E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images file photo
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
In a video posted on the website of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights group, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton comes out in favor of gay marriage.
These are her first comments backing gay marriage since leaving the State Department, and they could potentially hint at her 2016 ambitions. (After President Obama, Vice President Biden, and other Democrats have endorsed gay marriage, it's likely that the future Democratic nominee -- in 2016 and beyond -- will have to back it.)
"I support marriage for lesbian and gay couples," Clinton says in the video. "I support it personally and as a matter of policy and law embedded in a broader effort to advance equality and opportunity for LGBT Americans and for all Americans."
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was featured in a human rights campaign ad, showing her support for marriage equality. NBC's Mark Murray reports.
She continues, "Like so many others, my views have been shaped over time by people I have known and loved, by my experience representing our nation on the world stage, my devotion to law and human rights, and the guiding principles of my faith."
Leave a Comment:
This is news? How? No one should be against anyone being equal. No one.
GOD created Adam and Steve;
God created Adamina and Eve;
thus, by default, GOD created Adam and Eve.
Well of course she supports gay marriage. It is the civil rights issue of 2013. The majority of Americans support gay marriage. The majority of the under age 25 crowd support gay marriage.
The ones who do not support gay marriage is the members of the flat earth society aka Tea Partiers.
In other news, the sun rose in the East this morning and the Libbies had nothing good to say about CPAC.
Keep up the good work FR
Is there some reason I should care what Hillary Clinton thinks? Is there some reason her thinking should be breaking news? Someone tell Hillary she's arrived late to the party.
What about this? I don't care who gets married to whom.
ELIZABETH WARREN FOR PRESIDENT.
PIGOTRY, do you ever get tired of hearing your ignorant self??
So, who cares?
hey, joe-2849984 (#1.5)
.
Joe, I am not ignorant, I'm only Pignorant.
... and we may believe in different things, but on this topic (your post), we are the same, if you are not more so.
Really? This is news? Is anyone surprised that Hillary is for gay marriage? After all, Chelsea is thought to be the offspring of Hillary & Janet Reno!
How refreshing to hear a politician announce her support of gay marriage because it is the right thing to do, not because someone in her family is gay and wants to get married.
Looks like she is about to have another stroke!
What is she, 75?
Time to retire.
Steeler Fan-380417
I am far less concerned about how they approached equality in this respect being a good idea and just glad that people are in favor of it, regardless of the reason.
Whether it be friends, family, aliens or whatever that led them to the idea, having people be equal in terms of a civil contract with tax benefits and able to help make life decisions for the other is okay in my book.
Well, it really looks like the Dems are freaking scared because they are flipping big time. Apparently the Bible means nothing to them. It does say something about Homosexuality in the Bible. Anyway, it sure looks like the Dems are showing there true colors and how the NANNY country should look. The differnce is, I will work very hard for what I get, hide it, then use the system that the Dems have put in place. You see I will be independant and well off, you will be well just simply dependent! Morons, you have freedom in your hands and you are spitting all over it.
God bless America, or what it use to be before the government takes over control of your life.
Hillary has always played for the other side and ran with Bill just to get into the Whitehouse. I would say her taste for Shag Carpet grows each year.
God created Adam and Eve.... and God also said that homosexuality is an abomination. So I am sorry that you people ignore Gods work and go your own way...... The problem is, that God has been very patient with this country and has blessed us, but if we continue to go in the direction that this country is headed, we will suffer...... and suffer really bad. It has already started with putting a Marxist in office that is tearing this country apart and he is purposely promoting class warfare (right out of the Marxist digest) to cause disruption between the American people. Sorry, if you don't believe me, but you will find out soon enough.
""Like so many others, my views have been shaped over time by people I have known and loved..."
=============
All due respect to the Secretary, I hate reasoning like this. At a knee-jerk perspective, I understand the what and why of what is being said, but this is so clearly a matter of right and wrong, not one of who you know and who you don't know.
Freedom to marry a legal, consenting adult is freedom to marry a legal, consenting adult...and the State definitely has no business either granting or withholding benefits based off of the sexual orientation of the Citizen.
Agree or disagree at a personal level all you want..bottom line is the State has no problem taking that 'gay tax money', be it in the form of earned wages or sales tax or property tax etc.
2inspire2
Who are you trying to "inspire"? Do you think that blocking people from equal treatment is "inspiring"?
I think that you will find the New Testament more "inspiring" ....... or you can just continue to find reasons to justify your exclusionary policies in the Old Testament ..... you know, that Book that is so full of factual information like men hundreds of years old fathering lots of children, the creation magic, an ark full of animals, etc., etc., etc.
vanjonesie
OK .... you found something in the Old Testament to justify the way you like to treat people in the LGBTQ community. Now if you want to beat your kids you can also thumb through all of those pre-Christian writings to justify that as well. I guess you will probably choose to continue ignoring the Sermon on the Mount and all of those other inconvenient passages that suggest that you treat your fellow human beings with love, dignity and respect.
It's interesting that in several posts above and below the RWNJs attempt to demean/diminish Hillary by implying she's a lesbian. Yet many of them would hotly deny they are anti-gay. They look in the mirror and see themselves not.
Pigotry what in the hell does your post mean? Adam and Steve and by default Adam and Eve..... WTF?
I mean REALLY WTF????? In the biblical and biological term, if it wasn't for Adam and Eve, we wouldn't be here, cause Adam and Steve "union" creates NOTHING.
I really do not care what Adam and Steve wanna do, as long as they aren't being "activist" about it.
And your wrong pigotry without Adam and Eve....Steve would not have been born.
If you actually believe we call came from Adam and Eve then you also believe in incest, and that women are inferior to men because eve is nothing but a rib.
2inspire2
Not far after homosexuality the bible mentions not to get tattooed as well.
Should we also deny people with tattoos the right to marry?
Breaking news...the United States is NOT a theocracy.
Hilary can get behind the gay marriage thing? I mean Bill was a world renowned swinger! And the gay guys most certainly have each others backs on this.
Now, if the Pope would come out for gays and lesbians, that would be news. Give me a break. This is just, rally the troops, photo op time.
Jack,
The compassionate
Christiansbible bangers are on full display today spreading their love & tolerance... lolWhat is the fair price for selling your daughter into slavery?
...and how many of you will, in fact, have your children stoned to death next time they mouth off at you?
Never fails, and a year later they come out of the closet.
You could look at her and tell that. She may soon come out and be against heterogeneous marriage.
What if you're not Catholic?
I'm Episcopalian...and the spiritual leader of the Episcopal Church is the Archbishop of Canterbury. On Thursday, the Right Reverend Justin Welby will become the 105th Archbishop of Canterbury. While he supports the church's opposition to same-sex marriage and ordaining homosexuals he reminded everyone at the press conference where he was announced as the new Archbishop of Canterbury that the church must reject homophobia.
Well, of course, she supports gay marriage. She is about a liberal as you can get. As for those of you who keep quoting the Old Testament law as a reason to hate God, get with the program. When Jesus died on the cross He fulfilled the law and we are no longer under the law but under grace. I suggest you KNOW the Bible before you pick and choose verses that you take out of context to use against God and Christians.
Again who except for ACTIVISTS care? If you want to have sex, or fall in love with your same sex, keep it to yourself.
You don't see, heterosexual teachers, scout leaders, whatever, standing on SOAP BOXES, saying you gotta accept me because I am sleeping with my WIFE that I have been married to for 30 years, nobody cares.
GET OVER YOURSELF......... IT ISN'T ALL ABOUT YOU...and who you love...who you sleep with...whatever................go be an activist on your own time and get over yourselves.
Piggy if you want to quote the Bible at least do it right. Can you tell me in what part the Bible speak about , Adam and Steve, so far I know, in the Old Testament the bible refers to Adam and Eve, and not by default, also God ask to populate the earth, something that Adam and Steve can't do , by default.
I can't agree more.
White Collar Auto
Well let's go see what some repubies had to say about CPAC. Shall we ask Christie?
Oh, that's right... LOL
Feisty,
Uh-oh, you didn't capitalize the word "Bible". Now you're in for it!
Samantha
Actually, I did not quote the Old Testament as a reason to hate God. I criticized the hateful conservatives who justify their hate by thumbing through the Old Testament to find passages to justify their hate. They can also find justification for beating their children and lots of other disgusting behavior in that same Old Testament.
You should probably take into consideration that there are lots of people who don't believe that one must have a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible to prove that they love God or believe in God. There are many fine Christians who believe that living by the Golden Rule and caring for "the least among us" is far more important than believing in the creationist myth and Jonah surviving in a whale's belly and thinking that their God is so vengeful that he will destroy life to make a point.
The Bible was written and edited for men by men. God had nothing to do with it because he loves us all no matter who we are. God is real and the Bible is nothing but the book written by men to attempt to control you with fear.
So tell me if God hates gays so much, why did he create them and allow them to be born?
So either your pretend God has no power or he doesn't care who or how you love. Having touched the real God I know he is not the petty, short-sighted, hater the so called christians would have you believe.
that is the best you have? Too bad you couldnt quite catch on to what WCA was talking about...i would say read between the lines, but im pretty sure his point was clear as day.. However libbies are one of two things...too dumb to see it or too self serving to see beyond their own B.S.
Freewill Paradox?
I agree that using God as a reason for gays not having the same benefits or rights is wrong..equally as wrong as say Jackoff and Fisty that constantly rail against the 'bible bangers'....people like those two are morally devoid to begin with...i would have more fear of the Fisty's and Jackoff's in this world because they are far more inclined to do something evil in the namesake of the 'cause'.
So, by your argument, the entire Old Testament is negated, including all references against homosexuality. Interesting take.
So is anyone surprised by this? Most think she is a closet lesbian anyway.
Samantha-1783461
Funny, because many Christians keep falling back to the Old Testament to project their views on some situations.
I personally don't care if someone doesn't like gays and just says "I'm not in support of their rights because I don't like the gay lifestyle". At least it is honest. Using the basis of a book as a reason to deny them equal rights just doesn't sit well with me, particularly when they're using a religious text and we are supposed to have freedom of and from religion in the U.S. It sits even less well with me when people will parrot phrases back and forth and then it ends with a "Oh, it doesn't matter, Jesus died for our sins." Didn't he die for their sins as well? Aren't we supposed to love the sinner but hate the sin?
Whatever they want to do in the privacy of their bedroom with 2 consenting adults is fine with me. It doesn't change my life one iota. To allow them to have equal rights and say over issues as a couple married in front of a J.P. or in a Church is all the same to me.
steve2
I guess if you want to label everyone who supports marriage equality in that fashion a majority of Americans are now part of the LGBTQ community.
Actually, it illustrates an important difference between most progressives and most conservatives. Most conservatives seem to be interested ONLY in their own rights. They oppose marriage equality because they can currently marry the person of their choosing. They oppose comprehensive immigration reform because they are not immigrants. They oppose civil rights because they already have the rights others are fighting for.
Most progressives support the rights of others. Progressive men support women's rights. Straight progressives support marriage equality. White progressives support minority rights. Progressive citizens support the rights of non-citizens. And it feels good.
Poor Reddev, the new testament mentions that homosexuality is a no no
"For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error."
i disagree there, unless that church is accepting (of homosexuality)..we as a nation start telling a church they have to marry gays against their beliefs, we violate the first amendment... Find a different church.
Tolerance works in both ways, you can't demand tolerance from one side , when you are not tolerant with the other side believes. You can't demand equal respect when you want to put your believes over mine. I don't care if the governmet alowed gay marriage, but you can't demand my Church do it too.
Steve............Don't care...........if Hillary is a lesbian or whatever....just as long as she stay's off a soap box and doesn't have to become an activist about it....I really do not care.
You can love a gay person or sinner this is the backbone of Christ's teachings and how he lived.
You don't have to condone the sin or promote it. You should show love and respect the person but not condone the sin.
Homosexuality is a sin, sorry to break it to you.
For all the liberals out there----
No reason to discriminate on age or gender -- At what point are you infringing on the rights of the pedophile? If a 40,50,60 year old man or woman wants to marry a 8 year old boy or girl there should be no problem in your eyes. If a teacher wants to date/marry their student why should the law infringe on that liberty?
Other countries marry at much younger ages.
Yep lets have no boundaries or laws and see how far down the sewer we can go.
No Edgar, its a 50 year old, 400 lbs, pedophile fondling his/her marriage certificate to a child, while looking on internet for the new porno scene they can act out.
Welcome to the liberal's future.
What a surprise, the closet lesbian supports gay marriage.
I kinda figured we were just around the corner to Armageddon, and I kind figured it would be Hillary leading us into it. Yup, I have no doubt Hillary will be president, and I would have zero surprise if someone showed me she would be the last president of the USA either. Heil Hillary!
"We're on an express elevator to hell; going down!" - Hudson; Aliens (1986)
Apparently the Dems understand the 1st Amendment and you don't.
Looks like you Christofascists will lose the next election too.
Repojam,
Gee, just 2?
-;)
You have GOT to be kidding me:
Do you HONESTLY think she, or ANY OTHER POLITICIAN has come out of their Gay marriage closet because it is the RIGHT thing to do. WHEWEEEEEE! That is a knee slapper. These "people" only care about ONE thing, well make that two: MONEY and VOTES. They will say or do whatever they think they need to in order to accumulate either of both.
Love is love. How is it hurting you HOMOPHOBES if gay couples are allowed to marry? Guess what? It's not. If you are personally against gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex and don't attend the ceremony of a gay person. Stay out people's private lives. Live and let live. They're not hurting you.
Everyone had the right to marry the person they love, as long as both are consenting adults, of course. The same ones who are so religious and anti-gay marriage are also the ones who tell couples like my husband and me that we aren't "really married" because we did it in front of a J.P. and not in a church. (EYE ROLL) It's 2013, not 1813. And this is a SECULAR nation and not a THEOCRACY. EVOLVE!!!!
No one gives a crap what your church does or doesn't do. The government in particular doesn't give a crap.
Sounds like you've confused the legal contract of marriage with the irrelevant religious rite of "holy matrimony".
Caesar Augustus
The statement in where they were married (at a J.P, in a church/mosque/whatever) in terms of what rights they should have. We both know that if you're married at a church or at a J.P.'s office your rights are still the same.
No church, and I repeat, no church should ever be forced to marry a couple if they do not wish to. Ever. Their reasons can be whatever fold, from the most mundane to the most ludicrous. If a church has a policy where they won't do marriages for unbelievers/interracial couples/homosexual couples/people in a different town/etc they should not be forced to perform a service against their will. First amendment and all of that. I don't like the idea of "my first amendment rights trump your first amendment rights".
really? Keep telling yourself that b.s. you might even buy it.
more lefty tolerance from an irrelevant pixar animation.
Repojam...just clarifying...
So you don't hate fags but your imaginary friend does?
