Government

It’s Official: Washington State Governor Signs Gay Marriage Into Law

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — Gov. Chris Gregoire signed into law a measure that makes Washington state the seventh to legalize same-sex marriage, but opponents almost immediately filed a referendum to challenge the new law, meaning voters likely will have the final say.

Washington Becomes Seventh State to Legalize Gay Marriage

Gregoire signed the bill Monday, saying it was “a day historians will mark as a milestone for equal rights, a day when we did what was right, we did what was just, and we did what was fair.”

The law takes effect June 7, but opponents on multiple fronts already are preparing to fight.

A group called Preserve Marriage Washington filed Referendum 73 Monday afternoon. If they collect the more than 120,577 valid voter signatures needed by June 6, the law will be put on hold pending the outcome of a November vote. Separately, an initiative was filed at the beginning of the legislative session that opponents of gay marriage say could also lead to the new law being overturned.

“I think in the end, people are going to preserve marriage,” said Joe Fuiten, senior pastor at Cedar Park Church in Bothell who is involved in the referendum effort.

Washington Becomes Seventh State to Legalize Gay Marriage

Gov. Chris Gregoire, seated, is surrounded by legislators and supporters as she signs into law a measure that legalizes same-sex marriage on Monday, Feb. 13, in Olympia, Wash. (AP)

The Washington, D.C.-based National Organization for Marriage, which was involved in ballot measures that overturned same-sex marriage in California and Maine, has promised to work with Preserve Marriage Washington to qualify the referendum to overturn the new law.

A campaign has already formed to fight any challenge to the new law. “Washington United for Marriage,” a coalition of gay marriage supporters, formed in November to lobby the Legislature to pass the measure and to run a campaign against any referendum challenging it.

Gay marriage supporters said that while they are ready for a campaign battle, they are allowing themselves to celebrate first.

“You have to relish this moment,” said 31-year-old Bret Tiderman of Seattle, who attended Monday’s bill signing.

The state reception room at the Capitol was packed with hundreds of gay rights supporters and at least 40 lawmakers from the House and Senate to watch Gregoire sign the bill Monday. Gregoire was greeted with loud cheers.

“No matter what the future holds, nothing will take this moment in history away from us,” Sen. Ed Murray, a Seattle Democrat who is gay and has sponsored gay rights legislation for years, told the cheering crowd.

Washington Becomes Seventh State to Legalize Gay Marriage

Meanwhile, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who opposes gay marriage, was in town speaking with conservative voters. Santorum also met with Republican lawmakers at the Capitol Monday afternoon.

Santorum said he encouraged gay-marriage opponents “to continue the fight.”

“There are ebbs and flows in every battle, and this is not the final word,” he said.

Gregoire‘s signature comes nearly a week after a federal appeals court declared California’s ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, saying it was a violation of the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gave gay marriage opponents time to appeal the 2-1 decision against Proposition 8 before ordering the state to allow same-sex weddings to resume. The judges also said the decision only applies to California, even though the court has jurisdiction in nine Western states.

Washington state has had domestic partnership laws since 2007, and in 2009 passed an “everything but marriage” expansion of that law, which was ultimately upheld by voters after a referendum challenge.

Gay marriage is legal in New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington, D.C.

Same-sex marriage also has the backing of several prominent Pacific Northwest businesses, including Microsoft Corp., Nike Inc. and Starbucks Corp.

The New Jersey Senate advanced a gay marriage bill Monday, and a vote is expected in the New Jersey Assembly on Thursday. Gov. Chris Christie, who is pushing for a public vote on the issue, says he’ll veto the bill if it comes to his desk.

Legislative committees in Maryland heard testimony on gay marriage last week, and Maine could see a gay marriage proposal on the November ballot.

Proposed amendments to ban gay marriage will be on the ballots in North Carolina in May and in Minnesota in November.

Comments (191)

1 2 3
  • Disabledvet
    Posted on February 14, 2012 at 10:25am

    This only adds to the Down fall of America. Maybe we should bring Sharia Law here, they do not put up with anything like this.

    Report Post »  
    • Favored93
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 12:04pm

      You do not know what you are asking for in shariah. If we get it here we will all know what it is like to be a slave.

      Report Post » Favored93  
    • Dave.the.Blaze
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 1:49pm

      Or how about we follow the dictates of the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy literally as they are the literal word of God? They have a lot more in common with Sharia law than you might want to believe. My point is that this is not a matter for religion but for civil society.

      Report Post » Dave.the.Blaze  
  • NOITUloveR
    Posted on February 14, 2012 at 10:19am

    “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

    This is a quote from a Christian judge in 1959 (don’t believe me? Google Loving v. Virginia). Racism anyone?

    This is why we do not have a state or national religion. Because people get persecuted if their lives do not fall within the strictures of a specific religion. If you do not realize it yet, Christianity is not the only religion on this planet. There are many churches who marry same sex couples. Why would a same sex couple attend a church that persecutes them? Most of them find a church that welcomes them and they get married there. There is no force.
    Regardless of my faith (though I should probably say because of it) I understand that all humans have the right to be treated the same.

    Report Post »  
    • Favored93
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 12:25pm

      OK your premise is wrong. First God changed the languages at the tower of Babel and scattered mankind across the globe so that we would not build a tower into space and kill ourselves. Marrying a white man and black woman is FAAAR different then Adam and Steve and I think you know that.
      When the bible tells us not to be UN-equally yoked the context is not race but beliefs. A Jew was not to marry a Baal worshiper or Christian a Muslim. The reason should be obvious. The Christian or Jew would be enticed to follow after the ungodly religion.
      We as Christians are COMMANDED to love even our enemies and to do good even to those who use and persecute us. We who are actual CHRISTIANS do not hate the Homosexual nor do we mistreat them.
      This is about the worlds attack on all things relating to God. They are as free as I am to marry…find a woman like I have to do and marry her. I am not free to marry a man and neither are they. They have equal rights under the law.
      The “lifestyle” they embrace is sinful and to suggest that calling sin what it is is some how hateful or discriminatory is a ridiculous lie.
      History has show time and again that the nation that EMBRACES the Homosexual lifestyle falls shortly after and that is FACT not hate speech.
      God loves them as he does you and I. Jesus died for them as he did for me and that to is a FACT!

      Report Post » Favored93  
    • Favored93
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 12:30pm

      BTW I grew up in Vancouver Washington and now live in OH. This is a sad day for me.
      May God turn our hearts back to Him quickly!!!

      Report Post » Favored93  
    • NOITUloveR
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 12:43pm

      My premise is not wrong, your understanding of my point is.

      Report Post »  
  • Redmanblackdog
    Posted on February 14, 2012 at 9:58am

    Yesterday on channel 4 news, the anchor lady was interviewing Pastor Ken Hutcherson.

    Her question to him was “Outside of religion, can you think of any other reason that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to be married?”

    Like God saying no to homosexuals in the Bible isn’t enough. I stand with God. Marriage is between a man and a woman! Gays go back to the closet and hide you sickening perverted animals!

    Report Post »  
    • turkey13
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 10:21am

      Well Washington just went on my no fly list along with California, N.Y., DC, Phillie and Chicago. If I can‘t use my carry permit and a gun for protection I’m not going into those states. Also if I can’t dredge for gold they are on my nofly list. Since California stopped us gold prospectors I’v avoided the. Last year our group spent almost $15,000.00 in New Mexico.

      Report Post »  
    • MarketsClear
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 10:25am

      So if government should be based on the Bible, you support stoning disobedient children, sabbath breakers, shellfish eaters, adulterers, and farmers who sow more than one type of seed in their fields. Grow up and learn some theology. Christianity is not a political religion; Christ came to save personally save individuals. To use government force to legislate morality pretty much means that you reject the value of faith.

