justice, ALL of us, including you, would be doing nothing but speculating. What is a FACT is that the justice who wrote the opinion NEVER specifically mentioned procreation. What is a FACT is that procreation is NOT a necessary or legal obligation to marry. What is a FACT is that procreation is NOT dependent upon marriage. We can and do reproduce everyday WITHOUT marriage involved and if marriage disappeared tomorrow we'd STILL procreate. What is a FACT is the case Skrekk cited...

Because the Turner Court struck down a marriage ban that applied to a population with no legal right to procreate and that provided an exception for pregnancy, the decision undermines any claim that marriage is fundamental because of an inexorable connection to procreation.

http://www.yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-journal/comment/divorcing-marriage-from-procreation/

I'm sorry, but you're flat out wrong about this one. All you have to do is ask yourself yes or no, to the following questions...

Is procreation a requirement for marriage?

Is procreation possible outside of marriage?

If the answers are no and yes, than there is no point of even discussing it, because until procreation is a legal requirement of marriage and totally dependent upon marriage, whether or not two married people can, will or do have children is not our business. Why is it not of concern to you that infertile people can marry then? They can't have children either.

Well first of all I support them repealing DOMA. The US Government has no business defining marriage nor creating one protected class of citizens (married vs non-married). The religious overtones of the word "marriage" needs to be stripped out of government and relegated to religious institutions only.

Marriage from the governments point of view should simply be an agreement between two human adults on sharing communal property and living as a single unit, nothing more. So if two homosexual people desire to attach themselves to each other in an official capacity then there should be nothing stopping them from doing so.

Now for all you bickering about HIV infections, there is a reason it's higher as a percentage amongst gay men yet lower amongst gay women. It has to do with the mechanism that HIV uses to infect the host in the first place. It's primary vector is male seminal plasma. The inside of the vaginal wall is permeable and hormones from inside the seminal plasma actually enter into the blood stream that way. HIV likes to hitch a ride through that mechanism. A similar situation arises in the anus though microscopic tears. As the skin on the penis is rather tough (relative to the inside of the vagina and anus) it's incredibly unlikely (but not impossible) for a female to infect a male.

Because of this males are the primary carriers of the virus, an infected male has a high chance of infecting another male or female. An infected female has a very low chance of infecting another male and a near zero chance of infecting another female.

This results in different categories of danger that seem based on sexual orientation but really are based on how many males are involved. Male homosexuals are the highest category followed by bisexuals then heterosexuals then homosexual females. Because homosexuals occupy both ends of the spectrum you have to be VERY careful when reading statistical data.

Sarah, 6.55,

Lord you love swing 'em. But it is more important to strike the target.

You should not have used a decision that had little to do with the discussion, a moot point as you said.

We do know the thoughts they put into words on a page, it is our history and case law.

Yes, Turner is a better 'on point' for homosexual marriage, you did not use that case, for whatever reason. Skrerkk is pretty good, eh.

Your questions: No, not now. Of course, that has not always been the case, has it.

Yep, always has been. Just proves biology is more relevant than law. (zing)

Now, questions for you Sarah (1) who had the better citation, Sarah or skrerkk? (2) per my previous post, can a member of the shyster guild defend or promote either side of a case. (double zing)

You should not have used a decision that had little to do with the discussion, a moot point as you said.

Both Turner and Loving are directly on point. Loving because it deals with marriage between protected classes, race in the case, gender here. And Turner, because it allowed for marriages where procreation wasn't a possibility, which is your whole case.

Loving is ALSO applicable because of the argument that FAILED, that being that a ban on interracial marriage was legal, because everyone had the right to marry anyone of the same race. That is the SAME argument put forth by the anti-equality crowd, that DOMA is legal because everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

It will be Loving that is used as precedent to strike down DOMA. Turner can be used against your claim about procreation.You're mushing it together when it's two different arguments. One for actually striking down DOMA, and one to dispute your claim that procreation is a reason for maintaining DOMA.