Sounds like you're afraid to take personal responsibility for your own hateful views, but totally willing to use the government to enforce your sharia laws against the people you hate.
Again Olivia.....NOBODY CARES.....SO get over it and yourself.......you don't want negative reactions....then quit being negative......and provocative...............quit forcing agenda off on others.....people have the right to REJECT your agenda.......free choice is a two way street.
Why does it have to become a socialist agenda to FORCE your beliefs on others.
Just as you have the RIGHT to believe as you do....anther has the same RIGHT to reject it.
And for activists to knowingly try and CRAM their beliefs onto others...... is IRRITATING......it is also being selfish and arrogant.
You want to be accepted....keep your beliefs to yourself.......it is as simple as that.
Tired of the controversy....then quit being ..............................controversial.
when sarah palin was at cpac sucking on the big gulp drink was she auditioning for a career in porn?
Don't be so silly, you all from the left condemn any Church that don't support gay marriage, so you give a crap. Demeaning the belief of other people about Holy Marriage if part of the Christian bigotry from your side.
So rejecting gay people, calling them an abomination, is being Godly? No wonder so many people are rejecting God, included are religion, and all its myths and superstitions. I really wonder why some of these people like Caesar Disgusts exist.
'If you don't want tax dollars helping the poor, then its time to stop saying you want a government based on Christian values.' John H Fugelsang.
What I believe is this, these same religions that preach the love of Jesus and don't live the love of Jesus ought to be paying taxes as they no longer qualify as a religion, matter of fact they ought to have to register as pac's
What State were you elected to be Governor......... mrpotatohead?....thought so....childish liberal remark coming from someone(like most liberals who post remarks about Palin have never done anything in their pathetic lives but judge others instead of using that "energy" to accomplish something with themselves)....grow up.....seriously.
mruseurhead --- are we somehow related?
Redvirginia says, "condemn any Church that don't support gay marriage" and then you say, "Demeaning the belief of other people about Holy Marriage if part of the Christian bigotry from your side"
If I am reading this right in contradicts itself.
Why is this just not as true for gay folks? Demeaning their bond and belief by denial? Because you "think" its "wrong"? WOW what a guy.
I guess we'll find out when its all said and done by whos looking up from hell.
Wow, why is anyone surprised that Clinton would support gay marriage. She obviously is looking for something better than her cheating husband and has decided that her next "Friend" may be someone that is NOT looking to pork every women HE comes in contact with.
Let the gays get married. I'm all for it. I think once that is done, we can get to work on the public masterbators. They have had their civil liberty and rights crushed long enough. They get imprisoned for simply doing what comes naturally. Get the government out of the bedroom, the parked car, the park bench, the sidewalk in front of the grade school. Who the hell does the government think they are? If the 15 year old boy has decided that 45 year old men are his passion, why would the government take away his rights to follow his passion. Look, men have been bribing women to have sex with them for a long time and it has not been against the law. The same should hold true regardless of the gender, age, race or religion. Shouldn't a 40 year old Lutheran be able to have sex with a 14 year old Mormon? Shouldn't that choice be between the Lutheran and the Mormon? What gives the government the right to say what is morally right and wrong? What about the 35 year old atheist that wants to take his 14 year old atheist lover from behind. Neither of them should be held to any moral rules established by a church or the government. The church should not write the laws and, as most progressives feel, the government should not have any say in what is acceptable physical interactions between anyone.
No potato head......I have never been presumptuous enough to advance liberal template, by telling liberal jokes, even though, never having accomplished what someone like a Sarah Palin has.....being elected as Governor of the great State of Alaska......all my parents children lived, unlike yours.
Hillary endorses Gay Marriage--
Yes, indeed. We knew that--her mouth did not have to speak---where is Wiener's wife, her close political partner Huma Abedin?
Censorship. The Liberals/Media are all about Censorship of the News--there has been no hard core news at all--one Boring Administration, who does not want to get involved in anything but how much sugar we eat, and what "sugar drinks", we have in the Frig---
Is Syria still on this Earth?---how many have been killed to date---what happened to Afghanistan, and what is Russia and Iran, especially Iran doing about their buildup of Nuclear Warfare--oh yes, and Dennis Rodman, our Basketball Ambassador, is buddies with Un from North Korea. They are going on vacation together. Does he report back to Obama on how N. Korea is playing their Politics of eliminating the United States?
fags? imaginary Friend? so Jesus and God hates gays? I dont believe the original poster said anything of the sort...Look Shrekk, I wonder if you condone the behavior of a bank robber?
Jethro, the only myth is that you have a rational thought process. I wonder why you exist.. I totally would have supported your moms decision to let you run down her leg ;o) Poor Jethro, you got OWNED again
By the way, I learned my tolerance from the liberal left...I Got an A+
Caesar
Oh, don't worry Caesar. I knew exactly what he was talking about.
I just like reminding people like YOU that your own party is eating their own, and imploding from within.
Oh, just so you know... another Republican recently came out in support of gay marriage. You should remind headquarters to start the excommunication process. Wouldn't want any rational people in your ranks, now would you?
mruseurhead --- i never chose to go into politics. btw what have you ever accomplished other than being a right wing hack and a crank? it wasn't a liberal joke that i heard.... i thought of it myself.
skrekk
Apparently the Dems understand the 1st Amendment and you don't.
I'll understand the 1st Amendment if you'll understand the 2nd Amendment.
Funny how the constitution works when you want it too, but when other amendments come up, Democrats want to "interpret" them.
Notice how many obviously conservative comments above accuse Hillary of being a lesbian .... obviously because they consider "LESBIAN" an insulting term. Therein lies the absolute proof that those same conservatives will deny the rights of people who they consider an object of derision .... someone they hate .... someone who they consider less than equal.
I am a proud progressive. I do not consider "LESBIAN' an insulting term. I support marriage equality
I'm not owned by you little bitch. Not that you wouldn't have wanted to own slaves, thats your heritage. Your just going to have to stay on the wrong side of history, Caesar, you are to low to mow.
Hillary is only interested in what is best for Hillary. With 5% of the population being LGBT and primarily Democratic and 3% of the population being illegal immigrants and also leaning Democratic of course Hillary is going to support their agendas. Without that 8% Hillary probably wouldn't have a chance of being elected. If the votes weren't there Hillary wouldn't give either of these groups her time of day. My question is; why are we, the taxpayers, allowing such a small minority of the population to manipulate and control such a large amount of taxpayer spending. The tax revenue contribution from these two groups does not match the amount of money the Feds spend in support of these two groups.
Exactly potato you like your liberal brethren who post here, have never accomplished anything in their own pathetic lives.
But because its liberal template to criticize someone like a Sarah Palin who was elected to be Governor of the largest State in the Union....its "chic" to call her names.
But Democrat presumptuously "put down" Sarah Palin, but their OWN Vice President...is a GAFF MACHINE.....thinking quadriplegics can "stand up"(stand up Chuck), and that its OKAY to fire a double barreled shotgun off in residential areas....hypocrisy at its finest on display from the left.
Think about it
If you really understand those two amendments you understand that each has limits and each right is accompanied by responsibilities. Even Justice Scalia, the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court and a champion of the 2nd Amendment understands that there are reasonable limits to the right to bear arms:
don97524, that is also a trait of fascism. Got to have somebody to hate. I hate disgustus because he is a fascist.
" Therein lies the absolute proof that those same conservatives will deny the rights of people who they consider an object of derision .... someone they hate .... someone who they consider less than equal."
His rights are the only rights that matter. Fact is they are wrong, and will go down as on the wrong side of history and election after election is going to prove that, and as joe the albanian idiot says. "hahahahaha"
Usual gay bashing tripe from the right
Caesar Augustus-
It's a valid clarification, in my eyes. I had a paragraph typed out regarding how no one should be forced to do it, but didn't like some of my wording and ended up blanking the paragraph.
I think we both know that when it comes to issues of First Amendment Rights and the Rights of Religious Institutions, we shouldn't be forcing their hands in terms of civil unions that can be accomplished elsewhere. Naturally, the same right I couldn't see extending to government officials such as a Justice of the Peace in refusing to do the marriage as it is part of his job and it is the job of the government to perform these sorts of unions regardless of religious beliefs. That is of course assuming it is the law of the land where the JP presides.
This demonstrates how little you understand about progressives and also how irrationally you arrive at your conclusions.
Support of marriage equality is not important politically to Hillary Clinton because of a 5% LGBT population .... it is because almost all progressives believe in equal rights whether or not they are LGBT and that a majority of Americans, regardless of political persuasion support marriage equality.
In case you were asleep during civics class I feel that it is my duty to inform you that ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CANNOT VOTE, an fact which is obvious to all but the most ignorant among us.
That said, I have no doubt at all that Hillary takes this position on marriage equality because she believes it is right, even though she may have waited until it was politically "safe" to announce her position.
mruseurhead --- i did invent and patented a pair of glasses to be used by right wing cranks like you and the kkk and other far right groups. when you put on these glasses they make a black person appear white. only $19.95. they also make a gay person appear straight.
@Randy,
Oh please!!!! No 1 is talking about marrying off a CHILD.
Go back 2 your Tinker toys & let the grown-ups talk.
(rolling eyes)
JC in G
In the case of public masturbator, that is public indecency and is currently a crime. The 40 year old Lutheran and 14 year old mormon, and the 35 year old atheist with the 14 year old atheist are problems in relation to agent of consent (depending on state) and them being a minor which quite possibly falls into the ground of statutory rape. Being under the age of majority in most cases precludes you from the right to choose in regards to those situations.
I could see the slope of gay marriage slipping to polygamy/polyandry for those who wish, but to suggest it would lead to underage sexual acts is a bit of a slippery slope.
wrong side of history LOL...sure pal...Remind the Jews of that too...it'll bring them comfort..seems lefties like to use this new tag line of 'wrong side of history'.
that's my heritage? what's your heritage? a resident of the Urals? well now LOL...are you trying to usurp Fisty for the queen of dumfux crown? I would ask you to prove it Seeking Approval but you'll just say 'I know you are but what am I'. Yeah you got OWNED....ouch
i have no problems with same sex marriage..i fail to see how it negatively impacts me...and i fail to see how this article is news to begin with.. more divide et impera in my opinion
What you people are forgetting is the IGNORANT LEFT does NOT believe in GOD. They keep saying that is whats wrong with us republicans we believe in GOD to much.
I guess that is just another reason why i will NEVER be a DUMBORAT.
Potatohead you don't know me so do not "presume" that you do. By what basis are you know "judging" me racist?
For your information I come from a proud and racially diverse family....if its any business of yours.
My AVATAR is of my great grandson, who died of SIDS, and whose LOSS I still grieve.
Unless you are "color blind", you will see my great grandson, looks like a great grandson Obama would have, if he had a great grandson......so shove your racist "accusation" remark........you don't know me.
Broad brush...just like saying that there are no Conservative atheists.
Want to know the difference? The difference is that my belief in God is between me and Him and it's nobody else's business.
I wish Hillery would just step out of the closet and come clean! just because its 2013 does not change the fact that the deviation is wrong, it simply means more people are wrong. I also understand that Satan supports all Gay relationships, and those with animals and pedophiles as well, if it is unnatural and ungodly then it must be fun, what else can we do? I know lets go after those 10 commandments they take all the fun out of everyday life, you cant have a decent Barbarian outing with all those rules hanging over your conscious, you know rape is a natural thing in the animal world animals do it all the time, and that thing about your neighbors wife whats with that? people need to share more, if you dream about your town being sacked and pillaged by Gay Vikings then there is something very wrong with you, to even think Gay is wrong. to think any impure wrong thoughts is wrong. face the fact you can not serve two masters! you are either for or against and there is no sitting on the fence, so the fact is if you side with Hillery then you serve Satan, you side with Satan, churches that side with Hillery serve Satan, in the name of God but serving Satin, its one or the other you cant have it both ways, there is no in between, you do however have a choice and it is your choice and nobody else's so chose wisely.
Its your eternity don'tmake your decision based on Hillery or Obama or some LGBT pervert, or any thing I have to say either its your choice and you have to pay the consequences for your decision, and nobody can tell you for sure what those consequences are. notice how a thief acts like a nice guy/gal and pretends to be your friend until you catch them steeling from you, then they act like you are a bad person, think about it! its your soul they want to steel.
There is no contradiction , both are related. You are Christian bigot and intolerant because you disrespect a religion and their belief, their sacraments , because you don't agree with theirs.
What really funny about all the RWNJ's bashing Hillary is that come election season 2016. This will be a major talking point, that will sway alot of people.
Either the GOP nomination will be against gay marriage and get blown out on election day. Or the GOP nonimation will (just to get votes) agree with gay marriage and many of the people here bashing Hillary today will suffer from exploding head syndrome. Because they are gonna get blown out in 2016!
The Bible says homosexuality is a sin. It also says "Judge not, lest ye be judged", and something about some guy(Jesus?) kicking the money changers out of the temple. In the same book (Leviticus) as the sex reference, it also said not to eat shellfish, but since you like your lobster and shrimp cocktail, that one doesn't count. Regardless of what you think, this is not a theocracy. There are already too many of them now, and another one would be a big mistake.
mruseurhead --- i am sorry for your loss. losing an offspring is truly the worst thing that can happen to any parent. i did not notice your avatar as being any race or nationality, only a baby. all that being said, i still think you're a right wing crank.
I hate this sinful world...... as for me, I will follow Jesus, and read and follow His Word... Remember... "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"
"Not that you wouldn't have wanted to own slaves, thats your heritage"
Apparently, it's in YOUR heritage 2. This site won't let me post the link, but U can go 2 the site yourself. It's called The Root. From the home page, click on 100 Amazing Facts About the Negro. U want 2 read the 3rd story down titled Did blacks people own slaves?
Go ahead; I'll wait.
"My AVATAR is of my great grandson, who died of SIDS, and whose LOSS I still grieve."
My condolences.
don97524,
I'm certainly not uninformed. Illegal immigrants already vote in many states because many states only require a valid drivers license at the polling booth, drivers licenses that have been obtained with false identifications. It's not your civics class that will uphold the law. It is often however scheming "progressives" manipulating the law for illegal votes. That is the reality.
I, for one, am in favor of equal rights within the law. I am also in favor of managing the revenue funds of the Federal Government with the same equal sharing. That is not what is happening with the spending allotment for these two specific groups. Their contribution does not match the assistance received.
Why should LGMTs or illegals be receiving more with Federal assistance then the rest of the population, especially when you are championing their cause for equal rights? It's because "progressives" want those liberal leaning votes. That is the only reason. You're buying those votes with taxpayer funds. You also demand unquestioned voting loyalty for the financial assistance you claim to be giving. The problem is, it's not your money you freely give these groups to buy those votes.
