Vermont legislature overrides governor’s veto, legalizes gay marriage
posted at 4:30 pm on April 7, 2009 by Allahpundit
The first state to do so the old-fashioned way, i.e. legislatively, instead of by court ruling. It was close in the house but they got it done:
The Legislature voted Tuesday to override Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override.
The vote came nine years after Vermont adopted its first-in-the-nation civil unions law.
It’s now the fourth state to permit same-sex marriage. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa are the others…
Craig Bensen, a gay marriage opponent who had lobbied unsuccessfully for a nonbinding referendum on the question, said he was disappointed but believed gay marriage opponents were outspent by supporters by a 20-1 margin.
Normally this is where I’d gauge whether a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision is feasible or not, but since Vermont’s gone off-script I’m without an angle here. No reaction yet from prominent social cons either, although Huckabee, Romney, and Palin are all on record as supporting a Federal Marriage Amendment so it’s safe to assume they want this overturned even without the dastardly handiwork of “activist judges.” In lieu of further comment, let’s take the temperature of the Hot Air faithful with a poll. You’ve got three choices — the social con option, the federalist option, and the libertarian option. I’m curious to see how it’ll shake out. Why, even Rick Warren’s backing away from this fight.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
I can’t see the Lord making wine out of water at a homosexual wedding–IOW, He’s not going to give sinners his blessing who persist in their sin and even celebrate it.
But if the sinners are willing to repent and sin no more, that’s something different.
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 7:10 PM
Actually the question of legality is not all that elastic in this case. I think it is pretty clear whether same-sex marriage is legal or not in any particular state. If they have not passed a law that allows it then it is currently illegal.
Hawthorne on April 7, 2009 at 7:12 PM
Well, looks like I overestimated your intelligence…I never said they were killed, I was using them as an example of doing something right at that time, that now does not seem “right”.
I know what the word internment means, and it doesn’t mean “killed”, that is why I used it.
Please, read and comprehend…you know I am correct, just say you get it, that history distorts values and move on.
However if you persist, then you are a fool.
What we value now, was not necessarily valued 150 years ago…or even 60 years ago. If you don’t believe that, then I can’t help you, you need to go back to school.
Get off your high horse, you made a mistake…you didn’t understand my post, I spent much to much time trying to explain a simple post, now you should understand.
And what the heck does Ward Churchill have to do with this?
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 7:13 PM
“Gay” or “straight” has nothing to do with it!
You either file as a single adult or you are married filing jointly (as husband and wife), in which case you pay more tax because of your joint incomes, before deductions.
It’s called the “marriage penalty” and you look it up!
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 7:13 PM
I can rest in peace knowing that you have officially become Jesus Christ’s personal spokesperson and PR person. Clearly you know detailed and intimate feelings of His that only He could tell you. What a rockstar job you have.
dcwvu on April 7, 2009 at 7:14 PM
I’m not interested in discussing revisionist history that bashes America.
A good deal of us are still motivated and guided by the same values that the Founding Fathers held dear when they established this great republic.
The real, lasting and important values do not change from one generation to another or from century to another or from one millenia to another.
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 7:16 PM
Do you have an actual position on gay marriage or are you here just to insult Jenfidel?
Hawthorne on April 7, 2009 at 7:17 PM
And the stupidity keeps on rolling.
Tax complications
Not that I expect you to understand it.
SnarkVader on April 7, 2009 at 7:17 PM
I’m just citing what Jesus and God told us in the Bible.
You can, too.
Try it sometime: search the Scriptures! (perfect task for Easter week!)
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 7:18 PM
As the saying goes…I don’t know much about the Founding Fathers, but I do know they wore some fabulous wigs.
Just sayin’.
dcwvu on April 7, 2009 at 7:19 PM
Sorry, but the GLBT crew has tried this before!
I’m not having traditional marriage destroyed so you homosexuals can enjoy better tax benefits!
(And I’m telling you for the last time: Married couples pay more in taxes if they have no children.)
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 7:20 PM
dcwvu,
You reference Christ re this topic. Perhaps you should read Romans Chapter 1 Verses 24 through 27.
The Apostle Paul is the author. You know of him, right? He’s the pharisee that Christ struck blind (temporarily)to then use to spread Jesus Christs gospel to the world.
mountainmanbob on April 7, 2009 at 7:20 PM
Okay I missed this…so you do a play on my name, but when someone does one on yours it is idiocy…don’t you see you just called yourself out?
You didn’t see the irony in that?
This has to be a classic post, I am saving this one.
uhhhhh….it’s not2bright, it is right2bright, right-2b (like “too be”) right…most people get it without help….HAHAHAHAHA!
Thanks Jenfidel as in Jen+Infidel I needed a good laugh after reading Snark, Capitulis, getalife, and a couple of others.
I guess we have our weirdos on the right also.
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 7:20 PM
Bless you, Hawthorne and mountainmanbob!
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 7:21 PM
And this is why it’s a waste of time. There’s no point in arguing with someone who uses a fairy tale instead of facts to back up their argument.
It’s a shame you’re so insecure that the lives of couples you will never meet present such a big, scary threat to your marriage and sanity. Thankfully, people like you are on the fast track to becoming the minority.
SnarkVader on April 7, 2009 at 7:24 PM
It is well established that gay relationships have some serious problems:
• A 2002 U.S. Census Bureau study found that 70.7 percent of women married between 1970 and 1974 reached their tenth anniversary and 57.7 percent stayed married for 20 years or longer.
