These Are the States Where Gay Marriage May Become Legal This Year
- Posted on January 25, 2012 at 5:28pm by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
(AP) — With a flurry of coast-to-coast developments this week, same-sex marriage is back in the political spotlight and likely to remain there through Election Day as a half-dozen states face potentially wrenching votes on the issue.
In Maryland, New Jersey and Washington, bills to legalize same-sex marriage have high-powered support and good chances of passage in the legislature. Gay-marriage opponents in Maryland and Washington would likely react by seeking referendums in November to overturn those laws, while New Jersey’s Republican governor, Chris Christie, says he’ll veto the bill if it reaches him and prefers that lawmakers OK a referendum so voters can decide.
In all three states, polls suggest voters are closely divided on whether gays should have the right to marry, so there’s a chance one could emerge as the first state to support same-sex marriage in a statewide vote.
Maine voters also may have an opportunity to vote for same-sex marriage in November; an announcement by gay-rights activists about a ballot-measure campaign is set for Thursday. Proposed amendments for constitutional bans on gay marriage will be on the ballots in North Carolina on May 8 and in Minnesota on Nov. 6.
In New Hampshire, Republicans who now control the legislature are mulling whether to repeal the 2009 law legalizing same-sex marriage. Their state is one of six with such laws, along with Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York and Vermont, as well as the District of Columbia.
Added together, the state-level showdowns will likely raise the prominence of the marriage issue in the presidential campaign, even though it’s not a topic that the leading candidates tend to broach proactively.
“There’s a lot going on,” said gay-marriage advocate Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry. “It means that candidates – whether Romney or Obama – who hope to avoid the discussion will not be able to.”
Three of the remaining Republican presidential contenders, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, have signed a National Organization for Marriage pledge opposing same-sex marriage and endorsing a federal constitutional amendment to ban it. But it’s not among the topics prominent in the stump speeches of Romney or Newt Gingrich, the two front-runners.
On the Democratic side, President Barack Obama has taken several steps during his first term that have pleased gay-rights advocates, but says he is still “evolving” in regard to same-sex marriage and isn’t ready to endorse it. Some activists hope he will do so before the election, though there’s been no strong hint of that from the White House.
“Obama will get asked about it, and you can’t straddle both sides of this forever,” said Richard Socarides, a former Clinton White House adviser on gay rights. “Clearly he’s not going to retreat, so he only has one place to go, and I think he will do it before the election.”
Another potential factor: Judgments could be issued during the campaign in one or more of several pending federal court cases about same-sex marriage. Appeals could result in the issue heading toward the Supreme Court, and the presidential candidates would be expected to comment on any major development.
A summary of the latest state-by-state events:
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (AP)
NEW JERSEY: Thanks to a change of heart by Senate President Stephen Sweeney, a gay marriage bill is now seen as having a strong chance of passage in the Democratic-controlled legislature. Christie, a Roman Catholic who has long opposed gay marriage, says he’d veto the bill if it reaches him, but on Tuesday he urged lawmakers to put the issue before voters in a statewide ballot measure.
“Let us have a discussion about this in halls of schools and homes and synagogues and churches and ball fields across New Jersey, and let people decide,” Christie said.
Sweeney rejected the suggestion, saying, “Civil rights is not to be placed on the ballot.”
MARYLAND: In contrast to Christie, Maryland’s Catholic governor – Democrat Martin O’Malley – supports gay marriage. Unlike last year, when a marriage bill stalled in the House of Delegates, O’Malley is now making the issue one of his top legislative priorities. He and his allies hope to broaden support among lawmakers and the public by making clear in the new bill that religious freedom will be protected. Public opinion could be crucial, because opponents of gay marriage are expected to seek a referendum in November to overturn a marriage bill if one passes in the legislature.
WASHINGTON: Like O’Malley, Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire has strongly endorsed a pending gay-marriage bill, which received its first legislative hearing this week. Based on public commitments from lawmakers, the bill has enough votes to win passage. However, as in Maryland, opponents are poised to petition for a referendum challenging the law.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A bill pending in a House committee would repeal the state’s same-sex marriage law and replace it with civil unions for any unmarried adults. It would not invalidate the same-sex marriages already legalized since 2009. The fate of the bill is uncertain, facing possible revisions before a vote and a promised veto by Democratic Gov. John Lynch if it does pass. If it gets that far, and lawmakers override a veto, the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union has indicated it would challenge the new law in court.
MAINE: Gay marriage supporters in Maine have spent several months assessing whether they would seek a referendum in November to legalize same-sex marriage. Their decision will be announced Thursday, and national gay-rights leaders believe the campaign will be launched. Maine is the only state in New England that doesn’t allow either gay marriage or civil unions. Its lawmakers approved a gay marriage law in 2009, but it was overturned months later by a statewide referendum.
NORTH CAROLINA and MINNESOTA:
Voters in 30 states have approved constitutional amendments aimed at solidifying bans on gay marriage; Minnesota and North Carolina could join those ranks if measures placed on the ballot by Republican-controlled legislatures win approval later this year. Neither Minnesota nor North Carolina allow gay marriage now, but supporters say the amendments are needed to prevent judges or lawmakers from changing that policy in the future. The North Carolina amendment also would prevent the state from recognizing civil unions or domestic partnerships.
In all the showdown states, national advocacy groups are expected to be active on both sides. The Human Rights Campaign, for example, has promised to provide funding, strategic advice and field staff for the various campaigns supporting same-sex marriage.
On the other side, the National Organization for Marriage is vowing a multistate effort, including promises of financial support in the primaries to defeat any Republican lawmakers who support gay marriage in Washington.
Though several major national polls now show that a slight majority of Americans support same-sex marriage, National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown predicts his side will continue its winning streak and prevail in any state referendums that are held this fall.
“There’s a myth that history is on a trajectory moving toward same-sex marriage,” Brown said. “There is no such momentum.”
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 587 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 378 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 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 414 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 378 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 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 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 (215)
Savageruger
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 7:43pmGays are are at the very roots of Satan, the Scripture clear points out that a man and a man together is an abomination and should not be inspired to grow. LAUS DEO
Report Post »valarie
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 7:51pmOf course, Minnesota would do something this stupid and sick. Minnesota A.K.A. “The first Somalian State in the U.S.” Everything completely ridiculous, they glom on to.
