Ummm ... many Christian denominations (e.g, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the largest US Lutheran denomination (ELCA), the United Church of Christ, etc.) are willing to consecrate same-gender relationships and/or ordain clergy in such relationships. Likewise for the two largest US Jewish group, accounting for over 80% of American Jews. The majority of SSM supporters are of Judeo-Christian faiths. Based on legitimate Biblical and historical contextual and translational considerations, those few passages commonly used to condemn homosexuality likely have nothing at all to do with same-gender couples in loving, committed relationships. So just how does this have anything to do with "taking God out of everything"?? That said, note also that if you want to enact/perpetuate discriminatory laws and have them hold up in court, you have to be able to justify them using NON-religious arguments, as per the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

Note also that one definition of homophobia is "discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." (See Merriam-Webster.) If you are against granting homosexuals civil marriage rights/benefits, you are, by definition, homophobic.

Roger, if you think this, then you are homophobic. I think Jesus was the one who said that we should love one another, period. No one is taking God out of anything; that's such a ridiculous statement. You are free to have your own religious beliefs but not to impose them on others.

Not everyone believes in your bible. Nor the bible as it exists today, deleted, translated, and otherwise altered to suit the opinions of different individuals.

why the hell should it be a religious factor, did the church pick your wife dought it, and who is the churches to say anything when there a quite a few cases of molestation going on in the churches, or is it because it happens in the church it makes it ok. the bible was also written by a human on the asumptions of jesus. and if you really followed the history of religion you would know that men were having sex with men long before they knew to do it with weman

This country was not founded on any religious fiber - it was founded on the sole principle of protecting liberty of conscience and freedom and equality for all mankind.

The one person's seemingly knowledgeable reference to the Bible gives the impression that Bible verses exclude loving homosexual relationships. Let's review them shall we so that we are not decieved:

Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination..."

II Corinthians 6:9-10 "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

I Timothy 1:8-11 "8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust."

Apparently no exceptions.

To those who would quote the Bible as the basis for being anti-gay marriage, please don't cherry-pick your quotes. Here are some other things banned by the Bible that you may want to think about:

1) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

5) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

But you ARE homophobic, Roger.

Hum I think you should go do a search and read America's treaty of Tripoli. In it it states quite clearly that America IS NOT founded on any religious belief. In our own constitution yes we have freedom of religion but that also means freedom from religion. Everyone in the US does not hold the same beliefs when it comes to things of faith. So that said just because it goes against your morals doesn't give you and those that share your same beliefs the right to say what others are. I believe the the sexual abuse of young boys is morally evil to the core but that doesn't stop a certain religion to keep covering it up and telling all Americans whats moral and what isn't. Love is love and it knows no gender. .

Oh and to say your not homophobic yet say people of the same sex who want to marry goes against what you feel is un American because its against every religious and moral beliefs is discrimination. That and you really are homophobic because you feel that way..... Just be honest with yourself.

I get so sick of bellyaching about liberals "taking God out of everything." What the hell do you care? You can still read the Bible as often as you like, attend church as many times a week as there are services, socialize with people who share your beliefs as much as you like. Why does your happiness or security or whatever depend upon YOUR God being integrated into society at large, which is full of people who worship a different God or don't worship at all.

Your response, Roger, is the definition of homophobia. You may not hate a gay person because of who or what they are, but you are clearly afraid (-phobic) of gay (homo-) rights.

right on!!

Lets keep it in context. The term "slave" in the Bible refers to anyone who is in subject to another, a ruler's people, a spouse, a maidservant, employees. The Bible does not espouse slavery as occurred in the US. I will not rule out ignorance but I am loathe to believe it was an intentional deception.

"The concept of slavery in ancient Israel and many ancient near eastern cultures is quite different than the type of slavery practiced in the Southern United States during the early 1800's.1 The term slavery was much broader then, since a king's subjects may be referred to as his slaves.2 Slaves were understood to be human beings instead of mere chattel. Slaves could own land and property - something that was illegal in the modern western version."

Read more: http://www.comereason.org/soc_culture/soc060.asp#ixzz2LB8JXqy6

"If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. (Lev 25.35-43)

Read more: http://www.comereason.org/soc_culture/soc060.asp#ixzz2LB83vfw1

@Dale -- again, not that religious beliefs are relevant to matters of CIVIL law, but lifting isolated bits of scripture out of their historical and Biblical context to justify your bias against homosexuals is not going to work. Quite aside from the question of whether or not Levitical prohibitions apply to Christians, the verses you cite were specifically given in the context of Canaanite and Egyptian cultures that Israel dealt with ... cultures that practiced same-sex activities as part of pagan rituals. That is known both from historical sources as well as other OT passages (e.g, in Deut. and 1&2Kings). Again, that connection to male shrine prostitution is part of the reason why the two largest Jewish groups allow consecration of same-gender relationships. As for the Corinthians and Timothy passages (and I think you meant 1 Cor.), even the Catholic scholars behind the church's own NAB translation ... hardly a pro-gay group ... acknowledge those passages are talking about 1st-century practices like pederasty. (Keep in mind that the Greek words translated "homosexuals" and "sodomites" in your translation are obscure and according to many scholars don't mean what you and the NKJV translators think they mean.)

Heather Barber, when you say "founded on the sole principle of protecting liberty of conscience and freedom and equality for all mankind." it is taken out of context ...the exact words are: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." which does imply a religious precedent.

