Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Federal Appeals Panel Rules California Gay Marriage Ban Un-Constitutional

February 8, 2012 by  

Federal Appeals Panel Rules California Gay Marriage Ban Un-Constitutional

A Federal appeals panel in San Francisco ruled Tuesday that Proposition 8, California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, violates the Constitutional right to equal protection.

The law was approved by 52 percent of the State’s voters in 2008 and amended the State’s Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman. The new ruling upholds a 2010 decision by former Judge R. Vaughn Walker who found marriage to be a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. That ruling also said the proposition “fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.”

People in opposition of same sex marriage can appeal the decision made Tuesday to the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit or take it directly to the Supreme Court, which has never ruled on the matter.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Federal Appeals Panel Rules California Gay Marriage Ban Un-Constitutional”

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

    Next I suppose we’ll see a movement to unite PETA with California’s fruits, nuts and flakes who want to marry animals of various types. Whatever California’s space cadets seem to want is what the half-assed 9th Circuit will deliver. Talk about USELESS legislation from the rotting bench. Are those real judges out there, or are they escapees from a mental asylum?
    THIS administration and that worthless 9th Circuit do NOT represent THE PEOPLE or the WILL OF THE people! TYRANTS!

    • Karolyn

      YOU are the tyrant!

      • bill

        Karolyn,
        If you think that preserving the moral foundation of a society is tyrannical, then you have a very warped sense of right and wrong.
        But then the reason that gay marraige is even an issue in this country is that we have walked away from the moral foundation that founded this nation and accepted the morality of Sodom and Gamorah.

        God help us.

        • Karolyn

          You cannot legislate morality. Since when is somebody doing something moral for them that does not affect someone else, immoral? Is that not the bottom line? Why should someone’s morals be your business if they don’t affect you?

          We do not need religion either to dictate morals. Man is inherently moral.

          • Jennifer

            Man is inherently immoral…which is why the founding of this country was based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. Immorality is the nature of man, morality is the nature of God. Even though man was made in God’s image we can never be God and those that think they are are the most evil of evils.

          • Karolyn

            Jennifer – Well, I believe that God was made in man’s image. People are born moral and are affected by society and what is around them as well as their mental capabilities.

          • s c

            K, have you considered for one moment that Obummer and his kind are doing their worst to legislate IMMORALITY? Put on your thinking cap (no matter how much it hurts). Good luck with keeping a lid on those emotions. THINKING always trumps emotions – no matter what any utopian politico-religion says.

          • Robert Smith

            Posted: “Even though man was made in God’s image we can never be God and those that think they are are the most evil of evils.”

            So, why do so many from the extreme right attempt to BE god and take away choice for women when their very god gave them free will?

            Rob

          • TML

            Jennifer says, “the founding of this country was based on Judeo-Christian beliefs”

            Sorry, but, No…

            The Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, 1796

            “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”

          • http://naver samurai

            Wrong TML.

            “In the presence of the most Holy undivided Trinity.”

            Treaty of Paris 1783

            “Endowed by their Creator (GOD)”

            Declaration of Independece

            “..The blessings of liberty…”

            Preamble to the Constitution. BTW, if our liberties are blessings, there has to be a blesser. We human beings are not able to bless anything. It takes the will of God to do this. So take your atheism and take a hike. Its not wanted here. Go tell your secular lies somewhere else. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • http://naver samurai

            Yes Rob, he gave them a choice. To have sex or not. Then he gave them another choice, to use protection or not. If the woman choses to have unprotected sex and a child is the result, she has no other choice than to care for the child she helped bring into being. Remember that abortion may be legal, but it isn’t a right. It is no where in the Constitution and privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution. The closet thing I could find in the Bill of Rights (Our God given rights) was the word “private property.” You lose again. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            From samurai: “We human beings are not able to bless anything.”

            Oh darn. When I sneezed in the line at the grocery a woman blessed me. Do you mean it didn’t count?

            She was trying to be nice. In no way a reflection of your brutal god.

            Rob

          • Robert Smith

            Here is more misinformation from samurai: “she has no other choice than to care for the child she helped bring into being.”

            We’ve been through this before samurai. Maybe it was with your wife. The rhetoric is so similar it’s tough to keep it straight.

            Sure she does. She can adopt. she can give it to the father, she can have an abortion.

            ALL are legal in America.

            AND! There’ more… That brutal god of yours just may set things up for a spontanious abortion, usually called a miscarrage. Yup, now there’s an act of you god I consider to be particularly brutal.

            Rob

          • Matt Newell

            Every law made is based on someone’s morals. Morals are based on past societies and can and will change over time, but the gay community wants it to change overnight. If marriage was defined as between a man and a woman over the existence of humanity, than it cannot be changed in even a decade without liberal (mis)interpretation of the law by people who do not have enough sense to come in out of the rain.

          • Robert Smith

            Posted: “Every law made is based on someone’s morals.”

            Absolutely false.

            Most laws are social contracts. And some laws like those that give the 1% or congress critter “special” advantages are immoral. They know it’s immoral when they make the laws but they do it anyhow.

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            Rob, Rob, Rob, wake up and smell the coffee. I have one of those 40 ounce sizes for you. You talk about the woman’s choices? So let’s see, there is adoption, the father, or abortion. Adoption? Yes, that is the proper choice. There are many loving families that would adopt a child and bring them into their homes. Who knows, they may be people that you are working with. Give the baby to the father? This is possible, but only if he can show that he will love, support, and properly raise the child. Not just because of his sperm donation. Abortion? If it is a tubal pregnancy or other bad things, maybe, but this is less than 1% of all abortions. Why don’t you go to the Great 8 and scroll down the Democrats War on Women. You’ll see statements made by an OB/GYN nurse named Rebecca. She’ll educate you on a few things. Remember Rob, just because something is legal, does not make it a right. Drinking and smoking are legal, but they are not rights. I can’t find anything in the Constitution that covers abortion. You said farther down about the 14th Amendment dealing with gays, but it can also deal with the unborn.

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

            Ergo, this covers the unborn as well. They are given all rights and equal protection under the law. This means they are granted the rights of life, liberty, persuit of happiness, etc. The 14th Amendment just killed your arguement. Did you even look at the source I posted from Feminists for Life?

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKaVuymKg3A&feature=related

            Laws are social contracts? Where did you get that diaper load from? Our founding fathers based our laws on the 10 Commandments. Care to cite a source showing that I’m wrong? What? No source? SSDD, eh Rob? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            From samurai: “Yes, that is the proper choice. ”

            Judge not or you are gonna be judged yourself.

            I judge no choioces a woman will make about her own body.

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            Fine Rob, then I shall still continue to fight for the unborn. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            samurai says: “I shall still continue to fight for the unborn.”

            So will I so they don’t have to suffer and maybe “sin” in this life. With an abortion they go straight to heaven.

            I’ll only speak for the unborn in that way. It’s still up to each woman what she decides though.

            I simply like the idea of more folks oging to heaven rather than hell, if they are real. IF what’s gestating is a “person.”

            Well, actually I don’t think who I speak for as far as the unborn goes is gonna make any difference, so I’ll simply remind you that there is an alternative for the “unborn” as you like to call them. Real, or not.

            Quite frankly I think it’s sad that you would deny anyone your version of heaven, but I’m getting used to the hipocracy.

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            S’ve stated on this thread are all facts, not heresay like you. I’ll continue the good fight for the unborn, as they are citizens of this great nation and have equal protection under our laws and Constitution. Those things you cannot take from them, no matter how hard to believe in murder. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • Brian

          Dictating how others live when they cause you no harm is moral?

          • Robert Smith

            Sure!

            It keeps THEIR kids from marrying the German Sheppard next door.

            Why the right wing needs a law to stop such things is IMO testimony as to how much a failure their ability to bring up kids is.

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            If you and your ilk don’t want this country to hold onto morals, ethics, and our Christian founding, then it will fall apart from the inside. People, like you, Rob, and TML do as much damage to this country as an active 5th column would do. You do know what a 5th column is, don’t you? We need to get back to the ways we were founded and get rid of these things that separate us from God. Then this nation would be a real utopia.

            “We believe that all men are created equal, because they are created in the image of God.”

            Harry S. Truman

            FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            Awwww samurai, there you go again… Let’s go for a little truth.

            Here is Alan Taylor’s review. He writes for “New Republic”
            “Richard Godbeer’s book on sexuality in colonial British America has been eagerly awaited by those of us who had heard or read parts of this project in conference papers or articles. Those presentations had been filled with fresh insight and careful research. His full study has lived up to its promise. His careful, nuanced study is by far the best discussion of colonial sexuality available to scholars. While not slighting discussions of theory, Godbeer has avoided opaque jargon and balanced the theory with vignettes that bring the period and its people to life.”

            You can find an entire BOOK (eat any good ones lately?) about the early sex stuff in America. It’s WAYYYYYYYY different than you present.

            The book is: “Sexual Revolution in Early America (Gender Relations in the American Experience)”

            It can be found at: http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Relations-American-Experience-ebook/dp/B001R4BD2C

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            Thanks for the site Rob. It was interesting, but it seems that you have forgotten the parts of how sexually immoral acts and places were cleaned up by laws and the government. This was right in the eyes of God. Though they did migrate to North America, the practice of abstaining and chastizing those who did not, were still commonplace in the colonies. Not until later in our history did this subject really take off. Shows when we started straying away from our Christian founding and God. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • BHUDDA

            How dare you say it don;t effect others .Two gays adopt and the adopted one is brought up with their values and the legislation was passed over 40 yrs ago to protect homo’s in Cal. and then the final chapter . Have you ever been aproached by a gay person for sexial relations ??? HUMMMI would like to see a child born in a traditional home if the need to be adopted should arise placed in a traditional home . Its like you voted for a president because of his views and the oposite viewed candidate got the office . For you who don’t understand , what if you voted for Obama and got John McCain but McCain lost the election .Having children is a desion making step for most of us and Our will should figuare in too.

          • Robert Smith

            Bhudda asks; “Have you ever been aproached by a gay person for sexial relations ???”

            Yes. I said, “No.” Although I didn’t want to participate I’m secure enough that I took it as a compliment.

            I can’t tell what you are blathering about with kids brought up by same sex couples so I’ll simply be clear that generally no harm to the kids.

            You can check out: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/children-sex-parents-harmed-anti-gay-laws-study/story?id=14862339

            Rob

        • TML

          “If you think that preserving the moral foundation of a society is tyrannical, then you have a very warped sense of right and wrong.”

          The moral foundation of this society is one that does not make laws which respect an establishment of religion. Gay marriages neither pick your pocket or break your leg. Therefore, those who impose their personal morals and religious conviction upon others through legislation are indeed tyrannical.

          The idea is that gays and lesbians are free to ‘sin’ if they so chose, just as you are free to sin. To attempt to take away that choice, and force them, through law, to follow “God”, or your ideas of religious righteousness, takes from them the free will bestowed upon them by “God” himself/herself/itself. And this you don’t think is ‘tyrannical’?

          Perhaps it is you who has the warped sense of right and wrong in connection to the foundation of the American society.

          • http://naver samurai

            Sorry dude, but going by the Bible and by how God and Jesus say things are to be is not tyrannical. What an ignorant comment. We were founded a Christian nation and not this “do anything we want to” belief. No nation in this world, counting the U.S., is founded on such less intelligent beliefs.

            “It is the duty of all nations to acknoeledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be greatful for His benefits and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”

            Goerge Washington

            Get the point? No? Then you need to get back to history class and learn. I have an empty desk in my class, so why don’t you come to my school? I’m sure that you would learn a lot and the students wouldn’t mind helping out a less intelligent person. BTW, here is a source to prove you wrong. I suggest you listen to it.

            http://www.JAshow.org

            FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • http://naver samurai

            You can also look at this one about state constitutions and Christianity:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-oWZIQEGv8&feature=related

            FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • http://naver samurai

            Or you can look at this one:

            http://www.usconstitution.net/states_god.html

            FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            samurai brings up: “Goerge Washington”

            And then dictates to the rest of us: “Get the point? No? Then you need to get back to history class and learn.”

            I learned that George Washington was a Mason, as were a large number of the Founding Fathers, including Ben Franklen. Ben was quite the rake I understand. That’s what I learned in history class. Maybe public school had a lttle broader view of history than some creepy religious school.

            BTW, if you are interested in enlightening yourself you can find the History Channel program on Hulu: http://www.hulu.com/watch/327308/americas-book-of-secrets-freemasons#s-p1-so-i0

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            Once again Rob, thanks for the source. I knew that Washington was a free mason, along with some others, but not the majority. Only a handful were masons. But was Washington and Franklin true masons? Since masons didn’t really believe in getting involved in religion, this would prove that they were not true masons. Masonry was popular with officers of the British Army at the time, but just to be popular and not die hard believers. This was true with some of the founders who describe. If Washington was a true mason, would he say:

            “What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.”

            “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”

            “It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”

            “True religion affords to government its surest support.”

            This does not sound like a true mason to me. Would he also say this:

            “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable.”

            George Washington, Thanksgiving Proclamation 1798

            He doesn’t sound like the discription I’ve found about masons.

            http://www.americasfoundingfathers.wordpress.com/

          • http://naver samurai

            Darn it! I hit the wrong button. The source should be:

            http://www.americaasfoundingfathers.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/fremasonry-as-described-by-a-mason

            FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            samurai claims: “Sorry dude, but going by the Bible and by how God and Jesus say things are to be is not tyrannical. ”

            As long as you don’t force YOUR religion upon others. Just keep it to yourself and things will be fine.

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            Informing is not forcing. Prosylitizing isn’t either. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • Robert Smith

          samurai claims: “S’ve stated on this thread are all facts,”

          Not so samurai. You bible babble is dependant upon belief. I share none of that, as do many other loyal Americans.

          Supersticion is NOT fact.

          Rob

      • DC/Tex

        The homosexual(not PC gay) AGENDA is the absolute worst disease on the morals of the USA and the world. Homosexuals WERE NOT BORN THAT WAY so homosexuality does not qualify as a civil rights discrimination issue. Homosexuals CHOOSE their lifestyle. Homosexuals want special rights not equal rights. The homosexual agenda want to teach our children in public schools that their chosen lifestyle is natural and OK before our children understand. Karolyn, you are correct, we are all born in the image of God, homosexuals choose to be homosexuals.
        The homosexual agenda is being crammed down our throats daily has finally awaken the majority Christians and are denouncing and fighting their agenda.

        • Robert Smith

          DC/Tex claims: “homosexuals WERE NOT BORN THAT WAY ”

          Actually the evidence is mounting they were. To check out the lateest you can go to: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4529843&page=1

          There isn’t any “smart” gene discovered yet either, but there is no doubt that there is a genetic component to intelligence.

          BTW, before you prove that there is NO gay gene, can you absolutely prove that your god exists?

          Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            There is no gay gene, so stop with the lies. Second, it isn’t up to us to prove God exists. Since you say he doesn’t, then the burden of that proof is on you. Looks like New Hampshire is thinking differently than you are:

            http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics?default.aspx?id=1465918

            Looks like the winds of change are blowing in a more moral direction. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • http://naver samurai

            Here are some things Sook Young found out and notice who the sources are.

            The first significant published study that indicated a possible biological role for homosexuality came from Simon LeVay, who was then at the Salla Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego California. In 1991, Dr. LeVay reported possible subtle differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men. however after problems with his findings he later announced: “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. In July of 1993, the public were further mislead into believing that there might be a gene for homosexuality after the prestigious research journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer. The media ran with the findings and broadcast the news to the world. Science 1994 reported,

            “Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated.”

            Yale’s Dr. Joe Gelemter said: “It’s hard to come up with many findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated and were announced with great fanfare, were greeted unskepticallt in the popular press and now in disrepute.”

            “Gay gene” researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied: “Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited.”

            Ergo, no gay gene exists, so stop with the lies, rhetoric, and innuendo. Lost again, eh Rob? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            And now let’s deal with what I REALLY posted: “Actually the evidence is mounting they were. To check out the lateest you can go to: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4529843&page=1

            “Evidence is mounting” is not an outright decliration, thus I’m NOT lying as you claim. I’m making my argument from the perspective of some of the latest research.

            I also posted a close analogy using the notion of inheriting intelligence: “There isn’t any “smart” gene discovered yet either, but there is no doubt that there is a genetic component to intelligence.”

            Do you understand what a component is?

            And now I challenge samurai’s claim: “BTW, before you prove that there is NO gay gene, can you absolutely prove that your god exists?”

            Can’t prove a negative, samurai. It is you who claims your brutal god is. It is up to you to prove it. In fact, I don’t care one way or the other about your brutal god. He has ZERO impact upon me. What I do worry about are dilusional right wing nuts who claim such a brutal god is guiding them.

