MSNBC Host Tweets That Same-Sex Marriage Is a ‘Civil Right’
- Posted on May 20, 2012 at 12:41pm by
Madeleine Morgenstern
- Print »
- Email »
MSNBC host Contessa Brewer on Sunday tweeted her support for the NAACP’s recent backing of same-sex marriage, calling it a “civil right” and saying it was “about time” the NAACP had signed on.
Brewer, who anchored news coverage for MSNBC until last year, is now the host of the network’s weekend program “Caught on Camera” and contributes regularly to NBC newscasts.
Her tweet prompted some angry responses, including one user referring to her as an “LW [left-wing] lapdog.” The same user also said the NAACP’s changed position was a “pure political ploy,” prompting Brewer to respond: “You may be right. Still, it’s the right stand, the right thing to do, no matter what ultimate motivation is.”
Brewer subsequently took to her website to expand on her position further:
If ministers and church organizations don’t want to perform same-sex marriages, don’t. Many priests and ministers refuse to perform the marriage cermony of interfaith couples (or should it be bi-faith or mixed faith?). I don’t have a problem with churches deciding the issue for their own congregations. I have an issue when those churches try to decide the issue for all of our secular society.
Same-sex opponents point to the Bible to support their prejudice. But their Bible beliefs and interpretation should no more be shoved on others, than a Rabbi’s interpretation and belief in the Torah or a Muslim cleric’s belief and interpretation in the Koran should be shoved on them.
[...]
[M]arriage is a civil right! People have the right to get married, as long as they agree, meet the minimum age requirements (which, let’s face it, were pretty barbaric when it allowed adolescents legally to marry), and aren’t married to another person already (which may be the next frontier in civil rights).
(h/t Twitchy)
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 707 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 560 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 376 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 367 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 363 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 367 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 376 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 295 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 149 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 367 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (197)
mcmeador
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 1:05pmPolygamy could be the next frontier in civil rights? WTF… Just goes to show that if you don’t draw the line somewhere, society will ultimately collapse as the envelope is pushed further and further.
Anyway, I have always thought the claim of discrimination when it comes to gay marriage is ridiculous. Where same-sex marriage is outlawed, straight people have no more of a right to marry the same sex than gays do. The law is applied equally. Who is being discriminated against exactly?
Report Post »Cemoto78
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 3:03pmAnother delusional MSNBC corespondent. What’s the next “civil right”, the government supplying us with toilet paper, shoes, therapy for my cat/dog…..there’s no end to these clowns and their false claims of civil rights.
Report Post »hypnos
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 3:48pmReally what a classic redirection bully technique by progressives. They deny the glaring 800 lb gorilla in the room. Wake up it’s the economy stupid. Let’s prioritize people. The left would rather divide us on race, gender , sexual orientation, class. WTF
Report Post »dealer@678
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 9:50pmGod does’nt evolve. HE is the same yesterday, today , and forever. This skank is gonna find that out the hard way
Report Post »Thomas
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 6:48amSo if I ask a woman to marry me and she says no then can I sure her for denying me my civil right to marry whom I want? Not only that but wouldn’t that make her a bigot and guilty of discrimination?
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 10:44amBecause of your comments, I read the article very slowly and she addressed your concerns. I do not agree with her, but your digression of this non article (based on a tweet!) is callous and hyperbolic.
Maybe the best thing is that there will be no marriage any more, just a breeding license. Then, we “no longer fertile couples” could just become cohabitating singles just like any other pair of loving humans. Then you would not have to worry about civil rights, because no one would have any legal marriages.
TEA – Let’s pay down that debt!
Report Post »Ruler4You
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 2:10pmActually, “marriage” “IS” two completely separate things.
1). A covenant between a man and a woman in the eyes of God. And doesn’t require any government approval or recognition.
and
2). A contract between two citizens and the state government. For purposes that benefit the state in exchange for some measly morsels of compromise.
In the most traditional sense it has been both at one time. It may be time to separate them.
