It isn't about that. It never is with the Republican Parety. It is about legislating hate, and proving to themselves that their god hates the same people that they do.

More often the courts are involved in determining the constitutionality of something. Regardless, it is none of the church's business.

Once again the church folks are getting involved in politics. Where's the seperation here???

I've always felt, that given the degree of interference/involvement that churches have in politics, they should lose their tax-free status. They enjoy having one foot squarely placed in both arenas -- and THAT should be unconstitutional!

This is one place where I have to agree with the tea-baggers; get the government out of people's personal lives.

Even before we were a nation, local governments supported marriage which is a church institution. We need to get the government completely out of the religious business of marriage.

Government involvement should be limited to civil unions providing a legal definition of partnership between two people and legal facilitation of name changes.

If a religious organization wants to tack on a ceremonial marriage license, fine.

Exactly, if they want to. They should not have to worry about being held liable to discrimination lawsuits if they don't. You know it will happen, though.

Of course they are supposed to uphold the Constitution. You can't pick and choose parts of the Constitution that you agree with and don't agree with. Seperation of Church and State was instituted to PROTECT the Church from the government dictating their belief system. It's called Freedom OF religion, not Freedom FROM religion.

The Government has no right to take away our religious freedom and liberties. If this law passes without extensive protections for faith communities, than that would be UNconstitutional.

I always find it funny that those that are fighting for perceived civil rights have no problem trampling on the civil rights of others.

There's already extensive protections for religious institutions in the Domestic Relations Law. If an atheist and her fiance ask a Catholic Priest to marry them, the Priest has absolutely no obligation to do so.

So how would simply extending state-endowed marriage benefits to same sex couples do anything to change that?

But honestly, if re-stating the law is what it takes to get the bill passed, just do it already.

BornAgainCatholic -

I always find it funny that your right to believe in magic-man-in-the-sky imaginary friends trumps others' rights to equality. Don't act like your the one being oppressed here. You can still spew all your hatred, your bigotry, your stupidity, indoctrinate children into your death cult, and all the other nonsense. Hell, you can claim that those people aren't real people. Just don't expect me to walk on eggshells around you and your child molesting co-conspirators, or treat anything that comes out of your mouth as though it makes any kind of sense, at all.

Freedom of speech is going to protect you from backlash. Personally, I don't see what circumstance a religious organization would be forced to recognize this, except for adoption. And if you don't allow them to adopt kids, then I hope your tax-free status gets revoked and some nice gay organization comes in and supplants you in taking care of those kids. And if one of you nutjobs refuses to file state paperwork like those morons in California claiming oppression, then I hope you get canned and they find a nice gay person to do your job.

Get off your high horse. You've had the good end of the stick so long you think that's the way it should be, and now you're whining about "discrimination" and such. Do you see any gay cops coming to clubs to bash straight people in the heads? Do you see any gay ministers coming out and preaching about the "evils of heterosexuality?" Do you see a bunch of gay teenagers ganging up on a straight kid, chaining him to a truck, and dragging him along country roads for miles? Do you see gay clerks and justices refusing to marry people of different sex? No? Yeah, that's what I thought.

You're just scared of change, and possibly deluded about some guy watching you play with yourself in the shower, and you hope that guy will be all nice to you if you continue to do what some ignorant shamans raised in the desert with a penchant for storytelling said we should do, not to mention the leader of one of the wealthiest and most successful cults of all time, peddling feel-good intentions and bigotry with the same hand. My advice is to grow up and get over it. And don't come complaining to me about tone. The day I grant ANYONE respect to use "proper tone" when they're sitting there repressing others is the day I die (get it? I won't be able to say anything, much less be scathing).

I don't know who has been lying to you but, if you read the writings of the founding fathers you will see that one of their biggest fears is religion taking over the government. Though they believed in a persons right to their religious beliefs they wanted to be sure to protect the individual from the fanaticism that history had shown religion tends to create.

I agree with you Rachael. Of course a church or any other religious institution has the right to deny a religious ceremony. Certainly, someone should be able to enter the office of a Justice of the Peace and ask for the same governmental rights as someone who went to a priest. Even as a a woman who plans to marry a man, I will not be marrying for religious benefits; only the same government rights as other married couples.

If it were up to me, a civil union would be granted to all who want rights such as joint-adoption and bank accounts. Marriage would be left as a religious ceremony.

What I am growing tired of is the disingenuous arguments made by those who oppose marriage equality. Discrimination is built on an unjustifiable platform, and I grow inpatient with the opposers for a couple of reasons.

Those of us who are for marriage equality rebut views, answer the questions and clarify points made by those who are not for marriage equality. However, when we ask questions and want points clarified we are either greeted with silence or insults, both of which are indicators of a point of view which is based in personal distaste rather than well thought out logic.

Karen in LA is a great example of this, she screams to the roof tops about law and the constitution but cannot articulate why she hates so much, why something happening in a state she no longer lives has anything to do with her.

Religion is not a reason to deny equality, it is a reason for you personally in your church not to accept but it has no basis in the lives we live.

To those against marriage equality, being gay is something you cannot understand and will never understand but its basis is exactly the same as when you felt or knew you were straight.

This is a topic which does not effect you (those against marriage equality) and I hazard to say really should not involve you. Marriage equality will not change you or change the way you live, but it will change the lives of millions of Americans, millions of American children and thousands of foreign partners just wanting to be with the people they love.

So please, step aside and let us through, this does not concern you.

You must be a Christian hater. Ban divorce? I thought you God haters don't want God to be a part of our government? You can't have it both ways. I'm not part of any anti-gay Church. Homosexuality is as much a sin as greed, lying, stealing, adultery, fornication, lust, hate, divorce, gossip, and many others. Yes, we Christians look past some sins and not others. Yes, there are a lot of Christians who have great logs in their eyes who focus on the toothpicks of others. Gay marriage is not destroying the family; heterosexual divorce is. We Christians are just as much, if not more, likely to get divorced than non-Christians. What does that say about our faith?

Read above Mike.

The problem is that homosexuals have pushed to adopt from Christian agencies,

The instances you are referring to are ones that are run by Christian agencies but recieve public funds, aka our tax monies, to opperate. If government funded you can not discriminate.

use church property to hold their ceremonies,

The instance you are referring to was church owned property offered up to the public for private functions. In this case you can not discriminate anymore than if a non-religious business owned the same property and offered it to the public for the same purpose, making money.

Even before we were a nation, local governments supported marriage which is a church institution.

No, it isn't. Churches CHOOSE to do marriages, but it is not a church institution and a church is not ever required in the process. Atheists get married by the millions, and others also get married by ship captains and justices of the peace/judges who never once mention god-creatures or other mythical beings. Marriage is an institution that our government licenses and already allows a number of religious or non-religious entities to perform.

"Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man."

- Jesus

John 8:15

"Unfortunately, the gay community are the ones that are fighting this tooth and nail. They clearly only care about THEIR rights and couldn't care less about religious liberty or the civil rights of others."

It's not just the gay community. There are thousands of straight allies (many of them catholic) joining the gay community on this issue. People's rights will always conflict, with the most basic right taking precedence. Just like the right to free speech does not include yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, so too does your right to do business with whoever you choose end when you trample someone else's civil rights.

"the words of the prophets are written on the subway walls"

Simon and Garfunkel, 1964

hey jsim,

ever found "separation of church and state" in the declaration of independence or in the U.S. Constitution?

nope, you sure havent.

The sticking point over the past few days: Republican demands for stronger legal protections for religious groups that fear they will be hit with discrimination lawsuits if they refuse to allow their facilities to be used for gay weddings.

simple. take away the ability of churches to issue marriage licenses. that way they can have their private ceremonies and discriminate against whoever they want. totally within their rights.

what we cant do is outsource a responsibility of the state to private entities but allow those private entities to discriminate. private entities allowed to carry out public functions should be held to the same standards as public partitions.

oh by the way, we should start taxing churches who get involved in politics too.

Stand and deliver and other similarly misinformed posters:

Marriage is NOT an institution of the church. It is not an institution of the state. It is a commitment, a contract, a union of two or more human beings to each other. Gender is irrelevant. These unions pre-date churches and nations and states.

What's really at issue here is government interference, church interference, and the interference of delusional citizens who are going to insist that they, and they alone, know what is moral..........by God.

Your God has NEVER, EVER, EVER spoken to me. Were it not for the scribblings of superstitious savages who believed in invisible people with great magical powers, you "religious" sorts wouldn't have anything on which to hang your pathetic arguments. Nothing.

Tend to your own marriage. Given your superstitious nature and your control issues, I'd bet your marriage is no bed of roses. Pluck the beam from your own eye.

Born again Catholic:

Take your second-grade sophistry and stuff it. Freedom OF religion is identical to freedom FROM religion. Your choice to infect yourself with Catholic dogma means you have chosen to be FREE from all other religious dogma.

There's grown-ups here. Don't engage in childish word play.

I find it a bit puzzling that this is national news, and the lead story for MSNBC.

Gay marriage in one form or another will be the law of the land in many states no doubt.

Whether it is a choice or a gene, this behavior or type of person has been with us seemingly since the dawn of time as we see throughout nature.

What is disturbing is this - I believe a particular way regarding this topic, and those who continue to push the agenda want to stop me from believing what I believe. This is no more right than my trying to make them believe what I do.

So how about you believe what you like, I will believe what I like, and you can have the same freedoms and responsibilities that I have. I do not fear your beliefs.

David I take it that you are not a religious man by the way you spew all this hate...

Shift lock, you need to stop thinking about gay sex. Do you ever imagine your parents doing it? No? Neither do I! Don't think about it, and don't think about gay sex. Sex is always dirty, no matter who's doing it. I could just as easily describe heterosexual activity in such disgusting terms, but I don't spend time thinking about it.

In any case, I can forgive you your diatribe because of your last line. I don't care if you like me as long as you don't follow through by stepping on me.

Mark L:

How interesting you should confuse fact with hate. Regardless of how you reached your conclusion, you are correct. I am not a religious man.

Shift Lock:

Prove the existence of this God you say created man and woman.

Challenge accepted, David: a book written by desert cavemen in the bronze age says so. And you know how you can verify that this book is true? It says it's true. And how do we know that THAT'S true? Well, it says it's true.

Flawless logic. Ball's in your court, Richard Dawkins.

Paul: What is disturbing is this - I believe a particular way regarding this topic, and those who continue to push the agenda want to stop me from believing what I believe

Flat out lie, Paul. NOBODY is trying to change what you believe. Most don't care. They just want equality under the law. You can still believe what you believe, you can still hate whomever you think your god hates and whomever you think your Buybull is telling you to hate.

believe it or not, it ain't all about you!

Shift Lock

Please don't ever post again with your nonsense.

Homosexual attributes have been found both in humans and animals for a very long time, even before your mythical christ walked the earth. i don't think the platypus is natural either, but you know what, the damn thing exists, so live with it.

Who the hell said everyone is homosexual, and that the world will die off? Same damn bull@!$%# @!$%# was said about Jewish people and African Americans, and wow guess what, we are all still here. And they have there freedom's and people aren't trying to kill and persecute them any more, well except for people like you.

Also marriage existed long before Christianity, so don't try to put your stamp on it and claim it's yours. Maybe your imaginary christ was born too late, to claim that one.

But the one thing christ or the church did do was appoint priests. Which according to your own posts are all gay, since they have a very high child molestation rate.

The Government has no right to take away our religious freedom and liberties. If this law passes without extensive protections for faith communities, than that would be UNconstitutional.

where are they taking away your liberties?

nobody is forcing your church to marry someone, gay couples can use a J.O.P. to get married in a non-religious or non-denominational ceremony.

I always find it funny that those that are fighting for perceived civil rights have no problem trampling on the civil rights of others.

Yes bornagaincatholic, you're right, acting that way makes gay people look like christians, doesnt it.

Bornagaincatholic, you state that your religious organizations should be granted an exemption from not allowing bigotry, prejudice, hatred and discrimination based upon your beliefs in a supernatural creature. Just to let you know, when religious organizations do practice bigotry, prejudice, hatred and discrimination based upon their beliefs, they do not get a pass when it comes to receive government money. Whatever they want to do in private, they can do. That's religious liberty under our Constitution, even for bigoted, prejudiced, hating and discriminating members. A religious organization that wants government money, but doesn't want to cater to say, blacks, because that goes against its religious beliefs, gets diddly.

You Catholics try to use your adoption services as a wedge in order to take government money while wanting to practice your bigotry against gay people. Sorry, you don't get to do that. So, instead, you say you'll just shut the operations down and provide care for frightened, poor unwed mothers with no other outcome but abortion. Nice going. You put a gun to the head of desperate mothers and their unborn children and say they'll die unless you get to continue practicing your bigotry. Well, that's your decision.

By the way, bornagaincatholic, I'm gay, atheist, liberal and pro-life. I see your kind as hypocritical and not the least bit concerned about human life, but about imposing your religion on everyone. You say you'll close down and let unborn children die and mothers suffer from abortion. Go ahead, do it. That's on your conscience. Better a dead baby and an injured mother rather than a live baby and a healthy mother who's baby went to a loving, gay couple who will raise it in love and security. Let's see how the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary will deal with you. Don't think Divine Mercy will save you when you tossed people into a funeral pyre so you don't have to cater to gay people. You're kind is no better than the Planned Parenthood abortion business kind who have threatened to close down their clinics to help poor women dealing with breast cancer because state after state is cutting off their funding for selling abortion at a profit. You are no different than them.

Seperation of Church and State was instituted to PROTECT the Church from the government dictating their belief system. It's called Freedom OF religion, not Freedom FROM religion.

The Government has no right to take away our religious freedom and liberties.

These statements are exactly and precisely the opposite of our Founding Fathers' intentions. The establishment clause (separation of church and state) was put into the Constitution to prevent the Church from dictating their beliefs onto the state. And indeed, it is not only freedom of religion, but it is also most emphatically freedom FROM religion.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Here's Thomas Jefferson -

"All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution"

and speaking about Christianity, Jefferson also said

“I may grow rich by an art I am compelled to follow; I may recover health by medicines I am compelled to take against my own judgment; but I cannot be saved by a worship I disbelieve and abhor.”

also

"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."

"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man."

And here's James Madison, the author of the first amendment -

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect. "

and John Adams

"It will never be pretended that any persons employed in government service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven."

and Thomas Paine

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind."

"Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which only the strange belief that it is the word of God has stood, and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright lies."

>>>>>>>>>>>>

I hope the Founding Fathers have made my point, but if you need more, I sure do have them.

Where was all this religious outrage when the government turned marriage into a business contract?

Where was all this religious outrage when women started using marriage, and the resulting alimony payments, as a career choice?

Where was all this religious outrage when young women give sexual favors, within a marriage to a much older man, in exchange for payments in the form of housing and gifts?

I will never understand why the religious nuts find it perfectly acceptable for the government to rule marriage as a simple business contract . . . no romance, no religion, no sacred institution . . . a BUSINESS CONTRACT. Assets are combined between two parties, and again divided once the contract has been terminated. Upon termination, courts shall decide the appropriate payment one party will make to the other, in order to maintain the standard of living both parties have become accustomed to. Asset distribution will also be decided by the courts.

That is how the government views marriage . . . what part of that is religious, sacred, or even romantic?

Jerry, you are ripe with hate...but now that you are done ranting why can't you just except gay union over the word marriage? First you are going to say that union and marriage are not the same, and with this I will agree. See marriage is between a man and a woman, and union is between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, but in the end they have the same rights...an apple is an apple, and an orange is an orange...am I missing something?

"Gay men and women also have a much higher rate of committing child molestation. Almost all pedophiles are gay or look that way even if they deny it..."

This is just plain false. Just because you "feel" it might be true, doesn't make it so. Since you don't have factual information on your side, it's just plain bigotry.

Jim, you need to do a little research...first, the separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, nor is it in the Bill of Rights!

the concept of separation of church and state refers to the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state. The term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802. The original text reads: "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion.

Actually, Shift Lock said he wasn't religious, he's just a homophobe mixing every anti-gay diatribe into four paragraphs on a desk covered in vomit. At least the religious ones have "genuine" reasons.

By the way Jim, that is one of the most artfully out of context pieces I have ever seen!

Homosexual "marriage" is illegal in 45 states, and will soon be illegal again in Iowa. The political activist judges who inflicted the experiment of homosexual "marriage" on Iowa have been fired by the people of Iowa. The people of Iowa are now adopting a constitutional amendment (in the footsteps of 30 other states which have already amended their constitutions to protect legitimate marriages between one man and one woman) to PERMANENTLY DISALLOW homosexual "marriage" in their state. Expect the same in New York.