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            SorRob, now you know better than believing what is said by the MSM. I stand by the facts of 3 noted scientists and their institutions for higher learning more than the MSM. I don’t have to prove God exists. You made a statement that he doesn’t, so you have to do the homework and not me. I’m the teacher and you’re the student. Do your homework or I’ll give you an “F”, OK? BTW here is a video about a woman that was one of your wacked out wiccas. See what happened after she joined.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZF2mmB6XBA

            I know she made the right choice, can you? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            Yup, she found jesus because of the bigotry of others.

            Such a god. Leads his folks to deny the happyness of others unless they join.

            How disgusting.

            Rob

    • Robert Smith

      Hey sc, how are you doing?

      “Talk about USELESS legislation from the rotting bench.”

      Nope… Just voiding BAD legislation.

      Oh, and if the “majority” spoke there would still be slavery.

      Schools wouldn’t be integrated, and a black would not be able to marry a white.

      The courts THROW OUT bad legislation, they don’t “legislate.”

      Rob

      • http://naver samurai

        Nice rant there Rob, but it wasn’t the courts that decided those things, but We the People, Congress, Senate, and the President at that time. Neeeeed to be making that popping sound. So courts throw out things they find not in their favor, hmmm? I guess that these two examples would be what you are talking about?

        “Our laws and our institutions must necesssarily be based upon and embody the teachings of The Redeemer of mankind (GOD). It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian. This is a Christian nation.”

        SCOTUS – Church of the Holy Trinity vs. U.S. 1892

        “Our laws and out institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of The Reddemer of mankind (GOD). It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and institutions are emphatically Christian.”

        Illinois Supreme Court, 1883
        Richmond vs. Moore

        FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • Robert Smith

          That’s NOT the Constitution of the United States.

          BTW, did you know Paul Revier was Master of his Masonic Lodge? Look up the story of St. Andrew’s Lodge and connections to the REAL Boston Tea Party?

          I find it so sad that the “tea party” has become so associated with selfishness and greed.

          Rob

          • cawmun cents

            I am sorry……did you mean like the greed of taking normal behavior(in both the natural and legal senses)and attaching deviancy to it(to force others to see your skewed view)as quasi-normal behavior?Your greed slip is showing.
            I ‘ve said it before.
            You cant marry sexual organs that dont go one into the other.It is not physically possible.Therefore the term marriage is being used as a misnomer.My problem isnt with the act of homosexuality so much as it is with the changing of the definition of marriage.If you leave the term”marriage”out of it,I would be satisfied.
            But what you have is the obvious need by deviants to be classified as normal,by changing the definition of the word marriage.That is nothing short of arrogant.The fact that you cant marry two same sexual organs together escapes them.So they will use the lawyers to redefine it,causing those who like their terminology like it is now, to have to change it to accomodate them.They use the bully pulpit of gubment to stand against the voting majority,the dictionary,the religious rammifications to others,the plain fact that they want deviancy to be considered now normal behavior.They claim that they are being discriminated against,and get the lawyers to cook up cases which under the laws of many nations would get them executed,to attempt to substantiate their deviant behavior by making it a legal issue instead of a definition issue.
            How very much like the religious folk that they profess to be charlatans and hypocrites,they have become.It amazes me that not one of them can see that they have become the opressors,instaed ofcalling others the opressors.But then again,if you can change definitions altogether,then what does it matter?It matters little to them because they dont see the big picture.Soon if you let them legislate thusly to your nation,all kinds of deviancy which was considered illegal and immoral will overtake your populace.
            Why?
            Because then it is an issue of discrimination if you do not.
            Dont you see that America?
            I will be able to claim that I am being discriminated agaist.if I cannot marry my parakeet and have the same rights as the normal people.You will eventually see farm animals being brought into hospitals so that loved ones can be together in their time of need.
            You think I am crazy for saying that dont you?
            But how can you give one set of deviants rights,and not give them to another?Wouldnt that,(based on the discrimination angle)be discriminatory?Only the arrogance of greed to change definitions can get you to agree with that sentiment.
            That is their angle…..to get you to compromise based on their definitions.Once you go down that road there is no turning back.
            You must then give any deviant the same credibility that you would those you campaigned for initially.Or be hypocritically discriminatory,by definition.Do you see the extent of that?
            I doubt that you do.
            So continue to pursue this madness;
            It is a symptom of a much more virulent disease that you will have to deal with in the future.The deviants do not understand the order of the history,and what their future will be like as a result.
            When the average folk get tired of the deviancy being played out in front of them,they will creatwe a gubment that will murder deviants indiscriminately.It happens every time.They will give the religious zealots the keys to their own demise.Only the religion they face will have deviated itself by then.It wont be Christians that they have to worry about.It will be other deviants,of a morally corrupt nature who dont consider laws sacred.It has happened before,but they are too stupid to see the future as anything but bright and sunny,Everyone holding hands and singing Peter,Paul,and Mary songs together.
            What a farsical view of fallacy that is.
            But what do I know?
            Apparently very little……….
            -CC.

          • http://naver samurai

            Prove it Rob. First, I didn’t say Constitution in my post. I was talking about our founding on Judeo-Christian principles. Reading comprehension “0.” Did you know that there are 4 references to God in the Declaration of Independence? There is a reference to God and to Jesus in the Constitution also. Didn’t you study history in school?

            Do you need more proof of we being founded on Christian principles? How about these:

            “That no person or persons which profess faith in God by Jesus Christ shall at any time be in any ways molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question for any difference in opinion or matters of religious concernment.”

            New York Charter of Liberties and Privileges 1683

            Chapter VI. Article 1. Any person chosen governor, lieutenant governor, councillor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall, before he procede to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:

            I________, do declare that I believe in the Christian religion…”

            Massachusetts Constitution 1780

            “That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons, professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty…”

            Article XXXIII Maryland State Constitution 1776

            I think these are enough to have you understand what I’m trying to say. Though I know it is beyond your capacity to understand, I know you’ll respond in the SSDD fashion as always. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            Hey cc thanks for telling us what your problem isn’t: “My problem isnt with the act of homosexuality so much as it is with the changing of the definition of marriage.”

            The government here in America is supposed to treat everyone equally. Even atheists can marry, thus your brutal god has nothing to do with the civil cerimony.

            So, let’s call the civil registration of the contract a “civil couplingt” and you can have your church bestow the term “marriage” if you want.

            Please know that guys like Bishop John Shelby Spong ALSO call themselves christian and theywill marry same sex couples too. And! Thy will call it marriage.

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            SSDD eh Rob? Spong is a heretic, so get over him. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            samurai says: “Spong is a heretic, so get over him.”

            I’m sure if he had been born a few hundred years ago you would have burned him at the stake.

            But, he still calls himself a christian, as do you. You demand you represent that brutal christian god, Spong however, seems to be much kinder in his representation.

            Which is true? So many christians, so much… both love and hate.

            I find it truly sad that you would use a god for hate.

            Rob

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            Wrong answer Rob! Read Titus chapter 3 verses 10-11 to understand what I’m saying. Since he practices and preaches things that are the opposite of the Bible, then yes he is a false prophet and heretic. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • 45caliber

      SC:

      I agree. In fact, every time I heard about a 9th Circuit Court Decision, I wonder, “What have they screwed up now?”

    • Brian

      Does your marriage require the will if the people?

      • Robert Smith

        You may also want to ask a right winger: “How is our marriage impacted by a someone else marrying someone of the same sex?

        I haven’t gotten any details on that one either. I suspect it’s because there is zero impact on them. They apparently just wanna impose their religion on others.

        Rob

      • http://naver samurai

        You both are wrong. If a nation has its moral fabric destroyed, it soon begins to decay from the inside out. Just like gangreen. I thought that Rome would have been a perfect example for you two. You seem to be advocates for this “chaaaaange” that Obaaaaamaaaaa bin Laaaaaden promised in 2008. Why don’t you listen to someone that knows more about change then you do?

        “But change would not mean the rejection of the past. Like a tree growing stong through the seasons, rooted in the Earth and drawing life from the Sun, so, too, positive change must be rooted in traditional values-in the land, in culture, in family and community-and it must take its life from the Enternal things, from the Source of All Life, which is Faith. Such change would lead to new understandings, new opportunities, to a broader future in which the tradition is not supplanted, but finds its full flowering. This is the future beckoning to your generation.”

        Roanld Reagan

        Eternal things, Source of All Life (GOD), and faith. These sound like Christian beliefs to me. You two are very misguided and its about time you all go back to school and learn. In fact, come to my classroom. There would be an open desk for you, but don’t worry too much about the students. They wouldn’t mind helping out you two less intelligent people. Really, they wouldn’t mind a bit. After they got done laughing at you, that is. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        P.S. Gay marriage would not be found in anything that Reagan was implying in this quote.

        • Robert Smith

          From samurai: “If a nation has its moral fabric destroyed,”

          YOUR brutal version of morality that seems to make it OK to flood the entire world, has talking snakes, and Lott having sex with his own daughters after he offered to prostitute them to a crowd.

          Please consider the teachings of Bishop Spong.

          Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            As Thor and I have pointed out to you that Bishop Spong is a heretic and is not preaching the right ministry of God and Jesus. Put a sock in it and all the lies you have posted on this site. This must be why you are twisting the words and meanings of the Bible. You must listen to your masters well. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            And I suspect that Bisohp Spong would simply ignor you.

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            Let him, Rob. People tend to ignore the truth and embrace lies. Especially when the truth tells them what they are doing is wrong. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            And, if the lies are based in hate?

            Rob

    • TML

      “Talk about USELESS legislation from the rotting bench… …THIS administration and that worthless 9th Circuit do NOT represent THE PEOPLE or the WILL OF THE people! TYRANTS!”

      It seems to me that this entails voiding legislation that instituted as mob rule (the ‘will’ of the people, or majority rule) which is an essential function in a Republic to protect the 49% from the 51%. The ‘majority’ imposing their religious morals on the minority is tyrannical.

      “The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.” – Thomas Jefferson

      • http://naver samurai

        How about this one TML:

        “Almighty God, Who has given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable ministry, sound learning, and pure manners.”

        Thomas Jefferson

        I don’t see any of those things in queer marriage. Are you and Brian gay? Remember DADT was overturned, so I can ask that question as many times as I want to. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • Robert Smith

          Hey samurai, have you ever heard of Jefferson’s Bible?: “The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was Thomas Jefferson’s effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists.”

          That’s from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

          samurai, you may have found a website that has quotes that you can attribute to your god by our Founding Fathers, but they were far more complex and far less interested in your brutal god than you can imagine.

          Rob

    • http://naver samurai

      I agree with you s.c. Keep up the good fight, fellow patriot! You may have forgotten that NAMBLA could get involved also. As my wife would say, “EEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWW! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • Robert Smith

        As I”v eposted may times NAMBLA had lots of priests involved in the founding meeting in Boston.

        Rob

        • http://naver samurai

          Believe me Rob, NAMBLA has the blessings of Obama bin Laden, but not any church or real Christian. Neeeeed to be making that popping sound. Both you and Spong. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            Show us a quote from Obama on that one samurai.

            Or are you going with your usual garbage of “you prove it isn’t true.”

            Rob

    • DC/Tex

      Well said SC.
      The homosexual (not PC gay) agenda is the absolute worst disease on the morals and family values of the USA and the world. Homosexuals were not born that way so homosexuality does not qualify as a civil rights discrimination issue. LGBT want special rights and want their unnatural lifestyle taught to our children in public schools before they are old enough to understand. Homosexuals that claim to be Christians are living a lie and their church that does not teach that homosexuality is a sin is not following the Bible and the preacher is a false prophet.

  • DaveH

    Since when has the Federal Government cared about Equal Protection?
    What a joke.

    • smilee

      Davie

      Civil Rights act of 1964 and the Voting Rights of 1965 are just two there are many others, I do however understand your hatred of government and how that makes you blind to the truth

  • Ted Crawford

    Perhaps we need to remember that elections have consequences. We might pay a little more attention to the state and local Judges that appear on our ballots, in the course of time, under subsequent administrations they may advance to higher positions. We might also factor in our voting decisions that many we elect to higher office will have the power to appoint these Judges to these higher positions!

    • 45caliber

      Unfortunately, many states do not allow their judges to be elected. (Forunately, Texas does.) No Federal judge is elected. Too bad, isn’t it?

      • Robert Smith

        Yup, guys like Bush can appoint judges.

        Rob

        • http://naver samurai

          Bush could only nominate them, but the Senate had to vote to accept them first. Here in Indiana, local judges are elected, but I don’t know about state yet. I know our Indiana Supreme Court has justices go through the same process as they do for the SCOTUS. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • smilee

        Unfortunately that is the reason Texas has the most corrupt judges in the nation, all that money in elections does that

  • Angie

    I agree s c

  • cawmun cents

    The problem that I have with this situation is this:

    There used to be three different areas of gubment.
    You had the Congress
    The Judges
    The Executive

    But now lawyers run the gammut of these branches,making the tree a stump.It only has a crooked trunk that ever creates laws which have no meaning and or little use.Only the lawyers can have enough knowledge to skirt or supplant laws in their favor.

    Then you have a state which decides to give their citizns a say in their laws.But then lawyers can skirt and supplant the laws that the people have decided on.Democracy is implied,but the power lies in the hands of the lawyers.This is sad.What you then have is a system that breeds corruption.
    You cannot have it both ways,and expect the people to trust anything their governing bodies do.So now the seeds of distrust are sown.
    The courts water them with their laws,and decisions handed down by rulings that are against the will of the people.Whether they want to admit it or not,that is a recipe for disaster.Either the people have a say,which is in effect what the propsition system is for in California,or they do not.If they do not,then erase the proposition system from the governing body and let the lawyers decide.If they do then listen to the voice of the people and let their decision stand.
    Otherwise the gubment risks having the people figure out that the system doesnt work anyway,and then contempt is born.
    Contempt has already been foisted by the progressiives on an unsuspecting nation.They push the common man with what they consider impunity.Dont they realize that all who have done these things in the past have paid for their corruption in one form or another?Our(representatives)no longer then represent us(the common people)but lobby for special interests.But then they decide to tax me beyond what is necessary(for them to function as my representatives)in order to financially back these special interest groups.That is arrogance,no matter how you view the issues of the day.
    So either give me the right by proposition to decide whether I support a law or condition or not,or abolish the act of making me think I have a say in the workings of gubment.If I cant have both,neither can gubment.
    Meanwhile the lawyers who think they enjoy impunity,wreck my world with their decision making.I am left with only the ability to voice my opine on the matter.
    Thank God for that,and the Constitution for giving me that right.
    I am certain that lawyers would take it from me if they had the chance.They may even still.
    -CC.

    • Karolyn

      But decisions ARE governed ultimately by the Constitution. That is why we HAVE the Supremem Court. If the will of the people is against what the Constitution says, then the people have to bow to that ultimate authority.

      • s c

        K, at the heart of your main problem is the delusional belief that surrendering to government WITHOUT THINKING will make us ‘safe and moral and just.’ A certain utopian in WWII Germany demanded that from the people there. It was a complete disaster.
        WHY did you never learn that lesson? Why will something similiar have to occur so people like you can be forced to learn it and see what you’ve done?
        Being crammed into an oven might be a way for some to look at “hope and change,” but most of us know better.
        A functional brain ALWAYS trumps emotions, K. Emotions open the door for disaster – especially when government lusts for power, all wealth and the utter surrender of its citizens. PLEASE don’t have kids, and PLEASE don’t vote. If your education hasn’t been a complete failure, it’s VERY close. An F is the only possible grade for you and your chums.

        • Karolyn

          Wouldn’t being against gay marriage be considered an emotional issue?

          • Sirian

            Not really – 20% emotional, 80% common sense. Simple as that.

          • Karolyn

            Whose common sense? The common sense of a gay person? The common sense of a non-religious person? The common sense of a free thinker? Or the common sense of a religious person? The only reason you feel the way you feel is because you accepted a certain indoctrination without even thinking about it.

          • http://naver samurai

            “If we and our posterity neglect religious instruction and authority; violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which hold us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.”

