Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Boston Judge Strikes Down Defense Of Marriage Act

July 13, 2010 by  

Boston judge strikes down Defense of Marriage Act A new controversy over the civil rights of homosexuals is brewing, as a judge ruled last week that a Federal ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, prompting protests from social conservatives.

United States District Judge in Boston Joseph Tauro rendered the verdict in a lawsuit that challenged the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), saying it violates a state’s right to define this type of union, according to the Associated Press (AP).

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley praised what she called a “landmark decision,” and said it was "an important step toward achieving equality for all married couples in [the state]"

However, Family Research Council has called the ruling “erroneous” and its representative Tom McClusky expressed hope that it will be overruled on appeal.

He also accused “liberals and activist judges” of failing to listen to “the American people [who] have made it unmistakably clear that they want to preserve marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.”

Tauro’s ruling applies only to Massachusetts, but it could have wider implications if it’s upheld by a higher court on appeal, commentators have said.ADNFCR-1961-ID-19883679-ADNFCR

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Boston Judge Strikes Down Defense Of Marriage Act”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • s c

    The way America is headed, maybe we should make everything legal, and bypass the ‘let’s go to court’ routine. Of course, to do it right, we’d have to wink at kids getting married, kids marrying adults and beastiality (lawyers wouldn’t mind finding new jobs, would they?). Remember, nothing should be “illegal” in a truly enlightened, civilized country.
    I’ve got my eye on a young sheep, and I know a certain level-headed preacher who will perform the ceremony. Like they say, “don’t knock it if you haven’t tried it.” Think like progressives, people.
    If only Americans would see the light so we can have hope and change and be truly FREE.
    Remember, morality is just a word. Just ask my preacher. YES, WE CAN!

    • Mark

      Well the beastiality and the pedophilia thoughts are a little extreme, but I agree…we can’t change the definition the word “marriage” to fit ones preference…It would be odd for an African-American to call themself caucasion…Man & Woman only!

      • Smilee

        Mark says:
        July 13, 2010 at 9:39 am

        Where in the Constitution is marriage defined????????

    • CJM

      SC: FYI, there ARE LAWS that govern the agendas you speak of while there are no laws at this moment that govern same-sex marriages or civil unions. There are 5 or fewer States that permit same-sex marriages or civil unions, but what is that to you on a personal level? These individuals have not invaded your life-style nor invited you into their bedroom; quite frankly, you have no beef with them other than the fact that their belief opposes yours and your ideal of Utopia. If indeed a same-sex relationship is against God, then leave it to God to deal with; otherwise, as a believer in Biblical Scriptures, you are violating God’s admonishment “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”

      • Jeep

        Just for discussion…the Bible also states that all non-believers should be taken to the edge of town and stoned (Numbers 15, 1 Kings 21:13).

        • Smilee

          That was before Christ, he admonished us to not do that “He who is without sin cast the first stone” Remember every one walked away and he told the woman to go and sin no more.

      • 45caliber

        CJM:
        Why is it that people like you want to quote Scripture (out of context) to justify sin – but will ignore the scriptures that forbid it?

        • CJ

          Poeple who misquote usually have feelings of inferiority. They need to feel superior, so they do what they can. I giggle at those who want to quote from the Old Testement, and forget it means “old law”. When EVER has the old law of anything applied? Hummm, the law USED TO BE… so we should abide with that. Really???

        • s c

          45, this is what apologists for the “do what thou wilt” mentality do. They claim “do what thou wilt” is mankind’s highest ideal. At the same time, they try to control others via pc coercion, non-logic that borders on schizophrenia and an all-encompassing philosophy that demands complete surrender to its ‘divine wisdom.’
          They despise any law or rule that smacks of standards or morality. They use ANY tactic to get what they want. If all else fails, they resort to blasphemy and raw immorality (in the name of moral
          ‘superiority’).
          While I can’t prove it, I suspect it also helps not to have a conscience, judging by what we usually get for “leaders” in Washington.

      • CJ

        CJM, I think you missed SC’s (jestful) point. Get rid of all laws. But, there are laws of “same sex” marriage. They are the laws that define marriage is NOT same sex. By omission, it applies. Now, the point is marriage is between different genders, period. The definition doesn’t change. If someone wants benefits normally given to married people, then change THAT law and open the list of eligable people. Don’t change the definition of a word.

        • Ellen

          The laws that you refer to are not Constitutional. The marriage laws were originally instituted to apply to mixed marriages (black, white) and were aimed at taking more rights from the blacks.

          Benefits? The only reason “benefits” are “given” is because of the illegal taxing in this country and the onerous and unconstitutional laws that have been criminally enacted. None of these “laws” are legal. You might try carefully reading the Constitution and realize that you are advocating highly unconstitutional stuff.

          • Gary

            Ellen: A common thread in your multiple posts is MYOB. This is not possible because those of you in the gay community keep assaulting us non-gays by demanding rights and finding gay judges to affirm your misguided lifestyle. When gays are in the closet we can all pretend not to know what they are up to and leave the judgement between themselves and God. When, however, you get in our face we straights are forced to take a stand. Ellen, Remember we owe you nothing! We owe the ACLU nothing! We owe sick gay judges nothing! We owe the morally bankrupt politicians nothing! This whole issue would not be an issue if you gays would get out of our faces and get back in the closet. We have not infringed on your rights–it is you trying to infringe upon ours! You can cite any number of made-to-order studies/conclusions that validate the gay lifestyle but it is still inherently a “no-win” way to live. Drawing attention to yourselves only serves to further isolate and frustrate yourselves and causes initial and/or additional predjudice against your gay lifestyle. No matter how many parades you stage I won’t accept your lifestyle is normal and validating on any level. No matter how many liberal politicians and judges you may get to agree with you…I won’t agree or be convinced–PERIOD!!! All you do is incite me to stand firmly against the spread of this sick culture. It is in fact time that the gays MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS!

          • Palin12

            Is this Miss Degenerate?

          • Ellen

            Gary, as I said, mind your own business. And, by the way, I am not gay. I merely respect the rights of other human beings to live their lives in peace; apparently that is a tall order for many.

          • Robert Smith

            I too am not gay, I’m not black, I’m not a woman, I’m not handicapped, I’m not Native American…

            I advocate for respect and choice for all of the above and any others who are having their rights nibbled (or gulped whole) by the extreme religious reich.

            Sooner or later they are going to come after me and something I like, for example gun rights, some recreational drugs, or maybe some end of life assisted suicide (don’t know about that one yet but I don’t want it taken away).

            Why can’t those who advocate choice for themselves respect others?

            Rob

      • Ceddy Bear

        CJM, these individuals have invaded my lifestyle. I am forced to explain to my children why this is direct disobedience to God. Second I am a military service member and will be forced to put up with something that violates my values, beliefs, and moral standards. The fact is that this is only an attempt to force someone who does not agree with YOU to accept YOUR sin and guilt! We have left it to God. This is the same God and biblical principles that this nation was founded on. And he has already given us his stance on the issue. For your info, you don’t have to judge the plant. For by their fruit you shall know what root they are from. Peanuts don’t fall from apple trees! Stop trying to force us to accept your perverted lifestyle. “Gay” is a word in the dictionary which means happy and full of glee. Individuals engaged in this lifestyle are homosexuals. Just another way for you to pervert the truth by changing the meaning of a word to fit YOUR needs and invade my lifestyle of truth! And stop taking scripture out of context. When you do this you speak your native tongue and the tongue of you father who is a liar. Are you a liar? Is your lifestyle a lie?

        • Ellen

          Ceddy Bear: you might remember that you took a sacred oath when you joined the military. That oath was to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

          Your beliefs regarding sin and guilt are YOURS as well as your values and moral standards. Nowhere in the Constitution are we given the right to tell others how they can live. Your rights end where someone else’s begin. What you are doing is buying into the idea that you are somehow better than someone else. Your own Bible tells you to “judge not, lest ye be judged”. That is pretty plainly stated. If you believe what is contained in that book, mind your own business and leave the judgement to your God.

          • Ceddy Bear

            Ellen, you are correct. This is an oath that I stand by and believe in. To be truthful I don’t have any ill will towards homosexuals. I believe that it is there perrogative to live as they choose. I will defend their rights just the same as anyone else’s living in this counrty. My beliefs are not just my own. They are shared by the majority of the citizens. I have not judged but simply stated by their product you shall know who they are. So in other words there’e no need to judge. If I truly believd that I was better than someone else I wouldn’t have chosen this career path. And because I am a friend of God I am minding my business when it comes to something that he created. So you stand accused of stepping outside of your boundaries. Not I.

            Your beliefs regarding sin and guilt are YOURS as well as your values and moral standards. Nowhere in the Constitution are we given the right to tell others how they can live. Your rights end where someone else’s begin. What you are doing is buying into the idea that you are somehow better than someone else. Your own Bible tells you to “judge not, lest ye be judged”. That is pretty plainly stated. If you believe what is contained in that book, mind your own business and leave the judgement to your God.

        • Robert Smith

          Ceddy Bear posted: >>> Second I am a military service member and will be forced to put up with something that violates my values, beliefs, and moral standards.<<<

          ROFL… America has the toughest military in the world. They are highly trained to maim, mangle, slaughter, kill, and break things better than any other organization. And I've heard so many say they might have to take a shower with a gay person. Such tough guys are scared to have another guy see their pee pee! It seems they just can't say "no" IF a gay person ever asks them for a relationship.

          • Ceddy Bear

            Excuse my text ignorance, but don’t know meaning of ROFL. Probably could care less anyways. Very mature statement Rob. Regardless of which side of the tracks that you stand on the issue, as long as you live in this great nation I will defend your right to voice your opinion (however immature it is).

          • libertytrain

            Ceddy Bear – I believe it’s Rolling on Floor Laughing. When you see these things just Google it and you can usually find it. I do often – I’m not good at all these shortened forms either —–

        • Robert Smith

          Hey Ceddy Bear… You said: >>>I am forced to explain to my children why this is direct disobedience to God.<<<

          Do you resent having to explain to your children that smoking is bad? A slow suicide from cancer can't be your god's will.

          Do you resent having to explain to your children that stealing is bad?

          I see that you may NOT have explained to your children that hate, bigotry, etc. are bad things too. Somehow I just don't see you offering that part of your god's message.

          Rob

      • Ellen

        Well said, CJM.

        By quoting scriptures, people are bringing religion into the fray. Again, we have the right to practice our religions……..where does it say that you may impose your beliefs on others? Read your Constitution for once and realize that you are demanding that others live according to YOUR standards and you have NO right to do so.

        • 45caliber

          The Constitution does not trump religion – and it says so. You have the right to worship anyway you wish. And I have to right to ask you to realize that the religion you worship may not be the right one. If you don’t wish to change, tell me and I won’t bring it up again – unless you are dear to me and I really would like to see you in heaven after we die. The problem is that too many religions promise that you will get to heaven if you do things their way but have nothing to back that up. Mine at least lays down ways to do it. Ignoring the sins of others if they will ignore your sins isn’t a way that ANY religion promises, to my knowledge.

