June 12, 2009

"In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty." - Thomas Jefferson




"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." - Thomas Jefferson

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." - Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence

105 comments:

WizardofIB said...

It looks like Ol' Pat might have a dated idea of marriage... Maybe it's time for a return of this guy.


The Wiz

Bukko_in_Australia said...

"Mankind will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

Voltaire

Guberville Smack said...

Those two in the picture don't look anything like all the butch cut, hairy - armed, drug addicted lesbos I run into.
If more lesbians looked like them, it would probably be legal by now.

edd browne said...

Well, it's not like that farmer
asked to marry a bull.
------------------------

Ole Pat never heard of endocrine disrupters,
which result in a spectrum of self identities and
various combinations of hetero/homo attraction.

A fetish is something else.
No cows; no goats; no kids; no bull.

Lost Cause said...

Pat Robertson...is he dead yet?

Anonymous said...

oh, they look hot.

Anonymous said...

hey, did you hear that one finalist on the last season of idol is gay?

Anonymous said...

mmmmm, i don't think jefferson would have been ok with gay marriage.

and any way, marriage is a religious definition so the guberment should not be handing out marriage licenses.

but giving out "relation contracts" would not satisfy the gay activists.

keith said...

The government needs to be out of the religion business. Leave religion up to religions.

On marriage, there's this little thing called the constitution. And if legal rights are given to two consenting adults who wish to enter into a legal partnership, then those rights cannot be denied based on your race, gender or sexual preference, period.

Therefore, just like when women won the right to vote and blacks the right to marry whites, gays will be allowed their legal rights under the constitution. It cannot and will not be stopped.

So what does that mean?

It means that the government will issue civil union licenses to any two consenting adults. And "marriage" licenses, which have no legal standing, will be issued by religious institutions, to whomever they want.

Why this is taking so long is beyond me. Move on. Much bigger issues to fry.

Pete said...

Actually, slave advocate Jefferson originally wrote: "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable" while drafting up the Declaration of Independence on Market Street, a block from Ben Franklin's home. When he sent the draft to Franklin, Franklin edited it, and crossed out "sacred and undeniable" saying we should separate out religion. He, not TJ used the words "Self Evident". See Library of Congess Web site for the editing marks.

Anonymous said...

What's your point here? That there shouldn't be a government run religion that will trample on the "rights" of gays to marry? If so, that was enshrined in the Constitution's first amendment so this post is unnecessary -- it's a done deal. That's what Jefferson was talking about in those quotes.

He wasn't talking about states preventing gays from marrying each other, which has nothing to do with a state-controlled religion doing the same. States that pass laws against gay marriage do so via the democratic process, not through clerical edicts.

I think it's interesting you show two women - and good-looking ones at that - kissing here...which may appeal more to your large male base and elicit more sympathy to your cause. I never see these kinds of women in the photos of dykes who have just gotten married...they are usually fat, ugly beasts. If you showed two gay males kissing most of the guys here would have a negative reaction.

Anonymous said...

True liberty is the freedom do what is right .It is an abuse of that liberty to use it primarily to do only what you want or to engage in immoral acts ,be they heterosexual homosexual or bisexual , bisexuality by the way only serves to promote the argument that homosexuality is a learned behaviour, a sexual preference . Please let me know the day that the so called gay gene is discovered.

BG said...

I am not religious (although raised Roman Catholic) and was married to a man (I'm a woman btw) in a civil ceremony. Marriage is a word defined by Webster's as:1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage (same-sex marriage) b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union (the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross)

"Marriage" is not a religious word and can be used in a secular sense. Period. I don't know why these right wing fanatics start spouting about how marriage is being threatened. As long as their church isn't marrying same-sex couples, why the fuck do they care? The greatest threat to their marriage has nothing to do with gay couples marrying, it will probably have to do with infidelity on the part of one of the horny, repressed religious folks.

If gays want to be in a marriage, God love them. Marriage is not easy for anyone and it can be a pain in the ass, so if they want it, let 'em have it. Anyway, they should have every right to visit their spouse in the hospital or inherit whatever should one spouse die.

KEEP RELIGION OUT OF SECULAR MATTERS. RELIGION IS A CULT AND CAN BE VERY, VERY EVIL. DON'T FORGET THE ATROCITIES THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH COMMITTED IN THE NAME OF THEIR GOD, IE. INQUISITION, CRUSADES, KILLING OF NATIVE INDIANS IN LATIN AMERICA, PEDOPHILIA, JUST TO NAME A FEW. JESUS WAS THE ORIGINAL LIBERAL HIPPIE, NOW GET OVER IT.

yoski said...

Ole Pat is angry and bitter cos he ain't getting any :)
Makes you wonder, is he angry and bitter cos he ain't getting any or is not getting any cos he's bitter and angry.
What a miserable existence. Pat, that's God punishing you for being an angry moron!

keith said...

Of course I showed two good looking lesbians getting married. Even I don't want to see two dudes.

But I don't think two women or two men should be denied their equal rights under the constitution either.

But I guess according to some logic, only people we find good looking people should have rights.

Definitely not these two. They should be banned from reproducing too. Society doesn't believe couples we find ugly should have legal rights.

http://www.omgsoysauce.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ugly-wedding-couples.jpg

MalibuKen said...

Sure Pat, "Biblical Standards" - which ones - slavery, child abuse, misogeny, murder, prejudice.....what an idiot, just like all of the followers of made up fairy tale books full of nonsense. I worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, now there's a good one to follow. Or the Purple Unicorn, both are as realistic as Jesus or Mohammed.

Stuck in So Pa said...

Marriage can be hell!

