Democrats & Liberals Archives

President Bush to Announce Support for Second Class Citizen Status

On Monday, June 5th, President Bush will hold a press conference in the Rose Garden of the White House. During the press conference, the President will reiterate his support for the discriminatory and immoral Federal Marriage Amendment.

The amendment, which will hold gays and lesbians to second class citizen status, goes against the fabric of America.

When will we stop replaying the discrimination game and accept that 'liberty and justice for all,' means for all?

If Conservatives wish to protect the sanctity of marriage, then maybe they should try to pass an amendment that would outlaw divorce. Of course, these hypocrites would never allow that to happen. Instead, they claim moral superiority by using a very small minority that will not have a negative impact on them personally.

50% of marriages in this country end in divorce and 85% of those get remarried. 43% of those count themselves among religious right wing conservatives.

Did Jesus condemn same-sex marriage? Nope. Did he condemn divorce? You bet.

"Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.� Luke 16:18

So 43% of adulterers condemn same sex marriage, but don't condemn their own "lifestyle" choice. Interesting.

What did Jesus say about people like this?


"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. " Matthew 7:1-2

We even get this parable warning against doing exactly what some are trying to do with this amendment:

Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants.

As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him.

Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.'

The servant's master took pity on him, cancelled the debt and let him go.

But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow- servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded.

His fellow- servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.'

But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt.

When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.

Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I cancelled all that debt of yours because you begged me to.

Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow- servant just as I had on you?'

In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart. Matthew 18:23-35

Nearly half of the "religious right" are living an adulterous lifestyle and claim God's grace for their own lifestyle sins. Yet, they are not willing to extend such forgiveness to same-sex couples. Quite amazing.

So, why then do groups that claim they are concerned with families target families headed by same-sex couples, but ignore families headed by adulterers? Simple, if "Focus on the Family" focused on all facets of the family, including railing against divorce, they would go bankrupt from lack of donations and support.

In fact, James Dobson of FOTF, has been out fearmongering at a ferocious pace recently. According to Dobson, marriage is under vicious attack, from the forces of hell itself. He "believes" with the destruction of marriage will come the decline of western civilization itself. He claims we're in a crisis point, right now, where the family is either going to survive or it's going to fall apart and it will happen in the next few years.

Oh, my! Better pick up those checkbooks and pledge a week�s salary, credit cards accepted! Operators standing by!

Please! If thousands of years of divorce have not destroyed marriage, then a tiny minority isn't going to now. Countries around the world have shown up the land of the "free" and legalized same-sex unions. None of them have been met with their demise.

The religious right has 2000 years of experience preying on people's fears for their own gain, a trait they brought with them to the Republican Party. Same-sex marriage has become their latest cash cow.

Posted by JayJay Snow at June 1, 2006 12:00 AM
Comments
Comment #153236

What, exactly, or how, exactly, will same-sex marriages have any affect on marriage and family values?

Maybe they will show the straights up by having more stable families?

Posted by: womanmarine at June 1, 2006 12:13 AM
Comment #153253

I doubt a marriage amendment goes against the “fabric” of our country. You can provide “liberty and justice for all” without granting someone a marriage certificate to a person of the opposite sex.

No one is saying gays can’t be married. They just can’t be married to someone of the same sex.

No one is saying polygamists can’t be married. They just can’t be married to more than one person.

No one is saying pedophiles can’t be married. They just can’t be married to a five-year-old.

Posted by: Scottie at June 1, 2006 1:46 AM
Comment #153258

You’re right, it is discriminating to have standards for legal marriage. But discrimination is not necessarily an oppressive thing.

Surely you are not arguing for having no standards at all?

Should the state be able to regulate whether a man can marry another man, several men, or even their sister of brother if they so choose? What is the standard you are arguing for?


Posted by: esimonson at June 1, 2006 2:15 AM
Comment #153260

I’m going against my better judgement by even posting here again, but this is a subject I deeply care about, so despite editorial double-standards, I have to chime in.

Once again, the Christian Right (which is neither Christian, nor right), through it’s tax-free warchest it seems to be able to get away with filling every day, is intent on making the Bible the legislative standard in the US. Again, a dangerous precedent that falls completely against the Founding Father’s desires, and completely goes against the grain of a society free from religious persecution, which this certainly qualifies for. It’s telling that this administration, along with that of Reagan, is just awash in borderline Constitutional illegality and malfeasance.

First of all, the State is not allowed to favor one religious cult over another. Thomas Jefferson said many times over that one’s faith should not be a basis for reward or punishment, but that’s what Dobson and his like-minded Pharisees are trying to get away with.

The State’s only concern for this “institution”, of which even the Christians can’t get together 50% of the time, should be the benefit of perpetuating the State by procreation, thereby insuring its continuity. Beyond that, the State, in whatever form it decided to make itself known by, should have precisely zero say in this matter.

Faith is a personal matter, and everyone has the right in this nation to follow his or her faith insofar as it does not violate law as already written. This takes care of those weak arguments the Christians try to bring out by mentioning the legitimization of pedophiles, polygamists and other criminals. The reason those people are criminals has nothing to do with the faith they profess; it’s because it takes advantage of others that are largely indefensable. A polygamist can’t possibly support multiple families monetarily, and pedophiles take advantage of immature individuals. How then, can you lump homosexuals in this group? How is it that they are criminalized and cast into the same lot as pederasts and bigamists?

I’ll tell you why. It’s because Christian ministerial yahoos with too much money that should be flowing into tax coffers and not into the hands of political campaigns of conservative windbag mouthpieces are allowed to continue flaunting the law.

In my opinion, it is the political “Christian” organizations that represent the single greatest threat to liberty and freedom of religious belief in this nation, bar none. White supremacists (most who profess Chrisianity as their religion), neo-Nazis and other fools pale in comparison to the Torquemadas behind the pulpit, especially when they stand behind politicians that will do what they say because their campaign funds are supplied by the donations given to these churches. These bought and paid for shills, and those that think that what they are doing is not only legal but just and right, are the most un-American people this nation has ever produced. It sickens me.

The State, by not being permitted to sanction a State religion, is very close to Constitutional violation in making something that is purely a relgious precept with no basis in any other legal precedent as being illegal (besides what the Bible says about homosexuality) a Constitutional amendment. How is the homosexual union a danger to the United States? It is not. “Marriage” has two different meanings; one is a religious institutioin (which the State has no business even concerning itself with), and the other being a legal contract between two people which defines and delegates responsibility in parental, financial and personal matters. In the latter role, the State not only can but must regulate it. As for the former, only a nation sick internally could ever possibly allow such an Amendment to be added to the Constitution.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 1, 2006 2:56 AM
Comment #153268

It’s a damn shame that democrats have to fight for TOLERANCE of diverse life styles. We should be fighting for RESPECT for them.

Posted by: Thom Houts at June 1, 2006 4:31 AM
Comment #153269

Eric Simonson:

If they cared for standards so much, why don’t they ban divorce? I’ll tell you why. Because divorce affects THEIR freedom to choose. So they ban something that has no bearing on their own lifestyle e.g. gay marriage.

Posted by: Aldous at June 1, 2006 4:37 AM
Comment #153274

I don’t believe that one sin is greater than the next; is it a greater sin to be gay than to extort money from your fellow man and hold it in your freezer, or attack a small middle eastern country for it’s oil? No. One sin is as terrible as the next and is as equally accountable. While I don’t agree with those who say it’s okay with God to come out of the closet, I believe that any other pre-meditated sin is equally as bad in God’s eyes.

Posted by: Scott Burgoyne at June 1, 2006 5:34 AM
Comment #153278

Civil Unions should be the order of the day that provides equal societal benefits to committed partners whose lives are otherwise indistinguishable from law abiding American married couples. That elimintates the marriage word which has religious implications, and deals with rights and entitlements of committed partners on a fair and equal legal basis.

Both the right and left extremes on this issue need to move to the center. Our nation has far, far more important issues facing the entire population than this.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 1, 2006 6:42 AM
Comment #153298

Here we go again. I support same sex marriage because it is good for the people involved and good for society. Married people are, on average, healthier, wealthier and problably wiser (since they are more likely to vote Republican).

I think this is an evolving issue, however. People in general have become much more accepting of homosexuals in the last decades. I think the time for same sex marriage is almost here, but not quite yet. I know this angers absolutists who see it as a human right, but marriage is an institution of society. It is one of the most basic. If this reform it to work, it must have broad acceptance and that takes a little more time. My guess is only about 5 years.

Posted by: Jack at June 1, 2006 9:00 AM
Comment #153300

Jack,

Well said (well, except the whole “voting Republican” bit…).

Scottie,

No one is saying gays can’t be married. They just can’t be married to someone of the same sex.

