Biden: “I’m absolutely comfortable” with gay marriage

posted at 12:38 pm on May 7, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

While Team Obama eagerly engages in various campaigns of misdirection to get people talking about anything other than the president’s terrible economic performance, it looks like last week’s flap concerning the resignation of the Romney camp’s openly gay staffer presented Team Obama an opportunity to work on their own gay-marriage messaging. Sending out their top scout to determine the lay of the land, Vice President Biden elucidated his own views on gay marriage on Sunday’s Meet the Press:

“Look, I am vice president of the United States of America. The president sets the policy. I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly, I don’t see much of a distinction beyond that.”

It would be way too controversial of an election-year flip-flop for President Obama himself to directly endorse gay marriage, so the White House is instead crafting a careful image of a reserved-yet-receptive president with “evolving” views who surrounds himself with sympathetic high-ranking personnel. Obama’s campaign is always quick to tout the repeal of DADT as a signature achievement, and Biden also pointed to some of his boss’s executive orders in support of gay rights, but Biden’s office insisted that the vice president’s words were not an endorsement in favor of gay marriage:

The seeming endorsement of gay marriage by the vice president quickly made news across the Twittersphere. Chuck Todd, reporter and political analyst for NBC News, tweeted that Biden had gone further than Obama on gay marriage. A spokesperson for Biden contacted Todd to clarify that Biden was not speaking for Obama. But, a top Obama campaign official seemed to suggest, via Twitter, that Obama held the same view.

“What VP said – that all married couples should have exactly the same legal rights – is precisely POTUS’s position,” David Axelrod responded to Todd via Twitter.

A spokesperson in Biden’s office sent an email to reporters saying that Biden’s position on gay marriage had not changed, but, like Obama, his position is “evolving.”

“The vice president was saying what the president has said previously – that committed and loving same-sex couples deserve the same rights and protections enjoyed by all Americans, and that we oppose any effort to rollback those rights. That’s why we stopped defending the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in legal challenges and support legislation to repeal it. Beyond that, the Vice President was expressing that he too is evolving on the issue, after meeting so many committed couples and families in this country,” the spokesperson wrote.

Gay-rights advocates lauded Biden’s outspokenness and encouraged President Obama to say as much, too — but, like many hot-button issues that excite separate groups within his base, actual hard-hitting decisions (or even just real-talk) will likely have to wait until 2013, if at all.


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

I always laught at the conservative argument that gays already have “equal” rights because they can marry someone of the opposite gender. They’re GAY, morons! They couldn’t marry the opposite gender unless living a total lie. That’s like saying blacks in the 1940′s had equal rights because, hey, they had their own water fountains too.

inthemiddle on May 7, 2012 at 2:54 PM

You always laugh at people being treated equally under the law and fabricating a civil right for gay marriage where no such right exists because no one is being treated unequally under the law? Good to know.

I always laught at the strawmen arguments that pedophiles already have “equal” rights because they can have consensual sex with an adult. They’re PEDOPHILES, moron! They couldn’t sex up adults unless living a total lie.

That’s like saying blacks in the 1940′s had equal rights because, hey, they had their own water fountains too.

So gays are separate, but equal? Where is this being practiced in the United States?

NotCoach on May 7, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Because hey, medical power of attorney privilges which can be enshrined in existing law anyway is absolutely the same thing as access to water, right?

Well, in his example, yeah it’s the same thing. Blacks had access to water, just not the same water as whites. Gays may have access to the legal benefits of marriage, but not the same way straights do.

Cyhort on May 7, 2012 at 3:05 PM

The “recognition” of gay marriage is being forced upon us.

OH NOES!!! Call the whaaaaaambulance stat!

You poor thing, having to trudge through the rest of your life with the knowledge that Bill and Steve’s marriage is state-recognized.

And to think all those homeless children, cancer victims, wounded vets and others have the gall to make a fuss when teh gheys are marrying each other.

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 3:08 PM

You can go on believing that gay marriage is somehow a society killer…no one will stop ya. You don’t have to accept it. But to say that you’re against gay marriage based on your prejudiced, homophobic viewpoint and infer that it’s a valid reason to ban gay marriage, you’re gonna just have to grow up.

I’m sure there were many, especially in the South, that saw blacks as not worthy to be considered full citizens, and were sent into a tizzy when segregation was ended, claiming they were forced to accept blacks as “normal” and such.

So again, my heart doesn’t quite fall out for you on this simply because you don’t “like it”.

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 2:55 PM

.
Redefining “homophobic” now, I see.

I reject accepting homosexuality on the basis of Romans 1: 25-28.
.
There is no valid Biblical corelation between the pejudice shown the black slaves in the american south, and the rejection of homosexuality as a valid alternate normality.

listens2glenn on May 7, 2012 at 3:11 PM

If I refused, I’d be surprised if I weren’t fired.

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 3:03 PM

I’m surprised that you think conservatives are too stupid to realize that you’re talking out both sides of your mouth.

Oh wait, you’re a progressive Moby, of course you do.

Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Well, in his example, yeah it’s the same thing. Blacks had access to water, just not the same water as whites. Gays may have access to the legal benefits of marriage, but not the same way straights do.

Cyhort on May 7, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Gays have the exact same access to marriage as anyone else , just as straights have the exact same access to civil unions as anyone. Or is there a gayness test before two people can enter into a civil union?

NotCoach on May 7, 2012 at 3:11 PM

I believe the whole incident and subsequent legal case here had more to do with creating a scene and making some kind of point than it did with any real emotional or any other damages caused by the photog’s refusal.

Progressives creating a scene to advance an agenda when they cannot win on the facts. Never thought I’d live to see the day.

But say I get a client at work (advertising agency) who hires my company to make up some graphic work for an abortion clinic. As a Catholic, abortion is in direct conflict with my personal religious views. Does that mean I am protected by the constitution to be able to refuse doing work for that client?