Why should gays be exempt from the misery!

Come on down, my gay brothers and sisters, and join the rest of us who spend half of our time down here in the 9th pit.

Free rides over.

borkafatty aka the pig said...

I think the original Libertarian, Thomas Jefferson, would not have had much of a problem with what any 2 consenting adults decide to with each other, no matter what that is. Even if he were to disagree with what they do on a personal level (i.e. he found homosexuality abhorrent) he would not have advocated using the force of the State to keep those 2 consenting adults from pursuing their happiness, so long as it didn't cause harm to anyone else's life or property.

This is for ole Pat:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J---aiyznGQ

borkafatty aka the pig said...

oh lawdy those 2 in that pic were fuggly! i hope they dont have kids.

Anonymous said...

Just because its two good looking women kissing doesnt mean its o.k.

Miss Goldbug said...

My Webster's dictionary defines marriage as:

(1) the state of being married. relation between husband and wife; married life; wedlock; matrimony.
(2) The act of marrying, wedding. (3) the rite or form used in marrying (4) any close or intimate union (5) the king and queen of a suit, esp. as a meld in pinochle.


I think most people believe marriage as discribed above in this version of Websters dictionary, which is only between a man and a woman.

Legalizing gays to marry requires a civil union, not a marriage license.

Miss Goldbug said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tangelo Mozilo said...

Keith, you pinko. The priests are not the problem. The government is. The state is impinging on the church, not the other way around.

Ron Paul is right. Marriage is a religious/private institution, not a civil one, and governments should not be in the business of licensing marriage or setting the rules for marriage.

For millennia, marriage was a private agreement between a couple before God. The rules of marriage, as they developed in Western civilization, were governed by canon law – not civil law.

Therefore, I think that any union formed in the presence of a judge, a sea captain, or any other secular authority should not be deemed a “marriage,” whether the couple is same-sex or hetero. If gays can find a legitimate religion that will sanction their union as a marriage (Unitarian comes to mind as a good candidate, or else maybe someone wants to found a new religion for the purpose), then I think the state should recognize that.

However, the state should not be in the business of performing quasi-religious “marriage” ceremonies for any couple. Any union ceremony that is not recognized by a legitimate religion should not be recognized as a “marriage” by the state. The couple should have the same legal rights as a married couple, but it should be deemed a “civil union.” In addition, I think states should recognize these unions as such when they are formed between any two consenting adults.

If same sex couples want to be married, then fine. Let it be a religious matter, as it has always been. If it is done at a courthouse, let it be a civil union. And the same rules should apply for everyone. In addition, if someone rejects religion, why would they want to be “married” in the first place, as the very notion presupposes a belief in God and a covenant in His presence?

The whole matter is a mess because: (1) Religions have historically repressed homosexuality, so there has never really been a notion of a marriage between same sex couples; and (2) the state has become so meddlesome and intrusive in our private lives, that “marriage” is now important for a large number of government matters such as income tax, socialist security, medicare, healthcare, and all manner of welfare, and the state feels that it needs to promulgate rules to circumscribe persons’ legitimate choices of life partners.

Anonymous said...

Hey, why isn't Obama's picture here too? Shouldn't you be accusing him of being bigoted and oppressive? I seem to recall that he made it very clear what his stance was. Either he's as prejudiced as that idiot beauty pageant girl or he's a liar.... which is it?

Tangelo Mozilo said...

Sorry for the 'pinko" comment, Keith. I take it back based on your 9:25 AM comment. It looks like we are in substantial agreement on the matter.

geeski said...

again, for the love, when will straight people get over the fact that there are gay people in this world? always have been, always will be.

it is what it is. let it go. move on. and if you don't like gay marriage, then fine, but don't deny it to someone else.

i don't like fat people, but they're everywhere, so i have to accept that. hell, i live in phoenix. diabetes and obesity capital of the country.

and lastly, again, for the love, being gay is not a choice. why would anyone choose to have to endure the endless ignorance, threats, and vitriol from right wing nut cases.

keith, you're 100% right on this one. take it to the supreme court, interpret the 14th amendment, pass gay marriage, and move on. game over. done.

Anonymous said...

HAHAHA!!!

On the one hand it is espoused that we are free to do what we want and our government is moving in that direction (gay marriage).

Yet, on the other hand, your beloved government moves to further regulate tobacco, which has been used by people for hundreds of years. And then there are the bans because people cannot choose whether allow smoking in their establishment or if they want to frequent an establishment that allows smoking.

We are for freedom so long as we agree with it.

will shill for coin said...

Don't they usually look like bulldikes rather than supermodels though? Boring topic. See ya tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

We simply need to ammend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as the union of bride and groom as husband and wife.

Religion needs not to come into the equation.

As it is, the majority of people understand marriage to be confined to one man and one woman.

States have had to go to great lengths to change their constitutions to keep rogue judges legislating from the bench and creating bogus definitions of marriage.

Countries that have legalized SSM destroy and dilute family units and children are on the short end of the stick.

Liberal thinking destroyed the economy by diluting the definition of who qualifies for a loan. Then giving loans to millions of people who could never pay.

We all know where that got us.

Why continue to make those kinds of mistakes by diluting the definition of marriage?

Recovery will never happen through political correctness.

Instead, we should strengthen the bonds that makes us stronger, not weaken them by making marriage meaningless.

Make it harder for people to qualify for loans and marriage licenses. Then we can begin to heal.

Mark in San Diego said...

Actually, Pat Robertson IS dead, these are just reruns. . .Keith - you "GET it". . .marriage is a religious ceremony, Civil Union is a government sanction. . .actually, it all seems strange, if you really follow the logic, why even need the government to sanction two people getting together. . .a lawyer can draw up papers, probably even including child custody, etc. Maybe the government shouldn't be in the "marriage" business at all.

