Why I voted Yes on the marriage amendment in MN

posted at 8:41 am on November 6, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

The ballot in my state has two somewhat controversial referendums, both of which probably have more drama than any of the candidate races — including, until just recently, the presidential election.  One measure should pass rather easily, as the voter-ID requirement has maintained its popularity throughout most of this cycle.  The other would move the current statutory definition of marriage into the state constitution, and its future looks more murky.  Before I left Minnesota to spend the election in California, I cast my ballot in support of both measures, and I’ll explain why — and urge my fellow Minnesotans to join me.

First, contrary to what the measure’s opponents have written, it doesn’t change the definition of marriage in the state.  Marriage in Minnesota is restricted by statute to one man and one woman.  The measure would amend the state constitution to define it more foundationally.  That puts the issue outside the reach of the judiciary, which in other states changed the definition of marriage without voters having any say in this government policy.  If at some point in the future Minnesota voters want to change the definition of marriage to something else, they can amend the state constitution to do so — and only need a simple majority of all ballots cast, as is the case today.  Citizens who believe that representative government and direct democracy are better forms of self-government than judicial fiat should support this process.

Second, I believe that government has little legitimate interest in formal recognition of sexual relationships (other than to bar consanguinous relationships or exploitative relationships with minors), and that the formal recognition process that marriage represents should only take place where government has a pressing interest.  I’ve written before that I think government would do best to stay out of marriage altogether, and leave it to the churches.  That would be the best possible solution in a perfect libertarian world.

However, that’s not the world in which we live.  The only legitimate state interest in otherwise consensual sexual relationships are those whose form could produce offspring.  Government offers recognition of marriage (and certain incentives) in order to fix paternity and hold parents responsible for upkeep and behavior of children produced from those relationships.  We have seen the damage done to society from children produced outside of marriage, and the costs to our communities through the increased need for government services. That doesn’t mean that every marriage has to produce children to be legitimate, but the form of the heterosexual relationship is the only one in which government has any legitimate interest in certifying ahead of the production of offspring. Otherwise, government has no legitimate role in licensing sexual relationships, and no need to do so.

Third — and to my mind, the most compelling, especially of late — allowing for the possibility of redefining marriage leaves churches vulnerable to government intrusions at the altar.  Right now, churches act as agents of the state in conducting weddings.  For those who think that a change in definition would not inevitably lead to mandates on churches to “not discriminate” in conducting ceremonies for those relationships which violate their religious doctrines hasn’t been paying attention to the HHS mandate.  In that case, the federal government will force religious organizations (schools, charities, health-care providers) to violate their doctrines by facilitating access to contraception and sterilization, and that’s without the added lever of acting in stead of the state, as churches do when officiating at weddings.  Instead of leaving marriage to the churches, a change in definition will give the state a powerful way to either force churches to perform weddings that violate their belief systems or stop performing them altogether.

And that last point relates to the second, too.  If we are to hand that kind of lever to the state, it shouldn’t be the state itself — through its judiciary — that activates that lever.  That decision has to come from an informed electorate that truly wants its government to begin licensing sexual relationships in which they have no real interest, and giving their government an opening to push churches out of the sacrament of marriage.

For those reasons, I urge my fellow Minnesotans to vote yes on the marriage amendment, as I did last week.


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

And the conservatives spent their time attending to the definition of “marriage” while both parties spent the nation into destruction.
GOOD JOB ED!
HondaV65 on November 6, 2012 at 11:46 AM

No need to panic – some of us are quite capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.

whatcat on November 6, 2012 at 11:57 AM

I believe you all are willing to call me a Communist for supporting Obama, correct?
 
libfreeordie on November 6, 2012 at 9:38 AM

 
I’m thinking it’s more because of posts like:
 

Since he’s unwilling to openly articulate a marxis-informed plan for the future going negative is his only hope.
 
libfreeordie on May 30, 2012 at 8:23 PM
 
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/05/30/is-obama-hurting-his-chances-by-going-so-negative/comment-page-1/#comment-1963891

 

To all the people saying socialism = death, I say… the fact of the matter is that Marxist-influenced ideas gain currency in any society where capitalism is not working… For a family of 4 with one income of 50,000 capitalism is near impossible… But marxism always circulates through academia. Anyone who says otherwise isn’t part of the academy.
 
libfreeordie on July 6, 2012 at 11:31 PM
 
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/07/06/why-marxism-is-on-the-rise-again/comment-page-1/#comment-2011237

 
“Supporting Obama” seems secondary. Unless that was another colloquialism.
 
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/03/the-state-of-the-senate-race/comment-page-3/#comment-6458813

rogerb on November 6, 2012 at 11:57 AM

It’s about normalizing the abnormal behavior of homosexuals. The gay marriage issue is simply a means to force that on us. Be warned, eventually speaking out against homosexuality will be a serious hate crime with dire legal consequences. Honestly, how 2 to 3 percent of the polulation can wield so much power is impressive, if terrifying.

Extrafishy on November 6, 2012 at 11:58 AM

That seems to be the point. If the church is involved in something secular it needs to conform to secular laws. (e.g., follow building codes when building the church but have little interference from the state on the content of their creed).

dedalus on November 6, 2012 at 11:20 AM

You’ve got it wrong. There is a vast diffence between conforming to building codes and conforming to federal diktats that you must provide adoption services to gay couples or that you must purchase other people birth control etc. The “secular” law has expanded to cover nearly every aspect of life far beyond the bounds of “public good”. “Secularism” is now mostly synonymous with progressivism which is the lefty religion. We’re to the point now where little girls are fined hundreds of dollars for opening up a lemonaid stand without the proper state-provided credentials.

ou want laws to creep into every aspect of life and then demand thThe same liberals that – for the same reasons you cite – want to eliminate a church’s designation as a non-profit (for not getting in line with the liberal agenda) also want to keep non-profit status for all their pet institutions which are political in nature and push their agenda.

gwelf on November 6, 2012 at 11:59 AM

No. I simply think churches should start protecting themselves and stop assuming our rights will continue to be protected by the government, just as some Catholic hospitals are already learning.

Esthier on November 6, 2012 at 11:38 AM

using your logic, I cannot think of anyone who would see it as such, but anyways, using your logic, you should give up all possessions you have, your job, and in fact go find a deserted island somewhere to protect yourself from the state. If that is not possible, kill yourself to keep yourself safe from the government, just in case, it is the only way to be sure.

astonerii on November 6, 2012 at 11:59 AM

And the conservatives spent their time attending to the definition of “marriage” while both parties spent the nation into destruction.
GOOD JOB ED!
HondaV65 on November 6, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Yeah! Ed should stop posting about gay marriage day in and day out and finally post something about the debt!

/sarc

gwelf on November 6, 2012 at 12:01 PM

And the conservatives spent their time attending to the definition of “marriage” while both parties spent the nation into destruction.
GOOD JOB ED!
HondaV65 on November 6, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Social Conservatism leads to fiscal discipline.
Social degeneracy leads to fiscal failure.

You can perhaps cut spending with an immoral society for a very short period of time, before the degenerates once again demand to be paid off with other people’s money.

Socially conservative societies on the other hand can remain fiscally conservative for eternity, with only actual emergencies, such as war and widespread drought or flooding causing increases in spending with respect to wars and decreased income in times of widespread calamity such as drought and flood.

astonerii on November 6, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Yes, I’m a Communist or whatever, not a Christian who’s fed up with the whole thing and can see the writing on the wall.

