Why can't the Tea Party-Republican-Rightists and gays get along? Based on the news over the years, there is plenty of overlap between the groups' membership.

Here is an article about a gay man coming out as a Tea Partier. Apparently the only thing harder than doing this is getting gays married in California.

Read the FUNNY take on a serious matter.

http://www.dailygoat.com/?p=2100

Right Wing Nuts once again stick their noses into America's bedrooms!

I caught the last half of the HBO documentary last weekend called "Outrage' about gay public officials who vote AGAINST the interests of the gay community because they are afraid to come out of their own closets!

Fascinating stuff on just how hypocritical these clowns can be...

http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Home+Box+Office+Inc.

It's a two 'thumbs' up and super size popcorn must see!

If you don't like gay marriage blame the 'straight' people...

They're the ones who keep on having 'gay' babies...

Anonymous.

You all seem to missing the point. I have gay friends I support prop 8 and I'm christian and I think gays should have the same rights as I... AND THEY DO. Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a union between man and woman in the eyes of God. Gays have the same rights as a married couple. They can be married who cares, but call it gayrriage. Why do gays want to take away from the holiness of marriage that has been established since the beginning of days. When I tell someone that I'm married, I don't want to have to include.... to a woman. That makes me uncomfortable. In fact that violates my rights. A marriage is and always will be between a man and a woman. That is the name for it. Marriage defines a man and women. Again, that's not a right, it's a definition. Gays can't have it. Just like if gays get gayrried. A man and a woman cannot have a gayrriage, and I'm sure they won't feel like their rights are violated. So stop calling this an anti-gay law. It's not. Many aren't anti-gay or homophobes. We don't treat gays differently.

Dear I'm not for equal rights: You just wrote a whole disparaging post about gays and marriage. If your marriage is so fragile that someone else's marriage can threaten it, you have more to worry about then a judge upholding the legal rights of citizens.

Hi I'm for equal rights.... the problem you argument has is that marriage is a right. It is NOT a religious or holy event... that's a wedding. Please keep in mind we don't care about weddings and religious cermonies, it's the right of marriage we want!..

QUESTION, she cries, wildly waving her hand in the air ....

If "a moral wrong can't be a civil right," then how do conservatives explain legalized prostitution in Nevada?

If they've got nothing better to do, maybe they should go protest over that.

On second thought ... they'd probably call it a vacation.

I'm for equal rights,

So lets get this straight. Under your reasoning we should probably start making propositions banning atheists from getting married. Plus we don't want those pesky Buddists joining this marriage thing either. As far as Hindus, well, don't they have a multi-armed goddess to pray to?

Gays want the right to enjoy spousal benefits. This is the right their fighting for. Plus for them to say "I'm married" to people at parties or on silly little forms we have to fill out for different things wouldn't hurt you would it? Do you really want people to start calling it gayrriage? Do you need to feel superior? I know you say you don't want to have to start telling people that you are married to a woman. I'm betting that you get asked if you are gay a lot and that telling people you are married is your way of "defending" yourself. Now when you get asked if you are gay, you'll have to say you are married to a woman! Ugh!!! The humanity of it all!

You got me on that one. When I hear the right claim it will destroy the institution of marriage, I find myself wondering if they realize divorce of man and wife has a greater impact than the small percentage of gay/lesbian couples could ever have. Allowing gay marriage cannot cause the collapse of the man/woman relationship--that drive is too powerful.

If men and women marry each other because they can't marry someone of the same sex, then what kind of marriage is that, anyway? And I already know the answer because it happened to a good friend of mine.

I know it's probably technically impossible, but wouldn't everything be solved if we just replaced the word "marriage" with the term "civil union" for all legal purposes and let the definition of the word "marriage" be a personal choice?

Thanks Cult of Personality. Typical.

I Didn't judge you. I'm not sure why you have to judge me. You don't know me just like I don't know you. It's ok though I'm not offended. You can say whatever you like. Just shows your true colors.

So maybe I'm wrong. What rights do a married couple have that a gay civil union couple don't? I'd love to hear, because I'm sure there is a way to give everyone the same rights, which I thought we(gay and straight) already had, that won't distort the meaning of a marriage.

It appears that only supporters of gay marriage have responded to my post. So why the heck are you so negative. Did my post offend you? I said nothing to personally accuse you of wrong doing. If you don't agree with my lifestyle, I can respect that, but there is no reason to harbor anger towards me.

BTW, I never said marriage should only be between a christian man and christain woman. I said marriage is between a man and woman. Again, if you are gay and want to be married, Why can't you come up with another name for it? What rights don't you have? and don't say marriage. Because if that's the only thing you have no argument.

I'm glad you weren't offended.

You are wrong. There are many differences between married couples and civil unions. For one, spouses are able to transfer assets and wealth without incurring tax penalties. The widow of someone in a civil union may be subject to estate tax upon the death of a partner. Plus, there are limits to "gifts" to non married couples. Us married people don't have to worry about that. Because civil partners have to file separate tax returns, separte books must be maintained by each person. Also, not all states recognize civil unions, but all states recognize marriage (however many states are trying to change the definition of a marriage so that they do not have to recognize gay marriage).

I am not "against your lifestyle." I don't care what lifestyle you have. Be it swinger, transsexual, homosexual, heterosexual, etc.