          • Robert Smith

            45caliber posted: >>>You have the right to worship anyway you wish.<<<

            Actually… The Rostifarians can't have their ganga. The American Indians can't have they pyote.

            But it would appear that christians get to eat their savior and slug down their drug of choice, alcohol.

      • James

        CJM, Leviticus 18:22 reads: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination,” and Leviticus 20:13 declares that doing so is a capital offense “there blood shall be upon them.” Jesus said (Mt. 5:18-19): “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled… Whosoever…shall break one of these least commandments…he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.” It is true, though, that this law was only given to the Israelites.

    • Big G

      Wow, I love the liberty description. Makes me laugh. You do know if the traditional family unit dies the country dies within one generation. That is a fact not a theory. We have all the historical documantation to prove it. I know you subscribe to the humanistic philosophies of my ancestors of which we model this Western pop culture society. The true facts are that the gays of that time respected marriage and the family unit and even had marriages to women and childrean to support that stucture and then just went about their ways on their own. Todays gays are not as wise like back then and they are violently opposed to Judeo Christian values (Hurculean values then) which are not really what they are labled. The Judeo Christian values are the Darwinian advancement of the mamilain mind. One day it will become fact in the text books but not now. Just because you dont see any violence from gays doent mean it not there. You just have to look at alternate media to find it. That’s another reason why Big Brother wants the internet stop button. The big media giants are slowly loosing their ratings to smaller private media and the powers at be dont like it. I do hope they cut off the internet because like prohibition it creates massive opportunity to userp them completely. They never learn not to cross the line where people invest themselves vs tolerating things. I truly hope thay make that mistake. It will be a grand day for innovation.
      I read a theory about western society and what is described as societal abortion methods that are darwin like reflections of natural responces within many creatures that evolve into planetary dominant animals. Nature uses these malitious situations to cure itself of prolific cancerous like problems. The creatures are unaware of their self adult abortion. The description was that we are so infected that this explosion of gays is one of natures way of disinfecting the planet of our proliferation and decadence. Since we have a voratious appetite in the industrialized societies we sprung to life the kill genes. Gays are therefore a good thing because they will reduce our numbers and destroy us from within to cure the planet of our ways decadent ways. So is war,and killing of femals in China (by the way gays are growing in China as well” ) ect ect. We are self aborting creatures. I am a real “Christian” but I am also wise to know everything has a purpose like clockwork. My God genes will be passed down through humanites ages, the others will be weeded out by thier own doing. The hillarious thing is that the mammilian brain God gene will survive through what we call the anti God of Darwin’s theory. The God gene will make a comeback someday when the equilibium with creation comes back. It is the only gene that allows man to grow, all the others kill us off. It is as comforting as the vituous values of Hurcules eerily similar to Jesus. This will repeat again and I sleep soundly in that manner becuse I am mortal but thanks to Gods ways some of us are immortal.

      Life is a tragic for those who feel but a comedy for those who think.

      Our true struggle is a battle between the mammilian mind vs the reptilian mind within all of us….Georgios of Plano

    • jomama

      Oh, I see – you’re being sarcastic. I thought you just say these crazy things to piss us all off!! You silly thing!! I apologize for past posts. Silly me!!

  • http://Yahoo.com Irene Grooms

    We might live like this under man’s laws but not by GODS LAWS. These people are wrong by our lords law and marraige is mam@ woman, so go ahead with this cause we don’t have a right to judge you but GOD DOES.

    • CJM

      Ms Grooms: I certainly hope you meant “man and woman” and not mam and woman as you posted. Yes mam, I certainly hope so!

  • Robert Smith

    I appreciate much of what I see in the Personal Liberty Digest. However, I’m puzzled at how while demanding liberty for ourselves there is such a loud demand to deny liberty to others.

    The only basis to deny same sex merriage is religious. But we do not have a religious government. Our Constitution denies the state the ability to form a religion. Marriage is a civil contract. It’s that simple. In America even atheists can get married.

    I have no problem denying same sex couples admission to any particular church. Your church, your rules. But the United States of America belongs to all of us.

    • Jeep

      As a nation “we” decided that pedophiles (and, there are a lot of differing rules for what that constitutes!) are bad. “We” decided that beastiality is bad. There are a lot of “things” that “we” have decided are bad. But, “we” are still struggling with the question of homosexuality and it’s impact on society. Some say it will cause much degeneration, others say it will enhance our multi-cultural society.

      • Robert Smith

        Posted: >>>But, “we” are still struggling with the question of homosexuality and it’s impact on society.<<<

        The impact is minimal unless those from the extreme reich want to make it something. It's amazing how they will take someone else's sex life from behind a closed door and make an issue of it.

        Anyhow, minimal impact:

        Four people. Two boys and two girls. Each boy marries one of the girls. Two couples paying taxes, buying houses together and forming a bond. Noboty seems to have a problem with that. However, if the boys become a couple and the girls become a couple WOW! to some folks want to make an issue of it. However IT IS STILL TWO COUPLES.

        Just because you don't like what they do in the bedroom shouldn't be the basis for bigotry. (BTW, hetersexual couples being 90% of the population DO all those things gay couples do in the bedroom. Lots more actually because there are so many.)

    • CJ

      Liberties are not, I repeat NOT absolute. There are freedoms, but they come with RESPONSIBILITIES! When people (incorrectly) call this a “free country”, they are refusing to accept reality. We may have freedoms, but we are certainly not FREE.

    • Ceddy Bear

      Robert the constitutional reference that you are referring to denies the government involvement in how a religion operates or organizes. That is the whole reason for establishing settlements in America to escape the king’s ruling of religion. Marriage is defined and created by God. Not man. If it were man made then man could establish how it is governed and regulated. Our nation was formed and based on biblical principles. Everything in the constitution has a biblical reference. The only ones who deny this are those who believe that it is a living, evolving document. Check the real history of America and not the re-written history of those who want you to think as they do.

      • Phillip

        Hummmm….so you must have a direct link to God…interesting!

        • Ceddy Bear

          Yeah it’s called a bible

          • Doc Sarvis

            That is hardly a direct link.

          • 45caliber

            Doc: It is a heck of a lot more direct than anything you can quote.

      • Robert Smith

        Ceddy Bear posted: >>>Our nation was formed and based on biblical principles. Everything in the constitution has a biblical reference.<<<

        Really! Can you match some quotes from our Constitution from the Christian bible? Maybe not… I suspect they are only visible to true belivers.

        • Ceddy Bear

          Google search wall builders, david barton. plenty of true references there and original documents. not re-created lies

          • Robert Smith

            Hi Ceddy Bear,

            Oh yes, I’ve heard of David Barton’s bad history. He does to the founders what “Silent Scream” does truth about abortion.

            http://candst.tripod.com/boston1.htm

            He’s an extremist who appears to lie at every turn.

            Rob

      • Robert Smith

        Posted: >>>Marriage is defined and created by God. Not man.<<<

        Nope. In America even atheists can be married. It is a civil contract defined by each state.

        Remember, marriage was endorsed by the Church to make sure treaties were followed in a way they sanctioned it. It was purely for the loot that the Church became involved.

        BTW, would the ultimate perversion in a religion that says, "go forth and multiply" ce celibacy?

    • Ellen

      Well said, Robert Smith. That is the crux of the matter. How blind can we be? How bigoted can we be? This is a total misuse of religion and one of the reasons why many are disgusted with religion. It has become a club to force one’s views of morality onto others and this is morally, spiritually, legally and Constitutionally wrong.

      As you said, WE DO NOT HAVE A RELIGIOUS GOVERNMENT and there is ample historic evidence that such a government is entirely tyrannical. Marriage used to be a personal contract between two people and that is as it should be; the state and church really have no right to be involved because both entities go out of control.

  • justcommonsense

    Marriage has been defined for thousands of years by SOCIETY AS A WHOLE, not by government. One of the worst possible things that could happen would be to let government redefine marriage. If the corrupt politicians and communists can get away with that, then they can easily destroy the rest of our freedoms by simply redefining things when the normal legislative route becomes too slow for them. This is so fundamental that it shouldn’t even be an issue. It just shows how far down the road to slavery we have already travelled. Get the US out of the United Nations, and get the United Nations out of the US.

    • 45caliber

      When the Branch Davidians were burned out, someone commented that the government wasn’t allowed to get involved with any religious group.

      The reply was: “We aren’t allowed to get involved with religion – but we can get involved in cults. And we get to define what is a religion and what is a cult.”

  • CJM

    The Federal judge ruled correctly; marital laws belong in the realm of State’s rights and not the Federal government. While many may feel a law protecting the definition of a marriage is necessary, you really need to contact your State legislators. Personally, I believe if one is secure in their beliefs, there is no problem with respect to defining what a marriage truly is. There are more important agendas we need to be concerned about at this moment; we can tackle this marriage law hoopla later.

    • CJ

      Thank goodness YOU are not a judge, or this country would be in worse shape than it is now.

  • Ivan Johnson

    Civil unions that have a complete licensing and education course including intimacy/psychological/communication, financial, and child-rearing modules should be required of all who intend to bond legally. It should be sex and life style neutral.

    Marriage should be a religious and social ceremony only. The state should sanction and regulate civil unions for all adult citizens, and marriage should be a reserved for a religious ceremony only with NO consequences legal. If an agnostic/atheist couple wants to get married, there are plenty of religions that will marry them. I just attended such an affair.

    • CJ

      Once again, the problem is with the government. Marriage IS a religious act. The government decided to use it as a definition for an entitlement under law. Don’t change the definition, change the list of who’s entitled.

  • Irene Williams

    Marriage is between a man and a woman. This is best for the children and the family and the community and the society. When you try to change this or change what is right then the civilization dies.

  • http://www.personalliberty.com Wildcat from Dallastown, PA

    Apparently we have identified another activist judge who drank the Kool-Aid, believes he is enlightened and can proclaim that marriage can and should be allowed by virtually any two living creatures provided at least one of them can say, “I do”. And then we have now confirmed another cogent reason why Martha Coakley couldn’t win a senatorial race against an almost unknown (Scott Brown) in one of the most liberal leaning states in the union. She not only drank the Kool-Aid but apparently bathes in it regularly. Perhaps she fails to realize that all married couples do in fact have equality right now.

    Those who lack so called equality are what about 98%+ of the American citizens call perverts who are living their choice of a perverted lifestyle, sometimes called an “alternative lifestyle”. Well, when you choose that alternative style of living you also get the alternative benefits associated with that choice.

    Perhaps it is time to impeach some of these activist judges for demonstrating extremely poor judgment. After all, they were administered the oath of office to adhere to the Constitution and apply the rule of law as they were educated, previously licensed and expected to perform their duties within that scope and not some fuzzy feeling of personal affront or injustice to a select few who chose to act outside established laws. Just imagine what would happen if we successfully impeached one lower court activist judge after another (regardless of political affiliation) before we effectively did so with a sitting Supreme Court activist judge?

