Posting Shortly: State Sen. Says CSCOPE Will be Yanked in Texas

As Heard on Beck Radio: Wait Until You Read that Poem By One of Those Punished for Benghazi Lapses

Faith

Here’s Where Obama, Romney & the States Stand on Gay Marriage — & Why It’s Important

Sep. 25, 2012 3:20pm Billy Hallowell

(TheBlaze/AP) — Gay marriage is one of the nation’s most complicated and divisive issues. On one aspect of whether same-sex couples should have the right to marry, both sides agree: The issue defines what kind of nation we are. Half a dozen states and the District of Columbia have made history by legalizing it, but it’s prohibited elsewhere, and 30 states have placed bans in their constitutions.

—

Here’s where the candidates stand:

President Barack Obama supports legal recognition of same-sex marriage, as a matter decided by states — although TheBlaze has documented his history of flip-flopping on the subject. He’s also repudiated the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages and affirms the right of states to refuse to recognize such marriages. The administration no longer defends the law in court, but it remains on the books.

Heres Where Obama & Romney Stand on Gay Marriage & Why Its Important

Photo Credit: Getty

Republican Mitt Romney says same-sex marriage should be banned with a constitutional amendment, not left to states. He also opposes civil unions if they are equivalent to marriage, and says states should decide what rights and benefits should be allowed for same-sex couples.

—

Why it matters:

The debate divides the public down the middle, according to recent polls, and stirs up passionate feelings on both sides. While a recent Gallup poll found that 50 percent of the nation supports gay marriage, 48 percent does not.

Those who oppose it often invoke religious teachings, contending that their faith cannot condone legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples. They worry about conflicts between religious liberty and public policy if gay marriage spreads to more states and gains federal recognition.

Gay-marriage supporters cite examples of devoted same-sex couples — some partners for decades, some raising children — and say it’s unfair to deny them the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Photo Credit: AP

“It’s about what kind of country we are,” said Lee Swislow of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, a Boston-based legal group that has won several landmark court rulings. “Do we treat each other the way we want to be treated?”

The Maryland Catholic Conference recently summed up the views of many who oppose same-sex marriage.

“The average citizen of Maryland has enough common sense to know that marriage cannot be redefined; that a child comes from both a mother and a father; that marriage is the building block of society,” the group said. “It is not discriminatory to reserve marriage for one man and one woman.”

—

Where the laws stand:

As things stand now, same-sex couples face a patchwork of conflicting laws and practices that vary from state to state.

Six states allow same-sex marriage; nine more have civil unions or domestic partnerships that extend marriage-like rights to gays and lesbians.

The federal government, however, doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage, nor do the vast majority of states. Even with an out-of-state marriage license, gay and lesbian couples in those states face uncertainty, extra legal bills and rebuffs that straight couples avoid. Complications can arise with adoptions, inheritances and survivor benefits.

Photo Credit: AP

If legally married in their own state, same-sex couples still must file separate federal tax forms, with separate deductions, even when they’re raising children together and jointly owning property.

This election won’t get rid of that patchwork, but it could have a major impact given that four states have gay-marriage measures on their ballots.

In Minnesota, the vote is whether to put a ban on gay marriage in the state constitution. Voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington state are voting on whether to legalize gay marriage.

Thus far, foes of gay marriage have prevailed in all 32 states where the issue reached the ballot. If that streak is broken in the four states that are addressing it in November, it could provide momentum for supporters, and perhaps even influence the Supreme Court if — as expected — it takes up cases challenging the Defense of Marriage Act.

–

Related:

President Obama Has an Odd History of Flip-Flopping on Gay Marriage

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (135)

perry1980
Posted on September 25, 2012 at 5:07pm
Our country is decaying faster than one could have ever imagined 4 years ago

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DarkJello
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 6:09pm
  Agreed. The list of “rights” never ends. We have drifted far from the founders’ vison.
  
  Report this comment
- fastfacts
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 7:47pm
  And why is it. Because of our politicians, they are not real. That is except maybe Romney. Glenn has let us view a little about Romney’s heart and though we may not agree with all his policies, this is a man of God.
  
  So why are so many people voting for Obama. Could it be partial WHITE GUILT. Now I don’t mean this in a racist way, Ann Coulter put it together quite well on Hannity’s show last night, here she is: http://www.thedailycandidate.com/video/2012/sep/coulter_white_guilt.html .
  
  Are we so compassionate that will will kill ourselves with compassion before helping ourselves up and doing what is best. That is getting rid of Obama…
  
  Report this comment
- sillyfreshness
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 7:52pm
  I don’t believe in gay marriage because of religious reasons, but rather natural reasons. Gays are unnatural and cannot procreate on their own. They are a self terminating relationship. Gay behavior is unnatural and should not be recognized. Moreover, it’s a mental illness. Look at most gays and you see they have gender identity issues. Usually a butch woman trying to look and act like a man or a feminine man. They need hormone therapy rather than recognition and praise. I was taught in school that one of the purposes of marriage is to legitimize children. Since gays cannot naturally have children by the very nature of their relationship, there is no need for them to be married.
  
  Report this comment
- v15
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 8:10pm
  @Sillyfreshness, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder until the early to mid 70s where enough psychiatrists and gay were able to get it removed from the DSM. Like you, I don’t feel that homosexuality is wrong just for religious reasons, but for obvious reasons that same-sex couples cannot produce children. I think we were all born heterosexual – we never chose to be heterosexual because we are all heterosexual by birth. But people can go against their instincts, let environmental factors change how they think, and basically become animals.
  
  Report this comment
- TeresaJ
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 8:20pm
  @ sillyfreshness
  
  You just summed up my entire feelings on the subject pretty well.
  
  Report this comment
- black9897
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 9:18pm
  I disagree with it morally, although Government should not determine who should and shouldn’t marry, so while I wish government wasn’t involved in marriage, but since it is it would be unfair and hypercritical of me to be against legally allowing gay marriage.
  