For me the entire issue bils down to just one idea. Why do we have to ask the government for permission to marry? That's the point of this whole debate. Should the government ALLOW gays to marry? I want to know, who gave the Government the right to say no? Remember when it was against the law for whites and blacks to marry? Didn't anyone raise this point then? Why does the Government control marriage? And how absurd would it be to raise that control up to the level of the Federal Government?
As for Gay Marriage, if you think that gay marriage is a sin, then don't get one! Otherwise, it is none of your business.
Potato I don't care what you think of me........just as you judge me RACIST and you don't know me.
I have a family that represents races of all Nations, and each of these family members are loved and and a precious member of a proudly diverse family.
My "political" beliefs have nothing to do with how I feel about race.
I was a Democrat when I was younger.........but now reject Democrats....... mostly due to the HYPOCRISY displayed by a Party that CLAIMS........they are "the Party that cares".
Instead what I have seen is a Party ....(democrats)...that are quick to call people names...... simply because they do not believe as YOU do.
Teabaggers, racists, homophobes.......whatever.............this is CARING, this is compromise?
You want debate, you want compromise...... then FIRST STOP THE NAME CALLING....once that starts LISTENING ENDS.
I have lived a long time and have learned that TRUTH is somewhere in the middle of the road, neither left or right........................and I also believe EVERYONE has the right to judge..... what is truth.
Whoa - in 2008, the conservative mantra was Obama would lead us to Armageddon .. when did it switch to Hillary Clinton?
I find it amusing that most the liberal posters of the day have no problem completely overlooking how the Clintons, both of them, were all over 'Traditional Marriage' as an issue like a pig in crap back when they were in the White House. They use to laud their anti-gay marriage position when they ran for office.
Remember DOMA? That was 100% Bill's idea. I love how people (who generally support said politician because of party) have such short memories when it comes to anyone that has been in office at or more then a decade.
I'm for the Rand Paul solution. Remove Marriage from the tax code and everything else at the federal level. Then lets see how quick the legalization move would be. Treat everyone equal, straight, gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgendered, AND married and unmarried alike.
Ummmm......we really don't give a crap whether your silly cult recognizes divorce, remarriage, mixed-race marriage, or same-sex marriage. We'll certainly point and laugh at your bigotry and ignorance but since your cult's rituals have no impact whatsoever on legal marriage, those rituals are completely irrelevant to marriage.
We only care that you, just like the racist Mormons and racist Southern Baptists 50 years ago, are seeking to use our secular government to impose your sharia laws on everybody else......even Americans who aren't members of your silly cult.
We care that you confuse a legal contract with an irrelevant religious rite and want to violate the 1st Amendment.
We care that greedy bigots like you want special rights and privileges for yourself but want certain other Americans to be treated as 2nd-class citizens who are denied those legal rights.
Yes, you are misinformed. No one can vote unless they are registered to vote. No one can register to vote unless they can prove citizenship.
Cniht
Bob Barr authored and introduced introduced it to the floor on the House of Representatives to vote back in 1996. Don Nickles brought it to the Senate. It wasn't 100% Bill's idea, but he certainly was in support of it. Back in 1996, this was a pretty bi-partisan issue.
Of course, that was almost 17 years ago. I would hope in 17 years, some opinions would change. I look at opinions I had 17 years ago and wonder what was going on in some cases, but some have stayed the same.
That's also Rand Paul's solution for other civil rights issues too.......Rosa Parks can sit at the front of the bus, but only after the government stops providing bus service.
Apparently for both you and Rand Paul, government regulation of marriage only became a problem when gays wanted the same rights you have.
That's flat out ignorant, since DOMA was authored by Republican Bob Barr with the intent that the GOP use it as a wedge issue against Clinton. It had a veto-proof majority in both the House and Senate, and every single Republican voted for it except for the only openly gay Republican, Steve Gunderson.
Don97524,
I live in a SW state with many illegal immigrants. I've hired many as long as they had a valid ID. Many had drivers licenses. All had false identifications. Many voted. Are you really that naïve to think that this doesn't happen?
mruseurhead --- you just said everyone has the right to judge, yet you get upset when i judge your right wing comments. for someone who believes the truth is somewhere in the middle you certainly are far right of the middle. you don't seem to have any trouble castigating the left and calling them names, but get upset when it comes back. i have a bit of trouble swallowing your belief that you're anywhere near the middle. btw, sarah palin has got to be one of the most ignorant politicians on either side. at least hilary has a brain.
Mruseurhead
You reject the democrats because of "HYPOCRISY" and instead join the republican party?
Wow... do you know what the word "HYPOCRISY" means? Because if you did, I doubt you would join republicans.
Shall I list the countless GOP senators and congressmen who condemned homosexuality, then were caught in homosexual affairs?
Perhaps you would like to discuss good 'ol Rush, and his feeling on drug addicts... until he was found to be one himself.
Or we can talk about Sarah Palin, who is completely against sex education and believes that people need more religion and "family values" to keep their teenagers from getting pregnant... how's Bristol doing?
Still not enough? Let's look at policies. Republicans HATE paying for welfare, and want to reduce it. How many times did they try to ban abortion over the last 4 years, which would INCREASE the welfare population? So one of their policies directly contradicts the other. Ok, that may not be "hypocrisy"... it's just plain stupidity.
Don't forget, republicans scream for "smaller government"... which apparently means MORE government in your marriage, telling you who you can love. And MORE government spending in the military. Is that not hypocritical?
What about the republican governors who complain about federal spending in emergency aid for states, but then turn around and request it when their state has an emergency?
What about Rubio, their new golden child, who used college grants himself but wants to get rid of the program now?
In fact, if you look at ANY list of the top hypocrites of the year... it is ALWAYS full of conservatives.
If you don't like "HYPOCRISY", perhaps you should take an honest look at your own party.
shrekk is this comment I stated what you support?
No reason to discriminate on age or gender -- At what point are you infringing on the rights of the pedophile? If a 40,50,60 year old man or woman wants to marry a 8 year old boy or girl there should be no problem in your eyes. If a teacher wants to date/marry their student why should the law infringe on that liberty?
Other countries marry at much younger ages.
Yep lets have no boundaries or laws and see how far down the sewer we can go.
So no laws right?
"sarah palin has got to be one of the most ignorant politicians on either side"
McCain found out.......U lose elections when U shoot yourself in the foot.
"Or we can talk about Sarah Palin, who is completely against sex education and believes that people need more religion and "family values" to keep their teenagers from getting pregnant... how's Bristol doing?"
(snicker) Keep goin' mguy. U R on a roll!
You can have laws but they have to apply the same to everyone and they have to have a legitimate secular purpose. In other words our secular laws can't be used to enforce the sharia laws of your silly cult, without violating the 1st Amendment. And you can't give special rights and privileges to straight folks while denying those rights to gays, without violating the 14th Amendment.
That's why you bigots keep losing on this issue in court. In fact, you've lost every single court case to date on DOMA and Prop h8.
No, actually back then I was voting Republican, making bets that the Republicans would be the first to declare that Government should not have the right to regulate marriage. You know, smaller government, less intrusive in people's lives. Personal responsibility and freedom?
Man, I miss THAT Republican party.
Randy-840072
Because those laws are already in place in terms of age of consent. I am always surprised when gay marriage discussions delve into the topics of pedophilia, zoophilia and everything else that usually don't involve 2 consenting adults over the age of majority.
Potato......What name besides "hypocrite" did I use...I scrolled back quickly and re-read my post and do not see........... "names".
At times,........ I will use... uninformed ...even ignorant, but I did not even call you a "racist" when you were unable to see my great grandson was not "white".
Sarah Palin was intelligent enough to be elected and Govern a State, and find it "presumptuous" of liberals posting here, whose only "great accomplishment" is being able to TYPE, presumes they are "smarter" based on a "characterization" of Sarah Palin.
ADVANCED by a liberal media in an attempt to ....discredit her.....like the "interview" they did during the campaign.....and then "cherry picked" HIGHLIGHTS of that interview......to discredit her.
Again ADVANCED by media hacks who only accomplishment is being ALLOWED..... media...... "face time".......simply because they are ADVANCING..... liberal TEMPLATE....true or not....
look at archives..... of liberal HIT PIECES on Sarah Palin........liberal media HACKS even took shots at her family and.......... autistic child.......classy.....and very DEMOCRAT.
But Liberals don't like laws they want to be free to do anything.
Used to not cuss on TV but now you can. World was a better place and now its degenerating into the sewer.
16.7 Trillion in overspending 253 billion in the month of Feb. alone and cutting 42 billion a year (according to the CBO) and all hell breaks loose.
This country is over spending, over eating , over sexing to the point of kaos but we keep passing more laws to keep going down the toilet even faster.
Potato....what I wrote was......"everyone has the RIGHT to JUDGE what is TRUTH"....not others.
GA Repojam,
"Because those laws are already in place in terms of age of consent. I am always surprised when gay marriage discussions delve into the topics of pedophilia, zoophilia and everything else that usually don't involve 2 consenting adults over the age of majority."
Exactly! Apples & oranges.
Randy, you think the liberals want to get rid of the laws, and you're all,"keep the laws". Do you feel the same way about gun laws? Gay marriage and pedophilia have nothing in common. Much more heterosexual pedophilia than gay.
"Gay marriage and pedophilia have nothing in common."
Agreed.
"Much more heterosexual pedophilia than gay."
I don't believe I can agreed with this, John. Remember Sandusky? The Catholic priests? jussayin'
Randy-840072
This is a non sequitur. I fail to see how liberals, homosexual marriage, cussing on television and deficit have to do with anything, but I'll go ahead and break it down.
Liberals are often after many laws, in the case of gun control, which has nothing to do with homosexual marriage. Cussing on TV is still due to lax enforcement by the FCC, which has its directorate appointed. I don't believe every one of them has been liberal or conservative in the last 25 years. It also has nothing to do with homosexual marriage.
Government spending comes from both sides, is not against the law, and has nothing to do with homosexual marriage.
I find it odd in one statement that you state liberals don't like laws, then follow it up with more laws being a problem. Unless you're blaming the current crop of laws on conservatives.
Would you like to walk the comment back to the topic we were discussing of homosexual marriage leading to all sorts of other unrelated topics? Oh, it appears we did just that. Cheers.
Hillary is positioning herself for 2016 primaries, plotting...
good for America to have altruistic Hillary as President, maybe not for Hillary herself - tiring and hurting her health
Might just be the stupidest thing anyone has ever posted.
I'm sure Hillary probably wishes she would have married a Buddhist muslim black Indian of Irish descent lesbian rather than Bill.
Dear TeaBagNutSac's,
You're going to need a bigger boat.
Signed--Clint Eastwood's, Chair.
Who gives a sh*t what the heinous hag has to say? Hint: Only the irrelevant liberal echo chamber slugs like Pigotry and Fiesty that's who.
Pigotry ........Hillary's health problems are because of her "stand by your man" syndrome, and the fact she allows herself to be USED by the men in her life, for the sake of advancing liberal agenda and covering up the TRUTH.
She has been eating "excrement" sandwiches served up HOT by her own Party......silently.
Excrement sandwiches such as helping covering up her husbands "indiscretions" for the sake of the Party.
Stepping aside when she believed it was "her time", not Obamas and saying nothing for the sake of the Party.
And basically "falling on the sword" for Benghazi......for the sake of the Party.
The best advise from the best, Hillary Clinton 2016 !!!
When one rules one wins "Harry Reid VP" !!!
The Ragtag TeaPubCons are going down !!!
An exemplary political tart (term of endearment, not meant to be derogatory) if ever there was one, and aspiring young politicians would do well keeping an eye on her chameleonic dexterity. She is no iron maiden or a lady by any stretch of the imagination but nevertheless a first American woman president material.
Actually, you care. You cared enough to come here and comment.
Have a nice day!!!
mruseurhead --- i thought hilary's health problems were due to a fall and concussion which cause double vision. you must be able to read minds like the great dunninger. also something you might want to put in your memory banks. as for you claiming you couldn't possibly be racist (yet you virtually acussed me#1.117) most historians agree hitler knew he had some jewish ancestry yet he was the worst anti-semite to walk the earth.
@Dennis; No, you are wrong the Gays do not have to have the Governments permission to marry its about the benefits and that is the so called rights they are after its all about the money, your money another entitlement that will cost the tax payer money, hay if two people share a home not in a relation ship should one get benifits from the other if one passes away? no, and if you cut out spousal bennefits for everyone you will see this issue dissapear, its about the money and nothing more its another hand in the cookie jar and I'm tired of it. scenario Brucie and Johnny share a house so they can play with each others privates, while Jim and Bob share a house for financial reasons, because Brucie and Johnny play with each others privates they deserve money from the Taxpayer if something happens to one or the other, while Jim and Bob go unprotected its endless do not open Pandora's box it will consume you, entitlements were started in a time when wives stayed home and raised the family, they were created with the family in mind, times have changed lets dump the program and give to each their own. no more freebies for only part of the population that is what will be down the road, the rest of the picture. no one will get a free ride, no one should. now ask yourself what the hell does sex have to do with entitlements, and you can bet that if this thing about gay marriage goes through then the move to end spousal entitlements will be addressed and will become a fact the only SS benefits that will remain for wedded couples will be for children till they are 18 years of age. it will mark the end of social benefits for a lost spouse, it will have to because things will eclipse the system. now if Brucie and Johnny won't to protect each other let them buy insurance. this socialist crap will come to an end because it has to. another 3% will turn into another 6% them 12% and no choice but austerity, jerk the rug out from under everyone, social programs were ment to be safety nets not a way of life. I don't give a damn what the gay people do but if they want to get paid for it through entitlement packages then I will support ending entitlements for all spousoul claims, unless children are involved, thats a fair trade. and no gay adoptions a role model of each sex not one.
Hillary announcing she's suddenly backing gay marriage is proof positive she's contemplating a presidential run in 2016.
A surprise? Hardly.
Randy....we are talking about the rights of TWO CONSENTING ADULTS being able to marry who they choose in THIS COUNTRY. We're not talking about other countries and we're not talking about small children and animals...both of which cannot give legal consent. I don't think I can make that any simpler for you. Get it? Stay on topic.
Say "I" if you want smaller government!!!!!
less spending
less regulation
less bedroom/ marriage invasion
less utero invasion
JUST LESS. Everything the government gets into...just gets worse. GO AWAY.
Recent bumper sticker sightings:
Who really gives a F-CK about the squatting cow, or the fricken gays?...Just the other gays, throw em back in closet...So fat a$$ hillary approves..well then maybe her and ellen degenerate should run on the 16 ticket, that would make us all feel warm and fuzzy...
Still on that Potato...I got over you...awhile ago and moved on. Hillary took a "fall" alright. Worked pretty well....she couldn't "testify" until recovering....which allowed the uninformed to forget and move on as well.
Then when she did "testify"...."what difference did it make"?
And whats with the "hilter" comment?....................a bit confused are we potato?