No one is saying polygamists can’t be married. They just can’t be married to more than one person.

No one is saying pedophiles can’t be married. They just can’t be married to a five-year-old.

The polygamy comparison is appropriate. The pedophilia comparison is not. In the former case, you’re talking about the state not being willing to legitimize an otherwise legal behavior (having sex with mulitple partners). In the latter, your comparing homosexuality to an act that is illegal in itself (having sex with a 5-year-old).

The polygamy comparison does bring up an interesting question, though. If the ACT is legal — if a person can have multiple sexual partners, and even multiple households — then why exactly do we make it illegal to put it on paper? Thoughts?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 1, 2006 9:10 AM
Comment #153308

It’s a bigger issue than just morals. It’s about money and taxes, rights of inhereitance, and family rights, access to benefits, for both gays or just non-married or extended families in households.

Gays cannot easily leave their estate tax free to partner, to provide for their children’s welfare.

How about non-gay families, some considered single parent households, where a mother and daughter, aunt, grandmother, etc. living together, raising children. When one dies, the gov’t takes their piece.

The exception is the married spouse, who gets the tax-free benefit. Imagine if you could designate one person, a family member, to receive your estate tax free without paying taxes (on money you already paid taxes on over a lifetime anyway)

This would cost the government too much money in lost taxes…period. And if you think rich people could abuse this, perhaps they could, but don’t forget, there is still a cap on non-taxable assets anyway regardless. That’s what a civil union is for. It’s not about your feelings about what is “moral” or makes you uncomfortable - it’s about love and family. Think about all the non-gay people living together as “family”, either out of necessity or out of love, then maybe you might understand better what this entails.

In short, this isnt just about gays - it’s about everyone who isn’t married but still constitutes “family”.

Posted by: Bob at June 1, 2006 9:52 AM
Comment #153312

Why not have everyone wanting to get married go thru a civil ceremony which recognizes a legal partnership/union…this would suffice for most people; for those who wish to get married in a church ceremony, this would occur after the civil ceremony and the ministers would have no standing to sign marriage certificates that would have any legal standing.

Many countries already only recognize the civil ceremony.

This way, religoins who don’t want to allow for same-sex couples won’t have to…

Posted by: Lynne at June 1, 2006 10:05 AM
Comment #153313

YES JESUS CHRIST DID CONDEME SAME SEX….RELATIONSHIPS…. HE DISTROYED SODOM AND GAMMORA FOR THIS REASON…. THEY WANTED TO KNOW THE ANGLES HE SENT TO DISTROY THE CITY… LOT OFFERED HIS VERGIN DAUGHTERS TO THEM TO LEAVE THE ANGLES ALONE….. THE ANGLES STRUCK THE CITY BLIND, EXCEPT FOR LOT AND HIS FAMILY TO LET THEM GO… LOTS WIFE LOOKED BACK AND WAS TURNED INTO A PILLER OF SALT…. THE ANGLES SAID GO… BUT DO NOT LOOK BACK…..JESUS NEVER SAID THERE SHOULD BE SAME SEX MARRIAGE IN THE BIBLE.. HE SAID IT WAS AN ABOMINATION BEFORE HIS EYES. .. YOU NEED TO LOOK UP THAT WORD, ITS IN THE BIBLE… YOU WERE RIGHT SAME SEX IS NOT IN THE BIBLE.. BUT ABOMINATION BEFORE HIS EYES … THAT IS… SO READ YOUR BIBLE DONT JUST PICK OUT WHAT YOU WANT IT TO READ… READ THE WHOLE THING, NOT JUST BITS AND PIECES……HE SAID EVERY ANIMAL AFTER ITS OWN KIND…..HE DIDNT SAY MAN AFTER HIS OWN KIND…..IF YOU HADNT NOTICED MEN AND WOMEN ARE PLUMMED DIFFERENTLY….ITS SO THEY CAN HAVE CHILDREN AND MULTIPLY… THAT WAS THE ORDER….HE DIDNT SAY HAVE THE SAME SEX PARTNER…… MABIE YOU JUST DONT KNOW HOW TO READ THE BIBLE… ITS WRITTEN IN PARABLES, YOU HAVE TO SEARCH FOR THE MEANINGS….SEEK AND YE SHALL FIND.. KNOCK AND THE DOOR SHALL BE OPENED……HE SAID MULTIPLY, NOT FALSEFY HE SAID MEN ARE MEN AND WOMEN ARE WOMEN AND THEY SHALL BE JOINED IN MARRIAGE….. HE WAS VERY SPACIFIC….THAT RIB HE GAVE AWAY HE DIDNT PUT IN MEN… HE GAVE IT TO WOMEN… RIBS ARE USED FOR SUPPORT…. WOMEN ARE USED FOR SUPPORT…NOT IMPORT………GOD BLESSED THE JOINING OF MAN AND WOMAN………. ITS NOT WO-MAN ITS WOMAN… AND THEY HAVE BABIES….BABIES ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN TWO WOMEN TOGETHER…… THEY ARE MORE IMPORTANT THATN TWO MEN TOGETHER…GOD INSTITUTED MARRIAGE…. IT WAS FOR BABIES… LOTS OF BABIES TO SPREAD THE GOSPIL…..AND HE WAS NOT MARRIED AT ALL…..PERIOD….. HE IS A RISEN SAVIOR AND HE IS ALIVE… NOT DEAD… SO THE NEXT TIME YOU SPEAK WITH HIM…. SPEAK TO HIM ALIVE… NOT AS A DEAD MAN…..HE IS YOUR SAVIOR, HE SHED HIS BLOOD ON A CROSS,FOR YOUR AND MY SINS…… THIS IS NO JOKE… AND IF YOU DONT WANT TO GO TO HELL, BETTER GET A GRIP HE SAID IF YOU DONT WANT A WOMAN…. STAY SINGLE… OR SPILL YOUR SEED IN THE SAND….HE DIDNT SAY PUT YOUR SEED IN ANOTHER MAN……IT ROTTS THERE……..BIRTH GOES INWARD, NOT OUTWARD INTO THE TOILET……..THATS WHAT HE GAVE A WOMAN A UTRIS FOR….. NOT YOUR PLAY TOYS… HE GAVE IT TO HER TO HAVE BABIES…..HUMAN BABIES… GET A GRIP… DO YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT SCIENCE AT ALL…..

Posted by: bonnie at June 1, 2006 10:06 AM
Comment #153316

Bonnie:

Unfortunately, you’ve probably had to listen to someone give you their interpretation of the Bible…please go back and read that Sodom and Gomorrah story once again by yourself…it has nothing to do with sex…

YES JESUS CHRIST DID CONDEME SAME SEX….RELATIONSHIPS…. HE DISTROYED SODOM AND GAMMORA FOR THIS REASON…. THEY WANTED TO KNOW THE ANGLES HE SENT TO DISTROY THE CITY

And please, lay off the all-caps…

Posted by: Lynne at June 1, 2006 10:12 AM
Comment #153318

SEPERATION of CHURCH and STATE

Belief and law are not interchangable

enough said

Posted by: Jake at June 1, 2006 10:16 AM
Comment #153319

when are the NEOCONS going to get out of our personal, intimate business and stop trying to legislate their own beliefs on the rest of us?


HOwever, this also smacks to me of a huge predictable distraction from the charges that are so upsetting to most of us about the Marines wantonly murdering civilians for the past year, but especially this past month, in Iraq. And a distraction from the fall out from the possibly illegal search and seizure of the FBI into Jefferson’s office and refrig(!), and the Abramoff trial and the Libby/Plame case trial. And now the supreme court is making it ok to fire someone who works for the govt and whistle blows up the chain of command (isn’t that what we were always told to do?). what is happening to our civil liberties is really really scary.

You have said it many times here, but every day the proof seems screamingly clear—-we need to get those do nothings in congress out—-and vote in representatives who are as outraged by our behavior in our own country and the world as we are and who will stand up and say so. AND KEEP SAYING SO UNTIL SOMETHING CHANGES THAT doesn’t take 3 years to go to trial and by then we are so distracted by something else no one cares anymore.

If the buck stops here, as Truman said, where is bush and the admin and rumsfeld in all this going on in the murdering of civilians in Iraq? A pregnant woman, about to give birth, driving to the hosp for that purpose? and we PAY familes when we murder their family members? I am so very depressed by this. and no one for months came forward in horror and shame to say what was done?

Posted by: judye at June 1, 2006 10:18 AM
Comment #153325

I think the “neocons” should be commended here for at least following the Constitution. This amendment is a much better track than the Defense of Marriage Act passed by the previous Democratic Administration. In my opinion the DOMA is a clear violation of the 10th and should be repealed. The Feds should recognize any marriage license issued by a State period.