            Noah Webster

            So since you want to trifle with morals and things that bind us together, you, along with your ilk, seek to destroy this land , one nation under God, the greatest nation on the earth for what? Just because some gays cry about how they can’t get married? I think it is about time you start looking at the bigger picture. It is always God and country that come first, not some sniviling gays crying about something they are not entitled to under God. They should all take a powder and get lost. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • cawmun cents

            Possibly….but remember,once you change the definition,based on the idea of discrimination,then you have opened the doors to every kind of deviancy based on that same principle.
            For instance,wouldnt it then be discrimination to give married couples,no matter sexual orientation rights that I as the private single person cannot have?Now you have to campaign for my righta as a single person,or be discriminatory yourself,correct?
            How do you as a couple obtain rights I should be able to enjoy as a single person,without being hypocritically discriminatory?
            Change the definition again.Or face discrimination lawsuits.
            Has anyone asked where it all ends?
            Nope.
            Why?
            Because in the haste to make devancy a legal from of normality,the word discrimination gets overlooked by the populace.Its popular to see homosexuality as being”normal”to some people.But they do not realize the Pandoras Box that they are opening.Or….maybe in retrospect,they do.Maybe it is their intent to bring anyones view to the frontlines of public consumption.Heck eventually you will see women led around by leashes and publicly sexually humiliated in an establishment near you.To the delight of the deviants who you proprt to protect.Even people engaging in inappropriate actions in front of your children and spouses,while inviting them to join in the fun.
            Is that what you want America?Has your vision of freedom extended to perversions of every kind?Because if you open the box,it will,definitely,by definition change what you see as freedom.
            And deviants of every kind will roam your streets,inviting you to view their debauchery.Be very careful what you decide now.It will effect your futures,both deviants and normal folks.
            You dont see yourselves as murdrers or thieves,or prostituttes,or drug addicts,or rapists and pedophiles.Just normal folks and discriminated against deviants.Change the definition,change the toleration,change the deviation,change the face of the nation.
            Change you can believe in.
            Hope for a new world of toleration,in moderation,right?
            Its the beginning of the end for you all,whether it be as Americans,fighting for your rights as citizens,or as morally directed people,when you give that definition away,it will be gone completely.
            -CC.

        • Robert Smith

          s c posted to Karolyyn: “at the heart of your main problem is the delusional belief that surrendering to government WITHOUT THINKING will make us ‘safe and moral and just.’ A certain utopian in WWII Germany demanded that from the people there. It was a complete disaster.”

          I think heart of the extreme right’s main problem is the delusional belief that surrendering to a brutal god WITHOUT THINKING will make us ‘safe and moral and just.’ A certain utopian in WWII Germany demanded that from the people there. It was a complete disaster. In Germany some declaired themselves to be the elete and supperior to others. Sure sounds like right wing christians to me.

          More than those who are on the “left” and don’t want to bother with the business of others, want freedom for all in America, who want equality for all, and are willing to be their brother’s keeper.

          Who sounds more christian? The brutal ones like the Germans, or the ones who are real Americans?

          Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            Wasn’t it also you libs that sent Japanese Americans to internment camps, due to the fear of them rising up and attacking America from within? Now who are the real Americans? Also, nazism is to the left, not right, of center. The word “socialist” in part of their title. Ergo, they are libs also.

            “No one should be affraid to take on any enterprise in the name of our Savior if it is right and the purpose is purely for His holy service.”

            Christopher Columbus

            This is an enterprise for his service. The keeping of our morals and Christian founding, so our country can, once again, be a shining city on a hill. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            Samurai asks: “Wasn’t it also you libs that sent Japanese Americans to internment camps, due to the fear of them rising up and attacking America from within?”

            No, actually it wasn’t. It was “business” who encouraged the internment so they could pick up on all the assets of those displaced. It was raw greed at the root of it.

            BTW, Japanese-American actors George Takei (Star Trek’s Captain Sulu) and Pat Morita (The Karate Kid’s Mr. Miyagi) were interned as children at a relocation camp.

            George Takei is happily married to his same sex partner. GEORGE AND BRAD’S WEDDING can be seen at: http://www.georgetakei.com/WEDDING.asp

            Please explain to me just how his wedding to a guy impacted your life. And again, don’t tell me how unhappy it makes your brutal god. How has YOUR life been impacted?

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            Business and greed encouraged the rounding up and encampment of Japanese Americans? What a load of crap, again without a source. It was policy, passed through legislation, to act in this way. The people thought they may rise up against the government. George Takei is not really married. As a marriage must be 1 man and 1 woman. No exceptions! No excuses! They are just living in a sinful way and are bound for hades. How does this affect my life? When the moral fabric of this nation is being attacked like this, it affects everyone. It is morals, ethics, and Judeo-Christian beliefs that this country was founded on. Get rid of them and this nation will be torn apart at the seams. It seems that you can care less about this country Rob. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • ChristyK

          Since man existed, in every country I have ever heard of up till the last 50 years, marriage has always been between a man and a woman (yes some man and multiple women, but never 2 men or 2 women alone). Marriage is what marriage is. Not only all countries and all cultures, but also all religions recognise marriage as being between a man and woman. Just because you call green, blue doesn’t make it so. Two men living together is not marriage no matter how much people want to call it marriage. If two men agree to live together that is none of my business; it is between themselves and God. Renaming their living situtation as marriage is untrue and wrong.

          • Robert Smith

            From Christy: “Two men living together is not marriage no matter how much people want to call it marriage.”

            It sure is and it’s legal in several states.

            YOUR opinion may vary in the context of your religion but that is YOU, not them.

            Rob

        • NC

          SC. equal protection under the law applies to EVERY citizen whether that citizen prefers to hold hands with a boy or with a girl! How hard is that to understand?If a gay person can break up your marriage my bet is there is something else wrong with the marriage! Could it be you?? I watch those divorce programs on TV and I notice that a lot of Church Married women just don’t like their Church Married husbands any more and the word GAY never comes up!

          • http://naver samurai

            Once again NC (no cajones) fails to understand that they do have rights and we are not taking them away from them. They have the right to marry anyone they want, no matter religion, race, or nationality, as long as it is someone of the opposite sex. No exceptions! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            But they can’t marry the one they love if they happen to be of the same sex. It’s LOVE that makes a family, not your brutal god.

            BTW, when did YOU choose to be straight? Presuming that it is a choice, if someone held a gun to your kid’s head with himself hanging out for you and said, “eat this” what would you do?

            Would you be able to “choose” in that moment?

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            Being gay is a choice and you are not born that way. And as of 1973-1974, it is no longer considered a mental disorder. It is a choice and being straight is not. Humans are born inherently straight. Being gay is allowing satan to fill your mind and hearts with perverse thoughts and beliefs. Kind of like you Rob. Just remember this Rob:

            “While the great body of freeholders are aquainted with the duties which they owe to their God, to themselves, and to men, they will remain free. But if ignorance and depravity should prevail, they will inevitably lead to slavery and ruin.”

            Samuel Huntington
            January 09, 1788

            Since this country has allowed such nonsense to come into our live and help to corrupt this land, we are becoming more like slave everyday and we shall fall, like Rome, if we don’t correct the direction we are currently heading. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            Still no word on how your ife has changed, huh samurai…

            What will the ivitations to your kid marrying the dog next door look like? Is it a dog of the same sex or something else?

            It must be some kid of horror like above.

            Or is it bigotry samurai?

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            Stop lying Rob. Read my post dated Feb 09, 2012 at 7:47 p.m. That is my answer to you. Second, if you don’t like someone’s lifestyle, you aren’t being a biggot. Race, nationality, religion, yes, but not perverted lifestyle. Still haven’t made that popping sound yet? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            Couldn’t find the post samurai. Why don’t you bring it here¿

            Rob

      • Sirian

        Karolyn,
        A SCOTUS decision can be over ruled by Congress. So, in reality, the SCOTUS is not the “ultimate authority”. Also, if people are against or wish to redirect a portion of the Constitution they have the power to AMEND it. Amendment procedures are not necessarily easy yet still possible. Didn’t seem to have much trouble eliminating the “Prohibition Amendment”. As to what direction this will “ultimately” run remains an unknown. But more than likely, in a speculative sense, it will end up in the SCOTUS unless they set it aside or deny hearing it – as they have in several other cases that were presented to them.

      • Ted Crawford

        Karolyn
        I agree with your intial assertion, as distasteful as it sometimes seems we must ultimately bow to the Constitution!
        As to your second, “The only reason you feel the way you feel is because you accepted a certain indoctrination without even thinking about it”. That is very presumptive isn’t it? How do you explain my opposition to same sax marriage? I, being a Diest, hold no belief in the Judeao Christian God. My opposition is based in science.
        Homosexuality is unnatural, Nature presuposes sustainability, homosexuality is not sustainable!
        Example; Two islands perfectly able to sustain life, on one we place only male homosexuals, on the other only female homosexuals. Giving them everything, in abundance, necessary for survival. One rule, no immagration, to or from, by members of the opposite gender. In 150 years we are left with two deserted islands!

        • Karolyn

          The bottom line is who cares what someone else does? Live and let live.

          • Ted Crawford

            My opposition in this case is because this is an attempt to force me to give ligitimacy to an act I personaly find as reprehensible as Pedophila, Necrophila, or Beastality! It is nothing more than abhorant, sexually devient behavior. As MRS. Pelosi pointed out, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig!

          • Robert Smith

            Well Karolyn, when you proclaim: “The bottom line is who cares what someone else does? Live and let live.”

            But by his rules it MUST be recognized that he too would have to choose to be a homosexual for breeding to stop. Thus, if he can’t change, (any more than gays can) humanity is safe.

            IOW, the “unnateral” argument just isn’t a real argument.

            Rob

          • TML

            Ted says, “…this is an attempt to force me to give legitimacy to an act I personally find… …reprehensible”

            So you admit that it is a personal conviction, and not based on any science as your prior claim states.

            Ted says, “…I personally find as reprehensible as Pedophila, Necrophila, or Beastality…”

            Pedophilia is against the will of the child and therefore abuse.
            Necrophilia is desecration of the dead loved ones of others
            Bestiality is against the will of the animal or abuse

            Homosexuality in Gay/Lesbian marriages are between two consenting adults.

            Allowing two consenting adults to marry, regardless of their sexual preferences, even if you think it’s wrong, does not force you to give it legitimacy. You merely want to use government force to legislate your subjective morality, and deny marriage to consenting adults, merely because you find what they do behind closed doors, “reprehensible”. So, because it merely disgusts you personally, you want to make it illegal.

          • http://naver samurai

            I agree with you Ted. It is unnatural, immoral, leads to diseases (Such as AIDS), loss of family values (Father, Mother, Children), lower birth rates (Procreation is necessary for a country and people to survive.), and against the will of God and teachings of Jesus. Even in Colossians chapter 3 verse 5 it calls it an “Inordinant lifestyle.” FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            From samurai who is continuing to spread ignorance: “It is unnatural, immoral, leads to diseases (Such as AIDS),”

            In Africa AIDS is spread among heterosexuals more than by gays.

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            We’re talking about America, so why do you have to go half way around the world? Feeling a little too much heat, so you try to direct our attentions somewhere else? We patriots stand united and your kind can never prevail against us. Not against God fearing patriots.

            “Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter…the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence.”

            Daniel Webster

            This is what is going on now in this country. Abortion, gays, morals being attacked, getting more away from God, all these things have the affect of a 5th column in this country. You do know what a 5th column is, don’t you Rob? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • TML

          “My opposition is based in science.
          Homosexuality is unnatural”

          A biased science based on subjective morality indeed.
          There are many scpecies in the natural world that engage in sexual activities with the same sex. So if you were basing your views on science, you would find objectively that ‘homosexuality’ could be considered “natural”.

          • http://naver samurai

            First, get over the animal arguement. That has been refuted many times on this site and in academia. Second, read my post on Feb 08, 2012 at 6:18 p.m. Let’s see if you can argue with 3 noted scientists that disagree with you. Neeeeed to be making that popping sound. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            Forget the bogus “studies” offered by right wing zealots.

            Check out the ACTUAL acts on video on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE0e0hCb7ME

            Are you going to believe your eyes actually looking at animals participating in gay sex or your ROFL… creationist “science?”

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            SSDD, eh Rob? Humans can think and animals don’t. This is the big difference between the two species you have mentioned.

            “There are three points of doctrine which forms the foundation of all morality, the existance of God, the immorality of the human soul, and a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three doctrines of faith, that man will have no conscience.”

            John Quincy Adams

            Ergo, you and your ilk, have no consciences and need to take a powder. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            Samurai points out: “Humans can think and animals don’t.”

            True. Thus proving that being gay is NOT a “choice” that someone can “think” their way out of.

            Rob

          • Robert Smith

            And to follow your corrupt “logic”; your god created them as gay.

            Rob

    • 45caliber

      cawmun:

      I was talking casually with a lawyer one time. He commented that the true status of a lawyer was his ability to come up with some wording of a law that would seem great but contains a nice loophole only he knows is there. Then when the law is passed, his law firm can make millions getting people freed on the loophole before other firms catch on and use the same thing. In the meantime, he’s looking for a different wording to provide a different loophole so they can pass a new law to “close the original loophole”.

      • Robert Smith

        If there is one lawyer in town he will starve. If there are two they will both be wealthy.

        Rob

  • ROGER, Canadian Libertarian

    FINALLY a level of government does something right. Shame on you S.C and Kudos to Karolyn

    Oh did I forget, S.C. is NOT libertarian???

    • s c

      Nice try, closet comrade ‘r.’ If you have some spine, please tell us when pc became your religion and your God? You’re no libertarian, comrade. Thanks for reminding us how shallow and multiple-faced people like YOU really are. You are a libertarian in the same ways Obummer is. Lies, distortions, hypocrisy and useful idiocy. You’re a real class act, comrade. Effing hypocrite.

      • Brian

        You are clueless about libertarianism. But most religious zealots are. You don’t want the government sticking its nose into your business but demand it sticks it other peoples business. You are the very definition of a hypocrite.

        • http://naver samurai

          Aren’t you also being a hypocrite dealing with this gay issue? The government says something about gays is putting their noses into it and you support it. Yep, a hypocrite. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • smilee

            Sammie

            To bad your denial is so deep that you are unable to recognize you are the biggest hypocrite on the site, also the spreader of almost total misinformation

          • http://naver samurai

            Denial? Isn’t that a river in Egypt? I stand by what it says that it is an inordinate and perverse lifestyle. Read Colossians 3:5 and you’ll see what I mean. Another thing for you, along with your ilk, to understand that these beliefs undermine our founding and are tearing apart the moral fabric of this great country. Remember slimee, today, in the name of “equality” and “political correctness” the basic liberty to love and worship God, the God of the Holy Bible, is being undermined. A very vocal and moronic minority has undertaken a mission to rewrite our history and force all Americans to live in a society without the God of our forefathers and without the freedoms that they acknowledged and declared God granted us. Neeeeed to make that popping sound. Think about it, post sources, and post facts if you answer this post. If not, don’t even bother. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            From samurai: “Denial? Isn’t that a river in Egypt?”

            No it isn’t.

            The Nile is that river in Egypt. You’ve had that explained to you before. You weren’t funny then and you aren’t now.

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            At leat I have a sense of humor, so what’s your excuse? Stay on suject. I’m sure that my sense of humor is not in the article. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • brianS

        Getting a bit personal here guys. I would not say sc is a religious zealot, just a normal guy. He makes more sense that most of you guys that write in and sometimes I do not totally agree with him, but at least he can see further than his nose than most of you can and he does think which is more than most of you. Dont you guys get sick of being led by the nose by the lefties.

        • http://naver samurai

          HHHHHooooorrrrraaaaahhhhh! Well said. S.C., I salute you on your diligence. Keep up the good fight, fellow patriots. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • eddie47d

    Apparently there are a few judges who are intelligent enough to know what discrimination really is. There are too many people who want to deny others their rights which is against our Constitution to begin with. People vote emotions,fear of the unknown and self interest and occasionally this has to be sorted out. The majority of citizens once accepted slavery as a wise practice and thought is was okay to keep certain folks from enjoying the fruits of their labor. Let this group that opposes equal rights take it to the Supreme Court and fight for more discrimination. As if there hasn’t been enough already!

    • Ted Crawford

      If you can define people engaging in unnatural behavior as simply exercising “Their rights”, at what point do you draw a line? Do you, even for one moment, believe that those engaged in Pedophilia have any less passionate a view of their “rights”?

      • Debra K

        Fred Berlin from John Hopkins University has already lobbyed congress to get the word pedophelia changed to “minor attracted” and they want to decriminalize it. Google it, there’s never a shortage of nuts who feel they’re discriminated against.

        • Ted Crawford

          Aren’t these “Politically Correct” ….people(?) wonderful? The best defination of “Politically Correct” I’ve ever seen is; “The belief that one might pickup a turd by it’s clean end”

        • Brian

          That doesn’t mean it will be legalized. It wont. It involves people unable to give legitimate consent. And that topic has nothing to do with gay marriage. Child molesters are in it more for power and control than sexual gratification. And how does that compare with two consenting adults who are in love and want to share their lives?