And do you notice who the real haters are in this forum? Who collapses every dissenting opinion? The homosexuals, of course. They know nothing but hate. They thrive on hate. They worship hate. They are hate personified. If their agenda of hate is inflicted on New York, the voters will quickly remedy the problem, just as they already have in Iowa.

Shift Lock-

You seem to me to be the most ignorant person in the world. I don't believe you can help who you fall in love with and on top of that who says you need to classify yourself as Gay, Lesbian, Trans-gender, Bisexual or Straight? When is it that we will be able to live in a world where it doesn't matter what color your skin is or who you are sleeping in bed with every night? Discrimination needs to end in this world. And as for gays being pedophiles you are out of your f*&king mind show me the facts that say that is true. Homosexuals are human beings just like you and me and they should have every right to get married as any heterosexual.

Mark-L, now that you've made yourself feel better by doing what your god wants you to do, let's explain a few things. I'll go slow for you.

First, marriage is a Constitutional right and a civil contract. The Constitution makes no recognition of difference between persons. Therefore, marriage, being a civil contract, is protected by the Constitution and the Constitution allows for no unnecessary discrimination regarding persons. Therefore, marriage equality means marriage. Since civil unions do not grant the same Constitutional equal protection of the law, then they're not the same thing.

Second, too bad if you don't like people of the same sex using the term "marriage." What you like or don't like, what your religion dictates, does not determine the Constitutional rights of anyone.

Third, you have the Constitutional right to hate. You practice it. No one will stop you and I will defend your right to do so. I will force you to not practice it when it tries to stomp on my rights. Hate all you want - it's your right. Try to take away my rights, and you're right to practice it will go illegal.

Got it, Mark-L, or do I need to go over it again?

Uh, Mark? The Ancient Egyptians had marriage before Judaism emerged. So did the Greeks. And the Sumerians....

Mark L:

Clearly, you wish to define marriage for those of us who do not have the benefit of a direct line to God. Thanks, but no thanks.

I'll use an earthly source for my definition. Here's just one link. There's lots more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

Now, I'll grant you that this is written by mere humans, but hey, this marriage thing is all about humans. God doesn't do that stuff. He just knocks up Jewish virgins when the mood strikes him. No child support, no nothing.

Spare me your delusions, spare me your nonsense. I asked for proof of the invisible sky guy. You don't have it. You will never have it.

Don't you feel even the tiniest bit silly pretending to speak for an omnipresent, all-powerful, all-knowing God?

Now even though you are just a silly goose, I'm going to offer you this dispensation courtesy of the Invisible Pink Unicorn - It neighs to me, you know. You don't have to marry a gay person, or a straight person, you don't even have to look at them if you don't want to. Is the Invisible Pink Unicorn cool or what?

K, I'm really not much for politics and understanding all facets of government, but to the guy way above who said that you can't pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you agree with....isn't an Amendment a change to the Constitution? So by your logic, all Amendments are invalid because they are changes to the original Constitution? And...the very first amendment is the one about freedom of religion? Maybe I'm not following your logic there....

Xan the amendments ARE parts of the constitution. They were just added on later.

They're part of the Constitution NOW, but they weren't part of the original document, the one signed in 1787. The first amendment wasn't proposed until 1789, and not enacted until 1791.

Xan, the person mentioning you can't pick and choose, meant that you can't pick and choose ANYTHING in the constitution to obey.

@david

You are a hypocrite. You are here supporting gay rights but yet your posts are telling people that if they want to believe in God they can't because they can't prove it to you.

Can anyone prove the big bang theory?

They have the right to believe in what they want and if it is Church and God that is their right without someone making up names for God or telling them they believe in nonsense.

It is their right and not yours to interfere with their beliefs any more than the gays you support.

@shift lock why do I never hear a straight man complaining about sex between two women being disgusting? The hypocrisy of your post is unbelievable. What do you care who does what with whom? I don't care who you have sex with as long as they are an adult and it is consensual. Tell you what...I will stay out of your sex life and you stay out of mine. As for this GOD you have imagined that created men and women for a reason...same thing. Believe what you want but do not expect me to believe the same. Fair enough?

@shift lock why do I never hear a straight man complaining about sex between two women being disgusting? The hypocrisy of your post is unbelievable. What do you care who does what with whom? I don't care who you have sex with as long as they are an adult and it is consensual. Tell you what...I will stay out of your sex life and you stay out of mine. As for this GOD you have imagined that created men and women for a reason...same thing. Believe what you want but do not expect me to believe the same. Fair enough?

bklynj:

And you are fabricating. I am not supporting gay rights. I'm saying they're none of my business. I'm not saying people can't believe in God because they can't prove the existence of this creation of their own minds. That's the nature of faith. It doesn't have to make sense, and in the case of God, it doesn't. However, if it brings comfort to the weak-minded to believe in a God or gods, I couldn't care less.

If anyone could prove the Big Bang Theory, it wouldn't be a theory, would it?

I am not interfering in their beliefs. Believe as you choose.

Now, perhaps you'd care to tell me why atheists have to subsidize the beliefs of delusionals who worship a nonexistent God. These religious people who deduct their salvation payments are receiving a direct subsidy through my tax payments. Now that's a real problem. I don't have to resort to twisting words, mangling syntax, or simply putting words in others' mouths as you do. That's a fact.

Believe all the crazy stuff you wish. I don't care, but I'd sure as hell like to know why you think it's just peachy keen that I have to pay for your beliefs.

Toasty:

Thanks so much for the explanation. It all makes sense to me now. How could I have been so blind?

First I never said it was me that believed in God. What I said was if people want to believe in it and it gives them comfort that is their right.

You ask people to prove their God to you and call them weak-minded as above. These are your printed words by fact without any twists.

As to support by atheist-that's BS. Why do renters have to pay for homeowners with their mortgage tax deduction? Why do healthy people have to pay for tax deductions of the sick? Why do childless people have to pay school taxes if they own a home?

I can go on and on with this but I'm sure you get the point.

Taxes are put in place not only for revenue to support the system but they are also used to modify and steer behavior.

As to the big bang theory so I guess you can't prove there is no God. And I know why they call it a theory that was my point.

But I see on all these posts when someone mentions God you are always there to tell them they are fools and weak-minded. So I do not have to fabricate anything you say-it is above. So after you say it don't say others fabricate, twist or change syntax it is above for all to see.

I thought these comments were most interesting and telling

Even before we were a nation, local governments supported marriage which is a church institution.

If the government came after the religious institutions, which government did, and now is defining a religious - a then religious practice - then isn't Government making a law that is not respecting Religion

In Which Case this is an assault on a religious practice and

We need to get the government completely out of the religious business of marriage.

actually,Jsim92480, there is NO seperation of Church and State in the U.S. constitution. When people speak of that term they are referring to the first amendment to the constitution. The 1st amendment states that you cannot be required to be a member of any particular religious group in order to serve as a member of the U.S.Government. It was the U.S. supreme court who stated that the 1st amendment could refer to a seperation of church and state. It is not in the constitution. With that being said I do support the rights of any person of legal age to marry anyone they choose who is also of legal age. I also believe that members of governing bodies and law makers should not be allowed to use their personal religious beliefs or personal prejudices as a rule of point when voting on bills. I feel that their should be laws forbidding such acts.

All of you psudo-Christian hate groupies, BAN DIVORCE. THEN WE'LL TALK. You are a bunch of hypocrites, trained to follow the hate philosophy of individual clergy, not the christian religion, certainly not the Savior.

Robin, brilliantly stated! While I disagree with the "savior" conclusion, I whole-heartedly agree with the parallel you've drawn here.

What say ye of Christian faith? Should we outlaw divorce? It's spoken of with equal disdain in the New Testament.

Any takers?

It is not in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. All these people who keep talking about it are obviously missing that info'.

Jon-2730330

What say ye of Christian faith? Should we outlaw divorce? It's spoken of with equal disdain in the New Testament.

Any takers?

I must agree. The old testament says a man can lock his wife away in a divorce and she can never remarry, however; it says he can take another. Then when you get to the New Testament Jesus makes it clear that even in a divorce that if a man and woman, who is divorced, takes another or remarries, they have committed adultery. For they are joined as one flesh.

So to all of you who oppose equality in marriage, but support divorce, you are a hypocrite and have no right to speak of the institute of marriage as sacred.

I don't know if you'll see a gay POTUS and his first man in your lifetime. They are having trouble just letting a Mormon in, lol

Great news! What does Marriage have to do with religion. Religion used to ban marriages because they were considered pagan. There was a time when religions got together and banned Christmas in America for a while. Glad common sense won then also. Religious organizations have been sending money from every state to deny others rights based on their fairy tales. I have never had a lower opinion of religious people and the hatred they push on others while holding them in judgement. It is absolutely time to demand that tax exempt status be removed from any religious organization. We are all forced to pay for the taxes we do not collect from these organizations who openly express such contempt for others.

We are ALL AMERICANS!This Is GOOD NEWS!....Now "they" could be miserable like the rest of us,welcome to MARRIAGE LIFE!MY LGBT FRIENDS!..YEAAAAA!...I love PROGRESS! Obama/Biden 2012

OOOh David Walker, if I weren't born gay I would want to marry you! Spirituality and religion have nothing to do with each other. I live in California and have been with my lover for almost 8 years. We eventually will be able to marry legally and raise our children as a family that is recognized by the government. How bizarre that the religious right have prevented the very thing they advocate. Can't we please separate church and state?!

So church doesnt = state?!

Sure seems like it.

By god (pun entirely intended), I knew there'd be haters but this is getting crazy. FYI, y'all christians know your religion is just a cut and paste of a whole bunch of former religions? Like Dionysus, Mithras and Druid paganism. I wonder how they felt about homosexuality and marriage? Or about corruption in the church for that matter? But I digress.

Happy Marriage to all the Gays that will get married in the State of New York.

It is not just the marriage that is important, plus getting a partner's benefits, but having the staying power to remain in the marriage, like others who are monogamous--

Wish you all the best of luck. It is the hardest "job" in the World. "It is easier to get married, than to get divorced".

Mark L

Thanks for the commentary. I'm glad you found my post worthy of your attention, but feel I must point out that nothing there is "out of context". These were direct quotes from just some of America's founding fathers when asked about christianity.

I find it interesting though that your post negates your own opinion. To quote you

" ...legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

i.e., christianity cannot use the legislature to enact laws that follow any sect's tenets.

Of course, Jefferson also said, upon the establishment of the University of Virginia, that theology should have no place in an institution of learning.

Now for another quote from you -

"Jim, you need to do a little research...first, the separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, nor is it in the Bill of Rights!"

You mean that the actual verbatim phrase "separation of church and state" is not there. Correct.

But then, also missing is the exact verbatim phrase that we have a right to "own guns". That phrase isn't there either, but everyone knows what the second amendment means. What you are suggesting is that we do not specifically have a constitutional right to own guns (or ammunition) because the specific phrase does not appear in the second amendment.

I suggest you do some research of your own, as you seem to be disinformed. Madison (who actually wrote the first amendment) first called it "separation of church and state" and Jefferson went a step further in calling it a "wall" of separation.

Also, read up on some Supreme Court decisions.

Thanks Mark

I agree with the people that say homosexuality isn't natural. The bottom line is the penis was designed to go into a vagina, not in a butt, not in an ear.

But with that being said, I also feel that people who choose a homosexual lifestyle should be protected and given the same rights as a heterosexual couple. This is strictly a legal thing. Religions are a different matter. There IS a difference. Religious groups should have the right to practice however they want. If you don't believe in a certain religious belief then don't be part of that group.

I don't believe in organized religion, but I believe there is a higher intelligence, a spiritual force that is just as much a part of us as it is a part of the universe. How can you prove the existence of a higher power? You can't. It's like proving there is a force called "love". It's just there, you feel it, but you can't hold it and can't see it.

I have absolutely no problem with people fighting for and getting certain rights. But I do have a problem with people wearing thongs and leather jackets bumping and grinding each other and performing other forms of indecent behavior in public in a "Look at ME! I want my rights!" tirade!

Now that you have your rights, hopefully you can keep such indecent behavior at home!

I think many men are damaged by their own fathers and coaches who instilled this flawed characteristic trait in them to carry such disgust for others.

Why do they see gays as so threatening? Could it be compared to the same ignorance of the of the people of Uganda who want to pass a law to kill the gays? Their arguments are the exact same.

Why would any woman want a man who is this flawed, easily manipulated and easily threatened?

Mark your world view seems so ugly and hate filled. I find that unfortunate. But that's your "cross to bare".

Me, I am going to celebrate this great achievement for equality for all and bask in the knowledge that it is only spreading both across this country and around the world.

Your decision to be unhappy or carry such disdain for others is your choice.

Being gay is not a choice. I imagine that is why so many closet homophones are so angry. They can't "straighten" themselves out.

Let the gays have their rights, is just that simple. Commitment is the same, regardless of gender, & in some cases species (not hard to find, their out there).

And to some that seem to think incest marriages being next, get over it. Restricting people is like trying to restrict biology, it's gonna happen, only question is how long.

I got an idea for religions with issues on the rights of LGBT & others of the sort. You can secretly start pumping the CORRECT hormones into those whom you deem "sinners" to re balance that chemistry, hell you got the money your side & the government just giving ya a slap on the hand when ya do something "wrong". Catch is you have to do this to more than just men. Women, animals (this includes water life) , vegetation to if it decided that pollen only wants to stick with the males parts & nothing else.

OR you just shut up & let it go. Cause if you do my idea above. These are the immediates I see happening. You go bankrupt, you'll also create a form of extremist because you invaded a person personal rights & freedoms to reform them to what you see acceptable. Your importance in the society will dwindle. Maybe we'll start to make some progress to if we move at least to an agnostic/atheistic state of belief.

Hard to say which one I prefer, it's your pick on this religion. Either way seems great progress to me.

This just goes to show that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business...

Perhaps a more accurate statement would have been that now homosexuals have the same marital rights in New York as heterosexuals. If all the New Yorkers were equal under the law wouldn't a man be able to take more than one wife legally and thereby grant all of his wives equal legal standing?

Tiredof thecrap....Next up will be the right to Quad-Marriages....2 Bi-sexual women and 2 Bi-sexual men....

...a bottle of red, a bottle of white, it all depends on your appetite...perhaps a bottle of rose' instead..

...or Almond Joy has nuts, Mounds don't, because sometime you feel like having nuts, sometimes you don't....

...or they want to do a choo-choo train..."ALL ABOARD""" whooo-whooo...chugga-chugga

....after all they each love both men and women and who has the right to prevent them all from loving each other....and getting coverage from whoevers job has the best healthcare benefits.....

Oh what a tangled web is being woven.....

Jiml is correct.

Although the actual language "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution, the language he quoted, "The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....", while Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." , is here and it plainly defines that the two shall not be intermixed or attempt to run afoul of each other.

"Mom, Dad.....why are Jimmy's parents a boy and a girl and you two look like two boys? Who's the girl?"

More messed up kids are on the way, as if we don't have enough issues already. Thankfully the adoption agencies and control this.

There is no such thing as separation of church and state. That is a supreme court quote. It is freedom of religion, which means you can practice what you want without the fear of persecution from the government. This is why the strong protections for the church is included in this bill (Or so I've heard). Religious institutions should not be penalized or persecuted for not marrying a gay couple because it is against their religious beliefs.

Now a love the media bias on this movement. There are scores of people that don't believe in gay marriage, but these guys were pushing it so hard. I'm currently working near the capital in Albany. I see the trucks and the people. A "huge party".. come on now. Yes there are probably several hundred, but this is legislation that the media mostly covered the pro-gay marriage and neglected the people who are against it.

It's not only a religious matter, it is a morality matter and an unnatural matter. It does not matter though. I have my opinion on it. The first amendment allows everyone to have their own opinion. Now it is law. It's funny though how politicians will sell out for a loaf of bread. That's the New York way.

Figures....a bunch of people who think they know what a church is......think they know what church teaches spew out their hate and bigotry against the church and prove their ignorance on the subject because of the actions of some in the churches.

@ Mark. Race has nothing to do with this issue. I know. The two black workers and one asian worker that works with me are against gay marriage as well.

I asked them about it because the news tried to relate people who were against gay marriage to slave owners or something like that. They laughed and said the two issues have no comparison. They are the ones that talk about morality.

Do people think incest should be allowed or pedophelia? I mean heck can't it be construed as love or commitment?

When it comes down to it, I really don't care if someone wants to be or (PC) is gay. That is their business. But don't force it on people. You can allow beneficiaries to pension plans and 401k or whatever benefits married couples have.

I don't think its natural and I don't think it's acceptable. The schools shouldn't tell our children that it is ok to be gay or transgendered.