My guess is the procreation argument won't even be brought up in the case against DOMA, because Turner is current "good law" and any attorney know that argument will fail immediately. It's presented here to you, because you persisted with this argument.

Your questions: No, not now. Of course, that has not always been the case, has it.

Yes it has always been the case. Please show me when procreation was a legal obligation for marriage, and that a marriage certificate and recognition was dependent on procreation.

Yep, always has been. Just proves biology is more relevant than law. (zing)

Wrong. Since it's always been possible outside of marriage, it's never been dependent on marriage. Making it moot.

And you didn't answer the most important question...

Why is it not of concern to you that infertile people can marry then? They can't have children either.

Sarah # 6.58

Yep=yes and was in response to ...

"Is procreation possible outside of marriage?"

mis-communications ?

MyOwn,

Grrrrr, this one...

Why is it not of concern to you that infertile people can marry then? They can't have children either.

And how did The Invisible War NOT win the Oscar??? Now I'm extra pissy.

It's always interesting to see the many, and so different, interpretations of the law. It can always be interpreted to meet their agenda.

KWilson,

By all means, let's hear YOUR interpretation of the law. What is YOUR legal argument for maintaining DOMA. Or do you just play the part of "Peanut Gallery" really well?

Sarah, re: 6.60,

Doesn't concern me, unless it was my marriage. But I've got a great divorce lawyer Henry Rex Eight, I've never paid alimony. He himself has divorced quite a few times, never heard a single bad word about him from his Ex's either. nor mine come to think about it.

As we all know, its always the the girl's fault when a son isn't produced. Just ask Hank.

English law of the 1500s to the early 1700s allowed divorce of a wife in favor of the mother of a bastard son to maintain a family name.

Hebrew/Jewish law, extending to before Christ, allowed for the divorce of a barren wife after ten years. Actually used the term 'duty' on that one.

Had to wiki your movie to find out about it. One simple word 'fragging', tossing of a fragmentary grenade into an officer's tent. Pissing off Sarah gets you yelled at, with dozens of links. Pissing off combat arms unit warriors carries a bit higher price. Going after one is going after all, military calls it 'unit cohesion'. There is no nice way to put this, the military is a boys club based on violence and domination. The majority of women have only one purpose for the troops. Its not nice or legal, but those men are necessary to the ultimate mission of the military, women not so much. Sorry . But did you think the cops invented the 'blue code'. They just changed the color name.

kkwilson,

Please excuse Sarah, her movie didn't win an Oscar.

I think you are correct, otherwise all SCOTUS decisions would be 9-0.

MyOwn,

Ah ah ah, while English common law from the 1500's-1700's is interesting, we're talking American law here. Also, of COURSE marriage wasn't dependent upon the ability to procreate, as they had no IDEA back then if someone even could procreate, so while divorce based on procreation was possible, MARRIAGE dependent upon it, was not a legality.

And it was a REALLY good movie. And, by the way men AND women, can be warriors without being rapists. In fact the majority of our warriors AREN'T rapists.

Sarah, # 6.65,

Correct, it was about output, barren wives were considered cursed or worse. First in line for the BBQ.

Haven't seen the movie, or to be honest, even heard of it till now. How did you see it ?

As to the second, when women enter the elites by their own merit, then yes they may claim 'warrior'.

Last bit, correct. But it still doesn't change how the others in a unit feels about their fellow warrior. Nor would I wish to be the Platoon Lt/Capt in combat after such an incident & conviction. Just too easy to balance the books. Just as you would not expect a Mama to think ill of a child, combat troops are VERY loyal to each other.

Every one here seems to be looking down and talking to there crouches.

Grow up move on , no one, and I mean no one cares what some one else does in bed. Look me in the eyes and get your minds off your mid waist.

Sheep all of you... bahh... move on. Your fixing to pay $4 for a gallon of gas and no one talks about how were all getting screwed at the pump.

Myown,

I saw it on Netflix, which is by FAR the greatest invention ever.