Mark in San Diego said...

Let's face it, gay marriage is the only thing keeping the Republican party together at this point. . .they have no other issue, except maybe abortion, but that doesn't fly as well. . .guess they gay lobby is doing Rush and Co. a BIG favor.

keith said...

Hey, after we amend the constitution to keep faggots from having equality under the law, let's amend it so those niggers can't marry whites. And also kikes - they shouldn't be able to marry anyone. And I don't think spics or wops should be allowed to have kids. And while we're at it, women shouldn't be able to vote, or be able to work, they should stay home and have babies like they were supposed to!

Should I go on?

We've been here before. Time and time again. The US Constitution is beautiful. Absolutely beautiful. And the fact that some people wish to soil it with their own perverse discriminatory fundamentalist-religion-inspired crap simply shows how far we still have to go.

But we'll get there.

Just will take us a few hundred years.

Anonymous said...

Keith,

just curious. the constitution says nothing about not being able to marry your sister or daughter.

are you willing to deny siblings the right to marry each other if that makes them happy?

i am not using this as a argument that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry just that the constitution doesn't mention a lot of things that are against the law.

Anonymous said...

we debate the gay marriage issue all the while the swine flu virus refuses to go quietly into the night....

a local school here in oregon was closed today due a confirmed outbreak.

i read that it is spiking in england.

i have a nasty feeling about the flu season this fall.

Miss Goldbug said...

Personally, I think homosexuality is a learned behavior.

Why does media want to promote this lifestyle as normal? Two women/ men kissing is not normal.

Its just not. Dont people understand the more its promoted, the more teens will consider this behavior normal - adding to this devient behavior through media propaganda and acceptance presure?

Homosexuality is not a mainstream lifestyle and should be kept out of the limelight.

Parents need to protect and teach boundries and self discipline to their young adolsecent children that this lifestyle is not to be promoted as mainstream.

keith said...

On the marrying your daughter thing, or Pat Robertson's stupid comment about beastiality, it's simply equal rights under the law that need to be addressed.

If the government rewards legal rights to two consenting adults, then ANY two consenting adults must have those same legal rights.

That said, if government decides it wants to give rights to any two consenting unmarried unreltated people, then that's what it can do, under the law.

This would then preclude people from marrying their cat, or their daughter. Or for five people to marry each other.

Two consenting unmarried unrelated adults.

Anonymous said...

"Hey, after we amend the constitution to keep faggots from having equality under the law, let's amend it so those niggers can't marry whites."

If all gays were the same race, your point might have merit.

Marriage is the union of bride and groom.


Equality under the law would mean all marriages equally contain one man and one woman. As it should be for all. Yep, lets strengthen the equality of marriage instead of killing it off like we did with the economy by makeing everyone equal in getting a loan even when they could never hope to pay it off.

Gay marriage is the same thing, it will finish off the country.

Anonymous said...

BG said it all. Thats it, end of story, thank u goodbye!
-JDF

gutless and lazy said...

The government needs to be out of the religion business. Leave religion up to religions.


Nope, you got it backwards. Marriage needs to be MORE of the states business. Religion needs to stay OUT of it. You want religist wackos get to have total say on marriage? NO THANKS!

The "marriage" thing is a money issue. A culture issue. A society issue. In other words, a gov't issue.

Male and female marriages, by and large, produce children. You know, the next generation. The future.

Same sex marriages, by and large, does not.

Society should therefore, and already does, financially discriminate how it allocates its resources. It should give incentives for those who produce the next generation and future.

For those who don't, they get zip, nada, nil.. in terms of incentives. Want to shack up in a lesbian relationship? Fine. Just dont expect any social status for it.

I challenge any poster to cite one successful, long term culture, that promoted same sex marriages. You can't, because there is none.

In the millions of years of human evolution, there never has been one. I wonder why ...

Anonymous said...

My Webster's dictionary defines marriage as:

-------------------------

i bet the dictionary from a hundred years ago (heck, probably even 50 years ago) agrees better with the religious definition.

i have a 25 year old webster (dates me, i think). here is the definition:

"the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."


now, one may say it says nothing about "one man one woman" but back when the above definition was written there wasn't fertility technology we have today, so it did essentially mean one man one woman.

my point is that the definition of marriage has a long history as a religious definition (several millennium) so when all the "marriage license" rules were put into place it was a religious definition and it still is.

the definition according to webster has changed in recent years but the religious roots and definition have not. webster is not only providing the "liberal pc" definition only. it should, in order to be academically fair and transparent provide the religious definition too.

i bet the definition in webster's is a recent change, like less than 10 years.

Anonymous said...

To what end?

what about two women and a man?

Two men and a woman?

Three woman and a pony?

Man and a dog?

A woman and a transvestite and Rosco the wonder Chicken?

A pedophile and a grade school boy?



TO WHAT END?

.

Anonymous said...

keith,

the constitution says nothing about marrying your daughter. it doing so doesn't harm anyone else. so by your definition their right to happiness (if they are consenting adults) is being violated.

i don't understand how you can require that the consenting adults not be related. seems arbitrary to me.

and why just 2? also arbitrary.

no different that arbitrarily saying it must be one man one woman.

animals i understand. they cannot reason and enter into a binding legal agreement of any sort. that makes perfect sense.

Anonymous said...

I guess we have reached that time in history when an extremely small minority can Bully the majority through legislation to get what they want

Anonymous said...

Since when did disagreement become 'Hate speech'?