Seeking an Amendment is, by design, a very difficult legislative path. It’s a monumental change to our government, and will require monumental support to be approved by 3/4 of the State legislators. That the President supports an Amendment is just politics, and a good thing compared to the DOMA.

Posted by: George in SC at June 1, 2006 10:38 AM
Comment #153326

I feel compelled to address the post that, once again, trumps Jefferson as the liberal beacon of rights. The assault on America’s religious underpinnings is based on a distorted interpretation of the establishment and free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”
Only a lawyer could claim not to understand the plain meaning of those words.

The Supreme Court has taken Jefferson’s “separation” clause (divorced from Jefferson’s own explanation of the phrase) and used it to create a new, and completely arbitrary, interpretation of the First Amendment.

In 1947, with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Hugo Black construed the First Amendment in a more restrictive fashion, giving an absolute definition of the First Amendment Establishment Clause which went well beyond the original intent of the framers of the United States Constitution and paved the way for future cases that would further restrict religious expression in American public life. This ruling declares that any aid or benefit to religion from governmental actions is unconstitutional. As Justice Black said: “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”

Hardly what Thomas Jefferson meant or what the constitution guaranteed!
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” had always meant that Congress was prohibited from establishing a national religious denomination, that Congress could not require that all Americans become Catholics, Anglicans, or members of any other denomination.

This understanding of “separation of church and state” was applied not only during the time of the Founders, but for 170 years afterwards. James Madison (1751-1836) clearly articulated this concept of separation when explaining the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty. He said that the First Amendment to the Constitution was prompted because “The people feared one sect might obtain a preeminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.”

The complete and radical disassociation between Christianity and the State that is sometimes advocated now is not what they had in mind. It’s clear that they had seen entirely too many religious wars and religious tyrannies in Europe, and thus that they did want to make sure that no specific church or creed had authority over the State.

Recognizing their failure to win their arguments on fact, the lastest tactic among liberals is simply to deny the very documents that contain the facts.

Schools and courthouses in eastern Kentucky are removing their displays of historical documents - including the Mayflower Compact, an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence, the national motto, “In God we trust”, and the preamble to the state’s constitution - to comply with an order from Federal District Judge Jennifer Coffman, who said the displays are a violation of the First Amendment. [Dr. Billy James Hargis, Christian Crusade, June 2000]

When the First Amendment was passed it only had two purposes.

There would be no established, national church for the united thirteen states. To say it another way: there would be no “Church of the United States.” The government is prohibited from setting up a state religion, such as Britain has, but no barriers will be erected against the practice of any religion. Thomas Jefferson’s famous “wall of separation” between church and state comment was made in a letter to a group of Baptist clergymen January 1, 1802 in Danbury, Connecticut, who feared the Congregationalists Church would become the state-sponsored religion. Jefferson assured the Danbury Baptist Association that the First Amendment guaranteed that there would be no establishment of any one denomination over another. It was never intended for our governing bodies to be “separated” from Christianity and its principles. The “wall” was understood as one directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values. It keeps the government from running the church but makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.
The second purpose of the First Amendment was the very opposite from what is being made of it today. It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion. The purpose of the separation of church and state in American society is not to exclude the voice of religion from public debate, but to provide a context of religious freedom where the insights of each religious tradition can be set forth and tested. As Justice Douglas wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court in the United States vs. Ballard case in 1944: The First Amendment has a dual aspect. It not only “forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship” but also “safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion.” The First Amendment was a safe-guard so that the State can have no jurisdiction over the Church. Its purpose was to protect the Church, not to disestablish it.

Posted by: Grey Archer at June 1, 2006 10:43 AM
Comment #153329

I can appreciate a lot of the remarks made by folks who are sympathetic to the plight of gays and lesbians living in this country as second class citizens. I will be 50 years old in August and I have never had the right to marry the person I love with all my heart. It affects our life in so many ways on a day-to-day basis. My lover can’t get health insurance for me through her employer, so I am getting by with a government health card. We pay more for car insurance because we can’t be under one policy. We are already worried about what we will do if something happens to one of us. Will one of our families swoop in and leave the other person penniless? Will one of our family members step in and disconnect life support? I read somewhere that over 1100 legal benefits accrue to a couple when they are legally married. Gays and lesbians want those legal rights given by the state; not the religious approval of any of the 50-50 religious denominations running around this country.

Posted by: Ruth at June 1, 2006 10:46 AM
Comment #153330

Jesus destroyed sodem and gammora?I dont know much about the bible but do you mean god? I don’t think Jesus destroyed any thing.He was a little more forgiving than most of you bible thumpers.

Posted by: Christian at June 1, 2006 10:47 AM
Comment #153332

Jake,

If beliefs do not shape our laws then what does?

Posted by: Cliff at June 1, 2006 10:55 AM
Comment #153333

Christian,

Jesus is God…

Posted by: Discerner at June 1, 2006 10:56 AM
Comment #153335

Hey asshole he is the son of god.Do you mean jesus is lord?

Posted by: christian at June 1, 2006 11:08 AM
Comment #153336
If beliefs do not shape our laws then what does?

But it doesn’t have to be “Christian” beliefs that shape our laws…it can be mutually agreed upon “beliefs” that don’t involve any religion…you don’t have to believe in any religion to have moral beliefs!!

Posted by: Lynne at June 1, 2006 11:14 AM
Comment #153338

christian,

I was not being impolite to you…
I prefer you treat me with respect as I will continue to respect you.

Jesus is God, He also is Lord…
There are three parts to the Godhead (Trinity)
Father, Son & Holy Spirit, They are one…

Posted by: Discerner at June 1, 2006 11:15 AM
Comment #153339

Lynne,

You have made my point; our beliefs come from somewhere and have a basis. Individuals cannot deny the basis for their beliefs or change them. We all act and think based on our beliefs.

Now, having said that, there are hypocrites out there, of all types, shapes and sizes. These will be the exceptions to the rule.

I will also admit that I do not always live up to what I believe. But, I will keep striving towards them.

Posted by: Cliff at June 1, 2006 11:23 AM
Comment #153340

Discerner,

Jesus is God, He also is Lord… There are three parts to the Godhead (Trinity) Father, Son & Holy Spirit, They are one…

For the record, not all Christians accept the idea of the Trinity. Some of us hold the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be three distinct beings who are “One in Purpose”.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 1, 2006 11:26 AM
Comment #153342

The point was lost.Do you agree that jesus was more forgiving than the god God of the old testaments that you speek of.

Posted by: Christian at June 1, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #153345

Lynne said:

But it doesn’t have to be “Christian” beliefs that shape our laws…it can be mutually agreed upon “beliefs” that don’t involve any religion…you don’t have to believe in any religion to have moral beliefs!!

Just like you don’t need to belong to any religion to believe that same sex relationships are unnatural. In fact, there really isn’t much “believing” involved - if you’ve been around the block a few times anyway. Man and woman together is really quite a Darwinian concept, don’t you think?


Posted by: Craig at June 1, 2006 11:32 AM
Comment #153348

Christian,

No I do not.
They are One…(see John 10:30)
Jesus provided the avenue by which people can come back into a relationship with God the Father. Belief in Christ’s bloodshed, death and resurrection provide the path of forgiveness. In the OT, the animal sacrifices were only a temporary means of forgiveness and restoration until Jesus came.

Posted by: Discerner at June 1, 2006 11:39 AM
Comment #153355

“Did Jesus condemn same-sex marriage? Nope. Did he condemn divorce? You bet.

“Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.? Luke 16:18”

Then why did Jesus use “wife” and “woman” “husband” when talking about marriage?
Just curious.

JayJay, other than the partisan crap you put in your post, I agree that its time for the US to move forward. But, as Jack said, it takes time and Americans ARE opening their eyes, slowly but surely.

Evil RIGHT wing Christians? During the 04 elections, when all the state marriage amendments were being voted on, our local channels were saying that 80-90% of black voters, were voting against same sex marriage.
This issue crosses party lines and its going to take everybody and time to come to a fair conclusion.

Me? I don’t care who or what another marry’s.
Love is love.

“when are the NEOCONS going to get out of our personal, intimate business and stop trying to legislate their own beliefs on the rest of us?”

Neocons?
They shouldn’t tell others who to love, but its ok for you to tell others who to feel sorry for and how to help them?
Why do you believe its ok for you to dictate how others feel? I thought you said it was wrong to do so?
Or is this another one of those things where its ok because you know whats best for everybody else?
Give it up Judye. If you want them to be fair and respectful, you should lead by example and do so yourself first.