Are you running the company? If so, you should have the right to accept or refuse any contract you like, because contract law is predicated on mutual assent.

If you are not running the company, then you’re not really introducing the conflict between your rights and the law as it pertains to enforcing equality, are you?

The Schaef on May 7, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Apparently you never heard of the Stonewall Riots or Matthew Shephard. Please educate yourself before you type. You’ll embarrass yourself less.

inthemiddle on May 7, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Matthew Shepherd was killed by law enforcement officers in response to his equal rights protest?

If that’s the case, then yeah, I really DO need to educate myself. I could have sworn he was murdered by a couple of hilljacks, who then went to jail for murdering somebody.

But thank you for making mention of the Stonewall Riots. You probably don’t realize that violent protests by gays only further distances your argument from that of the peaceful protests of the King movement, but whatever works for you.

The Schaef on May 7, 2012 at 3:15 PM

The “recognition” of gay marriage is being forced upon us.
OH NOES!!! Call the whaaaaaambulance stat!

You poor thing, having to trudge through the rest of your life with the knowledge that Bill and Steve’s marriage is state-recognized.

And to think all those homeless children, cancer victims, wounded vets and others have the gall to make a fuss when teh gheys are marrying each other.

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 3:08 PM

.
I’m not going to trudge through live, knowing that gay marriage is state recognized.

You’re to have to trudge through life, knowing it’s NOT.

listens2glenn on May 7, 2012 at 3:16 PM

I’m surprised that you think conservatives are too stupid to realize that you’re talking out both sides of your mouth.

Oh wait, you’re a progressive Moby, of course you do.

Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Big surprise…you tap-dance around the issue and babble some incoherent nonsense when you can’t own up to your own opinions and accusations. Some things never change.

I am gay, and support gay marriage. In your eyes, because of that, I’m a progressive moby. I’m pro-life, pro-gun rights, supported faith-based initiatives, a registered Republican, pro-personal responsibility, a foreign policy hawk, and a person who considers Ronald Reagan the greatest president of modern times…but hey, I support gay marriage, so back to the Left with me.

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Redefining “homophobic” now, I see.

listens2glenn on May 7, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Of course.

You notice how JetBoy and his ilk never seem to be able to explain why gay-sex marriage is a good thing for society. Instead they scream that you’re a homophobe.

The reason for that is because there isn’t one. Gay and lesbian relationships add nothing to society. They only consume.

The reason for marriage is very straightforward. Heterosexual sex produces children, and children need to be cared for; therefore, marriage was created to provide said children with a legal identity, a structure to protect them, clear affirmation of who was ultimately responsible for their well-being, and financial incentives to offset the cost of raising them.

Gay-sex relationships produce nothing of the sort; therefore, there is no need for them to be covered under marriage.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Dante, it merely redefines the fundamental substance of marriage. It may be a good idea to think this through more carefully and calmly.

Mason on May 7, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Same-sex marriage doesn’t do that, either.

And you’ve never come down on the side of “recognizing God”.

So where does that leave us?

I defy your definition of ‘liberty’.

listens2glenn on May 7, 2012 at 2:49 PM

I truly pity you.

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 3:18 PM

You have never come down on the side of liberty.
license.
Dante on May 7, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Fixed

Cleombrotus on May 7, 2012 at 3:18 PM

I’m not going to trudge through live, knowing that gay marriage is state recognized.

You’re to have to trudge through life, knowing it’s NOT.

listens2glenn on May 7, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Hate to break it to you, but all it takes is one state to allow it, and Constitutionally all other states have to recognize those marriages.

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 3:22 PM

I’m pro-life, pro-gun rights, supported faith-based initiatives, a registered Republican, pro-personal responsibility, a foreign policy hawk, and a person who considers Ronald Reagan the greatest president of modern times…but hey, I support gay marriage, so back to the Left with me.

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Yup.

Because, as you’ve made clear here, you will trade every single one of those things for gay-sex marriage.

Which means you don’t care about any of them. You only care about gay-sex marriage and getting special privileges based on your sexual orientation.

Which is why you and conservativism are incompatible. You are incapable of thinking beyond your sexual orientation and insist that your sexual orientation has to be given final decision-making power and veto on everything.

Which, since you insist it is an inborn characteristic, means that you are demanding to dictate the law of this country by virtue of your being born with the equivalent of black skin, and that everyone who disagrees with you is a “racist” (homophobe).

Just like Obama.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Hate to break it to you, but all it takes is one state to allow it, and Constitutionally all other states have to recognize those marriages.

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 3:22 PM

You ever heard of DOMA? Is DOMA unconstitutional?

NotCoach on May 7, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Hate to break it to you, but all it takes is one state to allow it, and Constitutionally all other states have to recognize those marriages.

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Then in that case, banning polygamy was illegal, since more than one state recognized it, banning first-cousin marriage was illegal, since more than one state recognized it, banning underage marriages was illegal, since more than one state recognized it….

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2012 at 3:26 PM

You ever heard of DOMA? Is DOMA unconstitutional?

NotCoach on May 7, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Yes and yes. Ever heard of the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV?

Then in that case, banning polygamy was illegal, since more than one state recognized it, banning first-cousin marriage was illegal, since more than one state recognized it, banning underage marriages was illegal, since more than one state recognized it….

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Banning it isn’t illegal, but the states have to recognize the marriages performed in other states.

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Big surprise…you tap-dance around the issue and babble some incoherent nonsense when you can’t own up to your own opinions and accusations. Some things never change.

I am gay, and support gay marriage. In your eyes, because of that, I’m a progressive moby. I’m pro-life, pro-gun rights, supported faith-based initiatives, a registered Republican, pro-personal responsibility, a foreign policy hawk, and a person who considers Ronald Reagan the greatest president of modern times…but hey, I support gay marriage, so back to the Left with me.

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Speaking of babbling…

I have backed up every opinion and accusation I’ve made. Every one.