In the Supreme Court case Loving v Virginia, SCOTUS ruled that,

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Funny to see that both political camps seem to have an equally bad understanding of grammar. This statement could be easily re-written while retaining the same meaning:

Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man

Marriage is fundamental to our very existence and survival.

(Let's ignore that the second statement is factually untrue. It was written by lawyers, not scientists.)

Compare this to another frequently misunderstood legal statement, the Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

This statement can be re-written is a very similar way:

A well-regulate militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Just like belonging to an organized militia is not a prerequisite to "keep and bear arms," procreation is not a prerequisite for marriage (or vice versa).

It's a good bet that DOMA will be struck down due to legal precedent.

There sure are many states that are going to need to have a peek at their sodomy laws.

ZappasUtopia - There sure are many states that are going to need to have a peek at their sodomy laws.

All the sodomy laws were found unconstitutional in 2003, in Lawrence v Texas. Some states still have those Christian sharia laws on the books but they're completely unenforceable.

Nor is sodomy remotely relevant to the issue of marriage equality since the state doesn't ask about your sex live prior to granting a marriage license, and both gays and straights engage in sodomy.

The state has no right to make laws in contravention of the constitution. Under the equal protection clause, DOMA and any state that bars two men or two women from enjoying the same rights that one man plus one woman do is a clearly unconstitutional.

and again Bob would be wrong. He sure loves that Obama koolaid bet he drinks it right from the Obama spout!

Hey, when can you say, and I being very sarcastic. Since we have such a powerhouse in the Beltway, especially the Congress and in particular the House of Representatives, that is just tossing out gourds of useful, progressive , innovative solutions to all of our nations problems, from energy, infrastructure, genius level re structuring of our bloated federal government structure, education, health ..you name it. How dare the Obama administration ignore such decisive legislative leader ship and just waste their precious time on such trivial matters? The House has give the administration so MUCH substance and forethought on the issues, just besides saying NO to everything..how dare they?!!!!

House has produced two budgets in two years and 30 jobs bills. Senate will not bring them for a vote. Damned Democrat Senate obstructionists.

Be fair NC#'s.

Those bills and budgets all had the repeal of the AHCA, as well as defunding of Planned Parenthood, defunding of Meals on Wheels, anti contraception, person hood, pushing the Keystone project through, education defunding and many other non related issues.

I do not call 32 attempts at repealing the ACHA as something helpful when trying to pass bills in a Democrat held Senate. It was nothing more than a common tactic of trying to make the other party look bad. They knew they wouldn't be brought to the floor.

Next time, blame both parties. Can't have one without the other.

Thanks NYmike...NC does not think anyone but himself has constructive ideas and I am glad at least you have a balanced rational analysis of the situation. This is the problem, a lack of consensus and agreement to move this country forward. Sigh, this is why I am independent and won't drink the kool aid from either group.

I am surprised that none of the right-wingnut lawmakers in Washington haven't tried to float a Constitutional amendment that changes the line in the Constititution of the United States that is so loved by those wingnuts, "THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL" to "WE WILL DETERMINE WHO IS EQUAL"

If you call Gay Rights a minor issue....and ridicule the govt for spending time on it.

Then you are obviously not gay.

Basic human rights and equality go to the core of a human being. Institutionalized Government bigotry only enables the bigots in the real world to feel they have a stamp of approval.

I am Gay, I did not chose it, but I am totally OK with it now (though that took time in the face of all the bigotry out there) I have been with the same man for over 20 years. That fact has never hurt you. I am also a Christian who volunteers in my Church. I did not elect God to run the US. Morality is about how you treat others and honesty, how you care about the less fortunate and how you give back to your community.

And to the person who bought up bestiality, give me a break...when you can find a cow that gives it's informed consent then we can discuss that. But I have not seen a talking cow outside of a Disney Movie.

It's nice to see that the President of this country and his Attorney General are as good as they are at ignoring as many of them as they can and instead like to concentrate on issues like marriage between two men or two women and the law that was passed by a sovereign state to deal with this issue within their own state boundaries.