I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle (i said disagree)

Then I am considered a Homophobe, bigot, racist ....whatever

Because I see things one way and you see them another it's considered hate speech!

Anonymous said...

I guess we have reached that time in history when an extremely small minority can Bully the majority through legislation to get what they want
-----------------------------

i would say it is more like two small groups that really really care about the issue. a large number of people have an opinion but really don't care one way of the other so they don't actively fight for their position and will accept which ever minority view wins out.

Anonymous said...

"The US Constitution is beautiful. Absolutely beautiful."

I counter that the decline of western civilzation exposes it as a failure. In the few hundred years you spoke of, there will be no Constitution except for in the history books to make sure they don't repeat the mistake.

keith said...

I'm looking at this from a legal angle. If government says that two consenting unmarried unrelated adults can enjoy certain rights, then anyone in that class must enjoy those rights.

Now, if government gives rights to two consenting adults, but leaves out the unmarried and unrelated, then sure, a father who is already married could marry his daughter as well.

If the father sued, and said he was being denied rights, the courts will say no, you must be unmarried to marry. And civil unions can only be two people. And the two people must be unrelated.

Same thing with "adults", defined as 18 or over. This would stop a 50 year old marrying a 2 year old. No rights were denied, as the state has set a minimum age. Same for voting, or for drinking alcohol.

Someone with a law degree expound on this. It is interesting.

geeski said...

please people, read the 14th amendment. it is perfection in its simplicity.

the few sentences will usher in gay marriage or whatever the hell you want to call it across the land.

then the whackos can go back to hating blacks and jews and women and killing doctors and security guards.

christ, i think i'll just move to canada for awhile. you can all kill each other, and then when you're the last right-wing-nut-case left, you can attack the mirror.

peace out

gutless and lazy said...

Hey BG,

Here's how same sex marriage is a threat to ANY society: It misallocates resources.

Financial resources. Legal resources. Political resources. Etc.

A successful society promotes and supports the next generation as much as possible. The better it does this, the stronger and healthier the society and culture.

When a society dilutes it's resources, when it spends an inordinate amount of time/money/thought to those who don't produce, then that society weakens, it fades, it withers, and eventually it dies.

Hopefully, eventually, our culture will come around to this again, after it's suffered enough pain.

We've got to unlearn some of the '60s failed ideas.

Marriage and sex is ultimately about producing children. Human sexuality is not about having your own personal entertainment center. Get over yourselves already.

keith said...

Disagreeing with gay marriage, or the homosexual lifestyle, is not hate speech. It's your belief, and you're entitled to it.

Hate speech is saying faggots don't deserve their constitutional rights because they're filthy aids-carrying faggots.

See the difference?

Anonymous said...

Sheesh. Let them marry. It will give all these suddenly-out-of-a-job lawyers I'm hearing about a new line of work: Gay Divorce Lawyer. And, I, for one, look forward to watching Gay Divorce Court on the tv after my stories... :-/

Q: Why is divorce so expensive?

A: Because it's worth it!!!

- Just Divorced

gutless and lazy said...

The US Constitution....

It's a legal document, that's all. Stop worshiping it as your modern bible. It's not the end all, be all on how to create a healthy society. Get over it.

Thomas Jeffereson was a brilliant man. That's all. There's lots of those.

And stick this in your pipe and smoke it : Even the founding fathers said they reported to a higher authority: God. I know that really bugs the crap out of some of you. But get over it.

Anonymous said...

A successful society promotes and supports the next generation as much as possible. The better it does this, the stronger and healthier the society and culture.

When a society dilutes it's resources, when it spends an inordinate amount of time/money/thought to those who don't produce, then that society weakens, it fades, it withers, and eventually it dies.
--------------------------------

those are the cold hard facts and we need to get back to that view.

whether keith wants to admit it or not it is the above reasoning that drives his belief the marriage should not be between related individuals. or between more than 2 people.

Anonymous said...

please people, read the 14th amendment. it is perfection in its simplicity.

the few sentences will usher in gay marriage or whatever the hell you want to call it across the land.
--------------------

i tend to agree but it should also allow related family members to marry too. or marriages of more than 2 people.

fair is fair.

Anonymous said...

Now, if government gives rights to two consenting adults, but leaves out the unmarried and unrelated, then sure, a father who is already married could marry his daughter as well.

If the father sued, and said he was being denied rights, the courts will say no, you must be unmarried to marry. And civil unions can only be two people. And the two people must be unrelated.
------------------------

keith,

i will concede the no more than 2 as going to 3 or more would seem to make the legal agreement very complex.

but if a father never married the daughter's mother, and the daughter was of consenting age, then the relation restriction seem kind of arbitrary.

i do agree that it is best for society if a father and daughter do not marry but on the other hand that is the argument that the anti gay marriage group makes too about gay unions. and on some level, i do agree about the mis-allocation of resources with regards to gay marriage but i think i rank the rights of the individual to be above the mis-allocation of resources only because the number of gay marriages will be small compared to hetro marriages.

Anonymous said...

Why is the government even recognizing unions or marriage in the first place?

Why are people who form unions getting preferential rights over singles?

And, of course, all the married people who get tax benefits at the expense of others will just discount the single people as they always do.

keith said...

Oh, I do love right wing blow-hards talking about defending marriage, when the US has a 50% divorce rate.

Oh, the irony.

Anonymous said...

things that make you go hmmmm,

doubt this will get much play in the lame stream media

http://tinyurl.com/ltftx4

Anonymous said...

And stick this in your pipe and smoke it : Even the founding fathers said they reported to a higher authority: God. I know that really bugs the crap out of some of you. But get over it.
----------------------

they did mention God a lot and His higher authority.

