Senate gay-marriage pool update: Democrat Tom Carper — and Republican Mark Kirk — “evolve” on SSM

posted at 12:41 pm on April 2, 2013 by Allahpundit

And so, after a solid week of me picking Carper every day in the gay-marriage pool as the next Democrat to flip, only to be disappointed every time, he finally flips … the day after I switch my pick to Bill Nelson.

Congrats to JohnGalt23 for scooping up Carper after I dropped him. See why I don’t bother filling out NCAA Tournament brackets anymore?

As our society has changed and evolved, so too has the public’s opinion on gay marriage – and so has mine. I pray every day for God to grant me the wisdom to do what is right. Through my prayers and conversations with my family and countless friends and Delawareans, I’ve been reminded of the power of one of my core values: the Golden Rule. It calls on us to treat others as we want to be treated. That means, to me, that all Americans ultimately should be free to marry the people they love and intend to share their lives with, regardless of their sexual orientation, and that’s why today, after a great deal of soul searching, I’m endorsing marriage equality.

This is the first Democratic flip that might be worth taking at face value rather than as a transparent, cynical electoral gambit to stay on the base’s good side. Carper had zero reason to hold out this long unless he was genuinely conflicted about it. The state hasn’t gone red in a presidential election since 1988; the vice president of the United States, who comes from Delaware, is already on record as supporting SSM; and Carper himself won reelection just last year by more than 35 points. He’s in less electoral danger than virtually anyone else in the Senate. He held out, presumably, because he’s part of the 65+ age demographic that’s most resistant to gay marriage, but given the political leanings of his state, he must have been getting the pro-SSM pitch from constituents for years now. They finally wore him down.

Speaking of blue-state Senators finally changing their mind, here’s Mark Kirk of Illinois becoming the second Republican in the caucus after Rob Portman to fully endorse gay marriage.

When I climbed the Capitol steps in January, I promised myself that I would return to the Senate with an open mind and greater respect for others.

Same-sex couples should have the right to civil marriage. Our time on this earth is limited, I know that better than most. Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back– government has no place in the middle.

His statement’s less explicitly religious than Carper’s but they’re similar in how they emphasize love over legalistic arguments about equality. Kirk was one of three Republicans I named in the initial post about Rob Portman as predictable flips on this issue if only because it’d cause a problem for him in his very Democratic home state in the general if he didn’t. (He’d already endorsed civil unions.) Collins and Murkowski were the other two, and although they’re still technically “evolving” they’ll be there soon enough. Kudos to alchemist19 for predicting that Kirk would be the next domino to fall among Senate Republicans.

Let’s make the new round of the pool a little harder. Name the next Democrat and Republican to flip. Collins and Murkowski don’t count; we’ve already declared them to be de facto flippers for pool purposes. I’ll stick with Bill Nelson, thereby ensuring that the next Democrat will be anybody but Bill Nelson, and I’ll take Kelly Ayotte on the GOP side. Exit question: Now that there are 50 Senators on record as supporting gay marriage, they’ll at least try to repeal DOMA next year if the Supreme Court doesn’t do it for them, no?


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

However, am I right in concluding that you believe the Bible prohibitions against homosexual acts would not apply to homosexual acts conducted between the two parties of a homosexual “marriage”?

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 5:31 PM

I think this is the crux of JetBoy’s wanting gays to have the full rights of marriage. I believe he feels that the only sin he is committing is having homosexual sex outside the realm of marriage and that having that title would make it not sinful since he believes that homosexuality itself is not a sin in the bible.

Please correct me if I misunderstand JetBoy.

KickandSwimMom on April 2, 2013 at 5:37 PM

So keep on using the Word of God to bash on gays if that’s what makes you happy…but I’m guessing….only guessing…that His love for all sinners trumps your own disapproval of certain ones in your mind.

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 5:35 PM

As far as I can tell, no one on this thread was “using the Word of God to bash on gays,” especially not me. And if you truly believe you were being “bashed” by others politely pointing you to relevant scriptures, that belief springs from your own victim complex and not from reality.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 5:39 PM

As far as I can tell, no one on this thread was “using the Word of God to bash on gays,” especially not me. And if you truly believe you were being “bashed” by others politely pointing you to relevant scriptures, that belief springs from your own victim complex and not from reality.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Satan’s desire is for all to refuse to believe that sin is sin, and that they are sinners.

