Death Toll Revised Down to 24 After Monstrous Oklahoma Tornado…100+ Injured…Children Among the Dead…Stunning Pictures…Woman Finds Dog During Interview!

WATCH on TheBlaze TV: Latest Updates on Tornado Aftermath, Including Updates From Glenn Beck in Oklahoma

Faith

Do Gays Have a Constitutional Right to Marry? Here’s Why Activists Fear Losing Their Supreme Court Battle

Dec. 10, 2012 7:10am Billy Hallowell

WASHINGTON (AP) — Gay marriage supporters see 41 reasons to fret over the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case of California’s ban on same-sex unions.

While nine states allow same-sex partners to marry, or will soon, 41 states do not. Of those, 30 have written gay marriage bans into their state constitutions.

That fact is worrisome to those who firmly believe there is a constitutional right to marry, regardless of sexual orientation, but who also know that the Supreme Court does not often get too far ahead of the country on hot-button social issues.

“Mindful of history, I can’t help but be concerned,” said Mary Bonauto, director of the Civil Rights Project at Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders and a leader in the state-by-state push for marriage equality.

Do Gays Have a U.S. Constitutional Right to Marry? | Supreme Court

Credit: AP

Bonauto was speaking before the court decided on Friday to take up cases on California’s constitutional ban on gay marriage and a federal law that denies to gay Americans who are legally married the favorable tax treatment and a range of health and pension benefits otherwise available to married couples.

In 2008, California voters approved the ban, Proposition 8, after the state Supreme Court ruled that gay Californians could marry. Since then, a federal appeals court struck down the constitutional provision, but did not authorize the resumption of same-sex marriages pending appeal.

Bonauto identified three earlier seminal rulings that once and for all outlawed state-backed discrimination, and observed that in each case the number of states that still had the discrimination on the books was far smaller.

Thirteen states still had laws against sodomy when the court said in 2003 that states have no right to intrude on the private, personal conduct of people, regardless of sexual orientation.

Interracial marriage still was illegal in 16 states in 1967 before the high court outlawed race-based state marriage bans.

In 1954, when the court issued its landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 17 states had formally segregated school systems.

Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf said those cases illustrate a widespread misperception about the justices.

“There is a commonly held but inaccurate view that what the Supreme Court does is to impose its views on the country. It very rarely does that. Much more frequently, it will take a view that is either a majority in some place or a majority of elite opinion and speed up acceptance,” said Dorf, who was a Supreme Court law clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy.

The forces that mounted the legal challenge to Proposition 8 have said all along that the right to marry is so fundamental that it should not depend on success at the ballot box or the votes of state legislatures. Washington lawyer Theodore Olson, representing gay Californians who wish to marry, said he will argue that there is a “fundamental constitutional right to marry for all citizens.”

Photo Credit: AP Photo/Fay Abuelgasim

But are there five justices, a majority of the court, willing to endorse that argument?

The fear among gay marriage proponents is that the court will refuse to declare that states can no longer define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, because to do so might provoke a backlash in public opinion and undermine acceptance of its authority.

A high court loss for gay marriage advocates would prevent same-sex marriages in the nation’s largest state. It would not affect the District of Columbia and the nine states – Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and Washington – where gay couples can or soon will be able to marry.

But it could push back the day that many in the gay rights movement, looking at strong support for gay marriage among younger Americans, see as inevitable: the Supreme Court’s endorsement of full marriage equality nationwide.

Commenting after the court’s action, Bonauto said she believes the court can uphold an appeals court ruling that struck down Proposition 8 in a way that applies to California only and “leave to a later day questions about broader bans on committed same-sex couples marrying.”

Opponents of gay marriage look to another court case, Roe v. Wade, that they say should serve as a cautionary tale. In 1973, the court voted 7-2 to declare that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to an abortion.

“Should the Supreme Court decide to overturn the marriage laws of 41 states, the ruling would become even more divisive than the court’s infamous Roe v. Wade decision,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “Marriage, unlike abortion laws in the 1970s, has been incorporated into the state constitutions of 30 states. Voters in these states will not accept an activist court redefining our most fundamental social institution.”

Award recipient Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appears onstage at the Glamour Women of the Year Awards on Monday, Nov. 12, 2012 in New York. Credit: Charles Sykes/Invision/AP

To a degree, Perkins and Bonauto get some support from one of the nine people with a say in the matter, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

In February, Ginsburg questioned the timing of the abortion decision and suggested it may have contributed to the ongoing bitter debate about abortion.

“It’s not that the judgment was wrong, but it moved too far too fast,” Ginsburg said at Columbia University.

At the time of Roe v. Wade, abortion was legal on request in four states, allowed under limited circumstances in about 16 others, and outlawed under nearly all circumstances in the other states, including Texas, where the Roe case originated.

The court could have put off dealing with abortion while the state-by-state process evolved, she said. Or her predecessors could have struck down just the Texas law, which allowed abortions only to save a mother’s life, without declaring a right to privacy that legalized the procedure nationwide, Ginsburg said.

“The court made a decision that made every abortion law in the country invalid, even the most liberal,” Ginsburg said. “We’ll never know whether I’m right or wrong … things might have turned out differently if the court had been more restrained.”

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (481)

Jude 4
Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:36am
If human law allows what God forbids, it would be dangerous at best, and certainly could not be called ‘marriage’. If the institution of marriage can mean many things, it’s exclusive nature is removed, and it loses it’s necessary identity. The concept of marriage is rooted in the creational record, and the universal practice of mankind is one evidence of this fact. Perversions will always occur while time exists, but such perversions are incidental to the authentic reality. The high court is still subject to the judgement of the Heavenly, like it or not.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- john vincent
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 10:50am
  jude-
  spot on
  
  you may appreciate the link in my post above also
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc33
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 11:04am
  Jude 4! Human laws already contradict Gods laws.. for instance. Parents can’t stone their children for being stubborn, A rape victim isn’t forced to marry their attacker, Adultery isn’t punishable by death, Eating pig, shellfish or cheese isn’t illegal, Witches arn’t put to death, fortune tellers arn’t put to death. etc etc. these are all Gods laws that we ignore.. why is gay marriage any different?
  
  Report this comment
- john vincent
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 11:21am
  jude-
  if i may respond to keaton-
  
  A fair question you raise, and it appears you have some familiarity with Old Test.
  
  -Stoning, witchcraft, etc were commanded to be dealt with a certain way: UNTIL the fulness of time…and that time has passed, and certain things have ceased (ie, the adulturous woman who walked away from a stoning)
  
  -In addition, regarding the very word ‘marriage,’ other excellent comments have defined what it is, and by virtue have explained what it is not and cannot be.
  
  -the same sex thing is different in this one regard: no body is really hurt in the way a stoned woman or a woman burned to death, so the topic is easy to skirt around. It will however, always be wrong in the court of heaven, though the courts on earth approve
  
  Report this comment
- jefftavolieri
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 11:26am
  The most important thing we can do is remember what Jesus said about homosexuality.
  
  Report this comment
- ghemminger
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 11:31am
  Keaton -
  
  Wow, should should really read that pesky book two, called the New Testament….
  
  Report this comment
- HowTruthHurts
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 11:33am
  Screw Man’s law!!! We are not an anti-theocracy, the bible is indeed the law book. Our laws are drafted and enforced by God.
  
  There is no legitimate anti-religious argument in a God-fearing nation.
  
  Report this comment
- ghemminger
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 11:37am
  Keaton -
  
  you’re also confusing biblical law (from God) with societal laws (from man)….the Bible clearly states what is defined as marriage. It also clearly states the wages of sin. So you can joyfully support gay marriage all you want – you will also reap that “harvest” – enjoy :)
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc33
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 11:40am
  GHIMMER.. I have read the new testiment.. yet still having trouble finding where jesus once mentioned homosexuality.
  and John Vincent. Good post. The argument i would make is that not everyone believes in a court of heaven, and weather they are right or wrong I don’t know. but I don’t believe their rights should be restricted based on someone else’s personal beliefs.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 11:46am
  @HowTruthHurts
  
  Its your choice to believe in myths and fairy tales. Those myths and fairy tales are not American Law. Lawyers do not cite the bible to make a legal argument. Rape victims in cities are not stoned to death along with their attackers.
  
  Our laws are secular, religion belongs in a church and in private homes, in a SECULAR REPUBLIC, LIKE THE UNITED STATES religion has no place in courthouses and statehouses.
  
  Report this comment
- ashestoashes
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 11:50am
  I supported the Constitution in the form of Ron Paul for President..the only Christian who was running and was removed by the crime syndicate.. Although I have never supported gay marriage..or drugs..the Constitution supports my rights not to support it..and would afford us the rights to have anti drug and anti homosexual schools and and churches who would not allow active homosexual members..Christian pastors would not be forced to marry homosexuals..We would all have our rights.but we would also have the right to keep gay Czars from writing school curriculums..and no religion..such as Islam could shove their agenda down our throats..We the people could have a say..As it stands..they have and are taking away our rights and shoving evil agendas on us..and we are supporting this because of our need to control others..we lose our rights and our rights of protection. Ron Paul would have gotten our military out of the ME and brought them home to protect our borders..He would have also gotten rid of Communist/Zionist government agencies.. saving us trillions… But everything works toward the glory of God and I believe He is allowing this to bring us to Tribulations.. All in Jesus/Yeshua..be awake and be ready..
  
  Report this comment
- john vincent
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 11:57am
  enci-
  
  -no religious argument in a secular nation?’
  
  Since when is ‘thou shalt not steal’ religious?
  Appears to be a good idea that most of the world agreesa with, I would submit that folks know stealing is wrong long before they ever read about it…
  
  Dont confuse religion with eternal truths-along these lines, same sex marriage -will always be wrong, I would go as far as saying they who practice such know it is ‘wrong’ also, they just choose to supress it.
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 11:58am
  Jesus said, in the New Testament, “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
  
  Let’s see:
  
  Male and female.
  
  Man leaves parents and cleaves to his wife.
  
  Man and women become one flesh.
  
  God made them this way.
  
  God made this union.
  
  No man made law can redo, modify, or change this union.
  
  Got it.
  