Report Post »Weiners Wiener
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 8:12pm@ VALARIE — I‘m sorry you’re illiterate. That must be tough. Here’s what you would have known had you been able to READ the article: “Minnesota does NOT allow gay marriage now, but supporters say the amendments are needed to prevent judges or lawmakers from changing that policy in the future.” ——— Tey are trying to PREVENT gay marriage from ever becoming legalized in MN, you dope.
Report Post »InversionTheory
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 8:55pmHINT: Codifying something in law does not prevent that law from later being changed — Case in point: The Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850.
Report Post »garbagecanlogic
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 7:38pmThese ARE the states where I will be bypassing while travelling from now on – if Barry leaves us any money with which to travel with.
The U.S. Out Of The U.N.
Report Post »The U.N. Out Of The U.S.
GideonCain
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 7:28pmYou seem to have an amazingly large vocabulary, and a firm grasp of the impact abandonment of the monogamous heterosexual relationship has historically had on various societies ( see J. D. Unwin‘s ’Sex and Culture‘ and ’Hopousia’, in addition to the CDC statistics regarding HIV and other STD transmissions). Gay marriage IS an important issue, and one that should be fought against with tooth and nail.
Report Post »MatthewChapter24
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 7:13pmThis isn’t primarily about “marriage equality.” This about gays trying to force others to accept same-sex relationships. And they could not do so socially, so they are trying to do it legislatively. And they will frame a person’s religious beliefs as “hate” speech.
It seems the only religious opposition to gay marriage I hear from is the Christian/Catholic community. Why don’t we seem to hear an outcry from the Muslim and Jewish community on this? Their tenets forbid homosexuality too.
Regardless of what you call a gay relationship: domestic partnership, civil union…even “marriage”, a same-sex relationship can *never* be what a heterosexual marriage is: a covenant between both spouses and God.
Report Post »Thisnameistowarnyouthatyouwillhatemycomment
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 7:39pmWell, I can tell you as a Jew that it’s not seen as a black-and-white issue in Judaism. It’s generally considered wrong, but in terms of where it sort of ranks as a sin, most Rabbis would not consider it among the more severe. Judaism you also need to remember has a Rabbinic Council for each sect and we adjust our laws over time to suit the world we live in better.
For instance, the Conservative Jewish sect (one of the largest) has a deliberately self contradicting view on gay marriage. They have essentially said that there is nothing wrong with the idea of two men or two women pledging themselves in love to one another but that it IS wrong for them to have sex. They deliberately crafted this stance so that they effectively allow individual synagogues to make their own decision on it. Though it’s certainly a hot button issue.
Judaism takes extremely different moral stances than most Christian sects on a variety of important issues beyond gay marriage (abortion being another example). It might be why we tend to vote more liberal ;)
I’m still waiting to hear a cohesive argument that does not involve religion for why gay marriage is a bad thing.
Report Post »Vladia
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 7:43pm“I’m still waiting to hear a cohesive argument that does not involve religion for why gay marriage is a bad thing.”
Me too.
Report Post »AmericanFightingMan1
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 8:05pmA reason many who oppose it is that God will punish us as a nation for endorsing that which is contrary to God’s laws. In other words, a nation that decends into perpetual and considerable sin adopted by a people by a whole is, perhaps, deserving of God’s wrath. Correct or not, those can be seen as the stakes by many.
For one, I consider marriage an intensely personal issue and wonder why any of us need a government’s blessing or permission to marry. All marriges should be outside of state control. States can create statutory schemes for the legal issues now tied to marriage to decide such matters as adoption, estate planning, etc.
Report Post »InversionTheory
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 9:04pmAmericanFightingMan1 — At some point, we ceased being ok with making our own way and started seeking the approval of government. I suspect the Founders might weep at what we have wrought, assuming they were capable of understanding (we have afterall made things as complicated as possible since then).
Report Post »what4
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 10:41pmPro-creation is the reason for the union of marriage, if a union cannot in any way create new life (pro-creat) then this cannot be called a marriage! Adoption of childeren by Gay Couples is still a very slippery slope, since studies have proved that the unnatural state of having two fathers/mothers is completely unnatural creates a very unhealthy enviroment. No To Marriage for gays is the only right answer to this topic!
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 10:47pm““I’m still waiting to hear a cohesive argument that does not involve religion for why gay marriage is a bad thing.”
Me too.
”
well first is it takes away the rights of those who disagree with it, oh yeah apparently you ‘loathe’ that, but you’re fine with gay marraige taking away those rights…
secondly it makes marriage meaningless…and that means less real marriage, more out of wedlock births…as Kurtz has reported about the situation in the netherlands…
The numbers for 2005 are in, and the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate has done it again, shooting up a striking 2.5 percentage points. That makes nine consecutive years of average two-percentage-point increases in the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate, a rise unmatched by any country in Western Europe during the same period. Ever since the Dutch passed registered partnerships in 1997, followed by formal same-sex marriage in 2000, their out-of-wedlock birthrate has been moving up at a striking clip. That fact has created a serious problem for advocates of same-sex marriage
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/217803/smoking-gun/stanley-kurtz
yeah all we need is more fatherless children…more crime, more drugs, more gangs…great.
Report Post »Vladia
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 12:01amRush, 1) I would relate the spike in out-of-wedlock births (which began before the Netherlands formalized same-sex relationships) to the fact that it’s a socialist welfare state. And 2) exactly what rights would gay marriage take away from those who disagree with it? And before you say ‘look what the gay fascists did to the church in MA’- that had nothing to do with gay marriage. Come up with something better.
Report Post »Thisnameistowarnyouthatyouwillhatemycomment
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 1:40am@Americanfightingman/Inversion
Government/legal sponsored marriage is simply about the law. Courts=the government. Courts have to help settle disputes over property ownership, inheritance, divorces, custody, etc. There are lots of people in this world who commit their undying love to each other without a legal marriage; if you want to do so, nothing is stopping you from getting only a church wedding.
@What4
Accepting your claim as true… So then any couple that doesn’t have children in your mind (including adoption) should be forcefully separated or made to bare children? Should an 85 year old man and woman who are in love be allowed to marry each other? Should people who are sterile or barren have to sign an agreement to adopt children at marriage? If procreation is such a core issue, why isn’t all childless marriage a hot-button issue instead of gay marriage?
@Rush_is_right
Report Post »What rights does it take away from anyone? How does two men marrying each other whom you’ve never met, or even people you know, take away your marriage rights? How does it “make marriage meaningless?” as you say? I understand you feel these ways, but perhaps you could elaborate on HOW gay marriage does all this by being more specific?
