Watch Live: Obama’s Counterterrorism Speech

Watch Today’s BlazeCast With Your Questions, Comments & Live Chat!

Faith

Which 80 Prominent Republicans Just Signed a Legal Brief Proclaiming Gay Marriage Is a Constitutional Right?

Feb. 26, 2013 10:21am Billy Hallowell

This story has been updated.

As the gay marriage debate continues to heat up, prominent Republicans — and some surprising names at that — are emerging to voice their support for same-sex unions. Following a blistering loss in the 2012 presidential election, discussion about social issues, particularly gay rights, has emerged as a potentially-problematic area for right-of-center politicians. And in an era colored by increasing support for homosexual marriage, the pressure is mounting.

This week, more than 80 prominent Republicans, including top advisers to President George W. Bush, four former governors and two members of Congress signed a legal brief that proclaims gay people have the right to marry under the U.S. Constitution. The document will be submitted to the Supreme Court this week, where it is purportedly intended to add to the voices that will be heard during two upcoming gay rights cases, The New York Times reports.

80 Prominent Republicans Sign Legal Brief Proclaiming Gay Marriage Is a Constitutional Right | Supreme Court

Photo Credit: AP

Next month, the High Court will hear a battle over Proposition 8, California’s controversial law banning same-sex unions. Additionally, a separate case concerning the Defense of Marriage Act will be argued. The legal brief could have an impact on conservative justices who support traditional marriage, but who are also sympathetic to gay marriage arguments surrounding equal rights.

Many of the names on the document argue that legalizing same-sex unions advances conservative values by expanding personal freedom and supporting family structures. The Times has more about some of the surprising names who are accepting this view:

Among them are Meg Whitman, who supported Proposition 8 when she ran for California governor; Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York; Stephen J. Hadley, a Bush national security adviser; Carlos Gutierrez, a commerce secretary to Mr. Bush; James B. Comey, a top Bush Justice Department official; David A. Stockman, President Ronald Reagan’s first budget director; and Deborah Pryce, a former member of the House Republican leadership from Ohio who is retired from Congress.

Ms. Pryce said Monday: “Like a lot of the country, my views have evolved on this from the first day I set foot in Congress. I think it’s just the right thing, and I think it’s on solid legal footing, too.”

Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the former Utah governor, who favored civil unions but opposed same-sex marriage during his 2012 presidential bid, also signed. Last week, Mr. Huntsman announced his new position in an article titled “Marriage Equality Is a Conservative Cause,” a sign that the 2016 Republican presidential candidates could be divided on the issue for the first time.

Photo Credit: AP

Here’s a portion of how Huntsman framed his new-found views on the matter:

Today we have an opportunity to do more: conservatives should start to lead again and push their states to join the nine others that allow all their citizens to marry. I’ve been married for 29 years. My marriage has been the greatest joy of my life. There is nothing conservative about denying other Americans the ability to forge that same relationship with the person they love.

All Americans should be treated equally by the law, whether they marry in a church, another religious institution, or a town hall. This does not mean that any religious group would be forced by the state to recognize relationships that run counter to their conscience. Civil equality is compatible with, and indeed promotes, freedom of conscience.

Last week, former First Lady Laura Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney and former Sec. of State Colin Powell made headlines after past interviews they gave on the subject of gay marriage were used in an ad for The Respect for Marriage Coalition, a group favoring same-sex nuptials. As of Monday, the Times reports that these individuals were not yet signed onto the brief (you can see more of the names who did sign on board here).

Interestingly, in making the argument that gay marriage should be legal and that Proposition 8 deserves to be overturned, past Supreme Court cases that are near and dear to conservatives’ hearts are cited. The Times claims that the document notes the Citizens United case, which focused upon campaign finance restrictions, and a Second Amendment case in which the Washington D.C. handgun ban was overturned.

Photo Credit: AP

This brief brings the stark divide within the Republican Party over gay marriage out into the open. With House of Representatives leadership continuing the tout the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as existing only between one man and one woman, it’s evident that the split is only growing.

With the American public increasingly becoming supportive of gay marriage, questions over how this dynamic will impact the Republican Party’s future are ongoing. Recent trends are certainly showcasing increased support for same-sex unions — and even homosexuality more generally.

LifeWay Research conducted a survey back in November — the results of which were released last month. The organization asked respondents, “Do you believe homosexual behavior is a sin?” Forty-five percent of the American public said that it is not, with 37 percent answering affirmatively, and an additional 17 percent saying that it did not know which side to select.

For better or for worse (and that depends on whom you’re talking to), it’s clear that the tides are turning.

UPDATE: The current list of Republicans, as presented by the American Foundation for Equal Rights, is below:

Ken Mehlman, Chairman, Republican National Committee, 2005-2007
Tim Adams, Undersecretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, 2005-2007
David D. Aufhauser, General Counsel, Department of Treasury, 2001-2003
Cliff S. Asness, Businessman, Philanthropist, and Author
John B. Bellinger III, Legal Adviser to the Department of State, 2005-2009
Katie Biber, General Counsel, Romney for President, 2007-2008 and 2011-2012
Mary Bono Mack, Member of Congress, 1998-2013
William A. Burck, Deputy Staff Secretary, Special Counsel and Deputy Counsel to the President, 2005-2009
Alex Castellanos, Republican Media Advisor
Paul Cellucci, Governor of Massachusetts, 1997-2001, and Ambassador to Canada, 2001-2005
Mary Cheney, Director of Vice Presidential Operations, Bush-Cheney 2004
Jim Cicconi, Assistant to the President & Deputy to the Chief of Staff, 1989-1990
James B. Comey, United States Deputy Attorney General, 2003-2005
R. Clarke Cooper, U.S. Alternative Representative, United Nations Security Council, 2007-2009
Julie Cram, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director White House Office of Public Liaison, 2007-2009
Michele Davis, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs and Director of Policy Planning, Department of the Treasury, 2006-2009
Kenneth M. Duberstein, White House Chief of Staff and Assistant to the President, 1981-1984 and 1987-1989
Lew Eisenberg, Finance Chairman, Republican National Committee, 2002-2004
Elizabeth Noyer Feld, Public Affairs Specialist, White House Office of Management and Budget, 1984-1987
David Frum, Special Assistant to the President, 2001-2002
Richard Galen, Communications Director, Speaker’s Political Office, 1996-1997
Mark Gerson, Chairman, Gerson Lehrman Group and Author of The Neoconservative Vision: From the Cold War to the Culture Wars and In the Classroom: Dispatches from an Inner-City School that Works
Benjamin Ginsberg, General Counsel, Bush-Cheney 2000 & 2004
Adrian Gray, Director of Strategy, Republican National Committee, 2005-2007
Richard Grenell, Spokesman, U.S. Ambassadors to the United Nations, 2001-2008
Patrick Guerriero, Mayor, Melrose Massachusetts and member of Massachusetts House of Representatives, 1993-2001
Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce, 2005-2009
Stephen Hadley, Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor, 2005-2009
Richard Hanna, Member of Congress, 2011-Present
Israel Hernandez, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for International Trade, 2005-2009
Margaret Hoover, Advisor to the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, 2005-2006
Michael Huffington, Member of Congress, 1993-1995
Jon Huntsman, Governor of Utah, 2005-2009
David A. Javdan, General Counsel, United States Small Business Administration, 2002-2006
Reuben Jeffery, Undersecretary of State for Economic, Energy, and Agricultural Affairs, 2007-2009
Greg Jenkins, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Advance, 2003-2004
Coddy Johnson, National Field Director, Bush-Cheney 2004
Gary Johnson, Governor of New Mexico, 1995-2003
Robert Kabel, Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs, 1982-1985
Theodore W. Kassinger, Deputy Secretary of Commerce, 2004-2005
Jonathan Kislak, Deputy Undersecretary of Agriculture for Small Community and Rural Development, 1989-1991
David Kochel, Senior Advisor to Mitt Romney’s Iowa Campaign, 2007-2008 and 2011-2012
James Kolbe, Member of Congress, 1985-2007
Jeffrey Kupfer, Acting Deputy Secretary of Energy, 2008-2009
Kathryn Lehman, Chief of Staff, House Republican Conference, 2003-2005
Daniel Loeb, Businessman and Philanthropist
Alex Lundry, Director of Data Science, Romney for President, 2012
Greg Mankiw, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers, 2003-2005
Catherine Martin, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Communications Director for Policy & Planning, 2005-2007
Kevin Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, 2005-2009
David McCormick, Undersecretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, 2007-2009
Mark McKinnon, Republican Media Advisor
Bruce P. Mehlman, Assistant Secretary of Commerce, 2001-2003
Connie Morella, Member of Congress, 1987-2003 and U.S. Ambassador to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2003-2007
Michael E. Murphy, Republican Political Consultant
Michael Napolitano, White House Office of Political Affairs, 2001-2003
Ana Navarro, National Hispanic Co-Chair for Senator John McCain’s Presidential Campaign, 2008
Noam Neusner, Special Assistant to the President for Economic Speechwriting, 2002-2005
Nancy Pfotenhauer, Economist, Presidential Transition Team, 1988 and President’s Council on Competitiveness, 1990
J. Stanley Pottinger, Assistant U.S. Attorney General (Civil Rights Division), 1973-1977
Michael Powell, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, 2001-2005
Deborah Pryce, Member of Congress, 1993-2009
John Reagan, New Hampshire State Senator, 2012-Present
Kelley Robertson, Chief of Staff, Republican National Committee, 2005-2007
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Member of Congress, 1989-Present
Harvey S. Rosen, Member and Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers, 2003-2005
Lee Rudofsky, Deputy General Counsel, Romney for President, 2012
Patrick Ruffini, eCampaign Director, Republican National Committee, 2005-2007
Steve Schmidt, Deputy Assistant to the President and Counselor to the Vice President, 2004-2006
Ken Spain, Communications Director, National Republican Congressional Committee, 2009-2010
Robert Steel, Undersecretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance, 2006-2008
David Stockman, Director, Office of Management and Budget, 1981-1985
Jane Swift, Governor of Massachusetts, 2001-2003
Michael E. Toner, Chairman and Commissioner, Federal Election Commission, 2002-2007
Michael Turk, eCampaign Director for Bush-Cheney 2004
Mark Wallace, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Representative for UN Management and Reform, 2006-2008
Nicolle Wallace, Assistant to the President and White House Communications Director, 2005-2008
William F. Weld, Governor of Massachusetts, 1991-1997, and Assistant U.S. Attorney General (Criminal Division), 1986-1988
Christine Todd Whitman, Governor of New Jersey, 1994-2001, and Administrator of the EPA, 2001-2003
Meg Whitman, Republican Nominee for Governor of California, 2010
Robert Wickers, Republican Political Consultant
Dan Zwonitzer, Wyoming State Representative, 2005-present