What ......my great grandson heritage is Africans American, .....but I'm (in your eyes).....some "closet racist" based on some "hitler theory"?
And let me guess in your "theory", I am "conservative"...... so I can't possibly......... not be racist?................reaching a little .......are we potato?
And why........ are we "reaching" potato....a "conservative" such as I, who has a racially diverse family.....and they are LOVED and cherished equally by me......... does not "compute" in your liberal mindset?
There is a great big World out there potato...BEYOND YOUR LIBERAL BUBBLE.....NOTHING IS "BLACK AND WHITE".
I'M SHOCKED, SHOCKED I TELL YOU!!!!!
Humpty-Dumpty Hillary is for gay marriage. What a revelation!
Next thing you know she'll be for free contraceptives for bimbo college students so they can bang whoever they want. Of course the low-information voters on the left believed the propaganda about needing $3,000 for 3 years of college for birth-control, even though you can get Sprintec 28 generic for $9 a month. Those nasty facts just keep getting in the way of Liberal indoctrination.
This should come as no surprise from the Liberal/Progressive Party of hypocrisy.
I suppose Humpty-Dumpty Hillary can also justify her little girl Chelsea buying a $10.5 million condominium in New York.
I’m sure all of the unwashed masses and 99%ers can relate to a couple needing a 4,967 sq/ft condo unit with 4 bedrooms, 6 ½ baths, laundry room and media room. The master suite has 2 baths and two dressing rooms.
But hey, at least they’re keeping their loyalties in order, “The Whitman” development is owned by the plumbers
uniongoonion.What should be even more of an outrage for the Party of the “little guy” is that her husband is a co-founder of a (GASP!!!!!) hedge-fund! Isn’t that one of those occupations only the evil, mean, nasty, rich, GREEDY people have?
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!
You Libbies are pathetic.
Marriage is a state mandated issue. Not a word is mentioned in the Constitution about marriage, civil unions or other partnerships. The Tenth Amendment does however implicity apply, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Marriage is not commerce, war, or taxation. It is unrelated to money, the post office, the patent system, or any of the other enumerated powers of the federal government. Its regulation is neither necessary nor proper in pursuit of those powers.
The Framer’s had no desire to settle such matters, and they did not wish a future Congress to do so either. The Constitution they wrote left only two choices. Either allow the states to regulate marriage, with, perhaps, federal consequences to follow, or else return marriage to the people, to individuals, families, churches, and communities. Either approach would be consistent with the Constitution.
Just as Congress can’t prohibit same sex marriage, it must be concluded that Congress can’t establish it, either. The only way to allow the Federal government to have this authority is by simply amending the Constitution as it defines. Whether the states must all recognize same sex marriages as a matter of civil rights law, unrelated to the 10th Amendment, is a question the Supreme Court may soon address. This is the beauty of our system of “checks-and-balances” and must be adhered too.
Our Federal government has enough problems abiding to its mandated responsibilities such as creating an effective and responsible budget, maintaining a prosperous and sustainable economy and protecting our borders, among other things. The fact that we have allowed our Federal government to intrude so much into the State’s and People’s Rights is why we have the cluster-f**k occurring in our three branches of government. To burden it with this is not only unconstitutional, it’s irrational.
Federalism demands that dual sovereignty, between the Federal government and the States, be maintained. It is the pillar of how a Republic form of government functions. Remember, we are not a Democracy, we don’t want to be a Democracy, the Greeks can tell you how many times it ended up in mob-mad injustice and tyranny. The fate of Socrates should frighten anyone wishing for any form of Democracy other than our Representative Democracy which simply means we have periodic free elections.
But of course, Liberals don’t want facts, their solutions are based on emotions rather than policy. This is why our great Republic is collapsing around us.
Liberalism/Progressivism is a disease and must be eradicated as soon as possible.
mruseurhead --- if you got over me, why are you answering my post. i noticed you're back to the name calling again like you accuse the democrats.
You cared enough to comment. What does that tell you?
Good, with all else being equal between gay and heterosexual couples uniting, call it something else besides a marriage. One is a same sex and the other is not. This is a major distinction (or difference, if you prefer) between the two, whether you accept it or not.
earthpig (#1.144), oink....I can't believe there are other Pigs here. But I disagree with your pignorant comment.
If you are earthpig, then I must be skyPig (the flying pig...I mean I am the pig who flies.
"Benghazi - Contra GATE"...what the hell does that even mean?
Da Noid (#1.146):
Don't even pay attention to that lDO IDiOt, who has copied and pasted the same nonsense many times over already.
pigotry --- good one!
Again what name????
Uninformed..........ghastly! ..........
It was you who mentioned Hitler .........so that can't be it.
Oh I know .........I called you a "liberal"..... I agree that is....insulting.......... sorry.
Understand completely............again sorry.
Another recent bumper sticker sighting:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Da Noid..."Benghazi - Contra GATE"...what the hell does that even mean?
Exactly what it means....watch for breaking news when the "survivors" talk their heads off about weapons transfers. That is why this administration and Clinton have been cloaked on the issue.
Pigotry......are you really trying to be Ed Matthews on Newsvine ? You know, he was FIRED.
Later this year the Supreme Court will hear the case of United States v Windsor. The case will decide the whether the federal Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional or not...so if it's not a federal issue then we can just skip that and repeal DOMA, right?
Marriage may not be spelled out in the Constitution. However, we have the 14th Amendment that includes the "equal protection" clause...that all must be treated equally under law. So, if we deny equality of same-sex unions to heterosexual unions do we have equal protection?
mruseurhead --- your apology accepted!
JimSpence
That boat sailed on September 21, 1996 when DOMA was enacted.
I suppose I have to be more specific in my question.
What does Benghazi have to do with guerilla fighters in Nicaragua in the 1980s?
It simply means the ignoramuses never read a single report and decided to use it as nothing more than fodder for their do nothing, no direction, deflection campaign issue that fell flat.
On the bright side of the republican party, their crazy people acting crazier (cpac) results, they shunned the very man that led the polls taken for republican most likely to succeed in 2016, Chris Christie, and decided amongst their dwindling numbers that Rand Paul would be their choice to run in 2016.
On the bright side of the democratic party, although Mrs. Clinton already has a tremendous lead in all the 2016 polls, this was a very wise move on her behalf should she run. Not only is it the correct decision to make, it will also strengthen her victory in 2016.
That's what the racists in the southern states said, that mixed-race marriage wasn't a marriage.
The question you bigots have to answer for the court is whether the government has any legitimate interest in the relative race or relative gender of one's spouse. So far none has been found.
earthpig
By your logic perhaps we should also give a different name for marriages carried out in a religious context and those that aren't after all there are differences, then perhaps a difference between a Hindu marriage and a Christian marriage needs to be made up after all there is a difference, would you also think its OK to have a difference in name between the marriages of whites and non-whites?
Marriage is a marriage regardless, its where two people who love each other make a public commitment, there is no need to make a special name. No logical reason at all.
Oh, we have not heard the last from this one. This is only the beginning.
No more Bush's
No more Clintons
No more Dynasties.
I dream of a time when candidates are elected based on qualifications other than... simply being able to stand in line the longest.
I love it...the Clintons are pro-gay marriage.....uh, wiat a sec, DOMA was written and passed during their administration. Guess I gotta get out my old CD of The Flip-Flop Bop!
If you are a secular humanist/evolutionist why would you care about "marriage" at all since it is a tradition of religion the world over? So why would you feel free to "force" your view of "marriage" on someone who believes in religion at all? What gives you the right to "force" your view or practice on anyone for that matter? If you believe in evolution you must believe the species will somehow be advanced by gay unions as some future form of reproduction. So again if you believe in evolution then what do you care about "marriage" or what some religions think or practice? Lets just watch the evolution of the species and see what is next shall we? In the mean time religion is the source for "marriage" not the government. It is now the practice of the governments to acknowledge the religious institution of "marriage" and extend it to civil ceremonies and unions. But "marriage" originated with religion period. In fact many religions believe God ordained "marriage" as a way to perpetuate the species and teach us something about unselfish living.
If Hillary Clinton is for gay "marriage" it would figure since she views "marriage" as a means to political ends. Here relationship with Bill is widely know as a political union.
Next
Hillary Clinton is a political whore. She will say,do, or latch onto anything for her ambition. The way the Democrats kicked her to the road and offered full support to an inexperienced opportunistic Senator from Chicago is a true slap in the face. The fact is she ran a good campaign,had full Labor Union backing,then suddenly it all shifted to Obama?! To heal the sting,the Obama camp offered up an "olive branch" Secretary of State appointment. And Hillary took it,had no experience at it and none was expected. Afterall when she failed she would be a non-threat in the '12 primary. Hence Benghazi. She was their to take the fall and Bill (Billdo) Clinton would tell her how to spin it. You know like a blow&ob isnt sex! Afterall he's the Master and you are the sheep!
krestov...
Then by your logic, the government should have no business making a distinction between gender or race.
...so if government can acknowledge the religious institution of "marriage" and can extend it to civil ceremonies and unions why should it not extend that acknowledgement to unions of same-sex couples?
That is the question that is ultimately being asked.
Here's a thing that I find interesting about the gay marriage debate...
Many conservatives are now calling the federal and state benefits of marriage a "handout."
What's odd is that I saw almost no conservatives calling marriage a handout prior to the gay marriage debate. So, I'm just curious why it's suddenly a handout now that gays and lesbians want to marry.
On the same line of reasoning, many conservatives are suddenly concerned about the word "marriage" being used by people whose marriages are not sanctioned by their God. However, when atheists and non-Christians were getting married before, I didn't hear any conservatives complaining about those people using the term "marriage." So, I'm just curious why now that gays and lesbians want to get married, they're suddenly worried about who uses the term marriage.
Could it be that these arguments have literally nothing to do with "handouts" and the term "marriage" and literally everything to do with specifically picking out gays and lesbians? That, by the way, would quite literally be the definition of prejudice/discrimination toward gays/lesbians. But.. no, no.. these people are not homophobes. They just don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle and don't appreciate being referred to as bigots. I mean, they want certain rights to be denied specifically to gays/lesbians even though by their own reasoning those rights should also be denied to others that they have no problem with. But, really.. it's not prejudice/discrimination/bigotry..
Love it all you want, but note that when progressives change it is toward freedom and justice. Conservatives .... not so much.
As Martin Luther King, Jr., told us, “The Arc of the Moral Universe Is Long, but It Bends Toward Justice”
earthpig
Not at all marriage is marriage period, and becasue there are federal laws governing over 1000 rules, statutes and laws related to marriage it must be involved in this instance.
Pigotry...
F_ck-off. I'm making an honest debate point. You're either too stupid or fanatical to realize this.
Ohhhh, now I see why ole Bill needed a BJ.
Mruseurhead: for a straight man you seem very interested in the gays... Do you know why there even are activists for gay rights or are you really that dense? They don't want to be activists for the fun of it.. Activists arise for a CAUSE. America has been led to revolutions because of activism for a CAUSE. The LGBT community has a CAUSE of fighting for equality since their marriages aren't acknowledged by some states. They are trying to gain equal rights to that of straight couples as far as acknowledgment etc goes... What is there really to explain i thought this was self explanatory. Where do you live? Are gays REALLY cramming it down your throat? Please. I live in the wonderful state of CA where many gay couples live amongst us straights and they never cram anything down my throat! They only want to be equals and until there is equality, there will be a CAUSE in their community to be active about. Do i really need to explain this? Also to address these people asking who cares what she thinks: Apparently you haven't been reading the news because word is that Hillary will try to run as democratic candidate for president. I am all for it I love Hillary she would be a wonderful president. The media is letting you know what kind of platform she is running on and how she sides on important issues of the day.HILLARY 2016!
Krestov...
That I can accept. But then when you consider the government, race, and gender, your logic falls apart.
Jim spence: Please address why my birth control costs 100 dollars for a months supply? You complain about the govt wanting to pay for our birth control why don't you complain about the complete rape of the consumer by the pharm corporations... are you telling me it is ok to charge 100 dollars for 21 pills and 7 sugar pills? You fu*kn kidding with me? Also do YOU want to pay for all the children born to poor families for lack of birth control assistance? Our nation is overcrowded as it is wouldn't you agree? I mean we clearly have to many people and too little jobs so lets just add to the mess right? Also hillary and her family can have nice things they all worked hard regardless of how they got there. The difference between rich dems and reps are that the dems want everyone else to have basic rights to social services healthcare etc. They don't mind paying a little more in taxes because they recognize they have so much because of the people be it consumer or tax-payer. The rich repubs want to hoard all their money and rape the consumer and the worker. There in lies the difference.
It generally doesn't. That's what heightened scrutiny is all about. Only when the state has a compelling interest is it permitted to make distinctions based on race or gender, ie to correct institutional discrimination.
That's what you bigots don't realize yet.......all of the anti-gay legislation you guys have passed is proof to the court that sexual orientation should be treated with heightened scrutiny. You've really shot yourselves in the foot on this one.
Civil Unions is the best thing for everyone, equality all around, even if you do approve of the acts they perform.
this rant has nothing to do with gay marriage..don't care its not my problem or issue and I have no say in it anyway it seems..but....I CAN NOT STAND HILLARY CLINTON !..her opinions are totally meaningless , she will flip flop on any subject for HER own narcisistic convenience....PLEASE Hill & take Bill with you to a retirement home for bovine manure artist.. GO AWAY your both nothing but 2 greedy lowlife trailer trash lawyers (scum of the earth) in expensive clothes and a BIG BIG part of the moral decay of the USA in so many ways that are didviding us as a nation...you have both done enough damage...just shut up and go away forever , please do something right for once for this country and do us all that favor...and I'm tired of the fools who think the Clintons are so wonderful....NAME ONE POSITIVE THING THIS ABHORENT FUGLY WOMAN HAS DONE FOR THIS COUNTRY ????? , that is not an out right fabrication and a complete myth of their own making..just 1 ...bet ya' can't ? same goes for Bill
Unconstitutional!
BUCK douche: What the fu*k are you blabbin about marriage entitlements?? YOu conservatives need to stop flinging this word around since clearly you don't know how to use it. Are you speaking of tax benefits? exactly how are gays gettin entitlements if they are average working americans? Also, does that mean straights get entitlements? How do you know why each gay couple decides to get married? Do straights only get married for money? If so what is the difference between straights and gays getting married for money? I know, because one couple is gay that is why. Stop trying to veil your homophobic leanings with the good old dumbass conservative mindset of entitlements. The more you guys say this word the more ridic it sounds. I am 25 years old and i will be paying for YOUR entitlements once you get so old you need medicine to keep you alive so i should be the one pissed off at you and all your old conservative friends that need to die off. who cares about social security death benefits social security is almost all used up! Again I should be the one complaining since i will not reap any benefits from social security. YOU WILL! I SHOULD BE THE PISSED ONE NOT YOU!