  Report this comment
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 9:28pm
  Ah so when religion is classified as a mental disorder, where you care what they say?
  
  It is irrelevant whether or not you think it’s moral or right, or natural.
  
  Fact is, you are denying someone the same ability you have.
  
  Just because you think something is wrong, doesn’t give you Constitutional grounds to outlaw it.
  
  Report this comment
- TeresaJ
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 10:19pm
  @ ModerationIsBest
  
  First off, our government is based on the groundwork of religious principle (go ahead and call me on that; I’ve half a dozen quotes ready, some of which I already posted in another thread here today), so your comment is backwards.
  
  Second, I am not denying someone the same ability I have. I have the ability to bear children with my husband. A homosexual couple does not. Take that up with God.
  
  Liberals have managed to skew the term “equality” into rediculous proportions that are neither true nor condusive to society. It’s time to put that term back into context. I am of no better station than you, and you are of no better station than me. That is it. Simple.
  
  A woman is not equal to a man, and a homosexual couple is not equal to a heterosexual couple. An apple does not equal an orange.
  
  Report this comment
- Dman626
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 10:40pm
  @MODERNATIONISBEST – Let’s assume for a moment that you are a straight male and I am a gay male. The law does not allow me to marry a male. The law does not allow you to marry a male. The law does allow me to marry a female. The law does allow you to marry a female.
  
  We are both treated exactly equally under the law. The law does not discriminate against me at all (let alone by reason of my sexual preference.) You cannot claim discrimination simply because you don’t like your choices.
  
  Report this comment
- MontaraMissileMan
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 10:41pm
  @Teresaj: Congrats on being able to quote our founders on their religious beliefs. They also instituted a government that was designed to recognize no religious views over another so that everyone could be allowed to practice their beliefs as they saw fit without fear of persecution. (I’ve got quotes for that, just like you. Some of mine are even quoted from legally binding sources.)
  
  Homosexuals have a Natural Right to Liberty and the right to practice their religious beliefs as they believe them as long as they don’t interfere in the rights of others. If their beliefs say that they can marry, where is it going to impact your rights to the point that it must be outlawed to protect your rights? (Also, as I’ve quoted elsewhere tonight, the 9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”)
  
  Your stance is denying legal rights to couples who have just as much LEGAL claim to them as you and your husband do. In a genetic/nature sense a man and woman may not be the same, but legally they are equals because they are humans guaranteed Natural Rights and the same protections under constitutional law.
  
  Marriage laws are designed to be discriminatory and have always been meant to give government control over the legal identity of marriage and deny the rights of the individual. Get them out of it and leave everyone to their own beliefs. It is theocratic rule otherwise.
  
  Report this comment
- MontaraMissileMan
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 10:52pm
  @DMAN there’s one problem with your law though. Your law states that your religion based definition of a a multi-faith cultural institution is the correct one and shall be the one that confers a set of special legal benefits not available to others. What makes your definition of marriage the correct one that we should use as the legal standard?
  
  Report this comment
- colt1860
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 11:13pm
  “Fact is, you are denying someone the same ability you have.”
  
  LOL. BS. And so begins the illogical, twisted liberal arguments… They have every right, and as much a right as I have, to marry a woman. I have a right to marry a woman, so do they. No rights are being denied to them. I can’t marry my mom, so can’t they. I can’t marry my sister, so can’t they. I can’t marry my dog, so can’t they.
  
  Report this comment
- colt1860
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 11:18pm
  “What makes your definition of marriage the correct one that we should use as the legal standard?”
  
  Right back at you. Nature doesn’t support yours. Natural laws doesn’t support yours. Natural rights don’t even recognize yours. The US Supreme Court doesn’t even support yours. Yours, simply put, is a radicalization and perversion of an ancient, natural institution.
  
  In the 1885 Utah Territory case of Murphy v. Ramsey, the United States Supreme Court recognized the fundamental importance of the traditional institution of marriage:
  
  “For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.”
  
  Report this comment
- MontaraMissileMan
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 11:23pm
  @Colt: Again, I ask the question, what makes YOUR definition of marriage the correct one over another religion’s for conferring the special legal statuses given by a marriage?
  
  Report this comment
- colt1860
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 11:32pm
  I already answered your question. Marriage is not necessarily defined by religion. It has its basis in law, civilization, and morality. Hom-sexuality has never been supported, or better put, advanced or improved any of the three.
  
  Report this comment
- MontaraMissileMan
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 11:38pm
  @Colt, You’re right, nature doesn’t recognize gay marriage, because marriage is a man made concept. Nature does have numerous examples of homosexual activity among animals. (Hey, look at that Wikipedia has an entire entry on it, that was easy to find… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals)
  
  Natural Rights also allows for it. Because people are free to engage in relationships freely among each other and can create legally binding contracts in a free-society by exercising their rights of Liberty and Property to create a special relationship.
  
  Old supreme court decisions are sometimes hard to deal with, especially because so many supreme court decisions have been based upon political reasoning and the beliefs held at the time (*cough* Obamacare ruling, or the 3/5ths clause *cough*). Does an almost 130 year old court ruling about marriage law really hold up today? Should it? Our culture, knowledge, and beliefs as a species and as a people have changed significantly during that time. Should we as a people look at that and re-evaluate what we believe based upon what we know?
  
  I have, I re-evaluated my beliefs on this because I asked why government should be defining marriage and whether or not it was correct to do so. My beliefs on marriage shouldn’t be imposed upon you as your shouldn’t be imposed upon me.
  
  There should also be the question as to whether or not government should even be involved in the process in the first place.
  
  Report this comment
- MontaraMissileMan
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 11:46pm
  And sorry for the repeat question, I was responding before your second comment posted.
  
