“The truth is this takes place in Utah, the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church, and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,” he told Tarts. “There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here’s what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed and people can see who’s responsible and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting constitution and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards. So lets have faith in not only the American, but Californian constitutional process.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. 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
Who about black supporters of it? Are they un-american as well?
lorien1973 on January 16, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Actually, no, he’s just calling Mormons un-American and uses Prop 8 as the main reason for his argument.
Esthier on January 16, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Bite me, Tom Hanks..and no I am not mormon.
becki51758 on January 16, 2009 at 11:52 AM
?
I’m pretty sure you either don’t really mean that, or haven’t thought the statement through to its logical conclusions, particularly in context.
Count to 10 on January 16, 2009 at 11:52 AM
American: (adj.) Agreement with Tom Hanks.
Exurban Jon on January 16, 2009 at 11:53 AM
In other words … he hopes the courts somehow overturns the peoples decision, which would be, uh, un-American.
darwin on January 16, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Shut up and act.
tru2tx on January 16, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Hey Forest? Stick to acting. Actually, don’t do that. Retire and kindly shut your overhyped white guy Oprah wannabe pie-hole you talentless hack.
And I’m no Mormon.
TheUnrepentantGeek on January 16, 2009 at 11:54 AM
They forgot to pay their taxes?
joey24007 on January 16, 2009 at 11:55 AM
I knew Hanks was a fagel. He looked too comfortable wearing women’s dresses in Bosom Buddies.
I still support Prop 8. 100%.
or
Under ACORN rules 7,300% (because I’d vote 73 times).
madmonkphotog on January 16, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Ditto. Or should I say, it’s amazing how supporters think all the millions of California votes against Prop 8 were solely the result of evil Mormon influence. If Mormons were that huge in numbers and influence, the Osmonds would still have a varitey show.
Pasalubong on January 16, 2009 at 11:56 AM
So now working within the law and gathering grass roots support is “un-American”.
I guess in your mind, America is ramrodding your beliefs down other peoples throats? Yeah, that’s what the constitution is all about, huh?
Skywise on January 16, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Tom,
More remarks like yours and the Bonnie Blue Flag will be popping up all over Utah.
Limerick on January 16, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Typical liberal. Can’t think. Feels everything.
tru2tx on January 16, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Future Senator Tom Hanks has announced he is coming out of the closet and is proud to admit he is an idiot!
dmann on January 16, 2009 at 11:58 AM
This guy was at the Golden Globes gloating over his “John Adams” like he wrote the book and told President Adams what to do every step of the way. It amazes me how they can hitch their wagon to absolutely anything.
Marcus on January 16, 2009 at 12:00 PM
I’m always amazed by the inverse proportionality of a person’s acting ability and their idiocy with respect to stuff like this.
Tom, Sean and the like… Serious genius level talent as actor/producers, but when they open their mouths like this it’s just amazing what comes out.
Were the Mormons responsible for Florida too?
BiteMyJihad on January 16, 2009 at 12:01 PM
I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper
Adding to Count to 10’s remarks….
WTF? Is Hanks serious? Should your five year be able to buy beer and smokes, or is it okay to descriminate on the basis of age? Hell, I’m only 38 but I should be able to collect SS benefits if that’s the case.
Should we discriminate against paroled felons or people with mental illness, or should they be permitted to buy guns?
You can’t discriminate against foreign nationals, so give themm all US passports. (Actually, as a Canuck, I’m in favor of this one).
Don’t discriminate on the basis of wealth – people with jobs no longer have to pay taxes.
I could go on but what’s the point?
landshark on January 16, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Tom Hanks=unAmerican
becki51758 on January 16, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Systematic discrimination is wrong.
Dig Goldberg:
I’m listening, social conservatives.
If people really want to protect marriage, they need to protect it from the State.
“Government governs best when it governs least — and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone’s version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays.”