(H/T: New York Times)

–

Related:

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

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (597)

Tom70
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:30am
Spineless, gutless, typical politicians are some of the adjectives that come to mind, These people have no core values. It is all about the perks, power and elitism. They will do anything now to conform. I will be looking fwd to them kissing the “ONES” ring on bended knee.
Even worse are the uniformed electorate who vote for non Conservative candidates. Again and again and the machine who promotes them.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
watashbuddyfriend
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:28am
Those 75 need, and should be brought home, and retired!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
The Big Mick
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:26am
Locked and Moronic Mytical “Moderate”.
What’s your Theological Street Cred, lads?
Mine’s an M.Div. from Duke. And that and a couple bucks will get me a cup of coffee.
Still, if you think you can make the Biblical and Theological Case you hint at, trot er out.
I say you’re dancing around a Faux Dilemma.
The Scriptures are Perfectly clear on something that appears almost mutually contradictory.
We are TOLD, CLEARLY, “No one knows the day or hour, not even the Son, but only the Father.”
We are ALSO told, Clearly: “Be alert, stay awake, be prepared, don’t let the Boss catch you goofing off!” We are to pay attention to, and get ready for, the “signs of His coming.”
It is a BOTH AND not an either or, and that’s just the way it is.
If it causes you heart burn of a Cognitive Dissonance Nature, too bad, it’s the hand that’s dealt.
You got to be expecting it and looking for it and preparing for it, trying to RECOGNIZE it in the next SECOND while realizing nobody really has a CLUE.
Tough Grits, but there it is.
John Wesley had the best take, when asked what he would do if he knew he was going to die that night he pulls out his equivalent of his Blackberry and goes down his schedule for the day unchanged.
See the point?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Locked
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 4:05pm
  @Mick
  
  “See the point?”
  
  No, I really don’t. I agree, we should always be prepared (ie, live a moral, Christian life).
  
  If you think that the end is coming soon, it’s on you to tell me what “soon” means. No one knows (as you yourself quoted), so when you say “soon,” you’re making an unfounded and anti-scriptural assertion. You can argue we’re closer to the end today than yesterday, but we’re also closer to the end today than 2000 years ago, when Christ’s contemporaries ALSO thought the end was coming.
  
  Instead of doomsaying, why not spread the teachings of Christ and live like a good Christian?
  
  Report this comment
Zenonic The Great
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:23am
You are not welcome to our exclusive club… Make up your own…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Keith B
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:22am
This whole gay issue is ******* me off. It is a non starter. I thought we wanted to be free. How on earth or why on earth should the governement even be talking about this? Holy cow we need to change the message. Do you really care if Fred wants to marry Frank? How on earth does that affect you? SHAKING MY EFFING HEAD! Constitution?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- hi
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:27am
  The problem is when they force my church to marry them or it will close due to discrimination. Their mission isn’t to be married but to shut down the church and any companies that do not comply .if a baker says it goes against religious beliefs to put two gay guys on a cake, hr will be forced to close his business.
  It is a matter of the gays taking away my freedom of religion
  
  Report this comment
- The Big Mick
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:27am
  Like I say Keith, the REAL agenda IS Constitutional–it’s to use The STATE to SHUT ME UP when I say “NO!” to Que Eardom.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Doors_Of_Perception
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:33am
  Mick you can say “No” all you want…you can say you saw Elvis in your living room…but you will pay a public price. Get used to it…
  
  Report this comment
- The Big Mick
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:44am
  Is that a THREAT, dorie?
  A price in my fellow dumbcits saying behind my back–”boy he’s an old foggie”–I don’t give a sheite about. A price with the Prhomos using The State to PUNISH me when I say “Que Ear ain’t cool”, He ll NO!
  But THAT’s the whole point to SSM. End game is to silence, anyone who dare holler “PERV!”
  
  Report this comment
- The Big Mick
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:49am
  DoorMouth,
  just to be cogent here. Whether or not people think it LIKELY that I saw Elvis in my living room has NOTHING to do with whether I actually DID!
  People may think it unlikely to find, say, a Higgs-Bothan (sp?) Partical, but if they DO then WHAT people THINK of the likelyhood don’t matter sheite.
  Sometimes the LOWEST order PROBABILITY becomes the Unity ACTUALITY!
  Don’t matter if everybody in the Republic is down with Que Eardom BUT me. I will still call it Peversion and I will still be right, and I will still have a Constitutional Right to Free Exercise of Religion in the Public Square to SAY it.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Doors_Of_Perception
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:58am
  @Mick
  
  Not sure what all the gibberish was but no it wasn’t a threat. Imagine a gentleman walking into a job interview…”So what drives you to work at this company?”say’s Employer. “Well, I was eating a healthy choice dinner last night while I was watching Duck Dynasty and Elivis appeared to me and told me that this job would be perfect for me.” say’s Mick.
  
  Now you have just paid a price for your ridiculous beliefs…it’s just what happens, it’s a normal process of a society weeding out horrible ideas.
  
  No threat it’s just what happens…so people who say things like you will pay a public price by becoming irrelevant…get used to it. It sounds like you have a lot of those…
  
  Report this comment
kunman
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:15am
“All Americans should be treated equally by the law, whether they marry in a church, another religious institution, or a town hall.” Ok, so I’m sure these 75 Republicans feel the same way about polygamy, right? How about pedophiles? Surely they should have the same rights. How about those who want to marry their pets? My dog is an adult. She obviously loves me and I love her. Where do I go for that marriage certificate? I’m sure my human wife won’t mind. You seem to think it is ok to open this Pandora’s box. Let’s make it wide open, Republicans. Let’s face it, the only reason that the gay agenda is progressing is they have lobbyist and a media that is in the tank. Just one more reason I will vote third party next go around. I surely will sleep better knowing I didn’t accept a turncoat.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Chuck Anziulewicz
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:23am
  DEAR KUNMAN:
  
  When your dog can provide verbal and written consent to marry you, get back to me. But it’s a red herring. Bestiality, incest, and polygamy are no more relevant to Gay couples marrying than they are to Straight couples marrying.
  
  Report this comment
- The Big Mick
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:39am
  Thanks Chuky, you just proved my point under 4BLUE STARS 10:59 & 11:05
  There ARE people who think “consent” can be obtained–why do YOU demand “written”?
  Do you GRANT “consent” in Polygamy, Incest? Whether or not the Que Ears think it’s “relevant” DO you GRANT it? Or are you in Cognitive Dissonance?
  The point is NOT if you Prhomos think PI&B is “relevant”, Kunnty, the point is that THEY then have every COGENT right to regard The STATE and the REST of Us as OBLIGATED to Recognize THEIR marriage. On what BASIS would YOU deny it?
  Whether or not you CARE don’t matter Sheite. Whether or not YOUR LOGIC can be EXTENDED DOES! So COUGH it UP, either the SAME Logic for Que Ear Marriage “equal rights’ “love” “commitment” etc etc, CAN be extended to PI&B relationships OR IT CANNOT!
  Which IS it?
  A simple “yes it can” will suffice. If you are arguing “no it CAN’T” then demonstrate how not.
  
  Report this comment
- The Big Mick
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:50am
  that should have been “Chucky” none was addressed to KM.
  
  Report this comment
dimbulbz
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:13am
Its not a Marriage. Its a friendship. Perhaps a little too cozy a friendship for me to spend much time thinking about. But every gay and lesbian person on this earth has something in common with the rest of us – They’re called PARENTS. It took a man and a Woman to create them. Thats what we are trying to protect. I dont care what you want to do with your friends – Some homosexuals seem to have a problem with giving out TMI – Their entire life is defined by their orientation. Some feel threatened by the “Normals”. I wish they could get over it. They live in our great society, but feel the need to force others into thinking excatly like they do. If not, there is something wrong with you and you need to be “Fixed” Thats why they’re starting with politicians, the most maleable of all spineless creatures. Of course these “Republicans” are for “Gay Marriage” now. Its as predictible as the sun rising. They only exist in this life for votes and power and have zero concern for the actual well being of the country. God wont destroy gays, It is this outraged new morality where anything goes-and-you’d-better-accept-it-or-we’ll-lock-you-up-for-not-thinking-nice. Now THAT will eventually destroy everyone, and especially our liberty. Dont the gays get it? You cant force people to think like you – at least not in a free society.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Bunk
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:12am
Morels do NOT evolve. So now we have a list of more Republicans that can’t maintain a steady set of values. Don’t they realize that they are driving us away from voting. I can’t wait to start getting phone calls from republicans wanting money!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Chuck Anziulewicz
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:20am
  OF COURSE more Republicans are supporting marriage equality for law-abiding, taxpaying Gay Americans. They realize it’s the only way their party is going to remain relevant to younger voters.
  
  Report this comment
- The Big Mick
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:55am
  So if “younger voters” are into Occupod Redistributionism do we embrace THAT?
  La Raza Reconquista SHAMNESTY? Shitrear Law?
  
  The GOP ain’t been “Relevant” to ME since Reagan left office, Chucker.
  
  Report this comment
Chuck Anziulewicz
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:10am
The GOP may not “Go Gay” anytime soon … but eventually they’ll have to come to grips with the fact that vilifying Gay Americans is no longer a vote-getter for them. Back in 2009 a CBS News survey found that while only 18% of Americans over the age of 65 supported marriage equality for Gay couples, 41% of American under the age of 45 supported it. That was FOUR YEARS AGO, and the generational shift in attitudes among young people toward their Gay friends and family members is accelerating.

Even conservative columnist Andrew Stuttaford grudgingly acknowledged this: “I fully understand (even if I do not agree with) the idea that same-sex unions are a threat to conventional marriage and I fully understand those who argue that opposition to gay marriage is a fundamental principle too important to be abandoned for reasons of political expediency, but these findings should, I reckon, at least be some sort of warning to those who assume that the GOP’s current position on this issue will continue to be a vote-winner.”.

30 years ago most Americans were not aware of any Gay friends, family members, or co-workers. Today most Americans ARE aware, and they have become dramatically more accepting and supportive of the Gay people and Gay couples in their lives. And social networking sites like Facebook have made the proverbial “closet” virtually obsolete. The Republican Party ignores this growing acceptance at their own peril. The economy is important, yes… but your

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Chuck Anziulewicz
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:11am
  … your friends are PERSONAL.
  
  Report this comment
vorpal
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:10am
my dog and cat want to get married too but we sure as hell don’t need a constitutional amendment for that kind of special interest horse crap either

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Jadedfate
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 1:01am
  Idiotic arguments like these are invalid. Animals cannot consent and neither can children. What happens between consenting adults is nobody’s business but those consenting adults, and they should be afforded the same rights as everyone else.
  