  Report this comment
- MinorityRightsAdvocate
  Posted on September 26, 2012 at 12:32am
  @Montar.. So if you are saying man is no different that a beast… Then I can see where you come from, but I disagree. Man IS different from beast. While we have a tendency to engage in beastlike behavior, it is NOT who we are supposed to be. Just because some animals are ****, does not mean we humans should accept it as normal or healthy. If you do, fine, so long as it affects no one else, and harms no one else, but as soon as it DOES affect others, like forcing them to ACCEPT your choices, then I and everyone else gets a say, and we may well say NO.
  Animals also procreate with their sisters, brothers, moms, dads etc. They simply act out of instinct, but we HUMANS are supposed to use our brain and learned experience to know that is NOT good, and we should know that exits are exits, only, and certain parts have a designed or natural purpose, and we should accept that and not act like beasts.
  
  Report this comment
- colt1860
  Posted on September 26, 2012 at 12:49am
  LOL. You refer to animals? LOL. We’re HUMAN; that’s another species. Heck, lets look at how flowers procreate if we’ll be using that sort of persuasion… Can I also start barking in Court like a dog when speaking to the Judge, just because dogs are unable to communicate in a distinguished, advanced or developed vocal language?
  
  Do you understand the concept of Natural Law, from which Natural Rights are recognized? You seem very ignorant and illogical in your responses. You’re all over the place. Natural Law does not recognize any natural right for a man to marry his mother, his toaster oven, or his dog Pete. People are NOT free to engage in any relationships freely among each other. My uncle can NOT marry my six year old cousin. Society nor natural law sanctions or permits that. You can’t lump everything into Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness and call it a night. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Maniac’s version of “happiness” is not exactly society’s or the Law’s version.
  
  Does an almost 130 year old court ruling about marriage law really hold up today? Should it? Did you really just ask that? Yeah, let’s throw out McCulloch v. Maryland because they’re too dated… LOL.
  
  “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.” James Madison
  
  Marriage has always been recognized, PROTECTED, and preserved in Law.
  
  Report this comment
- The Giver
  Posted on September 26, 2012 at 1:31am
  @Montara- As a libertarian and a Christian, I understand what you say. But have you seen what is happening in France? Now they want to ban using the words mom and dad. The newspeak is Parents so no gay couple will be offended. These are some of the things that ripple out of control and many folks are not willing to go down that road. Pastors getting questioned why they won’t marry a gay couple….Some extremists in the gay community give other gay people a bad name. May God guide us all.
  
  Report this comment
- USA DJ
  Posted on September 26, 2012 at 1:55am
  So right. It started with don’t ask don’t tell being banned in our military. I knew then that Obama would change his tune on this just as he has on everything else he lied about when he was elected. This goes against our principals and our Christian founding. Such a discrace.
  
  Report this comment
- Dman626
  Posted on September 26, 2012 at 8:55am
  @MONTARAMISSILEMAN part 1 – Fair enough. As long as we agree that the law is NOT discriminatory, and that this is NOT a Civil Rights issue, we can then move on to debate whether or not the law is acceptable in modern society.
  
  Before we delve into the nuances of this issue, I can already see that we will eventually be debating Moral Relativism…. your ‘moral code’ is just as good as mine, and vice versa. That is a debate that’s been going on for thousands of years and we’re not going to solve it here on The Blaze message board. It is a view that is diametrically opposed to the founders’ view.
  
  I would argue first, as others have on here, that Nature’s Law is pretty obvious that homosexuality is an abnormality at best… it is a trait and feature that does not further the propagation of the species. It utilizes bodily organs in ways they were not designed to be used. While it may exist from birth, it does so as an abnormality, (To skip way ahead, it seems to me that what Homosexuals really want is for the rest of society to be forced to codify in law that they are, in fact, perfectly normal. This is their primary political motivation. They want to be deemed normal… against Nature’s Law.)
  
  Note that being gay, and engaging in homosexual acts, is NOT illegal in this country. You are absolutely free, by law, to do anything you want with another consenting adult. (This is quite different from other countries.)
  
  Report this comment
- Dman626
  Posted on September 26, 2012 at 9:05am
  @MONTARAMISSILEMAN part 2 – There are obviously dozens of different types of human interpersonal relationships. Friends, lovers, strangers, enemies, etc… There are different types of friendships. One to many, many to many, one to one. I could go on.
  
  What we are talking about is one specific type of human relationship… a loving relationship between one man and one woman that consists of dedication of and between the two presumably until death do them part, sexual intimacy, and logistical cooperation. This is the only relationship that BOTH a) has potential to lead to procreation AND b) has potential to provide a stable environment for nurturing of the youth.
  
  Other relationships may provide one or the other, but this is the only one that provides both. Now, before we go off into the argument that so many others are defiling the sanctity of marriage argument… which is a good one to have… first let me ask this:
  
  Does a society have the right to bestow certain privileges upon those who wish to enter into a certain type of relationship? Especially if its that type of relationship that can provide both procreation and rearing? Why should those same privileges have to be bestowed to every other type of relationship?
  
  Report this comment
- black9897
  Posted on September 26, 2012 at 10:33am
  @COLT1860
  
  While I understand what you mean by they have the right to marry a woman like I do, that still is not the same. A gay guy doesn’t want to marry a woman, he wants to marry a man and can’t, so he actually doesn’t have the same right to marry who he wants. It’s like if I said I wanted to marry “Ashley” but was only allowed to marry “Amy.”
  
  Report this comment
- colt1860
  Posted on September 26, 2012 at 12:51pm
  @black9897 Not so. A Pedo doesn’t want to marry Ashley who is twenty but Amy who is twelve. Marriage and Law or Natural law doesn’t give me or the h-mosexual the right to marry whomever we want. I can’t marry my mom or sister, no matter how badly I “wanted” to. Love or desire does not define Law or make exceptions.
  
  Report this comment
- black9897
  Posted on September 26, 2012 at 1:06pm
  @COLT1860
  
  Yes, but someone who is twelve is not an adult therefore cannot consent. That’s irrelevant. Since the government offers benefits to those who are married denying the same benefits to other consenting adults is unfair. Even as much as I disagree with homosexual marriage it has to be the same across the board. It really is no one else’s business who someone wants to marry or be with.
  