Report Post »Tri-ox
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 1:04pmUh, just because Contessa Brewer, an obama cultist/propagandist, TWEETS it, that does not make it so. MSNBC is an obama propaganda outlet, nothing more. IGNORE.
Report Post »jhaydeng
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 7:03pmI agree! Even if she is ridiculously attractive!
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 10:33pmTrue, but she is only echoing the US Supreme Court in the Loving v. Va. opinion. At the end of the day all you have is religious rants to hide your bigotry.
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 8:31am… and the stance of other faiths.
…. and historical precedent.
…. and the idea that a nation of laws gets to define itself, not be defined by activists and authoritarians.
It appears the courts are where one goes to rule by fiat. I’ll have to make a not of that.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 10:27amWow, you’re really up on these gay marriage rulings Encinoman…did you have two grooms on your wedding cake sweetie? ‘Not that there’s anything wrong with that.’
Report Post »yohannbiimu
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 11:52am@ Encinom: I suppose that your continual use of one Supreme Court ruling as proof of something means that you support ALL such rulings, such as “Dred Scott v. Sanford. A court saying it does not make it true. Moreover, making homosexual “marriage” a “right” will bring the power of the state down upon all who refuse to provide it. I have no doubt that you will support such fascism, but then again, you always support the power of the state to do whatever it likes (so long as your party is doing it).
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:05pmHi Gonzo! LOL!
Love you wry sense of humor (hug) but can’t help but notice that your BBF AvenJoKer is the Q ueen of posting “all things homosexual” so whatever you are inferring there for the Encino M might better apply directly to you and your chum, champ. (smiles)
Say howdy 2 CheezWhiz 4 me! ROTGML – PMS (grin)
TEA – Pay our overdue bills, already.
Report Post »momrules
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 1:03pmFrom Robin Roberts and her chills to the NAACP, to the anchors and contibuters of the MSM they will ALL start calling same sex marriage a civil right now. They have received their script so just expect more of the same.
They are all so predictable and so wrong but they will preach the same evil sermon to the masses and many will believe.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 1:27pm@MOM .. exactly .. and this is where we need “campaign” reform .. they should NOT be able to support a candidate so blatenly and call it “news” .. it is “free” campaigning .. little wonder they don’t like the PACS and such .. it is competition even though we the people have to support them with donations.
cgnick
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 1:02pmThe NAACP doesn’t want to be on wrong side history.
Report Post »The_Jerk
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 1:22pmThe NAACP was founded and funded by communist leaning Jews. One communist black, W.E.B. Du Bois. Chairs were Jewish, not black. And, that’s not including the cultural changing Legal Defense Fund. These facts are often called antisemitic because they are true… and one can not operate in the shadows under the light of truth.
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 1:54pmHistory indicates marriage is a construct to recognize the union of male and female. To assert otherwise is to redefine marriage to suit a minority that engages in anomalous behavior. Why? Nihilism I suppose…. You can be as progressive as you want; just be honest about what it is you’re progressing towards.
Report Post »Tired of Code Names
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 4:34pm@Gooch
I usually know most words, but Nihilism was a new one to me. Thanks for sharing.
ni·hil·ism
[nahy-uh-liz-uhm, nee-] Show IPA
noun
1.
total rejection of established laws and institutions.
2.
anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity.
3.
total and absolute destructiveness, especially toward the world at large and including oneself: the power-mad nihilism that marked Hitler’s last years.
4.
Philosophy .
a.
an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.
b.
nothingness or nonexistence.
5.
Report Post »( sometimes initial capital letter ) the principles of a Russian revolutionary group, active in the latter half of the 19th century, holding that existing social and political institutions must be destroyed in order to clear the way for a new state of society and employing extreme measures, including terrorism and assassination.
Realist4U
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 5:23pmI would like to know Ms Brewer’s expertise on the subject. Is it personal experience, or does she “have a degree” on the matter?
Report Post »HowardSternIsABigot
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 7:38pmIf they dont want to be on the wrong side of history, why are they still the NAA “Colored” people? Shouldnt it be NAA Col-ahd people?