Miss Goldbug said...

What if you had small children at home, would you like your kids to see openly gay couples in commercials, tv shows, ads with kids in school openly kissing same sex lovers?

What kind of effect will that have on them?

Subliminal influences through repeated advertising and media coverage will corrupt this country and influence the minds of the masses to believe what what ounce wrong, is now right if gays are allowed to have legalized marriage.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I do love right wing blow-hards talking about defending marriage, when the US has a 50% divorce rate.

Oh, the irony.
--------------------------

because 50% fail is no reason not to defend the other 50%.

i think society's continual decline of taking personal responsibility is the cause of the increasing divorce rate. and it is the cause of a lot of our other social problems.

Guberville Smack said...

Keith said:
"Disagreeing with gay marriage, or the homosexual lifestyle, is not "hate speech. It's your belief, and you're entitled to it.

Hate speech is saying faggots don't deserve their constitutional rights because they're filthy aids-carrying faggots.

See the difference?"

Tell that to ex-Miss California. The Heterophobes took her freedom of speech and knocked her over the head with it.

Miss Goldbug said...

Why Keith, do you generalize anyone believing marriage between a man and a woman is a right wing blow-hard?

Anonymous said...

Keith -
The one thing that advocates of gay marriage continue to NOT address is why are we stopping this redefinition of marriage at two people? Using your defense of the Constitution, if Sally and Jean want to get married because it 'makes them happy'. Then why can't/shouldn't we allow/encourage Sally, Jean, Mark, Mary and Sam to get married because it makes all of them happy? Communes of 20 to 100 people should be allowed to get married because it makes them happy. What about people who have more perverse attitudes/ideas of sexual things that make them happy, why are we precluding them? See the reason of 'it makes them happy' and/or 'they are in love' doesn't work because it opens the door to all sorts of other situations that make other people 'happy'. In the end, the institution of marriage becomes meaningless. Sorry, I don't buy into gay marriage, never have and never did. As far as some sort of civil union for the recognition of benefits, survivorship, etc. Yes, there are reasons to have 'civil unions/contracts' but those reasons and those relationships should NOT be governed by a 'bedroom' test. I think two elderly women who are sisters and living together (for companionship and financial reasons) should be eligible. I see the big picture Keith, unlike 99% of the liberals.

Fight the Right said...

"When he sent the draft to Franklin, Franklin edited it, and crossed out "sacred and undeniable" saying we should separate out religion. He, not TJ used the words "Self Evident"."

Ben Franklin, a true American hero. Ben was the champion of thoughtful freedom, and he had some early run-ins with the religious right. His older brother was jailed for making fun of the clergy in his newspaper. Unfortunately we still have those nuts with us, Ben.

Honica Jewinski said...

LESBIANS RULE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Semen swilling sodomites..... Not so much.

Pro-Choice Voice said...

"...take it to the supreme court, interpret the 14th amendment, pass gay marriage, and move on. game over. done."

Yeah, right. Done. Just like Roe v. Wade rendered the abortion controversy 'done'. It's never 'done' when the wing nuts aren't happy about the decision.

Anonymous said...

"The US Constitution is beautiful. Absolutely beautiful. And the fact that some people wish to soil it with their own perverse discriminatory fundamentalist-religion-inspired crap simply shows how far we still have to go."

Funny because the original Constitution did not, for all intents and purposes, really even consider certain populations of people as being human beings - they were considered mere chattel and/or savages and thereby denied the right to vote.

Anonymous said...

You guys are such phonies, first you are against Jefferson because he had slaves and was implied to be in a relationship with Sally Hemmings, thereby condemming him, then you try to quote him when it suits your agenda.
While I understand that people should have a right to legal transfer, inheritance to their "loved one", I don't agree with same sex marriage in any religious ceremony.
Why are we trying to force Christianity to recognize something contrary to their faith? This nation was founded on Christian ideals and it remains so in most of the nation.
The agenda keeps being pressed as if it is some sort of level of maturity, lifting a barbaric culture from former ignorance. There are absolutes even if liberal minded people refuse to accept them.

This has NOTHING to do with that Pat Robertson, and I don't like being associated with a guy who was always inventing new projects for people to send their money in and then he and his son split the stock and sell out when it hits peak. He's been doing this for years and both he and his other fellow prosperity preachers are going to have to answer to God someday for all the fleecing that they have partaken in getting 10 dollars from old ladies who are living on small pensions but believe in the holiness of his television evangelism.

You wanted Obama and his socialist policy, you now have it and Congress is unstoppable with programs for taxing.
If they pass the one about turning in your clunker, you can kiss every antique vehicle goodbye. The people who depend on these collectors by selling parts will be going out of business. Hot rodders especially will be hard hit on any vehicle older than 72.
If they allow for $15 K for new home ownership it will only drive up the prices. Do you really think we will get that credit for ourselves when we buy the house?
Also the proposal to "Tax the Rich" and cap executive salaries won't work. It has been tried before. The rich simply stop developing, spending or working. Remember the "luxury" tax on high cost items?
My friend who worked building yachts was put right out of business. The rich simply stopped ordering yachts.
This is a foolish way of doing things. The rich simply pack it up and leave, you will NEVER be able to force the rich to pay. It will be like Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" played out in real life. In fact it is already happening as we write.
The rich are abandoning their projects and the brain drain has been in full tilt for quite some time.

keith said...

Actually, the Declaration and the Constitution did a fine job in establishing freedom and liberty for all.

It was the government who decided to ignore their founding documents that caused the problem. And it's taken 230 years to right the wrongs. And counting.

Daphne64 said...