Shrekk...
Same thing, f_ck-off. I don't know what you mean by your "you guys", but I can tell that "you" are a pos. I'm all for gays having the same rights as heteros. WTF is your problem? The government is going to categorize it anyway, just like they do with race and gender. If you don't think so, you're a bigger fool than your comment indicates.
earthpig
I agree there and thanks for telling pigotry where to go. He/she offers nothing to the debate and I am embarrassed every-time she/he tries to comment.
I am not sure I get your point, I was merely saying there is not reason to change the name of marriage just becasue two men or two woman can get married. It seems marriage is marriage. Help me out here! Sometimes the government must wade in to ensure the Constitution is not trampled on by the states.
However I believe removing DOMA does not mean all states will have to have same sex marriage just those that do will have marriages being treated equally.
ashp,
That is the song of the pretending-not-to-be-prejudiced. "Do what you want, I just want to hear nothing about it whatsoever. Heterosexual relationship are literally a topic in nearly every movie, tv show, water cool discussion, etc. But a gay person even mentioning their same-sex partner is shoving their gayness down my throat! Holding hands is shoving gayness down my throat! Demanding equal treatment is shoving gayness down my throat! Now shut up, while I go watch tv shows in which every couple is straight and holds hands and kisses and talks about their marriage..."
Siobhan: Seriously how is all that shoving it down our throats? LOL. I just write it off as at some point in american history shockingly not too long ago the majority of citizens would say that black people and women were shoving their agenda down their throats because they wanted more equality. The people of this country have always been backwards that is why i am proud to be the dissent. I am one of the people in this country that sees gay people on a regular basis yet people that don't see gays are pissed off that they are there! By that same definition like you stated does that mean that straight people shove their agenda on gays when straights in movies kiss etc? I have no idea what goes through some peoples minds but i am glad to see just one that agrees with me. What's even more ironic is many of these people say they are christians but fail to remember the scriptures that say who shall cast the first stone etc...
Would love to hear how "the guiding principles of her faith" have shaped her "proclamation." Another politician carefully choreographing her image to serve a purpose. Sheeple - don't care what party your from.
Gordy: Civil contracts are how the government decides who is involved in a binding contract. The label marriage has been used because it had been based on Judeo- Christian definition of man and woman. However changing the criteria also allows for the correct term of Civil Unions, because it will also apply to others who are not homosexual who choose to have bonded agreements. I hope this little bit of information helps you understand the statement equality for all. Unless of course you believe only homosexual couples should have special privileges?
That's probably because there was nothing GOOD at CPAC. Same old small government, extreme right wing crap. At the very least, they could have warmed up to immigration reform and started talking about controlling their social conservative wing. But no; the immigration debate was a battlefield and social conservatives are still strong. Talking about tax reform and economic policies must be like starting World War III for them....
I could care less if God condemned homosexuality. The United States is a land of freedom, not oppression. Gay people are no different from you and me, and they deserve the rights that we have. If they don't, then simply admit that they are not citizens, and you will have your argument. And FYI: Marx said that class warfare was instigated by the capitalists, not the proletarians. Seems to me like the rich people have been living on Easy Street while the rest of us have been getting the stick; it's about damn time they feel the pain that we have felt over these past 30 years.
I frankly don't see the point in discriminating against gay people and their right to marry. Isn't marriage a part of our right to pursue happiness?? If so, why should we limit other people's freedoms; nobody is being harmed by gay marriage, which makes the right to marriage a negative liberty (one that does not infringe on someone else's rights) and therefore a policy that should be supported by ALL Americans, not just liberals. And I disagree with those who argue that it's justifiable to oppose gay marriage. You aren't necessarily a bigot (I'm talking to you, Marco Rubio), but neither are you a true American. Real Americans constantly pursue the expansion of liberty and equality to cover ALL Americans, not just members of one group or another. America does have a history of denying freedom, but it also has a history of expanding it, primarily to those whom we previously denied it. What makes marriage special is not who engages in the process but the reason why, which ought to be that they truly love the person that they are with and are ready to spend the rest of their lives with them. No real American ought to oppose gay marriage, because doing so contradicts the idea that all Americans are equal and supports the idea that discrimination in society is acceptable. The argument used to deny gays the right to marry is nearly identical to the one used by conservatives in support of segregation of African Americans. Gay marriage is the civil rights debate of the 21st century, and I gladly cast my lot in favor of it. No true God would create people and then automatically hate them; he created homosexuals as well, and they are truly loved by Him. May God have mercy on those who oppose gay marriage, for they will simply be condemned by history just as the segregationists and nativists of old.
Bob;
The problem with those unions is that they are watered down for the rights that a legally recognized marriage contract gives. Unless the law makers guarantee that civil unions will have the rules and laws afforded to those who can get married (as in opposite sex marriages), then it isn't worth the rights they say they would getting. Garnering "some" rights in the guise of "civil unions" is not the same as everyone having equal rights.
Hillary's laying the groundwork for a 2016 run. This is a politically calculated necessity, nothing more.
Tommy: On the marriage license is the term binding agreement or contract. If you leave the word marriage out everything else remains the same. Why do you believe vows are relevant and required? Does it matter if two or more of what ever number race, creed, color or affiliation choose to have bonding Civil Unions recognized by law? Let us not get off track, we are looking at the contract of unification and the benefits forthwith. This is not about acceptance of lifestyle ,but the binding contract of unification or incorporation.
P.S. Will you be the person decides who deserves equality based on your moral, religious or personal opinion?
Sounds like you've confused marriage with "holy matrimony".
Marriage is a secular legal contract regulated solely by the state, while "holy matrimony" is a bizarre religious rite which has no impact whatsoever on your marital status and is regulated solely by your favorite cult.
Just ask a divorced and remarried Catholic to explain the difference to you. That's why 71% of Catholics support marriage equality, because they understand something you don't. They also have a far better sense of justice than you do.
OOps! Who decides?
skrekk: You are always missing the message. Not talking about Matrimony. The Label as you should concede is as I said. However, if you wish to make an argument which shall be inclusive of all wishing the benefits of unification, then do so. If you only wish to promote special rights and privileges to a few that is also your right. Marriage is not a right.
A lifestyle choice is not to be considered a minority.
ashp
I have no idea why you pay so much. Maybe you should ask your physician why he is prescribing such an expensive BCP. Do you take it purely for contraception without any contraindications or do you take it for a medical condition with sensitivities or allergies to other BCP’s?
This is the problem with our current health care system. No one is informed about the costs. You just get health insurance and never ask any questions. If it was based on you paying for each transaction via a Health Savings Account or some other vehicle I guarantee you cost would come down. Ask your doctor why you need a Cadillac BCP rather than blaming your favorite bogeyman, “BIG PHARMA”!!! Or better yet, get a degree in business and health care management, become CEO of Glaxo, Pfizer or other pharmaceutical corporation and change it to your utopia of fairness.
Otherwise STOP WHINING!!!
You Libbies just wake up every day and look for ways that you are victimized instead of doing anything about it. You complain about everything and blame everyone but you don’t get involved and change it. You either want someone else to do it or you expect our criminal complacent government to do it for you. Go read about how your boy-toy Barrack Hussein sold out to “BIG PHARMA” to get Obamacare through.
No, I don’t want to pay for all the poor children born to irresponsible people. Birth control is NOT the answer to teen pregnancies, unwed mothers or other social problems. Education is. When we graduate high school seniors who read at an 8th grade level, birth control is NOT the problem. Education is. When 20% of high school seniors can’t read their diploma, birth control is NOT the problem. Education is. When nearly half of America's adults are poor readers, or "functionally illiterate” and they can't carry out simple tasks like balancing check books, reading drug labels or writing essays for a job, birth control is NOT the problem. Education is.
But of course you Libbies just keep demanding we pour more good money after bad into our failed government run Public Education system instead of admitting its failure. Corporations report they have over 3 MILLION jobs available but don’t have qualified Americans with the skills necessary to fill them. This is what you get for supporting the criminal
unionsgoonions that don’t give a flying f**k about your or your childs education as long as they get their union dues. We don’t have too many people, we have too many STUPID people that can’t be competitive because our government intrudes into every aspect of our lives. Make sure you don’t kill yourself with Big Gulps.So, “hillary and her family can have nice things they all worked hard regardless of how they got there”. Chelsea’s husband, Marc Mezvinsky, is 34 years old and has worked at Goldman Sachs before recently starting his own hedge fund.
HEY, wait a minute, aren’t the banks and Wall Street the biggest bogeymen you Libbies always complain about? So, if the Clintons use the investment and financial sectors to get wealthy it’s OK, but if Mitt Romney or, GOD FORBID, a Republican or Conservative does that they’re mean, nasty, greedy, fascists, right?
Hypocrite!
To your point about your sterling comparison between “rich dems and reps”, I wonder how many homeless people Chelsea and Marc will take into their little condo? With nearly 5,000 sq/ft between the two of them they should be able to take in a dozen or so, don’t you think?
BTW, why should anyone pay more to our criminal government when in 2011 it made $125 BILLION DOLLARS in improper payments? Why should anyone pay more when 23% of your sacrosanct “social services” fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve, at a cost of $123 BILLION DOLLARS annually? Why should anyone pay more for healthcare when the Institute of Medicine reported we lose $750 BILLION DOLLARS due to waste, fraud, abuse and corruption EVERY YEAR?
Go ahead, keep sending your hard earned money to our dysfunctional government for all those pretty shiny objects they keep dangling in front of you. I prefer to invest my money myself in investments I choose and to give to charities that will actually help the needy. You can keep hoping the wars on crime, drugs, poverty and illiteracy will someday work, it’s only been a few decades we’ve been wasting our time, money and effort on them. Maybe another 50 years from now they’ll improve.
I doubt it.
But I’m sure you Libbies will just keep “hoping” for “change”.
Good luck!
Bob:
I am going to assume you posited this as question, so I'll answer, which is "no', it is not, it never has been. But marriage is legally recognized as a de facto contract by all of the states as a legally recognized union affording all of the *civil* rights hitherto both in the relationship. Civil unions do not do this, no matter the fact if the "term" marriage isn't applied to it because states do not recognize anything outside of their laws regarding legal marriage (because of sexual orientation) affording the same civil rights as legal marriage to those of same sex couples. The fact that most states make this illegal for same sex couples that some states make legal, make the majority of states in violation of Article IV on the Constitution for the "Full faith and Credit" clause
Being gay is not a lifestyle, nor it is a choice. Is being straight a lifestyle choice (you can't have it just going one way)? But being gay is deemed as a choice/lifestyle by those who do not accept it and that is fine, but by law, they shouldn't be able deny those rights to the gay community for their misconceptions or beliefs. But in the remaining sentence, you go on to say it is a contract, contradicting the pseudo-question you ask of me previously; It is a contract.
Those special rights you mention are those that straight people get when they legally get married, which same sex couples do not get. All the gay community wants is to have those same rights; how is that special? Marriage is not a right, it is a choice. A driver's license is not a right, but a privilege and I can go on, but you failed to make a point with that contention. In the end, civil rights are constitutionally guaranteed but there are states and a good deal of people who feel that certain people shouldn't have the same rights as others do, when the Constitution is clear that those who would deny those rights are clearly violating that document.
bob-2476682
The Supreme Court disagrees with you. See Loving Vs. Virginia in 1967. This was about an interracial marriage. Chief Justice Earl Warren suggested it was "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men...".
It is reported in the Chicago Sun Times,(a Kennedy Family owned newspaper)that Chelsea and her husband have upgraded from a 4.5 million home to a 10 million casa? That's a quality upgrade, Chelsea had to have married well. Considering there couldnt have been any financial advice from Ma and Pa Clinton. They both left the White House after 8yrs almost bankrupt! Although morally totally,bankrupt!
Wow I did not know.
Note to self stop reading msnbc trash.
Repo: (Suggested)
Tommy: It is a choice or urge if you prefer. Without the act, there is no label. The argument is union rights. This needs to be the topic unless of course it is only your preference that needs to be addressed. There are other individuals and groups that would also like to petition for for the same benefits under the civil rights you keep harping on. The failure to take into account any other issues but your own agenda is evident.
bob-2476682
I figured that you'd catch that as an understatement. His language states it's a "vital personal right". If you say it's a privilege, that's your choice to. Case law disagrees with that statement.
I do like the deflection though, using my language and disregarding his statement. Have a pleasant day.
Bob;
What, you can't say now that being straight is a choice (I'm following your logic), when you maintain that very contention with your "urge" comment? And what are these "other groups? If your going to allude to such, please list them. Keep in mind though all "people" have equal rights, but laws of inequality are enforced in states and one on the federal level (DOMA) that actually violates those rights
Now it's your abject contention that I am somehow using a preference of mine, which isn't the points of civil rights and equal rights for everyone, yet you avoid that fact. My sexual orientation is inconsequential to what the Constitution provides in rights or "everyone" (and I stand corrected, marriage is a right as repojam pointed out), not just some or many. So, let's get myself out of the way; I am a straight married man, with two children, three grandchildren. But I really don't care about my sexual orientation, it's my own that of others are their own and inconsequential to how I treat or reflect on other people. Rights though, are afforded to all, no matter, under the law, you object otherwise using specious comments to disregard those not like you by applying semantics.
If you're contending that civil unions should afford the same rights that straight people get, then say so, but it doesn't work that way even with states that offer it. Colorado's recent passage of civil unions doesn't allow for the same rights, this is fact, as an example. But if you're worried over the definition of a word, since this seems to be where the crux of the problem is (why not just say so), then that is a incredibly weak argument, as Constitutional rights trump definitions.
Jim Spence,
Actually, there's quite a bit of data out there showing a strong correlation between easy, affordable access to birth control and lower levels of teen pregnancy. Yes, education plays a big role as well (particularly education on the proper use of birth control). But, affordable and easy access to birth control is also a necessary component of reducing teen pregnancy (and unwanted pregnancy more generally). In fact, that education isn't going to get you very far if you still continue to engage in sex (which teens do at similiar rates regardless of whether birth control is or isn't available), but don't have access to birth control.
And yes, while there are other forms of birth control, hormonal birth control is the most effective. The only other birth control that comes as close to hormonal birth control is condoms -- but that's only with perfect use and no defects. Research has shown that in practice, the actual rate of failure of condoms is somewhere around the 40% mark.
So, yes... like it or not, one of the primary things that contributes to less unwanted pregnancy, less teen pregnancy and yes, even less abortions is birth control -- of which hormonal birth control is the most effective. Thus, anyone who is honestly interested in reducing teen pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy and abortions should be behind easy and affordable access to birth control for all.