Dave, the point of my post was to point out that you can pretty much back up any assertion using the Bible. To say that the Bible's definition of slavery is different from what was practiced in the United States makes what we did even more heinous in that it would not be what you say the definition of slavery is in the Bible. This is a convoluted argument that goes nowhere.

6) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

I can settle this. Athough your questions as a whole sound more like taunts, in a hatred similar to the ones that others are being accused of. I advise against presenting your case in that manner since it serves to lessen a person's credibility and that of their case.

Acts 10:9, God established a new covenant permitting the eating of things formerly forbidden by Mosaic law, save blood. Tell your friend not to worry about eating shellfish. I'm sure he/she will be greatly relieved. As to the degree of sin, sin is sin. All sin has the result of creating a rift between God and the individual. It should never be our intent to see how close we can get to sinning without actually sinning, but rather how close can we draw to God...from a Christian viewpoint.

Carol Lewis -- Please, oh pretty please, don't confuse me with Dale. :)

What Jesus is quoted as saying about gay marriage:

(yep - nothing).

Actually, Dale, I used exact words from the private correspondence of Thomas Jefferson. :) I should have put them in quotes. Nevertheless, I assume you are referring to the word "Creator" as implying a religious precedent; however, there is no doubt as to why that word was used instead of "God" - for the same reason "nature's God" is used in the Declaration of Independence.

The framers struggled with how to deal with religion, as they were adamant about NOT establishing one. Yet, they were keenly aware that "a free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong"....and knew full well that it would be hard to maintain morality without religion. In reading their personal writings, it is very clear that the Constitution is very carefully crafted to secure survival of the people's republic and to ensure that no human legislation would abridge or destroy the equal rights granted to all mankind by "the laws of nature and nature's God."

And this is why DOMA is unconstitutional.

kathleen fergus,

In the book "Evidence That demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell, reviews all known manuscripts and manuscript scraps and compares them to today's Bible.

1) Is the Bible historically and factually accurate in its original text?
2) Is the text we have today an accurate transcription of the original text?

In both, the answer is yes and to an amazing degree, but I'll let you read it.

silence dogood - Semantics.

The United States was founded on a fundamental belief in the separation of church and state. Marriage affords civil benefits that should not be denied to any couple, regardless of gender. Churches can certainly opt out of performing these unions should they go against the beliefs of that particular religion. You are free to believe whatever you like about the morality of it, but should NOT be free to legislate and deny the same benefits and rights that you enjoy in marriage to any other United States citizen.

Heather Barber - nature's God, the God of nature refers to separation based on political issues, not the right to change the legal definition of marriage, in fact I suspect that it was not even in their remotest thoughts as they penned it. But I appreciate you adding another instance of God mentioned in the document.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation"

Dale the book, "Evidence That demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell, is one man's opinion. Of course, if he is trying to prove that it is intact he will find a way to do so. And, of course, you, and your kind will take his word as law. But it is impossible for that book to be as it was originally written. Your bible quotes are ludicrous in that they assume that everyone's lives should be based on your beliefs and what was fitting for a people that lived over 2000 years ago. From what I can see the people who cling to their bibles are the people who spout the most hate and fear towards their fellow man. You are no different from fanatical muslims. You just come at it from a different direction.

Dave, I'm so sorry to have confused you with Dale! Mea Culpa.

That's absurd. First, we must take out the religious aspect. Marriage is a contract between 2 people. How many people do you think get married by the clerk of the court or Justice of the Peace? This is not a liberal - conservative issue, as it's a secular v religious question. Maybe you don't know much about American History, but the USA is a SECULAR nation. Religion is only mentioned once in the U S Constitution. But citing your religious views, I'm sure then you are EQUALLY against divorce and adultery? They are as much a sin. Christians are hypocrites, they love to pick and choose what they want to follow. I would also suggest that you read the Brief Ted Olson (Solicitor General under Pres Geo. H W Bush) submitted to the 9th Circuit U S CT of Appeals in the CA Prop 8 case. Makes a compelling reason why ALL Americans should be for marriage equality. It appears that you don't believe in the American principles that all people should be treated equally. Read the Supreme Ct opinion in 1967 of the Loving v. VA (interracial marriage) and that opinion directly relates to marriage equality....

Really?...most recent polls show a majority in favor of gay marriage...seems like in fact your view is a minority view. And if you could point to the section of the Constitution that showed the founders were in any way concerned about when and if Jesus would be returning I would appreciate it.

Roger, why do you think that the gods of your village are the gods of my village?

We also cannot forget that many LGBT people identify as practicing Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc. Not only does your view represent a homophobic one, it generalizes the "liberal agenda" and I strongly suggest you take a look at politics without the lens of religion and "Godlessness."

Please reference this graphic:
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/285345_10151300713206275_1383284360_n.jpg

Boom! David Aponte's graphics says it all. Thank you, David, for being the voice (or photo) of great wisdom and reason.

Actually, I believe it was the Pilgrims who came here to get away from the "papists" that decided to make marriage a civil institution and not require it to be a religious one. That is, one can legally get married in a courtroom, or by a judge, or a captain on a boat. So, you can't force someone to get married in a church in this country. That's in accord with the amendment that says Congress shall make no law establishing religion as well. For that reason, not allowing gay marriage does seem to violate the peoples' civil rights.

What if your wrong!OK lets say there is a God and he really dont wont same sex or anything other than male and female,yall are going to be in some deep trouble.You may wont to ask Jesus in your heart then try praying about it.I think I know what he would say though and I believe that is why so many choose not to believe in the God that created ALL that we know and have come to love.

