Maryland becomes eighth state to legalize gay marriage

posted at 10:01 pm on February 23, 2012 by Allahpundit

It passed the House last week and the Senate tonight, and the governor’s signature is a fait accompli:

The final vote by the state Senate ended a yearlong drama in Annapolis over the legislation, and marked the first time an East Coast state south of the Mason-Dixon line has supported gay nuptials…

Despite one of the largest Democratic majorities in any state legislature, backers of gay marriage in Maryland had to overcome fierce opposition from blocks of African American lawmakers and those with strong Catholic and evangelical views to cobble together coalitions big enough to pass both chambers.

The bill didn’t become viable until two more Democrats were elected to the Senate in 2010, which finally gave them the votes to move the bill out of committee. Next up: The inevitable popular referendum to see whether the law should be blocked. According to Ballotpedia, polls taken in early 2011 and 2012 show roughly 50 percent support for gay marriage in the state versus opposition in the low 40s. Much will depend on turnout, but the true significance of the referendum is that potentially it applies a bit more pressure to the Supreme Court to take this issue up constitutionally. That’s probably a done deal anyway thanks to the Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling on Prop 8, but if Maryland’s gay-marriage opponents win the referendum and gay rights activists sue to have it thrown out, that’ll be two cases in two different states in two different regions involving a question of majority rule pitted directly against minority rights. Hard for the Court to resist.

Via Mediaite, here’s Chris Christie squaring off with WaPo’s Jonathan Capehart this a.m. on “Morning Joe” over his veto of New Jersey’s gay marriage bill. They’re actually both wrong here, I think. First Capehart accuses Christie of letting a popular referendum determine the civil rights of a minority, but that’s not actually true. As I understand it, any potential referendum in New Jersey would seek to overturn Christie’s veto by asking simply whether gay marriage should now be legalized. That’s different from a referendum asking whether gay marriage should be banned. The former, if it fails, adds nothing to the state constitution, merely affirming Christie’s veto and the status quo unless and until there’s a legislative majority willing to change it. Whereas the latter, if it passed, would lock in a constitutional prohibition barring future legislative efforts until a popular majority overturned it. Christie’s wrong too, though, in claiming that Obama’s trying to have it both ways on gay marriage while he’s standing on principle by resolving to veto the gay-marriage bill when it gets to his desk. Christie’s trying to have it both ways too by consistently talking up the referendum as a way around him. He knows full well that it’s likely to pass if it happens — according to a poll taken a few weeks ago, the public supports gay marriage 54/35 — but he wants to keep his ducks in a row on social issues in case he ends up on the national GOP ticket someday. By supporting a referendum so effusively, he’s basically encouraging New Jerseyites to legalize gay marriage for him so that he doesn’t have to get his hands dirty doing so. Which, of course, makes the scolding from Capehart and others ironic. Christie’s not booting the issue to the public because he wants the majority to crush the minority’s rights, he’s booting it because he expects the majority will affirm the minority’s rights and thereby nullify his politically expedient veto.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3 4

Also, I’m curious: These discussions here always seem to devolve in bizarre characterizations of gay sex between men. Almost no mention is ever made of sex between women. Is that because it’s different in some way?

Yes.

tjcat on February 24, 2012 at 12:48 AM

Also, I’m curious: These discussions here always seem to devolve in bizarre characterizations of gay sex between men. Almost no mention is ever made of sex between women. Is that because it’s different in some way?

Personally I’ve always thought it’s because lesbians turn straight guys on so it’s ok if they do it, or the stupid idea that lesbians don’t really exist, they’re all just bisexual girls who wanna have a threeway with the straight guy in question and their hot, female friend.

Cyhort on February 24, 2012 at 12:48 AM

Personally I’ve always thought it’s because lesbians turn straight guys on so it’s ok if they do it, or the stupid idea that lesbians don’t really exist, they’re all just bisexual girls who wanna have a threeway with the straight guy in question and their hot, female friend.

Cyhort on February 24, 2012 at 12:48 AM

Sounds plausible to me. ;o)

NoLeftTurn on February 24, 2012 at 12:50 AM

Heteros have done far more damage to the “institution of marriage” than I reckon any gay couple that wants to get married could ever do,so.. spinach.chin on February 23, 2012 at 10:51 PM

Insofar as heteros were involved in no fault divorce laws, you are right.

So to advocate more govt redefinition of marriage one must be a complete moral imbecile, as you obviously are.

Akzed on February 24, 2012 at 12:51 AM

the things that bind gay couples together are not much different from the ones that bind straight ones. NoLeftTurn on February 24, 2012 at 12:20 AM

Except that “straight ones” don’t have much to do with one another’s feces…

Akzed on February 24, 2012 at 12:54 AM

So, would you be for gay marriage if the couple getting married intended to, or already had, adopted? Since adopted kids need the same legal benefits as bio kids.

Cyhort on February 24, 2012 at 12:46 AM

Then ban single-parent adoptions and require marriage for bio parents.

If you won’t do that, then cut the bullcrap about children needing families. The price of having the flexibility to have children without those requirements is that society can decide which it’s going to reward, and it chooses the stable male-female ones that produce the children in the first place.

northdallasthirty on February 24, 2012 at 12:56 AM

So to advocate more govt redefinition of marriage one must be a complete moral imbecile, as you obviously are.

Akzed on February 24, 2012 at 12:51 AM

I have not advocated for gay marriage, and in fact have said, in my first post, that government shouldn’t be marrying people at all.

However, the vast percentage of the married population does not take marriage seriously. It means next to nothing to them, so to imply that allowing gays to marry somehow can damage it (beyond what damage has already been done), is ridiculous.

…and FWIW, I’ve been faithfully married for 14 years.

spinach.chin on February 24, 2012 at 12:58 AM

Eighth state? How many through their legislature, and how man through heir supreme court?

Akzed on February 24, 2012 at 1:00 AM

Except that “straight ones” don’t have much to do with one another’s feces…

Akzed on February 24, 2012 at 12:54 AM

So for you, marriage is, first and foremost, about sex.