  Report this comment
- Evileye
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 11:59am
  Are there still people that think the Constitution of the the United States stands for anything?
  After the ruling on health care?
  John Roberts Is more dangerous than Obumbler
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 12:05pm
  The New Testament also says,
  
  “And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not ; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time.”
  
  “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication , and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh , despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.”
  
  Report this comment
- ashestoashes
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 12:09pm
  @KEATON..You say that you have read the New Testament and have not found anything regarding homosexuality..I don’t know what Bible you are reading..but the NKJ by John McCarthur..and most of the versions plainly state in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10..who will not enter the kingdom of heaven..You can go online.. there are different bible versions..you can type in the verse..and it will tell you what each version states.. these verses state that neither fornicators..adulterers..homosexuals..idolaters..drunkards nor revilers will enter the kingdom of heaven..for some of you were such..but you were washed clean (by the blood of Jesus)..When you read, Keaton..ask for divine guidance from the Holy Spirit of God..Jesus said..I did not come to judge the world..but My word judges you..So we must take responsibility for accepting that Jesus is God’s only begotten Son..who descended from royalty..to be born of a virgin..to live a perfect sin free life and was crucified on a cross..to redeem us (for He who knew no sin, took the sins of the world upon his back and they were nailed with Him to that cross)….so long as we have repented and turned away from our sins (we can do this by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God)…and He rose the third day..all to save us and give us life eternal with Him. The greatest commandment ..to love God with all of your heart..mind and soul..and to love your neighbor as yourself..It is His free gift to you Keaton..He died for us all..There is no greater gif
  
  Report this comment
- HowTruthHurts
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 12:45pm
  @Encinom
  
  Its your choice to deny the truth of the Bible. Those truths are the basis of America and her Law. Lawyers do indeed cite the bible to make a legal argument. Rape victims in cities are not stoned to death along with their attackers because the Bible demands justice not vengeance.
  
  Our laws are inspired by the Bible, religion belongs in a church and in private homes and in government, in a REPUBLIC BASED ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, LIKE THE UNITED STATES religion has every place in courthouses and statehouses.
  
  Report this comment
- @joethepleb
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 1:21pm
  I’m glad I live in a country where the Supreme Court doesn’t force someone’s religious beliefs on the rest of the population. Either way its only a matter of time before marriage equality is the law of the land…And thank God!
  
  If you don’t believe in the concept, here’s some good advice – don’t get gay married.
  
  Report this comment
- KGray
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 1:22pm
  ENCINOM and HOWTRUTHHURTS,
  
  Actually, the Bible was used as a reference to the writing of the Constitution. John Locke’s book “Two Treatises of Government” quoted the Bible 1500 times in about 200 pages. It was used strongly by the Fathers during the Constitutional Convention.
  
  Most of our Founding Fathers were Christians, over half were ordained ministers. Our US Capital was used as a church on Sundays all the way up to the late 1800′s. Here are some quotes from the Fathers themselves and their view of Christianity. http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=78
  
  Report this comment
- The_Cabrito_Goat
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 1:42pm
  The old testament laws Keaton copied and pasted are laws of the old covenant, and as such are abrogated by the new covenant. The answer is simple really, the world became ready for Christianity to spread, thanks to the Roman Empire’s trade routes and immigration policy.
  
  Here’s something you will never hear though: There is no evidence the Jews ever stoned anybody. None. Look it up.
  
  Another thing you wont hear, because it is slightly antisemitic, is this; that the Old Testament was merely a ‘stepping stone’ for the rise of Christ’s teachings and his apostles to spread the Word.
  
  Now, to say that Judaism was merely a means to an end is VERY condescending to the good people of Israel. That’s why this isn’t often talked about, out of respect for our spiritual cousins.
  
  Report this comment
- keith Farrell
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 1:45pm
  I read all these comments, and you use the bible to justify your right to stop gay people having equal rights, I supose you all know what God was thinking and why some things were said in the bible times. I wopuld never dream of know what god was thinking, I do however know that no one should have more rights than anyone else. We are all equal and we should have eual rights before the law. What you do how you follow your magic man (god) is your business. Just dont try to force everyone to follow what you want or believe. treat everyne equally
  
  Report this comment
- charles116
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 1:47pm
  This is not and has never been a religious issue.
  
  Report this comment
- keith Farrell
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 1:57pm
  I find it strange that you want to impose your belief on others. The bible was writern by man it has been translated and messed up by man and you still want to use it to justify hate.Equal rights are what we all want. it does not matter what you beilieve, that is your business, if you want to follow that book do so, seel your children into slaverybut dont tell me what I may and may not do. Equal rights are just that, they are not yours to withhold or even to give, they are what we all should enjoy.
  How you face your God is your problem If you think he will be happy with you doing what you are doing, that is your right, but I think he will say to you “why do you treat my children as less than yourself. So be human, and treat everyone the same, follow your path and I will follow mine. Just remember if you hurt your children with your hate, punishment will come to you
  
  Report this comment
- The_Cabrito_Goat
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 1:58pm
  Keith, Keith, Keith….gays have just as many rights as straight people to marry. I am currently unable to marry you in the state of Ohio, but it vexes me not. I don’t care. A gay man could marry a woman, though.
  
  Report this comment
- QuincySmith
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 2:27pm
  keith Farrell;
  
  “I read all these comments, and you use the bible to justify your right to stop gay people having equal rights, I supose [sic] you all know what God was thinking and why some things were said in the bible times. I wopuld [sic] never dream of know what god was thinking, I do however know that no one should have more rights than anyone else. We are all equal and we should have eual [sic] rights before the law. What you do how you follow your magic man (god) is your business. Just dont ]sic] try to force everyone to follow what you want or believe. treat everyne equally” ~~~ You claim that no one should have more rights that anyone else, yet you want to force ‘gay’ marriage on those who do not agree, for what ever reason. Do you know that governments did not create marriage? The only reason for ‘gay’ marriage is for government benefits. Since government usurped marriage, it is little wonder that the gay crowd want special treatment. Marriage was and is intended to create/continue life through offspring. Tell me how a ‘gay’ couple can create life and I will be more accepting of your perverted ideas. Get government out of the marriage business (taxes) and ‘gay’ marriage will cease being a hot-button issue.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 2:29pm
  @Howturhthurts…you may want to re-read your bible, the bible calls for killing rape victims.
  
  Deuteronomy 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
  22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
  
  @KGray, Wallbuilders and Barton are frauds that push psuedo-history to advance an agenda. The Constitution limits the role of religion, it forms a secular republic not a theocracy.
  
  Report this comment
- QuincySmith
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 2:38pm
  encinom;
  
  “@Howturhthurts…you may want to re-read your bible, the bible calls for killing rape victims.
  
  Deuteronomy 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
  22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.” ~~~ Seems you need a refresher course in Bible 101!
  
  Report this comment
- VHVila
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 2:46pm
  Well stated. I agree with your rationale.
  
  Report this comment
- BuzzardSays
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 2:53pm
  To all who have ears let them hear…
  If a perversion of lust causes one man, for the purpose of orgasmic release, to place his penis into another man’ anus followed by an adequate amount of friction, lust, and mental gymnastics to allow for those practioners of error to enjoy their idol of lust it can be described as nothing more than error. Homosexuals who practice all such errant behavior expose themselves to disease and a diminishment of societal harmony. Gays; men and women, are repulsive in their behaviorisms and should keep their perversions hidden instead of thinking they have a right to shove their sicknesses in decent humanities faces. Any description of the actual act is sickening and never deserves any further consideration except condemnation.
  
  Homosexuals repent from your perversions and start searching for truth instead of the “existence lie” you are living. Jesus will accept the errant child involved in homosexuality just as readily as any other sinner but it requires the immediate action of repentance.
  
  Report this comment
- red_white_blue2
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 2:57pm
  Whether or not a court mandates it as a law or not, will have no effect on God’s definition. He will tell you upon your death if you lived a valid life, and there will be no debating or arguing. You will have to take your medicine without a word. God has the final say on everything.
  To the extent that gays want the right to marry, where does it end? Polygamy, Bestiality-who do you say no to after you take away states rights to decide a legal issue in their own borders such as the institution of marriage.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 3:01pm
  @QuincySmith, the bible is clear, cause the passage before deals with rape victims in the country, they are only forced to live with their attackers, city victims are put to death. So you are just another Christian unaware of what is in the book you are defending.
  
  Report this comment
- PaxInVeritate
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 3:08pm
  KEITH FARRELL… it is not that we “want to impose” our beliefs on others. What you view as “hate” is an imperfect understanding for the love we hold for our misguided brothers and sisters. The promotion of “Equal rights”, as you see it, is a Lie promoted by the Deceiver, through disordered human reasoning to violate God’s Laws and the function of Nature as He ordered it, to steal souls from their inheritance of the Kingdom of God. Prayerfully read this and you will understand. http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/when-they-try-to-create-a-sacrament-in-my-churches-out-of-an-abomination-they-will-say-it-was-because-of-the-rights-of-same-sex-couples/
  
  Report this comment
- IMO888
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 3:16pm
  Everything that God has created to be good and holy, Satan has tried to copy, but then he perverts it.
  
  Report this comment
- Chet Hempstead
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 3:18pm
  I don’t know that God forbids same sex marriage. You may have an old book that says that He doesn’t like homosexuality, and you may believe that this book comes straight from the mouth of God to His followers thousands of years ago, but I don’t see any reason to believe that these outdated rules are anything but a bunch of crap made up by people who lied and claimed to be speaking for God.
  
  Report this comment
- PaxInVeritate
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 3:48pm
  CHET HEMPSTEAD… perhaps you can read the entire link I provided above to KEITH FARRELL, and this one as well…
  http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/one-half-will-not-deviate-from-the-truth-the-other-halve-will-twist-the-truth/
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 3:52pm
  This is settled already.
  
  The Declaration of Independence speaks of Natural Law.
  
  Natural Laws come from God.
  
  The Constitution speaks of Blessings of Liberty.
  
  Blessings of Liberty come from God.
  
  Man was created by God, and endowed with unalienable rights.
  
  Governments were instituted by men to protect these natural rights.
  
  Man can not create natural rights. Only God can govern nature.
  