Again, if you want to enact/perpetuate discriminatory laws, and have them hold up in court, you have to be able to justify them using NON-religious arguments ... as per the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. Also, FYI, even the Catholic scholars behind the Church's own NAB translation ... hardly a pro-gay bunch ... acknowledge that Romans 1 is talking about 1st-century practices like pederasty. The fact that you automatically think of ALL homosexuals when a passage addresses lust-crazed pederasts is more a reflection on your own personal biases than it is Biblical.

Jack, marriage is a human and societal construct. I don't recall that Adam and Eve were married. Some societies practice polygamy, not exactly a marriage between A man and A woman. Gays do not sin by being gay, any more than you do by being straight. And no one is mocking God.

racism is a sin, and hate is a sin, if you hate 1 you hate both

if you really believe that story about Adam and Eve then you have to believe we are all the product of incest. I think discrimination is discrimination and the choice people make for a life partner is no one's business.

Again another homophobic but his belief in God make him have to say he does not hate..... because if he does, no ticket to heaven. As for the Bible, its your to believe but not yours to dictate to others what they should live by. That is the problem of religion today, its the I am right because this book and one of fiction says so, so if you don't then your wrong. You know how many times in history this way of thinking has killed millions?

Bible also says no bacon cheeseburgers (double-whammy in Leviticus) as well as no cotton-poly blends (again, Leviticus) - keeping it Old Skool!

And let's keep in mind - sin, as defined, is deliberate action, attitude, or choice that goes against God. Gay is not a choice. Repeat that 1000 times until it sinks in. No more than straight is a choice. You didn't choose.

Who cares about Romans Chapter 1? And why should present day people be expected to live by the opinion of those that wrote it?

Paul was an old, misogynistic liar. Why would we ever care what he wrote in Romans in his effort to sway the citizens of Rome to start following him (he was mad for power, after all).

Jack, you say God created marriage at the beginning of time. Do you mean that he created marriage 13.7 billion years ago? Was marriage just for our species, or does it include all sentient life on the >7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe (based upon current estimates)? Does God monitor homosexuality (or its equivalent) on any of these other planets or is he only focusing on Earth? At what point in our evolution did he start recording valid marriages; homo habilis?, neanderthal? before homo sapiens migrated from Africa to the Levant? How did our ancestors know that homosexuality was a sin if he didn't tell anyone (on our planet) that it was wrong for the first 178,000 years that we were a species? I am not being facetious. If you want to make laws discriminating against some of your neighbors based upon the claim that God hates gays, you need to back that up with something more concrete that the writings of a bronze age tribe.

Jack, I'm with you. But I can tell you right now that the best thing to do is back away from the argument, because these small-minded Bible-phobes will twist every word you say. Isn't it funny that, while they are so busy labeling anyone who disagrees with their opinion as purveyors of hate, their own speech virtually drips with it? Their open disregard for God or anything approaching morality speak volumes about what's wrong with today's society. I just thank God there are still a few people left with some moral fiber.

Jack - I applaud you for standing up for what you believe in...even when you know you will be the minority...whats popular is not always right and what's right is not always popular.

I think the gay community will happily accept all the responsibilities of marriage.

Me thinks you as a Republican are the fooled one.........

agreed 100%

One has to remember "Virginia is for Lovers" has in small print "with exceptions". One must also remember that Virginia also had exceptions a long time and it took "Loving vs Virginia" to overturn that exception. Virginia's motto on our State Flag has lots of exceptions.

Hear! Hear! Go Carol!

couldn"t have said it better

Carol, your comment is worse and more vile than the comments of those you seek to condemn because they have values and opinions that you disagree with! I am not aware of conservatives "owning" anyone since the 1860's! IMHO, choosing and living the homo lifestyle violates nature. I don't know what the bible or religions say because I don't buy into religion. I believe homosexuality is a sickness like drug or alcohol addiction.

Talk about judgemental, Carol and the rest of the close minded individuals that sterotype "Conservative", "Republicans" , etc. - get over yourselves. As a Conservative and a Catholic I could care less about same sex marriage.

You may want to find some REAL history books, Carol. Our Government is not a Democracy; it's a Republic (as in, "and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God...). In a true Democracy, every issue would be voted on by every citizen; in a Republic, we elect representatives to decide the issues (theoretically) as we would vote.

The last line is a good distinction to make, Vineet. There are many variations of both "Conservatives" and "Liberals".
Clearly, the tribe of "Conservatives/Republicans" currently in our legislature in Richmond have a big gap in common sense. They continue to pass laws that infringe on the rights of couples to live life and practice whatever they wish. They want to deny women the right to make personal decisions -- yet they want to know every personal act. In order to DO this, they must expand some branch of government significantly to designate them the "bedroom police" charged with tracking every zygote to protect it, every act of fornication or anything kinky, etc etc. That adds up to big bucks for taxpayers to cover the costs of our pious legislators' personal biases and nosiness.
Oh -- they didn't mean to establish bedroom police units? Then why the he*l waste all that time and effort on legislating what they cannot enforce?
Just lighten up and live and let live!

Michele, your comments are hypocritical! If the homos kept their degenerate behavior behind "closed doors"it would be one thing. The problem is their need to constantly announce their degenerate choices to everyone desperately hoping we will accept their abnormal behavior as "normal." Simply put, homosexual behavior is gross and grotesque and the homos should stop constantly reminding us of their abnormal behavior and try to act normal for a change.

Jr nalex, how many gay people have you seen having sex in the streets. Your comments are very offensive. My son is gay and he is not a degenerate, not abnormal, nor does he deserve your scorn. And you don't deserve my replies so I won't post to you again. Grow up.