This makes Jesus Christ unnecessary.

The homosexual lobby and the media are doing the work of Satan, in that regard.

They are leading people away from Jesus Christ and their absolute need for Him.

It’s really very tragic.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 2, 2013 at 5:44 PM

You cannot be a Christian and support same sex marriage.
Mathew 19
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

There are plenty of places that prove that sodomy is a sin.

You cannot be a conservative and support same sex “marriage”. Marriage is the bed rock of a society and its purpose is for the benefit of the children and not the adults. It is a restriction on adults that ideally prevents them from breaking up and failing to provide for their children.

astonerii on April 2, 2013 at 5:56 PM

The prohibition against women speaking in church (1 Cor 14:34-35) is likely a later interpolation. In 1 Cor 11 Paul already acknowledges that women are able to speak, pray, and prophesy aloud in church. In many of the earliest extant manuscripts, the prohibition against women speaking in church actually appears at the very end of chapter 14 (after verse 40), indicating it was a later addition.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Isn’t there something like an official version of the Bible or does it change automatically with every new historical finding? I don’t think so. Isn’t a “Living Bible” a slippery slope?

Gelsomina on April 2, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Isn’t a “Living Bible” a slippery slope?

Gelsomina on April 2, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Only if you don’t read it.

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 6:11 PM

“evolve” is not necessarily a positive term. It could mean the same as “mutate.” Classical Greek civilization and the Roman Empire “evolved” themselves out of existence, in much the same way that modern “advanced” civilizations are doing the same thing.

False terminology is part of the problem, e.g. “progressives,” “Democrats,” “gay sex,” “same sex marriage”, “affirmative action,” etc. What passes for education these days is worlds away from what it used to be. Welfare hasn’t mean the same thing it used to for a long, long time. Note how many tyrannies call themselves “peoples’ republics.”

Our Constitution was originally designed to prevent running after every faddish idea that catches the public’s fancy. There were buffers against changes without extensive debate and deliberation, but they’ve all been gradually disassembled. We are now at the mercy of the media and the evil imaginations of our hearts.

I hate to be pessimistic, but evil always moves by evolutions. Corruption doesn’t happen all at once. We can’t say quite yet that “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity,” but the best are dwindling into bickering camps over what is good and refusing to support the good that isn’t perfect in their view. Contention is of the devil, because it stirs up anger. I keep hearing conservatives saying that the GOP must fight back, but that seems to call for more passionate intensity rather than unity and reason.

One doesn’t have to surrender principles to defeat the forces of evil, but in politics one has to prioritize between unity and having everything your own way. We want to evolve in a positive, more healthy direction, and making the case that it’s better to build a healthy, more competent,

flataffect on April 2, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Isn’t there something like an official version of the Bible or does it change automatically with every new historical finding? I don’t think so. Isn’t a “Living Bible” a slippery slope?

Gelsomina on April 2, 2013 at 6:07 PM

While Christians believe the Bible to be divinely inspired, the current versions we have are not 100% inerrant, and I don’t think very many Christians believe that they are.

You must not be very familiar with biblical scholarship. Quite a few passages are debated because variations appear in the early manuscripts (e.g., the Septuagint vs. the Masoretic Text/Vulgate, the various Codices, etc.).

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Mark Kirk is establishment Republican all the way.

HondaV65 on April 2, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Isn’t a “Living Bible” a slippery slope?

Gelsomina on April 2, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Only if you don’t read it.

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 6:11 PM

Really?

Steebo77 just told us that we can ignore 1 Corinthians 14,34-35, because it may be a later interpolation.

What else can we ignore and how often do you change what you have to believe in? Annually, monthly, weekly or with every issue of the Biblical Archeological Review?

That’s your Bible? Entire verses here today, gone tomorrow? I don’t think so.

Gelsomina on April 2, 2013 at 6:26 PM

The country is on the path to bankruptcy, the tax code is a joke, we live in a police state, and you guys are concerned about who gets marriage licenses at the courthouse… Grow up, get your priorities straight, and start worrying about things that actually affect people’s day to day lives.

bocat on April 2, 2013 at 6:36 PM

While Christians believe the Bible to be divinely inspired, the current versions we have are not 100% inerrant, and I don’t think very many Christians believe that they are.