    • Ellen

      You are faulting a judge for (finally) standing up for the Constitution instead of continuing to shred it. Show me in the Constitution where anyone has the right to tell another how to live as long as YOUR rights are not being infringed.

    • Robert Smith

      Hi Wildcat from Dallastown,

      Was it Dallastown that had that screwy evolution thing a few years ago? Fortunately a Regan appointed judge sided with common sense on that one.

      Ahhhhhh, many happy memories at the White Rose MC Club at the Jefferson Hill Climb. Used to get parts for my Indian from Bob’s Indian just off Rt. 83 at the Fishing Creek exit on Rt. 83 just south of Harrisburg.

  • 45caliber

    Actually I think it is more that the civil rights of the married couples is under attack.

  • Josie

    There seems to be one thought that has been neglected here.
    Some of the many things that signal the end of a couuntry/nation/civilisation are:-
    1. Moral standards (biblical) vanish
    2. Law fails and corruption reigns supreme
    3. Personal responsibility, honour and integrity becomes scarce and trust goes out the window (who me? paranoid? never!)
    4. Life revolves around “I” instead of “us”

    Seems to me we should be saying “Hello Rome, here we come!!”

    • 45caliber

      It isn’t that laws fail; it is simply that a judge rules due to emotion and comes up with the best solutions regardless of what the law might say. You know; the way that Sotamayor and what’s-her-name want to do.

      • Thinking About

        Like the emotional ruling by Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas to big money to control our elections.

  • http://sntsbell@msn.com Michael Bell, Sr.

    One of my first thoughts when I heard about same sex marriages was:
    ” So, as this crazy world “progresses forward” will we then be able to make marriage between a HORSE and his same sexual humaan “spouse?” You guys and gals can play all the games you want in this free country–but I hope to God that our governments are smart enough NOT TO MAKE THIS PRIVATE JOINING OF SAME SEX, OFFICIAL AND “SANCTIFIED” BY “HOLY” MATRIMONIAL RECOGNITION! In other words: Do whatever that’s legal you want to do–but don’t expect to get it legally verified and get the same official CERTIFICATE that a man and a woman is given. “Live and let live, but don’t expect official recognition. (This is my feeling and mind and heart feeling on the matter.) If I’m wrong, then I guess marriage between animal and humans WILL possibly take place? GOD FORBID! GOD AND COURTS FORBID!

    • Jeep

      Whay does marriage have to be certified by the state? The answer is because it comes with legal “rights” and privilages (i.e. tax breaks, insurance, etc.) I think the real answer is to eliminate the state from the equation all together. Let each church decide the question of marriage and divorce, but keep the legal drama out of it. A legally binding divorce decree would either be decided by the couple, or in a divorce court that accepts all forms of marriage. The bottom line is, that we should get the govt out of the marriage business altogether.

      • Ellen

        Well said, Jeep. Marriage is a civil union between 2 people. Period.

        The “legal rights” GIVEN can be taken away at any time because they are not rights. The the bennies/privileges are mostly in relation to tax codes that are illegal anyway. A constitutional government has no business in the issue of marriage.

        • Jeep

          Spot on Ellen, I couldn’t have said it better.

      • alpha-lemming

        Kudos…. unfortunately, procreation can’t be removed from the equation. If there are “special” rights and privilages (loopholes) it’s to “allow” people to raise/provide for a family despite a government that’s taking too much. If the government was anywhere close to its’ Constitutionally constrained size, this wouldn’t be an argument and true equality would reign.

        • Robert Smith

          alpha-lemming posted: >>>unfortunately, procreation can’t be removed from the equation.<<<

          It MUST be removed from a discussion of marriage. If you want to base marriage on the ability to have kids then post-menopausal women won't be able to marry. Injured war vets won't be able to get married.

          To link procreation to marriage is just plane a big fat red herring.

          It's impossible to make laws that deny equality for same sex marraige that don't impact hetersexual couples. I'm somewhat over 60 and I'd be a bit upset if I was told I couldn't marry the woman I love because she's too old to have kids.

          Remember, in America it's equality, NOT religious bigotry that is what's best for us.

  • Airangel

    Nature and mankind were always created to have their mate and be able to mate in order to create babies. You don’t see male animals choosing a male animal to partner with…it defies nature and the creation of life. People choose certain lifestyles and it’s their business as long as it doesn’t harm others…but don’t go trampling on the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman and a blessed union in which to create life and raise a family. With marriage vows, you comitt to that promise before God and family.

    I don’t care if you sign a commitment or create your own acknowledged type ritual uniting two guys or two gals so you can receive the same benefits of a married couple like insurance, hospital visitation, etc….Your chosen way of life does not fit in within the “laws of marriage”…doesn’t mean you don’t have good hearts but you have to make your own way and not force your will onto traditional values and unions time honored! I also mind the adopting and raising of children. I feel the child is harmed mentally and hopefully not physically (like in man/boy love). How do we know a gay couple would not force their way of life on a normal child that does not have any gay inclination or tendencies…we see selfish parenting all the time and children are already confused in this world. Doesn’t this further hurt them mentally? Sorry just my opinion..I don’t hate at all and don’t mind if gay couples have benefits but I don’t think it’s natural to raise children since you can’t create them as God intended. Having said that, there are a lot of straight couples that don’t deserve children either! More that ever, I feel for the up and coming children into a world of chaos, cultural hate, confusion, lies, deceit, corruptness, DEBT and probably slavery!

    • Jeep

      Angel, your comment kinda sums up how confusing and deep this issue actually goes…it is certainly a “rabbit hole”!

    • 45caliber

      I know two gay couples, both female, who are raising children. The children of both marriages have what I consider serious problems. The girls tend to have sex at an early age with every boy who accuses them of being “gay like their mother” to prove the boys are wrong. All but one of the daughters has ended up pregnant at a young age. The one who didn’t refused to have anything to do with boys and men of her own age – she would only date men who were much older. She finally married one and is now happy with a boy they are both raising.

      The boys were far more violent. They would fight anyone who accused them of being gay. One went into the military and was able to settle down some. But he never came back to the area that knew his family. The other is in jail and probably always will be.

      I saw a report not long ago that the children of gays are NINE TIMES more likely to be gay themselves upon maturity than children of straight couples.

      Are these the “NORMAL” children the gays insist they are raising?

      • airangel

        That is my fear 45Caliber…I can’t prove a situation of two Gay men that adopted a little boy. He is showing signs of withdrawal and I fear they are doing something to the little boy and that he is confused and probably told not to speak about it. I don’t think all “adoptive gays” would behave that way but if they are prone to that type of lifestyle, then who protects the child from their “curiosity and un-natural” ways. Do what you want as an adult, live the way you want but we have to protect the little ones until they are of legal age to make their own decisions.

      • Robert Smith

        45caliber seems to think the children of same sex parents can turn out bad. Let’s look at his anecdotal “evidence”: >>>I know two gay couples, both female, who are raising children. The children of both marriages have what I consider serious problems. <<<

        Actually the only problem I see with Jesse Levey is that he's a Republican. Actually I have to compliment him for working on the Republican party from the inside with some very good arguments. In fact he's a healthy person and he was on Larry King. Check out: http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/06/28/gayby/index.html

        He wants his to mothers to be able to marry. Of all things, a Republican advocating that.

        In fact I was a life long Goldwater Republican. Now there was a REAL conservative, not like the bible thumpers of today. He declared himself to be pro-choice (in abortion) very early and he was still elected many times over. The party long ago left his foundation and me behind.

        Rob

        Rob

    • Robert Smith

      Airangel seems to think that homosexuality isn’t in the animal kingdon. It is. It has been well documented. For simple overview you can go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

      From that article: >>>Current research indicates that various forms of same-sex sexual behavior are found throughout the animal kingdom.[5] A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species.[6] Homosexuality is best known from social species.<<<

      If anyone is interested there are links and it can be googled.

  • Al Geraud

    Stop referring to the Bible!
    Were you there when it was written? The Bible was written by men, 150 years after the facts. These same facts had been passed on, through word of mouth, by people who did not know how to write and read. It has been then, interpreted, translated, rewritten, reinterpreted many times to the taste of the day.
    The facts are that several countries have adopted same sex marriages in their constitution, some for several years now, and none of the cataclysmic predictions of the Religious Rights have happened (just go to Canada, our neighbor, and ask around)

    • Ceddy Bear

      You can’t stop refering to the bible because it defines what true marriage actually is as created by God and not defined by man! The statement you made in terms of biblical validity are a flat out lie. The dead sea scrolls confirm the validity and correctness of the bible (although most believers didn’t need this to justify our faith). You hate the truth and those who despise truth naturally want to remove its reference from the conversation because it will expose them for what and who they truly are…….a LIE!

      • Ellen

        CB: Your insistence to referring to the Bible makes this a religious discussion. For you, marriage is a religious act. You have the right to your beliefs but where do you get the authority to tell others how to live their lives? Leave the judgement to your God and let others live in peace. Is that not easy to understand?

        For you, the Bible defines what true marriage is. Our country was set up so that religious bigots could not impose their ideas of morality on others. I don’t care about your Dead Sea scrolls. They are meaningful to you and you are welcome to your beliefs. From where do you find the right to legislate to others how to live? Your truth is not my truth. I find your beliefs repugnant but I respect your right to have them and practice your religion and live your life as you choose. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

        Show me in your Bible where you have the right to tell ANYONE what to do. Show me where you have the right to judge others.

        • Ceddy Bear

          You’re right Ellen I do use the bible as reference always. Its not a religion as much as a relationship. I never step outside of my boundaries when it comes to issues that I have no grounds of speaking about. But mrriage is a bible issue. Not a man defined issue. I am not telling others how to live. I believe that all should live as they please. But when you take something that belongs to God (and I am his) you have given me grounds to voice the truth. I believe the accusation is in reverse. You are proclaiming that something that existed before you be modified to benefit your lifestyle. Not me telling you how to live.

          • 45caliber

            You are correct. That is the real problem. None of them like to admit it.

        • Robert Smith

          From Ellen: >>>Leave the judgement to your God and let others live in peace. Is that not easy to understand?<<<

          In my humble opinion it's not easy for them to understand because in their view it appears that their god wants them to get their ticket punched at OUR expense. It's not good enough for their god to just have them, but apparently their god is demanding he deliver other souls. I thought it was only the devel that collected souls for his own benefit.

          Rob

    • Phillip

      I agree with you Al. Most have “fallen asleep” at the hands of the the clergy. This is done intentionally to keep the masses under control. Institue fear, lack of self-worth, and teach if you do NOT follow what the clergy says you will be condemned to eternal damnation! Like Napoleon Hill wrote, “That is a L O N G time!” And what is even more sad is that much of the clergy knows what they are exponding is falsehoods!