          • http://naver samurai

            They can, as long as it is 1 man and 1 woman, no exceptions! I suggest you read the following from the Bible:

            Leviticus 18:22
            Levicitus 20:13
            Romans 1:24-32
            1st Corinthians 6:9-10
            Colossians 3:5
            1st Timothy 1:8-11
            Jude 1:7
            The Revelation

            Read these and have you little lib mind awakened. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

            P.S. The 2 consenting adults thing is getting kind of old, isn’t it? Its about as good as a used condom. No offense to anyone. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            Eaten any cheeseburgers lately samurai?

            Picketed McDonald’s?

            Actually you look to be a bit of a cafiteria christian only selecting the most brutal verses to justify your bigotry.

            Rob

          • smilee

            samurai says:
            February 8, 2012 at 7:33 pm

            Interesting but none of those passages are in our Constitution and yet you want us to believe this country was founded on Christian principals, your kind of confused

          • http://naver samurai

            First, that is an overused and refuted arguement. I challenge you to show me where the word Cheeseburger is mentioned in the Bible. It must be cheeseburger. Ah yes, slimee. Another personal attack and no facts or sources. Classic liberal strategy. It guess the old saying is true, a tiger can’t change his stripes. We were founded on Judeo-Christian principles, Biblical Law taken directly from the Old and New Testiments, our laws based on the 10 Commandments, and a deep,rich belief in nature and nature’s God. No exceptions! No secular nonsense. There may not be a Bible verse in the Constitution, but the original Constitution says “In the year of our Lord”, a reference to Jesus and in the Preamble of the Constitution, “Secure the blessings of liberty”, a reference to a blesser (GOD). It also referrs us back to the Declaration of Independence that says, “Endowed by their Creator (GOD)”, another reference to God. In fact, there are 4 places that mention God in the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson wrote the first one, but 3 more were added by our founders before it was ratified. Neeeeed to go back an study our history a little more. I guess one way to describe your actions would be:

            “By means of schrewd lies unremittingly repeated, it is possible to make people believe that heaven is hell-and hell heaven. The greater the lie, the more readily it will be believed.”

            Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

            “…to attain a serious end it behooves not to stop at any means or count the victims sacrificed for the sake of that end.”

            Protocol 15, The Wise Elders of Zion

            These two passages describe you 2 to a “T”. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            Exodus 23:19

            samurai, have you ever eaten a cheese burger.. then where does beef come from? Last I heard it was a cow.

            Where does cheese come from?
            Guess what! A mother cow who gave milk to make the cheese.

            So, samurai it is an abamination just like blended fabrics and kids mouthing off.

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            I didn’t ask for a cow, I asked you to find the word cheeseburger. Since you couldn’t find it, I win this point. If we are to do everything to the letter in the Bible, then we are to stone to death adulterers, fornicators, and gays also. Should we do that also? Neeeeed to understand what it says and quit trying to make it fit your pathetic lying opinion. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            Samurai demands: “I challenge you to show me where the word Cheeseburger is mentioned in the Bible. ”

            Right after you show us the word “abortion” in your bible.

            Rob

      • Brian

        Pedophilia involves people that can not give consent. Apples and oranges. Next.

      • Robert Smith

        From Ted: ” Do you, even for one moment, believe that those engaged in Pedophilia have any less passionate a view of their “rights”?”

        Raping a minor, is a crime regardless of what sexes are involved.

        Grasp this: When discussing same sex marriage, recreational drug use, etc. we are talking about CONSENTING ADULTS.

        Your distracted little horrific side steps are easily also dealt with.

        BTW, do you really need to make a law against gays to keep your kid from marrying the German Sheppard next door? Is your kid really that screwed up?

        Rob

        • http://naver samurai

          Actually, when it comes to drugs, we are talking about laws and legal terms. No consenting about it. Gays? We are talking about it being unnatural, unethical, immoral, and against the way God has set marriage up to be. No such thing as consenting. It seems that you care less about our founding and the moral fabric of this country.

          “The duties of men are summarily comprised in the Ten Commandments, consisting of two tables; one comprehending the duties which we owe to God, the other, the duties we owe to our fellow men.”

          Noah Webster

          If I remember right, the 10th Commandment is “Thou shalt no covet.” Isn’t this what the queers are doing? They are jealous because normal couples can get married and they can’t? So they want to moan, groan, gripe, and complain about their situation. They made their bed and now they have to lie in it. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            samurai asks: “They are jealous because normal couples can get married and they can’t?”

            Yup, like blacks were “jealous” when they were slaves and women were “jealous” when they couldn’t vote.

            Fact is equality and freedom is what America is about, NOT religious nuts worried about what goes on in someone else’s bedroom.

            IMO your life must be really shallow to have such an interest in what others do behind a closed door.

            BTW, you STILL haven’t told us how your life has changed because some states allow same sex merriage. When are you going to give us any specifics? Has your kid married the dog next door?

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            SSDD, eh Rob? Same old arguement and overused points. Were slaves jealous of free people? No. Possessing the desire to be free? Yes. Were women jealous of men, because they couldn’t vote? No. Did they possess the desire to one day be able to vote and to be considered equal? Yes. Jealousy has nothing to do with these groups, but the gays yes. Unlike the women voting or slavery, they are not acceptable in this society. So since it took a 4 year Civil War to free the slaves (supposedly) and years of petitioning the government to give women the right to vote, you are advocation them to spill the blood of innocent Americans to get their so called “freedom?” I never thought you would want another battle in the streets Rob. Sheesh! Just go back under your rock. It may be legal in some states, but it isn’t a right. Gays lifestyle is not covered in the Constitution. BTW, if your kind is in love with your neighbor’s dog, that’s on him. Our german shephard puppy Fluffy like our next door neighbors dog. Also, if this issue was only in the bedroom, as you have stated, we wouldn’t be here debating the issue, now would we? Just not on the top of your game, there Rob. You all are taking a serious beating today. Good. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            samurai claims: “Also, if this issue was only in the bedroom, as you have stated, we wouldn’t be here debating the issue,”

            Then tell us samurai, just what does a same sex couple do outside the bedroom that you object to?

            I submit that most live just like any other couple. They get up, go to work, have lunch… All the same stuff that you and your wife do. When they adopt they can even go to the kid’s ball game, just as I suspect you would do if you got your kids out of your bible long enough to play ball.

            Rob

    • eddie47d

      Even homosexuals as a group are against pedophilia so your saying that pedophilia will be legalized and accepted is a far stretch. Since the wide majority or child molesters are heterosexuals your fears are unwarranted. Check out arrest reports and see who is caught watching and promoting child porn;Heterosexuals!

  • Sirian

    HA, if it goes to the 9th it will ultimately end up in the Supreme Court. Isn’t that rather common? Yes it is.

    • smilee

      The SC may not take t up and then this ruling will stand

      • http://naver samurai

        Let’s see what happens, shall we? They didn’t think Obama bin Laden Care would make it before the SCOTUS either, but it did. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • smilee

          It will make it to the SC no doubt about that but the SC may refuse to hear it and then the appeal court’s ruling will stand. The accepted the ACA so sure they will hear it, want to bet they uphold it to.

          • http://naver samurai

            You mean the ones in Virginia and Florida that deemed it to be unconstitutional? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • smilee

            sammie

            that was the ACA not gay rights; gay rights has never been found to be unconstitutional. You got it wrong again dude!!

  • Airangel

    What happened to the Peoples Choice? Majority Rule? This makes me sick…the constant attack on Christians and intolerance…I could care less if Gay couples get the same benefits as married couples but have it be a Civil Union. Throughout centuries marriage has been one man and one woman….it’s NOT unconstitutional, it’s holy and the the natural design of our creator but Gays can’t accept that, NO they push sodomy and beastiality in he military, next those folks will want to marry their pet or Poligamy will then be legal because marriage will no longer be one man and one woman but a circus…one man and 5 women, one man and one dog….where will it stop?

    • Dave

      Because of people with attitudes like yours we have to have the courts define the constitutionality of the legislation. Sorry, majority rule hasn’t happened in many, many years. It is discrimination. And that is all people’s rights.
      Your religious argument is just that.
      Keep the religion out of it and the people of this country get what they are supposed to.
      I don’t know about you but I got married by a justice and kept religious mores out of it.

      • Airangel

        Religion out of it, it not a natural design in any sense. I could care less what you do to be together with your partner but why do you have to attack marriage?

        • Karolyn

          Nobody’s attacking marriage.

        • Robert Smith

          Tell us Airangel: How in any way shape or form does any same sex couple make any difference in your life? They eat breakfast, go to work, walk their dogs, and pay taxes. I doubt you ask your heterosexual friends what they do behind a closed door, so why are you treating gays differently?

          I truly don’t understand why the hate is so viceral and real.

          Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            We are hating the sin and abhorring the evil of it, not the person involved. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • smilee

            Sammie

            You can say that all day long but I do not believe you, your posts reek of hatred and your call for denial of their equal rights is hatred in and of itself

          • http://naver samurai

            Lying again, eh smilee? No one has taken away their protection under the laws of this land, though they are more protected in certain circumstances. No one has said they don’t have any God given rights, as are written in the first 10 Amendments of the Constitution. What many of us object to is their inordinate lifestyle being waved in our faces and their lies about how their lifestyle is OK. Since their lifestyle is unnatural, immoral, and against the ways set up by God, their ways will never be accepted. Since a vast majority of people in this country do not support their views, it will never happen. Notice how everything about them has to be forced onto the majority by legislation, courts, and this COOTUS forcing things down the throats of the average American. I guess you don’t care about our founding or the moral fabric of this country. To do such is not the American way to do things. Don’t answer unless you have some facts or sources to prove me wrong. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • smilee

            sammie

            does not matter what you say here, you are not allowed to trample on the constitutional rights of gays and that is all you are doing here. you argument is bogus to the legal issues in the matter

          • Robert Smith

            samurai claims: “Notice how everything about them has to be forced onto the majority by legislation, courts, and this COOTUS forcing things down the throats of the average American.”

            Not “forced” but simply removing bad legislation that is unconstitutional against parts of our population.

            The SCOTUS doesn’t make legislation, it tosses out bad legislation.

            This has been pointed out to you many times, samurai. It now appears that you are willfully ignoring the truth and spreading misinformation. Thanks for yet another fine example.

            Rob

      • Airangel

        and Dave what about “People like you” who have no tolerance or respect for me or people faith…you seem to only think your view is all that counts and to H3ll with Christians, Jews and Muslims or anyone of faith…you are the one that won’t compromise and ram your ways down our throats

        • Dave

          I have all the respect for all people of faith or otherwise. Can’t you understand the English language? We are not against religion. I am a Catholic. This argument has less to do with religion than rights.
          Do what you want in your faith. Leave it out of the argument when the constitutional rights are questioned.

          • http://naver samurai

            If I remember right, you are gay. If you are gay, you are not a child of God. Ergo, no Christian. Can’t claim you are a Christian and live in rebellion to the Bible. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • smilee

            Judge NOT!! my friend you could be wrong, I do not believe God will call anyone to answer to anything that is beyond their control and the gays claim that is how they wee born and unless you are gay you have no way of knowing that as it cannot be proven, but if the gays are correct then I do not believe God will hold that against them but has said he will of those who judge as you so often do.

          • http://naver samurai

            First of all, he had posted that information before on another thread. Second, knock of how God won’t hold them accountable crap. We are accountable for everything we do, 100%, in the eyes of God. They are not born gay. There is no gay gene. If there were a gay gene, why would God call it a sin and be punishable by fire and brimstone? You all distort facts and lie too much about God to be a Christian. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • smilee

            Sammie you believe that but you do not know that, that is why facts are so important and beliefs can be so deceiving, here in the absence of facts your beliefs are nothing other that assumptions. Do you really believe God will hold you responsible for anything you have no control over, sins are acts none of us are capable of doing and failed to, acts that you cannot exercise control over are not sins, I believe there will be some gays in heaven just like I believe some people who claim to be Christians will not be. no one of us has what it takes to sit in judgment of any one, Beware my friend!!

          • http://naver samurai

            The wages of sin is death. Whether we meant to do something or not, whether we have control of the situation or not, sin is sin. If it wasn’t, then why does it say in the Bible it is a sin in the eyes of God? Just be quiet smilee. You are a liar and know nothing of what you are saying. We are held accountable for everything we do in this life, good, bad, or indifferent. Remember, what is done in secret will be made known. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            samurai claims: “The wages of sin is death. ”

            Nope. According to you I’m “sinful” by not respecting you or your brutal god. I’m still alive so what you are saying just isn’t true.

            Rob

        • Ted Crawford

          Isn’t it interesting Airangel, that so many who claim to hold no belief in a Divine Being seem so terrified by those of you who do! It causes me to doubt that their professed belief is well founded in their own minds!

          • Robert Smith

            From Ted: “Isn’t it interesting Airangel, that so many who claim to hold no belief in a Divine Being seem so terrified by those of you who do!”

            YES! Certainly terrified. In his name clinics are bombed, individuals have been killed, and numberous other evil things have erupted from christians.

            Has an atheist ever attacked you in a bar for being straight?

            Rob

      • http://naver samurai

        Wrong answer Dave. Look at how this country was founded.

        http://www.keepgodinamerica.com/JeffersonMemorial1.asp

        FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • smilee

          I see your still spreading garbage

          • http://naver samurai

            How is that garbage, when it is physically etched into one our greatest memorials? You can see it for yourself. But of course, as Jeff H said once, you can’t cure stupid. You are incurable smilee. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • smilee

            Sammie you have to be able to recognize stupid before you can cure it, that is probably why you always fail to cure your own stupidity

          • http://naver samurai

            Such less intelligent response not even worthy of a response. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • Robert Smith

          Jefferson said; “Establish the law for educating the common people.”Establish the law for educating the common people.

          Looks like public schools to me.

          Rob

    • Karolyn

      We do not have majority rule, thank God.

      • Airangel

        Activist judges are not the majority, the people are and yes the majority want to protect marriage as one man and one woman

        • Robert Smith

          When has ANY judge “legislated from the bench?”

          They certainly stop BAD laws but I haven’t seen any laws originated from the bench.

          Rob

        • http://naver samurai

          This is true Airangel. That is why the Congress and Senate passed the DOMA and the SCOTUS found it constitutional. DADT was also the will of the people, passed through legislation and found constitutional by the SCOTUS. Unfortunately, the powers that be have turned a deaf ear to the people and only listen to the ones pulling their strings like George Soros, Bilderbergs, Illuminati, and satan. We do have a powerfull weapon to defeat them with, a vote. Enough votes will get these people out of office. Also, we have God and Jesus. No mortal on earth, to count myself, can stand against them.

          “It is alleged that religion and morality are not necessary or important qualifications for political stations. But the Scriptures teach a different doctrine. They direct that rulers should be men who rule in the fear of God, able men, such as fear of God, men of truth, hating covetousness.”

          Noah Webster

          Anyone who is gay is jealous of normal people. They may rant and rave, but to no avail. They will lose in the end. Really. No butts about it. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • smilee

            The courts have never rules on the DOMA, more lies from sammie

          • Robert Smith

            Hey samurai, check this out: “But in their latest editions, the dictionaries have begun to switch sides—though until recently, no one seemed to have much noticed. The American Heritage Dictionary, Black’s Law Dictionary, and Webster’s have all added same-sex unions to their definitions of marriage. The Oxford English Dictionary is on the way. The right-wing Web site WorldNetDaily broke the news in March about Webster’s, reporting that the dictionary had “resolved the argument” over gay marriage by applying the ancient term “to same-sex duos.”

            That’s from:
            http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×5413558

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            More lies from smilee. I guess you have forgotten that something has to be deemed Constitutional before the POTUS can sign it into law. I guess you have forgotten that part of our history and Constitution. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

            P.S. The link doesn’t interest me in the least.

          • smilee

            samurai says:
            February 9, 2012 at 8:57 pm

            Sammie, you never cease to amaze me, I really thought you had some knowledge of how are government works and what our Constitution is and I had given you some credit for that but you just erased that with about the stupidest statement you have made to date that proves you know absolutely nothing about either. No supreme court has ever looked at a law before it became a law and to do that the president has to sign it first. DOMA has not been looked at by the SC. Obama has refused to enforce DOMA as he and the justice department believes it is unconstitutional, republicans have gbeen screaming like crazy over that but none of them has tried to take it to court to find out as I sure the smart ones amongst them know it is not constitutional and if they did and Obama was found to be correct then it could not be enforced and the republicans would have egg on their face

          • http://naver samurai

            First of all, the SCOTUS does reserve the right, by our Constitution to have any law or legislation weighed on its constitutionality. Remember, even social security was ruled unconstitutional in 1934, 1935, 1936. Neeeeed to learn more before opening your mouth. Second, it isn’t the GOP with egg on their faces, it is the DEM. DOMA was passed under Clinton/Gore. The last time I heard, they were to the left of center. Been proven wrong again. How does it feel to be a loser? Better yet, a traitor to our founding and totally incompetant to understand the Constitution? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            samurai claims: “I guess you have forgotten that something has to be deemed Constitutional before the POTUS can sign it into law.”