      Report Post » MarketsClear  
    • turkey13
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 10:28am

      I was rambling on on my last blog I forgot the main topic and that is about the Queers and Lizzies. Those states are on my no fly list along with states that won’t honer my gun permit or with laws make me run the other way. My family misses the trips up in Virginia, Conn, Phillie, etc. for the beautifull fall foilege. Pretty soon the only places I can spend money on vacations will only be at home or in the south.

      Report Post »  
    • KStret
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 11:12am

      Red,
      You are playing right into their hand. Do not make this about religion. Do not let them frame the argument. Their rationale to allow same sex marriage makes absolutely no sense. Make that the issue instead of religion.

      Report Post » KStret  
    • MarketsClear
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 12:20pm

      @ Kstret

      Once you lose the religious argument, the only arguments against allowing same-sex marriage contracts are collectivist. If you want government to restrict the right of free entry into contract, then you are rejecting property rights. In a society based on liberty, I don’t have to show why something should be allowed. You have to show why the use of government force is legitimate in restricting liberty.

      So far the only non-religious argument I’ve heard is that government has an interest in the continuance of the human race. This is a nonsequitur based on the base rate fallacy. It makes the assumption that government promotion of marriage and reproduction are the only things keeping the human race alive; without government sanctioning and creating benefits for marriage, no one would have children and society would decline. This premise is unfounded since before government intervened in marriage, there was strong population growth and people were having children greater than the replacement rate. Allowing individuals to enter into contracts as they please poses no rational threat to population growth.

      Report Post » MarketsClear  
    • KStret
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 1:20pm

      Market,
      If you believe that same sex couples have the right to have a judge implement their agenda, you believe that redefining marriage is a right. Your own 14th amendment argument dictates that polygamist and bigamists have the exact same right you believe homosexuals have to go to court and a judge can impose bigamy and polygamy on the American culture. Do you agree with that?

      Report Post » KStret  
    • AmericanFightingMan1
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 1:29pm

      You can get caught up in distant arguments away from this central theme: it is blasphemous to engage in homosexual relations.

      For man to enshrine this blasphemy into law is probably offensive to God. I am not God; I don’t speak for God. But the best evidence I have of God’s Will is the Bible. And the Left has now put people of good conscience who love God in an untenable position where they have to choose between God’s laws (as evidenced in the Bible) and man’s laws.

      Guess who’s laws win for most? Yep, you guessed it. I don’t even have to say.

      Report Post » AmericanFightingMan1  
    • MarketsClear
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 1:38pm

      You’re funny. You use all these loaded words to try to make your argument sound more convincing instead of arguing the issue at hand. Is government legitimate in, firstly, using force to promote a preexisting religious and social contractual institution, and, secondly, to use force in preventing individuals from entering into such a contract based on arbitrary criteria? Since my goal is liberty, I reject both government assertions of force. If, for the time being, most people take the first use of force as a given, but I can fight against increased injury to liberty by removing arbitrary criteria. You seem to be confusing the difference between state and culture. Government does not create language or ideas. It merely is the execution of force against voluntary action. Therefore government removal of arbitrary criteria for benefits is not a redefinition. However, through the normal course of human history, words may alter in meaning as culture changes. To argue that government should fight against culture or try to shape culture through the use of force is, quite frankly, fascistic.

      To answer your question: from a natural law perspective, government has no legitimate place in using force to restrict the free entry into contract of individuals. Marriage is merely a contract of individuals who may put whatever terms in they like. Thus using government to put arbitrary restriction on what terms may be in marriage contracts is illegitimate.

      Report Post » MarketsClear  
    • AmericanFightingMan1
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 1:44pm

      Markets, I can prove you wrong with a question: if contracts between free people is the issue, then may a father marry his son? May a mother marry her daughter? Even if all are adults, these contracts, while allowed under your model, are for us to forbid.

      May you and your brother marry? Why not? You say it is “liberty”. Problem is, my friend, liberty without context is just anarchy. Liberty, in the context of morality as understood from the Bible, gives us hope.

      Your way is without hope. As they say in my beloved Army, it is time for you to regroup and pull your head out of your duffle bag.

      Report Post » AmericanFightingMan1  
    • MarketsClear
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 1:50pm

      @AmericanFightingMan1

      If you want to codify the Christian moral code into law, we call that theocracy. Theocracy is logically inconsistent with natural rights theory which the founders upon which the founders wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Either you desire a government legislating morality and using force to uphold it, or you promote liberty and use nonviolent means of persuasion to get people to follow your moral code (government is violence). Christ does not call for Christians to use violence or theft to promote his Church. He calls you to live a life worthy of him and persuade others. Using government violence to promote your perspective of the Bible is just as illegitimate as progressive trying to force religious expression out of the public sphere.

      Report Post » MarketsClear  
    • KStret
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 1:53pm

      Market,
      Why are you running away from your own logic chain? I didn’t ask you the “government has no legitimate place in using force to restrict the free entry into contract of individuals.”

      I asked you if polygamist and bigamists can go to court and have a judge impose the definition of marriage that they like on the American culture.

      Report Post » KStret  
    • MarketsClear
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 1:57pm

      Your arguments are rife with appeal to tradition and appeal to religion. All voluntary consensual actions are legitimate. Period. You may be morally opposed to them, but you have no legitimate right to use force to stop it. You may boycott individuals who engage in practices you deem immoral, and that is a voluntary action in itself.

      Instead of looking at a situation and asking yourself, is an individual’s property right being injured, you look at a situation and ask, does tradition or religion tell me that this is bad. See the difference. One is based on a rationalist extension of natural law theory, while the other is fallacious based on appeal to tradition and appeal to religion.

      Report Post » MarketsClear  
    • KStret
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 1:58pm

      Market,
      If you believe that same sex couples have the right to have a judge implement their agenda, you believe that redefining marriage is a right. Your own 14th amendment argument dictates that polygamist and bigamists have the exact same right you believe homosexuals have to go to court and a judge can impose bigamy and polygamy on the American culture. Do you believe that polygamist and bigamists should be able go to court and a judge can impose bigamy and polygamy on the rest of us?

      Report Post » KStret  
    • AmericanFightingMan1
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 1:59pm

      Answer the question Market, should you be able to marry your brother?

      Law ALWAYS supposes morality. Law is DERIVED from morality.

      Our LAW is DERIVED from moral codes. Any law school professor will tell you that. The problem is, the farther away we get from morality, the more we believe (mistakenly) that law is divorced from morality.

      So, Market, answer, please, the question. May a father marry his son? I suppose your answer is no. So why not? Hmmm? Morality.

      I do not believe in a theocracy. This is the lazy argument of pretend intellectuals. But I do know that man’s laws must, to be effective, have origins in moral teachings. Simple.

      It is a matter of courage for you. Maybe you have liberal friends who will ridicule you for having any thoughts but what you now display? It takes way more courage to be grounded in what we all know is moral. You can dance around it all you’d like. There is a center. It is God.

      Report Post » AmericanFightingMan1  
    • KStret
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 2:00pm

      Market,
      I know you want to change the subject to religion. It’s not going to happen. This is a legal argument. Do you agree with your own logic chain or do you like special pleading?

      Report Post » KStret  
    • MarketsClear
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 2:08pm

      @KSTRET

      You clearly believe that government is what defines marriage. But in reality, marriage, as a religious rite is determined by religion, and marriage, as a civil contract, is determined by the specific contract individuals enter into. Since government has taken upon itself the use of theft (taxation) to promote individuals who have been granted state marriage licenses, it is a violation of the rights of tax payers to arbitrarily restrict how they may enter into such a contract based on things like gender or number.

      You are clearly using the term culture in the progressive way (everyone else but you). If people want to enter into a same-sex or polygamous marriage, they clearly part of the culture does not deem marriage to be strictly defined to a man-woman union. Thus in using government force to restrict them from entering into a marriage contract, you are imposing your view of marriage on them.