  Report this comment
- Chatikh
  Posted on September 27, 2012 at 5:10pm
  The poorly thought out “we have the same rights, we can both marry people of the opposite sex” argument. Anybody can use that reasoning to support gay marriage, since legalizing would expand the rights of everyone, gay or straight. Any straight person would then be able to enter a meaningless marriage with someone of the same sex! Of course, even given the right to marry someone of the same sex, straight people will choose to marry a person they love, of the opposite sex, not someone they can legally marry. Straight people wouldn’t be content with marrying a gender they have no attraction to, its stupid to assume gay people would.
  
  Report this comment
- Chatikh
  Posted on September 27, 2012 at 5:24pm
  @SILLYFRESHNESS
  
  Mental illnesses can be treated, being gay cannot. If you think ex-gay therapy works, look up statistics on how many commit or attempt suicide during or after ex-gay therapy, and then look up all the former ex-gay leaders and researchers recanting and saying it doesn’t work and does more harm than good.
  
  No hormone therapy can fix sexual orientation. If it did, then it would probably already be commonly used for that purpose. Gays didn’t get rights because of some conspiracy, they got them because they could prove that they can’t change. And that it’s less ethical to try to change it than to accept it, again because of the actual mental illnesses caused by ex-gay therapy.
  
  And fertility isn’t a requirement for marraige, otherwise infertile men or women would be barred from marriage. And before you say that it’s different, any marriage with an infertile spouse would be based solely on love/mutual attraction and not on producing children. That’s identical to a gay marriage.
  
  Report this comment
binner
Posted on September 25, 2012 at 5:05pm
Put 20 men only (no females) on an island and visit them in 20 years and see if the population increased.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Spqr1
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 5:46pm
  So?
  
  Report this comment
- Kupo
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 6:04pm
  The population argument has been shown time and time again to be fallacious. If the right to get married is based on ability to procreate then sterile, heterosexual couples would be banned from getting married.
  
  Report this comment
- v15
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 8:14pm
  @Kupo, I’m a believer in “vertical” evolution. Even if a person became sterile it still does not change the fact that male parts go with female parts.
  
  Report this comment
- LetFreedomRing
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 9:13pm
  More importantly, how many of them would’ve begun having sex with each other? If ancient Greeks or prisons are any indication the percentage involved with each other would far surpass what is now considered the prevalence. I wonder how that can be if you can only be born gay?
  
  Report this comment
- colt1860
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 9:45pm
  RIGHTS ARE NATURAL. Homosexuals and liberals seek SPECIAL PRIVELAGES and special treatment. There is in our human species only two genders, man and woman. Males were made to mate with females, wherefore a man has a right to marry a woman, likewise the woman has a right to marry a man. They were meant to be. We don’t need a Government or any man made laws to tell us that a man may marry a woman. THAT’S NATURAL. I oppose these radical homosexuals as much as I would oppose any adulterer who would seek special privelages or treatment to be publicly and legally accepted for having a wife, kids, and a mistress or two on the side.
  
  Report this comment
- MontaraMissileMan
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 10:26pm
  And how does them having the right to marry deny you your rights that their right to perform a religious ceremony with each other according to their beliefs must be kept illegal while you are provided full coverage under the law?
  
  9th Amendment:
  “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
  
  Your viewpoint denies 1st amendment religious rights, 14th amendment equal protection based upon creed and violates the individuals’ natural right to Liberty.
  
  Their view just asks to be given equal protection under the law for their religious beliefs.
  
  Which group is performing the evil act here?
  
  Report this comment
- colt1860
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 11:28pm
  LOL.
  
  Our Common Law, that is our ancient rights, liberties, and statutes have always and only accepted one man and one women bound together for life as a legal matrimony. Marriage is not necessarily or exclusive to “religion”.
  
  FYI. Liberty is not defined as anarchy or lewdness, and has never been used as such in our nation. Your liberal use of the word and your preposterous assumptions concerning the word are ridiculous.
  
  A man marrying another man has NO benefit to society. None. In fact, it’s a detriment and health hazard to the public. A woman marrying another woman serves no purpose in society or significant improvement or advancement in human affairs or societal development. In fact, woman or feminists taking charge has made our men weak, destabilized familial authority, and made pansies out of our kids. Our men no longer have the courage and valor to take responsibility actually raise up a stable family. Thanks to the liberals, and militant feminists, men aren’t men and women are women anymore. You guys are extremists, radicals and lunatics.
  
  Report this comment
- MontaraMissileMan
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 11:45pm
  My definition of the word “Liberty” is the same as that of John Locke’s: Everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn’t conflict with the right of Life.
  
  That is the very definition from the source of our form of government. It isn’t anarchy, it is the ability to choose what is best for yourself in this life without interference from an outside source so long as your don’t do damage to others.
  
  A man marrying another man or a woman marrying another woman doesn’t have to have a benefit for society. It is the right of the individuals to make that decision for themselves based upon their beliefs and values. If they decide it is best for them, how does it harm your rights? Why should you be able to impose your will and beliefs upon them?
  
  Report this comment
- MontaraMissileMan
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 11:51pm
  *Correction: So long as it doesn’t interfere with the right to life or another person’s estate/property.
  
  (It’s late and its been a long day so summarizing Locke was surprisingly harder than it should be)
  
  Report this comment
- colt1860
  Posted on September 26, 2012 at 1:11am
  Not so. Locke advocated adherence to UNIVERSAL laws, those which were eternal, that is, undeniably true, and applicable to all men, wherefore making all men equal before them.
  