Those who are against affordable birth control are those who 1.) haven't done any research and don't realize that it's more cost effective for society than the alternatives (e.g., teen pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy, abortions, more poor, more welfare, etc.), 2.) mire themselves in their religious reasons and refuse to see that more good can come of birth control than the alternative or 3.) are too busy calling women sluts and wanting to shame women to care about frankly anything else (or, all 3).
Really? The only reason she announced her support of gay marriage is because Rob Portman got all the press this weekend. If it's so refreshing why didn't her support evolve earlier like Obama's. Who cares why they support gay marriage as long as they finally do?
Jim spence: I have no interest in becomming a CEO of anything. Absolute power corrupts absolutely to me and greed rules all in corporate affairs. It seems you know nothing about how real power and money works in this country. The average cost without insurance (btw i have) is 40 to 100 dollars. That is ridiculous and if you can stick up for ANY corporation that would charge this much for a one month supply of medicine you are truly lost and part of the problem. You and people like you are the ones that look the other way and allow corporations and the govt they own to rape the consumer and the average american. I don't know why my doctor prescribed me this but he did because i have PCOS I am guessing. Your argument about available birth control makes no sense. What exactly does education alone do? Does it stop teens or anyone else from having sex? Statistics state no time and time again. What education are you talking about? The benefits clearly outway the costs and people should have access to affordable medicine no matter what kind it is you know why? Because this is fu*king america and we take care of our people. YOu stick up for the greedy all in the name of capitalism? Does that make everything right? Hell no! You are sticking up for the wrong people. You actually might be one of those elitists pricks or imagine you are since you may be a small buisness owner hahahah. Merely a cockroach to them but keep denying that they own you because that makes sense. Also rich people can have as much money and spend however they would like as long as they give back and don't complain about the common person that got them there by buying their goods or paying their taxes. They must pay their fair share end of story. Dems hands down vote for the common to get more of the pie as we should because we live in the best nation in the world right? Our standards of living SHOULD be high since 1percent of people own 40percent of the wealth and WE gave it to them. They have multiple million dollar mansions with butlers and yachts yet WE the common are wrong for wanting a car, cable and a house? Seriously? that is why i don't shop at walmart etc since they shi* on their employees. Money walks and that is the way we rise against.
wtf- all this focus on gay marriage is insincere to begin with: It's all for political gain- it can be nothing else!
Everybody's got their undies in a bunch over so much pointless bickering on here. Just read some of these posts!
As Hillary would say: "What difference does it make??" Answer: It really makes no difference at all. We have far greater problems than all this micromanagement from the left will solve and we'd better start focusing on the big stuff soon. Worrying about sugary drinks and such is nothing compared to our national deficit, wars and REAL issues that plague us.
Spoken by someone who already enjoys full civil rights.
You'd change your tune pretty quickly if you got a $363,053 federal inheritance tax bill merely because your deceased spouse was the wrong gender.
And it's pretty ironic that the biggest bigots often have "freedom" in their screen name.
dr821 -
"I live in a SW state with many illegal immigrants. I've hired many as long as they had a valid ID." -
then I hope INS and the feds are watching this thread because you just admitted to committing an illegal act. If you KNOW they are illegal and you still hire them you are part of the problem you are railing against.
If you turned them in then they wouldnt have thier "valid" id (fake ids are actually INVALID idiot especially if you know they are fake) and they wouldnt be in town to vote during election season.
but I guess you like having employees you can pay less than minimum wage too and treat like slaves who wont complain because thats the "american" way for your type...
Marriage is no where in the Constitution.
The courts have preferred reading the case strictly in terms of race, althoughin 2007 the group Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, or GLAD, released astatement that attributed to Mildred Loving support for same-sex marriage. Afterher death, the Loving family denied that she held these views. Richard Lovingdied in 1975, and Mildred Loving died in 2008.
If you are going to use information, use information that supports your case. Being a person of color or is a lot different than a particular form of copulation.
Tommy: Don't need the affirmation of your intent as I said it is evident. Civil Unions is the term on federal level, if you wish to pursue DOMA. No need to back track about state issues and bring up federal challenges. Make your case why a certain practice preference deserves consideration and all others do not. P.S. You seem to insist on your opinion as the only one, and you choose not to admit to other lifestyles that are common knowledge. Your a smart guy. I don't think I need to spell out the implications of allowing individuals to marry on equality grounds only.
For those who are unsure of implied meaning.
cop·u·la·tion
/ˌkɒpyəˈleɪʃən/ Show Spelled [kop-yuh-ley-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
sexual intercourse.
2.
a joining together or coupling.
Origin:
1350–1400; Middle English copulacion < Latin cōpulātiōn- (stem of copulātio ) a binding together. See copulate, -ion
Dictionary.com Unabridged
bob-2476682
And Chief Justice Warren stated it was a vital personal right and fell under the right to pursue happiness.
I don't care about what either of the Lovings had to say about their relationship. They're not part of our justice system. Chief Justice Warren was. Then again, maybe you read his opinion of the majority as "it's a vital personal right unless you are gay, then it's just a privilege." This case is likely to come up again with the Supreme Court and that statement will be one of the first ones used in support of it, regardless of what the Lovings had to say in regards to it.
This wasn't about anyone's right to copulate. No one is questioning the legality of gay copulation outside of states with sodomy laws and there are no federal laws outside of what is left to the military. There aren't federal laws about copulation suggesting that missionary is okay but reverse cowgirl isn't. Saying it's about copulation is amusing when the suggestion is about marriage. Most people acknowledge there is a big difference between sex and marriage.
I would like to hear the question you dodged from Tommy though. Lets assume gays have equal rights to marry. What will that lead to? What implications do you see?
Again it is the constitutional rule of law concerning an abnormal or if you prefer different sexual lifestyle that is the question. Why has it not been allowed for gays to marry? We both know the answer to that and there is no need to pretend otherwise. If you allow Unions based on what an individuals preference is what or will there be new terms invented? Man and man. Woman and woman or will it become spouse 1 and spouse2? There has to be a definitive answer to that question. The term husband and wife is of the heterosexual vernacular and legally must be changed if it does not represent participants. Why do you continue to avoid this and what word or words will insure strange and unwanted occurrences from happening?
bob
the term husband: male partner in a marriage (as defined by Merriam-Webster)
the term wife: female partner in a marriage (again, as defined by Merriam-Webster)
so what is preventing homosexual marriage terms ? you can't define the members in a homosexual marriage as husband and husband or wife and wife ? the terms husband and wife are not exclusively of a heterosexual vernacular, they are simply implying gender and that's it. so why is it a problem to define homosexual partners in a marriage as husband and husband or wife and wife ?
explain what you mean about the "strange and unwanted occurrences".
bob-2476682
Good question. Why weren't blacks and whites allowed to marry? I think we both know the answer to that too. Did that make it right?
We invent new terms for everything every day. If we're worried about how we're going to label participants in a marriage then our problems got much worse and would likely expand to all facets of life. Since the government would be so burdened with figuring out legal terms, they can call them doohickeys and farlnobs.
I'm still waiting for your strange and unwanted consequences. Like dogs and cats living together strange? Or is it like men and chairs dancing together strange?
Too bad for you dumb bigots that Mildred Loving wrote that letter, eh?
Apparently she understood something about civil rights which your ilk will never understand. Mildred Loving understood the exact same thing that the NAACP and the vast majority of black civil rights leaders understand: "Marriage equality is the civil rights issue of our time."
Bob, you should get ready for big time disappointment when the court rules in June. Bigots like you will be just as angry as you nutballs were when the court ruled in June 1967.
So the bottom line is this: The reason hillary came out of the closet now is because the libbies had nothing but hatred for the repubs (i.e. Romney) for their flip-flopping. obummer came out of the closet and said that gay/lezzies should have equal rights and that equated to votes. Now hillary parrots obummer so that the topic will have abated by the time she is ready to stump for the prez position.
mag
That is the kind of stupid crap we try to teach our grade school children not to say.
Wrong Obama is the first gay president.
Well, this has got to have the CPACi's quivering in their shoes. No doubt, Sarah P. and Michelle B. will be booking appointments with their nearest plastic surgeons for a rack job, in the hopes of keeping their marriages safe, and supporting their cause of keeping the gay at bay.
Red,
Marcus has ZERO interest in her "rack"!
He's more into "pole-dancing"...
As long as Todd can rack it and Sarah gulps it, their marriage should survive sloppy seconds slopes.
Oh BC, imagery is everything---ahaahahahah
I love to hear you homely women spew hate at the absolutely gorgeous Palin....too bad, she's everything they're never gonna be!
BC, Now i might have to go wash my mouth out from the throw up. And that's plain sick. But hey it's all good.
Nothing more comforting than a bunch of hate filled liberals. They think they are the good guys yet they are no better maybe even less than those they criticize, but we new that all along.
Really, it is the Dems FLIPPING in place to make the gay community happy.
You "new" it all along? Something tells me there is quite a bit you don't "now".
rufnek 2001
What can I say? Sarah put it out there ... live by the image, die by the image.
No kidding eh Spider...lets see, we have Fisty jane Rottencrotch and RedDev the former classically trained adult film actress with misandry towards M. Bachmanns husband...I thought liberals were tolerant...
Like the fact that Bob is the official grammar and spelling professor on FR.
Talk, the grammar/spelling/typo Gestapo are on both sides of the aisle. It
suks.your riteit doessuk. If they have nothing to come back with, at least the spelling/grammar thing will help them look somewhat informed albeit a weak and feeble attempt.If the far right thinks it can use same-sex marriage as a wedge issue in the next few elections, they may be surprised that it could work as a wedge against them.
Conservatives tend to see the country as conservative as they are or even more so. That was actually in a poll published recently. So, right wingers see this as a clear winning issue for them, but the majority of Americans couldn't care less about what their neighbors do as consenting adults and accept sexual orientation as determined at birth.
The world is changing quickly and representatives need to represent the people who voted for them or they will find it harder and harder to get re-elected.
except this is a FR article, hardly a right leaning site...this is more concotted crap from the left to drive a wedge and then blame the right...I doubt this will be a future issue but the left will make it one...
NEXT IT WILL BE A DOG YOU CAN MARRY.......
Oh yeah...I forgot, she is already married to one.
Well, CA, why don't you sashay your little skirted heinie over to dumfux news and get your new marching orders and the latest talking points.
John, so glad you acknowled the fact that FOX is a true news station. Now, if we could only do the same with hln, cnn and mnsnc. What a great day that would be.
This is not just rhetoric from the left this is a maneuver by the left to sway the opinions of their followers the week minded liberals, and impose their wishes on everyone, and a attempt to sway the supreme court justices to interpret the law in their advantage, they have a debt to pay to the LGBT and other perverts that put them in power, just like they have to fight the voting registration law to allow illegal aliens to vote because they vote for them. this nation is stumbling around in a dark alley drunk on emotions not knowing where they are going and snarling at anything good or hopeful, you are witnessing the death of prosperity, morality and decency, you are witnessing the birth of a new era of evil, deceit, deception and narcissistic self righteousness. you are witnessing the end of things as we know them. we are in the Devils reign.
I may not agree with all their political view points and wouldn't vote for them for POTUS(unqualified)...but at least Sarah Palin & Michele Bachman are attractive women...all homely(even when she was young) Hillary(S-cankles) is going to draw are flies with that awful stench that surrounds her...both politically , physically and morally plus unqualified for the job of being POTUS....NO HILLARY IN 2016....just go and quietly retire with your fat gov't pension which she really doesn't deserve since all she did as senator & SoS was plant her big ass in an airplane seat or office chair most of the time doing nothing productive but wasting taxpayer money and scheming up another fabrication in her imagination(similar in away to what we used to call in the USAF , derogatorally"lifers" , certain NCO types that didn't do diddly except waste time day dreaming about retirement) , no more Clintons , Bushes or Obamas for that matter in the White House all are epic fails and we the people are the ones who are paying for it..we don't need no stinkin'failure dynasties running the USA anymore...or any of the other political families...all of them seem corrupt
How could she possibly advance her political career without being politically correct. This speaks volumes as to her personal beliefs and ambitions. She has no convictions and will change to whatever the crowd desires if it will benefit her future, regardless of the consequences.
Fixed it for you. Bags under the eyes that would rival a cocker spaniel and jowls that would rival a bulldog - how many more dog-like features must one display?
the
Once again, you demonstrate that your screen name "the thinker" is intended to be taken as irony.
Well DUH!
LOL, of course she does.
A lesbian is all for gay marriage....... who'd have ever thought it?
Yeah, because she must be a lesbian if she is for gay marriage. She can't be open minded and non discriminatory. Nope she's gay. Grow up people.
But, But it was the Clintons just in 1996 -- under President Cigar Bill -- and the democrats in favor and the driving force behind DOMA -- right???? Are they doing this for political expediency??? Cause if they were I would expect the left to treat these turncoats like they would call out a conservative for flip-flopping.
True story.... In 2000, a former secret service man came into my office and spoke to my then boss - an ex-captain of the local police dept. They knew each other and the secret service man was looking for some items. My boss told him he should have called and we would have sent him the items and the secret service guy replied he was in the area. Fine.... my boss went to go get him his stuff. I was at my desk and he started talking to me and I asked him if he worked any personal details for a president and he said he was part of Richard Nixon's detail. I told him I'd seen Nixon at several Met's games and he said a lot of people didn't know Nixon was a big sport's fan. He then asked me what I thought about the current President, Bill Clinton. I told him he was allright except for his extra- curricular activities. He then told me " Hillary Clinton is a bi-sexual ". I asked how he knew this. Some of his buddies were stationed in the White House - some right outside bedrooms and they heard things going on ( which he didn't describe ). He then said " Do you know who Hillary is fooling around with " ? ............. Dee Dee Myers !!!!!!! GOD'S HONEST TRUTH !!!!!!!!
No, that was Bob Barr and all the rest of the GOP, in an attempt to use gay marriage as an election wedge issue against Clinton.
No wonder you teabaggers are on the wrong side of history given that you can't even remember it.
I always believed she was gay, that's why she doesn't care what Bill does as long as he leaves her alone, and she is known to go as far as to help Bill score, very immoral people from what their associates are saying, and we still don't know who Chelsie's Father is or how that happened, but then some women don't realize they are Gay until one day when they wake up and start chasing the maid around the bedroom. or in some cases start humping the statue of a Greek Maiden in the Obama beer garden " ops I mean the rose garden. its a simple demonic possession, some of these people can turn their heads all the way around, and puke pea soup at will. as for Obama he might be a switch hitter. so these people are part of the LGBTA. A is for animal f'rs I'm being kind by not adding the P. the pedophiles used to be a part of the group but were removed because of overwhelming unpopular criticism. but to me Q is Q no distinction.
D Fuq, You're kinda reachin, ain't ya big guy? She is known to help Bill score? What planet are you on???? And lay off Chelsea, She's done nothing to you and didn't ask for your input. We could have had a field day with the Bush girls, so leave her, and the Obama girls alone. And stupid is as stupid does.