Please, tell me more how persecuted you are.

Esthier on November 6, 2012 at 11:21 AM

I didn’t tell you a thing about my persecution, so I’m not sure how I can tell you “more”. You advocate for government control of churches and their properties, which means you are advocating for a government controlled church and government dictated beliefs. You advocate for tyranny.

Tax exemption means government ownership? There are churches in my area which are 400 years old and which exist on very valuable land. I’m not sure St. Patricks in NY would be able to pay the taxes levied by the state.

Portia46 on November 6, 2012 at 12:09 PM

That seems to be the point. If the church is involved in something secular it needs to conform to secular laws. (e.g., follow building codes when building the church but have little interference from the state on the content of their creed).

dedalus on November 6, 2012 at 11:20 AM

So in other words the Catholic Church can say anything it wants inside the walls of a church but if it wants to operate a hospital or soup kitchen or adoption agency or any other charitable institution it has to run it first and foremost to meet the goals of progressive liberals.

Because there is no difference between building codes and mandates to service Democrat clients in specific ways when your progressive world view doesn’t envision any legitimate space between the state and the citizen.

gwelf on November 6, 2012 at 12:09 PM

The only way you think being gay is a choice is if you wake up every morning and say “I’m not gay! Must choose not to be gay! Gayness is sneaking up on me!”

zbunde on November 6, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Social Conservatism leads to fiscal discipline.
Social degeneracy leads to fiscal failure.

You can perhaps cut spending with an immoral society for a very short period of time, before the degenerates once again demand to be paid off with other people’s money.

Socially conservative societies on the other hand can remain fiscally conservative for eternity, with only actual emergencies, such as war and widespread drought or flooding causing increases in spending with respect to wars and decreased income in times of widespread calamity such as drought and flood.

astonerii on November 6, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Good point – the two are interconnected. The more we move away from the traditional family, the more it costs us (e.g. welfare).

whatcat on November 6, 2012 at 12:16 PM

The only way you think being gay is a choice is if you wake up every morning and say “I’m not gay! Must choose not to be gay! Gayness is sneaking up on me!”
zbunde on November 6, 2012 at 12:15 PM

The psychological damage that causes a person to become involved in homosexuality is not on the conscience level.

whatcat on November 6, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Your words as written are what they are & so is your argument.

workingclass artist on November 6, 2012 at 11:52 AM

That doesn’t mean you understand either. Here’s a hint, I wouldn’t be upset at you if you were accurately representing my views.

That you knee jerkingly go to communism when you think someone disagrees with you says far more about you than it does me.

Esthier on November 6, 2012 at 12:20 PM

The only way you think being gay is a choice is if you wake up every morning and say “I’m not gay! Must choose not to be gay! Gayness is sneaking up on me!”

zbunde on November 6, 2012 at 12:15 PM

I know, it is like being a vegetarian. It is absolutely totally natural. You either are, or you are not. People who become vegetarians later on in life were just living a lie the earlier part of their life.

By the way, doesn’t this argument work for people who naturally like to be in orgies and want to have multiple husbands and wives. Or people who are naturally attracted to their mother, father, brother, sister, donkey, cat, dog, tree, tomato plant? They do not actively work towards these feelings, so they need to be allowed to marry as well if gays are…

astonerii on November 6, 2012 at 12:23 PM

You advocate for government control of churches and their properties, which means you are advocating for a government controlled church and government dictated beliefs.

Portia46 on November 6, 2012 at 12:09 PM

No, I’m not.

That you don’t know me and thus make assumptions about me based on something you pulled from inside your lower backside is on you, not me.

Suddenly remembering why I stopped posting here.

Esthier on November 6, 2012 at 12:24 PM

The marriage amendment changes no MN marriage law, it only reaffirms it and prevents the state (legislature or judiciary) from changing it.

Dasher on November 6, 2012 at 11:27 AM

No, it’s still a vote for state involvement.

Dante on November 6, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Where we thrived despite being eaten by lions and used as street lights.

The government is not your protector.

Esthier on November 6, 2012 at 11:56 AM

As I stated the role of government is to legislate and enforce laws.

How this role is defined is what the culture wars are about.

The tension between Church and State is healthy and fundamental in this country and foundational to the constitution which guarantees that the State does not dictate doctrine or liturgy but respect this protection and act when necessary with prudence in the case of traditional precedence.

Marriage as defined as monogamous preceded polygamous doctrine in both the law of the land and the earlier incarnation of Mormonism as a religion, which is why Mormons complied and survived the schism.

Currently there is yet another cause to remove laws that prohibit incest marriage contracts.

Secularists seek to alter the definition and role of the healthy tension between church and state and they use whatever mechanism available to confuse the public to achieve their goal.

History provides evidence of the usual outcomes.

Tyranny of the State once the Church is either obliterated or suppressed to the point of being unable to perform it’s function in a stable society. Communities and their bonds cease to thrive in diversity and fracture families because allegiance to tyranny to survive overcomes familial loyalty.

Also a lot of people die.

The State combines with the Church into a super state of Theocracy which again forms a tyranny and stagnates the culture.

Also a lot of people die.

The State and Church maintain a robust and healthy tension in order to perform their distinct and necessary functions so that communities thrive and the bonds of communities and families are encouraged to strengthen to assure balance through freedom for future generations.

This promotes a healthy and thriving society through subsidiarity.

workingclass artist on November 6, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Suddenly remembering why I stopped posting here.

Esthier on November 6, 2012 at 12:24 PM

I am going to go out on a limb and guess the reason you stopped posting here is either…

1) You realized you are incompetent to get your point across, as you write stuff that a wide range of people interpret the same way, but you protest does not mean what they think it does, so you gave up not wanting to embarrass yourself any more.

or

2) One of your massively large numbers of personalities told you to stop posting here.

astonerii on November 6, 2012 at 12:27 PM

workingclass artist on November 6, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Did you have a specific point to make, or were you just using my comment as a springboard for a rant about bastards and trannies? If the latter, that’s fine, I just want to be sure I wasn’t missing something.

VerbumSap on November 6, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Restating the claim doesn’t show that I’m wrong; only that we disagree. Dysfunctional families predate the push for gay marriage, btw.

VerbumSap on November 6, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Yep but stating that you are right doesn’t make you right either. Why does the state consider sexual relationships different then say a relationship a mother/son relationship? I mean a mother and son love each other and live together. It is the SEXUAL COMPONENT AND THUS THE procreative component that make it different and thus a marriage. And yes, I am aware that dysfunction predates the gay agenda, but dysfunction has largely been pushed by the state since the state found out that if it became daddy and broke up marriage it could have more power over the individual starting with no-fault divorce. Gay marriage is an extension of this line of thinking since it put another nail in the tradional line of thinking.

melle1228 on November 6, 2012 at 12:32 PM

astonerii on November 6, 2012 at 12:27 PM

I’ve sometimes wondered whether your handle was a reference to your being so self-righteous and quick to throw stones at other people, or just a tribute to weed. Now I know!

VerbumSap on November 6, 2012 at 12:36 PM

i am gay and dislike some of tactics used by some gay activists. Chic-fil-a should not have been treated as it was treated. Gay activists went over-the-top. The definition of marriage will be left up to the United State Supreme Court. That is just the way it is going to be.