Jr. if you are what you consider to be 'normal' than this country is in a sorry state, for sure

jr nalex- what an absurd post. Your ignorance is only exceeded by your stupidity. Homosexuality has been in our society for thousands of years. Abnormal? By whose definition? It's actually fairly normal. It's practiced in many species. Maybe you need to do what repub MS Gov Haley Barbour stated 2 months ago... go see a proctologist. It's nice to see that the younger generation tends to be more intelligent, and tolerant. They see the stupidity of moronic views like yours. Times are changing... and passing you by...

Nice Jr Nalex...I'm thinking your passion/hate has more about your feelings about yourself.
"normal" is a relative word.

Hey, buddy, this is a column on gay marriage. As for comments on "a Singapore nanny state that breeds jealousy and comtempt for those who want to be successful"
(sounds like a complete nutter to me), please try your own thread. Right, Vineet?

pretty moronic post you wrote... Did you flunk reading comprehension?

Unless the religious principles...which principled people call morals...are made up by God, the Creator, in which case I give Him precedence over your beliefs. I understand that some people may not believe in a God or wish to recreate God in their own image. God gave free will and I respect it and your right to exercise it. I just don't want people duped that just because the law says its ok, that it automatically becomes ok in God's eyes and that somehow God is bound by the law when it comes to His pre-stated consequences.

Dale - maybe you forgot that this country is a SECULAR nation. I don't see the word Christian one time in the U S Constitution. I see religion only listed once. What many people forget about their history is that many of our forefathers were deists. Thomas Jefferson was on. He re-wrote the bible... check out the "Jefferson Bible." FYI, millions of people do not believe in your fairy tales of the bible.. the greatest book ever written by man.

last i heard free will means just that so if god gave it then it was givin to people to do what they wish with who they wish... DALE so maybe you should get better educated. and hey let me know when you meet god in person. ok

McLean...."any sex - straight or gay - was frowned upon outside of marriage"....except when slave owners raped and had sex with slaves, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

Wow, that George Washington raping his slaves and people not frowning upon it statement was pretty bizarre. Racially obsessed much?!? lol

Erin, it is true and known that slave owners thought they had free sexual access to their slaves. Jefferson had an "affair" with Sally Hemmings...how is it a mutual affair when she was his property. I didn't intend to take the conversation in a different direction but I don't like much of this talk about marriage between one man and one woman and idealizing how things were in the past.

Carol spoke the truth. How is speaking the truth bizarre?...Other "than" the truth being bizarre?

Convert or kill all unbelievers is a Christian value that America was certainly founded on. Just ask the Native Americans, or the blacks kidnapped from Africa and force-fed Christianity. Women are less than human is another Christian value America embraced for a very long time. Another would be we are the chosen people of God and anyone who opposes us is a servant of Satan.
One cannot find any uniquely Judeo-Christian values in the Constitution or the Declaration. The values in the latter tend to be hedonistic if anything (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness). The US was founded as a republic, which is pretty much antithetical to Christian thought for most of history. The society embraced Christian values, as nearly all white immigrants were Christians. Faith, Hope, Charity were pretty much universally held to be the highest moral values.
But one quickly finds sectarian differences... Is "Hard Work" a Christian value, or merely a "Western" value? How universal was the Calvinist view of mankind as intrinsically sinful? Some would have said yes...but many would have said no. The Quakers and the Calvinists, both Christian, would have seen many things very differently.

The civil rights act would not have happened if Martin Luther King Jr. were not a Christian and a "Reverend Martin Luther King Jr." . A man with authority. Not a woman, not a homosexual married to another man. -And, he did it peacefully striking at the morals of a Christian nation. This core value is at the heart of why we need to recognize and respect our roles. Lost young men such as those in gangs will most respect the words of peace and love from another man. The same words coming from a woman, I'm sorry, but will not carry the same weight, nor from a homosexual man. On the contrary, it will counter peace and love to the young man's plight to be a real man. This is nature as much as we wish it weren't so. We're the most tolerant nation that ever was and it's not thanks to atheism.

Okay...the nuts are in full force. Art, I'm going to do better things with my mind today. I'm going to clean my house, do the laundry, cook dinner, and tend to my fiancee's every whim. That way, I'll be sure to find salvation...

McLean Patriot, Please go read America's "Treaty of Tripoli" That is history and a document of the USA. It so proves America was not founded on any religious beliefs.You so called "Patriots" seem to make up what you want.

McLean - you need to do a lot more research. What exactly are Judeo-Christian principles? It's called common sense. Many of our forefathers were deists.

McLean Patriot, there are two Carols on this thread, so I don't know if you're directing your last comment to me (Carol Lewis) or the other Carol. If it is to me, I agree with you that over time Virginia will come into the 21st century and like other states fully embrace gay marriage. I have a gay son and it is my hope for him that he can marry like my other children. I like you am very thankful that we have the separation of church and state championed by Jefferson (a deist, not a Christian). But he was a slave owner and engaged in the same activities of other slave owners and it was condoned at the time. I was responding to your comment that sex outside of marriage was frowned upon, but sex with slaves was not. For the most part I'm on your side! Thanks for your thoughtful comments. You might want to read the other Patch article about the General Assembly failing to repeal the gay marriage ban.

Well stated, Kathleen, could not have said it better myself. Thank you.

Actually God has a problem with divorce too. According to Him, He only permits it in cases of sexual immorality. To say that one moral infraction can be justified because other moral infractions occur is not an effective argument. That 'Bible people' seek morality in their lives and government is not that hard to understand.