Interesting to know, vis-a-vis your previous comment on morality.

spinach.chin on February 24, 2012 at 1:01 AM

Except that “straight ones” don’t have much to do with one another’s feces…

Akzed on February 24, 2012 at 12:54 AM

At the risk of repeating myself, neither do lesbian couples. Square the circle please.

NoLeftTurn on February 24, 2012 at 1:01 AM

However, the vast percentage of the married population does not take marriage seriously. It means next to nothing to them… spinach.chin on February 24, 2012 at 12:58 AM

Please publish your peer-reviewed study.

Thanks.

Akzed on February 24, 2012 at 1:01 AM

So for you, marriage is, first and foremost, about sex.
Interesting to know, vis-a-vis your previous comment on morality.
spinach.chin on February 24, 2012 at 1:01 AM

Please quote my previous statement in morality.

Thanks.

Akzed on February 24, 2012 at 1:03 AM

Except that “straight ones” don’t have much to do with one another’s feces…

Akzed on February 24, 2012 at 12:54 AM

There are many gay men that don’t engage in anal sex. You might know that if gays were anything but a mincing caricature to you, you bigoted jackass. When you consider that lesbians don’t engage in anal sex and many straight couples do, your obsession with the sex lives of gay men is exposed for what it is.

sobincorporated on February 24, 2012 at 1:05 AM

At the risk of repeating myself, neither do lesbian couples. Square the circle please. NoLeftTurn on February 24, 2012 at 1:01 AM

Oh, ok. I’ll spell it out for you. Sodomists. Lesbians usually call themselves lesbians, not “gay.” Sorry to confuse you.

Akzed on February 24, 2012 at 1:08 AM

Please publish your peer-reviewed study.

Thanks.

Akzed on February 24, 2012 at 1:01 AM

Really? You need a peer-reviewed study to prove to you that people today don’t take marriage seriously?

spinach.chin on February 24, 2012 at 1:10 AM

Please quote my previous statement in morality.

Thanks.

Akzed on February 24, 2012 at 1:03 AM

You wrote it. Why do I need to quote it to you?

spinach.chin on February 24, 2012 at 1:11 AM

There are many gay men that don’t engage in anal sex. You might know that if gays were anything but a mincing caricature to you, you bigoted jackass.

Yeah, they often pretend that they don’t like teh anal. But the Red Cross tends to get it right, thank God.

When you consider that lesbians don’t engage in anal sex and many straight couples do, your obsession with the sex lives of gay men is exposed for what it is. sobincorporated on February 24, 2012 at 1:05 AM

Huh, so merely commenting on a thread means I’m obsessed with the topic… thanks, now I know.

Akzed on February 24, 2012 at 1:14 AM

Oh, ok. I’ll spell it out for you. Sodomists. Lesbians usually call themselves lesbians, not “gay.” Sorry to confuse you.

Akzed on February 24, 2012 at 1:08 AM

So there’s nothing immoral about lesbianism then?

NoLeftTurn on February 24, 2012 at 1:15 AM

Really? You need a peer-reviewed study to prove to you that people today don’t take marriage seriously?

spinach.chin on February 24, 2012 at 1:10 AM

Government welfare, no-fault divorce laws, and a feminist agenda within the judicial system has a great deal to do with that. The remedy it seems to me is not more government dictates from on high regarding homosexual marriage.

sharrukin on February 24, 2012 at 1:16 AM

Really? You need a peer-reviewed study to prove to you that people today don’t take marriage seriously? spinach.chin on February 24, 2012 at 1:10 AM

Yes. One oughta be easy to find it you are on target. But you ain’t so it ain’t.

Akzed on February 24, 2012 at 1:16 AM

Yeah, they often pretend that they don’t like teh anal. But the Red Cross tends to get it right, thank God.

Akzed on February 24, 2012 at 1:14 AM

So I asked this earlier, and no one really answered: If I have butt-sex with my wife, does that mean we shouldn’t be allowed to stay married?

spinach.chin on February 24, 2012 at 1:17 AM

You wrote it. Why do I need to quote it to you?
spinach.chin on February 24, 2012 at 1:11 AM

Please copy and paste it. Just for the record. Thanks.

Akzed on February 24, 2012 at 1:18 AM

Some food for thought:

1) Contrary to the image of long-lasting fidelity and monogamy conjured up by the term “gay marriage,” the reality is that homosexual relationships–even among those who claim marital status–are highly unstable and infrequently monogamous.

In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison report that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years: Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.33 Most understood sexual relations outside the relationship to be the norm, and viewed adopting monogamous standards as an act of oppression.

In Male and Female Homosexuality, M. Saghir and E. Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.34

In their Journal of Sex Research study of the sexual practices of older homosexual men, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that only 2.7 percent of older homosexuals had only one sexual partner in their lifetime.35

Contrast that with the rates of successful fidelity in heterosexual marriage:

Lest anyone suffer the illusion that any equivalency between the sexual practices of homosexual relationships and traditional marriage exists, the statistics regarding sexual fidelity within marriage are revealing: In Sex in America, called by the New York Times “the most important study of American sexual behavior since the Kinsey reports,” Robert T. Michael et al. report that 90 percent of wives and 75 percent of husbands claim never to have had extramarital sex.36

2) The promiscuity among homosexuals–men in particular–is nothing short of astounding.

Studies indicate that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime, a lifestyle that is difficult for even “committed” homosexuals to break free of and which is not conducive to a healthy and wholesome atmosphere for the raising of children.

A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with five hundred or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.29

In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that “the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500.” In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners.30

A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than 100 sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than 1,000 sexual partners.31

In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that “few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”32

3) The prevalence of domestic violence in homosexual relationships is also quite disturbing.

A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse.43

In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research found that “slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse.”44

In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence, D. Island and P. Letellier postulate that “the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population.”45

A little-reported fact is that homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households: The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice) reports that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships.46

4) One last bit of information: the life expectancy among gay men is far below that of their heterosexual counterparts.