@leftfighter
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 2:30am@Thisnameistowarnyouthatyouwillhatemycomment
If you’re Jewish, you should be reading the Law & obeying it over the precepts of the Rabbis. Afterall, Who is the higher authority, G_d or the Rabbi? Which is fallable, G_d or the Rabbi?
How many times in the Torah is homosexuality expressly called as an abomination? How many times in Vayikra alone?
Listen to the L_rd your G_d, & not the men interpreting things into (or out of) His Law.
As to a cohesive secular argument against gay marriage, none can be made b/c marriage is inherently a religious rite. Civil unions are ok with the vast majority of the religious b/c it’s inherently secular while gay marriage is not ok with the vast majority of the religious b/c it’s inherently a religious rite, and G_d’s Word is crystal clear on the subject. Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman.
It’s a circuitous argument, I know, but it boils down to this:
Simple math. You can’t have a marriage without religion. Once religion leaves the wedding ceremony, it becomes secular (AKA civil, ergo a civil union).
Most religious people don’t want to refuse gays from visiting their loved ones in the hospital, etc. Most of those opposed to gay marriage, per se, would agree to give up 99% of the territory in the interest of making sure that equal rights are protected.
The one thing that we ask is that it remain a secular institution because G_d’s Word is clear & the most religious of us don’t want to run afowl of Him as a nat
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 9:52am“2) exactly what rights would gay marriage take away from those who disagree with it? And before you say ‘look what the gay fascists did to the church in MA’- that had nothing to do with gay marriage. Come up with something better.”
what happened to the catholic charities is just a taste of the fascist regime to come under gay marriage…I would say get a clue, but I dont’ think its possible…oh but I thought you were SO concerned about people’s rights…sure…
“1) I would relate the spike in out-of-wedlock births (which began before the Netherlands formalized same-sex relationships) to the fact that it’s a socialist welfare state. ”
not according to Kurtz, or researchers in the netherlands…but then what do they know? right?
Report Post »Zenzazin
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 12:56pm@what4 – There are also studies (and individuals) that prove growing up with 2 mothers/fathers has absolutely no negative impact on a child at all. All that matters is that they grow up in a loving, caring and supportive household (I know people who have 2 dads and are doing really well).
And to all the people who say religion always has been a religious endeavor… it actually started out as a business transaction whereby men would basically buy their wives (still happens in some cultures, though this might be a little bit of an ethnocentric interpretation of others’ customs). It was done in the past to secure peace between tribes at war, and there are also many cultures throughout history where marriage was NOT only defined as one man + one woman.
And for all of you who are against big government, how can you justify the gov’t getting involved in something so individually personal as who one decides to marry? that seems very inconsistent.
Report Post »Dismayed Veteran
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 2:23pmTo What Four
“Pro-creation is the reason for the union of marriage, if a union cannot in any way create new life (pro-create) then this cannot be called a marriage.”
Do you really believe that? If you do, that means my daughter-in-law who is physically unable to be pregnant is not really married to my son.
Report Post »LightvsDarkness
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:59pmWhy is God so serious about sexual sins? I believe it is because it is akin to murder in that only God can decide who comes to life (birth) and who leaves this life (death). When we mess the power he gave us to create life in a way OTHER than the way he has ordained it mocks his authority. And as it is in our best interest as whole to not to allow murder… i.e. it is against the law, thus it is with protecting the family, the institution which brings life.
Report Post »freedom_gurl35
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 7:16pmre: God hating sexual sin most – At its core, Christianity believes that the Holy Spirit lives in each of us, thus making us all interconnected in the family of God. A Christian is part of the body of Christ, the Church, and the Church is the bride to Jesus’ bridegroom. Marriage between a man and woman is the earthly representation of the marriage of Jesus with the Church.
Because God is in each of us, engaging in sexual sin is basically kinda like screwing God over, and that isn’t what He wants of us. Plus homosexual marriage is seen as a perversion of the original intent of marriage.
Just my opinion, and my beliefs – and I only wanted to answer your question. :)
Report Post »Vladia
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 7:39pm@Freedom_Gurl35 That is an intelligent, well-articulated answer. Good for you. :)
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 8:12amAssuming this is that you mean:
All sin is exceedingly sinful.
That said, murder = homosxuality = stealing a pack of gum = rape = etc. ad nauseum.
God created man perfect, man fell from prerfection. The now fallen and fallable man created society, and society assigns degrees to different sins/
As far as perfect God sees it, it’s *all* sin and the wages of sin are death, period.
We‘re here debating degrees of how sinful sin is and God doesn’t care if it’s homosexuality or murder, it’s all sin.
It is entirely possible to be gay and get into heaven, by taking the (timely story) Tim Gunn approach. If he was celebate for 29 years because he wanted to stay on the right side of God, God would reward him for that.
Here’s where the example falls apart: To hear him tell the story, it turns out that Tim just never got back into gay sex because he was badly hurt by his last relationship. That said, I‘m almost certain God isn’t at the center of his celebacy and there appears to be no renounciation of the lifestyle, just no act.
That’s like a suicide bomber who decides to run a medrada instead of being a martyr. Just because he didn‘t do it himself doesn’t mean he’s not entirely supportive of others doing it.
That isn’t repentance, it’s just choosing not to get back into the game.
Report Post »mrawfull
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:57pmI suppose it won’t be long now before gays can adopt and have test tube babies. The taxpayer will also need to foot the bill to give gays such a “fair shot”. The future sure looks bright.
Report Post »MatthewChapter24
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 7:15pmI don‘t know if you’re being sarcastic, but I’m afraid that future is already here. Gays are adopting and lesbians are getting pregnant thanks to sperm banks.
Report Post »InversionTheory
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 8:50pmNot everywhere. Here in Florida, it is much better for a child to remain in foster care than to be adopted by a homosexual. I’m sure those kids will have a much better childhood that way. Hooray!
Report Post »georgiavietvet
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:55pmhomosexuality is an obomination before GOD. need we say any more?…………………………….