            Absolutely false.

            Laws are put onto the books THEN they are challenged in the courts.

            Rob

      • DROB1776

        That’s right let us not have the majority rule let the few dictate to the many wecome to the U.S. Union of Socialist Republics, The origians of this Nation were Majority Rule, with minority rights The way you would have it is minority rule with no rights for he majority.

        • Robert Smith

          Please tell me: What “right” will you lose to a same sex couple?

          How will their marriage change your life in any way?

          MOF, several states do have same sex marraiage. How has your life changed?

          Please be specific.

          And, please don’t tell me your brutal christian god is offended. Then YOU are cramming YOUR religion upon another.

          Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            Aren’t you pushing your moronic beliefs on someone there Rob? To leave religion out of it, how about I say it like this, OK? No one has taken any rights from them, they can marry whomever they want to. The only thing is it must be someone of the opposite gender. Haven’t made that popping sound yet? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • smilee

            sammmie

            There is a big difference between facts and beliefs which you appear to be unable to comprehend

          • http://naver samurai

            It seems that you are the one unable to comprehend facts, smilee. What part of laws and rights did you not understand? Remember, marriage is not a right. There is nothing covering marriage in any of our founding documents. Neeeeed to be making that popping sound. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • smilee

            ammie

            You are right marriage is not defined in the Constituion but discrimiantion is and that applies to any law in the United States and that includes Marriage Laws. You can have marriage laws as it is silent but you cannot discriminate in any law. Your ignorance of the Constituion and law is again revelaed, quit while you are ahead sammie

          • http://naver samurai

            It seems I have won in this round also. Discrimination is based on race, gender, nationality, and religion. Since being queer is not covered, it is just something you are trying to add. Remember, if 2 queers come before a pastor to marry them, he does not have to perform a ceremony. Since everyone has God given rights of speech, religion, and choice, they cannot force anyone by law, or other things, to have them perform a ceremony. Esecially if the person says it is wrong in the eyes of God. Our pastor wouldn’t do it, even if Indiana recognized it. BTW, in the states that do have it, they can’t force someone to do a ceremony with them. They can have them go to someone that will. Enough said! Get thee behind me lying one of satan. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            samurai says; “They can have them go to someone that will. ”

            Yup, and many like Bishop Spong are christian.

            Rob

          • Robert Smith

            samurai asks: “Aren’t you pushing your moronic beliefs on someone there Rob? ”

            Nope.

            First beliefs about equality and freedoms in America are not “mornicc.”

            Second, you don’t have to believe that same sex marriage is OK. Just as some christians don’t believe that medical care is OK (christian scientists), and other religions believe that eating meat is not OK. MOF, even christians avoided meat on Friday.

            Sadly that did impact my life because even though I like meat anytime I was denied in school lunches because the school went along with the relgious jibber jabber and served fish or pasta without meat on Fridays. So sad they caved in to religion.

            But if a same sex couple marries you won’t have to marry someone of the same sex, samurai. MOF your kid won’t have to marry the German Sheppard next door either.

            See, it’s that simple. You don’t ahve to believe in same sex marriage anymore than I have to believe in your brutal god.

            Rob

    • 45caliber

      Airangel:

      I saw yesterday that a polygamic group is suing based on this argument.

      I’m like you, I don’t care if they have the same freedoms as real married people under a civil union. But they want to force religions to honor their unions and accept that being gay is okay. That’s why they push the marriage thing. They want the government to rule that religions cannot discriminate and cannot speak out against homosexualism.

      I think that is really going to go over well with the Muslims – which they also support.

      • Robert Smith

        “Marriage” is a CIVIL contract. Atheists can get married.

        If you want YOUR church to bless YOUR marriage I have no problem with that.

        However, if a same sex couple want a “blessing” they simply shouldn’t go to your brutal god for it if “he” disapproves. It’s really that simple.

        Rob

    • Brian

      Majority rule is democracy and we are not a democracy. Your post point out exactly why we aren’t. If the people can decide who gets to exercise what rights nothing is stopping future majorities from prohibiting you from exercising yor rights. If a majority voted to legalize rape woukd that make rape a legitimate act? Of course not because the act violates the rights of the victim.

      • Robert Smith

        A better example is slavery. In the South had they voted on slavery it wuld still have been awful.

        Just as today forciing kids in school to put up with preying by the christians.

        Rob

  • Airangel

    The Fight is on to protect the sanctity of marriage and definition as one man and one woman because after all don’t gay couples really want the same benefits in the end…I have no problem with civil union but any vows before God in a marriage is sacriligious!

    • Karolyn

      It has nothing to do with religion! And it should not have anything to do with religion. How on earth does it affect yours or anyone else’s marriage or the sanctity thereof?

      • Airangel

        Marriage came about BECAUSE of religion so why don’t you leave religion out of it and get a civil union!

        • Karolyn

          Early marriage had nothing to do with religion. Historians date marriage back 5000 years but can find no documentation. The first recorded marriage was 2500 years ago when an Egyptian was given a 14 year old girl for six crows. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2000/10/26/204128.htm?site=science/greatmomentsinscience

          Also, the Romans performed same-sex marriage.

          • Airangel

            The Roman Empire went down too! Marriage has been determined and accepted throughout the world as One Man and One Woman, why can’t you guys compromise on civil union? You get the same thing. Where is the respect for us…I’m tired of trying to understand the basice need to love, cherish and have a life long partner and to be love and accepted by all…I have tried to show tolerance buy you keep pushing it down our throats and I’m done! I’m fed up!

          • Airangel

            That Egyptian was a man too given a girl (opposite) sex to produce heirs

          • Karolyn

            It’s not my cause to compromise on. I just support the glbt community. Why does it bother you so much? It changes nothing about anyone’s marriage. What is it with that word?

          • Karolyn

            Airangel I am refuting your claim about marriage coming about because of religion. I was not talking about creating progeny.

          • CommonSense4America

            And look what happened to the Roman empire!!!

          • CommonSense4America

            “what is it with that word”…..exactly! Why do Gays want “marrage” so badly? Whats wrong with civil unions?

          • Robert Smith

            Airangel says: “why can’t you guys compromise on civil union? ”

            “Separate but equal” failed in the 1950s with race. It’s PROVEN to not work.

            Besides, religion doesn’t hold “marriage” as anything except among one’s own flock. Remember, even atheists can be married.

            Here is an idea!

            We call EVERYTHING a “civil union” as far as the government is concerned. Then if you want to call it a “marriage” also go to your church or whatever and get it blessed the way you want it.

            If you are claiming that our government is doing something “sacred” in the eyes of your religion then our government is sponsoring that religion and representing it as part of the state. THAT is against our Constitution.

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            “There must be religion. When that ligament is torn, society is disjointed and its members perish. But the most important of all lessons is the denunciation of ruin to every state that rejects the precepts of religion.”

            Governeur Morris, September 04, 1816

            Get the man’s drift there Rob and Karolyn? Rome fell because it went against its morals and religious beliefs. The same is happening to our country today. If you are blind to these facts, then you are very blind indeed. If we continue down this slippery slope we are traversing, we will suffer the same fate as Rome itself. Our people will be enslaved to a government, ruled by another Nero. I really think you 2 have lost touch with the current situation. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • smilee

            Airangel says:
            February 8, 2012 at 9:47 am

            Why don’t we drop the word marriage all together in manage licenses and call it “CIVIL UNIONS” and for those who want a certificate of marriage they can go to their church and get a marriage certificate from them. Nothing against the law in that and no discrimination as long as it is defined as between two people. Marriage Licenses today are issued by the governments in a civil act not a religious one anyway.

          • Robert Smith

            samurai says: “Rome fell because it went against its morals and religious beliefs.”

            And then the christians led the world into the dark ages.

            Seen “Pillars of the Earth” lately? Although fiction it’s pretty clear.

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            So, is that why the East Roman Empire that accepted Christianity went on to be the Byzantine Empire for another 100 years? Is that why the West Roman Empire did not and they ended up being conquered by barbarian peoples? Neeeeed to understand what you are saying before you post. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • http://naver samurai

            I meant 1000 years. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • 45caliber

        Karolyn:

        As long as it stays between them and the government (civil ceremonies) I have absolutely no problem with them getting the same benifits that marriage has. After all, most of those benifits are given by the government.

        BUT … (BIG But!) … I have a serious problem with them insisting that religions must change to accept their marriages. Religious laws are NOT set by humans. If they were, the laws would change regularly – and you cannot have laws change regularly without destroying the organization. Don’t believe that? Look at what is going on in the US legally … and in what condition the US is in. Most of the financial disasters has been caused by the government allowing something and then disallowing it – or vice versa.

        Religious law is set by God. And God does NOT change. I know that many, including you, believe that all religious law is set by man since God is a myth but WE don’t believe so – and we aren’t interested in risking our souls on the idea that you might be right. After all, what might make you more right than we are? We at least have historical record to show our way lasts longer.

        As said many times, I would rather worship my way and find out after my death than I am wrong than worship your way and find out after my death that you were wrong.

        • Karolyn

          I have seen nothing regarding forcing churches to do anything. I would certainly never support that. However, there are churches that do peform gay marriages.

          • 45caliber

            Karolyn:

            I’ve seen many comments insisting that religions MUST change. Some of the comments are that all religious laws are written by men and therefore can be changed by men at will. Therefore they should be changed.

            I’ve seen others that insist, “I don’t belong to that religion (that allows marriage) and want it in my own church (which doesn’t allow it). I want God to bless my marriage. So the religion needs to change to allow it.”

            I’ve seen others who insist that marriage MUST be allowed since it is easier to get the benifits that the government gives to married couples that way. And some insist that if allowed marriage here they can use it to force other countries to accept it as well.

            So … you may not have heard of any of this, but I have.

            To those of you like this, KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY RELIGION!

          • Robert Smith

            From 45: “I’ve seen many comments insisting that religions MUST change.”

            Really? Can you give us an example?

            Oh, paleeze don’t use that recent birth control thing with the catholic church. When it comes to health care they have no right to deny an employee complete health care that’s legal in America. “Morality” only applies to members of that religion. If they are hiring for positions that aren’t directly related to the religion (maintaiance, secretarial, gardening, etc.) they are hiring other Americans, NOT members of their religion and they should be treated as Americans, NOT at the mercy of some guy over in Rome.

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            I guess you don’t remember that at religious facilities, not just churches, they can set certain standards in order to hire workers. Second, since when is birth control health care? It isn’t. The only thing that birth control is for is to not get pregnant> It has nothing to do with women’s health. Third, since when can Obama bin Laden force people to cover something that is against their beliefs? That’s kind of stepping on the Constitution isn’t it?

            “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

            1st Amendment, U.S. Constitution

            Fourth, Obama bin Laden care covers mandatory contraceptives and abortions on demand. Both of these are unconstitutional and are illegal. Wake up! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • Robert Smith

          45 says: “WE don’t believe so –” [being gay is OK]

          SO WHAT? I don’t believe in your brutal god.

          Neither yours nor mine should be involved with government and abusing the government of the United States of America to forward their religion.

          Let Americans make decisions about sexuality for themselves.

          After all, that there right wing brutal christian god and his canabal followers worshiping a dead guy on a stick ain’t any more or less valid than the any god or goddess another follows.

          BTW, it would appear that the god of catholics approved of pedophelia for quite awhile.

          Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            So let the people vote for themselves? So if the majority of Americans were against gay marriage and had laws passed against it, that would be OK? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            samurai comments: “So if the majority of Americans were against gay marriage and had laws passed against it, that would be OK? ”

            Just as OK as voting slavery back, or denying women or blacks (or any other law abiding American) the right to vote.

            What about individual freedoms and equality don’t you understand about America? Ohhhhhhh, I get it, your opinion is that YOUR religion worshiping your brutal god is more important than America being America.

            I get it samurai. I think your demanding America cave to your religion is unAmerican. I’ll bet others understand that too.

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            SSDD, eh Rob. Do me a favor Rob. You show me where marriage is mentioned in the Constitution, then we can start from there. About slavery and women not voting would need legislation to take the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments out of the Constitution. I really don’t think that is going to happen soon. Bad analagy Rob. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • Brian

      Vows before God do not require government. That being the case and based on your comment if government is involved then civil unions should be the only thing they could authorize for heterosexuals as well. Just why do you think you should have the government’s permission to get married? If marriage is a religious act for you keep it in the church and government uninvolved.

      • http://naver samurai

        Sorry dude, but not everything about Christianity, God, Jesus, the Bible, etc., can be contained in a church. You sound like these ignorant fools that say you can’t pray in school or mention their names in the classrooms. Which we both know is not how we were founded.

        “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encourage.”

        George Washington
        Northwest Ordinance, April 07, 1789

        Ergo, God and religion are also to be in our schools. You just lost big time. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • Robert Smith

          Actually George Washington respected religions other than his own.

          Here is anothr from George Washington: “Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.”

          That’s from: George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792.

          Did you know that George Washington was a Mason? On the alter in the center of lodges many holy books have been laid. Masons hold that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and even Buddhists can join without sacrificing their religious beliefs in any way.

          I like George Washington’s open mind.

          You can get some insights to George Washington, his fellow Masonic Founding Fathers, and just how OPEN they were at: http://gwmemorial.org/

          Oh, and you can quit dumping your diaper laod of one sided quotes and laying claim to the Founding Fathers supporting your brutal christian god. They were into a much kinder christian god as represented by guys like Bishop John Shelby Spong.

          Now, please take your religion and practice it among yourselves and quit bothering us REAL Americans.

          Oops, delete the “please.”

          Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            Read my earlier post to you on these comments. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • smilee

          Airangel says:
          February 8, 2012 at 9:47 am

          There are numerous religions in this country and many have differing views, it is governments job to not choose one over another and make sure all have equal rights to expressing their religion without interference from the government or each other, therefor in a public school that has to accommodate all religions it only makes sense that prayer of one should not be allowed in school as it may be offensive to another religion and that is the basis for the court rulings against prayer in school but it in no way prevents you from praying just where you can pray. It is only common sense. I am not convinced God is against that as he only asked you to witness one to another and not act as their judge jury and executioner. The court followed the Constituent on this and so far courts have on gay marriage as well and some day the SC may very well make that case throughout the US

          • smilee

            OOPS!! the above post was suppose to be in response to Sammie. sorry

          • http://naver samurai

            This was at state level and the federal government was not to be involved. They just walked all over the 10th Amendment. It seems that you are in favor of states not having any rights. As far as it passing nationwide, NEVER! BTW, I’ve read how the libs want to introduce legislation about having gay history taught at all schools in this country. If it is, I’ll never teach it. This country has more important things then worrying about the queers and their tizzies. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • smilee

            ammie

            The tenth ammendment does not apply in this case because the 14th ammendment trumps it as it mandates the states not discriminate in any law the states make, the tenth only appliies if the constituion does not cover the issue and in this case it does so the tenth on this issue is null and void and the republicans for the most part cannot seem to understand that simple thing, you sure can’t

          • http://naver samurai

            We have been over this point before. the 14th Amendment does not trump the 10th Amendment. First of all, the 10th Amendment is a God given right and the 14th is not. Ergo, a right given by government does not trump a right given by God. Second, gay are not protected under the 14th Amendment, due to the 13th, 14th, and 1th Amendments were dealing with former slaves after liberation. Sheesh! When are you going to stop lying. Third, if the 14th Amendment is what you say it is, then it would also cover the unborn child in the mother. Remember, it doesn’t specifically state the stage of life of the American. Fourth, your points have been refuted on this cite by more people than I, so be a good little urchin and go play in the street. Neeeeed to study more smilee. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

            P.S. This seems to be beyond your capacity to understand.