Marriage is an sacrament of the Church and religion. A State determines legal unions and those unions rights in society.

At issue here is the terminology, I believe started by the gay community at large to place "marriage" in the face of those that hold their religious sacraments dearly. This is rude and purposeful by gays yet just as my comments here will be collapsed or chastised as being bigotted, they will claim they are being put down.

This is a community that is a huge manority yet get more press and legal attention than any other group. I am tired of their whining and their "in your face tactics". Their approach is what turns me off, not their personal choices...

Collapse away...

Marriage is an sacrament of the Church

Show me this IN SCRIPTURE.

If God didn't want homosexuals, there wouldn't be any.

I can just feel the polarization between the people who actually think outside of what mainstream media tells them & those who complain that they should get all that's due regardless of their actions. This is a very passionate topic; I expect the jaded Atheist, the jaded religious nut, along with jaded sexist (men AND women) to feel free to express their frustrations fervently...But the matter is this as many of us all know, as those values we once stood for diminish before our eyes at the hands of contagious politically correct whines from those who latch on to unaffiliated underdog stories, we are slowly growing into dissension as a people. This, all on the basis of false parallels such as race/heritage and unproven congenital abnormalities/dna mutations. It so seems as the days of reckoning are upon us as covert female & male chauvinist are dictating "PC" and pitting us all against each other. Regardless of how sexually deviant you are in your spare time, heterosexual or homosexual, I do realize there are bigger issues out there... That being said, actions convey character. America, it's time to wake up and regain some accountability. Not exactly a rant about how much we love our disabled, the freaks, the geeks, or whoever...it's about putting aside your our hate and bemoaning and coming together for the cause of a stronger country.

I thought you God haters don't want God to be a part of our government?

That's as silly as saying people who don't believe in the tooth fairy hate the tooth fairy. You can't hate what doesn't exist. Can YOU hate nothing????

What someone might hate is those who believe in God thinking that their religious beliefs should dictate the laws of the land. Marriage is a civil union, not a religious one as far as law is concerned. People can opt to include religion in their OWN marriage if they wish. However, they have NO right to force others to do so also.

Sin is also a religious concept with no binding power outside of that domain. And before some idiot tries to claim I have no morality & no sense of right & wrong, right & wrong is a separate concept from "sin."

Even so, all such concepts are invented by the human species & obviously vary from one culture to another proving that they are not finite concepts written in stone.

The best concept of right & wrong is based on human behaviors that have been SHOWN (not proclaimed by clergy but demonstrated in fact) to result in the fairest & kindest outcomes for all human beings versus those that do just the opposite. Not just for those individuals who want to tell everyone else how to lead their lives but for everyone on the planet. And by that standard, a good many religious are guilty as sin of being anything but saintly.

Thumbs up ^....

@Joe-903244:

What's the relevance of your coworkers' opinions? Are you trying to argue that only white people are capable of being bigoted?

Incest, so long as it involves only consenting adults, may actually have some limited validity as an analogy, though probably not in the way you think. And if you still don't understand why comparing SSM with pedophilia is devoid of any merit whatsoever, what is it that puts the concept of consent beyond your grasp?

And what is being forced on people? Is someone or something forcing you to marry somebody of the same sex? I must have missed that. Or is it your contention that allowing gay couples to marry somehow forces something on you? If that's the case the only logical conclusion is that you also feel my marriage forces something on you, but that you don't object because it's an opposite sex marriage. I have news for you: I don't give a rat's tail whether my marriage is acceptable to you.

Last time i looked this country isn't the Middle East isn't there enough hatred in this world without most of you hateful Christians adding to it? Dont shove your religious beliefs down my throat i dont buy it. I didn't know my relationship with my partner of 10 years has any power to destroy your marriage, if it's that weak to start with you should take a close look at yourselves and stop accusing others of your own failures. I never knew my loving the person I want to love had as much power as you "CHRISTIANS" say it does. THen the more power to us. Preach it in your churches and pews, if I ever hear of it I will turn you bigot azzes in to Americans United and have your church lose it's tax exempt. Way to go NEW YORK!

@Shift Lock

Let's address some of the points you bring up:

1) The thought of gay sex makes you sick - Well, that's easy...don't think about it. If you don't want to be involved in sexual activity with a same-sex partner, then don't do it. Problem solved.

2) God created man for woman - If that's what you choose to believe, then that is your right. Fortunately, nobody in this country is required to believe in your version of God to be a citizen OR to be married.

3) Most child molesters are gay or lesbian - There have been multiple studies done on this, and most seem to conclude that the percentage of molestation cases perpetrated by a gay or lesbian is in single digits.

4) People will want to marry their dog - Dogs cannot consent to sex or sign a marriage contract.

5) People will want to marry their cousin - It is currently legal to marry one's first cousin in 24 states.

6) People will want multiple husbands or wives - Maybe so. Just like the issue of same-sex marriage, how will someone with 2 wives or 2 husbands affect your marriage?

7) You can't consummate marriage if you're gay - Sure you can. Just because you think it's "icky" doesn't mean it isn't wonderful for the newly married couple. Furthermore, my marriage isn't based on sex...is yours? And why are you so fascinated by what goes on in a gay man's bedroom?

8) Traditional marriage is 1 man & 1 woman - No, it isn't. Open a history book. The notion of one man and one woman choosing to marry each other for love is a relatively recent and localized concept. It is by no means universal, nor has it ever been. Plus, the reasons people marry have been, are, and always will be different. Not every American marries for love.

9) Domestic partnership, not marriage - please familiarize yourself with the concept of "separate but equal" and why it doesn't fly. Furthermore, domestic partnership doesn't provide the same rights and benefits marriage does.

Thanks New York for breaking the barrier of 2nd class citizenry.

An old white straight guy.

The schools shouldn't tell our children that it is ok to be gay or transgendered.

Are you kidding me? What next? Schools telling kids that it's not ok to be Jewish? Or telling kids that it's not ok to be handicapped? Maybe they can just tell kids that it's only ok to be blond haired and blue eyed................oh wait...........I think Germany tried that once. It didn't work out too well.

ChrisWanker

I have absolutely no problem with people fighting for and getting certain rights. But I do have a problem with people wearing thongs and leather jackets bumping and grinding each other and performing other forms of indecent behavior in public in a "Look at ME! I want my rights!" tirade!

_______________________________________________________________

First of all Chris Wanker, if you don't like looking at it then stop goin? You clean up the heterosexual acts of which we see daily on the tv and movies of you all jumping into bed like rabbits the first chance you get and then we can talk about how gays act.

Churches do have the right to deny marriage to gay people but the government also has the rights to remove that churches tax exempt license. Believe me it is going to happen.

What surprises me is that these "Hateful Christians" posting on here whine that this is being shoved down their throughts. What's the difference in you trying to shove you faith and religions down everybody else's throat. You can take pride though. You can be happy here in Texas gay marriage will never happen, well at least not in my lifetime. This is the bible belt. I just wish our governor would come out of the closet and do the right thing.

OH and SHIFTY, LOL do you lie in bed at night and think of men having sex together? That just blows me away that you think about it so much. I bet you can spot a gay man a mile away can't cha? You should write a book on that talent for others. Im 64 and still can't spot em even at 3 ft. Enquiring minds wanna know! Thanks!

@outforme and others who may agree with him/her.

I did not find love in my husband's penis and he sure didn't find it in my vagina. If you judge your love according to what you find in your partners genitalia don't bother trying to get married. Your union WILL FAIL! We love each other because of our shared views, our care and concern for each other. If you are only attracted to another person for sex you'll be dissappointed. Hetero or otherwise. I know a gay couple that has been together for over 30 years. That is LOVE, not anus, hairy or not.

This bill just seems so, 'GAY'.............and the comments are GAy'er.

Bernitch

It isn't about that. It never is with the Republican Parety. It is about legislating hate, and proving to themselves that their god hates the same people that they do.

thumbs-up Bernitch.

I hope all the gay people that wish to be married head to their local churches, and when they deny them marriage, then sue these mudder-fudders for discrimination.

Church and Religions have destroyed and caused enough damage to our society, and people need to stop giving their monies to these charlatans and start taking care of yourselves and your future, because there is no damn god that's coming to your aid, ever!

Wake up and smell all the bs you have been fed over the centuries. Save your money and make these religious charlatans/bums get a job and support their own sorry lying azzes for a change.

willowbrook - please do stay out of NYS. We don't like your kind.

Next up, the super rich people will want to change the rules so that parents can marry their children. Why, you might ask? Same as here, financial reasons. This way they can avoid the inheritance tax.

Personally, I'm going to start lobbying my wife to allow me to marry her sister and her best friend too.

Amazing! The Home Page of today's MSNBC has the headlines of two different stories side by side.

The one on the right is: New York Governor Signs Gay Marriage Into Law.

The one on the left is: Evacuation Urged After Water Breaks ND Dikes.

With our nation growing deeper into a depression, with the death of our middle-class, the average Joe finds, after 20 years, he has lost his job, 1 in 4 American children go to bed hungry, our brave troops dying and loosing limbs every week, divorce rates at over 50%, rampant sex abuse against little children, pedophiles ripping the hearts and souls from innocent kids daily, our elderly dying from the heat, crops are dying because of lack of rain, the price of a single cucumber is one buck, tornadoes, floods, total towns washed and blown away; do you all remember or know of this? I am not at all surprised by more "Me-first," selfish, self serving acts.

Do you all recall when pastor Terry Jones said that he and his church in Florida were going to burn a copy of the Koran? Half of the officials in Washington were calling him, begging him to please not do it. That, if he did, it would be an act that would greater endanger the lives of our troops. By burning the holy book of Muslims, the act would provide more fodder for hate towards Americans for al-Qaeda, Hezbolla, Muslim Brotherhood, and all other jihadists who view America as a culture of degenerates.

With the stroke of his........pen, the governor of New York does what? Exactly, an advertisement of our social mores and values.

On the positive side, this opens up a new market for those who make their livings planning and providing for weddings. This will cause them to revamp many items such as dress, shape and size of wedding cakes, floral arrangements, food, and much more. For all of you DJ's get busy and revise and add to your play list. Have your business cards reprinted; "Player For Gay Marriages," or along that line.

Today's news from Al Jazeera, which one can read in English, is loaded. But who cares? If the Judeo-Christian idea of god is not already dead, there are a lot of people out there spending a lot of time and money killing it.

What has me flummoxed is how the definition of the previously wonderful English word, "gay" has a different meaning. Is that because all of you "white" people have to be so damn P.C.?

The best answer to the above answer to homosexuals is:

Our Creator said go out and multiply.

Now in observance to this remark I say let homosexuals get married but they will have to put all the homosexual males on one island, and all the female homosexuals on another island. We will take their orders for what they want and give it to them free (after all we want to celebrate their right to marriage). Then in 200 years we will go back and see how they are doing.

I don't care who you marry or sleep with but I can't believe the hate coming out of the fingers of the liberals posting here. Doesn't the same constitution that allows gays to do whatever also allow others to hate what they do? And why are you letting people you don't know control you? I think you need to find more worthy injustices to fight.

take away the ability of churches to issue marriage licenses.

Tough to take away a right that never existed. In this country, churches don't issue marriage licenses - government entities, such as city or county governments, do. Try having only a religious ceremony and see how legal your marriage is.

Ever notice that the only people who use the phrase "gay agenda" are those who oppose it, and if you ask them to clarify exactly what the points of said agenda are, they never respond?

Congratulations, New York, for making a huge advance in equality for all, and for showing the fire-and-brimstone evangelists that this is not just their country. It belongs to all Americans, and "American" is the only label that should matter.

Tough to take away a right that never existed

Strange that you confuse the word "ability" with the word "right." Two very different things.

Believing that homosexuality is wrong is not bigotry. It has nothing to do with hatred of a person. Their personal life is their own. I believe it is socially wrong and that the two positive ends of a magnet don't stick.

Life goes on through a male and a female procreation. Loving a man like a brother or a sister is fine, but taking it to the next step isn't right.

Corruption and these types of social orgies were the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire. History will repeat itself when a country can't hold together with moral fiber. You can say "That makes no sense" all you want.

NY passed gay marriage for two reasons. Votes and a big influx of money for marriage licenses.

Anyways it is another bill shoved down the throats of New Yorkers without there consent. They can't get anything else done, but they can pass these types of social issues.

I'm gonna smoke a cigarette

@flbikerchick

[Ever notice that the only people who use the phrase "gay agenda" are those who oppose it, and if you ask them to clarify exactly what the points of said agenda are, they never respond?

[Congratulations, New York, for making a huge advance in equality for all, and for showing the fire-and-brimstone evangelists that this is not just their country. It belongs to all Americans, and "American" is the only label that should matter.]

You are definitely right, when it was the fire and brimstone evangelists country it was a country that prospered and advanced because they were in the good graces of God. Now with all the proclaimed advances that you say are happening like the approval of homosexuality, the acceptance of different religions (non christian), aethist, illegal immigration, etc. look at where America is at, dead broke. and 14 trillion in the hole. Now the gay come around and say they want marriage so they can get the same tax break as the married couples. So now this puts the Cities that are strapped for money more in a hole because now they have to make allowances for 2 men or 2 women that are claiming tax breaks for being married.

Now for all you non believers, that if you have heard the teachings and ignored it, then also will your name be ignored in the book of life..

My last remark is that if a homosexual gets married in New York, he should have to stay in New York to have this marriage recognized, because by golly my state does not recognize it, and we don't really care what a bunch (oops sorry people of New York, you really didn't get a chance to vote on this, it was just handed your way by a bunch of politicians) New Yorkers have to say, they do not rule our state.

So please all you homosexuals, please stay in New York, they support you.

You are a hypocrite. You are here supporting gay rights but yet your posts are telling people that if they want to believe in God they can't because they can't prove it to you.

you can kneel in a tub of tapioca pudding before an altar of dog droppings for all I care, just don't try to legislate that everyone else must do so.

Cue the lawyers!!

Gay marriage is going to make it impossible for real girls to find a divorce attorney! Why? Because gay marriages will have more assets and mostly no kids. That will mean they will be able to pay more, and so they will vacuum up the lawyers.

Get real people. The average length of gay male relationships is around 1.5 years. The average length of gay female relationships is about 6. The average length of marriages in the USA is 11 years.

This is going to be a trainwreck for regular girls! It will be a complete, total, train wreck.

The real reason they want marriage so badly is to LEGITIMIZE their lifestyle.

Now once they can legally get married they can promote their lifestyle in our PUBLIC schools.

Indoctrination of our children in our public schools is a top priority of liberals, unions, demmunists, socialist,and of course GAYS! This underhanded manipulation of kids when they are at their most impressionable age of life is not something many non liberals ever think about. Consider that public schools are ran by govt and unions who are totally in the bag for who gives them the most money---ie liberals of course. This is the type of TRICKS liberals use to control government for their own self serving purposes.

This is less about equal rights and more about promotion and legitimization of their lifestyle and once it is legal their indoctrination efforts can be put in place to cram their diversity down your kids (and yours too) throat whether you want to see it or not.

I'm fine with gay marriage as long as it is defined as different than marriage and is not promoted as a fun new lifestyle to kids. The indoctrination is where it has to be stopped.

"What is disturbing is this - I believe a particular way regarding this topic, and those who continue to push the agenda want to stop me from believing what I believe. This is no more right than my trying to make them believe what I do."

Paul F.,

Several questions for you my Christian friend:

(1) Did Jesus ever say anything, anything at all about Homosexuality?

(2) Would you agree that sin is predicated on free will?

(3) Do you remember when you chose to be Heterosexual?

(4) If you did choose to be Heterosexual then could it also be argued that you were acting on or giving preference to more then one inclination thus making you truly pan sexual?

(5) Have you ever taken out a loan? (see Leviticus)

(6) Have you ever eaten lobster? (see Leviticus)

(7) Have you ever worn silk with wool? (see Leviticus)

(8) Has your sister, daughter, wife ever had pre or extra marital sex and did you not stone them to death? (see Leviticus)

(9) How many slaves do you own? (condoned in the old testament)

(10) Do you have any knowledge or understanding at all as to the faith you profess?

(11) Did you know Jesus was essentially an anti establishment hippie who promoted social justice and forgave sinners like you? Did you?

@ BJs - not a problem....not interested in being in a state that will be much higher on the list to be attacked by Muslim terrorists than mine since Muslims have even a lower viewof gay marriage than Christians or Jews do. Fortunately for the rest of us, we can get everything we need without having to do business with the state of New York.

@ Darthfrodo - the schools better not be telling kids being gay or transgendered is Ok. It is not their place.

Who cares! This is only an issue because governmental bodies need the revenue from the marriage licenses. No one needs a bureaucrat to sanction a marriage with a fee.