Report Post »LightvsDarkness
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:44pmThe family unit is the prime social unit of our society, and if that one goes, the rest will follow…. Maybe it already has, it certainly feels like its diminishing. Imagine the family unit as a cellular organism which keeps a larger organism alive…. i.e. our nation. Therefore, to disrupt the family and mutate it into something different, is tantamount to creating a cancer in our society. Our society is built on families just like our bodies our built of cells. It is worth fighting for, and YES, the Bible does condemn homosexuality in the strongest terms, for all those who have any doubt. Many have posted references here for you to plainly see for yourselves. Plus, I don’t Gods wrath kindled against us for these things like it was with the peoples talked about in Leviticus ch. 20.
Report Post »David11
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:41pmUp until 2009 approx. 46,125 Children have been abused by Catholic Priests, boys were the preferred choice of the Priests. Point being if gay marriage is so bad and the bible is so against it as most of you claim to be, how the hell can you even walk into a Catholic church anymore because its obvious that they certainly don’t believe a word of what they preach.
Report Post »Common.Cents
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:48pmJust because people are evil, does not automatically vilify the religion.
Report Post »LondoMollari
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:50pmBecause that represents less than 1% of priests and a study done at Hofstra University indicates that 9-13 times as many abuse cases in the public education sector.
So how the heck can you sleep at night sending your kids to public school?
Report Post »Dirk_the_Impailer
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 7:13pmOf the millions of people in this country that are Catholic, and the hundred of thousands of priests that have served them over the last century, 45,000 or so children (if this number is even accurate, since no mainstream source was provided) — almost all boys in the 10 – 16 range — have been molested by a very small number of priests. And those priests were all homosexuals that lied and cheated in their vows to get to get those positions, never meaning to serve God but to serve their own sick and perverse desires. This is a homosexual problem in the Church, that, thank God, the current pope and bishops are actively dealing with!!!!!
Report Post »coldbiscuit
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 7:17pmFor sake of discussion, lets say “church” = is a group of people that follow GOD’s commandments and will have individual salvation. Just because a person or priest physically goes to that church, doesn’t automatically make them a member. Those preists were not members of the church, they were trying to pretend.
Report Post »Lucy Larue
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:31pmYeah well…,of course Maryland would be on the list.
Gov. Martin O’Malley is a President Dunham wannabe. His mentor is the dinosaur Senator Barbara Mikulski. She is a lesbian. She has never heard of an abortion she did not like. Worse yet…,she wants to insure that taxpayers fund the abortions under Obamacare. Maryland‘s other illustrious Senator Benjamin Cardin is one of the Senate’s wealthiest members but LOVES the OWSER’s.
Governor O’Malley and his Senators and Congressmen are doing everything they can to make Maryland a “TINY CALIFORNIA”.
Gerrymandering of Maryland makes it impossible to get rid of these monsters.
Report Post »smalls
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:31pmI think that gay marriage should not be in the church. Period. Civil union or whatever you want to call it, no problem. No matter how you chose to live your life, you should have the same rights as others. I am not for gay marriage and I think that homosexuality is wrong, and as a christian believe that it is a sin. Not right to do that in church. Go to the courthouse.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:36pmNo problem, but when they get to the courthouse, they should be able to get a marriage license just like everybody else who gets married there instead of in church.
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:41pmMaybe not in YOUR church and certainly not in MY church, but there are lots of churches that are O.K. with it. As I see it, marriage is for the raising of children. A whole bunch of “automatic” rights & responsibilities attend marriage, but those rights & responsibilities can be changed by contract (prenuptual agreements). Just as a man & a woman can enter into marriage but change things by contract, homosexuals can be unmarried but change things by contract. There is no chance that their union (ewww) can bring forth a child, so there is no need for the “default” agreement that marriage affords. If they are in some state that allows them to adopt, then they could be required to enter into contractual obligtions for the benefit of the child.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:48pm“No problem, but when they get to the courthouse, they should be able to get a marriage license just like everybody else who gets married there instead of in church.”
why not polygamists and pedophiles too? since you want special rights for one sexual orientation, why not special rights for all sexual orientations?
Report Post »Vladia
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:56pm@Rush_is_right: Marriage involves consenting adults. Pedophilia does not. As for polygamy- what’s the problem? The Bible doesn’t condemn polygamy. As long as everybody involved is a consenting adult, and they’re happy with the situation, that‘s their business and nobody else’s.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 7:01pm“@Rush_is_right: Marriage involves consenting adults. Pedophilia does not. As for polygamy- what’s the problem? The Bible doesn’t condemn polygamy. As long as everybody involved is a consenting adult, and they’re happy with the situation, that‘s their business and nobody else’s.”
oh of course, anything goes…and you do know the age of consent has varied in this country over time…right? how old was Jerry Lee Lewis’ bride? oh yeah 13….
of course the problem is the gays taking away the rights of christians…like they did to the catholic charities in MA..but then people like you don’t really want liberty for those you disagree with….
Report Post »Vladia
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 7:25pm@Rush: And you do realize that Jerry Lee Lewis married his child bride in 1958, right? His first cousin once removed, no less (also not condemned by the Bible). These days, you can’t get married in the USA under the age of 18 without parental consent, and even then the youngest age for all but a couple of states is 16. 18= consenting adult, thank you.
In response to your ad hominem attack: People like me? You are incorrect. I have no desire to strip any religion of its rights. I believe that each should make its own policies based on the tenets of their faith, and that government should not interfere with those policies unless they involve pouring poisoned koolaid down the throats of children and the like. But I also believe that those of religion should not be able to force others to live by your religious beliefs.
Report Post »tmbell87
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 7:40pm@Vladia
I don’t think there is any problem with the idea of polygamy, but it is how it is practiced that I have major disagreement with. As a practical matter, one thing I take major issue with is that the “spiritual” wives are not recognized as legal wives, yet oddly enough, they seems to be the most child-bearing wives. Also incredibly convenient, is that these spiritual wives will claim welfare as single mothers. The money they receive goes straight to the patriarch so, in essence, we as taxpayers are enabling their behavior. I don’t care if you want to have multiple wives, just don’t make me pay for it.
Furthermore, I would think that you would have to be at least 18 to become a second wife/3rd wife, etc. No more of this 14 year old and 15 year old stuff.
Report Post »InversionTheory
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 7:44pmI’ll never understand the arguments against polygamy.
Jack has 3 girlfriends and 2 kids with each one. He is unmarried.
John has 3 wives and 2 kids with each one.
Which situation is morally preferable? Which situation is more harmful to society? Which is more protective of the people involved?
Maybe you’re not like me, but I have to be logically consistent. I am therefore forced to support polygamy because I’d rather allow consenting adults to freely associate with each other and enjoy certain legal protections, even though I personally disagree with polygamy.