    • 45caliber

      Al:
      Your comments about the Bible show the influence of the atheists – and is totally wrong. If you don’t like to listen to quotes from it, too bad. It identifies what marriage is – and gay “marriages” aren’t it. You are at liberty to not believe it if you like – but there are far more of us who do and don’t like it when you try to change our beliefs.

      Stop and consider a moment. Why should the majority of people in the US have to stop and consider YOUR feelings when you won’t stop and consider theirs? What makes you so much more special? If you don’t want to listen to comments from people who don’t consider you special, why don’t you go somewhere they might? Your very demands are insisting that you are special, we aren’t, and that we MUST listen to and obey you. And I don’t consider anyone better than me – and I do consider some worse than I am when they prove it.

  • patrick

    ATTN: all people. do not forget what is ahead for all of us if we let the gays have their way. life as we know it will end. You see it is natural law that you need a male and a female to produce babies. without many new babies everything will slowly end… no people for jobs, schools, training,factories, politicans, religion, terrorists, criminals, farmers, and so on. there will not be people to build things so people can buy the items that the worls needs to survive. so there you have simple explanation. Also, it has not been proven that there is such a thing as a GAY gene in our DNA, so we are not born gay, we learn it. yet the gays continue to try to ram down our throats that their queer way of life is above all normal life. just let em have their way eventually they will kill themselves off with the spread of AIDS and soon there will not even be enough new people for them to recruit.

    • Ellen

      Patrick: You demonstrate extreme bigotry and ignorance with ever word you type. Who in her/his right mind would choose a “lifestyle” that guarantees ostracism, bigotry, hate, ignorance, prejudice, intolerance, and loneliness? Get real. There is no recruiting. Stop buying the lies that very small minds spread like a cancer everywhere.

      How about MYOB? “Gays have their way”? How would you like it if your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was suddenly challenged and hindered? What happened to standing for our fellow human beings’ rights to what we expect for ourselves? We either support each others’ rights or we will lose them all in our eagerness to selfishly trample others.

      Open your eyes. These are human beings JUST LIKE YOU AND ME. Must we vilify anyone “not like us”? Are we so small that we can only allow others to live as WE say they should?

      • 45caliber

        They may be human beings like YOU but they aren’t like ME. Sorry but it’s true. As long as they don’t try to insist on making a thing openly about their “gayness” we can get along – particularly since I don’t make a thing about being straight.

        It is only the people that insist on infringing on my rights and needs that annoy me. I don’t care what deals they make with the government about taxes or anything else. But I do get annoyed when someone insists that I MUST change my lifestyle because they are RIGHT. It isn’t my lifestyle and never will be. So what makes their lifestyle right and mine must be wrong? There can be right for both of us – as long as they don’t try to keep changing mine.

        • Robert Smith

          From 45caliber: >>>It is only the people that insist on infringing on my rights and needs that annoy me.<<<

          How are your rights compramised by same sex marrage? Please be specific. Do you have to park your car differently? Will you have to buy groceries differently? What difference does it make to you? (see another post of mine about 2 men and two women… No matter how you figure it it will only be TWO couples)

          Please be specific. What difference does same sex marrage make in your life.

          Hint: I live in MA. Although same sex merraige is allowed here I've encountered NO changes in my life or the lives of anyone I know.

      • 45caliber

        Ellen: You said, “How would you like it if your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was suddenly challenged and hindered?”

        That is EXACTLY why we don’t want gay “marriage”. You/they are challenging and trying to hinder our right to our pursuit of happiness by trying to reduce marriage from what it actually is to something you have and want. We see it as not only a direct attack on the santion of marriage but also a direct attack on religion in all its forms. So you expect us to give up our rights so you can have some phantom right of your own? A right that you decided we should give you?

        As I said, I don’t care about the reasons you say you MUST be married and not have just civil unions. You want the same tax breaks? Go ahead and get the government to give them to you. I certainly won’t fight that. You want the same recognition in hospitals? Fine. I’m on your side. In fact I think ANYONE who is really concerned about a loved one, whether of close kin or not, should be allowed some reassurance and a chance to see that person when they are very ill.

        What you are trying to do is take a right from someone else and force it to change rather than go after the rights you should have.

        • Ellen

          Many of you folks seem to believe that it is your perceived rights that trump all others. How is anyone else’s marriage hindering your right to your pursuit of happiness? Get real and get over yourselves.

          An attack on your religion? Who is telling you what to believe or not to believe or who to follow? Exactly what rights are you being expected to give up?

          RIGHTS are not given. Rights are inherent and unalienable. Is your religion so weak or is your God so weak that it needs YOUR hateful actions toward others to shore it up?

          PRIVILEGES are given AND taken away. Benefits are given by a government that thinks it must interfere in everyone’s lives; these too are taken away when it suits the tyrants in power.

          In case you folks are confused (and it certainly appears to be the case), this is supposed to be a republic, NOT a democracy…….where in a republic, the INDIVIDUAL’S right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, property rights and so forth are protected. In a democracy, the majority takes from the minority anything it pleases. It’s a bully situation and was abhorrent to the framers of the Constitution. YOUR rights are protected as well as those of whom you do not approve for whatever reason.

          You don’t want gay marriage? Then don’t marry a person of the same sex. Simple. Otherwise, it is NOT for you to run roughshod over others who may not fit YOUR beliefs and ideas of how things are “supposed” to be.

          Your arguments are so weak and full of hypocrisy and intolerance–as well as the rest of those who hide behind the wall of religion. Are you familiar with the golden rule? To me, that sums up my relationship with my fellow human beings. Apparently you are not familiar with it or do not believe it to be valid. Perhaps you don’t like the person who uttered this amazing statement. To have discussion beyond the golden rule is superfluous and very presumptuous.

    • Robert Smith

      Patrick posted: >>>Also, it has not been proven that there is such a thing as a GAY gene in our DNA, so we are not born gay, we learn it.<<<

      You suggest that a bunch of folks chose to be frowned upon because they chose to be gay. Really… Why would anyone volunteer for such a thing?

      Question: When did YOU DECIDE to be hetersexual? Is there anything that might change your mind?

      Gays don't DECIDE to be gay anynmore than you decided to be heterosexual.

      It's just the way it works out. Genetics or behavior the result is the same. Gays are gay. Those I have talked to are very clear that it isn't a choice.

  • Al Geraud

    And if Marriage is only for people” to mate and create children”, so post menopausal women should be barred from marrying..?

    • Ellen

      Apparently so, Al. I guess the religious tyrants need to legislate every facet of our lives. They are so fearful of “not me” that they will persecute others.

  • atlas reborn

    gays and lesbians are entitled to get together and be animals that they are and should be allowed to live in a domestic relationship. marriage was created by God and instituted by Gods religions as it should be. governments decided to tax marriage and everyone thought that it was a right which it is not and for the queers and lesbians to hyjack our religious cerimonies is wrong. but they do not care because they are narcicists and we can not please all weirdos and we should not. if you want to prove that it is stupid just think about this. if you had three islands and you put 100 lesbians on one island, and put another 100 on the second island with queers, and another hundred 50 men and 50 women on the the third island . after 200 years go back to the islands and see the results. 2 islands will be devoid of human life. the third island will still be populated with men women and children. that tells you what is Gods intent for humans is. their is no right to bastardize marriage. but the liberals think they know more than God does. they want their feelings to be superior to Gods laws and enforced by force of the gun to obey their wants..

    • Phillip

      And your another one with a “drect line” to God? Hummm. here we go again…us gays must be missing the boat! It is interesting to see how many of you fear us…you only fear that which you feel resides deep inside of youselves. Happliy adjusted men and women could give a rats ass about whether a person is gay, straight, transgendered, bi-sexual or whatever. And further more, how many scholarly theology classes have you attended? All you know is what you read from one book. Is that true learning? Did you learn from one book all through your educational career? Think about it and educate yourself!

      • 45caliber

        You can be in line. If you aren’t, it is because you haven’t accepted Jesus as your savior and aren’t trying to follow God’s laws. Incidently, there are a lot of straight people who are not in line either. The way is open to you; but you can’t insist that you are in line when you obviously have joined the larger line going somewhere else.

      • 45caliber

        Phillip: You said: “Happliy adjusted men and women could give a rats ass about whether a person is gay, straight, transgendered, bi-sexual or whatever.”

        You are correct; we don’t care – as long as you leave us alone too. The problem is that you and many others like you insist that you are the special ones and that everyone else must give you the recognition of being special. Sorry, ain’t going to happen! What makes you special since you obviously have the wrong ideas about what sex is all about? If you are wrong about that – as many have tried to tell you – then what else are you wrong about? You are certainly wrong about being special. At best – you are no better than anyone else. But you can prove you are less than others by being worse than they are.

        • http://?? Joe H.

          45caliber,
          A very good example of your point are the “hate” crime laws. If a man kills a woman, it is murder,but if a man kills a gay woman, then it is somehow worse and thus a Hate crime! Why, if a gay kills a straight isn’t it a hate crime??? Are they somehow more important than straights?? We already have a crime on the books called MURDER, just enforce it no matter who it is!!!

          • Ellen

            Joe H.: I agree. The hate crime laws are just another instance of big government sticking its ugly nose into things they have no business getting into. Murder is murder and we DO have laws that address it. As abhorrent as hateful feelings toward others are, we all are supposed to have First Amendment rights. However, those rights end when others’ are infringed upon.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Ellen,
            this may be true, but it was the gays that fought for those “special” laws, therefore they must think they are special!

      • Palin12

        Phillip, too bad American Liberal isn’t here today. He could meet a real Tea Bagger.

  • Ellen

    Show me in the Constitution where anyone has the right to legislate marriage. Show me. If you believe that homosexuality is wrong, that is your opinion that you are entitled to. Opinion. The Constitution and Bill of Rights declares that we have many unalienable and inherent rights. Period.

    Let’s begin by minding our own damned business. We all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. One’s perceptions of morality are just that: one’s perceptions. WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO IMPOSE THOSE PERCEPTIONS ON OTHERS. We have the right to practice our religious beliefs, NOT impose those beliefs on others, no matter how right we think we or those beliefs are.

    When are you folks, who are so eager to legislate others’ lives, going to get it? Mind your own damned business and let others live their lives. Who gave YOU the authority to meddle in others’ affairs?

    • Ceddy Bear

      No one is meddling in your affairs. No one said stop practicing your lifestyle. Just stop imposing on ours. No one has attempted to alter a statute that was created by homosexuals. So why do you attempt to modify ours?

      • Ellen

        CB: Show me in the Constitution where anyone has the right to legislate marriage. Show me.

        The Constitution and Bill of Rights declares that we ALL have many unalienable and inherent rights. Period. You’ve very conveniently ignored my challenges and that would be because you have no justification or authority to stomp on others. I only want our Constitution to be followed as the framers so wisely wrote it. I want all these crap “laws” to be struck down as the illegal garbage that they are. I celebrate and support your right to live as you believe is right. Why is it so difficult for you to accord that right to others?