You must not be very familiar with biblical scholarship. Quite a few passages are debated because variations appear in the early manuscripts (e.g., the Septuagint vs. the Masoretic Text/Vulgate, the various Codices, etc.).

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 6:23 PM

I’ve heard about that, but you have just destroyed the “Homosexuality Is Bad Because God Says So” argument.

God says it TODAY, but tomorrow we may find out that it was just a later interpolation.

Gelsomina on April 2, 2013 at 6:36 PM

Evangelicals are taking names!

redware on April 2, 2013 at 6:42 PM

The prohibition against women speaking in church (1 Cor 14:34-35) is likely a later interpolation. In 1 Cor 11 Paul already acknowledges that women are able to speak, pray, and prophesy aloud in church. In many of the earliest extant manuscripts, the prohibition against women speaking in church actually appears at the very end of chapter 14 (after verse 40), indicating it was a later addition.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Except “there are no manuscripts that omit the verses“. That would seem to be important not to overlook if one is claiming that they are a later insertion. None of the early Christian writers claim that these verses are disputed and indeed the earliest extra-biblical writings we have using them, dating from the 3rd and 4th centuries, quote or refer to them as Scripture.

JohnAGJ on April 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM

Steebo77 just told us that we can ignore 1 Corinthians 14,34-35, because it may be a later interpolation.

The evidence would suggest that it’s very possible, given the variations between the Greek manuscripts.

What else can we ignore and how often do you change what you have to believe in? Annually, monthly, weekly or with every issue of the Biblical Archeological Review?

It’s always a good idea to at least read the footnotes that accompany the scripture one is reading before assuming their meaning is obvious. Especially in cases such as this verse, where other verses within the same book would tend to contradict its most obvious meaning.

That’s your Bible? Entire verses here today, gone tomorrow? I don’t think so.

Gelsomina on April 2, 2013 at 6:26 PM

The verse has been retained, but, as I mentioned, is footnoted in most versions with a discussion of the issues with the manuscripts.

Most modern versions of the Bible have been meticulously translated from the earliest available manuscripts, often with several different translations consulted, by highly-qualified teams of translators. A bit of forensic/investigative work is sometimes required (when a particular manuscript is imperfect, seems to have been altered, etc.), but the translators have done a good job overall of trying to get at the original text.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 6:48 PM

That would seem to be important not to overlook if one is claiming that they are a later insertion.

JohnAGJ on April 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM

I never claimed that they were later insertions, just that it is possible/likely that they are.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 6:50 PM

I’ve heard about that, but you have just destroyed the “Homosexuality Is Bad Because God Says So” argument.

God says it TODAY, but tomorrow we may find out that it was just a later interpolation.

Gelsomina on April 2, 2013 at 6:36 PM

Not really. The passages containing the prohibitions against homosexual acts are not in question in the same way. I’m not aware of anyone ever claiming them to have been interpolations.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 6:54 PM

The prohibition against women speaking in church (1 Cor 14:34-35) is likely a later interpolation.

Is it just a coincidence that it’s always the socially unnacceptable/absurd passages in the Bible that Christians try to write off in this fashion?

bocat on April 2, 2013 at 7:05 PM

Except “there are no manuscripts that omit the verses“. That would seem to be important not to overlook if one is claiming that they are a later insertion. None of the early Christian writers claim that these verses are disputed and indeed the earliest extra-biblical writings we have using them, dating from the 3rd and 4th centuries, quote or refer to them as Scripture.

JohnAGJ on April 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM

I think the most likely explanation is that, if the verse is indeed an interpolation, a gloss was made in one of the earliest versions of the epistle (whether on the original or a copy). Given that the early church in Corinth contained a fair number of Jews, including several Alexandrian Jews in leadership roles, it’s definitely possible that one of them inserted an admonition that women remain silent during worship, etc., similar to the Jewish tradition. The epistle was later copied and distributed throughout the various churches of the Mediterranean and the Holy Land. Some copyists read the gloss (made by a Corinthian church leader?) as belonging where it presently occurs (verses 34-35), whereas others weren’t sure of the placement and affixed the gloss to the end of the chapter (after verse 40).