Dale, what God has a problem with or doesn't, is not the question being discussed. The question being discussed is state law. God's law has to be determined by each individual in their own hearts, and in their own actions. I don't know why you are so determined to push God on the subject.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Heterophobia

I married a couple this past August as an officiant. I am not a member of any religious organization or an employee of the government. All that was required was that the couple had a state license and a small fee was paid to make me the officiant. The whole thing is about a ceremony among people that know one another acknowledging the love shared by two people making a commitment to one another. There really is no reason for religious or state sanctioning of commitments between people that choose to do so. Religious and state involvement are artificial constructs that are about control and revenue. How many millions of people worldwide from prehistory to the present have become couples in the context of a simple ceremony among family and friends that were not sanctioned by religious or state authority? Neither religion or the state has any authority to be the deciders with respect to who one falls in love with or marries.

David, just because a deviant behavior is acceptable by a group does not change the fact that it is not right. There is a big difference between legal and right and what is considered legal is not always right!

Your name suits you perfectly.

Trippin Heavy, you're still trippin. Being gay is not a mental illness. The American Psychiatric Association removed it from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in the early 70's because there was no scientific proof that it was a mental illness. Time to catch up with the times.

Whaaaat??? Please don't smoke and comment. :)

Must be cartel weed. Maybe some good old HG will dissipate the bad karma.

@trippin, you are absolutely correct! Thank you for having the integrity to be honest with yourself and us too! Great comments!

Cool threadjack, bro.

Trippin Heavy... your ignorance is only exceeded by your stupidity. How is being gay unnatural? Just the opposite, it's very natural. Many animal species practice it. It has been a part of man for thousands of years. Mental illness? That must be something you suffer from. I would suggest that you seek help quickly. Being gay is similar to being left-handed... It just is, but very normal. BTW, marriage has nothing to do with procreation. One can eaisly procreate without being married....There are elderly people that get married, can't have kids... and young couples who choose not to have children..

Wow Patty. Aside from the fact that your reasoning demands the explicit State establishment of religion, what a wacky and fundamentally irrelevant quote. You posted on the internet on Sunday. Let’s consider Exodus 35:2: God demands that everyone should be killed that works on the Sabbath day. Were you ever, or do you now have any kids? Deuteronomy 21:18-21: God demands we kill disobedient teenagers. And there’s always: Deuteronomy 22:13-21: God demands that we kill women whom are not virgins when they marry. And Deuteronomy 13-17 contain too many positively bizarre depictions of Biblical murder to quote them all. So, please, before you go all KJV on this issue, please bear in mind that the Bible you’ve quoted is little more than a dumbed-down version, created over the course of many centuries for an audience that, for the first thousand years, was 99% illiterate.

Unless of course the man meets someone else, and wants a divorce

Patty, your point is???? Since marriage has nothing to do with religion. Marriage is a contract between 2 people. In fact, thousands of years ago, many people were not married by any priest. Marriages were arranged between families for economic reasons. Millions of people get married outside the church, as they do not believe in your fairy tales. If you don't want to marry a gay person, don't... that's OK. But to deny another citizen the right to do so is unAmerican. Besides your religious reasons, do you have any others?

As I recall MLK relied on the actions of a woman with moral authority striking peacefully at the immoral Jim Crow laws by refusing to move to the back of the bus. They just released a postage stamp in her honor. I imagine a world where being a heroic figure impacting society no longer has the requisites of gender, faith or who you love.

Patent nonsense.

My gay friends who are already 100% committed to each other will negatively impact "our culture, the definition of who we are as a nation and stretch the limits of those we ask to sacrifice and risk death to defend people which define our nation?"

Because they'll register at Crate and Barrel?

I don't even know what "stretch the limits" etc. means. Whackadoodle.

Art... I thought about answering your absurd post... but it's so far out in right field would be a total waste of time. Marriage is the union between 2 people. It is you who define it between man-women. There are millions of people who do not subscribe to your fairy tales. You mention values... Whose values? What values? I'm sure you are aware that adultery and divorce are a sin. Yet we accept that, do we not? Why? Because Christians are hypocrites. But we must take religion out of the equation. Religion is not involved in millions of marriages.

People do leave their estates to their pets on occasion, a practice most often reserved for a surviving spouse.

If you're a traditionalist, how can you justify denying basic contractual rights to gays qua being gay? No ownership of property as tenants by entireties. Restricted rights to some classes of insurance benefits. Restrictions on some testamentary rights. Limitations on rights relating to defined-benefit plans and public employee benefits. How does the impairment of contracts that have been duly performed and as to which rights are vested, and that are not otherwise unlawful, something that the typical gay-hater suddenly embraces?

Marriage can be defined as between two adults, not a person and an animal. Get real, for heavens sake. We're talking about love between two people.

Cool straw-man argument, bro.

Is it a coincidence that the people who post the most whackadoodle posts do so anonymously?

What happened to Patch's rule about using a real name? At least I thought there was one. ?

Your comment only demonstrates that your ignorance is only exceeded by your stupidity.

I'm still laughing.

Why are so many anti-gay commentators fixated on sex with animals?

Why are so many homophiles unable to see the similarities among perversions?

Civil rights should never be put to a vote. Times are changing and Virginia needs to catch up.

What percentage of Virginians approved of desegregation in the 1960s? If the federal government had not stepped in and demanded equal rights, we might still have segregated schools, libraries, etc.