  Report this comment
passingby
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:08am
The truth is, opposition to gay marriage is not a pivoting point with most Americans, but especially the younger voters. If you are truly in favor of liberty and limited government, you would understand you, nor the government has the right to tell two consenting adults what they can in their private lives. Against gay marriage? It is not a requirement, and you are free to remain in your heterosexual relationships. For those who believe it is against the Bible, that is all fine and good. Just remember the 1st Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” In other words, no law can be passed based upon any religion.

It amazes me how many yell about the Constitution, yet want to pick and choose which amendments to uphold. Hypocrite much?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- hi
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:34am
  But those gay guys will be able to tell my church to marry them or they will force the baker to make a cake for them. They already have civil unions. Anything different is due to their agenda to force their will on others
  
  Report this comment
- hauschild
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:41am
  It amazes me even more that some choose to put so much energy into issues that couldn’t be clearer to understand – provided these people are intellectually and morally honest with themselves.
  
  I mean, when times were normal years ago, 19 out of 20 people wouldn’t even bring up such absolute foolishness like gay marriage as an issue. But now, we hop from BS issue to BS issue like we’re really accomplishing something when in all actuality, we’re pulling another loose thread from the worn shirt.
  
  What a complete sham.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Doors_Of_Perception
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 12:27pm
  But those black people will be able to tell my church to marry them or they will force the baker to make a cake for them. They already have civil unions. Anything different is due to their agenda to force their will on others
  
  Report this comment
- JB4JS
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 2:35pm
  ‘Tis truly about morals, PASSINGBY You either have them or you don’t.
  
  Report this comment
- Jadedfate
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 1:04am
  JB, morals by the definition of whom? Your bible? Not everyone believes in that form of fairy tale and superstition, so what right do you have to force that morality on them? The correct answer is, you don’t. Your rights and freedoms end when you infringe on those of another. As long as nobody is harmed, what business is it of yours?
  
  Report this comment
hauschild
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:07am
Obviously a rarity, but after a certain age, really couldn’t understand why adults found it so difficult to follow very simple rules; finding it strangely more convenient to break rules or make up their own, as opposed to obeying and living up to a certain set of standards; also very clearly laid out from the moment they could understand a spoken or written word.

The disheartening aspect to it all is that the fact they understand the easy way out always produces the worst results long term.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
RAGEAGAINSTTHEMACHINE
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:06am
Gay marriage can’t even pass in California! Every election for as long as I can remember, they put it up for a vote, each time…no dice! Come on, why are we even talking about this? RIP GOP

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Chazael
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:06am
Equal protection can be moral if it means all laws must be equally applied to all.

If you mean that all desires must be equally made rights, then that automatically means equal protection is immoral, as it must embrace both good and evil.

And if there is no good or evil… then giving a person a drink of water and shooting him in the head both have the same objective moral value… they are meaningless. Picking one over the other is like picking a flavor of icecream, either could do, but you prefer one based upon personal tastes.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
OneTermPresident
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:05am
Stand for something… or fall for homosexuality. How have so few become more important than the majority? Next we’ll see some state like Massachusetts say transgenders can pick which bathroom to use in their schools.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Budrow
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:04am
None of this has anything to do with the Constitution or the Bible. How often do you see any (other) animals laying down with their same sex for sexual reasons? It doesn’t happen in nature and it is not natural. If God had anything to do with it it was at the beginning. If life is a result of evolution this is how it has evolved and was meant to be by nature. You don’t see any homosexual dogs or cats or elephants or giraffes anywhere. Marriage and homosexuality is an invention of man. Queers are an invention of man. If there are to be any laws relating to the subject the laws should favor nature, not the desires of the mentally unstable.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- dimbulbz
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 12:01pm
  We own two male Pigs, They were brothers (ew!) before one was neutered they were all over each other. When we neutered one, we had to separate them – Yeah, the barnyard can be a wild, wild place. Still being able to behave like pigs isnt exactly a goal we should set for ourselves is it?
  
  Report this comment
BurntHills
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:03am
“The 45 Declared Goals of the Communist TakeOver of America” as entered into Congress, 1963:
#26: promote homosexuality and degeneracy as “normal”.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Beckaj
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:03am
They should take the libertarian stance that it is something that the government should not be involved in. It should be a contract between 2 people that the government doesn’t reward or punish by doling out benefits. Companies and states should be free to handle as they see fit. This should not be a big government decision. As states have demonstrated over and over, the majority of people think marriage should be between a man and a woman. I don’t care what others do. It is their business. I am tired of having it shoved in my face all the time though. I don’t want to know about anyone’s sex life – straight or gay. They are not a victim class and should not be given special treatment because of who they have sex with. Equal opportunity and equal justice.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
JB4JS
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:01am
Oh, great! Just because gay marriage is legal in so many states now doesn’t make it morally right. Abortion is legal, too, but that doesn’t make it morally right. Morals and values are deciding factors (or should be) in everyone’s decision-making process. The true conservative party is becoming ever so smaller and smaller. I’m glad to know who’s been outed because I surely won’t support them in anything.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- passingby
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:10am
  JB4JS, there is a mountain of difference between abortion and gay marriage. One takes the life of an innocent, and the other allows two consenting adults to live their own lives.
  
  Report this comment
- Chazael
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:31am
  No, gay marriage shows society recognizes the two people. Marriage isn’t just about the people, but the society.
  
  There are ploygamists who consider themselves “married” but are not recognized by society.
  
  Report this comment
- The Big Mick
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:56am
  Pass.
  Only if you regard one as moral and the other not. If you regard both as not moral then your argument fails.
  
  Report this comment
- Jadedfate
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 1:06am
  I personally have no issue with polygamists either. If all of them consent to live that way, who cares? If anyone is forced into the arrangement, then of course it should be illegal.
  
  Report this comment
BurntHills
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:01am
next comes the groups who want to marry their dogs, sheep, goats and 5 yr old boys. isn’t that what obama has forced the US Military to accept anyway already.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
4BlueStars
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 10:59am
So what happens when the next group of sexual deviants demands their rights? Who is next, NAMBLA?
What happens when CAIR demands the right to marry 9-year-old girls?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The Big Mick
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:05am
  Naw, that’s down the road a piece, still got to finesse the “consent” angle.
  My money is on Polygamy first, closely followed by Incest. No COGENT barriers to allowing them if QueerMarriage is warrantable. No “consent” issues, no genetic ones any longer. Incest is actually easier to promote because there are no “status” or “equality” questions, but the “yuck” factor is order of magnitude greater. Hang on though. There are pleanty of people who think Dolphins are smarter than we are, that Chimps and other primates can be taught language and that they know what their dog is thinking. Bestial Marriage is not far away. “True Love” in the Animal Kingdom.
  
  Report this comment
moreteaplease
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 10:58am
What are they doing-trying to increase their voter base before mid-terms?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
rotciv
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 10:57am
And RINO spelled backwards means, “Obama Now Is Ruling”.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Brother Winston Smith
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 10:54am
Behold…

“better” evil.

You wanted it and God GAVE IT TO YOU.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- IMCHRISTIAN
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 1:28pm
  God gave us free will. I chose good over evil
  
  Report this comment
tnman65
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 10:53am
By all means sin all you want. But don’t call it marriage. Make up a new name. Because the two aren’t the same. Also I’m sick of people ranting about what percent is for or against gay unions. Put it to a vote by the people, let everyone have a say. The we will see the real numbers.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- encinom
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:20am
  Its funny the so called Christians defend “marraige” as defined in the bible, properly had pork and/or shrimp served at their weddings.
- Locked
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:23am
  @TNMan65
  
  “By all means sin all you want. But don’t call it marriage. Make up a new name. Because the two aren’t the same.”
  
  The problem is you’re forcing your own (or rather, the Bible’s) definition of marriage onto a country that has never accepted that definition. For example, the Bible says that divorce is almost always against the will of God and remarriage is always adultery. But our country has legally allowed both of these, and the people by and large do not hesitate to call remarried divorcees a “married couple,” right?
  
  “Marriage” as the US government refers to it is not “marriage” as the Bible refers to it. They are very different concepts, and the Biblical tenants of marriage, while they bear similarities to what we have in America, are not the basis or sum total of marriage in this country.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:35am
  where is the list of 75 republcans, does anyone have it?
  
  Report this comment
- NeverFalterNeverQuit
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:36am
  Remove the tax incentives from marriage and this whole argument goes away. The state ought to have no say in marriage. Talk about an intrusion into our personal lives.
  
  Leave it up to two consenting adults (or 3, or 4, or whatever) and their church.
  
  Report this comment
- jman-6
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:37am
  Locked- if your gonna use scripture to make your case, please use it in context and Truth! Your post is not accurate.
  
  Report this comment
- Chuck Anziulewicz
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:39am
  DEAR TNMAN65:
  
  Okay, then. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the Supreme Court ruled that there was no Constitutional justification for denying Gay couples the same legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted, but that those benefits and responsibilities could be granted to Gay couples under a different term … such as “civil unions.” The rights under tax law, Social Security, etc. would be EXACTLY the same for Gay and Straight couples; only the terminology would be different. Opposite-sex couples would be allowed the option to “marry,” and same-sex couples would be allowed the option to enter into “civil unions.” Social conservatives could keep the term “marriage” for themselves, and Gay couples would be granted equal protection as specified by the 14th Amendment. AND of course those civil unions would be automatically honored in all 50 states, per the “Full Faith & Credit” clause of the Constitution.
  
  Could you accept that? And if so, what have you really gained? There wouldn’t be language police roaming around telling Gay couples in “civil unions” that they couldn’t refer to themselves as “married.” For all practical purposes they would BE married except for legal terminology. Where is your victory?
  
  Report this comment
- naughtycal
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:40am
  Get rid of all the tax laws,justice of the peace and the government has no reason to get involved in Marriage in the first place.
  
  Report this comment
- IMCHRISTIAN
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:43am
  Enc… you can’t just pick and chose words because to understand all you will have to study in earnest. You must need something or you would not continue to come and join us so why not join a church and go to Bible study classes. God be with you, You will be in my prayers.
  
  Report this comment
- kywillie
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:43am
  The numbers have been coming in, and people are voting FOR gay marriage in every new state it comes up in. Take a look at the last election if you want to see what people think about it. Also, not everyone believes in your bible and it has nothing to do with governance.
  
  Report this comment
- en2deep
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:44am
  John prepared the way of the LORD, preaching repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Today liberals are preparing the way for the antichrist preaching sin for the tribulation is at hand. We are living in the days of the son of perdition.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:51am
  @JMan
  
  “if your gonna use scripture to make your case, please use it in context and Truth! Your post is not accurate.”
  