– Barry Goldwater, 1994
Rae on January 16, 2009 at 12:04 PM
its hard to beleive this idiot could be behind the brilliant John Adams series on hbo
jp on January 16, 2009 at 12:05 PM
I just can’t understand…Allowing gays to marry takes nothing away form anyone else. You give up nothing. It’s all about preventing some people from having the same opportunity to marry as the rest of you.
And that’s discrimination. And that’s “un-American”.
JetBoy on January 16, 2009 at 12:05 PM
SHHHH your racist talk!/sarc
It’s a darned shame really. I always liked Tom Hanks movies.
We’re developing quite a list aren’t we?
1. Tom Hanks
2. Oprah
3. Oprah Show
4. O Magazine
5. The View
6. The rag that printed that scathing article about Sarah Palin
7. etc., etc., etc.
Oink on January 16, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Tom Hanks is merely trying to distract attention from the fact that he hasn’t been a part of a worthwhile project since “Band of Brothers”. His comments are really just a symptom of Hollywood’s creative drought.
It is still demoralizing, however, that yet another celebrity won’t stick to business and has to open their mouth and place their politics in our mind. Artists do not seem to understand how they damage their own market with divisive political statements. Not so much from turning off people who don’t agree, but because it becomes a thing a person has to put aside, like finding a way to deal with an annoying co-workers eccentricities. But the public chooses if and where to spend dollars on entertainment. After a time, putting all of the ‘eccentricities’ of celebrities in a box takes too much energy.
Just something to think about.
bryanmyrick on January 16, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Marriage is one man and one woman. Hanks is a POS. Besides, no one has taken any rights away from homos.
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 16, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Shut up and act. Period.
therightwinger on January 16, 2009 at 12:08 PM
I actually disagree with the outcome of that election; but calling supporters un-american – and singling out a group that didn’t really matter in the outcome. Now, that really doesn’t help the cause at all.
lorien1973 on January 16, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Not doing things the way our new Elite-Ruling Class thinks it should be done?
Un-”American”.
Following along behind the Hollywood Nobility and avoiding any possible individuality, thought, or independence?
AMERICAN!
Um, wait; something there doesn’t match up…
But no worries, their new Constitutional Amendment being written into their State Constitution will be found to be “unConstitutional” by our true ruling class (the Judges) who nobody may ever doubt or gainsay.
gekkobear on January 16, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Yes. Yes it does. It forces my child to be exposed to state-sponsored immorality. And that takes away MY right as a parent.
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 16, 2009 at 12:09 PM
I thought you couldn’t call anybody “un-American”, I thought it was okay to question things. I guess you can only question what the people decide.
Cindy Munford on January 16, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Who asked you, d*ck?
blatantblue on January 16, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Marriage ought to be taken out of the hands of government – and government should not interfere with two individual’s rights to contract with each other. But until this issue is approached correctly, I will fight to preserve marriage as I understand it through my faith.
I will not submit to having the long established meaning of a word forcibly remade and rammed down my throat by activists unwilling to pursue this issue on rational terms. Because this isn’t about marriage and never has been – it’s about approval – and not wanting people to juuuuuudge you.
TheUnrepentantGeek on January 16, 2009 at 12:13 PM
What a douche. All of Hollyweird and the leftist gay community find the easiest scapegoat to denigrate, insult, and yes indeed cause violence against the Mormon church.
Maybe he should watch his John Adams series and see the mob during the Boston Massacre wanting to blame and persecute the British who were innocent and see how that reflects currently against innocent people of the Mormon church by the loony left.
jencab on January 16, 2009 at 12:14 PM
yeah, someone should also find a John Adams quote about homosexuality(i bet there is one out there), if not him Jefferson definitely has many and passed Sodomy laws, to throw back at him.
jp on January 16, 2009 at 12:17 PM
Thanks Tom, I wasn’t really looking for an excuse to never spend a dime on anything associated with you or your projects again, but Like Ron Howard and a host of others you have helped me make that decision now.
Good job.
Tim Zank on January 16, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Whoa, a left-wing drone questioning people’s patriotism? I’m dreaming, right?
littleguy on January 16, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Are opponents of pedophilia suddenly now un-American as well?