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Is it just a coincidence that it’s always the socially unnacceptable/absurd passages in the Bible that Christians try to write off in this fashion?

bocat on April 2, 2013 at 7:05 PM

The ending of Mark’s Gospel after the Resurrection is viewed by most as a later addition, and there’s nothing controversial in there. The same can be said of the story of the adulterous woman in John’s Gospel. I can think of several other examples in 1 & 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles, none of which are seen as socially unacceptable or absurd.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 7:13 PM

I think the most likely explanation is that, if the verse is indeed an interpolation, a gloss was made in one of the earliest versions of the epistle (whether on the original or a copy). Given that the early church in Corinth contained a fair number of Jews, including several Alexandrian Jews in leadership roles, it’s definitely possible that one of them inserted an admonition that women remain silent during worship, etc., similar to the Jewish tradition. The epistle was later copied and distributed throughout the various churches of the Mediterranean and the Holy Land. Some copyists read the gloss (made by a Corinthian church leader?) as belonging where it presently occurs (verses 34-35), whereas others weren’t sure of the placement and affixed the gloss to the end of the chapter (after verse 40).

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 7:07 PM

That’s interesting speculation, but without evidence, that’s about all it is. One could just as easily say that since these verses appear in every manuscript we have of 1 Corinthians and no early Christian writer ever disputes their authenticity, copies showing these verses at the end of the chapter are attempts to correct a transcribal omission. This would at least explain why the verses are present in every copy and why no one disputes them as being authentic until nearly 2,000 years later.

JohnAGJ on April 2, 2013 at 7:19 PM

Not really. The passages containing the prohibitions against homosexual acts are not in question in the same way. I’m not aware of anyone ever claiming them to have been interpolations.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 6:54 PM

But look how sophistic you have to become in your replies to JohnAGJ and me in order to avoid admitting the obvious. “I never claimed that …”

Sure you did.

You are cherry-picking the Bible.

You think that’s not obvious even to uneducated rubes like me?

Gelsomina on April 2, 2013 at 7:30 PM

You cannot be a Christian and support same sex marriage.

Fine.

Just one thing.

Since when does “what’s christian” or not matter in law?

Should we arrest people who take the lords name in vain, you think that’s a good idea too?

triple on April 2, 2013 at 7:41 PM

But look how sophistic you have to become in your replies to JohnAGJ and me in order to avoid admitting the obvious. “I never claimed that …”

Sure you did.

No, I said it would make a lot of sense. That it was possible. Even likely. I never claimed definitely that it was.

You are cherry-picking the Bible.

You think that’s not obvious even to uneducated rubes like me?

Gelsomina on April 2, 2013 at 7:30 PM

How am I cherry-picking when I acknowledge that the verse is in there but has a questionable documentary history, just like the ending of Mark, or the story of the adulteress in John? These are things practically all Christians acknowledge. Pick up a Bible, flip to any of these sections, and read the footnotes. I’m not making this stuff up. It’s what biblical scholars generally believe.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Evangelicals are taking names!

redware on April 2, 2013 at 6:42 PM

The ABC poll from a week or two ago shows that in the last nine years support for gay marriage among evangelicals has gone from 7% in 2004 to around 30%, pretty much matching the rise in popularity the issue has seen among most other groups. You might be taking names but you don’t speak for all evangelicals when you do.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 7:42 PM

In fact you could even personally be against SSM based on religious views, but understand your personal views against SSM have no business being made law.

triple on April 2, 2013 at 7:43 PM

In fact you could even personally be against SSM based on religious views, but understand your personal views against SSM have no business being made law.

triple on April 2, 2013 at 7:43 PM

Everyone votes on their personal views even you triple…

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 7:49 PM

Should we arrest people who take the lords name in vain, you think that’s a good idea too?

triple on April 2, 2013 at 7:41 PM

No, but I am seriously considering supporting legislation for people who ask ridiculously stupid questions.

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 7:50 PM

The prohibition against women speaking in church (1 Cor 14:34-35) is likely a later interpolation.