      If you want to use a majoritarian argument that “well the majority see marriage as a man-woman union,” then you yielding the premise that people have the right to freely enter into contract and replacing it with people have the privilege to enter into contract based on whether the majority approves. Then you open the logical door to the complete rejection of property rights and are logically consistent with socialism.

      Report Post » MarketsClear  
    • MarketsClear
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 2:22pm

      @KSTRET

      I have to use religion in order to counter Christian-fundamentalist beliefs.

      @AmericanFightingMan1

      I already answered that question. All voluntary consensual actions and contracts are legitimate! When law is based on tradition and morality, you reject the natural rights of man. Natural rights theory is not based on any preexisting moral teachings. It is based on the premise that man owns his body and makes purposeful actions with it. People with radically different moral codes can consistently accept natural rights theory because it is based on reason, not tradition or religion. For the most party, British common law developed a legal system that fully respected natural rights far before the theory was developed. This indicates that natural law is consistent with human nature. To accept a government build on the basis on individual morality is true chaos. Different individuals and politicians may have different interpretations of morality and every man believes himself to know the True Morality.

      I‘m not sure if you’re familiar with the logical technique reductio ad absurdum, but that is what I use when I call you theocrat. You accept the premise that government and law should be based on religious doctrine. The logical extension of that is theocracy.

      Report Post » MarketsClear  
    • KStret
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 6:12pm

      Market,
      I don’t believe that redefining marriage is a fundamental right. Therefore, the people get to decide what the definition of marriage is. If redefining marriage is not a right a judge can’t not legislate into law. You disagree with that.

      Your argument is since straight people can enter into a marriage contract and same sex marriage can not, that constitutes discriminating because of the 14th amendments equal protection clause. Your argument is a legal argument.

      Your own argument dictates if gay people get to change the definition of marriage via judicial fiat, any other group who wants to change the definition of marriage has that exact same right. Otherwise you are discriminating against any group that wants a different definition of marriage than homosexuals.

      Answer the question:

      Do polygamist and bigamists have the exact same right that homosexuals do to have a judge impose bigamy and polygamy on the American culture?

      Report Post » KStret  
  • Redmanblackdog
    Posted on February 14, 2012 at 9:55am

    I believe like Pastor Ken Hutcherson. Choosing homosexual behavior is exactly that a choice. They are not minorities, they are freaks of nature.

    Are we suppose to act like all freaks are minorities?

    I find there behavior repulsive. I will not tolerate it ever. I find it disgusting to think they think we should teach this in school to our children.

    Sickening, down right sickening! I believe in the bible and God says no to homosexuals. So I say no.
    Sorry, homosexuals are wrong and God is right. Some choice, no brainer!

    Report Post »  
    • American Soldier (Separated)
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 10:04am

      Unfortunately, we live in a country where we have this thing called the Constitution. We have rights as individuals, not as groups. Individually, regardless of your sexual preference, as an American citizen we are afforded certain unalienable rights. Whether you believe it to come from God or as a natural right (such as myself) the fact remains that they are unalienable regardless of how much you despise others. You have the right to be disgusted. I’m not particularly interested in homosexuality myself. I would say I’d be disgusted with anal sex.

      Regardless of my personal belief and objection, it neither picks my wallet nor ****** my foot.

      I have children myself who will be starting school soon. Public school system is failing and I do plan on having my kids go to private school where I have a say in their education. I will teach my children as well. If either of my kids (I have both a girl and a boy) were to be homosexual, my love for them will not change.

      Report Post » American Soldier (Separated)  
    • NOITUloveR
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 10:22am

      yes, and we should stone women who cheat on their husbands, according to the Bible.

      Report Post »  
    • KStret
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 10:56am

      AmericanS,
      Do polygamist and bigamists have the exact same right that homosexuals do to have a judge impose bigamy and polygamy on the American culture?

      Report Post » KStret  
    • rangerp
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 12:24pm

      @ American Soldier (Separated)

      yes, nations do fall because of economics, but their bad economic policies/habbits run parallel with other bad or destructive qualities.

      the family is the basic building block of the nation. the family is the basic building block of education and governance.

      If you build a structure from sub standard products, the structure will collapse.

      When the family crumbles, the nation crumbles. When you have a rise in femenism, homosexuality, and other deviances, the family falls apart. The American family is in ruins. Watch any modern half hour comedy and see how the family is portrayed. The american male of the 1950s would destroy his TV if he saw what we show as normal today.

      Homosexuality is an act against the family. It is destructive.

      Yes, economics matter, but it is bigger than just the economy. Our family is crumbling, our economy is crumbling, and the nations is crumbling.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • AmericanFightingMan1
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 1:39pm

      @ American Soldier, your argument falls flat. The US Constitution was not written in a vacuum. Anyone who has studied Constitutional history knows that the context of the US Constition was Christianity.

      Here’s how you know: Imagine a world without Christianity. Next, pick any religion. Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. Whatever. Would there be a US Constition? No. The answer is not hard to see.

      The point is that the US Constitution ASSUMES Christianity. Christianity is the CONTEXT in which the Constitution was written. And the Constitution was flawed. Christianity ASSUMES man is flawed. The Constitution is man’s law derived from, in large part, Christian beliefs. But the flaws, like slavery, peppered the Constitution. But the salvation in the Constitution is like Christ’s salvation. How?

      Just as Christianity embodies repentance and forgiveness, the US Constitution allows for Amendment. Amendment is the process of refinement. It is constitutional repentance and forgiveness. Atonement. The model is the same.

      Some don’t see this, but it is there. Look and you can see. You’re missing the point friend. Homosexuality is a core sin, just like murder is a core sin and legal violation. Some concepts are immovable.

      Report Post » AmericanFightingMan1  
    • American Soldier (Separated)
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 1:43pm

      @RangerP

      So explain to me how homosexuals getting married has anything to do with the Federal Reserve’s concept of quantitative easing, trillions in bailouts, subsidies, foreign aid, military adventurism, endless wars, just to name of a few things bankrupting our nation. Homosexuality has little, if anything, to do with our looming economic decline and anyone trying to relate one to the other is being dishonest with themselves and others. I understand you have your personal issues with homosexuality, I don’t expect you to ever truly accept them. You don’t have to, that’s your right as an American.

      Heterosexuals are doing far worse in destroying the American family then anything or anyone else. I suppose we should just ban marriage altogether.

      Our economic IS crumbling. Let’s focus on that rather than a frivolous non-issue like homosexual marriage which neither pri_cks your foot nor picks your wallet.

      Report Post » American Soldier (Separated)  
    • American Soldier (Separated)
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 1:49pm

      @AMERICANFIGHTINGMAN1

      You tell me that my argument falls flat yet your argument is based on an assumption, which you clearly highlight in CAPS LOCK.

      Then you go on to use the argument of a living Constitution that most liberals and progressives love to use. While doing so, you mention amendments. Well, show me where the amendment that states that marriage is only between a man and a woman, or the amendment that states that homosexuals are to be treated as second class citizens with limited rights.

      Murder is taking someone else’s life without consent. Homosexual marriage is nothing more than regular marriage just with different body parts. To try to compare homosexuality to murder is not only disrespectful but beyond understanding. Call it a sin all you would like, not everyone in America has your same moral code since America is based on FREEDOM for all, not just freedom for Christians. So until you can put that homosexuality is equal to murder into an amendment to the Constitution, you’re argument is more flawed than mine will ever be.

      Report Post » American Soldier (Separated)  
    • rangerp
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 4:34pm

      American Soldier (Separated)

      Once again, you are mixing apples and oranges.