          • smilee

            samme

            NEWS FLASH!! God was not party to it, it is the law of man, he never voted on it or was even there

          • http://naver samurai

            Newsflash smilee, you’re wrong again. God is everywhere. He doesn’t have to be seen. Since you are no Christian, you have no possible way of being able to fathom the Almighty. Does the Bill of Rights grant the people free speech, freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, etc? The answer is no it doesn’t. The Declaration of Independence, which provides the philosophical base of our nation, states very clearly that our rights are granted to us by our Creator (GOD). Th various rights noted in the Bill of Rights were not granted by government. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to prevent the Federal government from suspending any of those God-given rights, including the right to posses a weapon. Those who claim rights under the Constitution make a big mistake with such a statement. If a right is granted by the 2nd Amendment, meaning the government, it can be taken away by government. If the right is granted by God, only He can take it away.

            http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/liberty/do-you-really-know-the-constitution

            Looks like you eat crow again, 무신론자놈아! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • sniffer

    How many billions have been spent relative to government forcing same sex “marriage” upon churches and civilized society, without ever defining the acts they want sanctified and blessed? Marriage has been a union of man and woman, since the beginning of time. Plug one end of an extension cord into the other! Without electricity, what do we have… a circular circuit that conducts nothing to nothing? If we can’t define the defining objects and fecal issues, how can we sanctify any union of those objects? The fact that people can freely live within the sanctity of their home, with other people of any sex, pushes the unholy matrimony issue beyond irrational logic. Obviously FDA and OSHA guidelines are needed (helmet, full body wet suit, safety glasses, decontamination, and (what is that really bad fecal related germ? Is E-coli confused with equally – a “terd” in the pool offers equal opportunity for its deliverance.

    • Karolyn

      “Marriage” has not been since the beginning of time!

      • Airangel

        Why in H3ll were men and women designed to create life? Without that fundamental design, YOU wouldn’t be here today and don’t give me the “not everyone can have children” it’s a load of crap!

        • Karolyn

          Sex has nothing to do with marriage.

          • Airangel

            The circle of life is about sex and bringing up a family in a blessed marriage…so yes sex between one man and one woman produces life and that union is blessed by God whether you agree or not it is my faith you are attacking

          • Karolyn

            Airangel – I am not attacking your faith – just stating my beliefs. I could care less what you believe or do as long as it doesn’t hurt me; and that is the way it should be.

          • http://naver samurai

            Sex does deal with procreation and sex only to be done between husband and wife. It is also necessary to keep out population going and to populate the earth. Don’t tell me this overpopulation crap. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            Ah! The secret is out…

            samurai says: ” It is also necessary to keep out population going and to populate the earth.”

            Yup. Guess YOU are convinced you are gonna turn gay and humanity will end.

            Clue: If you are that insecure maybe you should seek professional help.

            Rob

          • smilee

            samurai says:
            February 8, 2012 at 8:21 pm

            If you were right there would be no births out of wedlock would their, the fact is in reality a large share of us were not born to married people so tell me again marriage is about sex and procreation as marriage is not and has never been necessary for that and weather you like it or not that is the reality of life, so can your BS

          • http://naver samurai

            Rob and slimee are full of crap. You state that most people born in the U.S. are from unmarried people? Care to cite a source to back up that obvious lie? Marriage is to only be between a husband and his wife. No exceptions! You say you are a Christian slimee? I think you are a liar as what you have posted is so against what it says in the Bible. Remember that fornicators, adulterers, and those of inordinant lifestyles WILL NOT BE ALLOWED IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. Quit trying to bait people and telling lies. You just make the both of you look less intelligent and have low self esteem. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • smilee

            Sammie

            You only are capable of understanding your biased views, the bible quotes you give are mostly out of context, you use them to justify your hatreds and biases. Like believing I am a liar because I will not be sucked into your hatreds and biases because I believe both of them are sins and are not a part of my Christian Beliefs.

          • http://naver samurai

            Not even worthy of a response. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            Quit lying samurai; “You state that most people born in the U.S. are from unmarried people?”

            I never stated any such thing.

            The fact is as of 2007: “Report: Record number of babies born in 2007; 40 percent to single moms”

            That’s from: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29754561/ns/health-womens_health/t/unwed-birth-rate-reaches-all-time-high-us/

            Rob

        • Robert Smith

          Airangel says: ” and don’t give me the “not everyone can have children” it’s a load of crap!”

          Well, not everyone can. So are you going to DENY a war vet who was injured in such a way that he or she can’t have kids marriage?

          How’s ’bout elders?

          Sure seems to me you REALLY want to set up some discriminatory rules just to suit your religion. Sheesh, you are forgetting that this is America and laws need to be applied to EVERYONE equally, not just to those laws your god approves of.

          Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            I agree that our laws protect everyone equally, but our laws are based on the 10 Commandments. So how can you be against God in our laws? You can even see the 10 Commandments in various places of the SCOTUS. Sheesh! Your God and Christian bashing really shows your ignorance of what is going on around you. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            From samurai: “, but our laws are based on the 10 Commandments. ”

            NO THEY SHOULD NOT.

            “Thou shalt have none other gods before me.”

            There goes freedom from a state religion. That is unAmerican.

            Hmmmmm, maybe I should show just how unAmerican they really are.

            “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.”

            “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.”

            Nope. I’ll work on a NASCAR race on a Sunday if I want. I’ll watch a NASCAR race rather than go to church if I want.

            Really… Rules for you, but not for me.

            BTW, as I’ve explained in numerous posts that stuff about stealing, killing, etc. are universal in most holy works and are common sense. They become the social contracts we call laws in America. Folks of all religions participate in the process of making our laws.

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            Sorry Rob, but it seems that you are less intelligent about our founders and what they believed. They set up this country not just on Christian beliefs, but to be the Biblical “City on a Hill.” Once again another futile attempt by Rob, had his soon to be ex-wife’s child aborted, Smith. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            Another outright lie from samurai.

            Bmmm, I’m gonna tell his brutal god about that whopper. Now he’s gonna go to hell.

            Rob

      • 45caliber

        Karolyn:

        You said that marriage has not been since the beginning of time.

        Prove it.

        You can’t.

        I can assure you that primitive people don’t go out and think, “Hey, I want so raise some heirs so I guess I’ll have to find someone of the other sex willing to help.”

        They, like most people, pick out someone they are happy to live with and then – surprise! – along comes kids.

        Regardless of what it might be called, there has been marriage between sexes for millions of years. The whole idea of marriage was for the male to provide shelter, food, and protection to the female and children while she cared for the children when they were young. It occurred, regardless of what you might think. The fact that you can’t find documentation for it is meaningless.

        Besides, the oldest book is the Bible. Why don’t you want to believe what it says about this? It is certainly historical, even though you don’t want to admit that it is religious. And it goes back to Adam and Eve.

        • Karolyn

          I thought we were talking about a man and woman being joined together under God type of thing. Even if I did believe in the myth of Adam and Eve, I don’t believe there is anything in the Bible indicating that they were officially joined together by God. I have a hard time believing all of the stories in the Bible, especially Adam and Eve.

          • Dave

            The Bible is the oldest book? Come on.

          • 45caliber

            Dave:

            Name an older one that still exists. There isn’t one.

            In fact, the only real book (not simple government notes on who paid what to whom) written at about the same time as the Bible is Gilgamesh in Samaria. (It was written at about the same time as Genesis.) And that one has really gotten my curious since it is suspected as being fiction because of what it tells but no one at that time wrote any fiction – at least any that can be found.

          • Robert Smith

            Here you go 45. There are some books that are older than the christian bible.

            Actually if one wants to consider just the “christian” part then the old testiment itself is older.

            Oh well, here you go, the Egyptian Book of the Dead comes to mind as well as the Hindu Vedas.

            BTW, what makes YOUR book holier than theirs, or mine?

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            Yes it is the oldest book. Rob talks about the Hindus, but he faile to realize that Hinduism came about 500-550 B.C. People were worshipping God long before that. You talk about the Egyptians and their Book of the Dead? Though I do appreciate that you brought up sources from history, I’m affraid that it is still flawed. First, what are the dates of these works? The first book of the Bible is Genesis. The first five books of the Bible are the Tora. The Tora and Bible have been around a lot longer than the works you have mentioned. Second, what site did you find these? So I can look for myself. Third, get off of the God and Christian bashing. It really makes you look less intelligent. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            Here you go samurai: “The oldest known religious texts are Pyramid texts of Ancient Egypt that date to 2400-2300 BCE. The earliest form of the Phoenician alphabet found to date is the inscription on the sarcophagus of King Ahiram of Byblos. ( The Sumerian Temple Hymns [1]). The Epic of Gilgamesh from Sumeria is also one of the earliest literary works dating to 2150-2000 BCE, that includes various mythological figures. The Rigveda of Hinduism is proposed to have been composed between 1700–1100 BCE[2] making it possibly the world’s oldest religious text still in use. The oldest portions of the Zoroastrian Avesta are believed to have been transmitted orally for centuries before they found written form, and although widely differing dates for Gathic Avestan (the language of the oldest texts) have been proposed, scholarly consensus floats at around 1000 BCE.

            The majority of scholars agree that the Torah’s composition took place over centuries.[3] From the late 19th century there was a general consensus around the documentary hypothesis, which suggests that the five books were created c.450 BCE by combining four originally independent sources, known as the Jahwist, or J (about 900 BCE), the Elohist, or E (about 800 BCE), the Deuteronomist, or D, (about 600 BCE), and the Priestly source, or P (about 500 BC).[4]

            That’s from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_text

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            I’ll bet that the Tora is older than that. The Tora is the first 5 books of the Bible. Bzzzzz! You lose again. BTW, thanks for the source. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • eddie47d

          Although marriage (commitment) strengthens a relationship people can and do live together and have children without marriage. People have been cohabitating long before the Bible was even thought of. The Bible can be a good source for guidance and to help a marriage work yet there are many sources of guidance for couples outside of religion.

          • http://naver samurai

            Cohabitation is a sin in the eyes of God. You should know that. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            samurai says: “Cohabitation is a sin in the eyes of God. ”

            So? Who cares besides you and your brutal god?

            I certainly don’t.

            BTW, in ancient times the poor rarely actually got “married.” Marriage was so the religious folks had some control over the ruling class. Often marriage was simply a contract between royal families.

            Rob

          • smilee

            samurai

            Cohabitation though is Constitutional and still you keep trying to convince us it was founded on Christian principals, but if that was the case why is it not against the law???????????

          • Robert Smith

            In America it’s OK for a white and black person to live together.

            It’s even OK for a white guy and a black guy to live together.

            And it’s even OK for a white girl and a black girl to live together.

            Wow! All those guys living together in a Marine barricks.

            Hey samurai, any problems from the repeal of DADT yet?

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            Show me where it is allowed under the Constitution, slimee. Behavior is not covered under the Constitution. Enough said as the rest of your posts are totally ignorant and not worthy of a response. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • smilee

            sammie

            the tenth amendment makes your statement a lie, you need to understand the constitution before you can say anything intelligent about it, you come up very short there

          • http://naver samurai

            Behavior is not covered under the Constitution and neither is marriage, so get your facts straight before you post. If you say the Constitution gives us our rights, you are sadly mistaken. Read my post on Feb 11, 2012 at 8:44 a.m. Looks like you lose again. As usual 무신론자놈아. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • Brian

          So if its in a book and that book is old everything in it must be true? Well you must be right because I saw it on the Internet.

          • http://naver samurai

            If it is found in the Bible it is true and has never been proven false. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            samurai says: “If it is found in the Bible it is true and has never been proven false.”

            Really! Let’s see how your “logic” works samurai.

            There are purple elephants on Pluto.

            Prove it false, samurai.

            It appears that your “logic” is so perverted it’s pathetic.

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            Not worthy of a response. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • Robert Smith

          rom 45 who demans of Karolyn: “You said that marriage has not been since the beginning of time.
          Prove it.”

          As has been posted earlier, “marriage,” and other cerimonies like “hand fasting” have been around for thousands of years.

          How do you explain the inovation of nuns marrying god (wow! talk about a poligamist)? Nuns weren’t even around back then. Didn’t “marriage” have to be changed to accomidate a spirit and a real woman?

          Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            Marrying God is not the same as 1 man and 1 woman. Neeeeed to do better than that Rob. What a weak statement. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            From samurai: “Marrying God is not the same as 1 man and 1 woman.”

            Then acording to the DOMA it marrying your brutal god should be illegal.

            Besides, they ain’t having any kids. Another reason to not allow it.

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            Not anywhere near worthy for deserving a response. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • Brian

      Government isn’t forcing it on the churches. No church or minister is required to marry anyone.

      • Robert Smith

        Not even atheists?

        BTW, clergy gets a pass in the marriage issue as far as I’m concerned.

        However a government employee like a judge or JP will CERTAINLY have to perform the CIVIC duty of a marriage to atheists and same sex couples when that is the law.

        Rob

        • http://naver samurai

          Bzzzzz! Wrong answer. If it violates their personal or religious beliefs they are not required to do so. Like they can give it to another clerk, judge, etc., to perform. You are not required by any law to do something that goes against your faith. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Robert Smith

            If I’m paying them to serve the American public out of my tax money then they are obligated to serve ALL Americans with ALL legal parts of their jobs.

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            Not if it violates their religious or personal beliefs. If someone came to the courthouse to have a queer union, if the person felt it was against their beliefs, then they can have someone else in the office do it. Then it isn’t a waste of “your” money and is servicing all Americans. Remember, to force someone to do something against their religious or personal beliefs is unconstitutional. We don’t have that kind of government. Get off of the kool aid, as you seem to be very punch drunk. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • sniffer

    Why not simply call the movement what it is. Should it be the “bowel movement” or “fecalism”. Fecalites are free to vote on it!

    • Karolyn

      Brilliant addition to the conversation!

      • Dave

        Sniffer puts his nose where it shouldn’t be….only where he wants it to be.

    • Brian

      Ignorance knows mo bounds.

    • Robert Smith

      sniffer says: “Fecalites are free to vote on it!”

      Now there’s a lever I’m sure you ain’t gonna pull.

      BTW, did you know that there is probible MORE heterosexual back door sex going on than gay sex? It even goes on among heterosexual folks who are married to each other. I heard it on the Playboy Channel on XM.

      Rob

    • http://naver samurai

      Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Thanks for the laugh sniffer. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • ROGER, Canadian Libertarian

    S.C. you really lowered yourself this time.I normally have great respect for your well versed arguments but to lower yourself to name- calling shows immaturity and stating I am not a Libertarian also shows lack of knowledge about libertarianism

    I shant respond further to any more of your ranting so if you feel the need to argue further you will be talking to yourself

  • Robert

    Why one may ask do people of depraved minds go in the direction of those whom are “abusers of themselves with mankind”, so called “gay”?

    God said they would. Because they have refused to acknowledge God, God has turned them over to a depraved mind to abuse themselves with mankind..ie, man with man, woman with woman. When God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit created mankind and everything that was created and declared it all to be very good, no where is it found that homosexuality existed until sin entered the camp. Abusers of themselves with mankind under no stretch of the Constitution are to be given special anything. They are to be treated kindly as one would treat anyone; because God loves sinners and shed Jesus blood on the Cross of Calvery to save sinners which includes us all, if one repents and believes on Jesus and calls on his name. Judges, Congress nor anyone in the political world has the authority to read into the US Constitution rights and privileges not granted to all and ram down the throat of the Citizen without subjecting themselves to removal from office by the Citizens.

    • http://naver samurai

      Well said. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • Debra K

    Gays and their supporters will stop at nothing to hijack the meaning of the word Marriage. They really believe they can mainstream homosexuality through the courts and we’ll all jump on the bandwagon and say ” oh yeah, it’s the law and now it’s normal”. Most people tolerate gays and their relationships so civil unions and their legality should suffice, but no, they will tie up the courts for years with their minority demands for tolerance laws that won’t change anything.

    • Brian

      What business is it of yours? If you think two guys getting married harms your marriage then your marriage already has problems whether you admit to them or not. If you oppose gay marriage don’t have one. I oppose bigotry but I support your right to continue to make your bigoted remarks.

      • http://naver samurai

        Not liking gay lifestyle is not being biggoted. You must be gay. They make that same absurd notion every time. They tend to use it when they have no facts, sources, or are in retreat. The personal attack. Classic liberal strategy. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • Robert Smith

          samurai says: “Not liking gay lifestyle is not being biggoted. ”

          Why don’t you use that brutal christian god of yours as an excuse for your hatred?

          Oh, BTW, are you wearing any mixed fabrics? That’s a bad too, along with eating cheeseburgers… How many kids have you killed off who mouthed off at you? Doesn’t your bible say it’s OK to kill them?

          Rob

          • Jay

            Rob, you’re insane.

          • Robert Smith

            Please answer the question: If you jump off a Paris bridge, you are in Seine.

            Remember, practice safe sects.

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            Actually, it sayd to rebuke or discipline them. I do know it does say that if you say “thou fool” to someone, you are in danger of hellfire. Killing, no. You lie too much rob. I agree with you Jay. He is insane and passed the point of no return. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • eddie47d

      Well said Brian. My marriage isn’t threatened one bit by any gay marriage OR civil union. DOMA threatens equal rights far more than gays having equality.