Another factor contributing to the instability of male homosexual households, which raises the possibility of major disruption for children raised in such households, is the significantly reduced life expectancy of male homosexuals. A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals concluded:

In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.52

Concern about children placed in homosexual households who are orphaned because of the destructive homosexual lifestyle is well founded. In 1990, Wayne Tardiff and his partner, Allan Yoder, were the first homosexuals permitted to become adoptive parents in the state of New Jersey. Tardiff died in 1992 at age forty-four; Yoder died a few months later, leaving an orphaned five-year-old.53

So to sum up, homosexual “marriage” involves couples who cannot remain monogamous, whose “committed” relationships on average last around 3 years, whose sexual promiscuity all but assures injury and illness, whose relationships are fraught with violence far above the norm, and whose life expectancies match those of individuals living at the start of the Industrial Revolution.

Are these the people to whom we really want to grant special social status, adoption rights, and all the rest of it? Or can we stop pretending that this is just an alternative lifestyle with all the consequence of wearing a different pair of socks?

Nom de Boom on February 24, 2012 at 1:19 AM

So I asked this earlier, and no one really answered: If I have butt-sex with my wife, does that mean we shouldn’t be allowed to stay married? spinach.chin on February 24, 2012 at 1:17 AM

If you eat chicken you shouldn’t wear green hats.

Same relevancy and logic.

Akzed on February 24, 2012 at 1:21 AM

Government welfare, no-fault divorce laws, and a feminist agenda within the judicial system has a great deal to do with that. The remedy it seems to me is not more government dictates from on high regarding homosexual marriage.

sharrukin on February 24, 2012 at 1:16 AM

Good points, and all the more reason that gov’t needs to stay out of this.

spinach.chin on February 24, 2012 at 1:22 AM

Good points, and all the more reason that gov’t needs to stay out of this.

spinach.chin on February 24, 2012 at 1:22 AM

Except that isn’t what is being pushed here now is it? Read the thread and you will see the so-called ‘conservatives’ approving of government intervention, radical dictated liberal changes to traditional society, and invented rights.

sharrukin on February 24, 2012 at 1:25 AM

Good points, and all the more reason that gov’t needs to stay out of this. spinach.chin on February 24, 2012 at 1:22 AM

Uh, you might have noticed that the title of this thread is, “Maryland becomes eighth state to legalize gay marriage,” as in, the legislature of the state of Maryland.

Hello…!

Akzed on February 24, 2012 at 1:26 AM

Except that isn’t what is being pushed here now is it? Read the thread and you will see the so-called ‘conservatives’ approving of government intervention, radical dictated liberal changes to traditional society, and invented rights.

sharrukin on February 24, 2012 at 1:25 AM

I’ve followed the entire thread. I can only speak for myself, not for other posters here.

If government were not involved, none of this would be an issue.

spinach.chin on February 24, 2012 at 1:30 AM

Uh, you might have noticed that the title of this thread is, “Maryland becomes eighth state to legalize gay marriage,” as in, the legislature of the state of Maryland.

Hello…!

Akzed on February 24, 2012 at 1:26 AM

Not sure what your point is. I’ve stated all along in this thread that I don’t believe government should be involved.

My other posts consist of making fun of prudes that are disgusted by “unnatural sex”.

spinach.chin on February 24, 2012 at 1:35 AM

If government were not involved, none of this would be an issue.

spinach.chin on February 24, 2012 at 1:30 AM

Do you have any timetable on this wondrous event to occur and is your backing of gay marriage dependent on that non-intervention by government?

sharrukin on February 24, 2012 at 1:35 AM

I’ve followed the entire thread. I can only speak for myself, not for other posters here.

If government were not involved, none of this would be an issue.

spinach.chin on February 24, 2012 at 1:30 AM

You can speak for me. My view is evolving on this matter. I would prefer government weren’t sanctioning marriage between ANYONE. But that’s not going to change, so I’m fine with individual states deciding for themselves (via legislative action or popular referendum but NOT judicial fiat) who should be allowed to marry and who shouldn’t. People who don’t like their state’s position on same-sex marriage are free to go elsewhere. I’m pretty sure Arkansas won’t be sanctioning it in my lifetime, so come on down if you oppose it. The weather has been great here lately.

NoLeftTurn on February 24, 2012 at 1:37 AM

It isn’t even a states rights issue, because no state has a right to redefine marriage, anymore than any state has a right to redefine water or the sixty second minute.

Marriage existed before any of the fifty states, and will exist when the fifty states are a distant memory.

Akzed on February 24, 2012 at 1:40 AM

Do you have any timetable on this wondrous event to occur and is your backing of gay marriage dependent on that non-intervention by government?

sharrukin on February 24, 2012 at 1:35 AM

I don’t back gay marriage. I don’t care.

Nothing that happens in any state legislature, or federal government, or popular vote regarding “the definition of marriage” will change the way I feel about my relationship with my wife.

I don’t f*cking care.

spinach.chin on February 24, 2012 at 1:47 AM

I don’t f*cking care. spinach.chin on February 24, 2012 at 1:47 AM

Yet here you are in the middle of the night debating the topic.

G’night.

Akzed on February 24, 2012 at 1:54 AM

Yet here you are in the middle of the night debating the topic.

G’night.

Akzed on February 24, 2012 at 1:54 AM

The ol’ “You must care about this because here you are debating it at this ungodly hour.” argument.

You won at the internet. Congrats.

spinach.chin on February 24, 2012 at 2:11 AM

G’night.

Akzed on February 24, 2012 at 1:54 AM

Almost forgot the ol’ “Sign off for the night with my last comment to drive home the point that I’m not gonna bother to check for any responses to my comment.” comment.

Nicely done.

spinach.chin on February 24, 2012 at 2:13 AM

And Maryland inches us closer to the end times.

multiuseless on February 24, 2012 at 2:25 AM

Akzed on February 24, 2012 at 1:40 AM

States most certainly have the right to define the terms of legal contracts that they recognize. If it bothers you that Maryland has decided to redefine what marriage as a legal entity means in Maryland, then you should probably live in a state that is not Maryland. Problem solved.

Armin Tamzarian on February 24, 2012 at 2:29 AM

Nom de Boom on February 24, 2012 at 1:19 AM

Lots to take apart here so let’s get to it.

1) Contrary to the image of long-lasting fidelity and monogamy conjured up by the term “gay marriage,” the reality is that homosexual relationships–even among those who claim marital status–are highly unstable and infrequently monogamous.