      Yes, the economy is in ruin and getting worse. We are over regulated, can not drill our own oil, thus placing our fate in the hands of those who will drill. We are also spending more than we make, and we are rewarding the lazy. we have 46 million on foodstamps, then we snivel about Mexicans who want to come here and work. If we stop paying the lazy and seal the border, we fix both problems.

      The family issues is parallel, but differnet.

      If you fix the American family, and do not fix the economy, we fail.

      If you fix the economy and the American family crumbles, then we still fail.

      We need both. We need to elect real deal conservatives that get back to what the founding fathers intended. Get the public schools back in the hands of parents and local gov. Stop the spending, stop the hand outs, stop redifining words (marriage is a man and a woman).

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • rangerp
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 4:42pm

      American Soldier (seperated)

      “show me where the amendment that states that marriage is only between a man and a woman”

      why would you need an amendment to define marriage. The founding fathers believe in the Bible, and the Bible clearly defines marriage as a man and a woman. Below you will find the dictionary (webster) deffinition of the word marriage from the time of the founding fathers. Enlighten yourself.

      marriage
      MAR’RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

      Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Heb.13.

      1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.

      The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. Matt.22.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • American Soldier (Separated)
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 7:13pm

      @RangerP

      Because the Constitution is the law of the land! And the person I was responding to, which wasn’t you, was trying to use the living Constitution argument.

      PLUS…..We do not base our laws on the Websters dictionary!

      So you’re telling me that if were able to eliminate all our debt, maintain a sound monetary system, eliminate the federal reserve and their ability to print out money on the fly, lower our taxes, bring industry back to America and completely turn our economy back around, we will still fail and become a third world nation because we let homosexual marry?

      I know you RangerP, you’re a smart guy. I cannot believe that you truly believe that.

      Report Post » American Soldier (Separated)  
    • rangerp
      Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:57am

      American Soldier (Separated)

      You can not make chicken salad out of chicken poop. If you have a strong economy, but your base unit of governance and education crubmle, what good is a strong economy.

      For a civilization to last, it must reproduce. Homosexuality is not natural, it destroys the family. When the family in America is destroyed, the nation will be destroyed. America’s strength is not her economy, it is and always was her people. When Americans cease to be good, the nation ceases to be great.

      The same can be applied to the individual. If you have millions in the bank, and a perfect portfolio, but you are suffering from AIDS and syphilis, you have sores all over your body, you are addicted to alcohol and pain killers, you have suicidal thoughts, and molest children, you are not going to last long. I just described the homosexual population to you. Figure it out.

      Report Post » rangerp  
  • MaxMagician
    Posted on February 14, 2012 at 9:51am

    Here’s the issue: gays don’t really want to get married. What they want is for the government to use its power to force everyone else to accept their lifestyle as good and normal. I wouldn’t worry about gay marriage if I thought homosexuals would keep their lifestyle to themselves, and leave those of us who disagree with them alone. But this doesn’t end here. They want to use public schools to indoctrinate children into accepting their way of life (using “bullying” as an excuse). They want to make it a “hate crime” to say or do anything they disagree with, including holding the point of view that homosexuality is not something you’re “born” into.

    We have to start classifying the whole secular progressive movement, including the gay rights portion of it, what is truly is: a religion, one that is being established by the state and imposed forcibly on unbelievers bit by bit.

    Report Post »  
    • American Soldier (Separated)
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 9:58am

      Where in the Constitution does it say that homosexuals are second class citizens?

      This would be a non-issue if we actually followed the Constitution, which makes no mention of regulating marriage or preventing homosexuals from being married. Government should be removed from regulating or taxing marriage, period. Allow homosexuals the ability to get married in what ever manner they deem fit. If a priest is open minded enough to marry then, good for them. Otherwise, a judge, a captain of a boat, their hair dresser can marry them. As long as the paperwork goes through as far as a contract between the two of them (which is essence what a marriage is, a social contract between two individuals) and they receive the same benefits that any straight couple receives, there wouldn’t be in your face.

      Otherwise, remove all incentives for being married which includes incentives in the military.

      Report Post » American Soldier (Separated)  
    • NOITUloveR
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 11:15am

      American Soldier, you hit the nail on the head regarding incentives to be married. That is a huge reason why same sex couples want the right to be married . . . because they want the same rights as everyone else.

      As a side note, I find it interesting that no one screams about the effects of the marriage tax (i.e. encouraging unwed mothers) yet they rail against same sex marriage. What sense does that make?

      Report Post »  
    • KStret
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 11:18am

      AmericanS and Noit,
      Do polygamist and bigamists have the exact same right that homosexuals do to go to court and have a judge impose bigamy and polygamy on the American culture?

      Report Post » KStret  
    • NOITUloveR
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 11:23am

      KSTRET, one does not have to do with the other. I know at one time it was believed that interracial marriages would be a scourge on society. Who dares say that today.

      Report Post »  
    • American Soldier (Separated)
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 12:58pm

      Polygamy, what’s the problem with that? If the women enter the polygamist marriage with everyone’s consent, what exactly is the problem? Again, it neither picks my wallet nor pri_cks (yes, this word is censored on the blaze) my foot. Bigamy is a completely different matter since you are entering a second contract (marriage) while the other contract (marriage) is still valid. The difference between polygamy and bigamy is the consent of the extra parties. In Polygamy, all parties involved entered that relationship voluntarily while in bigamy, one party is excluded (the original marriage) so thus bigamy would be illegal as you are breach of contract with the first marriage. Now, if you receive consent from your first wife for you to be married to your second, have at it. You received consent for those actions between adult American citizens.

      We are free people. Free to enter legal and social contracts under our own free will. Who are you or the Government to prevent anyone from entering these contracts under their own free will, regardless of how repulsive you feel towards it? It does not force you to have polygamist marriages nor forces you to participate in bigamy. You are free to reject those acts.

      Freedom.

      Report Post » American Soldier (Separated)  
    • KStret
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 1:27pm

      Noit
      “one does not have to do with the other”

      Yes they do! If it is a fundamental right for gays to be able to redefine marriage, the 14th amendment dictates that if homosexuals have the right to redefine marriage, ALL groups have that exact same right. That is your own argument to allow same sex marriage. Are you saying the 14th amendment only applies to homosexuals? Why are you discriminating against polygamists fundamental right to marry who they want/? Are you polygaphobic? Why do you hate polygamists?
      You dodged the question. I ask you again:

      Do polygamist and bigamist have the exact same right that same sex couples have to go to court and have a judge impose polygamy and bigamy on the American people?

      Report Post » KStret  
    • KStret
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 1:36pm

      American,
      You dodged the question.What a surprise. Marriage has a definition. You want to change that definition. If it is a fundamental right for gays to be able to redefine marriage, the 14th amendment dictates that if homosexuals have the right to redefine marriage, ALL groups have that exact same right. That is your own argument to allow same sex marriage.

      You also equivocated over to a libertarian position. You are not saying that the government should just get out of sanctioning marriages. You believe one group can go to court and have a judge impose the definition of marriage that you like on the rest of the culture. If same sex couples can do that, anyone who wants a new definition of marriage should be able to do that as well. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.

      I never asked what your person opinion is of polygamy. That is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the question that I asked you. Let’s try again:

      Do polygamist and bigamist have the exact same right that same sex couples do to go to court and have a judge impose polygamy and bigamy on the American people?

      Report Post » KStret  
    • KStret
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 1:44pm

      A.S
      ” does not force you to have polygamist marriages nor forces you to participate in bigamy. You are free to reject those acts.”

      You are forcing your view of what you think marriage should be on the rest of the culture. If I do not want to live in a culture were marriage means whatever anyone wants to mean do I have a choice? NO! You get to impose your opinion on the rest of the culture. Your opinion counts and anyone who doesn‘t agree with you doesn’t have a voice.

