Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Terry Jeffrey :: Townhall.com Columnist
Obama's Mandate for Nationalized Same-Sex Marriage
by Terry Jeffrey
Forward Print Share Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



Appearing Monday on "The Ellen DeGeneres Show," Joe Biden made the most high-profile statement yet of the Obama-Biden position on same-sex marriage.

DeGeneres asked where he stands on California's Proposition 8, a 14-word proposal that says, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Those exact words were enacted originally as a California statute in 2000, when 61 percent of voters approved Proposition 22, the California Defense of Marriage Act. This May, in a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court threw out Proposition 22, declaring same-sex marriage a "right" under the California Constitution.

Proposition 8 would amend that constitution to include the 14 words Proposition 22 originally made state law. If Proposition 8 wins, same-sex marriage will be prohibited in California. If Proposition 8 loses, same-sex marriage will be permitted. In other words, if you are against same-sex marriage, you want Proposition 8 to win. If you are for same-sex marriage, you want Proposition 8 to lose. There is no middle ground.

In the vice presidential debate, moderator Gwen Ifill asked Biden directly whether he supports same-sex marriage.

"Do you support gay marriage?" she asked.

"No, Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage," said Biden. "We do not support that."

Were this actually Biden and Obama's position, they would be for Proposition 8. But they are not.

"If I lived in California, I'd clearly vote against Prop. 8," Biden told DeGeneres.

The actual Obama-Biden position on same-sex marriage goes beyond merely opposing Proposition 8. In fact, their position sets the stage for liberal federal judges to impose same-sex marriage nationwide by forcing states that have passed their own acts in defense of marriage to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in states such as California, where state judges declare a state "right" to same-sex marriage.

In June, Obama sent a letter to the San Francisco-based Alice B. Toklas Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Democratic Club. It was read at the club's June 29 meeting and reprinted in full in the July 2 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle under the headline "Obama opposes proposed ban on gay marriage."

Yet that was not all Obama said he opposes -- or supports -- in this letter. He also declared that he opposes all state constitutional amendments that limit marriage to a man and a woman, that he opposes a federal amendment that would prevent states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages, that he wants to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and that he wants to fully open the military to gays.

"I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks," Obama wrote. "I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states."

To make clear that he wants no distinction in law between traditional married couples and same-sex couples -- including in laws regarding the adoption of babies -- Obama sent a second letter Aug. 1 to the Family Equality Council, a group that says it envisions "a country that celebrates a diversity of family constellations."

"We also have to do more to support and strengthen LGBT families," Obama told this council. "And that's why we have to extend equal treatment in our family and adoption laws."

The federal Defense of Marriage Act that Obama wants repealed does two things. It defines marriage for federal purposes as the union of a man and a woman, and it says states will not be forced to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in other states, as they ordinarily would under the Constitution's "Full Faith and Credit Clause."

The Full Faith and Credit Clause requires all states to recognize the judicial acts of other states but says, "Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

If the policies Obama supports come to pass, California will have same-sex marriage, and the federal law protecting other states from recognizing California's same-sex marriages will be repealed.

Then it would be up to the sort of federal judges Obama would appoint to decide whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause -- barring an act of Congress saying otherwise -- would require every other state in the union to accept California's marriage law as their own.
Share:
Forward Print Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor-in-chief of CNSNews

Be the first to read Terence Jeffrey's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate

Join The Debate!

Post Your Comment
(86 comments so Far)
View in ascending order     View in descending order
Reply # 1
Date: Oct 24, 2008 - 6:43 AM EST
L
---Marriage is defined as a union between a man and woman. Same sex couples are demanding that society elevate homosexuality. Same sex marriages already have he benefits of traditional marriage. Get the civil unions code redefined. ---

Yes. Change that outdated and discriminatory definition. There is no evidence-based reason not to.

---Homosexuality is the conduct of engaging in sodomy (homosexual relations) with members of the same sex.---

I don’t think that is generally true for lesbians.

---This is a clear definition. Civil rights, on the other hand, are also known as “natural rights,” because they are based on things that cannot be changed or chosen. Conduct is not a civil right. The whole idea of civil rights is that our civil government will respect, approve and award protected status to persons who are born with certain unchangeable qualities. This is why civil rights law prohibits discrimination based on race, ethnicity and nationality, sex and age — all immutable characteristics.---

You are making the assumption that homosexuality is a choice. I am under the impression that, because of persecution mainly by religious bigots, many gay people would rather not be gay, but their sexuality is not a matter of conscious choice, no matter how they came to be gay.

Isn’t homosexuality a sexual attraction to people who are the same gender? If you can entirely explain sexual attraction why not publish your evidence-based theory and line up for your Nobel Prize?

Stuart
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 2
Date: Oct 23, 2008 - 3:57 PM EST
Response to L
It is gratifying to hear you say, "...civil rights law prohibits discrimination based on race, ethnicity and nationality, sex and age — all immutable characteristics." But what if you are simply wrong that "There are thousands of former homosexuals, but no former blacks or Hispanics"?

By the definition of many TH regulars, 'former homosexual' would simply be a person who previously chose to engage in gay sex, but just decided to switch to straight sex or no sex. But you appear to be acknowledging that it's not as easy as that. I suspect you are referring to the rather dubious claims of successful treatment of gays to make them straight, or at least no longer gay.

We know from the example of Michael Jackson that is possible to at least appear to have changed ones race (one of your 'immutables') but the real question is why? Why should anyone undergo months, or more likely years, of treatments to attempt, with high probability of failure, to change what he is into something else just to gain the acceptance of a dwindling segment of society?

Many reports contradict your assertion that homosexuality can be cured, but even you appear to acknowledge that it takes some effort. Why should society require it even if it were NOT totally immutable? What right do you have to demand that gays change themselves through dint of considerable effort from what they are to what YOU would prefer them to be?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 3
Date: Oct 23, 2008 - 2:48 PM EST
marriage
Marriage is defined as a union between a man and woman. Same sex couples are demanding that society elevate homosexuality. Same sex marriages already have he benefits of traditional marriage. Get the civil unions code redefined.
Homosexuality is the conduct of engaging in sodomy (homosexual relations) with members of the same sex. This is a clear definition. Civil rights, on the other hand, are also known as “natural rights,” because they are based on things that cannot be changed or chosen. Conduct is not a civil right. The whole idea of civil rights is that our civil government will respect, approve and award protected status to persons who are born with certain unchangeable qualities. This is why civil rights law prohibits discrimination based on race, ethnicity and nationality, sex and age — all immutable characteristics.