Posted by: kctim at June 1, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #153358

Conservatives pretend to be state’s rights oriented and to want to limit the power of the Federal government to intrude into individual’s lives. How does that square with rewriting the constitution to ban gay-marriage? What could be more intrusive than giving the government the power to decide whether or not someone can marry? What hypocrites! Why not leave this decision to individual states? Rewriting our constitution seems so drastic.

Posted by: Max at June 1, 2006 12:28 PM
Comment #153359

I’m not sure that the Constitution should be “defending the sanctity of marriage” or any “sacred institution” at all. These are religious concepts that don’t translate well into applicable law. I checked the ‘actual’ Constitution and can find no direct references to “sanctity” or even “family”.

http://stevensmigs.com/2006/05/16/is-marriage-obsolete.aspx

Posted by: ssmigs at June 1, 2006 12:32 PM
Comment #153361

I think anyone who wants hold to their religious values - go get married at your church - or if you’re gay and they will not allow you to marry, become a preist.

If you want to get married outside the chruch - go to the justice of the peace (?) and get married or unioned or whatever.

You pick the person and the place, and the rest of us should stay the HELL out of their way.

If you disagree - please show any (ANY) resulting damage caused by marriage? I think the positives have been proven time and time again. If you can only mention your religion or some ass-backwards rationale… you need to get over this and stay the hell out of other peoples business - you’re not welcome there. (ie. GROW UP! and evolve with the rest of us…)

Posted by: tony at June 1, 2006 12:38 PM
Comment #153373

I agree with Jack, Tony, JJ, and George (weird group). This consitutional ammendment like most others posed but not passed is a bad one. I highly doubt it will pass. As a country, we have made great strides in accepting homosexuals as part of society. We will make the last few sometime in the next ten years.

Though I disagree with the President, the fact that he has come out in support rather than standing on the sidelines is good. We need to get this debate out into the open for the progress to continue. The fundamentalists will eventually be their own undoing. The more they push the issue, the more people are forced to think about it. The more people think about it, the more likely they are to change their mind.

Democrats, you are not without sin on this issue. Kerry didn’t come down on the No side of the ballot initiatives in 2004. Why? Because, his polls predicted correctly what was going to happen. 70+% point wins for the initiatives in States that went 45 to 55% for Kerry, and there was at least some small subset that voted for Bush and against the initiatives. Even if you figure a bare 5%. That means that we were seeing a 20 to 30% support for the initiatives among Kerry voters.

Posted by: Rob at June 1, 2006 1:02 PM
Comment #153374

Tony, what is the purpose of marriage? Do you think that there is any value left in the keeping the ‘traditional’ American family intact?

I would argue that homosexuals want to change the definition of marriage even beyond it including the “same sex” moniker. The damage is done by welcoming their promiscuous relationships into what we historically have defined as marriage. And yes, regardless of what you may choose to admit to yourselves, statistically homosexuals are much less likely to stay committed to one partner than heterosexuals.

In their book The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison found that of the 156 couples they studied, 75 percent of the partners learned within five years that for the relationship to survive, cheating had to be tolerated, as long as one or the other did not become emotionally involved with the other sex partner. In her book The Mendola Report, lesbian Mary Mendola conducted a nationwide survey of approximately 400 homosexual couples. She, too, found that homosexuals distinguish between sexual and emotional exclusivity. Indeed, just 26 percent of homosexuals believe commitment is paramount in a marriage-type relationship.
source

Anyone here lived through a divorce as a child? With mom and dad sleeping around with multiple partners? Was that pleasant? What happens when marriage becomes defined like most homosexuals would have it?

And why in the world is this just a religious argument? C’mon democrats, you keep saying that you care about family values, speak up!

Posted by: Craig at June 1, 2006 1:07 PM
Comment #153384

Tony,

Here is a link to a person’s opinion regarding same-sex marriage. It is a completely secular argument. Thought you might like to see one person secular argument since you are apparently against any biblical reasoning.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts

I think perhaps “de-evolve with the rest of you” might be a better term given the ardent support for behavioral depravity. Relativism at its finest. Virtue is the only nobility.

Posted by: Grey Archer at June 1, 2006 1:16 PM
Comment #153386

tony:

Most Americans set some limitations on marriage. The American society is highly against polygamous marriages, against the ability of adult siblings to marry, against the ability of an adult parent marrying their adult child etc. These are all limitations of marriage.

Are you in favor of allowing polygamy, sibling marriage, or parent/child marriage? Please answer with a simple yes or no. If you disagree -please show any (ANY) resulting damage caused by such a marriage?

One potential resulting damage in the second and third instances is the genetics involved. But that issue goes away if the couple decides to not have children.

I’m interested to hear your viewpoint about these three issues, using your own statement as the divining rod.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 1, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #153392

bonnie,

I do know how to read the bible and am well aware that it is written in parables. Jesus (or better-translated Joshua) did not destroy Sodom, Jehovah did. Jesus is not Jehovah and is not of him either. Who is Jehovah? Jehovah are the “Gods” of the Old Testament. However, they are not who they say they are. How do I know? It is right there in the Bible.

In 2 Samuel 24:1 we are told that the anger of Jehovah (LORD) was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

We are told the same story in 1 Chronicles 21:1 “And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.”

Look at the passage of the supposed “original sin.” Jehovah tells Adam & Eve that they are not to eat from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil:

“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” -Genesis 2:17

What does the Serpent tell Eve? “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” -Genesis 3: 4-5

So what happens when Eve and Adam eat the fruit? Do they die in that day? No, in fact Adam lives to be 930 years old. Were their eyes opened and did they become like gods? “And the eyes of them both were opened…” Genesis 3:7 and “And the Jehovah (LORD) Gods said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil…” -Genesis 3:22

So, who told the truth here and who lied? Jehovah lied. Jesus tells us that the Devil is the father of lies. John 8:44 Jesus is of truth. The Serpent told the whole truth here.

As for Sodom, Jehovah decided to destroy the city of Sodom prior to the incident with the Mob and the Angels. Lot was a citizen of the City of Sodom. Surely, he would know if the men in the mob were homosexuals. So why then does he offer the mob his virgin daughters? He would have known they would be rejected. Why not offer his two future son-in-laws? The Bible never explicitly states that the city was destroyed because of homosexuality. In fact it does explicitly tells us what Sodom’s sin was:

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. -Ezekiel 16:49-50

No mention of homosexuality at all. Jude, Verse 7 does say that one of Sodom’s sins was going after strange flesh. The angels were not human. Strange flesh is more likely a reference to bestiality than homosexuality.

“He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.” -1 john 4:8

“There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.” -1 john 4:18

If God is love, then why are we told to fear Jehovah in the OT?

Go ahead and compare the God of the OT, Jehovah, with the God of Jesus, Love, in the NT and then tell me they are one and the same.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 1, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #153395

Craig:

What happens when marriage becomes defined like most homosexuals would have it?

It would be monogamous just as much as, if not more than, heterosexual couples…there would be just as much as, if not less than, divorce among heterosexual couples…

So, how would it have a negative impact on heterosexual marriages???? And don’t give any religious reasons…I want sociological and legal reasons…

Posted by: Lynne at June 1, 2006 1:50 PM
Comment #153398

“Why not leave this decision to individual states?”

Thank you Max. Aren’t all marrage licenses done at the state level? Keep the debate there. Let to voters of the individual states decide if they want to recognize civil unions or marrage or whatever you want to label it. In my view, the only impact to the federal government is in the collection of taxes.

I’m with Max, let the states decide.

Posted by: Greg at June 1, 2006 1:57 PM
Comment #153401

Lynne

It would be monogamous just as much as, if not more than, heterosexual couples…there would be just as much as, if not less than, divorce among heterosexual couples…

From the same source in my earlier post:

Homosexuals argue that marriage would make their relationships more stable. However, given the runaway promiscuity in this subculture, the assertion is at best unlikely. As UCLA sociologist Anne Peplau notes, “There is clear evidence that gay men are less likely to have sexually exclusive relationships than other people.”

So, how would it have a negative impact on heterosexual marriages???? And don’t give any religious reasons…I want sociological and legal reasons…

If an increase in broken homes doesn’t have enough sociological impact for you then I don’t know what would. And what’s with the “don’t give any relgious reasons” nonsense, did I give you any before? JayJay is quoting enough scripture for all of you, and at least he’s misrepresenting it.

Posted by: Craig at June 1, 2006 2:05 PM
Comment #153404
And yes, regardless of what you may choose to admit to yourselves, statistically homosexuals are much less likely to stay committed to one partner than heterosexuals.

Of course, it could be argued that this is an effect of not having a marriage-like construct within their community.

However, given the runaway promiscuity in this subculture, the assertion is at best unlikely.

I highly disagree. First with the notion of “runaway promiscuity” - I’ve seen too many promiscuous straights and too many committed gays to accept that as a basis for social policy. Second with the notion that the behavior of one part of a subgroup implies that another part is incapable of acting committed.