Regarding your characterization of Pat Robertsons comments as evil:

If there is no god, there is no good or evil, just attributes like "inequitable" vs "equitable" and "inefficient" vs "efficient".

You have no idea how much the remaining underpinnings of western civilization are religiously based standards, do you?

Without religious underpinnings, and in particular Christian underpinnings, we revert back to morals that pretty much have in mind the propagation of our genes. This works at a clan level, but is totally inadequate for the societies we have today.

Take a deep hard look at civilizations that have little or no Christian influence and see if you like what you see.

PS I don't care about gay marriage one way or another. Our nations are dying due to financial corruption. I'm just trying to get you to see how much of your "thinking" is a kneejerk reaction against those parts of religion you don't like.

keith said...

On Christian underpinnings, please enlighten me. What did Christ have to say about gays, and gay marriage?

Please, we're all ears. Waiting.









Still waiting.








Still waiting.

Anonymous said...

Tell that to ex-Miss California. The Heterophobes took her freedom of speech and knocked her over the head with it.

---------------------------

come on, we all know that minority groups, by liberal definition, be guilty of reverse discrimination or hate. they are victims and as such, in the new liberal Amerika, are free to commit the crimes that they are victims of.

Anonymous said...

ok, i am not religous but i will bite:

Jesus said:


Mark 10:6-8 - "...at the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife..." and in both Matthew 6:31-32 and Mark 10:10-12 Jesus speaks of marriage and divorce being between a man and a woman, clearly using feminine and masculine terms. It is clear He never considers man with man or woman with woman.


so, he did talk about marriage being between a man and woman.

keith said...

Jesus was concerned about divorce. Not gays marrying (he never addressed that). At least what was reported second-hand in the bible and all.

So shouldn't the "Defense of Marriage" act actually been a law that banned all divorces?

Also, was jesus gay or straight? And why did he never address the subject of gays (as recorded in the bible)? I know, I know, Leviticus and friends had all kinds of groovy ideas. But jesus?

The fact that you've likely never seen those questions asked should trouble you, more than the question itself.

My theory? He didn't address it because it wasn't important. He was above that.

Angry Leprechauns said...

"Actually, the Declaration and the Constitution did a fine job in establishing freedom and liberty for all."

Keith, I agree. The context of these documents actually has the tone that the Federal Gov should never even have a discussion on issues such as gay marriage. It is not in their job description. If they, dems and the repubs, would only realized that they are inflicting hate and discrimination by even entertaining the arguments.

gutless and lazy said...


Also, was jesus gay or straight? And why did he never address the subject of gays (as recorded in the bible)? I know, I know, Leviticus and friends had all kinds of groovy ideas. But jesus?

The fact that you've likely never seen those questions asked should trouble you, more than the question itself.

My theory? He didn't address it because it wasn't important. He was above that.

More likely, those topics never came up as questionons because marriage as a union of man and a women was UNQUESTIONED at the time. The whole idea, the very concept, of same sex marriage would have been considered SO WILD, SO INSANE, SO OUT THERE in left field they probably didnt have the foggiest idea that 2,000 years some societies would even consider the thought.

Daphne64 said...

Go back and read my comment. I wasn't keying on the gay marriage thing at all.

What I am annoyed at is you using words like evil when you deny the main basis of western morality. Use crazy, use repressive. But evil shouldn't even be in your lexicon. Any part of darwinian evolution evil? It's just not part of that worldview at all. The concept of evil is an anachronistic carryover from a religious society.

You're right. Jesus didn't say a thing about gays. And we are ignoring what he did say about divorce, to our detriment.

How's that review of cultures with no Christian basis going? I am guessing the list of decent countries consists of modern Japan, and that's it.

PS Robertson is senile, and was kind of marginal even before then.

Anonymous said...

Jesus did address gay marriage because he wasn't concerned about gays and gay marriage.

He knew he was coming back and would leave them on earth (while taking away the hetros) to wallow in their freakish misery while anti-christ lays waste to the earth and the people left behind!

Daphne64 said...

I guess I should repeat that I am an agnostic. An agnostic that goes to church, but an agnostic nevertheless.

The factual origins of christianity may be nothing more than a peaceful preacher that somehow got a lot of miracles attributed to him, but look what's it's done.

Do you really wish we still had the morals of the pagan Romans? With gladatorial contests and slavery? With no police force that we would recognize as such?

With land being willy-nilly taken so it could be given to retired soldiers? With proscription lists?

That, my friend, is the western heritage we would have had without Christianity.

investorinpa said...

I remember when this was a housing panic esque blog!

Kidding aside, 50% of people in marriages do NOT end up in divorce...50% of MARRIAGES end up in divorce. What that means is some people marry several times and that makes the overall total number of divorces appear higher as is often misquoted.

geeski said...

this is fun.

poking holes in arguments of those that believe they are divinely and absolutely right is simply sublime.

and this miss goldbug is a hoot. two guys kissing is going cause the end of days in her mind yet odd that two guys shooting guns and murdering people is pretty much mainstay on primetime TV

this is simply a matter of equal protection under the law. nothing more and nothing less. marriage in our country is a protected by over 1700 laws across the land. and we formally have separation of church and state, despite the nut-cases that want it to be otherwise.

this is simply a done deal. every republican with a functioning brain stem knows it too. that is why the whole federal amendment process died and was turned over to state decisions. if the federal government had to rule (which they will soon enough) they are bound by the 14th amendment. unless we change that, and that will not happen, it is simply a matter of time.

the world will move on, and when nothing changes, most people will simply not care.

haters, you'll need to find a new subject for your rage.

this is a big hoopla about nothing.

Markus Arelius said...