  Our founding fathers did not create a nation wherein people could do whatsoever they want. They first recognized and laid a foundation that allowed people to do whatever so as long it did not contradict, diminish or destroy the very foundation from which it was allowed. They did not create a pure libertarian state, although their form of Government did tolerate many principles from therein to flourish. Our nation was one highly influenced by Western Civilization and especially protestant Christianity, and therefore did not come out of the blue and suddenly embrace a bunch of new or foreign ideas. The Enlightenment Era purified, tried, improved and hardened ancient ideas. The Enlightenment Era actually acknowledged that the Universe was created with Order, and that man’s mind was instituted with reason and logic that he may find the glory of the Creator therein, that is, that creation could be figured out, for it was systematically ordained, and made with a purpose and intent. This gave evidence to a grand Governor and Ruler of Heaven and Earth; to a Supreme Judge of the World, and of our actions, thoughts and works; and to a grand Legislator over the whole Universe. We were made in the image and likeness of God, that we may also know what is good, just and righteous.
  
  Report this comment
- colt1860
  Posted on September 26, 2012 at 1:13am
  In a letter to Charles Thomson, January 9, 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote regarding his book, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth:
  
  “Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christians.
  
  I have always said, I always will say, that the studious perusal of the sacred volume will make better citizens, better fathers, and better husbands.
  
  1. The doctrines of Jesus are simple and tend to the happiness of man.
  2. There is only one God, and He is all perfect.
  3. There is a future state of rewards and punishment.
  4. To love God with all the heart and thy neighbor as thyself is the sum of all. These are the great points on which to reform the religion of the Jews.
  
  No one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason in its advance toward rational Christianity, and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to what flowed from His lips, the whole world would at this day been Christian… Had there never been a commentator there never would have been an infidel. I have little doubt that the whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator, and, I hope, to the pure doctrines of Jesus also.”
  
  Report this comment
PeteOH
Posted on September 25, 2012 at 5:03pm
In a FREE society made of up over 300 million FREE people that is founded on a Constitution that promotes FREE speech… Someone’s feelings are gonna get hurt. So what! Now they want to redefine marriage to suit them? BS!!!! They have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that straights do. In fact, that right to marry someone of the opposite sex has been around for all of humanity. It’s really nice when a man and a woman actually “love” each other. But it’s NOT a pre-req… So, gays arguing that they have the “right to marry who they love” is BS. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman… Can’t they just redecorate an apartment and live in sin and shut up about it? SHUT UP already!!!! I’m sick of you a@@wipes constantly whining about the rest of us accepting your deviant lifestyle!!! STOP!!! We won’t. But you are welcome to live your life and shut the hell up about it!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Kupo
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 6:05pm
  LOL, I love how you call it a free society, but you’re only free to do what you want so long as you are part of the majority. Too funny.
  
  Report this comment
- PeteOH
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 8:38pm
  Kupo… Be anything you want. But quit trying to put it on society! It’s like someone has an illness, and the only way for them to feel better about it is to infect everyone else. Be gay! I don’t care. In fact, I would fight for gay rights…. So long as they are the same as everyone else’s rights. Marriage is right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Period. There is NO “gay marriage”… It’s invented to pacify them politically and socially. That’s it. They wanna vote, fine! They wanna own property, fine! They wanna start mainstreaming their “condition” as “normal”… NOT fine. They keep drawing these lines and then get mad when someone crosses it. They would serve their cause better just by shutting up about it. They keep trying to play themselves as “normal” and that they are “victims”… Both lines are BS and people are sick of it. According to the 2010 census, they only represent 1.8% of the population. I’m sick of them acting like they are this huge mistreated group. Society is, in fact, mistreated by gays trying to invent rights, equate their conduct to heteros and demanding things. Don’t mistake my tolerance for acceptance.
  
  Report this comment
- MontaraMissileMan
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 10:19pm
  When you use religion to push your belief of what is right and proper you violate the basic Natural Right to Liberty as we are all endowed with by our creator. What makes your religious/proper views about marriage better than theirs? What makes it more proper? How does it violate your rights for a gay couple to be able to have the same rights?
  
  If marriage is a legal institution it must be available to all individuals in a free society equally. If someone’s religion says that homosexuals can marry, why are you able to say that they can’t? It is a right, part of the basic rights the Constitution is there to protect.
  
  The 9th Amendment states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” That’s pretty damn clear to me. IF government is involved in marriage it must be equally afforded to all faiths to support their ideas of what consenting adults are allowed to do.
  
  In the end, what does it matter if polygamists or gays want to get married? How does that violate your rights to Life, Liberty and Property to the point where you are trying to stop them from doing it?
  
  Report this comment
- PeteOH
  Posted on September 26, 2012 at 12:59am
  Again… Redefining anything to suit the goals of a few is simply wrong… Especially based on a rights issue. It’s simply moving the goal post. Marriage has always been between man and woman. They can do their civil union or whatever. Marriage is marriage. In all of human history it’s been this way. Changing it doesn’t hurt my marriage. But it certainly degrades society. The is no societal benefit to gay marriage either. Society, however, does benefit from the bulk of true marriages and the children that they produce. I wonder, to your point, what percentage of couples do not have children…. I bet that it’s super small. So, forgetting the child issue for this discussion, there remains no societal benefit. Plus, face it, it’s a deviant lifestyle. They certainly have the right to engage in it. But society has no obligation to redefine marriage for them to do so. They aren’t denied anything. They simply have to play by the rules… The key rule is that marriage is between man and woman. Adam and Eve… Not Adam and Steve.
  
  Report this comment
- Kupo
  Posted on September 26, 2012 at 1:59am
  I would have no problems with gays just relying on civil unions except for a couple of key issues:
  
  1) Few states even recognize civil unions
  2) Civil unions aren’t recognized nationwide
  3) Civil unions are legally unequal to marriage
  
  Report this comment
- PeteOH
  Posted on September 26, 2012 at 1:17pm
  Again… No rights are being denied. Civil Unions should not be recognized as equal because they are NOT equal. They aren’t supposed to be. It’s like crying foul because a poptart isn’t equal to a steak. States rights is what the Constitution embraced and those States vote on civil unions and marriage. If one State recognizes **** marriage, why should that be inflicted on other States whose voters have said NO? Why don’t homos drop the whole “marriage and civil unions” thing and just live together, decorate and draw up living wills?!
  