  This same Creator that made man is also the Supreme Judge of the World. No Justice from the supreme Court is the final or highest Authority. We are not ruled by men. All judges are bound to defend and support the truth, for this reason they solemnly take their Oaths with their hand on the Holy Bible, the source of all truth.
  
  The Representatives of the United States can not usurp Nature’s God.
  
  Nature does not allow nor intends to ever unite as one flesh one man and one man.
  
  Blessings of Liberty and Divine Providence can not continue to flow on a nation and people that disregards the fundamental truths laid down at their founding. No nation on earth will survive for long without Intervention from God.
  
  This is not about religion, far from it. This is about creation, nature, universal laws, reason, and absolute truths.
  
  Relative truth has no place in Government. Political institutions must be founded on solid truths, not on social policy or Utopian ideals.
  
  Report this comment
- tim meenan
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 3:56pm
  i agree, but here is a quicker and more direct way to say it—no they do not have that right !!
  
  Report this comment
- PilgrimStuckInBizarroWorld
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 4:12pm
  To the people on this site who do not believe in Christ as Lord you should know the Bible is a love letter to the people who believe and you will never understand unless you believe in the Son as your personal savior and repent for the disbelief that is darkening the truth from your eyes.
  Pray for this nation!
  
  Report this comment
- Chet Hempstead
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 4:22pm
  PaxInVeritate
  Gosh, what was I thinking? I never accepted that the Bible was entirely the word of God just because people told me it was, but now that you have shown me that there is a page on the internet that claims to have been written by Jesus himself that’s different. I guess it must really be by him.
  
  Report this comment
- Deuteronomy22
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 4:22pm
  Newt Gingrich’s adultery is surely against God’s law as the Bible condemns it much more than homosexuality. Let the gays marry. A 50% divorce rate is surely not consistent with God’s law but is accepted in a secular USA. We are not a theocracy. In a hundred years I imagine more people will become enlightened to the idiocy of believing a 2000 year old book written by ancient societies is nothing more than myths and anecdotes to keep the masses in line. Condemn me to h3ll if you like but it would be better than eternity with bigots and narrow minded fools who still believe in fairy tale religion. Eternity, I can’t imagine how insane I’d become after a trillion years of going down to the meadow to praise Jesus every day.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 5:42pm
  Keatonc33
  
  Why are you citing Jewish law for Christians? If I would have used logic such as yours I would never made it out of confirmation. Maybe you never made it thru confirmation & that is your beef.
  
  Report this comment
- searching for the Truth
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 7:00pm
  Out of respect for a biblical Prophet, I’ll only employ use of pronouns: Over two thousand years ago, one of God’s most loved Prophets came under God’s Judgement for letting his sons’ turn the Temple of God into a house of ill repute. His mantle was taken from him and given to a young boy instead. Many years and Many Kings after that, the whole kingdom fell under God’s Judgement – one of the most wicked Kings in Irsaeli history placed sodomites around the Most Holy Temple ( not the only wicked thing the King did ) to provoke God. Consequently, God brought a Persian King to destroy the Temple and put “all ” of Israel into chains and taken to Persia as slaves. Israel, for no other time in History was totally disenfranchised from the Holy Land they loved because of a deed from a wicked King.
  
  Report this comment
- searching for the Truth
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 7:16pm
  The covenant of marriage is a Holy Covenant between Man, Woman, and God. Whereas, God ” only” is Holy. This covenant is irrevocable by man and is the only other attribute that God considers ” Holy ” other than ” Himself.”
  
  Report this comment
- charles116
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 7:19pm
  Only the judgement of the constitution and the bill of rights.
  Sorry.
  
  Report this comment
- v15
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 7:59pm
  Government really needs to stay out of marriage.
  
  Report this comment
- Marine25
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:14pm
  @jefftavolieri
  I am an atheist and that is one great christian comment!
  Wonder if the believers figured it out.
  
  Report this comment
- Marine25
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:23pm
  @ghemm
  Yeah I read that one. New main character, all relaxed and groovy, as flaming a liberal as his daddy was a conservative. Good story, good characters, but the ending was totally unbelievable.
  
  Report this comment
- Marine25
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:31pm
  @cabrito
  Just as, in 17 states before the 1967 ruling that stopped them, a white man could marry a woman…as long as she was white. Suggesting gay people have the equal rights to marriage because they could choose to marry a person of the opposite sex is clever, if you are in the fifth grade.
  
  Report this comment
- PaxInVeritate
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:52pm
  Marine25… “that is one great christian comment!” – Not really. Jesus didn’t come to abolish the Law, but to complete it. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. (Matt 5:17-18)
  
  It goes without saying that God the Father does not, nor ever will approve of homosexuality. And since “The Father and I are one.” (John 10:30), Jesus honors the Father by keeping His Laws.
  
  Therefore, Jesus didn’t have to speak about homosexuality. It’s a given as to His ‘view’ on subject. It is a disordered abominable act.
  
  If one repents and no longer commits such an act (as in live a celibate life), the soul is forgiven and salvation is theirs.
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:10pm
  @MARINE25 Eh, wrong. A sodomite can’t marry a man, and a straight man can’t marry a man. I don’t want a right granted to me by the State to marry another man, that’s sick. The state did not create man, wherefore the State can’t determine such rights, it can only recognize what nature has already established. The state can not just pull crap out of its arse and say, here you go, a giraffe. It has no such power, nor the ability to recreate nature. Only our Creator can govern such things. You liberal sodomites are forcing the acceptance of your sexual degeneracy on the public. You guys use absolutely no logic in your thinking. Sodomites are not a class of people. Sodomy is a sexual behavior, and a lifestyle at best. You guys are asking for a special status, not for equal rights. If sodomites get special rights to marry other men, then friends with benefits should get the privilege to file joint taxes.
  
  Report this comment
- Truthbeliever2
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:28pm
  This place is the new Huffington Post for the supposed Right wing. I know you see it too. :)
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 12:19am
  Encinom, marriage is a religious institution, designed by God.
  
  And we are a country that officially recognizes the authority of God. Look it up. Without that foundation, there would be no universal basis for our freedoms. Freedom must be rooted in respect for right and wrong, or else it is not really freedom. Little dipping of the toe into a rejection of that foundation may seem innocent, but it opens the door to more and more.
  
  Yes, that’s a slippery slope argument, but it’s also based on historical observations of human nature. We need to take a stand and repent of our national sins, or else things will just keep getting worse, incrementally.
  
  For example, pedophiles could complain that their “genetic” preferences to marry kids are being discriminated against, and ask why marriage in a secular nation should be only between adults, or a polygamist could ask why marriage in a secular marriage should be between only two people. And then things could turn really bad and ask why might can’t make right in a secular nation — anyone could ‘marry’ anybody they can overpower. And then maybe kill. (Don’t scoff — we already kill people we find inconvenient when they’re just children.)
  
  Report this comment
- QuincySmith
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 1:02am
  encinom;
  
  I reiterate, you need to take Bible 101 again!
  
  Report this comment
- Papa
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 1:13am
  Don’t you love it when the Christian haters cite scripture?
  
  Maybe those who quote scripture in order to attack Christianity can answer what Dispensationalism is.
  
  Report this comment
- HowTruthHurts
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 8:09am
  @Encinom
  
  Deuteronomy 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
  
  Deuteronomy 22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
  
  ———-
  
  You posted the verse and never paid attention to what you posted.
  
  Deuteronomy 22:24 “…the damsel, because she cried not, …”
  
  Jehovah NEVER required the stoning of rape victims. He demanded the stoning of ADULTERERS and FORNICATORS who PRETENDED to be rape victims. In fact, nothing in that passage indicates they are talking about rape at all. They are talking about a man who meets a woman who is engaged, and they having willing, consensual sex. There is no mention of force, or violence, or threatening, or resisting.
  
  Report this comment
- caveman74
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:35am
  @keatonc….your are referencing old testament which is history…new testament is law. And you are forgetting the spirit of the Bible. God gave man free will to make his own choices. At the end of the day man will have to answer for his choices. Revelations (last book of new testament) specifically mentions the sexually prevers as a group of people slated for the lake of sulfer upon judgement day. Christians don’t hate gays, we speak the truth in love in hopes of saving their souls
  
  Report this comment
- wrightbobo
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 12:07pm
  No human needs laws of any origin to know what their sexual organs and body cavities are designed for.
  
  Report this comment
- RavenGlenn
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 3:55pm
  @BONESIII
  
  “For example, pedophiles could complain that their “genetic” preferences to marry kids are being discriminated against, and ask why marriage in a secular nation should be only between adults, or a polygamist could ask why marriage in a secular marriage should be between only two people. And then things could turn really bad and ask why might can’t make right in a secular nation — anyone could ‘marry’ anybody they can overpower. And then maybe kill. (Don’t scoff — we already kill people we find inconvenient when they’re just children.)”
  
  This is the most idiotic argument I’ve ever seen, and sadly a lot of people on the extreme religious right make it. Really, it only takes the barest of common sense to understand why this is a terrible argument.
  
  In the case of two men or two women, they are of age of consent and should be able to decide what is best for themselves. Their union does no infringe upon anyone else’s liberties.
  
  Your concept of pedophilia is beyond stupidity. A child is not of legal consenting age AND an adult doing anything with them infringes upon their rights. Same goes for your cases of rape.
  
  As for polygamy, once again, these people are consenting adults that can choose to live their lives as they see fit, so long as that they do not infringe upon anyone else’s rights or liberties.
  
  The question is: Why do you, or anyone else, CARE what someone does in their private life? It simply does not infringe upon an
  
  Report this comment
- HowTruthHurts
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 4:20pm
  @RavenGlenn
  
  I do sincerely agree that the legal age of consent is currently a protective barrier between children and pedophiles. I also agree that it’s a distinction between pedophilia and consensual, adult homosexuality and polygamy. However, this is only a legality. This can, and has, changed with time. Some states have different “adult” statuses for different things. Some states already allow a adult and minor to marry with legal consent.
  