The article you’re quoting is based on three sources. One from the mid 80′s, one from the 70′s and one from the late 90s. None of those studies took place when gay marriage was legal anywhere in the United States, and all will be filled with data points taken in an era where homosexuality was still held to be a mental illness and homosexual acts were illegal in large parts of the country. When being in a relationship and having sex with your partner is a criminal act and a sign of mental illness it’s not likely to produce a lot of long-term monogamous relationships. I would say the data used to draw those conclusions is questionable at best.

2) The promiscuity among homosexuals–men in particular–is nothing short of astounding.

Again we’re citing out-of-date data from a bygone era before significant social reforms that are likely to affect behavior. That said, 1,000 people is a lot and over a quarter of gay men having that many partners over a lifetime is a little hard to believe. That’s a new partner a week every week for 20 years and that sounds like a lot of work. Purely anecdotal but I know more than four homosexuals and not a one of them is anywhere near 1,000 partners.

After that you cite more longitudinal studies done in the 90s on men who would have lived a majority of their sexually active lives when homosexuality was the criminal act of a mentally ill person and given a societal stigma and laws against producing stable, monogamous relationships it shouldn’t be all that surprising that seemingly not a lot of them were produced.

3) The prevalence of domestic violence in homosexual relationships is also quite disturbing.

Honestly the data here is very muddled. Small sample size and poor, narrow sampling methods appears to be a common complaint and without knowing how the three authors you cite here did their studies I can’t say that they did a bad job but I can’t feel confident they did a good one either. I see sources that say the domestic violence rate is about the same in heterosexual couples as it is in homosexual couples and I see sources that say it’s not. I won’t concede you’re right but I also won’t say you’re wrong. Most everything else you cite here is dubious so it wouldnt surprise me if this is as well but at the moment I can’t provide data to prove it.

4) One last bit of information: the life expectancy among gay men is far below that of their heterosexual counterparts.

You’re citing data here that was taken from papers focusing on the spread of AIDS and using studies done at the height of the AIDS epidemic when people who had contracted the disease many years before were dying of it, and before we had some of the modern antiviral medications we have now were available. Between the massive AIDS awareness campaigns that have gone on for the last 20 years and advances in modern medicine this shouldn’t be a cause for concern anymore.

So to sum up, homosexual “marriage” involves couples who cannot remain monogamous, whose “committed” relationships on average last around 3 years, whose sexual promiscuity all but assures injury and illness, whose relationships are fraught with violence far above the norm, and whose life expectancies match those of individuals living at the start of the Industrial Revolution.

So to sum up, you cite information whose validity ranges from questionable to laughable and use that to make the case against gay marriage when ironically we could help combat many of the issues you bring up by destigmatizing homosexuality in general and gay marriage in particular and letting them play by the same rules heterosexuals do.

Are these the people to whom we really want to grant special social status, adoption rights, and all the rest of it? Or can we stop pretending that this is just an alternative lifestyle with all the consequence of wearing a different pair of socks?

They don’t want a special status, they want the same status.

alchemist19 on February 24, 2012 at 3:33 AM

Marriage existed before any of the fifty states, and will exist when the fifty states are a distant memory.

Akzed on February 24, 2012 at 1:40 AM

Amen. This is what the libertarians don’t get: conservatism is not just about a fetish for individual do-whatever-you-want-ism. It’s about a civilization that works, and the basic foundation of that is truth.

You can’t go around passing laws that say sodomy is marriage and infanticide is women’s happiness and by wishing it, create some kind of utopia where those things magically become true.

joe_doufu on February 24, 2012 at 4:09 AM

So to sum up, you cite information whose validity ranges from questionable to laughable and use that to make the case against gay marriage when ironically we could help combat many of the issues you bring up by destigmatizing homosexuality in general and gay marriage in particular and letting them play by the same rules heterosexuals do.

alchemist19 on February 24, 2012 at 3:33 AM

I’m sorry, but your gut feelings and anecdotes don’t have any bearing on the data I presented. If you have other studies, that’s another thing entirely, but what’s silly is thinking you can just say “I don’t buy that” or “what about this or that hypothetical” and then pronounce the data invalid.

These are real studies of real subjects (and more than just 3 studies, I might add), and no amount of wishful thinking detracts from that. The only counter-arguments are criticisms of methodology or other, more valid studies.

One other caution, should you choose to present further, more salient arguments, is the fact that the data from a lot of studies (thanks to the shining example set by Kinsey) are hopelessly politicized. Samples are too small, subjects volunteer to support political points, and the fundamental rules of the scientific method are discarded in the service of an agenda.

Thuja, a very nice lesbian lady who comments here, voiced her own frustrations with these blatant attempts to pass off propaganda as science, even relating a personal experience with “researchers.” Her synagogue, which is attended by numerous gay couples who have adopted children, was approached by people from the University of Florida who were wanting to conduct a study related to homosexuality and child rearing.

The kicker is they were promising the congregants that the outcome of the study would be positive for the homosexual community.

This is not science. It’s propaganda. It isn’t a “study” if you’ve rigged it to say what you want it to say.

So again, I’d be more than happy to look at whatever additional data you (or anyone) care to present, but odds are I’m already familiar with the methodological problems of the studies you’ll be citing. With all due respect for the autonomy of every human being–and with the knowledge that I make plenty of bad decisions myself–homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equivalent in their outcomes, and it is no service to society to pretend otherwise.

Nom de Boom on February 24, 2012 at 4:47 AM

I’m not sure how homosexual marriage has any impact whatsoever upon my life. If the gay couple up the street lives together or is officially married is all the same to me. It’s none of my business, and I don’t care.

The sooner we stop focusing on these social issues, the sooner we’ll be able to fix our country’s real problems, which consist of a bloated federal government making unconstitutional power grabs to limit our freedom, confiscate our wealth, and enslave us to the state with debt. Whether Bob and Steve can get married is small potatoes.

DRayRaven on February 24, 2012 at 5:39 AM

Leave marriage in the church. When it comes to the government, we have legal partnerships. I don’t now and never did need my marriage “approved” by any government and I’m skeptical of those who do.

rhombus on February 24, 2012 at 7:13 AM

I don’t back gay marriage. I don’t care.