You, on the other hand, have not. You’ve played the bigot card, the “it won’t effect straights” lie, and the “I’m a conservative so same sex marriage is a conservative issue” ludicrous nonsense.

You claim all these conservative credentials, but I hardly ever see your posts on those topics – in fact, on the Travon Martin topic you took the hard left progressive side.

You are an advocate for only one agenda – same sex marriage, a progressive homosexual agenda item, an agenda item of the left.

So yes, the democrat party is where the same sex agenda resides, since that’s your one issue then that’s where you belong. Go to Huffpo, DailyKOS, or DU and push for the democrat party to push your issue.

Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Humankind is capable of rationalizing EVERYTHING, concerning their own fleshly desires.
During a typically loving and reasonable discussion amongst friends, I was approaching this from the Christian viewpoint that gay sex is the (forgivable!) sin of fornication (sex outside of marriage), and “why should the government place its imprimatur upon marriage of gays?”.

As spoken by one of my dearest gay friends, with a huge, chilling grin on his face: “Checkmate!! There goes THAT argument, right?”

Does federally legalizing gay marriage affect MINE? No.
Would it assist in the development of callousness toward God?
I have no doubt.

Personally, I believe it’s none of the government’s business, leave it to the churches, AND don’t make it a federal law that churches would be guilty of breaking, by standing beside their religious convictions.

pambi on May 7, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Most conservative-myself included-support civil unions. Marriage should ONLY be between one man and one woman.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 7, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Maybe the states should only approve “civil unions” as a form a contract and leave “marriages” to the churches. Problem solved.

ZippyZ on May 7, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Yes and yes. Ever heard of the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV?

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Yup. Ever notice that it was never used to force a state to accept interracial marriages?

That’s because if you actually look at Article IV jurisprudence and decisions, you’ll note that the courts have been quite reluctant to impose on one state the requirements of another if they conflict.

And that leads us to this:

Banning it isn’t illegal, but the states have to recognize the marriages performed in other states.

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 3:28 PM

As I showed above, no, they don’t, as was shown during the whole argument over interracial marriage.

So you lose again. Furthermore, it’s hilarious for you to cite the Constitution, since your full intention is to completely violate the First Amendment.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Maybe government should get out of it altogether?

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Because, as you’ve made clear here, you will trade every single one of those things for gay-sex marriage. northdallasthirty on May 7, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Hey NDT! How’s my favorite closeted homosexual doing? :P

I’m pro-life, pro-gun rights, supported faith-based initiatives, a registered Republican, pro-personal responsibility, a foreign policy hawk, and a person who considers Ronald Reagan the greatest president of modern times…but hey, I support gay marriage, so back to the Left with me.

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 3:17 PM

You’d do well with my college’s Republican chair and I – all three of us are proud to be gay and conservative!

ZachV on May 7, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Watch the “marriage amendment” results tomorrow night from North Carolina. I think it has a fair shot of failing to pass because black turnout has been half of what it was in 2008.

SouthernGent on May 7, 2012 at 1:00 PM

I think it will pass. I’ve read enough about my churchgoing brothers & sisters in NC getting fired up by their preachers to pray (and vote) gay marriage away. Same as happened with Prop 8 in California.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 7, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Courts have been ruling for sometime now that this clause does not apply to conflicting laws. And since the courts hold that position it is impossible for DOMA to be unconstitutional on these grounds. About the most that could be reasonably claimed is that a gay couple could sue each other within their state of current residence under the laws of the state in which they got married. But any statutorily defined benefits of one state cannot overrule another state’s laws.

There have been and are challenges to DOMA. Do any of them claim to violate the Full Faith and Credit clause?

NotCoach on May 7, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Does federally legalizing gay marriage affect MINE? No.

pambi on May 7, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Neither would legalizing child marriage, bestial marriage, plural marriage, incestuous marriage, etc.

If you ever want to see a gay-sex liberal’s head spin, throw that back at them and ask them to explain how legalizing any of those would affect THEIR relationships.

They can’t do it. They spin and they spin, but ultimately they realize that you’ve got them cornered; they have to fall back on “public good” or “morality”, and that then explodes their entire case for gay-sex marriage.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2012 at 3:38 PM

You, on the other hand, have not. You’ve played the bigot card, the “it won’t effect straights” lie, and the “I’m a conservative so same sex marriage is a conservative issue” ludicrous nonsense. Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Marriage is a conservative issue, Rebar. We all recognize how marriage is an institution that binds us together with promise, commitment, fidelity, equal status amongst partners … Any conservative who embraced marriage as an institution would embrace marriage for both gays and straights.

ZachV on May 7, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Yup. Ever notice that it was never used to force a state to accept interracial marriages?

That’s because if you actually look at Article IV jurisprudence and decisions, you’ll note that the courts have been quite reluctant to impose on one state the requirements of another if they conflict.

Yes. That doesn’t make it any less unconstitutional. You aren’t exactly refuting anything here.

And that leads us to this:

As I showed above, no, they don’t, as was shown during the whole argument over interracial marriage.

So you lose again. Furthermore, it’s hilarious for you to cite the Constitution, since your full intention is to completely violate the First Amendment.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2012 at 3:34 PM

And again, just because an unconstitutional act and action stood, or that other unconstitutional acts and actions followed, does not make it any less unconstitutional.

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Neither would legalizing child marriage, bestial marriage, plural marriage, incestuous marriage, etc.

That makes about as much sense as claiming that passing Amendment 1 in North Carolina will lead to Catholics stoning gays, or the Federal gov’t passing a law that criminalizes being gay.

They’re both slippery slope arguments, and thus are fallacious.

ZachV on May 7, 2012 at 3:40 PM

I always laught at the conservative argument that gays already have “equal” rights because they can marry someone of the opposite gender. They’re GAY, morons! They couldn’t marry the opposite gender unless living a total lie. That’s like saying blacks in the 1940′s had equal rights because, hey, they had their own water fountains too.

inthemiddle on May 7, 2012 at 2:54 PM

I laugh even more at the ridiculous claim that homosexuals are being denied rights simply because the institution of marriage as it has always existed is unattractive to them.