And now we hear the screams of the vocal minority and family rights movement types saying that the people should have the right to vote on weather(sp) or not New York allows Gay Marriage

They forget, that just a few years ago, South Dakota fundamentalist legislature enacted draconian Abortion Laws and these same Vocal Minority family rights movement groups were screaming that the people should NOT have the right to vote on the abortion measure.

Talk about two faced Hypocrites.

I, as a Christian, have no problem with anyone getting married. This is about discrimination and hate and today New York has taken a step to end Discrimination that is preached by the Family Rights Movement and the Vocal Minority.

Way to go New York!!!

k state you got that right.

The courts and lawyers rob the riches spouse. Usually the man and give it to the other spouse who usually contributed very little to making the money and more often than not deserves nothing more than a couple of months severance pay.

The work the non bread winning spouse did during the marriage, if any?- would maybe be enough to cover their expenses during the marriage. Why do they deserve extra above that? Many women now use divorce as a job, or a lottery ticket.

Prostitution should be legal. That at least is a fair trade.

"State legislators should not decide society-shaping issues," said the Rev. Jason McGuire of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms.

So if elected legislators should not be deciding issues who should? The church leaders?

@smerf - the federal debt is caused by homosexuality? Why didn't you tell us this before? I would have been on the rooftops shrieking about the evils of SSM right along with you. Your tax argument is on shaky footing, however. Many married couples pay more in income taxes than they would if they were single. You should perhaps familiarize yourself with the concept of the marriage penalty. Then there is that pesky question of what any of this has to do with people's civil rights.

And here I thought the anti-gay rhetoric couldn't get any more absurd. Congratulations, I stand corrected.

One thing supporters of "traditional marriage values" always seem to forget is that traditional marriage was never about romance, it was about a man selling his daughter to another man in exchange for money, political alliance, or some other gain. The idea of getting married because two people were in love only started to become popular a couple centuries ago.

So if you really want to support traditional marriage values, support the return of selling your daughter to whoever will give you the most cattle for her.

I actually applaud this decision for another reason. We have a great relationship with my sons other mom, and try to be just as judging of anyone who comes into my sons life no matter gender. My son is technically my stepson, we don't use that though, he just has dad, and two moms. If she goes to marry and the relationship is permanent, he would have three.

My son's 'other mom' is a lesbian, and of course he doesn't care, thats mommy too. But she has had several commitment ceremonies with people, got our child all involved in them while she was 'happy' and then expected him to be able to sever a relationship with them as easily as they did. Children do not work that way. This has been on her end and on the others' end at other times. I didn't have a problem with their relationship, what I had a problem with is that it was too easy to damage my son with their flings. The last one, after a five year relationship ended, was the worst. He was devastated, he was now familiar with it, and I had to tell him that he would never see her again, at Christmastime. She couldn't even save his feelings, no goodbyes, just left and my son was heartbroken. When begged with to please just stop and consider his feelings for a moment, she stated "I cant live my life making everyone happy." Well, GO be happy.

What I want is for them to have to go through the process of separation as we all do. I want there to be visitations, I want there to be structure in the dissolution of their promise with each other when it comes to all the children effected. I want my sons heart to be considered quite a bit more closely than it has been the last eleven years.

His mother, after saying "she felt she was married to her current girlfriend for the past three years" nearly dumped her for the old one not long ago. My son adores this gf and her two children, we all do and how can we not when she is so wonderful to our son? My son would have been crushed, as would her two children, and thank goodness she changed her mind. But should it be so easy as that? Does anyone married have it that easy? No, its a months or years long process where they have to truly THINK before they just walk, because there are repercussions of staying and of leaving and they have to face them BEFORE its over.

But I am sick to death of kids being caught in the tailspin of hooking up and dumping. He's not a shirt you borrowed, he is a child and while you don't consider his feelings near enough, the other parents in this DO and I'm tired of his heart breaking. Make it binding and make it legal, so that just because you've had a bad week you cant just leave and go shack up with someone else. Marriages end too, but its not over at the "im leaving". Let them have health benefits, life insurance benefits, but most especially let them have something to where Im not supposed to bar someone from my house anymore because she isn't with her gf anymore. Sorry so long.

dear me, all of these posts over an issue that people should accept. Who are you to say who can or cannot get married. Are you suddenly the ruler of the world? I'm not very religious, i believe there is a creator, but that it has a set gender and that it formed everything all in seven days i think is rather ridiculous. I'm not saying anyone is wrong, im just clearing up my personal beliefs, now...

Every person is equal to one another, we all have a soul which fuels our existence, whether or not you want to be a homosexual or devout catholic or what ever religion you wish should not make you an evil person in anyone's eyes. It is good that homosexuals can have this part of happiness in their lives, because why should they not be allowed to be joined in marriage. Marriage is the binding of two individuals who care and love for each other, why does it matter on who they wish to love. So for all of you out there who will bash me for this, or bash those who benefit from this new bill, or even agree with what i have to say, there is not point in it, because your opinion will not change how we live our lives

Disgusted-2795271,

Sorry friend... I never had what you describe as the Heterosexual/normal default! Let me repeat that another way... I have never been Heterosexual in my life. No inclination, no leanings, no fantasies, no desire, no titillation, no arousal, no nothing, nada, (0), zilch! I could pretend to be straight... I could take mega doses of viagra, tons of liquor and force an erection by way of having my eyes closed and fantasizing about another man while "performing" with a women (maybe). What you don't get or will admit is that your inherent inclination (what you call default) to be a Heterosexual was for me the default to be Homosexual! And no Jesus was truly anti establishment and had no respect for the priests of his day (fellow teachers and leaders of Judaism). When he said he was the fulfillment of the law... that he would destroy the temple he was not the "end" or final verification of an old way of thinking but rather the beginning of a new way of seeing the world. The vengeance and the contradictions of the Old Testament were now seen in a new light! We had left childhood as a species, a civilization and entered adulthood.

This is an interesting topic, for sure.

I don't know what all the hoopla is about; why shouldn't we support gay marriage? I'm not sure I understand why this is so important to gay people, especially in this day and age, I can only surmise they see that as an affirmation that their life style, or sexual orientation, is "normal." I'll come back to this in a moment but as far as marriage is concerned why the hell not let the gay folks enjoy all the"bliss" that comes from matrimony and also all the BS that it's
deteriorated to in this modern age.

Marriage today is a farce, and it has been ever since the government got involved in marriage. Marriage ceremony started out based in religious beliefs and was sanctioned by the church or religion of choice, no government intervention, and no divorce law (other than those of the church). Today, marriage is a contract between a two people that basically allow the government and legal profession to step in and take their chunk of joint property established during the course of the "contract." Government regulation and legal precedence for marriage was based on this occurring
between a man and a woman. Over the years the laws regarding marriage, and more importantly divorce, have favored (by far) the woman in the relationship (this means that men who get married run a very high risk of getting taken to the cleaners when a divorce occurs). I am very interested to see how the court's will determine who gets screwed in a same sex marriage (who gets stuck with the "man" role)?

I hope that legalization of same sex marriage forces reform of divorce laws so that men don't get screwed out of their stuff when it's time to call it quits in a marriage. Quite honestly, I can't think of any benefit to signing a contract with someone that basically says they get at least 1/2 your stuff if you get divorced........ there is nothing you can have in a "love" relationship with another human being that requires a contract. You can be committed to a person and have a loving relationship without a contract. There
are plenty of reasons to not get married for sure.

Back to whether being gay is "normal" behavior. First let me say that I'm a
heterosexual male and I believe in tolerance. I don't much care about a person's sexual orientation as long as they don't try to stuff it down my throat (sorry for the visual). I've been around a bit, read a lot, and consider myself pretty well educated and I do believe that many people are "born" gay (they don't have a choice). I also believe that many "learn" to be gay (thus making it a choice) so it's learned behavior, not inborn. In either case, who gives a rats ass what they get their jolly's from? Again, I'm ok as long as the gay community isn't trying to force me to accept this as"normal." It's not normal from a biological perspective; the parts don't match. There are many things in life that are not normal but accepted.

I ask you to consider the definition of the word normal: "conforming
to the usual standard, type, or custom." I hardly think this is the case with homosexuality and I challenge anyone to make a case that it's "normal."

Something to think about.

Ben-1671313

Next up, the super rich people will want to change the rules so that parents can marry their children. Why, you might ask? Same as here, financial reasons. This way they can avoid the inheritance tax.

Personally, I'm going to start lobbying my wife to allow me to marry her sister and her best friend too.

Ben, this is not about incest, it's about equal rights under the laws and the Constitution of America for adults that want to marry regardless if they are gay or straight. No one is advocating for incest relationships here, but if you are from the deep south, I suppose you would be the first in line to apply for it.

What a tragedy. This country is really going to hell.

keep fiddling nero's !

Way to go get real...

Homosexuals hurt children and are always trying to recruit since they cannot reproduce. I know from personal experience that gay men prey on boys to a much larger degree than straight men prey on boys. Few women prey on preadolescent boys, therefore young boys are mostly sexually abused by gay men. Homosexuals also have no "off switch" nor any discretion regarding sexual behavior around minors. What is inappropriate -whether you are gay or not- is not clear to them. They are largely preoccupied with sex...

I am not very fond of most of them, but many of them are fine people, albeit confused and sexually sick. And this illness is in their head. The way they developed at a young age -through nurture and experiences- has rendered them in possession of this debilitating malady.

I can spot a homosexual from a mile away... This is because as a child with absent parents, and looking for a father figure, I was targeted and abused by such a person and I remember their lifestyle, friends, thinking and heart...

Now go ahead and collapse my posting, doing so is the same as what you are trying to have others not do to you!. My posting is full of truth and fact, I am not homophobic, since I have no fear based on irrationality -only fact and experience - no fear at all, just knowledge. One genuine person like me (especially if they are respected and in a position of influence) does the gay agenda far more harm than a thousand ignorant and mislead people that you recruit into your way of thinking...

My collapsed comments above have many "thump-ups"... Although collapsed, they have people who agree with them alongside the same number as those which are not collapsed.

Doesn't the same constitution that allows gays to do whatever also allow others to hate what they do?

Yes, in fact, it does. You have the right to hate whomever you like. You still can! Nobody is saying you cant!! But when it comes to our government, regardless of who hates who, people must be treated equally under the law.

I have not read one comment from a straight person being happy for this passing... It's all gays trying to bully their opinion onto others.

Oh, Shift Lock, I'm a straight person. I guarantee there are plenty here who are straight.

I'm ECSTATIC this passed. I've got an outfit to pick out....wedding gifts to purchase....friends to visit in NY who are getting married next month. I might even get to be a groomsmaid!

Your right, it has been nothing but bashing and counter bashing, but I am straight and i am quite happy for this bill. Everyone deserves to be happy, whether or not they are gay, straight, transvestite or anyone. We all should be allowed to have happiness

@ Shift Lock: I'm straight, and I approve of this legislation. Finally, we can stop squabbling over something so trivial, and move onto more pressing matters. It's a shame it took this long to correct an error predicated on bigotry and religious zeal.

Kreepy-Krawler,

I believe this story is in New York, not the South. And nobody mentioned incest, but nice try. Just because two people get married for financial reasons does not mean they actually required to have sex. If any two people can get married now, then ANY TWO PEOPLE CAN GET MARRIED.

Why would you discriminate against people just because they are related? Think of all the billions of dollars that can be saved by avoiding the inheritance penalty. All bets are off. Why would it be wrong for someone to marry one of their parents? Whatever happened to separation of church and state? And why shouldn't I be allowed to have more than one wife if I can talk the ladies into such a thing? Because of your religion? Because you don't like it?

This is next folks. This is where it is headed.

@smerf: I notice you couldn't enumerate the "gay agenda," either.

Shift Lock...I am straight, and I am totally for equality under the law. Why do you assume everyone who is for it must be gay?

Believing that homosexuality is wrong is not bigotry.

You're right. It's just small-minded & ignorant. You have every right to believe small-minded ignorant things. What you haven't the right to do is force others to live by your small-minded, ignorant beliefs.

Shift Lock,

Not only am I straight and not only do I approve of Marriage Equality, but I am also a Christian. Only 20 percent of Christians, hate gays and hate Marriage Equality. The Rest of us have no problem with Gays marrying. (That's 80% of Christians who approve of Marriage Equality)

And now that you will be legally bound enjoy the divorces. When you just can't take your stuff and move on. You can have alimony and support and those nice legal fees.

Remember the old saying-Know what you ask for because you just might get it.

Enjoy!

For all those who try to make the slippery slope argument: legal pedophilia, incestuous marriage, marrying animals, please, they are FALSE arguments. You can't come up with any real reasons that gay marriage is harmful, so you resort to what if, what if, what if....it's lame. If any of those arguments were even mildly legitimate, they would be used in every court case that challenges gay marriage. But they aren't. You know why? Because any lawyer worth his salt KNOWS he would be laughed out of court if he used it.

Bottom line is you can't really support your argument, so you have to go off on these tangents that distract and deflect from the real issues.

People were saying the exact same thing in the 70's about the slippery slope argument with the free love movement...when some pointed out that if it continued we would soon see homosexuals out in the open...and people like you said it will never happen...

My best wishes to loving couples from across NY state who can now, if it is important to them, enter into a legally recognized marriage. But...

I find it astonishing, absolutely astonishing, that educated advocates for this law can prattle on and on about how someone who is against this law is a hate-spewing bigot, yet they go on to launch hate-filled attacks against those that they condemn. Both sides here sound utterly unreasonable for the most part and are, obviously, more interested in slamming each other with hate speech than respectful debate.

If you want respect, you give respect. Not every Christian is a hate-filled bigot and to claim otherwise is blatantly wrong. Aggressively belittling another's religious beliefs is every bit as wrong as attacking another person's adult choice to have a homosexual relationship.

Look in the mirror, folks. Gay, straight, it doesn't matter. Hatred closes the door to healing and discourse and there's no such thing as "good" hatred.

It's no longer a slippery slope kids, once this policy goes across the country. The field is wide open. The traditional definition of marriage will be open to anyone, and then to include anything. Why not? Has anyone seen the show "Taboo" on NatGeo? What right do you have to tell anyone how to live their lives or whom or what they can marry? It's their "right" to marry a relative, their goat, or (I think on the show it was a wall). Who knows.

Enjoy the divorce part of marriage, fellas; it's a hoot.

Like I said, this is truly a great day.

well ben

you very briefly hit on the actual thing that has destroyed the norman rockwell view of marriage -- that is divorce -- that is a sin in the bible YET most every religion allows for divorce -- sure they call it different things like annulment but it is all the same divorce a sin and a destruction of the traditional marriage

according to christianity everyone who has been divorced is committing the sin of divorce each and every second they are divorced -- funny how the folks that are spewing such nonsense about equality of marriage are not looking at the real problem which is divorce

Ellen Hunt

Cue the lawyers!!

Gay marriage is going to make it impossible for real girls to find a divorce attorney! Why? Because gay marriages will have more assets and mostly no kids. That will mean they will be able to pay more, and so they will vacuum up the lawyers.

Get real people. The average length of gay male relationships is around 1.5 years. The average length of gay female relationships is about 6. The average length of marriages in the USA is 11 years.

This is going to be a trainwreck for regular girls! It will be a complete, total, train wreck

___________________________________________________________

This is total BS. Please show me where you got your facts. I have you know most all gay couples we know have been together more than 10 years. The facts is since there is more straight marriages that fail so quickly their wedding packages aren't even unwrapped yet. Get your facts together and please show your proof before posting lies.

And the pedophile postings above about gays' preying on young boys is also total BS. You looks the stats there are more heterosexual molestion cases that there are gay even by the percentage point. Gays don't recruit, and where ever that lie was invented is't total lie. People aren't recruited to be gay they are born that way. Either you are or you not. When did you decide to be straight. Is so rediculous to think sexual orientation is a choice.

I am a devout Catholic and I cannot understand why so many other Catholics like to bash on homosexuals. Listen, even IF it is wrong according to God, it's not our job to judge them upon it. I refuse to put words into God's mouth and deny other members of society their rights simply because a few people interpret the Bible's message on marriage as stating that it is only between a man and a woman. Anyone who has read the bible knows that Jesus would not simply cast them aside like lepers and deny them their rights simply because of a single choice. Remember, God made them that way so we have no right to judge them. Let them go about their life's business as they choose and leave the judgement to God. That is what the Bible says, after all.

@smerf: Many gay people have children. My wife has 3. Marriage and heterosexuality are not requirements to reproduce. Even if every person in the world magically "caught the gay", they'd still be able to continue the species. And there would be a LOT fewer unwanted babies.

Please, step outside your bubble for a few minutes every day. It will do wonders.