• In a survey of 7,862 homosexuals, the 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census found that of those involved in a “current relationship,” only 15 percent described their current relationship as having lasted 12 years or longer.
So gay relationships are generally not long term. A rate of only 15% making it through 12 years is very low. I doubt seriously that marriage vows will alter that number very much. Keep in mind that raising a child is at least an 18 year commitment. So it is difficult to justify that gay relationships will result in nay kind of a stable family unit.
—————-
• A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous.
• In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that, in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to 37 years, only seven couples had a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all had been together for less than five years.
• In their classic 1978 study, published as Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, researchers Bell and Weinberg found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.
But…
• A 1997 national survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in the Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.
Gay relationships are rife with cheating and partner swapping. This is further evidence that gay relationships are more about hedonism than anything else. Is that grounds for a good family?
————-
• In 1991 the Journal of Social Service Research published a survey of 1,099 lesbians in which slightly more than half of the lesbians said they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The survey noted that “the most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse.”
• A survey sponsored by the National Institute of Justice found that same-sex couples reported significantly more violence from their partners than did traditional couples. Noted the report, “Thirty-nine percent of the same-sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabitating partner at some time in their lifetimes, compared to 21.7 percent of the opposite-sex cohabitants. Among men, the comparable figures are 23.1 percent and 7.4 percent.”
Gay relationships are more violent. I suppose you feel that is good for families?
—————
The bottom line here is that our experiences tell us that establishing a foundation for gay family relationships is likely to create a large number of dysfunctional and possibly abusive family units. If you want to debate all this I am certainly prepared. Bring it on.
Hawthorne on April 7, 2009 at 7:24 PM
I’m very aware of Paul, formerly known as Saul, who terrorized the Disciples and their believers prior to his transformation on his way to Damascus. He spread the Word throughout all the nations and angered some Jews when he offered his teachings to Gentiles. I am well versed in the Bible and have been studying it since I was a boy…but thanks for the “lesson”. I just happen to love all God’s Children, and don’t have something missing in my own personal life that makes me feel I have to denigrate another group. It’s called Christ-like love. Study up, buddy.
dcwvu on April 7, 2009 at 7:25 PM
You missed that whole “I’m not a homosexual” thing, didn’t you? And of course you wouldn’t read actual facts. Why do that when it’s much easier to be a judgmental moron.
SnarkVader on April 7, 2009 at 7:25 PM
I’m confident Vermont is still just as or more intolerant than ever, regardless of this development. Met quite a lot of bigots there.
Christien on April 7, 2009 at 7:30 PM
You are confused. Being Christian does not excuse you from your social obligations. Your acceptance of others is on an individual basis, not something that you are expected to project upon others. Christ forgives the thief on the cross, but that is not an admonition to make thievery legal.
Hawthorne on April 7, 2009 at 7:31 PM
He has. It’s in the Word.
jimmy2shoes on April 7, 2009 at 7:32 PM
I’ve met and known thousands of homosexuals, thanks.
Quite a few homosexual men I knew died in the first wave of AIDS in the late 1980′s and will not be joining you for same sex marriage ceremonies.
I object to same sex marriages because they are a travesty that makes a mockery of traditional marriage and they are an affront to our common decency.
We will be a lesser nation if we allow this aberrant behavior to have the sanction of the state and the blessing of many of our churches.
I’m not insecure–it makes me sick to my stomach.
I like homosexuals fine, but they don’t need to get “married” to each other and they’re not being deprived of any rights.
They are already treated as equal under the law as much as the rest of we citizens.
As long as they, like heterosexuals, keep their sexual proclivities and tastes in their bedrooms where they belong and not parade in the courthouse and the church house, I am fine with them.
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 7:33 PM
You first, buddy.
Homosexuality is condemned as a sin in both the Old and New Testaments and by Christ himself.
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 7:35 PM
Awww. Well, aren’t you just the picture of kindness, letting the gays know you’re fine with them as long as they don’t leave the house. You really are an inspiration to us all and I hope the gays know how luck they are to have you in their corner.
And something tells me you don’t have to worry about being invited to any gay weddings. Just a hunch.
SnarkVader on April 7, 2009 at 7:37 PM
dcwvu,
Glad to hear you’ve studied the Bible. GODs word is the only light in an otherwise dark world.
I love all GODs children as well. I do think homosexuality wrong and sinful. I can think the sin wrong and still care for the person. It is clear that Paul, as an apostle was speaking on behalf of Christ.
Re “study up”, I stream 2 bible study programs for 2 hours every AM before I do anything else. Thanks for your encouraging words.
mountainmanbob on April 7, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Great facts…and the problem with these facts is there are not enough of them because of the political pressure not to release facts that do not support homosexuality.
May of these “studies” have to be gleamed from actual reports not related to homosexuals.
It is almost impossible to get any kind of studies, where the studies are looking for abnormalities in this “lifestyle”. And the studies, like some you noted, are torn apart for political reasons…there is a fear against this very organized and angry group.
I remember some years ago when a noted psychologist did a study on homosexual men, and found a pattern of child hood problems…he was practically ran out of town.
Later the report was more important pertaining to the “shutting down” of information rather then the report itself.
But it sent a message, don’t mess with our “dream” village.
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 7:39 PM
One might pick another class of people by age, race, religion and develop aggregate statistics which fall below the average. From that you might attempt to deny individuals from that class the right to marry. The courts would stop you.
dedalus on April 7, 2009 at 7:40 PM
That is not what Jenfidel said. She said that she wants them to keep their sexual proclivities in the bedroom where they belong. She even stated she feels the same about heterosexuals. There is no bigotry in that. It is simply a statement that she believes that sexual behavior has become to public. I share that view.