By the way, there are a number of gay couples who have children, by adoption or artificial insemination. The only people I call bigots are those who think that being homosexual is something someone chooses. And, people who think that homosexual acts should be criminalized and that homosexuality should again be reclassified as a mental illness.

SC.Charlie on November 6, 2012 at 12:39 PM

workingclass artist on November 6, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Did you have a specific point to make, or were you just using my comment as a springboard for a rant about bastards and trannies? If the latter, that’s fine, I just want to be sure I wasn’t missing something.

VerbumSap on November 6, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Changing definitions to alter the roles is the game…It is the mechanism of secularists.

I used bastards as an example.

workingclass artist on November 6, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Did you have a specific point to make, or were you just using my comment as a springboard for a rant about bastards and trannies? If the latter, that’s fine, I just want to be sure I wasn’t missing something.

VerbumSap on November 6, 2012 at 12:29 PM

How about you answer the legal issues that are addressed to you?You do realize that our marriage laws are grounded in english common law and that is what he was explaining. Like I have been explaining that marriage has a sexual and thus a procreative component hence why you can STILL annul your marriage to your partner being impotent or claim fraud if your partner is sterile and didn’t tell you.

melle1228 on November 6, 2012 at 12:41 PM

This is a generational issue, its only a matter of time. This is the last anti-gay marriage generation, do your worst, we will win in the end.

libfreeordie on November 6, 2012 at 8:46 AM

Sorry….I’ve read all the way to the end of Revelations, and your side does NOT win in the end!

rhbandsp on November 6, 2012 at 12:45 PM

i am gay and dislike some of tactics used by some gay activists. Chic-fil-a should not have been treated as it was treated. Gay activists went over-the-top

I agree with you…

The definition of marriage will be left up to the United State Supreme Court. That is just the way it is going to be.

No it should be left up to the states where it has always been.

By the way, there are a number of gay couples who have children, by adoption or artificial insemination

No gays have children by artificial insemination..it would still require the other partner to adopt.

The only people I call bigots are those who think that being homosexual is something someone chooses

What about those who do choose? Anne Heche? The girl from Sex in the City who said she chose? How about the lesbian who was with Chazz Bono and stayed with him/her when he “changed.” I think sexuality is a lot more complex than a lot of homosexuals would have us believe and hence why it should never be a “protected” minority and their is a component of choice.

And, people who think that homosexual acts should be criminalized and that homosexuality should again be reclassified as a mental illness.

Nope don’t believe that.. Be who with you want to be and be happy. I don’t care.

melle1228 on November 6, 2012 at 12:46 PM

I’ve sometimes wondered whether your handle was a reference to your being so self-righteous and quick to throw stones at other people, or just a tribute to weed. Now I know!

VerbumSap on November 6, 2012 at 12:36 PM

oh, nice attack. Did you practice that for days or weeks, or did it just come to you on the fly?

astonerii on November 6, 2012 at 12:46 PM

By the way, there are a number of gay couples who have children, by adoption or artificial insemination. The only people I call bigots are those who think that being homosexual is something someone chooses. And, people who think that homosexual acts should be criminalized and that homosexuality should again be reclassified as a mental illness.

SC.Charlie on November 6, 2012 at 12:39 PM

SC Charlie,
I don’t have any problems with consentual activities between adults, nor do I have any issue with responsible adults adopting.

There is a difference between should and can though. Should ‘homosexual acts between consenting adults’ be criminalized? No. Can they be? Personally, I think Lawrence was decided wrong, as the law should have been appealed in the legislature. (Then again, I also think Florida did the wrong thing by stopping defense of the FL adoption law and then not repealing it. The law is still on the books and just waiting for a different climate to be enforced.)

To take it from a more personal POV, Lefties have a higher rate of fatalities in auto accidents, as our dominant arm pulls us into traffic when we jerk the wheel back. Clearly it’s a health issue for lefties, but should we be allowed to drive on the opposite side of the road? No, that would be silly. I feel it’s the same thing for marriage. There’s a definition to marriage, just like there is for driving on the roads. I don’t think marriage should be changed for Same Sex couples, any more than I should drive on the other side of the road.

The_Livewire on November 6, 2012 at 12:51 PM

i am gay and dislike some of tactics used by some gay activists. Chic-fil-a should not have been treated as it was treated. Gay activists went over-the-top. The definition of marriage will be left up to the United State Supreme Court. That is just the way it is going to be.

By the way, there are a number of gay couples who have children, by adoption or artificial insemination. The only people I call bigots are those who think that being homosexual is something someone chooses. And, people who think that homosexual acts should be criminalized and that homosexuality should again be reclassified as a mental illness.

SC.Charlie on November 6, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Gay advocates stated contradictions.

Gay Advocates promoted a free choice for the Gay Lifestyle indicting closeted homosexuals to promote social acceptance…They also promoted the idea that they didn’t choose to be Gay…Then they promoted the idea of being born homosexual and that homosexuality is not a moral issue but a natural state of 10% of the population at large…

If society is confused it is because Gay Advocates have sent a confusing message to achieve a confusing agenda.

What two consenting adults do privately is their business and they can enjoy the consequences of that behavior…But silencing criticism is censorship that endorses tyranny.

workingclass artist on November 6, 2012 at 12:53 PM

The only way you think being gay is a choice is if you wake up every morning and say “I’m not gay! Must choose not to be gay! Gayness is sneaking up on me!”

zbunde on November 6, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Perhaps you didn’t notice, but your Barack Obama’s mentor Bill Ayers brags about how, as part of their indoctrination into the cult of Obama liberalism, they would deliberately choose to have gay sex as often as possible.

So yes, it is a choice. Acting on your sexual impulses is ALWAYS a choice. The Obama Party and the Obama left insist otherwise, because they are trying to avoid responsibility and consequences for their promiscuity and unwillingness to control themselves.

northdallasthirty on November 6, 2012 at 12:54 PM

astonerii on November 6, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Well I’m sure God loves you.

Esthier on November 6, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Why does the state consider sexual relationships different then say a relationship a mother/son relationship? I mean a mother and son love each other and live together.

melle1228 on November 6, 2012 at 12:32 PM

If an adult son is still living with his mother, that’s a problem. A man needs his own family no matter how much he loves his mommy. Usually that family involves a woman, sometimes it involves another man, but in any case the voluntary union of two people — equally responsible for one another and their union — anchors a man, gives him a sense of purpose, responsibility and stability for his future in a way that living with mommy does not.

Children are wonderful and very important in their own right, but they aren’t the marriage. They are neither necessary nor sufficient to make a marriage or to make it work.

My personal stand is get marriage out of the government business and widdershins likewise, though. For many people this is the proper role of the church, for those without a church there are plenty of other organizations that can take that role.

VerbumSap on November 6, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Your points are rational, but carry no weight versus the imperative of a truly free society–that people ought to do as they please- especially in personal matters

Show me one example of gay people getting arrested for having a wedding ceremony.

DethMetalCookieMonst on November 6, 2012 at 1:00 PM

My personal stand is get marriage out of the government business and widdershins likewise, though. For many people this is the proper role of the church, for those without a church there are plenty of other organizations that can take that role.