BigAnge on January 16, 2009 at 12:21 PM
WTF is that? It spits back amendments it doesn’t like?
The “constitutional process,” in CA, includes the process of amending the constitution through voter referenda.
To Hanks, it is judges (of a certain judicial philosophy, of course), telling the masses (who should really follow the orders of their betters on how to vote, and not those of teetotalling preachers) what those long words in the constitution mean.
Wethal on January 16, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Who gives a flying piece of turd what tom hanks thinks?
Hey – I can dance on a toy piano too, but you don’t see me spouting off about politics and expecting my opinion to matter more than everyone else
gatorboy on January 16, 2009 at 12:24 PM
I suppose democracy is also un-American.
gwelf on January 16, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Do you have to keep being reminded…marriage is between a man and woman.
Men or women can have civil unions with each other, they can have contracts, you can call it gayliage.
Why do 5% of the people insist on changing something that is already decided and does nothing to stop them from doing whatever they want to do.
So I ask you…how many legs does your dog have?
right2bright on January 16, 2009 at 12:30 PM
“Exposed” to “immorality”? Don’t worry…they won’t be performing gay marriages on your front lawn. What do you mean by “exposed”?
As for “immoral”, that’s your own judgment call. What’s really immoral is forcing the exclusion of gays to be married just like anyone else.
JetBoy on January 16, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Where does it say that in the US Constitution?
How many times do YOU need to be reminded that “civil unions” are a far cry from “marriage”. There are over 300 legal differences.
JetBoy on January 16, 2009 at 12:35 PM
A great actor, but what do you expect from a guy whose first big break came playing a television character who masqueraded as a woman?
http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/070308/bosom_l.jpg
D2Boston on January 16, 2009 at 12:36 PM
I agree on this. If we’re not going to make marriage about procreation, then government really has no interest in marriage anyway.
Esthier on January 16, 2009 at 12:40 PM
JetBoy on January 16, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Like books in school abount 2 “mommies” or 2 “daddies”, cries of discrimination if you express your opinion against it, tv shows about gays on primetime making lewd jokes, advertisements in public with gay themes, people prosecuted because they don’t agree with the gay lifestyle and won’t take pictures, and in Canada, injunctions against preaching Biblical principles. That version of “exposed.”
theotherKate on January 16, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Strong arguments can be made that gay marriage should be allowed (I happen to oppose gay marriage) but it’s absolutely ludicrous to blame Mormons for this outcome.
gwelf on January 16, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Glorious
macummings on January 16, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Full disclosure – I’m a Mormon. I laugh whenever people blame things like this on my church. Does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have influence? Not much politically – the church is aligned with conservative values on the 2 political issues it gets involved in (abortion and gay marriage) and so any influence it adds to these issues is pretty much a drop in the bucket compared to the other churches and organisations that share the same views.
gwelf on January 16, 2009 at 12:47 PM
As a contemporary example, renaming gay relationships as “marriage” (historically a term for gender-opposite relationships) is kind of like naming an auto manufacturer a “bank holding company” so it can get access to $. The ends are assumed to justify the means. In terms of samesex marriage, the ends are more about societal approval than anything else.
cs89 on January 16, 2009 at 12:48 PM
+1 Bravissimo
Tacitus on January 16, 2009 at 12:50 PM
For me this issue is about children. Putting “gay marriage” on the same plane as heterosexual marriage, which is still the ideal, is wrong. I don’t doubt a gay persons veracity to love and be loved. I say, have at it. Where I have a problem is w/adoption, fostercare, etc. If they are truly equal in the eyes of the law, then they will be allowed to adopt and serve as foster parents. That is not the ideal. That should not happen.
Gay couples can make babies w/surrogates as they do now, but it gets sticky when the state says that a gay marriage is exactly the same as a hetero marriage. It isn’t.
