Well, according to the bible it worked for adam and eve and their offspring, so why not? Christians condone a lot of incest among our mythical ancestors.

Slippery slope is a disingenuous argument. It uses an unrelated fear to criticize something else entirely.

For example, there are many straight siblings, and yet the ability for straight people to get married has had no effect upon their ability to marry. Why will gay marriage be anything different?

Secondly, there are a number of places where first cousins can get married. Assuming everything is consensual, why should I care.

As for siblings, sexual relationships are almost always the result of extreme home abuse. It is almost entirely unheard of that siblings have a sexual relationship without such abuse (same goes for parent-child sexual relationships). For this reason I'd be very hesitant to extend rights to this group.

Cousins and siblings are next. What's the big deal - so long as they promise to not have kids.

You can already marry your cousin in more than half the states.

Anybody seen any jobs yet out of this 2010 election? All I see is social engineering from the party that wants to give us less intrusive government except for what happens in our bedrooms.

Make these people go away in 2012.

I would remind people that everyone is blurring the line between "civil union" and "marriage."

Marriage is a religious rite. The "rules" for marriage vary greatly from religion to religion. In some religions polygamy is allowed and in others child marriage is allowable and in others some people are not allowed to marry at all. Marriages can only be performed by ordained minimster. The government has absolutely no regulate marriage or to make any laws respecting marriage because it would be a clear violation of Church and State to do so.

Civil Union is a "special" form of civil contract. It simply spells out a set of legal rights that accrue from two people agreeing to share their lives and property. Civil Unions can be performed by non-ministers such as Magistrates, Justices of the Peace, etc. The only "rules" for Civil Union are the ones that enacted the ability in the first place. Churches have absolutely no special ability to dictate what contracts are and are not valid. It would be like the Church dictating the conditions of your cell phone contract. Any involvement by churches in contract law is a clear violation pof the separation of Church and State,

This gets confused because all states give ordained ministers the ability to confer both marriage and civil union at the same time. That's the "by the power vested in me by the State of ____" part. But a civil union is just as binding if it were done by a Justice of the Peace. So you have religious people who want to force everyone to play by their own particular sets of rules. You have another grour that is truing to force churches to accept things they do not agree with. You have the government group which just cares about the legal contract part. But most people have been so bombarded by partisan crap that they are intellectually paralyzed.

This is two separate issues: "Marriage" which is only the domain of the Church. They can allow or forbid any combinations they wish. It is the business of only the church and its parishoners. "Civil Union" is nothing more than an ordinary contract that joins two people in a legal partnership. There are huge legal gains to be had by being able to be legally joined. It is not the government's job to be saying who can and who cannot be in a civil union, just as it is limited when, for example, you sign a credit card contract.

We are in a period in history when marriage is truly under assault. The number of religious weddings is dropping. The number of secular Civil Unions is increasing. And the number of those choposing to remain single are increasing dramatically.

The people who have figured it out are the Mormons. Most people suspect, if not believe that numerous Mormons still practice polygamy. But you seldom hear of them being charged with polygamy. Sex with a minor, yes, but not polygamy itself. This is because a man who wants to practice polygamy is absolutely free to do so so long as he is only married in one Civil Union. He can be married in a religious service as many times as that religion will permit. So, in the eyes of the State only one man and one woman are in civil union, so all is okay. And in the eyes of the Mormon Church, the person is entitled to marry as many times as he chooses and for reasons of legacy is considered fully married in the church.

And all these anti-gay-marriage rationales remind me of Ambrose Bierce's definition of democracy: "Four wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."

One major issue Chris, marriage is not a religious thing but a state contract. You holding a ceremony in a church means nothing without the state sanctioned paperwork. Period.

Conversely, I'm married, and I never involved the church.

Chris I am not sure what side you are on, all I do know is you are inaccurate. I was married by a judge and no ones "God" had anything to do with it. Let me share something with you, "

mar·riage

noun
1.

a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.

b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.

Marriage is a legal commitment, I was married by a judge and it had nothing to do with anyone's "God" How dare anyone tell me I can not Marry because I don't believe in their God. I am in a heterosexal relationship, Man and Wife, but it angers me every day that anyone can place judgement or sanctions or rules on someone else. Religion is cover for hate and judgement.

Chris: marriage is NOT a religious thing. You're confusing marriage with "holy matrimony."

Marriage is a contractual property agreement pre-dating organized religion. DSLSCA, is spot on. You're thinking of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, which no church can ever be forced to perform against it's dogma, seeing as it would violate the 1st Amendment.

So don't worry religious folks, your matrimizing is safe, and you even still get a special term for it.

Chris-749391 - The people who have figured it out are the Mormons.

No, actually it's the Catholics who have figured out the difference between the legal contract of "marriage" and the religious ritual of "holy matrimony", due to their religion's view of divorce. There are lots of divorced and remarried Catholics who can't get their marriages blessed or recognized by their church, and that's why 71% of US Catholics support marriage equality.

Mormons haven't yet figured out the difference between a legal contract and an irrelevant religious ritual, which is why so many supported the bigoted Prop h8.

Let's all pray that the gay may (get married). Spring thaws come slowly as the ice thins and disappears. Hateful hearts are harder to thaw than a frozen river. But it will happen if we all do our part.

My husband and I are atheists and we were allowed to marry, no religion required. I don't see why gays shouldn't be allowed the same right. No one is forcing priests, pastors, preachers, etc. to perform the service so why does it matter so much?

Interesting they ran an article earlier on MSNBC about how more marriages are interracial and how the acceptance has grown since the ban was lifted in 1967. Just goes to show that marriage can change and evolve and catch up with the times! It will take time, but same thing will happen...acceptance will grow, and the next generation of kids will wonder why we spent so much time and effort squabbling over two people loving each other.

EngEsq -

Read an interesting challenge to a state constitutional measure defining marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman (I wish I could remember where I saw the article).

Essentially, the person is suing the state for an infringement of rights based on sex discrimination, not sexual orientation, but sex. I believe it was a woman, and she wants to marry another woman. Instead of taking the case as the right of a person to marry according to their sexual preference, she is taking the other way around. She claims that because the other woman would be allowed to marry a man, it is gender discrimination that she is not also allowed to marry that woman.

It makes sense, really. They aren't saying that homosexual marriage should be legalized, rather that it is gender-based discrimination that a woman cannot marry a person whom a man is free to marry, and vice versa. I like it, mostly because I'm a big fan of physics and always enjoyed the changing of perspective to solve a problem, rather like changing the frame of reference to the center of mass or center of momentum to solve a billiard ball collision, or changing between the "rest" mass and "moving" mass in a relativity problem. It appeals to the nerd in me. It's also a good argument for a good cause.

For all those who claim that incest and polygamy will follow: incest is already legal (first cousins can marry). Incest between parents and children, as well as siblings, is illegal. Can't really think of a moral argument against siblings, as long as they're both over the age of consent and they're both enthusiastically consensual (right-wingers always have this trouble with consent for some reason... probably due to all the rape and terror promoted by their "holy book."). Incest between parents and children will always have too great a power imbalance, regardless of age of consent or not. I think incest should remain a social taboo, though, due to the nature of inbreeding affecting offspring, but I can't find a moral argument against a lot of it.

Polygamy, neither. As long as all parties are ENTHUSIASTICALLY CONSENSUAL, there seems no moral argument against it. Inheritance rights, power of attorney and medical decisions, a whole heap of paperwork, big headaches for attorneys and judges. There's also the idea that society won't work very well if the balance of power is always towards either polyginy (1 man - multiple women) or polyandry (1 woman - multiple men), based on the idea that leftover unwed people become more dangerous if they cannot find a partner and must be shipped off to fight in wars, etc., and that social norms respecting equality of the sexes can shift to see one or the other more as property and less as human. But that mostly has to do with churches and the inherent sexism of religion, and is not helped by isolating those groups and forcing young girls to stay in the group by threat of arrest and jail. Polyamory, though, is not inherently dangerous, and as long as the doctrine of consent and equality is respected, it should not become that way.

Oh, and for the people who seem so hell-bent on marrying their pets: I'm sure you could find some religious wacko or other to do the ceremony. However, considering that the law does not recognize consent from animals other than humans, and considering that all states have animal abuse legislation, I'd think twice about trying to claim them on your tax return or attempting to consumate. Also, why? Seriously, is the only reason you don't go around having sex with animals because your book tells you no? If so, please dial 911, inform them you are a danger to society, and let the men with the white coats get a good look at you.

Janstince, I like that rational. If I were a woman I'd sure as hell be pissed that I couldn't marry a woman and men can. It's yet another logical argument for same sex marriage.

Thanks for that!

I don't know why anyone is still opposed to gay marriage. Right now no one can be forced to participate, and if the libs throw a fit about that, all anyone has to do is use their brain to outthink them and get out of it.

It's not that hard to do.

:D

Marriage, as it legally exists today, is unconstitutional. Put simply, it affords approximately 90% of our citizenry benefits and rights at the exclusion of the other 10% of our citizenry. THAT is unconstitutional. Being gay or lesbian is VERY legal. They cannot be excluded because of their sexual orientation.

So any notion that allowing gays to marry opens the door to polygamy, bestiality, incest, or anything else, is just hogwash. These are illegal acts for EVERYONE at the exclusion of NO ONE, and are therefor illegal constitutionally.

We'll figure this out in time. It's just difficult to belief just how stupid we can get sometimes.

Bringing special words into to, Sarah

If the wording is so insignificant, then why is it so important that gays get "gay-marriage" instead of "gay-civil union."

Pot calling the kettle black?

Secondly, there are a number of places where first cousins can get married. Assuming everything is consensual, why should I care.

There are actually MORE states that allow first cousins to marry than allow gay marriage. Not only that, but there are MORE states that allow minors (children under 18) to get married, than allow gay marriage.

Makes sense if you don't think about it.

If the wording is so insignificant, then why is it so important that gays get "gay-marriage" instead of "gay-civil union."

For starters, because there are approximately 1,100 federal rights and responsibilities that attach to marriage that do not attach to civil unions -- including recognition from state to state.

"In the English common law tradition from which our legal doctrines and concepts have developed, a marriage was a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife. Marriage was viewed as the basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization."

We are in a period in history when marriage is truly under assault.

50% failure rate, but you call gay marriage the assault?

The number of religious weddings is dropping. The number of secular Civil Unions is increasing.

Religious institutions not keeping up with trends and continuing to push outdated ideas... and now less people want to get a religious ceremony? Shocking.

And the number of those choposing to remain single are increasing dramatically.

Are you saying that a contract which, upon dissolution, will result in losing half your property, assets, and also require you to make monthly payments for half the term of the contract, is becoming less popular? Again... shocking.

"Just goes to show that marriage can change and evolve and catch up with the times!"

please define "catching up with the times"?

Ignorance will always be a part of society, regardless of how much science there is, and the most dreadful fact of all: Those who feel they are immune to ignorance because "they're up with the times" are the ones who breed most of it.

JohnDoe,

"Gay marriage" is simply a vernacular issue. When speaking, because gay people can't marry, we have to make the distinction during discussion. Once they can marry, it will simply be that. Marriage. Straight people don't have civil unions, they have the right to marry, ergo why would we have to distinguish???

And no, it wasn't between a woman and man. It originally was between a man and a woman's male guardian. And than, society progressed, and although people whined, and cried, and claimed the world was ending, we allowed women to enter into contracts (or not) on their own.

And than, it was between a white man and a white woman, or a black man and a black woman. And than, society progressed, and although people whined, and cried, and claimed the world was ending, we allowed black people and white people to contract with each other.

You know why, we opened marriage up to all??? Because we realized that regardless of things like physicality, or race, or dare I say sexuality, the brains we all had in our heads, functioned exactly the same. Women, men, black, white, gay, straight, none of those things made an iota of difference in terms of consent, or capacity, or any of the other things that the government has an interest in, because those things don't harm anyone, and we don't have to be protected from them, or from ourselves.

So, John Doe, that is the real history of marriage. Come back when you have a reason that passes strict scrutiny. Right now, you've got nothing.

What did you think you had me or something?

Janstince - love your logic on marrying animals. I will use that the next time someone throws that argument in my face... "You mean the only reason you haven't married your pet sheep is because you read it was wrong is a book?"

LmarcT.....Firstly before the Gay Marriage Supporters start throwing fruit at me...I fully support their right to do as they please, however your statement seems to insinuate that 10% of the population is Gay....can you please provide the proven statistical data that confirms that notion....I don't remember that question being on my census form (in either the US or Australia). Is that the world population, US, among males, females, in Texas, Calif, San Fran.

Please provide the EVIDENCE for your statement.... not your best estimate, the Gay Agenda line, some flukey study based on animal relationships, theories, real hard statistical evidence generally accepted by the scientific community. Not "well 10% of the people I know are Gay" because that is not proven statistical evidence.

Before you go on....and ErinNJ gets on to this thread....don't bother it does not exist and you know it....it is a Gay Agenda calling card that they made up, sounded like a nice round number. There is no universally accepted statistical data that would stand up to any level of scrutiny that confirms that homosexuals make up 10% (or any % for that matter) of the population.

Support Gay Marriage if you please, as I do.....but don't promote the Gay Agenda BS Line....just stick to the facts.

JohnDoe: your discursion on the English Common Law notwithstanding, anthropologists pretty widely agree that marriage in traditional societies is a "homosocial contract" (i.e., a contract between two men, the groom and the father of the bride) enacted for control of property. The standard reference on the matter is Claude Levi-Strauss, Elementary Systems of Kinship.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe that now and will always believe it and do my children and so do my grandchildren.

Shariannie: Well isn't that special? But, you see, you don't make the laws for the rest of us.

Pssst, Yank, I have a secret for you, but don't tell anyone,

There is no gay agenda. Using the term makes you sound paranoid. "Gay agenda" is conservative code for "equal rights". Equal rights just didn't sound scary enough to stir up their base so they invented "gay agenda".

And regardless of the "gay agenda" or whatever percent of the population gay people are, that still has no place in a legal issue. We don't give out civil rights based on whether or not you make up a high enough percentage of the population.

Finally, stop lying. Making the disclaimer "I fully support them..." is canceled out when you end with "gay agenda". You ain't fooling anybody.

You folks on the right "claim" to be all about personal freedoms. Walk the walk and stop trying to deny those freedoms to all.

Hey, Yank, I have another secret for you: I WAS ON THIS THREAD LONG BEFORE YOU GOT HERE.

ROFLMAO!

Marriage is a religious rite

WRONG WRONG WRONG. Marriage is performed for millions of couples in this country by judges, justices of the peace, ship captains, and Elvis Impersonators... And in many of those ceremonies, there is NO MENTION of a cult god or a religion or any other mythical creature. Your cult does not onw marriage. No Cult owns marriage in this country.

If your argument had ANY merit, you people wouldn't need to lie and throw out red herrings when you try to attack gay marriage.

Try sticking to facts. Do any of you have any facts, or is cowardice and dishonesty the only refuge of people who hate gays?

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

No, it is much more than that in a growing number of states in the US, and countries all over the world. It may be that way in your house, and in your particular cult building -- thankfully, i don't have to give a goddam what goes on in either of those places! And my life isn't required to mirror yours or your cult's lifestyle choices.

Yank: There is no universally accepted statistical data that would stand up to any level of scrutiny that confirms that homosexuals make up 10% of the population.

I agree. It seems like a little more than 10% to me, too.

Cheers!

The SCOTUS stated in the 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision that legalized interracial marriage that marriage is a civil right, so there is a legal precedent for gay marriage. They used the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment and that same right will be extend to GLBT couples when the SCOTUS reviews Prop-8 overturn by the federal court in California.

Gov Christie and other Republicans need to read their history because the US is not a pure democracy so the rights of a minority are not up for a vote by the majority who enjoys the same right. That concept is known as tyranny of the majority and it is a reason why we have the Bill of Rights. This is why DOMA laws are unconstitutional.

Marriage is a civil contract is the US and that contract is currently being denied to GLBT citizens because of religious bigotry. Gay marriage predates the Christian religion as does marriage as a civil contract.

Gay couples cannot force a religion that opposes gay marriage to marry them but religions that oppose gay marriage cannot prohibit the state from allowing to marry in either a civil ceremony, or to be married in one of the many churches that supports GLBT marriage. There is not a single reason to deny GBLT citizens the right to marry that does not rely on ignorance, homophobia or religious bigotry.

Janstince - love your logic on marrying animals. I will use that the next time someone throws that argument in my face... "You mean the only reason you haven't married your pet sheep is because you read it was wrong is a book?"

Funny, isn't it? It's always the Religious Reich who immediately start talking about marrying animals and children. Both acts are illegal, by the way, and both scenarios involve entities (children, animals) which cannot legally consent. But, it doesn't stop the religious-whack-job-mindset and their tendency to immediately start talking about sex with children and animals. Makes ya wonder what goes on inside some of the churches when the doors close. We already know what happens inside the Pedophile Roman Catholic Cult buildings when kids are inside...as well as many other christian cult groups. And they have the gall to point their fingers outward at others, when their own fingers are dirty??

I agree with epistemologist, above. What I still find amazing is: in a country base dupon religious freedom, we have many religious groups already (episcopals, some jewish sects, some methodist groups, unitarians, etc...) who perform and bless gay marriage. Compeltely legal for them to do so. In a country that guarantees religious freedom within acts that are not illegal (such as gay relationships not being illegal) -- how is it not unconstitutional for any state to refuse to recognize their legal marriages? It directly defies and denies their religious freedom.

And, with all these states putting it up for a vote --- since when, in a Constitutional Republic, are the civil rights of a minority placed out for a majority vote?

Both of these issues are a complete reversal of constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom AND the fundamental role of a constitutional republic to protect civil rights of a minority from being slammed down by a majority vote!

EngEsq: Janstince, I like that rational. If I were a woman I'd sure as hell be pissed that I couldn't marry a woman and men can. It's yet another logical argument for same sex marriage.

Watch the last few episodes of Boston Legal (last season, Season 5).