If you wish to insult somebody with your Snarkiness, you could at least insult them for what they said, instead of projecting your own spin onto it.
Hawthorne on April 7, 2009 at 7:41 PM
Funny you should mention this!
A good friend of mine from high school became a lesbian and had a wedding to another woman THIRTY YEARS AGO!
She changed her name to the other woman’s and everything!
In fact, she still has that last name.
You see, homosexuals don’t even need any state’s permission to do this; they’ve always been able to get “married.”
The push for same sex marriage isn’t about “gay rights;” it’s about destroying morality, Christianity and Judaism and the traditional marriage and family.
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 7:42 PM
I haven’t seen where Christ addressed it specifically in the four Gospels. Maybe there is a specific verse I’ve missed. The OT clearly, the Apostle Paul clearly.
dedalus on April 7, 2009 at 7:43 PM
The courts have no basis to stop you. We draw arbitrary lines on sexual behavior all the time. Are you saying that incest, pedagogy, bestiality, and polygamy should all be legal too? Why shouldn’t somebody be allowed to marry their seven year old loved one? Why should they be stopped just because they are brother and sister, or brother and brother for that matter?
Our laws are all about restricting behavior. Every single one of them is based on an decision about morality. If you are going to go where you are going now, then all of our laws are invalid.
Hawthorne on April 7, 2009 at 7:45 PM
No projection. I’m quite sure she’d be happy in a world where gays never existed, let alone leave the house. After all, they’re singlehandedly responsible for the destruction of our society. No bigger threat!
SnarkVader on April 7, 2009 at 7:46 PM
The couple of areas I struggle with in the Bible is choosing what is right and wrong.
The Bible states that homosexuality is wrong, no doubt, but it also supports slavery, and states that women should not hold leadership in church. Other nuances as well.
But those three are very controversial…they embrace slavery, they deny homosexual relations, the deny women leadership in church…so it gets back to a fundamental problem that the church wrestles with every 500 years or so…who has the authority to descern what is right or wrong.
Yes, the simple answer is God has the authority, but he felt slavery was right, so we are now not following His authority by outlawing it and considering it a sin?
And women in churches as leaders, we often if not in the pulpit, allow them to teach Sunday school, Jesus’s most precious gift, so there is a problem?
Should they lead or not lead? Do we follow Christ teaching down to the letter, or do we pick and choose?
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 7:47 PM
Oh, how lovely! Why don’t you give her a call and ask her about the tax difference!
SnarkVader on April 7, 2009 at 7:48 PM
All you do is bait people, you add nothing…you just want to pick a fight.
Go into the bathroom, turn off the light, and relieve yourself…because that is all you are doing, just masturbating with words.
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 7:51 PM
and you know this how? I have not seen her say that. I have seen her say she wants it kept in the bedroom. I have seen her say that gays can marry now without state permission. I have seen her say a lot of things that don’t sound anything like what you just said.
You need to face it that you are upset with Jenfidel and you are playing a bit unfair right now. Argue with her all you want, fine. Just argue with what she says, not what you decide she means out of your anger.
Hawthorne on April 7, 2009 at 7:51 PM
I read the points in your post above as supportive of denying gays the right to marry because they statistically are less faithful in relationships. If we apply a principle that carves out groups based on infidelity maybe there are others worse than the gays (members of congress?).
As for laws restricting behavior. It might not be bad for them to be subject to the “harm principle” laid out by John Locke and others. Minimally, the government should have to show some tangible interest that weighs against restrictions on liberty.
dedalus on April 7, 2009 at 7:53 PM
Jesus cries when you masturbate.
SnarkVader on April 7, 2009 at 7:56 PM
The basis the courts have to stop legislatures from passing laws restricting straight marriage rights due to patterns of infidelity can be found in SCOTUS decisions that identify marriage as a fundamental right as opposed to other types of state licenses.
dedalus on April 7, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Regarding what the Bible says about slavery and the equality of women and men, the following Scripture might help:
I don’t think it’s right to say that the Bible “supports slavery.”
If memory serves, when someone is subjected to slavery in the Old Testament, it’s usually as punishment for sin against God.
Homosexual behavior is a chosen sin: see the story of Sodom and Gomorrah for further reference.
As for women leading in church, the jury’s still out on that one.
Myself, I prefer a man as a priest or minister.
Women just don’t have that authority.
Maybe if it was Reverend Sarah Palin, I might feel differently.
The Bible has given us role models such as Queen Esther (whom Sarah Palin cites) and Ruth.
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 7:58 PM
Homosexuals are not having their liberty restricted
.
As for the fidelity question, it has a direct bearing on the nature of the relationship and the legal relief being sought: homosexual couplings are based on transient desire, not long-term commitment.
They do not last very long nor are they usually meant to.
(“Gay” bath houses, anyone?)
They are not conducive to the creation and sustenance of a stable environment in which to raise children, which is the primary purpose of any marriage.
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 8:03 PM
There is actually no conflict there. Christ clarified it when he said that you should “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give to God what is God’s”
This passage goes farther than just taxes. It places a boundary between secular law and God’s law. It means that you should behave as a Christian in all situations. If slavery was allowed by secular law, then you obey if you are a slave. Not just that, you should strive to be a good slave. If you are a slave owner then you are obligated to treat your slaves kindly. It is a lesson in personal responsibility for our actions. It does not speak to the morality of slavery at all. That is considered a secular issue like taxes.