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 10:38pmOf course the US Supreme court has said that marriage is a civil right, Loving v. Va, “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man.’”
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 8:02amAnd there’s nothing the left and progressives love more than ruling by fiat thru the courts. How democratic.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 10:11amThe Courts protect the rights of the citizens from theocratic fasicist like yourself and other posters. The Gooch.
Report Post »Dr. Joel Fleischman
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 10:41amEncinotard, pleas come back when you finally graduate to 6th grade and have a little more grasp on reality. Until then, STFU.
Report Post »TimeForReason
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 1:02pmSin blinds people. Have you ever noticed how much more evil things are? Remember back a long time ago when violence in movies was very little? Remember back a long time ago when porn was only in hidden places? Remember when profanity was mostly not allowed in the Media or it was a disgrace? Remember when homosexuals were “in the closet” because it was shameful? Remember when divorce was shameful? Remember when “living together” was shameful? Today, men marrying men, having sex, is said to be a civil right. No it is not. It is sin. Jesus loves you, but you need to repent.
Report Post »kickagrandma
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 1:04pmAmen.
Thank you for your post and your stand.
GOD BLESS AND PROTECT IN JESUS’ SWEET AND MIGHTY NAME, amen.
Report Post »momrules
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 1:07pmYes, I remember but you and I and people like us are now called old and irrelevant, we haven’t evolved.
Report Post »Nlitend1
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 1:16pmdo you remember when black people were slaves? do you remember when women were not permitted to vote, work outside the home, and had to marry the rapist that impregnated them? oh, wait, that last one we will have to look forward to.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 1:33pmNlitend1 everything you speak of is MAN‘S LAWS not GOD’S LAWs. Had they followed the latter, you would not have those issues. However, man is flawed, man sins, man needs forgiveness. That is where Christ comes in; if you follow the teachings of Christ your life will be fulfilled. You may not have totally easy times, but if you keep the faith you will get through it. If you turn away from Christ, you have a tendency to blame everyone else for your troubles – OWS ring a bell? Obama blaming everyone but himself for the mess we have?
Report Post »kickagrandma
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 1:54pm@Nlitend1
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 1:16pm
“do you remember when black people were slaves?” (You mean NOW? Slaves and useful tools to the democrats/socialists party?);
“do you remember when women were not permitted to vote” (like NOW in islamic countries?);
“…work outside the home” (Like NOW in islamic countries except for “token” females on jobs); and, had to marry the rapist that impregnated them?” (In many countries including our own)…
One of the things that just chaps my backside is the “slave issue” in the USA: the right are not the slave owners/controllers. The slave owners and controllers are many of the black-to-the-center-of-their-souls congress people and current “leaders” in the administration.
FREE MEN (and women) OF ALL COLORS participate in saving AMERICA.
Report Post »AmazingGrace8
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 2:57pmAlittle discussion before the movie shown on TCM Sat.night regarding the Howard Hughes movie,1943,starring 19yrsold Jane Russell, “The Outlaw”. This movie was banned in theaters because of Jane’s cleveage but was shown around 1946 in theaters. Later many posters & pics of Jane Russell came on the scene.It was a good movie, story? about Billy the Kid and Hughes had some interesting music & humerous lines for the crusty ole’ Huston. The sheriff tried to pull-the-wool over Billy’s eyes, but it backfired. Ole’ Garrett(Huston) ended up being shot & the grave was marked to show Billy the Kid. Smart Billy had the party pull-up cactus & drag behind their horses to stir up dust so the warriors chasing them got confused & were stopped in their tracks. Simple story but a good movie. Jane Russell would probably “blush” if she saw the current sex movies of today.
Report Post »skipmontesjr
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 3:54pmWell said..I agree….
Report Post »JimBob35
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 1:01pmTypical position comment from a Democratically biased network. Of course MSNBC MUST follow the Obama agenda regardless if it’s right or wrong; or even if it makes common sense or not.
MSNBC: Marching in strict lockstep over the cliff with Obama.
Report Post »APROUDVETERAN
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 12:59pmObviously the only thing she has between her ears is air………..