Glenn Davis,

Just stop looking? Oh, wow! Why didn't I think of that? That's a pretty shallow resolution!

@ Magnum, proof of your assertions that 80% of Christians approve of gay marriage and 20% of Christians hate gays.

Christians don't "hate" anyone If they follow Biblical law, then Christians cannot support gay marriage. Can't have it both ways.

Christians do not hate people for they love the souls and try to save them for eternal perdiction. That is why they cry and say gay marriages are evil and everybody should refrain from them. Like Jesus hate sin so christians hate sin.

Pointing out a sin or evil is not hate. If your children are walking towards fire unknowingly don't you warn them, because you love them?

"I'm a Christian and I think homosexuality is just fine";

Bull@!$%#. Sounds a little like;

"I'm gay and I'm against gay marriage."

Anybody can claim anything here. Sometimes it sounds like one giant false flag operation.

oh boy, there goes ben, anybody that disagrees with him must "one of THOSE people"

give me a break, I'm straight, not a christian ,and I support marriage equality

I am Christian and for Gay Marriage is like saying I am Catholic but I attend mosque every Friday. I am a cop but I support crack smoking murderers... I am a Capitalist but I support communism. And by the way 80% of Catholics attend mosque, only 20% don't. I am also a KKK member who believes in the NAACP, as do 76% of clansmen. I am a vegetarian who loves pork, ribs and an occasional chicken breast (As do 83% of vegetarians). I am a animal lover who enjoys an occasional dog fight... etc, etc...

These beliefs are contrary to the established and agreed upon confines of each category.

Just go ahead and say: I am a God believer with my own spiritual beliefs which include the acceptance of: Insert here what you wish... Otherwise, you risk sounding a lot like a hypocritical wannabe (not to mention, an imbecile) ! ! !

oh boy willow

go tell the "christian" ministers like fred phelps and pat robinson along with a huge list of others including the pope all cardinals and bishops -- they all constantly spew hatred against gays -- so perhaps in your tiny world you do not see that but there is a huge number of christians that indeed hate and not just the gays

You can be Christian and not support same sex marriage, that is your Civil right

You cannot be a Christian and infinge on the Civil Rights of other Americians, that is against the law (The 14th Admentment).

To stop two people of the same sex from marrying is infringing on their Civil Rights (The 14th Admendment).

rbach

I don't belive the vast majority of Christians don't spew hate like you say, You just get that impression from what you see here. The ones here think they are in the majority...lol

mikebank

I know there are some good christians out there that do not hate anyone or anything they are truly spiritual beings -- when I say the vast majority of "christians" spew hate -- notice the quotes around the word -- I am referring to the phony little haters that call themselves christians and yet have no idea what being a christian is really about like the fred phelps, pat robertsons of the world the pope the cardinals and bishops all living like kings while they diddle children and yap hatred from their pulpits that their mindless minions swallow hook line and sinker

so according to shift lock, a christian can not believe that others can live by their own beliefs.

sounds like the taliban to me

and then they wonder why people criticize the radical right.

Christians don't hate?!? Try telling that to the Westboro Baptist Church! In their eyes, even God hates.

Oh boy, there goes Iseeconfusedpeople again... anybody that disagrees with him must not be "one of THOSE people", but give him a break, he thinks he's straight, believes he's going to hell , but he supports marriage equality.

That just sounds very stylish.

benny boy, trying to compenesate for your inner feelings?

LOL

going to hell? not a chance, when you die, you're dead, that's it, everything else is just a fantasy.

as to my being gay? nope, not a chance either, but I guess I would qualify as an "adulterer" in your book.

You're starting to sound like one of the other idiots... but you claim you're not gay with such passion... almost like you believe there would be something wrong with being gay? You can't even come out of the closet under an alias. What is it with "you people"?

I really find it amuzing you bigots think any gay need to be validated by the likes of you. You're an embarrassment to the world.

Homosexuality is a disease. Its non-classification as a disease in the 70's has been detrimental, especially to those who could benefit from a cure or a treatment. Gay people develop this illness through a inability to relate to the opposite sex in a healthy manner, sexually and otherwise... There may be different reasons for the acquisition of this condition -at birth or developed later on as in nearly all cases- but that is irrelevant). Hopefully one day a cure will be developed so these people can have a complete and fulfilling experience out of the one life they have... It is very sad when the only life you have is not fully lived.

@ Shift Lock: This isn't a theocracy, and your religious beliefs have no place in American legislative, or political dealings. Keep spewing your hate, and I'll keep laughing my arse off, as every law based originally on religious doctrine is repealed and forgotten.

It's very sad when you can't live your own life, having to be wrapped up in the business of everyone else. Must be hard to live with so much hate.

people who post hateful bigoted comments like shiftlock are the ones with a disease

No hate here... actually I am quite compassionate towards gays all around being that like every person here, I have gays in my immediate & extended family. If a person is gay, there is even more cause to be loving and supportive to them... And I am not a religious person either. Incorrect and forceful categorizations related to religion, politics and hatred are evidence of discomfort with the truth...

If a person is born with a certain malady OR if it is acquired later on in life due to any reason whatsoever, then they are entitled to treatment and sympathy, not hatred and denial of the condition, even if they themselves are the denier. If as a result of their malady, they display certain behavior to a higher percentage (i.e: molestation of boys by gay men to a much higher percentage than women or straights) then this fact should be openly discussed as opposed to oppressed.

shiftlock

whatever you may think about yourself the total opposite comes shining through in your posts -- nothing but bigoted hate shine bright and clear -- you may be fooling yourself but anyone with a brain see your post for what they are fact less rants showing you have zero knowledge of the subject you are posting on -- you as many other bigots just spew un related idiotic bull @!$%# as if they were related -- the intelligent folks know there is no connection between being homosexual and pedophiles only the haters try to put them in the same discussion

so regardless of what you believe about yourself -- your posts show there is much hate there along with utter ignorance of the subject matter

Shift Lock

Homosexuality is a disease. Its non-classification as a disease in the 70's has been detrimental, especially to those who could benefit from a cure or a treatment. Gay people develop this illness through a inability to relate to the opposite sex in a healthy manner, sexually and otherwise... There may be different reasons for the acquisition of this condition -at birth or developed later on as in nearly all cases- but that is irrelevant). Hopefully one day a cure will be developed so these people can have a complete and fulfilling experience out of the one life they have... It is very sad when the only life you have is not fully lived.

_______________________________________________________

LOL the 70's come up to date dude! Why so much hate, i don't give a damn what you do in the bedroom why you worry about what gays do. LEt it go man!

I doubt seriously Shiftever goes to church. He just sits in his recliner and complains about everything!

sorry ben, but if I was gay I would be lusting after men. I don't lust after men, I like women, so I'm not gay, very simple. the idea of sex with a man does nothing for me, just as the idea of sex with women does nothing for a gay man or sex with men does nothing for a gay woman.

but apparently simple logic is beyond your comprehension ability, as evidenced by your posts.

Shift lock,

Your baseless rant is an indication that you are not living a full and complete life. It is a classic example of over compensation and obsession. You really should think about that and see what your real motivation is, because it has nothing to do with factual information. There must be a reason that you fabricate such strong, hateful condemnations. Typically, the reason for this is to compensate for ones own tendencies. But there are other reasons, too.

LOL, homosexurhals is a disease? OH MY can a shot or some meds to cure it? Maybe you can pray it away for me. My mom tried but didn't work.

Shift Lock

"No hate here... actually I am quite compassionate towards gays all around being that like every person here, I have gays in my immediate & extended family. If a person is gay, there is even more cause to be loving and supportive to them..."

Coming from someone who just compared, in a hate filled rant, all gays to the pederast who spent more time with you than your parents (#1.144). You say you're a Christian, but is not religious. If you're not religious, than what is the point of loving people you spend your time here bitching about? You wouldn't know a gay person if you were shopping at an Abercrombie and Fitch. Your compassion is as meaningless as you are conflicting!

And you call US hateful?

Just pointing out the facts, how is that hate? As a matter of public court records there are nearly 10,000 Catholic Priest involved in child molestation cases world wide. In Every country where there is a Catholic presents, there are court cases of priest raping children.

BornAgainCatholic - I agree that there have been many Catholic priests and bishops that have done unbelievably evil acts toward children, but it's certainly not ALL and far from MOST Catholic priests.

True, but it's the church hierarchy which at the highest levels engaged in a criminal conspiracy to hide those horrible crimes, and even to shuffle pedophiles off into unsuspecting communities where they'd rape children again and again.

And since 71% of American Catholics support civil marriage equality, it's clear that the real problem on multiple issues is the church leadership. The rot is at the top.

BornAgainCatholicCultist: There are pedofiles in every neighborhood, organization, business, etc, just ask any cop.

Wow. Love those VALUES. Every other moment, they claim they are the bearers of the superior values, and the only true way to god. But when they're caught doing evil, and called to be accountable for their actions, suddenly they compare themselves to every neighborhood, organizations and business.

Funny how that happens, eh?

Does anybody actually READ these posts before making comments? There is more twisting going on here than in a preztel factory.

shrekk, I already said priests and bishops (which implies hierarchy since bishops were the ones that moved them around). I guess I don't see your argument since I'm not arguing with you. ?

Bernitch, where did I say this was acceptable?! I'm merely pointing out a fact. You can't point the finger only at the Catholic Church for pedofiles--that just isn't factual. Nobody is saying it's right--where did you see THAT?!

I didn't say you called it acceptable or right. Why lie about what I stated in my post? You know exactly the point I was making, otherwise you wouldn't take such a cowardly stance and misrepresent what I said.

Perhaps you forgot what you said in response to my post:

Wow. Love those VALUES. Every other moment, they claim they are the bearers of the superior values, and the only true way to god. But when they're caught doing evil, and called to be accountable for their actions, suddenly they compare themselves to every neighborhood, organizations and business.

Funny how that happens, eh?

You did call it values which implies I'm ok with it because everyone else is doing it. Um, NO. Just putting the facts in perspective. Everyone is harping on my "overgeneralizations," but isn't it a generalization to lump the entire Catholic church and priests/bishops as pedofiles? It's simply inaccurate.

The Truth hurts sometimes.

Time to tax churches. Big Time. I'm tired of fascists getting a free ride simply by stapling a steeple to the roof of their war room.

Soothfst, I want you to reflect on this...

Ignorance should be distinguished from stupidity, although both can lead to "unwise" acts. Also, if important information is available, one may fail to acquire it due to lack of intelligence (not realizing its importance, or not understanding it). The informal use of ignorant is the same as rude and discourteous.

Now read your post back to yourself...

BornAgainCatholic,

I guess you're not aware that there are a lot of BornAgainAtheists on NewsVine. This should be a wake up call for you! They are as militant as any evangelical Christian.

Here's an idea. MAKE MARRIAGE A STRICTLY RELIGIOUS THING. Take all government benefits (joint taxes, spousal IRA's, etc) away and let the churches handle the marriage aspect. Of course some states would have to change laws on co-habitation but that could be done. Then couples wanting "permanence" could use written contracts for that purpose. See, problem solved.

You won't get any sympathy for your religion, bornagaincatholic, and your cries of being "hateful" because the Catholic church is getting smacked for what it has done regarding the pedophile/ephobophile scandal won't wash in clean water. For generations, the Catholic church, from the parish level up to the papacy, knew what was going on and tried to cover it up because it feared the scandal would cost "lost souls" who wouldn't follow the Catholic religion. It doesn't matter that only a "few" clergy were involved in it; what matters is that the hierarchy (including various popes) knew about it and did nothing so as to "save souls." The Catholic magesterium pontificates upon sexual issues, while its very own were raping children and teenagers and covered it up and allowed it to continue. The Catholic magesterium doesnt want gay people to marry, but did nothing about Catholic clerics who raped the innocent. Catholicism has no credibility in this issue, so you, as a Catholic, should be humble enough to admit so and just go your way and leave other people alone. As a Catholic, you should be humble enough to say: "who am I to say that people of the same sex cannot be loving and deserve to be married, while my own magesterium allowed the horror of innocents to go on in the name of Jesus?"

Marriage existed long before the Jews or any other religion added their concept of ceremonial sacredness onto it, Ancient tribes made a point of it celebrating it only to create lines of property ownership and genetic lineage, not to imbue it with mystical or metaphysical qualities... that sort of thing was done after the fact. Modern marriage should simply be a civil contract of shared intentions. The rest of the embellishments of ritual, sanctity and custom can be added to that contract as people see fit.

Modern marriage as a civil contract has basic requirements of sexual capability to procreate within the modern civil contract. The lack of sexual capability to procreate within the modern civil contract universally results in annulment. Marriage that cannot be consummated is void. Men cannot impregnate other men, so there is not the capability of a child of the marriage, and no marriage.

That's complete crap. What century are you living in? That would bar two infertile people or people with no desire to procreate from marriage. Marriage is as much about love and not necessarily sex. There's no reason two heterosexual men or women couldn't get married, having no intentions to ever have sex.

I don't care if they get together or what they do in their bedrooms. But when they get together I just don't think it should be called marriage. The word marriage does have a certain meaning-not even born of religion.

So come up with your own name for it and give them their rights and protections being with each other. I also think that if they called it a Union they would have a lot less problem getting it passed.

Heterosexuals no more own the word marriage than they own the word gay. Get over it.

But the word marriage has a specific meaning. So find your own as you get over it.

I'm afraid, as the NY vote finally, finally shows...you and your ilk will be the ones "getting over it."

Finally.......all the worlds problems are now solved. Anyone can marry anyone. Let's move on now to anyone can marry anything......that will be real progress

Some guy in Japan wanted to marry a blow-up doll not long ago. And people have tried to marry their pets before. And then there's the people who want to marry their cousins and a couple of sick-o's wanted to marry their Mom.

bklynj: LOL--your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. Now you want us to be protected from blow up dolls?

Mickey

Here on earth the most agressive eventually rules the world it seems. That is the paradox of calling "the church" agressive. Defending the principles, people fled to this nation to exercise freely, and this nation was founded on, is not being aggressive - it is being defensive.

There are two kinds of freedom to follow God - to which there are few regrets, and freedom for you to do whatever you wish. The latter will distroy you and those around you if left unchecked, the previous protects those that cannot help themselves.

bklynj-- where have you been? This business of cousins marrying has been around for eons. It isn't something new. Well, maybe it is for a young squirt but for someone who has been around for years it isn't new.

@ap

It was not an argument it was a comment to the post above mine. And the sad part is that it really happened. I did not say I wanted to be protected from gay marriage in the first place if you read my posts.

My only comment was you need to come up with your own name for it.

That is an opinion I am entitled to. And it is also my right to express it. So if your out there looking to hook up with your boyfriend then you shouldn't be trampling other people's rights.

@susie

The only young squirt is the one you play with. You have no idea how old I am but I am not some young kid. Another person who ass-u-me-s. Makes you look foolish.

And the practice of marrying cousins I was thinking about the Rothchild family in England. They were wealthy bankers maybe you could research their demise.

The truth is that the Catholic Church does more to help the poor and marginalized than any other charitable organization and is second only to the federal government in programs for the poor. Look it up.

Look this up: The Roman Catholic Church is also the wealthiest institution on the planet. If the church itself, rather than its devoted minions, would exercise this self-same commitment to poverty (they could start with liquidating Vatican City, a place Jesus would hardly have called 'home sweet home') then perhaps you could boast.

As it stands, the "church" is its people, and PEOPLE are doing more for the poor. People 'should' do this. They should not need a 4,000 year old dogma to prompt them to do so.

And they do not. There are dozens of powerful agnostic, secular, and even atheist charities.

And let's not forget all the good the church has done for the good people of Africa, what with denying condoms in favor of dogma and watching AIDS and the national birth rate go up exponentially.

Sorry, but you cannot take credit for the good without facing the downright evil along with it.

After reading 90% of the comments made here... I am left wondering... Do I hear people that are happy for Gay peoples rights? Or do I hear the Rhetoric or the Anti-Christian Leftists Movement?

You do realize, that people have just as much a right to DISAGREE with you.... as you have a right to DISAGREE with them...

I am a Christian, and I believe in a living God. Yet I also believe I have no right to judge or condemn another man or woman for their actions or beliefs. I strongly support the separation of Church and State because I do not want some of those posting here on this blog to have any say so in my church, any more then they want MY say so in their bedrooms.

I believe it to be very clear.... there are always going to be those who take a law like this, and use it to progress yet another and then another law. I read on here where the church has killed and burned people at the stake... yes, hundreds of years ago Christians led by MEN WANTING POWER did some horrific things in the name of God. I've seen some Muslims do that lately without the same reaction as given to Christians by the anti-Christian, Humanistic Left... I have also seen some Atheists do some horrific things in the name of NOTHING.... does that make them better or worse?