Please note that this lesson does not prevent you from striving to change laws that you do not agree with. It just says to obey them until they can be changed.
Hawthorne on April 7, 2009 at 8:06 PM
The points I posted earlier were put there in an attempt to stimulate debate. Our interactions were degrading into some snarkiness that had little to do with the actual issue and a lot more to do with personal animosity.
Hawthorne on April 7, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Gays can already legally have children–it would seem marriage would help not hurt gay households with kids.
Bath house culture is a problem and some gays hate that the scene exists. However, the scene isn’t exclusive to gays–one of the more famous gay baths in NYC was subsequently turned into Plato’s Retreat in the late 1970′s. Online there are hook up sites for gays and straights. AshleyMadison.com is catered to straight people who want to discretely cheat on their spouses. The site is doing well from a revenue standpoint.
dedalus on April 7, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Not really.
Only one of them will be the child’s biological parent under the best of circumstances.
This is a strawman.
Yet another virtual strawman: homosexuals, especially men, own the bath house culture.
(I had the joy of living in NYC during the height of the AIDS crisis in the mid-1980′s and they were proposing closing the bathhouses to cut down on the death rate and rampant exposure to the fatal virus…)
From the news stories I’ve been reading since same sex marriage has been allowed in MA and other places, even homosexual women are exhibiting the same sexual habits as gay men, i.e. that of fleeting, transitory passion and not long-lasting commitment based on a deeper love.
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 8:21 PM
Help me understand fellow conservatives about gay marriage. Look, I am pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax, pro-states rights, and pro-strong national defense. I voted for Bush 43 twice and McCain twice (once in the 2000 Republican primary, the other in the 2008 Presidential election). But what I don’t understand is the big deal with gay marriage.
The word marriage means an intimate union. You can use the word marriage to describe two or more businesses coming together. You can use the word marriage when you talk about blending song and dance together or different music genres together. When you put straight next to marriage, you get a close union between one man and one woman. If you put gay next to marriage, you get a close union between two of the same sex.
Why does it matter if gays can also apply for marriage licenses and receive the same tax credits, social security sharing benefits, and hospital benefits as straight people?
Frank T.J Mackey on April 7, 2009 at 8:24 PM
because it makes marriage meaningless…which means more illegimite children, which means more crime, more social breakdown…you should read Stanley Kurt’z research on the subejct.
thats just what it does to the institution of marriage…
what it does to religious freedom is far worse…it pretty much ends freedom of religion.
right4life on April 7, 2009 at 8:29 PM
So Hawhthorne is fighting to have slavery reinstated…I doubt it.
Neither Jesus nor St. Paul, nor any other Biblical figure is recorded as saying anything in opposition to the institution of slavery.
So slavery is acceptable in God’s eyes…so it is acceptable in your eyes?
Forget the “render unto…”, if the gov. says not to worship, you would follow that?
Of course if you feel people are owned by the gov. and not by God then I could see your point.
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Piss Poor Hermeneutics.
Paul implies in Philemon that he should free his slaves.
Also, slavery isn’t being promoted, but limited in the OT. Colossions, while not calling for it, is calling for the Master to see them as EQUALS..
Big difference, than what you are trying to make it out to be.
Tim Burton on April 7, 2009 at 8:35 PM
Yeah, promiscuity is a problem for male homosexuals, however, it would be wrong to derive an opinion of a given individual today based on reading through the Village Voice in the 1980′s.
Apparently, though, promiscuity is also a problem with college-aged kids today based on what I read about hook-ups and sexting. I’m not sure though since I only know what the media tells me since I’m far too old to know first-hand.
dedalus on April 7, 2009 at 8:36 PM
Actually, it’s very sad.
I knew a man–a friend–who rather prided himself on how many men he could hook up with at the gay bars.
His death, in particular, from AIDS, was horrible.
He was living proof that the wages of sin really are death.
I hope he repented and accepted Christ before he died; he was smart and funny and I really liked him very much, but he was a slave to his sexual desires and paid for it with his life.
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 8:43 PM
Words are important, which is why we have about 100 times more words then we did in biblical times.
Marriage, when you talk about couples means man and woman.
If you want to add another definition, rather then just adding another subtext, have a unique word that is more definitive. Call it Gayliage or something. Why take a word that has had a particular meaning for hundreds of years and just change it.
That would be like saying you are calling all tails on dogs legs…now your dog has five legs?
Marriage has a particular meaning…let’s keep it that way.
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 8:46 PM
Read the bible again, the NT never decries slavery…it does on so many other things, slavery is accepted in God’s eyes.
Now you tell Him he is wrong.
What happens, is what you are doing, you don’t like something so you begin making excuses, I gave you several, and could several more, where Jesus and his disciples have no problem with slavery…also I notice you brought up the OT, I purposely stuck with the NT.
The same thing can be said for church leadership for women, it is not acceptable…but church’s and people are twisting the words to try to make it “right”.
But the fact is, scholars have done that for hundreds of years, in fact about every 500 years is a major change and shift…it has been 500 years about since the reformation, and we are changing slavery, women leadership, and debating homosexual.
Along with that, which some call the “Great Emergence”, will be a combining of religion. Mormon’s are desperate to be called Christian’s, Catholics have adopted many of the Reformation changes, and the chasm between Christians and Muslims will probably increase.