"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." - Mark 10:6-9

Mind you this has nothing to do with religion. I have a relationship with Jesus Christ and this is the Word of God. I am standing up for Christ because that is who reigns over my household and I am not afraid. I used to be a supporter of gay marriage but when I became a Christian, I found that I was wrong. A gay marriage is not something blessed in Holy Matrimony. If the states want to be on their own program, fine. They have to live with that. Marriage today is a joke in our society. That's why we have a 60% divorce rate. God is absent in our households. I have a brother who is gay and while I walk in front of a car for him or any homosexual, I do not feel that he should have the same marriage rights that I have with my wife. It's immoral and not what God intended when He talks about this in His Word. It has nothing to do with religion. I am not religious. I have a belief in Christ and I follow God's Word to the best of my ability every day because I am a sinner and not perfect. For the people on this forum who hate Christians, you don't have a problem with me, you have a problem with God. Sorry.

God is absent in our households.

God does not make our laws.

I have a brother who is gay and while I walk in front of a car for him or any homosexual, I do not feel that he should have the same marriage rights that I have with my wife.

So you want your own brother treated as a second-class citizen under the law? Some brother you are!

It's immoral and not what God intended when He talks about this in His Word.

That may be YOUR morality, but it does not apply to the rest of us. The government is prohibited from codifying or endorsing your personal moral view.

lol @ "second class citizen". Marriage is not a right, it's a privelege but keep reaching.

@The Correctness. The SCOTUS stated that marriage was a right when the ruled on interracial marriage in Loving V. Virginia in 1967.

Quote,

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Unquote.

Chris Christi is a big, fat joke. He has established himself as a homophobe and a bigot. What an idiot. He will wake up one morning and realize that he was on the wrong side of history and will be remembered with the likes of George Wallace et al. Gay rights are here to stay and marriage will is a fundamental right that ALL should enjoy,regardlessof their sexual orientation. Gay marriage will become the law of the land. It's just a matter of how long it takes and how many people are hurt in the process due to backwards, fundaMENTAList, bigots, like Chris Christi and company.

If gay marriages were here to stay and everyone is so "enlightened" then why does the media and schools try to force it on us?

Case in Point: Just recently in Galileo High School in San Francisco on Valentine's Day 2012, they were teaching students about condoms usage for extra credit. One of the aspects of the supposed "fake marriages" included gay marriages. Now, I understand the need to teach about birth control, but this is ridiculous. If it was so natural, there would be no need to force this down people's throats. This is something that MSNBC won't report on the news for fear, that parents' would be upset.

I think it is wrong of NJ assembly to put this out there without having the people put it to a vote. Not everyone agrees with this decision and the gay left is fooling everybody into thinking that being gay is somehow equal to racism. What a joke! If anybody is a fundamental bigot it is the liberal left.

This is such a waste of time. The only question is when will gay people will be able to be married.

Actually the only question is when will our govt. actually listen to the voice of the people and stop making the decisions for us. Let them put gay marriage to a vote by the people! It has already been proven that both the senate and the assembly have their own agendas. Any of these politicians can be bought for the right price.

PSSST Sarah######, I have a lot of respect for your comments generally, but unfortunately we disagree on this one. You say there is no Gay Agenda...then where did the 10% come from, there is certainly no evidence that 10% of the population is Gay....or that 90% isn't ..... so who made that up? However you insinuate that there is a "Conservative" Agenda? Then you say regardless of that agenda it is not a "legal issue" no it is not and therefore I support their Civil Right to get hitched in whatever manner they wish.....so long of course as they do not expect anyone else to relinquish their Civil Rights in the process. You are right we don't issue Civil Rights based on "opinion polls" "agendas" or "personal choice" Civil Rights are Civil Rights provided to all and sundry.

So because I contest a statement someone has made in respect to the factual nature of that statement, I can not have a genuine regard for Civil Rights......seems harsh, but at the same time neither you nor anyone else has provided any hard evidence (you know legal stuff that you are so fond of making a point of) to support the statement that was made that insinuated that 10% of the population is Gay. (Nor has ErinNJ come up with the evidence to prove that homosexuality is genetic).

You however have presupposed that I am "paranoid" paranoid of what...gay people, don't think so work with a few of them daily, don't have any here that are close friends but I did in Hawaii, several of them, that I might have Gay tendencies....don't think so my wife and 2 kids can attest to that, I do not wear pink shirts....does that mean anything?

No I am a live and let live kinda person got no issues with people's personal lifestyle choices.....but on the other hand as I have seen you comment on so eloquently on many occasions I am not big on BS that is passed off as fact.

Lots of people here get stuck into me when I mention the Military Industrial Complex....and I know that exists despite the fact that they don't have a postal address (I am not paranoid of them either, just wary) I also know that the Gay Agenda Complex exists....no mailing address either.

"Lying" where is your legal evidence of that? What lie have I told? Pretty harsh statement, all I asked for was evidence....not sure how that adds up to lying as I made no statement except for my personal opinion about an issue and did not frame it in any other manner......how pray tell can that be lying? Oh well not that it matters but many many years ago before you were born I made a conscious commitment to myself after reading an editorial in Time Magazine about the number of lies people tell everyday....mostly to themselves, not to tell lies. I live by that commitment and don't tell lies .... especially to myself. You? who are you fooling today?

However having said that....what you have claimed is not going to have much affect on how I feel about myself tomorrow....trust me.

Oh ErinNJ.....61minutes to be exact....but of course I am always a day ahead of you.

DMorgan.....you are welcome to your opinion....could be who knows?????? Since the FACTS have not been established I would not be so silly as to venture and opinion on the subject....for fear I would be accused of lying or being paranoid or trying to fool people.

@ErinNJ God does not make our laws. So you want your own brother treated as a second-class citizen under the law? Some brother you are! That may be YOUR morality, but it does not apply to the rest of us. The government is prohibited from codifying or endorsing your personal moral view.

Is this a debate now? I'm not debating you. It's real simple. First of all, God is real clear about what He says marriage is in the Word. Case closed. Next, I love my brother. I don't know who you think you are but you don't know me or him and what we've been through in our lives nor is it any of your business. You're barking up the wrong tree. He is not being treated as a second-class citizen as you put it nor will he ever be. If anybody treats him with disrespect and I find out about it, I will defend him. I have no problem with him being gay. He just can't have what I have with my wife which is a Holy union blessed under God. That's not something that a gay marriage can achieve. Sorry!!! That's all I'm saying. I don't care what a state says or passes. I follow God and I'll die believing the Bible as the undeniable Word. I am not religious. I follow Christ and that has nothing to do with religion. I'm not telling you what to do or believe. You make your own choices and deal with the consequences.

@Unhappy1.48.

We live in a constitutional republic and not a pure democracy so we do not have the right to vote on what rights a minority enjoys, especially when the majority already enjoys the same right. The concept that you are endosring is known as tyranny of the majority and its prevention is the principle reason that we have the Bill of Rights.

The Supreme Court have previously ruled that marriage is a right in Loving v. Virginia so I expect that they will soon rule along the same lines and cite the equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment as a precedent when they give GLBT citizens the same right of marriage that we hetero Americans already enjoy.

@AnthonyR. What you believe or what the Bible says is absolutely and completely irrelevant because the US is not now and never has been a Christian country. We may have a Christian dominated population but our government is secular with equal rights for all believers and for those who do not believe. One of the founding tenants of the US was religious freedom that underscores the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Gay marriage predates the Christian religion, as does marriage as a civil contract, so your religious views are completely irrelevant as a matter of law.

How is the Bible the undeniable word of god when it was written and has been edited many times by man? You cannot prove that your god exists because of the bible because that statement is an example of circular logic as it only restates the first claim by repeating it in stronger words in the answer.

Your claim that you are not religious when you previously cited the bible and your belief in god is hilariously ironic and proves that you are either a liar, ignorant or delusional.

A Yank in Australia

Yank, before you get your undies in a knot, you do realize that it really doesn't matter what percentage are gay and lesbian, right? Whether it's 10%, 5%, or even 1%... the argument and my post holds. It's interesting that you attacked the number and not the unconstitutionality. I have seen estimates of 10%, so unless you can prove otherwise, I will use the 10% and add "estimated at" in future statements. Happy now?

I guess the gays may have an agenda, but it's probably kinda like mine. To be free. To be happy. To have a normal life. To have people with alternate agendas for me leave me alone.

You say there is no Gay Agenda...then where did the 10% come from, there is certainly no evidence that 10% of the population is Gay....or that 90% isn't ..... so who made that up? However you insinuate that there is a "Conservative" Agenda?

I don't know, ask whoever posted that for his/her sources and than actually visit them. Instead, you just assume that there's a gay agenda. And, can you explain the logistics of a "gay agenda"??? I mean is it a panel of gay people that meet yearly to generate skewed statistics, or is more sinister like Skull and Bones or the Masons???

My writing in terms of "conservative code words" is metaphorical and meant to illustrate my point. I don't believe that conservatives ACTUALLY sit around making scary terms for things, I wrote that to show you the what an illogical premise any kind of "agenda" is.

You're a perfect example of this...

Deceive Identify yourself as a moderate, centrist or independent. It will also cause Liberals to lower their guard a bit, which gives you an effective opening. This may also have the
effect of aligning conservative viewpoints with the real moderates we are attempting to reach.

Engage Demand an elaborate, time-consuming comparison / analysis between your position and theirs. Entangle Insist that the Liberal put their posts in their own words. That will consume the most time and effort for the Liberal poster

They will be unable to spread numerous points on numerous blogs if you have them occupied. Allowing a Liberal to post a web link is too quick and efficient for them. Tie them up. We are going for delay of game here. Demoralize Dismiss their narrative as rubbish immediately. Do not even read it. Once the Liberal goes through the trouble to research, gather, collate, compose and write their narrative your job is to discredit it. Make it obvious you tossed their labor-intensive narrative aside like garbage. This will have the effect of demoralizing the Liberal poster. It will make them unwilling to expend the effort again, and for us, that is a net win

You can read the whole thing here...

http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2011/8/26/151725/396/Diary/TACTICS-FOR-EFFECTIVE-CONSERVATIVE-BLOGGING-By-Karl-Rove

If you're wondering what it is.

Hey LMARC,

Yeah, I tried pointing that out too. No luck. Maybe he'll listen to you.

Is this a debate now? I'm not debating you.

I'm not debating you, either; simply stating the facts in the real world.

First of all, God is real clear about what He says marriage is in the Word. Case closed.

First of all, God does not make the laws in the US, as we are a secular nation. Second, civil marriage existed for thousands of years before people believed in God, so God did not "create" marriage, nor does the biblical definition apply. Case closed.

I don't know who you think you are but you don't know me or him and what we've been through in our lives nor is it any of your business. You're barking up the wrong tree. He is not being treated as a second-class citizen as you put it nor will he ever be. If anybody treats him with disrespect and I find out about it, I will defend him. I have no problem with him being gay. He just can't have what I have with my wife which is a Holy union blessed under God.

I KNOW that I am the one who pointed out to you that you treat your brother as a second-class citizen, and that you believe our government should treat him the same way. You can "defend" him all you want, but it does not make you any less of a bigot, even toward your own brother. He absolutely CAN have what you have with your wife, because your "holy union blessed under God" is your own interpretation of your marriage, based on your beliefs -- and he has his own beliefs, not to mention our country's laws, supporting him: legal marriage in this secular nation is a civil contract, not a holy sacrament. What your cult chooses to recognize as far as marriage is concerned is its own business, not the government's.

It sounds like you're trying to say "I'm not a bigot, but my imaginary friend in the sky is".

That's not something that a gay marriage can achieve. Sorry!!!

That's not for YOU to say. Sorry!!! (Actually, I'm not.)

I don't care what a state says or passes. I follow God and I'll die believing the Bible as the undeniable Word. I am not religious. I follow Christ and that has nothing to do with religion. I'm not telling you what to do or believe. You make your own choices and deal with the consequences.

You can "follow God" and "believe the bible as the undeniable World" -- and deny you are religious at the same time (what an oxymoron). However, your God and bible are irrelevant to our laws, which you must obey while you are here on earth (or whatever planet you are living on).

Are you ASSuming that I'm gay? ROFLMAO!

LMarcT, had you said "estimated" I would have let it go at that with a bit of an internal snicker....like estimated by whom. You are right it doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether its .10% or 27.5% as there is no way it could be tested, the people who are gay should be able to do as they please. Whether I condone their lifestyle choices or not, I don't like the lifestyle choices of redneck gun-toting racists pigs but hey that is their lifestyle choice do I think they should be able to marry, well if they must.

Great stuff Sarah...you assume a great deal from a Newsvine comment...took you for smarter than that....maybe I assumed a bit too much from your comments. I have forgotten more about conservative politics than you will ever know, I was raised on it...my father was a campaign manager for Richard Nixon in California, and President of the Young Republicans and my mother ran polling booths and registered voters from the time I can remember....so your little Karl Rove Handbook is for amateurs. I am very conservative in some areas and very liberal in others, mostly somewhere in-between (the truth lies somewhere between right and wrong) ... Voted for Obama in the US voted for the Conservatives in Australia....In the daytime I am a property consultant to banks and receiver managers at night I am a professional musician and a published songwriter. Try and put that in a little box and wrap it up....I don't like racists, bigots, liers, cheats, thieves, PETA, anybody who hurts children, agendas, lobbyists, politicians, religious nuts and especially more than anything else in this world (and you are slipping in to that category real fast) people with a "holier than thou" attitude and any number of other things.

In my spare time I am a gun owner, bird hunter, and breeder and trainer of the best English Setters in the Southern Hemisphere or so I am told by people who compete with my dogs.... oh and I have put 2 daughters through University with no student loan debt at the University of Wisconsin and the University of Melbourne, I have lived in more countries than you have been too most likely and I probably have more true friends than you have acquaintances...... If you want to compare resumes happy to oblige I can document everything(not the friends they are hard to document as such) I have said.....I don't lie, and I don't brag....just the facts, I prefer humility over brashness. Oh and just in case you want to claim some rich entitlement is how I have accomplished what I have in my life....sorry no one has given me a damn thing, earned it all on my own.

I don't care about the sources of conjecture and as Marc said he heard it somewhere.....hard to pin-point that source and since I knew there was no "source" I just asked him to provide it. You, Marc and ErinNJ...got nothin but opinions....so say so but don't frame your opinions and or conjecture as fact or you will be opening your mouth to change feet most of the time.

So you go back to your little Rove Handbook for the quick identification of Conservatives and see where I fit in. It is very easy to make assumptions about people but its best not too, just a little lesson in life from someone who as seen a bit more of it than you have.

No need to thank me or apologize I'll just take it as a given.

Yank,

You wanna know what the quickest way to tell a phony is??? Their need to defend themselves and speak about how superior they are.

Case in point...

Great stuff Sarah...you assume a great deal from a Newsvine comment...took you for smarter than that....maybe I assumed a bit too much from your comments. I have forgotten more about conservative politics than you will ever know, I was raised on it...my father was a campaign manager for Richard Nixon in California, and President of the Young Republicans and my mother ran polling booths and registered voters from the time I can remember....so your little Karl Rove Handbook is for amateurs. I am very conservative in some areas and very liberal in others, mostly somewhere in-between (the truth lies somewhere between right and wrong) ... Voted for Obama in the US voted for the Conservatives in Australia....In the daytime I am a property consultant to banks and receiver managers at night I am a professional musician and a published songwriter. Try and put that in a little box and wrap it up....I don't like racists, bigots, liers, cheats, thieves, PETA, anybody who hurts children, agendas, lobbyists, politicians, religious nuts and especially more than anything else in this world (and you are slipping in to that category real fast) people with a "holier than thou" attitude and any number of other things.

In my spare time I am a gun owner, bird hunter, and breeder and trainer of the best English Setters in the Southern Hemisphere or so I am told by people who compete with my dogs.... oh and I have put 2 daughters through University with no student loan debt at the University of Wisconsin and the University of Melbourne, I have lived in more countries than you have been too most likely and I probably have more true friends than you have acquaintances...... If you want to compare resumes happy to oblige I can document everything(not the friends they are hard to document as such) I have said.....I don't lie, and I don't brag....just the facts, I prefer humility over brashness. Oh and just in case you want to claim some rich entitlement is how I have accomplished what I have in my life....sorry no one has given me a damn thing, earned it all on my own.

I don't care about the sources of conjecture and as Marc said he heard it somewhere.....hard to pin-point that source and since I knew there was no "source" I just asked him to provide it. You, Marc and ErinNJ...got nothin but opinions....so say so but don't frame your opinions and or conjecture as fact or you will be opening your mouth to change feet most of the time.

So you go back to your little Rove Handbook for the quick identification of Conservatives and see where I fit in. It is very easy to make assumptions about people but its best not too, just a little lesson in life from someone who as seen a bit more of it than you have.

No need to thank me or apologize I'll just take it as a given.

What makes you think I would give two craps about your resume, kids, or politics is beyond me, but it is incredibly telling that you feel the need to opine about yourself in such a matter.

Ok Yank, here are statistics for the percentage of people who are gay:

A 2010 survey found that 8% of men and 7% of women identify as homosexual.

http://www.nationalsexstudy.indiana.edu/

The Williams institute reports that 3.5% of people identify as gay/bi, 8.2% report same sexual contact, and 11% report be attracted to the same sex.

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/how-many-people-are-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender/

Lastly, there is a historical trend of under reporting gay sexual orientation. I'd think 10% is an accurate estimate (if not low).

Yank, I walked into a Missouri bar and took a personal poll... took 6 weeks to recover. The 10% is a solid number, bud. LOL.

I grew up conservative and remember more conservative politics than you could ever forget...? I'll skip the rest of my fantastic resume... but let me tell you this:

Rovian politics is not conservative, it is today's Republican. And there has been a huge gap between true conservatives of the Reagan era versus those of today. Republicans have flipped more and gone extreme more than Romney could ever remember to forget!

Sarah, I doubt this post will cause anyone to listen any better... oh well.

Anthony R:

"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." - Mark 10:6-9

Mind you this has nothing to do with religion. I have a relationship with Jesus Christ and this is the Word of God. I am standing up for Christ because that is who reigns over my household and I am not afraid. I used to be a supporter of gay marriage but when I became a Christian, I found that I was wrong.

That's all very nice, Anthony. But let me bring a couple things to your attention.

1. Your BuyBull scripture there seems to be stating that divorce is unacceptable. "Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." So, if this is truly where you people get your direction and your values, where are all of your attempts to ban divorce? DIVORCE is truly what destroys your marital "sanctity." This country has a 50% divorce rate!! A failure rate of 1 in 2. People get divorced and remarried at the drop of a hat. And where is the christian outcry about divorce?? (crickets...) There is none. Why? Because you people are FRAUDS. I've even seen divorce lawyers with advertisements on church bulletin boards... You people all know that your own divorce could be next, so you'll never ban ANYTHING that would make your own lives inconvenient. But, attacking gays -- that's usually pretty easy. Nice way to convince yourself that you're impressing your jesus-myth by crusading against something...