There are thousands of former homosexuals, but no former blacks or Hispanics.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 4
Date: Oct 23, 2008 - 2:02 AM EST
Paul
---As to Same Sex Marriage, avail yourself of the website:www.marriagematterstokids.org ---

You post a link to celebate Catholic bishops talking about marriage? Do you not see the irony?

As you would expect, they assert their bigoted ‘tradition’. Not ONE evidence-based reason against same-sex marriage. None.

“A logical consistency of design”

Humans were not designed.

“We all need a mother and a father”

Bollocks. Says who? We need love and access to role models somehow. It is not always parents that fill the child’s role model even within a heterosexual marriage.

“The church’s concern is not for the church” : boy how did he stop his nose from growing ten feet?

The video consists of Catholic propaganda that has escaped from the 13th Century, and as usual is a shrill patronising voice that is ignorant of reality.

Stuart
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 5
Date: Oct 23, 2008 - 1:21 AM EST
Next Step (Happy Jake's dumb comments)
When will this garbage about churches losing tax exempt status stop. The Catholic Church does not allow divorced Catholics to marry (outside of those who have gone through an anulment process) while the gov't recognizes divorce and allows remarriage. The Catholic Church does not allow women to serve as priest. Yet the Church still has its tax exempt status. So churches will not lose tax exempt status for refusing to perform same sex weddings sanctioned by the gov't. Th gov't only goes after those churches which force 14 year old girls into marrying 40 year old guys.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 6
Date: Oct 23, 2008 - 12:57 AM EST
Bottom line:
California Proposition 8 is an attempt by a particular class of people to reserve a particular set of rights and benefits for themselves alone and to deny them specifically to another class of people whom they disparage.

It is wrong, it is unjust, and it will not stand.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 7
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 10:48 PM EST
it makes them happy
That's what, AB Normal.
When heterosexuals don't interfere with the normal progression of young gay people developing enduring relationships, become secure in their identity and loving another who is LIKE THEM, we ALL benefit when someone loves another.
People in love extend it. Gay couples have unselfishly and nobly adopted children who had NO ONE to love them.

Gay young people have all the same dreams, potential, talent and hopes that their straight peers have. Destroying the hope of being with and marrying someone like them, will destroy the obligation to live one's life toward that hope.
Any young person who is hopeless, ignorant and lonely is a danger to themselves and others.
Not those with hope and plans.
It's about being HAPPY. And gay people are as entitled to that as anyone else.

You're in no place to decide what that should be. You wouldn't want someone doing that to you.

I am a black woman. I know that it would be a lonely life if I was kept FROM being with other black people or never having the choice to marry who shares my background too.

Obviously heteros don't know what it's like or care to BE gay, so why should gay people look to heteros to be happy?
I don't look to white people to validate me, and shouldn't have to.
Being a human being should be enough.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 8
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 10:39 PM EST
thanks Rudy,
but AB Normal wants to put it out there, just in case someone forgets.

I wasn't kidding. People in law enforcement can't stand his kind and their bias.
They could have us chasing someone all over who is innocent and happens to be gay, instead of the target who requires our attention.

Cardinal Mahoney of LA is still stonewalling the police on the issue of priest abuse, and female victims of it are practically left out of the discussion.
Priests have abused females and fathered children as well.

Cooler heads prevail and we can spot a nutbag like AB Normal or most of the other people so preoccupied with the weirdest things they attribute to gay people, but isn't exclusive to gay people whatsoever.

Defamation is easy. It's a coward's refuge. So is telling gay people what they are supposed to be, what to do, how to live.

And look at what people are willing to make up to get their way with gay lives. It was despicable against Jews, against women, against blacks against gay people.

It's the policies that must be rejected, however different the person has been from each other.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 9
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 10:33 PM EST
@ du.
You are so right. All this obsessiveness with homosexuality is mostly really stupid. Being gay is of no consequence to almost anything in life. Seems like a lot of anti-gay Republicans are closeted gays themselves. Think Larry Craig.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 10
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 10:30 PM EST
To Patrick
Best of luck on maintaining your virginity until marriage.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 11
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 10:27 PM EST
Joycey, the liar
Yeah, you are. First of all, children will inevitably encounter gay people, whether it's their family members or schoolmates or employers or professional colleagues.

This is about the difference between teaching hostility and fear towards gay people, or teaching that homosexuality is and always has been a part of human existence for all time and that some people are and nothing influences homosexuality any more than heterosexuality.

Teaching children realistically there is nothing to fear from gay people, or teaching them distrust and fear of an INDIGENOUS and UNIVERSAL minority of people?

I'm glad MY parents didn't try to teach me such fear and contempt of gay people. And children hate it when you treat them like they are stupid babies when they find out something contrary to what you told them.

You're on the wrong side of history, and your fear mongering post is beneath decency and what decent THINKING people do.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 12
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 10:22 PM EST
@ AB Normal.
You know very well that there is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 13
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 10:16 PM EST
A.B. Normal
Please stop being stupid.
No child can consent. But apparently no one seems too worried when HETERO men abuse young girls.

The FLDS comes easily to mind. Strange how that NEVER is mentioned in context to the abuse of children.

What?
It's not pedophilia UNLESS it's men who abuse boys?
Pedophilia is about the target, WHO abuses children can be anyone.
Even their own parents.

I should know, I work as a forensic photographer for the second biggest law enforcement agency in the country, if not the world.


Your biased mentality helps NOTHING when it comes to helping or keeping children safe.
Decent people in law enforcement can't stand that.

Now, the main issue that conducts marriage to it's proper conclusion is: CONSENT.
How many times do stupid people like you have to be told that children, animals and inanimate objects can't give consent.

And primary kinship is already respected in the law, so multiple marriage partners and sibling marriage is redundant and has NOTHING to do with gay couples.

This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of law. Gay people are NOT in fact, changing the definition of marriage beyond REASONABLE limits. Your imagination is.