      • http://naver samurai

        Oh, so that is why it was found to be constitutional by the SCOTUS during Clinton’s term? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • smilee

          DOMA has not been heard by the SC

          • http://naver samurai

            It had to be ruled constitutional before Bill, I did not have sex with that woman, Clinton could sign it into law. Check out the Constitution and get your facts straight before you post. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • smilee

            WOW!! I had to read your post three times to be sure that is what you said, no wonder you make so many statements that are not true, you truly have no understanding what so ever of how are government works under the Constitution, and that often applies to your understanding of the bible to

          • http://naver samurai

            I understand a lot more than you. With that, I shall not respond. Since it is not even worthy of a response. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • smilee

            sammie

            your lying again; do you ever tell the truth

    • 45caliber

      Debra:

      I agree. You can’t legislate morality although many may want to. You can’t determine by legislation that gays are normal nor can you legislate that sex is not. But there are those who insist on trying!

    • Robert Smith

      Debra K. posts: “they will tie up the courts for years with their minority demands for tolerance laws that won’t change anything.”

      Particularly the hate, fear, and injustice from the extreme right.

      Why do you so so so much need something to hate? Is your god really that brutal?

      Rob

      • http://naver samurai

        I highly suggest that you look in the mirror on that comment. This whole thread you’ve done nothing but attack anything moral, ethical, religious, Christain, God, Jesus, and natural. Sheesh! Does the saying, “Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”, mean anything to you, hmmm? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • Robert Smith

          samurai claims: “This whole thread you’ve done nothing but attack anything moral, ethical, religious, Christain, God, Jesus, and natural.”

          No, just the brutal god you are representing.

          There are other Christians like Bishop Spong who are outright respectible.

          Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            This is the third time you have brought up that heretic. Give it a rest or does your master tell you to keep going? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • http://naver samurai

            When it comes to Sponge, the heretic, remember this:

            A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject. Knowing that he that is such, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

            Titus 3 verses 10-11

            FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • http://personallibertydigest Gottaplenty

    Just when do you suppose the contitution addressed the issue of gays, fruits queers half wits and nobrainers as having more rights than the general public? Nota right.

    • Brian

      Just when do you suppose the Constitution said the goverment gets to decide who gets married? And the Equal Protection Clause is where it addresses the equal rights of gays.

      • 45caliber

        Brian:

        Unless I’m mistaken, the Equal Protection clause is a part of the Declaration of Independence. It isn’t a part of the Constitution. And the Equal Protection clause certainly says NOTHING about gay rights anyway. Sorry. You can’t add it just because you’d like to do so.

        • Robert Smith

          There you go again 45. Spouting about that which thou knows nothing.

          Go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

          “The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”[1] The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States’ professed commitment to the proposition that “all men are created equal”[2] by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states.[3] The Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause applies only to state governments, but the requirement of equal protection has been read to apply to the federal government as a component of Fifth Amendment due process.”

          Rob

          • Jay

            What in the world does what you just posted have to do with same-sex marriage?

          • smilee

            Jay

            Everything, it is the basis of this and every other court decision to date on this issue, equal protection means equal, so if you have a slaw it must be applied equally to all in other words that they are saying is you cannot have a marriage law applied differently to gay and others and that does not mean you cannot limit it to two people as long as you do not deny it to anyone. The garbage that it will then be applied to other situations is stupid as congress can prohibit you from marring a monkey as monkey as they do not have constitutional rights etc,etc Gays do!!

          • http://naver samurai

            Marriage is not mentioned or covered under the Constitution. As you have said, congress cannot pass laws about marriage. This means they cannot pass laws forcing people to perform such acts or accept them as legally married. Thank you slimee. It seems you have agreed with me. OMG! I think slimee is starting to see the light! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • smilee

            sammie

            you remind me of a dog chasing its tail, going in circles and getting no where

  • Brian

    This issue, like no other, proves that conservatives are just as hypocritcal as liberals. You all blather on about the Constitution but can’t point to the section of it that allows the government to even be involved in the issue of marriage My state Constitution says nothing about it being in their authority either. You also go on and on about government trying to control people’s lives and then support the government trying to control people’s lives. Conservatives, like liberals, support freedom as long as they agree with the freedom being exercised. But you really don’t support freedom. You want the government to dictate that everyone live by your world view. How is that any different than liberals?

    • 45caliber

      Brian:

      It is mentioned in the Constitution … you aren’t paying attention. It is in the 10th Amendment – the one that says if it isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, it is the right of the states to decide.

      And it is included in many of the US states – just as it was in the state constitition of CA. You know, the one that the 9th Court ruled was un-Constitutional although the 10th plainly says it isn’t any business of the Federal government. It may not be in your state but that could be corrected if needed, I’m sure.

      • http://naver samurai

        Very well said. Keep up the good fight, fellow patriot! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • smilee

        45–The tenth does not apply as the fourteenth trumps it, the tenth only applies when no part of the constitution address it, the fourteenth requires that every state treat people the same, that is what equal protection means and it applies to everything, everything includes marriage it would have to state marriage is to be excluded and it does not therefore it applies to marriage. Why do I get the feeling your spinning this and not capable of even knowing that you aree.

        • http://naver samurai

          That’s a bald faced lie! How does one Amendment overrule another? Very ignorant analagy. Second, the 10th Amendment is a God given right and the 14th is given to us by government. Ergo, the 10th cannot be overruled by the 14th. Actually, the 14th can be applied to the overturning of abortion, as was admitted by the Roe lawyer.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKaVuymKg3A&feature=related

          Slimee, quit trying to justify something that is a sin, not covered by the Constitution, and is wrong in the eyes of God. For someone that claims to be a Christian, you sure don’t sound like one. Must be a CINO. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • smilee

            Sammie You are pone mixed up and confused person and seem to lack the ability to understand anything beyond your hatred and biases, I am really having a hard time comprehending how little you rally know about government, you spin everything to fit your biases and the truth be damned, here read the tenth amendment

            Amendment X

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

            Also see this:

            The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.” – United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733 (1931).

            Go here and read more

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu

          • http://naver samurai

            So then a state can pass a law outlawing gay marriage. Thank God for that. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • smilee

            They have, but they are unconstitutional and the day is coming that it will be enforced

  • Thor

    There is a good deal of faulty logic in many of these posts. Seems we are getting lost in epistemology—the wasteland of religious and secular relativism. The argument is a simple, legalistic matter to settle. Marriage, as it stands now, is not a right: it is a privilege that is granted by the state. The state requires that you have a license and that gives it the authority to establish criteria by which to grant the privilege. The only aspect of the process that deals with ‘natural rights’ is ‘equal access to the law.’ So long as the law says the criteria is the union of one man and one woman (and therefore presumably allows a gay man to wed a lesbian) then there is no violation of human or natural rights. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a ‘right’ to marry. There is only equal access to the law and the laws—like it or not—are decided on the basis of majority rule. Even a majority cannot violate a right that does not exist.

    This is not a theoretical relationship; it is a fact. At any given time, a majority is either allowing a government to exist by tacit agreement or it is over-throwing that government. That is the essence of majority rule and it is a principle that has been at work throughout human history.

    As has already been pointed out here, people have been coupling and living together and pairing up throughout history; but, across that entire history, some effort has been made to grant the privilege of having such unions formally recognized by the state or society and the criteria for such public recognition have been established by a societal majority as a consensual standard. So long as that standard does not violate a natural or inalienable right—the right to copulate with whom you please, for example—then it cannot be ‘un-Constitutional.’

    ‘Marriage,’ as a legally-defined privilege, has little to do with copulation and everything to do with probate and procreation. The criteria for the privilege of marriage have historically regulated two things—whom you are viviparously compatible to (except in Islamic culture, first cousins have long been held incompatible) and to whom you may leave your property (priority given first to married spouses and then to next of kin). Neither of these is an issue that cannot be solved for gays with some form of civil union, duly recognized by the state. Gays however have not been satisfied to have the problem solved thusly.

    The efforts of gay rights activists to obfuscate the traditional criteria for marriage are actually more of a litmus test for the social acceptance of moral relativism, which is in turn the litmus test for how much socialism a society will accept which is the driving force in political evolution.

    By definition, referenda like Proposition 8 are the best example of majority rule in a free and democratic republic by the principle of equal access to voting and cannot be adjudicated as ‘un-Constitutional’ or ‘illegal.’ Judge R. Vaughn Walker over-stepped his authority by defying the will of the people as established in a Constitutionally sanctioned process called ‘voting.’ He did so by the impractical, un-Constitutional and illogical fiat of legislating from the bench. There is a special place in politico-jurisprudential hell for such folk called ‘out of office’; and when governmental checks and balances put in place by the US Constitution fail, it is our right and duty as citizens to send them there ourselves.

    We won’t, of course, because we are morally and politically lazy and apathetic…and we are not going to react until the whole thing comes down around our ears.

    • Brian

      Read the Ninth Amendment. Then find the section that enumerates the power for the government to regulate marriage. The former says not all rights were enumerayed and the latter does not exist. Therefore, unless we are violating the equal rights of others it is our right to marry. Also your post Implies the Constitution grants our rights. That is not the case. And lets not forget that it was mid to late 1800s before getting permission from the government was required for marriage.

      • Thor

        “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Is that about what is says, Brian? I think so since I cut and pasted from the Bill of Rights. Don’t see any mention of marriage specifically and it certainly does not say we can make up or assume any rights we want.

        Not a 9th Amendment issue and the colonies posted statutory law in regards to British common law and their religious beliefs long before there was a Constitution or a United States. Islamic marriage proscription under Sharia dates back 1400 years; Judeo-Christian, 2,000 years; and Judaic laws and protocols date back to 2,000+ BC, with references to another 6,000. Either brush up on history or pay better attention…speaking of which, you should give more careful attention to reading and comprehending my post: never implied, connoted or denoted that the Constitution ‘gives’ away inalienable, natural rights. It only formally recognizes them; and nowhere among them will you find in recorded history any deference to same sex marriage that has not been recently invented.

        Marriage licenses have always been within the purview and power of the state, circa 1776, and has been viewed as a state’s rights issue. Live with anybody you want: wanna get married, get permission like everybody else for the last six millennia—or change the law legislatively. Ooops! California already tried that.

      • 45caliber

        Brian:

        From what you said – “It is our right to marry” – I am assuming you are gay. As far as I’m concerned, you certainly have that right … in a civil ceremony. The civil ceremonies are between you and the government. But you have no right to insist that my religion changes. That is interference with my religious rights under the 1st Amendment. Do you agree with this?

        • Robert Smith

          45 says: “As far as I’m concerned, you certainly have that right … in a civil ceremony. ”

          And if a same sex couple wants to get married by Bishop Spong, a christian, you will deny Bishop Spong the ability to call it marriage in the eyes of HIS god?

          What about other religions that not only approve of but embrace same sex couples as they would any other couple?

          Not all gods are brutal, and not all religions give people permission to be bigots.

          BTW, LOVE makes a family, not necessarily your approval.

          Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            Bishop Spong is no Christian, nor is he a child of God. Next, love makes a family? It is true that love holds a marriage together, but you need the father, mother, and children to be a family. 2 queers do not make a family. Not in the eyes of God or the law. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Thor

            Bravo, samuria, Not only is Spong not a Christian; he is the worst kind of heretic–a muttering scoundrel who seeks to pander to real Christians while at the same time severing Christ from His divinity. One can maintain a modern, scientific bearing without doing that.

          • Jay

            John Shelby Spong is an influential public speaker, writer and media figure. He is the recently retired Episcopalian (Anglican) Bishop of the Diocese of Newark, New Jersey. He claims he is a Christian yet he champions causes that historic Christianity has often fought tooth and nail against. Bishop Spong is well known for ordaining practising homosexuals, denying the bodily resurrection and virginal conception of Christ, and for deriving his moral code from modern human experience rather than the Bible.

          • Robert Smith

            Thor says: “Not only is Spong not a Christian; he is the worst kind of heretic–”

            Oh my… I suspect you may keep a signed copy of the “Maleus Malificarum” next to your bed for reading.

            Rob

          • http://naver samurai

            Well said Jay, fellow patriot! When he passes on, he’ll see God right before he is thrown into the firey pit. Maybe he’ll meet Rob there and they’ll have an unhappy reunion. Rob, again with the same nonsense. Answer me one question Rob. You posted on August 22, 2010, “I was a protestant.” What made you quit? Ignorance? Satan? Your desire to go by what you wanted and not God’s way? Answer the questions or don’t answer at all. By how much you attack Christianity, God, Jesus, the Bible, etc., you must surely feel sad and angry inside. You must be very much alone. I really feel sorry for your wife and kids. If your kids were brought up to believe the way you think, then they are probably worse then you. Read Mathew 23 vs. 13-15 to understand what I’m saying. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • Brian

      Since you mentioned voting and the will of the people…if a majority voted to make rape legal would that justify rape? We are not a democracy. We are a constituional republic and the duties and limits placed on government are clearly outlined.

      • Thor

        The argument is non sequitur…that’s ‘apples n’oranges’ to you.

      • http://naver samurai

        You like repeating yourself? Running out of lies to say, hmmm? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • smilee

      THOR-The Constitution says nothing about there being a difference between privileges and rights thus neither is exempt from the equal protection as stated in the fourteenth amendment you simply cannot treat one person diffident than another in any circumstance, nothing is excluded. You are guilty of doing exactly what you accuse others of doing.

      • http://naver samurai

        Like I said before. They are protected under the same laws and have the same rights. They can marry anyone they want, regardless of race, nationality, or religion, just has to be someone of the opposite gender. For a Christian that is not to accept this kind of inordinate lifestyle (Colossians 3:5), you sure do sound the opposite of what God is telling you to do. Accept them as human beings? Yes. Accept their perverted lifestyle? No. Neeeeed to read your Bible more than just on Christmas and Easter, smilee. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • smilee

          WRONG WRONG WRONG

          • http://naver samurai

            Cite sources and post where you found your crap in the Bible. If you don’t then don’t post. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • smilee

            sammie

            it was in the constitution not the bible but I know you can not tell the difference between the two

          • http://naver samurai

            SSDD, eh smilee?

  • Palin16

    No matter what the activist judges rule, gay marriage will never be accepted by the majority of US citizens. I remember when a photographer in CA was sued for $7,000 for refusing to photograph a homosexual wedding. Here in Nevada, out state constitution defines marriage as between one man and one woman, period. However, that didn’t stop one idiot state senator from sponsering a law that says a man can dress as a woman at work. A little distracting at work, don’t you think?

    • NC

      Palin, you ask if a man wearing a dress at work would be a little bit distracting. Don’t know!!What did he have on?I hate plunging neck lines on unshaven chests other wise I could care no less!I have worked with some women who were so ugly they made my teeth hurt!

      • Palin16

        Was her name Pelosi or Napolitano or Kagan, by chance?

        • Greg

          LOL

        • http://naver samurai

          Don’t forget Hitlery, Boxer, feindyke, Michelle bin Laden, and others. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • Robert Smith

      Posted: “However, that didn’t stop one idiot state senator from sponsering a law that says a man can dress as a woman at work. A little distracting at work, don’t you think?”

      For you maybe. I simply don’t care as long as the job is accomplished.

      MOF, I don’t care what they do outside work in any way as long as an arrest doesn’t impact their ability to come to work. If they can’t make it to work in sound mind and body (not drunk, etc.) they are gone.

      Why do you care about anything more than the job that needs to get done?

      Ohhhhh, I get it! YOU are distracted by a guy in a skirt. Why?

      I’m laughing so hard it almost kilt me. A guy in a skirt is distracting… I know several guys who will pipe up over that one and explain that you shouldn’t be distracted by it.

      Rob

      • Palin16

        I wasn’t talking about me, I was talking about the entire workforce at any given location. Why do these politicians feel they need to make a new law like this?

        • http://naver samurai

          You have to excuse Rob. He likes attacking from behind and is the butt of a few jokes. Really, not butts about it. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • Robert Smith

          Question asked: “Why do these politicians feel they need to make a new law like this?”

          Because not oall of the workforce in catholic facilities are catholic. They are generally AMERICANS and are entitled to complete coverage just like any other AMERICAN. Religion should NOT be a factor in their health.

          It’s just another reason why we need universal health coverage so religious zealots don’t try to dictate what Americans get for coverage. I know they will try, but they will lose.

          Rob

          • Palin16

            What the heck are you talking about? The subject is a new law in Nevada that allows transgendered’s to dress as they please at work. This has nothing to do with catholicism. Your topics are mixed up, just like your brain. The management of a company should be the final arbiter of what employees wear at work, not some politician.

          • http://naver samurai

            Right on Palin 16, fellow patriot! I can’t ever remember Rob ever making sense since 2010. BTW Rob, look for Obama bib Laden Care to be overturned by the SCOTUS. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • sniffer

    A vulture capitalism article regarding Romney and Bain Capital describes the predatory capitalism that systematically sacked America over the last quarter century. What is described as buying, sacking, and stripping companies of wealth fails to address the unimaginable redistribution of US wealth and power to global monopolists who have no allegiance to the US or its citizens!