You said "Marriage is a union between man and woman in the eyes of God." Well plenty of people get married who do not believe in God. Again, why should gays come up with another name for it. You haven't elaborated only to say that you haaaaaaaaaaate to have to tell people you are married to a woman (I know, to say those extra few words takes a lot of work. Why can't we just start going back to grunts and groans).

This is another example of right dragging the government into citizens private lives. On the one hand they scream too much government, but when it suits them they beat every one over the head to make sure government legislates for them and their bigoted agenda. This has been a waste of time and money from the gitgo.

Leave people alone to live their lives and stop trying to legislate morality, everyone deserves the right to decide their own fate.

DaveTug

"Why can't the Tea Party-Republican-Rightists and gays get along"

Because, the Tea baggers and Republican Rightists are affraid the 'sissies' will kick their butts clear up around their shoulders for them.

I just sent the 9th Circuit a Notice of Appearance as a California voter telling the appellate court to overturn Judge Walker.

The cases are: 10-16696 - 10-16751

Here is the address:

United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit

c/o CHIEF JUDGE ALEX KOZINSKI

95 SEVENTH STREET

SAN FRANCISO, CA 94103-1518

Oh my, Karen in Los Angeles is dictating to a court what it must do! I am sure that they are awaiting your letter with the most eager anticipation. Do you mind appearing to be a bigot?

Come on NewDay... they wear it like a badge of honor or something...

Let's be clear about something: while many marriages take place in a religious context, marriage is primarily a legal (civil) union to protect the rights of those involved and their family. To claim that married gay people would

"take away from the holiness of marriage that has been established since the beginning of days" (#1.4)

isn't true, because marriage is not defined by religion, nor is it defined by the union of a man and woman. Sorry, but that conservative, religious view just isn't accurate.

That makes me uncomfortable. In fact that violates my rights. A marriage is and always will be between a man and a woman. That is the name for it. Marriage defines a man and women.

I'm for Equal Rights (and don't use that screen name because clearly you're NOT for equal rights here), if you feel a need to define the gender of your spouse, that's your problem. It's really no one's business, but if you're hung up on that, and it makes you uncomfortable so you to have define your partner, that is NOT a violation of your rights (wah, wah!).

If you want civil authority to honor your marriage, which is also a contract/union, then you need to honor the rules that civil authority makes about who, when, and how people can engage in that contract. If you want a religious ceremony and recognition, go seek that too, but legal, civil courts make the decisions about property, assets, etc. and that's why marriage for gays is needed.

Funny, the story doesn't say anything about what you said. I thought it say majority of Californians? hmmmmmmmmmmmm.................Fiesty does't like it, it must be "Right Wing Nuts" LOL classy............

I say let them have their rights.............but that below is a Top 10er...............

"Right Wing Nuts once again stick their noses into America's bedrooms!"

I would like to agree with you 100% on the church issue, Union, but think about all the potential for a huge mess when property laws, alimony, child support, etc. enter into it.....

And yes- just like immigration, where were all the big ideas from administrations past?

Good comment, well said.

The only thing I will add is that not everyone is religious, not everyone wants to be married in a church, and the Constitution declares that we have a right to be religious or not which is why Government plays a role in issuing the license and allows Justices of the Peace to perform marriage ceremonies.

Newday:

What Bible do you read or do you even read it?

The church does not conform to the way of the world; the world must conform to the way of the church if there is to be any salvation.

The Bible does speak on homosexuality. I'm no biblical scholar but I was brought up in the church and I do know right from wrong.

I can say "shame" on every church that is supporting this proposition. This is not an attack on citizens, it is an attack on a way of life.

I know, I know, I'm a homophobe, racist, bigot, teabaGGer, etc......yeah, yeah, that has gotten old and played out.

Oh I forgot the big one, "It's George Bush's fault that people chose to be homosexual"

"Oh I forgot the big one, "It's George Bush's fault that people chose to be homosexual"

Alright, ITM- everybody likes a little ass, nobody likes a smart-ass.

BTW- just becuse you believe something, doesn't make it reality for somone else.

IntheMiddle, TX

Well i can say this, i don't think you being a homophobe, or racist, (reguarding gay marrage i still have my reservations on other things) bigot or etc. i agree with you,

IntheMiddle, I still need to know why that judget overturned what the VOTERS wanted. that my problem with all this, if the voters have wanted gay marrage then prop 8 would have been allowed.

No man, i may be a liberal, BUT Marrage is between a man and woman. also if you have noticed, Obama has kept very quite on this, he too believes the same as you and me.

ITM,

I don't believe in your bible so keep it to yourself. Your church must accept that it has no power and no credibility to speak of. Still shuffling those pedophile priests around? Who says your way of life is the only way?

Perfect Post Dan!

ITM,

Your problem is that you and perhaps your religion have no tolerance for any other views.

This willingness to nullify other religions and different belief systems has lead to most of the wars for more than 4000 years.

In the good old USA we have freedom of religion and that includes the right to believe in any form of God or in no God at all.

Thanks Feisty!

The issue I have with this whole thing is, although I couldn't care less about whether gays marry or not, as Jeff pointed out, the VOTERS decided the issue. If the VOTERS decide the other direction I will support that too. Millions of voters can vote for something and some judge can overturn their vote? That is more how things work in a theocricy, totalitarian government not a democracy.