BTW, I also can’t do anything about the fact that homosexuals cannot reproduce without artificial insemination, or that most people feel an instinctive revulsion for homosexual behavior, or that homosexuals are far more likely to be infected with dangerous diseases, or that homosexuals usually have low self esteem, or that homosexuality is a sin according to the Christian faith.

You’re going to have to accept the natural consequences of your actions rather than demand that everyone reshape their lives, religions, and social institutions to make you feel more accepted.

If you are a homosexual and therefore uninterested in marrying someone of the opposite sex, don’t whine about the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman. No, we’re not going to change the whole world because you claim you’re being discriminated against. Deal with it.

tom on May 7, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Hey NDT! How’s my favorite closeted homosexual doing? :P

Isn’t it funny how you can only be “authentic” gay if you subscribe to all their leftist dogmas?

You’d do well with my college’s Republican chair and I – all three of us are proud to be gay and conservative!

ZachV on May 7, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Translation: They too will trade everything for gay-sex marriage.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Love to see Jetboy here. Still running from the whole “Gays are harmless! But it’s not wise to wave ‘crosses of taunt’ at them, or the ensuing beatdown is totally not the gays fault!” line? Or the “Graffitting Mormon temples, blacklisting people and firing them for not agreeing with the gay militia’s demands is totally American and A-OK when gays do it!” stuff?

See, Jetboy and others just pretend that if only the poor repressed gays got every single thing they want, they would leave the rest of us alone and we would all sing kumbaya and hold hands while unicorns pranced by.

In reality, just about all signs point to a more, shall we say, Ernest Rohm style imposition of brute force on those who dare to criticize the gay über alles stand.

I for one do not think gay rights should go any farther until and unless the militant gay movement is firmly, and by the gays themselves, stamped out of existence. And since even the “reasonable” gays like Jetboy are firmly in favor of letting them run rampant, I see no reason to give them anything at all.

Vanceone on May 7, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Any conservative who embraced marriage as an institution would embrace marriage for both gays and straights.

ZachV on May 7, 2012 at 3:38 PM

That is flat out nonsense, and not what the GOP stands for. The republican party stands for traditional marriage – only.

Same sex “marriage” is a progessive homosexual agenda item, and it belongs in the democrat progressive party.

Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 3:43 PM

A spokesperson in Biden’s office sent an email to reporters saying that Biden’s position on gay marriage had not changed, but, like Obama, his position is “evolving.”

I truly hate ‘political-speak’.

To evolve, by it’s very definition, means to change. It’s impossible for anything to “evolve” without changing.

gravityman on May 7, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Translation: They too will trade everything for gay-sex marriage.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Why are you opposed to liberty?

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Happy Monday, JB ! ;-)

pambi on May 7, 2012 at 3:48 PM

“Marriage” will do nothing to resolve that inner turmoil. It’s a spiritual issue not amenable to legislative remedies.

When this doesn’t scratch that itch, what’ll you want next?

Cleombrotus on May 7, 2012 at 3:48 PM

That is flat out nonsense, and not what the GOP stands for. The republican party stands for traditional marriage – only.

Same sex “marriage” is a progessive homosexual agenda item, and it belongs in the democrat progressive party.

Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 3:43 PM

lol, and why’s that? Republicans reject equality before the law? Republicans reject limited government, due process, the liberty of individuals and the Freedom of Religion?

ZachV on May 7, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Any conservative who embraced marriage as an institution would embrace marriage for both gays and straights.

ZachV on May 7, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Gays can already get married. You talk about gay marriage as a cloak for same-sex marriage, which is what you’re actually advocating.

And there’s nothing conservative about that. Marriage is a special institution that only exists between men and women. If you got what you wanted, it would no longer be marriage.

tom on May 7, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Marriage is a conservative issue, Rebar. We all recognize how marriage is an institution that binds us together with promise, commitment, fidelity, equal status amongst partners … Any conservative who embraced marriage as an institution would embrace marriage for both gays and straights.

ZachV on May 7, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Nope.

Because conservatives understand the reason for all of those, and that is to ensure the best possible environment for raising and protecting the children that heterosexual sex produces.

Furthermore, conservatives are wise enough to know two things:

1) Merely getting married does not produce promise, commitment, or fidelity. Those both have to be there first.

2) The gay and lesbian community has demonstrated that it does not believe in promise, commitment, or fidelity, and, as its leading light Dan Savage states, actually considers those things to be “harmful”.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Really? So why is that gay marriage has never been passed as a law when put to a direct vote of the people? Only legislative action has ever been responsible for gay marriage becoming law.

This is because old people vote disproportionally compared to the general population. Old people are against gay marriage and young people are for it. It was about 30/70 for/against gay marriage 20 years ago and about 53/47 for/against now. Support for gay marriage gets stronger every year as the aging population dies off. Everyone in my family over the age of 60 is against it, everyone under the age of 50 in my family is for it. Its a generational thing.

Its a loser issue for Republicans because it distracts Americans from focusing on jobs and debt. The Republicans have done a good job in keeping the crazy preachers’ mouths shut the last couple of elections. Obama took their cue, and you did not hear a peep out of Jesse or Al the last election as well. The only way Romney wins is if he convinces Americans that the country needs fiscal discipline and that the super-rich should not pay any more taxes.

ZippyZ on May 7, 2012 at 3:50 PM

When this doesn’t scratch that itch, what’ll you want next?

Cleombrotus on May 7, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Sue people.

Proselytize children.

You know, good old fashioned conservative things.

Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 3:51 PM

… Freedom of Religion? ZachV on May 7, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Which by the way, I still haven’t found a good argument yet why in the US where we have the Freedom of Religion, the Protestant churches that support gay marriage (like Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians) ought to be forced to accept the doctrines of other Churches.