        I don’t have a “lifestyle”. I am a human being with unalienable rights, just as you have. I’ve been married for many years and have 3 adult children; that’s my lifestyle.

        Statutes are just that……..illegal “laws” designed to further subjugate human beings. We are inherently free people and need to respect others’ rights as well.

        • Ceddy Bear

          You know Ellen I do admire your diligence (if I spelled that incorrectly please forgive me). I believe that we could go back and forth all day about our differences without gaining ground in either direction. The true question at hand is this: is this really about the definition of a marital civil union between two individuals as much as it is about recognition?

          • Ellen

            CB: I think it is both and I want to thank you for your stance on guarding your oath to uphold the Constitution as well as for your willingness to serve your country. I have to respect anyone who honors his/her oath. However, I will defend my fellow human beings’ rights to live their lives in peace and harmony.

            We have some common ground as well as some divisive issues. I wish you well, Sir.

        • Ron Rowland

          Ellen ……this is what you said>>>>

          “I don’t have a “lifestyle”. I am a human being with unalienable
          *********************
          rights, just as you have. I’ve been married for many years and have 3 adult children; that’s my lifestyle.”
          ******************
          You could be a great Politician…..you need to get your brain cells…..lined up with what you really mean ; noone else knows…. I do …I don’t ????

          Your kind of Communication is prevelent out here in the world; and I get sick of it …
          Communication skills are easy …..BUT why do we fail???

    • 45caliber

      Ellen: You said: “Let’s begin by minding our own damned business. We all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. One’s perceptions of morality are just that: one’s perceptions. WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO IMPOSE THOSE PERCEPTIONS ON OTHERS. We have the right to practice our religious beliefs, NOT impose those beliefs on others, no matter how right we think we or those beliefs are.”

      That is exactly what we are trying to tell you. We aren’t trying to FORCE you to believe our way – or at least no one but the Muslims do – but we do want to show you the RIGHT way to get to heaven. If you are so dense that you won’t accept our help, then we are willing to back off and let you go to the wrong place on your own – even though we may love and pray for you. But YOU ARE TRYING TO IMPOSE YOUR PERCEPTIONS ON US when you insist that what we consider our right is not a right. And you are too dense to realize it.

      • Robert Smith

        45caliber posted: >>>but we do want to show you the RIGHT way to get to heaven.<<<

        Really! Didn't the christian god offer huamn beings free choice? Who are YOU to take it away?

    • airangel

      Ellen says: “WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO IMPOSE THOSE PERCEPTIONS ON OTHERS. We have the right to practice our religious beliefs, NOT impose those beliefs on others, no matter how right we think we or those beliefs are.”

      Ellen do you not IMPOSE your lifestyle on the rest of us with all the Gay marches and parades? We do not have Straight marches…I am all for your rights as a human being and to be with a life long partner but the sanctity and vows in marriage are of Gods ordinance and should stay that way…fine take Government out and come up with a unity contract for “alternative lifestyles” but when you start tearing down time honored traditions, it is offensive to those who believe it as such. When we trample other’s freedoms for our own gain it is simply wrong…if we need some adaptations or a new ordinance for gays to be together in the way the feel they deserve, fine but we can’t tear down the long held beliefs of others. That disrespects them in a reverse way. It’s a fine line but one I’m sure can be worked around with mutual agreement rather than hatred and animosity…at least I hope so but I’m not sure, we have every minority from Illegals, Alternative Lifestyles, Blacks, Women, Muslims, etc being forced down our throats, it actualy creates Bigotry and Racism when a few others make decisions for the whole population!

      • Ellen

        As I’ve said numerous times, I do not have a “lifestyle” any more than you do. I am not gay but have some wonderful friends who are and I am a strong Constitutionalist. I do not believe in trampling others’ rights just to be superior to them.

        I don’t care what color you are, what religion, what race…..any of those things……..I find it appalling that so many folks posting here are demanding liberty for themselves but find it perfectly acceptable to deny the same liberties to others that they see as less deserving of such.

        Are some more equal than others? Is that what our country has come to? We started out with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (and yes, the slavery issue was indeed a real blight on our country’s earlier history) and we seem to think that some segments of our population are STILL not included. I would be deeply ashamed to utter such sentiments.

        As Robert Smith said in a post, even atheists can get married in America………..there is no religion involved here.

        Very sorry attitudes are displayed here. This is brings much shame to America and the principles upon which she was founded.

      • Robert Smith

        airangel posted: >>>Ellen do you not IMPOSE your lifestyle on the rest of us with all the Gay marches and parades?<<<

        Hmmmm, are you going to figure out how to be bigoted against the Shriners? They are in lots of parades. What about high school bands? Gonna accuse them of imposing on your lifestyle? Oh my, one of the largest parades around is the parade for George Washington in Alexandria, VA.

        Oh no! What about the St. Patty's day parades? No more corned beef and fine whisky.

        BTW, traffic also gets screwed up by things like the Boston and Marine Corps Marathon on Washington. If I wanted to I could get really upset at that but I've volunteered to help out at the Washington event.

        • http://?? Joe H.

          R. Smith,
          Read a little closer. The statement was that there are no STRAIGHT parades. Those parades you mention are not just straight parades, they are for ALL!

    • Jacqueline Candello

      It appears that it’s OK to legislate YOUR “lifestyle” as being legally recognized but it’s not OK to have “natural” marriage legally recognized. Natural Law alone advocates for one male and one female, of legal age, to unite in what used to be a binding contract. You can not equate what our founders advocated at the creation of the Constitution with today’s norms. They were very RELIGIOUS and, although they didn’t want a “national” religion imposed on the nation they did make it so the Constitution protects the freedom of worship i.e., religion. The Federalist Papers explain what the founders wanted for this nation. Since they were Christians they would not want, wish, or desire anything outside of the Bible to come into question. People who adamantly stray outside the precepts of God reject God. They claim His laws are too hard to follow and then come the excuses. If they want to remain “religious” they “shop” around for a church that has changed it’s interpretations, has become multicultural, and politically correct. All are welcome and no one has to stop sinning. Sounds like Lucifer is laughing his butt off because not only has man taken to tearing out those passages in the Bible that don’t fit his/her desires but has actually changed the name of the Book to “the bible according to ‘put your name here’”. No one has to judge you for you have judged yourself and the fact that you are so defensive pretty much says it all. BTW, you might want to read the Declaration of Independence and go on from there. Read the writings of our founders. I’m sorry you and others like you feel that “alternate” lifestyle’s need to be accepted by society but it is too dangerous. I, for one, will not accept the packaging of this evil as something good. This is the perversion of the devil and I will pray God opens your heart to the vileness that has permeated society.

      • Robert Smith

        About our founding fathers Jacqueline posted: >>>They were very RELIGIOUS and,<<<

        Actually they weren't. Ben Franklin was all but an atheist, and Jefferson cut Jesus out of his bible. George Washington wasn't particularly religious.

        Although many were members of religious organizations that was because of custom and that's where the social lives often focused.

        I find the strained effort to "adopt" the founding fathers into contempory images of reich wing nuts at about the same level as calling tail gunner Joe McCarthy a good American. In reality they were just folks with little exceptional interest in religion as a part of their daily lives. George Washington was more interested in his still and growing hemp than religion.

        • http://?? Joe H.

          Roberts,
          you need to read the founders letters and then tell me they weren’t religeous!

          • Robert Smith

            Joe H. suggested: >>>you need to read the founders letters and then tell me they weren’t religeous!<<<

            I have. With white gloves and all. I turned pages that were written upon by our founders. I was doing research to correct some lies promulgated by some anti-gun nuts. Although it wasn't relevant to my pro-gun arguments I did see some of the writings of our Founding Fathers about religion.

            Although there are quotes that can be taken out of context that support the extreme reich, generally they were a "live and let live" bunch of guys who had little interest in imposing their particular brand of religion upon another. They were also generally emphatic about NOT allowing others to impose religion (or none) upon others also.

            Rob

  • http://GOGGLE vaksal

    well all i can say is i have heard it all now,what a bunch of horse poop,that judge tauro should be hailed as the man who destroyed every rule in the book from time immortal,all through the history of the world,marriage was considered as the unbreakable rule of society of all peoples,now this liberal hack says it is nothing,if this is where these corrupted morons are taking this nation,then god help us all,we will be finished as a civilized moral nation,and so will the people that are pushing this agenda,why? think about this 299 million angry american people that are pro-marriage against,the few pro-free life style people,while the illeagal immigrants breed like bunny rabbits,because they are not into the free life style,and by the way if they get in power,numberwise,how long do the free life style people think they will last in their new america,not long for sure,because they arent into the boy to boy thing or the girl to girl thing,so kiss this nation goodbye,for the american public will not support the american government in this attack on its social values and the illeagals will destroy the pro free life style people pushing this corruption,i am just posting an outlook,and i am not judgeing anyone,but as for myself i like women,and they rule in my book,but what does an old guy know? i just think these people running this nation have been taking too many courses in “how to destroy a nation that is civilized,and turn it into the second corrupted roman republic.

    • 45caliber

      One thing most of these people seem to forget is that THE ONLY REASON THEY CAN ENJOY THEIR LIFESTYLE IS THAT THE REST OF US ALLOW IT. Let them go to any Muslim country and make a point of being gay. See just how long they would last there.

      EVERY country that has had openly gay sex has been destroyed. And not many have. The more moral countries have done it. If gay sex was as right and proper as they seem to think, it would have taken over the world by now. And if it had taken over the world, no one would be here arguing about it, would they?

      • Ellen

        45cal: The rest of you are ALLOWING others to enjoy their “lifestyles”? How big of you. From where do you get this authority? Religious intolerance is one of the ugliest things I’ve ever seen and I don’t care what religion is demanding that THEIRS is the only “right” one. None of you who insist that it’s your way or NO way are following the loving words and examples of your supposed inspiration, Jesus Christ.

        How utterly presumptuous to claim and try to enforce onto others that which YOU believe. How utterly unChristian. How utterly despicable and sorry.

      • Robert Smith

        45caliber blathers: >>>If gay sex was as right and proper as they seem to think, it would have taken over the world by now.<<<

        Ummmmmm, please pay attention…

        Rome lasted over 800 years. It didn't fall apart until the christians came along. I've seen strong arugments that the christianity was coincidental to the fall of Rome and some equally strong arguments that it was instrumental. As the christians rose to power the DARK AGES settled in. Then there were some long wars called the Crusades. Rome never did achieve world domination again.

        I'm far happier that America would follow the Roman model and run another 600 years than going into wars and dark ages again.

        Rob

  • http://GOGGLE vaksal

    wish to correct my last word,it should read dictatorship instead of republic.

  • Richard Hennessy

    Only in Mass!!!

  • coal miner
    • coal miner

      This above website proves nothing,sorry aout that.

      • coal miner

        About that.

      • 45caliber

        Neither do the pro-gay sites.