The protection is written into the Constitution, so your argument is with the Founders. The majority may not vote the rights away of the minority. Have a care if you think you really want the majority to rule, with no judicial review. What rights can be voted away from you?

Adler,

Voters DO NOT have the power to take away the rights afforded to us all. Be careful with that line of thinking because one day you may find yourself to be the minority.

Dan,

No I won't keep it to myself. YOU are the one that will have to answer in the end for your misdeeds.

The WORd says "Spread the Good News".

Pedofiles???? I don't know of any that have came out of the Church of God In Christ.

Dennis:

We have tolerance for a lot things that go on in the world but when it is presented in one's face then you have to go by what the WORD says.

Should civil rights issues be put to a popular vote?

Boston writer, teacher and storyteller Judah LeBlang wrote in 2007,

"Imagine if civil rights legislation in states like Alabama or Mississippi had been subject to a popular vote in the 1960’s. Imagine if “the people,” (white people, who formed the majority), had been able to subvert the will of the courts. Finally, imagine if the rights of other groups were put to a popular vote today. Perhaps Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or the disabled should be allowed to vote, or marry, or own property. Perhaps not. Maybe their neighbors should decide."

"We have representative democracy in this country, not one person, one vote. Our elected representatives are called to use their wisdom to benefit us all, and to protect minorities from the 'tyranny of the majority.'”

Another point to ponder...Abraham Lincoln believed in a distinction between natural rights (i.e., freedom from slavery) and civil rights (i.e., the right to vote.) Is whom one wants to marry, which is informed by a person's innate sexuality, a natural right, a civil right, or not a right at all?

ITM,

Way to make your point! *end sarcasm*

You are lucky that one day you won't have to answer to a fictional God because I'm sure you'd have a lot to answer for. All sins are equal in the eye of your God. So cast that proverbial stone and watch it come back to hit you in your face.

The WORD (who was Jesus) had nothing to say about homosexuality; however, he did say this: "In everything, treat others the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12

The Bible has nothing to do with the Constitution. The Constitution clearly established certain inalienable rights and also established that those rights cannot be infringed upon by others--say voters who don't like that particular right.

Inalienable Rights are rights, not propositions decided by voters who disagree with that particular right for religious or other reasons. As our country grew, the rights were more clearly defined and more inclusive. Freeing the slaves, the right of women to vote, integration of schools, allowing blacks to vote--none of these rights were given to the voters to decide--inalienable rights are not voter issues.

IntheMiddle, Tx and Jeff - 1541632,

Do you realize you are advocating a Christian version of sharia law? I'm not trying to name call or be extreme.

You are talking about forcing the entire population to follow the rules of your religion just like sharia law does. I prefer to strive to make our laws better follow the principle of separation of church and state.

Charles Arlington Heights, IL

Please don't confuse my personal feeling with what inthemiddle has said and his refrences to the bible. what i said is my personal feeling, i just agreed with inthemiddle that Marrage is between a man and woman. Thats all, i'm not trying to deny what 2 people do in the privicy of there home, but marrage, that is only between a man and woman, again charles this is my personal feeling.

Jeff-1541632,

Thanks for clarifying. Do you think that your personal feeling should be the law of the land? Like I posted earlier, I think this could be solved by replacing the word "marriage" with "civil union" for all legal purposes and let the definition of the word "marriage" be a personal choice. But since that's pretty much impossible and there are real legal implications to marriage, we can't force our personal feelings on others that don't have the same personal feelings unless to do otherwise would cause us some kind of harm.

Charles Arlington Heights, IL

Do you think that your personal feeling should be the law of the land?

No, charles i don't. this is my personal feeling, and i do not think i should force this on any body. but in reguards to prop 8, they law was voted down by a majorty. the judge that overturned it had no right to do so. they why put it on the ballot. charles it like, barack Obama won the election, then a judge overturned the decision, that the majorty of american voted for. that is not right, that all i'm saying. why put it on the ballat if a judge will overturn the decision that a majorty calfornians wanted.

see where i'm going. everybody is saying gay marriage is wrong, it goes against the bible(seperation between church and state) so the bible had nothen to do with this, i'm talking about prop 8 that was voted on, it was voted down by a majorty.

again why put it on the ballat if a judge is going to overturn it.

my personal view is that gays can't marry because the marriage is not between a man and woman, now over the years in citys like chicago, oak park Il. evanston IL, gays who are in civil unions enjoy all the benifets of being married health ins ect. is that not enough?

It shouldn't have been on the ballot because when it comes to civil rights minority groups need to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. If there was a ballot measure in Wyoming or Mississippi banning Islam there is a good chance it would pass. One of the rolls of the Judiciary is to protect the rights of minority groups.

It is not enough. For starters civil unions do not enjoy all of the benefits of marriage everywhere in this country. Also, was it enough for black children to have separate but equal schools?

Charles your mixing apples and oranges by comparing separate but equal with gay marriage.

i don't see gays having to go to separate schools, hospitals, use separate drinking fountains. i have heard illegals saying the same thing, that immigration reform is about civil rights, and my response was i don't see separate schools for illegals, or hospitals. or illegals having to sit at the back of the bus.

also the civil right movement was about giving a sector of american society the same basic right as all americans. last time i checked gays have the same basic rights as everybody, yes except marriage in most states. but again we are back at my point, the judge had no right to overturn a decision voted on by the people.