2. Nobody in this country is required to follow your cult or your mythical jesus creature. And, althought your mythical jesus is credited with speaking out quite clearly against divorce and many other things that all of you IGNORE... the jesus creature is shown to have said NOTHING at all about gays. So, you crusade against something that he doesn't even mention, and you ignore most of his other directives. Sorry to be so blunt -- but this is the way that a coward and a liar operates. Not someone of character and integrity.

Cheers!

Marriage equality? You think you have marriage equality because the states now allow same sex marriages? WOW, the joke is on you........Washington State just changed their law to allow same sex marriage and you think that is marriage equality? Guess again, the new law calls it a CIVIL MARRIAGE. So you think there is no difference between a Civil Marriage and a regular marriage? Again the joke is on you.....A civil marriage can not be/are not preformed by a religious figure. A civil marriage is preformed by a state approved civilian such as a judge or a justice of the peace. Still don't believe me then go to Washington State and try to get married in a CatholicChurch. You will learn two things, one Marriage is not a Civil Right but rather a Civil Liberty and two you will find out a civil marriage is not marriage equality........

As for those of you who enjoy quoting Loving vs Virginia, instead of taking the four words out of context to support your views try understanding what the WHOLE sentence is saying and more to the point try reading the last two sentences that explain what the ruling is about. The ruling was not deciding if marriage was in fact a Civil Right. It was deciding that a state could not void/null a marriage based upon race. That is what the 14th Amendment is about....Discrimination and not marriage. The 14th Amendment is a Civil Right and marriage is a Civil Liberty guaranteed to all by the Bill of Rights, which is the first ten Amendments.....

A civil marriage can not be/are not preformed by a religious figure.

Religious marriage (aka Holy Matrimony) is a religious ceremony. It only has meaningful legal value because of its civil aspect as recognized by the state.

Some churches will agree to perform the ceremony, and others will not. That's not a big deal. Those churches that chose to perform the rite will have more members.

Civil rights are concerned with unequal treatment based on a protected characteristic. Civil liberties are constitutionally protected activities. In that sense you are correct, but in practice the distinction isn't very meaningful. In either case, the right to marry is protected under the Constitution, and that right should not be abrogated based on sexual orientation.

Pssst Sarah.....so basically you got nothin! so you revert to name calling now its Phony. I won't even waste my time slagging you...to easy.

Marc....cute, I doubt it but cute none the less, however such a survey would produce about the same results as the ones quoted by EngEsq. Your comments on Republicans is fair, I go back to Eisenhower and he was a much more powerful person than anyone since. Presidents Repub or Demo do not in fact make a parties entire persona or platform you need to look a bit past them to the root of the problems.....I can only say my old man would be turning in his grave at the current state of the persona and platform of the GOP. If you want a good insight in to how it "works" read Capitol Punishment by Jack Abramoff. What you may know or what I may have forgotten is a matter of conjecture, get well soon. Not sure why you brought up Constitutionality....as I never did, I only questioned the accuracy of the numbers....I leave constitutionality to the whims and opinions of much better legal minds.

Now to the Surveys (or Estimations) EngEsq.....did you read the Studies? I did, in fact I based my original query in respect to the statement that 10% are Gay on the Williams Institute Study.....which was a much better sampling as it took in the results of 10 Surveys over a period of time (never ask a question you don't know answer to in court or negotiations).

The Indiana Study was fluff, the first thing you need to look at is who paid for it....in the case of this study it was purchased by Trojan Sexual Health Products....marketing, advertising, propaganda, but the Universities need money so it's OK. The sampling in the UofI Survey was so small it wouldn't even register as a percentage in the calculation of % of surveyed against the population of the US...so it was easily dismissible and was actually a study on condom use. (You should read a book The Tiger That Isn't ....how to see through numbers, it was written in the UK fascinating expose on how numbers, stats, percentages are used to fool the living poo out of people...Sarah would be a typical example of such fools).

To make a long story short in respect to the Williams Institute Study.....the best estimation that can be garnered due to the difficulty and accuracy of extracting such information is 3.5% Gay Population within the scope of the surveys. As indicated in the study the results are estimations only. Now the difference between 3.5% and 10% in the study scope (sampling against total) is astronomical, so to stretch a study that estimates a percentage of 3.5 to 10......is let's say.... fantasy.

So while you can accuse me of being a lying, phony, homophobic, paranoid, conservative....don't make the mistake of accusing me of not being able to read, research and discern the difference between fact, estimation, and propaganda.

So you think there is no difference between a Civil Marriage and a regular marriage?

In this secular nation, legal marriage is strictly a civil contract. I have been in a "regular marriage" for 30 years -- and was not married in a church, or by a minister.

The ruling was not deciding if marriage was in fact a Civil Right. It was deciding that a state could not void/null a marriage based upon race. That is what the 14th Amendment is about....Discrimination and not marriage. The 14th Amendment is a Civil Right and marriage is a Civil Liberty guaranteed to all by the Bill of Rights, which is the first ten Amendments.....

And the courts have found that the Loving ruling applies in the case of same-sex marriage, also, as the arguments for allowing interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are nearly identical. In addition, the Supreme Court itself has applied the Loving decision to other rulings involving marriage.

Richard.....You say it's no big deal, but sooner or later some gay couple will put it to the test by suing a church....Some one is always looking for their fifteen minutes of fame.....

And I think there is a big difference between Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. To start with he only way any person can loose their Civil rights is if the Federal Government uses the Patriot Act. It is easy for any person to loose some or all of their Civil Liberties. The right to bear arms, the right to vote, the right to privacy, the right to marry, and the right to life, liberty and property are all Civil Liberties and all can be taken away from any of us. All we have to do is be convicted of a felony. But even if you are convicted of a felony NO ONE can take away your Civil Rights.....With that being said there is no way civil marriages is/are marriage equality.

Erin......racial marriage and same sex marriage is not being argued about marriage it is being argued about discrimination....What part of that do you not understand. The 14th Amendment is about discrimination not marriage. The 14th Amendment prevents any one from discriminating against you because of race, sex, religion,and disability, and newly added sexual orentation which is different than sex. There is nothing about marriage in the 14th Amendment......

LoneRanger -

Heterosexual marriage is technically a civil liberty as well. That puts gay marriage on equal footing. The civil rights argument is that LGBT americans have that equal treatment - i.e. access to the civil liberty of marriage.

Will someone try to force a church to perform the ceremony? Probably. I wouldn't put it past people. The law in WA is written to exclude requiring it (it actually goes further to protect the rights of churches than the HI law does), and the SCOTUS has been very hesitant to require any church (or equivalent) to perform services contrary to its teachings. I don't see that changing.

Pssst Sarah.....so basically you got nothin! so you revert to name calling now its Phony. I won't even waste my time slagging you...to easy.

Can you quote where I called you a name???? And second, you still have no point. Your original point was all about the percentage of gays that make up the population right???

How does that have any bearing on whether they be allowed to marry? Answer that question.

And if it doesn't, how does it matter to this discussion anymore than where you live or what your kids are up to???

Richard

Again you are missing the/my point. Straight and gay can both enjoy a civil marriage, no argument from me on that. Here is the kicker, Gays can still be discriminated against by the Churches based on their sexual orientation and a straight couple is not. That means there still is no marriage equality.

Example: Straight and Gay Catholic couple can be married by a civil marriage, only the Straight Catholic couple can be married by the Church. Again like the civil union it falls under the equal but separate rule.

LoneRanger: learn the difference between "lose" and "loose" so we can stop laughing at you.

Again you are missing the/my point. Straight and gay can both enjoy a civil marriage, no argument from me on that. Here is the kicker, Gays can still be discriminated against by the Churches based on their sexual orientation and a straight couple is not. That means there still is no marriage equality.

I hear you. Fear not - I think I can clear up the confusion.

The separation of church and state as inferred by the First Amendment provides the church with a bit of buffer from the Constitution. Since the federal government has limited authority over the church, the application of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment is similarly limited.

As an example, in NC a Catholic church fired its music director (Steav Bates-Congdon) after he married his partner in NY. Any business would have major liability issues in such circumstances, but the SCOTUS supported the church's right to fire the man.

To be fair, you are correct - religious exemption does mean that LGBT marriage will have a slight limitation that hetero marriages will not - in a number of churches. That said, there is nothing saying that someone can't start an LGBT church that refuses to perform marriage rites for straight couples.

The issue can get pretty ridiculous very quickly. When it comes to matters of religion, I think the government is well advised to stay the hell out of it.

Nice swipe Sarah, no substance no weight behind it though, my point had nothing to do with rights...it had to do with right and fact.

"Phony" "lier" "paranoid" "conservative" you go ahead and fall back on "code words" "metaphors" and semantics...I am sure everyone will believe that you did not call me any names. Because you didn't have any substance to address the point....that there is no evidence that 10% of the population is gay and you didn't like it so you went to name calling with metaphors. Is that metaphor thing only available to people like you or do we all get to use it? Take a hike you got nothing I have already sent you to the "time out" corner and justified my position in relation to the propaganda which I disputed.

If you don't think it matters to the discussion what are you trifling on about, oh you don't want to have to consider the fact that you are wrong so you dismiss all this chatter you have gone on with as insignificant ..... hoof in mouth is a terrible disease.

dslsa.....I'm glad to have given you some thing to laugh at. Far be-it for me to stand in the way of ignorance. Especially if that is all you can find wrong with my posts or point of view. So, laugh on my good little buddy, laugh on......

Richard ...I think we pretty much agree that the Churches are not allowed to discriminate against a person say based on their race from entering or worshipping in their church. But then again there are always exceptions to the rule. While a real estate agent can not discriminate against a person based on their race nor can an apartment manager, an individual in some states who owns a duplex and lives in one half of the duplex can discriminate against a person based on race.

Any Church that receives government funds for any reason can not discriminate against any one for any reason.......But then we are talking about the Civil Rights and not the Civil Liberties.

Some times it amazes me how little people know about their Civil Rights and their Civil Liberties. The other thing I find strange is how many people blame the US Constitution for the gays not being able to marry when it is the individual State Constitutions that are stopping the gays from marring because of the definition of marriage being a union between one man and one woman. The US Constitution has never defined marriage.

LoneR: I'm 6'2". Not little.

Whoooooooosh,......"little buddy" has nothing to do with how tall you are,....ha, ha, ha, ha, ha......I guess it is my turn to laugh at you......why don't you learn what a "little buddy" is so I, not we, can stop laughing at you........I'm 6'2....ha, ha, ha, ha,

The idea that homosexuals cannot get religiously married is ridiculous. I just did a quick check, and as far as I can see, every state in the country has churches that are more than happy to join homosexual couples in holy matrimony, even in the absence of marriage equality in that state.

Walt......Gays have to hunt for churches......straight couples can go to any church in any town in any state and be married. Is that equality. But hey let's take it one step further. Straight and gay couple have a civil marriage in Washington state. both marriages are legal, the straight couple can move to TX and their marriage is recognized and honored as a legal marriage. The Gay couple can not. Is that your definition of equality? What is ridiculous is the term marriage equality..........

Gays have to hunt for churches

They don't have to "hunt". Before I posted I went to the website for my religion's American association of congregations, and did a half-dozen quick searches for the parts of the country I was least sure about, and lo and behold welcoming congregations came up in every one of the states in those six regions. It took me less than two minutes to check all those states.

OK then be so kind as to tell me which church in Sundance WY will marry a gay couple.....I said any town any state...... A straight couple can get married at any of the four chuches.......

I said any town any state......

But I didn't.

I said that same-sex couples didn't have to hunt for a church to marry them.

There are three welcoming congregations of my religion in Wyoming. I believe they all will perform religious same-sex marriages. Please contact me by private message if you would like a reference to them.

Walt here is what I think you are not grasping.....sure it is now legal for gay couples to be legally married in WA and the think they have marriage equality. but in fact that equality stops at the state line. As of today those gay couples who have a legal marriage in the state of WA can not move to at least thirty some states to live and still have a legal marriage. A straight couple can.....Now please again explain your definition of marriage equality.......the term "marriage equality" is not only ridiculous it is a joke. there never will be marriage equality......

Walt here is what I think you are not grasping.....sure it is now legal for gay couples to be legally married in WA and the think they have marriage equality. but in fact that equality stops at the state line.

Don't confuse yourself. I grasp that just fine. I'm a very strong opponent of DOMA and we will eventually get that injustice overturned as well.

Now please again explain your definition of marriage equality

I think your problem is that you're expecting everything to work like a light switch: OFF or ON. Reality works more like a light dimmer: From OFF to dim to brighter to brighter to brighter to fully ON.

"I believe" is not the same as "they will for sure". The fact is they will not because same sex marriage is not legal in WY. Let's just pretend it is legal in WY. Why should a gay couple in Sundance WY have to drive 150 to 350 mile to find a church that will marry them? A straight couple doesn't have to leave the city limits of Sundance WY to get married. So where is you marriage equality now.

"I believe" is not the same as "they will for sure".

I don't have the time or the inclination to spend time checking with them directly, about a hypothetical marriage. They've publicly declared that they will. My "I believe" is far more than acceptable until there is a couple looking for that specific need to be met. Expecting me to be more sure than that is unreasonable.

The fact is they will not because same sex marriage is not legal in WY.

You forgot what we were talking about. I'll remind you:

The idea that homosexuals cannot get religiously married is ridiculous.

Why should a gay couple in Sundance WY have to drive 150 to 350 mile to find a church that will marry them?

The short answer is, unfortunately, that Wyoming has relatively few people who believe very strongly in liberty and justice for all. I'm sure folks in Sundance WY also have to drive pretty far to avail themselves of other things our society offers. They shouldn't have to, but they do, and that's something to be remedied, not something to be used as justification for the status quo.

So where is you marriage equality now.

Right where it was before, despite your denials of it. I'll remind you of what I wrote a half-hour ago, which you apparently overlooked or ignored:

I think your problem is that you're expecting everything to work like a light switch: OFF or ON. Reality works more like a light dimmer: From OFF to dim to brighter to brighter to brighter to fully ON.

Hey if you want to fool yourself into thinking you have marriage equality then go right a head and do it. So far you have not been able to prove it. you talk about all these churches that say they will marry gays as proof yet the Churches are in states that do not have same sex marriages so using them as proof is null and void because the fact of the matter is they Can't marry gay couples.

Maybe you should stop using the term "marriage equality" because until everything is equal there is no marriage equality. And my original statement of civil marriage and marriage are not equal, stands.

LoneRanger, since the US is a secular nation, not a theocracy, the only legal marriage IS civil marriage -- what your cult or any other chooses to recognize as "holy matrimony" is its own business, not the government's.

So "marriage equality" refers to EVERYONE being allowed to marry the consenting adult of his/her choosing, regardless of the relative genders of the parties -- it does not apply only to homosexuals, but to ALL adults.

Erin....You should stop now because you are in way over your head.......you say " the only legal marriage IS civil marriage" Really, prove that a marriage in a Catholic Church is not legal and the government does not recognise it........

Again you are in way over your head......marriage equality is about gay couples having the same and equal rights that straight couples have. And the fact is they don't with a civil marriage. Want proof? A gay and straight couple get a civil marriage in WA. The straight couple can move to any of the 50 states and their civil marriage is recognized as a legal marriage. A gay couple can not do that. Their "marriage equality" stops at the state line......

Really, prove that a marriage in a Catholic Church is not legal and the government does not recognise it

The government does not recognize ANY marriage performed in a church -- without that civil marriage license. ANY minister, priest, rabbi, etc., can perform a marriage ceremony, but without that civil marriage license, it is not recognized by the state and federal governments as a legal marriage -- and that means that none of the approximately 1,100 federal rights and responsibilities will attach to that marriage.

Granting marriage equality -- by the Supreme Court ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional, and/or by ruling that such laws as Prop H8 are unconstitutional -- would ensure that couples who marry in one state would have the marriage recognized in any other state.

YOU are the one who is clearly "in way over your head" -- as you cannot differentiate between marriage and holy matrimony.

LoneRanger: the only legal marriage is a civil marriage. I can explain it to you if you'll engage in a little thought experiment. Let's say you meet a consenting adult of the opposite sex and fall madly in love. You have a bridal shower and a bachelor party. You have a wedding conducted by a minister or priest or pastor or rabbi in the biggest house of worship in your city in front of all your family, friends, neighbors, and coworkers. If you have done all this, are you "legally married" if you haven't also gone to the courthouse or the city hall and obtained a marriage license? No, you're not.

Erin.....what are we going to do with you.......a marriage license is just that a marriage license. A CIVIL MARRIAGE is prefomed by a civil servant as in a Justice of the Peace or a Court Judge.

"In all states in the United States, it is possible to obtain a civil marriage. Such ceremonies are conducted before a local civil authority, such as a mayor, judge, deputy marriage commissioner or other public official. It is not uncommon for these ceremonies make mention of a deity, but most do not reference any specific religion. Many of these ceremonies take place in the town hall or local courthouse. As part of such ceremonies, a religious official such as a rabbi, pastor, or qadi may be given the authority to conduct the marriage by the state, thus unifying the religious with the civil ceremony.

Well glad to see you back here my little buddy. The only thing your little thought process has shown us is that whether it is a civil marriage or a religious marriage a couple needs to buy a marriage license.I never said any different.

The statement that "the only legal marriages are civil marriages" is totally false.

"In all states in the United States, it is possible to obtain a civil marriage. Such ceremonies are conducted before a local civil authority, such as a mayor, judge, deputy marriage commissioner or other public official" What part of this are you not understanding. If you would like I can break the sentence down for you and define all the words......

Ministers, rabbis, priests, etc., also perform civil marriages -- the wording is included in the ceremony of holy matrimony. Why do you think the words "...by the power vested in me by the state of [whatever], I now pronounce you husband and wife" are included at the end of such ceremonies? People who marry in churches or synagogues or other houses of worship in this country do not have to have a separate civil ceremony performed by a civil servant in order to have their marriage legalized, as the minister, rabbi, or priest is acting as a representative of the state when s/he marries the couple -- if they have a civil marriage license. Priests, ministers, rabbis, etc., may perform such ceremonies without the marriage license, but there are few who will do so any more.