      You are not saying,” let’s put it to a vote and if people reject my opinion that is fine.” You are saying that your opinion is a right, therefore you can jam your opinion down everyone‘s throat and they don’t have a choice. Redefining marriage is not a right. That is fascism not freedom.

      Report Post » KStret  
    • American Soldier (Separated)
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 1:59pm

      @KSTRET

      How exactly did I dodge the question? Regardless of a judge or not, they should have the right to polygamy. What exactly is so bad with polygamy as long as they are all consenting adults? We’ve discussed the flaws and differences of bigamy. So where exactly did I dodge the question?

      Report Post » American Soldier (Separated)  
    • American Soldier (Separated)
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 2:07pm

      @KSTRET

      Putting up to a vote is calling ourselves a Democracy. We are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. Rule by law rather than rule by mob. This system was put into place to protect the minority from the overwhelming force of the majority. Freedom is the underlining theme for our Constitutional Republic.

      I live in a society where plenty of people do things that I don’t agree with. I’m an Agnostic and I disagree with your belief of a God, of heaven and hell. But I understand that as a free nation, that is your right to do as you please as long as you aren’t affecting me directly regardless with how much I am personally against it. This is the concept of freedom with homosexuality and marriage. You may think it‘s an assault on you but it isn’t. It’s about freedom for everyone. Unalienable rights to live, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They have the right to pursuit that happiness if that means being committed to each other in a way that is recognized for extra benefits that others are receiving.

      Best way to remove/limit the desire to get married for any other reason other than religious significance is to remove every and all incentives for being married. Which also includes incentives in the military for being married.

      Report Post » American Soldier (Separated)  
    • NOITUloveR
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 2:31pm

      KS, how is it an imposition to you or anyone else? Oh yes, because their religious beliefs must not be the same as your own.

      The reason I did not answer your question directly is because it is the same argument that is always used. I’m looking for a better argument.

      All the what if’s do not make it right to not treat people equally. One of the main problems with this is the term “marriage”. I find it humorous that some people are OK with same sex “civil unions” but somehow same sex “marriage” crosses the line. There are two marriages. One is the legal contract you sign that makes you lawfully joined with another person, and thus able to reap all the benefits that come with it. The other is a ceremony that usually has to do with religious beliefs.
      Couples (hetero or ****) can be “married” all day long in a religious ceremony but never gain the rights afforded by state law. Likewise, couples can be “married” in the eyes of the state but do not have to have a religious ceremony to be able to assume those same benefits.

      I have met many men and women who have “married” for the sole purpose of getting health benefits. How is it right or fair that a same sex couple who is committed to each other is not able to “marry” and receive health benefits? How is that an imposition to you?

      Report Post »  
    • NOITUloveR
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 2:40pm

      funny that “hetero” is not a censored word but “h o m o ” is when they are both scientific terms

      Report Post »  
    • KStret
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 6:31pm

      AmericanS,
      ” Regardless of a judge or not, they should have the right to polygamy.”
      The central issue is the whether redefining marriage is a right. The judge is the essential part of your argument. You are not arguing from a Liberian perspective. You are making a legal argument. You believe that redefining marriage is a right.. If gay people have the right to have same sex marriage legislated from the bench into law by judicial fiat, other groups must have that exact same right to redefine marriage.

      You did not answer the question. You did not say if you believe that polygamist and bigamist have the right to have a judge implement the definition of marriage that they want. Saying “regardless of a judge’s decision” is dodging the question.

      Do polyamist and bigamist have the exact same right as gays to go to court and have a judge force it on the American culture? Yes or No?

      Report Post » KStret  
    • KStret
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 6:43pm

      AmericanS
      “Putting up to a vote is calling ourselves a Democracy. We are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. Rule by law rather than rule by mob. ”

      Do you honestly believe that the founders of this country would agree with you that homosexuals have the right to redefine marriage?

      Secondly, you are paying lip service to the fact that we are a constitutional republic but you support judicial tyranny.

      Your logic chains dictates that you get to force your opinion of the rest of the culture and no one’s opinion counts but yours. I don’t think that redefining marriage is a right. That’s too bad. You apparently get to dictate to me what a marriage is. That is fascism.

      Report Post » KStret  
    • KStret
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 6:56pm

      Noit,
      ” how is it an imposition to you or anyone else? Oh yes, because their religious beliefs must not be the same as your own.”

      That is a red herring and you know it. Why will you not answer a simple question? This is not about religion. Your own argument is a legal argument. Therefore, the subject is about the 14th amendment.

      “The reason I did not answer your question directly is because”

      The reason you didn’t answer it is you are trap. If you answer the question it shows how illogical your position is.

      “All the what if’s do not make it right to not treat people equally.”

      If homosexuasl are not being treated equally because they can not get married, polygamist and bigamist are also being discriminated against because they can not get married. If you change the definition marriage for one group you have to change the definition for ALL groups. That is not a “what if”, that is YOUR OWN ARGUMENT!

      Do polygamist and bigamist have the exact same right that gays have to have a judge impose polygamy and bigamy on the American culture? Yes or no?

      Report Post » KStret  
    • KStret
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 7:07pm

      American,
      Reynolds v. United States clearly shows that the founders did not believe that redefining marriage was a right. The court upheld that it was permissible for bigamy to be illegal. I believe this was before they chnged to using case law instead of the constutution.

      Report Post » KStret  
    • KStret
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 7:10pm

      that should read “changed to using case law instead of the constitution”

      Report Post » KStret  
    • American Soldier (Separated)
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 7:23pm

      You say I suppose judicial tyranny while you suppose theocratic tyranny.

      The difference is, I believe in freedom. Freedom for all, even those that I don’t agree with or even find deplorable. I don’t agree with the homosexual lifestyle but that is there life to live, not mine. If they want to show their commitment to each other through marriage, that is their right as an American citizen to join together in a legal social contract. It’s not about definition or preserving your religious beliefs. I’m not trying to impose anything on you but provide equality to those that are not being treated equally.

      Remove all incentives for being married, including BAH and BAS for married soldiers.

      I’m Agnostic and was married, did I desecrate on your precious religious tradition? I paid my marriage tax and was married by a judge, nothing religious about it. So what’s the difference?

      Report Post » American Soldier (Separated)  
    • KStret
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 9:13pm

      A.S
      “You say I suppose judicial tyranny while you suppose theocratic tyranny”

      I did not bring up religion at all. This is not a religious issue. The issue is whether redefining marriage is a right. I don’t believe that it is. You do. You want to impose your view of marriage in the rest of the culture via the judiciary. That is judicial tyranny.

      You still have not answered my question. It know yes or no questions can be really hard ro answer. Let’s try again:

      Do polygamist and bigamist have the exact same right that gays have to have a judge impose polygamy and bigamy on the American culture? Yes or no?

      Report Post » KStret  
    • snibbles
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 11:37pm

      I agree. Somehow gays and lesbians want to be Justified. They want their lifestyle to be Ok with everyone and if we dont agree they will force it on us. That is what sin does. It trys to justify itself.

      Report Post »  
  • J_Ruben_Kincaid
    Posted on February 14, 2012 at 9:26am

    Gays see gay marriage as a way to make their alternate lifestyle seem normal. It will never be, but like it or not, this is a state issue. I think its a mistake but its every states right to make this mistake or to not make this mistake.

    Report Post » J_Ruben_Kincaid  
    • USPATRIOT101
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 9:31am

      I wonder if barack will sue over this like he did Arizona and its immigration laws.

      Report Post » USPATRIOT101  
    • SpankDaMonkey
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 9:35am

      .
      Gays should be treated like Lepers. I don’t want that Filth around my kids or grandkids…….

      Report Post » SpankDaMonkey  
    • Christhefarmer
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 9:47am

      Yay, now the asexuals can fight for the right to marry themselves.

      Report Post »  
    • NickyLouse
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 11:38am

      As long as they realize that when they go to a different state they will no longer be married.