If there was a ballot measure in Wyoming or Mississippi banning Islam there is a good chance it would pass

again its not the same thing, banning Islam would never happen because of the separation between church and state, something like that would never happen, then again in Mississippi who knows.

Charles please remember this is my PERSONAL feeling. i have nothen against gays or lesbians. so i guess you would ask if i have nothen against them why not let them marry, in most states it against the law, also why was it voted down when so many are coming out in support it.

Jeff,

I see your point about my separate but equal comparison. Civil unions and marriage are not equal anyway. The only way they would be is if they were essentially interchangeable terms from a legal perspective.

I disagree with you that the ballot measure analogy I made is not the same thing because banning gay marriage is a separation of church and state issue.

I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm not gay and don't have any particularly close friends or family members that are. The only reason I bring that up is that is that I want to make the point that this is not a personal issue for me. To me, this is a clear issue of minority groups being protected by the tyranny of the majority and an issue of the separation of church and state. Two principles that are essential to liberty.

charles, your right we can agree to disagree, i wish other on this blog could have the exchange we just had with out getting nasty or mean.

have a good weekend, i hear chicago area is hot hot, stay cool my brother from another mother!!!!!

You've got to love Chicago weather, it's either a frozen tundra or ridiculously hot and humid.

You have yourself a good weekend too!

Jeff and Charles,

Thank You both for being able to have a decent convo on such a hot button topic. That is actually very refreshing to see.

I for one, feel the same as Charles, that Separate but Equal was tossed out of the courts during the Civil Rights movement, and this pertains directly to Civil Rights in that one class of people are being discriminated against in contravention of the Constitution. It does not matter HOW many people voted for something, if it goes against the Constitution as far as denying one class of people the same rights as another, as long as they are following the law, then the Constitution itself overrules the vote. That is the way we have it set up in this great Nation and a great many of our protections are based on this. Whites, who were the majority, used to use religion as their excuse for denying Blacks their equality and civil liberties when in fact it was basic bigotry under the cloak of religion. There is no difference today with regards to Gay Marriage, the bigots are using religion as a cover since you can find a quote somewhere in the Bible to back up any, repeat ANY sort of statement that you may make. Religion was specifically set aside as separate from Governing because of this: Religion is personal, rights are for everybody. If we were to go by everybody's religious interpretations then thieves would have a hand chopped off, murderers beheaded in the local marketplace and adulterers stoned to death (which would certainly remove a lot of Repubs from the ranks). If churches want to get into the making of laws then they need to be taxed just like any other money making enterprise, but since they are not, then they have NO right to interfere on the basis of any sort of immoral morality that they want to throw around, ESPECIALLY where it regards the rights of others.

It comes down to this: Our Rights cannot be voted away by ANYBODY and it is the JOB of the Courts to make sure of this, that is why they are there in the first place.

You are the one that need to read the Bible. If this is other people's biz, then why do you and everyone else always interjecting into other states politics? Same thing.

Beverly :

Since you know so much:;;

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ESV / 37 helpful votes

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

HelpfulNot Helpful

Leviticus 18:22 ESV / 36 helpful votes

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

HelpfulNot Helpful

Leviticus 20:13 ESV / 27 helpful votes

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

HelpfulNot Helpful

Romans 1:26-27 ESV / 25 helpful votes

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

You do know what an abomination is?

ITM,

Deuteronomy 22:13-21

A marriage shall be considered valid if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed.

Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A
friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem
is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it
creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my
neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I
smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally
obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there
'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some
wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the
hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden
by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig
makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to
death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep
with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can
help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and
unchanging.

Then don't do it, ITM.

Geez, if your god says something is wrong, then don't do it. If my god says otherwise, then why should you prevent me from practicing my beliefs?

I'm just curious, what if I don't believe in the bible? That would be a choice I made as the bible and any religion for that matter, is a choice to be made. Should I be forced to adhere to the bible's standards just because a majority says I do? How is that freedom of expression and freedom of (or from in this case) religion?

And there you have it: the ignorant using the Old Testament to support bigotry. Isn't that perfect? I am always amazed at how selective the "Christians" are: how many eat shellfish, how many keep slaves, how many believe in animal sacrifice? And why is that these poor deluded people do not know that their "doctrine" does not hold sway in this country? For those of you who have trouble getting this: THIS IS NOT A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY! The Founders were explicit about that. There is a thing in this country called judicial review. What the court has said is that one group of citizens may not vote rights away from the minority. If they could, what rights could be voted away from you? Now....GROW UP!

Good God, ITM (no pun intended)- Quoting bible verse that means zilch to OTHERS will NOT make YOUR belief THEIR reality. PLEASE get that though yout head, will you?

Me- I'll admit it right up front: I don't share your belief one bit. Do I go on here and try to convince all the other posters my belief should also be thiers? Hell no, I don't- I'm a big enough fool already withouttrying to pull that stunt.

Drive-by:

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just putting it out there since everyone is an expert on what the bible says.

You can believe or not believe that is up to you.

As a gay man who professes to be a follower of Christ, let me say that I see no inconsistencies with anything Jesus said and my loving life with my partner. The difficulties seem to arise from what "the church" has to say. I will be the first to say that I fall short of Christ's example any number of ways each and every day; but, I can't imagine the reason I could end up in hell is because of the gender of the person to whom I have committed my life and my love.