Here is what this entire vote will be judged on in 100 years... Did it really make a family a better and a stronger unit. Did it become a divisive tool to separate those who want a "Liberal and no holds bars lifestyle" from those "who desire to cherish long established morals"......? Neither of these two are wrong... they are decisions. Decisions we all have the right to make.

HOWEVER....

Rarely have I seen things get "better" where people with agenda are concerned... If this is TRULY a law about allowing those who love and are committed to each other to marry and enjoy a life... WONDERFUL. If it is only another Radical Leftists stride towards their agenda.... It will only serve to divide...... We'll see!

No vote is forever....... There is always another coming behind it.......

Now how many of you who are happy about Gay Marriage are going to run out and make a fool of yourself getting all Pissed off because someone prays at their sons or daughters graduation or football game?

Hypocrissy goes both ways...

Derek,

It is a lot like highschool. Each group has their opinion and if you ar enot in that opinion's realm...you are not acceptable.

More of a case where children bicker than any agenda I think. People are greedy, disrespectful, and do not acre about those outside of their sphere of influence.

@Derek:

That was the best answer I have read here all day.

Although I am one of those who does not support gay marriage, as I see it as the continued decline of the family, it is everyone's choice to decide which path they will follow.

People this is the 21st century, the homosexual agenda doesn't care about your silly constitution or its founding intents, only its self serving desires. We the emotionally driven people for underdogs of America are free to root for any group that creates an inspirational story and thereby are free to change any law we see fit, right? I'm open to your hypocrisy, here....

"the homosexual agenda doesn't care about your silly constitution or its founding intents, only its self serving desires."

A little fyi - the "homosexual agenda" you guys loooove to talk about is equality, something that fulfills the intent of that "silly" constitution and "founding intents." Equal treatment in the law does not seem to me to be a "self-serving desire."

Amen Amanda.

BornAgainCatholic

Now if you REALLY want to stop pedofilia, than perhaps we should just eliminate men, since the number of men who sexually abuse children far surpasses the number of women who do that.

Not true. Womenj have been mpolesting boys for a long, long time and there was a double standard stacked against men more then women. Since the past decade, women are now being charged with child molestation. Women like sex just as much as men do. So stop trying to fool yourself into believing in something that isn't so. Women have been molesting and raping boys for a very long time.

The truth is that the Catholic Church does more to help the poor and marginalized than any other charitable organization and is second only to the federal government in programs for the poor. Look it up.

It's also one of the largest property-owners in the world. Just think how many poor people could actually be lifted out of poverty if the Church were to sell (or as Jesus directly instructed, GIVE it all away) its vast holdings of land, art and other treasures. But of course, it would lose most of its political power and influence without its wealth, and there's no way the Vatican will ever let that happen.

The Catholic Church is guilty of far greater crimes than pedophilia.

People this is the 21st century, the homosexual agenda doesn't care about your silly constitution or its founding intents, only its self serving desires.

Please list the points of the gay agenda. I've asked every person who uses that phrase (always someone who opposes it), and I've never yet received a response. Maybe you'll be the first, but I won't hold my breath.

flbikerchick, the "gay agenda" is to convert americans into homosexuals and completely destroy the Christain faith, convert everyone to devil worship and communism, and to crush America.

and yes, I am being completely sarcastic, but I am sure there are those on this board that think that what I said is completely true.

Keep fiddling Nero's !

God called and he wants to thank all the cult members for spewing hate in his name.

He and Jesus are over in Africa starving children to death, but he said he will start turning New Yorkers into pillars of salt as soon as they wrap things up over there.

He said it would be Wednesday or Thursday at the latest.

PS – Jesus said he’s having a wonderful time hangin’ out with dad watching the babies suffer and wants to say “hi” to everybody.

I am not an advocate of gay rights, but if same sex couples want all the "joy" the rest of us get from being married, let them! If they want to suffer through nightmarish divorces, that should be their right!

So many straight couples scream about the "sanctity" of marriage, yet how many of them have been married multiple times?

I think a more sensible solution would be a Domestic Partnership Act, where any two consenting adults could form an alliance, with contracts to spell everything out (similar to a prenuptial agreement). Then, if the couple wanted to, they could also have a ceremony/celebration with/or without a religious service. This could simplify the divorce process also.

@bearcat

What a stupid thing to post. I'm sure your demeaning rant has brought more people over to your side. Maybe if your such a good person and your beliefs are so great you could feed those starving children to help out the God that you speak of.

It is better to remain silent and thought an azz then to open your mouth and remove all doubt!

@bklynj

What side? He sounded sarcastic to me, so really, my problem is understanding what you're saying/typing. I am so confused. Are you being sarcastic too? Geez, I shouldn't spend time thinking about this.

@flbikerchick

"One of the largest property holders"

Well I'm just going to go out on a limb here and guess that most of that land is being occupied by a church rather than being held out as a real estate piece to be sold at the most profitable time. Being in a church is considered a community thing or something of that sort, it has sentimental value attached to it, like a marriage, go figure?

" art and other treasures"

Some people prefer the preservation of culture rather than the process of seeing it sold off as a capitalistic venture to some rich guy who won't even look at it after the first week. Plus, selling the objects of saints is against their religion, just saying.

And yeah, they've committed heanous crimes in the past, but really, which organization seeking to exist without being destroyed by their neighbors hasn't? I'm not even Catholic and I still sigh hearing people associate a huge organization with pedophilia. That's like associating gays as being people who secretly get into jail, reform schools, churches, schools, airport bathrooms, etc, in order to rape people. Ignorance on both sides.

@ineptia

Sounds more like he was trying to demean a religion. So if I said all people are against gays because they spread AIDS, that would just be the same type of "sarcasm" as you call it. But don't bother to think about it.

Re: catholic church as land major owner:

Well I'm just going to go out on a limb here and guess that most of that land is being occupied by a church rather than being held out as a real estate piece to be sold at the most profitable time.

The easiest way to show why that is wrong would be to suggest you travel to Montreal and discover the real answer for yourself.

It's a smokescreen! gay couples aren't interested in forcing any churches to perform their ceremonies. There are multiple churches and temples already, many of them which are bible-based and christian-based, which perform nad bless gay marriages already.

And there's a question. What about the Religious Freedom of the churches in this country which legitimately perform and bless gay marriages? What about THEIR religious freedom and equality? Why are THEY relegated to second-class status BELOW other churches in a country where RELIGIOUS FREEDOM is supposed to be paramount?

Bernitch, I thought of your second point after I posted but too late to add it. I agree completely, especially because I happen to belong to one of those religious institutions that bless gay marriages myself.

Amazing isnt it... They not only think their argument is legitimate, BUT in a country that is based upon religious freedom, they actually think they have a religion that is SUPERIOR under our Laws of the Land, and that superiority must be recognized by our government to a degree that sets up upper and lower classes among the religious groups themselves!

And why is it ok to protect those that believe the same thing you do, but not those that have differing beliefs?

BAC, you contradict yourself. That's what happens when you internalize the lies beaten into you by others.

bornagain,

There are many Christian churches that bless gay marriages; also Reform Judaism as a whole and many other Jews of other denominations are accepting of it as well. Can't speak to the Muslim faith. But as far as the first two faiths you mentioned, there are many that have no problem with same sex marriage.

And how is allowing gay marriage not protecting those with differing beliefs? Those that don't believe that gay marriage is right needn't marry someone of the same gender, attend a gay wedding, or join a church/synagogue/etc. that supports gay marriage. No church official will be required to marry gays if it is against his/her beliefs, just as right now, religious officials often refuse to marry people of different faiths, or who are divorced.

So I repeat, how would allowing gay marriage fail to protect your religious beliefs? This is not a rhetorical question. I think the reason I tend to participate in these discussions so much is that I really would like to understand the opposition's viewpoint. I would like to hear an answer that does not reference the bible.

So I repeat, how would allowing gay marriage fail to protect your religious beliefs? This is not a rhetorical question. I think the reason I tend to participate in these discussions so much is that I really would like to understand the opposition's viewpoint. I would like to hear an answer that does not reference the bible.

It's icky and the Bible gives me justification for me to try to stop something that makes me feel icky. Or something like that has to be the honest answer.

authentic marriage as God instituted it.

In the first place, what exactly is an "authentic marriage"? Is your marriage more "authentic" than mine because you had a religious ceremony while I did not?

In the second place, God did not "institute" marriage -- civil marriage predates organized religion by thousands of years.

And Biblical marriage has many types. I don't want to marry my brothers wife if he dies. Do I have to impregnate my wife's servant? What if I can't afford more wives? I guess I can sell my daughter into marriage to pay for a new wife.

The church won't be affected by this legislation one bit anyway. This whole law is about the issuing of secular, state marriage licenses.

You miss the point. In Connecticut a gay couple wanted to be married in a chruch facility. The church said no so they sued to force the chruch to allow them to be married their and won. In Massachusetts since the state supreme court has not yet decided a gay union must result in the creation of children, they must adopt. But the do not just want adopt - they want to adopt from Catholic Social Services. That is why Cahtolic Social Services no longer provides any adoption services in Massachuttes. The protections are so that a gay couple can not take a Priest or Minister that does not want to perform their marriage to court and force them to marry them or loose their legal status in the state. And they will and have taken them to court. The point is do not force me as a religious person that does not believe in gay marriage to participate and yes that is what is being done.

That facility was not inherently religious. It was a hall that was rented out for profit making, it was not conscrated, it was not holy, it a business. When the church acts like a business it can not discriminate like a church. If they are willing to rent to everyone else then they also have to rent to them. It would be different if they tried to force the CHURCH to be rented to them and they didn't. They wanted to have the wedding in the hall that had been rented out to all people before them. That hall had jewish weddings and nondenomination and even civil weddings there before. It was a business.

BornAgainCatholic - I don't know what religious institutions you're talking about, but the three main religions (Judiasm, Christian, and Muslim) adher to authentic marriage as God instituted it.

Wrong. There are numerous mainstream Christian and Jewish denominations which perform religious weddings for gays. Why do you think the views of your bigoted cult should be enforced by the government, rather than the views of the more enlightened sects?

How about we agree that the government doesn't enforce any religion's Sharia laws? By the way, that's the way it's supposed to work now since all marriages in the US are merely secular legal contracts - only the state performs and regulates marriage. Churches perform a legally irrelevant religious ritual, and the state simply doesn't care what churches do or don't do.

In Connecticut a gay couple wanted to be married in a chruch facility. The church said no so they sued to force the chruch to allow them to be married their and won.

Keith until you provide a link to this case I will have to call BS. I did a search and the closest thing I can find is a Connecticut couple suing the US government because one could not add the other to her federal health insurance.

I found a case where a heterosexual congregate sued the church for her weekly donations returned after it performed a same-sex commitment ceremony at its alter. A grand total of $250,000. She eventually dropped the suit.

Here is my link: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/24/gay-marriage-splits-african-american-church/

BornAgainCatholicCultist: I don't know what religious institutions you're talking about, but the three main religions (Judiasm, Christian, and Muslim) adher to authentic marriage as God instituted it.

LMFAO! You just named three cult beliefs who each think their way in the only true way to the true god, and each thinks the other two are wrong... What nonsense.

And the funniest part of all -- NOT ONE of those cult groups you mentioned can provide one shred of evidence to prove their god exists!

Just to be clear BornagainCatholic

In a recent poll over 70% of the Jewish respondents supported Marriage Equality not even the margin of error can remove this majority, so not all religions, as you claim in another generalization, support your personal view on marriage.

You are preaching from a very shaky platform Bornagain and you continue to use generalizations, such as: Athiests say God doesn't exist, but don't search for Him. It's kind of hard to find something you don't actually seek.

To dismantle your generalization I searched I looked I spend 20 years in the catholic education system, I was an altar boy and well, I'm an Atheist. Some people don't believe. You do good on you!

This entire marriage debate is really none of your business it does not effect your right to marry nor your marriage. You want to deny families recognition and stability because of your beliefs? I would suggest you read your bible, look at what it says in there about loving one another and not judging.

Then try and do that, don't judge, for every word you say against this is a judgment you should not be making.

Rant over,

shrekk, you need to go up a bit to find that I already answered that. And yes, even you agree with the same thing, that there are denominations that accept homosexual marriage. Yes, that is true. But they are denominations--they broke away from the original Church. And yes, there are groups of Jews who feel the same way--but they are seperate groups that decided to change their belief system on how they felt and not on the Truth. When you divert so much from an original faith belief, than you're making things up as you go. They not really true Christians or Jews--their belief system has become so deluted that it's not even remotely accurate (I'm talking about the extreme cases). There are, of course, many, many religious denominations that stick to revealed truth.

Actually, all three main religions do believe in the same God. Jews don't believe Jesus is the Christ and are still waiting for Him to arrive and Muslims believe that Jesus was a great prophet, but not God made man.

BornAgainCatholic - When you divert so much from an original faith belief, than you're making things up as you go. They not really true Christians or Jews.....

Why do you think your Sharia laws should be imposed on all Americans by the government, and not the Sharia laws of a gay-friendly church?

Your religious cult should have no more impact on my life than mine does on yours. Our secular laws don't care about your bizarre cult, your bible or your imaginary friend. Keep your Sharia law where it belongs - in your own life.

Wow BAC. Now you're tryign to characterize those three religions as having barely any different ideologial differences, worshiping the same god, and "oh, even their non-acceptance of jesus is but a minor difference..."

LOL!

the jesus-myth is critical to the belief of christians. they claim that jesus is the only true way to heaven. period. suggesting that the other two, who reject the jesus-myth in that sense, are basically the same and worship the same god, is utter nonsense! the other two believe in a god that does NOT require the jesus-myth to reach the kingdom of god. how on earth can any idiot think this is the same god as the christian god?? yikes! nice logic there, punkin!

you talk about diverting from the Truth. how do you think the jews feel about christians adding to their jewish Torah?

probably the same way that mainstream christians feel about mormons adding more mythology to their jesus-mythology.

what nonsense.

I am a Christian and some of the comments that other believers make surprise me. The Bible does say that we are supposed to spread the good word, but it also says that if someone doesn't want to hear it, we are supposed to move on and not push our beliefs on others. Homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible, but so is divorce, adultery, premarital sex, lying, gossiping, etc. EVERYONE sins and any person on here that points a finger at a gay person is being judgmental which is also not allowed. We are to love all people.

The point of this article is about gays having the right to marry. The Bible does say that a marriage is the union between a man and a woman. This means that in order for God to bless a marriage and consider it a marriage in His eyes, it must be man and woman. If the earthly laws are changed to allow man and man or woman and woman to marry, that has no affect on the definition of marriage according to the Bible. True Christians are told to not confirm to the earthly laws and focus on the Biblical laws. If the earthly laws are changed, so be it.

My point is that I believe everyone on earth should have equal rights. If gays are allowed to marry, it will be legal in the eyes of the law and not in the eyes of God. If someone doesn't believe in God, then they will be happily married and have the same benefits that heterosexuals have. If everything that the Bible says is true (which I truly believe it is), then I pray for those who don't understand. At the same time, I do wish everyone happiness and love and equal rights on earth.

Well said, roadrunner.

Roadrunner, I agree with MOST of what you said. I don't, however, agree that we should just allow the government to infringe on our rights or pass immoral laws. This puts us in a very sticky situation. You do realize that our religious liberty and freedom of speech (something this great country of ours was founded on) will be damaged if this passes.

So which law will you follow when one law is in opposition the the other)? Do you follow the Moral Law (your conscience) or the civil law? So if our laws says something is acceptable, but is in direct conflict with the 10 Commandments, that's ok because it's the law?

I don't, however, agree that we should just allow the government to infringe on our rights or pass immoral laws.

BAC, exactly how will your rights be infringed upon with the legalization of gay-marriage.

This puts us in a very sticky situation. You do realize that our religious liberty and freedom of speech (something this great country of ours was founded on) will be damaged if this passes.

How will your freedom of speech and religion be damaged?

So which law will you follow when one law is in opposition the the other)?

You follow your mores. In this case it will not be a crime to still be against homosexual marriage.

So if our laws says something is acceptable, but is in direct conflict with the 10 Commandments, that's ok because it's the law?

1. Freedom of religion allows us to violate this one
2. Freedom of religion allows us to violate this one
3. Freedom of speech allows us to violate this one
4. Freedom of religion allows us to violate this one
5. No specific law enforcing this one
6. Illegal but not unique to Christianity
7. Right to privacy makes this one legal though it was once illegal
8. Illegal but not unique to Christianity
9. Illegal
10. We do not have the ability to read minds therefore we do not have thought police in this country

Three out of ten are illegal in this country and in every other civilized society, Christian or not.