  • mavis

    Judge Joseph Tauro, what rock did you crawl out from under, Ma attorney general Martha Coakley you must have
    been under the same rock you have raised your heads to spew out an abomination to the country. Marriage is between one man and one woman ordained by GOD for the
    procreation of the earth.Two men or 2 women is an abomination to GOD. wHAT IS WRONG MASSACHUTTS HAVE YOUR JUDGES AND YOUR ATTORNEY GENERAL GONE STARK RAVING MAD. I HOPE NOT ALL OF YOU FEEL THIS way, IF you do , GOD please HELP you all to change your minds.
    MEHPENSACOLA,FL
    man one woman

  • Melody

    The country must have standards. Homosexuality is a perversion. Has nothing to do with civil rights. Their agenda is to pervert marriage, destroy the family and try to present themeselves as normal. They are not. They are not honorable people, or mentally healthy to be in any relationship, let alone one that demands fidelity and honesty. They are all disgusting. Take a look at their parades! Smelly, ugly people. Their sin is rotting their minds and those around. They spend their time making man made laws, but the only law that matters is God’s law. I use to feel sorry for them, and want to pray for them, now, I really don’t care what happens to these evil, angry, unsaved people.

    • 45caliber

      Don’t totally give up on them. Keep praying that they will find Jesus and give up their sinful ways, just as you would pray for anyone else to do the same thing. I even pray for the Muslims to find the only path to heaven. And I am happy every time I hear of some who have.

    • Canada

      Hey Melody – Avoiding Self-righteousness
      Ironically, homosexuality also poses a challenge for heterosexual Christians. We may let feelings of contempt or fear lead us into the sin of self-righteousness. But Jesus and other New Testament leaders taught by word and example not to be self-righteous or discriminate against those we consider to be “sinners” (Matthew 9:10-13, Luke 7:36-48, 18:9-14).

      Further, Jesus told us to eliminate the sins in our own lives rather than passing judgment or looking down on others. For if we judge other people harshly, we will, in turn, be judged harshly:

      “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (NIV, Matthew 7:1-2)

      Christians have a responsibility to correct matters of wrongdoing among themselves (Matthew 18:15-17), but this should always be done fairly and with compassion. We are never to take upon ourselves the task of judgment that belongs to God alone (Hebrews 10:30, Romans 14:10-13, 1 Corinthians 4:5.)

      James makes it clear that we must treat others with mercy, not with judgment or partiality (prejudice):

      You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For the one who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. (NRSV, James 2:8-13)

      As Christians, we must remember that all of us are sinners in our own ways (Romans 3:21-24, 5:12). Despite that, God loves all His children (Genesis 1:31, Psalms 145:9, Matthew 5:43-45, John 3:16, Romans 5:8). We cannot afford to let our feelings or fears about homosexuality blind us to Jesus’ commandment to “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:36-39).

      Of course, society has a legitimate right and duty to take legal action against those sexual offenders, homosexual or heterosexual, who use coercion or who prey on children or the disabled.

  • ben gilpin

    Animals know better. They don’t go around having sex with their own gender! In short a Jack-Ass has got more sence than de-generated humans. How far can humans sink before God intervenes and demonstrates (HIS FURY)!!??? Don’t just read the Bible, but study it , digest it, God told us how he feels in Leviticus 17,18.
    Don’t believe him, just watch!!!!

    • 45caliber

      In a way, this all reminds me of a poker game. We keep laying down our winning hands and are saying, “Read it and weep.” They keep insisting that their hands should be winning too – even if we have a higher hand. Reminds me a lot of my younger brother when we were little – “Okay, you ran faster and got there before me but it isn’t fair since you have longer legs! Therefore you should cut off part of your legs so I can have the same length of legs and can prove I run faster than you!”?

    • Jeep

      Actually ben you are wrong. A number of species have same sex pairings for life. A recent study of black swans found that almost ten percent of the males “paired” for life and some “couples” went as far as taking eggs from other nests (and, don’t throw it back as deviant either). These “couples” went on to raise the young chicks and care for them. And, btw, Lev 17 refers to the eating of blood. And, Lev 18 describes unlawful sexual relationships. From verse 6 to 21 the prohibition is all about family members not having relations and verse 22 MAY be interpreted as a prohibition of male to male. But, isn’t it odd that the Bible does not specifically prohibit female realtionships? Just a thought.

    • coal miner

      ben gilpin,

      Have you seen two dogs humping each other?

  • coal miner

    Shuld gay couples adopt children?

    BriefingNews & PoliticsArtsLifeBusiness & TechSciencePodcasts & VideoBlogsmoneybox | Daniel Gross
    Retail sales are up, and credit card debt is down. Why is that bad news?moneybox | Daniel Gross
    When policy solutions don’t work, America turns to foreign investment and homegrown ingenuity.the dismal science | Ray Fisman
    The financial rewards reaped by Methodist preachers who grow their flocks.moneybox | Daniel Gross
    Higher postal rates are good for the economy, businesses and consumers, and the environment.technology | Brett Sokol
    The shortwave radio signals that the alleged Russian spies were using are still surprisingly effective.moneybox | Daniel Gross
    Deflation nation: What’s so bad about falling prices?technology | Farhad Manjoo
    A close reading of Apple CEO Steve Jobs’ e-mail correspondence.ad report card | Seth Stevenson
    Slate readers on the most stupid, annoying, and wrongheaded commercials on television.See all Business & TechBizBox | Small Business Blog
    Small Biz Fund Created in Empire StateSPONSORED CONTENT
    HOME / frame game : How you look at things.
    Adopting Premises
    The sneaky debate over legalizing adoptions by gay couples.
    By William Saletan
    Posted Thursday, Feb. 7, 2002, at 4:34 PM ET
    Several million American children reportedly live in homes with at least one gay parent. In most cases, the same-sex domestic partner of that parent has no legal parental rights or responsibilities. This week, the American Academy of Pediatrics declared that these “co-parents” should be allowed to undertake such rights and responsibilities by adopting their partners’ children. The announcement has provoked outcries from conservatives, with each side claiming to represent science against politics. In truth, each side’s “science” is loaded with politics. Here’s how they fudge the data.

    PRINT
    DISCUSS
    E-MAIL
    RSS
    RECOMMEND…
    SINGLE PAGE

    Yahoo! Buzz Facebook Digg RedditStumbleUponCLOSE1. Define the presumption. Both sides acknowledge that the evidence on how well kids fare with gay parents as opposed to straight ones is incomplete and doesn’t yet show big differences. Conservatives spin this tie as a win, figuring that current laws should stay in place until evidence proves that gay parenting is safe. Focus on the Family says the AAP’s research is “inconclusive” and “should not be used in legal cases to make any argument.” That way, the burden of proof stays on liberals.

    Advertisement

    The AAP shifts the burden to conservatives by defining their presumption as a prediction that big differences will show up in studies. The question, according to the AAP, is “whether there is any empiric support for these assumptions.” Since those differences haven’t shown up yet, the AAP concludes that the presumption has been falsified.

    To make sure that the assumption that straight parents are superior can’t be falsified, conservatives trot out the “guinea pig” argument. According to Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council, gays shouldn’t be allowed to raise kids—as they have in the studies reported so far—because “children are not guinea pigs and should not be used as pawns in some grand social experiment.” The position of the Family Research Council, in short, is that families are too important to subject to research.

    2. Define the question. According to Connor, “The International Journal of Epidemiology reported that among homosexuals, there is an increased incidence of suicide, depression, multiple sexual partners, and domestic violence compared to the heterosexual population.” From this, Connor concludes that “problems endemic to the homosexual lifestyle make these relationships inherently unstable, and thus unsuitable for the raising of children.”

    Supporters of gay adoptions dispute these correlations. But to repeal bans on gay adoptions, they don’t have to prove that gay couples, on average, are as parentally fit as straight couples. They just have to change the question to whether all straight couples are more parentally fit than all gay couples. Suppose, for example, there’s more suicide, depression, promiscuity, and domestic violence among blacks than among whites. Would such findings justify a ban on adoptions by blacks? If not, why would they justify a ban on adoptions by gays?

    Taking this approach, the AAP cites “evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual.” Note the key word: can. “All the literature suggests that as long as a parent is providing a loving, caring environment, the parent’s sexual orientation doesn’t make a difference in the development of the child,” says a co-author of the AAP policy. Again, note the key phrase: as long as. By narrowing the comparison to parentally fit couples, the AAP bypasses Connor’s contention that straight couples, on average, are more parentally fit.

    3. Define the standards. Connor says studies show that “sexual identity confusion is common among children raised by gay parents” and that “children of lesbians are less likely to fit traditional gender roles.” The AAP denies the “identity confusion” charge but acknowledges that “men and women who had lesbian mothers were slightly more likely to consider the possibility of having a same-sex partner, and more of them had been involved in at least a brief relationship with someone of the same sex,” though this didn’t change the proportion who considered themselves gay as adults. In fact, says the AAP, “growing up with parents who are lesbian or gay may confer some advantages to children. They have been described as more tolerant of diversity,” for example. In one study, the AAP notes, parents and teachers described kids of lesbians as “more affectionate, responsive, and protective” and less “bossy, negative, and domineering” than kids of straight parents.

    These descriptions reek of bias. Each side is rigging the experiment by defining the outcome in terms—”affectionate,” “tolerant,” “confused”—that validate its own ideology. At one extreme is Connor’s crude sexism. “Fathers masculinize their sons, mothers civilize them,” he says. At the other extreme is the AAP’s pseudoscientific liberalism, which holds that “obtaining donor sperm or arranging for a surrogate mother”—like “finding an accepting adoption agency” or “confronting emotional pain and restrictions imposed by heterosexism”—is just another “challenge” facing gays who want to be parents. Connor oversimplifies nature; the AAP treats it as morally irrelevant.

    4. Define the variable. Connor says “children do best when raised by a mother and a father.” Bob Knight, the family research director at Concerned Women for America, calls gay couples “motherless or fatherless families.” CWA president Sandy Rios adds, “Telling the public that a homosexual couple can raise a child as effectively as a married couple is on par with telling them that a single mom provides as complete parenting as a mom-and-dad couple.” Note the linguistic trick. These descriptions assume that what makes a mom-and-dad household better than a single-parent household is the number of genders. But there’s another variable that could account for the difference: the number of parents. In that case, having two moms is more like having a mom and dad than like having just a mom.

    The AAP plays a similar trick in reverse. “Because most children whose parents are gay or lesbian have experienced the divorce of their biologic parents, their subsequent psychologic development has to be understood in that context,” says the AAP. “Children of divorced lesbian mothers grow up in ways that are very similar to children of divorced heterosexual mothers.” By comparing lesbians to divorced straight women rather than to married straight women, the AAP eliminates fatherhood as an explanatory variable. In fact, by leaving fathers out of the equation, the AAP gets to portray male role models as an advantage of lesbian parenthood: “Lesbian mothers … have been shown to be more concerned with providing male role models for their children than are divorced heterosexual mothers.”