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 8:54 PM
A lot of men pride themselves on sexual conquests, and I’ve known straight guys who have screwed up their careers and marriages by needing to continually prove to themselves that they still had the ability to attract young women.
A group of young straight guys out in a bar on a Friday night are all trying to get laid. The women, and their better judgement, is a constraining factor. When all the guys in the bar are guys and they are all attracted to guys, then I’d imagine they’ll all get some action.
dedalus on April 7, 2009 at 8:54 PM
You could not be more mistaken in your interpretation of my post. I never said slavery is good. I never said it should come back. I said simply that Jesus does not speak of it because he considers it an economic arrangement and a secular issue.
You must first understand that slavery in Jesus’ time is bonded slavery. That is why he refers to them as bondsmen. In most cases that is a voluntary arrangement where the slave actually sold themselves into servitude out of free will. In a some cases bonded slavery was awarded as a punishment for non-payment of debt. But there was usually an alternative punishment as well so those that chose to become bonded were also making that choice of free will.
To my knowledge, chattel slavery was not allowed in Jewish culture. The Jewish people had not forgotten their own slavery in Egypt and were loathe to subject any man to the same indignities. If I am wrong about this, then by all means cite chapter and verse that illustrates my error.
Given that we now understand that slavery in Judea during the time of Christ was of free-will, the context of Jesus’ recognizing it as a economic and secular issue is more easily grasped. As such, he does not condemn it any more than he condemned taxes. He is telling people to honor their obligations as Christians.
Is it more clear now?
Hawthorne on April 7, 2009 at 8:58 PM
I knew quite a few gay men in the 1970′s and ’80′s and they took promiscuity to a whole new level than any straight men I knew.
Even the most randy straight men are capable of stumbling into a romantic relationship that may even turn into marriage.
Homosexual men did it strictly for the sex, at least while they were young and alive.
A good deal of those men are dead from AIDS.
May God have saved Charles, Billy, Bob, and Mark.
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 9:00 PM
My reply about male homosexual promiscuity was for you.
This is also why the black community is against same sex marriage:
it seems many black men are bi-sexual and the highest rising rate of AIDS is among black women.
Homosexual relations are a key factor in destroying the black family, along with abortion and welfare or single mothers.
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 9:03 PM
Mormons are, strictly speaking, not really Christians, no matter how much they want to be called Christians.
Catholics haven’t adopted the Reformation changes that matter, to wit, open communion for all baptized believers and the belief that the apostolic succession wasn’t solely confined to St. Peter.
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 9:06 PM
It matters because marriage is a ritual sacrament in many churches. If you give gays the right to marry, depending on exactly how the law is written, can bring suit against a church that refuses to marry them. Now you have placed the church in the position where they must either fight the case and spend a lot of money, or abandon their own doctrine to save the money. If enough cases are filed, the church could be forced to perform gay marriages or close for financial reasons. By differentiating between civil unions and marriage you avoid this problem.
Hawthorne on April 7, 2009 at 9:07 PM
You know every straight man?
Just because you knew that kind of gay man doesn’t mean it’s the only kind.
I lived with several gays and lesbians in the late 90s and they were no more prone to sleeping around than the straight people I lived with.
Maybe it’s even generational. Safe sex and “free” love didn’t really exist in the 90s. Most of my gay friends were terrified of sleeping around, just like most of my straight friends. Gay men are not automatons.
The main difference is as pointed out earlier that men tend to be more open to sex just to have sex than women are, and in the field of sexual conquest this puts straight men at a disadvantage.
herrevery on April 7, 2009 at 9:07 PM
There is only one thing that matters to be a Christian. You have to accept the Grace of Christ as your savior. That is it. There is no other.
Christ tells us that the only unforgivable sin is to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. This was directed at the Pharisees who accused him of having an demonic spirit within him. In essence the unforgivable sin is denying Christ as your savior.
Anything past that is either forgivable and will not prevent you from reaching Heaven or a man-made doctrine, which God doesn’t give two wits about, regardless of how much we argue over them.
Hawthorne on April 7, 2009 at 9:15 PM
Think of marriage like the word “cookie.” You have chocolate chip cookies. You have peanut butter cookies. You have M&M Cookies, and so forth. When you put a word next to cookie, you’re describing the type of cookie. The same goes for marriage. If you put gay next to marriage, you’re describing a union between two people of the same sex. When you put the word straight or traditional next to marriage, you’re referring to an intimate union between one man and one woman.
What you need to understand is that marriage does not have one definition. Simply putting gay next to marriage does not somehow change the definition of marriage, which means a close union.
Frank T.J Mackey on April 7, 2009 at 9:17 PM
I knew and knew of hundreds, if not thousands, of gay men that were all like this.
If they weren’t, it was because they were trolls and couldn’t trick around.
I have known a few gay couples that lasted a long time but they are the exception rather than the rule.
I used to be quite the “fag hag” and lived in the “gay” neighborhood for over 15 years and had them as neighbors, as well as hairdressers, florists and church organists. (Gay men are often creative!)
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 9:19 PM
Sorry, Frank, but it does.
And the institution of marriage isn’t a cookie.
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 9:20 PM
Do you not understand what I am saying? A marriage does not always refer to “one man, one woman union.” It refers to a “close union.”
Frank T.J Mackey on April 7, 2009 at 9:29 PM
Did you miss my earlier explanation or are you ignoring it?