JAM on January 16, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Mormons are the canary in the coalmine. There are people that advocate beating, burning down homes and churches, that have called and picketed people’s place of employment to get them fired, mapped out their homes and businesses online, and advocated jailing for “hate crimes.” Do you think that this can’t happen to you? Just get on the wrong side of a left cause.
theotherKate on January 16, 2009 at 12:54 PM
I agree with Hanks. To support a law that treats one group of people differently than others is discriminatory, and antithetical to any reasonable notion of freedom and equality. Prop. 8 supporters are un-American.
Frankly, I don’t even think that’s a controversial statement.
Enrique on January 16, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Jump to conclusions much? And yeah, its immoral. But that’s besides the point. Narcissitic homos are not really concerned about the effect on society. Especially children. I don’t want my child, or any other child, being taught about the acceptability of homo marriage. If you wanna marry the same-sex and feel good about it, move to massachusetts.
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 16, 2009 at 12:58 PM
By way of information, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints made two contributions in support of Prop 8, one for $2864.21, and another for $2,078.97. In contrast, the contributions made by other churches, based on a superficial review of the records, exceed $46,000, including $26,000 from a church in San Diego. This isn’t to say that Mormons didn’t have a lot to do with Prop. 8, because they did. The fact is that the funding for Prop 8 came from individuals and was not, by and large, an allocation of contributions made to the Church.
Dead Hand Control on January 16, 2009 at 1:00 PM
That’s true. So, since gay men and women can still marry the opposite sex (although they don’t wish to) but are advocating for special rights that a heterosexual man or woman would not have, wouldn’t you say that’s discriminatory? I’m assuming you are against affirmative action, hate crimes, and hate speech too since those are all a violation of equal protection.
theotherKate on January 16, 2009 at 1:00 PM
I take it then that you also oppose:
* taxation based on income level
* affirmative action
* denying felons the right to vote
* denying illegal immigrants the right to vote
gwelf on January 16, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Do you know what’s un-American, Tom? Tyranny of the minority, that’s what. And that’s what gay marriage is all about–the forcing of a minority’s beliefs on all the rest of us.
drflykilla on January 16, 2009 at 1:06 PM
What sanctimonious rubbish. Homosexuals are just as capable of being parents as heterosexuals. In fact, because gay couples tend to be better educated and more affluent, they are arguably better parents.
Last month, a Florida judge struck down that state’s ban on gay adoption. The case centered on Martin Gill and Thomas Roe, a homosexual couple who were attempting to adopt two boys that they had fostered for four years. The two boys had previously lived with their biological parents, a heterosexual couple (obviously). Here’s the condition the boys were in when they arrived at Gill and Roe’s home, according to the court’s ruling:
That would seem to indicate that heterosexual parents aren’t ideal, no?
Enrique on January 16, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Enrique on January 16, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Only if you take one case of horrific abuse and paint with an unbelievably broad brush across all natural parents in America. Otherwise, not so much.
theotherKate on January 16, 2009 at 1:09 PM
UnAmerican is as UnAmerican does….
CynicalOptimist on January 16, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Who said anything about it being taught in schools? Cripes…
Well, two points:
1) Using derogatory terms like “homo” makes you sound like an idiot…
2) Your kids will eventually make up their own minds about “accepting” gay marriage or not.
JetBoy on January 16, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Enrique
Anecdotal moron. Anyone, including gays can be bad parents.
JAM on January 16, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Then why doesn’t the gay community work to change the laws regarding “civil unions”?
PappaMac on January 16, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Gays, Straights, Mormons, Blacks- ALL irrelevant. This was an issue on the CA ballot and the issue failed, (or won depending on your viewpoint) There was a fair vote. All the citizens were represented. Sorry for your anguish and disappointment, Tom Hanks. Now you know how I feel about the Presidential decision.
anniekc on January 16, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Marriage is, in my faith, an extremely holy and important institution. Our government has no right to change the definition of the term and thus intrude on the rights of believers to express their faith as they see fit. If we’d like to ensure equal rights for all, the state should stop get out of the marriage business entirely and switch to only issuing civil unions to two consenting adults.