  How so? Divorce is only allowed in cases of adultery, and remarriage after divorce is ALWAYS adultery. Jesus Himself said so. But we allow both of these things within the concept of “marriage” here in the US. What is inaccurate?
  
  I can even point out other examples. Marriage in the Bible is bringing two people together before God; but we have non-Christian, and even non-religious marriage here in the US. This is obviously not Biblical marriage.
  
  Report this comment
- tonypro
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:53am
  “” Which 75 Prominent Republicans Just Signed a Legal Brief Proclaiming Gay Marriage Is a Constitutional Right? “”
  —————————
  Easy answer…..NONE, there is no such thing as a republican anymore. Must be a trick question.
  —————————
  @Locked
  “” For example, the Bible says that divorce is almost always against the will of God and remarriage is always adultery. “”
  No comment other than the fact you need to read a Bible. If you are having trouble understanding the scripture about marriage, and divorce, I’m sure there are many people that would be willing to help you.
  
  Report this comment
- RedDirtTexas
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:53am
  As a conservative, heterosexual man it kills me to say this but I believe we are going to have to concede this issue. The liberals whom otherwise might vote for fiscal sanity, property rights, and constitutional restraint of government keep bludgeoning us with assorted single issue voting blocks. The gays being a big one. I hate that it has come to this but we need to use these people’s votes the way the socialists are now using them. The good of the nation outweighs this issue.
  
  Report this comment
- love the kids
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 12:00pm
  Marriage is a religious term, not a legal one. Therfore because of the seperation of church and state, the Govt. should have no say on weather a gay couple can marry. Now if they want to recognize that 2 guys can share a union between 2 people that a state would recognize, then they can. I wonder if they are for 1 guy and 3 women getting married? After all, if they love each other, then what’s the problem???
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 12:04pm
  @Tonypro
  
  “No comment other than the fact you need to read a Bible.”
  
  I’m sorry you feel that way. Perhaps you’ve never read Matthew 19:9?
  “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
  
  Or Matthew 5:32?
  
  “But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
  
  or perhaps Luke 16:18?
  
  “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”
  
  If you want to spin this to say “Well, that’s not what Jesus -really- meant,” then we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I don’t think you know better than Jesus, especially when it’s repeated so many times :-)
  
  Report this comment
- kadster01
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 12:06pm
  @SOYBOMB315_II
  
  “where is the list of 75 republcans, does anyone have it?”
  
  What does it matter? We only have one party.
  
  Report this comment
- Atrain1966
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 12:11pm
  Ensinom..
  You stated, ” Its funny the so called Christians defend “marraige” as defined in the bible, properly had pork and/or shrimp served at their weddings.”
  
  Your stupidity is simply amazing. Read Acts chapter 10 concerning your pork/shrimp comments.
  
  Report this comment
- Ira McBiff
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 12:12pm
  i think the government should stay the hell out of all of it,they should not be telling anyone who they can and who they can not marry,,let the people answer to thier maker like we all will for what we do on this earth and leave it at that.Hell at the rate we are going we will all be government recipiants before too much longer and really this dose not matter at all anyway ,,we have more important things to think about,,this country is going to hell,,we need these idiots in DC doing other S++T not dealing with this.
  
  Report this comment
- Max jones
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 12:18pm
  If gays marry, they will be able to adopt children. Molestation and seduction ARE the methods used to “make more gays”. It is unnatural and must be disguised and camouflaged, to increase itself…Like fungus, it needs to stay out of sunlight to spread..
  
  For this reason, alone, gay marriage is UNACCEPTABLE.
  
  Report this comment
- zorro
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 12:20pm
  Nobody is forcing anything on anyone. Enough with that garbage argument. No man, regardless of sexual orientation, can marry another man. And no woman, regardless of sexual orientation, is not allowed to marry antoher woman. Period. There is no equality issue here. The law applies equally to everybody. The law says none of us can marry the same sex.
  
  Report this comment
- 123456beatriz
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 12:21pm
  I really don’t care their decision to be gay, BUT DON”T try to change our religion. If they want to be together is your choice but respect the rules of the Judeo-Christians traditions. Stay away!.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 12:51pm
  @Zorro
  
  “The law applies equally to everybody. The law says none of us can marry the same sex.”
  
  Which law? Several states (and DC) already say it’s fine.
  
  Report this comment
- RaydocX
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 12:55pm
  @Naughtycal
  I agree completely.
  
  Report this comment
- RaydocX
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 1:01pm
  @KyWillie,
  caution… you will find much more support for recognizing that hospitals are stupid to refuse gay partners visitation, which is not a federally determined rule.
  
  and the insurers refusal to grant partners survival benefits isn’t a Federal statute, either, but a convenient way to avoid paying.
  
  arguing that lgbt people deserve the SAME rights and consideration as we ‘straights’ goes much farther and is clearly appropriate. Sadly the radicals in the lgbt community hurt the cause of all in trying to rewrite the religious definition of marriage. Instead of fighting for fairness, they attack others’ beliefs, and then are surprised when they meet resistance.
  
  Then again, i suspect THAT portion of the LGBT community have a different agenda, which is not tolerance and coexistence, but the stamping out of other’s beliefs if they are different. It’s the same injustice they decry, but reversed.
  
  That’s why taking marriage out of Federal control and removing the Federal caveats related to marriage would work for all.
  
  Report this comment
- God_Is_Not
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 1:09pm
  @Locked
  
  If you’re going to post scripture, please only post things I agree with and make me feel superior to others. If you don’t, then it’s obviously out of context. Thank you.
  
  Report this comment
- tonypro
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 1:09pm
  @Locked
  “”remarriage after divorce is ALWAYS adultery. “”<<<<Your words
  In fact the scripture you posted makes this a false statement.(Matthew 19:9 and 5:32)
  
  Although divorce is not favorable in the eyes of God, there are provisions of proper divorcement, whereby a marriage can be dissolved, and remarriage is possible without it being a sin. You should have also included
  Matthew 19:8
  He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
  
  Report this comment
- LeftOfRightOfLeft
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 1:12pm
  @TNMAN65:
  
  The term marriage was around long before your favorite book of myths. Just because my favorite fiction book uses a word doesn’t mean I get to claim it. Oh also there was gay marriage on this land long before America was even a twinkle in a pilgrim’s eye.
  
  Report this comment
- zorro
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 1:17pm
  @Locked the law in California which is what is being addressed in this article.
  
  Report this comment
- 1Epistle
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 1:22pm
  Considering the majority of young people now live together before or instead of marriage, I’m not surprised by their approval of any hedonistic behavior. “But, small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 1:47pm
  All I can say is I am actively looking forward to when god destroys this nation. It happened to my favorite country and it will happen to us. I’ll be sitting with him hopefully laughing at the fools.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 1:48pm
  @Tonypro
  
  “In fact the scripture you posted makes this a false statement.(Matthew 19:9 and 5:32)”
  
  Are… you reading different passages than I am? How do you actually interpret anything else from:
  “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” and “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery”?
  
  Sorry, as said, I choose to believe Jesus’s words.
  
  “Although divorce is not favorable in the eyes of God, there are provisions of proper divorcement, whereby a marriage can be dissolved, and remarriage is possible without it being a sin. You should have also included
  Matthew 19:8
  He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.”
  
  This part immediately follows the famous lines: “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 flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
  
  Matthew 19:8 says that Moses had a provision for divorce; but that it was WRONG (“from the beginning it was not so”). This is much the same as how polygamy was done in the Old Testament, but it was not what God wanted. The followers were confused because Moses allowed divorce, but Jesus corrected it. Jesus=God > Moses.
  
  Report this comment
- drs1969
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 2:00pm
  They put it to a vote and the majority says “I don’t want to subsidize others’ deviant sex life!” So, then they take to the judges, who are on the gov. payroll. These judges predictably say that deviant sex should be subsidized by the taxpayer. The part they don’t say is this is a Democrat hand out program for mostly college-educated rich kids. They(qu**rs) vote overwhelmingly Dem.
  
  Report this comment
- jcldwl
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 2:05pm
  @ Encinom
  Those laws were for the Jews. Christians can eat pork and shell fish.
  
  Report this comment
- jcldwl
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 2:10pm
  None of this is a surprise. Satan controls the politicians. If he didn’t this issue wouldn’t even get off the ground. Turn to Jesus folks He is our one and only salvation. No man is going to save us from where this world is turning.
  
  Report this comment
- Witness1974
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 2:15pm
  If the American people or the American government want to “honor” gay marriage then let it be on their heads, as long as the right to call it an abominable sin in the eyes of God and to say that homosexuality is an unnatural act that is bad for society is not infringed. We are very near laws that infringe freedom of speech and I fear that what is coming after the legalizing of gay marriage are hate speech laws that will make it a crime for a preacher to preach against it or a conservative to deliver speeches against it. Already homosexuality is being taught as normal behavior in the media and now even in grade schools. Making it a civil rights issue is going to have broad and perverse consequences. How long before Christian schools are forced to hire homosexuals as teachers or else close their doors? Already we are seeing suits brought against private business owners who do not want to particpate in “gay weddings” by rendering their services, baking cakes, taking pictures etc. Oh how I miss the time when most weddings were gay events.
  
  Report this comment
- TEXASGRANNY73
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 2:17pm
  @TNMan65 We should have a national eat chocolate day and vote on it. Or a pork and shrimp day for Encinom and vote on it. @Encinom John Kerry is right after all—Some of us are uneducated and have the right to be stupid. Open mind, insert ignorance. Yep, you qualify. Evidently you can’t read? So-called Christian. Really?
  
  Report this comment
- TEXASGRANNY73
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 2:18pm
  @Encinom. So, what’s funny?
  
  Report this comment
- the bean
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 2:18pm
  Divorce is never desirable but not always unacceptable. (see below)
  Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
  
  Report this comment
- may40
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 2:21pm
  Dear Locked- Where do you think the term Marriage came from????? Don’t push your Bible on us, well then don’t use our Christian language. You see, this is like the liberal voter….low information!!!!! The word marriage dates back to the very beginning of the Bible, you know that book you don’t believe in, and God created it. A man shall leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife (not man and man or woman and woman) and they shall become ONE flesh. If you don’t want to acknowledge the true definition of marriage then make up your own term. Stop trying to push your agenda on us!!!
  
  Report this comment
- cessna152
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 2:29pm
  So encidope,
  Since Marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution, would you care to explain why government is involved in it? I’m sure you liberals are totally against the government displaying a plaque of the 10 Commandments…right? I’m sure you’re against teachers praying…right? But you’re okay with government getting involved in the sanctity of marriage? Please explain…
  
  Report this comment
- God_Is_Not
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 2:33pm
  @ MAY40
  
  Locked doesn’t understand why God wrote the Bible in English.
- ArchaicSEAL
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 2:38pm
  While reading all of the comments on here I have to admit that I really, REALLY find it funny when people read or hear crap posted or spoken by others and then somehow think that they know the bible and its “inconsistencies.” Seriously retards who do this: if you really feel you need to bash us Followers of the Way with our own guide book, then at least read and understand it first. If you choose not to (for whatever reason) then do us ALL a favor and STFU.
  