"The government needs to be out of the religion business. Leave religion up to religions."

You need to go a step further and say:

"Religion should stay well away from government business."

Why?

First, because most religions , particularly Christianity, are immoral by 21st century standards in that they adhere to belief systems from the Iron age, when we had no idea about science or medicine, that earthquakes and tsunami's are caused by geologic shifts, not acts of Dog.
Biblical morality stems from nothing moral at all. Instead the bible is chock full of maniacal tribalism, slavery, genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes (collecting foreskins), the maltreatment of women, children and the destruction of animals and the environment.

No one in their right mind claims the moral high ground thumping their chest while standing on books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

Second, religion (particularly Christianity) had it's chance already to govern with the divine right of kings, and with the pope, etc.. How did that turn out. Well, it failed in collossal fashion.

If you want to know what a religious society and state would look like, just check out Iran.

Personally, I don't want anyone passing laws to outlaw working on Sunday or policing the virginity of American women on their wedding night with the sentence of stoning (Deut 22:13-29). I also don't want anyone telling my son or daughter who they can and cannot fall in love with and marry.

Seems to me America and the world has had it's fill of so called "biblical morality", thank you very much all the same.

sunshine, lollipops and happy graphs said...

You want unfairness. This song couldn't make it to the top 40 in the US because the powers that be don't like that she mentions Christianity occasionally.

Nevermind that she's the clearest "complete package" to come along since Shinna Twain, and the music is fantastic. Just hate the singer for who she is. That's hate you filthy prigs. Yes, that's prigs not pigs.

And she's unbelievably gorgeous by the way. The total package.

http://top40-charts.com/videos/play.php?vid=WGx-xU6TnU8

Anonymous said...

To all of the christians and conservatives posting tonight, I'm a gay guy and I'm married to my boyfriend (in CA - got the notarized marriage license to prove it).

We are law abiding, tax paying citizens, and I challenge you to put forth one quantifiable way in which our marriage infringes upon anyone elses rights or degrades anything in society?

Ross said...

I have no idea what this corpse is talking about.

Anonymous said...

Name all the World Countries that have legalized Gay Marriage . Did England or France legalize gay marriage verses civil unions ? Why is it that so many Countries of the World do not legalize gay marriage ?
I am really asking this question ?

edd browne said...

All this tommyrot; time to
"grow a pair" and go to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
... just for starters
Babies are surgically sexed in neonatal
procedures based on external appearance
every day; often incorrectly. (even though
neuro-endocrine tests can do better)

Things are then quietly wacky for the
misassigned child, until puberty hits,
and the tragic error is manifest too late.

And since differentiation of the brain is not
consonant with differentiation of the genitalia,
and there are also timing errors even within
brain differentions, all added to the many
separate genetic anomaly disorders, the number
of internal/external variations of sexuality status
is something short of a hundred; maybe more.
But all are "god's children".

And hormone mimics in various waste streams
increase the rate of these problems.

p.s.:
Men have nipples since each embryo is female.
Find that in the ancient books.

Brian Miller said...

Well golly gee, I think I might be the first actual homo to comment on this thread.

1: "Homosexuality is a choice." It's not. Sexual orientation is built in to everyone. Most people trend towards heterosexuality, a few towards homosexuality, and a slight few towards bisexuality. Heterosexual individuals who claim it's a "choice" are either misinformed or bisexual/homosexual themselves (and thus assuming their own "choice" is something that everyone else has as well).

2: "A majority of people voted to ban it." That would be a semi-legitimate argument in a mob-rule democracy, rather than a constitutional republic with a constitution that includes a bill of rights. The 14th amendment is pretty clear on this front -- discriminatory provision of government benefits is simply illegal under the supreme law of the land.

3: "Marriage is about procreation." It is not. In fact, literally no law regarding custody is associated with marital status -- nor is procreation a legal requirement to get a legal marriage. Heterosexual individuals who are biologically incapable of having children are not denied access to marriage licenses.

4: "Marriage is a religious ceremony." It is not. It is a legal status. In fact, if you are "married" by a religious authority who lacks state government certification for the marriage, your marriage is not considered a legal one for purposes of taxation, immigration, asset transfers, medical decision-making power, or any other government record-keeping situation.

5: "I think homosexuality is yucky." I think Republicanism is yucky, yet I don't seek to ban Republicans from practicing their deviant form of political activity. After all, I believe, as Mr. Cheney stated, "freedom means freedom for everyone."

6: "It will cost us more money to include gays in various government programs." You might have a point there if LGBT Americans weren't also taxed for those programs. LGBT families typically pay higher taxes than their heterosexual counterparts at the same income level for significantly depreciated benefits. Whether those benefits should exist for everyone is a separate discussion versus the present system, which redistributes income from LGBT families to everyone else.

This country often speaks of being "the land of the free," and makes references to its constitution and values. However, my experience to date is that its commitment to those things is just a nice talking point that a majority of its citizens don't believe.

I watch my ex-brother-in-law go to prison after bolting on his children and not paying a dime of child support. I see Republican and Democrat politicians, as well as about 50% of all heterosexual "family values" Americans, enter divorces -- often multiple times. I see people who claim to care about the welfare of children toss their own children out on the street if they discover they're queer. I see "Christians" who acquire great masses of wealth and power for themselves at the expense of the most vulnerable scream about "morality."

And I see that the emperor has no clothes.

One thing is for sure -- as this country continues its fiery crash into the mountainside, I don't want to hear rhetoric about how "we're all in this together." Fat-n-happy heterosexuals had a decades-long party with low marginal tax rates and social/income redistribution programs propped up by about 10% of the population who were permanently excluded from most of the largesse. That's not "togetherness."