VerbumSap on November 6, 2012 at 12:58 PM

This we agree on! I think the government has done more to destroy marriage then they have done to promote it.

melle1228 on November 6, 2012 at 1:00 PM

To take it from a more personal POV, Lefties have a higher rate of fatalities in auto accidents, as our dominant arm pulls us into traffic when we jerk the wheel back. Clearly it’s a health issue for lefties, but should we be allowed to drive on the opposite side of the road? No, that would be silly. I feel it’s the same thing for marriage. There’s a definition to marriage, just like there is for driving on the roads. I don’t think marriage should be changed for Same Sex couples, any more than I should drive on the other side of the road.

The_Livewire on November 6, 2012 at 12:51 PM

The interesting thing is that, given the statistics on STD rates and the cost of treatment for HIV, it’s pretty clear that gay sex is a public health hazard that vastly increases the health care burden for the rest of society, not to mention the billions of dollars in annual costs for disability payments and lost productivity for those people who deliberately choose to engage in high-risk behaviors.

In short, the gay community’s addiction to the Obama Party, which bans soda, smoking outdoors, and Happy Meals on the grounds of “public health”, is incompatible with their demands that government subsidize and promote their high-risk behavior.

northdallasthirty on November 6, 2012 at 1:01 PM

melle1228 on November 6, 2012 at 12:41 PM

I’m babysitting my grandson right now and I’m sure you understand that he’s more important. Sorry!

VerbumSap on November 6, 2012 at 1:03 PM

No, that would be silly. I feel it’s the same thing for marriage. There’s a definition to marriage, just like there is for driving on the roads. I don’t think marriage should be changed for Same Sex couples, any more than I should drive on the other side of the road.

The_Livewire on November 6, 2012 at 12:51 PM

That has got to be the worst analogy I have — in my life — heard to justify marginalizing a group of people.

The fact that women don’t get sold for a donkey and 10 chickens is evidenced that we have already changed the definition of marriage.

Ended dowries, ended arranged marriages, legalized interracial marriages, established ages of consent, women being able to retain property, money and their names …

Marriage has always been a evolving “definition” changed specifically to grant new, unprecedented rights to specific groups — racial minorities, religious groups, minors (18-), women.

ZachV on November 6, 2012 at 1:04 PM

So yes, it is a choice. Acting on your sexual impulses is ALWAYS a choice. The Obama Party and the Obama left insist otherwise, because they are trying to avoid responsibility and consequences for their promiscuity and unwillingness to control themselves.

northdallasthirty on November 6, 2012 at 12:54 PM

You know for me it doesn’t matter either way. If you come at people with your sexual preference that the majority doesn’t share most are going to be turned off. It is just the reality of the situation. I am sure if I told you my sexual ins and outs you would feel the same way and unfortunately homosexuals don’t share their sexuality with 97% of the population. It is what it is.

I truly think that sexuality is a complex thing and we are not born that way but over time we evolve into it. We do choose to act on it though. If it makes you happy and doesn’t hurt anyone else I say meh, but that doesn’t translate into government protection or sanction for me though.

melle1228 on November 6, 2012 at 1:04 PM

No gays have children by artificial insemination..it would still require the other partner to adopt. – melle1228 on November 6, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Gays (lesbians) do have children by artificial insemination. And, some gay males have children from failed marriages that they enter thinking that getting marriage will be “the cure”.

What about those who do choose? Anne Heche? The girl from Sex in the City who said she chose? How about the lesbian who was with Chazz Bono and stayed with him/her when he “changed.” I think sexuality is a lot more complex than a lot of homosexuals would have us believe and hence why it should never be a “protected” minority and their is a component of choice. – melle1228 on November 6, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Some people are bi-sexual and are able to choose. I too think that sexuality is more complex than just being gay or straight.

No it should be left up to the states where it has always been. – melle1228 on November 6, 2012 at 12:46 PM/strong

Yet, every heterosexual marriage in any one state today is recognized every other state. Why should a gay marriage in Massachusetts not be recognized in South Carolina?

SC.Charlie on November 6, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Marriage has always been a evolving “definition” changed specifically to grant new, unprecedented rights to specific groups — racial minorities, religious groups, minors (18-), women.

ZachV on November 6, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Actually minorities and women have always had the right to marry.. that had never changed. Miscegenation laws were actually the change and didn’t come into effect until the 1600′s.

melle1228 on November 6, 2012 at 1:08 PM

My personal stand is get marriage out of the government business and widdershins likewise, though. For many people this is the proper role of the church, for those without a church there are plenty of other organizations that can take that role.

VerbumSap on November 6, 2012 at 12:58 PM

This we agree on! I think the government has done more to destroy marriage then they have done to promote it.

melle1228 on November 6, 2012 at 1:00 PM

The traditional role of the state is to protect through enforcement of law justice of persons affected by the marriage contract at every phase throughout the contract.

This involves protections of consent,age and relation.
Recognition of legal adherence to age,consent and relation of participants.
Property and responsibility toward property.
Children and responsibility toward children that either precede or result from a marriage.
Inheritance.

All of these are decided by our secular legal system…not religious courts.

Both Church and State are involved in our marriage systems performing distinct and necessary roles in a stable society.

workingclass artist on November 6, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Some people are bi-sexual and are able to choose. I too think that sexuality is more complex than just being gay or straight.

But you said those that think it is a a choice are bigots. I think there is a choice component. I think a lot of sexuality is fluid. I also don’t think you are born with it. I think we are the sum of our environment and experiences and we evolve to it.

Yet, every heterosexual marriage in any one state today is recognized every other state. Why should a gay marriage in Massachusetts not be recognized in South Carolina?

SC.Charlie on November 6, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Because the states will have to overhaul their family law system. Same sex marriage doesn’t just fit right into the system; it changes the whole system example: children with in the marriage are automatically deemed the spouse- cannot happen within a same gender marriage because there is always a third party involved with rights. The laws must be rewritten within the states. And if a state does not recognize same sex unions-why should they have to take on that time and expense?

melle1228 on November 6, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Changing definitions to alter the roles is the game…It is the mechanism of secularists.

I used bastards as an example.

workingclass artist on November 6, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Thank you for the summation. I don’t really have an opinion on that given the nature of definitions and how they relate to argument.

VerbumSap on November 6, 2012 at 1:15 PM

oh, nice attack. Did you practice that for days or weeks, or did it just come to you on the fly?

astonerii on November 6, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Ah, and here I was hoping you’d appreciate my use of deceptive alternatives.

VerbumSap on November 6, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Ended dowries, ended arranged marriages, legalized interracial marriages, established ages of consent, women being able to retain property, money and their names …

Marriage has always been a evolving “definition” changed specifically to grant new, unprecedented rights to specific groups — racial minorities, religious groups, minors (18-), women.

ZachV on November 6, 2012 at 1:04 PM

No you are describing functions and customs within the state of marriage…not the definition of marriage or it’s foundational role in every society throughout history.

The historical definition of marriage is a formal contract between man and woman to bind clans and assure stability to tribes and the subsequent responsibility of that contract toward a stable society.

This is designed to prevent a violent transfer or seizure of property from one clan by another because it allows for an orderly and legal transfer.

This peaceful transfer was enforced by either the state or the religious courts…or in theocracies both.