After all, just because Elizabeth Taylor and Zsa Zsa Gabor can’t stay married doesn’t mean I can’t.

If an increase in broken homes doesn’t have enough sociological impact for you then I don’t know what would.

How does not having the relationships be legal reduce the numbers of broken homes?

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 1, 2006 2:13 PM
Comment #153405

Craig,

Homosexuals argue that marriage would make their relationships more stable. However, given the runaway promiscuity in this subculture, the assertion is at best unlikely. As UCLA sociologist Anne Peplau notes, “There is clear evidence that gay men are less likely to have sexually exclusive relationships than other people.”

True, gay MEN are more likely to be promiscuous… but gay WOMEN are actually LESS likely to be promiscuous than heterosexuals. So your argument actually supports lesbian marriages.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 1, 2006 2:15 PM
Comment #153408

Greg,

I’m with Max, let the states decide.

There’s one BIG problem with that — the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Consitution. It requires each state to recognize the “public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings” of other states. It’s the reason why my wife and I (both Indiana residents) were able to get married in Florida, and yet still have a legal marriage in Indiana. Indiana must recognize marriages performed in Florida.

So, if one state allows gay marriage, other states would (theoretically) have to recognize that marriage as well, and give that couple the same rights as other married couples. Civil unions are an attempt to bypass this restriction. If a gay couple receives a civil union in, say, Massachusettes, then moves to Indiana, Indiana is forced to recognize the civil union… BUT, since Indiana doesn’t have any rights associated with “civil unions” (only with “marriages”), it doesn’t have to give the couple anything.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 1, 2006 2:22 PM
Comment #153410

There is only ONE reason for Bush to announce that he is in favor of the marriage amendment:

To change the subject!

He does not want us to talk about the Iraq War, about the economy, about our loss of liberties, about the sad position America holds in the world. No, he wants us to talk about preventing people of the same sex from marrying.

He knows damn well the amendment won’t pass. But he does not care. He wants to stir people up and to “activate the base.” This action is cynical, just as most of his public statements are.

Let’s not fall into the trap. Let’s talk about issues important for our welfare as a decent country.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at June 1, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #153412

Rob Cottrell-

I thought the Full Faith and Credit argument was settled the last time this marriage issue came up. There are plenty of State issued licenses that do not have reciprocity in other states: BAR, Real Estate, Cosmetology, Concealed Carry, etc….

Posted by: George in SC at June 1, 2006 2:27 PM
Comment #153413

JJ,

Interesting theology.
How do you get by John 10:30, in which Jesus states, “I and the Father are One”.

Posted by: Cliff at June 1, 2006 2:29 PM
Comment #153418

Lawnboy - I didn’t say broken homes would “decrease if…”, I said they would “increase if…”.

Rob - I guess I’m going to have to take your word on that because I’m not about to do an Internet seach on lesbian promiscuity! :) Do you have any stats handy?
In fairness, I haven’t split my soapbox between gay men and women. I am assuming that Lesbians would want the same “openness” in their marriages that gay men are clamoring for (the unsilent gay majority anyway), but that may be a wrong assumption on my part.

Posted by: Craig at June 1, 2006 2:33 PM
Comment #153420

Why is this discussion devolving into another biblical arguement instead of addressing the civil inequality of denying an American born citizen of legal age and sound mind from marrying a same sex American born of legal age and sound minded person? Aren’t we a nation of laws? Isn’t the Constitution also designed to protect us from a tyranny of the majority? I personally do not care what others believe from a religious standpoint. I do care when their personal beliefs interfere with my rights as an American to life liberty and the persuit of happiness. If an Amendment is passed, I think the consequences should be to take away the “special rights” that comes with a church driven marriage license; including all tax braeks, insurance coverages, etc. In other words, put everybody in the same boat legally and see how the heterosexuals like having to pay higher prices, create extra legal documents to protect their legal assets, and create medical powers of attorney among other things which they take for granted. Marriage is far more a legal institution than it is a religious one. As a citizen I want equal rights with my neighbor who goes to work every day, pays their taxes, and abides by the law. What is wrong with that? How does my being monagamus, looking out for my neighbor, etc., harm anyone? I wish the religious Chicken Little’s would find someone else to raise money off from for awhile.

Posted by: Ruth at June 1, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #153421
Lawnboy - I didn’t say broken homes would “decrease if…”, I said they would “increase if…”.

I turned both parts of your question around. It’s that whole “double negative is a positive” thing.

You implied that making gay marriage legal would increase the number of broken homes. I’m questioning that.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 1, 2006 2:36 PM
Comment #153422

THANK YOU PAUL!!!
I read through all the posts waiting for someone to “get it”.
Read this carefully:
REPUBLICANS POLITICIANS DO NOT REALLY CARE ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE!
Nobody sees the pattern of this issue ONLY coming up in election seasons??
Please. It’s only purpose is distraction, division, and firing up the base.
If it was such a god damn important issue, why no mention or action from the right in the last year and a half??
Without this issue bringing people to the polls in 04, bush would have lost. Period.
Rove knows this, bush knows this, why we sit here and actually debate the issue is laughable.
This election is about BUSH and his FUBAR policies, not gays, not flag burning, etc.
KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE BALL, PEOPLE!

Posted by: norby at June 1, 2006 2:40 PM
Comment #153423

George in SC,

I thought the Full Faith and Credit argument was settled the last time this marriage issue came up. There are plenty of State issued licenses that do not have reciprocity in other states: BAR, Real Estate, Cosmetology, Concealed Carry, etc….

Yes, but, as you stated, these licenses do not have reciprocity in other states. Marriage licenses do. What is being suggested by anti-gay-marriage folks is selective reciprocity — accepting some marriages from those states, but not all. I doubt that would hold up in a federal court.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 1, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #153424

Very interesting reading. I would like to enlist all of the liberals writing here to take up the smoker’s cause. Are smokers not being singled out for special and unfair tax treatment in their use of a legal product? Would you use the same arguments to help smokers obtain equal rights? I doubt it because you don’t really give a shit about the constitution or what is right or wrong. As usual, you just promote what you want and to hell with the rest. Jim

Posted by: Jim Martin at June 1, 2006 2:43 PM
Comment #153426

No, Jim.

The difference is that smoking is an unhealthy chosen lifestyle, whereas homosexuality is (as far as science can currently show) an inborn trait that is not inherently unhealthy.

Huge difference.

And we do give a shit about the constitution, thank you very much.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 1, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #153427

Cliff,

How do you get by John 10:30, in which Jesus states, “I and the Father are One”.

I know how I “get by” that scripture. The same way I “get by” Genesis 2:24 — “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” — by assuming that it’s figurative, and not literal. The Father and the Son are “one” in purpose, not in flesh, similarly to how a husband and wife are “one” in purpose.

Now, how do YOU get by Matthew 26:39 — “And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.” The Father and the Son are shown to have separate wills, by the admission of Jesus himself. How is this possible, if they are one being?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 1, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #153430

“Are smokers not being singled out for special and unfair tax treatment in their use of a legal product? Would you use the same arguments to help smokers obtain equal rights? I doubt it because you don’t really give a shit about the constitution or what is right or wrong. As usual, you just promote what you want and to hell with the rest. Jim”

Gee Jim, don’t hold back. Express yourself!!
Ok, Lets make smoking illegal. Fine by me.
As for comparing smokers to gays, well, show me a young kid that, without ever so much as seeing a cigarette, knows he’s been a smoker since he could remember.
Show me that most smokers declare their smokerhood even at the risk of their families disowning them, of society shunning them, and occasionally getting the crap beat out of them simply because they are what they are.
Otherwise, your analogy is crap.

Posted by: norby at June 1, 2006 2:55 PM
Comment #153432

Jim/LawnBoy,

I would take it a step further. Smoking leads to second-hand smoke which hurts more than the smoker — it infringes upon the rights of others. Insomuch as a smoker keeps his smoke to himself, I have no desire to infringe upon his rights. If someone attempts to restrict the right of a smoker to smoke within his own home, without children present, then I will certainly defend the smoker’s rights. I’ve done so on several occasions.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, does not infringe upon the rights of the non-homosexual. I’ve never had to sit in a restaurant with my kids and breath in the cancerous fumes of second-hand homosexuality.

And yes, Jim, I care about both the Constitution and about what is “right”. But sometimes, defending the Constitution means allowing other people to be “wrong”. You can’t make everyone’s decisions for them. Sometimes you’re better off teaching by example than by legislation.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 1, 2006 2:59 PM
Comment #153433

“You implied that making gay marriage legal would increase the number of broken homes. I’m questioning that.”