ZachV on May 7, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Maybe government should get out of it altogether?

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Great idea! We can start right now by rejecting all government action to redefine marriage.

Except, of course, that you want the government to actively redefine marriage first by overriding all other levels of government, and then “get out of the marriage business.”

If you really mean that the government should stay out of it, then start now. Otherwise you’re just as much a government activist pushing same-sex marriage as the rest. There is nothing libertarian about that.

tom on May 7, 2012 at 3:52 PM

ZachV on May 7, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Who says they are?

NotCoach on May 7, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Why are you opposed to liberty?

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 3:45 PM

How so?

You can with perfect right marry whomever you choose.

What you can’t do is to use it as a claim on the state to demand benefits and recognition.

Your argument that lack of gay marriage somehow abrogates liberty is the same as Sandra Fluke’s shrieking that her having to pay for her own abortions is anti-freedom.

Marriage is a privilege, extended in exchange for certain behaviors and a giving-up of liberty. You don’t want to follow any of the behaviors OR give up the liberty, but you still want the privilege.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2012 at 3:53 PM

That is flat out nonsense, and not what the GOP stands for. The republican party stands for traditional marriage – only.

Same sex “marriage” is a progessive homosexual agenda item, and it belongs in the democrat progressive party.

Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Not like I’m coming down on the whole “pro” side of this argument, but I do think Rebar is oversimplifying a bit on this issue.

In the party, you’ll get fiscal conservatives, whose main focus is responsible budgeting and protecting the free market; social conservatives, who think the federal government should be a balwark against the constant encroaching of progressivism and counter-cultural values being normalized; legislative – or state’s rights – conservatives, who believe in minimal federal intervention and de-centralization of power. Throw in some libertarians and some other odds and ends and you have a platform.

There are a lot of places where these groups overlap, but also there are a lot of places where they do not. A lot of fiscal conservatives, for example, are not always sold on the need for social conservatism, and the libertarians in particular will balk at the whole “legislating morality” argument. Social conservatives, given the choice between the Ryan budget and Bush’s faith-based initiatives, wel, they’ll take the money with not a second thought.

While it’s true that traditional marriage is a plank of the social conservative section of the platform, I hesitate to call it a universal, strictly-pass-or-fail litmus test for conservatism. Social conservatism, in fact, has the finest line to walk because it is the least committed of the various factions to minimal federal intervention.

The Schaef on May 7, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Those “conservatives” who have no problem with homosexual “marriage” are kidding themselves.

Cleombrotus on May 7, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Which by the way, I still haven’t found a good argument yet why in the US where we have the Freedom of Religion, the Protestant churches that support gay marriage (like Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians) ought to be forced to accept the doctrines of other Churches.

ZachV on May 7, 2012 at 3:52 PM

They aren’t.

Unless you want to make the argument that the state should be forced to recognize all marriages that churches recognize or it’s an abrogation of “liberty”, which means you have a lot of explaining to do in regard to the FLDS, Muslim polygamists and child brides….

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Great idea! We can start right now by rejecting all government action to redefine marriage.

Except, of course, that you want the government to actively redefine marriage first by overriding all other levels of government, and then “get out of the marriage business.”

If you really mean that the government should stay out of it, then start now. Otherwise you’re just as much a government activist pushing same-sex marriage as the rest. There is nothing libertarian about that.

tom on May 7, 2012 at 3:52 PM

The government isn’t redefining marriage. No one is nor are they trying to.

I am talking about all government at all levels. Government should get out of it altogether.

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 3:57 PM

To evolve, by it’s very definition, means to change. It’s impossible for anything to “evolve” without changing.

gravityman on May 7, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Well, yes, but evolution is supposed to take place over huge spans of time, on a geological scale, even.

By that benchmark, it is estimated that Obama will arrive at support of same-sex marriage in about 65 million years.

The Schaef on May 7, 2012 at 3:59 PM

lol, and why’s that? Republicans reject equality before the law? Republicans reject limited government, due process, the liberty of individuals and the Freedom of Religion?

ZachV on May 7, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Not at all.

In regard to “equality before the law”, the existence of bans on other types of marriage, i.e. incestuous, bigamous, show that preventing someone from marrying their desired sex partners are not inherently unequal.

In regard to limited government, given that marriage is essentially a societal subsidization of childrearing, it makes sense to limit subsidy as much as possible.

In regard to due process, vote to impose gay-sex marriage if you like; just realize that doing so requires you to respect the due process rights of others to vote it out of existence.

As far as the “liberty of individuals”, unless you are willing to argue that there is a uniform right to marry the sex partner(s) of your choosing, you really don’t have an argument.

And as far as freedom of religion, your church is free to marry whomever they like; however, the state is also free to not recognize it. If the people who belong to your church want to vote to allow it to be recognized, more power to them; however, you must also realize that that means you must allow others to vote how THEY wish.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Bidens right.

hurts to say…

Ampersand on May 7, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Biden: “I’m absolutely comfortable” with gay marriage

Wow! When did Biden marry another guy?

theCork on May 7, 2012 at 4:01 PM

The Schaef on May 7, 2012 at 3:55 PM

The fact is, since the crushing defeats of the homosexual agenda on state ballots, the left has taken to creating phony “gay conservative” groups like the “log cabin republicans” and “GOProud”, to subvert opposition to their goals, which were and remain progressive to the core.

Thus the Moby phenomena. Just because someone claims to be a conservative, doesn’t make it so – especially if their one and only agenda is a leftist one.

Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Sorry, multitasking here. Had to leave the console for a bit.
.

I truly pity you.

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 3:18 PM

.
Well, I guess as long as you truly pity me, that’s all that matters.

listens2glenn on May 7, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Biden is Vice-Presidnet of the United States. How embarrassing.

Kaffa on May 7, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Any conservative who embraced marriage as an institution would embrace marriage for both gays and straights.

ZachV on May 7, 2012 at 3:38 PM

.
No, only those unwilling to recognize GOD.

listens2glenn on May 7, 2012 at 4:05 PM

How so?