Report Post »Vladia
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 7:51pmTMBell87: I agree with you 100%.
InversionTheory: Personally I don’t disagree with polygamy; other than that, I think you make several excellent points.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 8:47pm“@Rush: And you do realize that Jerry Lee Lewis married his child bride in 1958, right? His first cousin once removed, no less (also not condemned by the Bible). These days, you can’t get married in the USA under the age of 18 without parental consent, and even then the youngest age for all but a couple of states is 16. 18= consenting adult, thank you.”
point is, which you conveniently ignore, is that the age of consent can change…and has changed over time…18 as the age of consent isn’t written in stone, thank you.
“In response to your ad hominem attack: People like me? ”
not ad hominen at all…you support gay marriage, and it will have a substantial impact upon religious liberty…..as much as you *personally* will be against that…of course….but like kennedy being *personally* against abortion, it won’t matter at all….and we’ve seen the gay fascists at work in places like MA…where they stripped the catholic charities of their rights to practice their religion in regards to adoption…
so in other words you don’t have a problem, really, about stripping christians of their rights…because we all know the gay fascists won’t say boo to the muslims….and we all know why.
Report Post »DividedWeFail
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:30pmRomney advisor: Come on, ObamaCare won’t ever be repealed in its entirety
posted at 2:30 pm on January 25, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
Former Senator Norm Coleman joined the Mitt Romney campaign in September, but hasn’t made an impact until now — and Romney may have wished he hadn’t. In an interview Sunday for BioCentury, a health-industry roundtable forum, Coleman said that ObamaCare won’t ever be repealed “in its entirety,” and that “you can’t whole cloth throw it out.” Truth telling, bad messaging, or both?
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/25/romney-advisor-come-on-obamacare-wont-ever-be-repealed-in-its-entirety/
_________
Report Post »For Romney supporters who think Romney WILL KEEP his promise to GET RID OF OBAMACARE — NOT ACCORDING TO A ROMNEY STAFF MEMBER
Vladia
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 9:41pmRush, you stated “people like you don’t really want liberty for those you disagree with….”. I do want liberty for those with whom I disagree. I want liberty for every American. Erego, people like me would also want liberty for everyone.
Now, if you choose to believe that “I believe government shouldn’t interfere with church policies“ equates to ”you don’t have a problem stripping Christians of their rights”, you have a serious problem with logical thinking. Especially considering that I loathe what Massachusetts did to the Catholic adoption agencies.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 10:44pm“Especially considering that I loathe what Massachusetts did to the Catholic adoption agencies.”
but you still support gay marriage, so apparently it doesn’t bother you that much.
Report Post »Vladia
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 11:45pmSorry, Rush, but your line of reasoning is not feasible.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 9:53am“Sorry, Rush, but your line of reasoning is not feasible.”
oh of course not….you dismiss what you cannot deny…..
Report Post »BOMUSTGO
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:25pmAmerica is just asking for judgment.
Report Post »Paul
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 7:01pm9The show of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide
Isaiah 3
it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves. 10Say ye to the righteous, that it shall be well with him: for they shall eat the fruit of their doings. 11Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him. 12As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. 13The LORD standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people. 14The LORD will enter into judgment with the ancients of his people…
We are living it as we speak.
Report Post »Paul
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 7:04pmSorry that copy and paste didn’t work so well on my last post.
Report Post »From Virginia
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 7:16pmWe ARE being Judged. Did you ever in your wildest dreams EVER think the US could be systematically dismantled in 3 short years?
Report Post »Paul
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 7:40pmYes we are the number 11 in Biblical numerics stands for “Disorder and Judgment.”
Like I say, tic toc…
Report Post »CCTXCN
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:24pmGay Marriage is unconstitutional it would have the Government force acceptance by the church. In The Christian religion it is considered a sin. If a church accepts this this it would be a false church. I can understand civil unions but not married which is a church related ceremony.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:33pmNo body is force Churches to marry individuals. The Catholic Church is not required to marry those of the Jewish or those outside of its religion. Again, if you are going to make the argument, be factual and not base your bigorty on lies.
Report Post »From Virginia
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 7:21pm@Encinom – It’s the ultimate goal of the gays – to destroy the church. They have said so.
Report Post »SoupSandwich
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 7:31pmEncinomom knows all about the bigotry thing.
Report Post »InversionTheory
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 8:00pmCan you please point out where in the Constitution marriage of any kind is addressed? I can’t find any reference to it in mine.
The Constitution leaves all but the Enumerated Powers in the hands of the States and there it belongs.
The problem as I see it is attempted social engineering by all sides. The gay community wants recognition and acceptance… They run to a politician for protection and preference. Opponents of gay marriage feel their vision is threatened, so they run to a politician for protection and preference. The issue has ceased being about legalities and has become about who has the greatest influence.
Today, that battle still remains in the hands of the opponents of gay marriage, that is why gay marriage loses at the ballot. Will it always remain that way? I have no idea. Should it? No help there either. My feelings are that trying to set aside a special legal status for anyone’s sacred cow is just asking for problems.
Report Post »oldwhiteguy
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:23pmGet it right, Marriage is a act of faith performed in a Religious ceremony. The government wanted into the act and encouraged the family unit by endorsing it by tax preference. If the government wants to create a legal contract for tax preference purposes for others then do it. It is still not Marriage as that is reserved between one man and one woman not two or more of unknown origin. I have a gay sister who owned a home with a prior partner, they can’t agree on the dissolution of that one asset. I can’t wait to see what happens when the full extent of the law falls on their shoulders.
Report Post »But most important SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chet Hempstead
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:39pmEvery day millions of people who believe in marriage, but not religion, or who believe in two different religions get married in legal ceremonies performed by judges. Nobody ever had any problem with this until same sex couples started saying that they should have the same right.
Report Post »Baddoggy
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:22pmThe Federal Government and even the State Government have no right to interfere in CHURCH BUSINESS. DOMA is a violation of the Constitution. Get the Government out of Marriage. What are we FACISTS???
Report Post »encinom
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:34pmI agree DOMA violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.
Report Post »jungle J
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:15pmonly the sane can understand the negativity of homosexuality.