Probably the same majority that were complacent with separate but equal, the legal doctrine in the US constitutional law that justified systems of segregation. The greatness of this nation has been about giving rights to citizens thus giving them a voice not denying them rights and silencing them. Somebody who thinks that a majority can oppress minorities and forcefully subject them to its will is not a democrat. Such a person would be a Fascist.

The part where someone's prejudice could deny another human being's civil rights

Your moronic point is? Maybe you should study the Supreme Court case: Loving v. VA. 1967. In 1967 I would presume that the majority of Virginians were against interracial marriage also...Wrong is wrong. Marriage equality is the right course and we see more and more people coming to believe that.

This.

nice post. The people you mentioned haven't a clue about what being an American really is...

People plagued by homosexual desires have all the rights they deserve. There is no reason to provide them with privileges. Just because their method of achieving an organism involves a member of the same sex is no entitlement to the same priviledges that should be afforded to procreating couples. Every child is entitled to a mommy and a daddy. While that is not always possible there shouldn't be laws that encourage a homosexual union for child rearing.

Observer -- civil marriage, in the form of benefits and protections granted to couple by the state, to promote the health and stability of families ... be they composed of just the couple, the couple plus biological children, or the couple plus kids from adoption, previous relationships, etc. Those reasons apply just as strongly for families built around same-gender couples as for those built around straight couples. There is no evidence that children raised by same-gender couples are at any disadvantage compared to those raised by straight couples ... aside from whatever bigotry they encounter.

Observer - I think you mean "orgasm"? Children deserve two loving parents, something that they sometimes do not get in heterosexual parents. My child's father abandoned him. There is no requirement to have children when two people marry. And did you get married for the purpose of achieving "organism" (sic)? It's about love, not sex.

Sexual relations are for procreation and they are a bonding force between a husband and a wife. Sex as an instrument of recreation leads to all sorts of interesting activities that don't benefit the individuals or society.

Observer -- the notion that sexual relations are purely for procreation is almost entirely a Catholic notion, and most Catholics probably don't buy it, either. As for being a "bonding force" ... that is no less true for same-gender couples than for straight. Your point continues to be totally irrelevant ... now with some misconceptions added it ... when it comes to matters of CIVIL law. Again, procreation is NOT fundamentally tied to civil marriage in this country, and hasn't been all along.

Observer, if you never had sex for fun, I pity you! It can be a bonding agent for all couples regardless of gender. And by your logic, your old woman and her poodle would not be allowed to marry unless they plan to have a ..... child? puppy?
Really?
I don't thing gay people think they are "plagued" by homosexual desires. This is natural for them. Did you choose to be straight?

Scripture was given by the Set Apart(holy) Spirit.. read the Scriptures ..
Matt. 10:20, "For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you."
1 John 5:6, "And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth."
2 Sam. 23:2, "The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me; his word was on my tongue."
John 14:26, "These things I have spoken to you, while abiding with you. "But the Helper, the Set Apart (holy) Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
Luke 12:12, "for the Set Apart (holy) Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."

He said the same thing to me but via Facebook...apparently, even God has joined the 21st century. :)

That was one heck of a long distance call.

Why?

That's your opinion. That doesn't mean it's true. Other people are more tolerant and believe otherwise.

OK Diana ... now, the next step normally would be some sort of statement as to WHY you think civil marriage in the US should be limited to a man and a woman.

Diana... why? You list no reason for your belief... Maybe you don't have one. Maybe you never thought it through? Maybe you haven't read the U S Constitution? Maybe you believe that not all citizens should be treated equal? Maybe you really don't know what marriage is? Maybe you are a christian hypocrite? Maybe you are a nightmare....

Amen, Diana. If all the earth was heterosexual, life would go on and no one would notice. If all the earth was homosexual, all life would cease. Testing the limits is just one way to show that homosexuality is simply not necessary but heterosexuality is vital.

@Observer -- totally irrelevant to the discussion.

Without homosexuality this whole discussion would be irrelevant, OldDaveNJ

Observer -- but there IS homosexuality. It's a fact of nature. Please try to deal with reality as it exists.

>Without homosexuality this whole discussion would be irrelevant, OldDaveNJ

But homosexuality has existed since the dawn of humanity, and will continue to do so despite hateful, homophobic people like you “Observer”. So any discussion that involves humans will involve gay people. Deal with it.

Why? If you don't believe in gay marriage, nobody is telling you you must marry someone of the same sex. So why do you insist on telling a gay person that they can only marry someone of the opposite sex?

Brad -- I'm not sure why you find that hilarious. One definition of homophobia is "discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." (See Merriam-Webster.) Opposing same-gender civil marriage is, again almost by definition, supporting discrimination against same-gender couples when it comes to the benefits/protections granted to married straight couples. Your amusement seems mostly to be the result of a poor grasp of the English language.

As the pot calls the kettle black.

Brad... your comment only shows that your ignorance is only exceeded by your stupidity. As x Repub MS Gov. Haley Barbour stated 2 months ago... you "should go see a proctologist." You suffer from a severe case of CRI - Cranial Rectal Insertion. I know many gays who would disagree with you about being heterosexual. With divorce rates over 50%, they are really setting a great example. And what are leads the nation in divorce????? The Bible Belt.....talk about hypocrisy..

OldDaveNJ, Bobby and Mike,
Your liberal agenda will continue to ruin this country. My opinion counts as much as yours. Deal with it girls.

But Brad -- your comment wasn't just your opinion. Words have accepted meanings as defined in, for example, Merriam-Webster. Your claim about not being homophobic, while supporting denial of equal treatment for same-gender couples, was just factually wrong.