@Fed Up ... Actually, the Obama administration is doing just what you want. They're not spending time on defending DOMA. It is actually Republicans in the House of Representatives that you should be complaining about since they're spending taxpayer money to hire private lawyers to defend DOMA.

I am Gay, I did not chose it....etc

That fact has never hurt you. I am also a Christian who volunteers in my Church. I did not elect God to run the US. Morality is about how you treat others and honesty, how you care about the less fortunate and how you give back to your community.

Your obviously not a christian. Does the people at church know your gay? If so, they probably would not support your lifestyle. Why don't you just claim to be an adulterer too while your at it? I'm sure the people at church would understand, right? Trouble is being gay and being a christian don't mix. Same as being an adulterer or a fornicator and saying you are a christian, they don't mix either. Real christians know those people are lying. The bible makes it very clear on sexual sin.

I did not elect God to run the US. Morality is about how you treat others and honesty, how you care about the less fortunate and how you give back to your community.

Your morality is human-made which is fine for you. However, don't bring God into the mix by saying you are a christian.

@8.10, you're not a Christian, at least not as the Bible describes it. This sort of bigotry is not Christian.

And for the record, plenty of mainstream denominations accept GLBT members in their congregation, it's mostly just bigots that have a problem with it.

Jesus was extremely clear that it's not our place to pass judgment. I have to hang my head whenever one of you "Christians" has the temerity to rewrite the Bible to support your own views.

Wasn't the DOMA voted into law by a liberal controlled House of Representatives, a liberal controlled Senate, and signed into law by a liberal President in 1996?

Chris-353472 - Wasn't the DOMA voted into law by a liberal controlled House of Representatives, a liberal controlled Senate, and signed into law by a liberal President in 1996?

Ummmm......no. Sounds like you're a little feeble on your recent history and never heard of the 1994 "Republican Revolution."

DOMA was written by a Republican, passed by a Republican-controlled Congress, and used as a wedge issue in an election year. Clinton saw it as a non-issue at the time since no state had marriage equality at the time so no one was directly affected, but he's since admitted it was the wrong thing to do and that DOMA is unconstitutional.

Even the author of DOMA admits that it's unconstitutional.

Thank MY God, Unhappy doesn't decide who gets to be Christian or not. The arrogance and presumption is enough to turn your stomach.

Guess what, Unhappy... YOU'RE not a Christian. See all of us can do that too.

Sarah, 8.14,

OK, I'm calling BS on this one.

Previously, you stated you have no soul, thus YOU can NOT be Christian, nor then could you determine if one is or not.

Are you flying false colors, are you a Nun or something. lol

I think I'm a perfect illustration of my point. That Unhappy's claim of who is/isn't a Christian has no more weight or authority as ANYONE'S such claim. Even someone as soulless and fond of baby punching as myself can make that claim. :)

Sarah,

Yes, on the i-net anybody can claim anything. However, just like BSA, only the group in question actually decides who is part of their group. As you have self identified yourself as a soulless box-wine swelling heathen, you can only decide who is a lawyer, politician, etc... (zing & zap)

MyOwn,

LOL, burn. Then it's safe to say that Unhappy, having presented herself as a judgmental, highly uninformed bigot, can only decide who a Christian is. That is if Christians are all judgmental, highly uninformed bigots. But I'm guessing that's not true, ergo Unhappy STILL has no authority to decide who is or isn't a Christian. In fact, having maintained a modicum of idealism, against all odds, I might add, I'm willing to bet that Unhappy is the LAST person on earth who can claim to speak for Christians.

Sarah,

I couldn't speak to that, not that judgmental, as I walk to my island estate and convert my Evian into a fine California wine. Not that I would ever be a braggart.

Yup.

What is next marriage between man and animal ????? Society gets sicker every year!

your poem don rime worff ship.