    The American Bankers Association umbrella covers a union of colossal “global” banks that have their tentacles wrapped around our national and individual wealth. The power of that colossal wealth goes to the top of the pyramid, leaving the risk and crumbs to owners and government guarantees (bail-outs, etc.).

    The rage of the late 80’s, 90’s, and 2000’s corporate acquisition craze was “buying market share”, by buying and merging companies. Eliminating competition and controlling supply to manipulate cost, price, and profit defines monopoly. That requires concentrating wealth and production capability. Prior to this period, antitrust laws with treble damages were enforced by government. Moving people and infrastructure from one facility to another, while creating shell businesses with imaginary sales, nonfunctional infrastructure, and obsolete inventory destroyed many communities and lives. It was a sick perverse movement. That movement turned out to be “globalism”, a global monopoly that is in control of the economy, communications (news), and government.

    Bit by bit and piece by piece consumption goods added “made in China” labels as manufacturing and resource processing “disappeared” from America. Few if any old private financial institutions survived this period. The rage was mutual funds and managed funds controlled by global financial empires that used our citizen funds to strip our country and rebuild it in China and elsewhere. Add to this outrage, the fact that the global banking empire uses treasury funds @ 0% fed rate, which in turn predetermines that citizen saving investments and all secure retirement funds will earn ZERO and be worthless after government created inflation destroys purchasing power! SSI-MED and other government pension plans are broke! Can no one understand what “unfunded liability” means! The funds don’t exist!

    Wake up America or drown in sorrows. We import 2/3 of our oil and pay three times too much to the global monopolists who control all of it, because our president and legislature are corrupted to the core – democrat and republican alike! Illegal alien invaders cost citizens at least $500 billion a year for the same reason! Billions are given to enemies while our leaders vote themselves another $1.2 trillion loan that we simply CAN’T PAY.

    Gingrich has been smashed for mentioning vulture capitalism! Romney has some “explaining’ to do! Truth can set us free, but none is in sight. It’s not going away!

  • Greg

    This will be argued in the same fashion as abortion. Abortion was legislated into society also against the will of the people.

    • http://naver samurai

      So was Obama bin Laden Care. But if we use the 14th Amendment as a defense, we can overturn abortion.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKaVuymKg3A&feature=related
      (Feminists for Life answer Roe attorney)

      FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • Robert Smith

        ROFL… The best right wing lawyers ain’t done it yet.

        Abou how many years? 40 or so?

        Rob

        • Jay

          Rob, you remind me of the emperor “Nero”, though instead of a violin, you use words. Just wondering; do you hum, as you type?

        • http://naver samurai

          I’ve sent letters to my 2 Senators and my local Representative about this. I’ve been told that this could be a good basis to overturn it. As smilee says about how are to treat everyone the same and not discriminate, this would count the unborn. Ergo, you 2 have unknowingly gave ideas on how to do that on this site. Thank you for walking into and ambush. BTW Rob, you say you were in the military, so if you are amubushed, what is the only real way to get out of it? I’ll be waiting for your answer. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • Jay

      Everyone interested should read this article concerning the underhanded manner by which abortion became legal.

      http://www.life.org.nz/abortion/aboutabortion/historyglobal13/

      • Robert Smith

        Hey Jay, you haven’t been at this very long have you? Dr. Bernard Nathanson was an OBGYN who performed an abortion on one of his employees who he got pregnant. He turned sides and went “pro-life” under a very dark cloud of suspission. The “Silent Scream” has been discredited in many ways.

        For one of the shorter versions you can go to the LA Times: http://articles.latimes.com/1985-08-17/entertainment/ca-2276_1_silent-scream

        Rob

        • Jay

          The whole point of the article, Rob, is to point out the deceptive, and underhanded tactics used to enforce abortion on the majority, if not most of the populace, who were opposed to it, and still ARE! Kapish?

        • http://naver samurai

          Why don’t you go to the Great 8 and look for the thread Democrats War on Women. On there, you’ll see an OB/GYN nurse named Rebecca. Read what she has to say. It may actually illuminate that obviously dark lib mind of yours. She’ll put you to shame Rob. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • Jay

    By definition homosexual desire is sexual narcissism or sexual self-deception. There is either (1) a conscious recognition that one desires in another what one already is and has as a sexual being (anatomy, physiology, sex-based traits) or (2) a self-delusion of sorts in which the sexual same is perceived as some kind of sexual other.

    As one ancient text puts it, “seeing themselves in one another they were ashamed neither of what they were doing nor of what they were having done to them” (Pseudo-Lucian, Affairs of the Heart 20).

    The modern word “homosexual”—from the Greek homoios, “like” or “same”—underscores this self-evident desire for the essential sexual self shared in common with one’s partner.

    http://www.smh.com.au/world/court-rules-california-got-it-wrong-on-samesex-marriage-20120208-1rf09.html

    • smilee

      your truly are one confused dude

      • http://naver samurai

        And this coming from someone that uses the classic liberal strategy of the personal attack and no sources? I think you just need to go back to sleep. Good post Jay, fellow patriot! Interesting source also. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • Jay

    Even a democracy can undermine freedom and foster the unethical rule of power. America’s founders saw this, and placed in our Constitution a Bill of Rights to preserve civil rights and protect us all from the tyranny of the majority. Gay “marriage” is often regarded as a civil rights issue deserving that constitutional protection. And indeed it is. George Weigel has perceptively showed us, though, that it is not the kind of civil rights matter that its proponents claim it to be. They tell us gay rights run parallel to racial civil rights, but as Weigel notes, the analogy simply doesn’t work.

    Legally enforced segregation involved the same kind of coercive state power that the proponents of gay marriage now wish to deploy on behalf of their cause. Something natural and obvious – “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” – was being denied by the state in its efforts to maintain segregated public facilities and to deny full citizenship rights to African Americans. Once the American people came to see that these arrangements, however hallowed by custom (and prejudice), were, in fact, unnatural and not obvious, the law was changed.

    What the gay lobby proposes in the matter of marriage is precisely the opposite of this. Marriage, as both religious and secular thinkers have acknowledged for millennia, is a social institution that is older than the state and that precedes the state. The task of a just state is to recognize and support this older, prior social institution; it is not to attempt its redefinition. To do the latter involves indulging the totalitarian temptation that lurks within all modern states: the temptation to remanufacture reality.

    The American civil-rights movement was a call to recognize moral reality; the call for gay marriage is a call to reinvent reality to fit an agenda of personal willfulness. The gay-marriage movement is thus not the heir of the civil-rights movement; it is the heir of Bull Connor and others who tried to impose their false idea of moral reality on others by coercive state power.

    http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2011/07/gay-marriage-civil-rights-power-and-principle/

  • Jay

    It is not clear, however, that the quest for same-sex marriage offers any substantive good to those on whose behalf it is so insistently demanded. Put another way, it is hard to see why such an absolute equality of public recognition should be essential to the happiness of homosexuals. -Carson Holloway

    • http://naver samurai

      Well said, fellow patriot! It’s always good to read your posts. They’ve even tought me a few things.

      “I have one great ploitical idea. The best expression of it I have found in the Bible. It is in substance, “Righteousness exalteth a nation; sin is a reproach to any people.”

      Frederick Douglass, October 14, 1852

      Keep up the good fight, fellow patriots! Our founding and way of life are at hand. No retreat! No surrender! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • smilee

        You say you found it in the bible and then you quote Frederic Douglas as the AUTHOR????? YOUR ARE A REAL JOKE NOTHING AUTHENTIC ABOUT YOU AT ALL!!!!!

        • Jay

          Good grief smilee, the above statement in quotations that Samurai posted, was made by Frederick Douglass. Slow down, and take a deep breath.

        • http://naver samurai

          If I remember right, doesn’t this site have rules against this type of speech? Just saying. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          P.S. I’ll be waiting for your written apolgy.

    • smilee

      What part of the fourteenth amendment do you not understand????? You can make no law that discriminates against any person, it requires that of any law including Marriage laws. The constitution is only 234 years old not a millennium and the fourteenth amendment was written after the civil war. All that defines this issue is the Constitution nothing else applies and you use justifications coming from all over the map and going back in history a 1000 or more years. You got it wrong buddy.

      • Jay

        The 14th amendment is not relevant to the argument over gay marriage because gay marriage is a special right and is in opposition of equal protection under the law. Marriage is a union that describes the unique relationship between a man and a women in which children are born and raised in a stable environment. The main requirement to obtain a marriage license is a couple must be a man and a women. That basic requirement cannot be met in a gay relationship. You don’t give drivers licenses to people who cannot meet the requirements to obtain one, marriage licenses work the same way. Driving is a privilege not a right; marriage is a privilege not a right. Marriage is not all about love as so many want to believe and this is proven in the divorce rates that people don’t understand that marriage is more than love. The relationship between a man and a women and the relationship between two men or two women are not the same because men and women are biologically different so there is no good reason to call it marriage. Why would a gay couple want to use a term that has never included them and does not describe their relationship?

        • smilee

          Jay

          Hate to bust your bubble buddy but there is no definition of marriage anywhere in the Constitution your definition is simply what you wish it to be not what it actually is. The 14th amendment requires that all laws treat every person equally, no exceptions, so that includes marriage laws. This is how all courts to date have ruled, a fact you choose to ignore. You are terribly wrong

          • Jay

            It is you, who are confused smilee. Since you insist on applying the Constitution; Homosexuality was viewed as criminal by the Founders and Framers. Jefferson and the other Founders distinguished between liberty and license and surely did not conceive of the pursuit of happiness as an authorization for “gay marriage.” Look at Jefferson’s writings on sodomy. Such as Jefferson’s letter to Edmund Pendleton, written on August 26, 1776.

            “The fantastical idea of virtue and the public good being a sufficient security to the state against the commission of crimes…was never mine. It is only the sanguinary hue of our penal laws which I meant to object to. Punishments I know are necessary, and I would provide them strict and inflexible, but proportioned to the crime. Death might be inflicted for murder and perhaps for treason, [but I] would take out of the description of treason all crimes which are not such in their nature. Rape, buggery, etc., punish by castration. All other crimes by working on high roads, rivers, gallies, etc., a certain time proportioned to the offence… Laws thus proportionate and mild should never be dispensed with. Let mercy be the character of the lawgiver, but let the judge be a mere machine. The mercies of the law will be dispensed equally and impartially to every description of men; those of the judge or of the executive power will be the eccentric impulses of whimsical, capricious designing man.” —Thomas Jefferson to Edmund Pendleton, 1776. Papers 1:505 (Emphasis added.)

            Three years later, Jefferson drafted a bill concerning Virginia’s criminal law providing that the penalty for sodomy should be castration. See Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, ed. (Washington, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904) Vol. I, pp.226-27, from Jefferson’s “For Proportioning Crimes and Punishments.”

            The bill read: “Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy with a man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least.” (Virginia Bill number 64; authored by Jefferson; 18 June 1779)(Emphasis added.)

            When the Constitution was ratified, a majority of the states (New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Connecticut, Virginia, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New Jersey) provided the death penalty for those who committed sodomy. All states prohibited it. [Except Georgia]

            What IS irrational is finding that the Constitution prohibits criminalizing behavior viewed as criminal by the people who drafted and ratified the Constitution. [Like helping slaves escape]

            The San Francisco judge who ruled that prohibiting same-sex marriages is irrational and invoked the California Constitution’s equal protection clause to permit them is guilty of both judicial activism and historical ignorance. Had he studied the case law on polygamy, he might have developed a greater appreciation for “the sanctity of marriage” and avoided his grievous error.

          • smilee

            jay

            The equal protection clause is in the US Constitution not CA and your just as wrong on the order, you clearly do not understand either and then throw in a whole bunch of irrelevant rhetoric to justify your bs take

          • http://naver samurai

            Well said Jay. You have to excuse smilee as she is only here to lie and bait me into a confrontation. Shows that she/he is less intelligent and has very low self exteem. Here is how Washington thought about gay actions:

            March 14, 1778 – “At a general courts martial where of Colonel Tupper was president (10 March 1778), Lt. Enslin of Colonel Malcom’s regiment was tried for attemptin to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, for perjury in swearing to false accounts. He was found guilty of the charges exhibited against him. Being breaches of the 5th. Article 18. Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismissed from the service with infamy. His Execellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lt. Enslin to be drummed out of the camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers are to attend on the Grand Parade at guard mounting for that purpose.

            George Washington

            You lose again smilee. BTW, you owe me an apology for what you said on Feb 10, 2012 at 1:31 a.m. That late? Where were you writing from? Korea? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • Jay

    It should be perfectly plain to anyone following the fight closely that same-sex marriage is merely a proximate goal—something to be abandoned as quickly as it was invented, when its work is done.

    Can it really be worth fighting then? The answer is yes, for reasons that become clear when we have taken account of the work it is meant to do.

    And what is that work?

    Positively, to normalize homosexual relationships. Negatively, to de-normalize heterosexual monogamy. (Those who claim that they want homosexual relationships to be more like monogamous heterosexual relationships may or may not be sincere, but they represent no significant constituency.)

    Now, some think that this larger project can be left to market forces. But others think that heterosexual monogamy, as the source of widespread discrimination against alternative sexualities and lifestyles, must be repudiated as a social standard. Same-sex marriage is the tool of choice for doing that. By redefining marriage as a union of two (or more) persons, rather than as the union of one man and one woman, the offending norm is removed from the body politic with a single incision. Afterwards, a wider assault on homophobia and heterosexism can follow.

    Tools need to be crafted, of course, and social debates carefully framed. That has already been done with remarkable skill. The knife that is poised to remove the traditional definition of marriage from America has been honed at both edges.

    The one edge is shaped by an appeal to our best instincts—the love of liberty, and of liberty in love. This is the emotive edge, flashing with winsome pictures of same-sex families and disturbing anecdotes about marginalization. It also plays on feelings of repression and guilt. As one young woman (quoted in an Associated Press story) put it: “They love and they have the right to love. And we can’t tell somebody how to love.”

    The other edge is the harder, more rational edge, shaped by an appeal to autonomy and equality. Not content with the anecdotal, it drives home the case for rights—rights not merely to love as one sees fit but to equal recognition of that love by the state. Hence also to recognition of the wrong, both morally and constitutionally, of the traditional definition of marriage that privileges the heterosexual norm.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/24/sex-marriage-experiment-work/

    • http://naver samurai

      Well said, fellow patriot! Good to see someone else with the vision to see what is the real goal of this movement. Keep up the good fight! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • nc

        Samurai, your position on homosexuality is quite strange since the Original Samurai seemed to have had such a liberal view on homosexual behavior among the “warriors”

  • smilee

    jay

    read your fox editorial, it is all the far right propaganda mill at work, pure rhetoric and no facts as propaganda always is. Sadly all it does is distort the reality of the issue, in other words pure spin. It does, however, explain why you are so confused about this as you apparently believe their propaganda

    • Jay

      smilee, the same could be said of the far-left. Interesting however, you didn’t respond to the article’s content, you only pointed out that the article originates from a far-right source, filled with propaganda, rhetoric, and distortions; not exactly a weighty response. I suppose no-one can accuse you of bias, hey smilee?

      • http://naver samurai

        Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Jay grbs smilee by the throat and theres the choke slam! There’s the cover and the count. 1, 2, 3! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • smilee

        jay

        My response was based on the constitution and that is neither left or right or biased and the fox piece was not truthful. I’m opposed to propaganda from either the left or right, I look for the truth even if I do not like the truth, you and sammie seem to care little about the truth and your agenda seems to be to fuel more hatred against those you hate

        • Jay

          smilee, i have noticed how far too often you resort to playing the “victim” card; The refuge, btw, of the intellectually deficient. Speaking of digging, and the collecting of garbage, you might want to seek employment in that field, as you are more then qualified!

  • smilee

    jay

    Interesting how you ignored that I said i read it, I do not respond to propaganda I only identify it to do otherwise would be like digging in garbage

    • http://naver samurai

      But you sure do spew out a lot of it. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • Shel Rama

    The last I heard this was a democracy and majority rules. Who is this circuit court that can over rule the voters. Unheard of. Get those idiots out.

  • catfish

    It appears that a number of the post here come from a reprobated mind.

  • Christopher Chamness

    Sorry to burst your bubble but this is not a democracy. you and I live in a Republic. Check your history. On the marriage deal, marriage is a religious thing only. If you are aware of that and are not religious in any way, then a civil union should make you happy. Both atheists and homosexuals should be entitled to unions with all of the government benefits that come with marriage.

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.