  If I could respectfully make a second point. All morality (including sexual) is defined by some type of authority. Be it God’s, a group of men, or one’s own. The homosexual movement is powered by the notions that either there is no God, or that God will not punish you. As this nation strays from God, the only other authorities are groups of men, and individual. Since Americans’ are rightfully raised with the mindset that all men are equal, many often resent the authority of others. This mindset is growing in popularity. We’ve seen this demonstrated by the masses in select “occupy” movements. In these cases, all that is left is individual authority. Which basically means “one does as one pleases at any moment”. As history has shown, even in societies where people are raised to believe they will answer for all their actions in eternity (Christianity), man always proves evil. How much more evil will we act when we deceive our children that there are no repercussions for our actions?
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 4:50pm
  RavenGlenn, people have been making your argument for decades — appealing to the status quo as supposed proof that things will not change even as we slide down that slippery slope one step further. And yet, the next decade, suddenly all those things people like you assured us would never be on the table show up to dominate the whole dining room. A decade ago we were being assured that allowing civil unions was not a stepping stone to gay marriage, and look what happened! The predictions of those who make the slippery slope argument, which you even admit you are aware of, have proven RIGHT.
  
  And your “it’s not that harmful yet” point is true, but the point is, as I said, when you start dipping just the little toe into abandoning objective right and wrong, you open the door for it to go further and further. You move the current objective line that should not be crossed into purely subjective, arbitrary realms, and pretty soon people start asking the natural question “well if this arbitrary line is okay, why not move it farther?”
  
  Also, science has proven that kids are healthier with a natural parentage, so encouraging more slipping away from that is not good. Actual harm can come out of forcing us to treat gay ‘marriage’ as the same as a biblical family unit, from a governmental perspective, which in turn encourages adoption/etc. (it’s already happening).
  
  Of course, who cares? We already murder kids… Sigh…
  
  Report this comment
- gosutag
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 9:32pm
  @JUDE4: Don’t you have some worshipping of a book you don’t understand to go to? You don’t understand the bible, and you most likely never will. I don’t care what parts you take literal and what parts you take metaphorically. The matter is that as long as you’ve not studied the original language of the bible that has been edited many times, and as long as you haven’t read the original bible in that language, you know absolutely nothing. And I consider this very sad because you art hurting other people with your conjured views on a book you don’t properly understand. But hey that’s how most people are. Enjoy your seclusion from a big part of society because you think it’ll make you a better person.
  
  Report this comment
- For my Liberty!
  Posted on December 12, 2012 at 12:02am
  You hit the nail on the head……IF they want to do something….they can have a “union” or just make laws that give them some of the rights they want….but MARRIAGE should be RESERVED for a Man and a Woman….
  
  No matter what, they will answer to God as we all will…
  
  Report this comment
- searching for the Truth
  Posted on December 12, 2012 at 5:15pm
  A little bird says keaton is wrong because it flies over islamic countries and all that stuff happens all the time.
  
  Report this comment
- barryswhitehalf
  Posted on December 13, 2012 at 11:50pm
  Keaton, please stop being such an ignoramus. It’s clear gay apologists cherry-pick many parts of scripture that suit the agenda but that seemingly goes hand in hand with what many dishonest leftists are doing these days.
  Jesus never said anything regarding homosexuality so that must make it okay, right?
  Not really
  Jesus also never said anything about rape, incest or domestic violence. Are those things okay, too?
  There are many teachings and deeds of Christ that are not included in the Gospel accounts, as John writes in John 21:25.
  Christ did say that God created people “in the beginning” as male and female, and that marriage is the union of one man and one woman joined together as “one flesh.” (Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9) Nothing whatsoever else is said about any other type of union.
  When Jesus discussed sexual morality, Christ had a very high standard, clearly affirming long-standing Jewish law. He told the woman caught in adultery to “Go and sin no more.” John 8:11. Jesus warned people not only that the act of adultery was wrong, but even adulterous thoughts. Matthew 5:28
  And he shamed the woman at the well John 4:18 by pointing out to her that he knew she was living with a man who was not her husband.
  Finally, the apostles, who were taught by Christ, clearly understood that homosexuality was a sin as it has always been. When you repeat the lie , “Jesus said nothing about homosexuality,” you reveal that you really have never understood Scriptu
  
  Report this comment
freedomisasfreedomdoes
Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:32am
..court said in 2003 that states have no right to intrude on the private, personal conduct of people, regardless of sexual orientation.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- theninthplanet
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 10:22am
  Being married isn’t a private affair.
  
  Report this comment
- naughtycal
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 10:43am
  You’re right ninthplanet,
  But marriage should be a private affair we need only remove all the tax benefits from the tax code and then the federal government wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in marriage cases. Marriage should be a private affair and divorce should be a private affair.
  
  Report this comment
- Old Truckers
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 10:45am
  The Constitution of the United States is one thing and God’s Laws as found in the Bible is another. We all choose which to follow and we live with the consequences.
  
  I choose the righteous laws and the correct principles of God’s Word.
  
  Report this comment
- teaisstronger
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 10:51am
  THE DISGRACED AND NO LONGER RESPECTED JOHN ROBERTS SUPREME COURT WILL RULE HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
  
  Who doubts the US Nuremberg style Court will not side with the Homosexuals? In fact the Court will mandate that all Churches (except Muslim) will be compelled to perform homosexual marriages too. The only purpose of the despicable Rogue Supreme Court is to back up every act of the Federal Government.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 11:03am
  @Tea
  
  “Who doubts the US Nuremberg style Court will not side with the Homosexuals?”
  
  I might think that homosexuality is a sin, but I would never, ever, compare two gays getting married to the horrors committed by the Nazis and tried at Nuremberg. Get your priorities in line. You’re disgracing us.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc33
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 11:06am
  Thank you Locked!
  
  Report this comment
- L.B.Stephens
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 11:14am
  Old Truckers,
  
  Yes, true and genuine Christians will choose the Holy Scriptures.
  Disingenuous “christians” will opt for the laws of man.
  Every decision has it’s unique consequence.
  
  Report this comment
- toto
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 11:18am
  Just one aspect of legalizing sodomy is that it is a backwards move. The all knowing government is trying to make everything potentially harmful illegal, so why not this? If there were no sodomy the AIDS cases and rectal cancer cases would be greatly reduced. Would this not be for the socialist greater good of society?
  
  Report this comment
- Publius
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 11:26am
  If marriage is to be a private affair, let the ceremony be conducted in a ‘church’ w/o a ‘state’ issued marriage license. To involve the state cheapens the concept of marriage to a business transaction.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 11:34am
  Old Truckers
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 10:45am
  The Constitution of the United States is one thing and God’s Laws as found in the Bible is another. We all choose which to follow and we live with the consequences.
  
  I choose the righteous laws and the correct principles of God’s Word.
  _____________________
  The important part of your statement is you choose. No American or the State has the right to force others to live by their religious teachings. The bible is not a law book and God doesn’t have a seat in the courts.
  
  Report this comment
- ghemminger
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 11:39am
  funny – marriage has been regulated by states since near inception….so why, o why, the feds sticking their collectivist noses in to areas that are not under their purview? yes, yes, they’re defining it as a civil rights/discrimination case. If that’s the trek, then what CAN’T the federal govt dictate? What state rights CAN’T they supercede? Worse yet, what personal rights will they trample on to elicit their sense of social justice?
  
  Report this comment
- L.B.Stephens
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 11:49am
  Encinom,
  
  We do live with the consequences of our decisions.
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 12:16pm
  Marriage is not a sexual behavior.
  
  All sodomites want is public acceptance of their filthy acts.
  
  Marriage is a natural union between a man and a women.
  
  All sodomites want is a special privilege to do that which is perversion.
  
  Marriage is the foundation of civilization and shapes all societies.
  
  All sodomites want is special treatment and to corrupt the sacredness of life’s most precious covenant.
  
  Marriage is not a contract or ceremony but a consensual union between the opposites sexes.
  
  All the Left wants is to take advantage of the sodomite’s degenerate lifestyle in order to further demoralize society and destroy Protestant Christianity.
  
  Marxism does not permit the belief in a Higher Authority outside of the State, much less, the existence of any natural laws.
  
  Report this comment
- JediKnight
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 1:12pm
  @NaughtCal: “But marriage should be a private affair we need only remove all the tax benefits from the tax code and then the federal government wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in marriage cases. Marriage should be a private affair and divorce should be a private affair.”
  
  You’re right. So let’s push to get the government completely out of marriage and divorce instead of trying to change the definition of marriage. Get the government out and all the arguments for “gay marriage” go away.
  
  Report this comment
- PaxInVeritate
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 1:44pm
  NAUGHTYCAL… marriage is not private. Perhaps you are thinking only of physical intimacy found in the bedroom, but marriage is more than that. It is lived out in the community as well as home. It’s Sacramental covenant is not just between the couple but the couple with God. It is a union that speaks to the order and relationship of the Godhead and His creation.
  
  Report this comment
- charles116
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 1:49pm
  What does ‘being married isn’t a private affair’ even mean? = 0
  
  Report this comment
- PaxInVeritate
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 2:26pm
  CHARLES116… THENINTHPLANET is expressing a Truism. Read my response to NAUGHTYCAL.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 3:06pm
  L.B.Stephens
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 11:49am
  Encinom,
  
  We do live with the consequences of our decisions.
  ___________________
  What you and the rest of the Christian Taliban seem to miss, is that its my choice. You have no right to impose your fairy tale beliefs on others.
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 4:11pm
  @ENCINOM You’re free to stick your you know what up another man’s you know what when in private, but you don’t have a right to shove that lifestyle in our faces when in public, or to pervert existing institutions in order to make your degenerate lifestyle to seem acceptable. So you go ahead and do you know what, when in private, just don’t tell us about it. My neighbor never spouts about what sexual acts he’s done in private with his wife, nor has he ever defined his life by what he does in the privacy of his bedroom, nor has he ever petition the Government to grant him and his mistress for special rights. You liberal sodomites are disgusting, intrusive, aggressive, and on a quick path to destruction. You may have laws accepted to make you feel normal, but you will never live a healthy, honorable, godly life. The same goes for proud fornicators, drunkards, sluggards, adulterous, and thieves, who unashamedly shove their degenerate lifestyles in the public’s eye. I want society to prosper, not degenerate. I want all political institutions to protect Life and ensure the Happiness of Mankind, not the lifestyles of perverted men. I want my future children to grow up in a stable society, not in one robbed of any decency and virtue.
  