Report Post »TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 12:59pmIs this the SAME Contessa Brewer who asked…
“MSNBC Anchor Mockingly Asks GOP Congressman If He Has ‘Degree In Economics’… Turns Out He Does!”
“Brewer: We were looking at going–reverting a depression at that point. Everyone, the Fed Chairman–
Rep. Brooks: Well I disagree we were going into a depression, but go ahead.
Brewer: Do you have a degree in economics?
Rep. Brooks: Yes ma’am I do, highest honors.”
Then Brewer went on her FB page to apologize and eat crow. for.. “leaning forward and falling on her face.”
Report Post »chips1
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 12:56pmI keep telling you guys, there’s fewer and fewer women to choose from. I pitty the “ITS of the world”.
Report Post »cgnick
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 12:56pmWhen the issue of same sex marriage gets to the Supreme Court they will have no option but to say that discriminating against same sex couples is unconstitutional. Marriage may have started as a religious binding, but as soon as the government started to recognize marriage as legal binding contract, it was open to any bride and any groom that could take an oath and sign a marriage license. If you don‘t want the government to recognize gay marriage you should make it so that they don’t recognize any marriage at all.
Report Post »patriotmom1776
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 1:10pmMarriage is not a civil right. LGBT can live however they want right now, and have the SAME rights as you or me. Civil law has to do with preventing bigamy or minors from marrying.
It is wrong to create special Civil rights for special groups of people. Either everyone is equal or they are not. What LGBT want is APPROVAL for their lifestyle.
Marriage has never been a civil law issue – it’s a religious one, conducted by ministers. yes a judge or captain can marry a couple, but the way our law is set up, we would have to grant Special Civil Rights to a group of people…..opening a Pandora’s box for all kinds of strangeness and lawsuits/discrimination, etc.
It would be felonious and treacherous to pass legislation granting special privileges to people based on their sexual orientation. And it will hurry along the ruin of the country.
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 1:29pmHmm… this is a logic argument with a pretense of lawyerly &/or scholarly certainty. The problem with your assertion is that it puts a progressive spin on the term marriage. If we’re going to play lawyer on this matter, then let’s look at historical precedent. Across time, cultures, races, religions and governments, marriage is overwhelmingly defined as union between a male and female. While there are anomalous instances of a state or religious potentates asserting that but for this one time, I decree these two people of the same sex to be wed, these instances are so rare as to be historical oddities indicating a figurehead who asserts he and he alone makes the rules as he sees fit. The best example of this is the Emperor Nero. He changed the rules… for himself. I’m not sure you want the guy who appointed his horse to the senate as a poster boy for championing the redefining of marriage and the legalization of such.
Report Post »Your assumption is tht SCOTUS has already accepted the redefining of marriage. And I can‘t see the argument playing out that if gays can’t have it, no one can. That’s like asserting driving is a right and you damn well better give licenses to the blind and criminally insane, or no one can be on the road.
Marriage is a privilege, like driving. It is monitored, restricted, and even involves licensing.
Your argument could stand if marriage is deemed a right. But history and state law doesn’t agree with it.
Vladia
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 5:41pmMmm, Gooch, firstly, it was Caligula who supposedly appointed his horse to the Senate, not Nero. And secondly- he didn’t. It’s an ancient version of an urban legend.
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 6:42pmVladia,
Report Post »You’re correct and that is a glaring mistake on my part in confusing these two nuts. However, there seems to be many who accept the story about the horse as valid. The horse was allegedly to be a consul or a priest.
Thanks for pointing out my error. I apologize for having misled or confused anyone. I’ll correct my argument.
encinom
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 10:39pm“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’” – US Supreme Court, Loving v. Virgina
Report Post »katiefrankie
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 11:46pmEncinom, what we are actually talking about here is the DEFINITION of marriage. Anyone can be married as long as they fit the legal definition, which in nearly every culture and throughout nearly every age in history has focused on men and women. And why is that? Because marriage has existed primarily for the propagation of the human race, and marriage between a man and a woman has time and again proved to be the best environment for the nurturing children.
