Feisty, but, but some of those southern jerk-joints are seceding. A new nation, Glenbeckistan is to be formed and as in Iran there will be no happy hombre homos.

I understand that many people disagree with same sex marriage but I always wonder---if someone else marries someone of the same sex, how does it hurt anyone?

I understand that many people disagree with same sex marriage but I always wonder---if someone else marries someone of the same sex, how does it hurt anyone

Steeler Fan,

That has always baffled me..?

Steeler, I think some people just look for reasons to hate. It's what makes them happy. What a sad way to go through life!

I understand that many people disagree with same sex marriage but I always wonder---if someone else marries someone of the same sex, how does it hurt anyone?

Beats me. Marriage is more in danger from idiots like Britney Spears (55 hours in a Vegas marriage before she married her gold digger husband) and Kim Kardashian (if only her mother had exercised choice).

The real beneficiaries of gay marriage will of course be divorce lawyers.

Yay! I just couldn't help but smile when I saw the lines of smiling couples waiting to get their marriage licenses. Just does the heart and soul good to see that more are finally being treated equally.

We still have alot of work to do! There are still many states to conquer! FORWARD!

I really like Martin O'Malley, but I just don't see him making it very far in the presidential primary, should he choose to get in the race. Of course I am only basing this on the few times I have heard him speak. He's adorable, but I think he may lack that certain something that is needed. Just an opinion. Besides, Hillary will blow them all out of the water!

SS: I don't think they "look for reasons to hate", I think they just hate, period.

My comment has nothing to do with same sex marriage. I cannot wait until O'Malley is done ruining Maryland. Since he rarely is doing state business, one wonders what he would do if he were here all the time. And we citizens of Maryland are so grateful to have our tax money spent on his doing non Maryland business. The idea of his being President is laughable.

Well, shameless self-promotion on O'Malley's part but I'm glad to see the legislation signed into law. It's about time. One brick at a time we are tearing down the out-dated, discriminatory Victorian attitudes AND LAWS targeting the Gay community in this country. The good guys win another one.

lulu98 - apparently you are in the minority in Maryland since he keeps getting elected!

This will bring up some rather interesting legal cases for homosexual people married in one state (Maryland) and then move to another state where it isn't legal. What happens then? Will they be afforded the same rights as if they were married? If they are, does it create an unequal situation for individuals already living in that state that are barred from marriage to one another? I see a Supreme Court battle in the future.

Only because his wife is a Curren. Well positioned political family in MD. The opposition party rarely has a good candidate to provide a choice. Since I am an Independent, I cannot vote in Primaries here. And he wins the vote from the counties he panders to....Montgomery and Prince George's. probably Howard and Baltimore. The rest of the state gets nothing.

@doggysaywhat...that is exactly what most of the court challenges and the battle over the DOMA is all about. Equality across the nation under the US Constitution clauses that all "men" are created equal and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Montgomery, Prince George's, Howard, Charles, and Baltimore County & B. City were carried by MOM. That's way more than enough--you can win with just Montgomery, PG, and the City. There's a reason for that. Well over half the people live in those counties and the City. And as we know, rocks and trees don't vote. Only people.

BTW, MOM did a great job with the State in his first term. While other states were collapsing, laying off workers, curtailing vital services, wasting scarce revenue on recall elections, and generally falling apart, MOM quietly and efficiently guided Maryland through the Great Recession with a minimum of disruption, dislocation, and disagreement.

I live in Maryland and if I could I would vote for O'Malley again. The only reason I can't is because he is term limited. He has been a very good governor.

Higher taxes and higher fees. Anyone can manage a state when they are just taxing more. Trying to move state offices for no apparent reason. What a waste of money. If you do not live in one of his favored counties, you get screwed. And I guess you think Marylanders should be paying for is not related to Maryland related travel? Businesses choose Virginia because of the tax structure. I agree the opposing party has not put a viable candidate up in years. That does not mean MOM is a good choice.

For anti-trust. Yes DOMA challenges stem from that. But now that same-sex marriage is legal in some states I think the court will run into all sorts of challenges from various states. Before when DOMA was passed, you didn't have states passing laws that allowed same-sex marriage. Now you have states which allow it. So it becomes even more pressing for the court to step in and deal with the inequality issues created from several different areas. Before it was only a question of whether it was fair for a homosexual couple to not be allowed to marry compared to a heterosexual couple. Now it's a homosexual couple allowed to marry in one state but those in another state not allowed. No difference at all between the two groups other then the state. Similar to laws restricting inter-racial marriage in some states but not others in the last century. Before, many claimed that there was no right for a homosexual couple to marry. Now, in some states there is. More interesting legal challenges to come.