You are correct Viewer_Ready. The Pig is a plant, a paid political blogger, obviously on the MSNBC payroll . Ever wonder why the Pig is always the first one to post any comment on the articles published and always a few follow up comments in line with the White House talking points. Nothing but a political prostitute posing as blogger.

Best thing to do is completely ignore the Pig and don't acknowledge her presence on the net.

Pigsty and fishy Fiesty are just Obama paid bloggers that hit as many sites as they can with the talking points and lies.

I know for a fact Fiesty uses multiple names.

What is next marriage between man and animal ?????

If an animal can give informed consent, I say go for it.

Also, I have never seen a group of people hem and haw about a couple of people so much. To be that obsessed about a couple of posters, speaks volumes about you. To have you lives upended so much that you have to make specific posts about them, is a testament to them, not you.

it is due to two tiny concepts. Individual rights and the will of the majority...they are NOT one and the same , Thank God.

Also, I have never seen a group of people hem and haw about a couple of people so much.

Hey Mike do mean like the Gays? It seems that they hem and haw all the time. Listen how they went off about a comment made by a chicken sandwich. Don't act like it does not work both ways.

Just because my horse can stomp to answer a question or my dog can sit does this mean I can marry it? It can be construed as an answer. Never seen a horse that seems to like having someone elbow deep? Yeah to you it may sound sick but to some it is normal

I agree. Pigotry and Feisty are probably the same person, which is why we don't hear from Feisty on this thread. Both are paid trolls for MSNBC. Still think that MSNBC is delivering FAIR news?

fishman:: When your horse or dog can sign a marriage license then go to it. I've never had a horse that could sign anything-- or a dog that could sign anything either. If my dog could have, I would have had her sign her fortune over to me.

Hey Mike do mean like the Gays?

No. I mean like Viewer_Ready, DaForce, Vern and anyone else that creates a negative post directed at a specific poster. Whether it be them, you or Feisty.

Just because my horse can stomp to answer a question or my dog can sit does this mean I can marry it?

You have no idea what informed consent is, do you? This is, as usual, a poor comparison. If your horse can sign its name and tell others that yes, they do love you, and wish to be with you in front of other witnesses, then I would be your best man and wish you all the luck in the world.

Still think that MSNBC is delivering FAIR news?

No more than I think FOX or any other news outlet does. At least this site doesn't ban the ability to comment on their articles. I would be posting over a FOX too if they weren't afraid of differing opinions.

I agree. Pigotry and Feisty are probably the same person

Their IP addresses say otherwise.

What really cracks me up about the homophobes is that they usually post detailed descriptions of what they think gay people (especially gay men) do in their bedrooms. Methinks they spend a bit too much time fantasizing about this...and don't know what straight people do. They can get pretty creative and have sex contrary to what the bible allegedly teaches.

Also funny is the countless bible thumping preachers with their megachurches who eventually get caught cheating. And blame the other person. Gotta love 'em!

I guess the Bible is out the window too!!! Along with the Constitution****

To Viewer who stated Gays are not a Majority.

Do you know why this land was populated...to protect the rights of the Minority. Basic human Rights do not accrue only to the Majority.

If you are a White Male (Not Hispanic) you are not in the Majority Only about 32% are that

If you are a so-called "Christian" you are not in the Majority 78% Identify as such but only 32% say they attend Church and I am willing to bet a percentage of them do so more for business contacts and social or a feeling of obligation more than actual piety.

Be careful the only majority in this country is human beings.

Why do you people focus so much on Feisty or Pigotry? You dwell on them, give it a break.

By your own actions you reveal they they own you.

Why do you people focus so much on Feisty or Pigotry? You dwell on them, give it a break.

By your own actions you reveal they they own you

Frankly True: Feisty and Pigotry are paid trolls in order to get you to react. Don't believe me, why did you stop to address them then? Does that mean they own you?

What really cracks me up about the homophobes is that they usually post detailed descriptions of what they think gay people (especially gay men) do in their bedrooms. Methinks they spend a bit too much time fantasizing about this...and don't know what straight people do. They can get pretty creative and have sex contrary to what the bible allegedly teaches.