Report Post »binge_thinker
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:31pmThe predictions for the future made by homosexual activists don’t have a very good track record. Prop 8 wasn’t going to get on the ballot. It wasn’t going to be passed by voters. Homosexual “marriage” was a “done deal” to be legislated into existence in Maryland. Maine would never vote to repeal ssm. Better take your crystal ball back to where you bought it and ask for your money back.
Report Post »SpankDaMonkey
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 5:58pm.
Report Post »A Hairy Butt Crack? Really! What was the name of the girl that did you so wrong?…..
@leftfighter
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 5:53pmGenesis 19 expressly condemns any permutation of all homosexual behavior, be it by gender, time frame, or commitment or one nighters.
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Lev 18:22
“And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination” Lev 20:13(a)
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet.” Rom 1:26-27
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” I Cor 6:9
“Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.” 1 Tim 1:9-10
How many different ways do you
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 5:58pm…to end the thought…
How many different ways do you have to be told that homosexual marriage is an abomination before you wonder why God’s blessing is being lifted from America?
Report Post »encinom
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:00pmThats nice, but the Book of Myths is not the basis for American law. Please tell me how these laws are not on their face a violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:11pmFirstly – That book was written by men.
Secondly – I am not subject to your books laws.
Thirdly – Religious believers once through eating shellfish was an abomination, as well as mixing fabrics in a garment. They eventually realized believing that was insanity and adjusted accordingly. I assume over time the same thing will happen with homosexuality.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:24pmDunno why I wrote “through”, i meant “thought”
Report Post »IONNES
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:25pm@Encinom
Besides your opinion, why would you call the Bible a “Book of Myths?”
@Moderationisbest
Report Post »First – You’ve created a false dichotomy. Your reply implies that it has to be one or the other. That is not true.
Secondly – Your acceptance of any law is not germane to whether you are subject to the law or not. It does not require your belief to be applicable.
Thirdly – The Bible doesn’t, I believe, call eating shellfish and abomination. It says you shouldn’t do it (which I agree with, there is some truth to the notion you are what you eat and do you know what shellfish eat?). Mixing fabrics was a practical law (if the two fabrics shrunk different amounts then the garment would tear and become useless) much like the laws about hygiene. In many cases they are good courses of action but not called abominations to not follow. Not to mention the ceremonial law was nailed to the cross.
David11
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:28pmSeriously, nobody outside your little circle gives a rats ass what the bible says about gay marriage. I thought you didn‘t like Gov’t intrusion? You either want freedom or you don’t, you don’t get to pick based on your personal beliefs.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:40pm@IONNES
US law is not based on the Bible. You can not plead the 5th commandment in court. Quoting the bible to make a legal arguement is useless. I am not legal bound by anything written in that book of myths. And yes, if you are a Christian, the Bible is nothing more than a collection of myths and fables, no difference than the Hindu, Norse or Greek myths.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:43pmThis isn’t 15th century Spain, so the rest of us don’t have to pretend that we believe all that stuff.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:43pm“And yes, if you are a Christian, the Bible is nothing more than a collection of myths and fables, ”
amazing how all those ‘myths’ have been proven true over and over and over again….even in the small things…
Museum’s tablet lends new weight to Biblical truthDalya Alberge, Arts Correspondent
The British Museum yesterday hailed a discovery within a modest clay tablet in its collection as a breakthrough for biblical archaeology – dramatic proof of the accuracy of the Old Testament.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2056362.ece
too bad your racist atheist book of myths…the origin of the species…doesn’t have anything to support it…
Report Post »David11
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:43pmAnd to follow up, US law will never be based on the bible nor should it be. Their is a reason after all these years and even with Republicans holding power many of times that abortion is still legal.
Report Post »IONNES
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:45pm@Encinom
First, I never said that the Bible has anything to do with US law, you’d be blind to not see its influence but regardless I never said that it you could do anything like “plead the 5th commandment.” What you did there is called a straw man argument. Where you argue against some point that I never made and pretend that somehow you’ve dealt with the question I asked. You didn’t and as such the bulk of your reply was meaningless.
Second, I said outside of your opinion, why would you call the Bible a book of myths. You provided no actual reason, you just restated your position. I don’t know if you were trying to dodge the question all together but if you were, excellent job. If not, better luck next time.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:45pm“US law is not based on the Bible. ”
really, whats it base on?
atheism? there would be re-education camps….oh wait your liberal god FDR did have internment camps for the japanese…pretty racist huh? yeah he was a good progessive liberal just like you…
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 7:19pm@David so where does our freedom come from if not from God? Therein lies the fundamental foundation of American Exceptionalism If liberty comes from God there is no power on earth that should be able to take that liberty. If one doesn’t believe or hold to the principle of the Sovereignty of the Author of un-alienability (as in no one can put a lien on it) then that Liberty can be dictated by men.
This is how we have gotten off course. When God is removed as the giver, men subsitute themselves in the role of giver and takers of liberty. Might try reading some John Locke, Cicero, and the Bible to understand how this is supposed to work and how the founders knew to protect it
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 12:19amencinom & ModerationIsBest
I would tear both of you apart, but it seems my fellow posters beat me to it.
You aren;t subject to the “book of myths” huh? Murder someone and see what happens.
The failure in both of your logic is simple: all of the laws of civil society are based on God’s law, as are all of our rights (including yours to be a godless heathen). If you don’t believe that, I suggest you read your Declaration of Independence, which is a part of US Code and wasn’t exactly written by a firebrand Christian, which is exceedingly clear where our rights are derived from.
I’ll pray for both of you for your Linda Blair reactions. Clearly, God’s Holy Wrond has spurred pea soup regurgitation in both of you.
To the rest, isn‘t it funny how citing God’s Law (which is higher than U.S. law) prompts such a visceral reaction in some people? Especially since they’re the folks who a. will scream about knowing their rights (without knowing where they come from) and b. are so in favor of putting laws in place that force their secular viewpoints on the rest of us?
How sad. :-/
Report Post »encinom
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 10:25am@leftfighter
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 12:19am
encinom & ModerationIsBest
I would tear both of you apart, but it seems my fellow posters beat me to it.
You aren;t subject to the “book of myths” huh? Murder someone and see what happens.
Report Post »______________________________
I would be subjec to the laws of the State of New York, the DA wil lcharge me based on the Laws of the State of New York depending on the facts. At no time will the inditment site to which commandment I broke. Additionally, other traditions and religions had laws against Murder, the ancient Greeks, Romans, etc.