  Report this comment
- Kupo
  Posted on September 26, 2012 at 7:46pm
  If you’re all about State’s rights then you should have absolutely no problem with States who recognize gay marriage. See, it goes both ways.
  
  Report this comment
- Chatikh
  Posted on September 27, 2012 at 5:34pm
  @PETEOH
  
  “They would serve their cause better just by shutting up about it.”
  
  You obviously have no idea how social progress works.
  
  If the colonial Americans decided it would serve their cause better by just shutting up about it, there would be no America.
  
  If abolitionists had decided it would serve their cause better by just shutting up about it, it’s very likely there’d still be slavery.
  
  If black activists had decided it would serve their cause better by just shutting up about it, we’d still have racial inequality and segregation.
  
  Nobody gets treated right if they decide it would serve their cause better by just shutting up about it.
  
  Report this comment
Miss Anne
Posted on September 25, 2012 at 5:01pm
These queens really get on my nerves! Go do some makeover show on Bravo and leave decent Americans alone!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
theotherberean
Posted on September 25, 2012 at 5:01pm
Chip chip chip

Next they’ll want to marry their dog.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Walkabout
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 5:08pm
  The slipper slope / falling dominoes argument is true. Polygamists have used the gay marriage issue to say why they shouldn’t be able to live as a polygamous family.
  
  Most such households are welfare cases. They are in Bountiful, British Columbia, they are in Britain & they are here.
  
  Report this comment
vaman
Posted on September 25, 2012 at 4:54pm
Contrary to the first sentence of the story, this is not a complicated issue and only religious zealots make it divisive. Religion should not even be part of the marriage process. It is a legally binding contract and if the contract is ended, there could be financial consequences. If you chose to have a marriage blessed in some religious program, have it at but understand it is a legal contract and nothing more so in any courtroom. No state in the country cares what church you were married in. Anti gay marriage people always want freedom, as long as the freedom fits in to their myopic view of the world, typically dictated by religion. The worst two excuses for anything are “it’s always been that way” and “god says so”. These are childlike answers used by people that can’t legitimately explain why something shouldn’t be or to hide their own bigotry and prejudice.

Like many things in the past, such as slavery, Jim Crow, subjugation of women and even prohibition were all justified using religion, christianity of course. Taking freedom from others because YOU think it’s right. Sounds like the total opposite of freedom, but continue to use your biblical and unfounded justifications if it makes you feel better. There is also the scam going around in ultra right religious circles (such as the Iranian President and christian evangelicals) that gays are all pedophiles, drug addicts or being gay is a choice (just like being straight is a choice too then).

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- vaman
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 4:59pm
  There is no stopping it. Gay marriage will become the law of the land.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 5:10pm
  christianity of course. …
  
  You would say most religions, if you were truthful. But you are not.
  
  Report this comment
- TeresaJ
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 8:31pm
  @ Vaman
  
  You are right this is not a complicated issue. Homoseuals have no natural right to marriage.
  
  Contrary to popular misconception, the purpose of marriage is to continue the family line. Homosexuals cannot do that, therefore they have no standing.
  
  This has nothing to do with slavery, or “subjugation” of women, which, by the way, was initially advanced by God-fearing women, but now the pendulum has swung way too far to the other end.
  
  There are no rights being violated here.
  
  Report this comment
- Max jones
  Posted on September 26, 2012 at 12:54am
  It goes like this….biblical history tells us that infractions of the will of God on national levels brings downfall to said nations. We have historical proof. We are warned that ho*osexuality, as lifestyle, brings individual condemnation, but “sanctioned” acceptance brings national collapse and captivity. But this country already has condemned itself when Roe V. Wade became the law of the land. So, The Christian point of view will continue to fall on deaf ears. It is kind of like rejecting the hemlock after you took the cyanide.
  
  Report this comment
mizzouwendy
Posted on September 25, 2012 at 4:39pm
If you get marriage out of the gov’t, ****’s and hetero’s wouldn’t be saying anything about it. Get health insurance OUT of companies and businesses so that individuals are responsible for their own health insurance instead of companies providing it. I’m still very undecided about gay marriage, Missouri has a constitutional ban against it in my state.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Walkabout
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 5:11pm
  Have no inheritance tax. Have no progressive tax rates & there will be no marriage penalty.
  
  Problem mostly solved at that point.
  
  Report this comment
- MontaraMissileMan
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 10:48pm
  Here’s a good case that helped change my mind on the issue. I realized that I was imposing my beliefs upon others and violating their natural rights by denying them this.
  
  http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/moral-constitutional-case-right-gay-marriage
  
  What I believe a marriage should be should have no bearing upon what you or whom you decide to marry because me imposing my beliefs is an inherent violation of your rights. My religion does not overwrite your religion. Therefore I cannot legislate my morality upon you unless you are doing something that has the direct potential to violate my rights.
  
  Report this comment
lildrummerboy
Posted on September 25, 2012 at 4:11pm
@progressiveslayer..I agree, every election the left tries to trip up candidates in these social issues that get them nowhere in the end. Prior to this election and the last election, candidates were wise enough to avoid the subject and talk about fiscal issues, but not this time. it seems the snares are set and Romney has walked in to them. Our issues are fiscal and national security. one takes care of the other.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Kupo
Posted on September 25, 2012 at 4:09pm
Marriage should not be a legal institution. I’m fairly certain that nearly everybody at The Blaze who opposes gay marriage does so because their religion is against it. If that’s the case, then marriage is between the couple and God, therefore it is up to God whether or not the marriage is valid. Since God is above the laws of men then there is no point in voting on the issue or binding married people together through the law.