    5. Define the alternative. Connor says legalizing gay adoptions would “deprive” children of having a loving mom and dad. To dodge that dilemma, the media and gay adoption advocates focus on the millions of kids whose alternative to being adopted by a well-off gay couple is far worse than being adopted by a well-off straight couple. They profile gay couples who have taken in orphans, sick or abused children, and Asian kids for whom adoptive parents are hard to find. Connor says it would be better to get straight couples to adopt these kids. But until he recruits enough volunteers, he’ll have to explain why living in an orphanage or with a drug-addicted mom is better than having two dads.

    6. Define the conditions. Conservatives argue that being adopted by a gay couple puts a kid in an awkward situation. The AAP bypasses this objection by limiting the debate to kids who are already in that situation. The AAP doesn’t explicitly endorse a gay couple adopting a child from outside their home. Instead, it says, “Children who are born to or adopted by 1 member of a same-sex couple deserve the security of 2 legally recognized parents.” On this basis, the AAP says the other member of the couple should be allowed to adopt the child as well, thereby guaranteeing the child not only a feeling of security but financial benefits such as dependent health insurance.

    Should the child be in the custody of a gay person in the first place? The authors of the AAP policy assume that question away. They describe the kids at stake as those who “happen to have a homosexual parent,” ignoring the question of how that happened. Like abortion-rights advocates, they stipulate that the disputed conduct will take place anyway and that therefore the best policy is to make it safe and legal. “People are already doing this, de facto,” says one sociologist. “The question is are you going to give parents the same rights, and therefore the kids the same rights, and the same stability in their connection to their parents that other kids have?”

    7. Define the causality. Connor says society prohibits gay marriage and gay adoption because gays are more prone to promiscuity, depression, drug abuse, and suicide, and less likely to sustain stable relationships than straights are. But what if it’s the other way around? What if society’s verdict that you’re unfit to marry or raise kids makes you more prone to promiscuity, depression, drug abuse, and suicide, and less likely to sustain stable relationships? And what if the emotional problems that afflict kids with gay parents are caused not by having gay parents, but by society’s taboo against gay parenthood?

    That’s essentially what the AAP argues. “Prevalent heterosexism and stigmatization might lead to teasing and embarrassment for children about their parent’s sexual orientation or their family constellation and restrict their ability to form and maintain friendships,” says the AAP. “Children living with divorced lesbian mothers have better outcomes … when their fathers and other important adults accept their mother’s lesbian identity.” Above all, says the AAP, “[d]enying legal parent status through adoption to coparents or second parents prevents these children from enjoying the psychologic and legal security that comes from having 2 willing, capable, and loving parents.” In other words, those who oppose legalization of gay marriage and adoption thereby perpetuate the instability they cite as grounds for denying gays the right to marry and adopt.

    Each of these debates within the debate can modify the outcome. If having gay parents is better than being in an orphanage but not as good as having straight parents, maybe gays should be allowed to adopt only kids who are wards of the state, as is done in New Jersey. If having a mom and dad is better than having two moms only when all other considerations are equal, maybe sexual orientation should be a factor, though not a conclusive one, in the adoption screening process. If gay adoptions should be banned because kids of gays have the same problems as kids of divorced people, maybe a divorcee’s new husband shouldn’t have any more parental rights over her child than a new lesbian partner would.

    Alternatively, if the emotional and financial health of a household renders its configuration irrelevant to its parental suitability, maybe threesomes (a surrogate/donor mom and two gay men) or foursomes (biological mom, biological dad, and each parent’s gay partner) should be allowed to adopt kids. The AAP virtually suggests as much. Or maybe, if Connor is right that New Jersey’s first gay adoption was wrong because “both adoptive parents died from AIDS,” we should play it safe and give lesbians priority over straight couples in the adoption process. Be careful what standard you argue for. You just might get it.

    0 CommentsAdd YoursOr join the discussion
    on the FrayAdopting Premises: The sneaky debate over legalizing adoptions by gay couples.
    diggvote
    nowBuzz up!Yahoo! Buzz Facebook Digg RedditStumbleUponCLOSEWilliam Saletan is Slate’s national correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War. Follow him on Twitter here.
    Illustration by Robert Neubecker.
    Small Biz Fund Created in Empire StateSPONSORED CONTENT

  • mavis

    EVERY CHILD DESERVES A MOTHER AND A FATHER, SOMETIMES THIS DOES NOT WORK OUT THAT WAY. BUT TO DELIBERTLY PLACE
    A CHILD IN THIS POSITION IS A CRIME.MEHPENSACOLA,FL

  • HHH

    First, marriage is a “legal contract” defining property rights, and thus, is secular and has nothing to do with religion or god or anything in the fiction book called the bible. Secondly, our Constitution thru the establishment clause, prohibits any promotion of any religion, and thus sets the standard for humans to enjoy their freedom on a secular basis. And thirdly, the coursts interpret the law, and that is what we all have to live by. You may not be in favor of the ruling, but the community and the country avoid chaos thru the rule of law. I suggest the religious zealots get over themselves, and cease and desist from forcing their homophobia onto others.

    • Ceddy Bear

      On the contrary, no one is in fear because they disagree with another person’s stand on a particular issue. What you’re saying is that because I daisagree with a groups practices then I must be afraid of them. Absolutely not! No one is trying to change these individuals. I have the same respect for a homosexuals rights as any other American. I just believe that marriage is between a man and a woman as defined by God. Sounds like you are the ones scared. At the mention of the word bible, God, or Jesus you are in an uproar! Yes it is true that demons are rattled at the mention of these. And I have never lived under a law interpreted by a “coursts”. We do not have to accept a law that is unconstitutional, but rather challenge it legally. The real problem is not a law or marriage. It is one group’s loud cry for recognition. Recognition that they want all to accept their lifestyle by force or by any means necessary. Marriage is the medium of which to do this. Studies have proven that in those states that approved of homosexual unions legally, not many homosexuals were married compared to the total of that population. Marriage is not really their concern as much as recognition. The majority of homosexuals have multiple partners and really have no interest in committing to one partner. Another perversion of the truth.

      • Ellen

        CB, you’re quite mistaken…….homosexuals having multiple partners is no different from the heterosexual couples. People are people; good, bad, gay, straight………..

        I believe that we are treading on dangerous ground by refusing to include all Americans as “worthy” of receiving the same treatment, privileges and so forth. Remember this that was written by Friedrich Gustav Martin Niemöller more than 50 years ago? Substitute homosexual or gay for any of the groups of people.

        When the Nazis came for the communists,
        I remained silent;
        I was not a communist.
        When they locked up the social democrats,
        I remained silent;
        I was not a social democrat.
        When they came for the trade unionists,
        I did not speak out;
        I was not a trade unionist.
        When they came for the Jews,
        I did not speak out;
        I was not a Jew.
        When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

        • libertytrain

          Ellen – I believe Hitler also murdered the homosexuals of that time period as well (along with Catholics, Gypsies, etc.), so they all should have been included in this original writing. Anyone who is different will always find resistance —

          • Ellen

            libertytrain: Exactly. Hitler had his own ideas as to who was worthy and who was not and his targets included many different peoples. This is exactly why our rights were declared in our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and even the Declaration of Independence. If we don’t stand up for ALL Americans we’re following in the despicable footsteps of Hitler and many other mass murderers.

            I am so tired of the religious zealots who insist that all must believe as they do and that those who don’t are not entitled to their same rights. It seems that anyone who stands up for others’ rights are instantly branded as gay and therefore are attacked on that basis. The arguments repeated ad nauseam here for religious intolerance are so weak and specious but continue to be parroted. I doubt very much if many of the posters here have any idea what the Constitution of THEIR COUNTRY even says. Very sad.

          • libertytrain

            Ellen – At the moment, I’m more concerned with the preferential treatment given to certain peoples by the Federal Government at this point in time. I find that appalling. I recall from my high school days the quote: “My freedom ends where yours begins” – and vice-versa. I feel my freedoms are being trampled out of existence.

        • Ceddy Bear

          With all due respect Ellen, these facts and figures are usually obtained from pro homosexual websites.

    • http://?? Joe H.

      HHH,
      If what you say is true then why was marriage defined in the Bible before there were individual property rights??

  • Ren

    Law of nature….FACT: it takes a male AND a female to procreate. This is in all areas of nature except with hermaphrodite plants and animals like angiosperms, snails or the tapeworm. This isn’t my opinion here, this is nature and there is a purpose for it. Anything outside of the natural law causes disruption in the natural order of life.

    • Canada

      To Ren: Avoiding Self-righteousness
      Ironically, homosexuality also poses a challenge for heterosexual Christians. We may let feelings of contempt or fear lead us into the sin of self-righteousness. But Jesus and other New Testament leaders taught by word and example not to be self-righteous or discriminate against those we consider to be “sinners” (Matthew 9:10-13, Luke 7:36-48, 18:9-14).

      Further, Jesus told us to eliminate the sins in our own lives rather than passing judgment or looking down on others. For if we judge other people harshly, we will, in turn, be judged harshly:

      “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (NIV, Matthew 7:1-2)

      Christians have a responsibility to correct matters of wrongdoing among themselves (Matthew 18:15-17), but this should always be done fairly and with compassion. We are never to take upon ourselves the task of judgment that belongs to God alone (Hebrews 10:30, Romans 14:10-13, 1 Corinthians 4:5.)

      James makes it clear that we must treat others with mercy, not with judgment or partiality (prejudice):

      You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For the one who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. (NRSV, James 2:8-13)

      As Christians, we must remember that all of us are sinners in our own ways (Romans 3:21-24, 5:12). Despite that, God loves all His children (Genesis 1:31, Psalms 145:9, Matthew 5:43-45, John 3:16, Romans 5:8). We cannot afford to let our feelings or fears about homosexuality blind us to Jesus’ commandment to “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:36-39).

      Of course, society has a legitimate right and duty to take legal action against those sexual offenders, homosexual or heterosexual, who use coercion or who prey on children or the disabled.

  • http://rip1@tds.net CR

    I am getting somewhat sick and tired of allowing about 1%, if that, of our population to wag the tail of the other 99% of us. I applaud those who invite the queers to shut up, get back into your “closet” and out of our faces. By getting into my face by “Coming Out! — Stupid terminology!” you solidify and inspire my further ire, resentment, rage and opposition to your unhealthy, Unholy, evil and completely disgusting sexual practices. There is NOTHING GAY about a Queer! Why should this infinitessimally small group of sexual deviates be allowed to change the Moral Standards that this country was built upon to some sub-standard which is abhorrent to the great majority of American Citizens in general, Christians in particular, all parents of small children who these people often kidnap, terrorize, violate sexually and sometimes even mutilate and murder their helpless child victims!!! And, don’t give me this crap about “Not being of that ilk.” because YOU ARE OF THAT ILK and you protect them, stand up for them and give them cover. Am I prejudiced against you? ABSOLUTELY AND PROUD OF IT!!!! Therefore, if you wish to get along with me, you will keep your mouth shut about your Sexual Preference as I have no interest in it and do not wish to know of it!!! I DON’T ASK, AND YOU DON’T TELL IS GREAT POLICY FOR PREVENTING VIOLENCE BETWEEN HOMOS AND STRAIGHTS!!!