And if you don't know the difference, that makes you rather mentally deranged.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 14
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 10:15 PM EST
Normal?
A.B.,I don't see an iota of support for
Nambla. I could cite some cases where some recent Christian fundamentalists believe in child marriage. Could you give us all a detailed history of your sexual activity?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 15
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 10:14 PM EST
Consequences of gay marriage: none!
People in the Netherlands have lower abortion rates, lower teenage pregnancy rates, lower STD rates, lower AIDS rates, lower divorce rates, and, I believe, less cheating in long-term monogamous relationships (gay or straight, married or not) than in the US, all the time while not believing in God (less than 50% of population still religious) and while having gay marriage since 2001.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 16
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 9:49 PM EST
To A. B. NORMAL
What is the "homosexual act". My undergraduate degree is in history. The Roman Empire fell after it converted to Christianity. No empire or nation has exists forever.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 17
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 9:47 PM EST
boys
nambla will be the next group to claim normalcy.
they even have pamphlets that state that 'homosexual sex between a 'minor' (3 yr old?) and an adult can be beneficial for the minor'

tolerance, acceptance, marriage, and then you're main-streamed dudes.

next, the animal and plant deviants.

adios,
ab
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 18
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 9:32 PM EST
on the skids
every great nation or empire that fell from within went through the same foggy ill conceived immoral stage before collapse.
you can deny historical facts, but you cannot prevent their happening.

someone please give me 1 positive healthy socially redeemning aspect of the homosexual act.

adios,
ab
lancaster, taxifornia
push 1 for english

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 19
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 9:27 PM EST
was there?
Such cries on a 'moral basis' when divorce and remarriage was legal.

Was there conjecture that heterosexual couples would sue any religious institution that refused to marry those who were without children, divorced or were remarrying after more than one marriage?
Was there or is there a precedent now to use moral (religious objection) against heterosexuals to be banned from marrying?

See how selective religious objection runs afoul of equal protections in CIVIL and public laws?

That would be an imposition of standards on ONE group, and inconsistent with ANOTHER group that ALSO fits religious objection criteria.

I know it's hard to believe some people are smart enough to know what hypocritical excuses the opposition to marriage equality are coming up with, but that's what they are.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 20
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 9:23 PM EST
mlund, oh but they do
The rational basis, presented to the court was that gay couples in fact DO procreate in ways that heterosexuals who are infertile do, or they adopt and are raising children also.

And the 'procreation only' isn't the purpose of marriage and therefore also, not a rational basis to exclude gay couples.
Children are an optional choice for any couple, not a requisite to satisfy the state's interest.



Flag as Offensive

Reply # 21
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 8:52 PM EST
SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
AS AN ABSTAINER UNTIL MARRIAGE IN THE NAME OF JESUS, I AM OFFENDED THAT PRESIDENT CLINTON FIRST OF ALL CALLED ORAL SEX NOT SEX, AND HOMOSEXUALS AND THE GAY COALITION CALL ANAL SEX NOT SEX. TO ME ALL OF IT IS SEX.WE SHOULD HAVE A SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE AMENDMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
THIS IS A CONTINUAL ATTACK ON CHRISTIANITY BE THOSE WHO REFUSE TO BELIEVE THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS CHRIST.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 22
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 8:15 PM EST
Michael RINO
OK Bro bend over cause the Big O is gonna give it to you hard real hard, good luck with that
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 23
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 7:43 PM EST
THE RADICAL DEMO-RATS !
THEIR THE FRUIT CAKES!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 24
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 7:41 PM EST
PASTOR JAMES DAVID MANNING !
PASTOR DAVID MANNING A BLACK HARLEM PASTOR SAYS OBAMA IS GAY! DO A GOOGLE SEARCH.MANNING TELLS THE TRUTH!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 25
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 7:21 PM EST
Truth or Consequences
As to Same Sex Marriage, avail yourself of the website:www.marriagematterstokids.org
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 26
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 6:57 PM EST
ANYTHING GOES
And it's all about getting the vote.

$600,000.00 spent on the ULTIMATE in 'BAIT and SWITCH' advertizing the World will have ever seen.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 27
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 6:39 PM EST
Happy Jake
There are many reasons why the house may be in only one person's name. One is the house was
inherited. A more likely scenario, and one
that is true for many of my friends who are in
business for themselves. The house is only in
the wife's name in case they get sued for something.

As for insurance, probably 2/3 of the couple I
know get their insurance tagged on to that of
a spouse because that spouse has better or insurance, or just has insurance. Do you have
a clue as to how many jobs don't have insurance.

As for the rest of it, it really doesn't matter
what you think. If someone decides to make
this a civil rights issue, it will eventually
win the day. It will take some time, but it will happen. All that's left is learning to
live with it.


Flag as Offensive

Reply # 28
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 4:52 PM EST
The War Between the States II
*
The day Barack Obama is elected Commander and Chief and brings with him a Marxist Homosexual agenda to Federal office, the Balkanization of culture and ideology will be swift and not without merit, and the outcome will inevitably foment talk of States Session.

I hope Obama looks good in a Stove Pipe Hat?

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 29
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 3:35 PM EST
Civil marriage IS government
The logical fallacy about banning same-sex marriage being "big government intervention" is the most brazen perversion of logic I've ever seen.

The extension of State Privilege through Civil Marriage is ALREADY "government intervention." Removing the Rational Basis Test that requires the State to justify extending Privileges EXPANDS the power of government to Unconstitutional Levels.

Yet only by removing the Rational Basis Test can the GBLT Extremists have same-sex "marriage." Clearly this is an example of the Extreme Left trying to Remove Restrictions on Government Power for their own ends in the most undemocratic method possible (stacking the bench). Meanwhile reasonable persons mindful of the Constitution continue to take rogue Justices and Lawyers to task for ignoring the restrictions wisely set upon the Government's power.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 30
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 3:28 PM EST
Empty rhetoric
I've already pointed out the clear Constitutional violation that same-sex "marriage" presents. The Left continues to rail about how "the only arguments against it are religious." They ignore all the well-founded dissenting opinions and the utter lack of foundation in the majority opinions of rulings like Goodridge.

If all you have to offer are emotional appeals, empty rhetoric, and your scorn against religion then you've already lost the argument.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 31
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 3:25 PM EST
same sex marriage
See what I don't understand is why same sex want to redefine marriage? They have every civil right to choose and live your life as they want to. You have every benefit married couples have under California Family Code section 297.5. Living in a gay society, I find gays want normalcy. I was all for same sex marriages until problems were brought to my attention of me losing my civil rights! No longer can I say it's an alternative lifestyle. I am wrong for just being tolerant of my friends lifestyles. I will have no right to disagree with the teachings being taught to my children under the name of diversity. There will be custody battles between mother and mother. Adoption agencies will close down for wanting a "normal" life for little children. Indoctrinating them to an already confusing and controversial subject. Children is a HUGE issue because gays can't naturally have them together. Don't think it will happen?? It is right now on the East Coast. Do ALL of the research. Your civil rights are NOT infringed upon. What your looking for is global acceptance as an normal lifestyle. Three fourths of the world will not agree.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 32
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 3:22 PM EST
give em credit
The right wing is going to keep using the same playbook to the end. The electorate is changing and people just don't care about this anymore. The religious fanatics who have hijacked the republican party are going to make it a permanent fringe party. The Obama era is coming people.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 33
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 3:19 PM EST
Jeff
What about your fellow Texans who also love guns and religion who also happen to be gay couples wanting to marry? You want big government then.