Your quote says it quite plainly: "As part of such ceremonies, a religious official such as a rabbi, pastor, or qadi may be given the authority to conduct the marriage by the state, thus unifying the religious with the civil ceremony." That means that the rabbi, pastor, qadi, etc., may conduct the ceremony instead of the civil servant -- and it can be conducted at a house of worship instead of at a courthouse, judge's chambers, or other non-religious location.

"That means that the rabbi, pastor, qadi, etc., may conduct the ceremony instead of the civil servant -- and it can be conducted at a house of worship instead of at a courthouse, judge's chambers, or other non-religious location." DUH,....that is why they call it a religious ceremony/marriage

You can not get married without a "marriage license" who ever preforms the civil/religious ceremony must sign the license in order for the marriage to be valid. The only way a couple can marry without a marriage license is if they are just renewing their vows.......

LoneRanger, millions of people in this country get married without a pastor, rabbi, priest, etc., present, and they do not marry in houses of worship. Millions of people in this country get married by a pastor, priest, rabbi, etc., in houses of worship. Yet ALL of those people must have a civil marriage license, issued by the state, in order for their marriages to be considered legal and to be recognized by the state and federal governments. And ALL of those marriage licenses say something like "Certificate of Marriage" or "Marriage License" at the top, NOT "Certificate of Holy Matrimony" or "Certificate of Civil Marriage" or "License for Civil Marriage".

The only way a couple can marry without a marriage license is if they are just renewing their vows.......

WRONG. There are a few pastors, priests, rabbis, etc., who will perform marriage ceremonies for people who just want a religious ceremony, and do not care about state or federal recognition of their marriage.

You are not making any sense.........

"millions of people in this country get married without a pastor, rabbi, priest, etc., present, and they do not marry in houses of worship. Millions of people in this country get married by a pastor, priest, rabbi, etc., in houses of worship.".....never said they did or didn't.....

"Yet ALL of those people must have a civil marriage license, issued by the state, in order for their marriages to be considered legal and to be recognized by the state and federal governments"...I said everyone has to buy a MARRIAGE LICENSE" to have a legal marriage......

"And ALL of those marriage licenses say something like "Certificate of Marriage" or "Marriage License" at the top, NOT "Certificate of Holy Matrimony" or "Certificate of Civil Marriage" or "License for Civil Marriage"....You are the one calling the marriage license a civil marriage license and then you say they are NOT called License for Civil Marriage?????? dude you need to get on the same page as your brain....

"There are a few pastors, priests, rabbis, etc., who will perform marriage ceremonies for people who just want a religious ceremony, and do not care about state or federal recognition of their marriage.".....DUH, didn't you just say in order for a marriage to be legal the couple must have a marriage license? So obviously your example here is of an illegal marriage.

We are done......

.I said everyone has to buy a MARRIAGE LICENSE" to have a legal marriage.

You keep referring to "civil marriage" as not being "marriage" -- yet they are clearly the same thing.

.You are the one calling the marriage license a civil marriage license and then you say they are NOT called License for Civil Marriage?????

And again, you miss the point: YOU keep insisting that "civil marriage" and "marriage" are two different things. I did that to illustrate the point that legally, "civil marriage" IS "marriage" in this country -- and ONLY "civil marriage" is legal marriage in this country.

DUH, didn't you just say in order for a marriage to be legal the couple must have a marriage license? So obviously your example here is of an illegal marriage.

Where did I say that such marriages are legal?

"You keep referring to "civil marriage" as not being "marriage" -- yet they are clearly the same thing."....You have got to be kidding me!!!!!!! All this crap because you can't read!!!!!!! I HAVE NEVER said civil marriage was not a marriage!!!!!!!!! SHOW ME WHERE I SAID CIVIL MARRIAGES WERE NOT MARRIAGES

Now pay attention I am typing really slow.....I said the gay civil marriage is not equal to the straight marriage. THERE IS NO MARRIAGE EQUALITY. Did I type that to fast? Even though a gay couple can legaly get married in WA their marriage rights do not equal that of a straight couple.

The statement that "the only legal marriages are civil marriages" is totally false.

YOU were the one who said that, LoneRanger -- and you were, and are still, WRONG. The only legal marriages in this country are civil marriages.

erin said in post 1.87 "LoneRanger, since the US is a secular nation, not a theocracy, the only legal marriage IS civil marriage -- what your cult or any other chooses to recognize as "holy matrimony" is its own business, not the government's."....I think that this proves that you do in fact have a reading problem......

One more time for the intellectually challenged.....There are two types of marriages, a civil marriage and a religious marriage. A civil ceremony and a religious ceremony. As long as the people/couples have a marriage license their marriage is legal. So you statement, not mine, that the only legal marriage IS a civil marriage is FALSE!!!!!!!

LoneRanger, the government only views it as a civil marriage -- and when a couple marries in a church with a civil marriage license, they are civilly and religiously married. However, the government is only concerned with the civil marriage. That is why the only legal marriages are civil marriages -- because as far as the government is concerned, ALL legal marriages are civil marriages.

Oh great one who is a former paralegal who speaks three different languages and who has a Bachelor degree in history.....ha, ha, ha, ha ...Common sense says if the Government authorizes Church leaders to preform marriage ceremonies they must recognize them as legal.religious marriages are legal.

BTW: I am still waiting for you to show me where I said civil marriages were not marriages. You did say that being a former paralegal and speaking three different languages that you didn't need the likes of me explaining what some thing means.....right, so show me where I said that.....Oh, and let's not forget you said the right to vote was a Civil Right......ha, ha, ha,.....What a joke.......ha.ha,ha,ha,ha,.....

Common sense says if the Government authorizes Church leaders to preform marriage ceremonies they must recognize them as legal.religious marriages are legal.

And your "common" sense (which you do not seem to possess to any degree) would be WRONG, as the government is expressly prohibited by the First Amendment from recognizing religious marriages, as according to Walz v. Tax Commission, government cannot entangle itself with religion; the Court further outlined three points (in Lemon v. Kurtzman) to be applied to any government action:

1. the statute (or practice) has a secular purpose;
2. its principal or primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion; and
3. it does not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

If any of those three criteria are not met, the government's involvement is unconstitutional. That applies to state governments, as well. Therefore, no state or federal government can recognize religious marriages -- ALL marriages that are conducted with civil marriage licenses are civil marriages in the eyes of the government. What any cult chooses to recognize as marriage is not the government's business. This is also why the federal government cannot force churches to perform same-sex marriages, just as it cannot force Catholic churches to marry divorced people -- it would create an "excessive government entanglement with religion".

You keep talking about the "right to vote" -- where was that discussed? Again: you just make up @!$%# as you go along.

"You keep talking about the "right to vote" -- where was that discussed? Again: you just make up @!$%# as you go along."

"ErinNJ..... NJ Gov. Christie vetoes same-sex marriage bill

Because the Supreme Court has said that marriage is a "basic civil right".

Say it one more time for me: The Supreme Court has said that marriage is a "basic civil right".

OK, just one more time only a little louder: THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID THAT MARRIAGE IS A "BASIC CIVIL RIGHT".

And it is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment.

Say it one more time for me: And it is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment.

OK, just one more time only a little louder: AND IT IS A "BASIC CIVIL RIGHT" UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT.

The case in which they first said those words was Loving v. Virginia.

Say it one more time for me: The case in which they first said those words was Loving v. Virginia.

OK, just one more time only a little louder: THE CASE IN WHICH THEY FIRST SAID THOSE WORDS WAS LOVING V. VIRGINIA.

Civil Liberties v. Civil Rights
Civil Liberties – prevents government intrusion into individual lives.

Free speech, free press, free religion

Civil Rights – requires government to ensure equal treatment of citizens

Voting rights, racial and gender discrimination.

And the Supreme Court's word on this STILL carries far more weight than your pathetic say-so.

#337.10 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:52 PM CST

LR: You say it's no big deal, but sooner or later some gay couple will put it to the test by suing a church....

Oh rubbish. Churches discriminate against women, and their right to do that within their cult buildings has been upheld. And that's only one example of the hate and discrimination they practice, and are protected to do so. And, their followers put up with that crap, so it's their own fault. There are more than enough churches already, many of them BuyBull-based, many of them christian, for any gay couple to be able to find a suitable cult and cult minister to marry them in the eyes of whatever cult god they choose. They haev no need or standing to sue churches.

Red herring. Epic Fail.

Hey if you want to fool yourself into thinking you have marriage equality then go right a head and do it.

There are a couple of problems with your sentence. First, you're continuing to ignore what I've already pointed out to you several times, that civil rights are not like light switches. Your repeated reversion to a simplistic interpretation of a complex condition blinds you to the reality. Second, I have full marriage equality, nationwide.

So far you have not been able to prove it.

Incorrect. Rather I've very clearly outlined the nature of the situation, and from there it is clear that folks in many states have a great deal of marriage equality, despite your intransigent denial of that fact.

you talk about all these churches that say they will marry gays as proof yet the Churches are in states that do not have same sex marriages so using them as proof is null and void because the fact of the matter is they Can't marry gay couples.

This is another bit of self-serving delusion. The issue we were discussing was, for the third time now, "The idea that homosexuals cannot get religiously married is ridiculous." Your repeated attempts to try to move the goalposts evidently because you're unhappy with being proven wrong are petty, and verging on puerile.

I actually have proved that homosexuals have the ability to get religiously married in every state. What I find strange is that you haven't made clear why you are working so hard to deny it? What is your motivation for the denial? What is the underlying point you're trying to make with your intransigence?

Maybe you should stop using the term "marriage equality" because until everything is equal there is no marriage equality.

No. Marriage equality is the correct word for the goal. Again, I'm sure you have some motivation for your objection to it, but you've done too good of a job hiding your motivations.

And my original statement of civil marriage and marriage are not equal, stands.

Of course civil marriage and holy matrimony are two completely different, unrelated things. Why did you think that I didn't believe that, myself?

Yank,

You still haven't answered the relevance of the percent of population that is gay, on the question of marriage.

You presented a lot of flowery, twisting, language for what is basically a yes or no question.

Does the percent of population that is gay have any bearing on whether they should marry???

You also didn't answer about the "gay agenda". What are the logistics of the "gay agenda"??? How do they come up with it? Who comes up with it? When do they present it??? Do they mail it to pundits? Publish it????

Come on, answer the questions, please

And if you think that pointing out how your posts wreak of phoniness is a personal insult, well I'm sorry to have upset your delicate sensibilities. However, I'm not willing to let you turn pointing out the truth of what your posts say, into my presenting a personal attack.

LoneR: the tone of your posts is repeatedly offensive. I refer to things like "oh great one" and "6'2" ha ha ha ha"; this kind of behavior is childish and convinces no one that your position is valid. You take any argument or evidence contrary to your position as some kind of personal attack, yet you belittle and ridicule others. If you want to participate in a discussion of the issues here, by all means to do, but grow up a little. This is not a forum for seventh grade level insults.

Anthony: I have a relationship with Jesus Christ and this is the Word of God.

That is only your unprovable, mythical claim about your cult belief and one of your mythical cult creatures. It simply isn't relevant to this discussion. But, how nice for you that you can have such an intimate relationship with another man...even though it exists in your mind. It's too bad you cannot afford others the same latitude to have a meaningful same-sex relationship that they would like to enjoy in their lives!

little buddy......"the tone of your posts is repeatedly offensive. I refer to things like "oh great one" and "6'2" ha ha ha ha"; this kind of behavior is childish and convinces no one that your position is valid."

and you said...."LoneRanger: learn the difference between "lose" and "loose" so we can stop laughing at you.

#1.71 - Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:51 PM CST"

it appears to me you are the pot calling the kettle black You are the one who said you were 6'2 and not little, I can't help it if I find that funny.......Isn't it funny how you can enjoy laughing at people for their short comings or their mistakes and then when they laugh at you because you can't or don't understand the joke it is not funny any more. You don't like getting laughed at do you. it is disrespectful isn't it. It is disrespectful just like you belittling that person for the improper use of Lets vs Let's.......

The next time you want to correct me on my word usage a simple "BTW it's lose and not loose" , will suffice.

As for me saying Oh great one, I make no apologies for it. The person claims to be a former paralegal and thinks that the right to vote is a Civil Right. When I called him on it he accused me of lying about it. Once I posted his post he has gone into hiding. This person doesn't know that right to marry is covered under the Tenth Amendment not the Fourteenth Amendment and he has said that I have said things and he can not quote me or show any proof of it. So no I have no respect for this person.....You would think that a person who claims to be a former paralegal, who speaks three different languages and has a Bachelors Degree in history would know what their Civil rights are and what their Civil Liberties are......he doesn't know......

And I'd think you'd know "Erin" is a she not a he.

he she is irrelevant it does not excuse their lack of knowledge. If a person is going to say things like "You keep talking about the "right to vote" -- where was that discussed? Again: you just make up @!$%# as you go along." male of female they need to back it up otherwise they are nothing more than a LIAR. And I have never hidden the fact that I have no respect for a LIAR.

One mis-quote might be a mistake, but four mis-quotes/lies are not an accident, they are done for the sole purpose of discrediting another person....

"Second, I have full marriage equality, nationwide." No you don't. No one has "full marriage equality" What happened to your light switch affect? Or does that only work when you use it for your own point of view?

"Incorrect. Rather I've very clearly outlined the nature of the situation, and from there it is clear that folks in many states have a great deal of marriage equality, despite your intransigent denial of that fact." If it is not in all states it is not marriage equality......Like I said marriage equality for the gay couple stops at the state line. Your term "many states" represents what five or seven states" How is that marriage equality if their marriage is only legal/recognized by five/seven out of fifty states............

"This is another bit of self-serving delusion. The issue we were discussing was, for the third time now, "The idea that homosexuals cannot get religiously married is ridiculous." Your repeated attempts to try to move the goalposts evidently because you're unhappy with being proven wrong are petty, and verging on puerile"......No,it is you who came into the middle of my conversation with another person about marriage equality, and redirected the subject to one sentence in my statement. So you moved the "goal Posts" I just followed the ball...

"No. Marriage equality is the correct word for the goal. Again, I'm sure you have some motivation for your objection to it, but you've done too good of a job hiding your motivations.".......Marriage equality is the GOAL is different from claiming FULL marriage equality You can say you want marriage equality and be correct but you can not say we havemarriage equality and be correct. That has been my point all along and has never changed. Unlike your light switch analogy, that went from wanting marriage equality to having FULL marriage equality nationwide.....

"you're unhappy with being proven wrong are petty..." I have no problem with being wrong...I have a few time changed my point of view because some one on newsvine presented a better and more right way of looking at some thing....I like to think that as old as I am I have forgotten more things than most of these young kids will ever know....and my favorite, I may not always be wright, but I am never wrong.......

LR: the person whose posts in this discussion are misrepresentations is YOU.

"Second, I have full marriage equality, nationwide." No you don't. No one has "full marriage equality"

Yes I do.

What happened to your light switch affect?

My personal marriage is lucky enough to be in the fully ON position, one of the options I outlined.

Or does that only work when you use it for your own point of view?

It works perfectly; stop trying to distract attention away from the issue.

"Incorrect. Rather I've very clearly outlined the nature of the situation, and from there it is clear that folks in many states have a great deal of marriage equality, despite your intransigent denial of that fact." If it is not in all states it is not marriage equality......Like I said marriage equality for the gay couple stops at the state line. Your term "many states" represents what five or seven states" How is that marriage equality if their marriage is only legal/recognized by five/seven out of fifty states............

Back to your indefensible black-and-white view of everything. Try a different approach, because I've already explained why your "logic" of this sort fails.

"This is another bit of self-serving delusion. The issue we were discussing was, for the third time now, "The idea that homosexuals cannot get religiously married is ridiculous." Your repeated attempts to try to move the goalposts evidently because you're unhappy with being proven wrong are petty, and verging on puerile"......No,it is you who came into the middle of my conversation with another person about marriage equality, and redirected the subject tto one sentece in my statement. So you moved the "goal Posts" I just followed the ball...

I outlined the goal posts that I was commenting about. If you didn't want to discuss the related issue I raised, then you were free not to reply to my message.

"No. Marriage equality is the correct word for the goal. Again, I'm sure you have some motivation for your objection to it, but you've done too good of a job hiding your motivations.".......Marriage equality is the GOAL is different from claiming FULL marriage equality You can say you want marriage equality and be correct but you can not say we havemarriage equality and be correct. That has been my point all along and has never changed. Unlike your light switch analogy, that went from wanting marriage equality to having FULL marriage equality nationwide....

I have full marriage equality nationwide. I don't know why you are having a problem understanding that.

OK as the saying goes put up or shut up....prove where I have lied........

"I have full marriage equality nationwide. I don't know why you are having a problem understanding that."....... I guess the question that begs to be asked is what is your definition of "full marriage equality" and since when does your personal (I have) not include the rest of the people. In my world equality is for me and for everyone not just one individual (I have) or one group.......If one group of people does not have every single marriage right that you have nation wide then you do not have marriage equality.......

Example:.....a gay and straight couple get married in WA. the straight couple can move to any of the fifty states and their marriage is recognized and legal. A gay couple can not do that so again explain to me how that equates to marriage equality and if they can't move to another state and have their marriage recognized as legal how on earth are they equal to your full marriage equality nation wide.......time to get a new light switch......

prove where I have lied

For one thing, you keep referring to some discussion that we had about the right to vote. We never discussed the right to vote; you mentioned it in passing as one of the "rights" or "liberties" we have as Americans, but we never actually discussed that. We were discussing whether the right to marry is a right or liberty, and if laws against gay marriage fall under discrimination.

And I have never hidden the fact that I have no respect for a LIAR...One mis-quote might be a mistake, but four mis-quotes/lies are not an accident, they are done for the sole purpose of discrediting another person

Show us where you have been misquoted. I, too, have no respect for liars -- but you never had my respect, even before you proved yourself to be one, as I also have no respect for those who you call "posers" -- ones who purport to have knowledge but in reality relish their own ignorance.

And you have lost ALL of those arguments, in addition to lying about the topics under discussion. Like Walt says, you move the goalposts every time you lose another argument.

BTW, just so you have my full credentials: I am a straight, married woman, with two bachelor's and two master's degrees, and I speak three languages fluently: English, French, and Japanese.