One of the House sponsors was the (now) Republican Senator Portman, who has just announced that he is in favor of marriage equality.
Do you know Hillary Clinton's position on DOMA in 1996? If not, you can't accuse her of flip-flopping. But, even so, someone who has changed his/her mind about an issue after 17 years, during there has been a sea-change in attitudes towards gays, can hardly be called a flip-flopper.
Ok I deserved that Chelsie is innocent but there is no end to the Clinton scandals from before he was president to the cigar in the oval office try researching the people the things their victims and associates say will shock you, Bill did claim to be sterile from a case of the mumps, so that raises questions, as for scoring well that's how you see it personally she doesn't stop him, and she knows about him, read the info that is available all over the web, its shocking.
President Clinton placed DOMA into law to quell the rising tide of those wanting to make an amendment to the US Constitution that said marriage was between one man and one woman, by signing DOMA he effectively defused the risk of this happening.
Who really gives a flying fudge what that bloated cow thinks anyway!
joe s
I'm glad you could add your obviously well-thought-out, brilliant comment to the thread. Well, at least I'm sure you tried your best. It was probably funny over coffee with the other morons.
Yes when your all washed up, it's time to go gay.
And when she decides not to run, we will be introduced to her "friend" of several years. The only thing that kept her going with all of Bill's philandering. Damned good closet job.
*facepalm*
"Talk", I think there's zero chance of Hillary not running. If she runs she'll be the first female POTUS. If she doesn't run, she won't be. It's really that simple. She will run, and she will not only make her mark in our history books as our first "Ms. President", she will be one of our greatest. I can't wait to volunteer for her campaign.
Wow, amazing deductive reasoning.
Puke.
folks said in 2007 that if hillary ran she would be the first woman president. then along came a guy of color and hill is thrown under the bus in favor of a man. i doubt hill will run, tooooo much baggage, but if she does what happens to biden? to castro? to someone we have not even heard of yet?
no, in any case whether she tries or not she will lose. democrats have demonstrated that they are not ready for a woman president and will do so again.
For those of you who do not know, when Hillary was sec of state, she investigated every first lady of every country in the world to scope out her competition. she was also responsible for giving Pakistan 363 million of the taxpayers dollars to improve pakistani infrastructure. Talk about feeding the terrorists? actions like this are rampant in her history as sec of state. This proves that her marxist boss obooba tried to buy a countries freindship of course you know the both belong in a "Hussein asylum".
I would not vote for Hillary for dog catcher.
I think you idiots better pay some attention to what's happening in your bedroom and stay out of everybody else's. While you're playing genital cops, Jody's over doing your homework.
billybob,
I think the why Benghazi was handled will hurt her if she decides to run.
And if you don't know who Jody is, you ain't never been in the military.
john, I spent 21 years in the military and sure as hell don't know who jody is. Why don't you enlighten us or would that tax what is left of your brain after living on drugs and alcohol your adult life.
Correction - I think the way Benghazi
If you don't know who Jody is what military were you in? The Salvation Army?
She won't get my vote if she runs. I am tired of having this wierd, perverted life style shoved in my face.
Bigot!
Simple.....Just move your face!
Who's shoving it in your face?
d its not a life style. Do you think hiding ones sexual orientation from you would really make your life better. In what way? If you are that bigoted, Hillary wasn't going to get your vote anyway.
Chilled, got to say it. Nice shot.
d in Arizona
I agree, see the love in these gay people, calling you names already......
would you compassionate liberals support polygamy
T-hee, hee Johntho!
I wonder what the "d" in arizona stands for?.....Nevermind!
Re: D in AZ: Well quit walking around at belt buckle high and then no one will put it in your face.
Everyday the news media and so many others are pushing this queer agenda down decent people throats. That is how they try to make their sick life style accepted.. The faster they fade/die/decease away the better for the Christian, moral world, we will be. Right now they are making Satan a very happy god of this system of things. (Read you bible) folks.
Guess what...it's not going to go away.
...and, really, "queer"? Feel free to join us in 2013.
Everyone should care about what Clinton has to say; she is going to be our next President. Wait and see.
If your tired of it being "shoved in your face" why not just " turn the other cheek"?
Bill K-1567373
As soon as you stop sticking your face into other people's business they will stop sticking their business into your face.
If it's getting shoved in your face, maybe your face is in the wrong place.
What does allowing gays to marry have to do with polygamy? Of course, polygamy was standard fare in the bible, therefore, you right wing bible thumpers must support it - right?
Laws banning polygamy have been on the books for over 100 years...and they have been found to be Constitutional.
see Reynolds v United States
Joe, I assume you are just being sarcastic but the answer more or less is YES! That however is not the issue at hand nor the debate. If you would like to pursue polygamy you have a lot of ground to cover to get anywhere close. First you must redefine the structure of marriage to include multiple partners. Again this cant interfere with currant laws such as under age and must be a person not a dog or toaster because that already violates laws. See that stops you right there because its already against the law. Then you must completely restructure tax code and permission's laws to account for multiple partner's. That would get you started but you have still along ways to go. I just don't see the support for it.
Plus why? I have a wife. I could not imagine 10-12 more of them. I like some peace and quite sometimes. And can you imagine the stock of Tampons you need to keep?
They don't care WHERE your face is or they think it is they will still TRY to shove it in there.
Johntho, Nobody will answer your question. It gets asked at least once in the comments for every story about equal marriage rights and I have yet to see anyone respond to the question of how allowing gay marriage will affect the marriage of a hetero couple. They just seem to think that if we have marriage equality that everybody will then turn gay and people will stop reproducing and the human race will die out. Yeah. that'll happen. D in AZ and BillK I hear the WestBorro Baptist Church is seeking new members outside of the family so it doesn't die off. Maybe you all should join up.
Da Noid,
So your point is that as long as the law has been around a long time, it is OK?
How progressive of you.
It is about time that the antiquated laws like those against gay marriage and the ones defining the age of consent be thrown out. I don't want the government making these choices for me. Maybe if you had a gay friend or a friend that likes the younger crowd, you might be a little more compassionate.
Looks like someone missed the point.
Somebody brought up polygamy...to which I pointed out that there are laws against polygamy and the Constitution supports those laws.
We'll find out this year about laws regarding same-sex unions when the Supreme Court decides on DOMA in United States v Windsor.
Noid,
Gay marriage has been illegal in the past and I believe that that laws were wrong so it is fine to ignore them until they are changed. That is what our DOJ has done. This is the progressive way. It also appeals to progressives that, regardless of your sexual orientation, you should be allowed to choose your mate without government interference or restrictive laws against it. I agree that marrying the dog is wrong, but that is my own moral judgement and should not be legislated. I also think that young women are more attractive and desirable that old hags. I'm pretty sure that every male that is honest would same the same thing. So why does the government have the right to restrict what every hetorsexual male feels from birth. It is not a choice to prefer younger women, it is something we are born with. This should sound familiar to you, as I think that in the past you have supported gay marriage and the reasoning being that a gay person did not make the choice to be gay. I have not made the choice to be attracted to younger women. Why should I be judged by the government or society as a deviant.
viking -- so Vice President Biden will not get the democrat nomination in 2016? Why do you think not?
Well, for the record, the end of that argument is that your dog is property in the eyes of the law and therefore you can't marry your dog because it has no legal standing to enter into the contract of marriage as defined by the law.
I can't help myself. He did it to himself, Bill K, I think that was the most unfortunate word choice I've ever seen. " pushing queer agenda down your throat". Boy, you said a mouthful there buddy. First time I've heard it called agenda though.
So you believe that a 17 year old high school graduate is 'entitled' to the same protection that a dog is?
I'm not sure why you would want to marry a dog, but I will freely state that I think it is wrong. It is wrong for humanity to breed with different species.
While your reasoning for not being able to marry your dog is interesting, it does not address the Christian laws that forbid a 17 year old girl from having sex with her 16 year old boyfriend. Why should there be such a law? Do you think it is right for the government to make laws that restrict who someone is allowed to love and how they are allowed to profess that love? I thought you were for gay marriage, maybe you are just a hypocrite... The government should not be legislating morality in the bedroom. That is up to the two parties involved. If it happens to be more than two parties, there is still no reason for the government to be involved. Now, if you want to throw your dog into the mix, I think you are wrong, but I don't make the laws and they should not be biased based on someones sexual desires that they are born with.
Conversations about whether or not marrying one's dog should be legal are both off point and childish. Marriage is an agreement between two adults ....... discussion about marrying dogs is a conversation between children.
There is no Christian law about that. Forget our traditional depictions from the Nativity you bought from WalMart...in the Bible, Joseph is most likely no more than 17 years old and Mary is probably 14 or 15 years old.
However, states have set an age of consent...and that is separate from the argument about whether or not same-sex unions should be treated the same way as unions between heterosexual couples. Side note...if you lack control of your attractions towards a younger person who maybe is below the age of consent there are other issues.
I am.
Unfortunately Conservatives disagree.
@ D in Arizona & Bill K....I agree! Same thing I have been saying for the longest. I don't hate on anyone but the constant push on my morals, my freedom of speech, and the Christian way of life is enough! If you don't agree with the way liberals and gays think and the gay/liberal agenda, then you are a bigot, POS, hateful, etc....and its complete bs! The liberals completely screwed up during the Vietnam era by corrupting the youth to violently demonstrate and lost a lot of "followers". Now 35+ years later, many of the same disgusting liberals have reached retirement age and have nothing better to do than to stir up the pot by pushing another fight with the conservative public and morphing our youth into their immoral process. Since they cant figure anything better to stand behind, they have taken on the gay agenda. Hillary is a liberal, through and through (better yet, a politician who flip-flops)! As a typical liberal, she will do anything or say anything to get elected. What's next Hillary? Are you going to support bestiality? Demonstrate on our troops again like you did back in the 70's? Lie some more to the public like you did about Benghazi? (that IS why you stepped down from your last post because you were afraid it would hurt your chance at POTUS!!!!!!)
Don,
You are correct. Somehow Danoid got me onto the conversation about marrying dogs. I did not bring it up, he did. I don't know why he is so interested in dog marrying.
The point is that the government should not make laws that legislate who you are alowed to marry. (Notice I did not say 'What' you are alowed to marry). If a gay man wants to marry another gay man, they should be able to, it is called giving them the same equal rights and civil liberties that the so called bible thumpers have. I also point out that progressives believe this and have historically been anti-hypocrisy. It would be hypocritical to believe that two gays should be allowedto get married and perform their own special kind of sex with each other, while restricting someone else of the same right based simply on a disparity of age as small as 2 days. (A boy who is 18 and 1 day is not allowed to have his special sex with a boy that is 17 years and 364 days old). These laws are based on some kind of moral test that must pass by the religious right. I don't see how you could be for freedom of sexual orientation but put your own moral caveats on those rights. That is called hypocrisy. Either you believe that people are free to make the sexual choices that they want (Period) or you believe that society has an obligation to restrict those activities based on some other requirement; be it religion, politics, age, or science.
All the politicians are on the side of moral bankruptcy to get votes. Makes me nauseated to read this stuff and see it on TV. Didn't these people ever go to church growing up? They are supposedly 10% of the population, but they are 90% of time spent by the media and our politicians. We need to be pushing back.
So are you saying that the government treating same-sex unions as equal in the eyes of the law to heterosexual unions is a push on your morals?
How, then, would forbidding same-sex unions not be a push by your morals onto others?
Read at least the 10 commandments. Of course everyone seems to be too progressive in their thinking now days that they think they were suggestions.
It affects heterosexual people who know the difference from right and wrong. (not all heterosexuals). We see our society going to hell in a handbasket. It was never intended for the same sex to procreate because it is unnatural. Everyone seems to think it is okay to do anything they "please." There are consequences and we will all find that out sooner or later.
PatriotJane
they say nothing about homosexuality
solely your opinion on who knows right from wrong and this is from your perspective
same thing was said for mixed race marriages too. do you agree with that ? in fact, the bible was used as support that your god intended the races to stay separate
please tell me when homosexuality equated to infertility ?
they can just as easily reproduce as heterosexuals. homosexual men can reproduce with women and homosexual women (lesbians) can reproduce with men. of course you'll state "well that's outside of their marriage !" and i'll say "heterosexuals reproduce outside of their marriage a lot as well, its not something new" and then you'll say "well they aren't attracted to that person ! how can they have sex ? " and i'll state "heterosexuals have sex with people they aren't attracted to either for various reasons - the most popular is one night stands where usually one party is intoxicated and there have been children reproduced from those unions as well" -- so where is the infertility again ?
so equal rights is everyone thinking its ok to do anything they "please" ? i'm glad you aren't in charge, we'd be back in the stone age living as Puritans.
and i love how "patriotic" you are that you are denying a group of tax-paying Americans a civil right that you currently enjoy just because you think its "wrong". i didn't know our country operated that way.
Thanks for the morality lesson, but I think nature's got that covered in the human species.
FYI...the Common Reed Frog (Hyperolius viridiflavus) has been been observed in nature to change gender with females developing male sexual organs due to what is believed to be a chemical trigger should the male population dwindle.
Why? They have nothing to do with our laws and government.
What does that have to do with marriage?
Actually, unlinke what they teach you in secular public schools, the ten commandments are the core of our modern society. Research James Madison and you'll see that he fashioned the constitution largely from biblical organization, including the 10 commandments. I know you libs would like to rewrite history to make it Godless, or at the very least try to blame all of the world's problems on religion, but it doesn't work like that.
In regards to the marriage question, the 10 commandments only say "Thou shalt not commit adultery," but there are many other passages wherein homosexuality is condemned. Marriage is, historically, a religious institution. If not for religion, the institution of marriage would not exist. Instead, us guys would just run around impregnating women like animals, and the only semblance of family units would be when convenient circumstances drew a man and woman together for brief periods of time. Thus, God commanded that man and woman be wedded, thus vowing to care for one another for their whole lives.
The real problem with homosexual marriage (from a religious perspective) is that it criss-crosses these two commandments. On the one hand, homosexuality is a terrible sin. On the other, so is heterosexuality, UNLESS IT IS WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF MARRIAGE. What homosexual marriage attempts to do is use the marriage vow to justify a type of relationship that is NEVER acceptable to God.
Now, to a secular person with no belief in God, this hardly seems important, but to one who fears God, this is a serious dilema which threatens to invoke the wrath of God, and whether or not you believe in it all, you should at least respect the feelings/opinions of those who do.
Well, when your dog can provide informed, legal consent we can revisit the issue. But, most likely, such as dog wouldn't want to marry you.
Heterosexual men can desire (and sleep with) any consenting woman that they choose. But, minors can't give legal consent.
Really, why are you homophobes so obsessed with marrying your dogs and having sex with children? Pretty sick, if you ask me.