Stuart
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 34
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 2:58 PM EST
Big Government - Get Lost
I wish the federal government would stop trying to impose their views on the masses. Let the states decide how to govern themselves! I'm pro-life but I don't want the government to ban abortion (however, partial birth abortion, which Obama supports, is the most horrible procedure - Look it up!). I'm a Christian and of course, hetero, but I don't expect the government to ban gay marriage. I want the state I live in to decide that and once that decision is made no other state can override it. Homosexuals can go get married in California or other states that embrace that lifestyle. Here in Texas, not so much. But if the happy couple moves from Cali to Texas - Texas DOES NOT have to acknowledge their union because the population of that region does not want to. Simple as that. All the gays can go live there and we'll stay here. God Bless Texas, really, thank you God for Texas. We may be 'cowboys' (not the Broke Back kind) who love our guns, God, and family values, but that is our RIGHT!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 35
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 2:48 PM EST
Fear and trembling
Cato said "Democrats caused the mortgage crisis and deliberately refused to fix it and allowed it to worsen so they could unleash it just before this election to get their candidate elected. The mortgage crisis was caused by government interference in the free market, not by greed or stupidity. Democrats threatened banks with legal action if they did not give mortgages to minorities who could not afford them. Banks continued to refuse until Democrats (and liberal Republicans) set up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to back up bad subprime loans. With this guarantee, banks made loans that they knew would default.

The mortgage crisis is one issue. Another important issue is the definition of marriage and both can be addresses without making the other suffer. (See, we "Rightists" are smart enough to handle more than one issue at a time.)

Marriage is far more than "two people who love each other". The definition of marriage will determine the future of the country. What is now called "traditional marriage" is the only human institution that has a proven track record of success.

The track record of so-called "gay marriage" is one of abject failure.

In countries with legalized same-sex marriage, families are falling apart, birthrates are in decline and society is collapsing."

Then there's Kelly
Sure, vote BHO and be afraid to go to your local grocery store, your homes will be invaded --
Huh??

You people are behaving just like Michelle Malkin, foaming at the mouth.
Townhall affectionados used to support their positions with facts. Where are the facts to support this collection of rants?
I don't need to watch the movie to hear a bunch of "chicken littles." Just surf on over to Townhall...
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 36
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 2:47 PM EST
Fabius C
You are arguing to keep the definition of marriage the same by asserting the current definition.

Stuart
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 37
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 2:42 PM EST
Happy Jake
Stu
"The doctrine of the church on the imorality of homosexual physical relations is immoral."

Why? And by what standard?

Thanks for saving my comment, which seems to have fallen off the board. I was trying to be tremendously clever and fulfil Fabius C's prophecy.

It is immoral because the church has invented a code that outlaws an activity for which you cannot reasonably say there is a victim. In this case the supposed victimhood is also invented. A universal recognition of human rights, and especially the right for adults to do what they like with whomever they want in private ethically trumps church doctrine.

With full legal recognition of a gay relationship comes rights that are just as important to gay people as straight, and benefits that cannot be argued against on fertility grounds because there are many intentionally non-breeding heterosexual married couples.

If the only argument against same-sex marriage is religious doctrine, and indeed that seems to be the case, then I say religious doctrine can get stuffed.

Stuart
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 38
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 2:15 PM EST
Sounds Great...
Barrack Obama POTUS #44
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 39
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 1:18 PM EST
same sex marriage
Dr. Mike, Since the main reasons given by Homo's for their desire to marry is not love but, rather, civil rights allowing equality of sharing under the law, why not promote a Universal Power of Attorney which when signed and registered by any mutual pair allows complete legal interaction between any two consenting adults. Marraige is a civil contract enacted by government so why not a POA allowing the same "rights" to be substituted for the marraige contract. I'm sure you could easily whip up such a form to be promoted amongst homos replacing the marraige contract thereby reducing the complaints of both homo and straights. I firmly believe marriage is not only a civil but a religious contract between a man, woman, and GOD but that is not how the arguments for civil marraige contracts are being portrayed. Best of luck, PLB
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 40
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 1:15 PM EST
happy jake
In the state of Minnesota there are 514 laws that apply to married couples. On top of the hundreds of laws at the federal level. To construct a contract that takes in account of all those laws and benefits costs over 35k in lawyers fees. Meanwhile - by just spending a few hundred dollars and my name as one of the witnesses - my brother and his wife got married and all those benefits kicked in with spending a dime more.

On top of that - unless I carry the power of attorney documentation everywhere - hospitals in most states can deny me access to my partner.

See the difference?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 41
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 1:13 PM EST
Dutch people.
People in the Netherlands have lower abortion rates, lower teenage pregnancy rates, lower STD rates, lower AIDS rates, lower divorce rates, and, I believe, less cheating in long-term monogamous relationships (gay or straight, married or not) than in the US, all the time while not believing in God (less than 50% op population still religious) and while having gay marriage since 2001.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 42
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 1:04 PM EST
Happy Jake
I think I love you. You are a ray of sunshine in a troubled world.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 43
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 12:52 PM EST
Didn't anyone read my post?

jim Location: CA
Reply # 7
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 1:36 AM EST
Subject: Find your own word

=======

I scanned the rest of you, and not one of you must have read the solution at #7.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 44
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 12:40 PM EST
Violation of the 14th Amendment
The violation of the 14th Amendment and "Equal Protection Under the Law," is coming from the GLBT Extremists in this case, though.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Equal_protection

According to the Supreme Court, the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment forbids the Federal Government as well as the States from assigning privileges exclusively to specific individuals or groups without a "rational basis" that it meets a "legitimate state purpose." Without a valid argument that assigning a particular privilege (such as the benefits of civil marriage) to a particular individual or group serves the interests of the body public a law is Unconstitutional. If you can't prove a tit-for-tat between those getting the benefits and the rest of society you've gone afoul of the 14th Amendment.

Civil marriage status is the extension of privilege to a specific group, and thus must pass the Rational Basis Test. The Rational Basis for civil marriage has been the assertion that the public benefits when one man and one woman procreate and raise their children in wedlock as opposed to having the next generation sired out of wedlock. Without that criteria, NO ONE can be assigned civil marriage privileges.

Same-Sex "marriages" do not fit under this Rational Basis. If the Rational Basis is discarded, then the civil marriage statute is Unconstitutional.