Nothing that happens in any state legislature, or federal government, or popular vote regarding “the definition of marriage” will change the way I feel about my relationship with my wife.

I don’t f*cking care.

spinach.chin on February 24, 2012 at 1:47 AM

Seems you were PWND. Hilarious. You are one funny guy. Pathetic.

CW on February 24, 2012 at 7:16 AM

Socoms: Please eductate and resist the temptation to legislate. Especially legislation that brings MORE Gov control into our lives. Win hearts and minds and resist using the government’s boot. Using the Gov boot is what the other party does.

rhombus on February 24, 2012 at 7:36 AM

I live in Maryland and O’Malley has a been horrible tax, tax, tax liberal idiot. He now wants to add a 6% state tax on top of a gallon of gas. In addition to the taxes already built into the price of a gallon of gas. The guy is just a sickening embarrassment.

jazzmo on February 24, 2012 at 7:38 AM

Congratulations Maryland! I am glad to see that your legislature (and not your courts) have voted to allow same sex couples to form the same types of contracts as straight couples.

MJBrutus on February 24, 2012 at 7:44 AM

Armin Tamzarian on February 24, 2012 at 2:29 AM

Precisely! Ain’t Federalism grand?

MJBrutus on February 24, 2012 at 7:46 AM

I live in Maryland and O’Malley has a been horrible tax, tax, tax liberal idiot. He now wants to add a 6% state tax on top of a gallon of gas.

jazzmo on February 24, 2012 at 7:38 AM

I live in Maryland too. Not only is O’Malley increasing taxes, he’s also trying to take away up to 20% of tax deductions.

Trafalgar on February 24, 2012 at 7:54 AM

Seems you were PWND. Hilarious. You are one funny guy. Pathetic.

CW on February 24, 2012 at 7:16 am

Oh noes, I was pwnd!

I was right, he was wrong. Simple add that.

spinach.chin on February 24, 2012 at 7:57 AM

Simple as…

spinach.chin on February 24, 2012 at 7:57 AM

Apparently democrats are all about liberty when it comes to gay marriage and spending other peoples money … everything else not so much.

Even if gay marriage is accepted in all 50 states this will never end. The left simply doesn’t stop.

darwin on February 24, 2012 at 7:58 AM

jazzmo on February 24, 2012 at 7:38 AM

Trafalgar on February 24, 2012 at 7:54 AM

I’ll bet the phrase “spending cuts” is nowhere in his vocabulary.

darwin on February 24, 2012 at 8:00 AM

Except that “straight ones” don’t have much to do with one another’s feces…

Akzed on February 24, 2012 at 12:54 AM

Ummm….yes they do. The body breaks down with age. Incontinence, colostomy bags, colonoscopies, enemas, etc., are things married, straight couples have to deal with daily.

Dante on February 24, 2012 at 8:02 AM

Bottom line: Everyone is shtupping everyone else, regardless of gender or orientation. There wouldn’t be shotgun weddings or so much obsession with it in our culture if it wasn’t. Also for all you fuddy duddies, many women enjoy sodomy just as much as regular relations soley for the purposes of procreation under the sheets, while not looking at eachother. Protip.

Gay marriage? ZZZzzzz

antisense on February 24, 2012 at 8:04 AM

Hopefully this will open the door for polygamy & interspecies marriages.
Diversity is KING!

Badger40 on February 24, 2012 at 8:05 AM

many women enjoy sodomy just as much as regular relations soley for the purposes of procreation under the sheets, while not looking at eachother

antisense on February 24, 2012 at 8:04 AM

There are also people who enjoy getting pi$$ed on & crapped on by their partners as well as people who like beating each other with whips & bringing the family dog into the sex romp.
Let’s have anything goes. Dolphins with men & women, dogs & men & women, hamsters, gold fish, cats, parakeets, chickens & turkeys, and don’t forget horses & cows & bulls.
There’s a lot of pleasure for all to be had there.
And as long as we’re at it, hasn’t NAMBLA had a very good point for years?
You just can’t beat a 12 year old.
That slippery slop can lead to some really pleasurable situations.
We are being denied. And it’s not fair at all.

Badger40 on February 24, 2012 at 8:08 AM

I still can’t understand why the state has a right to prevent people from being in love from getting’ married’.
It’s like the state is stopping people from being together.
The state is stopping people from their S&M choices & their polygamy choices & their child-love choices.
This is just not fair at all.
Polygamists should be able to practice their love officially!

OR-we could just let each state decide on this stuff, like the 10th Amendment allows.
Let it go to a referendum & see what happens.
SCOTUS & the Feds have no right to decide here.
The Fed’s enumerated powers are very clear here.
So if MD wants to live like that, oookay.
But ND didn’t, & we’ve got people giving us trouble over it.
If you want to ‘marry’ your gay lover, then go somewhere where the people of that state want it.
Otherwise everybody needs to STFU.

Badger40 on February 24, 2012 at 8:15 AM

Badger40 on February 24, 2012 at 8:08 AM

Huh? It just isn’t anyone’s business what two adults do. Unless you are in favor of sodomy laws and restricting the rights of heterosexual couples in their own homes. It truly is a 10th Amendment issue and should be left to the states. If you do think so often upon it and are that motivated, forward an amendment to the constitution banning states from marrying homosexuals.

antisense on February 24, 2012 at 8:16 AM

And BTW-I think yall know my position on this issue.
But I’ll state it anyway: I’m not for it & I voted for the ban here in ND.
No one is stopping gays from having sex or living together or leaving their property to each other etc.
This is nothing but the homosexual community trying to force their acceptance of their lifestyle on us.
That’s all it;s ever been about.
North Dakotans are not screaming about gays doing their thing together.
We leave them alone & we don’t want to hear about their gayness.
We ask that they just live their lives & stop talking about sex altogether.
We don’t want to hear about it.