The solution? Simple – strike all marriage laws. If a couple wants to be married in the religious sense then they can go to a church or whatever and have their ceremony and pledge their commitment to each other before God (and let it be up to Him whether or not it is valid in His eyes). If a couple wants the benefits that had come with being married then they can now do that with contracts, power of attorney, etc. Remove all tax incentives for marriage. The government shouldn’t be bribing people into getting hitched. I know several couples who have married for tax/benefit-related reasons alone.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Female
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 5:05pm
  I don’t like LGBT because it creeps me out in disgust. I literallty frown with the idea of their purposeful denial and rebellion against their physiological parts. They lust, yes, lust for the same but will often utilize the opposite for continued gratification and always use to become “parents”. It is the second biggest sexual lie, after: of course, I will still love you.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnjV7qIPVsA Paradise by the Dashboard Lights by Meatloaf
  
  While in the military, very young and curious, I asked what they did. I found it to be artificial, like drinking nearbeer, and therefore, stupid. I agreed to go to a gaybar, and I was grossed out. At the time, I was not religious at all. Religiously, it is on a list of inappropriate sexual partners in Leviticulus 18 and mentioned again in Romans 1.
  
  Sorry, I totally disagree. I do not think it is because of God that most people here on tThe Blaze don’t agree with same sex marriage.; if honest most think it is gross and physically wrong. I know we are conditioned to be non-offensive and not hurt feelings but ask them why they aren’t doing it…It is unhealthly, stupid and gross. Plus, there is so much confusion and statistically reported, sex swapping.
  
  I don’t put 2 salt (boys) or 2 pepper (girls) shakers on the table, to be served as “norma spice partneringl”
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 5:14pm
  Female
  Describe the gay bar & what was going on. I want to see 3rd Acorn blush or show no shame. I don’t think they can defend their actions.
  
  Report this comment
- Spqr1
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 5:51pm
  FEMALE: Because you’re referencing Leviticus (try spelling it correctly), do you follow all of it’s rules?
  
  Report this comment
- Spqr1
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 5:51pm
  FEMALE: Because you’re referencing Leviticus (try spelling it correctly), do you follow all of it’s rules?
  
  Report this comment
- Kupo
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 5:55pm
  So now something should be illegal just because it’s gross? There’s lots of gross stuff out there that is perfectly legal. And just who defines gross? That’s a completely subjective thing. Why should your definition of gross trump another’s definition? That is bigotry.
  
  I’m also going to throw the BS Flag on the concept of people not decrying homosexuality based on scripture. If you seriously think that then you must not read the comments here very often.
  
  Why don’t you try giving me a good answer as to why the state should enforce any marriages? Why should it offer special benefits to people because they are married? I, personally, don’t agree with gay marriage (note: just because I don’t agree with something doesn’t mean I think it should be illegal), but I believe that a marriage between two dudes that love each other is far more legitimate than a couple getting hitched just to gain access to dental coverage or a military commissary or an IRS tax break.
  
  Report this comment
- Kupo
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 6:02pm
  Or if you insist on having the government involved in some way, then let marriages be between a couple and God (no legal strings) and have civil unions between couples and the state (strings included)?
  
  That way atheist couples will not be married, they will get civil unions instead. A religious couple could either get married only (therefore no legal strings attached) or get both a marriage AND a civil union (for the religious aspect plus all of the normal legal attachments). Similarly, a gay couple could either just get a civil union or could get married so long as they find a church that agrees to perform the marriage? Dictating to a church who they can or cannot married, especially since said ceremony would have ZERO legal impact, would be a flagrant violation of the 1st Amendment.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 6:21pm
  SPQ1
  Not all of Leviticus rules apply to Christians such as eating shellfish or what materials we can wear.
  Romans that was mentioned tells us what is important. Notice that Romans proscribes homosexuality but not eating Shellfish.
  
  Keep walking the Leviticus hypocrisy dog. We’ll shoot it down every tome. Pretty soon everyone will know it.
  
  Come on now SPQR1 walk the Leviticus hypocrisy dog one more time & this time do it with feeling!
  
  Report this comment
The Third Archon
Posted on September 25, 2012 at 4:00pm
“The average citizen of Maryland has enough common sense to know that marriage cannot be redefined; that a child comes from both a mother and a father; that marriage is the building block of society,” the group said. “It is not discriminatory to reserve marriage for one man and one woman.”
It’s BY DEFINITION discriminatory–you are DISCRIMINATING (i.e. separating into categories of treatment) citizens on the basis of WHOM they want to marry based upon their legal sex. Whether or not it’s JUSTIFIED discrimination is another matter entirely, and that’s the ESSENCE of the debate–but don’t *****-foot around with what is at issue. Own up to the consequences of the policy you are advocating–you don’t think homosexuality and heterosexuality are morally equivocal; intelligent people know better. That’s fine–that’s why we have democracy to debate these things, and figure out who’s wrong.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Walkabout
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 5:05pm
  Homosexuality is a disease & intelligent people know this.
  
  As a libertarian I what they want to do with their money & who they associate with is not my business.
  
  I draw the line as calling it marriage & adoption.
  
  I don’t care who has hospital visiting rights or who inherits your money.
  
  But they have not found a gay gene(s). But economists have proved that homosexuality goes up during hard economic times & goes down in good times. Looks a lot like a considered choice.
  Homosexuality has given us higher rates of sexually transmitted disease than normal & that is about it.
  
  Report this comment
OneTermPresident
Posted on September 25, 2012 at 3:57pm
Obviously the Gallup poll is skewed… Homosexuals can’t claim a single victory in any state that has put it to a vote, including California.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Lilybean
Posted on September 25, 2012 at 3:56pm
I cannot wait to watch “The Project”– a bunch of my friends are all getting together on Wednesday and Thursday to watch it and I’ve been speading the word.

Thank you to Glenn Beck and The Blaze for all that you do!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
cemerius
Posted on September 25, 2012 at 3:54pm
If legally married in their own state, same-sex couples still must file separate federal tax forms, with separate deductions, even when they’re raising children together and jointly owning property.

This statement is THE battle central and REASON they want it!! Tax benefits, I thought that they still had the “head of household” option???