  Moreover, it’s time to stop this. Get government out of marriage. There should be no incentives outside of love to get married. Everyone carries the burden of THEIR OWN sin before God. So whether you let gay people get married or not, they are STILL going to be gay and STILL live a homosexual lifestyle. So to all the Christians who think they are somehow protecting the nation: the sin will be there in the society whether you allow it to be legally recognized or not. The important factor is that GOD recognizes it, not the government. Never mind the fact that we sin in FAR more categories than just homosexuality. Prostitution, pornography, blasphemy, corruption, sexual promiscuity are just a few. And stop with the Sodom and Gomorrah crap, they did FAR worst than just homosexuality, far FAR worst. Go educate yourself about it before opening your mouth.
  
  America has turned from God, and we are witnessing Him calling us back. If we don’t return….
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 2:43pm
  @May40
  
  “Where do you think the term Marriage came from?????”
  
  From French, “marier,” which in turn came from Latin, “maritare.” You’re asking the wrong question though. The idea of social contracts between two people is common to all cultures and societies, not only Christian ones.
  
  “Don’t push your Bible on us, well then don’t use our Christian language.”
  
  What “our” are you talking about? I am a Christian, you see. Marriage has a secular, legal definition in the US, as well religious ones. If you are trying to change the legal definition of marriage into the Christian one, you’re going to fail. People aren’t about to revoke their right to divorce, remarry, marry outside their religion, or marry outside their race (all of which are non-biblical, but allowed by secular marriage and US law).
  
  “The word marriage dates back to the very beginning of the Bible, you know that book you don’t believe in, and God created it. A man shall leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife (not man and man or woman and woman) and they shall become ONE flesh. If you don’t want to acknowledge the true definition of marriage then make up your own term.”
  
  Careful… remember what happens when you assume.
  
  “Stop trying to push your agenda on us!!!”
  
  I believe you misunderstood me, so I won’t respond nastily to you right here. I’ll just let you know you’re in my prayers, and I hope God blesses you.
  
  Report this comment
- TEXASGRANNY73
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 2:44pm
  @RedDirtTexas Red dirt reminds me of early times running like a mad dog through that dirt that make for memories. As you are from Texas I will be respectful. And I totally disagree with you. I will never give up my principles to politics. I will defend gays and anyone who is a target of hate. But I do not believe in gay marriage. I have voted Republican my entire life except once and it sure wasn’t Obama. However, RINOs have become the popular Republican party and I have requested they quit calling me. Do you really believe that the number of gay votes would outnumber the votes of those who will not vote Republican? I don’t. I am a conservative. I will support the Tea Party in their endeavors. But, my principles stand for something or they don’t.
  
  Report this comment
- TEXASGRANNY73
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 2:48pm
  @RedDirtTexan Forgot to say it may not matter anyway. If Chief Justice John Roberts was willing to screw up the Constitution to be “fair” what’s to say he won’t do the same with the marriage issue.
  
  Report this comment
- bennyboy1978
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 2:50pm
  @Locked
  I seem to recall in the bible that it was God who gave Hagar to Abraham as a wife. If it is not what God wanted why did He tell Abraham that he had to do it? It would seem that if God gives you a wife and you take it that it isn’t Sin but if you decided that you just want a bunch of wives then it is a sin.
  
  Report this comment
- TEXASGRANNY73
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 2:52pm
  @MaxJones Join Encinom on the John Kerry list.
  
  Report this comment
- sillyfreshness
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 2:52pm
  Don’t forget the rights of polygamists too!
  
  Report this comment
- shorelineliz
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 3:40pm
  Did you say “prominent Republicans?” These people are nobodies! They are all “former” whatevers. Like those Has Been movie stars or child actors. Geesh. This is nothing!
  
  Report this comment
- notsurewhatshappeninghere
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 3:47pm
  @ Arch…uh, IDIOT – AND THIS IS FROM A STRAIGHT MAN….Not that this post will ever be allowed up, but I must try. F$%k you and your “GOD”. Because I don’t believe the same as you, I’m going to “hell”? Because you believe some book full of STORIES written by THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE OVER THOUSANDS OF YEARS is ACTUAL TRUTH, you’re better than everyone else? I hope all these “retards” (very nice term, by the way, very CHRISTIAN OF YOU) have fun ******* on your grave you stupid s o b!!!!!!
  
  Report this comment
- fb274
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 4:04pm
  Let’s have someone cite “chapter and verse” where it states this is a constitutional issue. Just because of their perverted lifestyle, why should this particular group of people be entitled to More Rights than others?
  
  Report this comment
- Granny58
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 4:13pm
  @ Love the kids – I think your comment makes a lot of sense, re marriage being a religious term. That’s fine, let’s all get civil unionized, and for those of us who prefer it, also get a marriage.
  
  Report this comment
- David Lampo
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 4:20pm
  Locked has it exactly right. He’s nailed on the head the hypocrisy of so many people on this thread who want to impose their view of marriage on everyone else and then complain their rights are somehow being violated if everyone has the same legal rights they do. Religious freedom is for everyone, not just for those in the Christian Right. You don’t like gay marriage? Fine, then don’t marry one, but stop forcing your religion on the rest of us.
  
  Report this comment
- PoliticallyRightUs.Com
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 4:32pm
  So all you people who say we are forcing our way of life on the Gay’s???
  #1 So I have to go puke every time I see a some guy kissing another guy and that’s OK??? because I am somehow supposed to just suck it up???
  #2 If God meant for men to have sex with men and women to have sex with women then wouldn’t we all be unisex between our legs???
  #3 The next thing I hate and dealt with when I was in the Air Force (when it came to gay people) is the hatred they had for us “As they Gay’s call us… Breeders”! not to mention the destructive mentality as well as the STD’s they bring to the table… And do not try to say “it’s not only the gays with STD’s because Gays are waaaaaaaaaay more promiscuous than Hetero sexual people are! Oh and before I forget… Let’s not forget the drugs and depression?!
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 4:37pm
  “Its funny the so called Christians defend “marraige” as defined in the bible, properly had pork and/or shrimp served at their wedding” -encinom
  
  In other news EnciTROLL once again proves that they don’t know that Old Testament Jewish dietary laws do not apply to Christians. Or EnciTRoll does not care to acknowledge it.
  
  Encinom, when did you sericonvert?
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 4:38pm
  How many people think Encinom should wear a burka for the benefit of all humanity?
  
  In other words harm prevention.
  
  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/25/facebook-photo-of-female-students-dressed-in-burqas-for-lesson-on-islam-prompts-state-investigation/
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 5:01pm
  Homosexuals should be so proud.
  
  Where is the gay gene?
  
  Does homosexuality come about more from grooming or some other cause?
  
  “Allégret became André Gide’s lover when he was fifteen and Gide was forty-seven. ”
  
  “After filming a 1927 trip to the Congo with Gide, he chose to pursue a career in the motion picture industry. His relationship with Gide ended after that trip, as Allégret found out that he preferred women after having experiences with Congolese women.”
  
  ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Allégret
  
  Question: Grooming or genetics?
  
  ANSWER: GROOMING
  
  Report this comment
- memyselfandi
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 5:02pm
  Rom 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell (Israel), SEVERITY!!! (God’s judgement on Israel for their rejection of Jesus); but toward thee (the Gentile nations), goodness (the offer of salvation and relationship with Him), IF…IF…IF… thou continue in his goodness: otherwise THOU SHALT ALSO BE CUT OFF!!!
  
  Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, UNTIL THE FULLNESS OF THE GENTILES IS COME IN.
  
  The Gentile nations are falling into unbelief and forsaking the “goodness” of God…the end is near.
  
  There is a mountain of evidence that every word in the bible is true and that end time prophesies are happening right before our very eyes…but you don’t have to believe it if you don’t want to.
  
  If it is true you won’t have any choice but to suffer the consequences of choosing to walk in unbelief…FOREVER!!!
  
  Report this comment
- tolerence
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 5:09pm
  hey locked! read the book of Romans Chp. one ,God does not approve of a man and a man or a woman and a woman,the end result could be Hell! God is very clear on the homosexual life choice is a perversion and all the laws in the world wont change that and they will most likeley die of Aids,Hepititious,Anal Cancer,suicide,drug and alcohol abuse,and gays have a 98% chance of separation since IT”S ALL ABOUT THE sex,gay realtionships has a 62% CHANCE OF DOMESTIC ABUSE and hetero married couples only have 7% chance,because its disordered,marriage is a private matter its not about gay marriage in as much its about keeping Goverment out of marriage thats really the issue, so gays should just live and let live and stop trying to force their idea of what abnormal is down our throats,My idea of what abnormal is is my buisness and will never change and I refuse to be co-dependent to abusive bbehavior and the gay life choice is an abusive lifestyle,and a man and a man is abnormal,we wouldnt even be talking about gay marriage every minute of every day 365 days a year if it were not because of the rich gay lobbyist,there are needer people in our country right now,stop being so selfish gays
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 5:13pm
  Locked
  
  “Where do you think the term Marriage came from?????”
  
  From French, “marier,” which in turn came from Latin, “maritare.” You’re asking the wrong question though. The idea of social contracts between two people is common to all cultures and societies, not only Christian ones.
  ***
  
  What did the Romans think?
  
  Well when the Emperor traveled to Rome to claim his crown his lover Sartorius never made it. He was murdered. I am not advocating that. I just happened to be reading about the Roman world. Romans did not approve. A lot of time they couldn’t do anything about it or would not do anything about it, but they did not approve.
  
  Which is why they ridiculed Julius Ceasar for his Pontic adventure. And it is why they complained about Hadrian’s Bythnian lover but not Hadrian.
  
  Keep dreaming Locked.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 5:51pm
  @Walkabout
  
  “Question: Grooming or genetics?”
  
  Why not environmental factors affecting biology, like heightened doses of estrogen in utero? When you only see the world in black and white, you’re going to be baffled by colors.
  
  @Tolerence
  
  “read the book of Romans Chp. one ,God does not approve of a man and a man or a woman and a woman,the end result could be Hell!”
  
  Yes it could. The end result of any unrepented sin is to lose out on Heaven, and homosexual behavior is certainly sinful. It’s not a gay-only issue, nor is it a legislative one. Sin is in the realm of faith, and I don’t want the government regulating faith. Christ didn’t establish a government – he left His teachings, and I follow them as a Christian due to faith, not because the government bans me from doing otherwise.
  