Hawthorne on April 7, 2009 at 9:35 PM
Why would any courts back the gay couple in that case? We are talking about permitting gays to apply for state marriage licenses, not force churches to marry gay people.
Frank T.J Mackey on April 7, 2009 at 9:41 PM
Hmm, then maybe you should ask the Archdiocese of Boston about his gay marriage in Massachusetts has impacted them? They have been sued several times over gay marriage issues. They were forced to close their adoption services, which had been open for 200 years, over it.
Hawthorne on April 7, 2009 at 9:45 PM
You never responded to my point about “churches being sued for not marrying gay people.” You pointed out something else.
As for your adoption example, what happened was that adoption agencies was receiving tax dollars. When gay marriage was legal, the state said that if a government funds a certain institution, they need to follow the laws of the state. And this means that an adoption agency needed to follow state rules when adopting.
Frank T.J Mackey on April 7, 2009 at 9:57 PM
Marriage has one definition? It has changed many times over the past 200-300 years alone. It used to be simply an economic institution. Interracial marriage was unthinkable in most of the U.S. when my parents were born. The definition of marriage has been anything but static, and it will continue to change in the future. People like you will be ridiculed at best, and condemned as bigoted at worst by future generations. Enjoy the vestiges of your quickly fading credibility and relevance while you can.
crr6 on April 7, 2009 at 10:14 PM
It has not happened yet as I know. But my opinion is based on several points. The first is that the gay community has long held a position that being gay is not simply about same-sex relationships. It is about pushing the envelope toward all types of sexual freedom. It is about fundamentally changing ideas about ethics and morals in society. If you care to investigate this further it is quite easy to Google it. The term “push the envelope” is a stock phrase in the dialog on gay sites and in discussions of gay rights.
The gay community has also repeatedly said that you can have gay right or religion, but not both. Many leaders have been quoted that gay rights strategies need to directly target religion and force changes.
Third is the fact that litigation is the favorite tool of the gay rights movement. There is absolutely no denying this. The gay movement has won vastly more through judicial activism than they have through legislation.
The fourth is the unwillingness by gay rights groups to accept civil unions in lieu of marriage. This is well documented in several states.
If you care to do any research on nay of these you can easily find the quotes that verify my statements. While it is not there directly as yet, I can only feel that it will be soon. Religion has consistently fared poorly in the courts when pitted against gay rights. That is the preferred mechanism of change for the gay movement and they will use it if given even the slightest opportunity.
Hawthorne on April 7, 2009 at 10:22 PM
Frank T.J Mackey,
I am also curious why you would feel that civil unions are not sufficient and that “marriage” must be allowed?
Hawthorne on April 7, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Why is that? Because you are too busy ridiculing to actually give a real argument? There isn’t a slice of real meat in what you say? Interracial marriages are still heterosexual. The marriage is still about establishing parentage and inheritance rights. Are you aware that in most states a man is the legal father of a child if they are married to the mother when it is born, regardless of who the biological father is?
The main point of marriage is how parentage is determined. Any other issue can be reasonably resolved without any marriage at all. Just file the right legal papers and you are good to go.
Now consider a child that is born into a gay relationship. In Canada they have had some rulings that the child now has three parents, because a gay couple needs a third individual to conceive. Nice, way to confuse the whole relationship even further for the poor kid.
OK, is the gamete donor that is outside the gay relationship subject to child support payments? If a biological father is not responsible for supporting a child in a gay relationship, why should a biological father be responsible for child support if the mother is in a heterosexual relationship with a different man?
The number of social and ethical issues that have been created by this are staggering. The sad part is that gays will get a preferred treatment over what hetero couple will endure. They will be dismissed from parental responsibilities that hetero parent will not. You mark my words. This will only result in a reverse discrimination and the only people that are going to suffer are the kids in the middle of the battles.
Hawthorne on April 7, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Never said gay marriage must be allowed. Marriage laws have always been up to community standards and our constitution does not give anybody the “right to marry.” If a state wants gay marriage and the voters vote on it, I am fine. But at the same time, if voters want gays to be eligible for civil unions, not marriage licenses, then I am ok with that too.
My problem here is that we are having semantic arguments. We are not addressing the issue of equal protection.
What I don’t get is why you people have to:
a) Use christian theology in the gay marriage debate. We as a nation should not be imposing bible doctrine on others, especially if they hold different religious beliefs.
b) Claim that marriage always equals one man, one woman union. It does not. Marriage means an intimate union. The term can be applied to different things other than between two people of different sex.
Frank T.J Mackey on April 7, 2009 at 10:45 PM
I do not have any trouble with a state allowing gay marriage if it is either passed by the legislature or by referendum. I have big problems with a court enforcing it upon an unwilling populace as has been done in California. I believe in federalism and the right of each state to decide what it wants. I have absolutely no requirement for any state to follow my moral code. If I do not like my how my state operates, then I will move someplace that is more to my liking.
Hawthorne on April 7, 2009 at 10:52 PM
Good to hear.
Frank T.J Mackey on April 7, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Rick Warren says gay marriage is very low on his priority lists.
You just cant trust phony christians.
I guess its a matter of selling books…well, I live in Foothill Ranch in the same neighborhood as Rick, so I always knew he was a phony.
The Wall on April 7, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Well, I’m not happy about it, but at least it was voted in by the representatives of the citizens and they always have the option of revisiting the issue later. Federalism +1
Tacitus_SGL on April 7, 2009 at 11:34 PM
My issue in most marriage cases is that gay marriage proponents tend to overlook the legal semantics of marriage, namely that gays can already get married under the standard definition of marriage (to a partner of the opposite sex.) There is nothing stopping them from doing so; it’s not an issue of equal protection.