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
OneofMany
Posted on September 25, 2012 at 3:49pm
It doesn’t even matter. I live in California, we voted it down and then the activist judges say we can’t do it. They want evil, they will get it. Jesus is coming back and they can explain it to Him and see what He says. There is no overturning His ruling.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Loi
Posted on September 25, 2012 at 3:47pm
not to rain on anybodies parade..but if ,as Madonna, says ” Prez is a Black Muslim,” and, if he is re elected…..how soon will Sharia law take care of this gay marriage debate? Remember Prez Obama says and does anything to be elected… then changes, and does the opposite, watch heads roll, literally, Mexican style!!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
thibx
Posted on September 25, 2012 at 3:39pm
fist in the face of God. oboma has no morals. i think he is a queer. you are not a child of God and promote this stuff. oboma and the whole democratic party are God haters, if you are not that you would not be a democrat. you vote for a democrat you are shaking your fist in the face of God. God’s wrath is coming upon you.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
floridareader
Posted on September 25, 2012 at 3:36pm
If we as a nation don’t stand and defend what is right, we might end up like France, where they are really considering on banning he words “father” and “mother” in order to legalize gay marriage.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/25/france-set-to-ban-words-mother-and-father-under-plans-to-legalize-gay-marriage/?test=latestnews

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
repairsea
Posted on September 25, 2012 at 3:36pm
I’ve been a Gallup poll member for years. I am conservative and they never ask me any questions about O or gay unions. I questioned them about it and they said it just happens to be a coincident. When Bush was president, I was always polled regarding politics and events. Now, I get questionnaires on health and buying. Nothing on O and politics. Gallup is not a reliable polling place.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- thibx
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 3:47pm
  white house sued gallop. i guess to stop them.
  
  Report this comment
Mandors
Posted on September 25, 2012 at 3:35pm
There is no such thing as “gay marriage.” It is perhaps the scariest example of Orwellian double speak in history.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
floridareader
Posted on September 25, 2012 at 3:34pm
Just sharing:

Brilliant in its Simplicity
A) Back off and let those men who want to marry men, marry men.

B) Allow those women who want to marry women, marry women.

C) Allow those folks who want to abort their babies, abort their babies.

D) In three generations, there will be no Democrats.

Damn – I love it when someone comes up with a bright idea!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- shimauma
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 4:26pm
  It seems simple but sadly those that choose to live in the sewer are inclined to drag other sin with them, and they will get the next generation via indoctrination. They obviously can’t breed, so they need to destroy innocence to perpetuate their perversion. Why else are out tax dollars being used in “anti-bullying” programs in schools?
  
  Report this comment
ZAP
Posted on September 25, 2012 at 3:34pm
BungH0LI0

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on September 25, 2012 at 3:34pm
The only reason it’s important is because 90% of the country is too stupid to engage in meaningful economic debate. This is classic diversion techniques. An economic event of biblical proportion is brewing and this stupid article will have 200 posts in an hour.

We get what we deserve.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
justangry
Posted on September 25, 2012 at 3:30pm
The only reason it’s important, is both sides of the debate have nothing in the Constitution to authorize them weighing in on the issue in the first place.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- tzion
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 3:43pm
  Good point. In that case, Romney calling for an Amendment is probably the only Constitutional way of banning it entirely. Personally, I would rather we just dropped the term marriage from the legal dictionary and simply have it exist as a social institution. Then no one can tell me whether I’m married, who I can marry, or whose marriage I have to recognize. Instead of marriage benefits, have couples that wish to have those benefits sign some kind of legal codependency agreement (states would probably need to limit the number of agreements one can be party to).
  
  I say this not because I support gay marriage (I don’t), but because I don’t like the idea that government has to license my marriage. On top of that, I’m really sick of this whole debate and this would put an end to much of it. Sure there are those who won’t be satisfied until gay marriage is legally recognized but I’m sure they are a minority.
  
  Report this comment
progressiveslayer
Posted on September 25, 2012 at 3:25pm
Social issues to the back burner this time around because if we don’t get our fiscal house in order depression 2.0 will be on us. I’m not to sure if it isn’t no matter who wins,just too much debt.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Restored One
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 3:52pm
  I totally agree. Also if we do not deal with the Middle East and the MB within our Gov’t, all of these gays will be murdered.
  
  Report this comment
- 2MINUTESTOMIDNIGHT
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 4:02pm
  Agreed. Social issues are BO’s diversion from the real issues and his only means of sparking an emotional reaction in order to move his mindless minions to the voting booth in November.
  
  Report this comment
U.N.hater
Posted on September 25, 2012 at 3:24pm
Send all the gays to egypt.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- David Lampo
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 3:35pm
  How about we instead send all the gay-haters to Iran where they can be with their fellow gay-haters and compatriots.
  
  Report this comment
- U.N.hater
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 3:49pm
  Yep i hate gay’s and i aint scared to say so gay boy!
  
  Report this comment
- two4america
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 4:03pm
  There are no homosexuals in Iran according to their president. Columbia University invited Iran’s President Ahmadinejad to speak in 2007: “In Iran we don’t have homosexuals like in your country,” he said. ‘In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who’s told you that we have this.” Besides to CNN’s Piers Morgan, Iran’s President Ahmadinejad is “charming.” “and occasionally he says stuff where you find yourself nodding in agreement.”
  
  Report this comment
- bullcrapbuster
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 4:10pm
  @lampo……So in your liberal world disagreement means hatred. I only pity homosexuals I do not hate them. It saddens me to see so many people trying to find happiness in living a lie. There is no happiness in doing the wrong things. Making wrong behavior the norm will not change the resultant unhappiness.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on September 25, 2012 at 4:58pm
  David Lampo
  
  More of us than you.
  
  Why not get treated for your disease?
  
  Report this comment
- QuincySmith
  Posted on September 26, 2012 at 12:54am
  david;
  
  un hater is correct. Marriage and sexuality are mere conveniences in islamic countries. You should watch Anne Barnhardt’s video (first of four): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCfbYkXtHuA&list=UUHMJsns2MeqLv6m7S30AgVw&index=10&feature=plcp
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.