You can with perfect right marry whomever you choose.

What you can’t do is to use it as a claim on the state to demand benefits and recognition.

Your argument that lack of gay marriage somehow abrogates liberty is the same as Sandra Fluke’s shrieking that her having to pay for her own abortions is anti-freedom.

Marriage is a privilege, extended in exchange for certain behaviors and a giving-up of liberty. You don’t want to follow any of the behaviors OR give up the liberty, but you still want the privilege.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2012 at 3:53 PM

What do you mean how so?

You are opposed to the government recognizing two people who enter a contract voluntarily, and you are opposed to those people doing it as well. And there is nothing comparable with this argument and Sandra Fluke. Nothing at all.

There is no exchange for certain behaviors or a giving-up of any liberty in being married. Furthermore, marriage is not a privilege.

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 4:08 PM

If you are a homosexual and therefore uninterested in marrying someone of the opposite sex, don’t whine about the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman. No, we’re not going to change the whole world because you claim you’re being discriminated against. Deal with it.

tom on May 7, 2012 at 3:41 PM

It’s not being “uninterested” in marrying the opposite sex – it’s an inability to unless you are the typical GOP closet case living a lie. And about you not going to change? Washington, Washington DC, Massachusetts, Iowa, Maryland, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire have something to say with that (and those are the states with full gay marriage..others have civil unions). So want to or not, you WILL change.

inthemiddle on May 7, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Kaffa on May 7, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Not as embarrassing as you not spelling “Vice-President” correctly.

inthemiddle on May 7, 2012 at 4:10 PM

oh this is so timely. my state, north carolina, has a marriage vote tomorrow. (it’s an amendment that reinforces traditional marriage) so much controversy going on… and lies, misinformation, bias. can’t wait until this vote is overwith and we have the results.

i don’t know whether or not the amendment will pass but i’m happy that the people get to vote on it instead of judges/legislators =D

i’m voting for it btw

Sachiko on May 7, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Courts have been ruling for sometime now that this clause does not apply to conflicting laws. And since the courts hold that position it is impossible for DOMA to be unconstitutional on these grounds. About the most that could be reasonably claimed is that a gay couple could sue each other within their state of current residence under the laws of the state in which they got married. But any statutorily defined benefits of one state cannot overrule another state’s laws.

There have been and are challenges to DOMA. Do any of them claim to violate the Full Faith and Credit clause?

NotCoach on May 7, 2012 at 3:38 PM

We aren’t talking about conflicting laws; we’re talking about states must recognize the public acts and proceedings of other states. That includes marriages and divorces. DOMA is not a Constitutional Amendment and therefore is unconstitutional in regards to this.

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 4:13 PM

i don’t know whether or not the amendment will pass but i’m happy that the people get to vote on it instead of judges/legislators =D

i’m voting for it btw

Sachiko on May 7, 2012 at 4:11 PM

It’s great to tell people what they can or can’t do with their lives absent force and fraud. It’s great knowing that there were those willing to rebel against tyranny in order to construct an authoritarian land.

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 4:16 PM

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2012 at 3:53 PM

.
What do you mean how so?

You are opposed to the government recognizing two people who enter a contract voluntarily, and you are opposed to those people doing it as well. And there is nothing comparable with this argument and Sandra Fluke. Nothing at all.

There is no exchange for certain behaviors or a giving-up of any liberty in being married. Furthermore, marriage is not a privilege.

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 4:08 PM

.
Obviously, I don’t represent ALL those claiming the status of “Christian” (aren’t you glad about that?)
.
I’m against the government NOT recognizing God and the Bible, as THE foundation of a civil society.

Marriage as an institution, began with God. He defines it.
And the Bible is the record of this.

listens2glenn on May 7, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Not as embarrassing as you not spelling “Vice-President” correctly.

inthemiddle on May 7, 2012 at 4:10 PM

LOL. Only a liberal would think so.

Kaffa on May 7, 2012 at 4:23 PM

It’s great to tell people what they can or can’t do with their lives absent force and fraud. It’s great knowing that there were those willing to rebel against tyranny in order to construct an authoritarian land.

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 4:16 PM

.
I’m not for government (or vice-police) spying inside your private dwelling. When homosexuals remained “in the closet”, there wasn’t any group of Christian zealots running helter skelter, trying to hunt them down. Yet everyone (except the most naive of us) knew it was going on.

The tensions flared when they demanded to be open about it, and demanded that we accept them inspite of it (remember the whole Anita Bryant thing back in the ’70s?).

listens2glenn on May 7, 2012 at 4:26 PM

We aren’t talking about conflicting laws; we’re talking about states must recognize the public acts and proceedings of other states. That includes marriages and divorces. DOMA is not a Constitutional Amendment and therefore is unconstitutional in regards to this.

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Therefore, you are wrong. I am going to ask you again. How many Section 2 (Section 2 of DOMA being the part that stipulates no state is required to recognize the gay marriage of another state) challenges have there been to DOMA using the Full Faith and Credit clause as a grounds for the challenge?

NotCoach on May 7, 2012 at 4:31 PM

It’s not being “uninterested” in marrying the opposite sex – it’s an inability to unless you are the typical GOP closet case living a lie.

Ah, so you admit that this is all about demanding that you be allowed to marry that with which you prefer to have sex.

Will you generalize that? State that it is an absolute right to marry whomever with which you prefer to have sex.

If you won’t say that, if you say that you don’t have the right to marry with whomever you want to have sex, then your argument is false.

Meanwhile, the lie here is you pretending to support any type of marriage. You don’t. Obama supporters like yourself hate marriage and want to destroy it because it constrains you.

And about you not going to change? Washington, Washington DC, Massachusetts, Iowa, Maryland, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire have something to say with that (and those are the states with full gay marriage..others have civil unions). So want to or not, you WILL change.

inthemiddle on May 7, 2012 at 4:09 PM

And there we see the threat coming in.