Just for you ErinNJ.......

"You keep referring to "civil marriage" as not being "marriage" -- yet they are clearly the same thing. #1.97 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:26 PM CST".....I have never said anything this stupid. I said Civil marriages are not marriage equality.....

"You keep talking about the "right to vote" -- where was that discussed? Again: you just make up @!$%# as you go along. #1.103 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:51 PM CST. "......here is where you said it just below on the next quote.....

"Civil Rights – requires government to ensure equal treatment of citizens

Voting rights, racial and gender discrimination. in post #1.104 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:22 PM CST. ".....for the third or fourth time I did not make that up......

"BTW, I don't recall discussing the right to vote anywhere. Is this how you always "debate" (if you can call it that, as your "arguments" are so pathetic and easily turned aside): by making things up as you go along? #337.14 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:38 PM CST"....just look at the last quote.....

",...and of course, let us not forget that EVERYONE must marry in a church (according to you). #337.14 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:38 PM CST".....please show me where I said this.......you did say according to me......so prove this is not a lie....

So now show me where I have lied........

LoneR: you're persistent disconnect with the reality of this discussion is becoming frightening. Between your absolute disregard for what you and others have said and your repeated resort to all caps and boldface, I'm beginning to fear you might be violent.

"LR: the person whose posts in this discussion are misrepresentations is YOU."....back it up I have backed up every thing I have said,,,,,why can't you do the same.......You and I both know that you can't do it, because if you could you would have done it long ago......

My guess is you and your freinds are trying to taunt me into saying or doing something that will get me suspended from newsvine....Well keep trying because unlike you and erin, when I call some one out on a lie I back it up.

As for the bold type, in case it has gone over your head my little buddy, for the most part it represents the other persons words/quotes........So if bold type and cap letters frighten you just maybe the Internet is not the place for you to be......

As for being/staying on topic....you have posted six times on this conversation (not topic) and only one of your post had any thing to do with the topic...Again you are the pot calling the kettle black......Are you trying to tell me you also might be violent.......or maybe you just trying to scare yourself.....

CONDESCENDING SARAH...read the posts at what point did I ever say the % of Gays in the general population made any difference to the argument of whether they should or do have the right to be married? Just point that out.

You never asked me to provide you with research on the Gay Agenda you only claimed it doesn't exist....do your own research....I do mine. Questions Answered.

Now if you think you can come in and sneak a post past me in which you claim that by just pointing out the errors in my posts you were not calling me names such as liar, phony, conservative etc then of course you are sadly mistaken.... so let me make myself extremely clear with no metaphors, code words, or color coding.

DID YOU TAKE CONDESCENDING 101 AND EXCERCISES IN HOLIER THAN THOU ATTITUDES IN JUNIOR COLLEGE OR DOES IT JUST COME NATURAL TO YOU....YOU GOT YOUR CUTESY LITTLE PHOTO, AND YOUR CUTESY LITTLE HAIR CUT, YOUR CUTESY SMILE, YOUR CUTESY LITTLE DAUGHTER AND EACH AND EVERY POSTS HAS THIS I'M CUTESY SO I CAN SPEAK DOWN TO EVERYONE AS IF YOU ARE ABOVE ALL THE BS AND ONLY PROVIDE COMMENTARY TO PRESENT THE TRUTH FROM YOUR HOLIER THAN THOU POINT OF VIEW. YOU ARE FULL OF IT, AND YOURSELF JUST ANOTHER KEYBOARD COWGIRL WITH BORING LIFE AND HALF A BRAIN.....and straight after I post this I am going to hit the ignore button and send you to the useless bin where you, your opinions, and your holier than attitude belong forever more.

Gee, Sarah, I think Yank just insulted you.

I'm sure you'll need lots of therapy to deal with the crushing blow he just dealt.

/s

A Yank.......And they called my posts frightening.....My hat goes off to you and I bow in awe,....You are the King......LOL

In my world equality is for me and for everyone not just one individual (I have) or one group.......If one group of people does not have every single marriage right that you have nation wide then you do not have marriage equality.......

Okay, now I see where you've been coming from through all this. Why didn't you say that in the first place?

Given this different (and arguably more precise) interpretation of the term, I agree with you completely. Having the full set of rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage doesn't literally mean having marriage equality. By your (again, rather precise) logic, no one has marriage equality in the United States. Chris Christie doesn't have marriage equality, and indeed he himself has contributed to withholding marriage equality from himself.

Only a figurative use of the term would apply in the context I used the term, i.e., marriage equality meaning having the rights everyone would have if all couples who love each other were granted that same respect and dignity.

LoneR: you're persistent disconnect with the reality of this discussion is becoming frightening.

As seen above, I think LoneR is perhaps inadvertently being evasive about the true meaning of the words and thoughts that he's expressing, making it seem like there is some important point being made, when there really isn't one.

Oh, so you can't answer the questions, Yank, now I get it.

And why, on God's green earth, should I prove your point for you. You're claiming there's a gay agenda, you have to prove it. And really, the only people who feel I'm speaking down to them are those who are insecure and/or are losing the argument and getting called out on their BS.

And I much prefer the word cherubic, as opposed to cutesy. And, now that I look at it, that does look like it could be my daughter, but in reality it's my sister, she was just sitting down in the picture. Pretty funny though, I guess that's why I've gotten a bunch of soccer mom/milf comments, huh?

Anyway, I have a beer to go cry into, because you hurt my feelings Yank. Anyone can see I'm very clearly cherubic, not cutesy.

Wow, LS, I go away for a weekend and miss all the fun.

Richard ...I think we pretty much agree that the Churches are not allowed to discriminate against a person say based on their race from entering or worshipping in their church.

I'm not sure I do, actually. Can you point me to a modern-day case where a church attempted to reject someone in such a way but was forced to accept the person by a court?

Faith-based organizations (such as adoption centers) are constrained by anti-discrimition laws when they accept government money, but churches are a different creature. Instead, churches generally support anti-discrimination policies because a) they usually agree with them, and b) because the public backlash would be damaging.

As a general thesis, I think you are correct that homosexual marriages are still second to heterosexual marriages. They are not as nationally transferrable among the states and not everyone who would officiate a heterosexual marriage would do so for a homosexual marriage. The first issue would be resolved were homosexual marriage specifically protected under the US Constitution (thereby invalidating state constitutional prohibitions) or some comparable legislative action, but not the second.

In the stricted sense, perfect marriage equality is probably not achievable. The government cannot enforce this because that would violate the protection on religion and lead to a whole host of other consequences. I would argue that equal protection and recognition under civil law is a better goal.

I'm pretty sure that church can absolutely discriminate, with regard to membership, at least.

Richard ...Welcome back, and sorry you missed all the drammmmmma. LOL

"In the strictest sense, perfect marriage equality is probably not achievable. The government cannot enforce this because that would violate the protection on religion and lead to a whole host of other consequences. I would argue that equal protection and recognition under civil law is a better goal.".......I wish I could put my thoughts into words as well as you do. This is all I have been trying to say. As long as there are religious marriages, marriage equality, will not exsist.

See, if you had not gone away for the weekend none of this drama would have happened so really, all this drama is your fault.....LOL

Richard,

Considering marriage has nothing to do with religion, and is a contractual property agreement predating organized religion, marriage equality and the 1st Amendment will never be in conflict.

What you're alluding to is Holy Matrimony, a Christian sacrament that shadows marriage, and the church is allowed to discriminate in it's religious practices all it wants. That's why the Catholic church is allowed to not perform the sacrament of Holy Matrimony when two people who've been divorced want to remarry.

This is why you can be married, legally, without ever having to enter a church. Because it's not religious.

You may say it prettier, but you're still just as wrong.

See, if you had not gone away for the weekend none of this drama would have happened so really, all this drama is your fault.....LOL

And would that really have been more fun? Also, thanks for correcting my typo on 'strictest'.

Looks like Sarah and Yank are still going at each other (careful Yank, she's a tiger). I'd like to chime in on this one.

I've seen estimates of the US LGBT population ranging from 1% to 25%. Gay Life (gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm) put the number at about 3.8%, which is more in line with Yank. The Williams Institute (whose website appears to be down) put the number at 3.5% as of April 2011.

Gallup had a look at this issue back in 2002 and came up with a nice fatalistic summary (w w w.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx):

It may be that no one will ever know for sure. To some people, homosexuality is a matter of perception and definition. Furthermore, many people have trouble admitting their homosexuality to themselves, much less to a researcher.

One of the difficulties is that sexual identity is somewhat personal, and the social welcome such people too often receive will tend to make estimations too low. It's entirely possible that the true number is closer to 10%. Happily for today's conversation, the true number is moot. It doesn't matter whether the LGBT population is 10% or 0.00001%. Equal protection still applies (as much as is possible).

I might add that 3.5% of ~312 million is still an awful lot of people. If that percentage is globally consistent, 3.5% of about 7 billion is also a lot of people. It's nothing to easily dismiss.

Sarah...it sounds like 1. you think marriage is a Civil Right, and 2. religious marriages are not legal, even though all fifty states, count them, all fifty states recongnize religious marriages as being legal.

Marriage is a civil liberty and granted to a person under the Tenth Amendment.

to be continued....

You may say it prettier, but you're still just as wrong.

Not quite where I was going. The point that LoneRanger was making, and where I agree, is that heterosexual couples can get married in any church in, for example, Massashusetts, but homosexual couples have more limited options.

You are quite right that marriage and Holy Matrimony are not the same thing, but they tend to coincide. Many people get married in a church because it's traditional. That option may not be as readily available for LGBT couples. A Catholic LGBT couple might be stuck going to a justice of the peace to have their ceremony performed whereas their Catholic heterosexual neighbors can have their priest do it.

This is a limitation outside of civil law. In the above example, the homosexual and heterosexual marriages are just as valid and legal (at least within MA - and that's another equal protection issue), but the options available to pursue them are different. There is no remedy here even if LGBT marriage is protected by the US Constitution - the government cannot require any church to perform the ceremony for anyone.

............WARNING VIEWER DISCETION IS ADVISED.............

The words in the following post are dangerous so please DO NOT TRY THEM AT HOME.......

Disclaimer.......no cats were killed in the typing of this post

In the last post this happened...."Sarah...it sounds like 1. you think marriage is a Civil Right, and 2. religious marriages are not legal, even though all fifty states, count them, all fifty states recongnize religious marriages as being legal.

Marriage is a civil liberty and granted to a person under the Tenth Amendment."

Now with on with the rest of the post.....

"The Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The governmental powers not listed in the Constitution for the national government are powers that the states, or the people of those states, can have.

Examples: The states determine the rules for marriages, divorces, driving licenses, voting, state taxes, job and school requirements, rules for police and fire departments, and many more."

For more information or questions be sure to tune in next week for another spine chilling episode of....So You Think You Know Your Rights......

religious marriages are not legal, even though all fifty states, count them, all fifty states recongnize religious marriages as being legal.

The distinction I think Sarah is making is between marriage and matrimony. The proper term for religious marriage is Holy Matrimony. That is not a legal term. To make such marriages legal, they include a Marriage Certificate, which is a legal document recognized in all 50 states (unless you're gay).

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1 (1967)

Marriage is a civil right under the 14th Amendment.

Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage.

While the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on same-sex marriage, it is unlikely that it would overturn the foundational premise that marriage is a civil right. Lower courts, even when relying on disparate state-level constitutional language, have consistently acknowledged the right to marry. Legal arguments for excepting same-sex marriage from the definition of marriage as a civil right have rested, instead, on the argument that the state has a compelling interest in restricting same-sex marriage that justifies limiting the right to marry (an argument that was also used to justify restrictions on interracial marriage), and/or that laws permitting civil unions provide a substantially equivalent standard to marriage that satisfies equal protection standards.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/f/Is-Marriage-a-Civil-Right.htm

The 10th Amendment has been all but moot since we passed the 14th Amendment, which applied the Bill of Rights to the states. There hasn't even been a case in front of SCOTUS pertaining to the 10th since the 60's.

Equal protection and privacy are civil rights. Marriage is legal. To not have equal protection pertaining to marriage, is to not have equal protection under the law. Also, see the above post. Marriage has been ruled a civil right 14 times.

They don't recognize them as religious. They recognize them as legal contracts. If you were to just engage in Holy Matrimony, it would not be recognized.

Richard,

You would only be right, if the LGBT community was attempting to engage in gay Holy Matrimony. They're not. They want marriage, which is completely secular. That means, equality in this area is simple. Allow them equal protection. Done. That's it. The religious aspect has no bearing or place in any argument pertaining to gay marriage.

And you missed what might have been the greatest post of all time. Check out Yank's last one. Apparently he thinks I'm cute.

ErinNJ....where is he proof that I am a liar.......?

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942)"..... You keep using the four words out of this sentence as proof of the decision making marriage a 14th Amendment yet you never bring up the Skinner vs OK ruling as proof of what you say. Any one can take four words out of a sentence and twist the meaning to validate their views. It is called taking it out of context. The whole sentence has to do with forced sterilization and mans right to reproduce. It is not declaing into law that marriage is now a 14th Amendment law.......

Even you have debunk your own 14th Amendment view. Remember when I gave the ridiculous post saying the sentenced meant marriage was only there so man could reproduce....And you jumped in to tell me how stupid I was and then explained what the sentence meant.....Remember, Here let me help you with your own words.....Quote from ErinNJ..."-- it also means our own personal existence and survival, as in our own needs for satisfaction and happiness with ourselves in order to exist and survive."

See when you read and define the WHOLE sentence it takes on a whole new meaning that is different from just using the four words in the middle of the sentence and your own words prove that......

Here is something else to think about, actually just common sense, If in fact marriage was a Civil Right under the 14th Amendment then the states could not make laws regulating marriage. You would not need to buy a license, the State Constitutions could not define marriage And as you have said so many time before YOU CAN NOT VOTE ON A CIVIL RIGHT. Yet in NJ, they are voting on the definition of marriage. But according to you, they can't do that, so are we to believe you know better than NJ knows its own laws.......

Lone,

Your argument hasn't been valid since 1860. That was the whole reason for passing the 14th Amendment. The 10th is known as the segregation amendment, because of the very legal thinking you just illustrated.

I'm guessing you watch Mike Huckabee, he's notorious for spreading that bit of misinformation.

Prior to the 14th, the Bill of Rights only pertained to the Federal Government, and the individual states could discriminate in all sorts of God awful ways. That's why they passed the 14th, which is the incorporation amendment, all but nullifying the 10th.

Erin...that post you copied and pasted was Tom Head's opinion. He seems to have left out some important words....."The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage ,".....He left out "because of racial discrimination"

The whole decision says Virginia can not stop any one from getting married based on their race.

You are focusing on only the marriage and not the fact the court case was brought about because they were discriminated against based on their race.

Lone,

If it were true, that the license negates the right, than what about guns??? You need a license for a gun, does that now mean that it isn't a civil right? We have laws regulating guns? And the only law regulating marriage per se, not the complications surrounding it but marriage itself, is DOMA, which is clearly unconstitutional.

You would only be right, if the LGBT community was attempting to engage in gay Holy Matrimony. They're not.

True. True. I'm not arguing that point. I'm merely stating that the options open to homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are different and that the distinction is based on the gender of the partners. Besides which, the LGBT community as a whole might not be after Holy Matrimony, but that's not to say that its members aren't affected by it.

My wife & I were married at one of the most beautiful campgrounds in WA (Deception Pass) by justice of the peace. Neither one of us wanted anything to do with the church. At the time, one of my wife's coworkers told her that our marriage wasn't real because we weren't being married in a church by a pastor. In a legal sense, that woman was full of crap. In the religious sense, however, she was right: I am not married under Holy Matrimony.

As far as I'm concerned, Holy Matrimony can take a flying leap. On the other hand, If I were Christian and trying to marry another guy, this might be a serious problem for me. I might have to choose between my church and my love. That's the inequality I'm talking about. No matter what the government does, that inequality will remain as long as Holy Matrimony has significance in marriage. I don't see that changing any time soon.

And you missed what might have been the greatest post of all time. Check out Yank's last one. Apparently he thinks I'm cute.

Awww. That's adorable! I was thinking about posting my picture, but now I'm worried I'll get accused of elitism because I'm bald and wear glasses.

Sara......the right to bear arms, the right to vote , the right to marry, the right to life, liberty, and property, the right to free speech, the right to privacy, and so on are all Civil Liberties. Your Civil Liberties are the first ten Amendments of the US Constitution, also know and called your Bill of Rights.

"Civil rights pertain to the concept of how an individual is treated by others.

Civil liberties pertain to the actual freedoms that an individual enjoys under a Constitution."

Example of Civil Rights...No one in any state can say I will not sell you some thing because you are a woman. That is a/YOUR Civil Rights protecting you against Discrimination. as set fourth in the 14th Amendment.

Example of Civil Liberties.....The state can take away that house you own if you are convicted of a felony drug charge. Your Civil Liberties are regulated by state and federal laws they can be taken away from you.

Guns are the same way...Your Civil Rights says, No one can stop you from owning a gun because you are a woman. But your Civil Liberties says, They can stop you from owning a gun if you are a convicted felon.

Richard,

I get your point. Religion is capable of discriminating, and I look at it from a female standpoint, and then try to see it through a gay person's eyes. I know that the church will always discriminate against females, so I tell it to take a flying leap. I'm assuming that for all but the most pious gay people, that would be a common feeling.

Lol, I'm waiting for the dude that comes up with a creative way of condescending to me. Like I haven't heard, "cutesy" before. And, I highly suggest you post your picture. It's so much fun, and you can all but predict the reactions. Good times, good times.

Lone,

What on earth does any of that have to do with the application of the 10th Amendment?

Privacy = Civil Right, 9th and 4th Amendments

Equal Protection = Civil Right, 14th Amendment.

Marriage = Contract Law

Ergo...

Contract Law (Not Equally Applied) =/= Equal Protection

Privacy (Not Equally Applied) =/= Equal Protection

Equal protection and privacy are civil rights. Marriage is legal. To not have equal protection pertaining to marriage, is to not have equal protection under the law.

Privacy = Civil Right, 9th and 4th Amendments"........Wrong The right to privacy is a civil liberty. If you are convicted of a felony you lose your right to privacy. While in prison you have no privacy, when you get out of prison you have no privacy because the cops can seach you body home car you are in any time they want without a warrent

Civil Rights = 14th Amendment

Civil Liberties = 1st Amendment., 2nd Amendment., 3rd Amendment., 4th Amendment., 5th.Amendment, 6th. Amendment, 7th. Amendment, 8th. Amendment, 9th. Amendment, and 10th Amendment

What part of the first Ten Amendments are your Civil Libeties did you not understand? They are not your Civil Rights.