Kathy:

No, what is surprising is that gays don't like to leave anything alone if you don't agree with them. For example, Chick- fil-A, Boys scouts of America, Military, marriage act, teaching kindergardners about our alternate lifestyles, super heroes have to be gay now, etc....

The list can go on and on....... and all you hear are positive things about gays. Never once do you hear that gays have a higher rate of spreading HIV, account for 1/3 of all pedophile cases even though they are only 4 % of the population, etc.

And you definetly won't hear about it on MSNBC.

@9.16

It has nothing to do with agreeing with us, it has to do with sticking up for our rights against those that would relegate us to being 3rd class citizens in our own country.

But, then again, such an obvious bigot isn't going to bother doing any real research into things that might require a bit of open mindedness.

Downhillmore/Your statement of 9-13 is incorrect on both points. You do not state which bible you consider The bible. It is certainly not the New Testament to the K.J.Bible and it is not one influenced by the Christian part. In regards to our Constitution. The formers of it made allowances for the changing needs by giving us the Amendments to it. Fortunately you're views have been allowed for, in you're Constitution!

Frank -

Gays should not have more or better 'rights' than anybody else either, yet it seems that that is the only thing that will make gays happy.

Marriage started out as civil recognition of parentage to protect the progeny of procreation. It needs to be maintained as such. As gays and lesbians cannot procreate (without outside help), why should their unions be recognized as marriages? As far as that goes, it shouldn't be recognized for heterosexuals either if there is no intention of producing progeny.

I can't have children because of medical reasons, so I guess my marriage shouldn't be recognized.

Tammy-311614 - Marriage started out as civil recognition of parentage to protect the progeny of procreation.

Actually it's always been about property and kinship rights. Marriage isn't a license to hhave kids, nor is marriage denied to the infertile or elderly.

No wonder you bigots keep losing in court - you don't even understand what marriage is.

Never once do you hear that gays have a higher rate of spreading HIV, account for 1/3 of all pedophile cases even though they are only 4 % of the population, etc.

Probably because none of that is true. The highest rate of spreading HIV for years has been among heterosexual African American women, and has nothing to do with homosexuality. On other continents, especially Africa, HIV is predominantly a problem for heterosexuals.

And the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual men, like Sandusky. He's actually the archetypal pedophile - the completely heterosexual man's man type, working with young boys.

DownHill,

It has no effect on our society if the Bible is thrown out the window. It's irrelevant.

Vern;

For all we know, "God" picked the universe out of his nose and flung it across time and space.

We've NEVER seen this "God", heard from him - unless you believe the accounts of middle easterners who "claim" to have spoken with him, seen vision of him, and recorded "his word" into a book that has been translated and retranslated time and time again...

Now I dunno about you, but I certainly wouldn't trust anything a middle-easterner said about the divine.

Gays should not have more or better 'rights' than anybody else either, yet it seems that that is the only thing that will make gays happy.

What more or better "rights" are they seeking exactly?

Marriage started out as civil recognition of parentage to protect the progeny of procreation.

Wrong! Marriage has always been a civil function. But it was to protect and distribute property and assets. procreation has never been a function or requirement for marriage, or vice versa!

. As gays and lesbians cannot procreate (without outside help), why should their unions be recognized as marriages?

As I said, procreation is not a requirement for a marriage. Do you apply that same standard to heterosexual couples who either cannot or will not procreate?

As far as that goes, it shouldn't be recognized for heterosexuals either if there is no intention of producing progeny.

You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how ludicrous it may be!

Actually DOMA is a civil rights issue, and thereby, according to the Constitution (or many people's interpretation of it), should not be put up to a vote of the people. That is the basis of the challenges against Prop 8 and all other anti-same-sex state amendments.

Damn right! lets put slavery and keeping the bitches from voting on that ballot while we're at it.

Cling tight to those beliefs since your on your way to being a minority and sure won't want any of your rights put on a ballot in the next century when your kind is on it's way to extinction