      Report Post » NickyLouse  
  • Aunt Nee Nee
    Posted on February 14, 2012 at 9:15am

    It’s official; marriage is no longer sacred because there is no transcendent moral code that defines it. It’s whatever the majority, or a vocal minority, delcares it to be. If there is no God, then everything is permissible. Soon, faithful heterosexual married couples and celebate single people will become society’s deviants.

    Report Post »  
    • MarketsClear
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 10:40am

      Marriage ceased to be sacred when government deemed itself the regulator of marriage. When the states decided that churches and common law were not good enough to regulate marriage (because it allowed for people of different race to marry) marriage became a government function, and therefore not sacred.

      Report Post » MarketsClear  
  • zoro51
    Posted on February 14, 2012 at 9:11am

    not inot gay marrige.. though i AM gay but the rights to visit in hospital YES i agree with that.. sad fact gay or straight men r pigs horny n worse sluts than women.. in the gay world MEN R TOOOOOO HORNY at ANY AGE.. there in lies the delemiah… CAN gay marrige be monogamous?? ……. can straight be as well,….. ONLY those who truley love CAN on both sides… so IF they can stay married.. then let them if not DONT GET MARRIED…. seen my parents stay togeather even after BAD arguments n threats.. Still get past that its possible…. IF you both LOVE each other enough not whats between the legs more,….

    Report Post » zoro51  
    • rangerp
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 9:23am

      zoro51

      Hey there zoro the gay blade – lay off the drugs.

      Report Post » rangerp  
  • Tandem2011
    Posted on February 14, 2012 at 8:58am

    Gay people, like straight people, have every right to live their lives in dignified relationships until the day they die. If a marriage license gives them that self-respect, why should religious snobs deny them of it because they feel threatened (for being selfishly narrow-minded and intolerant).

    Gays only want a monogamist marriage, BTW, not a polygamist one — so that straw-man argument to deny them of their equal rights is really a deceitful card game used by the far right. It’s dishonest.

    Report Post » Tandem2011  
    • rangerp
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 9:19am

      History does not repeat itself, people do. Every super power nation of civilizatin in the history of the world that has matured to the point where they accept homosexuality as natural crumbles and is no longer a super power within a couple generations. America will not be an exception.

      We live in a nation where we have right to believe in the religon of our choice. Millions of Americans believe in the Bible. We believe our Bible to be the real word of God, and our Bible clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination, and is wicked. We are allowed those beliefs.

      Homosexuals do not just accept the new law, and then live in peace. they spread disease, and they recruit heavily and prey on the young. One third of child molestations last year in the US were commited by homosexuals. Check out the latest storeis on Jerry Sandusky. he is a homosexual.

      The center for disease control has many stats concerning homosexuals. they carry 64% of the nations syphilis, but are only 2.5% of the population. last year 70% of new HIV cases were from male on male sex. Lesbians are three times more likely to have an STD, and the rate in which lesbians assault each other is higher than the rate that women get assaulted by a male partner. Homosexuals change sex partners at an alarming high rate, have double the suicide rates as a heterosexual, and much higher drug and alcohol rates.

      Growth of homosexuality in a civilization cuts down on the birth rate, and leads to the des

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • tzion
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 9:24am

      So what if the next issue is incest? If you compromise once you won’t be able to stop it from happening again. And don’t say that incest is too much of a stigma to happen because homosexuality used to be the same way. And if gays are allowed to marry each other, how will those people who oppose polygamy continue to argue against it? Mark my words, if we don’t take a stand here there will be incest cases within one or two generations.

      Report Post »  
    • rangerp
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 9:40am

      @tzion

      As soon as homosexuals get the right to get married in every state, there next step will be tearing down walls on other sixual perversions. they will want to drop the age of consent for children, lift the laws on beasteality, have multiple partners in one marriage and all other sorts of filth. they will destroy the nation. Will not be the first time.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • Locked
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 9:43am

      @Rangerp

      “Every super power nation of civilizatin in the history of the world that has matured to the point where they accept homosexuality as natural crumbles and is no longer a super power within a couple generations”

      Every super power nation or empire in the world has collapsed eventually. You could just as easily say “every empire will collapse” and be correct.

      Report Post »  
    • Luke21
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 9:51am

      @RangerP,

      You are correct on all accounts. First it was “we were born this way” & “they only want what everyone else wants”. Well, those arguements hold for the pedophile as well. w/in 20yrs that will be what is going on. 50 yrs ago, the arguement for gay “marriage” would have been met w/ shame. We are inviting God’s judgement, His wrath will be upon this nation…it is now simply a matter of time.

      Report Post »  
    • rangerp
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 10:17am

      @Locked

      Ok, I am down with your logic. Every superpower nation or civilization has and will collapse. Now if we look at history, we can see that some lasted a whole lot longer than others. What was their success, what was their failure. Can we prolong our success, and live as a nation longer?

      If homosexuality and other sexual perversions aided in the destruction, then would it not be wise to halt the acceptance of such practices?

      I believe America to be on of the greatest nation in the history of the world. It is not perfect, and had some mess ups along the way. We started out with slavery, being it was sort of passed down to us from out colonial days, but we were smart enough to get rid of it. I think you can argue that we have done more to end slavery world wide than any other nation, and we are know for our freedoms the world over.

      There is a life cycle of nations. History shows us that femenism, homosexuality, laziness, contempt for successfull people…. lead to destruction. Why not prolong our success and fend off failure?

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • American Soldier (Separated)
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 10:24am

      I always find it amusing when people blame homosexuality for collapses in empires. History has shown that it is not acceptance of homosexuality but of empire building and over spending, then losing their ability to find more gimmicks to maintain spending. Economics is what brings down empires. Whether that’s the Roman Empire or the USSR, they collapsed do to over expanding their empires then ran out of financial gimmicks to maintain themselves.

      Perhaps we can associate homosexuality, on some level, to our demise. Most of you find battling the homosexuality issue while our economy crumbles. Our country is not at risk of collapse because we are allowing homosexuals to marry, but because you’d rather focus on that and elect someone like Santorum for his stance against homosexuality, rather than elect someone like Ron Paul who doesn’t care or focus on homosexual marriage but rather on cutting our budget and saving our economy.

      Report Post » American Soldier (Separated)  
  • c.rozycki
    Posted on February 14, 2012 at 8:56am

    “Legalize Gay Marriage”??? What the heck!? Marriage = Man + Woman… That’s the definition of a marriage. Why are they trying and successfully changing the definition? Sick! Disturbing! And Stupid! I predict that many states will pass this law before Obama gets elected out of office.

    Report Post » c.rozycki  
  • Luke21
    Posted on February 14, 2012 at 8:48am

    Gregoire signed the bill Monday, saying it was “a day historians will mark as a milestone for equal rights, a day when we did what was right, we did what was just, and we did what was fair.”

    No madam Gov, you are wrong & you mock the God of the faith you claim to hold & you curse the people you claim to serve. This is what is fair, just, & good:

    He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God?
    The LORD’s voice cries … “Hear the rod! Who has appointed it? Are there yet the treasures of wickedness in the house of the wicked, And the short measure that is an abomination? Shall I count pure those with the wicked scales, And with the bag of deceitful weights? For her rich men are full of violence, Her inhabitants have spoken lies, And their tongue is deceitful in their mouth. “THEREFORE I will also make you sick by striking you, By making you desolate because of your sins. You shall eat, but not be satisfied; Hunger shall be in your midst. You may carry some away, but shall not save them; And what you do rescue I will give over to the sword. “You shall sow, but not reap; … And make sweet wine, but not drink… That I may make you a desolation, And your inhabitants a hissing. Therefore you shall bear the reproach of My people.” (Micah 6:8-16)

    Repent, I beg you, madam Gov before you invite the wrath of God on your people & your state.