  Report this comment
- BuzzardSays
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 4:11pm
  The guvmint has destroyed morality and decency as they constantly “Slouch towards Gomorrah”.
  I am extremely dissatisfied by what I see across all stratem of humanity. I would slap the face of most tv personalities and politicians. We should press forward in a new effort I’ll call, “Get Out The Slap” campaign. Slap their stinking faces until they run when they see you coming.
  
  Report this comment
- L.B.Stephens
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 7:47pm
  Encinom,
  
  You are correct, we all do have the right to make our choices as we wish.
  
  Never-the-less, all of us do live with or experience the consequences of our decisions.
  You’re not going to try arguing that truth are you?
  
  Report this comment
- soleil
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 2:48pm
  Well said, Valiant1776, it so saddens me for these supporters of a certain abnormal sexual preference to campare their rights to the same as women voting,civil rights, black/white marrying. This only shows their desperation for society to accept their deviant sexual behavior as normal. If people want to choose this lifestyle, so be it, but quit trying to change societies’ laws (marriage) to appease your ego that you are ‘normal’. “If it feels good, do it” mentality is the beginning of the end for any society/people.
  
  Report this comment
- Nlitend1
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 8:42pm
  Here is a fun exercise, replace the word homosexual with black. I love all the comments that say this isn’t a civil rights issue based on some inbred understanding of civility. Btw, I love that you all hate homosexuals and think you can talk for god and tell everyone what he thinks. I love that you zealots define the tea party and the conservative ideology with loud declarations of hate. I judgeth ye a joke. Now go move to Mississippi where your intolerance and lack of education is more accepted.
  
  Report this comment
freedomisasfreedomdoes
Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:28am
Bonauto was speaking before the court decided on Friday to take up cases on California’s constitutional ban on gay marriage and a federal law that denies to gay Americans who are legally married the favorable tax treatment and a range of health and pension benefits otherwise available to married couples.

Why redefine marriage? Why not redefine tax law? Who would vote/rally against that?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- YouCantExplainThat
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 10:07am
  As long as people’s freedoms are not limited by ignoring LGBT rights. Meaning that we don’t ignore/act when your neighbors rights are taken away. Then yes. Let’s stop focusing on this and focus on the real problems, read “economics”.
  
  Report this comment
azghost
Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:25am
Marriage is a church doctrine, not a government doctrine. The government didn’t institute marriage God almighty did. The government is intruding here. The government is taking something wonderful here and trashing it for people that can’t figure out where slot A and tab B go. The ho mo sex uals have to steal the word gay, the rainbow for their cause, gay means happy not to many gays are very happy and the rainbow belongs to God! It’s not theirs!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- U4eeeahhh
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:42am
  A: The 1100+ benefits, privileges, rights and tax breaks are given to married couples, not by a mythical Sky Daddy but by the very real secular civil government. That makes recognizing same sex partnerships by the secular government very correct, indeed necessary to be fair. No matter the name you apply to same sex attractions they have always been part of the human existence difference is admitting it today as opposed to suppressing it yesterday.
  
  Can Male and Female Atheists who would never have children legally marry in your world?
  
  Report this comment
- No_Lables
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:51am
  Marriage is a civil contract. People can be married in the courthouse and have nothing to do with religion, does that mean that marriage is recognized less because it wasn’t done religiously?
  
  Report this comment
- sojo81007
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:55am
  There are two ways to “come out.” Mans way, and God’s way.
  Man’s way says “Look at the sinner I am. Accept it. I’m open about my sin. I come out IN my sin. ”
  God’s way says, “Look at the sinner I am. I repent of it. I’m open about my sin. I come out OF my sin.”
  
  Homosexuality is sin just like any other sin. We are ALL born with inbred sin in our hearts…but that doesn’t mean we surrender to it, we give it to God, he forgives us, and we no longer live in sin.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc33
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 10:05am
  marriage was around long long before Christ. or Judaism for that matter. and far predates the church. This is a case of christians taking the already well established marriage, defining it for themselves, and then not letting anyone else define it.
  
  Report this comment
- searcher619
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 10:28am
  U4eeeahhh:
  
  Sorry but the government isn’t supposed to discriminate. It is supposed to treat ALL the people the same which includes couples. The way it is now Government is discriminating against non-married couples and same sex married couples. the government shouldn’t be giving preferential treatment to ANY relationships. The only legit tax credit couples should be able to take is one for any children they have. You shouldn’t get ANY tax breaks just because you went to the courthouse and got a piece of paper from the government saying they recognize the fact that you two are a couple. I see no REASONABLE justification for it at all.
  
  Report this comment
- TheEndIsComing
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 10:33am
  Wrong Keaton, marriage was an institution God gave to creation in the garden of Eden. It’s not something that predates religion that was stolen from you atheists as you imply. Marriage is between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. It’s the very fabric of our society, THE FAMILY.
  
  Homosexuality cannot produce children and does not provide the balance in parenting needed with a mother AND a father. It is government’s and society’s responsibility to support heterosexual marriage and prevent homosexual marriage because marriage is not just about your selfish adult needs, IT’S ABOUT PROTECTING THE CHILDREN AND THEIR NEEDS WHEN THEY ARE VULNERABLE AND NEED NURTURING.
  
  Homosexuality by its very nature is TOTALLY narcissistic. That’s why it doesn’t surprise me one bit that you and all of your gay friends can’t understand what’s really happening here. This is really bigger than all of you, but all you can see and focus on is your selfish narcissistic wants.
  
  Report this comment
- Kalidor835
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 10:40am
  Marriage was always a religious institution even before Judaism or Christianity. In all of the ancient cultures from Egypt to Babylon to Greece to Rome and to the Orient it was a religious practice. It was only within the last 200 years or so that governments wrongly incorporated marriage as a state institution. The idea of tax breaks for married couples stemmed from their raising a family something that homosexuals can not do naturally. The last I checked a man can’t poop out a baby nor can a woman get another pregnant. I oppose gay marriage based on it’s religious roots but if the government wants to give a gay couple rights based on a civil union equal to those given to a married couple then so be it just don’t call it marriage or force a church, Jewish temple, or other religious organization to have to set aside it’s moral views to perform the ceremony.
  
  Report this comment
- rejoyce2
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 10:44am
  Thank you for a great post.
  
  Report this comment
- LTinUT
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 2:41pm
  @searcher619. The government doesn’t treat ANYONE equally. In my lifetime I have been treated differently by the government. As a single person, as a married person, and as a single head of household. I was taxed differently under all categories. Different tax codes for different status’ as defined by the government is never fair. The problem of gay marriage was CREATED by the government by treating married people differently than single people. Also, by reaching into our pockets to require marriage certificates with a fee payable to the government. The union between a man and a women in history was a religious covenant, not a government covenant.
  
  Report this comment
- Chet Hempstead
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 3:32pm
  The government has been licensing marriages and performing weddings since at least a hundred years before any of us were born, and nobody ever had a problem with it until they started to consider including same sex couples. Every day hundreds of straight couples get married in front of a judge, often because they don’t follow a specific religion or follow two different religions. I don’t think the whole “get the government out of marriage” crowd understands how casually they would jeopardize the rights of all of these couple in the name of preventing same sex couples from marrying.
  
  Report this comment
- searcher619
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 5:23pm
  Chet Hempstead:
  
  Just because it’s been done for generations does not mean it was OK. Slavery was around for a while too yet we came to our senses and finally banned it. Government isn’t supposed to discriminate. If it observes and rewards one kind of marriage it should observe and reward ALL unions between consenting adults equally. I don’t see how anyone with a properly functioning brain can be against it. You may not like not feel the other types of marriages are right but that does not make the government’s discriminatory practice correct. Acknowledge ALL marriages or don’t acknowledge any of them.
  
  Report this comment
- Nlitend1
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 8:47pm
  Here’s an exercise to prove that you’re a bigot . . . replace the word homosexual with black. I love all the comments that say this isn’t a civil rights issue based on some inbred understanding of civility. Btw, I love that you all hate homosexuals and think you can talk for god and tell everyone what he thinks. I love that you zealots define the tea party and the conservative ideology with loud declarations of hate. I judgeth ye a joke. Now go move to Mississippi where your intolerance and lack of education is more accepted.
  
  Report this comment
chicago76
Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:18am
Any victory will be pyrhic. It will lead to a quicker ending to their own convoluted idea of their equal rights.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
liltexasgal
Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:16am
It is the radicals on both sides of the political aisle that are causing the division between us. I don’t judge you and would ask the same courtesy from you. Don’t force your choices on me, and I won’t force mine on you.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- JimmyP
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:39am
  Right…This makes perfect sense! I won’t interfere with your right to go to work, unimpeded by the requirement that you pay union dues that you do not want to pay and you will not interfere with my right to rob banks, steal your lawnmower and enslave your grandmother. Perfect sense! Hey, it’s my right to determine what is right.
  
  Report this comment
- mrsbose4jesus
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:49am
  Well….what if I want to have two husbands or maybe even three? Is that ok?
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc33
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 10:08am
  JIMMY how far can you stretch? Stealing and enslaving grandma are not rights because they are ILLEGAL!!! and not wrongfully illegal.
  
  Report this comment
- pmjme
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 10:46am
  Laws can be changed. So why are they “rightly” illegal? Can you point to the moral code you are using to determine that? Civil societies need a moral base from which to thrive, and write their laws. But as no one human’s opinion is any more valid than another person’s, what moral base do you point to that breaks the tie?
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 1:47pm
  It’s called liberalism/progressiveism/socialism etc. Laws are only for stupid people. But not them.
  
  Report this comment
Luke21
Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:11am
@ those who still fear God or claim Christ, what does He say about the definition of marriage?

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Genesis 1:27)

He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created. (Genesis 5:2)

The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,’ and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’ ? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:3-6)

Don’t overlook this, in the specific Jesus is addressing divorce, but in it He defines marriage. You can call a rose “a duck” & get a bunch of people to agree w/ you & even pass laws & make it a crime to call it a rose, but in the end it is still a rose. & Calling evil “good” & good “evil” does not change the truth. In the end, God will not be mocked.