Seems simple enough. Calling me “un-American” or “hateful” for holding this position is nothing but a dishonest rhetorical tactic taken by those who view this issue in black and white terms. The simplistic thinking of “Support for Prop 8 = bigot” regardless of the reasoning behind the support should warn anyone putting careful thought into the issue away from that perspective. It can be easily turned around – as I have done – by calling out those holding that position for their desire to control the approval granted them by others.
Now, in reality I know that there are people who oppose Prop 8 who simply want to join legally with someone they love. I don’t blame them. While I don’t condone their lifestyle, I think they should be able to adopt a certain legal association. I cannot call it marriage, however, and will not be coerced into doing so by screeching activists and petty bureaucrats.
TheUnrepentantGeek on January 16, 2009 at 1:30 PM
I’m confused on liberal ideology.
It’s “patriotic” to pay taxes, it’s “American” to fight against prop-8…
What about all those blacks that supported prop-8? Will Tom say all those blacks are un-American?
iamse7en on January 16, 2009 at 1:40 PM
What does your own faith have to do with the State allowing gay marriage? Your church won’t be forced to perform gay marriage…it would be left up to churches to decide. Not everyone gets married in a church, you know.
JetBoy on January 16, 2009 at 1:49 PM
First of all, have you been to Canada recently? Ministers have been levied enormous fines for “incitement to hate” for reading scriptures that forbid gay sex acts. Read up on the consequences of hate crimes legislation? If these concerns aren’t applicable now, they likely will be within the next 50 years.
Secondly this is about ideas and concepts as much as it’s about practical issues. As long as the State of California presumes to preside over the office of marriage and I have a voice in how that concept is defined, I must support my faith’s definition – or see it overturned with all the resulting legal consequences of my continued ideological opposition. This is because the state has interfered in overseeing a religious office when it should not do so.
TheUnrepentantGeek on January 16, 2009 at 2:01 PM
What the hell happened to Tom Hanks? I used to respect him because he was one of the actors that kept his mouth shut and just did his job. Well it looks like he has fallen for the stupid as liberal mindset in hollywood.
STFU Tom and act!!!!!!!!!!!
Winebabe on January 16, 2009 at 2:11 PM
The tradition of marriage has always been between a man and woman and there’s no reason to change it. There’s no discrimination and gays can get all the rights they want without imposing their lifestyle on others.
clearbluesky on January 16, 2009 at 2:13 PM
And it says a lot that Hanks can be executive producer of a show designed to incite hatred of Mormons and not get called on it. We all know what would happen if a similar show was aimed at muslims or a minority group.
clearbluesky on January 16, 2009 at 2:16 PM
That is just so true. It becomes harder and harder to construct a fantasy around the person; i.e., accept the fantasy being offered by the movie.
Tom Cruise is a glaring example of that. “War of the Worlds” was pretty good escapist fare, until you realize that he actually DOES believe aliens came to earth.
After a while, the person intrudes on the characters he’s trying to portray, and if the person is opinionated or somehow unlikable, the character is overshadowed and you can’t really suspend disbelief as film requires and get into the character anymore.
Maybe these people figure they’ve done enough acting, and now it’s time to get into the political arena.
Alana on January 16, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Well yeah…there is a reason to change it. Wasn’t too long ago that 7 states had laws preventing Whites and Blacks from marrying each other. Those laws were shot down…and in those states, “marriage” was re-defined.
It happens.
JetBoy on January 16, 2009 at 2:19 PM
JetBoy on January 16, 2009 at 12:05 PM
It reduces marriage to something less than what it has traditionally been, to start. You seem to be under the misapprehension that setting up household with a companion is the object of governmental protections of marriage.
SarahW on January 16, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Well no…there isn’t. It’s between a man and woman just as it’s always been. And in case you haven’t noticed, blacks seem to be growing tired of this comparison and i don’t blame them.
clearbluesky on January 16, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Again I ask…What does allowing gays to marry take away from you? Your precious definition? Just because something is traditional doesn’t make it good. Marriage should be defined for what it truly is…between two loving adults.
JetBoy on January 16, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Being affluent and better educated may make you more desirable parents – in terms, say, of a birth mother desiring who to choose for adoptive parents – but it doesn’t make you better parents.