"Marriage = Contract Law".....Wrong again, The US Constitution does not guarantee any one the right to a contract. NO ONE CAN FORCE ANYONE TO SIGN A CONTRACT. Each state has or makes laws governing contracts. That is what the Tenth Amendment is saying.

Civil Right protect you from the way people treat you. Marriage is not the way you are treated.

Civil Liberties are the act of doing/enjoying. People get married, people enjoy marriage ergo....mariiage is a Civil Liberty.

LoneR: way back a number of posts in your continuing rant you stated that states "determine the rules for. . . voting." Perhaps you haven't heard of the nineteenth or twenty-sixth amendments? And as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the fourteenth amendment made the tenth amendment in large part moot. You keep screaming that others are confusing civil rights with civil liberties when you have repeatedly--over and over again--been shown where the highest court in the land disagrees with you. Civil rights DO protect you from the way people (and the state) treat you and thus the state cannot "do you wrong" by refusing to issue you a marriage license based on the genders of the people applying for that license.

Perhaps this is oversimplifying things a bit, but I DID notice that the first ten amendments to the Constitution are referred to as the "Bill of Rights," NOT the "Bill of Liberties".

I think that LR must have been one of those kids that teachers refer to as "unteachable". He knows more about everything than the experts. Despite what nearly everyone says to the contrary, and the overwhelming abundance of evidence that contradicts him, he is right and everyone else is wrong.

I have dealt with 4-year-olds who are more rational and have a firmer grasp of reality than he does.

Little buddy.......the 19th Amendment say No one can stop a woman from voting and the state can not stop them from voting because they are a female, and the 26th amendment says any one 18 years old or older can vote and the state can not stop a person from voting based on their age. There is also the 15th, 17th, 23rd (?) Amendments that are about voting.

The right to vote is in the first Ten Amendments which are the Bill of Rights and your Civil Liberties. Your Civil Liberties can be taken away from you. A person convicted of a felony is NOT allowed to vote. By being convicted of a felony that person man/woman 18 years or older has lost their right to vote.

Because the US Constitution does not say you have the right to vote it falls under the Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The governmental powers not listed in the Constitution for the national government are powers that the states, or the people of those states, can have.

Examples: The states determine the rules for marriages, divorces, driving licenses, voting, state taxes, job and school requirements, rules for police and fire departments, and many more.

This is not rocket science, you should have learned it in school......you did go to school didn't you?

You would only be right, if the LGBT community was attempting to engage in gay Holy Matrimony. They're not.

To be fair, homosexuals do engage in "gay Holy Matrimony" in America, and unlike marriage, there is nothing anyone can do to prevent the from doing so.

It is called taking it out of context.

Wrong: It is use the basis of one assertion to prove all other assertions for which that basis provides foundation.

If in fact marriage was a Civil Right under the 14th Amendment then the states could not make laws regulating marriage.

Wrong: The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't prevent states from making laws regulating marriage - it prevents states from making laws that are unconstitutional in their regulation of marriage.

And as you have said so many time before YOU CAN NOT VOTE ON A CIVIL RIGHT.

Don't try to hide behind feigned confusion stemming from abbreviated thoughts. The full elaboration of this is, "Voters cannot vote to deprive anyone of a civil right." If you want a whole long set of messages where you get pats on the back for forcing everyone who has written the less precise statement you quoted to apologize to you for not being precise in their statements, then be upfront and ask for that.

You are focusing on only the marriage and not the fact the court case was brought about because they were discriminated against based on their race.

There is no reason for race to be treated any differently than any other characteristic for which there has been a pattern of unjust discrimination. That's how things like "status as a veteran of the Viet Nam era" got added to civil rights protections by implication. Equal protection under the law doesn't allow the government to protect some discriminated-against minorities and not others, without demonstrating that the minority is a danger to society.

That's the crux of the issue here: Since homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, and same-sex marriage doesn't actually harm marriage, there is no basis on which to justify discrimination against homosexuals or to withhold respect for same-sex marriage nationwide. The discrimination that goes on is, therefore, nothing more than an unjust and unconstitutional infliction of tyranny of the majority with impunity.

Walt.......your posts are getting harder and harder to understand. The more you try to impress us with your word usage the sillier you look. I am done with trying to understand what you are saying especially when this is the second time you have used a made up word.

"Don't try to hide behind feigned confusion stemming from abbreviated thoughts",,,,feigned is not a real word.....do you mean feign, feigner, feigningly, unfeigningly, or unfeignly? I have a hard enough time trying to teach the intellectually challenged people the difference between civil rights and civil liberties without having to give you english lessons.

You keep trying to impress us with your brilliance but you only dazzling us with your BS.........so please stop

Walt.......your posts are getting harder and harder to understand.

I take this to mean that you are finding it harder and harder to come up with new, baseless ways to try to refute what I'm writing. The reason why you're finding it difficult is that what I'm writing is accurate and on-target.

Also, please note that as someone who is declared as being in opposition to my perspective, you're not a reliable source of textual critique. If you are truly confused about something, then ask questions to learn about what I'm saying, rather than trying to make it sound like it doesn't make sense.

The more you try to impress us with your word usage the sillier you look.

More self-serving nonsense. I won't simplify what I write, for you, to make it so much less precise that it is therefore easy to object to it. Stop complaining and do the work to understand the points being made in opposition to what you wrote.

"Don't try to hide behind feigned confusion stemming from abbreviated thoughts",,,,feigned is not a real word.....do you mean feign, feigner, feigningly, unfeigningly, or unfeignly?

You're acting ridiculous.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feigned

You keep trying to impress us with your brilliance bit you only dazzling us with your BS.........

Keep trying to convince us of your "brilliance", while demonstrating an unwillingness to use a dictionary.

My apology and my mistake, feigned is a word, however there isn't anything ficticious about using her exact words. She has always said "you can not vote on civil rights"

Any way all this BS means nothing because nothing has changed.....

1. marriage is a civil liberty

2. states regulate the laws controlling civil liberties

3. If it were true that marriage was a Civil Right and what you say is true, and your exact words were QUOTE "... it prevents states from making laws that are unconstitutional in their regulation of marriage." Then the individual state constitutions could not define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. So NEWS FLASH:.....either your statement is incorrect or marriage is not a civil right....which is it?

If your statement is correct ,then that makes marrige is a civil liberty.....

If marriage is a civil right then your statement is incorrect because the state constitutions define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and that definition has not been rule on buy the Supreme Courts. If it had then none of the states could use the definition to stop gays from marrying...

Now you can use all the fancy words you want, you can even twist the words any way you want, and yes you can even use made up words like irrefuted but these facts will not change. Until the law is changed and so far that hasn't happened.

What does surprise me is that you on a number of occasions like to pride yourself on being precise and yet you don't know or understand the things about the US Constitution, Civil Rights, Civil Liberties,and State Constitutions, that were taught to 8th and 9th graders in social studies class. What we are discussing are the basics......

What is so hard about knowing Civil Rights is protecting people from the way they are treated. How do you treat marry?

Civil Liberties are the right everyone can have or enjoy. People enjoy marriage people can have marriage, they are not treated marriage. States regulate the law that govern the civil liberties. If you are convicted of a felony you WILL lose some or all of your Civil Liberties because the government both state and federal has made laws the control you civil liberties.

What on earth is so hard to understand about that?

My apology and my mistake, feigned is a word, however there isn't anything ficticious about using her exact words.

The word "feigned" modified the word "confusion".

Any way all this BS means nothing because nothing has changed..... 1. marriage is a civil liberty 2. states regulate the laws controlling civil liberties 3. If it were true that marriage was a Civil Right and what you say is true, and your exact words were QUOTE "... it prevents states from making laws that are unconstitutional in their regulation of marriage." Then the individual state constitutions could not define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. So NEWS FLASH:.....either your statement is incorrect or marriage is not a civil right....which is it?

That's a perfect example of the False Dichotomy logical fallacy. The correct answer is: Just because something is unconstitutional doesn't mean that society necessarily act morally against that unconstitutionality. Good examples of this include "tyranny of the masses".

Now you can use all the fancy words you want, you can even twist the words any way you want

Calling logic "fancy words" or "twist[ing] the words" is just a cop-out for avoiding the rational truth.

What does surprise me is that you on a number of occasions like to pride yourself on being precise and yet you don't know or understand the things about the US Constitution, Civil Rights, Civil Liberties,and State Constitutions, that were taught to 8th and 9th graders in social studies class. What we are discussing are the basics......

Get over yourself. I probably know more about the abuses committed by government and majorities within society - those parts of civics classes that you apparently decided to forget - than you'll ever admit to knowing.

What on earth is so hard to understand about that?

Your presumption that people who think you are wrong about what you say don't understand what you're saying is vacuous and without merit. It's merely cynically petty distraction from the point of the thread to engage in such chest-beating derails.

"False Dichotomy logical fallacy" doesn't apply here because marriage can not be both a civil liberty and a civil right.One is an apple and one is an orange. As for the tryanny of the masses, well that is why the US is a Republic instead of a Democracy. and the 9th and 10th amendments in the Bill of Rights prevent tryanny of the majority from happening..

"The Founders sought to solve this problem, by banning democracy in America, setting up a Republic where the majority could never legally vote to violate the natural rights of the minority. The only powers allowed to the Federal government were those listed in the Constitution, with the 9th and 10th articles of the Bill of Rights banning it from doing anything else, even if the majority voted for it."

"False Dichotomy logical fallacy" doesn't apply here because marriage can not be both a civil liberty and a civil right.

First of all, yes it can apply here, and does apply here, because the false dichotomy I was referring to is the assertion that either the law is effectively enforced (making this discussion moot) or the law doesn't exist. I presented the other possibility, which your comments implied didn't exist, i.e., that the laws can be ignored, often due to tyranny of the masses.

Second, both civil liberty and civil rights apply to the matter of marriage. As a civil liberty, people are allowed to form marriages and live together as married couples, without government interference. As a civil right, people are entitled to expect their marriages to be respected as all other marriages are respected by public accommodations and state and federal governments.

You ask how do you treat marry? You don't. You treat PEOPLE who are trying to get married. And you can't treat those PEOPLE differently just because they are of the same sex as the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection of the law (including the laws that govern marriage) to everyone.

what is your definition of civil rights?

what is your definition of civil liberties?

"I was referring to is the assertion that either the law is effectively enforced (making this discussion moot) or the law doesn't exist." The fact is the law does exist. I am not having a "pretend" conversation so because the law does exist then this discussion is (in your words ) moot.

what is your definition of civil rights? what is your definition of civil liberties?

I don't make up personal definitions. I use the standard definitions.

I am not having a "pretend" conversation

Actually you appeared to be trying to.

"Second, both civil liberty and civil rights apply to the matter of marriage" Now who is moving the goal posts, splitting hairs.......To start with I have never said civil rights do not apply to "matter" of marriage. If you think I have feel free to show me.....I have always said marriage is not a Civil Right. Nor have I ever said that the laws should be allowed to discriminate against anyone for anything or any reason. Again if you think I have please quote me......I have always said the only thing stopping Gays from getting married is the individual State Constitutions because they define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The US Constitution does not and has never defined marriage.

You people argue like you believe I am disapproving of Gay marriages when the fact of the matter is I have never, ever stated my personal opinion of my moral values on NV. Whether or not I think being Gay is right or wrong is irrelevant and quite frankly no one's business, nor is it open for discussion. What I argue is peoples belief in what they think the US Constitution says and how it is applied. In '65 I swore an Oath to always protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America so help me God. And by golly that is exactly what I will do until I go to my private little piece of real estate in Arlington National Cemetery to live with the worms.......

Now who is moving the goal posts, splitting hairs.....

You are. You brought up the distinction. I was content to refer to the entirety more generally, but you insisted.

To start with I have never said civil rights do not apply to "matter" of marriage. If you think I have feel free to show me

I'm not going waste time doing any such thing when the end-result here is that you are agreeing with me.

I have always said marriage is not a Civil Right.

And in the process, splitting hairs, something which you feigned outrage at earlier in your reply.

There are civil rights applicable to marriage. You are simply wrong if you disagree.

Nor have I ever said that the laws should be allowed to discriminate against anyone for anything or any reason. Again if you think I have please quote me

Again, I'm not going to bother tracing back an aspect where you are here publicly agreeing with my perspective.

You people argue like you believe I am disapproving of Gay marriages

I'm actually not. I'm arguing for my perspective, in response to what you post. If you don't want me to reply to what you write, then either post something much more clearly in agreement with what I believe, or don't post at all. Otherwise, if there is any difference between your perspective and mine, then expect that I will point out why I disagree with you.

LR: for what seems like a hundredth time: the Supreme Court has flatly, absolutely called marriage a Civil Right. If you disagree with the Supreme Court, that's your prerogative, but you're just wasting your time repeating over and over again that you personally think marriage isn't a Civil Right. Take that up with the court and not with the folks on Newsvine.

I have always said marriage is not a Civil Right.

And in the process, splitting hairs, something which you feigned outrage at earlier in your reply.

There are civil rights applicable to marriage. You are simply wrong if you disagree.

Because civil rights are applicable to marriage it does not make marriage a Civil Right. No hair splitting no goal post moving just a fact. Your Civil Rights applies/are applicable to all your Civil Liberties.

Under Amendment 10 If you or a person is convicted of a felony they can lose some or all of their Civil Liberties. Under Amendment 14 If a person is convivted of a felony they can not lose their Civil Rights. They can not be legally discriminated against because of their race, sex......

Now if a person is convicted of a felony they can lose their right to marry. But that same person can not lose their Civil Rights. If a married person is convicted of a felony, their partner can divorce them without cause so the convicted felon has just lost their right to marry. I am not saying they can not get remarried, I am saying they have just lost that right to be married to the other person they chose to be married to. So the fact that you can lose the right to marry/marriage, means the right to marry is a Civil Liberty and not a Civil Right.

Because civil rights are applicable to marriage it does not make marriage a Civil Right. No hair splitting

Yes. That is hair splitting. If you are unwilling to have a discussion without resorting to such a derailing tactic as to attack the casual manner of how people express themselves online, then you can have a discussion with yourself as far as I'm concerned.

Work from here, if you want to continue discussing this: Homosexuals should be treated no differently from heterosexuals, in their treatment with regard to marrying the person that they love.

Why do I feel like you guys are debating who's the best NASCAR driver by arguing the advertising on the cars?

Whether marriage is a civil right or a civil liberty is irrelevant to this vine. Whichever it is, it would be for both homosexual and heterosexual marriages.

At the risk of encouraging the insanity, LR can you point to an instance where the right to marry was revoked for a particular individual (as opposed to a class of people)? To my knowledge even inmates are allowed to marry, even if they are not allowed to bear arms or vote.

Richard.....each person in a marriage has the right to marry one another. There are basically two types of divorces, one is mutual consent where neither party is contesting the divorce, the other is that there needs to be a reason for cause, ie he cheated on me, or she cheated on me. Now if the couple are married and one of them is/are convicted of a felony the person in that marriage can then get a divorce from the convicted felon without cause. The convicted felon has lost his right to marriage in that marriage. The convicted felon loses all of his marriage right for that marriage such as any property value,....what ever is divided in the divorce. Some states such as TX have a law that as soon as the marriage is declared legal the assets of both parties become 50/50...with no pre nup. the convicted felon loses the 50/50 assets of that marriage.

"...inmates are allowed to marry" I think that applies to some prisons and in certain states. I know some prisons only allow immediate family and attorneys to visit. I don't know the law for every state. Some states require consummation of the marriage before it is considered legal and if the prison does not allow for conjugal visits the marriage could never be consummated.....And some prisons do not allow inmates to get married while incarcerated as in Colorado Super Max Prison.

Richard....Marriage is a Civil Liberty according to the Tenth Amendment. And According to the US Constitution Gays can get married. Here is the part that maybe I am not explaining very well or people just don't get it for what ever reason. The only thing, and I'll repeat myself, the only thing stopping Gays from getting married is the definition or the word marriage. The US Constitution does not and has never defined what marriage is.

The individual State Constitutions do define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.Now here is my "common sense test" to back up my last statement. Read the State Constitution of a state that does not allow Gay marriages and see if it defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. As in TX's State Constitution. Yes it defines the word marriage. Now I look at a state that does allow Gay marriages like Iowa. And No the Iowa State Constitution does not define the word marriage, so Gay marriages are allowed In Iowa.

So in fact it is not the US Constitution that is stopping the Gay's from marrying it is the states definition of the word marriage.

Here is the part I am not explaining very well and maybe you can do better. Because marriage is a Civil Liberty and it is not mention in the US Constitution it falls under the Tenth Amendment giving each state the right to make laws controlling it. Such as anyone wishing to get married must buy a marriage license. Some states say you must get a blood test before you can buy a license and so on...Now to protect the minority from the majority there are the Nineth and Tenth Amendments that prevents the Federal Government from putting this issue up for a vote. Any right that is not specifically mentioned in the US Constitution can not be put up for a vote by the whole nation. It has to be voted on by the individual states.

Now in order for the definition of marriage not to be voted on the State Supreme Court must first rule the definition of the word marriage as unconstitutional. If it is ruled as unconstitutional and then voted in by the people the US Constitution comes into play. Because you can not vote on a Civil Right. Now in my opinion and mine alone I believe that before the year 2010 the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman was NOT unconstitutional However in 2010 Congress changed the discrimination act to include sexual orientation and now I believe that the definition is unconstitutional. If the State Supreme Court has not ruled the definition to be unconstitutional the Governor of that state can put the definition to a vote by the people.

So Richard, if you can say this better than I have, please by all means feel free to do so.

Whew. I think I see where you're coming from. I'll give it a shot.

If everyone is comfortable with the following definitions:

Civil Rights: Protection against unequal treatment.

Civil Liberties: Protection of certain liberties (bear arms, marry, vote, etc) and limitation on the state in the interest of the protection of personal liberties (privacy, speedy & fair trial, no search & seizure without just cause, etc).

...then I can take it from there. If this doesn't fly with you, please ignore everything I'm about to write and address the above first. Debate doesn't work if we're using the same words to talk about different things.