Badger40 on February 24, 2012 at 8:18 AM

antisense on February 24, 2012 at 8:16 AM

Read my statement regarding their ‘business’.
No one is stopping them from being together.
No one has stopped them in most cases from leaving their property to each other, having little trysts together, kissing in public, visiting their sick lover in the hospital, etc.
These are state issues.
We in North Dakota have already spoken.
The right to pursue happiness has not been denied to homosexuals.
They can still have their bu!!sex if they won’t.
But each community has a right to govern themselves.
And if a community doesn’t want homosexual legal joinings which carry extra privileges BEYOND the right to pursue happiness, then they don’t have to.
There is no RIGHT to a legal marriage.
There is no RIGHT to anything beyond what the Const & Bill of Rights spells out.
This reading btwn the lines BS & trying to channel what the forefathers were actually saying without saying it is why we’re in this crisis in America concerning Federal power.
STATE ISSUE.
And many states have already spoken.

Badger40 on February 24, 2012 at 8:22 AM

won’t = want

Badger40 on February 24, 2012 at 8:24 AM

I also say the same thing about things like divorces & age requirements for marriages etc.
The states have the right to decide those things for themselves.
And yet you would have people whine about how it’s so unfair that 12yo shouldn’t get married or how it isn’t fair there’s a waiting time for a divorce.
Or how it’s not fair that the city of Mandan ND banned strip clubs.
Doesn’t a woman have a right to show her body to whomever she pleases in public? For money?
While we’re on that subject, prostitution should also be legal everywhere!
It’s a right!
Spare me the kibbizting.
State issues.
The Feds have only a few enumerated powers.
They have no call to interfere in these things.

Badger40 on February 24, 2012 at 8:27 AM

The Feds have only a few enumerated powers.
They have no call to interfere in these things.

Badger40 on February 24, 2012 at 8:27 AM

So clearly you are against DOMA then…

libfreeordie on February 24, 2012 at 8:31 AM

This is nothing but the homosexual community trying to force their acceptance of their lifestyle on us.
That’s all it;s ever been about.

Badger40 on February 24, 2012 at 8:18 AM

It’s also about the left having another issue to use to portray conservatives as intolerant bigots.

So if the issue is as unimportant as you say, it might be better to let them have the win, get the issue off the table, and move onto other things that are actually important…like entitlement reform and simplifying the tax code.

The only people who really give a damn what a gay couple is doing or not doing and what they call it is exactly the kind of bigot the left wants to portray us as being, anyway.

DRayRaven on February 24, 2012 at 8:37 AM

The guy is just a sickening embarrassment.

jazzmo on February 24, 2012 at 7:38 AM

And a darling of Democrats, especially on the national level.

Happy Nomad on February 24, 2012 at 8:39 AM

This law is clearly an attack on the African American community. The right of American blacks to live on the down low will not be infringed upon!

Archivarix on February 24, 2012 at 8:40 AM

Warms the cocles of my bung………..

texasgoat on February 24, 2012 at 8:46 AM

So clearly you are against DOMA then…

libfreeordie on February 24, 2012 at 8:31 AM

Yes I am.
Your “…” was clearly an assumption that I would not be.
Unless there is really a huge movement for a Const Amendment regarding this, let each state decide.
Then you will really find out how conservative Americans are.
Even the liberal cesspool that is California has already spoken on this issue. And yet, no one wants to listen.

It’s also about the left having another issue to use to portray conservatives as intolerant bigots.

So if the issue is as unimportant as you say, it might be better to let them have the win, get the issue off the table, and move onto other things that are actually important…like entitlement reform and simplifying the tax code.

The only people who really give a damn what a gay couple is doing or not doing and what they call it is exactly the kind of bigot the left wants to portray us as being, anyway.

DRayRaven on February 24, 2012 at 8:37 AM

First of all, being against something like this is not being bigoted.
I have the right to disagree with gays getting married.
And my state has the right to set its own standard.
This crap about letting them win bcs it’s not worth fighting about is ridiculous.
A lot of people gave up on the rights of the unborn bcs they believe it’s ‘not worth fighting for’.
If there ever needs to be a Const Amendment, it needs to be one that sanctifies a life.
I could care less about two guys wanting to ‘marry’ so they can have spiritual bu!!sex for the rest of their lives.

Badger40 on February 24, 2012 at 8:57 AM

I vehemently disagree with homosexuality.
But I don’t go around disparaging homosexuals every chance I get.
I am not bigoted.
But I am intolerant of two guys or gals getting it on with each other.
And I’m not going to feel bad about that.
I’m also intolerant of people f$%^ing corpses of humans & animals.
I’m intolerant in general of what I consider deviant human behavior.
So what?
You are never going to force the majority of Americans to pine for gays being able to ‘get married’.
They can already ‘get married’ if they want to.
Just not ‘officially’.
Just like we have polygamists amongst us.
We just have no reason to sanction behavior that undermines the natural family unit.

Badger40 on February 24, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Badger40 on February 24, 2012 at 9:01 AM

+ 1 million

There is more to being a Conservative than just being able to count money.

If Americans were for this, it would already be in every state.

kingsjester on February 24, 2012 at 9:07 AM

jazzmo on February 24, 2012 at 7:38 AM

Trafalgar on February 24, 2012 at 7:54 AM

I’ll bet the phrase “spending cuts” is nowhere in his vocabulary.

darwin on February 24, 2012 at 8:00 AM

Owe’Malley inherited a balanced budget and low taxes. He raided the trasportation fund to throw money at his base, and then cried that we needed to improve infrastructure, so we had to raise taxes, tolls, and put an EXTRA 6% on gas to pay for it.

Beware, that idjit has been looking for a presidential bid, and national Dem leaders love him.

Laura in Maryland on February 24, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Thanks for all the people making it ever so clear of their hatred of homosexuals, especially of gay men. We all know that lesbians are really hot, right.

Let’s all forget the fornicators, the adulterers, the child abusers. the wife beaters and the jerks who do have children and fail to provide for them.

Oh, the gay agenda is vibrant and clear. We just wanted to be treated like human beings like anyone else in this country.

SC.Charlie on February 24, 2012 at 9:29 AM

I don’t much care for Maryland. But they got this one right.

Vyce on February 24, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Except that “straight ones” don’t have much to do with one another’s feces…

Akzed on February 24, 2012 at 12:54 AM

Until that straight couple has anal sex.

Seriously, I never hear people this obsessed with feces outside of the Westboro Baptist Church.