  “God is very clear on the homosexual life choice is a perversion and all the laws in the world wont change that.”
  
  Agreed! So you’re saying what matters is the actions of the individual, and not forcing morality through legislative penalties? I agree again!
  
  I’m not pro-gay. Homosexual behavior is a sin. I’m also not pro-divorce, or pro-remarriage. Those are also (usually) sins.
  
  But I don’t think the government should be banning any of those things. That’s why I’m a conservative – because I’m against government intrusion into the consensual activities of two people that hurt no one.
  
  See how the two aren’t at odds?
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 5:54pm
  @Walkabout
  
  “What did the Romans think?”
  
  Who cares? Since when are we Romans?
  
  I’m an American conservative and a Christian. I stand for small government, the Constitution, and traditional family values that are the result of individual choice, NOT government moral policing.
  
  You can keep your dreams of Romans :-)
  
  Report this comment
- sillyfreshness
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 6:03pm
  “Proposition 8, California’s controversial law banning same-sex unions”……..a ballot proposition is about as democratic as it gets, just like legalizing pot in Colorado and Washington. Now watch the courts get in and invalidate a democratic ballot. What’s the point of having elections if courts will overturn them? Just another example of courts interfering with elections–as long as it helps liberals.
  
  Report this comment
- BornToBeAmerican
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 6:42pm
  I do not agree with gay marriage; however, two consenting adults should be able live as they choose. They also should be able to have access to whatever laws that anyone else has. I don’t choose to live this way and would never consider doing so. However, I do not have a AR15 either, but I am prepared to fight to the death for you or anyone else to own one. Just because gay marriage is the law of the land, it does not make it a law of God.
  
  Report this comment
- marssnw
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 6:51pm
  @ Encinom Apparently you have never read the Bible, so why don’t you shut your mouth on things you know nothing about. You would sound alot less stupid. Knowing you, thats not possible. Acts 10: 11-1511 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”
  15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.”
  
  It really helps to read things in context. It also helps to hav a clue as to what youre talking about.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 6:54pm
  Locked
  
  Why not environmental factors affecting biology, like heightened doses of estrogen in utero?
  ***
  That is one of two biological theories that has any legs. But they must be weak ones. The very large Swedish twin study wouldn’t have tested it.
  
  But it does not explain tops and bottoms and all that. I think memes rather than genes explains tops and bottoms a whole lot easier.
  
  Report this comment
- WEBWITHDEB
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 7:08pm
  In California, the will of the people is the same as the U.S. Code, defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The government co opted the religious meaning of the word in the first place. The CA court only said that gays had to be treated the same as heterosexuals. The solution is so darned simple it is ludicrous that so much conflict is involved (other than that is what is wanted?).
  
  The a federal government needs to make an EQUAL designation for all people who want to have a legally recognized relationship and define said designation as being between two, non related adults, and be done with this. How does “pairiage” sound to you? Or civil union? I really don’t care what the government calls my marriage. What I care is that the government should not be redefining a religious term after having embraced that term in the first place.
  
  If religions want to perform religious ceremonies for gay people that is their business. I certainly am free not to join any such religion. Am I free not to be a part of “we the people” whose implicit consent to this type of governing could not be legally rejected?
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 7:09pm
  Locked
  
  “What did the Romans think?”
  
  Who cares? Since when are we Romans?
  ***
  The gay lobby is always listing the “gay” animals & gays in this or that society throughout history to prove that homosexuality prevalent or normal or acceptable.
  
  *** So what the hey, let’s take a closer look. *** I can find references that the Romans, the Greeks and other did not find it acceptable but tolerated it only. You kind of have to tolerate it if the person practicing it is rich & powerful. It probably also explains why they are doing it too. they probably had access to women willing or unwilling since they 1st hit puberty & got an itch, so they are bored and what something else. What are the normal people to do against the rich? Homosexuality in the ancient world is not all that gays make it out to be. But then of course they would lie, they have an agenda & the complete historical truth does not fit it. SO I bring it up & you like Hillary say “What difference does it make?”
  
  Talking about small government. I don’t care who gays leave their property too. It is their property & their concern. I don’t care who visits them in the hospital. I do have a feeling that gays are going to ruin benefits, but society will survive. I do object to the education industrial complex teaching LGBT as normal. It is not. This too will pass. It will need to more private schooling & homeschooling.
  
  Report this comment
- Wiley41
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 7:15pm
  RIP Republican Party.
  
  This combined with your inept buggling, socialist light kitbag, selling out to Obama worship, … I’m done with you.
  
  Should have known by the Grand Old Party moniker that is exactly what they were. They have sold their souls to be ‘cool’, to be invited to the cool parties. There is hardly a principled one left. Many may have gone to DC with the right cause, but they have sold out. I saw this personally over the last 3 years as my role as manager for a major medical business has required that I go to DC several times a year and meet with Reps and Senators. To a tee that all self-worshiping ego-maniacs. They see themselves as royalty. Power has corrupted.
  
  Time for a third party and confederation.
  
  Report this comment
- sacwoodpusher
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 7:35pm
  TNMAN65….Don’t bother taking it to the people for a vote. CA, one of the most liberal states passed Prop 8, outlawing homosexual marriage…….but a gay judge struck it down.
  
  Encinom…..Christians eat shrimp and pork after St. peters vision and being told “don’t call unclean what God has cleansed.” This refers to food AND gentiles.
  
  I actually prefer that the government only recognize civil unions only, as a contractual arrangement, and then let people get marriage accords to cover their beliefs from the appropriate institution, ie church, optimist society, or whatever.
  
  Remember that to be consistant that if you allow hetero marriage, gay marriage, you must also allow plural marriage, and prostitution,n ie if the government cannot make rules about which sex we mate with, neither can they interfere with any sexual activity…..and why should they? Nobody’s business but ours.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 8:01pm
  Locked
  ” because I’m against government intrusion into the consensual activities of two people that hurt no one.”
  
  Only true with one HeII a lot of tech. Ask the hemophiliacs. Oh wait, you can’t!
  
  And that is just one example.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 8:17pm
  @Walkabout
  
  “Only true with one HeII a lot of tech. Ask the hemophiliacs. Oh wait, you can’t!”
  
  Go home Walkabout. You’re drunk.
  
  Or at least not making a lot of sense.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 8:25pm
  sacwoodpusher
  
  Remember that to be consistant that if you allow hetero marriage, gay marriage, you must also allow plural marriage,
  
  ^^^
  
  The Beyond Marriage and/or signatories have already stated this as their goal. Just like the election of Mr Obama, biracial person, did not signify healing of racial division, the controversy of LGBT will not go away whether or not there is gay marriage in all 50 states.
  
  We are just entering a new phase, the Beginning of the End of LGBT.
  
  Report this comment
- ScarletRose
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 8:49pm
  Amen! That is the bottom line. If they had a Ratification proof majority, they wouldn’t be doing all this other garbage. They can’t – and they are also losing ground.
  
  Report this comment
- ScarletRose
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 8:57pm
  Encinom; The penalty in the Old Testament wasn’t STONING for eating pork. but you SKIPPED the experience of PETER concerning the House of Cornelius in the Book of ACTS, regarding CLEAN AND UNCLEAN FOOD.
  
  But God called homosexuality an ABOMINATION. Do as you please, but God already told us what happens to those of us who call Clean what HE calls UNCLEAN. Besides, you cannot explain calling it it HEALTHY while you got that idea from Josef Stalin’s AGENDA for the Destruction of America – given what all Socialist DICTATORSHIPS always do to them. SAME AS ALL Middle Eastern Nations.
  
  Report this comment
- Ronin Gael
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 9:20pm
  What is so sad to this Christian are lost souls like encinom who posture in smug mocking pseudo intellectual ignorance of the Word. The ignorant are lost and the lost ignorant.
  
  Here is my mission work for the day.
  
  Don’t you know why we foolish stupid Christians are permitted to eat pork and oysters..and not required to stone adulterers and just a whole slew of other things which the pseudo cool use to demonstrate just how wise they are.
  
  Friend, these little nuggets of wisdom and just oodles more are in there….tied up in the Book as a tight cross supporting continuous non-conflicting Word of God.
  
  Read the whole Book encinom, cover to cover and you will see if not blind and you have any form of attention span whatsoever. There is no Cliff note version for slackers.
  
  Christ did his job. Time for you to do yours. Start with this one and work backwards…
  
  Revelations 18-21
  18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
  19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
  20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
  21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
  
  Report this comment
- SendTheMeteors
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 9:25pm
  What did Jesus himself says about homosexuality? Can someone point me to those verses?
  
  Report this comment
- Don
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 9:28pm
  Below is a scientific study that shows the earth is much younger than what evolutionists claim.
  Very good read.
  http://creation.com/salty-seas-evidence-for-a-young-earth
  
  Report this comment
- freedentstheone
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 9:34pm
  LOCKED says: “What “our” are you talking about? I am a Christian, you see. Marriage has a secular, legal definition in the US, as well religious ones. If you are trying to change the legal definition of marriage into the Christian one, you’re going to fail. ”
  
  My wife and I were legally married by a magistrate of the court in GEORGIA. Guess what our marriage certificate says?
  
  HOLY BONDS OF MATRIMONY
  
  I guess they’re using the secular version of the word “holy”…
  The irony is that most of the proponents of “legalizing gay marriage” are absolutely for the separation of Church and State but not the separation of State from commandeering religious ceremonies for political gain.
  
  In my religion Matrimony is one of seven sacraments and while being legally recognized by the government, it can never be granted or validated by a legislative body. Ever. Precisely why the legal version is just that, a legal union and has nothing to do with the spiritual union that actually matters.
  
  My feelings are this: call them all civil unions and equalize the status in the eyes of the government, if people want to legally bind themselves in name and possessions regardless of their gender then so be it. But any ceremony held or officiated by a publicly elected representative, who should never be granted the false authority to pretend to execute religious rites in the first place, will never be the equivalent of actual marriage.
  
  Report this comment
- God_Is_Not
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 10:24pm
  @DON
  
  “Granting the most generous assumptions to evolutionists, Austin and Humphreys calculated that the ocean must be less than 62 million years old. It’s important to stress that this is not the actual age, but a maximum age. That is, this evidence is consistent with any age up to 62 million years, including the biblical age of about 6,000 years.”
  
  HAHAHA
  
  ‘So you’re saying there’s a chance!’
  