    Report Post »  
  • hauschild
    Posted on February 14, 2012 at 8:36am

    Oh, the residents of Washington state must feel so proud today! What an accomplishment!

    Report Post »  
  • nolefan2
    Posted on February 14, 2012 at 8:31am

    This country seems to be tilting to the idea that gay marriage is fine, but has a problem with polygamy. How hypocritical is that?

    Report Post »  
    • NickyLouse
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 11:44am

      I liked Santorum’s apologetic on the subject. He asked the question of gay activists: why do they only want to allow for the modification of one factor of the definition. In other words, why not change the numerical modifier in addition to changing the gender modifier. They would not answer him.

      Report Post » NickyLouse  
    • NickyLouse
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 11:46am

      You can also ask why not allow for changing the species modifier.

      Report Post » NickyLouse  
    • JoeyTranchina
      Posted on February 15, 2012 at 4:31am

      I’ll answer — why not? I’ve lived in a polygamous country. Their families seem to work just fine.
      Must America epitomize ignorance? Must American Christianity always stand for bigotry, fear and cowardice?

      Do you really think that this is a free country when such primitive religiosity controls so much of civil law and the thinking of so many people? American have forgotten how to mind their own business, but insist on meddling in other people’s lives… I guess that’s always easier than convicting ourselves of our own sins. Seems more like gossip than religion to me.

      Report Post »  
  • hi
    Posted on February 14, 2012 at 8:30am

    The problem is that the gays will force ministers to marry them in the church or will cry “discrimination.” They will force wedding associated businesses to work for them such as bakeries, photographers, and wedding planners.

    This isn’t about gay marriage but forcing their sinful lifestyle on all. What goes on in the bedroom should not determine government policy.

    Report Post » hi  
    • Locked
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 8:34am

      “The problem is that the gays will force ministers to marry them in the church or will cry “discrimination.””

      Let them. The government cannot force churches to perform marriage ceremonies. And if they were going to complain anyway, who cares?

      “They will force wedding associated businesses to work for them such as bakeries, photographers, and wedding planners.”

      Only way they can get in trouble is by purposefully underperforming or failing to perform if they agree to it. Private businesses can do what they want.

      Realistically the only people who will be forced to act against their beliefs are public employees who process marriage applications and give marriage licenses. It’s a similar situation as a Catholic pharmacy employee being forced to ring up contraceptives; if you can’t perform your job, it’s time to get into a different line of work.

      Report Post »  
  • Locked
    Posted on February 14, 2012 at 8:21am

    My first thought was “send them to their own islands?”

    Then I thought, “Well, there is precedent for that. The island of Lesbos in Greece, anyone?”

    Report Post »  
    • hi
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 8:32am

      But they weren’t actually lesbians! They were widowed wives that were cared for on the island.

      Report Post » hi  
    • Locked
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 9:00am

      Note, this was a response to Gonzo’s comment, which said in effect “Let’s treat them like lepers.”

      Report Post »  
  • OperationNorthwoods
    Posted on February 14, 2012 at 8:03am

    This wouldn‘t be a problem if the government stayed out of marriage but they don’t.

    Report Post » OperationNorthwoods  
  • KentuckyVet
    Posted on February 14, 2012 at 7:59am

    And you thought the half sheep and half human was scary! What the h$ll is going to come out of this??? :- (~

    Report Post » KentuckyVet  
  • Nemo13
    Posted on February 14, 2012 at 7:53am

    Once you allow their victory over marriage, you have given them a big step in destroying religion. That is what this is really about. They want to force their way in, force you to accept them, and thus dismantle what you believe. What Christian would allow this? If you do, you are not a Christian. If people of the past could stand by their religion and face lions to their deaths, what do you stand for? I will never accept gays in any fashion except for what they are; freaks of nature.

    Report Post »  
    • TomFerrari
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 8:12am

      I say government has absolutely NO business being involved in marriages. Period.
      Marriage is made in heaven. So, if your Church marries you, you are married in Gid’s eyes.
      How did we get married before the government got involved just decades ago?
      Government involvement is government imposing itself into religion.
      Get government out of our private lives!

      Report Post » TomFerrari  
    • Locked
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 8:19am

      “Once you allow their victory over marriage, you have given them a big step in destroying religion. That is what this is really about.”

      Eh, I doubt it. In every conceivable way, divorce is worse than gays marrying; especially if the divorcees had a church ceremony. People make their vows before God, and then later split?

      Gays can’t be married in most churches, so it’s not really a religious matter. Their marriages are just a piece of paper and benefits (and as far as the government is concerned, that’s what all marriages are).

      Report Post »  
    • tzion
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 9:50am

      @Locked
      Maybe for Christianity divorce is worse. Christianity is the only religion I know of that prohibits divorce in any manner. Divorce is perfectly legal in Judaism (though admittedly marriage isn’t seen as sacred). In my opinion, once you have gay marriage you’ll open the floodgates for polygamy and incest marriages as well. Think about it. What’s the argument against it now? I’d personally rather see polygamy legalized than gay marriage because at least then marriage itself remains unchanged. The only change would be that it no longer prevents someone from getting married to someone else.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 11:05am

      @Tzion

      “Maybe for Christianity divorce is worse. Christianity is the only religion I know of that prohibits divorce in any manner.”

      That’s true, and I should have mentioned that. One minor correction though; divorce is only prohibited in Catholicism. Most Christian denominations allow it. One side of my family is very Catholic, and they always brought up the point that it makes no sense to call heterosexual marriage “sacred” or “Godly” if Christians have no issue with divorce.

      “Once you have gay marriage you’ll open the floodgates for polygamy and incest marriages as well. Think about it. What’s the argument against it now? I’d personally rather see polygamy legalized than gay marriage because at least then marriage itself remains unchanged.”

      Well, incest is already allowed in some states with cousins marrying. And forgive me for not knowing Judaism as well as I should, but isn’t polygamy and marrying within the family (or tribe) historically accepted? I seem to recall all the old prophets having several wives and trying to keep their bloodlines pure.

      Not saying I endorse either one of those; my point when it comes to marriage is that in the US it’s secular, and the government can decide what to call them whatever they want. Churches hold their own marriage ceremonies and customs, and the government can’t change what they do.

      Report Post »  
  • Nemo13
    Posted on February 14, 2012 at 7:42am

    All Christians should DEMAND gays stop using their traditions and ceremonies. And DEMAND the government REMOVE any law that allows them to use such traditions and ceremonies. Gays are not accepted. Period. There are no laws to allow them. They can sign into law some perverted gay grouping all the want, but they shall NOT put it under the title of marriage. All christians should unite in this cause! Will you allow them to tell you who you should accept? Will you allow them to make a mockery of your traditions and ceremonies?

    Report Post »  
    • Baddoggy
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 8:03am

      Why any laws regarding marriage or religion at all? DOMA (defense of marrige act) is an Unconstitutional law too. The Government needs to be 100% out of the marrigae business and allow the Church be the Church. No more licensing, JP marriages or Boat Captain marriages. 100% out of the issue!

      Marrigae is between two people and God. If two guys thinks God will accept them as a married couple, they have not read the Bible. If a Church is progressive and they want to still marry those two people together, so what. Let God take care of that Crurch. But keep the Government out of the issue. If teo people want to enter into a contract that allows them hospital visits and property rights contracts, why should gender or marrigae enter into that?

      No legislation on marriage is better than DOMA. Why? Because if Governmennt does not define marriage, then the gay agenda starts to die out. If we keep pushing DOMA then the gay agenda unites, recruits and gets stronger, hence more gay people dancing in the streets in protest. If we leave marriage to the Church and God, the gay agenda is not aroused and really…it dies out.