And no, this isn't a new argument. You can review Justice Cordy's dissent from the atrocious Goodridge decision in Massachusetts. Compare it to the majority opinion. I did. He ruled based on Equal Protection. The majority ruled based on emotionalism and ideology and wiped their behinds with the Constitution.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 45
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 12:38 PM EST
Happy Jake
Freedoms and protections are not required on the basis of life spans or mortality.
We're all going to die, eventually.

You're pushing an old stereotype from the advent of the AIDS crisis over 25 years ago. Heterosexuals are not immune to HIV, but it's worth noting that blacks have shorter life expectancy than whites.
Stress of living in a hostile dominant culture?
Lack of access to health care in the same way or perhaps casual violence?

But we wouldn't want to write off black people as unworthy of as much life affirming structure as possible, such as marriage right?

You're a victim of serious misinformation.
As of seven months ago, the CDC reports that infection rates among gay men are steady at 25% among minority gay men, and less among their white peers.
Hetero black women are still rising in rates at about 33%.

PWHIV with access to retrovirals and support have a life span commisterate with those WITHOUT HIV.

As long as a person has drugs to manage their disease, like diabetics do, long life is possible.

Catch up, and learn ALL of what's out there instead of the narrowest of information to further stereotypes about who gets HIV and whose life is shorter.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 46
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 12:25 PM EST
weigh it all Karl,
It must be noted Karl that most people are not banned from marriage based on a universal attribute, most are based on STATUS and redundancy in the law.
In fact, the words 'protect marriage' or saving marriage, are redundant and unecessary and ineffective.

The definition of marriage is to make two non related, non married people primary first of kin and custodian of the other.
Men/women can already do that, and gay people don't change that definition.
And once people are using the 'what's next' or 'what if' conjecture that STILL has nothing to do with homosexuality. Which is a universal and indigenous attribute in ALL cultures.
It's legal for two people of the SAME SEXUAL orientation to marry, gay people shouldn't be an exception AND gender has no definition as to it's ROLE in marriage.

This is about having the choice to marry who one is most compatible with, and it's illegal to discriminate on assumed compatibility, the law doesn't work that way.

Bans on SSM will only come out as hypocritical, contradictory or UNREASONABLE compared to marriage laws as they stand now.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 47
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 12:16 PM EST
oh and Cato
Injustice and inequality destroys whole nations.
Theocratic countries are basket cases for lack of freedom and human rights.
Someone can easily be made game and a scapegoat if their position is weak (minority), or they are on the receiving end of chronic defamation.

TH is very guilty of that defamation and as long as the price is someone who can't fight back socio/politically, well then all the better for their POSITION.
Evidently, whether it's from a fair or rightful position is beside the point.

Society has never been better for the defamation of gay human beings. Not EVER.
And the ability to speak to their own experience and identity is very recent and obviously difficult for anyone to discern or believe.
I'd prefer to get my education FROM gay people. They are the qualified witnesses, not the straight here in TH. But it's necessary for me to see what's being said.
If I want to learn about Jews, I wouldn't go to those who only know abstraction and stereotype about them.

Intellectual cowardice isn't a virtue, it's dangerous.
Jews, gays and lesbians and blacks know all about that better than YOU would, right?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 48
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 12:08 PM EST
Karl
The case against SSM is IMPOSSIBLE to make because the opposition will inevitably contradict why and the way it's defined legally and mostly always has been.
THAT'S why the cases have been lost in most all fair courts.

Only the court of public opinon can have extreme opinions and fear, and lack evidence and facts.

Every argument even posted here isn't legal.

The issue of procreation is one.
The other is gay parents who DO have children that REQUIRE their support and legal security through marriage.

One law cannot contradict the other's intents and purposes.
It's not legal to discriminate based on lack or decision to bear children and it's illegal to discriminate against gay parents unequally to heterosexual parents.

The opposition could not prove that there has been a detriment that gay parent have to their children.
There has been PLENTY of time for the opposition to make their case, and they don't have one.

They just don't.
So the tactic to use fear, and the economic insecurity, whatEVER to scapegoat marriage equality is as diabolical as the tactics employed by segregationists and Nazis for that matter. Certainly the sentiments echo the same.

Gay people are the easiest target for that fear mongering, not the RIGHT one.

Since the civil rights movement, women's rights and such are within recent memory for most of us here, that such tactics are STILL so effective.
TH contributors know the weakness here and exploit it no end.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 49
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 11:58 AM EST
gee Cato
You're right that marriage is more than two people who love each other.


Gay people have responsibilities, as citizens and to their families and significant others too.
They have needs and obligations the same as most everyone else.

Marriage trends changing for the worse, cannot be blamed on a minority that hasn't had the opportunity to marry for as long or as universally as heteros have.

Not only are you a liar, with regard to marriage equality's affect on countries that have it, you sound like a hysterical fear mongerer to say that those other countries have been destroyed by it.

And only another lazy coward who hasn't bothered to do their homework would agree with you fully.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 50
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 11:55 AM EST
Constitutionalist or not?
This just goes to show that social conservatives have an inconvenient hypocrisy when it comes to being constitutionalists. They want “strict constitutionalists” when it’s convenient to their personal religious belief about abortion, but they want to change the constitution when it comes to gay marriage.

Sorry folks, you can’t have it both ways.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 51
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 11:25 AM EST
Steven
A gay couples wants to prevent one from selling the house out from under the other? Buy the house together. (Besides, if that's happening there are problems there that making their relationship appear moral won't solve).

You want someone other than your parents or siblings to make health decisions? Make a living will.

You want insurance? Get a job, and either get the insurance plan that comes with it or buy your own.

You want to be taken care of when your partner dies? Write a will.

Your lack of preparation does not constitute a violation of human rights on my part.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 52
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 11:01 AM EST
SSM
Visit MassResistance.org to see where "Same sex" marriage has taken this state and alert every voter you know to stop this Obama bin Biden takeover of our nation.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 53
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 10:19 AM EST
Marraige vs. Civil Unions
How convenient that I just saw this morning a
a partial rerun of the Rick Warren moderated
debate between McCAin and Obama.

I think Warren's question was What is Marriage?
Obama's answer was "A legal union between a
Man and a Woman."

So what does Obama propose to accept mentally
(becaue this is after all a state issue, and he
does not promote the idea of adding it to the
Constitution), a union between two people
in which gays can have most of the rights that
married people have. In other words, they
will have the right of inheritance, the right
of co-habitation in a house (today a married
person cannot sell a house, even if it is owned
by only one of the couple, if the other person
is living in it and does not agree to the sale).

It would confer rights from the parents or
siblings to that of the partner to make life or
death decisions if need be, final decision on
burial, decisions for the no-longer-mentally
capable.

They will have the right to be on insurance
plans if spouses are given that right, they
can participate in Social Security rights, they will have first right of inheritance if
no will has been written and protection from
being completely written out of a will.

Probably the only thing that would be different
would be things concerning children.

So you see, the civil rights of gays really are
being stomped on.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 54
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 10:11 AM EST
du
"make gay people suspect and conspiratorial all over again....'militant homosexual agenda'"

Totally agree. I've heard about the "homosexual agenda" ever since the mid to late 80s. I remember sitting in my former church (predominately African American Fundamentalist/Assemblies of God church) as a teenager listening to my former pastor give a 80 minute sermon on homosexuality, its causes, its "recruitment process", its "demonic origins", its correlation to AIDS, and the
"possible cure". What got me was how he could preach all this hate, yet ignore the choir director (who was obviously gay), 2 deacons who frequented Dupont Circle (my cousin told me all about them), and the 5 member male dance ministry that was more feminine than my mother. LOL!!!! Shall I even mention the senior youth pastor who propositoned me on several occasions even after I told him I was straight!!!

Again, the hypocrisy just cracks me up!!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 55
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 10:05 AM EST
Cato
Excellent post!!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 56
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 10:00 AM EST
Suprise Suprise
Another TH article blaming/attacking the gays. LOL!

As for Prop 8, I too have donated money to No on Prop 8. According to the latest poll, it really is a toss up at this point.

Thankfully, opposition to gay marriage is not as strong as it was 4 years ago. I would love to see the relationship of my best friend since the age of 8 and his partner of 5 years be recognized legally. I would hope that millions of GLBT Americans will not be denied the right to marry based off of pure bigotry and hatred. As bad as things seem now, I still believe that 40 years from now, the majority of states will have legaized gay marriage and rightly so.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 57
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 9:52 AM EST
YOU ARE CATHOLIC??
no you are not -- no Catholic can vote for a democrat -- the abortion issue alone prohibits it.

AND you who say you are Greek, your people invented democracy -- yeah, one of the greatest nations to live -- killed themselves off with this same issue -- homosexuality.

America is suffering due to the issue of abortion, we are being
punished for killing our young and Obama is at the fore front of this problem.

I don't feel McCain is the answer, but its better than the alternative. Sure, vote BHO and be afraid to go to your local grocery store, your homes will be invaded -- and any Christian man who would allow himself to be called 'The Messiah' is not a Christian, shame on him for trying to destroy what little is left of the Great Nation of America. George Washington would be ashamed of us.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 58
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 9:41 AM EST
REPUBLICANS DISGUSTED: PALIN'S $150,000


Since her selection as John McCain's running mate, the Republican National Committee spent more than $150,000 on clothing and make-up for Gov. Sarah Palin, her husband, and even her infant son, it was reported on Tuesday evening.

That entertaining scoop -- which came by way of Politico -- sent almost immediate reverberations through the presidential race. A statement from McCain headquarters released hours after the article bemoaned the triviality of the whole affair.

"With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it's remarkable that we're spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses," said spokesperson Tracey Schmitt. "It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign."

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 59
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 9:33 AM EST
I can't believe the level of hate
Well it's going to be a first for me, but I've finally decided to vote Democrat this year. I've never voted for a Democrat for president.

This year Obama is getting my vote. I've had it with all the divisive comments, the smear tactics, and the fear mongering from my party this year.

Of course none of these attributes of the Republican Party is new, and I am not leaving my party. I am a staunch republican.

But I support my gay friends and family, I am not anti-mulsim, and I believe in intellectualism.

I feel the Republican Party is infested with the disease of the radical religious right and it has brought the party down and has destroyed our brand.

Just my two cents
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 60
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 9:20 AM EST
James
Belonging to the Priesthood is not a basic human right. Gays contend that marrying people of the same sex is. Catholic churches (and others) have had their tax exempt status threatened because of their stances on abortion, homosexuality, and other moral issues that fall into the political discussion of the time.

The woman priest lobby is also not nearly so influential as the gay lobby, mainly because there aren't that many women who wish to become Catholic Priests. You're comparing apples to steaks.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 61
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 9:05 AM EST
Dawn - on equality
There is a line from the movie "Full Metal Jacket" that will describe the "equality" that will be found under Mr. Obama.

" I am hard, but I am fair! There is no racial bigotry here! I do not look down on [series of epithets for various ethnic and religious groups deleted]. Here you are all equally worthless!"
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 62
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 9:04 AM EST
Jeffrey's Article
Thanks for the enlightenment. I have until now only been a lukewarm supporter of Obama having voted for Mrs. Clinton in the primary here in the great state of NY. However, having read your article, I decided today to donate to both the Obama campaign and the No on 8 campaign in the great state of CA. One point to make to all those who say Churches will be sued if they refuse gay weddings when Prop 8 fails, this is absurd. Has the Catholic Church (I am a Ctholic) ever been sued because it does not allow women to join it's priesthood? SO let'ss top the hysteria. Let's acknowledge the rights of 8% of the population of this great land of ours.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 63
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 8:57 AM EST
Liberty and parents rights
In Massachusetts parents are arrested for opting out of homosexual lessons for their 5 year old.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 64
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 8:52 AM EST
Great News!
Obama is winning and it's only a matter of time until we see equality for all people!

Go Obama!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 65
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 8:03 AM EST
he lied during the debate
In other words, Obama lied to the american people during the debate. This is just the tip. He will sign Freedom of Choice Act, his own words, right after he takes office(God forbid). All abortion laws thus far will be nill, parental consent, partial birth abortion ban, etc. I believe all hell is pulling for him. He says he wants it possible for less abortion. Why is it that he and other politicians say they want help for the women and babies but have always supported to the max klannedparenthood, but not crisis pregnancy centers who've always helped women and babies. I could see it now, no preacher will be allowed to state the biblical reasons to save souls to anyone. They will be accused of hate crime. Our children will be forced to read King and King, and I have two mommies. Please people, wake up.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 66
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 7:42 AM EST
Next step?
If Barack Hus-Change Obama is successful in his agenda to impose the warped version of morality held by a tiny minority on the rest of us, what are the chances that churches opposed to homosexual behavior will be forced to perform and recognize same-sex "marriage" -- in direct violation of biblical teachings -- or be stripped of their tax exempt status for being "political?"
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 67
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 7:28 AM EST
JFK Protege
Praise the DNC, the Democrat Party, and Ted Kennedy for nominating another JFK protege.

By extension Hussein Obama's mandate will legalize the Man Boy Love Association.

Barney Frank and Ellen De Generate are brimming with Pride and finally proud of their Country.

Oprah Winfry will devote a week of Shows to celebrate the "Change" Obama's Presidency has brought to America.

Obama will order that Nationally,all Church bells be rung at the signing of this important Legislation.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 68
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 7:01 AM EST
Equality
Everyone has the right to earn a living, right? Theoretically one shouldn't discriminate against someone for the way in which they make that living, right?

What if thieves all banded together (there being "honor" among thieves, after all) and demanded that thievery be declared a normal, moral, and legal way to earn a living. Even thieves have to eat, right? And they don't really have any other marketable skills, so to deny them thievery as a way to make ends meet is to deny them their basic rights. Who knows, maybe there's a genetic predisposition to kleptomania. In any event thieves cannot control their urges to steal for a living. So why not make it a legally protected occupation. They could even have their own unions, OSHA could make sure their safety is protected, they wouldn't have to carry guns anymore to protect them from intollerant homeowners, store clerks, and bank security personnel, who want to deprive them of their right to earn a living.

That's probably one of the stupidest things you've ever heard, right?

People are equal. Behaviors are not.

And before you say that homosexual behavior doesn't deprive anyone of anything, what's the average life expectancy of a gay man compared with a straight man?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 69
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 6:39 AM EST
Stu
"The doctrine of the church on the imorality of homosexual physical relations is immoral."

Why? And by what standard?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 70
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 6:36 AM EST
He's Back!
When all the conventions of normal society break down and San Francisco mores are imposed on the entire country by fiat you know America is finished as a civilized country. Dionysius is in power again after reigning in Greece and Rome a few thousand years ago. Kiss civilization goodbye because the Bacchae are unleashed and wreaking havoc throughout our republic.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 71
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 3:54 AM EST
You are the ignoramus
LetsAllRelax.

Democrats caused the mortgage crisis and deliberately refused to fix it and allowed it to worsen so they could unleash it just before this election to get their candidate elected. The mortgage crisis was caused by government interference in the free market, not by greed or stupidity. Democrats threatened banks with legal action if they did not give mortgages to minorities who could not afford them. Banks continued to refuse until Democrats (and liberal Republicans) set up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to back up bad subprime loans. With this guarantee, banks made loans that they knew would default.

The mortgage crisis is one issue. Another important issue is the definition of marriage and both can be addresses without making the other suffer. (See, we "Rightists" are smart enough to handle more than one issue at a time.)

Marriage is far more than "two people who love each other". The definition of marriage will determine the future of the country. What is now called "traditional marriage" is the only human institution that has a proven track record of success.

The track record of so-called "gay marriage" is one of abject failure.

In countries with legalized same-sex marriage, families are falling apart, birthrates are in decline and society is collapsing.

Watch. If "gay marriage" is codified, very, very few "gay" people will actually follow through and get "married". Mostly, no one will get married -- traditional or otherwise.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 72
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 3:30 AM EST
America...
is stuck in two wars (and probably will be for the next decade), the banking-system is in meltdown caused by greed and stupidity, millions are losing their homes, the infrastructure resembles a third world country, and all you Rightists(sic) are obsessed about is if two people in love can marry or not.
Head in the sand, head in the sand.
When will you lot grow up?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 73
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 2:23 AM EST
smoking guns and evidence
Karl's the one guy who's made a thoughtful point here. The claim that preventing same-sex marriage somehow strengthens traditional marriages IS a long-term argument, as there is no short-term empirical evidence that same-sex marriages at all harms traditional marriage. The lowest divorce rate in the country is still in Massachusetts, the first state to recognize same-sex marriage. The highest divorce rates are in the states that overwhelmingly passed these state "marriage protection" amendments. Moreover, there's also no long-term empirical evidence of harm either.

So, opponents of same-sex marriage should reasonably consider the possibility that if there's no evidence same-sex marriage harms traditional marriage,....it might be because it DOESN'T cause any harm. The case against same-sex marriage is all based on speculation and "what ifs," but no evidence. The gay couple getting married down the street has NOT interfered with your marriage in any way--you and your spouse can be as traditional as you like, with the full support of the law. But the effort to pass Prop. 8 will surely interfere with THEIR marriage, and deny them the protection of the law that you enjoy.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 74
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 2:17 AM EST
Proposition 8 can't be enforced
The problem with Proposition 8 that would amend the California Constitution to define marriage as 'one man and one woman' is that it is unenforceable.

Any couple who are willing to claim to be of opposite gender can apply for and receive a marriage license, now and after Prop 8 if it passes. Birth certificates are not required and wouldn't be controlling anyway due to the growing transgendered community.

And don't forget the many thousands of naturally born hermaphrodites. Since the proposed amendment doesn't define 'a man' or 'a woman' it can't be enforced.

Is the state expected to depend soley on the judgement of the license clerks? What is the avenue of appeal?
It's just not workable, and is likely, in any event, to be challenged as unconstitutional (U.S. Constitution this time) under the equal protection clause.

Incidentally current polls put the trend at 48% for and 45% opposed to Prop 8, a statistical dead heat.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 75
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 2:14 AM EST
du ... duh??
Gay citizens are NOT excluded from the same freedoms and privileges that ALL Americans have; However, they seem to feel that they are being discriminated against because the religious believers don't want them to change the sanctity of marriage. Marriage was never a individual right of every citizen, so the government doesn't have any business declaring that it should be granted to everyone they deem as being discriminated against.

Sexual orientation is NOT an inalienable right, and a man and woman married legally is the only way a society can raise children to be the parents of the next generation. It's been proven time and time again, as soon as a society starts to put self-gratification and sexual preference before the necessities of sacrifice, parenting and self-control civilization starts to crumble.

Trying to compare same-sex rights to slavery is being very obtuse and du..mb. Slaves weren't forbidden to marry each other, if not, they would not of had children. Same sex partners lead much higher living standards than most of African Americans. They've never been forced to work for nothing, lost their freedom, been forced to use different facilities, or any other segregation against them.

What I think the same-sex couples want is recognition of normalcy. They want what hetero's have, a strong committed relationship, but are not willing to change their behaviour to get it. They will never be equal in status and cultural acceptance, so they need to pull down the very institution that divides them: Marriage. Even if they do get their way with the laws of this land, it won't last long, and they will be crying for even more government intervention to destroy the society that is never going to know what hit them, until it's too late.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 76
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 2:03 AM EST
Marx and Engels

Marx and Engels, founders of Communism, say that homosexuality is degenerate.

Current Socialism says that homosexuality is OK.

Capitalism, founded on the Judeo-Christian culture, says homosexuality is wrong. As recently as 30-40 years ago, homosexuality was against the law. It was called sodomy. In fact, the word "sodomy" is still used in legal jargon today.

Democracy can only exist in countries based on the Judeo-Christian ethic (USA and Israel).

Freedom-loving people will choose democracy every day of the week.

Now, for Obama to say what he did is another harbinger of the Socialism he intends to install in the United States of America.

Vote McCain and Palin in 2008!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 77
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 1:47 AM EST
An O administration in the Land of O
will produce gov't mandates of the entire O agenda:
femos, homos, green'os, and oh no's for the entire nation,
running over freedom of religion,
freedom of the press (expression and unFairness Doctrine), and freedon of association (right to assemble), a complete trashing of the First Amendment.
Detour around the Land of O and vote McCain/Palin.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 78
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 1:40 AM EST
The lack of a smoking gun
Part of the problem with trying to argue against same-sex marriage (SSM) is that there's really no smoking gun you can point to. Three states of the union, and two foreign countries have passed SSM into law, and people are still getting married and having babies (granted, not always in that order, or the same people). Society hasn't collapsed into ruin.

Yet.

And that's the problem. If marriage matters, it matters in the long run, not the short run. Maybe there's a reason why societies that do allow SSM are such historical rarities.
[http://pentagrams.blogtownhall.com/2008/10/19/in_the_long_run,_it_matters.thtml]

And it's this importance over the long run that justifies a society taking the kind of interest in marriage that it does. It's because marriage in society matters that society enacts laws to define and protect it. Otherwise, why bother enshrining the institution in law?
[http://pentagrams.blogtownhall.com/2008/07/07/same-sex_marriage.thtml]

But the arguments *for* SSM are so easy to make, and to fit onto a bumper sticker. You can appeal to "fairness" or "equity" or "justice". You can argue against "hatred" or "bigotry" or "homophobia". The case *against* SSM is hard to make in five minutes, or even five hours. It won't fit on a bumper sticker, unless you already accept it. (Citing Biblical verses doesn't work on those who don't accept the Bible.) The case against SSM is hard to make, but someone has to figure out how to make it.
[http://pentagrams.blogtownhall.com/2008/07/07/calls_for_freedom.thtml]
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 79
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 1:40 AM EST
du and the LovelsEqual
Their posts will define:

Militant homosexual hysteria.

They are mortified anyone would question their cause. hey will do their best to convince you the earth is flat.

du is a homosexual militant determined to change the status of marriage to fit his/her designs. The truth and civility does not matter.

By any Means Necessary is the anthem if du, lovelsEqual, Will, Mellor/Sj2 when it comes to their agenda.

Disagree with them, and stand by for the insults.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 80
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 1:36 AM EST
Find your own word

Words have meaning, and different words describe items or actions that are similar, but different.

They have already screwed up the usage of words like Qu*er and Gay, now go find your own word for two homosexuals who are committed to each other, love each other, and have performed a ceremony to advertise that union.

For example the word “Gay” is no longer useful in polite conversation between normal people, by that I mean people who do not have a certain birth defect.

That new word would also apply to any two or more people of whatever sex or relationship, who wish to live together, or at least be in constant association with each other, including the right to control healthcare, and inherit goods when death occurs, and other such things.

The dictionary says the following, so get your own words, and leave these alone.

Marriage: the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife

Husband: a man joined in marriage to a woman

Wife: a woman joined in marriage to a man

If two men say they are married to each other, do they have a marriage? Answer No.

Two families pay money each month to live in a house, is it the same? No, one pays rent, the other pays a mortgage.

Two wheeled vehicles are going down the street, are they the same? No, one is a bike, the other a motorcycle.

Two multi-wheeled vehicles are going down the street, are they the same? No, one is a car, the other is a truck.

If a man and a woman are married to each other, do you have a marriage? Yes, of course.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 81
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 1:36 AM EST
Dennis
So true, but watch, in no way will that happen.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 82
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 1:35 AM EST
truthhound, the militants
you left out a couple of thoughts,

And because two consenting adults love each
other they should be allowed to get married.

And it is all the religious believers faults.

Christians are bad people, discriminate against homosexual marriage,

blah,blah, blah.

Every one of the typical homosexual militant crew will be on this thread. Sj Doc, Mellor, the same person, and du/LovelsEqual and Will.

All here to offer a barrage of insults, and no debate.

The whole cast of militants determined to show TH how their cause comes first, no matter what.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 83
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 1:28 AM EST
equal is as equal does
This country has a mission statement of equal protection and access under the law. Gay citizens are not excluded from taxation or other obligations most Americans have.
And Dennis, the public IS VERY interested, as often is pointed out, to vote in 2000, or secure a discriminatory amendment (completely contradictory to their intents and purposes.)

And are spending hundreds of millions of dollars in all that time to complicate gay lives and NOT improving OR protecting actual marriages to justify such activity.

Not since slavery have adults been forced to NOT marry, or have the ability to care for their children through marriage.

And there is no more legal justification for that than doing it so slaves.

The point is, the track record of equality has a better result, than punishing a citizen for an attribute they have, or for trying to commit to affirming structures our society has for everyone simply because they ARE affirming.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 84
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 12:47 AM EST
Federalists?
You're afraid that allowing individual states to decide might infringe on other states' rights, so the solution is to take away the right for any state to decide and have a ban on abortion at the federal level?

This isn't a battle of principle over states' rights, it's just more political ping-pong in the culture wars.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 85
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 12:34 AM EST
Oh Great...
Another thread for pro-perversion lib loons to spew their hate for decent, pro-family Americans.

Here, I'll save you some time and keystrokes...

We have no love--only hate.

What's wrong is right and right is wrong.

We're shoving our religion down their throats.

The schools have never and will never promote gay lifestyles in class.

No one has EVER CHOSEN to be homosexual, they're born that way and can't help it.

The left are the tolerant ones.

These aren't the 'droids you're looking for.

Go about your business.

Move along...move along...

Blah, blah blah...
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 86
Date: Oct 22, 2008 - 12:28 AM EST
Homosexuality NOT a valid national issue
The hetero-phobic agenda of the homosexual minority is not a valid national level issue.
Human sexuality - when it lies in conformance with criminal laws - is not the proper subject for consideration by national level leaders.
The homosexuals have long utilized the elections and now the courts to advance their minority opinion which lies outside the national interests of the United States.
Between consenting adults, and in conformance with criminal law, let everyone do what they do behind closed doors and SHUT UP ABOUT IT.
Stop shoving your own personal issues off on the uninterested public and get on with your lives.
Flag as Offensive
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
 *
State:
 *
Zip:
 *
Phone:
       
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.