  You do realize the bible claims the Earth is .009% of the maximum age of this creationist study, right?
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 10:28pm
  I wasn’t going to comment on this one, but to all of you supposed history buffs out there, you are all wrong. I have a masters degree in ancient history. I have spent over 5 years studying the Greek and Roman world. I won’t get into specifics, but homosexuality as we know it today did not exist back then. However, there was plenty of male-male sex. This permeate every level of society, and as a man, it made no difference if you were having sex with a man, woman, boy or girl as long as you were the “top” in the action. Male-male sex was very common and no one cared as long as you didn’t mount the family member of a higher class.
  
  But still, none of this has any bearing whatsoever to the gay marriage issue today.
  
  Report this comment
- lovenfl3
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 10:32pm
  Can even one single day go buy where there isn’t a discussion about gay marriage? We have so many other issues to deal with today. Let’s fix the economic issues, then we can discuss gay marriage. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgozUvvCqAw
  
  Report this comment
- SgtB
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 10:34pm
  Marriage should not be tied to the state or government in any way whatsoever! Get the state and bureaucrats out of marriage! The only people who have a vested interest in your marriage and whose blessing you require are the people in your family, congregation, and your close friends. Marriage licenses as issued by the state are simple contracts which can be entered into without the stigma or blessing of marriage. The state has been forcing these “licenses” on us to gain power over us and to add another level of crap to the pile of papers that we need to hold on to. The paper does not make a marriage and its only use is in a court of contract law.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 10:56pm
  @Freedent
  
  “In my religion Matrimony is… a legal union and has nothing to do with the spiritual union that actually matters.”
  
  And in my religion (Christianity, have you heard of it? All the cool kids are doing it these days!), marriage is a bond between a man and a woman that shall not be broken and is a spiritual contract with God. Looks like we’re on the same page!
  
  And this is not the definition of marriage that the US government uses in secular legislature.
  
  So you and I should see totally eye-to-eye, right? No Christian thinks the US government dictates what is religious or what is not, so there should be no problem if they decide *gasp* two non-Christians marry! Or two divorcees! Or (perish the thought) two people of different races!
  
  Wait, no, there is an issue for some folks, including you, who want to change the legal definition to a religious one. And why is that?
  
  Because marriage (or “matrimony”) has a particular definition in US legalese. And it is NOT religious.
  
  So when YOU say: “My feelings are this: call them all civil unions,” you are forcing all other religious beliefs (and secular ones) to bow to YOUR definition through governmental enforcement to promote YOUR religious definition above others… Which violates the Constitution.
  
  As conservatives, we SHOULD be saying “the government has no place in the marriage business.” But as it does, why exclude on the basis of YOUR religious definition?
  
  Report this comment
- FFTyranny
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:10pm
  Well looks like these 80 just came out of the closet. Glade they did, now its time to vote them out or fire them.
  
  @LOCK
  Try reading and studying the Bible before you quote and use scripture, oh snap! aye LOCK. lol moop
  
  Report this comment
- Jadedfate
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:59pm
  We don’t have mob rule in this country, so a majority vote shouldn’t matter..the majority can be wrong. Hence Slavery needing to be ended against majority favor, equal rights for blacks, marriage between blacks and whites, and various other matters. Human rights should never be decided by majority vote.
  
  Report this comment
- toto
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 12:05am
  Agree completely, what I resent most of all is the hijacking of the word marriage, it’s like 1984. The redefining of words is just wrong. The raising of children by gay parents will never be the best first choice and designer babies are very selfish, and do not put the best interests of children first. this SOME gay parents may be wonderful, and SOME heterosexual parents are truly awful, but the ideal is a mother and a father that properly model male and female roles. Knowing that children imitate parents, does that mean that they will be modeling gayness for their babies, is that really the healthiest thing for them? The needs of children should be first and foremost. Kids NEED Mommies AND Daddies.
  
  Report this comment
- Witness1974
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 12:19am
  SENDTHEMETEORS: I can tell you what He said to the woman caught in adultery. “. . . go and sin no more” (John 8:11). I think it is relevant here as well. It’s one thing to sin; we all do. It is quite another to persist in the sin without repentence.
  
  It is very clear what the Holy Spirit thinks about homosexuality. He speaks about it in several places and calls it what it is–sin. As such, it is to be forsaken. Jesus came into the world to save sinners which is why he could say to the woman in the first part of the verse, “Neither do I condemn you. . .” But part of that salvation is a call to repentence: “Go and sin no more.”
  
  Report this comment
- Shiroi Raion
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 12:44am
  How is it constitutional if marriage isn’t mentioned in The Constitution? It seems like saying that bicycling is a constitutional right. Anyone can ride a bike because we’re all created equal? …that makes it constitutional? Driving? Sex? What isn’t constitutional then?
  Anyway, I don’t give a hoot about gay marriage. I don’t know anyone who’s gay so I don’t really care. I don’t vote based on anyone’s position on the matter. I’m just wondering if this is a stunt to take the Dem’s gay voting bloc or if they’re serious about it… probably some of each on the list.
  Never thought I’d see Huntsman, Jr and Gary Johnson on the same page though. They seem almost opposites. Huntsman seems like a Progressive to me. Margaret Hoover signed it too?
  I’m not sure the feds should be involved with marriage. The states can deal with that. Let’s keep federal controls limited. They’ve taken too many freedoms and choices from us already.
  
  Report this comment
- tonypro
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 1:56am
  @Locked
  Matthew 19:9
  “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, “”except for marital unfaithfulness”", and marries another woman commits adultery.”
  
  Do you understand what the word except means, as in an exception?
  
  I’m NOT disagreeing with you about the fact that God disproves of divorce, but that there was an exception provided. Because of mans inherent ability to sin, we were also given the means of salvation by the birth, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.
  
  We all have fallen short, with no exceptions, but we have also all, been given a wonderful opportunity to put our sins away, and follow the light. Am I perfect, NO will I ever be, NO, do I believe in Jesus Christ, YES, and he who believes shall not perish, but have everlasting life.
  
  I find myself constantly at ends with myself in todays social, and political climate. I get very angry, and upset with a lot of the criminals trying to control what should be freedom, and in doing so I go off, make statements I shouldn’t, and feel great hatred towards some. Not proper, or pretty, but that is my burden to carry, and don’t think I don’t pray for the ability to get past it. The human side of me that cares about human things is sometimes hard to separate.
  
  Let us also not forget that
  
  Report this comment
- Obama_In_PeePee_By_Zee_ArTeest_Glenn
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 2:04am
  “Which 80 Prominent Republicans Just Signed a Legal Brief Proclaiming Gay Marriage Is a Constitutional Right?”
  
  There takes more than Obama to overthrow America:
  http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=1528
  
  “When God promised to Abraham that his descendents would be given the land of Canaan as their homeland, He noted that this gift would not be given for several hundred years. Why the delay? “[F]or the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete” (Genesis 15:16). God would not have displaced one group of people simply in order to give another group the land. That would be unjust and prejudicial—in direct contradiction to God’s nature (Deuteronomy 32:4). He eventually allowed the Israelites to conquer Canaan because the peoples that inhabited the land had grown exceedingly wicked. Concomitant with reception of the land, God used the Israelites to punish the Canaanites for their perversion and depravity.”
  
  “It is interesting that the Founding Fathers of America recognized this eternal, biblical principle as having been posited in the fabric of the Universe by the Creator.”
  
  “George Mason, often called “The Father of the Bill of Rights”, stated at the Constitutional Convention: “As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, so they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities” (as quoted in Madison, 1840, 3:1391).”
  
  Report this comment
- NukeHaze
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 3:03am
  Gay marriage or normal people heterosexual marriage is NOT in the Constitution at all therefore it is NOT a Constitutional right . The ONLY and I do mean ONLY place you might find even a reference to it actually defers it to each individual state to decide in the 10th amendment. The only reason this insane problem is now a main topic is because of the progressive and communist age da to comete the demasculinization of the nation with the big picture end game goal of population control and reduction.
  
  If these idiot “conservative” imposter rinos were so enlightened then they would be more familiar with and have actually read the Constitution that they swore to protect and defend. This abominable practice altogether has Soros’ paw prints all over it. If lobotomized progressive liberals liberals believe so much in evolution, gay lifestyles, and gay marriage and their acceptance as a sign of a higher level evolved society, then their beliefs are directly in conflict with each other. Bestiality and homosexuality were not any part of Darwinism since they do not propagate the species. We have actually just come full circle coming from savages where you behaved in those unnatural ways and were left behind by the race to now it becomes an accepted and tolerated lifestyle again. All we are missing now is the caves we will live in after the total economic collapse. How blind they are that none see it! Progressivism is more accurately regressive and genocidal everywhere in history
  
  Report this comment
- The_Truth_Hurts
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 3:35am
  @Encinom
  … did you mean ” probably had pork and/or shrimp”….. LOL!
  I always find it funny that Trolls get paid to write, yet can’t even spell!!! LOL!
  The Old Testament dietary laws were repealed by God in the New Testament, when God insured Peter that it was okay to dine with gentiles. (Acts 10:9-11:18)
  God also states that He hates and condemns same sex behavior(Romans 1:18-31), yet loves when they repent and return to Him.(1 Cor 6:9-11) These RINO’s that have abandoned conservatism need to find a new party to represent…. because they don’t represent me!!!
  
  Report this comment
- NukeHaze
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 3:39am
  Encinom is a troll and living proof of my words.
  
  That lifestyle is a choice not something one is born with. There is no other reason that gay groups always move to ban scientific research trying to prove or disprove thee existence of a gay gene or DNA sequence. Their excuse is fear that religious parents will abort their kids if they are found to have it. Hmmm what a dilemma for the left between the pro-murdering little babies lobbies and the homosexual ones. They cannot allow infighting so they always keep the arguments going across the aisle always controlling the conversatiions and one sided “”debate”.
  
  Like I said before, they are returning us to behaviours weeded out from humanity’s early existence with their agendae. We are absolutely NOT more civilized for tolerating and embracing their animalistic lifestyle choices. We are going backwards. Humanity only made real advancement by choosing a standard greater than itself to live by and followed with a moral compass taking a 5000 year leap and leaving monarchial tyrannical dictatorships in favor of Constitutional REPUBLICS run by the people and preserving that people’s right to bear arms thereby also the ability to reclaim such a government if the need ever arose to remove another such dictator or monarch should they ever usurp the leadership of such a country.
  
  Past time to wake up folks. These politicians know exactly what they are doing and who will be the elites in control after they collapse everything.
  
  Report this comment
- Obama Been Lauding
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 6:13am
  This is just the beginning!
  Next, it will be 3, 4, 5, wanting to marry.
  How about that small percentage that want to marry an animal, or a car, etc.?
  This is all about a sexual lifestyle, that wants to be accepted.
  If this happens, I think they are saying, we do not want children, because in nature, they could not produce offspring.
  