Technically LGBT people can marry legally in all 50 states right now. The problem is that they can't marry someone of the same sex just anywhere. Most states have statues that effectively nullify attempts to marry someone of the same sex by defining marriage. Since marriage is not actually defined in the US Constitution, they can do that under the 10th Amendment.

That said, the attempt by the states to define marriage should run afoul of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees the civil right of equal protection. Allowing only heterosexual marriages for LGBT people is sort of akin to allowing only stairs for people in wheelchairs. Yes, both paraplegics and non-paraplegics have equal access to those stairs, but it just ain't the same. (No, I am not implying a relationship between homosexuality and a disability. Please do not go there.)

While marriage is a civil liberty, denying LGBT people the ability to marry their same-sex partner is (or should be) a civil rights violation.

The Supreme Court has ruled with regard to miscegenistic marriage. States cannot pass laws - even state constitutional amendments - to outlaw them. The Supreme Court has not ruled with regard to homosexual marriage.

Until this happens (any freaking day now already!), all the arguments about the 14th Amendment don't affect the state's right to pass anti-homosexual marriage laws one iota unless the various state supreme courts have already ruled for their respective state. Such laws might be unconstitutional, but it doesn't count until it's declared (same thing goes for all those anti health insurance law advocates). Therefore, states can technically vote what should be a civil rights violation into law.

Now in my opinion and mine alone I believe that before the year 2010 the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman was NOT unconstitutional However in 2010 Congress changed the discrimination act to include sexual orientation and now I believe that the definition is unconstitutional.

I can see where you get there. I'm not particularly thrilled with the thought that minorities only have civil rights when the state decides to acknowledge the existence of the minority. Equal protection should apply whether acknowledged by the anti-discrimination act or not. That's a whole 'nother subject, though.

I know it's kind of long - how'd I do?

"Technically LGBT people can marry legally in all 50 states right now. The problem is that they can't marry someone of the same sex just anywhere. Most states have statues that effectively nullify attempts to marry someone of the same sex by defining marriage. Since marriage is not actually defined in the US Constitution, they can do that under the 10th Amendment.".....Exactly, Now when the State Supreme Court Rules the definition to be unconstitutional then the definition needs to be removed. And the 14th Amendment Takes over. But like what happened in CA, the State Supreme Court ruled the definition as unconstitutional and the people voted on it any way. That's about what happened on prop 8 The US Supreme Court ruled the people had no right to vote the definition back in and that is where they are at now. I think the state is appealing but they will lose. And The US Supreme Court doesn't want to rule on the definition of marriage because if they do it will more than likely open another whole can of worms. Because of the Nineth and Tenth Amendments.....

Your translation was acceptable, I might have used different definitions for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, but thank you......even my cats thank you.....

It is not a "right" if it were they would not need a license.

Actually it is a right that is currently being denied. Ruken is correct.

I agree with Ruken, it IS a right, it was reaffirmed towards race (and gender should be no different) in Loving vs VA in the SC's opinion..

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...."

Ursa,

Last time I checked equal protection was a right. As is freedom from religion. And privacy.

It is not a "right" if it were they would not need a license.

Rights and actions are two different things. They need the legal right in order to buy that license legally.

One can have the right to do something but not ever do it. They are two separate things.

It is not a "right" if it were they would not need a license.

Rights and actions are two different things. They need the legal right in order to buy that license legally.

One can have the right to do something but not ever do it. They are two separate things.

You are confusing rights with privileges.

Driving is a privilige. You can get a license to drive if you meet the requirements.

Rights are guaranteed in the Constitution. Equal treatment under the law is a right. Various rulings at the Supreme Court have clarified that marriage is defined as a right.

Gays having any less of a right to marry than straights is either an 'seperate but equal' or 'seperate AND unequal' event depending on what alternative solution is being discussed and what point of view is pushing it. No 'seperate but xxxxx' meets the Constitutional protection of equal treatment under the law.

Can they can't even apply for said license though?

Even if they can, it's summarily denied simply because of genders of the couple. That's a rights violation.

Ruken,

I was thinking that same thought. That someone could challange DOMA via The Civil Rights Act and gender discrimination, because technically they're discriminating based on the gender of one of the parties, right???

An interesting discussion of whether it is a right or not.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/righttomarry.htm

At some point the Supreme Court may have to chime in, as others are saying. It would be difficult to argue that preventing gay people to marry does not infringe upon their rights.

2nd amendment - the right to bear arms. One still needs a license to carry a handgun. So yes, there are many actions that require a license while still being a right under our Constitution.

2nd amendment - the right to bear arms. One still needs a license to carry a handgun. So yes, there are many actions that require a license while still being a right under our Constitution.

Now there's a strong argument.

Consider if a group of people were denied firearms licenses simply because of gender. That would be without a doubt a violation of the 2nd Amendment. However, there is no Amendment for marriage, so the question would be does the following apply (from the 14th Amendment):

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I would have to say it does, because homosexuals aren't even given consideration for licenses under current marriage laws simply because of gender issues.

Therefore under the 14th Amendment I'd have to say that denial of marriage licenses because of same gendered spouses is unconstitutional.

You can either marry homosexuals as well, or marry nobody.

sadmoronsvote2 - An interesting discussion of whether it is a right or not.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/righttomarry.htm

That's actually a fairly good summary of the issues although it leaves a few things out and misses the mark in a few others. In particular, this comment about DOMA is completely wrong:

Because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV of the U. S. Constitution**, same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts would have to be honored in other states unless they have enacted a so-called "defense of marriage act," as most other states have, either by statute or state constitutional amendment.

No state has ever been forced under Full Faith and Credit to recognize any out of state marriage, and there's SCOTUS precedent about that. Otherwise the anti-miscegenation laws would never have been an issue.

Interesting. Thanks, skrekk. I am looking for better (reliable, relatively non-biased) sources. If you have any, I'd be happy to see them. The constitutional issues therein and history of marriage are particularly interesting to me.

Here's a few:

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/

http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/

http://www.marriageequality.org/legal-resources

http://www.stephaniecoontz.com/books/marriage/

http://bostonreview.net/BR36.3/pamela_s_karlan_same_sex_marriage.php

Excellent! Thanks!

Would it maybe be a Title II issue? The government office provides the service of licensing marriages, which are contracts recognized and protected under the law, right???

So what are they denying the license based on??? The gender of one of the parties, and gender's a protected class.

Than, the government's recognition comes in. They only recognize or don't recognize a marriage, again based on gender, a protected class.

Plus, there's the whole implied right to privacy issue...

Sarah, I don't think any court has yet looked at it from the standpoint of the Civil Rights Act, although that would indeed be reasonable. The direct impact would be for a court to apply intermediate scrutiny.

Note that the plaintiffs in Prop h8 did make a gender-based claim, and Judge Walker's decision was based in large part upon there being no rational basis for such gender-based discrimination.

Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.

I also think that, since gay relationships are legal (as opposed to marrying a child or animal)...

...and several legitimate religious groups (episcopals, unitarians, some methodists, some jewish sects, etc) bless and perform gay marriages...

it seems to me that this is now an issue of fundamental Religious Freedom, when their legal same-sex marriages are refused equal recognition by the State, yet the heterosexual marriages of the religious institution "across the street" are granted recognition by the State.

...and several legitimate religious groups (episcopals, unitarians, some methodists, some jewish sects, etc) bless and perform gay marriages...

Actually it just means that these gay people infiltrated the churces and the priests are too scared of a lawsuit to kick them out. Can you honestly say any of these marriages were blessed by God, when it states very plainly in each of these holy texts that homosexuality is forbidden?

No, Unhappy

It means that certain church's have simply removed pretense that they are anything other then a money making machine. Marriage is big business, and there is a point where we can't let scripture get in the way anymore.

Don't blame it on gay people. Blame it on greed.

Either way I don't care too much what becomes of your church.

Can you honestly say any of these marriages were blessed by God, when it states very plainly in each of these holy texts that homosexuality is forbidden?

First of all -- it doesn't, punkin. Only your non-contextual interpretation of very old scriptures that have been edited and changed appear to say that -- again, only in your particular interpretation. Like I said, cult books (like the BuyBull) have thousands of different denominations and interpretations. You are convinced yours is right. But I've read many of your posts, and your lack of intelligence and honesty/integrity isn't convincing.

Second -- given the number of scriptures (right next to the assumed anti-gay scriptures) that you worshippers IGNORE on a wholescale basis -- I'm not impressed that is boils down to that.

For example -- I'm not saying that you are a two-faced lowlife with a screaming double-standard... but, looks at the OT scriptures that people quote as anti-gay. They are in the same biblical books as the OT rules that forbid eating shellfish, working on Sunday, wearing blended fabrics, and on and on and on and on and on. Two-faced lowlifes ignore and dismiss ALL of the other rules, and surgically remove that one directive that they view as anti-gay, and hold it up as if it is the One Thing in the OT that we have to abide by.

Same with the NT. You routinely pull scriptures there out of context, again, and screech "anti gay!! anti gay!!" ----- and yet, i can find at least 5 directives in the NT, allegedly spoken by the jesus-myth himself, that prohibit divorce. No question about the words and their meaning. It is absolutely forbidden. And the cowardly, two-faced American mainstream christianity ignores all of those directives entirely.

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Matthew 19:6

Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery. -- Mark 10:11 (and) Whosoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery. -- Luke 16:18

There's three of them right there. But, no outcry from christianity to ban divorce. Because, well, to be honest -- they have no real integrity to their cult book or to their jesus-myth. These words, above, are credited to the mythical jesus creature, and xians ignore them. jesus is credited with saying NOTHING about gays, yet you'd think from the way mainstream christians behave, that's all their jesus-myth talked about.

Cowards and liars. With no integrity or courage to actually live by their own values.

Cheers!

And, by the way, Unhappy -- you need to study some history.

The xian cult, in the US, used to claim that the BuyBull god guaranteed us the right to own and beat slaves. Go to the Smithsonian. Read what southern conservative christian congressmen said right on the floor of the US Congress during the civil war era, recorded for all time. They claimed that the BuyBull gave us god-given rights to own and beat slaves, and they quoted scriptures right there in support of it. christian America agreed. There have been many such examples of christians standing up for their hatred of others, and using their BuyBull words to back it up. It also happened during the attempts to ban interracial marriage. Even a right-wing judge quoted the BuyBull, on the record, to try and legislate the mainstream racial hatred in this country.

You seem to forget, also, that religious freedom allows people to have a cult book and interpret it differently. Do you think that catholics and baptists and lutherans and jews and methodists and episcolpals etc etc etc all interpret it the same? Of course not! They have disagreements on scriptural meanings a mile long and then some. And, THAT IS THEIR RIGHT in this country! Who are you to say that One Interpretation MUST be the right one, and all others must be dismissed!

You have no proof that any one interpretation is the right one. Criminy! You can't even prove your cult god (or ANY god) exists! Let alone, what this god might have said or thought at any given time. I'm not required to follow what YOU claim that a god said, based on the skewed and misinterpreted words of an unprovable, mythical cult book!

And frankly -- to think that any god had the wisdom and power to create this universe, and has the unending intelligence and might to put all the systems in place that it did -- and to then suggest that the only means of conveying a message to people here is this ridiculous goddam cult book called BuyBull... Anyone who really believes that is truly WHACK. As WHACK as it also is to think that this god wastes time hating gays, blacks, and wants women put in their place. But again, it is their right to believe all that crap (or not to).

The Constitution says we shall not put one cultism before another. Or did you fail to read that document, too?

This decision should go to the voter since it will effect all of American society and foundations we have held for hundreds of years.

By your logic, slavery would still exist, and women would not vote and would be essentially property of their husbands.

Tradition does not trump civil rights.

This decision should almost just go to the SCOTUS.

There's already been more than enough legal precedence to declare that discrimination of race or gender is illegal. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal in many matters, so why not marriage?

In fact the denial of same-sex marriage is discrimination based on gender, and should be subject to heightened scrutiny.

I find it an insult to American voters that an initiative can be put on a ballot and the politicians just decide to overturn it thru their own decisions a few years later.

This is part of the American legislative process. We elect congresspersons to serve us in the capitol. A lot of work gets done without direct vote by the citizens, even if it's contrary to the majority opinion. Don't like it? Start a referendum.

This decision should go to the voter since it will effect all of American society and foundations we have held for hundreds of years.

Civil rights are a Constitutional issue (see 14th Amendment) - they are not a matter for the vote. No law (short of a Constitutional Amendment) passed by the citizens gets to overrule the Constitution.

You can lead a horse to water...you can make a law that the horse drink the water...but if the horse is not thirsty you will accomplish nothing.

Not really sure what you're trying to say here. No one is required to marry a same-sex partner. This doesn't make any sense.

This legislation is a Pandora's box.

Yes - it contains Hope.

And where the media get their results and statistics is a question to me. You can stack a deck anytime, anywhere if you know where to go!

Denial is good too.

God forbid someone takes "right to bear arms" to the popular vote. This is the SAME line of logic. We don't put a civil rights issue in the hands of the majority.

If you want to talk about what our country is built on, it's ACTUALLY built on the idea that all people should be able to pursue happiness without fearing or living under the tyranny of the majority.

In fact the denial of same-sex marriage is discrimination based on gender, and should be subject to heightened scrutiny.

Technically it's discrimination based on sexual orientation, but the point is a good one.

Richard, WA - Technically it's discrimination based on sexual orientation, but the point is a good one.

The social impact is that it's discrimination based on sexual orientation, but as a technical legal matter it's actually gender discrimination. The bigoted states don't inquire about your sex life or sexual orientation before issuing a marriage license, but rather they deny a license based on the relative gender of your spouse.

And since gender discrimination is subject to heightened scrutiny, the bigots are screwed - the state has no legitimate interest in the gender of one's spouse.

The bigoted states don't inquire about your sex life or sexual orientation before issuing a marriage license, but rather they deny a license based on the relative gender of your spouse.

Bingo.

The bigoted states don't inquire about your sex life or sexual orientation before issuing a marriage license, but rather they deny a license based on the relative gender of your spouse.

Ah - I see the distinction you're making. Good point.

Civil rights should never be put to a public vote.Those types of actions need to come from the central government.

wombat

I find it an insult to American voters that an initiative can be put on a ballot

I find it disgusting that the GLBT community and their supporters must invest so much time and effort into securing rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution.

I find it an insult to me as an intelligent, rational human being, that the body politic is stupid enough to think they have the right to legislate against personal liberty based on their own beliefs and emotions. This country was founded as a Constitutional Republic, by which the civil liberties are afforded the individual over all else.

Just because an individual thinks something is wrong, or immoral, and has public opinion, it does not mean it is allowable in legislation -- liberty cannot be extinguished by pitting the tyrannical majority against the oppressed minority.

Matt, that's exactly why the mayor of Newark was so pissed when Governor Christie said that people's civil rights should be put to a vote.

Is the outcome really fair when six wolves and one sheep vote on whats for dinner?

This decision should go to the voter since it will effect all of American society and foundations we have held for hundreds of years.

WTF?? Since when are civil rights put up for a vote? This is SUPPOSED to be a Constitutional Republic. The very Foudnation of the United States, being a Constitutional Republic, DEMANDS that the civil rights of a minority group are NOT to be left up to the tyranny of a majority vote!

How on earth are voter referendums even allowed (or even Considered!) in our Constitutional Republic!!??

Dennis, I appreciate that you have a lot of straight friends and live in an accepting community. I'm very glad for it in fact.

However, the statistics are pretty clear on the matter. Generally, your generation is more against gay rights than the younger generations. Here are the raw numbers and figures:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx

As for Bill1942, you are definetly a homophobic individual. You should see a psychiatrist and find out what motivates you to say such a statement.

I'll save him the time.

He has a lesser evolved mind. Studies already show those with lower IQs tend to gravitate towards homophobia, sexism, racism, etc.

"He has a lesser evolved mind. Studies already show those with lower IQs tend to gravitate towards homophobia, sexism, racism, etc."

What studies? Do you have facts or is this an opinion? If it is an opinion, you are as guilty as those that have "homophobia, sexism, racism, etc" beliefs. Maybe attacking ones personal moral and religious convictions is an indication of your superior intellect. Why not pass legislative measures to legalize bigamy, consensual pedophilic marriage or bestial marriage? Where do you draw the line?

What studies? Do you have facts or is this an opinion?

http://www.askdro.com/2012/02/new-study-says-racist-are-dumber/

http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=10944

If you want, I can link more.

consensual pedophilic marriage or bestial marriage?

This backs up my point about lower IQs.

Animals and children cannot give informed consent. Your attempt at strawman is invalid.

Why not pass legislative measures to legalize bigamy, consensual pedophilic marriage or bestial marriage? Where do you draw the line?

Well, let's see --everything you just listed is either Criminal, or involves entities which cannot legally consent (animals, children), or both. Being gay is not illegal. And, the gay marriage issue involves two consenting adults.

So, since I'm not a moron, I've given you a couple examples where I would draw the line: 1. Acts involving crimes. 2. Legal Consent

Any other questions?

BURN!!!!!

Gotta love Kelso. :)

Ruken....you are not really going to call those studies "evidence" are you something from AskDr.com.....did you actually read them or do you just Google up the Gay Agenda Propaganda Link Page?

The Full Text is below......what a bunch of rubbish.

New Study Says Racists Are Dumber

February 2nd, 2012

I’ve been saying this for years, but a new study offers evidence that racists generally have a lower IQ than non racists.

A study published in Psychological Science and completed by Brock University in Ontario, showed that people who score low on I.Q. tests in childhood are more likely to develop prejudiced beliefs and socially conservative politics in adulthood.

From The Huff Post:

Dr. Gordon Hodson, a professor of psychology at the university and the study’s lead author, said the finding represented evidence of a vicious cycle: People of low intelligence gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, which stress resistance to change and, in turn, prejudice, he toldLiveScience.

Why might less intelligent people be drawn to conservative ideologies? Because such ideologies feature “structure and order” that make it easier to comprehend a complicated world, Dodson said. “Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice,” he added.

Dr. Brian Nosek, a University of Virginia psychologist, echoed those sentiments.

“Reality is complicated and messy,” he told The Huffington Post in an email. “Ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simpler solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies.”

Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes

Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact

1. Gordon Hodson and
2. Michael A. Busseri

+ Author Affiliations

1. Brock University

1. Gordon Hodson, Department of Psychology, Brock University, 500 Glenridge Ave., St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada L2S 3A1 E-mail: ghodson@brocku.ca

Abstract

Despite their important implications for interpersonal behaviors and relations, cognitive abilities have been largely ignored as explanations of prejudice. We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact. All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status. Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice. Consequently, we recommend a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models.

It is puzzling that so many blacks cannot see the similarities between this and their own struggle for equality (which is ongoing).

Unfortunately for ignorant bigots like Timothy, many black civil rights leaders support marriage equality and say it's a civil rights issue.

black people feel that men allowing other men to penetrate their behinds has anything to do with their struggle

Gay rights has nothing to do with black people's struggle (except for the coalition during the civil rights movement, but I digress).

HOWEVER, the logic and arguments for gay marriage are nearly IDENTICAL to those for interracial marriage. And further, since black people have a history of being discriminated against and denied interracial marriages, it baffles me that they are not overwhelmingly in support of gay rights.

You are exactly right. I think that the majority of Blacks who are against gay marriage are those who have let their so called "religious beliefs" impose upon their thought processes and block out their ability to empathize with other maligned groups. I don't think however that the majority of Blacks feel that way.

A slim majority of blacks might still be opposed to marriage equality, but that's primarily because of greater religiosity in that group. But in general the anti-gay attitudes are related to age, religiosity, conservatism, and political party - not race per se.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/opinion/bruni-same-sex-marriage-and-blacks.html

Cory Booker, the mayor of Newark, made a pretty powerful civil rights statement about marriage equality:

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/newark-mayor-cory-booker-blasts-gov-christ

Late Mildred Loving of "Loving vs Virginia" Supreme Court case, issued a statement in 2007, where she said:

" I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights."

I posed this frustration to a special speaker at our open and affirming church this Sunday, the context in my mountain town being an African-American/Democrat/Woman Mayor of a fairly progressive town who is loathe to do anything that might show support of her city's LGBT community members (due to her own religious upbringing? fear of losing the black vote?). His reply is that many African-Americans say that unlike the color of skin, gays can closet their sexual preferances without public recourse and, if white, still tap into all the privileges afforded in institutionalized racist social structures. There is also streak of racism within the LGBT community itself so gays need to do some and stomp out all racism in all forms wherever they see it. All these issues need serious attention but are still a conversation separate from the civil rights nature of same sex marriage.

"Sexual orientation" is a BEHAVIOR (that obviously requires 2 or more), unlike ethnicity, the ignorance of people not being able to see through this only adds to allure of the movement. For those unaware or not effectively articulating this argument has allowed the LGBT community to selfishly leach off actual legitimate civil rights movements to justify. Culture is taught, skin color and feature sets have been scientifically known to pass through parents, yet this nebulous, yet the definitive reasons all homosexual person "feel" the way they feel, has just not come to light quick enough for justifications. What about same sex communal areas where if it is nurtured (Prisons,schools)? How dare we consider it benign disorder...

We've become victims of own hypocrisy.

Sexual orientation is an ORIENTATION, not a BEHAVIOR.

Get a dictionary.

Gay rights has nothing to do with black people's struggle

which has nothing to do with women's struggles in this country... nothing to do with the struggles of some religious groups. The list goes on and on. They are ALL different in content, in historic time, in their numbers, in their kinds of struggles... They are often quite similar in the types of hatred they face and the kinds of dsicrimination they are subjected to (harassment, assaults, murders, religious persecution, housing denial, job denial... even racial minorities faced marriage discrimination with bans on interracial marriage...)

EXCEPT that they involve a group that has been or is being unreasonably discriminated against and they are fighting for equality under the law. THAT is what they ALL have in common. Different characteristics, different struggles. But that is the common denominator.

Unfortunately, most black folk see gay marriage as a religious issue rather than a civil rights issue. I think we empathize with their struggle, but since most of us have southern church roots.........

I'm not saying it's right to see it that way but, it is what it is.....

I'm Just Sayin'....

Well put!!

Peace - Yours is perhaps the most sane comment I've ever read on here. I wish more people had your mindset. Cheers!

Great comment!

Well the gay populace has certainly forced this down the worlds throat. I'm the only one in your reply set to push back. I am not the judge but being formerly of your mindset(gay) I can tell you that if all you wanted was to live and let live we would have no disagreement here. Unfortunately i spent 28 years living as you say, "Live and Let Live." but that is not what I witnessed while in your gay cult. Being homosexual is a choice. Just like it is a choice to terroristically accost straight men who did not want your advances. This happened to a gay man I knew and when the man he engaged told him no and he persisted , the straight beat the crap out the gay. This was a turning point for me as I knew what the downlow was. I think we witnessed something similar to this in Brokeback Mountain. I think it was also slanted for sympathy towards gays. No matter what walk of life, race, creed or sex you are you chose to be gay. Yet you want the world to believe that you were born this way. You were not. It is not a gene that you can blame it on. It is a choice and it has been one I have regretted since making it. Thank God I can choose a different way. Anyone out there who thinks that there is no escape from this should study your Bible. It clearly speaks of homosexuality and it clearly says that it is chosen sin and it says to stop doing it. I would tell you the chapter and verse but if you really want to know you will find it on your own. I realize that the prevalence of homosexuality is unstoppable today as the Bible also says in the end days it will be common in the world. It also says it is a sin that can be stopped. You have chosen to perpetuate it for yourself. It will never be anything more that sin to God. He is always the same, never changing, always just. He is the same today as he was when he created this earth. If anyone is confused please just ask and you will receive. Its just that simple. Do not put your trust in the Rosie Odonnells and the Ellen Degenerous' of the world. The devil is in the world go to and fro seeking whom he may devour. Lastly, I do not care what the gay cult thinks of me or my belief. God is alive and his son Jesus Christ will be coming very soon to gather up his children.

Blue Dog, a good deal of the world does not believe in your God or your book of fables.

Blue Dogg, you watched Brokeback Mountain? Just reliving the good ole days huh?

Don't you think that you're being a bit presumptuous to tell others how they feel? I don't know how gays feel, I'm heterosexual. I do know that I don't feel attracted to guys. I am however, attracted to women. That's no more of a choice for me than deciding whether or not to throw myself in front of a train, it just wouldn't enter my mind. You however seem to think that since it apparently was a choice for you, it must be the same for everyone. That's no different than saying that since you like broccoli everyone else should too. Personally, I'm inclined to believe, by your heavy handed religious statements, that religion apparently left you 'Scared straight'. Good luck with that. Many of your priests apparently aren't.

ed- name me a religion that doesn't condemn gay marriage- just one please

Peace.....Life,Liberty and the pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence Not the Constitution. Life, liberty, and property is what the Constitution says.....just so you know

@Blue Dog - whether homosexuality is a choice is entirely irrelevant. Religious affiliation is a choice, and interfaith marriage prohibitions are as unconstitutional as interracial marriage prohibitions. And the U.S. is not a theocracy, therefore the contents of your bible have no bearing on legal and constitutional issues.

Too bad I cant legally burn a joint with all that mumbo jumbo freedom you speak of.

Blue Dogg: [among other mumblings]... Being homosexual is a choice.

1. Well, that is patently false. But, let's assume, for one moment, that was true. Religious preference is also a choice. And yet, it is still a CHOICE that is constitutionally protected from discrimination. So, your argument about that is EPIC FAIL.

2. Nobody in the US is required to believe in, or follow, your cult belief. Nobody here is required to believe in your jesus-myth or any of the other mythical creatures mentioned in your cult book, BuyBull. So, you really need to give that nonsense a rest, too.

Cheers!

hillbilly,

I'll bite. The Unitarians embrace gay marriage. I'm sure there are others. But all you asked for was one.

"FREEDOM" without ORDER is IMMORALITY. True freedom is knowing where you came from, who you are, and where you're going. What's your reason to be alive?

NHLucky -- the unitarians, some sects in Judaism, Episcopaleans, some Methodists, and yes, there are other groups in the US, some have been here since the founding of the US, who now bless and perform gay marriage.

Peace######, you were going so well until you decided to alienate and entire country of people ..... at least I think it was a country I couldn't actually find Pakastan on the map.....I suspect you meant Pakistan. I suppose your "live and let live" code only applies to people with whom you choose to apply it to....I think your prejudices are showing through your thin veil. oops

You know the saying about people who live in glass houses, right, Yank?

You are the LAST one to criticize anyone's spelling. Or grammar, for that matter.

You keep trying Erin ..... but I think its preferable to have my spelling wrong than as in your case....... the facts wrong. I know the point of the comment went straight through to the keeper....but you keep swinging anyway.

Again -- all because of religiously driven hatred, discrimination and nonsense.

right on!

truthfinder 3 "First, I am totally against same sex marriage" THEN DONT MARRY SOMEONE OF THE SAME SEX!!!!!!

truthfinder3 is no different from the good folks at the Westboro Baptist church.

Calling people all sorts of names really makes them respect your "point." (EYE ROLL)

Calling people all sorts of names really makes them respect your "point." (EYE ROLL)

And yet you felt the need to call me an "idiot" in a post farther below?

Skrekk you are correct:

truthfinder3 is no different from the good folks at the Westboro Baptist church.

it needs to be said more than once.

Pretty sure Newt Gingrich perverted the meaning of marriage enough.

Actually, it is your attempts to pervert the meaning of equality that must be stopped.

Which meaning?

Till death do us part? I think divorce did that. A woman is her husbands property? Marriage, but only of people of the same religion? Same race? Same tribe? A man and as many women as he can support? Marriage, but only if it results in a child within a years time?

These are all historical meanings of marriage. The meaning has changed with society. It is not a static thing, but rather a fluid evolution.

When do we get to stone the adulters? It's a tradition that goes back as far a marriage.

Right after my father finishes selling me into slavery.

Sarah? How mush is he asking? 50 shekels?

<grin>

25 and a goat. :)

lmao!

Many states give civil unions and marriages different rights.

Who owns the word "marriage"? Answer: no one (and certainly not you).

Procreation is irrelevant, as it is not required for marriage, and vice versa. Furthermore, homosexuals do not "recruit," as one cannot catch "teh gay".

What is wrong with civil unions? The same thing that is wrong with having to sit at the back of the bus. (After all, you still get to where you're going, right?)

What is wrong with civil unions? The same thing that is wrong with having to sit at the back of the bus. (After all, you still get to where you're going, right?)

That's actually my point. You might get on the same bus, but in many states the bus drops off the civil union riders about half a mile from where they'd like to go.

Ruken name the differences . Don't just make statements.

ErinNJ Until recently the dictionary defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, the Gays got that changed because they whined and whined.

Ursamajor - Ruken name the differences . Don't just make statements.

Civil unions generally have no interstate, federal or international recognition. For example, civil unions are subject to federal inheritance tax while straight marriages are exempt.

Civil unions are like drinking from the "negros only" drinking fountain, but it has polluted water.

And from a court's standpoint if you have two identical legal contracts but different classes of people are constrained too use only a particular contract, the only purpose for the two contracts is social animus against one of those classes. That's not a legitimate state purpose.

Until recently the dictionary defined marriage as being between a man and a woman

Holy crap!? the DICTIONARY?? Wow, well then, case closed!

The PEOPLE of Maryland overwhelming voted AGAINST gay marriage. It's the politicians who support it, not the people.

Civil unions generally have no interstate, federal or international recognition. For example, civil unions are subject to federal inheritance tax while straight marriages are exempt.

Marriages also have numerous other benefits under tax laws that civil unions do not.

The PEOPLE of Maryland overwhelming voted AGAINST gay marriage. It's the politicians who support it, not the people.

No, they didn't. The majority in MD supports it. You are confusing MD for CA.

Ursa,

I'm a straight guy and I had to "recruit" in order to get a partner (who's now Mrs. Inks). Through a series of "encounters" (I think she called them dates) I convinced her to give up the very normal lifestyle she had been living since birth (single living) and to adopt a very different lifestyle (marriage and kids).

Except in the case of arranged marriages, I think pretty much ALL heterosexuals "recruit." People who procreate for the purpose of breeding their own sexual partners tend to do lengthy terms in prison.

I have several gay friends who have children (some adopted, some their own-- ever heard of medical science?) so the claim that gays can't procreate is demonstrably false.

Lastly, my sister has been married to a terrific guy for 25 years. She is biologically unable to have children. "So how is that a marriage?"

Until recently the dictionary defined marriage as being between a man and a woman

...and we all know the dictionary is THE defining document for civil rights /s

Not all opposite same sex couples can procreate either. Is that your best argument for denying millions of Americans their civil rights? Very, very weak argument, but most arguments bigots spew out are.

Ursa: in case you never noticed, the meanings of words change all the time! That's part of being in a living language. Did the orignial meaning of "cool" change to how we use it now because people whined or because people started using it to mean something different from or in addition to what it had previously been used to mean?

Ursamajor

They can't procreate they can only recruit.

Infertile straight couples must really piss you off then.

did you read the article? Civil Unions are NOT working.

@Timothy1Mil - whether the people of Maryland, or of any state, are for or against SSM is no more relevant than whether they're for or against, say, interracial marriage or women's suffrage.

I'll give my gay friends credit for having some fabulous powers, but "recruiting" is not amongst them. That is a preposterous load of BS from the professional hate industry, no one can turn any one else gay!

@Uramajor,15.1

Marriage is irrelevant to procreation because hetero couples aren't required to have kids or their married is annulled, and obviously nobody needs to be married to have children. Many GLBT couples have children from previous relationships, adopt or use the services of a surrogate.

Not only the infertile have been assaulted by the ignorance/hatred of Ursamajor, but my own father is now, too. And everyone else elderly...

After my mom died from cancer several years ago, my dad encountered his old high school sweetheart at a golden-oldies high school reunion. Her husband had also died years before... They fell in love all over again, and got married. Both at age 76. They have had ten wonderful years together. They are, of course, incapable of procreating. So -- in ursamajor's World of Hate, this marriage must also be invalid.

And what about the millions of married couples who simply choose not to have kids!!?? Their marriages must be annulled, too? Since when is procreating a requirement of marriage!!??

Ursamajor: where do you people think of this crap? Seriously -- is your hate for gay people so baseless but burning so hot, that you have to make-up this nonsense as you go along, clearly without any care for everyone else you crap all over in the process?

Honestly! What is the matter with you!!

What is wrong with "Civil Union"?

Good question. Since heterosexuals would also not be content with being restricted to Civil Unions only, apparently there is quite a bit "wrong with it"...

All this happened in the Roman Empire just before it fell. Those that don't study history are doomed to repeat it.

All this happened in the Roman Empire just before it fell. Those that don't study history are doomed to repeat it.

Actually gay people were common and accepted in the Roman empire in it nascence, its golden age and it's decline. The decline was due to internal unrest, relentless pressures from foreign nations and tribes, and economic over-extension.

But whatever, change history to make your point.

The Roman empire collapsed after gay marriage was banned, and after Christianity became the state religion.

Coincidence? I think not!

Apparently, Ursamajor, you are one of those who is doomed to repeat it -- Rome fell after it embraced Christianity and outlawed same-sex marriage, which had been legal before then.

Rome fell after it embraced Christianity

Hehe.

Actually Ursa SSM was outlawed in Rome in 342 AD by the christian emperor Constantin II so the empire fell AFTER it was outlawed. There are documented cases of SSM in Ancient China, Spain, Greece, and Rome as well as the 'two-spirit' tradition among some Native American tribes. Some of these occurred before christianity was a religion.

Every empire that ever existed has eventually fallen. Some tolerated homosexuality, some did not. Still, they all fell in the end. It's like saying "the Romans had pottery and look what happened to them, they lost their empire. Ban pottery now!!!"

The British Empire drank tea and look at what happened to them!

OH NO! I drink tea and not coffee -- I'm DOOMED!

DOOMED!

http://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww332/crashdown77/bender-doomed.jpg

OH NO! I drink tea and not coffee -- I'm DOOMED!

I drink tea AND coffee, and I eat dark chocolate. I guess I'm going straight to hell.

I drink tea, coffee, and enjoy Gyro sandwiches. Oh. Crap.

@Sarah: Thanks a lot, jerk. It's almost lunch time, and now all I'm going to think about for the next half hour is a gyro. Mmm, lamb, onions, lettuce, and tzatziki on a lightly grilled pita, with a side of cucumber salad.

Grrr... thanks a lot!

Don't forget the lemon chicken soup and rice with the almonds in it....

MMMMMM (drool) MMMMMMM

AHHHHHH...avgolemonos! One of my favorites!

You know, since we're all going to be allowed to marry animals, and our family members, and lawn chairs, now...

Does this mean I can marry Coney Island??? ;)

I would like to marry a big pot of posole...

Lawn chairs, too? Whoa! Sign me up!

I have a REALLY HOT chaise lounge on my deck right now!!

:D

I've got my eye on this studly toaster. Soooo hot.

If the word marriage is a religious institution, and it is, this still has no effect on the fact that the law provides the same protections to all.

Legal marriage in this secular nation is and has always been strictly a civil matter. In fact, civil marriage predates organized religion by thousands of years.

The word for religious marriages is "holy matrimony," not "marriage".

BTW, you can legislate behavior; you cannot legislated morality.

Gay meant happy until recently please tell me what is "happy" about the "gay" life.

Nothing is happy about the gay life. But misery loves company, hence all the noise about "equality."

Nothing is happy about the gay life. But misery loves company, hence all the noise about "equality."

You speaking from experience or just posting crap?

Gay meant happy until recently

And "cool" meant cold, "stud" meant a male horse, "bitch" a female dog, among hundreds of other terms.

Language evolves over time.

Actually, Timothy and Ursamajor are most likely closeted homosexuals:

New Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal

August 1996 Press Release

WASHINGTON -- Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory.

Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both in terms of sexual arousal and experience.

Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes (but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and records male tumescence.

Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: 'The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control [nonhomophobic] men did not.'

Broken down further, the measurements showed that while 66% of the nonhomophobic group showed no significant tumescence while watching the male homosexual video, only 20% of the homophobic men showed little or no evidence of arousal. Similarly, while 24% of the nonhomophobic men showed definite tumescence while watching the homosexual video, 54% of the homophobic men did.

When asked to give their own subjective assessment of the degree to which they were aroused by watching each of the three videos, men in both groups gave answers that tracked fairly closely with the results of the objective physiological measurement, with one exception: the homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal by the male homosexual video.

http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/homophobia.htm