If we were allowed to marry in Indiana, we would alreay be married. We've worn rings for years. As it is,if we want to have a civil ceremony, we may have to drive that hotbed of moral decrepitude, Iowa.

ITM,

Express whatever parts of the Bible you need to that will enforce your bigoted views. Ignore the parts that speak to the contrary.

God bless you, Jim!

JIm: I believe the tide is changing and you and your partner will be able to marry. When that happy day comes, I can only hope that you have as much happiness in your marriage as I have had in mine. I wish you well, and I think more people are coming to understand how obscene it is to deprive you of your right to marry.

IntheMiddle, TX

Drive-by:

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just putting it out there since everyone is an expert on what the bible says.

You can believe or not believe that is up to you.

If I read you wrong, My apologies.

Dan, Austin. Great job.

Thank you all, for your kind wishes. I, too, believe that within my lifetime, civil marriage will be legal (and acceptable) for any two consenting adults. I have no argument with religions who don't want to perform or recognize my partnership. I only worry that at some time in the future, one of us could be denied rights of visitation in the hospital or any number of other rights bestowed upon married couples.

Jim. Terrific comment.

LOL-- the hotbed of moral decrepitude, Iowa! I understand we have become a tourist destination for marriages. Who knew?

Jody- I bet Victor Maitland (drug smuggling art dealer in Beverly Hills Cop) look-alike contest winner Steven King is absolutely beside himself because of it, too!

Jodi,

Thanks! Who knows which financially strapped state may legalize next, to cash in on the gay marriage bonanza!

I have friends in Ames, who are in a pickle. Hoping all is well with you, Jodi.

Thanks Jody, Iowa.

Jim, I want to disavow you of the notion that you would be unable to be at your partner's bedside in the hospital. "Family" is who the PATIENT says "family" is. As long as your partner says to a physician or nurse that you are his life partner and his family, no one can deny you the right to be with him if he is sick. That is the truth.

Thank you, Gail. I know that it doesn't happen now as it did, at times, in the past; but, the fact is, I have no legal rights to be there if he is unconscious and unable to speak for himself. Unbelievably, we haven't set up a power of medical or legal attorney. One of too many things which have been put on the back burner.

Jim, there is your answer. A legal health care power of attorney is iron-clad and you both should have one naming the other to speak for you if you can't speak for yourself. Keep a copy in your wallet and give a copy to your physician or nurse if you go to the hospital. I know it is something no one likes to think about, but it is so important. My husband of 18 years and I have just done this in the past year, and I'm a NURSE! All I can say to everyone, is "Just do it!"

Leviticus 18:22 ESV / 36 helpful votes You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

HelpfulNot Helpful Leviticus 20:13 ESV / 27 helpful votes If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

There were no Christians til Christ, so it's a falacy to use the Old Testament to back Christian principles. Jesus supposedly wiped the Old Testament clean. i.e. an eye for an eye became turn the other cheek.

Lewis Black said it pretty well. You can walk into a christian church and hear a preacher trying to interpret the Old Testament, but you will never hear a Rabbi trying to interpret the New Testament.

Dan Austin, Texas--

OMG! Your comment (#4.3) was one of the best I've read!!! Thank you for your questions/commentary!!! Those "cafeteria conservatives" can pick and chose scripture for their own purposes pretty well.

Again, thanks for the wonderful response to all the Bible-thumping!!!

I'll second that, Chuck Todd!

Simple solution is----If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person! Simple, I say, simple!

I knew it wouldn't be long before some Liberal accused opponents of being a bigot.

We will start the count for "racist, homophobe, etc."

ITM,

Your religion is bigoted. Acceptance is the first step to recovery. I would pray for you but the Spaghetti Monster isn't feeling forgiving today

ITM, Dan,

We all have prejudices, myself included. It's a natural part of life and can't be avoided. Many people address the irrational prejudices which they hold, with varying degrees of success. It becomes bigotry when one chooses to nurture or propogate irrational prejudices against another person or group of people, rather than attempting to work through it. In my mind, those who seek to play on others' prejudices in order to build personal power and influence approach true evil.

Clever.

I can't speak for the GOP, but as a conservative I want a government that is not big enough to get in the house.

Well, at least you tried, CA. Maybe they'll respond when the next Terri Shcaivo case comes up (which I hope is never).

All voting, as all religious beliefs, are personal. Each person in California had their personal reason for voting for or against prop. 8. One side did a better job of campaigning for votes and, for whatever reasons, a majority of voters said yes to prop.8. If it goes on the ballot again and the opponents of prop.8 do a better job of campaigning and more people vote their way than that should be the law. It is called democracy, the MAJORITY rules. If every time a law is passed the minority doesn't like and some judge sides with the minority why vote? It is likely someone will overturn the due process and legislate from the bench anyway.

This will need to go to the Supreme Court.

They did not legislate from the bench. Are you being willfully ignorant on this issue? I am not sure how much more simple I can make it. The Founders set up a system that allows for judicial review. Judicial review measures the will of the people against the Constitution. Why? Simply this: The Founders were completely aware that a HUGE group of people could vote to remove the rights of a smaller group. If you took a Civics class, that was referred to as the "tyranny of the majority." But, you may not have because you seem to be unaware that we are NOT a Democracy we are a Republic. But, Adler, answer the question: If a large group of voters gets together and decides to remove the right to vote of all people named Adler, would YOU want the court to step in? Hmmmm?