Alana on January 16, 2009 at 2:33 PM
*deciding
Alana on January 16, 2009 at 2:33 PM
And what does getting the rights you want without forcing your way of life onto others take away from you? We’ve been told time and time again this is about rights, but when it became clear gays could get the rights they wanted without forcing their way of life onto others, it suddenly became about marriage. In other words, gays have been less that honest about what their goals are. You try to paint yourself as the victim, but you’re the one attempting to use the power of government and courts to force your way of life onto others.
clearbluesky on January 16, 2009 at 2:39 PM
The thing is, Jet, you have realize how true that is. It is precious to the people who seek to protect it. You won’t be able to convince them that it isn’t worth fighting for.
Many would give in on civil unions for that reason alone even if the only difference between the two were the words used to describe them.
I’m not saying this is appropriate. I’m just explaining it to you. This is something that means a lot to people.
Esthier on January 16, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Again, civil unions do not afford the same rights as marriage whatsoever. And it’s you who are trying to continue to force YOUR definition on others. If I get married to another guy, how does that “force my way of life” upon you? It doesn’t.
I never said I was a “victim” either. Don’t paint gays with such a “broad brush” either.
JetBoy on January 16, 2009 at 2:46 PM
I didn’t really understand his point. Was he saying that “Big Love” will help expose Mormons so people can see what kind of people were supporting Prop 8? If so, he’s way off on the mainstream mormon church. He’s also showing a bit of prejudice towards polygamy if he thinks it’s so awful that a show about it will disgust people so much that they’ll be against Prop 8 just because ‘these people’ are for it.
As far as Mormons being responsible for Prop 8 his beef seems to be that there were many donations made by Mormons outside of California and he doesn’t think it’s right that people outside of CA had any influence on politics inside CA.
I would tend to agree with him as I think you should have to live in the state to influence the politics in the state. In this instance though, lots of money from outside of the state came in to support Pro AND Anti Prop 8 efforts. It’s the logical result of the “As California goes, so goes the rest of the country” image of CA.
And, at the end of the day, the only people that could vote were the people of California. So, rather than blaming bad influences from eeeeeeevil Utah, Tom Hanks and other Anti-Prop 8 folks should just do a better job of making their case.
JadeNYU on January 16, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Exactly.
I love how calling people “un-American” is okay now.
I am disappointed in the bigotry towards the LDS about this issue and I’m about as far away from being LDS as is possible. What being done to Prop. 8 supporters, and most specifically the ones who are LDS, is disgusting.
Athena on January 16, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Jet, you can marry now. You are not forbidden from marrying any person of the opposite sex who will take you as you are. Such a relationship would have full force of law, and that sort of pairing has produced families (the reason marriage exists). You are not denied meaningful participation in marriage NOW.
You want to take another kind of relationship for which there is no need for state protection or governmental protection or privilege, and demand that society support it as it supports opposite-sex relationships (the ones that make new people) that are monogamous lifetime partnerships, as if they were the same.
One type of relationship needs support and protection of law to maintain an orderly society and to provide incentive for constraining an activity that makes new people, to a particular kind of relationship that is better for raising those new people, and transferring property between families and from generation to generation.
There is no such basis for support of same-sex couples.
IF you want marriage, that means taking a wife, if you are a man.
If you want marriage, you can have it.
SarahW on January 16, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Jetboy: What is the etymology of the term marriage?
anuts on January 16, 2009 at 3:26 PM
The ability to define a religious office as we believe our God intended; fundamentally, the right to practice our faith as we see fit.
Allowing gays (and any two consenting adults) a civil unity, on the other hand, is perfectly fine. It’s a fair compromise. The refusal, on the part of some gay activists, to accept such a compromise suggests that this is really about approval and perception control. On that issue, there will never be compromise – if for no other reason than that 10% of the population, randomly distributed, will be hard pressed to control the remaining 90%.
TheUnrepentantGeek on January 16, 2009 at 4:00 PM