Lawn,
His claim is silly. If gays could marry, even if they were worse than our 50% failure rate, you’d still have MORE unbroken homes since as it stands now, they aren’t allowed to create homes, period.
The only way anti gay logic works is if they believe that a lot of now straight guys would be tempted out of their families, essentially “turning” gay.
Maybe deep down that’s the reason this seems to strike fear into the republican heart. Lots of closet queens on the right???
Just speculating.

Posted by: norby at June 1, 2006 3:00 PM
Comment #153435

“But sometimes, defending the Constitution means allowing other people to be “wrong”. You can’t make everyone’s decisions for them. Sometimes you’re better off teaching by example than by legislation.”

Amazing how the “less government is better” right wing is now the ones more quick on the trigger to push government legislated solutions to issues. AND so quick to circumvent states rights in favor of central government.
I’m starting to miss what the republican party USED to be.

Posted by: norby at June 1, 2006 3:03 PM
Comment #153440
Interesting theology. How do you get by John 10:30, in which Jesus states, “I and the Father are One”.

Cliff,

Simple, Jehovah is not the father.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 1, 2006 3:07 PM
Comment #153442

Great article, Jay Jay.
I agree with you — writing discrimination into the Constitution is totally unamerican. Those who want to obviously don’t believe in “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”.
But the reasons for this coming up right now we all must recognize as a political distraction. It seems the only way the Republicans think they can win the next election is by throwing a worthless bone (because it’ll never pass) to the religious fanatics in America by formenting hatred and animosity toward gays and lesbians.

Honestly, how there can be such a thing as Log Cabin Republicans, I’ll never know. Don’t they get tired of the treatment? Don’t they see that only Liberals are willing to stand up for their rights?

Hey Bonnie,
Nice eight inch long overwrought fanatical rant there. The fact that was done at a shout from start to finish really was a really classy touch.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 1, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #153444
I’m starting to miss what the republican party USED to be.

STARTING TO? Then you’re several years behind me…

I miss what the Republican party was about 40 years ago. And I miss what the Democratic party was about 60 years ago.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 1, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #153450

Honestly, who gives a damn about what the Trinity is defined as, or what Jehovah or Yahweh or whoever the hell it is that supposedly destroyed a couple of cities with fire and brimstone because they were wicked people? What does it have to do with Constitutional law anyway?

You see, there is a major problem with any of this type of conversation. You Christians think that what you believe is the Truth, end of discussion. What you believe in is a BELIEF, a FAITH. You cannot prove a damn thing. It’s the worst example of critical thinking in the whole world, that of religious faith and belief.

In all instances in the world save this one, faith is laughed at. Go to your banker and tell him that you’d like to see proof that your money is in there. If the banker were to tell you “My Son, have faith! You have everything here that you put in. If you do not believe me, then the system is in jeopardy because the confidence of those that use it and those that might want to use it is eroded”, you would probably say “Give me my money now, you charlatan” and move to another bank that will provide you with proof.

Bottom line: not a single person in this country has the right nor the power to deprive people of their right of the “Pursuit of Happiness”. Take your stupid retarded arguments about the First Amendment out of here. This basic tenet of the Constitution is inviolate. You may not infringe on a person’s right to happiness so long as it does not violate a law somewhere. About the only law this might violate is a sodomy law somewhere, you know, in states that are still in the 13th century.

Let me make something crystal clear to you smeg religious fanatics out there: I don’t give a damn about what you think about the Creation of the universe, or who is up there in the clouds monitoring everything we do and see…Bad Santa, indeed.

You do NOT have the right to oppress others because of your unproven, unscientific hogwash. But that’s what the Bush administration is trying to do. Why? Bush is about as Christian as Paris Hilton is celibate. He’s a liar, proven time and time again, and he’s owned and operated by Corporate America and the Religious Right. This nation is NOT a democracy. It is a republic. It’s not a tyranny of the majority, it’s a representative system where the rights of ONE are more important than the stupid opinions of the Inquisition out there.

As for the guy talking about defending smoking, you’re damn right. Smokers are unfairly taxed. Smokers, it can be argued, are victims of taxation without representation. We most certainly do care about the Constitution. It’s just that most Christian Conservatives are convinced that God told them that they are right, and their view of America is the only one, even though the whole basis of their connecting Christianity with the United States is a lie and a farce to begin with. The Pharisees are active and at it once again within the US government. They got in there under the Reagan Revolution (since he invited them, and since the DIP GIPPER had all his PR and campaign finance paid for by these religious toads) and haven’t been tossed out since.

Do yourself a favor, you Christians. Go read Salvation For Sale, and get the feck out of the legislative machinery of this nation. You have no business being there, and if you continue to do so, you might just incite the first legitimate revolution in this nation since the Civil War.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 1, 2006 3:30 PM
Comment #153456

Craig:

Homosexuals argue that marriage would make their relationships more stable. However, given the runaway promiscuity in this subculture, the assertion is at best unlikely. As UCLA sociologist Anne Peplau notes, “There is clear evidence that gay men are less likely to have sexually exclusive relationships than other people.”

If an increase in broken homes doesn’t have enough sociological impact for you then I don’t know what would. And what’s with the “don’t give any relgious reasons” nonsense, did I give you any before? JayJay is quoting enough scripture for all of you, and at least he’s misrepresenting it.

Asking that religious reasons not be given to support a point was aimed at whoever would reply, not specifically at you…religious law is NOT what rules our country, our CONSTITUTION is…

You state from someone’s research that homosexual men are less likely to have sexually exclusive relationships than other people; however, because gays are not allowed to be married (in the overwhelming majority of states), the research was NOT conducted using “married” homosexual couples…therefore, your point is not valid. You can’t compare non-married homosexual couples to married heterosexual couples…

I’d be interested in the statistics showing the dedicated monogamy rate of married heterosexual couples…it can’t be all that high, either.

Posted by: Lynne at June 1, 2006 3:49 PM
Comment #153457

joshuacrime,

Out of curiosity, was that rant directed at all Christians, or just those who disagree with you about marriage rights? I was pretty much with you on your arguments about marriage, but if accepting the support of one of those damned Christians is too much for you, I can go piss people off in another debate somewhere else.

Let me know.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 1, 2006 3:49 PM
Comment #153460

Lynne,

I remember reading somewhere about a study done in one of the European countries that legalized gay marriage. They found that, although lesbians enter committed relationships more readily than even heterosexual couples, they were more likely to divorce. And, while gay men were more promiscuous pre-marrige, they were more likely to stay married than even heterosexual couples.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 1, 2006 3:55 PM
Comment #153461

“Go to your banker and tell him that you’d like to see proof that your money is in there. If the banker were to tell you “My Son, have faith! You have everything here that you put in. If you do not believe me, then the system is in jeopardy because the confidence of those that use it and those that might want to use it is eroded”

Quite a statement. Since banks take the money you deposited and turn around and lend it out (minus the reserve requirement), you do have faith in the bank that they will make loans/extend credit/etc to those people/entities that are creditworthy and will not default on the loan. Thus, you have faith in the bank that they will not squander your money, and the bank has faith in the debtor that they will not default. Then again, the FDIC is there to bail you out if the bank does go down up to $100k…then you have to have faith that the government is solvent (HA!).

Remember, the dollar is backed by the “full FAITH and credit” of the US of A. Faith is everwhere in human existance, don’t attack those who have “faith” in something that you may not. Aren’t we all entitled?

Posted by: Greg at June 1, 2006 3:56 PM
Comment #153462

The gay divorce rate study was in the Netherlands, and the results can be found here:

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1685059,00.html

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 1, 2006 3:59 PM
Comment #153464

Thanks for the research link, Rob…but I certainly wouldn’t compare Netherlands to the U.S. … their society is very different than ours, drugs & sex considered…

There can be no research in the U.S. comparing same-sex married couples to heterosexual married couples until the former actually exists as a regular & legal part of our society.

Posted by: Lynne at June 1, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #153465

Greg:
“Then again, the FDIC is there to bail you out if the bank does go down up to $100k”

You can thank liberals for the FDIC. We’ve never liked the idea of operating on faith alone.

“then you have to have faith that the government is solvent (HA!).”

In the coming years, if our government becomes no longer solvent, you can thank George W. Bush’s “conservatism” for that.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 1, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #153466

paul and norby,
thank you for agreeing with me that this is a huge distraction. and i think it is working? i hope not.
kctim—-i am not sure what you mean—-i am not feeling sorry for anyone. well, maybe the Iraqui citizens like that pregnant woman who were murdered. that’s true—and i do want people to notice that, you are correct. —-rather than who is marrying who.