Adler,

You and InTheMiddle cannot just pick out the parts of the Constitution or the bible that suit your beliefs. We cannot vote that all Christians equal 3/5 of a vote even if a majority said so.

Adler:

So like I said, it would be interesting and nice to know what those personal beliefs were in regard to those who voted to oppose Gay marriage.

But keep in mind. Each vote on an issue based on personal beliefs where the results of the vote will have an impact on others, no longer can be classified as personal.

If a person who is Gay chooses not to marry another Gay individual based on their personal beliefs than that is their right. That is their personal choice and vote you might say. But when the results of a vote effect the personal lives of others then such vote is no longer personal.

I'm sure that if the majority of folks in California voted to allow for the burning of those accused of witchcraft in front of the Capitol steps others, perhaps those in the minority, might take some steps to change this result in the name of human rights. That's why we have courts, and that is why the founders of this Nation made it abundantly clear that separation of Church (where many personal beliefs are derived) and State, must be separated.

New day dawning, does it occur to you the the Soviet Union was a republic? Rome was a republic. Communist China is a republic. The term republic merely means representative government. The United States of America is a DEMOCRATIC Republic. There is a difference. One who professes to be so smart in the Constitution should know that.

By the way, I favor gay marriage in the sense that I don't belive it is anyone's business but theirs what they do. They don't affect my marriage so I don't care. We tried to legislate morality via the US Constitution with prohibition and it was repealed 13 years later. In both instances it was the voters not the court that decided what was moral and what was not. It was Bible Thumpers that got the amendment passed in the first place and when it was found to do more harm than good and people realized you can't legislate morality it was repealed by the PEOPLE. The same thing is going to happen in CA with Prop 8 but meanwhile it is the law until the PEOPLE decide differently just as they did with prohibition. That is all I am trying to say.

CA,

I am for gays having all the rights, privileges and benefits of marriage. I don't care about the religious aspects.

However, the definition of and institution of Marriage has been recognized and accepted for hundreds upon hundreds of years as a union between a man and woman. All major religions recognize and accept this definition and the institution of marriage. All major countries and all major forms of government have accepted this definition and the institution of marriage.

The only couple that can naturally, biologically produce a child is a man and a woman. Two men cannot, two women cannot. The family unit has been recognized as a core to society. Marriage has been used to maintain that core by vows of commitment, largely for the benefit of the child. Marriage has held a status in all societies.

I realize gays couples can adopt and through modern fertility practices, lesbian couples can have children. I realize they make good parents. Civil unions provide all the rights and benefits.

So what is the difference? The word marriage? The unique word with its unique definition and meaning through history?

Even considering the Constitutional argument and conceding that gays have the rights and privileges of marriage,..... do they have the Constitutional right to appropriate the definition of the word, the historical status of the institution and the historical meaning of marriage?

The problem with government, Paine's necessary evil if you will, is that for government to give something to someone or group, it invariably takes away from another individual or group. Does the vast majority feel that a unique and special meaning is being appropriated by a vast minority?

One of the great ironies of this was the fight over the word "Olympics" years ago. Gays wanted to call their games the Gay Olympics. Many felt that Olympics had a unique and special meaning, that gays were appropriating that meaning and status. The Olympics people won and the gays settled for Gay Games.

The irony? The attorney that argued, fought and won over this appropriation was a guy named Walker who would later as a judge create a national discussion due to his opposite ruling on the same issue.

Anyway, like you and drive-by mentioned, it doesn't effect me. Just a thought.

bob:

I suppose it all comes down to how one defines marriage. Can the definitions of words be changed?

Actually, Adler, we are a representative republic, and your comparison to the Soviet Union is laughable. Their form of Govt. was Communism. Pure and simple. And they seem to be headed back to that.

CA,

Good point and actually, my computer's dictionary does not make the man/woman distinction that my older dictionaries do.

There is a Sisyphean argument about the rights provided by the Constitution, but I wonder if the true, undiscussed issue is not as much about rights, but about status. The Olympics have a unique history and have earned a unique respect and status in societies around the world. The word "Olympic" implies and represents that unique respect and status provided by society. But, is not that respect and status provided by society, not a constitution?

Does the constitution require society to respect, and hold in esteem by granting status, something it provides rights for?

And I guess in another rhetorical way to your question about changing the definitions of words, does the Constitution demand that society's definitions of words be changed?

The funny thing is that status has several different definitions, in both the new computers and old dictionaries. I guess that takes us back to ......... Sisyphean.

As you are aware, I am conservative, and feel that the Constitution provides the answers. If the Constitution does not explicitly provide a right, the states certainly can by the majority will of the people. The people of California are free to decide. The people of Texas should not be worried about how two guys in San Francisco, or two women in San Diego want to live their lives.

I am also aware you are liberal. I nevertheless am interested in and respect your opinion.

CA,

I was in a bit of a hurry earlier. I just got back and actually reread my last remark. The last two sentences were careless/horrible. I in no way intended to imply there was anything wrong with being liberal. My apologies if it read that way to you.

Attorney Pat in New York

As I obtained my legal education in NY, I had the opportunity to review NY's divorce law. There is no fault divorce in NY and in fact, NY Judges made fun of CA laws in some divorce decrees. I think it was in the Jackie Gleason divorce decree.