Which is the whole point. You can’t stand religious belief and religious freedom, and you’re using gays and lesbians as a cloak for your bigotry.

You are a lying bigot, just like your Barack Obama. People recognize that you are a bigot and that your only concern is using the government to eradicate religious belief.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Great idea! We can start right now by rejecting all government action to redefine marriage.

Except, of course, that you want the government to actively redefine marriage first by overriding all other levels of government, and then “get out of the marriage business.”

If you really mean that the government should stay out of it, then start now. Otherwise you’re just as much a government activist pushing same-sex marriage as the rest. There is nothing libertarian about that.

tom on May 7, 2012 at 3:52 PM

The government isn’t redefining marriage. No one is nor are they trying to.

I am talking about all government at all levels. Government should get out of it altogether.

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Who’s demanding government action? Same-sex marriage advocates. Who wants to leave the whole issue alone? Conservatives.

The government does not define marriage now. Same-sex marriage would unquestionably redefine marriage, and it would be imposed by the government, therefore the government would be redefining marriage.

Libertarians and small-government conservatives should be on the same side on this one. But somehow people who claim to be libertarian actually want the government to take action, which is not exactly libertarian.

The whole talking point of “get the government out of the marriage business” has no basis in fact. Marriage has and will continue to happen. Marriage status has and will continue to change the financial and other behavior of people, and such changes will certainly include the reproduction of children, who introduce new citizens to the state. Laws will have to be made.

But the government does NOT have to get involved in the business of defining marriage. Absent government intervention, same-sex marriage will not exist.

Common sense should dictate that the government say to advocates for same-sex marriage: “If you don’t like what marriage is because you’re attracted to people of your own sex, work out your own solution. Don’t expect the government to take action.”

That is a libertarian viewpoint. Anything short is just soft support for government activism.

tom on May 7, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Therefore, you are wrong. I am going to ask you again. How many Section 2 (Section 2 of DOMA being the part that stipulates no state is required to recognize the gay marriage of another state) challenges have there been to DOMA using the Full Faith and Credit clause as a grounds for the challenge?

NotCoach on May 7, 2012 at 4:31 PM

That is completely irrelevant.

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Neither would legalizing child marriage, bestial marriage, plural marriage, incestuous marriage, etc.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Every one of those situations is made illegal by laws not related to marriage, mostly by contract or abuse laws (e.g. animals and children cannot enter into contracts). You would have to get by those first before considering addressing the marriage issue, and I doubt many people on either side of the political aisle will advocate repeal of child or animal abuse laws.

gravityman on May 7, 2012 at 4:37 PM

That is completely irrelevant.

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Only in your own narrow little mind. There is a reason why Section 2 challenges are not being seriously pursued. And that reason is that no serious lawyer believes he can win such an argument in today’s legal world.

NotCoach on May 7, 2012 at 4:38 PM

What do you mean how so?

You are opposed to the government recognizing two people who enter a contract voluntarily, and you are opposed to those people doing it as well.

But then, as expected, the liberal shoots itself in the foot.

There is no exchange for certain behaviors or a giving-up of any liberty in being married. Furthermore, marriage is not a privilege.

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 4:08 PM

The very definition of “contract” includes an acknowledgement that participants give up their complete freedom of action in regard to the subject in exchange for something of value. Hence, contracts abrogate liberty.

And yes, marriage IS a privilege. It is available to those who choose to operate by the rules of the road involved with it. Gays and lesbians choose to have sex with and create relationships with others; therefore, they do not meet the eligibility requirements for the privilege.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2012 at 4:38 PM

It’s not being “uninterested” in marrying the opposite sex – it’s an inability to unless you are the typical GOP closet case living a lie. And about you not going to change? Washington, Washington DC, Massachusetts, Iowa, Maryland, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire have something to say with that (and those are the states with full gay marriage..others have civil unions). So want to or not, you WILL change.

inthemiddle on May 7, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Inability to? What a colossal load of crap. Gay people have married straight people before, to get all the benefits of marriage including, potentially, children.

“Typical GOP closet case living a lie?” Another colossal load of crap.

The only way same-sex marriage is “mandated” is by judicial fiat or political betrayal, since every single time it’s put to a vote it loses. The states you mention try to do end-arounds of the will of the people because of self-important politicians who want to make this a legacy.

One of which, by the way, was the ever-treacherous Mitt Romney, who handed the special interest groups a victory they could not have even won in the legislature.

But in every case, it’s a contest of the majority against the special interest group.

tom on May 7, 2012 at 4:39 PM

gravityman on May 7, 2012 at 4:37 PM

There are exceptions to the above concerning marriage and minors. Most states allow a minor to be married with the consent of a parent or guardian. Which points to the fact that these laws are entirely political. And since the Constitution does not speak directly to them either, they are also entirely constitutional. So why is gay marriage any different when there is no constitutional language concerning marriage and everyone is being treated equally under the law?

NotCoach on May 7, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Every one of those situations is made illegal by laws not related to marriage, mostly by contract or abuse laws (e.g. animals and children cannot enter into contracts)… advocate repeal of child or animal abuse laws.

gravityman on May 7, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Explain how those abuse laws nullify marriage to a blood relation or to more than one person.

The Schaef on May 7, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Every one of those situations is made illegal by laws not related to marriage, mostly by contract or abuse laws (e.g. animals and children cannot enter into contracts). You would have to get by those first before considering addressing the marriage issue

Easily handled; Lawrence says that the state may not regulate private conduct.

and I doubt many people on either side of the political aisle will advocate repeal of child or animal abuse laws.

gravityman on May 7, 2012 at 4:37 PM

The Obama Party is already teaching sex to grade-schoolers, so it’s hard to argue that they oppose what used to be called “child abuse”.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Who’s demanding government action? Same-sex marriage advocates. Who wants to leave the whole issue alone? Conservatives.