Posted by: judye at June 1, 2006 4:09 PM
Comment #153470

“Smokers are unfairly taxed. Smokers, it can be argued, are victims of taxation without representation”

Smoking is a choice. Being gay isn’t.
I don’t support banning smoking, but until I can go a whole day without seeing 100 cigarette butts lying in every nook and crany of the planet, I’m all for taxing the hell out of it!!

Posted by: norby at June 1, 2006 4:29 PM
Comment #153477

I didn’t want to debate the bible.I just have a hard time seeing so called good christians holding banners saying (God hates faggs)or using thier religion to teach hate if that is what christianity is all about I must be a athiest. What kind of church would try to impose thier will on all of america?If they don’t want goverment in thier church then they should stay out of pollitics.If homosexuals want to be as misirable as most married pepole good for them.

Posted by: Christian at June 1, 2006 4:47 PM
Comment #153479

Since when is it a fact that being gay is not a choice? Sure there have been scientific studies, but it’s still quite a reach to conclude that homosexuality is genetic.

And you hate it when Christians use faith in their arguments, so don’t do the same.

Posted by: Craig at June 1, 2006 4:51 PM
Comment #153480

The far-rights motto on this is WWWD=what would W do?

Posted by: John at June 1, 2006 5:03 PM
Comment #153483

So, I’m confused here…what have we decided? Are we for or against gay/lesbian smoking couples? What if they don’t smoke? Can we still tax them?

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 1, 2006 5:06 PM
Comment #153487

Adrienne,

“You can thank liberals for the FDIC. We’ve never liked the idea of operating on faith alone.”

Thank You, Liberals…

“In the coming years, if our government becomes no longer solvent, you can thank George W. Bush’s “conservatism” for that.”

Thank You, Adrienne, for putting “conservatism” in quotes. Yes, GWB and the Republican congress are bankrupting the country with their fiscal policies, but i also think that the Federal Reserve has sone its fair share as well…but this is not the blog for that type of stuff.

Posted by: Greg at June 1, 2006 5:16 PM
Comment #153490

christian,

I’ll go on the record and state that these people are a terrible representation of what a Christian is supposed to be. Someday, they will stand before God and have to explain for their actions. I would not want to be in their shoes.

Please do not assume that all Christians are in this category, the majority are not. God does not hate fags, God does not hate people. God is Holy and therefore hates sin. God loves people, but in his holiness, He cannot overlook their sin. It’s the overused phrase that states “hate the sin, love the sinner”. I’ll admit, it’s not practiced very well and sometimes comes across poorly.

As far as “impose their will”, isn’t that what this blog is founded on. The concept that each person in the US, has a say and an opinion that can be heard and reflected in the ballot box.

Getting back to origins of the post:

The problem is simple. Some people think a homosexual lifestyle is amoral, some think it is immoral, wrong and should be illegal. Redefining traditional marriage heightens the argument. People then, will think, act and vote accordingly.


Posted by: Cliff at June 1, 2006 5:27 PM
Comment #153512

“Since when is it a fact that being gay is not a choice?”

Craig,
You could actually talk to some gay people and just ask them.
Why would so many “chose” to be hated, villified and discriminated against??

Posted by: norby at June 1, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #153515

“So, I’m confused here…what have we decided? Are we for or against gay/lesbian smoking couples?”

Well, personally, I know I’m all for lesbian couples, if they’re smokin (hot).

Posted by: norby at June 1, 2006 6:28 PM
Comment #153520

Just a question:

Should a gay couple be allowed to raise a child? If so, do you think it will help or hurt the child? In what ways do you think it will change his/her view of the world.

Posted by: David at June 1, 2006 6:39 PM
Comment #153531

Paul, thank you for recognizing the Karl hard at work here.

Jim,
I agree that smokers are being discriminated against. This fad of an unhealthy lifestyle is just that, a fad, not science.

Yes, smoking can cause lung cancer. Second hand smoke, unless you are confined for long periods of time in a heavily smoky enviroment, so that you inhale comparable amounts of HOT gases, is a propoganda issue, not science. Superman’s wife recently died of lung cancer, not because she smoked, but because she had a genetic tendency to develope lung cancer.

Posted by: gergle at June 1, 2006 6:55 PM
Comment #153538

Craig,

Since when is it a fact that being gay is not a choice? Sure there have been scientific studies, but it’s still quite a reach to conclude that homosexuality is genetic.

Engaging in homosexual acts is indeed a choice. But same-gender attraction is NOT a choice. I know several people — some in committed heterosexual relationships — who have fought for years to “ignore” those attractions. I’ve known many gay people who, if they could, would wave a magic wand and magically become straight, because it would make their lives that much easier.

Let’s put it this way, Craig. Assuming you’re heterosexual, do you think you could suddenly “decide” to be attracted to men? Just wake up one morning and say, “you know, I think today I’ll start craving the throbbing man-bone”? Do you think that’s possible, or you do you think that your attraction to women is something more deeply rooted in you than that?

I know that I never “chose” to be heterosexual. My attraction to my wife was, initially, entirely involuntary (and inconvenient, as she was dating my best friend at the time).

David,

Should a gay couple be allowed to raise a child? If so, do you think it will help or hurt the child? In what ways do you think it will change his/her view of the world.

Gay couples should absolutely be allowed to raise children. There are enough kids in this country today who don’t have loving parents that I’m not going to deny anyone who wants to be one, no matter which way their parents swing.

And yes, being raised by homosexuals would probably change your world view, at least as far as homosexuality is concerned. But honestly, David, there are kids out there being raised by drug users, prostitutes, and child abusers… and you’re worried about gays? There are a lot of worse things that can happen to a child than to be raised by two loving parents who happen to be gay.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 1, 2006 7:17 PM
Comment #153544
joshuacrime,

Out of curiosity, was that rant directed at all Christians, or just those who disagree with you about marriage rights? I was pretty much with you on your arguments about marriage, but if accepting the support of one of those damned Christians is too much for you, I can go piss people off in another debate somewhere else.

Let me know.

Hold on there, mate. Being here is probably proof enough that you have an open mind, unlike these Christian busy-bodies that try to diddle with the legislative machine. I have nothing against real Christians. I personally love Christ; I’m just not one who believes in any of the supernatural aspects of the Christian faith. I like real Christians, you know, the ones that do what Christ said to do, which, in my opinion, is a prerequisite for calling yourself a Christian in the first place.

I’m not specifically pointing fingers at anyone. The people that feel it’s necessary to introduce into the law of our land a statment that unfairly discriminates people in love just because someones unscientific balderdash faith tells them to do so are my targets. I don’t believe that anyone that posts here fall into that category.

Anyone that professes a faith and presumes that the “power” behind that faith is capable of action is really a borderline nutcase, but that’s just my opinion. You can do what you like, so long as it’s not inflicted on me. I like True Christians.

A true Christian does the following:

1. Loves his fellow man…until that person turns out to be a big shit. Then it’s quite OK to give them the finger. God can dig that groove. To quote the formerly brilliant Denis Miller, “who do you think booked Satan’s flight”.

2. Loves the sinner but hates the sin. Jesus had discussions with the whore and treated her with respect. I’m sure Jesus didn’t think too highly of her fornication, but even Jesus did not smite her with Holy wrath. Jesus made it quite plain to all that you are not to be a judge. There is only one of those, and He will have the rap sheet when it’s all over. He will do the ass-kicking when it’s time.

Again, Denis Miller comes up with a beauty. To paraphrase:

“You are like Barney Fife. Keep your bullet in your shirt pocket. God…now God is Andy Taylor”.

3. To reiterate, you are not a judge. You are just as much of a sinner as the drug dealing pederast car thief. Read the Book if you don’t believe it. All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God. That means, in laymans’ terms, we suck. We have no leg to stand on when it comes to complaining about the sin of others. Sure, by OUR law, we have punishments for these people, and most of the time it’s just. God isn’t dumb. The nutball that murders women because they have a part down the middle of their long brown hair being fried in the chair…I think God will look the other way about that one. Maybe he’ll say “try not to do that too often, ok?”, but you can bet he gets awfully piseed off when you send your bombers over some country full of non-white people to impose “democracy” on them and kill a bunch of innocents. I don’t think God will think too highly of that.

4. Keep the Commandments holy. The Commandments are GOOD. I follow them myself, and as you might have guessed by now, I’m NOT a Christian. I’m justa as much of a Muslim (a real one), a Hindu (a real one), a Deist (closer to my true beliefs than anything), a Bahai, a Confucianist, a triabl shaman, and just about any other religion you can think of. I just don’t believe in any of the bullshit mumbo-jumbo. Those rules of life make sense. Does it require me to be a Christian in order to believe these things are good ideas? Sure doesn’t.

I like Jefferson’s answer to the shithead that was trying to litmus test him by asking him if he believed in God (undoubtedly the Christian version). His reply, to paraphrase, was something along the lines of “I’m an Apiarian. Like a bee, I flit from religion to religion, sucking the nectar from each one”.