Is the reason you are so vehement in your position that gay Judge Walker who finagled the case to his court is right due to your state actually believing in the sanctity of marriage and you rebel against it? In many decisions I've read, the judges would make a point that NY does not have no fault divorce because NY believes in the sanctity of marriage.

I believe the primary purpose of marriage is for family. And to let you know, I find it very sneaky and devious that this gay judge finagled the docket to get the case assigned to him and whether his decision is iron clad or not - HE WAS WRONG - VERY WRONG.

PS - I did not vote to take away gay marriage rights. Californians HAVE NEVER agreed to gay marriage.

I am a native Californian. California has always been in the forefront of allowing people their individual freedoms. It legalized marriage between different races in 1948, first state to do so. People like Karen, who have no understanding either of the social liberty that Californians have always respected, not to mention the Constitution of this country (14th Amendment, Karen, heard of it?) are an anathema. Read this carefully Karen, and try to get it through your thick skull. If you voted for Prop H8, you voted to deprive citizens of a right that they hold. You cannot create two tiers of citizens. Be very afraid of thinking that a majority of voters can deprive a group of citizens of rights. What rights of yours that you value will those voters take away?

And by the way, Karen: Is your next project going to be to deprive people who are sterile the right to marry? Hmmm?

NewDay...

This little filly is giving our rookie attorney Jill, Tulsa a run for her money! :0)

boy, no freaking kidding, Feisty! Have a good weekend.

You too NewDay!

We'll catch up soon! :0)

I'll look forward to it!

Wowzer. In none of my posts have I called anyone a name. And by the way - attorney pat in new york - since it was a double negative, it was specified incorrectly.

NYS law does not provide for no-fault divorce. In NY, there has to be cause for a divorce. I think there are 5 or 6 causes, one is being in jail.

And to the person who said that I was wrong about CALIFORNIANS HAVE NEVER AGREED TO GAY MARRIAGE. I am correct. Jerry Brown outlined the history of CA law in regard to marriage in his brief in US District Court. AT NO TIME DID CALIFORNIANS AGREE TO GAY MARRIAGE.

IT WAS FORCED ON US BY THE COURTS. Then we have a gay judge disregarding precedent. Just a few weeks ago, a federal judge in MA said MARRIAGE IS A PRIVILEGE UP TO THE STATES. Judge Walker declared gay people a protected class under the 14th amendment. Totally different thing. Being gay is not the same as being black or Baptist.

You are obtuse, Karen, and you are missing the point entirely. You cannot take rights away from citizens by a vote. Can't be done. That you misunderstand entirely what the Judge has said makes you not only a bigot, but not very smart. It does not matter WHAT the voters did. If it does not pass Constitutional muster, you simply can't do it. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all citizens protection of rights. The Judge did not declare that gays were a protected class, he agreed all citizens are afforded the same rights. I asked you questions, let's see if you can answer them: Do you agree that a majority vote can deprive people named Karen in LA who are bigots the right to vote? And would you deny sterile couples the right to marry. Focus, Karen, I'm sure you can answer those questions if you try.

To save everyone time, I do not respond to debate or challenges. I state my opinion and leave.

I am counting on Andrew Pugno to win the day for the people of the great State of California who VOTED NO TO GAY MARRIAGE.

It is a fact that a sole gay judge decided we Californians were wrong and determined precedent. Who does he think he is? The US Supreme Court? I hardly think so.

Karen in Los Angeles,

Thanks for your comments.

Handling the abuse of the obtuse can be frustrating.

You did well.

Poor Karen: You are wise. When you have no point, it is simply time to retire.

Thank you Bob and thanks also to the person who keeps typing my name.

All publicity is good publicity.

Newday:

Where did you get your law degree?

Oh we know from "Dufus University". Your argument has no merits and you can't seem to take defeat when it has been thrust upon you. That lady cited a number of sources for you to refer too. Not frikken links, I said sources.

You are just stating an opinion. That is all.

OOps I forgot: I'm a bigot, racist, homophobe, teabaGGer, stupid, Dumb, Ignorant, etc.....

Just saved you the trouble of typing it.

Karen, as usual you are wrong. Civil rights should never be put to a vote of the people; otherwise, interracial marriage would still be illegal, women would not have the vote, and slavery would still be legal. It does not matter how many votes are taken, if a law violates the US Constitution, it is invalid and unenforceable -- the Constitution is the supreme law of the land; it trumps all state laws and constitutions. Further, our tripartite system of checks and balances allows for challenging unconstitutional laws -- they are challenged through the federal court system. This judge properly found that the law is unconstitutional, and he was very careful in his ruling to outline all of the judicial precedent and lay a firm foundation so that he would not be overturned -- which most legal experts feel he will not be.

You also fail to realize -- or are deliberately ignoring the fact -- that a heterosexual judge has just as much bias in this situation as a homosexual judge does. By your "logic," any black judge would be forced to recuse himself from cases involving black people, any female judge from cases involving females, any Asian judge from cases involving Asians, etc.

BTW, you "state your opinion and leave" so that you can avoid all those who say to you that you don't know what you're talking about -- which has always been the case, I have found.

One more thing, has anyone here actually read the court decision? I have, and it is iron clad and virtually unreversible to this attorney. If you haven't read it, you have no reason criticizing the decision.

That is music to my ears Pat!

I have not read it all but have heard much discussion about how thorough Judge Vaughn was in his opinion.