Clearly not all of them since I’ve twice said government should be out of it altogether.

The government does not define marriage now. Same-sex marriage would unquestionably redefine marriage, and it would be imposed by the government, therefore the government would be redefining marriage.

That is ridiculously convoluted.

Libertarians and small-government conservatives should be on the same side on this one. But somehow people who claim to be libertarian actually want the government to take action, which is not exactly libertarian.

More convoluted reasoning. I’d like to see DHS and TSA eliminated, but that’s not going to happen without government taking action. You are trying to equate two different things. Expanding liberty is going to take government action, but it is not an expansion of government or governmental authority.

The whole talking point of “get the government out of the marriage business” has no basis in fact. Marriage has and will continue to happen. Marriage status has and will continue to change the financial and other behavior of people, and such changes will certainly include the reproduction of children, who introduce new citizens to the state. Laws will have to be made.

No one said marriage wouldn’t continue to happen, just that government shouldn’t be a part of it.. “Laws will have to be made” … sounds like you are advocating government action, not me.

tom on May 7, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 4:47 PM

The very definition of “contract” includes an acknowledgement that participants give up their complete freedom of action in regard to the subject in exchange for something of value. Hence, contracts abrogate liberty.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Look who’s in the redefinition business.

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Only in your own narrow little mind. There is a reason why Section 2 challenges are not being seriously pursued. And that reason is that no serious lawyer believes he can win such an argument in today’s legal world.

NotCoach on May 7, 2012 at 4:38 PM

No.

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 4:51 PM

No, only those unwilling to recognize GOD.

listens2glenn on May 7, 2012 at 4:05 PM

I don’t recognize your god. Ergo, your arguments on the basis of sin mean not a thing to me.

gravityman on May 7, 2012 at 4:53 PM

I don’t recognize your god. Ergo, your arguments on the basis of sin mean not a thing to me.

gravityman on May 7, 2012 at 4:53 PM

So…you’re amoral?

kingsjester on May 7, 2012 at 4:55 PM

So…you’re amoral?

kingsjester on May 7, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Is the Christian god the only source of human morality? How did the human race ever survive before the Bible explained what is moral and what is not?

gravityman on May 7, 2012 at 5:02 PM

How did the human race ever survive before the Bible explained what is moral and what is not?

gravityman on May 7, 2012 at 5:02 PM

The entire history of mankind, from pre-history to today, homosexual marriage has never been allowed. That covers every concevable religion, culture, government, society, all over the world.

If there is one universal human value, it is that men marry women – period.

Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Is the Christian god the only source of human morality? How did the human race ever survive before the Bible explained what is moral and what is not?

gravityman on May 7, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Before or after the Flood?

kingsjester on May 7, 2012 at 5:07 PM

How did the human race ever survive before the Bible explained what is moral and what is not?

gravityman on May 7, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Sinfully. The Bible is not a road map for how to make it from one day to the next, but it is guide for salvation.

Well, maybe the Old Testament is a little bit, but that predates Christianity.

NotCoach on May 7, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 5:06 PM

My post mentioned nothing of homosexual marriage, but thank you for playing.

gravityman on May 7, 2012 at 5:08 PM

My post mentioned nothing of homosexual marriage, but thank you for playing.

gravityman on May 7, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Then, why post it, since that’s the subject of the thread?

kingsjester on May 7, 2012 at 5:09 PM

My post mentioned nothing of homosexual marriage, but thank you for playing.

gravityman on May 7, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Forgive me for thinking you were staying on the topic.

Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 5:10 PM

…it’s the ECONOMY stupid…!!!

KOOLAID2 on May 7, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Before or after the Flood?

kingsjester on May 7, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Which flood are you refering to? The Bible’s version or the version from Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian, or Greek mythologies, all of which are probably based on the flood of the Black Sea sometime between 8000 and 5500 BC?

gravityman on May 7, 2012 at 5:16 PM

gravityman on May 7, 2012 at 5:16 PM

The Biblical Flood.

But, back on topic. Why should 5% of the American population be allowed to redefine the term “marriage”?

kingsjester on May 7, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Then, why post it, since that’s the subject of the thread?

kingsjester on May 7, 2012 at 5:09 PM

It’s quite simple actually. Regardless if it is gay marriage or some other issue, I get sick of having some Christians (or any other religious person) telling other people in a country that enshrined Freedom of Religion (and conversely, freedom not to worship) front and center in it’s Constitution that the rest of us have to “suck it up” when they want their idea of sin set forth for everyone. It was in direct response to listens2glenns argument that homosexuality is a sin in his view and therefore tough cookies for everyone else, even those who don’t subscribe to his religion.

And save the “murder is sin” argument. Any morality subscribes to the basics of murder and theft as an unlawful action, even an atheist, since those deprive someone else of their right to life or property.

For the record, I actually happen to have no issue with religion as a personal thing. For many people religion is a great thing, and I think that’s all well and good. I was once Catholic myself, and have a great interest in biblical history (fascinating stuff, regardless of my religion).

gravityman on May 7, 2012 at 5:29 PM

The Biblical Flood.

kingsjester on May 7, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Impossible to answer then, since your version of the flood probably wipes out everyone except for Noah, his family, and the animals he saved. The “historical” (and I put that in quotations because if you believe every word of the Bible’s version, then you will obviously disagree with the modern theories of the flood) version did not wipe out all of humanity, but did wipe out many communities surrounding the Black Sea and likely would have been a pretty catastophic event for the people in that part of the world.

It would be difficult to have a debate on the subject when your version and mine are probably so widely different. Which is too bad, actually. I really enjoy a good discussion of biblical history.

gravityman on May 7, 2012 at 5:36 PM

gravityman on May 7, 2012 at 5:36 PM

I won’t debate you. I know what I believe and Whom I believe in, along with 78% of America, per Gallup.

Now, back to my question: Why should 5% of America’s population be allowed to redefine the word “marriage”?

kingsjester on May 7, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4