Nah, real Christians that actually do what Jesus said to do are OK in my book. Too bad I meet so few of them.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 1, 2006 7:40 PM
Comment #153546

Rob,

Engaging in homosexual acts is indeed a choice. But same-gender attraction is NOT a choice. I know several people — some in committed heterosexual relationships — who have fought for years to “ignore” those attractions. I’ve known many gay people who, if they could, would wave a magic wand and magically become straight, because it would make their lives that much easier.
Engaging in ANY sexual act is a choice. Human beings do not have any instincts except to feed at birth and to cry when they want something. Beyond that, everything that requires physical motion and deliberate action is a choice.

The homosexuals you refer to that are torn about their sexual preference don’t do that because of their own thoughts. Their own thoughts are quite clear: the man-bone or the clam-taco is what they crave. Even nature is 20% bent, according to National Geographic. The ones that wish it were different for them sexually are likely just tired of Torquemada religious schmucks that keep messing with them. If you left them alone to their own devices, and not persecuted them, how do you think they would feel about their choice? The twin fangs of guilt and sin are dug into these people and that guilt is imposed on them by an intolerant society that feels it has the right to impose it’s faith on others.

Want to make their lives easier? How about leaving them the hell alone?

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 1, 2006 7:47 PM
Comment #153550

David,

Just a question:

Should a gay couple be allowed to raise a child? If so, do you think it will help or hurt the child? In what ways do you think it will change his/her view of the world.

Why would you, as a decent Christian, wish to deprive an adopted child of two loving parents that wish to raise him and keep him safe, warm and loved? No real Christian would ever do that.

The only way it hurts the child is if the people surrounding him/her are intolerant dumbasses. They might have a set belief imposed on them from the gay parents, but that belief, to be tolerant of others, would be far more in line than the Christian family that will teach that child to persecute people not like them because the Bible told them it was a good idea. That’s going back to that “judge” thing. You are to love your fellow man, and you are to do it unconditionally, if you believe in what Jesus teaches. You are not to make your fellow man feel evil, worthless and empty just because the Old Testament says so. It is not your damned job. It’s God’s job.

Why is it that rational thinking individuals think it’s bad for a gay couple to raise a child, who then might force their world-view on the child while the Christian parents will do the same with theirs? The “Christians” that think that way aren’t really Christians anyway, but I see no difference in either of those scenarios.

And besides, gay couples do not force their sexual preference on their children. They, having been the target of retarded simians for all of their lives, know that sexual orientation is born, not learned. If anyone understands that, it’s gay people.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 1, 2006 7:58 PM
Comment #153554

joshuacrime,

One of the saddest, yet most accurate bumper stickers I’ve ever seen said, “God, please protect me from your followers”.

I think you’ll get further with God by living a good life than you will by going to church. (But I also think that, if you’re going to the right Church, it will help you live a good life.)

I know that a lot of Christians today long for the “good old days”, when everyone around them was Christian (or at least pretended to be in order to fit in). They see the growing non-Christian elements in society as a threat to their way of life. Their desperately trying to hold onto their security blankets, grasping at straws to try to keep the old status quo.

What they’re eventually going to have to accept (and what I already have accepted) is that many of us will soon find ourselves as Christians in a non-Christian society. We can’t just “drive out the pagans” anymore… we have to learn to get along.

Our Founding Fathers gave us the perfect avenue to make that happen — the Establishment clause of the Constitution, with it’s accompanying Separation of Church and State interpretation. (And, no, it doesn’t matter whether the Founders ever intended separation of church and state… what matters is what we use it for today.) It allows each of us to live by our own moral standards in the same society.

Personally, I consider homosexuality a sin. My religious beliefs also prohibit premarital sex, taking the name of the Lord in vain, drinking alcohol, and all sorts of other things. But nobody has to make those things illegal in order for me to maintain my moral standards. My faith isn’t shaken when my neighbors do things that I consider sinful. They have their standards, and I have mine.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 1, 2006 8:05 PM
Comment #153558

If this country considers gay marriage a priority issue, then we have way too much time and too few real priorities.

I would love to see a country where the rule is:

you don’t shove your love life down my throat and I won’t show you my stupid prejudices. If there’s a minister dumb enough to do it, one should be able to marry their dog or cat. What is the problem?

Posted by: Kathy at June 1, 2006 8:20 PM
Comment #153560

Actually, I’ve seen people who love their dog or cat more than other humans.

Posted by: Kathy at June 1, 2006 8:23 PM
Comment #153561

OK,
Who’s the husband and who’s the wife?….lol
Who freekin cares not me…as long as the wife isnt my son…lol

Posted by: george at June 1, 2006 8:24 PM
Comment #153563

Chalk yourself up as one of the good ones, then.

I don’t have a belief within myself that we go someplace when we die. I believe that you have to be a good person in life because we are not going anywhere when we die. This is it. It’s up to us. Not God. We make this world what it is; a true Paradise or Hell on Earth. Take your pick.

If people were real Americans as well as real Christians (of which the Conservative Right are neither), the thought of competing faiths wouldn’t bother them one bit. They would be tolerant of their fellow man, and get on with their own beliefs. The problem comes in when they organize themselves in groups, and then put importance to that group, and then some demagogue (read: spiritual advisor) comes along and convinces people to allow him (it’s always a him) to think for them and convince them to suspend their own critical thinking in order to be “saved”.

You can consider anything to be a sin. Hell, eating meat on Friday was a sin at one time, according to the Catholics. For a time. Then someone decided it wasn’t one, and by God, the practicing Catholics of the world went, lock-step, down to the pier to get themselves a Coney Island corndog.

The real danger of religion is that people are habitual, loyal and passive, and want someone to follow. The real danger of Fascism, Communism and any other collective belief is the same. It is WE that are the problem. Islam is a truly blessed, sacred faith. Following what Mohammed preached is very wise, peaceful and solemn. Too bad WE can’t get it together for the aforementioned reasons.

You can choose to believe what you like; it’s when you think that the belief you profess gives you carte blanche to act like Pope Sixtus IV and issue a Papal Bull (God, I love that, how ironic) and convince your docile sheep to make the streets flow with the blood of the non-believers.

But that’s the point, isn’t it? You don’t believe you should force your beliefs on others and you believe that their standards are different from yours. And you further believe that you shouldn’t make that difference into an excuse to go into action to correct their mistakes, or to join in groups to persecute those that don’t believe as you do. That’s called TOLERANCE, a very Christian concept. Good for you. Maybe you can teach your fellows to read that Book you call sacred and actually follow it for once as you choose to do.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 1, 2006 8:31 PM
Comment #153580

Thanks for your contributions class. For next week’s prayer meeting don’t forget to read Leviticus chapters 15-27—and we’re still looking for people to sign up for the food kitchen bake sale. And don’t forget to turn in your “Why I’m a Christian and not a Zoastrian” essays.


See you next week-God Bless.

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 1, 2006 10:08 PM
Comment #153610

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press reports:

“After peaking during the 2004 election, opposition to allowing gays and lesbians to marry has faded in recent years. Currently, 51% oppose legalizing gay marriage, down from a recent high of 63% just two years ago in February of 2004. The percent who favor allowing gay marriage has increased from a low of 29% in August of that year to 39% today.”

Also, “Opposition remains strongest among white evangelical Protestants, 56% of whom strongly oppose legalizing gay marriage, down from 65% two years ago.”

So, IMO it’s reasonable to assume that someday down the road our gay and lesbian fellow Americans will finally be allowed to enjoy the same freedoms we do. One can only hope.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=273

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 2, 2006 12:35 AM
Comment #153759

“Actually, I’ve seen people who love their dog or cat more than other humans.”

I love my dogs more than SOME other humans.
If my lab and gwbush were both tied to a railroad track and I only had time to untie one before the train came….well, you know…

“If there’s a minister dumb enough to do it, one should be able to marry their dog or cat. What is the problem?”

A dog or cat can’t enter a legal contract.
Simple fact.
I’m always flabergasted at the anti-gay marriage people who use that claim that if we allow it, what’s to stop people from marrying animals.
Dumbest thing I’ve EVER heard.

Posted by: norby at June 2, 2006 3:07 PM
Comment #153825

“But that’s the point, isn’t it? You don’t believe you should force your beliefs on others and you believe that their standards are different from yours. And you further believe that you shouldn’t make that difference into an excuse to go into action to correct their mistakes, or to join in groups to persecute those that don’t believe as you do. That’s called TOLERANCE”

So then, are you “TOLERANT” when it comes to who I choose to help and how I choose to help them?

Posted by: kctim at June 2, 2006 5:19 PM
Post a comment