Stand strong on the Word of God & His promises; do not be intimidated into compromise – because this is all about rebelling against God (Romans 1) & these things must come to pass, for the end is near (Jude; Luke 21:28). Even so come Lord Jesus (Rev 22:

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- mrsbose4jesus
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:48am
  Amen!!!!!
  
  Report this comment
- No_Lables
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:49am
  You have to realize that not everyone believes in your religion. This country is not a Christian nation. Therefore laws based on the bible should not be made. If you’d like a country based in religion, you should try Iraq, I hear it’s nice this time of year.
  
  Report this comment
- pmjme
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 10:55am
  I give you the same questiion. What moral code do you point to when it comes to writing laws? Civil society needs a moral base they can use to write their laws. Since no one human’s personal opinion is any more valid than another person’s, what moral code do you point to when talking about writing civil society laws?
  
  Report this comment
- Luke21
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 10:16pm
  @NO_LABELS
  “You have to realize that not everyone believes in your religion…Therefore laws based on the bible should not be made…”
  
  That’s why it wasn’t addressed to you.
  
  You mean Bible based laws like: you shall not steal; shall not murder; shall not give false witness? Good point.
  
  BTW, I don’t “believe in” (I think you mean to say agree w/) your religion (humanism) – so what’s your point? Are you claiming your position is somehow better than mine or more righteous than any other? You are guilty of the very thing you accuse me of…
  
  If lawlessness is what you want, lawlessness you shall have. I’m paraphrasing, but that too is from the Bible.
  
  Report this comment
Gregory_Adams
Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:56am
There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage, it’s about limits on the Federal Government. Therefore, it falls to the States and the people. It’s a state’s rights issue.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- michaelmoron
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:11am
  The Government has NO business in people’s personal affairs. BOTTOM LINE !!!!
  
  This all revolves around marriage benefits, which is unlawful and unconstitutional.
  
  Unapportioned income tax is unlawful and no where in the constitution does it mention “benefits” for a particular group of people. That would be discriminate.
  
  Report this comment
- rodeo_nco
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:46am
  Correct it is a states issue, but to the person who replied before me stating the government doesn’t have any right to get involved in personal relationships…well you are correct and since Marriage is a historically and traditionally a religious event, it is up to the church to decide and thus a church should be free without persecution to openly observe their religion. Government is involved because WE THE PEOPLE have said this is what we believe, through votes, on what they want to accept. Even California, one of the most liberal states, voted against it. If you choose the gay lifestyle/relationship and are happy…I’m happy for you…doesn’t mean I have to accept it as a marriage because God (in most religions) says it is wrong.
  
  Report this comment
- taxpro4u03
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 11:18am
  Can anyone show me, PRIOR to 1933 (FDR and the advent of what is known as STATUTORY PUBLIC POLICY) where a marriage LICENSE (a privilege to ‘do’ that which would otherwise be ‘illegal’ to do as a 14th amendment Citizen) was ‘required?’ The only ‘benefit’ is to that of State CONTROL of an otherwise lawful ‘union.’ Anything subsequent to July 28, 1868 is ‘unconstitutional’ — unless you ‘agree’ to accept the benefits/privileges offered in exchange for your waiver of ‘rights.’ The Courts have said that the 14th Amendment CREATED a new class of citizenship — it didn’t REPLACE it…. :-) So — WHO are ya??? Answer: a legal fiction — (?) YOU decide — you ‘co-exist…’
  
  Report this comment
Mojoron
Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:56am
No one speaks of natural law in these matters, its like it doesn’t exist. I know that some will say that homosexual activity does happen in the animal kingdom, but it is rare. If homosexuality was a common occurrence then there would be no pro-creation in any species. Even during Roman times homosexuality was considered OK but it was recognized as aberrant behavior even decadent by Roman standards. We have not changed in the 2000 years since Caesar, the behavior is still considered aberrant and crude, but trying to make a mud pie into a chocolate cake is not going to happen by legalizing marriage. The aberrancy still is there and it will continue to be there until the gay coalitions reform our children and their children by brainwashing their mentalities that aberrant behavior is OK. The courts in their enlightened decisions will most likely make marriage legal for homosexuals, I don’t see any other moral roadblock to be able to stop it, but like Roe vs Wade it will only make the married homosexual the brunt of horrendous dislike and torment by most people. While the younger generation seems to be tolerant of the behavior there are literally billions of people in this world who do not and recognize it for what it is: wrong.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TMOverbeck
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:42am
  Just because it’s unnatural or wrong doesn’t automatically mean it should be illegal. As long as I’m not paying for anyone’s habits or consequences, let them marry or get all the similar benefits.
  
  Report this comment
- pmjme
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 12:20pm
  But you are paying for the consequences of their behavior already through public education, social services, and common health care. And while not everything appears on this brief list I do know that it will only grow and become even more burdensome. The only reason the government got involved in the first place was to get a piece of the fortunes amassed by married couples, who have a long history of amassing fortunes faster than single people. Time to government fingers back out of the pie!
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 5:55pm
  “Even during Roman times homosexuality was considered OK but it was recognized as aberrant behavior even decadent by Roman standards”
  ***
  Gays like to bring up the Roman or the Greeks. Well they should not. Because if people looked at the matter more closely they would see exactly what you wrote.
  
  If Romans were so okay with sodomy then why could a Roman citizen be TOP but not a BOTTOM?
  
  Because in the final analysis, Roman society was yet another society that did not approve of sick, disgusting gay sex
  
  Report this comment
- charles116
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:37pm
  Not rare.
  Next.
  
  Report this comment
Duey2000
Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:44am
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. If you say that the courts have no business in who can marry then you must overturn laws for polygamy and age restriction on marriage also.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TMOverbeck
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:32am
  Polygamy, I’ll admit that’s on the table. But marriage IS – in the purely legal sense – a contract. And last I checked, only adults of legal age can enter into contracts. So you’d have to change contract law for the age restriction, and that I imagine would be a lot tougher.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 5:49pm
  TMOverbeck
  
  Age restrictions are on the table. Not right now by many groups, but attempts have been made since the 60s to roll those back. Further attempts will be made by Muslins, some ‘Christians’, hedonists, some gays & others. People in these groups will want to go to age 12. After that who knows.
  
  Report this comment
ClaudeRains
Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:30am
I don’t see anything in the Constitution that sys queers can marry but I’m certain that “Justice” Lefty Roberts will think of something.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- encinom
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 3:35pm
  There is nothing in the Constitution that says bigots can marry either or that fools that believe in the myths of bronze age goat herders get to decide who enjoys what rights.
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:18pm
  There is zero in previous posts by encinomom or monicene that have anything at all to do with common sense or morals. Lib trolls need to not be heeded on mere principle. Bleh and pfft.
  
  Report this comment
TROLLMONGER
Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:29am
Only the far right christian bigots would deny people civil rights in this country. All bc their made up bible tells them so. Pathetic!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- termyt
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:57am
  What is truly pathetic is the weird belief that you apparently think that comment relevant. Or that all oppression in the world was apparently invented shortly after the death of Jesus Christ. Or was it when Constantine conquered Rome? No matter, since only Christians are capable of bias and demagoguing, the exact date they brought war into the perfect utopian peace humans knew before is not terribly important.
  
  Report this comment
- Luke21
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:58am
  How is taking a stance against the re-definition of the word marriage, denying anyone’s civil rights? Which of the 10 bill of rights would that violate?
  
  As for making things up, that seem to be exactly what you are doing.
  
  Report this comment
- Trenaway
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:03am
  To place this as a civil rights is down right insulting! Homosexuality goes against science, nature, God, and everything right in a CIVIL world!!! Homosexuality is the forcing of sex on to us and is sexual harassment!
  
  Report this comment
- DeathRattle
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:19am
  TROLLM is THE JERK’s mom, neither of them has a cohesive thought between them.
  
  Report this comment
- Just_Us2
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 12:39pm
  Right you are…all these laws are just made up by men. So tell you what. I am all for trashing the entire system and let mob rule. Why is one man’s laws superior to anothers? Who the hell made you judge over me? To hell with YOUR laws trollmonger…I say we let the majority decide and first up is if we let gays live or if we use them as street lamps to light our roads. I am really leaning towards the latter. The problem with having no morality greater than your own is that its usually the most immoral person that takes advantage and kills all of the moral people. But you don’t seem to like having a moral authority over you…I am OK playing by your rules…I am probably better armed than you anyway and I won’t let a little thing like your law or your morality get in the way of me getting what I want.
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 5:37pm
  Sodomy is anything but civil, as is drunkenness, adultery, laziness, and violence.
  
  Funny thing is, it’s us Protestant Christians, I mean far right Christians bigots, that founded this nation. Without us, you’d live under indigenous tribal rule, Conquistadors, or the Pope.
  
  Liberals, always one step backwards, and two steps downward.
  
  Report this comment
ares338
Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:28am
The will of the people seems to be constantly thwarted by the liberal courts. Why have votes on different propositions if it just doesn’t matter? The Supreme Court is so political as to be laughable.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- termyt
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:49am
  Courts, more or less, exist because “the will of the people” reflects the will of the majority, which has often been used to repress the minority. The will of the people is not absolute law in the United States, the Constitution is.
  
  Dictatorship – will of the minority forced on the majority
  Democracy – will of the majority forced on the minority
  Both can be tyrannous, both can respect liberty. Our Constitutional form of government attempts to moderate both of these forms so the liberties of all are respected.
  
  To that end, I really hope the Court endorses states’ rights – that there is no Constitutional definition of marriage, so states can do what they want.
  
  Report this comment
progressiveslayer
Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:27am
Since gays don’t have a constitutional right to marry they obviously shouldn’t be allowed to marry. If someone can point out exactly where in the constitution that gays are given this ‘right’ I’ll be happy to change my opinion. Until then this issue should be handled at the state level.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TMOverbeck
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:35am
  There’s no mention of marriage anywhere in the Constitution. So NOBODY has the constitutional right to marry. And I agree, leave it to the states. At least a few of them have come to their senses and allowed gay marriage by popular vote.
  