@Feisty,

I hope you're a teenager. I don't expect Alabama (Roll Tide) to have indoor plumbing in my lifetime.

Seriously, the religious right is so seriously against gay marriage around here that they scare me. Gays still try to stay out of public sight. I was at a concert this summer (Ringo Starr) and there was a mid-twenties obviously gay couple sitting in front of me. There were the numerous "looks" as people tried to get a look at them and several incidents of ice-throwing, some of which hit me instead. (Drunks are not accurate ice-throwers.) Today's Tuscaloosa News has a letter to the editor that can only be seen as violently anti-gay, equating all gay people with pedophilia, disease, and discussing AIDS as God's punishment for gays. In more "enlightened" cities, no editor would use a letter like for anything except to keep the coffee stains off the bottom of his waste basket.

Sometimes I dispair of my fellow humans. They talk a lot about lobving their fellow man, but when it comes to actually treating others by the Golden Rule, they leave a lot to be desired. They simply follow a religion of fear and hate that is derived from a mainstream Christianity that is actually quite humanistic.

Chris, I cannot believe the mainstream hate that is tolerated in all parts of this country....It is not just christians in the south hating gays, it goes way further and encompasses lots of things.

Chris, I cannot believe the mainstream hate that is tolerated in all parts of this country....It is not just christians in the south hating gays, it goes way further and encompasses lots of things.

My post was so good MSNBC did it twice..

Owe Malley is the king of pandering to his special interest groups. He has taxed and taxed and taxed. He has raised fees and raised them again. He has allowed our utilities to rob us. He has flip flopped on gambling in the state --- he was against it while it was a pet project of the Rep Governor, but when he got elected Governor he was all of a sudden for it. I still think that he was involved in the illegal shennanigans of the former Chief of Police of Baltimore City while he was Mayor (I think the COP took the fall for him). He was never able to answer where missing City education funds went. He has never answered where State Transportation Trust Funds went (resulting in a HUGE increase in toll fees). I have never worked on a political campaign, but if O'Malley makes a run for President I will be first in line volunteering to work for his opponent. The ONLY reason that Maryland has survived the current economic downturn as well as it has is that it is adjacent to the city that has the largest employer in the country - the federal government. It has NOTHING to do with him and his policies.

This will bring up some rather interesting legal cases for homosexual people married in one state (Maryland) and then move to another state where it isn't legal. What happens then? Will they be afforded the same rights as if they were married?

The answers are already known. It depends on the state. If the state doesn't recognize same-sex marriage, then the couple won't be treated as married by that state. But, they are still married in the eyes of the original state.

If that's the case though Barry then it will create various legal challenges in the same way that previous legal challenges were brought when interracial marriage was legal in some states but not legal in others.

SS: I don't think they "look for reasons to hate", I think they just hate, period.

That is what is so sad and so prevalent today. Marriage may be under attack, but it isn't under attack by same sex marriage, as a matter of fact I wouldn't be surprised if same sex marriage turns out to be more stable that opposite sex marriage, after all, look at what these folks had to go through just to take the vow of marriage and profess their love for their partner. Marriage is under attack by those who lie and cheat on their spouses and children and the intolerant who think that only their beliefs count and any thing else is a sham. Basically they are looking for reasons why their relationships fail and rather than look within, they would rather blame it on someone else. If the sanctity of marriage is under threat by gay marriage it was never strong to begin with, it's just a feeble excuse for their own failures.

All of the bigots that I know fall into one or the other of two categories. They are snobs or pious people that imagine themselves in a much higher class than all the rest of humanity; or they are people with severe low self-esteem issues that must have a sub-group of people to belittle in efforts to elevate their own perceived low standing in life.

They feed and thrive on attention. Even the attention of those that would justly ridicule or condemn them. We remove all power of their attempts to spread hatred and discrimination by simply ignoring them.

blackcat,

Those that are "seceding" will soon find out that all they can do is renounce their citizenship. Secession is barred by the Constitution after a little thing called the Civil War happened. Many Republicans do not realize that their go-to threat is actually constitutionally neutered.

But I second Glenbeckistan. The Dictator will be Glen Beck obviously but then Rush, Hannity, West, and Bachman will all be high ranking members of the ruling party. They will ban the color blue and replace it with magenta, they will follow the Old Testament for their laws which will only apply to the peons, and participation in Christianity will be a requirement of getting your monthly citizen papers renewal process finished. Glenn has already suggested punch cards, get ten punches and you get your citizenship renewed. If you do not you get kicked out of the country.