It’s an issue of eliminating the gender requirement on marriage and how removing that requirement impacts society as a whole. Equal protection is a non sequitur.
Tacitus_SGL on April 7, 2009 at 11:37 PM
State-run education isn’t there either, but it exists. My point is that we’re reaping the combined effects of a long campaign against this country’s Christian heritage. The United States no longer shows any signs of being a Christian country, evidenced by the shift in cultural hegemony. Rather, we have a culture that alludes to the religion of secular humanism, hence hedonism.
Send_Me on April 8, 2009 at 12:08 AM
Vanceone, the method used in the studies that determined life expectancy were simplistic at best, but not statistically accurate — I’ll let Slate describe it, AEI tends to be conservative and they disagree with the methods:
The obits would tend to be from urban areas that were either well known, activist, or tragically young — this is no where near statistically accurate.
Cameron recently reinforced his study by comparing average age of death by AIDS to CDC records and declaring that these numbers were valid — which is only accurate for the life expectancy of gay men who die of AIDS — NOT as a means of determining the average life expectancy of gay men in general.
Other studies looked through obits in metropolitan areas looking for the key words about a “special friend” or “long time companion” — no one else counted.
A cursory look by anyone willing to look show that the studies were great for propaganda, but about as valid as a CBS Obama approval poll for accurate statistics.
David
LifeTrek on April 8, 2009 at 12:38 AM
They need to come up with their own thing.
Co-opting what already exists doesn’t validate it nor make it normal.
As always, ask what they will want next…they will never have enough. The reason is because they tend to be unhappy, immature, and messed up emotionally and are constantly looking for someone else to blame it all on.
They get their way and they’re still pissed off and militant.
Dr. ZhivBlago on April 8, 2009 at 1:01 AM
Vance — Additional information,
The obituaries in the Washington Blade and all gay metropolitan papers are submissions by the public — a full 85% of the readership of the Blade are between the ages of 25 and 44 (typical of gay newspapers nationally).
That is a very limiting selection for gay and lesbians.
The average age of everyone who died and were reported in Seventeen Magazine were 25 — can we conclude that all females have a life expectancy of Seventeen? Or maybe just those who read Seventeen Magazine? Both would be ridiculous statistical conclusions — even if I hadn’t made up the 25 year old number — but what makes Camerons studies any less statistically rediculous?
The only thing Cameron proved is that the average life expectancy of those who have obituaries appearing in metro gay publications is a certain age — nothing more and certainly nothing about the age of gays in general.
LifeTrek on April 8, 2009 at 1:20 AM
God invented marriage. He could have made man by dust, rib, dust, rib, dust, rib, etc. but he chose this way. He defined it, Jesus himself refered to this passage:
It doesn’t say, a man shall cleave to his man and the two shall be one flesh.
And Hawthorne is right that one of the by-products of gay marriage is hate crime laws that shut the church down or force them to accept what their Scriptures reject.
Christian Conservative on April 8, 2009 at 1:28 AM
You can’t use biblical theology to justify gays and lesbians being denied state marriage licenses. We live in a country where people of Islamic, Confucius, Buddhist, and a country of Atheists and Agnostics. Everybody does not share your religious point-of-view.
Frank T.J Mackey on April 8, 2009 at 6:41 AM
Frank,
In America you are free to worship as you please. Yes, people are free to practice Buddhism, Confuciunism, etc.
However, America was founded on Christian values. One of which is traditional marriage. Should we now allow polygamy, how about a man can marry his goat? Should court proceedings and the prayer that opens senate and house sessions start by praying to Gaia or Buddha or Allah?
Not asking everyone to share my religious view, although I pray they will. Are you asking everyone to share your view that it is OK to mock and destroy traditional marriage?
mountainmanbob on April 8, 2009 at 7:34 AM
Are there any countries where a man can marry a goat?
You don’t have to approve of gay marriages anymore than someone has to approve of divorce.
dedalus on April 8, 2009 at 7:50 AM
How was America founded on Christian theology? Some of our founding fathers were atheists. Are you in favor of criminalizing sex outside marriage? Are you in favor of penalizing people (Jail, fines) for getting a divorce? Are you against capital punishment? If not, then you’re being a cherry-picker. You pick out parts of the bible you like, then you discard the others.
Why are we bringing up polygamy or marrying goats? What you’re doing is throwing up a red herring. I don’t know how many times I have to say this, but the definition of marriage does not exclusively mean “one man, one woman joining together.” Marriage means “a close and intimate union.”
Gays are not out to laugh at traditional marriage. All what they want is for America to view gay relationships and straight relationships as the same, and have the same rights and benefits as straight people.
Frank T.J Mackey on April 8, 2009 at 8:13 AM
Now that you mention it… Constitutionally speaking, with the present state of things, what is to stop a man from marrying two women or woman two men or a man from marrying his horse? You may say, “oh, well that’s ridiculous.” Yep, you are right, but many of us believe that to be true for homosexual marriage as well. Since secular humanism is now the unofficial state religion, which preaches multiculturalism (gotta love those Marxian concepts), I ask, what is to stop two or more consenting adults from doing anything? This is only the beginning.
Send_Me on April 8, 2009 at 8:17 AM
Yes, there were atheist founding fathers, the majority were Christian. No, I’m not in favor of criminalizing sex outside of marriage, it is sin and the Lord will punish sin. I am not a “cafeteria Christian”, I try to walk the narrow path, sometimes I fail.