Report Post »kevin_jk
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:11amWe license marriage to ensure that the people are of age, not related to each other to tell the government who gets the legal rights and responsibilities related to the individuals. We license drivers to ensure that only qualified people drive. We do this for the safety of the public (the same logic applies to medical licenses and many other professional licenses. This does NOT apply to same sex marriage since the public is not put in danger from them marrying.
It’s not a special right any more than Christians in Saudi Arabia are asking for special rights just for them when they want to build churches there. The Saudis claim that they have equal rights to religion with everyone else and they are free to worship in a mosque just like everyone else. Why should Christians get special rights just for them?
The Bible condemns those who use their religious beliefs as justification to infringe upon the rights of others (1 Cor. 10:29).
Please visit lds4gaymarriage.x90x.net to further see why voting for marriage equality is the moral and righteous way.
Report Post »kevin_jk
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:19amkatiefrankie,
maybe the senior couples in my ward who married past their child bearing/rearing years should therefore be disqualified from marrying under your logic. What about those couples who were sterilized or infertile and never wanted to have kids? Why should they be given the right to marriage if they likewise will never bear or raise kids?
Even if opposite gender spouses are better at raising kids, why does that alone justify denying gays the legal rights of marriage that have nothing to do with having or raising children?
I wish same-sex marriage opponents would at least be logically consistant in their arguments.
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 8:15amLogic, guilt, threats… wish in one hand…. This argument comes down to what the body politic will and will not recognize as a right. And, once any pursuit is defined as a right, what limits are placed upon it. Oddly enough, proponents don’t want the dirty masses (who are supposed to be the masters over the body politic) to decide the fate of gay marriage. They cling to one court case and suddenly that is the gospel (funny how that works) of not only the land, but nullifies any pre-existing definition of what marriage is and isn’t. There are reasons to question gay marriage beyond just Christianity.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 10:14amThat is true, a basic civil right should never be put to a popularity vote, the minorty will also be subjected to the whims of the majority. We live in a republic to protect the rights of minority groups.
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 6:28pmEncino Man,
Report Post »You are defending rule by judicial fiat while recognizing that, yes, the U.S. govt. is supposed to be a representative democracy. It appears you are far fonder of a kritocracy. At some point societies get to define themselves… and usually that is done by a majority of the citizens. You’re asserting that not only can courts redefine an act as a right, but also redefine the very nature of the act as viewed thru human history. So societies and traditions beware, you are at the mercy (or lack thereof) of the ruling judicial class.
Why waste time with elections? When you don’t get your way or want to push a progressive agenda, scream foul and run to complicit courts.
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 12:54pmMSNBC – propaganda for the Obama administrations communist agenda.
Report Post »RLTW
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 12:53pm“I have an issue when those churches try to decide the issue for all of our secular society.”
Report Post »And this statement answers the true question of tolerances, (or lack of) they truly miss the point of what so few leftist should be able to force the true moral majority too do.
COFemale
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 1:18pmWhy do I have to be tolerant of something I don’t support? God is very clear that men with men and women with men are an abomination. That is the part you can’t handle. Frankly, you are the intolerant one, because you can’t respect those who follow Bible teachings.
I follow God’s laws first. I am not obligated to follow man’s laws, but will do so in most cases. Those I choose not to follow, I will accept the consequences should it come to that.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 1:29pmAh, government confirmed the establishment of those rules when they brought about the marriage license, marriage bond, and decided to make money off it. Since the dawn of man, marriage has been defined between one man, one woman. Anything else was illegal and not recognized. The misnomer that came about was man‘s intrepretation of God’s command “go forth and multiply”. Man took it as boff every woman in site, what he meant was marry one woman and have children and your children marrying and having children.
When two men can procreate naturally with no surgeries or other means, then we will talk.
Report Post »vaman
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 10:56amGod’s law is important and if you follow one, follow them all. Don’t be a hypocrite and use one or two random lines from the bible to support your backwards cause. As an example,
“A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed.” Deuteronomy 22:13-21.