This action promoted stability and prevented the wholesale slaughter of inheritors that was common in the Pagan World.

workingclass artist on November 6, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Ed, we have that in our state constitution here in Texas. Hope it goes well in MN.

Ward Cleaver on November 6, 2012 at 1:24 PM

The fact that women don’t get sold for a donkey and 10 chickens is evidenced that we have already changed the definition of marriage.

Nope, sorry. It’s still male-female.

Ended dowries, ended arranged marriages, legalized interracial marriages, established ages of consent, women being able to retain property, money and their names …

Nope, sorry. It’s still male-female.

Marriage has always been a evolving “definition” changed specifically to grant new, unprecedented rights to specific groups — racial minorities, religious groups, minors (18-), women.

ZachV on November 6, 2012 at 1:04 PM

And in all those cases, it’s still male-female.

Amazing, isn’t it? In all this time, throughout humanity’s history, even in the millenia pre-Christianity, pre-Western civilization, and so forth, we have stuck to the male-female combination for marriage.

This highlights a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals insist that the reason gay-sex marriage is nonexistent throughout human history is that everyone who came before them is an idiot. Conservatives contend that it is far more likely that it’s a result of “tried and failed”.

northdallasthirty on November 6, 2012 at 1:24 PM

I truly think that sexuality is a complex thing and we are not born that way but over time we evolve into it. We do choose to act on it though. If it makes you happy and doesn’t hurt anyone else I say meh, but that doesn’t translate into government protection or sanction for me though.
melle1228 on November 6, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Yup – the bottom line.

whatcat on November 6, 2012 at 1:25 PM

The historical definition of marriage is a formal contract between man and woman to bind clans and assure stability to tribes and the subsequent responsibility of that contract toward a stable society.

This is designed to prevent a violent transfer or seizure of property from one clan by another because it allows for an orderly and legal transfer.

This peaceful transfer was enforced by either the state or the religious courts…or in theocracies both.

This action promoted stability and prevented the wholesale slaughter of inheritors that was common in the Pagan World.

workingclass artist on November 6, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Where can one find this historical definition of marriage? And what is your definition of the Pagan World?

Dante on November 6, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Gay advocates stated contradictions.

Gay Advocates promoted a free choice for the Gay Lifestyle indicting closeted homosexuals to promote social acceptance…They also promoted the idea that they didn’t choose to be Gay…Then they promoted the idea of being born homosexual and that homosexuality is not a moral issue but a natural state of 10% of the population at large…

If society is confused it is because Gay Advocates have sent a confusing message to achieve a confusing agenda.

What two consenting adults do privately is their business and they can enjoy the consequences of that behavior…But silencing criticism is censorship that endorses tyranny. – workingclass artist on November 6, 2012 at 12:53 PM

I am not going to argue with you. You need to study the issue of human human sexuality in far greater depth and today is not the day to for me to educate you or others. Today is the day that we need to get rid of Obama and elect Romney. I was out today at 7am casting my vote for Romney standing in line outside with 45 degree South Carolina weather.

SC.Charlie on November 6, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Perhaps you didn’t notice, but your Barack Obama’s mentor Bill Ayers brags about how, as part of their indoctrination into the cult of Obama liberalism, they would deliberately choose to have gay sex as often as possible.

So Bill Ayers taught Obama Obama Liberalism? NICE ONE!

You obviously are very insecure about your homosexuality. Everyday you actively choose not to have sex with men? I am so proud of YOU!

zbunde on November 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Ah, and here I was hoping you’d appreciate my use of deceptive alternatives.

VerbumSap on November 6, 2012 at 1:19 PM

I thought that might have been the statement. It was very subtle in usage, but not so much in total context I guess I failed to give it enough value. Still a nice attack.

astonerii on November 6, 2012 at 1:29 PM

I pray that many people in MN cancel your vote out. And I pray that MD where I’m currently located is not the first state that votes against traditional marriage.

Christian Conservative on November 6, 2012 at 11:44 AM

You misread Ed’s post. A “yes” vote in Minnesota is a vote to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

You’re in Maryland, where a “yes” vote is a vote to authorize same-sex marriage.

J.S.K. on November 6, 2012 at 1:30 PM

So if I am born a certain way, does that justify that behaviour? As a child, I was very wild and did not listen to authority. If being born a certain way is the way we should remain, then why are some of these same people mutilating their genitalia (aka getting a sex change)?

NeverLiberal on November 6, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Some people are bi-sexual and are able to choose. I too think that sexuality is more complex than just being gay or straight.

SC.Charlie on November 6, 2012 at 1:08 PM

And some people just experiment.

It’s because of that complexity that I don’t have a problem with people calling it a choice. I prefer that to the implications of our sexual preferences being innate, to be honest. Seems like the same kind of logic that got gays locked up as crazy not that long ago.

If it’s about making discrimination illegal, it still shouldn’t matter. No one is born into a certain religion either.

Esthier on November 6, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Yet, every heterosexual marriage in any one state today is recognized every other state. Why should a gay marriage in Massachusetts not be recognized in South Carolina? – SC.Charlie on November 6, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Because the states will have to overhaul their family law system. Same sex marriage doesn’t just fit right into the system; it changes the whole system example: children with in the marriage are automatically deemed the spouse- cannot happen within a same gender marriage because there is always a third party involved with rights. The laws must be rewritten within the states. And if a state does not recognize same sex unions-why should they have to take on that time and expense? – melle1228 on November 6, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Sorry but, the states will just will just have to adjust. They can adopt the laws written in the state of Massachusetts.

SC.Charlie on November 6, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Lonely old conservative men. You have no friends. Your wife probably bangs the gardener. You are fat most likely. Smoke still. Diabetes definite.

Universal healthcare scares me with all the fat cancerous pig people we have rotting all over the south.

But you made it! You are rich, you got the american dream. Now people like Obama wanna take it from you! First they took your slaves! Now they wanna take your money!

Rise up! Send checks to Mitt Romney ( God knows he needs more )

zbunde on November 6, 2012 at 1:36 PM

The historical definition of marriage is a formal contract between man and woman to bind clans and assure stability to tribes and the subsequent responsibility of that contract toward a stable society.

This is designed to prevent a violent transfer or seizure of property from one clan by another because it allows for an orderly and legal transfer.

This peaceful transfer was enforced by either the state or the religious courts…or in theocracies both.

This action promoted stability and prevented the wholesale slaughter of inheritors that was common in the Pagan World.

workingclass artist on November 6, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Where can one find this historical definition of marriage? And what is your definition of the Pagan World?

Dante on November 6, 2012 at 1:26 PM

You can find it by studying history which is well documented in the accounts of Law,Philosophy and Societies.

Marriage has always been a formal contract between a Man and a Woman to bind Clans for the stability of Tribes.

In the Pagan World it was common to slaughter inheritors during a violent seizure of property or when a marriage ended and predecessors of the prior marriage could compete with subsequent inheritors of the later marriage.

This was as common as human sacrifice in the Pagan World.

As the Roman Empire evolved judicially customs and legal protections within the marriage state evolved but a Roman Male as Patriarch retained absolute and legal power of life and death for all persons in his household (He had the legal right to slaughter an inheritor)

Judaism prevented human sacrifice in their legal system of theocracy.

Christianity protected inheritors within the Marriage Contract both prior marriages and subsequent marriages and promoted the peaceful transfer of property.

workingclass artist on November 6, 2012 at 1:42 PM

You advocate for government control of churches and their properties, which means you are advocating for a government controlled church and government dictated beliefs.