MadisonConservative on February 24, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Seriously, I never hear people this obsessed with feces outside of the Westboro Baptist Church.

MadisonConservative on February 24, 2012 at 9:33 AM

I seriously hope all of their hands are above the keyboard.

antisense on February 24, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Want to know what a nation under judgement looks like?

tom daschle concerned on February 24, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Oh, the gay agenda is vibrant and clear. We just wanted to be treated like human beings like anyone else in this country.

SC.Charlie on February 24, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Sounds like “gay mafia” talk to me. Why are you trying to FORCE your views upon the rest of us?!

Vyce on February 24, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Want to know what a nation under judgement looks like?

tom daschle concerned on February 24, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Dunno. Are you forwarding lesbians touchin’ on one another as the cause behind hurricane Katrina?

antisense on February 24, 2012 at 9:38 AM

In 31 of 31 states where it has been put to the people to vote (not legislators or judges), the people have banned same-sex marriage — even California! The people of Maryland have not yet voted on this only politicians.

Christian Conservative on February 24, 2012 at 9:44 AM

There are many gay men that don’t engage in anal sex. You might know that if gays were anything but a mincing caricature to you, you bigoted jackass. When you consider that lesbians don’t engage in anal sex and many straight couples do, your obsession with the sex lives of gay men is exposed for what it is.

sobincorporated on February 24, 2012 at 1:05 AM

That’s simply not true. The fact that the vast majority of gay men indulge in sodomy with a vast array of people, many perfect strangers, is why STDs and AIDS in particular hit the gay male community like a bomb.

CorporatePiggy on February 24, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Thanks for all the people making it ever so clear of their hatred of homosexuals, especially of gay men. We all know that lesbians are really hot, right.

Let’s all forget the fornicators, the adulterers, the child abusers. the wife beaters and the jerks who do have children and fail to provide for them.

Oh, the gay agenda is vibrant and clear. We just wanted to be treated like human beings like anyone else in this country.

SC.Charlie on February 24, 2012 at 9:29 AM

When I meet a homosexual, I greet them like I would any other human being.
If I meet them having sex in the park, I would vilify them just like I would a heterosexual for having sex in a public park.
If I go to someone’s house & meet a homosexual who just got through having sex with his lover, I’m going to go HOME & probably not go there again, just like I would if I met a swinging couple.
Give me a break.
I don’t hang around homosexuals, adulterers, wife beaters or alcoholics or people who are hooked on porn.
I don’t agree with their choices & I stay away from them.
But I don’t go looking for opportunities to disparage them, either.
Bcs they’re people.
You are nothing but a whining lump.
I don’t hate homosexuals. But I certainly hate being cajoled & denigrated for not approving of two guys co-habitating & screwing each other.
I am also intolerant of my daughter’s premarital sexual behavior that resulted in a baby out of wedlock.
But I don’t treat her like $hit for it.
Only when she whines to me about her situation do I say anything judgemental like “It’s too bad you couldn’t keep your legs together”.
I hang around my daughter bcs I gave birth to her.
But as she stands right now, my other daughters included at this crappy stage in their lives, I wouldn’t go out of my way to see them if they were not family.
That would include any homosexual relative I might have.
You’re trying to vilify folks like us bcs you know what you’re doing is wrong & you are angry we won’t accept your bad behavior.
Why the hell do you care what we think about your deviant behavior?
Bcs you still have the right to pursue happiness.
But not at all costs.

Badger40 on February 24, 2012 at 9:53 AM

What homosexuals are really afraid of is that they KNOW the majority overwhelmingly in America is that they do not want to see the further erosion of the family unit.
I know perfectly well that there probably won’t be millions of homosexuals getting married.
But this opens the door to other deviant behaviors being legally recognized that will even further undermine society & the family unit like polygamy.
We do not want this in our society.
If there is a state that does, you can be sure the situation there will not be conducive to raising a family.
That is why Americans don’t want this forced on them.
It has nothing to do with ‘hatred’ for gays.

Badger40 on February 24, 2012 at 10:02 AM

When Matt_X wakes up after his 24-hour “Naruto” marathon, this thread can expect another 75 comments from him alone. Be sure to ask him about that one time when his gay roommate had gay not-sex with him and how that experience changed his views on homosexuality and politics.

Jeddite on February 24, 2012 at 10:02 AM

That’s simply not true. The fact that the vast majority of gay men indulge in sodomy with a vast array of people, many perfect strangers, is why STDs and AIDS in particular hit the gay male community like a bomb. – CorporatePiggy on February 24, 2012 at 9:50 AM

I know, every limp-wristed gay person I know has had at least a thousand partners./sarc. Just like that conservative Republican Sheriff in Arizona who has recently been in the news.

SC.Charlie on February 24, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Badger40 on February 24, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What one person does should be of no consequence if it doesn’t harm another.

darwin on February 24, 2012 at 10:11 AM

I know, every limp-wristed gay person I know has had at least a thousand partners./sarc. Just like that conservative Republican Sheriff in Arizona who has recently been in the news.

SC.Charlie on February 24, 2012 at 10:04 AM

I won’t pretend to specifically know the real per capita degree to which homosexuals are into multiple partners versus heterosexuals.
But my personal experience, having lived in portions of the country where there are a lot of homosexuals, like the SoCal area, is that they are highly promiscuous compared to heterosexuals, per capita.
So are people who are addicted to porn & alcohol etc.
Deviant behaviors lead to destructive consequences, whether it’s homosexual behavior or plain old heterosexual adultery & promiscuous sex in general.

Badger40 on February 24, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Badger40 on February 24, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What one person does should be of no consequence if it doesn’t harm another.

darwin on February 24, 2012 at 10:11 AM

I agree. Expect for the fact that certain behaviors are detrimental to communities in general.
Like having a t!tty bar in town or strippers performing for large crowds in town.
States have a right to all the other powers the Feds don’t have.
And there’s nothing in the Const. that says people can have their deviant behavior legally sanctioned.
No one is stopping people at the federal level from being able to do those things.
But the state does not have to recognize a man marrying his dog or another man.
He can still get it on with whom he wants, provided there’s no law against someone taking sexual advantage of the dog, or a young child.