  Report this comment
- DesertRose1960
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 10:03am
  Before Virginia v. Loving in 1967, some states refused to allow interracial marriage. In fact, Mr. and Mrs. Loving were sentenced to prison for the “crime” of being married, but the sentence was suspended if they agreed to leave Virginia. The Supreme Court examined the law and overturned the laws which forbid interracial marriage. I believe they used the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment and the Due Process clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments. Were I to present the case for Gay marriage, I might also argue for the “full faith and credit” clause of Article Four which requires states to recognize the laws of other states. If someone married in Washington state, their marriage would have to be recognized by the Federal government any state they might move to. If straight people have the right to marry, and interracial couples are allowed to marry, denying the right to marry to two Gay people is denying them equal protection of the law.
  
  Report this comment
- mrsclark
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 11:49am
  @Desertrose. If state’s marriage laws have to be recognized by other states, then should not their gun laws also? If I have a CHL in Texas, then must NY recognize my CHL also?
  
  Report this comment
- RosieJean
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 11:51am
  @desertrose. Uh…the loving vs. Virginia case is not a reasonable comparison because we are still talking marriage between one man and one woman…
  
  Report this comment
- Kerbouchard
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 11:56am
  DR60: “I might also argue for the ‘full faith and credit’ clause of Article Four which requires states to recognize the laws of other states.”
  
  Well, that’s just great, we should try this one out; I’ll be sure to bring along my side arm the next time I fly into in NYC (locked, no ammo, and declared in my luggage) and see what happens! I should be fine because my state allows me to travel with my side arm… right? Right?! o.O
  
  Report this comment
- DesertRose1960
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 12:55pm
  @Rosiejean, It was a marriage between two human beings, one White and one Black. It was illegal because according to the law said that God created a separation of the races. Those laws were thrown out. Gay people have existed since people have, their rights to marry who they love have been suppressed and the law has failed to protect them. There will be Gay marriages in all 50 states in my lifetime, count on it.
  
  To those who brought up the Concealed Carry laws, you’ve put forth a lovely straw man. I’m sure NYC recognizes that you have that right in your state, but NYC doesn’t allow any civilian to carry a concealed weapon in their domain. If you have a valid driver’s license, so you are allowed to drive. But if they banned cars from NYC, then you would not be able to drive your car when New Yorkers can not. You are being granted the same rights and privileges as the local citizens; NYC just doesn’t allow you to go around armed. By the way, NYC has a lower gun death rate than many of the states that allow concealed carry. I think they like being safe.
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 1:47pm
  DessertToad
  That’s laughable. To take a civil union without procreation and liken it to NYC being safe- sure. Any stats could be wrapped in any way depending on the desired outcome. If it’s for safety’s sake, gays would be illegal as they tax the “health” system more than illegals. Stats being what they are and all. NYC law is all about cronyism and power. Peeps out in the Sandy fun area have close to zero recourse for “private security” because the cops move away from NYC and few others are allowed firearms unless you lick Bloomturds boots regularly. Hahahaha. Safety. Sure. Aren’t you a fed or state “worker”?
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 5:45pm
  DesertRose1960
  Gay people have existed since people have
  ***
  Yes & ancient societies thought so highly of them that they celebrated them in verse & public pronouncements
  
  All the ancient sources say the rump ranging is what made Romans & Greeks the men they were.
  
  NOT!
  
  Report this comment
Government_Goodies
Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:18am
Why are the queers worried about losing anything? They get every #$@#!#$!@% thing they want.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DoseofReality
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 11:20am
  What do they get that you dont?
  
  Report this comment
- Letthebulletsfly
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 1:07pm
  Aids
  
  Report this comment
- The_Cabrito_Goat
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 2:01pm
  And intestinal worms. And a sundry other amount of diseases and incurable illnesses. Did you know that anal cancer is communicable? That’s the only known cancer to be spread by contact. That’s scary, because it means cancer has mutated. Just wait until the AIDS or HIV virus mutates, and “jumps”, becomes airborne. Then you will see if such an act really “doesn’t affect you”.
  
  (Ever wonder why God was so down on sodomy? There’s your answer.)
  
  Report this comment
- charles116
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:44pm
  Dear Goat, that’s the cancer Farrah Fawcett died of.
  You are SOOOOOO ignorant of the scope of HETEROSEXUAL behaviors.
  Watch some porn some time.
  
  Report this comment
SamIamTwo
Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:09am
Sick and tired of the the 1% of far left liberals pushing 80% of the costs associated with their agenda.

You paid for it!!! What a waste of time and money…

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- stage9
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:14am
  [T]he cheating ratio of ‘married’ g a y males, given enough time, approaches 100%…Many g a y lovers, bowing to the inevitable, agree to an ‘open relationship,’ for which there are as many sets of ground rules as there are couples.” G a y activist marketing experts Kirk and Madsen admit in After the Ball (op. cit., p. 330)
  
  “The fact is, a committed, monogamous g a y relationship is very rare. Sometimes good friends make a commitment to share a home and care for and support each other, but as g a y literature itself tells us, these relationships characteristically include an understanding that there will be outside s e x u a l relationships.
  
  “In The Male Couple, by David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, the authors-a g a y couple themselves- could find no g a y relationship in which fidelity was maintained more than five years. In fact, the authors tell us, “the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel. Many couples learn very early in their relationship that ownership of each other s e x u a l l y can become the greatest internal threat to their staying together.”– “Reparative therapist”, Joseph Nicolosi
  
  Report this comment
- stage9
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:16am
  Activist Paula Ettelbrick, once policy director for the National Center for L e s b i a n Rights, formerly legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund (formerly the Lambda Legal Defense Fund), is tactically “for” same-s e x “marriage,” but shares these caveats:
  
  “Being q u e e r is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so….Being q u e e r means pushing the parameters of s e x, s e x u a l i t y, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society….
  
  As a l e s b i a n, I am fundamentally different from non-l e s b i a n women….In arguing for the right to legal marriage, l e s b i a n s and g a y men would be forced to claim that we are just like h e t e r o s e x u a l couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly….We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.”
  
  –
  
  Writing in Out magazine, regular contributor Michelangelo Signorile has described a strategy in which h o m o s e x u a l s
  
  “fight for same-s e x marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely…to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution….The most subversive action lesbians and g a y s can undertake-and one that would perhaps benefit all of society-is to transform the notion of ‘family’ e
  
  Report this comment
- michaelmoron
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:26am
  The Government has NO business in Personal relationships.
  
  Marriage never should have been a government issue.
  
  It all stems from Taxes. Marriage benefits to be exact.
  
  Unapportioned Income Tax is Unlawful and unconstitutional. Therefore, the government has invaded the personal lives of Americans due to an unconstitutional act. Bottom Line !!!!!
  
  Report this comment
- michaelmoron
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:37am
  When are you people going to realize that given “benefits” are a socialist ideology?
  
  Report this comment
JSherrillj
Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:05am
Just as a honest question, should anyone be able to marry any one? How about more than one/ or a close relative. Do you beleve that the states can set ANY limits on marriage. I am a male but what if I decide that mothers get more maternaty leave, can I demand to be a mother? I think gays should be able to have a lifetime parnership but it will never be a marriage. Give them the rights privileges and responsibilitis but you dont have to change the definition of marriage.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
DadRocked
Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:01am
State issue… 41 haven’t passed yet and 30 have said no way.
I am against it but say to leave it at the state level.

I say that if ones sexual preference defines who one is than they are shallow.
Character defines ones self.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- progressiveslayer
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:12am
  Good Morning Dadrocked I agree it should be decided at the state level because the feds have too much power and control over us already.
  
  Report this comment
- DoseofReality
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:27am
  Ranger – take a break man – youre delusional.
  
  Report this comment
TelepromoterNChief
Posted on December 10, 2012 at 7:52am
Being gay will be ruled as a tax and pass just like TheJerkCares Tax.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
jcizarter
Posted on December 10, 2012 at 7:38am
The people voted, that should be the end of the story. Leave a brainless system of courts out of this.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- BehindBlueEyes
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 7:54am
  They won’t give up. The LGBT movement will keep pushing their agenda until they get the results they want. This is their time because they know the prez has “evolved” on the issue. Rumor has it that it also fits the prez’s life style.
  
  Report this comment
- Ginger30
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 10:20am
  So if a law passed saying that the rich have to pay a 70% tax rate does it make it right? (Watch CA will be the first one to try). Yes we voted but it does not mean that the many can over ride the few. Our country is about individual rights. We are more than a democracy. And before you get on my case I do not agree that a homosexual relationship is right but what I think should not restrict another. I do believe that if homosexual marriage does get the backing of the government then Churches every where will be in trouble (can you imagine all the stupid law suites) hence the reason why I voted against it. The best outcome I can think of that would leave everyone pretty happy is freedom. Take the government out of marriage. We should not have to go the government to get permission to marry. For the people out there reading this and cringing that they would loose that extra tax break because they are married just keep in mind the tax laws can be changed and should be changed for a lot of reasons.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 3:53pm
  People should never vote on the civil rights of another.
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 7:50pm
  Encinomom
  How about made up special rights? Small group, needed to emote, made up crap? Whatever you feel your civil rights are, I will vote against on mere principle, because you have proven you have no principles. Go ax monicene, she will tell you.
  
  Report this comment
ZAP
Posted on December 10, 2012 at 7:38am
Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ ? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Winedude
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 7:55am
  “Science is the antidote to the poison of religion”…Adam Smith
  
  How true, How true!
  
  Report this comment
- HowTruthHurts
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:15am
  “Science is the antidote to the poison of religion”…Adam Smith
  
  So true, but this says nothing about FAITH in Christ. Religion is simply repetition. If you read your science book daily, you are reading it religiously.
  
  Report this comment
- jblaze
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:22am
  Wine
  So how is Science going to fix something it did not create?
  
  Report this comment
- searcher619
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 10:13am
  Win:
  
  Sorry but science has also been used to slaughter millions. Eugenics anyone? Religious people are no more or less intelligent than non-believers. You show me a an theist who can answer the questions religion tends to deal with. Those being is this all we are? What happens when you die? Does the universe have a creator? NONE of these questions can be answered by science in any significant way. Our science is limited to the physical. These questions address what MAY exist outside our physical reality. Religion is always used by those who know better to try and justify some bad things. The same has been done with science.
  
  Report this comment
- charles116
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 6:01pm
  Yet we throw cold water on 2 dogs.
  Go figure?
  
  Report this comment
- charles116
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:40pm
  The bible has no bearing here.
  Get over it.
  I am a citizen of country in the 21st century
  with no religious affiliation.
  Spare me your bronze age babble/bible.
  Really, Get a grip,
  
  Report this comment
- HowTruthHurts
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 8:42am
  The bible has complete bearing here.
  Get over it.
  I am a citizen of a country in the 21st century
  with Christian faith.
  Spare me your pre-modern-science, darwinian age anti-bible bable.
  Really, Get a grip,
  
  Report this comment
- searcher619
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:17am
  @HowTruthHurts
  
  “The bible has complete bearing here.
  Get over it.
  I am a citizen of a country in the 21st century
  with Christian faith.
  Spare me your pre-modern-science, darwinian age anti-bible bable.
  Really, Get a grip,”
  
  How typical. This country is a country of MANY religions and ethnicities. I love how you seem to think that anything that doesn’t agree with your biblical interpretation is somehow anti-bible. I couldn’t care less what your bible says on this. why? Because this isn’t a religious matter. this is a Government matter. It’s dealing with how the federal and state governments decide to reward the “traditional” married couples and ignore all others. Your bible has no place in the laws of this nation. Governmental acknowledgement of same sex marriages has no impact on you or your religion. Your church is free to marry or not marry anyone they like regardless of what the government does. Yours is not the only religion in the country and plenty other religions DO marry couples same sex or not. You inability to see beyond your religion and church is saddening because I know you represent many ignorant people.
  
  Report this comment
- HowTruthHurts
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:49am
  @searcher619
  
  How typical. This country is founded on the Christian faith. I love how you seem to think that anything that doesn’t agree with your anti-biblical interpretation is somehow anti-USA. I couldn’t care less what your anti-bible views say on this. why? Because this isn’t a secular matter. this is a Biblical matter. It’s dealing with how the federal and state governments decide to reward the God ordained married couples and ignore all others. The bible has every place in the laws of this nation. Governmental acknowledgement of same sex marriages has great impact on us and our nation. You are not free to marry or not marry anyone you like despite what the bible says. Christ is the only true God in this country and any other. Your inability to see beyond your anti-Christ hatred is alarming and is saddening because I know you represent many ignorant people.
  
  Report this comment
Rick in Iowa
Posted on December 10, 2012 at 7:20am
This is a moral/religious issue and the Statists at every level and party affiliation have no business being involved with it.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
sndrman
Posted on December 10, 2012 at 7:19am
don’t worry justice roberts will call it a tax and pass it through…………..cause after all republican justices wanna be “liked” with the dc crowd……………funny liberal socialist justices never vote against their party,only republicans do…………….

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ResistSocialism
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 7:43am
  Exactly
  
  Report this comment
- neverending
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:53pm
  Yeah no kidding.
  
  Report this comment
TheMajority
Posted on December 10, 2012 at 7:15am
They have more right to marry, than they do to force a Religion to change their belief.

I see 2 different issues here.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- toiletclogga
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:03am
  They have civil unions, just like traditional marriage. Marriage is a covenant between the couple and God. Government should not interfere in the issues of the church. Call it whatever you want when a man wants to commit his life to another man, or a woman wants to commit her life to another woman; just don’t call it marriage.
  
  Report this comment
- Stoic one
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:17am
  here is a solution.
  
  Marriage…a spiritual/religious rite/declaration
  
  civil union…a government sanctioned and tax status
  
  The individual church decides who is married according to it’s version of God.
  
  civil unions are organized by the state … all levels.
  
  marriage is no longer recognized by the state
  
  All current marriages are retroactively declared civil unions for taxation purposes.
  
  Report this comment
- jblaze
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:28am
  Toilet
  
  Right on! The only reason they want to call it marriage is to destroy that which only God ordains! Marriage can and is only between a man and a women. God will not join a same sex couple in marriage! Call is anything else but marriage!
  
  Report this comment
ColoradoMaverick
Posted on December 10, 2012 at 7:15am
This is a States Rights issue and the US Supreme Court has absolutely NO business getting involved in this matter. None at all.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Marine25
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 7:49am
  Slavery was a states rights issue too. Women’s suffrage as well. Should those issues have been left to the states as well?
  
  Report this comment
- booger71
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:00am
  Seams to me, the biggest issue here is tax differentiation. Change tax laws were we have a flat individual tax of 10 or 12 percent, no deductions, does not matter if married or not, all people taxed the same. The feds or the state should not be in the marriage business. That is between you and your church.
  
  Report this comment
- Wolf
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:12am
  “…Slavery was a states rights issue too. Women’s suffrage as well. Should those issues have been left to the states as well?…”
  Yes, they should have been, but since when has the SCOTUS or current crop of politicians let the Constitution stand in their way?
  
  Report this comment
- HowTruthHurts
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:16am
  @Marine25
  
  Yes, they should have. FYI, I’m a minority (Puerto Rican). If we wanted all states to always judge and act in unison, we shouldn’t have states in the first place.
  
  Report this comment
- stage9
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:17am
  Paula Ettelbrick, once policy director for the National Center for L e s b i a n Rights, formerly legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund (formerly the Lambda Legal Defense Fund), is tactically “for” same-s e x “marriage,” but shares these caveats:
  
  “Being q u e e r is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so….Being q u e e r means pushing the parameters of s e x, s e x u a l i t y, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society….
  
  As a l e s b i a n, I am fundamentally different from non-l e s b i a n women….In arguing for the right to legal marriage, l e s b i a n s and g a y men would be forced to claim that we are just like h e t e r o s e x u a l couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly….We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.”
  
  –
  
  Writing in Out magazine, regular contributor Michelangelo Signorile has described a strategy in which h o m o s e x u a l s
  
  “fight for same-s e x marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely…to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution….The most subversive action lesbians and g a y s can undertake-and one that would perhaps benefit all of society-is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.
  
  Report this comment
- M40-A1
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:31am
  @Marine25
  Nice try with the attempt to connect slavery with supposed gay rights. The ****’s have the same rights as anyone else, no more and no less. They can marry anytime they want, just has to be a person of the opposite sex. No matter what you or anyone else believes I’m not going go to accept the perversion of homosexuality. I smell another stinking progressive that has as an agenda the destruction of our country. Why don’t you try supporting gay rights over in the Middle East. Let me know how that goes.
  
  Report this comment
- U4eeeahhh
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 9:52am
  @ STAGE 9 – Why do you do that weird letter spacing thing with certain words like: Lesbian, homosexual, gay and sex?
  
  Report this comment
- Marine25
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 12:40pm
  @M-40-A1
  Your logic doesn’t hold. If it did inter-racial marriages would have been struck down by the court in 1967 as ‘you are free to marry anyone who olooks like you’. I don’t think the 14th Amendment is going to say equal protection under the law means gay men have the same right under the law to marry women as any other man does. That’s a clownish interpretation, won’t even be made in the argument at the court.
  
  Report this comment
- HowTruthHurts
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 12:53pm
  @Marine25
  
  Actually it’s your logic that is faulty. We do indeed discriminate maritally. For instance an adult cannot legally marry a minor in most states (some states do allow this with parental consent). Whereas it’s undisputed that one cannot control his ethnicity or race, with homosexuality there is still scientific dispute on weather this is by choice or nature or both.
  
  The Supreme Court has a history of defending those who are a minority by nature not by choice. That is why you can’t deny a man a job because he is black, but you can deny him a job because he refuses to stop cursing. The former is nature, the latter is choice. However, you cannot deny a man a job because his religious choice. However religion is distinctly defended in the Constitution but sexual choices are not.
  
  Report this comment
- Chet Hempstead
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 3:21pm
  If it’s a States Rights issue, then Congress has no business getting involved in this matter, so the Court is at least right in choosing to hear the case about whether DOMA is constitutional.
  
  Report this comment
- TheFounder
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 3:53pm
  Marine,
  After seeing the last election I would say we SHOULD leave these issues to the states! It seems to me that this country is divided on alot of issues that neither side will compromise on. The values and majority belief in Texas is not the same as it is in New York. Is that a bad thing? No its not but why even have local legislation if local beliefs and wants arent recognized by the federal gov’t. Perfect example would be Marijuana laws, legal now in Washington and Colorado but at any time the Federal Gov’t can say to bad its still federal law that its illegal. I think federal govt should stay out of these issues which have already been presented, voted on, and passed by the people in that immediate area. Therefore if 41 states say we will not support gay marriage then thats the way it is and stop crying about it! Hell I have to be part of socialized healthcare because a majority of this country is ignorant of the consequences and it was passed by a supreme court which has proven itself to be questionable at best. Am I upset, furious, and absolutely beside myself………YES! but it is what it is and I can always move to a different country if I thought I could do better so you homosexuals can go to the states where it has been voted and get hitched if you like but dont push it down the throats of those who dont believe its right……thats recipe for disaster and will discredit the supreme court even more than what is already is!
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on December 10, 2012 at 8:24pm
  Lets not get confused and think 25 is an actual marine. Confuse the sexes and role of male/female pieces parts all day with repeated bong hits and pot brownies, but 25 is not a marine.
  
  Report this comment
- Marine25
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:51am
  @founder
  The federal government recognizes all local and state law that does not violate contradict or supercede the Constitution. (See article VI.) The Court will consider whether this is a violation of the 14th Amendment. If they say it is, all state statute found to be in violation is nullified. If it isn’t, states can do as they wish.
  
  @fubared
  Can’t imagine a Marine that disagrees with simpletons like you? That disagrees with someone who is such an learned man that he suggests all homosexuals lisp and that anyone who supports civil rights for the gay community is a (and I quote you here) p u s s y? Can’t believe that a Marine is an atheist? Can’t believe that a Marine would vote for a Democrat? The Marines I served with and my fellow Cadets at the Citadel came represent every demographic in America, and are far more reasonable, open-minded, and free-thinking than you appear to be. Believe whatever lets you sleep at night, but save your purging and disrespect for your next tea-party meeting.
  
  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.