Our laws are typically meant to protect us from ourselves and others, not to reinforce this or that religions morals and tenants.

Can you name one law that contradicts your religious belief and if you violate the law in jeopardy of a fine or jail time?

Looks like in places where gay marriage is legal it was enacted by either legislation or court decision. Whereas in states where gay marriage is explicitly banned it was done by direct vote of the people. Even the ultra-liberal CA overwhelmingly approved Prop8. Apparently it happens because elected Democrats and judges appointed by them are much farther to the left than their constituency or even majority of their party voters; and gay agenda is a significant part of liberal agenda at large. If NY voters got to decide on it directly, we'd see that State of NY is not Greenwich Village.

True Christians are to obey the laws of man as long as they do not conflict with God's higher laws. If the laws are changed to allow homosexual marriage, Christians will still able to marry and follow the laws of man as well as God's. The 10 commandments are in place for us to follow and if a law were to ever be passed that forces me to do something immoral, then I am instructed, by the Bible, to follow God's law. In this particular case, I can still follow both God's law and civil law because I am not being forced to do something immoral. I do not see how this civil law change would take away my religious liberties or freedom of speech. I also do not see how this would be infringing on our rights as we still are free to believe and follow His word.

Even the ultra-liberal CA overwhelmingly approved Prop8.

Reality check: the 2008 vote on Proposition 8 was 52.24% Yes and 57.74% No – hardly "overwhelmingly" approved. Please also realize that here in the US we're ruled (thankfully) by a Constitution that protects individual rights, and not by mere majority rule.

Roadrunner good points. I have been reading these posts and there are those who go to the first amendment and the separation of church and state. The original meaning was to stop the government from forcing everyone into their religion. I hear all these people complain about christmas, crosses on the side of a mountain, or where a loved one was killed as being offensive to them, seriously that is just plain whack, who is it hurting to say Merry Christmas, or the crosses. No one it is just those activists that want to cause trouble. Most of our laws come from the 10 Commandments, a religious document. Why don't we do away with the laws to have complete separation from church and state. I guess not chaos would result. Everyone complains about their rights being infringed upon, Christians have had their rights infringed upon by activists, the ACLU and government. It's not ok to pray in school, to teach creationism, and have the 10 commandments hanging up in certain courtrooms. Yet Congress opens every session with a prayer. So all of you who are on the side of gay marriage are trying to deny those who are not for it their right to their opinion. Personally this whole issue is over the word "Marriage", and the benefits that go with it. I have no issue with that but how about a compromise on the word. Leave marriage for man and woman and go with something else for other couples but give them the same benefits. Seriously is it that important for it to be the word marriage for gay/lesbian couples, it certainly is for the straight side. From what I have read most gay/lesbian couples want to be together and have the same benefits as a married couple, especially the hospital ones and would be ok with another word, it is the lunatic activists that are actually hurting their cause. And the real winners will divorce lawyers and shrinks, this will open up a whole new demographic for them.

Richard, it will be hard to succinctly point out how wrong you are on almost every point you brought up, but I will try.

First off, you can't have the freedom OF religion without a freedom FROM religion. It's impossible to have one and not the other. In fact, I dare you to try and think up a way it could theoretically be possible. Really, try it and get back to me.

As for the ten commandments, name the many laws that you suppose were based on them. I'll wait... Okay, I'll give you a hint: there are only two. Not killing and not stealing. Maybe you could stretch "not lying" into lying under oath, but that's the most you can get from the Ten Commandments.

The ACLU isn't infringing upon your religion's rights, they're merely protecting other from you infringing on theirs. Not being able to persecute others isn't "your rights being infringed," it's called "constitutional."

Speaking of the constitution, the opening prayer before congress is most clearly unconstitutional.

Moving on to the word "marriage," having a "separate but equal" (gee, where have I heard that before...?) program for same-sex couples is by definition unequal. Now, I might be convinced to call them civil unions if they also change heterosexual marriages to them as well. Equal means equal. End of story.

BornAgainCatholic

How the hell are you born again Catholic

You either are or you aren't, odd

Wasn't it the Roman Catholics who went after the Templars? Killed them?

Not vicious?

Homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible, but so is divorce, adultery, premarital sex, lying, gossiping, etc

But you see, they can keep crusading against the gay thing, and think "oh, see, god sees me crusading, and he'll think i'm goody goody goody and i can go to heaven for crusading against evil gays..." And then, they go on with their divorces, gossiping, lying, sex outide of marriage, and never trying to crusade against that, or make that illegal. Because doing so would force them to live their values every day, and why would they want their lives inconvenienced like that? They'd have to stop being low-life hypocrites altogether! What fun is that??

I agree with you Bernitch. That was my point. If people who say that they are Christians would stop running around bashing people for doing something that the Bible says is a sin, they would realize that they too have sin. The Bible states that we are not to judge people which is exactly what running around and crusading is. We all have to be accountable for ourselves and when we reach the pearly gates, we won't get goody, goody checkmarks for trying to end homosexuality. God gives free will so that a person may choose how they want to live their own life. If someone chooses to sin, that's their choice and it's not up to me to judge and say that someone is wrong...especially if I have my sin to atone for. People who are Christians are supposed to be good examples and unfortunately, there are a lot who are not.

Bornagaincathooic, let's try to make one more thing clear to you. Having marriage equality will not force your church to marry anyone of the same sex. Divorce and remarriage is legal in this country, and no one forces your religion to officiate at the marriages of divorced person (well, your religion actually does, but it calls then "annulments," which is just a cheeky way of saying "Catholic divorce," but for that you have to pay hundreds of dollars to the church to get a signed certificate). Your religion will not be forced to officiate at the marriages of gay Catholics.

Will your religion be forced to recognize the marriages of gay people when it comes to hiring them and providing things like marital insurance? No. Not if your religion doesn't take government money. If it does, then you have to. So, you make the choice - taking our dollars and providing for the equal treatment of all persons, or you don't take it and you pay your bills on your own. That's what's Constitutional.

If someone chooses to sin, that's their choice and it's not up to me to judge and say that someone is wrong...especially if I have my sin to atone for.

Just a quick point here. If you are speaking of Christianity, the believer does not atone for his own sin. Jesus came to earth for the specific purpose of atoning for sin as he was dying on the cross. In other words, as he hung on the cross, probably the most horrible means of execution ever devised, God took all my sins and put them on Jesus then punished Jesus in my place. To become a believer in Christianity, I accept that I can't save myself but that Jesus saved me instead then I give my life to Jesus for him to fill it instead of having me run my life. "Eternal life" begins immediately with a believer starting to feel changes from the heart, to have different motives, to feel more peace and purpose. Not everyone feels the changes right away, but if the believer was sincere in giving his or her life, they will feel it.

This can be for ANYONE, gay or straight, black or white or any other color, no matter what their background. It doesn't make me any better than anyone for knowing this. As someone once said, I'm just a beggar telling where the bread is. Just because there are people who claim to believe that are fallible doesn't make it any less real. If you don't believe or don't want to that 's fine, I'm just telling how the belief works because there are many misconceptions about it. BTW, anyone can pray a prayer or simply say words-I'm talking about a heart commitment.

"Athiests say God doesn't exist, but don't search for Him. It's kind of hard to find something you don't actually seek. There is more than enough proof out there. The truth is that most athiests don't WANT God to exist. It's certainly your choice to believe what you want. It would hold more weight though if they weren't such empty words."

And? I don't believe in ghosts and Bigfoot, so I know it's a waist of time searching for them. If God exists, he can search and find me. Would you like to tell me what proof that there is more than enough of out there? It's not that we don't want God to exist, it's that the belief in God is psychological. Religion is a product of fear and churches, paticularly the mega-denominations uses fear and psychological manipulation to gain and maintain their followers, otherwise they would be nothing but a bunch of empty pews and collection baskets, trying to maintain the cost of keeping their lights and cameras on.

And why is it ok to protect those that believe the same thing you do, but not those that have differing beliefs?

It isn't and that's not the point. Your premise is wrong. The point is that if your belief is the basis for denying someone's else's belief, then your belief is to be considered the one which is oppressive and to be ignored. It is your belief which is being intolerant in the first place and in a state which holds equality to be its central virtue, intolerance can not be tolerated. You can have contrary opinions or hate all you want, you simply cannot act in a coercive way upon it which will limit the equality of anyone else.

As MLK famously said, "You don't have to love me, but you do have to not hang me."

@seen too much. You are absolutely correct. I did word that phrase incorrectly. I should have stated that I have my own sin that I need to pray for forgiveness for. Jesus suffered in ways that are beyond imagination and He did it to save me and atone for my sins. I do stand corrected and thank you for your post.

How do you know, bornagaincatholic, that you're god is the right one? Everyone believes in their own god, made in their image an likeness. Provide proof that your god is the right, correct and only one.

Wouldn't it be a bitch if when you got to the Gates of Heaven you found out God was a gay, black woman.

"Athiests say God doesn't exist, but don't search for Him. It's kind of hard to find something you don't actually seek. There is more than enough proof out there. The truth is that most athiests don't WANT God to exist. It's certainly your choice to believe what you want. It would hold more weight though if they weren't such empty words."

The bible is empty words. If your god can heal, why is there suffering? Why are children starving? Why, if he is all-knowing, all-present, all-powerful, does he allow child molestation? I don't need to waste time searching for a god who is clearly not in control of his own supposed creation, I have a lovely life to enjoy being a happy, loving, accepting 'sinner'.

Religion is poisonous venom that taints everything. It is the root cause of hatred, in this case of hatred to homosexuals who simply want to be able to live as the rest of us. Why is it we are never supposed to say anything against religion being forced on us, yet you scream foul if we don't cater to your beliefs? If I believed the tooth fairy was god, should I be able to cram it down your throat as you do us?

Well, any human being will cast about in a moment of stress. You typically have 3 options:

Fight, F***, or Hit the Fence

The weak tend to do the latter and find a bible or statue..it helps them to relive stress to not feel like they are alone.

Woohooooo...

Gay equal rights and marriage for all.

roadrunner; I must stop by to thank you for being the first rational voice for Christians who regard homosexuality as a sin. I haven't found another upholding the Christ's message in this manner before, thank you for that.

I personally tend to disagree with homosexuality's status as a sin due to various issues with the translation and cultural conflict complete with my personal experiences and conscience, but as I have full right to view it this way, you have the full right to think otherwise. This is the first time I can actually say I have no problem with the viewpoint you stood for, and I'm positively surprised it is in fact possible to stay rational, not to judge and to respect people's rights while still disagreeing with them.

Unbelievable. Thank you.

BornAgainCatholic

How the hell are you born again Catholic

I think it's like a mulligan.

gay marrige = america = a decadent, failing, dying, society!

What's decadent, failing, and dying about "equal rights under the law?" It sounds more like we're beginning to restore constitutionality.

@Toasty McGrath

Gays are decadent, devient, and have no business PUSHING their behavior on society as normal and accepted.

One could argue the same for molesters, rapists and even murders about their constitutional rights as gays do for their deviant behior!

Exactly MtMike! SICK SICK SICK!!!

Marriage that cannot be consummated is void.

Somehow I knew that vasectomy would come back to haunt me.

And are black Americans pushing their behavior on society by demanding they be given their constitutional rights? Is that decadent as well?

Putting a decadent human behavior on the same level as a human race is ridiculous!

Keep fiddling Nero's

Great posts by Roadrunner! Thank you. I wish more of us Christians felt the same way.

In California I voted Yes on 8 (to keep marriage between a man and a woman) only because I was against the 5-4 decision of the California Supreme Court and didn't think one person should be able to change something that has been going on for thousands of years.

But Prop 8 is clearly against the State of California's Constitution and will be ruled as such once it winds through the Courts.

Since the State requires a State issued license to marry, they can't withhold that license from a citizen while granting it to other citizens.

HOWEVER, either the State has a right to regulate marriage or it does not.

Since marriage is a legal contract, the State can rightfully deny a marriage license to a minor.

But there bigamy laws that make it a crime to marry more than one person at a time. Are those not unjust as well?

Either the State has a right to regulate marriage or it does not.

@ Bear Cat: Thousands of years? The US declared independence in 1776, and the Constitution wasn't put into law until 1789. Beyond that, and you're referring to some other country, or some ideological debate. Not really relevant to a country founded by a mix of all faiths, and even a handful of atheists and agnostics.

Thousands of years? The US declared independence in 1776

Civilization started thousand of years ago, when people learned farming and raising livestock and were able to settle, long before the land of what is America today was known in the Middle East.

@ Bear Cat: Homosexuality has been prevalent throughout many many cultures, and species of animal, for thousands of years. Thousands. Longer than even Christianity.

Forgive me, but you said it's been going on thousands of years...then jumped straight to American history. Kind of jumped a few years, no? Point is, it's been around for so long, I don't think anything you do, or say, is going to stop it. They aren't hurting anyone, and are perfectly happy.

Leave 'em alone, and live your own life. Why does what they do matter so much to you?

They legalized gay marriage but forgot to change the law against sodomy. Yes once again our elected officials are right on top of things.

Sodomy laws were deemed unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court several years ago. No need for legislatures to act, since no sodomy laws are in effect anymore.

bornagincatholic said:

"Just because you believe in something doesn't make it authentic."

Exactly so...now take it to heart.

wow, mtmike, but it's ok for you to push your little agenda onto others. I don't think it's gonna work that way. I'm here and i'm queer get use to it!

Oh very good culheath, VERY GOOD. I love it.

Bear Cat,

But there bigamy laws that make it a crime to marry more than one person at a time. Are those not unjust as well?

I don't know. Can anyone show a documented, scientific reason that it is detrimental to an individual or society in general? If so, then we have the right to make it illegal. If not we have the right to only restrict it to consenting adults. Let's see the studies to make the determination.

It's sad that ANY "party" in the US needs a boost by denying equal rights to other American citizens. But based on what I've seen of the "tea" party so far, I'm not surprised.

It may be sad, but its the truth. You have republicans who are a little concerned about the internal fiscal policies the republican party is tossing around, and then you throw something in like gay marriage, which is going to sway them right back to the right. And if religion isn't a part of this vote, why are they concerned about there being no backlash against those churches who don't want to recognize gay marriage. Because that will be the next step in the agenda, hey this is legal, it is my right, you have to perform the ceremony. Say that won't happen, but you have to realize there is going to be that one gay couple that is going to stretch the boundaries.

Because that will be the next step in the agenda, hey this is legal, it is my right, you have to perform the ceremony. Say that won't happen, but you have to realize there is going to be that one gay couple that is going to stretch the boundaries.

Again, another smokescreen. There are already constitutional protections in place for those arguments. Case in point: many churches exclude people from membership who are legally divorced. And the gov't has ALWAYS upheld those rulings. And that is only one example. Another example: openly gay people are already excluded from many churches, and that is totally fine! Nobody challenges that.

Saying that gays are going to suddenly challenge those churches that dont perform gay wedding ceremonies is complete and utter nonsense. Nobody forces individual churches into liturgical rituals and practices that they don't believe in.

BUT, some of those same churches wish to impose THEIR will onto the gov't to NOT recognize other churches legal liturgies.

I fail to see how this gives the Tea Parties a boost. They line up essentially unanimously in opposition to equal rights in every case that's come up.

Because that will be the next step in the agenda, hey this is legal, it is my right, you have to perform the ceremony.

That's like saying that just because you have freedom of speech, that newspapers and TV stations must carry your rantings.

The legislation give same-sex couples the right to civil marriage. It does not (and can not) bestow the right to religious marriage. Think of it this way. The law permits divorced people to marry, but no church has ever been required to marry them. These "freedom of religion" concerns are the last gasp of bigots who can't think of concrete reasons to oppose gay marriage.

There is one good reason. Its disgusting. I would rather support prostitution than this immoral BS.

Thank you for the distraction!

Just when the United States begins showing signs of attempting to solve serious relevant crisis issues, you have managed to pull everyone’s attention away from serious issues to looking at your narcissism.

Now the politicians can sigh, a sigh of relief, a reprieve from being expected to work on solving the Middle East war issues, passing laws restricting treasonous bankers from raping the US economy into ruin, stopping colluding speculators from pushing gas prices up until the words “US small business” are removed from the dictionary, and raising the current debit ceiling or go into true depression.

Try to keep that door of distraction as wide open as possible, do your best to bully every politician in your world in to discussing your personal sexual preference so that you can be used as a pawn of those needing a good distraction.

I do not care if you are straight married, homosexually married, or married to your image in the mirror. The only thing you have won is the distraction of the moment award. Hurrah.

So lets move on to three way marriages, this will give all politicians, religions, news organizations world wide a reason to stare at your narcissistic needy mirror worn faces, and then they will have every excuse to thump and moan, and preach, and debate about you, you, you, you… and how important your having sex is.

