MN legislature schedules same-sex marriage vote for Thursday

posted at 12:01 pm on May 7, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

In November, a referendum to add the current statutory definition of marriage to the Minnesota state constitution narrowly lost, 47/53, in a presidential election featuring a large turnout for Barack Obama.  The Democrats took control of the state legislature, and as expected, have worked to change the statutory definition — just as the marriage-amendment backers predicted if the referendum failed.  The state House has scheduled a vote for Thursday, and the state Senate is preparing their own vote:

The Minnesota House has scheduled a Thursday debate and floor vote on the bill to legalize same-sex marriage in the state.

House Speaker Paul Thissen has said that the bill would not be brought to a vote unless they had secured the 68 votes that would be needed to pass the legislation. A number of DFL lawmakers representing districts that supported last fall’s proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage have voiced their support of the marriage equality bill in recent weeks.

Also on Tuesday, a Minnesota Senate committee is giving a last look at the bill to legalize gay marriage before full House and Senate votes.

The Senate Finance Committee is planning to review the gay marriage bill’s fiscal impact on Tuesday morning. A fiscal analysis finds it would add small costs to state employee health insurance costs but also generate revenue from an expected spike in marriage licenses.

Er, what? A marriage license costs $115, and is a one-time fee.  If applicants supply proof of pre-marital counseling, that fee drops to $40.  The “small costs” of adding hundreds of people to public-sector health insurance plans will cost a lot more than $115, and it will cost that every single year.  Regardless of whether one supports redefining marriage in this state, this fiscal analysis is absurd.

Besides, the cost isn’t the issue for either side.  Politicians and voters have strong opinions on this, but it’s not because it’s going to cost the state oodles of money, which it won’t.  It’s because both sides believe that this is an issue of liberty and cultural values, and the question will be which of the latter prevails, and what liberty remains for the other side.

In that vein, be sure to watch the video presentation from the Star Tribune by the opponents of this bill (which is not embeddable). The legislation contains language that supposedly protects religious institutions from being forced to facilitate same-sex weddings, but that doesn’t cover private-sector businesses who may not want to participate in them because of their own religious beliefs.  My friend Theresa Collett explains this near the end of the video, as she has from the earliest days of the marriage amendment debate.

Don’t count on the religious protection to last, either.  As I wrote at the time of the election, the close relationship between the state and religious institutions on weddings will provoke all sorts of lawsuits designed to force those institutions out of the marriage business entirely:

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.

In my opinion, the state has zero legitimate interest in consensual sexual relationships between non-consanguinary adults — except for the procreative potential of heterosexual relationships.  Otherwise, the proper action of government to all other consensual, non-consanguinary sexual relationships should be respect for private choices, not public validation.  The recognition of marriage was never a “love license,” but a forward-looking institution designed to provide legal protection for families, especially oriented to children produced explicitly from those unions.  Everything else should be a matter of contract law, which is sufficient to deal with all other issues.

Still, the licensing and recognition of marriages is a government policy, set by the people of the state, and the legislature is the legitimate representative institution for setting government policy (as opposed to the judiciary).  Government at all levels passes unworkable and poorly-advised policies; it’s part of the messy process of self-government.  If Minnesotans decide the only legitimacy of adult relationships comes from government licensing of them, well, they’ll have to deal with the consequences of that decision … and they won’t be long in coming.

Update: Edited the penultimate paragraph after posting.

Update: Because this argument arose in the comments and in e-mail, I want to address it directly.  This argument does not state that only marriages that produce children are legitimate marriages.  The only relationships that can of themselves produce children are those which are heterosexual in nature, which means that the marriage form is defined by law as one man and one woman.  Within that form, men and women can marry each other whether they intend to have children or not (or are capable of doing so or not), because that is the defined form of marriage that receives government recognition.

The form is established by the state interest in the relationship, but that doesn’t require procreation for legitimacy. Once the form is established, it should be open to all who wish to enter into the specific relationship type for which government provides that recognition.


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

LMFAO!

… do neither of you remember me providing the citations and peer-reviewed studies from every single professional medical and psychiatric organization in America — from the American Medicial Association to the American Pediatric Association and to the American Psychological Association — declaring the exact opposite to be true?

I just looked through your links INC. These were all written by politically-motivated interest groups that do not have degrees in science, medicine, psychology or anything of the like.

That’s in addition to the Regnerus study, which is the prime citation in that “Social Scientists” brief, i.e. the man who thinks that his fundamentalist beliefs take precedent over empirical evidence.

Let me get the scientific peer-reviewed links together, while you think of how you can demagogue the entire scientific and medical communities as left-wing lies.

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Tell me something Zach.. How prevalent has “gay adoption” been that they actually have an adult pool to choose from to do their studies? I mean I thought that it was only recently that homosexuals were able to actually adopt. How prevalent is in vitro fertilization that they have an adult pool to choose from to study. Or are they studying lesbians who had a relationship with a MAN and raised those kids and the father is still in the picture which is more likely given the political climate 20 years ago. Bias is everywhere my friend..

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 3:09 PM

The thing is that by SS rearing of children you are deliberately foisting deprivation upon children.

The French marriage movement has another saying,

“the rights of children trump the right to children.”

INC on May 7, 2013 at 3:08 PM

As if it makes any material difference whether this supposed deprivation is “deliberate” or not. Why would it? If I have a right to something, that means it cannot be infringed or taken away from me. Whether or not you’re “deliberately” infringing on my right doesn’t matter. If children have a “right” to both a mother and a father, and without having both of them they are being “handicapped”, then the state has a compelling interest in correcting that situation just as much as it does in ensuring that it doesn’t come about in the first place.

Armin Tamzarian on May 7, 2013 at 3:12 PM

i just wrote a blog post related to this topic… *runs*

Sachiko on May 7, 2013 at 3:13 PM

As if it makes any material difference whether this supposed deprivation is “deliberate” or not. Why would it? If I have a right to something, that means it cannot be infringed or taken away from me. Whether or not you’re “deliberately” infringing on my right doesn’t matter. If children have a “right” to both a mother and a father, and without having both of them they are being “handicapped”, then the state has a compelling interest in correcting that situation just as much as it does in ensuring that it doesn’t come about in the first place.

Armin Tamzarian on May 7, 2013 at 3:12 PM

Now why would you care if children have a natural right to their parents? You don’t even think that children have a natural right to life..

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Armin Tamzarian on May 7, 2013 at 3:12 PM

Twisting my words again because it’s the only way you know how to argue.

It’s a slogan meant to point out the fact that SS couples go around talking about how they have the right to be parents, etc., etc., without thought of what is best for the child.

INC on May 7, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Now why would you care if children have a natural right to their parents? You don’t even think that children have a natural right to life..

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Do you not understand the concept of the hypothetical? For the record, no I don’t believe children have a “right” to a particular form of parentage.

Armin Tamzarian on May 7, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Now why would you care if children have a natural right to their parents? You don’t even think that children have a natural right to life..

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Excellent point.

INC on May 7, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Those groups are all on the Left.

INC on May 7, 2013 at 3:06 PM

That’s amazing! You mean that scientific reality has a leftist-bias? Hey guys – Did you know that when you get a medical degree, that means you must be a socialist pinko Communist?

Assertions that heterosexual couples are better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children of heterosexual parents, are not supported by the cumulative scientific research in this area. Rather, the vast majority of scientific studies that have directly compared gay and lesbian parents with heterosexual parents has consistently shown that the former are as fit and capable parents as the latter and that their children are as psychologically healthy and well adjusted.

The best part is the 20 pages of peer-reviewed research that are published in actual scientific journals:

BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, THE CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN PSYCHOANALYTIC ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPY, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS

Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Do you not understand the concept of the hypothetical? For the record, no I don’t believe children have a “right” to a particular form of parentage.

Armin Tamzarian on May 7, 2013 at 3:17 PM

So who do you think should raise them when they born? Wolves?

And apparently then you think it is okay to put a newborn out in the elements for exposure and not feed it since “parenting” is not a natural right, correct?

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Armin Tamzarian on May 7, 2013 at 3:17 PM

You obviously don’t give a flip about children, and like the rest of the Left only talk about children because you want to use them as shields to hide behind to justify your ideology.

Those who care about children, stand in front of children to protect them.

INC on May 7, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Twisting my words again because it’s the only way you know how to argue.

It’s a slogan meant to point out the fact that SS couples go around talking about how they have the right to be parents, etc., etc., without thought of what is best for the child.

INC on May 7, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Oh, sorry. I didn’t know that taking your words literally means “twisting” them to you. In fact, this explains a whole lot, since that’s all I’ve been doing in this entire thread: taking what you say at face value instead of treating it as some kind of stupid sloganeering campaign that has no meaning, apparently.

Armin Tamzarian on May 7, 2013 at 3:21 PM

“Add MN and that’s 13, plus the 6 states with civil unions and we’re approaching the halfway point. How long with the former Confederacy hold out this time?”

Umm, 50-18=32, not close to being half. You should be careful what you wish for: every time a liberal state legalizes ssm, it reinforces Justice Roberts argument that homosexuality does not require strict scrutiny and is not therefore a protected class. In fact, I think for purposes of the law the court is going to rule that homosexuality is a behavior, not an identity.How long will the former Confederacy hold out this time? I’d bet as long as it wants to.

senor on May 7, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Armin Tamzarian on May 7, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Then you’re just arguing with no interest in presenting good ideas.

22044 on May 7, 2013 at 3:21 PM

The research on gay, lesbian, and bisexual parents includes
dozens of empirical studies. Their findings are summarized in
reviews of empirical literature published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and academic books.

Recent reviews include T.J. Biblarz & J. Stacey, How Does the Gender of Parents Matter?, 72 J. Marriage & Fam. 3 (2010); A.E. Goldberg, Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children: Research on the Family Life Cycle (2010); C.J. Patterson, Family Lives of Lesbian and Gay Adults, in Handbook of Marriage and the Family 659, 668-71 (G.W. Peterson & K.R. Bush eds., 3d ed. 2013); C.J. Patterson, Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents: Psychology, Law, and Policy, 64 Am. Psychologist 727 (2009). For earlier reviews, see, e.g., Stacey & Biblarz, supra note 38; E.C. Perrin & Comm. on Psychosocial Aspects of Child & Fam. Health, Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents, 109 Pediatrics 341 (2002); C.J. Patterson, Family Relationships of Lesbians and Gay Men, 62 J. Marriage & Fam. 1052 (2000); N. Anderssen et al., Outcomes for Children
with Lesbian or Gay Parents: A Review of Studies from 1978 to 2000, 43 Scand. J. Psychol. 335 (2002), H. Bos & T.G.M. Sandfort, Children’s Gender Identity in Lesbian and Heterosexual Two-Parent Families, 62 Sex Roles 114 (2010); R.H. Farr et al., Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families: Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter?, 14 Applied Developmental Sci. 164, 176 (2010); S. Golombok et al., Children with Lesbian Parents: A Community Study, 39 Developmental Psychol. 20 (2003); I. Rivers et al., Victimization, Social Support, and Psychosocial Functioning Among Children of Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex Couples in the United Kingdom, 44 Developmental Psychol.

Care to comment INC?

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Armin Tamzarian on May 7, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Now you’re using logical fallacies of generalization.

INC on May 7, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Care to comment INC?

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 3:24 PM

I already did.

INC on May 7, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Armin Tamzarian on May 7, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Again, continuing to miss the points.
You’re trying to justify in your feeble mind that anyone who disagrees with you is an advocate for big government. You’re no better than a liberal who’s made up his mind and will make and twist facts to fit it, rather than the proper progression.
You established your credibility as a trite ghoul on many other threads here. That hinders you as well.

22044 on May 7, 2013 at 3:25 PM

So who do you think should raise them when they born? Wolves?

And apparently then you think it is okay to put a newborn out in the elements for exposure and not feed it since “parenting” is not a natural right, correct?

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 3:21 PM

I said children do not have a right to any particular form of parentage. Of course they are legally entitled to adequate care from whoever their legal guardians are. Even if those legal guardians happen to be a gay couple, or a single mother, or a widowered father.

Armin Tamzarian on May 7, 2013 at 3:25 PM

From The Washington Times, June 2012:

“The empirical claim that no notable differences exist must go,” Mark Regnerus, a sociology professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said in his study in Social Science Research.

Using a new, “gold standard” data set of nearly 3,000 randomly selected American young adults, Mr. Regnerus looked at their lives on 40 measures of social, emotional and relationship outcomes.

He found that, when compared with adults raised in married, mother-father families, adults raised by lesbian mothers had negative outcomes in 24 of 40 categories, while adults raised by gay fathers had negative outcomes in 19 categories.

Findings such as these do not support claims that there are “no differences” between gay parenting and heterosexual, married parents, said Mr. Regnerus, who helped develop the New Family Structures Study at the university.

Instead, “children appear most apt to succeed well as adults when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day,” he wrote.

Mr. Regnerus‘ study of 2,988 persons ages 18 to 39 — including 175 adults raised by lesbian mothers and 73 adults raised by gay fathers — marks the first research from the new dataset, which initially included some 15,000 persons.

The second study, also in Social Science Research, takes a critical look at the basis of an oft-cited American Psychological Association (APA) report on gay parenting.

The APA brief says, “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents,” said Loren Marks, associate professor at the School of Human Ecology at Louisiana State University.

However, after looking at the 59 studies that undergird this assertion, “the jury is still out,” Mr. Marks said. “The lack of high-quality data leaves the most significant questions [about gay parenting] unaddressed and unanswered.”

kingsjester on May 7, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Not one study of same-sex parenting meets the standard of research to which top-quality social science aspires: large, random, and representative samples observed longitudinally.

p. 60, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense.

INC on May 7, 2013 at 3:27 PM

You obviously don’t give a flip about children, and like the rest of the Left only talk about children because you want to use them as shields to hide behind to justify your ideology.

Those who care about children, stand in front of children to protect them.

INC on May 7, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Yet you seem to be the one who wants to deny the children of same-sex partners all the rights and benefits associated with marriage.

You say that you care about children, yet actively wish to deny children (for example) access to healthcare, or joint parenting rights in case of one parent’s death.

You really stand up for children! (*Gays need not apply. They don’t count.)

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Yet you seem to be the one who wants to deny the children of same-sex partners all the rights and benefits associated with marriage.

You say that you care about children, yet actively wish to deny children (for example) access to healthcare, or joint parenting rights in case of one parent’s death.

You really stand up for children! (*Gays need not apply. They don’t count.)

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 3:28 PM

There are no children of same sex partners. One partner may have children and the other may adopt them, but you don’t need a marriage license for that. The state must already get involved for that.

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 3:31 PM

As Loren Marks observes in a literature review of all fifty-nine studies on which the American Psychological Association relied in declaring no differences between same- and opposite-sex parenting, “The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim either way…Such a statement would not be grounded in science. To make a generalizable claim, representative, large-sample studies are needed—many of them.”

pp. 60-61, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense.

What we do know is that mothers and fathers are different. They each bring different strengths to parenting and to a child’s identity.

INC on May 7, 2013 at 3:32 PM

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 3:28 PM

It’s not a marriage. Therefore there are no benefits for children.

22044 on May 7, 2013 at 3:34 PM

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Gays should not apply. They foist deprivation of a mother or a father upon children.

Like I said, if you cared about children you would work to strengthen marriage and to help adoption by a married man and woman.

INC on May 7, 2013 at 3:34 PM

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Sorry, but every single organization in your list is socially progressive, and many of them are very much so. It doesn’t make doctors or psychiatrists or such every one liberal, but the organizations certainly are.

Armin Tamzarian on May 7, 2013 at 3:21 PM

No, you’ve definitely been twisting about everyone’s words. In the entire thread.

GWB on May 7, 2013 at 3:35 PM

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 3:28 PM

And you know your argument is null and void. So you have to resort to ad hominem.

22044 on May 7, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Care to comment INC?

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 3:24 PM

WTF Hot Air.. I have tried to link 6 times to a CNN story that shows that the journal of Pediatrics study on how SS parents were BETTER than hetero parents was funded by gay groups and it won’t go through..

Yes Zach, even peer review studies are bias. Ever hear of global warming? Scietist know who butters their bread.

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 3:36 PM

It sounds like you’re walking back your original point to me. Suddenly your language has shifted from explicitly describing children who do not have both parents as handicapped to stating that children “thrive best” (whatever that means) with both parents. Children “thrive best” when they have a balanced breakfast too but not having that is a long way from being “handicapped”.

Armin Tamzarian on May 7, 2013 at 3:04 PM

“Handicap” doesn’t always have to mean an obvious physical impairment. Yes, a parent with less than two biological parents is handicapped relative to one with both, or one with some other combination. It’s nature, or as your side says, “ssscccciiiiieeeeennnnnnccceeee”.

Nutstuyu on May 7, 2013 at 3:37 PM

It’s not a marriage. Therefore there are no benefits for children.

22044 on May 7, 2013 at 3:34 PM

I know. The estimated ~400,000 children with gay parents don’t deserve the protection of marriage at all. In your world, they are less deserving than the kids of straight parents.

Kid with gay parent < kid with straight parent.

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 3:38 PM

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 3:36 PM

HA is weird like that sometimes, try to use bit.ly or another link shortener.

22044 on May 7, 2013 at 3:38 PM

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 3:36 PM

I think it’s something CNN built into their code.

Use http://tinyurl.com/ with the original link, and the new link should work.

INC on May 7, 2013 at 3:39 PM

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Your point basically tries to make a sham legit. No sale.

22044 on May 7, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Kid with gay parent < kid with straight parent.

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 3:38 PM

You’re the one who wants to deliberately put a child in that position of being deprived.

INC on May 7, 2013 at 3:39 PM

I think it’s something CNN built into their code.

Use http://tinyurl.com/ with the original link, and the new link should work.

INC on May 7, 2013 at 3:39 PM

CNN protests too much.

I sit corrected. :)

22044 on May 7, 2013 at 3:40 PM

I know. The estimated ~400,000 children with gay parents don’t deserve the protection of marriage at all. In your world, they are less deserving than the kids of straight parents.

Kid with gay parent < kid with straight parent.

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 3:38 PM

THey don’t have gay parents. They have a bio parent with a partner helping out. My niece is being raised by her grandmother and my sister– why are they less than a same sex couple? Why don’t they deserve benefits and a marriage license. See two can play that game..

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 3:41 PM

The research on gay, lesbian, and bisexual parents includes dozens of empirical studies. Their findings are summarized in reviews of empirical literature published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and academic books.

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Dozens? Hah! I love how it moves from studies to reviews of studies. Probably no set of ‘scientific’ studies has been reviewed so many times in all of history.

I might have to take a day off and go find these studies and tear them apart the same way I did the Bailey-Pillard studies and the LeVay study a couple of decades ago. None of the “definitive” studies two decades ago would have passed a rigorous high school science class review with anything more than a C. (The Bailey-Pillard studies would have likely gotten Fs, the LeVay study at least recognized its major limitations – and the fact it didn’t prove anything – granting it a passing grade.)

BTW, ZachV, you know anything about those? Or, have they conveniently gone by the wayside in the last 20+ years?

GWB on May 7, 2013 at 3:43 PM

ZachV, gay relationships only last a couple of years, on average. Is that healthy for the “chirren”?

kingsjester on May 7, 2013 at 3:43 PM

pp. 60-61, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense.

What we do know is that mothers and fathers are different. They each bring different strengths to parenting and to a child’s identity.

INC on May 7, 2013 at 3:32 PM

BTW Armin Tamzarian: That’s a study written by a grad student in philosophy, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation with a masters in political philosophy, and a poli sci professor with a JD.

Absolute experts in human relationships and psychology.

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 3:44 PM

22044 on May 7, 2013 at 3:40 PM

There may be other sites than CNN that do it. That’s just the one site that I know I always had problems with until someone told me to use something like Tiny Url.

INC on May 7, 2013 at 3:44 PM

The estimated ~400,000 children with gay parents don’t deserve the protection of marriage at all.

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Estimated by the same folks who say homosexuals are 10% of the population?

GWB on May 7, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Yet you seem to be the one who wants to deny the children of same-sex partners all the rights and benefits associated with marriage.

Yup.

That’s because there are no such things. Your own friend libfreeordie said marriage had no societal value, and you and your fellow leftists have been screaming and kicking and crying that marriage provides no tangible benefits whatsoever for society.

You have to be consistent, liar. If marriage has benefits, you and your fellow leftists have been lying for years and have created nothing but damage for society.

You say that you care about children, yet actively wish to deny children (for example) access to healthcare, or joint parenting rights in case of one parent’s death.

LOL.

You will have all the joint parenting rights you want if you actually produce a child.

But you can’t. So you scream and kick and rant, but you run right into the fact that biology says no.

Society doesn’t have time to waste on dead-ends like yourself and your attempts to kidnap and use children to further your antireligious bigotry. Indeed, given how gays and lesbians like yourself openly teach hatred for and violence towards the religious and social beliefs of others, you have as much business with children as do Hamas and the Tsarnevs.

You really stand up for children! (*Gays need not apply. They don’t count.)

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Yup.

We think they are human beings who deserve a mother and father.

You and your fellow bigots believe they are props for you to abuse and discard to get your fat fingers into the welfare trough.

No one seriously believes a Gosnell-worshiper like you could ever see a child as anything other than a hunk of meat, ZachV.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Dozens? Hah! I love how it moves from studies to reviews of studies. Probably no set of ‘scientific’ studies has been reviewed so many times in all of history. GWB on May 7, 2013 at 3:43 PM

That’s because I copied from the summary of the American Medical Association’s brief. You are free to visit the link and begin reviewing the studies they cite.

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Well it isn’t working but here is the exerpt from the CNN article.

A nearly 25-year study concluded that children raised in lesbian households were psychologically well-adjusted and had fewer behavioral problems than their peers.

The study, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, followed 78 lesbian couples who conceived through $perm donations and assessed their children’s well-being through a series of questionnaires and interviews.

Funding for the research came from several lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender advocacy groups, such as the Gill Foundation and the Lesbian Health Fund from the Gay Lesbian Medical Association

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 3:47 PM

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Experts in ethics, philosophy, logic and law.

The authors of What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense

Sherif Girgis is a Ph.D. student in philosophy at Princeton University and a J.D. candidate at Yale Law School. After graduating Phi Beta Kappa and summa cum laude from Princeton, where he won prizes for best senior thesis in ethics and best thesis in philosophy, as well as the Dante Society of America’s national Dante Prize, he obtained a B.Phil. in moral, political, and legal philosophy from the University of Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar.

Ryan T. Anderson is William E. Simon Fellow at the Heritage Foundation and the editor of Public Discourse: Ethics, Law, and the Common Good, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute. A Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude graduate of Princeton University, he is a Ph.D. candidate in political philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. He has worked as assistant editor of First Things and was a Journalism Fellow of the Phil­lips Foundation. His writings have appeared in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, First Things, the Weekly Standard, National Review, the New Atlantis, and the Claremont Review of Books.

Robert P. George is a Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School and McCormick Profes­sor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institu­tions at Princeton University. He is a member of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, and previously served on the President’s Council on Bioethics and as a presi­dential appointee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He is a former Judicial Fellow at the Supreme Court of the United States, where he received the Justice Tom C. Clark Award. He is a recipient of the United States Presidential Citizens Medal and the Honorific Medal for the Defense of Human Rights of the Republic of Poland.

INC on May 7, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Yes Zach, even peer review studies are bias. Ever hear of global warming? Scietist know who butters their bread.

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Scientific denial is prevalent on both the right and the left.

Conspiracy theorists on the right, for example, refuse to believe and attack scientific fact like evolution, global warming or (in this case) the medical and psychological’s communities research on gays and lesbians.

Conspiracy theorists on the left tend towards disbelieving and attacking scientific fact on vaccinations, GMO foods and nuclear power.

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Care to comment INC?

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Sure.

Every single one of these researchers and organizations also believed, endorsed, and pushed the following:

1) No-fault divorce has no societal consequences

2) Single parenting is just as good as having married parents

3) Marriage makes no difference in the quality of childraising

Notice how you will never see these organizations making the connections between what they’ve endorsed and the societal ills they supposedly study.

No one seriously should believe that children raised by pedophiles like libfreeordie or insane bigots like ZachV, whose mother and grandmother openly advocate violence against people based on their religious faith, are going to grow up normally.

And remember, all gays and lesbians act exactly like libfreeordie and ZachV. They will be happy to tell you so.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2013 at 3:52 PM

assessed their children’s well-being through a series of questionnaires and interviews.

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 3:47 PM

There’s the very first problem. So, you took a bunch of folks who have a vested interest in the outcome of the study and you interviewed and gave them questionnaires? I guarantee they weren’t blind questionnaires. And, I guarantee they weren’t unaware of the point of the study. That study is now on the same level as the Bailey-Pillard studies.

GWB on May 7, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Scientific denial is prevalent on both the right and the left.

Conspiracy theorists on the right, for example, refuse to believe and attack scientific fact like evolution, global warming or (in this case) the medical and psychological’s communities research on gays and lesbians.

Conspiracy theorists on the left tend towards disbelieving and attacking scientific fact on vaccinations, GMO foods and nuclear power.

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Sure Zach, gay parenting is great. Since there is no reason to have male and female parenting and it is only a number– why isn’t three better than two? Better yet, why isn’t the state raising our children. Society would be so much better. That was Marx’s ultimate goal anyways- societal parenting.

You also haven’t answered my question. Why isn’t my mother and my sister who are raising my niece equivalent to a same sex couple?

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 3:55 PM

There’s the very first problem. So, you took a bunch of folks who have a vested interest in the outcome of the study and you interviewed and gave them questionnaires? I guarantee they weren’t blind questionnaires. And, I guarantee they weren’t unaware of the point of the study. That study is now on the same level as the Bailey-Pillard studies.

GWB on May 7, 2013 at 3:53 PM

LOL– Yep I know.. Give me a questionnaire and ask me about my kids. How many people would answer that their kids are dysfunctional brats especially when they want the public to think that they are functional parents for a political purpose..

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 3:57 PM

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Did your husband leave you or something, so that you have to viciously attack every gay person you ever come across?

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 3:58 PM

There are no children of same sex partners.
melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 3:31 PM

I got first dibs on selling the tickets to view Harold giving birth to Henry’s child.

whatcat on May 7, 2013 at 4:00 PM

You also haven’t answered my question. Why isn’t my mother and my sister who are raising my niece equivalent to a same sex couple?

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Partnership.

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 4:00 PM

There’s the very first problem. So, you took a bunch of folks who have a vested interest in the outcome of the study and you interviewed and gave them questionnaires? I guarantee they weren’t blind questionnaires. And, I guarantee they weren’t unaware of the point of the study. That study is now on the same level as the Bailey-Pillard studies.

GWB on May 7, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Yeah, they sort of forget to mention that the LGBT “families” weren’t selected at random — or that they did everything in their power to avoid comparing them to actual nuclear families, preferring instead to make comparisons to single parents and divorced parents.

So the hilarious part is that ZachV’s research proves that “committed” gay-sex couples can’t do any better than divorced or single parents, which makes them clearly inferior.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2013 at 4:00 PM

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Only douchy gays like you.

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Best to let melle handle this one, but you’re proving her point.

22044 on May 7, 2013 at 4:02 PM

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2013 at 4:00 PM

One of the problems with the Bailey-Pillard twin studies is that the subjects were recruited through ads in homosexual “lifestyle” papers. It not only meant the group self-selected, but those who were recruited tended to be the most “firmly” homosexual in their attitudes. Even with that in their favor, though, B-P couldn’t find more of a correlation (“proving” homosexuality is nature, not nurture) than could have occurred nearly randomly.

“Scientists” with an agenda are legion. And, their work is often just let through the “peer-review” process with nary a peep – if the agenda is the proper one.

GWB on May 7, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Did your husband leave you or something, so that you have to viciously attack every gay person you ever come across?

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 3:58 PM

LOL.

People like you demean my partner and myself by invoking other gay people.

You and your fellow pedophile bigots like libfreeordie use your sexual orientation as an excuse for being lazy, promiscuous, irresponsible, violent, pathetic pieces of desperate scum.

You don’t have the brainpower to keep your hands off elementary school kids. You don’t have the self-control to stop yourself from spreading a lethal virus to teenagers, and you don’t have the willpower to go out and get yourself a job without demanding hiring quotas.

You and yours want marriage for one reason and one reason only: as a cudgel to abuse and attack peoples’ religious beliefs and freedom of speech.

I am an American first, and I support my fellow Americans. You are LGBT first, and you are willing to destroy everything for which the United States stands because you are a petulant and worthless excuse for a human being.

I have the respect of people on this thread, even those who don’t agree with homosexuality.

You have the contempt of even people who do.

Until you and yours are completely and totally humiliated, I cannot live my life as a free American.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2013 at 4:10 PM

One of the problems with the Bailey-Pillard twin studies is that the subjects were recruited through ads in homosexual “lifestyle” papers. It not only meant the group self-selected, but those who were recruited tended to be the most “firmly” homosexual in their attitudes. Even with that in their favor, though, B-P couldn’t find more of a correlation (“proving” homosexuality is nature, not nurture) than could have occurred nearly randomly.

“Scientists” with an agenda are legion. And, their work is often just let through the “peer-review” process with nary a peep – if the agenda is the proper one.

GWB on May 7, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Honestly, most scientists suck.
We’ve made progress in science in spite of them, because there are some good ones.

22044 on May 7, 2013 at 4:12 PM

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Back in the 80s, at the 300 employee company I worked at, a couple of the CSR gay gays were known to be “chicken hawks”, who went after young, impressionable college-age guys.Funny thing was, they were supposed to be “together”.

kingsjester on May 7, 2013 at 4:15 PM

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2013 at 4:10 PM

You need mental health help.

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 4:17 PM

You need mental health help.

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 4:17 PM

No idea how to state that in a nice way.

It honestly sounds like you are at risk for suicide or physical harm.

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 4:19 PM

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 4:19 PM

LOL at the irony.

HumpBot Salvation on May 7, 2013 at 4:23 PM

I don’t think SSM will destroy marriage, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. As for the studies, multiple studies have shown quite the opposite.

TDSE on May 7, 2013 at 2:30 PM

I wonder then why the Greeks, Romans, Persians, Assyrians, Babylonians, etc., were not so enamored of ghey “marriage”? Despite their societies being for more permissive and hedonistic to boot.

Nutstuyu on May 7, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Just declaring something scientifically invalid doesn’t make it so.

TDSE on May 7, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Sure it does. Your side does it all the time with the thousands of years of anthropological science that supports male-female marriage.

Nutstuyu on May 7, 2013 at 4:28 PM

LOL at the irony.

HumpBot Salvation on May 7, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Yep, it never changes. Haters project their faults onto other people.

22044 on May 7, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Kind of weak analogy there.

TDSE on May 7, 2013 at 2:47 PM

The analogy is in the terminology. You want us to suddenly declare marriage to be something that it isn’t, when all science, logic, reason and historical precedence says otherwise. The gheystapo’s marriage-redefinition agenda is as idiotic as trying to tell a baseball coach the battery can be any combination of players.

Nutstuyu on May 7, 2013 at 4:31 PM

You need mental health help.
ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 4:17 PM

No idea how to state that in a nice way.
It honestly sounds like you are at risk for suicide or physical harm.
ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 4:19 PM

It is hilarious to watch the alleged “scientific” gay quote his sources, then engage in behavior that said sources brand as wholly unethical and unscientific.

In other words, ZachV and the organizations he quotes lie.

Not to mention that ZachV and his fellow gay-sex marriage supporters openly advocate that gays who disagree with them should be stripped of their voting rights and should kill themselves.

Once you see the insane hate and bigotry that motivates ZachV and his fellow gay-sex marriage supporters, all their lies vanish.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2013 at 4:36 PM

The estimated ~400,000 children with gay parents don’t deserve the protection of marriage at all. In your world, they are less deserving than the kids of straight parents.

Kid with gay parent < kid with straight parent.

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 3:38 PM

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL. Is that public school math you’re using to “estimate”?

Nutstuyu on May 7, 2013 at 4:43 PM

Then so are all heterosexual marriages, as it is not necessary to be married to love your opposite sex partner.

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:52 PM

And therein we see the vast gulf between libfreeordie and any Christian. Most of us believe, whether or not we live up to this ideal, that God’s will for sex is inside of marriage. That sex outside of marriage is not His will. That sex outside of marriage is a sin. That sex outside of marriage, in fact, drives a wedge between God and us and damages our relationship with Him until it’s repented of. To a Christian – again, ignore the hypocrites and those who fall down and try to get up again – ANY sex outside of God’s plan is illegitimate and wrong. This is something libfreeordie and his ilk will never accept, because it flies in the face of what they call freedom, and which a Christian understands to be slavery to sin. Sorry, libfreeordie, but you are 100% off base and you have no idea why the idea of marriage as a sacred institution is so important. Note, I didn’t say to a Christian. It’s important period.

I personally made it to marriage as a virgin, and married a virgin. This is neither here nor there, except to say that this practice still exists, and it is possible. I didn’t have sex with anyone before marriage, not even a little bit. Didn’t matter what the gender of the person might have been, it would not have been legitimate in the eyes of the God of the Bible. You can mock Him, spurn Him, claim He doesn’t exist. That’s fine. You have every right to do so. You also have NO right to stand in judgment on what marriage means, because IT FRANKLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

JoseQuinones on May 7, 2013 at 4:46 PM

You also haven’t answered my question. Why isn’t my mother and my sister who are raising my niece equivalent to a same sex couple?

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 3:55 PM

I’d say they are, and we need more people like them and my neighbor (denied a civil union because he wants to also stay married to his original wife) to push back on the idiocy of the Left’s policies. Your mother and sister should get married, because if they’re not having sex, what’s the harm right?

Nutstuyu on May 7, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Added to the above, something I forgot to mention: libfreeordie and his ilk have craftily highjacked the “love” conversation by equating sex with love. Having sex with a person of your own sex is sinning against them and against your own soul. It’s the farthest thing from love.

Every time someone says that the state has no interest in preventing “two people who love each other” from marrying each other, I want to barf.

JoseQuinones on May 7, 2013 at 4:49 PM

You (Zach V) and your fellow pedophile bigots like libfreeordie use your sexual orientation as an excuse for being lazy, promiscuous, irresponsible, violent, pathetic pieces of desperate scum.

wat

JetBoy on May 7, 2013 at 4:50 PM

All things liberal and immoral are a lie….abortion…gay marriage….welfare……

crosshugger on May 7, 2013 at 4:56 PM

At the risk of bringing this thread back to the realpolitik of how this came to pass:

This link shows is how Minnesota’s largest and most influential newspaper framed the issue right before the election:

http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/177279371.html?refer=y

No where is there a mention of the state legislature acting to legalize gay marriage in 2013. In fact, they carefully point out that defeating the amendment would not make gay marriage legal.

Many low info voters rely on the StarTribune (among others) for information framing the issue.

Minnesotans United did a masterful job of camouflaging their real intentions – gay marriage legislation ASAP.

Lots of confused folks out there. Cognitive dissonance a plenty.

But they bit on the con, and here we are.

Bruno Strozek on May 7, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Well, good news finally. Delaware passed marriage.

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 5:11 PM

You also haven’t answered my question. Why isn’t my mother and my sister who are raising my niece equivalent to a same sex couple?

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Do they want to marry each other?

JetBoy on May 7, 2013 at 5:13 PM

You need mental health help.

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 4:17 PM

No idea how to state that in a nice way.

It honestly sounds like you are at risk for suicide or physical harm.

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Consider what you just wrote here, and honestly apply them to yourself.

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Honestly, most scientists suck.
We’ve made progress in science in spite of them, because there are some good ones.

22044 on May 7, 2013 at 4:12 PM

So, admittedly, a whole lot of scientist are myopic elitists, but the hard scientists are for the most serious about their own fields.
However, “soft” (as defined by unverifiable) scientists are prone to consensus thinking and political capture. Psychology has been completely captured by a leftist coalition that includes promoters of homosexuality.

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 5:35 PM

So, admittedly, a whole lot of scientist are myopic elitists, but the hard scientists are for the most serious about their own fields.
However, “soft” (as defined by unverifiable) scientists are prone to consensus thinking and political capture. Psychology has been completely captured by a leftist coalition that includes promoters of homosexuality.

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 5:35 PM

That’s a pretty good summary.
It seems like the bad scientists get all the attention & publicity, so my comment may be more perception than what’s really out there.

22044 on May 7, 2013 at 5:45 PM

I forgot to mention that citizens in Minnesota have an excellent site on marriage.

http://www.minnesotaformarriage.com/

http://www.minnesotaformarriage.com/why/

http://www.minnesotaformarriage.com/myths-facts/

INC on May 7, 2013 at 6:19 PM

As you can guess I highly recommend getting a copy of What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense. You can buy it at Amazon or at http://whatismarriagebook.com/

INC on May 7, 2013 at 6:22 PM

To date I’ve written over 45 posts on marriage. Links to the posts are grouped on these three pages.

Marriage is one of the sub-pages of Family.

http://upstreampolitics.wordpress.com/family/marriage/

These are sub-pages under Marriage.

http://upstreampolitics.wordpress.com/family/marriage/scotus-hearings-on-marriage-march-2013/

http://upstreampolitics.wordpress.com/family/marriage/what-is-marriage-man-and-woman-a-defense/

I finish reading What Is Marriage? a couple of months ago, but I’m still posting on it because I wanted to work through its arguments.

I’ll also be adding to the other two pages.

INC on May 7, 2013 at 6:27 PM

I see a decidedly regional/political trend to these states who are voting “yes”.

kingsjester on May 7, 2013 at 6:28 PM

I see a decidedly regional/political trend to these states who are voting “yes”.

kingsjester on May 7, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Here’s my own map I put together in late March from two posts at Family Research Council.

http://upstreampolitics.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/the-state-of-marriage-in-the-states/

INC on May 7, 2013 at 6:48 PM

Update: Because this argument arose in the comments and in e-mail, I want to address it directly. This argument does not state that only marriages that produce children are legitimate marriages. The only relationships that can of themselves produce children are those which are heterosexual in nature, which means that the marriage form is defined by law as one man and one woman. Within that form, men and women can marry each other whether they intend to have children or not (or are capable of doing so or not), because that is the defined form of marriage that receives government recognition.

The form is established by the state interest in the relationship, but that doesn’t require procreation for legitimacy. Once the form is established, it should be open to all who wish to enter into the specific relationship type for which government provides that recognition.

I’d be fine with granting only provisional status to marriages before the first child is born.

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Do they want to marry each other?

JetBoy on May 7, 2013 at 5:13 PM

I wouldn’t say they wanted to be married per se. I think that they would consider that their relationship as a ‘marriage’ would be silly. I do think that the bennies that go along with marriage would be beneficial to them. I just wonder why their relationship is any different than a SS couple..

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 9:38 PM

Update: Because this argument arose in the comments and in e-mail, I want to address it directly. This argument does not state that only marriages that produce children are legitimate marriages. The only relationships that can of themselves produce children are those which are heterosexual in nature, which means that the marriage form is defined by law as one man and one woman. Within that form, men and women can marry each other whether they intend to have children or not (or are capable of doing so or not), because that is the defined form of marriage that receives government recognition.

Credit for trying, but it’s wasted effort. You can’t reason people out of a position they weren’t reasoned into. Unnatural marriage advocates did not adopt their position by reasoning, and reason will not budge them.

At heart, they live in a world of rationalization about why homosexuality is absolutely equal to normal human behavior, and nothing can get in the way of it.

You point out that marriage produces children and the next generation, and they start asking, “What about people who are infertile, or too old?” The reason they ask, of course, is just to argue that there is no difference between homosexual “marriage” and heterosexual marriage. Nothing more. They’re not concerned about the fact that 100 million homosexual “marriages” would not produce even a single more child. Suggest it, and they’ll start talking about artificial insemination. Any excuse to argue that there’s nothing special about “heterosexual” marriage — while they demand a homosexual equivalent!

Point out that families are the bedrock human institution of our society, and they’ll start arguing about how “heterosexuals have destroyed the institution of marriage” — while demanding that homosexuals be allowed to “marry” so they can get the benefits of the supposedly destroyed institution!

Point out that homosexual relationships are more promiscuous and unstable, and you’ll be greeted by anecdotes about so-and-so who have been together for 14 years, and with arguments that heterosexual men have also been known to cheat on their wives, and vice versa.

But at core, it’s not about marriage. It’s about homosexuals demanding to be “equal.”

So let’s confront the real issues straight on: homosexuality is not equal to normal human sexuality, and cannot be made equal.

This does not mean that homosexuals are inferior to heterosexuals, just that homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality.

The reason you can’t have same sex marriage is that it is an absurdity. One of the sexes is missing. Calling such relationships “marriage” is just an exercise in absurdity.

It’s not just reproductive biology, though that is the most obvious biological difference. It’s the simple fact that even homosexuals are made male or female, and a relationship that is not between the two sexes, whatever else it is, is not a joining of human beings in marriage.

There is also an ugly undercurrent of anti-Christianity in every same-sex marriage advocate, because Christians tend to stick to their principles and not be impressed when the culture is opposed to them. SSM is inherently progressive, and Christians are the enemy of the progressives, because they don’t derive their spirituality from “social progress.”

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 8, 2013 at 1:35 AM

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 8, 2013 at 1:35 AM

And for all that, marriage equality in America continues to move forward.

There is also an ugly undercurrent of anti-Christianity in every same-sex marriage advocate, because Christians tend to stick to their principles and not be impressed when the culture is opposed to them.

Ha! Ha! Christians are the biggest crybabies when they perceive the culture is against them. They have been on the wrong side of profoundly inportant social issues including slavery. Now they are seeing the “culture” move on without them on SSM and the whining continues.

chumpThreads on May 8, 2013 at 8:16 AM

They have been on the wrong side of profoundly inportant social issues including slavery.

Oh yeah, the abolitionists were all atheists, you bet.

But let’s play your game. Atheists have been on the wrong side of profoundly important social issues including genocide. To the tune of 75 million deaths in the 20th century.

You guys are really rocking it. Can’t wait to see what you can manage in the new millennium.

Missy on May 8, 2013 at 10:36 AM

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 8, 2013 at 1:35 AM

And for all that, marriage equality in America continues to move forward.

Marriage equality? Quit playing with semantics. There is no “marriage equality.” Just a group of people demanding that marriage be redefined.

There is also an ugly undercurrent of anti-Christianity in every same-sex marriage advocate, because Christians tend to stick to their principles and not be impressed when the culture is opposed to them.

Ha! Ha! Christians are the biggest crybabies when they perceive the culture is against them. They have been on the wrong side of profoundly inportant social issues including slavery. Now they are seeing the “culture” move on without them on SSM and the whining continues.

chumpThreads on May 8, 2013 at 8:16 AM

Christians are used to not being in sync with their culture. I’m referring though to the anti-Christian animus among so many pushing the idea of unnatural marriage.

There are even a large number of activists who will try to blame Christianity for the fact that homosexuality is not more mainstream, in spite of the easily documented evidence that very many pagan cultures also thought there was something wrong with homosexuality.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 8, 2013 at 10:55 AM

I see a business oppurtunity when the church’s stop doing weddings.Get yourself one of those internet ordained minister certificates,open up a drive thru Vegas type chapel and charge a super high fee for cash only.

docflash on May 7, 2013 at 12:25 PM

My church won’t yield. If they must, they will probably instruct the couple to go to the court house for the marriage certificate and then have them bring it to the church for the wedding.

cptacek on May 8, 2013 at 12:08 PM

They have been on the wrong side of profoundly inportant social issues including slavery.

Ignorant bigot.

tom daschle concerned on May 8, 2013 at 12:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3