God’s law is meaningless and has no place in a secular nation. Your rant is similar to the rants of muslim fundimentalists justifing sharia law. God’s Law is not supreme, the Supreme Court has never overturned a Constitutional provision or a law because it was a violation of “God’s Law.”
@leftfighter
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 12:37pm@Chet Hempstead wrote:
This isn’t 15th century Spain, so the rest of us don’t have to pretend that we believe all that stuff.
__________________
No, it’s 21st Century America, where a very vocal secular superminority can dictate to the religious majority what we must accept.
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 12:43pm@encimon wrote:
I would be subjec to the laws of the State of New York, the DA wil lcharge me based on the Laws of the State of New York depending on the facts.
__________________
And that law was based upon what, precisely? “Thou shalt not kill.”
You can’t get around it. I don’t care how much you try to spin it to get away with it. The basis of our law is the Bible.
Even the fact that you’re not forced to worship is there! Get over it!
Report Post »IONNES
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 12:56pm@Encinom,
I take it that you concede the point that it is only your opinion that the Bible is a “book of myths” and as such it should hold as much sway as any other opinion (such as the position the Bible is the Word of God). So if your opinion is valid in your framing of what you think is good public policy then so is the position that the Bible is the Word of God.
Thanks for acquiescing to that point :)
Report Post »TakeBackAmerica
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 4:00pmLeftfighter:
Nice job. Deny deny deny. What else do Godless heathens know to do?
Report Post »emceemcdee
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 5:48pmI find it ironic that the estimated 3.8% of the US population that identifies themselves as “GLBT” are trying to dictate what the other 96.2% should do.
Isn’t that the very definition of a “special interest group” that should not dictate their views to the rest of us?
Report Post »SouthSideLib
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 5:58pmThey aren’t trying to dictate what you do in any way. Nobody is trying to force you to get same-sex married. Demanding equal rights is not the same as demanding special rights.
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:00pmSSSSSSHHHHHHH!
That only applies to the religious “minority” who want to force their views on everyone else.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:02pmNobody is telling you to enter into a same sex relationship. All they are demanding is equal treatment under the law.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:03pm@leftfighter
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:00pm
SSSSSSHHHHHHH!
That only applies to the religious “minority” who want to force their views on everyone else.
Report Post »_____________________
The irony is that you use quotes from your book of myths to justify deny equal rights.
rush_is_right
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:05pm“They aren’t trying to dictate what you do in any way. Nobody is trying to force you to get same-sex married. Demanding equal rights is not the same as demanding special rights.”
oh sure they are…the gay fascists forced the catholic charities out of the adoption business in MA…they sued a doctor in CA…all to get us to bow down to the gays and their call for special rights.
Report Post »briankraner
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:08pmI am for marriage between a man and a woman. Next, they‘ll be saying ’it isn‘t fair that us gays cannot procreate’ …..Adam and Eve….not Adam and Steve……
Report Post »briankraner
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:13pmThank you emceemcdee !!!!!
Report Post »fightinggranny
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:23pmThis is not a civil right. You are correct. The atheists also want to control the public, another minority.
Report Post »David11
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:34pmWhile not a lot I know 2 gay couples who are very religious Christians. So to think its only atheists that are gay, you’re wrong.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:39pm“The irony is that you use quotes from your book of myths to justify deny equal rights.”
no one is quoting that racist atheist book of myths…
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
Report Post »LondoMollari
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:52pmThere’s also probably a lot of people in that number who are faking their sexual orientation just to get special attention.
Count on it.
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 12:22am@encinom
You’re confusing rites with rights.
Since God is the only One who bestows rights and he’s made it clear what His judgment is on homosexuals, no right exists for Jim and Johnny the rite of getting married.
If YOU want to bestow them the right to the rite, then you’re setting yourself up as a god and I suggest you get that looked at. That, or take it up with Him later on. We’ll see how well that works out for you…
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 1:05am@encinom wrote:
Nobody is telling you to enter into a same sex relationship. All they are demanding is equal treatment under the law.
______________________
This isn’t about a right, it’s about the rite and the Christian Right.
Eventually, some gay couple will feel they’re being discriminated against b/c a pastor refuses to marry them in a religious ceremony, they sue the church, etc.
And don’t dare say “that’s rediculous.” That‘s what you freaks said in the mid ’80′s when the Right said that before long, the Left would be pushing for same sex marriage.
This is only about you freaks giving the finger to the religious. If it weren’t, civil unions (which is exactly the same thing as any hetero couple going to the Justice of the Peace) would be acceptable.
No, you aren’t forcing people to get married to a same sex partner, but you *are* forcing the rest of us to accept what we see as an abomination by calling a religious rite, a “civil right.” Not the same thing. Not even spelled the same way.
Re: equal protection clause- AKA the one that says blacks have the same protections under the law as whites do. That doesn’t apply to this. That amendment is explicitly clear that it’s about protecting a race, not a group of deviants (read definition #1 here: http://binged.it/AlMhEa ). Since people were still thrown into prison for “buggery” well into the 20th Century, it‘s obvious that you’re reading a new meaning into the 15th, instead of just
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 1:39am@David11 wrote:
While not a lot I know 2 gay couples who are very religious Christians. So to think its only atheists that are gay, you’re wrong.
_____________________
A. That’s a Red Herring argument. Nobody said only Atheists are gay.
B. You friends can’t possibly be very religious because, as noted above, they’re living in violation of Gods Law on at least seven counts, two of which are explicitly clear that homosexuality is a one way ticket to hell.
They can be as religious as they want. God says, in order to be saved they must repent and turn from their sin. …and homosexuality is a sin.
These pages just about cover it:
http://bible-verses-insights.com/2010/04/repent-and-be-saved/
Report Post »http://gospelway.com/salvation/repentance.php
originalthought
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 5:41pmIf our Constitution means anything this a states rights issue just like abortion.
Report Post »Melvin Spittle
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 5:48pmExcuse me? Can a state legalize murder? No they cannot. Abortion is murder so therefore it is not a “states rights” issue.
Go ahead. I’m ready for your abortion is not murder argument. I will be happy to rip your argument to pieces.
Report Post »momprayn
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 5:59pmBoth gay marriage and abortion can be proven to be unconstitutional:
Roe v. Wade ::
http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/roe.html
Gay marriage:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/u-v/usher/2004/usher022404.htm
Ditto to the comment about abortion being murder —
Report Post »SouthSideLib
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 5:59pmIt is a state right…and if you want to go to the full faith and credit clause, eveystate should recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
Report Post »GodandIsrael
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:16pmOk Melvin, I’ll bite, I probably agree but I want to hear your reasoning. Abortion is the termination of a non yet functioning biological being not yet capable of living independently, it is not murder.