I don't care about the religious aspects of your post because I do not believe your religion.

Aside from that you say, "No potential for childbirth, no reason for marriage". If a heterosexual couple is infertile, should they be barred from the legal institution of marriage?

Dear Army of Darkness fan,

The founding fathers were WELL aware of slavery at the time the constitution was written. There were no provisions or protections regarding blacks, or slavery in the constitution at all.

You say the "ritual of marriage ensured healthy offspring by binding the couple before God. No potential for childbirth, no reason for marriage." So those straight people who know they can't have children, but still get married anyway, should not be allowed?

You know, at one time, history was at odds with Jesus. Some of his teachings went against the Old Testament and the teachings of Moses. Well then call me a radical for believing in Christianity.

I don't have a problem with you, I just have a problem with what you are

wow. I'm usually pretty open minded about stuff but the OP scares the sh!t out of me.

What if two 65-year olds wanted to marry, would they be denied because they couldn't have 'healthy offspring?'

And another thing that gets under my skin is that everyone holds the founding fathers in this godlike awe, that they couldn't possibly overlooked something or *gasp* actually been wrong about something.

It's been 234 years, times have changed and hopefully our society has as well.

"the day the earth stood still" My, My- what an appropriate moniker, there, Gorp.

This may be the most specious argument I have ever read. If the Founders wanted to ban homosexuality, they would have. And this is not a Christian nation by design. Jefferson was most emphatic about that. John Adams read the Treaty of Tripoli aloud to emphasize the point. Do Google it and see what it says.

KlatuBerataNicto--

The fact that people are happy with each other should be enough, but still others are content to taint our thousands of year old traditions to justify their relationships, that would be considered "perversion" by the very religions they wish to be binded by!

This isn't about gays wanting to be "binded by" religions. It's about legal and civil protections that are currently being denied to some citizens because legal/civil relationships between gay people cannot be formalized as marriage between same gender people is prohibited.

If you really think that thousands of years of history create the "right" way for society, take off your spectacles, give up your motor vehicles, forget your medical care and physicians, stop shopping at groceries and go back to the way things were for thousands of years.

The law was always against voting rights for black people and women before it was changed. Yet somehow peoples beliefs that it should be changed was not irrelevant.

KlatuberataNicto

Your beliefs are irrelevant to me, does this mean a majority can take away your rights?

I wonder if you fully understand the topic. Your post is a little ridiculous.

KlatuberataNicto

I could be wrong but that name sounds like the quote given to the Robot in the movie "The day the earth stood still". (Sorry I'm a sci fi geek.)

Back to the topic. Well Klatuu the earth and its people don't stand still they have changed for the better since biblical times. Gay marriage doesn't affect me or my wife one way or the other. I think if they want to be married I'm ok with it. Why shouldn't they be able to make that choice? Not everyone believes being gay is a immoral.

What the hell are you talking about turning against my own people.

I know where in the phuk I come from. I have never turned my back on the black community. You white Democrats are the ones that continue to implant the notion into the black community that all blacks that vote Republican are Uncle Toms etc.

Lady you don't know me nor do you know all of the work I put into my community.

For your info: I do not live in an all white hood. My neighborhood is mostly black and hispanic.

IntheMiddle, TX

I know where in the phuk I come from. I have never turned my back on the black community. You white Democrats are the ones that continue to implant the notion into the black community that all blacks that vote Republican are Uncle Toms etc.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

I thought you knew something about me, IntheMiddle, I am black and very proud to be black. I've mentioned my ethincity on many occassions. If you are doing so much for the Black community how is it then you vote with Republicans? I just don't understand how any black Person, unless s/he is self-loathing could vote republican; especially in today's climate.

Congressman Keith Ellison said the republican party left his father. So did JC WATTS. Watts, a former Oklahoma congressman, criticized the Republican Party for neglecting the black community. Black Republicans have to concede that while they might not agree with Democrats on issues, at least that party(Dems) reaches out to them. He blasted the Republican Party for taking both blacks for granted and evangelical Christians.

I don't think you, Justice Clarence Thomas, or Micheal Stelle have the cajones to be that courageous.

Black people like you, Clarence Thomas, and Michael Steele enjoy being black caricatures of yourselves. Like the aforementioned , you have made every pronounced effort to continuously carry the water for Republicans (the enemies of the states) by lambasting democratics and a very important Black Man, President Obama.

Will you ever leave your sophisticated cabin? You’re being punked my brother by Republicans. It’s not a matter of "Being Blacker than thou" with me, In the Middle, it’s just that I think you need to stop your brainwashing here on FR. Democratics of all colors know that Republicans are for themselves, and will do anything to keep the lower masses down.

Peace and love my brother

First of all:

It is blacks like YOU that keep other blacks that believe in Conservative values from coming forth.

YOU have proved that point for me. What have your local Democrat done for you lately? I'm not talking about something from 60 yrs ago neither. Is it that they have kept your assistance checks coming?

Is it that they have told you the Republicans are the rich, white boogeyman that hate blacks; while being some of the richest in the world themselves?

Don't hate because you still live with the Democrat foot on your throat.

BTW: You have never once on here seen any post by me belittling Obama. That is just a F'ing LIE. I do not disrespect the man but that does not mean I have to agree with him.

P.S. You don't know what path I chose in life. You do not know what I had to endure to be successful in life.