    • coal miner

      Orgin of word gay,meaning homosexual:

      Fun Facts
      HomeAbout MePostsWallpapersContact MeDisclaimer Switcher Home > Random Stumblz > How did the word gay come to mean homosexual?
      How did the word gay come to mean homosexual?
      March 17th, 2009 Goto comments Leave a comment XHello there Bing decision maker! If you find this page interesting, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.
      Powered by WP Greet Box WordPress Plugin
      ShareToday, the word gay has evolved to mean homosexual. Many people can’t help but wonder how this came to be, when originally the word “gay” was used to mean “happy” and “cheerful.” Unfortunately, no matter how much we want to believe that the word “gay” has become corrupted because of the people today, it has in fact long been used to refer to something sexual.

      Years ago in 1637, the Oxford English Dictionary defined “gay” as being addicted to the pursuit of physical and social pleasures. It has come to refer to individuals who lead an immoral and loose life. During the 1800s the term “gay” was also used to describe female prostitutes and to “gay it” stood for “to couple up” or “to copulate.”

      In the year 1935, “geycat” was used to refer to a homosexual boy, and by 1966, “gay” had been used in the context of how it is used today. It is believed that P. Wildeblood was the first to use the word “gay” to mean homosexuals in his notes in Against Law. However, there’s no certainty to this, as male homosexuals could have been using the word already even long before it was publicized and popularized.

      That is the story behind the word “gay” and how it came to mean homosexual. It really didn’t just mean “happy” and “lighthearted” even from way before. Several hundreds of years ago, it already had a connotation that implied a sexual tone.

      Nowadays, the word “gay” has come to refer to other things. Also, it has evolved and changed in a way that it not only describes male homosexuals, but female homosexuals as well. Lesbians today can be referred to as gay.

      Also, “gay” has other non-sexual meanings that are being used popularly by the public. Teenagers especially, are using the word “gay” to mean activities that are boring and un-cool. For example, when teenagers are asked to play doll with their younger siblings, they often comment “that’s so gay.” This could also refer to something cheesy, such as a “gay song” or a “gay movie.”

      Now you know how the word “gay” came to mean homosexual. The next time you and your friends share pieces of trivia, you now have something interesting to share. And when someone protests that “gay” is meant to be used as “cheery” or “light-hearted,” you now have an argument stating that even from years ago, it was already used in a sexual manner.

      People who read this also read

      Why are homosexual men sometimes called fags?
      Why is the word late used to describe the recently deceased?
      Fun Facts on Lions
      Origins Of The Word Barbarian
      Why do we call prostitutes hookers

      Stumblerz

      Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Leave a comment Trackback
      No comments yet. No trackbacks yet. Name (required)
      E-Mail (will not be published) (required)
      Website

      Subscribe to comments feed
      5 Reasons to Believe that UFOs are Existing on Earth Why is someone who challenges what appears to be an obvious truth called a devil’s advocate? RSS feed Google Youdao Xian Guo Zhua Xia My Yahoo! newsgator Bloglines iNezha Looking for more puzzling questions and answers? Try our search to find more.

      Write for Stumblerz
      Got a great fun fact? Or Answer to a puzzling question? Contact Us, and publish it on Stumblerz.
      Educational Blogs
      Labor Statistics
      Phlebotomy Training
      Great Posts
      Medical Biller Facts
      Over The Toilet Storage
      Sites I love
      Chess Blog
      Play Chess Online
      NursingStudent complete cna training guide and manual.Recent Fun Posts
      Fun Facts About Netherland
      All you need to know about Emma Watson
      Fun Facts About Paraguay
      Meta
      Log in
      Copyright © 2008-2010 Fun Facts
      Privacy Policy

    • Ellen

      Heil Hitler!

      Your “facts” are so utterly ridiculous. When you stand before your God and have to explain your hatred and prejudice for some of his children, enjoy.

      Who would want to “get along” with someone who is hateful and anti-American? You might try practicing your Christianity as Jesus Christ said to and take a look at the golden rule, obviously something you have no knowledge of.

      You might try living your life in love instead of hate. This “us” against “them” is so old and serves the NWO purposes so well. Instead of uniting with all Americans and uplifting each other, it seems to be more enticing to many here to hate, destroy, ostracize, and bully.

      Just what are you so afraid of?

    • Robert Smith

      CR posted: >>>Therefore, if you wish to get along with me, you will keep your mouth shut about your Sexual Preference as I have no interest in it and do not wish to know of it!!!<<<

      So, if gays declare that they will not have sex it's OK for them to marry in your eyes?

      Would you deny me the choice of women to marry if she was unable to get pregnant?

      Rob

    • Smilee

      Is it possiblle to get along with someone who is so filled with hate as you are, I doubt it!!

    • Canada

      Avoiding Self-righteousness
      Ironically, homosexuality also poses a challenge for heterosexual Christians. We may let feelings of contempt or fear lead us into the sin of self-righteousness. But Jesus and other New Testament leaders taught by word and example not to be self-righteous or discriminate against those we consider to be “sinners” (Matthew 9:10-13, Luke 7:36-48, 18:9-14).

      Further, Jesus told us to eliminate the sins in our own lives rather than passing judgment or looking down on others. For if we judge other people harshly, we will, in turn, be judged harshly:

      “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (NIV, Matthew 7:1-2)

      Christians have a responsibility to correct matters of wrongdoing among themselves (Matthew 18:15-17), but this should always be done fairly and with compassion. We are never to take upon ourselves the task of judgment that belongs to God alone (Hebrews 10:30, Romans 14:10-13, 1 Corinthians 4:5.)

      James makes it clear that we must treat others with mercy, not with judgment or partiality (prejudice):

      You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For the one who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. (NRSV, James 2:8-13)

      As Christians, we must remember that all of us are sinners in our own ways (Romans 3:21-24, 5:12). Despite that, God loves all His children (Genesis 1:31, Psalms 145:9, Matthew 5:43-45, John 3:16, Romans 5:8). We cannot afford to let our feelings or fears about homosexuality blind us to Jesus’ commandment to “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:36-39).

  • Ken

    I strongly recommend Christopher Hitchins’ book, “God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.” Hitchens is an intelligent conservative, by the way.

    • Robert Smith

      Hi Ken: >>>Hitchens is an intelligent conservative, by the way.<<<

      Sadly he has been diagnosed with a particularly nasty cancer.

      The reich wingers were crowing about their god's revenge. I can't help but wonder why they didn't crow as Ronald Reagan went through the horror of losing his mind.

      Is Dick Chaney in the hospital again? Nope he's out, he in, nope he's out… Why did that good christian have a homosexual daughter? Must of beeh horrible for him. What did he do to upset that there reich wing christian god?

      Rob

  • James

    Striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act doesn’t mean same-sex marriages are now unconstitutional, it just means the federal government has no constitutional power over such things.

  • hundabuxt

    Homosexual acts are preversion. Homosexuality has been in society since man first walked the earth. In the eyes of God its an abomination, which uses the body in ways God didn’t origionally intend. Its unnatural and no argument can rationalize it successfully. Some people are natural criminals, natural liars, natural thieves, naturally murderers, naturally pedophilic. It doesn’t make the tendencies any more acceptable to God or man morally. The Bible is God’s history book, which contains all of the above activities and worse. None of them result in a happy end to those who practice them freely and openly. Sodom and Gomorrah come to mind, Genesis 19:1-11. Homosexuality is in the midst of a long term cleverly crafted movement, which seeks to normalize it in social mores, gaining acceptance through constant social pressure not unlike the Nazi’s did with their propaganda efforts. Tell people a lie long enough and they’ll begin to believe it. We are in the midst of a moral collapse. A successful society lives by rules and laws. Like it or not, the Bible is used to estabish many if not all of those laws either directly or indirectly. Romans 1:26&27: “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust for one another, men with men commiting what is shameful and recieving in themselves the penality of their error which was due.(Aids perhaps?)” Homosexuality is an unnatural act even if as is argued people might be born with the tendency just like the tendency for other socially unacceptable acts. To force society to accept homosexual marrage as on the same level as hetrosexual marrage tacitly promotes unnatural behavior with the power of law. In law that sets a precedent, so why wouldn’t other unnatural tendencies be socially acceptable as well? Because the fabric of society would begin to unravel. This is just the beginning.

    • Canada

      Avoiding Self-righteousness
      Ironically, homosexuality also poses a challenge for heterosexual Christians. We may let feelings of contempt or fear lead us into the sin of self-righteousness. But Jesus and other New Testament leaders taught by word and example not to be self-righteous or discriminate against those we consider to be “sinners” (Matthew 9:10-13, Luke 7:36-48, 18:9-14).

      Further, Jesus told us to eliminate the sins in our own lives rather than passing judgment or looking down on others. For if we judge other people harshly, we will, in turn, be judged harshly:

      “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (NIV, Matthew 7:1-2)

      Christians have a responsibility to correct matters of wrongdoing among themselves (Matthew 18:15-17), but this should always be done fairly and with compassion. We are never to take upon ourselves the task of judgment that belongs to God alone (Hebrews 10:30, Romans 14:10-13, 1 Corinthians 4:5.)

      James makes it clear that we must treat others with mercy, not with judgment or partiality (prejudice):

      You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For the one who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. (NRSV, James 2:8-13)

      As Christians, we must remember that all of us are sinners in our own ways (Romans 3:21-24, 5:12). Despite that, God loves all His children (Genesis 1:31, Psalms 145:9, Matthew 5:43-45, John 3:16, Romans 5:8). We cannot afford to let our feelings or fears about homosexuality blind us to Jesus’ commandment to “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:36-39).

      Of course, society has a legitimate right and duty to take legal action against those sexual offenders, homosexual or heterosexual, who use coercion or who prey on children or the disabled.

  • http://flyinghawk56@gmail.com Hawk Yoho

    So many lost individuals!
    Satin is waiting with open arms.

  • Frederick H

    This country, the US of A is such a totally insane blob of land on the global map. We call this a free country and look how the freedom of minorities is being trampled time and again. This is the ONLY COUNTRY in THE WEST where religion’s been dealt such a prominent role IN PUBLIC LIFE. It’s as if we’re still smack in the middle of the damned 19th century if not much earlier. A real disgrace. Sod off with your crazy anachronistic ideas about marriage and the so-called natural order of things. Homosexuality is to be found everywhere in nature, btw. Numerous books and articles have written about this proven fact. Down with religion, especially Christianity and Islam, They’ve brought more than enough suffering into this world (particularly towards women, gays and children). Out with y’all!!!

  • http:// Frances Esh
Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.