I do not know of any nations that allow man to marry animals. I raise the possibility because as laws are passed to sanction deviancy, where does it end? You mention other countries, what other countries allow for gay marriage? How does Islam, Buddhism, etc. view a man marrying a man?
I’m in favor of capital punishment (see Exodus Ch 21). I’m not suggesting gays are laughing at anything. I assert the secular humanist liberal is out to destroy the foundations aof America, one of which is traditional marriage.
mountainmanbob on April 8, 2009 at 8:52 AM
Mark 10:5-8
But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, God made them MALE AND FEMALE. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh”.
While the term homosexuality is not used here, Jesus is clearly laying down the divine plan for marriage as being something that is for one male and one female.
Matthew 5:17
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I didn’t come to destroy them, but to fulfill them”.
By upholding the OT testament law, Jesus is condemming homosexual acts by implication since the OT law clearly condemns such. The typical response to this argument by pro-gay marriage “theologians” is to bring up OT laws such as eating shellfish which are no longer recognized as binding by christians. What they are failing to understand is that there were 2 types of laws in the OT, moral laws and civil/ceremonial laws. The former were binding on all mankind, the latter were given to the Jewish nation only as a means of identifying them as a separate and distinct people. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah were not Jews, so it is clear that the OT prohibitions against homosexuality were of the moral category and thus still in affect today.
I can certainly understand why a non-Jew or non-Christian might support gay marriage. What I don’t understand is how anyone who claims to be a christian can support it. If such a person thinks they have Jesus Christ on their side on this issue, they are delusional.
frank63 on April 8, 2009 at 9:06 AM
The short list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-animal_marriage
Send_Me on April 8, 2009 at 9:10 AM
One thing I find frustrating about the gay marriage debate is how discussion always seems to center around the “rights” of the marriage partners in having their relationship approved by society, rather than about what’s best for children. I’m sorry, but any family structure that deprives a child of both a mother and a father by design is flatout wrong. I just can’t imagine intentionally depriving a child of a mother. This can’t be compared to single parenthood since in most cases that does not happen by choice. However, for two gay men to start a family by adoption is intentionally bringing up a child without a mother. Sure, I’m willing to admit that it’s better for a child to have gay parents than no parents at all but that misses a crucial point – once gay marriage is recognized then there’s no legal basis for saying a heterosexual marriage is preferential to a homosexual marriage as far as providing the best environment for a child. Adoption laws should be such that traditional families are given preference but once gay marriage becomes law then all such preferences must be erased.
frank63 on April 8, 2009 at 9:33 AM
Dig a little deeper, I chose those passages purposely.
Some had the Hebrew word “ebed” (strong’s 5650) and others used the word “sawkeer” (strongs’s 7936).
One is what you call a “bondsman”, actualy someone who sells themselves into total slavery I believe for 6 years.
The other word sawkeer is the one sold in bondage.
right2bright on April 8, 2009 at 9:53 AM
The argument above and the litigation argument against gay marriage are really the only legitimate argument out there against government recognition of gay marriage. This is a real concern. You don’t want the government to tell religious institutions or any other institutions what to do. That in itself, violates the first amendment.
So maybe we do need civil union licenses for gays and lesbians and marriage licenses for straights.
However, how do you know that preference laws (adoption agencies favor straight couples over gay couples and single parents) would be erased if gay marriage is legal? You don’t need to be married in order to adopt a child. If you have two people living together, that counts as a straight couple.
Frank T.J Mackey on April 8, 2009 at 9:53 AM
Well look at it this way, now the gays from MA will have some place to move where their ‘marriages’ will be recognized. Wonder which New England state will be their next target? Maine? Would not be surprised–but the cities there are not so inundated with gay couples as the ones in VT are. These are who are controlling the vote in VT and are supported by a large liberal population. Also, I wonder if the pols are afraid of the kind of behavior that exhibited itself in CA when this surfaced there.
jeanie on April 8, 2009 at 9:54 AM
In the Gospel chapter from Mark that you cite, Jesus is responding to the pharisees asking about a man divorcing his wife. One can extrapolate from his answer that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. However, it requires no extrapolation to understand his direct answer to the question of divorce, and his correction of Mosaic law.
Why then the imperative for Christians to oppose state recognition of gay vows, but to let divorce slide?
dedalus on April 8, 2009 at 10:11 AM
I’ll add it to my list of reasons to avoid the Sudan. Currently, not wanting to get killed is at the top of the list.
dedalus on April 8, 2009 at 10:14 AM
LifeTrek: Thanks for replying about Cameron. Yes, I’m aware of the issues with his study. That said, I’m not really aware of any other study out there, either. So we take what we can get.
But just a little thought will demonstrate that being a gay male is unhealthy, unless you are celibate. Sodomy is by nature unhealthy and risky. Coupled with the tradition of sex partners that would make Wilt Chamberlian blush, it’s not a surprise that gays don’t live long. Perhaps they are doing better now, but it’s still unhealthy. And I don’t know many old gays–do you?
Vanceone on April 8, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Option left out of poll: Don’t like it, respect it out of allegiance to federalism, but doubt that gay marriage activists will be content until they impose Vermont’s law on every single State in the union by operation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause in a federal lawsuit (notwithstanding DOMA).
Trust me, progressive pinheads always head for the federal courts the moment they don’t get their way at the state level.
cackcon on April 8, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »