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

Same opportunities? No two people have the same opportunities. That’s more of the BS victimhood talk sodomites trot out just before they claim that their thong-clad participation in some “pride” parade is akin to making a stand at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma.

As to being treated “the same” that really boils down to respect and the way you are treated has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Happy Nomad on April 2, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Seriously, where the heck do you live? The Castro? Christopher Street? You do know that (1) most LGBTs do not attend those parades as they have better things to do and (2) most of those parades only happen in uber liberal cities, where most of the attendants are straight liberal people / leftists.

… so it’s about respect. And where do you fall on respect?

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM

The real question is why the gays cannot be happy with that sort of arrangement??

KickandSwimMom on April 2, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Because that respects the views of those who oppose sodomy and sodomite relationships. It isn’t enough to have a legal construct (civil unions) to accomplish the same thing. This is about revenge.

Happy Nomad on April 2, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Last I heard, every heterosexual couple needs a marriage license from their state government…and have it recognized by all states through “full faith and credit”.

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Yeah and I think it is ridiculous. If I could go back 22 year ago, I doubt I would get married. The only benefit that I would want to retain is the fact that my husband gets automatic “equal protection” as the custodial parent to his biological children. Other than that I think state marriage is a racket for couples..

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 1:36 PM

I know that you are aware of gay-friendly churches who do perform same-sex ceremonies even now…..

libfreeordie on April 2, 2013 at 1:32 PM

You hate churches, so why should I care?

Furthermore, thanks for proving the point; you and your fellow bigots like ZachV whose families are supposedly desperate to see you walk down the aisle and make an actual commitment won’t put your money where your mouth is and actually do it.

northdallasthirty on April 2, 2013 at 1:36 PM

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM

A man shall leave his mother, and a woman leave her home.
And they shall travel on to where the two shall be as one.
As it was in the beginning. Is now, until the end.
Woman draws her life from man and gives it back again.
And there is love.
There is love.

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Just look at all those “normal” heterosexual married couples that have shown up on Jerry Springer and Maury Povitch!

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Ah, the hilarity.

Those sort of couples and that behavior are abnormal for heterosexuals and are mocked…..but are completely normal for gays and lesbians.

So JetBoy’s argument is that marriage should be extended to people like himself who would behave in identical fashion to the heterosexual couples he currently mocks as being bad for marriage.

northdallasthirty on April 2, 2013 at 1:39 PM

most LGBTs

I have to ask, aren’t lesbians gay? Why the “L” and the “G”?

Also, is the “T” for transsexual or transvestite? Which one is left out in the cold? What about gay transvestites – guys who have their d!cks cut off and then go after girls? Don’t they get their own special category?

I think you guys have to work on that acronym.

… so it’s about respect. And where do you fall on respect?

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM

I have no respect, at all, for those who think they can just pervert and destroy the language and society to satisfy their own selfish – and abnormal – desires.

Are you working for polygamists and communal marriages to be recognized, too … or are you a “hater” of them … a group-bigot or whatever you would call it?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 2, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Seriously, where the heck do you live? The Castro? Christopher Street? You do know that (1) most LGBTs do not attend those parades as they have better things to do and (2) most of those parades only happen in uber liberal cities, where most of the attendants are straight liberal people / leftists.

… so it’s about respect. And where do you fall on respect?

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM

LOL.

When you start attacking THOSE people, you might have credibility.

But since you scream and cry and only attack those who point out the promiscuous stupidity in which your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters are engaging, everyone can see who you respect.

northdallasthirty on April 2, 2013 at 1:41 PM

The ‘me too’ comedy continues. What a farce.

Midas on April 2, 2013 at 1:43 PM

… so it’s about respect. And where do you fall on respect?

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Respect is all about character. Where is your character?

nobar on April 2, 2013 at 1:43 PM

I’m thinking this is BS. I highly doubt two older generations of your family are pining to see you “walk down the aisle” (a la church) with a man. I’m sure they are desirous of you being happy, and I am also sure that they would be absolutely fine with some sort of contractual civil law arrangement for gays relative to property rights and benefits and that, in fact, it is not so important to them that it be called and understood as traditional marriage. The real question is why the gays cannot be happy with that sort of arrangement??

KickandSwimMom on April 2, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Are you kidding? I have zero interest in planning a wedding. I would *almost* rather not have same-sex marriage, just so that I could use it as an excuse NOT to have to plan a guest list, wedding party or all of that other BS.

On the other hand, both of my grandmother and mother inquire on the status of my relationship on a weekly basis (I do not understand females) and I only know that will turn into “So, what about children!?” once I do settle down. Both give me updates on the whole status of the marriage equality fight, and if you would like to take my place for the next few weeks; please do so.

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 1:44 PM

The more we endorse behaviors which violate god’s principles the less of God’s protection we will enjoy.

Embrace this deviancy at our nation’s peril.

davidk on April 2, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Also, we should remember that the people like ZachV who are screaming about and demanding “respect” also acknowledge that they come from and support a family of antireligious bigots who resort to physical violence when they don’t get their way.

I mean, seriously. If gays and lesbians like ZachV want respect, they should at least act respectable.

But again, this is not about “respect”, or “love”, or “equality”; it is about hate and antireligious bigotry, period.

northdallasthirty on April 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM

God’s

davidk on April 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 2, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Unless its changed, transgenders and bisexuals are the redheaded stepchildren of the movement. The purists “lesbians and gays” are the elistist and really don’t like that the bisexuals and the transgenders get lumped in with them. Possibly because bisexuality is hard to be lumped under the “born with it” category and transgenders are still under the DSM..

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Are you kidding? I have zero interest in planning a wedding. I would *almost* rather not have same-sex marriage, just so that I could use it as an excuse NOT to have to plan a guest list, wedding party or all of that other BS.

On the other hand, both of my grandmother and mother inquire on the status of my relationship on a weekly basis (I do not understand females) and I only know that will turn into “So, what about children!?” once I do settle down. Both give me updates on the whole status of the marriage equality fight, and if you would like to take my place for the next few weeks; please do so.

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 1:44 PM

LOL.

Your mother and your grandmother are mentally and emotionally unbalanced.

Furthermore, given their endorsement of violence, they are hatemongering bigots.

Why don’t you seek help for them, since you have acknowledged that they are bigots who will resort to physically harming anyone who opposes gay-sex marriage?

northdallasthirty on April 2, 2013 at 1:46 PM

…(2) most of those parades only happen in uber liberal cities, where most of the attendants are straight liberal people / leftists.

… so it’s about respect. And where do you fall on respect?

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM

So I expect you opposed the LGBT organizations who sued to march in Boston’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade as transsexual nuns and BDSM characters?

Fenris on April 2, 2013 at 1:48 PM

I have to ask, aren’t lesbians gay? Why the “L” and the “G”?

Also, is the “T” for transsexual or transvestite? Which one is left out in the cold? What about gay transvestites – guys who have their d!cks cut off and then go after girls? Don’t they get their own special category?

I think you guys have to work on that acronym.

… so it’s about respect. And where do you fall on respect?

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM

I have no respect, at all, for those who think they can just pervert and destroy the language and society to satisfy their own selfish – and abnormal – desires.

Are you working for polygamists and communal marriages to be recognized, too … or are you a “hater” of them … a group-bigot or whatever you would call it?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 2, 2013 at 1:40 PM

You’re forgetting the Q’s & the I’s and whatever letter was added this week.

reddevil on April 2, 2013 at 1:51 PM

LOL.

Your mother and your grandmother are mentally and emotionally unbalanced.

Furthermore, given their endorsement of violence, they are hatemongering bigots.

Why don’t you seek help for them, since you have acknowledged that they are bigots who will resort to physically harming anyone who opposes gay-sex marriage?

northdallasthirty on April 2, 2013 at 1:46 PM

IDK, they kinda sound like a normal grandma and mother to me. Very protective of their son and grandson, and wanting to know that he is happy and loved. I have problems with Zach’s in your face nature and his reliance on the government, but I guess I don’t mind his mama and is grandmama’s loving him..

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 1:51 PM

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Since they include the bisexuals in their catchy LGBT acromnym, you have to figure that they are pushing for a bisexual to be able to marry at least one man and one woman?

I wonder what Zach has to say about “equality” for bisexuals? I want to hear the gay pretend marriage people finally start admitting that they want any sort of collection of people (and others, too … as we “progress”) to be considered “married”.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 2, 2013 at 1:51 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 2, 2013 at 1:40 PM

The latest acronym that I saw was LGBTQ & C.

The Q was for queer, ????? isn’t that already covered by the first couple of letters?
The C was for Confused, again ????? What the Sam Hill is there to be confused about? Let me guess, the other letters in the alphabet. Am I right?

What’s next? Ignore that question because I really don’t want to know.

D-fusit on April 2, 2013 at 1:53 PM

I love how certain folks are saying “gay people are so wimpy for wanting the state to recognize their marriages, nanny-state nincompoops!” Meanwhile, nearly every married conservative in their life dreamt of a state recognized marriage at some point….

libfreeordie on April 2, 2013 at 1:53 PM

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Meh, just two women in an alley. The world is full of them.

Schadenfreude on April 2, 2013 at 1:54 PM

On the other hand, both of my grandmother and mother inquire on the status of my relationship on a weekly basis (I do not understand females) and I only know that will turn into “So, what about children!?” once I do settle down. Both give me updates on the whole status of the marriage equality fight, and if you would like to take my place for the next few weeks; please do so.

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Say what?! You are a homosexual. Who in their right mind would be worried about whether you are having children knowing that? Sounds to me like your mother and grandmother really haven’t come to terms with the fact that you’re gay.

KickandSwimMom on April 2, 2013 at 1:54 PM

I love how certain folks are saying “gay people are so wimpy for wanting the state to recognize their marriages, nanny-state nincompoops!” Meanwhile, nearly every married conservative in their life dreamt of a state recognized marriage at some point….

libfreeordie on April 2, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Your right, we should have the state make it illegal to be a liberal, unless you get a license. I think most people will he happy with that solution.

nobar on April 2, 2013 at 1:55 PM

A man shall leave his mother, and a woman leave her home.
And they shall travel on to where the two shall be as one.
As it was in the beginning. Is now, until the end.
Woman draws her life from man and gives it back again.
And there is love.
There is love.

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Ahh, the inevitable cherry-picked scripture-flinging…always so refreshing.

Yeah and I think it is ridiculous. If I could go back 22 year ago, I doubt I would get married. The only benefit that I would want to retain is the fact that my husband gets automatic “equal protection” as the custodial parent to his biological children. Other than that I think state marriage is a racket for couples..

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 1:36 PM

The whole debate over whether or not the state should be involved in marriage is a valid discussion. You do bring up a good point, that when a married couple divorces, the laws of the state grant “custodianship” as well as child custody, alimony, child support, etc. If the state gets out of the marriage business, all that does go away.

I just don’t see it happening. Again, it’s worthy of debate with pros and cons on both sides of the secular marriage scene. State benefits for married’s are a type of “entitlement”, and we all know the difficulty level of repealing those.

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 1:56 PM

I love how certain folks are saying “gay people are so wimpy for wanting the state to recognize their marriages, nanny-state nincompoops!” Meanwhile, nearly every married conservative in their life dreamt of a state recognized marriage at some point….

libfreeordie on April 2, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Actually I was a liberal when I got married.. Voted for Clinton twice AFTER I got married (shudder)… I was too young to know the danger of state interference in personal lives.

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 1:56 PM

The latest acronym that I saw was LGBTQ & C.

The Q was for queer, ????? isn’t that already covered by the first couple of letters?
The C was for Confused, again ????? What the Sam Hill is there to be confused about? Let me guess, the other letters in the alphabet. Am I right?

D-fusit on April 2, 2013 at 1:53 PM

LOL.

The caste system of sexual perversion is forming pretty well :)

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 2, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Meanwhile, nearly every married conservative in their life dreamt of a state recognized marriage [recognized by God] at some point….

libfreeordie on April 2, 2013 at 1:53 PM

FTFY.

Fenris on April 2, 2013 at 1:56 PM

libfreeordie on April 2, 2013 at 1:53 PM

A marriage with Clergy proclaiming, “I NOW PRONOUNCE YOU MAN AND WIFE”. Not with Caligula presiding, and announcing “I now pronounce you…err…ummm… y’all figure it out for yourselves.”

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 1:56 PM

I have to ask, aren’t lesbians gay? Why the “L” and the “G”?

Also, is the “T” for transsexual or transvestite? Which one is left out in the cold? What about gay transvestites – guys who have their d!cks cut off and then go after girls? Don’t they get their own special category?

I think you guys have to work on that acronym.

Lesbians are gay. Gays are gay too. ‘Gay’ is descriptor of ‘lesbians’ and ‘gays’.

T stands transsexual. Transsexuals are people who have changed genders, usually due to severe body image and psychological issues. Transvestites are not LGBTs; they are straight or gay people who dress as the opposite sex.

I have no respect, at all, for those who think they can just pervert and destroy the language and society to satisfy their own selfish – and abnormal – desires.

Are you working for polygamists and communal marriages to be recognized, too … or are you a “hater” of them … a group-bigot or whatever you would call it?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 2, 2013 at 1:40 PM

As long as the relationships involve adults, are consensual and are free from human rights violations (domestic abuse, etc.) … sure. Whatever. But I doubt that will ever happen, however, unless we have a sudden influx of hardline Muslim immigrants in the USA.

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 1:57 PM

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.

With all due respect, Senator, I’ve been a homosexual my entire life; and as such, I know it’s entirely plausible that one does not have to change the fundamental definition of an institution in order to have an open mind and respect for others. This is one time I wish I were an openly gay senator so I could proudly proclaim, “I am not in favor of gay marriage. Let gay couples register their unions at city hall, have a party… whatever, but do not call what they have ‘marriage,’ because it’s an impossibility.”

dpduq on April 2, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Lesbians are gay. Gays are gay too. ‘Gay’ is descriptor of ‘lesbians’ and ‘gays’.

T stands for transgender transsexual. Transsexual Transgender is people who have changed genders, usually due to severe body image and psychological issues. Transvestites are not LGBTs; they are straight or gay people who dress as the opposite sex.

Alphabet soup.

You’re forgetting the Q’s & the I’s and whatever letter was added this week.

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 1:58 PM

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Don’t start with me about the Bible, “practicing Catholic”. You know that the leader of your denomination opposes “gay marriage”.

Log…eye…cinder…mine.

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 1:59 PM

As long as the relationships involve adults, are consensual and are free from human rights violations (domestic abuse, etc.) … sure. Whatever. But I doubt that will ever happen, however, unless we have a sudden influx of hardline Muslim immigrants in the USA.

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Actually the DOMA case that SCOTUS accepted has a good chance of making it impossible for the federal government to deny immigration status on the basis of polygamous relationships, which is one reason a lot of Muslims are denied..

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/25/Supreme-Court-to-Consider-Gay-Marriage-This-Week-and-Possibly-Polygamy-Part-II-U-S-v-Windsor

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 2:01 PM

I have to ask, aren’t lesbians gay? Why the “L” and the “G”?

Also, is the “T” for transsexual or transvestite? Which one is left out in the cold? What about gay transvestites – guys who have their d!cks cut off and then go after girls? Don’t they get their own special category?

I think you guys have to work on that acronym.

Lesbians are gay. Gays are gay too. ‘Gay’ is descriptor of ‘lesbians’ and ‘gays’.

T stands transsexual. Transsexuals are people who have changed genders, usually due to severe body image and psychological issues. Transvestites are not LGBTs; they are straight or gay people who dress as the opposite sex.

Now,what starts with a letter “C”?
Cookie starts with C.
Lets think of other things that starts with “C”.
Uh uh…who cares about the otherthings.

“C” is for cookie
thats good enough for me
“C” is for cookie
thats good enough for me
“C” is for cookie
thats good enough for me
Oh………cookie,cookie,cookie starts with “C”.

Ohh….
“C” is for cookie
thats good enough for me
“C” is for cookie
thats good enough for me
“C” is for cookie
thats good enough for me
Oh….cookie,cookie,cookie starts with “C”.

Hey,you know what?
A round cookie with one bit out of it looks like a “C”,
A round donut with one bit out of it also looks like a “C”,
but its it not as good as a cookie!
And oh the moon sometimes looks like a “C” but you cant eat that

Sooooooooooooo………

C….is for cookie
thats good enough for me…Yeah!
C….is for cookie
thats good enough for me
C….is for cookie
thats good enough for me
Oh….cookie,cookie,cookie starts with “C”…Yeah!
Cookie,cookie,cookie starts with “C”.AH BOY!
Cookie,cookie,cookie starts with “C…………..”!

MmMmMmMmMmMmMmMmMmMmMmM…

GhoulAid on April 2, 2013 at 2:02 PM

I love how certain folks are saying “gay people are so wimpy for wanting the state to recognize their marriages, nanny-state nincompoops!” Meanwhile, nearly every married conservative in their life dreamt of a state recognized marriage at some point….

libfreeordie on April 2, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Not so. A marriage license was a necessary requirement that my husand and I picked up at the town clerk’s office because it was the law. It is paperwork and nothing more. The main event was our church wedding. That is where we invited all of our relatives, friends, business associates, etc. to witness before God the eternal bond we were making to eachother. Huge difference in importance there.

KickandSwimMom on April 2, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Meanwhile, nearly every married conservative in their life dreamt of a state recognized marriage at some point….

libfreeordie on April 2, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Nearly every married conservative, really? I doubt that personally but whatever you think I guess that’s okay for you. I never met one. I never wanted the state to recognize my marriage, the only one I cared about resides upstairs.

D-fusit on April 2, 2013 at 2:04 PM

IDK, they kinda sound like a normal grandma and mother to me. Very protective of their son and grandson, and wanting to know that he is happy and loved. I have problems with Zach’s in your face nature and his reliance on the government, but I guess I don’t mind his mama and is grandmama’s loving him..

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 1:51 PM

I don’t either. But my mother and my grandmother don’t use their loving me as rationalizations for violence and antireligious bigotry, so that’s the major problem here.

northdallasthirty on April 2, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Ahh, the inevitable cherry-picked scripture-flinging…always so refreshing.

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Can you provide any scriptural references that support gay marriage, or even homosexuality?

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Don’t start with me about the Bible, “practicing Catholic”. You know that the leader of your denomination opposes “gay marriage”.

Log…eye…cinder…mine.

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 1:59 PM

YeY! First it’s the inevitable cherry-picked scripture, and then the predictable questioning of my Catholic faith. You’re a pip!

I thought you were the one who “started it” with the bible. Silly me. Again, I refuse to get into any more scripture volleyball…I can’t imagine God takes kindly to that.

Logs and cinders…yeah, it’s beyond comical you fail to see your blatant hypocrisy with that.

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM

GhoulAid on April 2, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Coffee meets monitor, thanks Ghoul

D-fusit on April 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Logs and cinders…yeah, it’s beyond comical you fail to see your blatant hypocrisy with that.

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Irony is indignant.

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 2:07 PM

The destruction of the family unit is almost complete. The destruction started long before “Gay Marriage.” The amount of children born out of wedlock is astounding. Change is here and more is on the way. Change is not always for the better. Liberals never understand survival of the fittest. Natural law will win in the end.

alanstern on April 2, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Kirk is certainly no surprize.

krome on April 2, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Can you provide any scriptural references that support gay marriage, or even homosexuality?

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Since when have I ever advocated ssm is scriptural? Or that Churches should support, perform, and/or recognize ssm? I repeatedly say religion is off-limits for gay marriage. Period.

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 2:08 PM

You do know that (1) most LGBTs do not attend those parades as they have better things to do and (2) most of those parades only happen in uber liberal cities, where most of the attendants are straight liberal people / leftists.

… so it’s about respect. And where do you fall on respect?

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Those “pride” parades (your words) are every much part of the gay lifestyle as the premise that gays mate for life. At least that latter assertion is what activists would have us believe as they trot out couples that have been together for decades- usually with some tale of woe how life is so unfair for them because of sexual orientation. I’ve never understood how one’s sexual orientation can so define who they are as a human being they slather on a rainbow of body paint and get up in peoples’ face about their sexual orientation. You certainly never see a straight pride parade.

Which leads to the issue of respect. My first rule of respect is discretion The sexual orientation of anybody is one of those areas where I don’t give a damn. When meeting or working with somebody, I don’t give a damn if they like boys, girls, or sheep. All I demand is that whatever their orientation they don’t shove it in my face.

Happy Nomad on April 2, 2013 at 2:09 PM

As long as the relationships involve adults, are consensual and are free from human rights violations

“Human rights” violations? LOL. Are you from the UN or something?

(domestic abuse, etc.) … sure. Whatever. But I doubt that will ever happen, however, unless we have a sudden influx of hardline Muslim immigrants in the USA.

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 1:57 PM

What the hell does that mean? Polygamy is legal in Judaism. Mormons used to get mowed down by US cavalry over polygamy. Gay pretend marriage supporters were some of the biggest cheerleaders when Texas carried out that illegal and offensive raid on the polygamist compound some years ago – on the basis of a phoney phone call.

But, just to be straight, (no pun intended) you think that “marriage” is any group of people who decide that they should be called “married”, right? That is your actual position.

BTW, what about equal protection for single people being “singly married” so that their SS and other benefits go to their estates and to friends instead of just disappearing? How about singles getting compensation equal to the fringe benefits that married couples and gay couples get from work (i.e. the ability to carry others on their insurance and the like)? Are you all for those “equal protections” for single people? Probably not … because you are just invested in destroying society.

And stop with the laughable idiocy of your mother and grandmother asking you about children. I mean, really. You’re going to have to sue Nature to change the laws of biology for that one. Or you’ll have to contract with a woman to bear some for you and then take them away from her. Nice guy …. thinking about the kids …

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 2, 2013 at 2:09 PM

OT,

James O’Keefe vs. Piers Morgan

it’s up on Ace’s

D-fusit on April 2, 2013 at 2:10 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 2, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Unless its changed, transgenders and bisexuals are the redheaded stepchildren of the movement. The purists “lesbians and gays” are the elistist and really don’t like that the bisexuals and the transgenders get lumped in with them. Possibly because bisexuality is hard to be lumped under the “born with it” category and transgenders are still under the DSM..

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 1:46 PM

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.

Bisexuality is an attraction to both sexes. I (like you) don’t really understand being attracted to both sexes, as being attracted to the the opposite sex seems weird to me, but I’ll try to understand it.

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Victory!

I’m sticking with Nelson for the Dems and I’ll pencil McCain in as the next Republican. McCain already beat back primary challenge in 2010, he’s got the wife and daughter already publically backing SSM to be his excuse, it’s three years before he faces the electorate again and his next campaign will be run in a presidential year when the youth vote will be high.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Since when have I ever advocated ssm is scriptural? Or that Churches should support, perform, and/or recognize ssm? I repeatedly say religion is off-limits for gay marriage. Period.

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 2:08 PM

How about homosexuality itself?

Just a reminder:

Homosexuality is not a sin according to the bible.

JetBoy on January 11, 2013 at 2:19 PM

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 2:14 PM

So I expect you opposed the LGBT organizations who sued to march in Boston’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade as transsexual nuns and BDSM characters?

Fenris on April 2, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Why are transsexual nuns and BDSM marching in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade? That does not make a lick of sense, whatsoever.

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 2:14 PM

BTW, what about equal protection for single people being “singly married” so that their SS and other benefits go to their estates and to friends instead of just disappearing? How about singles getting compensation equal to the fringe benefits that married couples and gay couples get from work (i.e. the ability to carry others on their insurance and the like)? Are you all for those “equal protections” for single people? Probably not … because you are just invested in destroying society.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 2, 2013 at 2:09 PM

What about those adult children taking care of their parents. Why can’t they form a “relationship partnership.” I mean that is a relationship based on love. Why if we are redefining marriage especially if we don’t care about procreation anymore why does it only have to do with sexual relationships?

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 2:14 PM

So then, I can expect you to come to the defense of socially conservative churches when they are sued for not allowing gay marriages?

Fenris on April 2, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Absolutely.

But don’t sweat this, no church is going to be forced to perform any marriage ceremony they don’t want to.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 2:15 PM

I’m trying to figure out why we continue to argue this. So very very few people are going to change their minds on SSM.

Religious objections to it are way to strong to convert anyone that believes it is wrong based on Biblical teachings… may as well beat your head against a wall as try to convert someone of faith on the SSM subject. And frankly, people probably shouldn’t even really try… who am I to try to dissuade anyone from their religious beliefs?

northdallasthirty certainly isn’t going to convert anyone’s opinion considering anyone who disagrees with him is apparently a “bigot”. He certainly has a love for that word… good thing he can’t marry it, I guess. Funny that he accuses ZachV of “kicking and screaming”, since most of the “kicking and screaming” seems to be coming from him.

gravityman on April 2, 2013 at 2:17 PM

On the other hand, both of my grandmother and mother inquire on the status of my relationship on a weekly basis (I do not understand females) and I only know that will turn into “So, what about children!?” once I do settle down. Both give me updates on the whole status of the marriage equality fight, and if you would like to take my place for the next few weeks; please do so.

Say what?! You are a homosexual. Who in their right mind would be worried about whether you are having children knowing that? Sounds to me like your mother and grandmother really haven’t come to terms with the fact that you’re gay.

KickandSwimMom on April 2, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Believe it or not, but there are a lot of kids in this world who don’t have parents and spend their lives being shoved from foster home to foster home by bored government employees.

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 2:18 PM

But don’t sweat this, no church is going to be forced to perform any marriage ceremony they don’t want to.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 2:15 PM

ha……..haha…………BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

GhoulAid on April 2, 2013 at 2:18 PM

What about those adult children taking care of their parents. Why can’t they form a “relationship partnership.” I mean that is a relationship based on love. Why if we are redefining marriage especially if we don’t care about procreation anymore why does it only have to do with sexual relationships?

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Bingo!

I also forgot to ask Zach about his attitudes to two brothers getting married. He’s got to be for that, too. No “human rights” violations, there, I would guess, so incest is good to go for him. No silly biological problems with children involved and that old religious taboo on marrying anyone in your household is just “bigotry”, I would guess.

Hey Zach, how’s incestual marriage hit ya? You’re all for that, too, right?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 2, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Why are transsexual nuns and BDSM marching in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade? That does not make a lick of sense, whatsoever.

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 2:14 PM

They have been trying to march in the parade every year. In fact, there was a court case that went to SCOTUS regarding the exclusion of gay groups from the parade.

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Isn’t it amazing how many gay marriage theads move to the left hand column?

bw222 on April 2, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Here ya go, JB, alchemist…

Remember this “precious memory”, when homosexuals interupted a church service in Michigan?

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=30504

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 2:19 PM

As long as the relationships involve adults, are consensual and are free from human rights violations

If we change the definition of marriage and normal relationships from the traditional one man/ one woman construct (which also has a biological aspect) to some new standard based solely on feelings you can’t pick and choose what barriers should still remain.

If sexual orientation isn’t a barrier, why should age be a consideration? Are you going to deny a loving couple the feelings they have for one another just because one of the partners is 12? If orientation is an arbitrary and unfair barrier then so too is age.

And for that matter, why would we still have laws prohibiting a man from sharing love with his sheep? Who is society to say that such expressions of love are wrong? They were saying that about sodomy not that long ago. Who is harmed if an individual is attracted to farm animals?

Happy Nomad on April 2, 2013 at 2:20 PM

McCain … he’s got the wife and daughter already publically backing SSM…

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Yes, and Meghan McCain is launching a talk show soon on some new gay TV network, – no doubt one of her first guests will be her father, to discuss his “evolution” on SS-marriage.

Pork-Chop on April 2, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Believe it or not, but there are a lot of kids in this world who don’t have parents and spend their lives being shoved from foster home to foster home by bored government employees.

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Every child has parents – one mother and one father. Trying to ignore Nature again.

Dude …

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 2, 2013 at 2:22 PM

So I expect you opposed the LGBT organizations who sued to march in Boston’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade as transsexual nuns and BDSM characters?

Fenris on April 2, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Why are transsexual nuns and BDSM marching in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade? That does not make a lick of sense, whatsoever.

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 2:14 PM

it makes all the sense in the world if you want to get in people’s faces and mock a religion you know damn well won’t cut your head off. when will these activist cowards pull that sh-t with ISLAM?????

yeah….i thought so.

disgusting, childish, sick cowards. ONE AND ALL!

YOU’RE WELLLLLLLLLLLLLCOME!

GhoulAid on April 2, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Believe it or not, but there are a lot of kids in this world who don’t have parents and spend their lives being shoved from foster home to foster home by bored government employees.

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 2:18 PM

We used to have orphanages run by *gasp Catholics/Churches. The federal government shut them down. I wonder who was in favor of them going out of business?

nobar on April 2, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Kirk? KIRK! WHOOHOO!!! Second Republican Senator for liberty. This is absolutely fantastic!

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 12:48 PM

You do realize he suffered a stroke, so maybe he’s no longer “all there”? And you celebrate his “evolution”?

Nutstuyu on April 2, 2013 at 2:23 PM

ha……..haha…………BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

GhoulAid on April 2, 2013 at 2:18 PM

When the Loving decision legalized interracial marriage in the United States in 1967 there were churches who opposed it because they believed the Bible forbade it. Give me a list of all the churches who were either compelled to perform an interracial marriage they objected to, or who lost their tax-exempt status over it.

Also gay marriage isn’t totally new; it’s been the law of the land in Massachusetts for almost ten years now, and it’s legal in nine mostly blue states who have mostly liberal judges. How about a list of all the churches who have already been compelled to perform a gay marriage ceremony.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 2:24 PM

I’m endorsing marriage equality.

Hey, dumbazz senator, there IS NO EQUALITY IN MARRIAGE, NEVER HAS BEEN, NEVER WILL BE.

Nutstuyu on April 2, 2013 at 2:25 PM

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Homosexuality is not a Race. It is a sexual preference. Homsexualitys are absolutely free to marry whatever race they want to…of the opposite gender.

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 2:26 PM

“Homosexuals”

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 2:26 PM

But don’t sweat this, no church is going to be forced to perform any marriage ceremony they don’t want to.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 2:15 PM

German Jews in the 1930s were given similar assurances that all the new laws were not going to harm them. How’d that work out?

Look, you’re completely on the losing side of this issue. The HHS mandate has paved the way in forcing churches do things that their faith considers an eternal sin.

This administration is going to go out after the churches. The will strip them of tax exempt status, the will treat ordination of clergy and related issues as EEOC matters. Churches will be sued if they perform the normal marriage sacrament but not the sodomite ones.

Happy Nomad on April 2, 2013 at 2:27 PM

I’m trying to figure out why we continue to argue this. So very very few people are going to change their minds on SSM.

Religious objections to it are way to strong to convert anyone that believes it is wrong based on Biblical teachings… may as well beat your head against a wall as try to convert someone of faith on the SSM subject. And frankly, people probably shouldn’t even really try… who am I to try to dissuade anyone from their religious beliefs?

northdallasthirty certainly isn’t going to convert anyone’s opinion considering anyone who disagrees with him is apparently a “bigot”. He certainly has a love for that word… good thing he can’t marry it, I guess. Funny that he accuses ZachV of “kicking and screaming”, since most of the “kicking and screaming” seems to be coming from him.

gravityman on April 2, 2013 at 2:17 PM

I think that the fight is not about changing anyone’s minds on either side now. Rather, the fight is going to end up what future generations are taught about homosexuality. The homosexual community knows it will not change the minds of religious adults. However, they will be happy if they can get to a point where speaking against or objecting to homosexuality would be considered a hate crime. This way, they can silence their opponents and seek to teach the youngsters that homosexuality is a normal lifestyle choice. It is already happening now in second grade classrooms with curriculum that includes a book about two princes falling in love, marrying and living happily ever after. We are talking about indoctrinating 7 and 8 year olds in the public school system. Yet, teaching against homosexuality from the church pulpit is considered a hate crime in Canada. Do you see how religion is totally under siege here?

KickandSwimMom on April 2, 2013 at 2:27 PM

When the Loving decision legalized interracial marriage in the United States in 1967 there were churches who opposed it because they believed the Bible forbade it. Give me a list of all the churches who were either compelled to perform an interracial marriage they objected to, or who lost their tax-exempt status over it.

Also gay marriage isn’t totally new; it’s been the law of the land in Massachusetts for almost ten years now, and it’s legal in nine mostly blue states who have mostly liberal judges. How about a list of all the churches who have already been compelled to perform a gay marriage ceremony.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 2:24 PM

TWO WORDS FOR YOU B-TCH….

HOBBY LOBBY.

GhoulAid on April 2, 2013 at 2:28 PM

When the Loving decision legalized interracial marriage in the United States in 1967 there were churches who opposed it because they believed the Bible forbade it. Give me a list of all the churches who were either compelled to perform an interracial marriage they objected to, or who lost their tax-exempt status over it.

Also gay marriage isn’t totally new; it’s been the law of the land in Massachusetts for almost ten years now, and it’s legal in nine mostly blue states who have mostly liberal judges. How about a list of all the churches who have already been compelled to perform a gay marriage ceremony.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 2:24 PM

It doesn’t happen overnight, but it will happen. When the government can force a church to provide abortion pill and birth control under the guise of insurance then it can make churches marry gays. Furthermore, in Massachusetts a judge told parents that their children must learn that gay marriage is ‘normal” from the school despite their belief and religious beliefs and that they are legally UNABLE to OPT OUT OF THEM learning about it under diversity. In Massachusetts they are also forcing children to change with opposite gender children because that child identifies themselves as a transgender and that child can be punished if they refuse. So don’t tell me that it is a huge jump for the state to punish a church for refusing to marry a gay couple mmkay..

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 2:28 PM

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Every child has parents – one mother and one father. Trying to ignore Nature again.

Dude …

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 2, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Maybe ZachV is one of those horrid right-wingers who deny science.

Nutstuyu on April 2, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Here ya go, JB, alchemist…

Remember this “precious memory”, when homosexuals interupted a church service in Michigan?

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=30504

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Because I and most gays support that kind of thing? What color is the sky in your little bubble of a world?

Anyway, here’s a few “precious moments” of heterosexual couples getting…closer to God:

http://www.alternet.org/story/80451/florida_couple_busted_for_having_sex_on_church_altar

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2113503/Couple-apologise-for-sex-in-church.html

http://blogs.app.com/saywhat/2010/01/04/couple-having-sex-in-church-tower-interrupts-mass/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60557,00.html

http://thegazette.com/2009/12/08/police-catch-couple-having-sex-in-church-parking-lot/

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 2:29 PM

When the Loving decision legalized interracial marriage in the United States in 1967 there were churches who opposed it because they believed the Bible forbade it. Give me a list of all the churches who were either compelled to perform an interracial marriage they objected to, or who lost their tax-exempt status over it.

Also gay marriage isn’t totally new; it’s been the law of the land in Massachusetts for almost ten years now, and it’s legal in nine mostly blue states who have mostly liberal judges. How about a list of all the churches who have already been compelled to perform a gay marriage ceremony.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 2:24 PM

BTW, Catholic adoption agencies have refused to adopt to single mothers and unmarried couples for YEARS AND NEVER BEEN SUED. The minute they refused to adopt to a gay couple who had never been married in Illinois; they were sued and had to shut down.

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Yes, and Meghan McCain is launching a talk show soon on some new gay TV network, – no doubt one of her first guests will be her father, to discuss his “evolution” on SS-marriage.

Pork-Chop on April 2, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Johnny Mac does love to be in front of a camera.

The most likely Republicans to announce a change on this issue are those up in competitive states in 2016. Americans have been changing their mind on gay marriage at a pretty even rate for the last several years so assuming this is even still an issue at the time the United States should be overall about 5% more in favor of SSM than they are today, and presidential electorates are younger so the 2016 candidates are the ones who’ll need broader appeal. If not McCain then Kelly Aoytte, I’m looking at you!

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 2:31 PM

TWO WORDS FOR YOU B-TCH….

HOBBY LOBBY.

GhoulAid on April 2, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Hobby Lobby is not a church.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 2:33 PM

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 2:29 PM

Waitasec…weren’t you saying that the churches would be off-limits to gay activists. C’mon now…you can’t have it both ways.
What’s more convincing. your promise, or what actually happened in Lansing, Michigan. JB, you probably don’t support what other practicioners of your sexual preference did, just as I think thatidiots who get their freak on inside churches are scum.

But, they did it. So, don’t tell me that other homosexuals are going to respect the church.

What are you going to do when Pope Francis issues a statement condemning homoisexual marriage?

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 2:34 PM

How about homosexuality itself?

Just a reminder:

Homosexuality is not a sin according to the bible.

JetBoy on January 11, 2013 at 2:19 PM

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Any sex outside of marriage is a sin. I have never said otherwise, and although it’s really none of your friggin’ business, I’m a sinner. So are you. If your point here, as it usually seems to be, is to belittle me, or shame me…it will never happen.

I don’t answer to you. I only answer to Christ. Work on your own sins, pray for me and I’ll pray for you.

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Hobby Lobby is not a church.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Freedom of religion is not confined to a building or a time of the week.

22044 on April 2, 2013 at 2:36 PM

One way to stop all this garbage of gay marriagae ok Vote them out of office

Bullhead on April 2, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Call them what they are, which is bigots. Every single gay-sex marriage supporter endorses antireligious bigotry and opposes freedom of religious belief and speech. Every one.

northdallasthirty on April 2, 2013 at 1:03 PM

I know a lot of folks on HA take exception with your frequent use of the word “bigot” (maybe you’re trying to give the left a taste of their own medicine?). But the bolded part needs to be a bumper sticker and billboard from coast to coast.

Nutstuyu on April 2, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Also gay marriage isn’t totally new; it’s been the law of the land in Massachusetts for almost ten years now, and it’s legal in nine mostly blue states who have mostly liberal judges. How about a list of all the churches who have already been compelled to perform a gay marriage ceremony.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 2:24 PM

It’s not at all new. When Paul was writing the Epistles in the mid to late 50s, Nero was the dictator of the Roman Empire. During his reign from 54 to 68 AD, Nero took on several male lovers, and was involved in at least two public same-sex partnerships.

I mean obviously I did not know Paul, but when confronted with a mentally insane, gay pagan dictator who was deemed to be the Antichrist and publicly executed Christians in the streets, it’s no surprise to me that Paul did not take a friendly view of same-sex relationships in his writings.

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Hobby Lobby is not a church.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 2:33 PM

That’s the problem though. Religious freedom does not just exist in a church or the amendment would have addressed Church specifically. In fact during the founders days churches were not static. Many buildings were used for sermons even government buildings.

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 2:37 PM

German Jews in the 1930s were given similar assurances that all the new laws were not going to harm them. How’d that work out?

Look, you’re completely on the losing side of this issue. The HHS mandate has paved the way in forcing churches do things that their faith considers an eternal sin.

This administration is going to go out after the churches. The will strip them of tax exempt status, the will treat ordination of clergy and related issues as EEOC matters. Churches will be sued if they perform the normal marriage sacrament but not the sodomite ones.

Happy Nomad on April 2, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Godwin’s Law!

SCOTUS ruled unanimously about a year ago that churches have the right to ordain their own clergy. Yes the EEOC brought a case but they lost and lost badly.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 2:37 PM

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Including our nation’s Capitol Building until 1848, by order of Thomas Jefferson.

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Freedom of religion is not confined to a building or a time of the week.

22044 on April 2, 2013 at 2:36 PM

You missed my point. I responded to someone who said churches would be compelled to do something, I said they wouldn’t then someone else started talking about Hobby Lobby. Unless you want to argue Hobby Lobby is a church then you’re trying to move the goalposts.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Godwin’s Law!

SCOTUS ruled unanimously about a year ago that churches have the right to ordain their own clergy. Yes the EEOC brought a case but they lost and lost badly.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 2:37 PM

True, but that the suit was even filed & heard shows that public scorn for religion is on the rise and will keep trending that way.

22044 on April 2, 2013 at 2:40 PM

He is praying to God and what he got out of the conversation was “Yeah, break my laws and go with what you think will get you votes”. Well I am not falling for the emperor’s new clothing thinking today and I won’t change my mind, politicians like you will not be getting my vote, period.

SGinNC on April 2, 2013 at 2:40 PM

You missed my point. I responded to someone who said churches would be compelled to do something, I said they wouldn’t then someone else started talking about Hobby Lobby. Unless you want to argue Hobby Lobby is a church then you’re trying to move the goalposts.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Perhaps, but the reality of having free churches is connected to the right to religious freedom.
Attack Hobby Lobby, and churches are not far behind.
The nature of evil is that it is never quenched.

22044 on April 2, 2013 at 2:42 PM

BTW, Catholic adoption agencies have refused to adopt to single mothers and unmarried couples for YEARS AND NEVER BEEN SUED. The minute they refused to adopt to a gay couple who had never been married in Illinois; they were sued and had to shut down.

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 2:30 PM

The two cases I’m aware of in this matter were Massachusetts and Illinois. In Massachusetts they gave up without a fight and in Illinois they were allowed to discriminate but were forced to give up a state subsidy and rather than go without the subsidy they chose to shut down.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 2:42 PM

You missed my point. I responded to someone who said churches would be compelled to do something, I said they wouldn’t then someone else started talking about Hobby Lobby. Unless you want to argue Hobby Lobby is a church then you’re trying to move the goalposts.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Actually all of us see the writing on the wall. We see the cases where religious freedom is being restricted vigoriously by the federal government. We see the power being unchecked. We see Massachusetts getting into Church business, parental business and privacy rights all in the name of diversity and for all of us we can see it coming. It isn’t a large jump for Churches to be sued. You can’t fault all of us for fighting it. Even my agnostic self.. I know if something as fundamental as the right to religion goes, then the 2nd amendment and the rest of the 1st will mean nothing to this government as well.

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 2:43 PM

What’s more convincing. your promise, or what actually happened in Lansing, Michigan. JB, you probably don’t support what other practicioners of your sexual preference did, just as I think thatidiots who get their freak on inside churches are scum.

But, they did it. So, don’t tell me that other homosexuals are going to respect the church.

What are you going to do when Pope Francis issues a statement condemning homoisexual marriage?

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 2:34 PM

That’s like me telling you “So, don’t tell me that other heterosexuals are going to respect the church.” Some moronic gays disrupt a church service, and some moronic straights did the same thing…even worse, for that matter. But it’s the gays that you focus on.

Gotcha.

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 2:44 PM

The two cases I’m aware of in this matter were Massachusetts and Illinois. In Massachusetts they gave up without a fight and in Illinois they were allowed to discriminate but were forced to give up a state subsidy and rather than go without the subsidy they chose to shut down.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 2:42 PM

That’s my point though. You made the point that during the interracial discrimination hey day nobody made an issue of churches. I am telling you that gays are different and so is the time. The judiciary is used much more as a hammer for issues now a days. For years, Catholic Charities didn’t adopt to unmarried couples and single parents, but it was gays that took them to court. Gays WILL take churches to court.

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Gotcha.

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Up in Canada, have there been any cases of preachers being put on trial for preaching against promiscuous heterosexual sex?

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Perhaps, but the reality of having free churches is connected to the right to religious freedom.
Attack Hobby Lobby, and churches are not far behind.
The nature of evil is that it is never quenched.

22044 on April 2, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Which brings me back to the interracial marriage question. Businesses were compelled even though some of those owners might have had objection to interracial mingling. Which churches were compelled?

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4