  Report this comment
- Wisdom7
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 6:35am
  @David Lampo
  
  “He’s nailed on the head the hypocrisy of so many people on this thread who want to impose their view of marriage on everyone else and then complain their rights are somehow being violated if everyone has the same legal rights they do.”
  
  Is this not exactly what homosexuals are doing? Are they not imposing their view of “marriage” on everyone else? Do they not have the same exact rights as everyone else? Yes they do. One could just as easily say “You don’t like heterosexual marriage? Fine, then don’t marry one, but stop forcing your gay agenda on the rest of us.” In regards to tax breaks and health benefits, single heterosexual people don’t get those either. Perhaps we should allow a buddy system for straight singles so they can get benefits on each other? It’s all just ridiculous.
  
  Report this comment
- Wisdom7
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 6:36am
  @Notsurewhatiamtalkingabout
  
  You say “Because you believe some book full of STORIES written by THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE OVER THOUSANDS OF YEARS is ACTUAL TRUTH”
  
  No it wasn’t. It also wasn’t written in English. Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls, found in modern times, reaffirm what was actually written. Let me ask you a question. How many books have you read? Did you know the author personally? Did you ever see the author? In school did you not read the Iliad or Odyssey? Did you ever meet Homer? Did you ever meet Herodotus? Did you learn about Plato, Aristotle, or Socrates? How do you know they existed? Let me put it another way. How many books have been written about Abraham Lincoln? Did you ever meet Abraham Lincoln? Were you around when he was? Yet, we have all these books giving us accounts of his life. Are they all fairy tales? In fact, you could say the same thing about the entire human history that it is all just fairy tales written by many people over thousands of years, since you know…we were not there to witness it.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 7:06am
  Tonypro
  
  “Do you understand what the word except means, as in an exception?”
  
  Yup, and as already said, divorce is allowed only in the case of adultery (or if you marry a non-believer who tries to lead you away from your faith). You still cannot remarry without living in sin. You’re called to reconcile with your divorced spouse, or be celibate.
  
  “I’m NOT disagreeing with you about the fact that God disproves of divorce”
  
  Well, I’ve said multiple times now that divorce is allowed in only two select cases. But you are the one saying remarriage is allowed, when it is expressly forbidden several times by Christ Himself.
  
  I don’t think we should make divorce illegal; I simply think it’s incredibly dishonest to say “Marriage is what the Bible says, and the US should follow it!” The US doesn’t make laws on basis of conforming to the Bible. Marriage in its present (secular) state proves that. So we need to drop the lie that the US government’s term of marriage needs to line up with the Bible. It hasn’t, it doesn’t, and it never will.
  
  Report this comment
- busterpuddles
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 7:13am
  TNMAN is right on.
  
  ENCIGNOME doesn’t know the Bible.
  
  LOCKED failed his history classes.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 8:28am
  @Buster
  
  “failed his history classes.”
  
  If you actually have legitimate criticism, by all means quote it. Otherwise it’s obvious you’re just being an anti-Christian troll. I’ll pray for you!
  
  Report this comment
- Atrum Angelis
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 10:24am
  @freedentstheone
  “My wife and I were legally married by a magistrate of the court in GEORGIA. Guess what our marriage certificate says? HOLY BONDS OF MATRIMONY”
  
  That’s not what is meant by the secular definition. The secular definition is required for the law to work, not just taxes.
  If the government got out of the business of defining marriage, it would necessitate a massive change in our laws. Here are some examples:
  1. One spouse falls ill and cannot make decisions concerning medical care. The law has no definition for marriage, so who is the voice for the ill: The healthy spouse, the parents of the ill, the children of the couple or the government?
  2. One cannot be called upon to testify against a spouse. No government definition means what is said in the confines of marriage is no longer safe.
  3. Custody. Alimony. Child support. Possessions. Property rights.
  There are many laws that would need a massive overhaul if we were to remove the legal, secular definition of marriage. Currently a lot of power is held within the confines of marriage. A married couple speaks for each other. Society would require a massive change. One that you probably would also be against, because it would move this society further away from the Family and would end up giving even more power to the government, as they would take all the legal power currently held within marriage. How does that sound?
  
  Report this comment
- freedentstheone
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 3:11pm
  LOCKED: Nice mockery of my faith. (it’s Christianity, all the cool kids are mocking it… just like you did)
  
  “And this is not the definition of marriage that the US government uses in secular legislature.”
  1 USC § 7 – Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”:”…the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. ”
  
  And yet my marriage certificate says “HOLY BONDS OF MATRIMONY”. There is no definition for ” Holy Matrimony” in the US code, yet the state of GA grants certificates for “Holy Matrimony” that are recognized by the US government. My point is that they shouldn’t be, and that what the government recognizes should not have any reference to the word “Holy”.
  
  “Wait, no, there is an issue for some folks, including you, who want to change the legal definition to a religious one. And why is that?”
  
  No, I want to change the illegal misuse of a religious term (marriage) into the appropriate use of a secular one (civil union) to remove any/all reference to religion. I said the opposite of what you argued against, I hope that wasn’t intentional on your part as straw men aren’t welcome in discussions with me.
  Furthermore, it isn’t exclusionary to remove “marriage” from the government’s language, in fact it is a full inclusion of all legal unions (religious and secular) by applying the secular umb
  
  Report this comment
- freedentstheone
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 3:33pm
  ATRUM ANGELS: “That’s not what is meant by the secular definition. The secular definition is required for the law to work, not just taxes.” I never mentioned taxes, but ok let’s talk about this.
  
  My point was that a secular agency uses religious words and applies secular definitions to them. In other words, the government’s current “definition of marriage” would essentially remain unchanged with the exception of the use of the word “marriage” to describe it. As it reads now in USC code 7:
  
  “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. ”
  
  As it would read without reference to the words marriage, husband, or wife with emphasis added on the changes:
  “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “CIVIL UNION” means only a legal union between TWO PEOPLE AS SPOUSES, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person WHO HAS ENTERED INTO A CIVIL UNION.
  
  The rest of your argument has no relevance to anything I said, I would be married in the eyes of my church and “civilly united” in the eyes of the gov
  
  Report this comment
- ValidFib
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 4:58pm
  I’m with you. It’s going to have to be called something else. I don’t understand. It doesn’t bother me that they get the same rights as married heteros, just don’t call it marriage. It can never be the same – and for those who want to debate this, please don’t try me… you’re not going to like what I have to say because it’s technical and the truth (copulation and sodomy are not equal in nature – don’t make me go there, please).
  
  Call it something else. We’ll leave it up to the gays to create their own term. They co-opted the word gay, they can use anything but marriage.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 6:27pm
  @Freedent
  
  “Nice mockery of my faith. (it’s Christianity, all the cool kids are mocking it… just like you did)”
  
  I had no idea what your faith was (if I had to guess I would have said Catholic), so I wasn’t mocking it; I’m simply saying Christianity is awesome… but no matter what your faith is, it doesn’t give you the right to force your definition on others.
  
  “No, I want to change the illegal misuse of a religious term (marriage) into the appropriate use of a secular one (civil union) to remove any/all reference to religion.”
  
  And even though we’re Christians, oury faith has no monopoly on the term marriage; marriage is recognized all over the world, and varies everywhere. And as far as the US government is concerned, marriage is whatever definition they give. While I’m a Christian, it’s obvious that “marriage” in the legal sense is NOT the same thing as “marriage” in the biblical sense.
  
  “I said the opposite of what you argued against”
  
  With two negatives, you’re saying “I said what you’re arguing for.” I assume that wasn’t your intention.
  
  Yes, we could scrub hundreds of years of legislative and judicial history and call all US-issued marriages “civil unions.” Or… we could simply acknowledge the obvious fact that marriage has different meanings depending on who says it. I vote for the latter, as it won’t involve sending notices to the millions of married couples telling them that (surprise!) they’re no longer married.
  
  Report this comment
- freedentstheone
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 9:19pm
  LOCKED:
  The government wouldn’t be telling millions of married couples that they are no longer married, they’d be telling them that they’ve always been “united”; and now other people regardless of gender are recognized by the government as “legally united” as well.
  
  Here’s the brass tacks: The more time we spend arguing over the government’s ability to “legalize” (even though it would actually be “redefine” as the US government hasn’t outlawed “gay marriage” it just doesn’t recognize it) one form of legal union between two consenting adults the more time we lose focusing on the actual issues that directly influence the country’s survival.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 10:34pm
  @Freedent
  
  “he government wouldn’t be telling millions of married couples that they are no longer married, they’d be telling them that they’ve always been “united”; and now other people regardless of gender are recognized by the government as “legally united” as well.”
  
  And huzzah, how wonderful that would be!
  
  … when we need to revise several hundred specific regulations that have to do with married people.
  
  Or, as said, we can simply acknowledge that the US definition does not equal the biblical definition of marriage.
  
  I honestly don’t see the issue. The US government doesn’t bestow legitimacy to religious marriage – it bestows benefits. So why not allow them to do so, as they have always done?
  
  “Here’s the brass tacks: The more time we spend arguing over the government’s ability to “legalize” (even though it would actually be “redefine” as the US government hasn’t outlawed “gay marriage” it just doesn’t recognize it) one form of legal union between two consenting adults the more time we lose focusing on the actual issues that directly influence the country’s survival.”
  
  I completely agree. The sooner that the social theocrats in the fundamentalist side of our politics back off of propping up the insultingly incorrect notion that “legal US marriage” = “Biblical marriage,” the sooner we get back to the fiscal plights that affect all of us – Christian, non-Christian, gays, and straights! Glad we agree :-)
  
  Report this comment
- scarydave
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:13am
  This is one reason why I no longer belong to any political party.
  And to be quite blunt about the subject… I think anyone that continues to support any political party is either uneducated or willfully stupid. Not one party can be trusted because not one politician can be trusted. The days of trust are over simply because someone has a (D) or an (R) after their name. Each and every person must be evaluated on their own, NOT their party affiliation for the simple reason that both of the most popular parties in the US are corrupt beyond repair. If ‘We The People’ are going to fix this country, it won’t be through political parties. In fact, I strongly urge that everyone reading this turn their back on party of choice. Unless of course you too have sunk so low that you feel that you have no other choice. In that case then, YOU support the problem and you are a coward!
  
  Report this comment
- milez5
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 3:12am
  Is not homosexuality one of the few things that the bible calls an abomination? I am not expert, but I think that is true. Here is the part that gets me. Most, perhaps all of those that signed consider themselves christian. Is it their position that God has somehow changed his mind?
  I mean, I guess a person has a right to call themselves anything they want. If you want to call yourself a Zionist/Nazi I guess you have the right to. But does it not defy logic for people to call themselves Christians when their beliefs differ in their entirety from the teachings of Christianity?
  
  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.