      Report Post » Baddoggy  
  • disenlightened
    Posted on February 14, 2012 at 7:42am

    Oh no. Get ready for an explosion of butt babies.

    Report Post » disenlightened  
  • Razorhunters
    Posted on February 14, 2012 at 7:40am

    Life in America Under Agenda 21 with whistleblower Charlotte Iserbyt
    http://www.infowars.com/life-in-america-under-agenda-21-with-whistleblower-charlotte-iserbyt/

    Report Post » Razorhunters  
  • Jenny Lind
    Posted on February 14, 2012 at 7:31am

    The ones who participate in these travesties against a very specific law of God are really foolish and will ultimately pay a very high price. It just makes me shake my head when men in all there foolishness think it matters to God what they choose as laws, when they go against His. I am not anti gay or in any way hatefull to people. I have lived the law of loving the sinner and hating the sin. What amazes me is the arrogance of men who think they have the “right” to make a law on earth that goes against God’s wishes. Find me one passage that says it’s ok in the scriptures to change a law of God, just one and I will rethink the whole thing. Good luck with that.

    Report Post »  
  • democritusoilder267
    Posted on February 14, 2012 at 7:28am

    @BADDOGGY: I do not believe in the bible. To me the bible is man-made. I feel there is nothing wrong with being attracted to the same-sex.

    Report Post » democritusoilder267  
    • disenlightened
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 7:52am

      There’s nothing wrong with being attracted to an ear of corn or your own grandmother either, as long as you conveniently eliminate or choose not to recognize any prohibition towards it like the Bible, right?

      Report Post » disenlightened  
  • Baddoggy
    Posted on February 14, 2012 at 7:04am

    Why is the Government involved in any issues regarding God?

    Not my problem if some guy does not understand human plumbling…Listen buddy…that thingy was not meant to be stuck in that thingy…Now see what you did? You got chocolate on your peanut butter…

    Report Post » Baddoggy  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 7:13am

      Do you have a problem with your tax dollars going to pay for health insurance and other benefits for the “spouses” of gay city, state and federal workers? Where does the money come from? We’re broke. I guess Encinom will glitter bomb me now.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • Stuck_in_CA
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 7:18am

      Planned Parenthood promotes this stuff, and MORE:
      WARNING: THIS VIDEO HAS GRAPHIC CONTENT

      From Life Site News: The American Life League has compiled a video exposing some of Planned Parenthood’s disturbing materials that are presented to school-age children across the country. “Any parent that sees the video of Planned Parenthood’s material for school children will be horrified,” said Jim Sedlak, vice president of the American Life League….

      In one section the video, “Hooking Kids on Sex,” talks about a book for 10-year-olds with graphic images about how to masturbate, put on a condom and have sexual intercourse.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nZix2Nm0fKw
      DISGUSTING!

      Report Post » Stuck_in_CA  
    • Locked
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 8:40am

      “Why is the Government involved in any issues regarding God?”

      Marriage in the US is non-religious; you can get “married in the church” and the government won’t give two figs unless you apply for your marriage license. Why do some people feel that only their religion can define marriage for an entire country? Marriage exists in many cultures, even when it’s not religious.

      I don’t care for homosexuals, but I also can’t stand people dictating how others need to behave. Keep your personal behaviors to yourself and I’ll do the same. We can all still play nice.

      Report Post »  
  • democritusoilder267
    Posted on February 14, 2012 at 6:53am

    I never understood marriage. Humans are not meant for only partner. Personally I could care less what goes on in the bedroom. We do need to continue to make it legal for relationships other monogamy to become legal and accepted.

    Report Post » democritusoilder267  
    • MYHEROISRON
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 7:07am

      @DEMO

      Re-read your post. You are a terrible writer.

      As for gays and lesbians, I am sick and tired of hearing about your attempts to further sicken our society with your perversions. Ya wanna get ‘married’, then go to France where we won’t have to look at you or smell you …

      Report Post » MYHEROISRON  
    • democritusoilder267
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 7:14am

      My grammar is not the best; neither is your response. touché

      How are same-sex relationships “perverted” or “sick” compared what I see about heterosexual in the media. Hopefully you know what I’m saying. There is no sin to being attracted to the same-sex.

      Report Post » democritusoilder267  
    • qpwillie
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 7:20am

      “Humans are not meant for only partner.”

      Meant by whom? The word. “meant” implies a purpose and a goal. Certainly you can’t believe something was “meant” to be unless you also believe somebody meant it to be.

      I can‘t figure out where you’re coming from.

      Report Post » qpwillie  
    • Baddoggy
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 7:25am

      No sin in being attracted to the opposite sex? Hmmmmmmmmm…my Bible must be a misprint then.

      Report Post » Baddoggy  
    • democritusoilder267
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 7:26am

      What I was trying to say is that humans are not meant to have one partner or spouse. Humans evolved to have multiple partners.

      Report Post » democritusoilder267  
    • qpwillie
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 7:45am

      @democritusoilder267

      Evolution without an intelligent source cannot “mean” for anything to happen. It just happens.

      If you believe the Bible, it’s pretty clear how things were meant to be. If you believe it’s all the results of mindless nature, you’ll see that all life is geared for one thing; propagation.

      Report Post » qpwillie  
    • disenlightened
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 7:56am

      @DEMOCRITUSOILDER267
      Take the religion out of marriage and maybe you’ll understand it. Marriage came about over time because it offered humans the most stable manner in which to survive, progress and continue the species.

      Report Post » disenlightened  
    • disenlightened
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 8:06am

      @DEMOCRITUSOILDER267
      And, if humans evolved to have multiple partners as you say (or want to believe), where’s your evidence? I don‘t count one nation on earth where it’s the norm. Marriage dominates every society, even the most primitive, with very few exceptions.

      Report Post » disenlightened  
    • democritusoilder267
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 8:07am

      Then you can see nothing wrong in same-sex or even polygamist marriage?

      Report Post » democritusoilder267  
    • democritusoilder267
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 8:13am

      Wheres my proof? Look all around us! Humans are very sexual creatures and are attracted to various partners. I mean it’s simple to understand to see how people can find more then one person sexually attractive? One person cannot be faithful to only one person. The idea of monogamy is very different from human sexuality. I did find a good answer from Yahoo Answers. Here is a snippet.

      “Nature-wise I think not. As animals living in the wild our survival depends on our ability to spread our seed. But as a benefit to civilization via the cultivation of a better society monogamy provides a sufficient backbone.” Here is the link to continue reading the Q@A.
      http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070328104325AA0eeYL

      Report Post » democritusoilder267  
    • disenlightened
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 8:14am

      @DEMOCRITUSOILDER267
      If same-sex and polygamous marriage were beneficial to humans as a species, we would have evolved in that direction, but we didn’t. There are obvious reasons for that. Marriage didn’t become the norm on a whim.

      Report Post » disenlightened  
    • democritusoilder267
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 8:21am

      I understand what you’re saying. To me I see sex and human relationships through science compared to religion. That is why I’m critical of the idea of one man only marrying one woman. It’s ludicrous in my book. We need to review the idea of marriage and relationships.

      Report Post » democritusoilder267  
    • disenlightened
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 8:26am

      @DEMOCRITUSOILDER267
      The idea can be ludicrous to you in your own life, which you’re free to live as you wish, but resist the urge to change on a larger scale what nature has deemed successful over hundreds of thousands of years. Step back and see the forest and not just the trees.

      Report Post » disenlightened  
    • tzion
      Posted on February 14, 2012 at 9:59am

      @DEMOCRITUSOILDER267
      If monogamy is unnatural how do you explain doves? Doves are monogamous birds and are generally seen as a symbol of peace and goodness. In human history, even when polygamy was practiced, few people had more than two wives (kings and rulers are the exception). Judaism allows polygamy but only a small handful of biblical figures (most of them kings) practiced it.

      Report Post »  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love