Brian Miller said...

Name all the World Countries that have legalized Gay Marriage . Did England or France legalize gay marriage verses civil unions

Name all the World Countries that have legalized free speech.

The United States is the only country in the world that permits unbridled free speech without penalties based on the political, religious or opinion content of that speech.

Clearly, free speech is deviant and if the majority decides it needs to go, it needs to go. After all, they don't have free speech in England (where one can be imprisoned for criticizing religion) or France (where one can be imprisoned for making religious statements in "the wrong places.")

Yeah, the First Amendment mandates that free speech is a right of all people, but let's just ignore that. After all, we are already ignoring the 14th amendment on the gay marriage thing, and a whole host of other amendments. What's one more?

Let's start by mandating 10 years in prison for all Republican political speech. At 21% of the population, they're an insignificant minority anyway, and the majority probably doesn't want them spreading their values to our children.

Miss Goldbug said...

Anon said:"Equality under the law would mean all marriages equally contain one man and one woman. As it should be for all. Yep, lets strengthen the equality of marriage instead of killing it off like we did with the economy by makeing everyone equal in getting a loan even when they could never hope to pay it off."


You're exactly right Anon. Very well said.

Brian Miller said...

Equality under the law would mean all marriages equally contain one man and one woman.

With everyone else being stuck with the "breeder tax," right? LOL!

Anonymous said...

those babes are hot - any more of those pics?

BuyerWillEPB said...

ok ok, now that is a pretty funny parody. Still, the guy does have a real case. Shall we be having marriage with our dog, and our 3 wives? Why not, eh?

Anonymous said...

Well, increased numbers of homosexuals is one of the signs that we are living in a decadent civilization,(by that, I mean decaying).

It has always been this way. We are living in the end times - the end of the West. Like Rome, we have turned our country over to Barbarians, politicians have raided the treasury, rampant inflation is around the corner, there are too many citizens (and non-citizens) on welfare, our military is focused on social agendas rather than fighting, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

So, it doesn't really matter anyway. "There is no new thing under the sun," so eat, drink and be merry (or, married), for tomorrow we die.

Anonymous said...

Why are there so many religious psychos on this blog? Take your outdated gobbledy gook and stuff it. Gay people deserve all the same rights as straight people.

Brian Miller said...

increased numbers of homosexuals is one of the signs that we are living in a decadent civilization

Yes. Clearly, thriving countries have no homosexual people at all. Iran and North Korea have both announced that they have none, and Soviet Russia used to report it had none.

Perhaps you should move to Pyongyang or Tehran, to escape all the decadence to be found in the West.

Anonymous said...

The Bible

Is the inspired word of God

There is plenty in there about Homosexuality, perversions, the sexually immoral

Christ himself said,

Matthew 19:

4"Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them 'Male and Female" and said 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?.....

9"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife , except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery"

Male and Female!

Verse nine states 'His' and 'Wife' and another woman in reference to him remarrying 'a woman'

Never does it say Him and his partner or 'His Husband'

.

Anonymous said...

Genesis also talks of God creating man,

then creating a woman to be his partner

And they (man and woman) shall be joined together.

Anonymous said...

Read Romans 1:18-32


I realize that not of this is good enough for you

You do not want to hear what you do not want to believe

The Bible is Full of Lessons on Homosexuality and immoralities

It was good enough for your parents or grandparents...it's good enough for you!

Read it!

Anonymous said...

"Do Not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.


Leviticus 18:22


Old school LAW from the Bible

Good yesterday, Today, tomorrow !

edd browne said...

Request to believers in ancient books:
Research their pedigrees from the
very first page or story, and the
radically different editions of these books.

Research oral history and midrash.
Your clergy will not want you to do this.
It was a life-changing journey for me.

But I can document the medical causes of the
anomalies in gender attraction, some natural,
some by hormone timing disruption in the first
six weeks of gestation, including environmental
disruption interfering with brain differentiations.

Gestational chemistry is one reason why there
seem to be more variations in gender attraction.
Another reason is that people trying to "fix"
themselves no longer feel compelled to start or
continue a marriage that they never wanted,
since there are alternatives to a marriage so
tragic to the family involved.

But diverging from some book is a risk to
your eternal future; or so you think.
So better to be safe; unless that book is not safe.
What if some other edition is safe; or neither ?

Brian Miller said...

Oh msn, Christian fundies are so funny.

Their "Lord Jesus" ordered them to give away all that they have to the poor and sick in order to follow him, but instead they hang out at this site and many others trying to figure out how to preserve and grow their wealth.

Their Jesus told them that a rich man was damned to hell, but they're working desperately to get rich.

Their Jesus told them to honor their ruler and obey him, but they have "tea parties" and rage aga9inst his rule.

Their Jesus told them to "turn the other cheek" and be slow to anger and avoid hatred, yet they're among the most angry and hateful people in American politics today.

Jesus told them that divorce is banned and a form of adultery, but most of the fundamentalist Christian population that "rages" against "immoral homosexuals" are themselves divorcees -- adulterers!

Jesus told them to beat swords into ploughshares, but instead they scream for blood in the Middle East and around the world, advocating the bombing of Afghan weddings and Iraqi schools.

It's clear that even they don't believe or practice or care about what's written in their book of fairy tales. Why should anybody else?

Anonymous said...

"Do Not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.


Leviticus 18:22

Miss Goldbug said...

"i bet the definition in webster's is a recent change, like less than 10 years."



Agree. My Websters dictionary is dated 1988.

Its just wrong for "no on 8" crowd to try to rewrite the basic understanding of marriage and twist the meaning to suit their agenda.