So if your wife or any wife was unpure at the time of your marriage, do as god demands and execute her. Follow blindly, without thinking and kill her. It’s in the bible, meaning it should always be taken literally and gods commands followed. Please report back after you have performed gods execution.
The bible is full of this nonsense, just like the abomination part.
Report Post »Philo Beddoe
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 12:52pmHey Contessa, don’t come here to America and ruin our man/woman society with your carpet muncher mentality
Report Post »KingCanon
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 12:51pmMSNBC
Report Post »Moving Society Nearer to Before Christ.
Mandors
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 12:50pmMarriage is a civil right? Of course it’s not. So every unmarried person is denied a civil right, of course not. How do such STUPID get on TV?
Report Post »CatB
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 12:54pmMSNBC .. enough said ;-)
Report Post »CatB
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 12:48pmQuoted this morning 49% of blacks do not support gay marriage … I wonder how they are going to like the liberal, progressive, Marxist whites taking over the NAACP?
OMG 2012 LIBERTY .. and put these so called media out too.
Report Post »moussiagilda
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 12:46pmIt’s a good idea to love someone perfectly. It’s not a good idea to get married — to someone who is nothing like your equal. “Marriage, without the marriage of minds, is an abomination” — Elizabeth Barrett Browning.
Report Post »puddleglum
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 10:20amWhat is a civil right? Is it a God given, natural law, absolute sort of right? Or is it a collective granted, the State giveth and the State taketh away sort of right? The reason I ask is the morality of homosexuality is invariably argued in terms of relativism, while their civil rights are demanded in terms of absolutes. If Society is the source of these rights, hasn’t it already ruled in on the subject?
Report Post »oneforGod
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 10:17amThis tweet comes from the same person that told the American people to ‘go get your swine flu shots’…….
Report Post »NewLife56
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 10:05amNo matter how many people say it, nor how the media trys to protray it, it’s a sin, and one must repent and turn away from Sin, All sin, not just this one, God loves all of you reguardless, but you cannot try and change Gods laws, it’s a sin.
Thank God Jesus took our sin and punsihment, because mankind is do ignorant of the way of God, yes I am as well, but there is no gray area, its either right, or wrong, and SIN is wrong.
Report Post »OneTermPresident
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 9:31am32 states and counting.. by votes………………. say it’s not a civil right, Contessa
Report Post »TJexcite
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 9:21amAs it is a civil right now is the government going to make quotas that every 4th marriage has to be same sex and if they don’t make that quota heterosexual marriages are not allowed.
Report Post »Mike Benton
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 9:09amShe’s pretty and she can read the teleprompter, so what; She can’t think very well!
Report Post »She is OK with polygamy down the road, and she thinks age limits on marriage are barbaric. What a twit… ironically spewing her nonsense on Twitter!!!
Your Name Here
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 9:05amA civil right is something that has to do with your life, not your happiness.
Report Post »To call marriage a civil right is a lie. If you do not get married it will not end your life.
Too many people out there don’t even know what a civil right is but they think it pertains to everything under the sun.
Grow up and try reading the constitution and about the founders.
Try living by morals instaed of animal instinct.
patriotmom1776
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 9:03amShe lies. Marriage is NOT a civil right!!! LGBT have the SAME CIVIL RIGHTS as everyone else right now. What they want is Special rights for a special group, which opens the door to all kinds of lawsuits and more weirdness.
Marriage is not even really under civil law, except to prevent someone from marrying a person who’s already married, or prevent a minor from marrying without parental consent (age changes by state).
Right now, Lgbt can chose to lead that lifestyle; they can live with that person and play house, they can adopt kids; if one dies, the other can get all the stuff, etc. but that is CONTRACTUAL LAW, NOT CIVIL LAW.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 20, 2012 at 10:47pm“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’” US Supreme Court, Loving v. Virgina. Yes marriage is one of the most basic civil rights, whether or not christian bigots agree.
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 8:06amSo the court not only gets to establish marriage as a right, but also gets to redefine the construct to please gays? If a court told you to go jump off a bridge….
Report Post »I suppose we know who your god is.