Badger40 on February 24, 2012 at 10:15 AM

“I won’t pretend to specifically know the real per capita degree to which homosexuals are into multiple partners versus heterosexuals.
But my personal experience, having lived in portions of the country where there are a lot of homosexuals, like the SoCal area, is that they are highly promiscuous compared to heterosexuals, per capita.
So are people who are addicted to porn & alcohol etc.
Deviant behaviors lead to destructive consequences, whether it’s homosexual behavior or plain old heterosexual adultery & promiscuous sex in general. – Badger40 on February 24, 2012 at 10:11 AM”

For the longest time people have been beating up on gays, forcing us to hide in the closet. We have been in fear of arrested. We have been in fear of losing their job. We have been made to be ashamed of their sexual orientation. I am gay. I have never had a homosexual relationship. I bought into the BS that it would change and you could pray the gay away. And, I also thought it was unethical for me to deceive any female into thinking that I was straight. So I chose many decades ago to remain celibate, in the closet and utterly silent about my sexual orientation. Well, that only led to being a semi-recluse, anxiety and depression. About five years ago I could take it no longer and suffered a very serious bout of major depression. I played Russian roulette for about three or five days. I cheated. I was committed for treatment and when I got out I came out to close friends and family.

SC.Charlie on February 24, 2012 at 10:32 AM

SC.Charlie on February 24, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Sorry you went through that. I’m glad you’re on our side.

darwin on February 24, 2012 at 10:37 AM

When I meet a homosexual, I greet them like I would any other human being.
If I meet them having sex in the park, I would vilify them just like I would a heterosexual for having sex in a public park.
If I go to someone’s house & meet a homosexual who just got through having sex with his lover, I’m going to go HOME & probably not go there again, just like I would if I met a swinging couple.
Give me a break.
I don’t hang around homosexuals, adulterers, wife beaters or alcoholics or people who are hooked on porn.
I don’t agree with their choices & I stay away from them.
But I don’t go looking for opportunities to disparage them, either.
Bcs they’re people.
You are nothing but a whining lump.
I don’t hate homosexuals. But I certainly hate being cajoled & denigrated for not approving of two guys co-habitating & screwing each other.
I am also intolerant of my daughter’s premarital sexual behavior that resulted in a baby out of wedlock.
But I don’t treat her like $hit for it.
Only when she whines to me about her situation do I say anything judgemental like “It’s too bad you couldn’t keep your legs together”.
I hang around my daughter bcs I gave birth to her.
But as she stands right now, my other daughters included at this crappy stage in their lives, I wouldn’t go out of my way to see them if they were not family.
That would include any homosexual relative I might have.
You’re trying to vilify folks like us bcs you know what you’re doing is wrong & you are angry we won’t accept your bad behavior.
Why the hell do you care what we think about your deviant behavior?
Bcs you still have the right to pursue happiness.
But not at all costs.

Badger40 on February 24, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Wow.

Dante on February 24, 2012 at 10:48 AM

“I won’t pretend to specifically know the real per capita degree to which homosexuals are into multiple partners versus heterosexuals.
But my personal experience, having lived in portions of the country where there are a lot of homosexuals, like the SoCal area, is that they are highly promiscuous compared to heterosexuals, per capita.

Badger40 on February 24, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Which is funny. Here we have promiscuity and instability as stereotypes associated with being gay, while those same gay men and women have been fighting to gain recognition of their stable relationships. I find it quite interesting that those willing to deny same-sex couples the commitment of marriage are those who demagogue the promiscuity stereotypes.

ZachV on February 24, 2012 at 10:54 AM

If I am a polygamist my argument for allowing me to marry my multiple wives legally is getting better by the day. As I understand Muslims, as defined in the Koran may have up to four wives. Muslims living in the USA will soon have a legal argument as well.
Once you open the door to redefine marriage you cannot close it. The door is now shoved wide open.

FireBlogger on February 24, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Sorry you went through that. I’m glad you’re on our side. – darwin on February 24, 2012 at 10:37 AM

I am not on the side that demonizes gays. I don’t want the gay teenagers of today to go through the hell that I put myself through. I know that it is often said, but no one chooses their sexual orientation. And, nearly everyone has some member in their family who is gay, even Dick Cheney.

SC.Charlie on February 24, 2012 at 11:14 AM

“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”

Abraham Lincoln

Mason on February 24, 2012 at 11:23 AM

I am not on the side that demonizes gays. I don’t want the gay teenagers of today to go through the hell that I put myself through. I know that it is often said, but no one chooses their sexual orientation. And, nearly everyone has some member in their family who is gay, even Dick Cheney.

SC.Charlie on February 24, 2012 at 11:14 AM

That’s not what I meant. I meant the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness side.

darwin on February 24, 2012 at 11:23 AM

“Christie’s not booting the issue to the public because he wants the majority to crush the minority’s rights, he’s booting it because he expects the majority will affirm the minority’s rights and thereby nullify his politically expedient veto.” – AlPu

That sounds rather cynical methinks. I heard Christie’s explanation to Don Imus yesterday and it made sense to me. The Gov. represents all of the people and he welcomes the public’s input, not just that of legislators.

NOTE: Gov. Christie really does oppose “gay marriage”.
Shouldn’t we celebrate a politician/leader who has principles and stands by them?

Someone wants it both ways and it’s not Gov, Christie, AlPu.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 24, 2012 at 11:47 AM

For those of you harping on how bad heterosexuals have been for marriage consider this: most of the same people who are for gay marriage would have been the same ones pushing no-falut divorce.

Marriage is the only contract that you can break and get out no-fault. BTW, I am just as against no-fault divorce as gay marriage. I have also been married to the same man for 20 years faithfully. Given the choice, I wouldn’t have a “state” marriage. I don’t care if the state sanctions our committment, and state sanctioned unions are by definition BIG government. They are done for the benefit of the state, and not the individual. The only reason we got married is for our biological children.

melle1228 on February 24, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Maryland becomes eighth state to legalize gay marriage

Not exactly accurate. They became the second state to legalize gay marriage. Every other state had it imposed upon them by the judiciary of their states. And if this goes to a referendum in Maryland we will be back to only one state legalizing gay marriage.

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4