There will be no Government controlled utilities as that is a form of socialism, instead Koch Industries and Halliburton will be contracted to take care of police/fire, water/sewage/trash and fraking and oil production can be done on any property in the country without consent. The Internet will be blocked off to all websites except Fox News, RedState, Brietbart, Glen Beck's website, and Rasmussen. Fox will be named the national new program and given a subsidy for providing their news.

Guns will be nearly free with no waiting periods and anyone can buy one. Ammo will be free on Sundays and passed out at Church for all those who attend as a way to get people to come and donate money. There will be no taxes at all of any kind, instead they will get money in the form of reparations from the United States which will be declared a communist nation on the day that Glenbeckistan is founded.

In Glenbeckistan there will be no public education system and evolution will become taboo. They will teach that climate change is just a liberal conspiracy and that Benghazi was a cover up. Their economy will be based off of the gold standard but they will used fool's gold plated nickle coins for their monetary system since they cannot afford to purchase actual gold.

For the military they will conscript all peoples between the ages of 15 and 65 and will not need to arm them since they will be able to purchase any kinds of weapons they want, from sniper rifles to full auto assault rifles, to tanks. The NRA will be part of the military leadership and be given a contracting fee for providing some of the weaponry that is sold and the free ammo.

Everyone in Glenbeckistan will be required to drive a hummer, no pissy Prius-like cars will be allowed. Anyone found with Green contraband will be stripped of their citizenship.

Most importantly the UN will have no power in Glenbeckistan and they will even form their own anti-UN council to work towards disbanding the UN but no other nations will be allowed to join it. The chairperson of this council will be Dick Cheney.

Damn, alimony for drapery support. Drapes come as a pair, and cannot be split up. Unless of course, you are Carol Burnett, and descend the staircase donning the drapery rod and the drapes (one of the most hysterical comedy routines of all time).

I saw it in the window, and just had to have it...

• If you're against gay marriage --- don't marry a gay person.

So a couple problems with that thought - first, same-sex couples nurture children as well, and in fact the children benefit from their parents having the same legal status as that of their peers; and second, many many straight couples choose or are unable to have children, yet still enjoy the legal perks of marriage.

A tax status for married people filing jointly is designed with families nurturing children in mind.

so what about married couples who are infertile or willingly choose not to have children or elderly married couples ? are you saying they DON'T get that tax status ? or do they ? if they do, why ? you just stated that it wasn't designed for them

nad rennat,

I think you are confusing the welfare system and marriage. Obviously we do not shun those couples that can not have children, nor do we remove the tax status for couple that have passed child bearing years... so your logic fails completely.

@ Dan Tanner: (So not original spelling your name backwards!) Ahhh, excuse me, but did you misplace the hole you crawled out of to spew your hateful rant? What does it matter to you or anyone else when two people who love and respect each other wish to have that same piece of paper that the rest of us can have without giving it a second thought? There is much, much more than that, but it is quite obvious that you are an extremely narrow minded individual who does not believe in the Constitution, so do us all a favor and take your hate and jump back into your dark hole.

Joint tax status shouldn't give a benefit to any married couple homosexual or heterosexual. Tax breaks should only apply when a child enters the mix through natural means, adoption, etc. The tax break was designed with children in mind but the way it's set up now, it can be applied to any couple that doesn't have kids. This would also assist in dealing with situations where there is a kid but no marriage.

Nad, my grandmother remarried at the age of 76 to a man who was 83. I don't think the purpose of this marriage was to have children. By the way, their marriage lasted 17 years until he died at the age of 100.

Even that "tax break" needs to be eliminated. Why should a single person be penalized for another person's decision to have ten kids (or even one.) That is why I am in favor of a Gross Income Tax where ALL sources of income are taxable with absolutely NO deductions, credits, subsidies, or other means of deferring or reducing tax liability. All taxes would be filed as individuals (even corporations, since SCOTUS ruled them to be "persons"). The first $25K of a person's gross income would be tax free. $25,001-$250K taxed at 15%, $250,001 - $750K taxed at 30%, and anything over $750K taxed at 45%. All one needs would be a very simple eight line long form. Line One: Gross Income. Line 2, the $25K tax free amount. Subtract Line 2 from Line 1 on Line 3. If the difference is between $25,001 and $250K, you go to Line Eight and note the 15% tax due. If more than $250K, then you subtract $225K on Line 4, and post that difference on Line 5. If it is a negative number, that is the amount that you pay 30% on plus the 15% from the taxable amount up to $250K. If a positive number, then you go to LIne 6 which would have $500K on it and subtract that from Line 5. Any negative balance is what your 30% tax would be based upon. A positive number would be taxed at 45%. Add the three percentages together and post the Tax Liability on Line 8. Line 9 would be for any withholdings (W-2's, 1099's, etc.). Line 10 would be Tax Due. Very simple.

I can understand restricting it to a certain number of kids. However, due to economic downturns you still need some tax breaks for those with kids.

"Marriage" is a religious institution. Government has absolutely no right to interfere in marriage in any way. Let religions define marriage. You can't stop Mormons from multiple marriages (which are incredibly Biblical and mentioned many more times than homosexuality.) You also can't Jews, some Christians, Muslims, and others from mulktiple marriages since it is not the province of government. Period.

But civil union is a different matter. Civil union is a civil contract sanctioned by the government. Religion has absolutely zero right to interfere in a civil union. If you are a heterosexual and were "married" by a Justice of the Peace or Judge in a civil ceremony, you are not, strictly speaking "married." You are in a civil union only --- a much different thing that primarily centers around a tax status and inheritance rights.

Many of us are "married" in a ceremony that includes both a marriage and a civil union. The minister marries the couple religiously then "pronounces" them married "by the power vested in me by the State of Whatever." If they are married in only a religious ceremony, the IRS does not consider them "married."

What we are really talking about is treating people with different philosophies and orientations the same as ourselves. It is not about being able to call them husband and husband, but rather treating people in a way that is equal and dignified.

Hating gays and forbiding them to marry will not improve your heterosexual marriage. Take that to the bank!

@doggysaywhat,

The tax break is not about "kids". It is about dependents. A couple (or even an individual can have a dependent --- say an elderly parent) that is not a kid. The idea is that the government tries not to be so regressive as to omit the fact that you are supporting someone who is not generating income. I would not have a problem with a gay couple adopting a child and claiming the child as a dependent just as I would not object to a gay man claiming an elderly parent as a dependent.

Democracy is NOT about the majority trying to strip all the rights they can from minorities just because they can. Democracy is judged on precisely how well the majority takes care of those same minorities. And, folks, this country is not having a shining moment right now as the religious and the right try to set themselves up as a majority with the "right" to shove their parochrial religious views down our throats.

For Chris. You can claim kids as dependents regardless of if you're married or not. You can claim dependents that are elderly as well. But, what I'm referring to above is that being married also gives you tax breaks without any dependents. Those tax breaks shouldn't apply until you actually have those dependents because they were initially designed under the assumption that marriage involved kids. One way to implement it would be to remove the benefits of joint filing and replace it with increased deductions for dependents.

Chris in 4.9 you really explained it good, thanks..

Doggysaywhat....You are not the ruler...We don't have to please you..We don't have to construct the tax code so that you think gays aren't gaining some preferential treatment that you don't get...To me if you take it in the can you deserve a tax break and marriage...HAHAHHAHA

Chris-749391 - "Marriage" is a religious institution. Government has absolutely no right to interfere in marriage in any way. Let religions define marriage.

You've confused marriage (a secular legal contract) with holy matrimony (an irrelevant religious rite).

Only the state controls your marital status, and everyone has to get a marriage license from the state rather than their favorite cult.

For sw Philly.... you entirely missed the point of the post didn't you.... My post wasn't about homosexual individuals but rather any married individual getting a tax break when they didn't have dependents. As I stated in my post above, that applied to homosexual or heterosexual individuals. Neither of them should receive a tax break until kids (or dependents if you prefer) enter the mix.

I would suggest you improve your reading comprehension a bit.

Tina--I'm not going to attack you. You are entitled to your views just as I am. I just don't think people's basic rights should be subject to votes and I've come to believe that being married to the person of your choosing is a basic right.

It is about Morales.

Honey,

What's a "Morales"?

Sounds Hispanic?

Bonus points for twisting abortion into your little rant! lol

There is absolutely nothing wrong with equality for everyone, this is just. However, when a small minority starts celebrating a union between those of the same sex, morality has gone by the wayside

Your second sentence makes me think that you don't truly believe what you wrote in your first one.

Tina - you might have been a little more believable if you'd just said you don't like gays and be truthful. Same sex couples are doing you no harm so stay in your little backward world and let people live their lives. And, if you don't ever want an abortion - whatever the circumstances - don't have one. Just because you are against things doesn't mean they are immoral. Just mean they don't fit into your narrow-minded controlling life!

It is about Morales

What's a "Morales"?

I think Morales is the guy that dumped "tina" for Steve.

Feisty and Shocked- is concernedone Concern Citizen?????

Could you please list the elected officials who believe that killing babies is fine, because I would sure like to know who they are so that we can start a petition against them. To think in this day and age that we are electing people who advocate killing children! Outrageous!

P.S. I am sure you are just the teeniest bit smart enough to note the sarcasm all on your own.

Tina-915756

this isn't a liberal attack more like how is this not moral? Also answer without quoting the bible becasue remember our laws are not pinned to the bible and many people are not religious.

Seeking - It's hard to tell if it is the same person or two people brainwashed by the same source.

Feisty and Shocked- is concernedone Concern Citizen?????

Seeking,

I don't think so, far to literate! lol

The problem woith people saying that they don't like gays is that, for many, that points to them being gay themselves. Remember that Foley and Craig were the most prolific authors of anti-gay legislation in Congress.

Morales leaked out because this soul also feels Hispanics are not moral...You know a Fruedian slip..

And Shocked and disgusted----You really called it on the brainwashed by the same source...We on the so-called "Left" actually make up a party that has Left-Center-Right views, the GOP is just far right loons who all follow the altar set up at Fox News(Which I say is a cult) and spew the exact same talking points....

We democrats all have different views but don't believe in pushing our views on others...Like mine and V.P. Biden's view on abortion, I personally think it is wrong and would not be involved in one, but I also believe it is each and everyone's own personal decision...To me, that is the way to view all of the hot button issues of our time..Just like Homo-sexual marriage, I would not marry someone of the same sex but I have no problem with others doing it...

That is the difference in this country right now, not R's and D's, it is people who think they can make personal decisions for others and those who don't believe that...And also people who believe in fairness and sharing and taking care of those less fortunate people and those who only worry about themselves( While they take government "Hand-outs" themselves, just read up on failed tea-party senate candidate from AK Joe Miller and how he applied for a fishing license as an indigent to get a discount and was on medic-aid for years ,but now wants to abolish it since he is rich now) which is ironic because the "Hand-outs" they get are justifiable because they really need them and are deserving...

I assume that you would rather a life of non-committal relationships for your gay and lesbian neighbors. The moral choice would be to allow two people to form a life long covenant relationship which is shown respect across all states in this country.

Marriage equality extends the stability of marriage to a group which has historically had to hide it's relationships. If you want to attack on the morality angle, focus on divorce and pre-nuptial agreements, both of these violate marriage as a covenant relationship.

Many mainstream churches are blessing same-sex marriages and unions across this great country. The biggest absurdity that I see is when the federal government thinks it knows better than the state that sanctioned the marriage and the church that blessed the covenant relationship.

The left is the most tolorable of all. The left backs the Constitution equal rights for all. What part of that do you not understand. I pay more taxes because I am single, is that fair? No!!

MeanGirl - so you put him in the same grouping as the scumbag Paul Ryan or Michelle Bachmann???

I would agree about Bachmann. I think Ryan absolutely believes what he says not like O'Malley who just says and does things to get vote. I do respect Sen. Mikulski and even Cardin. Regardless of whether you agree with them all the time, there is no doubt they think they are really trying to represent the state and not their own ambitions.

Time for Bachmann's husband to come out of the closet! Have any of you seen him?

Appropriately named "mean girl": Are you actually saying that gays and lesbians in Maryland are not "run of the mill" Marylanders? Not every same-sex couple looks like a Bravo reality show, dearie.

I assume she is talking about O'Malley latching on to a particular issue just to promote his own ambitions. The same sex marriage question was an election issue which Marylanders voted yes on. He gives no support to most of the counties here.

Lulu98 (Is that the year of your birth?)--------What do you expect O'Malley to do for you(Run of the Miller) ?

I thought you GOPers just want government gone ? You need to watch some more Fox so you can spit out the GOP talking points...

You guys aren't supposed to be worried about what gifts your gonna get, that is for Obama voters...

Or maybe you really are a Democrat at heart but can't stand the leader of said party...Hmmmmm... What reason would you have for that?

@sw Philly. You are a typical I will not think for myself.since I am not a Republican, your comment have no validity. I do not expect gifts since my husband and I have always taken care of ourselves and our family. I cannot even stand to lsten to MOM. His speaking pattern even annoys. He would be nothing here in MD without his wife's influential ties. He does not manage....just taxes more and increases fees. Businesses who consider MD end up in VA because of the policies. He panders to his voting group in an outrageous manner. Example. Let us move this state agency to
Prince George's county regardless of the fact that it is cheaper in its current location and most of the employees live locally. But MOM wants to assure the other locations votes should some one stupidly think he should run for president. He runs around the country and MD citizens get to pay regardless of his travels having nothing to do with MD business. So you seem to be commenting on what you have no clue about.

And Philly, why assume I watch Fox? Wherevdidbyou come up with any of that just because I think O'Maley is thevworld's biggest fake? Even WaPo calls him out.

You do sound like a typical Fox viewer, Lulu.

Why? I said I supported same sex marriage, that I respect Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin, that I vote as an Independent and I think O'Malley as a fake. Where do you stupidly conclude I as a typical Fox watcher?

People attacking a person like Lulu98 show themselves for the partisan creeps that they are. She said she supports gay marriage, but doesn't care for the O'Malley as a politician.

Look, if Stalin said that the sky is blue, I would agree with him. I would also still think he's an @sshole.

I watch a little FoxNews (O'Reilly) even though I disagree with a fair amount of what he says. Does simply watching FoxNews equate me to being a mindless drone?

Jesus Christ grow up and stop stereotyping everyone.

Right-right , the WWW is evil stay off Connies and read that bible..

Do not assume his position reflects on what he really thinks. I voted yes on same sex marriage. I am not convinced MOM did in the quiet of the voting booth. There is a difference between pandering and what is in your heart.

they tried to convince conservatives that the earth was round

Ahh, c'mon prog.1! Let's not give "tina" ALL of our secrets!!!

"tina" - Don't worry. The Earth is still flat, the universe revolves around us and tornadoes hit specific trailer parks because "god" hates them....now...go get "healed" with a smack on the forehead and flail your arms around like a lunatic.

no, progressives aka far lefties, do most of the assassinations of political figures. Like the Commie defector Lee Harvey Oswald who killed JFK and the anarchist who murdered McKinley.

clue for the clueless: anarchists aren't particularly "progressives". lol.

another clue: progressives aren't "far lefties".

you're confused. but funny. :)

Yes, they are.

and..yes they are.

Anarchists and socialists are glued at the hip, and have been protesting in the streets together for like 150 years. These vermin always team up. The famous ones among them often intermarry, like who was the piece of sh-- emma goldman or something deported in the late 30's or something, married to an anarchist.

uh, no anarachists are not progressives. They want no government. "the left" wants a big gov't. duh.

and the "far left" would be, oh, communists, not progressives. lol. you're clueless.

you're funny. But of course you are incredibly biased, so I understand why you want to blame everything on the evil left. :)

Fine, "chesty". If you are so backward as to compare "progressives" to "commies', then you will have no problem with comparing crazy right-wing teabaggers to nazis.

The nazis took many, many more lives than Lee Harvey Oswald did, so...once again...you lose.

By the way - What decade are you in?? Even in the 1980's people that used the word "commie" were considered inbred hillbillies.

Chesty is in her/his own reality, stuck in the 50s, surrounded by evil liberals who are responsible for every ill of the world. lol.

It's a bit funny that "chesty" would use for his/her avatar the motto of a nation that, on chesty's scale of ignorance, would be further left than Karl Marx himself!!

Is it the inbreeding or is it the home-schoolin' that does the most damage to their intelligence??

Is it the inbreeding or is it the home-schoolin' that does the most damage to their intelligence??

and and this...

Chesty is in her/his own reality, stuck in the 50s, surrounded by evil liberals who are responsible for every ill of the world. lol.

and then this...

By the way - What decade are you in?? Even in the 1980's people that used the word "commie" were considered inbred hillbillies.

Perfect examples of name calling and pathetic posting and of course violations of the CoH

This is the liberal conversation usually.. name calling and hatred with little substance if any.

Oh, poor little"shosyn" playing the new right wing victim routine. (YAWN....Are you even capable of independent thought over in fox-land?). Oh...and I can tell by your complete outrage below, when "chesty" brags about "kicking a gay" that you are not at all a hypocrite.

Apparently it is OK with "shosyn" to promote hate crimes oh but LORD help you if you dare call someone in his klan a name!!

Clean up your own house before you point your nasty little fingers elsewhere, "shosyn".

Fat Tony,

Read my post above...I said the same exact thing as you!! (The whole Bachmann husband thing) Haha.

I've thought all along that "Michelle" Bachmann is actually a cray guy in bad drag.

Shelly,

Are you a homophobe?

All she said is she does not think MOM does a good job. I do not think he does a good job. I voted yes on the same sex marriage question.

And all the governor did with that signing was to certify the entire election results, not just the vote on same-sex marriage. Thank you VOTERS of MD for finally coming to your senses on supporting equality for all and supporting the actions of your legislators.

And Vipp just gave the reason why Liberal agendas are gaining support. Anyone who is against it is called a homophobes, a bigot or worse. Do we honestly expect our children to form their own opinions when these liberals ensure that freedom of expression is not tolerated if it goes against their worldview. The reality is that people only accept same sex marriage because they have been deluded, because opposition to it is not tolerated and is met with the most hostile, angry remarks, and because they have managed to convince people that homosexuality is not about sex. In short people are being cowed into submission. Vipp's opinions are not isolated, they represent the majority of those working towards this agenda and they will not rest until people like Shelly7 are denied a voice. Simply put they are not good people.

right, its all the fault of the evil liberals! It can't possibly be that people have figured out that denying rights to gays is unamerican and anti-freedom. Nah, that's can be it. lol.

Those who deny rights to others SHOULD be met with "hostile, angry remarks". duh.

So, by "candlewycke's" logic, identifying as a "heterosexual" is also about nothing more than sex. Heterosexuals, according to "candlewycke", should also be denied the right to marry and all of the benefits that come with it. Thank you for clearing up the fact that you are anti-marriage, period.

The fact that you are an ignorant, homophobic bigot doesn't make you a bad person, "candlewycke". It simply makes you an ignorant, homophobic bigot...which, I'm sure, is a badge of honor in your social circles.

Those who deny rights to others SHOULD be met with "hostile, angry remarks". duh.

Couldn't have said it better myself, Vermontguy. If "candlewycke" doesn't like it, then "candlewycke" should take it up with his/her therapist.

Candlewycke - Anyone who is against it is called a homophobes, a bigot or worse.

If you think the government should deny legal equality to gays, you're the very definition of a homophobic bigot.

I suggest you own it. You're no different from the racists 50 years ago who wanted to deny legal equality to mixed-race couples.

ignorant homophobic bigot... name calling is all that is period... with NO real substance or conversation going on here...

Candlewycke was stating his points without calling people names and vile rhetoric...as well as violations of the CoH like those who retorted to him.

The other posters just shouted and used derogatory terms as usual with no real points of interest or facts. That is how liberals roll.

tolerance is one thing...belief is another...

For the record, I am not "homophobic". I voted for OMalley the first time he ran for mayor and I will never vote for him again for anything. I was young then, but could see that he just needed a platform to propel him to run for Governor and sure enough, that's just what he did. Hmmm, I wonder what he's up to now.....hmmm...You'd have to be blind not to see it.
He did not help the city very much at all. Not at all. Thats the reason I wouldnt vote for him. I think a politician's motivation, especially if you are a MAYOR, should be to help the city run better and help the people, not to position yourself for higher office. He did not help the city very much, but he's doing well running for office. Is Dog Catcher a Cabinet position?

Shosyn - ignorant homophobic bigot... name calling is all that is period... with NO real substance or conversation going on here... Candlewycke was stating his points without calling people names and vile rhetoric..

Maybe you should look at some of Candlewycke's comment history? He's definitely a homophobe and a hater.

He shouldn't be too surprised that other people have noticed.

Oh, but skrekk...Actually holding your own accountable is not something they are being told to do. For the last two weeks it's been the crybaby victim routine...next week, I'm sure, they will go back to their usual nastiness.

Anyway - in the "candlewycke" and "shosyn" social circle, being an ignorant, homophobic bigot is, like I said before, a badge of honor. How is that offensive to them when they make the effort to be that way in the first place?

"shosyn" - If you want conversation, try responding to my point that, by "candlewyck's" definition, being heterosexual is about nothing more than sex...

...that is...only if you can pull yourself out of your pre-programmed, temporary victim mentality long enough to engage in real conversation. Lord knows "candlewycke" lacks the courage.

very impressive "achievement". lol.

Once I lost my temper and gave a nazi bigot the finger.

Here's to you, "chesty" ..!.

it is a given right for two consenting individuals to marry

Why are you putting boundaries on quantity of persons to make up a marriage?

well, the 14th amendment and equal protection would argue that if you allow a certain group to marry (two consenting adult heterosexuals) you need to allow two consenting adult homosexuals to marry.

Sigh, I have fighted enough Liberals before, but this is the first time I have to fight a Conservative. To answer your question, why not? If they all consent, there should be no issue. What's it to ya?

Specious argument at best. What determines a lot of that is state interest. Siblings getting married can lead to eventual health or genetic issues. Multiple spouses leads to a lot of legal issues regarding property and because the SCOTUS said it was not legal. Until the courts deem otherwise, polygamy is against the law. There is no legitimate state reason to ban same sex marriage if marriage, divorce and property laws apply. They are not a unique group if you just consider them as two consenting adults.

I don't care who gets married and to how many wives/husbands/animals/inanimate objects....

That being said the Law should allow two(2) consenting adults to create a civil union for tax/benifits purposes as long as they don't have the same father/mother...otherwise sex/race/creed etc. should not be considered...

But if you want to have a ceremony/live together no harm no foul...I believe Mormons/Muslims already do this,just making the first wife the wife of record...

sw philly - But if you want to have a ceremony/live together no harm no foul...I believe Mormons/Muslims already do this, just making the first wife the wife of record...

That's what the Brown v Utah case is all about - they want to be allowed multiple religious weddings, not multiple marriage contracts.

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/05/31/prosecutors-drop-investigation-of-brown-family-and-promise-not-to-prosecute-for-polygamy/

Utah is a bit weird in that it actually prohibits multiple religious weddings, even though that's a blatant 1st Amendment violation. Apparently the state of Utah is unable to distinguish between marriage and holy matrimony. If they were Catholic instead of Mormon, they'd understand the difference.

"Judge not, let ye be judged"

"render unto caesar"

maybe you don't believe in enough of the bible, only the parts you want to? :)

And we should also condemn people who like pornography and people who don't follow ALL the Levitical Codes, hmm?

Oh, wait, that's not in the Little Book of Hypocritical Condemnations that the 21st-c. right-wing follows these days :-)

The bible also condemns touching the skin of a pig. We can rightly deduce that you are for executing the entire NFL...Right "roger"?

Roger-1618676 - It is shame that nobody believes in the Bible anymore. The Bible condems homosexuals and so should we.

Because we should all hate our fellow Americans, right?

It is shame that nobody believes in the Bible anymore. The Bible condems homosexuals and so should we.

That would be the King James Bible right...remembering (ironically) that King James himself had homosexual tendencies?

Look, I'm a neutral party in this whole gay/straight thing (as well as marrying just one or multiple parties), but in so much as one would argue "look to the Bible" it seems that we really need to look to the "judge not lest ye be judged", "those who are free from sin cast the first stone", and all the other passages which really point to a basic ideal:

If it's not really up in your business, let it go - it doesn't really concern you.

And your beliefs have NO business in the law that governs ALL people! :-)

You don't have to say anything for your judgment to be apparent, that's the end of the story with it :-)

"I don't judge anyone"? lol, you just judged a whole country.

Roger...Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding the bible. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific things the bible says we should do...

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is,
how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend
of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can
you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don.t agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room
here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to
death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with
their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

11. My nephew has been skipping school lately and is starting to hang around other kids who are a bad influence. How would you suggest he be stoned to death ( Deuteronomy 21:18-21) for being rebellious? My brother (his father) seems to think that it would be more efficient and...well...less messy if he just simply smashed my nephew over the head one time with a foundation brick. Thoughts?

I look forward to hearing your insightful advice in these matters.

one ting we hope for, is that your disgusting, filthy behavior isn't codified into law as equivalent to the institution of marriage.

one thing we hope for, is that your disgusting, filthy hate isn't codified into law.

I don't see why this is strictly in the hands of SCOTUS. A few years ago the voters of Maine overturned a law legalizing same-sex marriage in that state, then this year the citizens successfully placed a referendum on the ballot reinstating the law and it passed. Why can't the people of California do the same thing?

Inspired yes, it does have relevance to societal norms (for whoever chooses to use it this way, you can base being pro man-on-man anal or anti man-on-man anal on whatever you want, religion, gut instinct, disgust factor, whatever), and is the Word of God.

We don't base the law of the land on the Bible, however people who believe the Bible or are atheist or even fruity, can base their voting on that characteristic of theirs or anything else.

You can say homo-ism is good because you are libertarian and against as many proscriptions in law as possible or you could say it's bad because you had a bad experience watching your mom exercise to Richard Simmons videos, or base your belief on religion or anti-religion.

Whatever you want to base your vote on is up to you. Anything.

sure, but denying rights to others for any reason is bad and unamerican. You're a pathetic american chesty. I only hope you aren't an american, actually. :)

I love how happy people getting married upsets bigots like Chesty.

He'd have been a good fit for the Jim Crow-era south.

Chesty, you have a point: you can base your vote on anything. It is entirely up to the voter, the question is, is it the right thing to do in order to move us forward as a country? No one has ever been in support of denying others freedoms in this country and has had history look at them favorably. What would you say if I told you I voted for Mitt Romney because my teacher in second grade was named Ms. Romney and she gave me marshmallow bunnies and I had a crush on her? Or I voted for President Obama because he lived in Chicago and that is my favorite band? Just because you CAN vote based on whatever criteria you want, doesn't mean you should.

I want everyone to notice that our day's little "victim" "shosyn" isn't in any way outraged by the horrible comments being made by "chesty".

I guess calling out fellow bigots goes against their "bigot code". Perhaps you can enlighten us, "shosyn"?