OldDaveNJ, all you do is to quote a dictionary. Your interpretation is factually wrong.
The fact is same sex couples should not have equal rights. Of course, this country is headed in that direction as it is for other things which is further weakening the country. America is like the old Roman Empire. You may want to look that up.

Jack, you don't know what the motives of these men 'inspired by God' were. You weren't there. You also don't know the motives of those who have since, added, deleted and translated the original texts were.

I met my Maker's but they are now deceased and buried. They were my parents. As for your fairy tale god... how do you know it's a him and not an it?

Heard you the first time

And Kim, what happens when one of their children is gay?

Legal equality can be very slow - it was for blacks, women, people of some religions, (In our last 1950's house in Maryland, the original covenants stated no semitic people could live in the subdivision unless they were servants. Basically, no Jews allowed.)

The military didn't crash and burn when "don't ask don't tell" was repealed, despite all so called logical reasons that prejudiced people (who swore they were not) came up with. Same with women's right to vote, and civil rights. "I'm not prejudiced! It's just not natural for women to vote!"

Beth, I think you missed Kim's point... It seems to me that she too doesn't get the argument against it..

Beth, I think that you might have misunderstood me. I completely support marriage for all.

Kim, yes I understood you, agreed with you, and was taking what you said a step further. Sorry if I wasn't clear. : )

Becky, how do you rationalize that many Christian leaders disagree with you?

And I'm curious how other religions fit into your thinking.

Becky -- As I noted earlier, there are many faithful, intelligent, scripturally-literate Christians (and Jews) who have studied the Bible and who, for good reason, believe that there is nothing wrong with loving, committed same-gender relationships. Instead of worrying about what others do, perhaps you should consider what it says about you, that you believe that your understanding of God's Word/Will is so perfect and infallible. And, not only that, but you feel entitled to ignore the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment and enshrine your religious beliefs in the laws of the land.

Becky... you make ait a religious argument, and that is incorrect. You mention procreation, and that is not the argument. In fact, to insert it into the argument only demonstrates that you haven't a clue what the argument really is. There are many couples that marry and decide not to have children. There are many older couples that get married and they can't have children. Your religious dogma is sheer lunacy. I am not trying to "slam" you, but for you to interject your dogma upon me is unAmerican. We are not a christian nation, we are a SECULAR nation. I don't see christianity in the U S Constitution anywhere. I see the word "religion" only once. Many of our forefathers were deists not christians. They believed in a supreme being, not chritianity. Thomas Jefferson re-wrote the bible. Wonder why the University of VA does not have a divinity school? Thom Jefferson will tell you. Lastly, christians are a huge group of hypocrites... I didn't see once in your post that adultery and divorce were as bad as homosexuality in you mind??? Simply amazing. I also haven't seen any preacher stand up and state that people who divorce will burn in hell??? or people like Newt "I never met an aide I didn't love" Gingrich who has had multiple affairs and divorces but yet is "saved" only demonstrates the stupidity of your post and religion.

How does gay marriage destroy family values? Seems to me divorce and adultery do more harm that the marriage of a couple that love each other.

Becky, can you point to the part of the bible where Jesus condemns homosexuality? If you truly believe marriage is for the purpose of procreation is it your contention that marriage between a man and woman beyond their child bearing years should be illegal? As to your last comment, there is absolutely nothing preventing Christians - or anyone else - from saying anything they want. We only ask you don't use the levers of Government to force your religious views on the rest of us...

Oh my.

Either way, she was a slave and powerless to do anything about it. The decisions were not her own. She was property and therefore subject to the whim of whoever might want her.

The overwhelming consensus among historians and Jefferson scholars is that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemmings's children. It certainly was not "more likely" Randolph. Thomas Jefferson is the only possible father of her children who was present every time she conceived. That is the wishful thinking of people who cannot stand the fact the founders were not the "tea party" caricatures they have been made out to be, and certain descendants who cannot face up to the truth.

Mmmm, wrong Jim. If you would like to read more on the Jefferson-Hemmings agenda here is a good article. My uncle was the one they drew blood from to test the Jefferson DNA as discussed in the "Nature" article. (See below linK) You have the right to believe what you like but just accepting something as truth just because someone says it's so doesn't make it so. Do a little research, however I seriously doubt it will change your view. http://www.tjheritage.org/ http://www.rumormillnews.com/jefferson.htm

Yes Becky I know all about the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society and their ilk. They start with an agenda, and attempt to find evidence, or lack there of, to prove it. The Thomas Jefferson Foundation which runs Monticello, the National Genealogical Society, which criticized the TJHF report for its poor scholarship and for not following accepted standards of evaluating evidence, as well as a number of other studies have concluded that evidence shows Thomas Jefferson to be by far the most likely father of Sally Hemmings children. Dissenters didn't even seriously propose Randolph Jefferson as a possible father until the DNA evidence came out. In addition a 2003 study of original documentation showed Randolph Jefferson to be an infrequent visitor at Monticello. I understand the impulse to deify the founders, but to come to a conclusion and then try to fit the evidence to that conclusion does not bolster the case. Nothing is 100% sure, but the paternity of Sally Hemmings children points overwhelmingly to Thomas Jefferson

The right wing component of the Virginia legislature seems to consider that liberty means being free from overbearing government rules & regs, EXCEPT for those they deem applicable (tranvaginal rape law, anyone?).