Is it just a coincidence that it’s always the socially unnacceptable/absurd passages in the Bible that Christians try to write off in this fashion?

bocat on April 2, 2013 at 7:05 PM

Why would these be socially unacceptable?. When I’m playing the prelude before a service, it is always women that are rudely chatting during it.

Nutstuyu on April 2, 2013 at 7:55 PM

In fact you could even personally be against SSM based on religious views, but understand your personal views against SSM have no business being made law.

triple on April 2, 2013 at 7:43 PM

That’s cool. Because I’m NOT personally against murdering idiots…so laws shmaws.

Nutstuyu on April 2, 2013 at 7:57 PM

…so…wonder what the QOTD topic will be?

KOOLAID2 on April 2, 2013 at 8:39 PM

For the record I disagree with steebo. He’s wrong on 1 Corinthians.

In fact you could even personally be against SSM based on religious views, but understand your personal views against SSM have no business being made law.

triple on April 2, 2013 at 7:43 PM

Across time, cultures, societies, and religions marriage is between a man and a woman.

INC on April 2, 2013 at 8:41 PM

KOOLAID2 on April 2, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Tiresome, isn’t it?

INC on April 2, 2013 at 8:42 PM

The ending of Mark’s Gospel after the Resurrection is viewed by most as a later addition, and there’s nothing controversial in there. The same can be said of the story of the adulterous woman in John’s Gospel. I can think of several other examples in 1 & 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles, none of which are seen as socially unacceptable or absurd.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 7:13 PM

My mistake- I was conflating your textual criticism with the laughable notion that the new testament invalidates the superstitious, antiquated stipulations in the old testament.

bocat on April 2, 2013 at 8:49 PM

For the record I disagree with steebo. He’s wrong on 1 Corinthians.

INC on April 2, 2013 at 8:41 PM

What do you make of it then?

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 9:04 PM

No, I said it would make a lot of sense. That it was possible. Even likely. I never claimed definitely that it was.

How am I cherry-picking when I acknowledge that the verse is in there but has a questionable documentary history, just like the ending of Mark, or the story of the adulteress in John? These are things practically all Christians acknowledge. Pick up a Bible, flip to any of these sections, and read the footnotes. I’m not making this stuff up. It’s what biblical scholars generally believe.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 7:42 PM

What’s your point?

That we can cast the first stone in the future, if we feel like it, because the story of the adulteress is not part of the original text?

That’s why I said that it is a slippery slope.

But if that is not your point then you don’t have a point regarding 1 Corinthians, either.

Gelsomina on April 2, 2013 at 9:17 PM

Everyone votes on their personal views even you triple…

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 7:49 PM

For a second there I thought you were referencing the infamous Chicago Democratic Voting Machine where each one of their votes is counted multiple times and death is a mere obstacle easily overcome! ;)

JohnAGJ on April 2, 2013 at 9:21 PM

For a second there I thought you were referencing the infamous Chicago Democratic Voting Machine where each one of their votes is counted multiple times and death is a mere obstacle easily overcome! ;)

JohnAGJ on April 2, 2013 at 9:21 PM

LOL– Can’t corpses have personal opinions too?

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 9:25 PM

LOL– Can’t corpses have personal opinions too?

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Reminds me of that old Iowahawk post about Imaginary-Americans marching on DC to try to procure for themselves the same rights everywhere that they enjoy in Chicago.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Somebody mention these numbnuts that they don’t have to support SSM they just have to get government out of it, claiming a stake in the we must have validation of homosexuality on a nationwide basis is well into the danger zone for boomerang ass bite.

Speakup on April 2, 2013 at 12:46 PM

That seems like the most sensible approach to me. Unfortunately for some of these jokers to embrace that sort of solution, they would need some modicum of ability to think outside the box.

Reggie1971 on April 2, 2013 at 11:23 PM

and I only know that will turn into “So, what about children!?” once I do settle down.

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 1:44 PM

If they’re expecting you to have children, they must not quite grasp the whole “homosexual” concept…..

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 3, 2013 at 12:04 AM

Not really. It’s all epigenetics and prenatal birth hormones. It’s not an on-off genetic switch, but a yet to be pinned down interaction between a child in the womb and the sex hormones that help him/her develop into a he/she.