Report Post »binge_thinker
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:25pmThere are many good and valid reasons to vote against same sex marriage – natural order, public morality, law and behavior theory, child development, preserving American tradition, preventing the collapse of western civilization, parental instincts, protecting the true meaning of marriage, among others.
The bigots that run around saying it’s about “hate” and “homophobia” purposefully misrepresents the true nature of the issue, and such a person is trapped in their own bias and bigotry.
Report Post »goahead.makemyday
Posted on January 26, 2012 at 8:34amgodandisreal
Report Post »I’ll bite too. The ‘not yet functioning” cells that divide into a child are alive and very much functioning. If something is “not alive” by definition it is dead. If something is dead it cannot grow, use nutrients, and produce waste. Which even in the conception stage where it is only one cell to many cells to a fetus to a born child those cells do. The function as you put it of an embryo is to divide and grow.
UBETHECHANGE
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 5:39pmI’m gay and I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman! Marriage is not an invention of man. God instituted marriage. According to God’s plan, man and woman together form the unit of humanity.
As you can tell I have no gay friends, because most gays are militant, aka bigots.
Report Post »americanfirst
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 5:46pmWell said Ubethechange! I admire your honesty and courage, man.
Report Post »SlimnRanger
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 5:50pm@UBET,you are so very right,bless you
Report Post »USAFLgirl
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 5:53pmMy best friend is gay, we graduated high school together 29 years ago. He tracked me down ten years ago and the four of us (my husband included) get together at least twice a year when they visit sunny FL. I never thought one bit differently about him upon finding out he was gay, nor had I ever considered it. He and his partner have been together since college, they are both professionals, one a doctor, one a linguist. They think gay marriage is absurd. They think a civil union giving them all the rights of marriage is necessary. They are not the militant gays the sterotype is correct in addressing. I swear, (most) gays are the angriest bunch of loons I have ever encountered. So over-the-top look at me, love me, let me be me **** are disgusting. Marriage is a religious ceremony. If a gay couples wishes to wed, I suggest they simply find a religious person willing to perform the ceremony and have at it. What’s the big-ass deal?
Report Post »jespasinthru
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:11pmI just don‘t understand why there’s a controversy about gay marriage in the first place. What difference does it make? Why should I care? You can marry a chicken for all I care, because it won’t affect my family or my pocketbook in the least. I say live and let live, just don’t get all up in my face and act stupid about it. I know a couple of gay men, and they’re certainly not “gay pride” freaks.
Report Post »LondoMollari
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:53pmThank you.
Being gay does not make you less of a person by any means, and we are called by God to live chaste lives whether we are straight or gay.
Report Post »conservativeblackman
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 5:39pmThank God I live in the midwest. The land of gun & bible clingers.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:05pmwere civil rights and equal rights go to die.
Report Post »binge_thinker
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:36pmNorth, South, East, or West people from all over this country have stood up and rejected counterfeit marriage. 31 out of 31 is a pretty good track record.
Report Post »In California and Maine, such measures passed by a margin equal to or greater than the margin by which Barack Obama won the presidency. Slim margins don’t mean a thing when it comes to voting victory.
rush_is_right
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 6:40pm“were civil rights and equal rights go to die.”
no thats in your fascist blue states like MA which took away the freedom of religion from the catholic charities…but then you’re fine with silencing those you disagree with….did you polish your jack-boots today and starch your brown shirt?
Report Post »GideonCain
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 7:38pmAmen to that, Conservativeblackman, the mid and mountain west are where common sense and equal OPPORTUNITY go to live.
Report Post »Cape_Lookout_RW_Extremist
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 7:54pmEncinom is a racist. Just ignore this idiot.
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 5:37pmI‘m actually surprised that Oregon isn’t there…our state is ran by a bunch of librals, up north…did anyone hear about the story of the highschool kid who took the con side of homosexuals adopting…he was sited for bullying…he did what they asked for…therefore you can’t win on this subject.
Report Post »EchoHawk
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 5:43pmIf you‘re surprised then you don’t know much about the political process in Oregon and that doesn’t surprise me that you come from the “intellectual bastion” of the south or eastern part of the state.
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 5:58pmI’d rather come from the “intellectual bastion” of southern oregon than live up in the libral la la land of portland/salem oregon…having said that…it was on our state’s ballot 2 years ago…and believe me we’ve been receiving quite abit of Pro Homosexual Marriage propaganda in our Oregon mailboxes. That is why I was surprised…but it will be back, mark my words.
Report Post »RagingJudge
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 5:37pm“Added together, the state-level showdowns will likely raise the prominence of the marriage issue in the presidential campaign, even though it’s not a topic that the leading candidates tend to broach proactively.”
Maybe that‘s because they don’t understand the concept of “seperation of powers”, especially when it comes to the 10th Amendment. Gay marriage is wrong, yes. It’s also not a federal issue.
Just another example of Ron Paul being the only candidate left not sticking his big fat head in where it shouldn’t be. He has no problem addressing this issue because his answer is simple and truthful.
Report Post »USAFLgirl
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 5:58pmYes, too bad about Ron Paul. He needed a much better coach and to get off the bock faster. Yes, his foreign policies are truly out there….but he is dead-on on every other issue. Too bad for our country and constitution. Did you watch his 2002 predictions on the floor of the house?? Check it out. Scary how much foresight this guy had.
Report Post »RagingJudge
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 7:20pmYeah I saw those. Reminds me of watching Beck’s old predictions, except Paul’s were even further ahead of their arrival date.
I still think he’s got a chance, albeit a small one. He’s never done this well before, and he’s had pretty much nothing but steady gains the whole ride while the others have been on the roller coaster. I agree, though I think even his foreign policy has a lot of merits that noone else’s does. Hell, I myself could reconcile them with everyone else’s pretty easily using my own ideas for defense reform. In any case, he‘d never be able to fully accomplish on foreign policy what he’s trying to. I think once he has access to all the top secret intel, he’ll be able to recognize Iran as a true threat, even if it may be the result of our actions long ago. Who knows, I‘m not gonna give up on him until he’s done though, not with the lack of other options out there.
Report Post »