Thank you, Falcon...but this does not change the fact that we are not a theocracy. If the only reason that anyone can cite as to why same-sex union should be forbidden or not treated as equal to heterosexual union is religious opposition then isn't that a problem?
Since someone who opposes marriage equality is not forced to marry someone of the same sex, I don't see where there's an issue at all? If you think it is wrong, don't do it. But, please stop forcing your book of fairy tales on me.
What utter garbage. Societies have had marriage around for millenia. Modern religion took the institution of marriage, peppered it with Christian overtones, and during the era when religion owned government, codified it into law, and then made sure you were very afraid of the wrath of God if you broke your marriage vows. If you are a Christian, you have every right to practice that religion and your religions view of marriage. You do not have the right to make everyone else live by the doctrine of your religion.
I have to admit, I do chuckle at your belief that God will punish you if two people of the same sex get married. What kind of God holds you accountable for the actions of others?
DaNoid, Several fish species change gender also. One I'm familiar with is snook. They are male til they reach a certain size, then they become female.Pretty neat, watching them spawn. Does that make me a voyeur?
Well put Falcon. That should draw you some hate speech though unfortunately.
There are other areas that aren't accepted now that fit into the realm of homosexuality years back. As one of the article writers below states, (paraphrased) if you hit it long enough, eventually it will be deemed normal.
And you have to read that last one in its entirety.
OMG - Patriot Jane may be on something earth shattering. I mean, Egyptians allowed brothers and sisters to marry, something we now consider 'unnatural', and look what happened to them after 4000+ years. And what about those 'unnatural' acts committed by Abraham, what with all those wives and concubines - and just look what happened to him - he became the father of Judeo-Christian AND Islam theology. Holy Sh!t Snacks!! We better get off our laurels and start executing adulterers to appease GOD.
RedDev, If you really read and try to understand the Bible, God was building a nation at the time. The reason for multiple wives and concubines having children of the same man was to accelerate the process and create more people.
And also you would know that because of their actions and the slavery and trying to control the people of Israel, they were not his favorite people anyway as they did as they saw fit and felt they had to answer to no one but the Pharaoh. See any likeness in today as we try to follow the "leader" (term used loosely) and are just touchy feely PC with everything "progressive"?
@Talk to the Hand
So the argument here is that if the government makes same-sex unions the same as heterosexual unions it might lead to a day when pedophilia becomes acceptable?
Sorry...I'm calling "Straw Man".
There is a word for people who believe that pedophilia is perfectly acceptable...CRIMINAL.
If you'll recall, states have attempted to make anti-sodomy laws. Those became unconstitutional thanks to the Supreme Court case of Lawrence v Texas back in 2000.
Holy Satanic Sh!t Snacks - didn't take long for TTTH to don his Black Man is Satan avatar. Hate to break it to ya, all knowing big guy, but homosexuality and the acceptance of it has been around far, far, longer than the APA. Fortunately for our society, they woke up earlier than most of you Bright-Barts and corrected their findings. If left up to you and your ilk, interracial marriage would still be against the law, because, you know, it just ain't natural for a white to copulate with a non-white 2/3 human.
Now Bright-Bart - back to that avatar! How long you going to run around with your Satan is a Black Man picture - because you know, someone is going to out you as a racist, and it always reduces to you to tears.
Correction..."3/5 human"
Thanks Da Noid for keeping on the straight and narrow (pun intended) - almost got caught up in the right wing game of making numbers up. See what happens when you allow gays to get married - numbers start turning 'unnatural'.
Demonstratably false! The Constituton is based on English Common Law and not on any religious ideology. I defy you to prove otherwise!
By all means, support your claim using a primary, original source!
Also false! Marriage predates religious involvement by thousands of year. religion didn't become largely involved with marriage until the 1500's. And in this country, marriage is a civil institution under the law. The religious aspect is merely ceremonial.
That's nice. Prove it! But since marriage already existed regardless of marriage, your point is erroneous and moot!
Marriage is irrelevant to marriage and vice versa!
Your god does not make or have say in our secular laws!
Your religion is also irrelevant to our laws, including our marriage laws! You know, that whole separation of church and state thing. There is no logical or legal reason to deny gays the right to marry!
If you want to fear your god like some scared little child hiding from the boogeyman under the bed covers, you go right ahead. But don't expect everyone to follow suit or believe as you do!
You seem to think your beliefs should be imposed on others or into our laws, especially at the expense of peoples rights. That's not worthy of any respect in the least! And no, I don't believe any of it, or the rest of the tripe you spew!
Actually, it's more of a slippery slope. but I get your point.
And in other news, the Sun rose in the East.
As if this is one of our most serious problems with our country. Wow, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, unemployment, high gas prices/groceries...etc. China snooping on us, Iran about ready to explode the big bomb, N. Korea laughing at us and Hillary approves of Gay marriage...This administration is a laugh!
I wonder if she is really for it or just against being against it? Kinda like her boss Obama. These daffy libs keep changing their positions nearly as fast as the National Debt climbs upward into the stratosphere. Glad we are talking about who is a flip-flopping GL fanzie and not trivial matters like unemployment, debt/deficits and threats to our national security.
And CPAC creaming their drawers over Sarah Palin with a Big Gulp
Gay marriage shouldn't have anything to do with anyone but the people who are getting married. So what is all the fuss about? My life isn't going to change if gays get marry.
And in other news, the sun rose in the East.
I agree that no one should find her stance on gay marriage a suprise. But then DoMA is a product of the Clinton era.
Michelle, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was signed by Bill Clinton. Democrats are able to see and react to changes in the opinions of the electorate. They are not the ones trying to beat a dead horse, thinking it'll get back up and carry them.
I don't disagree, John. Just stating that what ever else Clinton might have done he also signed DoMA while he was POTUS. I liked Clinton for the most part, I think over all he did a good job. A much better one then the disastrous GWB. I just dont agree with DoMA and I hope the SCOTUS declares it unconstitutional because it is. It's a group of people discriminating against another group of people based on the first groups religious beliefs. Considering the what the first amendment states (Congress will declare no religion) it doesn't get much more unconstitutional than that. Despite whatever religious beliefs the founding fathers personally held, they intentionally set out to create a republic and not a theocracy.
He only signed it because there were enough votes to override his veto, and he knew it.
Boner said "No way" on This Week. Scott Walker twisted himself into a pretzel to avoid answering Gregory's question "Is it a right?" Portman notwithstanding, you won't be seeing any positive support from the Retardlicans anytime soon.
Hillary wants some media attention now that she is no longer Sec of State. It's obvious she is courting the gay/lesbian/liberal communities to support her possible run in 2016. It's time for the Clinton Kingdom to end. We will need a younger, more energetic President of the Poor, as there will be many more poor people by that time. Obama/the Clintons are just jealous of the recent admiration the new Pope has received.
Jealous of the King of Pedophiles? Pope Frankie says relax just do it.
A vote is a vote is a vote. Meet the next POTUS. The media will see to it. Game over for 2016, except for the billions in campaign spending; mostly on the media.
Yeah because president Obama doesn't get enough attention. If the man blows his nose, it's tweeted.
There is a shock. As First Lady she was often rumored to more interested i the female staff. Several female White House aides came forward after Bill left office and talked about her "flirtatious gestures." Maybe she should try a hook-up with Rosie O'Donnel.
Navy, see #4.1 above. :~)
Navyvet, thanks for ruining my breakfast.....
Why can't more lesbians actually be attractive? I'd be supportive if most of them didn't look like Ernest Borgnine having a bad brow day.
GBA
Why is it that people with Christian-sounding, patriot-sounding screen names like "God Bless America" apparently understand nothing about Christian values or American values?
Your comments speak volumes about the kind of person you are and I am glad that I do not know you.
Here we go with more "Adam and Steve" and "Why Can't You Marry Your Dog" and "What About Polygamy" and "Straw Man Argument" posts!
This type of absurd, ignorant and hateful thinking is what costed -and will continue to cost- Republicans the presidential election.
What I want to know is why the slippery slope argument never goes the other way. By allowing the government to determine who is allowed to marry and who is not will certainly lead to a law that sex is for reproduction only and those not able to reproduce due to age, illness, no desire to have children etc. will no longer be allowed to have sex. Those caught having sex for other than reproductive purposes will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And sex will only be allowed in the missionary position or its a sin. That will eventually lead to humans being bred for only desirable traits like what Hitler wanted to do.The argument that gay marriage will lead to bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia and marrying your TV is every bit as stupid as the argument I just made.
Maybe now ole thunder thighs won't have to sneak off with Humma.
Surprise......NOT.
As bad as she is, I would rather have her in the oval orfice than that idiot that can't stay in there.
Oh no, we can not have someone like her follow what we have there now. Can you just imagine how far down she would follow Obama in to taking down the USA ?
I was looking for the first Obama bash comment of the day. You guys are so predictable. LOL
It's not only likely that future Democratic presidential nominees -- in 2016 and beyond -- will have to back gay marriage, it's likely that future Republican presidential nominees will too -- if they want to have any hope of being elected. The American public seems to be trending very strongly toward a libertarian view of government when it comes to the "social" issues, because we've observed the horrors of theocracy in many foreign lands.
Well of course she backs same sex marriage, she is a lesbian. What I don't get is why she doesn't just come out of the closet and admit that her and bill are just married for looks so he could go play with women, and she didn't have to have sex with a man all these years? Hey, its 2013.... she needs to get up to date instead of living back in the 70's. And Ophra, Clooney, Seacrest, and all the other ones too. Seems like they are being hypocritical instead of becoming a part of the LGBLT community.
That would involve being truthful and that ain't going t happen.
Amazing. A lesbian backing gay marriage.
Exactly Buff. Like, LOOK at her photo from the 70s. Not lesbian, are you kidding me? She should have avoided the power marriage ruse and declared this way back when. No story here, sorry.
Hey Feisty, like the avatar. Seems Obama does too as his hands are on top of your head.
Good one riverman. Now I know why he is smiling.
I guess the same goes for Procrustes-2100316, Caesar Augustus, Obama Lies and a host of others.
bcwc,
Where do you get your avatars? This one is my favorite.
Who cares about who marries who it doesn't make any damn bit of difference if a woman must marry a woman or man was to marry a man, let him I for one don't give a damn, we got bigger problems than trying to figure out which man want to screw which man in which woman wants to screw which woman. It doesn't make any difference. That's their lives. Let them live. It was get back to the big problem in our national debt. You can worry about who marries who later they're not that important right now and don't give me this out. If the only important if you want to damn vote we don't need to worry about their votes for another two years or four years until then. It doesn't make any damn bit of difference. Not to me or anyone else to take all your gay-rights activists bull crap and put it on the shelf right now is not the number one thing going on in this country.
The Gay/lesbian issue is just a distraction away from the more damaging issues of this country...like our economy, and unemployment. The healthcare system, that nobody wants to talk about,but just slide in,in 2014. I'm tired of paying close to or at $4.00 a gal. for gas with no explaination as to why.I bet the oil copanies have made yet another record breaking profit for this year!!........Politicians ways are to distract the general public with distractive topics, whilst slipping in sneakily their main agendas.....WAKE UP!!
It doesn't make a difference as long as they're not your civil rights being denied, right?
I suspect you'd change your tune pretty quickly if you got a federal tax bill for $363,053 just because your dead spouse was the wrong gender.
Why wouldn't Hillary be for Equal Rights, a no brainer. this is a Civil Rights Issue, what is with the right and the obsession of bedroom issues--simply none of your business along with what a Woman does or does not do with her Lady Parts, butt out. Snarky remarks regarding Hillary not welcome and serve no useful purpose. What's the point, when all else fails become a snarkmiester?
get a life
Why wouldn't she be for Gay Marriage since her own marriage has been a calamity. And how do you forgive a spouse when they can't be loyal to you or a whole country for that matter.
maybe if she liked cigars it would have been different
She seems to be shopping for a nice girl.
and singing that song MY girl
This old nag will have faded out of public attention by 2016. She is covered in moss and cobwebs. Clintonism has run its course, of course, said Ed the horse.
You won't be laughing when she wins in 2016!
The haters are out today. Being they don't have anything real to be against Hillary for, it is the old lets make up a person to hate, like they have been doing to our President for years.
No one cares about your made up lies anymore. Just because you are dumb enough to believe the proven liars that lied us to the Iraq war, doesn't mean we all are.
But go ahead listen to and believe the proven liars whose new push is to make you believe that everyone is lying but proven liars at faux.
Tell me, didn't you win the last election pushing your lies and made up conspiracy theories?
I am thinking you didn't win because of all the lies and now the republican party doesn't know what to do next so they drag out Palin with her rack to tell more lies.
Hillary and Bill used to be against gays, What happened??? I guess when you are NOT running for office you can be against anything you want!! GO AWAY Hillary you have had your 15 min. and that goes for you rapist old man too!!
"Rapist"? Well, there's a new accusation for the President. Care to elaborate?
greg, Contrary to how the GOP feels, national opinions and beliefs change, or the word you equate with the devil, evolve. If politicians can't understand that and try to make people think it's the 1950s they will fall by the wayside. The dinosaurs couldn't change with the world, and you see what happened to them. Oh, that's right. By your big bang line of thought, dinosaurs didn't exist.
Juanita Broderick, guess the left just forgets all about Bill's accusers.....
Really? So, there were charges?
...a trial?
...a conviction?
...and there wasn't an affidavit that said there was nothing?
She bases this partly on her faith. Faith in what? Certainly not God and his word because his word is very clear on this issue. I will pray for her and any of our leaders who are getting off track. This nation was founded by and for God fearing people. We need to get back to our roots before it is too late. History has shown that God, while slow to anger eventually judges the nations that turn from him. I pray that he remembers mercy if that time comes before this nation wakes up.
I agree...... He will punish this country for what is going on now, and the direction we are taking. The country was formed by God fearing people, and we now have the people making fun of God, and laughing in His face.... I feel sorry for these people that will find out what happens when you turn you back on God.
God is a little bitch and will do nothing. God has no power here in the real world; he exists only in the minds of the feeble.
It is people like you who are turning their back on G*d by your intolerance and judgment of another human being. By the way....G*d NEVER said anything about the issue so how can you say His message was clear? Did those tambourines hamper your thinking?
Where in the Bible does Jesus reference an man divorcing his husband or a wife divorcing her wife. It does not because it is not a Marriage unless there is a man, a woman, and God.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination:
Romans 1:26 - 1:28 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
I do not judge I simply stated the facts. I did not convict anyone of any sin. I simply stated the homosexual acts are a sin.
However Judge not lest you be judged does not mean what some imply.
Read 1Corinthians 5:1-6
It is reported commonly
that there isfornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerninghim that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
vanjon, what's it going to be this time? Another hurricane? Maybe floods in the midwest. Yea, that's it, he'll flood the middle of the country. That'll teach all them dirty liberals on the coasts.