Portia46 on November 6, 2012 at 12:09 PM
No, I’m not.

That you don’t know me and thus make assumptions about me based on something you pulled from inside your lower backside is on you, not me.

Suddenly remembering why I stopped posting here.

Esthier on November 6, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Of course I don’t know you. I didn’t say a single thing about YOU. I addressed your written notions that churches should cease being involved in marriages and another post wherein you possit that since churches aren’t taxed, government has a say-so in what they do.

I will say something personal since you herein introduced the personal to the discussion. Your crudity is neither witty not relevant to the issue. I have no idea where you got your ideas, but your level of discourse comes straight from the gutter.

Portia46 on November 6, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Call it a partnership and move on. This all about going after the church.

John the Libertarian on November 6, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Some people are bi-sexual and are able to choose. I too think that sexuality is more complex than just being gay or straight. – SC.Charlie on November 6, 2012 at 1:08 PM

And some people just experiment.

It’s because of that complexity that I don’t have a problem with people calling it a choice. I prefer that to the implications of our sexual preferences being innate, to be honest. Seems like the same kind of logic that got gays locked up as crazy not that long ago.

If it’s about making discrimination illegal, it still shouldn’t matter. No one is born into a certain religion either. – Esthier on November 6, 2012 at 1:34 PM

I don’t know why I am gay and I certainly did not choose. I did not even experiment. I chose celibacy, silence and reclusiveness until I finally had a mental breakdown and nearly committed suicide five years ago. Then I came out of the closet to my close friends and associates. It was the best thing I ever did for my mental health. Everyone of them accepted me for who I am.

SC.Charlie on November 6, 2012 at 1:46 PM

So Bill Ayers taught Obama Obama Liberalism? NICE ONE!

You obviously are very insecure about your homosexuality. Everyday you actively choose not to have sex with men? I am so proud of YOU!

zbunde on November 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Wrong answer.

What you cannot comprehend is that “being comfortable with your homosexuality” is not inextricably linked to “complete subservience to Obama liberalism”.

You and your fellow stereotyping bigots insist that all gay people must think a certain way, mainly because that way firmly locks gay and lesbian people as slaves on your plantation.

Your statement that I am a bad gay person unless I vote for Obama is nothing more than the classic example of emotional manipulation and control used by an abuser, and that is what you are — a vindictive, hateful person who wants to manipulate and abuse gay and lesbian people in order to give yourself political power.

Bigots and racists like you and your fellow Obama supporters are moochers and malicious liars who use minorities as an excuse for you to steal from others. You are a coward.

northdallasthirty on November 6, 2012 at 1:47 PM

New trolls showing up? A whole new kind of stink in this thread!

slickwillie2001 on November 6, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Lonely old conservative men. You have no friends. Your wife probably bangs the gardener. You are fat most likely. Smoke still. Diabetes definite.

Universal healthcare scares me with all the fat cancerous pig people we have rotting all over the south.

But you made it! You are rich, you got the american dream. Now people like Obama wanna take it from you! First they took your slaves! Now they wanna take your money!

Rise up! Send checks to Mitt Romney ( God knows he needs more )

zbunde on November 6, 2012 at 1:36 PM

The hilarity of this statement is that it clearly exhibits the underlying hate and contempt of Barack Obama and his supporters for others.

Barack Obama pretends to care about people without health insurance, but he then makes remarks about “fat cancerous pig people we have rotting all over the south”.

What that proves is that Barack Obama and his supporters do not care. They are lying, making a malicious lie to manipulate others and to take advantage of their compassion in order to expand governmental power.

You are a bigot and a fascist, zbunde. Just like your Barack Obama. Your Barack Obama Party is nothing but racists and fascists.

northdallasthirty on November 6, 2012 at 1:49 PM

workingclass artist on November 6, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Good recounting of marriage in history and culture. Also, it’s probably not at all PC to say so, but men are pretty interested in transfering property to their seed, which is why virginity was so highly prized and why adultery so severely punished.

My husband is a gentle soul who loves children and animals, but his attitude toward our children was different from the moment they came from the womb. Instant, absolute love for that specific tiny human. No bonding necessary. Our children were part him, part me. One flesh in birth. Creation.

Portia46 on November 6, 2012 at 1:52 PM

You are a bigot and a fascist, zbunde. Just like your Barack Obama. Your Barack Obama Party is nothing but racists and fascists. – northdallasthirty on November 6, 2012 at 1:49 PM

I will agree with you on that statement. But usually you are far off the mark on gay issues.

SC.Charlie on November 6, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Chris Matthews on MSNBC just called the election for Obama!!!!!!!!! ……….errrrrrr, just joking. The man is off his rocker.

SC.Charlie on November 6, 2012 at 1:59 PM

I am not going to argue with you. You need to study the issue of human human sexuality in far greater depth and today is not the day to for me to educate you or others.
SC.Charlie on November 6, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Really?

I counter with this.

Your argument is fallacious.

Gay couples have legal remedies in place to protect peaceful transfer of property.

What they do not have is a cultural approval recognizing their union as equivalent to traditional marriage.

Even the Pagans knew that.

I suggest you enhance your intellect by moving past your specific grievance and by studying history and philosophy.

workingclass artist on November 6, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Sorry but, the states will just will just have to adjust. They can adopt the laws written in the state of Massachusetts.

SC.Charlie on November 6, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Why?

Or to put it another way, “Sorry but the states will just have to adjust. They can adopt the laws written in the state of Ohio.”

The_Livewire on November 6, 2012 at 2:05 PM

workingclass artist on November 6, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Good recounting of marriage in history and culture. Also, it’s probably not at all PC to say so, but men are pretty interested in transfering property to their seed, which is why virginity was so highly prized and why adultery so severely punished.

My husband is a gentle soul who loves children and animals, but his attitude toward our children was different from the moment they came from the womb. Instant, absolute love for that specific tiny human. No bonding necessary. Our children were part him, part me. One flesh in birth. Creation.

Portia46 on November 6, 2012 at 1:52 PM

PC is all about preventing discourse and criticism.

:)

workingclass artist on November 6, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Marriage has always been a formal contract between a Man and a Woman to bind Clans for the stability of Tribes.

workingclass artist on November 6, 2012 at 1:42 PM

I don’t even know what this is supposed to mean. What “Clans” and “Tribes” are being bound and stabilized in a marriage in the contemporary world?

J.S.K. on November 6, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Really?

I counter with this.

Your argument is fallacious.

Gay couples have legal remedies in place to protect peaceful transfer of property.

What they do not have is a cultural approval recognizing their union as equivalent to traditional marriage.

Even the Pagans knew that.

I suggest you enhance your intellect by moving past your specific grievance and by studying history and philosophy.

workingclass artist on November 6, 2012 at 2:00 PM

I have done that. I am 61 years old and was a history major in college. Human societies from the beginning of time have demonized gays, just like they have demonized other minorities within their ranks. Just because it has always been done, does not make right. I am sure that even if gay marriage is legalized throughout the United States there are going to be a lot of unhappy people, such as yourself.

SC.Charlie on November 6, 2012 at 2:09 PM

And frankly, with a tax exempt status, I would assume churches are actually in the position of owing the government something. Why shouldn’t their tax exempt status be threatened if they discriminate and let’s say only hire male preachers or only hetero preachers?