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 2:12 PM

It’s a pseudo-scientific rationalization falsely presented as something found by science. Much like the “science” behind the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s that turned out to based on fraudulent “science.” There is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is inborn. Global warming should have taught us to distrust claims of science that just happen to dovetail with what the latest advocacy group wants the science to say.

In this case, claiming that homosexuality is inborn gets homosexuals “off the hook” as far as any talk of sin or guilt goes, because they can say, “I can’t help it. I was born that way.” This is very important to many homosexuals, who instinctively feel guilty. That’s exactly why they adopted the phrase “gay” and have “gay pride” parades — to convince themselves that they don’t actually feel any shame at all.

Now, some reading this will immediately decry it as hatred and bigotry. But the question you should be asking is not, “Is it hatred?” or “Is it outdated thinking?” or “Is it intolerant?” The question you should be asking is, “Is it true?”

Because if it’s not true that homosexuals are born that way, then it’s not true that they can’t change, and it’s not true that they can’t help it, and it’s not true that marriage has to be redefined so homosexuals can have their own version of it.

I know a number of people who bought the claim that homosexuals are “just born that way.” Americans want to be fair, so if they truly believe that homosexuals were born that way, then they

No, you’re not born homosexual. You’re either male or female.

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 3, 2013 at 12:25 AM

Exit question: Now that there are 50 Senators on record as supporting gay marriage, they’ll at least try to repeal DOMA next year if the Supreme Court doesn’t do it for them, no?

Don’t think that Reince and Repeat Priebus won’t try to make a repeal of DOMA into the GOP platform. He really wants to destroy the party. Let him.

Myron Falwell on April 3, 2013 at 12:34 AM

I know a number of people who bought the claim that homosexuals are “just born that way.” Americans want to be fair, so if they truly believe that homosexuals were born that way, then they instinctively feel that you can’t call homosexuality immoral or unnatural. But they started with a false assumption because they believed the lies of an activist.

No, you’re not born homosexual. You’re either male or female.

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 3, 2013 at 12:25 AM

Sorry. Somehow lost the end of that paragraph.

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 3, 2013 at 12:51 AM

These political slugs have absolutely no value systems . . . they simply bend in the wind.

rplat on April 3, 2013 at 9:14 AM

gay marriage is a non-issue….move on….just as Rush said….it is inevitable

Pragmatic on April 3, 2013 at 9:37 AM

So many of these pols are caving on SSM because they know, are related to, have working for them or some other excuse, a gay person. That’s fine and they should stand up for their friends just as I do mine. But that has nothing to do with their move to change forever the societal structure that has established through the ages the logical institution of marriage. There are many remedies for the gay community to achieve what they want without destroying the natural order.

Protect your friends without destroying the natural order; you will suffer for your do good, feel good stands on something that does not need your meddling.

Pardonme on April 3, 2013 at 9:56 AM

“senate gay marriage pool”….classic

It should be interesting to see how the SCOTUS rule. The United States federal government did not create the “right” of marriage for a man and a woman. It will be interesting to see if they interject themselves in an area in which they have no standing, or authority to be involved.

I wonder how they will address natural law, assuming they find in their research that marriage was introduced thousands of years ago. One would assume they would have to let stand only the individual states decisions by way of their voting process.

shar61 on April 3, 2013 at 10:10 AM

No, you’re not born homosexual. You’re either male or female.

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 3, 2013 at 12:25 AM

*cough* Hermaphrodite *cough*

gravityman on April 3, 2013 at 10:41 AM

The prohibition against women speaking in church (1 Cor 14:34-35) is likely a later interpolation. In 1 Cor 11 Paul already acknowledges that women are able to speak, pray, and prophesy aloud in church. In many of the earliest extant manuscripts, the prohibition against women speaking in church actually appears at the very end of chapter 14 (after verse 40), indicating it was a later addition. steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 5:26 PM

The chapter divisions were invented in the 13th Century, and all manuscripts worth considering precede the 14th Century.

Akzed on April 3, 2013 at 1:56 PM

The chapter divisions were invented in the 13th Century, and all manuscripts worth considering precede the 14th Century.

Akzed on April 3, 2013 at 1:56 PM

I’m well aware. When I mention chapter/verse divisions, it’s just as a useful shorthand to point to the text contained within those chapters/verses.

steebo77 on April 3, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4