Now that’s something to cheer about!

LME

Polygamy is legal in the USA. The states laws restrict you from marrying multiple wives WITH the marriage occurring in the USA. All 50 states have laws on this. You can marry as many as you choose outside of the USA and it is constitutionally protected as legal...check it out.

Because that will be the next step in the agenda, hey this is legal, it is my right, you have to perform the ceremony. Say that won't happen, but you have to realize there is going to be that one gay couple that is going to stretch the boundaries.

Churches already can refuse to marry heterosexual couples for various reasons. That won't change, but I'm sure many on the right will keep right on ignoring this fact, as they do so many others.

Indeed, they can refuse to marry interracial couples without fear of being sued. Why did they outright panic at the idea of homosexuals trying to sue?

Hi Jason! I noticed that you said "hey jsim, ever found "separation of church and state" in the declaration of independence or in the U.S. Constitution? nope, you sure havent" in the discussion of NY having legalized gay marriage...

I just wanted to let you know that a number of things are not specifically mentioned in the US Constitution. It is up to the courts to interpret the constitution and clarify points which are unclear given the overall vagueness of the constitution. As such there are certain Supreme Court Landmark Cases which set precedent (e.g., Brown v. Board of Ed., Tinker v. Des Moines, etc.)... as far as the idea of Separation of Church and state, these words originally come from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson.... However, during the Landmark Supreme Court Case of Everson v. Board of Education (1947) the Supreme Court Ruled that neither state nor the federal government may pass laws which promote one religion, promote all/any religion, or show preference for one religion over another and that a "Wall of separation between Church and State" must be observed. Therefore it is unconstitutional not to observe this separation!

Just thought you'd like to know :)

Misty Brown is right. Also, separation of church and state is a key principle of the First Amendment, which in relevant part states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.." Its the establishment clause which Supreme Courts for generations and across political the spectrum have recognized mandates a separation of church and state. Jason's understanding of Constitutional law was indeed misguided.

Tony J: There is one good reason. Its disgusting. I would rather support prostitution than this immoral BS.

Tony, there will be time to discuss your mom and other women-for-hire in tomorrow's Vine threads.

VERY TRUE Styro! And, another point being: many churches, some of which are bible-based and/or christian-based, already perform and bless gay marriages! What about THEIR religious equality and religious freedom? Why are they second-class in comparison to other churches, in a country where no LEGAL argument exists for the government to ignore gay marriages performed by those churches?

Well, if no legal argument exists for them to ignore gay marriage, then no legal argument exists for them to acknowledge it. You either want religion out of your bedroom or you don't. Which is it?

Catholic, let me try to respond to you point-by-point, although I realize in advance that there is no way I'll ever change your mind. At least I can shed some light on why your argument makes no sense.

Your first point: Your argument also implies that children cannot be raised by single parents. If you're a female and your male spouse dies, then you are compelled to remarry immediately if you have a son. Otherwise, he won't know how to be a man. Your argument also implies that gay men can rase male children, and lesbians can raise female children, because they are capable of instructing those genders.

Your second point: You're making a disgusting implication that the only reason for gay marriage is to have gay sex. Not every gay couple even engages in the activity you're describing. Also, since some people are eunuchs by birth or accident, they should not be eligible for marriage, either. The reason to be married is to share legal responsibilities with each other than can only be obtained through an official union.

Your third point: This is a blatantly flip-flopped argument. Heterosexuals do not have any freedoms or liberties at stake in this question. It is the gay individual who does. It is the gays that are living under the oppression of the majority for the sake of an abstract religious concept. At present, we are being denied freedoms and liberties by the majority, who are free to enjoy those liberties only amongst themselves.

Your fourth point: Children are not the only motivation behind marriage. Marriage is a way to share inheritance rights and financial responsibilities with another person without being subject to excessive taxation. It also comes into play in life decisions and hospitalization. Even if children were the only concern, gay adoption is already legal, so gay marriage ought to follow in order to afford the children of gays a complete home. Some gays may even have biological children of their own. I myself dated girls for years in an effort to force myself to learn to like it, but it simply didn't work for a number of proven reasons. I didn't produce any children out of that "experiment", but I might have, and I'm sure others have.

Bottom line: We're going to be here no matter what laws you pass against us. Making gay marriage illegal doesn't in any way get rid of gay people or magically protect marriage. It only succeeds in making us miserable, and what is the point of inflicting pain on people you disagree with?

Born again, I see no facts. The government gets involved in many kinds of relationships, business, contractual etc. Stop lying to yourself. The Catholic church does permit divorce, so it takes what the bible says about marriage with a grain of salt. Further more, given the behavior of it's priests, it has no room to protest homosexuality.

I've seen Born Again's arguement on another vine. It looks very much like cut and paste from a rightwing website.

To BornAgainCatholic: I have some things for you to consider, like redefining marriage:

Here is a list of how marriage has been redefined in this country since our inception:

• 1830 - Right of married woman to own property in her own name (instead of all property being owned exclusively by the husband) in Mississippi.
• 1848 - Right of married women to own property in her own name in New York.
• 1854 - The Republican party referred in its platform to polygamy as one of the "twin relics of barbarism" (in addition to slavery). At the time, polygamy was a practice of some Mormons.
• 1862 - The United States Congress enacted the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, signed by Abraham Lincoln, which made bigamy a felony in the territories punishable by $500 or five years in prison.
• 1873 - Supreme Court rules that a state has the right to exclude a married woman from practicing law.
• 1874 - Congress passed the Poland Act, which transferred jurisdiction over Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act cases to federal prosecutors and courts in Utah, which were not controlled by Mormons.
• 1879 - The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was upheld by the US Supreme Court in the case of Reynolds v. United States.
• 1882 - Congress passed the Edmunds Act, which prohibited not just bigamy, which remained a felony, but also bigamous cohabitation, which was prosecuted as a misdemeanor, and did not require proof an actual marriage ceremony had taken place. The law also allowed polygamists to be held indefinitely without a trial.
• 1887 - Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which allowed prosecutors to force polygamist wives to testify against their husbands, and abolished the right of women in Utah to vote.
• 1890 - Mormons in Utah officially renounce polygamy through the 1890 Manifesto.
• 1900 - All states now grant married women the right to own property in their own name.
• 1904 - Mormons in Utah officially renounce polygamy again, excommunicating anyone who participates in future polygamy.
• 1907 - All women acquired their husband's nationality upon any marriage occurring after that date.
• 1933 - Married women granted right to citizenship independent of their husbands.
• 1948 - California Supreme Court overturns interracial marriage ban.
• 1965 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting married couples from using contraception.
• 1967 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting interracial couples from marrying (Loving v. Virginia).
• 1969 - The first no fault divorce law is adopted in California
• 1971 - Supreme Court upholds an Alabama law that automatically changed a woman's legal surname to that of her husband upon marriage.
• 1971 - Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to Minnesota Supreme Court ruling allowing prohibition of same-sex marriages (Baker v. Nelson).
• 1972 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting unmarried couples from purchasing contraception.
• 1973 - Maryland became to first state in the US to define marriage as between a man and a woman in statute.
• 1975 - Married women allowed to have credit in their own name. 3 states outlaw same-sex marriage by statutes.
• 1976 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting abortions for married women without the consent of the husband.
• 1993 - All fifty states have revised laws to include marital rape.
• 1994 - 40 out of the 50 states amend their marriage statutes to outlaw same-sex marriage.
• 1996 - President Clinton signs the Defense of Marriage Act into law, which outlaws both same-sex marriage and polygamy through a statute under the federal Government.
• 1998 - 2 states (Alaska and Hawai’i) for the first time outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy by their state Constitutions, because of fear from Courts striking down statutes. South Carolina was the penultimate state in the US to remove the ban on interracial marriage in its state Constitution.
• 2000 - Nebraska amends its state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy, while Alabama became the last state in the US to remove the ban on interracial marriage in its state Constitution.
• 2002 - Nevada amends its state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy.
• 2004 - Massachusetts grants and recognizes same-sex marriages, while 14 states rushed to outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy through their state Constitutions in response.
• 2005 - Texas amends its state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy.
• 2006 - 26 states outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy through their state Constitutions.
• 2008 - Since March, New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other places but do not grant such marriages. Since November Connecticut grants and recognizes same-sex marriages. Briefly from June 2008 California grants same-sex marriage until the passage of Proposition 8 later in the year, but continues recognizing marriages entered into prior to the proposition's passage. 29 states outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy through their state Constitutions.
• 2009 - Iowa and Vermont grant and recognize same-sex marriages; Since July the District of Columbia recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other places but does not grant such marriages. Maine rescinds planned legalization of same-sex marriage with 53 percent of a popular vote on November 3, 2009.
• 2010 - New Hampshire (from 1 January) and the District of Columbia (from 3 March) grants and recognizes same-sex marriages. Maryland (from 24 February) recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

As far as parenting is concerned:

Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions find no support in the scientific research literature. When comparing the outcomes of different forms of parenting, it is critically important to make appropriate comparisons. For example, differences resulting from the number of parents in a household cannot be attributed to the parents’ gender or sexual orientation. Research in households with heterosexual parents generally indicates that – all else being equal – children do better with two parenting figures rather than just one. The specific research studies typically cited in this regard do not address parents’ sexual orientation, however, and therefore do not permit any conclusions to be drawn about the consequences of having heterosexual versus non-heterosexual parents, or two parents who are of the same versus different genders. Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.

American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, 2006

The Supreme Court has already upheld churches' rights to discriminate in numerous rulings. NO church is being or will be forced to perform marriages that violate its tenets.

Your whole "man and woman were created to be united" argument also falls flat: first, you confuse sex with marriage -- neither is required for the other; second, if you're referring to procreation, that is not a valid argument, either, as NO state in the US requires proof of either the ability or intent to procreate in order to obtain a marriage license.

Marriage IS a civil right, according to the US Supreme Court in at least 14 different rulings, the most famous of which is Loving v. Virginia, in which they explicitly stated that marriage is a "basic civil right".

How does allowing same-sex marriage infringe on anyone else's rights? How does allowing gays to marry affect YOU at all? Answers: it doesn't, and it doesn't. BTW, legal marriage is, in the strictest sense, a "civil union," because in THIS secular nation, legal marriage is a civil contract, not a religious sacrament -- what your cult chooses to do about marriage is its own business, not the government's.

You should also look up Lemon v. Kurtzman to see exactly why the government will not interfere in churches' right to refuse to conduct gay marriages.

why is it the religious nut jobs are the only ones always spewing hate and intolerance on groups of people trying to get equal rights -- seems odd since religions are the ones protected with all sorts of special rights -- they are allowed to discriminate and spew all the hate they want in their tax payer funded churches -- then they are not happy with that but stick their noses in everyone else s business to fight against equality -- just as they did when they fought to keep slavery because that was in their chosen bible-- then the same whack jobs fought to keep women from equal rights because that was in their bible-- then the same ones fought to keep interracial marriage illegal -- now they are fighting to keep gays from equal rights -- begs the question who they will be directing all their hate and intolerance towards next -- apparently all these "religious" folks cannot be happy unless they are spewing hate and ignorance towards one group or another

nothing but a bunch of neanderthal bigots hiding behind religion

Heh, has any of the Teapublicans ever responded directly to that list, Erin?

Oh, yes, Toasty; they try to claim that those are not "true redefinitions" of marriage, merely a change in marital rights; or that I just copied and pasted it from something (which doesn't make it any less true, but obviously they can't figure that out for themselves).

To ErinNJ. Great job in totally debunking BornAgainCatholicCultist's ridiculous statements. You handed her butt to her on a platter.

ErinNJ,

This is a great list and I think it is something you should re-post on new vines!

Great work :)

BornAgainCatholic - you do realize that most of the instances on that list of yours is simply listing rediculous laws related to marriage, not redefining marriage.

Every one of those things listed by Erin redefined marriage. The most direct comparison is to the anti-miscegenation laws, but all the others changed "traditional marriage" in significant ways....from women owning credit and property in their own names, to husbands no longer being able to freely rape their wives. The "traditional marriage" as described in your cult's bible was an agreement between the husband and the parents of the woman over the price of the bride. And it was up to the man to determine how many wives he could afford at one time. Regardless, not everyone shares your copper-age goat-herding traditions.

When marriage is redefined to include homosexual unions, it does and HAS damaged or destroyed religious liberties and freedom of speech.

Nonsense and utter bull@!$%#.

When marriage is redefined to include homosexual unions, it does and HAS damaged or destroyed religious liberties and freedom of speech. There are instances of this happening in every state that has redefined marriage and those that have passed civil unions.

Please provide a list of some of those instances. When has anyone ever lost the freedom of speech because of gay marriage? You know, of course, that can't happen because no state law can override the US Constitution.

I've been just laughing out loud at each of BornAgainCatholicCultist's responses, above. Wow, what a bunch of utter nonsense!

"Statistically, children that are raised by their Mom and Dad do much better (physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually) than children from single parent households."

You're aware that there is a body of research demonstrating that the children of gay and lesbians do just as well as (and in some cases, better than) those of two married biological parents, right?

BornAgain, I can't speak for all gay people, but if some sort of civil union law or "reciprocal beneficiary law" were passed for gay people that gave us all the legal equivalencies of marriage, I'd be fine with that. I know others wouldn't, but I'm intelligent enough to know that a rose by any other name is still a rose. If I have to call it a rosa stellata, it just takes me a few more syllables. When a guy in a wheelchair comes to a street corner and sees a "DON'T WALK" sign, I'm sure he knows it applies to him, too. I'll know the same when I see the word "married".

I'm equally eager for you to "find time" to tell us how gay marriage harms the liberties of heterosexual people. Your church will still be free to preach against it and will still be free to refuse to marry gay people. You'll still be free to refrain from entering a same sex union, and you'll still be free to tell your children that gay people are bad, if that's what you want them to believe. How does gay marriage harm your speech? When someone asks you if you're married, will you have to tell them, "Yes, but not to a gay person?"

Styro

Catholic, let me try to respond to you point-by-point, although I realize in advance that there is no way I'll ever change your mind. At least I can shed some light on why your argument makes no sense.

Absolutely, beautifully written. From my experience the gays or lesbians I have worked with or am related to, have been more sensitive to other people.

I have a niece that is gay , and I love her dearly, sweetest most sensitive person I have met.

Barry, I will be very happy to list all the instances as soon as I have the time (there are many).

Don't knock yourself out. We'll settle for even a few examples of where gay marriage has caused people to lose their freedom of speech.

Barry, I will be very happy to list all the instances as soon as I have the time (there are many).

You're commenting on almost every post so it seems you have plenty of time on your hands. Start now.

Bornagaincatholic, you come up with a bunch of unproven (and disproven) hypotheses to state why you think millions of Americans should be denied the equal protection of the law based upon your religion. You are just like bibliolotrous creationists who work forward, holding that the world was created in six days 6,000 years ago and come up with hypotheses and fallacious "facts" to "prove" it. Therefore, your arguments are false.

What it comes down to, bornagaincatholic, is that no one's civil rights are determined by your religion. No religious beliefs, and no god (whatever one you want to believe in), decides what people can or cannot do. If you want to live a life based upon what you believe a god tells you to do, go for it. Who's stopping you? All that's asked of you is to keep your religion to yourself and out of our lives. If you can't and won't do that, then maybe we need to start implementing some laws to keep you from doing what you want to do based upon what you say your god wants. Let's see if you can do that and then tell us what it feels like.

ok, well what do you want from someone who couldn't even get being born right the first time?

Ok Styro remember your words when the polygamists come to Albany, the NAMBLA crowd wants to marry children, the PETA people want to marry their pets and techies their robots. I never gave a rats ass how you wanted to live your life, but I am certain in my mind that marriage is the joining of a man and a woman and that now that the barn door is wide open, all sorts of aberrant's will go into court and demand equal protection. 'God forgive them for they know not what they do'.

Bornagain, why does YOUR church get to decide for the rest of us Christian. My denomination is fully open to people of all sexual orientations - including the priesthood. Why can't I force OUR beliefs down YOUR throat. Marriage of any two loving and committed people is blessed and celebrated in my faith. Why can't I force YOU Catholics to follow our rules?

Well, that has to do with the seperation of church and state. You see, long ago, our forefathers saw what happened in Europe when monarchs would force their denomination on their people. There was murder, tortures, and all sorts of highly un-Christian like behavior. Keep your rules off of my religion or you might be surprised how un-Christian we can be.

Oh and cut the crap, ttard. Stop trying to equate loving, committed adult relations with pedophilia and bestiality. Children and animals cannot give consent. What you are talking about is a form of rape. Even among adults rape is illegal.