Esthier on November 6, 2012 at 11:27 AM

The largest US Christian church currently hires only male priests. They have been free to discriminate against women for their ministerial hiring regardless of discrimination law.

dedalus on November 6, 2012 at 2:10 PM

I love watching old episodes of The Waltons. How many people know that the actors who played grandma, Ellen Corby, and grandpa, Will Geer, were homosexual?

SC.Charlie on November 6, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Marriage has always been a formal contract between a Man and a Woman to bind Clans for the stability of Tribes.

workingclass artist on November 6, 2012 at 1:42 PM

I don’t even know what this is supposed to mean. What “Clans” and “Tribes” are being bound and stabilized in a marriage in the contemporary world?

J.S.K. on November 6, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Being contemporary does not change human nature.

Humans organize into families, which enlarge into clans which combine to form tribes.

A large collective of tribes that co-operate or shared goals becomes a nation.

The mechanism to change this is to disrupt those elements that insure tribal co-operation by replacing the community structures that bind clans and replacing familial loyalty with state loyalty.

workingclass artist on November 6, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Of course I don’t know you. I didn’t say a single thing about YOU.

You didn’t?

You advocate for government control of churches and their properties, which means you are advocating for a government controlled church and government dictated beliefs. You advocate for tyranny.

Maybe it’s just me, but this looks exactly like you telling me what I supposedly believe. Something you might be qualified to do if you knew me.

I addressed your written notions that churches should cease being involved in marriages and another post wherein you possit that since churches aren’t taxed, government has a say-so in what they do.

You misinterpreted them and then tried to argue a made up point with me.

I will say something personal since you herein introduced the personal to the discussion. Your crudity is neither witty not relevant to the issue. I have no idea where you got your ideas, but your level of discourse comes straight from the gutter.

Portia46 on November 6, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Because I said inside your lower backside? Seriously?

My point is that you’re basing these impressions off of a misinterpretation of my comments a literally NOTHING else except something that might be buried inside of your own subconscious of what you assume “people like me” (however you’re classifying me) supposedly believe.

You’ve made so many leaps based off of my statement that CHURCHES (NOT THE GOVERNMENT) should do something to protect themselves.

I’ve been called incompetent and insane, but somehow I’m the one with low discourse cause I used a euphemism to explain where you might possibly have gotten the idea that I’m a fascist.

Well, I guess it’s not just libs who prefer style over substance.

Esthier on November 6, 2012 at 2:18 PM

The largest US Christian church currently hires only male priests. They have been free to discriminate against women for their ministerial hiring regardless of discrimination law.

dedalus on November 6, 2012 at 2:10 PM

I understand this (most Christians churches do the same even), but I don’t see the legal explanation. That’s my only point. If we can force Catholic institutions to cover contraception, I don’t see why we can’t do the same on this issue, especially in the context of Ed’s argument that marriage is a state institution.

Esthier on November 6, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Esthier on November 6, 2012 at 2:18 PM

You really should read your own arguments again.

astonerii on November 6, 2012 at 2:23 PM

I have done that. I am 61 years old and was a history major in college. Human societies from the beginning of time have demonized gays, just like they have demonized other minorities within their ranks. Just because it has always been done, does not make right. I am sure that even if gay marriage is legalized throughout the United States there are going to be a lot of unhappy people, such as yourself.

SC.Charlie on November 6, 2012 at 2:09 PM

The Romans didn’t demonize homosexuals…sheesh!

In ancient societies Men were expected to form marriages and procreate for the stability of society and assure the continuity of their clan and it’s alliances.

Being Homosexual was not a legal identification…it was a sexual activity some men engaged in on the side which was tolerated if it did not interfere with the stability of the marriage contract which assured the bonds of clans and tribes.

Post Modernism might be entertaining…but it does not change the facts of history.

workingclass artist on November 6, 2012 at 2:25 PM

I don’t know why I am gay and I certainly did not choose. I did not even experiment. I chose celibacy, silence and reclusiveness until I finally had a mental breakdown and nearly committed suicide five years ago. Then I came out of the closet to my close friends and associates. It was the best thing I ever did for my mental health. Everyone of them accepted me for who I am.

SC.Charlie on November 6, 2012 at 1:46 PM

I don’t get it either, but it’s possible for it to not be innate and also not be a choice.

I’m glad your friends accepted you. I know what it’s like to hide something personal from the people you care about the most.

Esthier on November 6, 2012 at 2:28 PM

You really should read your own arguments again.

astonerii on November 6, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Feel free to prove your point with my words.

Esthier on November 6, 2012 at 2:29 PM

I love the kid who is still eating troll bait even with trollcot going on… such a noob…

zbunde on November 6, 2012 at 2:31 PM

I love watching old episodes of The Waltons. How many people know that the actors who played grandma, Ellen Corby, and grandpa, Will Geer, were homosexual?

SC.Charlie on November 6, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Why would that matter?

Unless, of course, the point is to co-opt their sexuality to “prove” something about yours.

If you are such a valuable individual, why do you need to borrow other peoples’ sexual orientations to prove yourself worthy? Even better, does the fact that one gay person is a good actor make you a better person because you share their sexual orientation?

Gays and lesbians like yourself are constantly demanding that other people give you respect based on your sexual orientation. How about earning it based on your performance and personality?

northdallasthirty on November 6, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Feel free to prove your point with my words.

Esthier on November 6, 2012 at 2:29 PM

LOL where to begin, there are so many words that in a single post lay you bare. You really should go back to not posting. You are incoherent as the best way to describe you.

astonerii on November 6, 2012 at 2:35 PM

love watching old episodes of The Waltons. How many people know that the actors who played grandma, Ellen Corby, and grandpa, Will Geer, were homosexual?

SC.Charlie on November 6, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Grandpa Walton was also a member of the communist party.. kinda goes hand in hand if you read the early literature of the gay agenda, doesn’t it? They have just hidden it better now- better at public relations so to speak..

melle1228 on November 6, 2012 at 2:38 PM

How about earning it based on your performance and personality?

northdallasthirty on November 6, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Because history proves that gay unions offer next to nothing to society and have very large negative consequences to answer for that far outweigh that next to nothing.

astonerii on November 6, 2012 at 2:39 PM

LOL where to begin, there are so many words that in a single post lay you bare. You really should go back to not posting. You are incoherent as the best way to describe you.

astonerii on November 6, 2012 at 2:35 PM

So incoherent that you can’t help but keep responding to me even while refusing to answer any substantive questions. You must have so many interesting things going on in your life right now.

Esthier on November 6, 2012 at 2:41 PM

love watching old episodes of The Waltons. How many people know that the actors who played grandma, Ellen Corby, and grandpa, Will Geer, were homosexual?

SC.Charlie on November 6, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Oh and BTW, I know how the gay community likes to change history but I am sure that Ellen Corby’s husband would have been surprised to know that she was a lesbian.

melle1228 on November 6, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Second, I believe that government has little legitimate interest in formal recognition of sexual relationships (other than to bar consanguinous relationships or exploitative relationships with minors), and that the formal recognition process that marriage represents should only take place where government has a pressing interest. I’ve written before that I think government would do best to stay out of marriage altogether, and leave it to the churches. That would be the best possible solution in a perfect libertarian world.

You always hear libertarians saying this. Have any HotAir libertarians declined to obtain civil marriage licences and had church-only (or alternative ceremony-only) weddings?

aengus on November 6, 2012 at 2:47 PM

You always hear libertarians saying this. Have any HotAir libertarians declined to obtain civil marriage licences and had church-only (or alternative ceremony-only) weddings?

aengus on November 6, 2012 at 2:47 PM

If I got married right now then I would. I got married 21 years ago, and it isn’t worth divorcing over. I also have two children and my marriage legitimizes my children and gives my husband and myself equal footing regarding those biological children without a courts interference. Had we had them before marriage then a court would not have to get involved, but now that we are married a court would have to divvy up custody which would not do well since we would remain partners. I was very much a liberal 21 years ago when I got married. If I knew then what I know now about the government, I would have stayed as far away from the government as possible.

melle1228 on November 6, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Thanks melle1228, that’s an interesting answer.

aengus on November 6, 2012 at 2:52 PM

I have done that. I am 61 years old and was a history major in college. Human societies from the beginning of time have demonized gays, just like they have demonized other minorities within their ranks. Just because it has always been done, does not make right. I am sure that even if gay marriage is legalized throughout the United States there are going to be a lot of unhappy people, such as yourself.

SC.Charlie on November 6, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Actually, this is not true. The ancient Greeks glorified gay relationships. The Romans practiced it openly. Currently, the Islamic world uses gay six as a weapon and the Koran glorifies the beauty of pre-pubecent boys. William the Conquerer was gay. William the Lionhearted was gay. Nonetheless, marriage between a man and a woman remained sacrosanct.

Portia46 on November 6, 2012 at 2:54 PM

You can find it by studying history which is well documented in the accounts of Law,Philosophy and Societies.

Marriage has always been a formal contract between a Man and a Woman to bind Clans for the stability of Tribes.

In the Pagan World it was common to slaughter inheritors during a violent seizure of property or when a marriage ended and predecessors of the prior marriage could compete with subsequent inheritors of the later marriage.

This was as common as human sacrifice in the Pagan World.

As the Roman Empire evolved judicially customs and legal protections within the marriage state evolved but a Roman Male as Patriarch retained absolute and legal power of life and death for all persons in his household (He had the legal right to slaughter an inheritor)

Judaism prevented human sacrifice in their legal system of theocracy.

Christianity protected inheritors within the Marriage Contract both prior marriages and subsequent marriages and promoted the peaceful transfer of property.

workingclass artist on November 6, 2012 at 1:42 PM

So the short answer is you don’t know, you’re just talking out of your you-know-what.

Dante on November 6, 2012 at 2:57 PM

I don’t know why I am gay and I certainly did not choose. I did not even experiment. I chose celibacy, silence and reclusiveness until I finally had a mental breakdown and nearly committed suicide five years ago. Then I came out of the closet to my close friends and associates. It was the best thing I ever did for my mental health. Everyone of them accepted me for who I am.

SC.Charlie on November 6, 2012 at 1:46 PM

They accepted you without the state forcing them to!?! I can’t believe that.

cptacek on November 6, 2012 at 3:04 PM

I live in Minnesota, and I voted for both the marriage amendment (to amend the state constitution so that only man-woman marriage is recognized) and the voter ID amendment (requiring a photo ID to vote).

Othniel on November 6, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Because I said inside your lower backside? Seriously?

My point is that you’re basing these impressions off of a misinterpretation of my comments a literally NOTHING else except something that might be buried inside of your own subconscious of what you assume “people like me” (however you’re classifying me) supposedly believe.

You’ve made so many leaps based off of my statement that CHURCHES (NOT THE GOVERNMENT) should do something to protect themselves.

I’ve been called incompetent and insane, but somehow I’m the one with low discourse cause I used a euphemism to explain where you might possibly have gotten the idea that I’m a fascist.

Well, I guess it’s not just libs who prefer style over substance.

Esthier on November 6, 2012 at 2:18 PM

If you thought I misinterpreted your comments, the rationale thing to do is to explain them further or defend them. Instead you attacked my reposte through a personal attack that was crude and nasty and meant to offend and/or intimidate.

You call my interpretation a “leap”, but you advocate that churches not perform marriages to protect themselves? I asked if they should also give up the Eucharist for the same purpose. You also stated that churches give power to the government by not paying taxes. I tried to explain how that would most assuredly be used as a weapon to close churches. Henry took over the abbies because he was broke. You think Obama will keep his hands off the cathedrals and the art?

Portia46 on November 6, 2012 at 3:16 PM

I know, it is like being a vegetarian. It is absolutely totally natural. You either are, or you are not. People who become vegetarians later on in life were just living a lie the earlier part of their life.

By the way, doesn’t this argument work for people who naturally like to be in orgies and want to have multiple husbands and wives. Or people who are naturally attracted to their mother, father, brother, sister, donkey, cat, dog, tree, tomato plant? They do not actively work towards these feelings, so they need to be allowed to marry as well if gays are…

astonerii on November 6, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Actually it is far more like a fetish or other damage of the mating instinct. While some people may be attracted to horses or sheep oe rubber mattresses with corn oil, the point is that the sexual instinct is a feature of our mental healthiness and can be damaged or misguided. Whether it is in the wiring (physical cause) or some traumatic events in the family is under debate, but such behavior shows damage, just as much as psychosis or Autism or Schizophrenia or an addiction.

Government should not support it.

Bulletchaser on November 6, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Instead of leaving marriage to the churches, a change in definition will give the state a powerful way to either force churches to perform weddings that violate their belief systems or stop performing them altogether.

That’s a bunch of fear mongering nonsense. Catholic churches won’t marry two non-Catholics, and will only marry a Catholic and a non-Catholic in certain circumstances. The fact that these marriages would be legal has not lead to the state compelling the Catholic church to perform them.

Mark Jaquith on November 6, 2012 at 3:24 PM

That’s a bunch of fear mongering nonsense. Catholic churches won’t marry two non-Catholics, and will only marry a Catholic and a non-Catholic in certain circumstances. The fact that these marriages would be legal has not lead to the state compelling the Catholic church to perform them.

Mark Jaquith on November 6, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Yeah and it was fearmongering nonsense when opponents of the DADT repeal said it would lead to lawsuits to repeal DOMA and the day it was repealed that was exactly what happened. We have already seen “hate laws” in other countries lead to Pastors being threatened with jail. Catholic charities in Massachusetts were forced out of the adoption business EVEN when they were no longer going to take state funds any longer. Parents can no longer opt out of their chidren learning about homosexuality in Massachusetts by COURT ORDER. Please don’t tell us how it is “fear mongering’ how this will be forced on churches mmmkay?

melle1228 on November 6, 2012 at 3:30 PM

That’s a bunch of fear mongering nonsense. Catholic churches won’t marry two non-Catholics, and will only marry a Catholic and a non-Catholic in certain circumstances. The fact that these marriages would be legal has not lead to the state compelling the Catholic church to perform them.

Mark Jaquith on November 6, 2012 at 3:24 PM

So it would be ok if the Church simply excommunicates all homosexuals? Since it/he/she would no longer be Catholic, then it would be ok to refuse to marry it/he/she.

See, we can all come to understandings!

Bulletchaser on November 6, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4