Not only can two people marry outside of a religous component, but that is the only thing that is being advocated by supporters of gay marriage like myself andn 95% of the people on this board. This is about civil marriage. Nobody is telling a church that does not believe in gay marriage that they must marry gay couples. That would be against the 1st Amendment. However, there are churches that believe in gay marriage. Having the government with a policy that they cannot perform such marriages is a serious violation of those churches religous freedom - not to mention the gay couples that belong to them.

It is shocking to see such deep amnosity toward the free excercize of religion that the anti-gay marriage crowd exhibits.

Not right for you, or for everyone? Isn't that the discussion here? I know it isn't right for me, but I don't see where the gods would smile upon me if I tried to force that opinion on others. I made my choice; why shouldn't someone else make his or hers?

That's hate and being homophobic.... It also being a bigot and if you feel your not please go look up the word bigot. You fill all three definitions.

You don't have to feel it's right. The people who are in love and want to get married are the ones who feel it is right, and for them, it is. Nobody is asking you to take part, and certainly nobody is going to force you to participate.

Then don't marry another woman. Problem solved.

Yes, Diana you do if you are willing to deny rights to a whole group of people because of who they love. Did you choose to be straight?

Diana -- it is your personal understanding of God and what God says and what God wants that informs your views about same-gender marriage. Other religious groups ... including many Christians and Jews ... feel the exact opposite about it. Many Americans have no beliefs regarding God at all. That is why the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment precludes the enactment/perpetuation of discriminatory laws based solely on the religious beliefs of one sect. If you want these laws against same-gender marriage, and you want them to hold up in court, you need to come up with something other than religious arguments. Otherwise, forcing your beliefs on others through laws that hurt same-gender couples and their families is exactly what you are doing.

You have a right to deny someone their civil rights? What makes you so special?

since there is no god, "it" couldn't have done what you state... And marriage equality has nothing to do with procreation. You don't have to be married to have children... and you can marry and not have children.. That's a bogus argument. (an example are 2 elderly people who marry)

@realtruthhurts -- There are no rational, scientifically-valid, non-religious reasons for same-gender civil marriages to go unrecognized in Virginia. Current laws hurt same-gender couples and their families ... and, in turn, anybody that knows and respects these families or has moral objections to such discrimination. People are going to continue to fight the current law in Virginia until somebody comes up with some good reasons for them (not likely at this point), or they get overturned.

Laws are not always just.

And it is a law that is unconstitutional

Interracial marriage was against the law from the early 1900's to 1967 also.. Maybe you should study the case. It's easy to find. It's Loving v. VA. Supreme Court (1967) ruled 9-0. The opinion is very damning and one could easily substitute marriage equality instead of interracial. The fact that you believe in unAmerican principles is telling. Marriage is a contract between 2 people. What about marriage do you not understand? When you get a divorce.. where do you go? To court, not the church.

Right. That is the law. It is backward and needs to be changed. The existing law is an affront to religous freedom.

Diana, may I ask then where you draw the line as to what is too liberal? Not too long ago, you could have been put into jail for demonstrating for women's right to vote. Many men - and some women - thought that was too liberal.

Diana I'm a proud liberal and if I go to Hell for it it would be fine with me if it means an end to discrimination and bigotry.

This is not a liberal or conservative issue... There are many hard line conservatives who believe in marriage equality. I would suggest that you read Ted Olson's brief to the 9th Circuit U S Court of Appeals. Mr. Olson was the Solicitor General under George Bush (his wife, a TV republican pundit was on one of the planes on 9/11), makes a compelling case why conservatives should be for gay marriage.

Diana, if heaven was composed only of people who believe the way you do, then I would not want to be there. I would rather be wherever those who believe in tolerance and love for all end up.

Jesus was everything the con hate - A bleeding heart, long-haired, peace loving, anti-establishment, liberal hippie freak with strange ideas who hated bankers and gave away health care for free.

Thats what the British said when a bunch of liberals decided to break with the British empire in 1776.

If it came to voting it would be a disgrace. There should be no need to vote to decide if certain people should or should not have civil rights. Their rights should not depend on the whims of antiquated, closed minded, individuals.

why should one vote on a civil right? You remind me of the segregationists of the 1960's. You are no different. If you don;t want to marry a gay person, don't. But what legitimate right do you have to deny someone else the right to marry?

Unfortunately, it was already voted on. A shame, civil rights of minority groups (or anyone) should never be put up to a vote. It is only a matter of time before it is ruled unconstitutional.

Simply said and completely to the point

If marriage is a legal contract, LittleRedRider, what's the consideration?

I'm not sure most supporters of SSM have a strong feelings about polygamy, but there are differences in how they would be viewed under the 14th Amendment. The primary goal of civil marriage, manifested through benefits/protections granted to couples, is to promote strong, stable families ... be they composed of just the couples themselves, the couples plus any biological kids or the couples plus kids from adoption, previous relationships, etc. That all is based on established correlations between the stability of such relationships and the physical, mental, and emotional health of the people in them, along with any kids they may be raising. So two points regarding polygamy. One is that civil marriage is manifested through the granting of benefits and protections; without them there would be no 14th-Amendment issues. And so, with polygamy, one would have to define just what equal treatment means in terms of granted benefits and protections. ERISA protections regarding spousal health plan protections for employer health plans, for example ... would it require all spouses of an polygamist employee be covered? That wouldn't seem very equal from the employer viewpoint. Or social-security survivor benefits ... would they be distributed as long as any spouse remained living? That would extend the typical payout time ... again not equal. One could even argue that since a polygamist can marry any one of his spouses now, and get normal benefits, there is no discrimination.

In terms of the goals of civil marriage, there are also sociological concerns about whether polygamous relationships carry the same health benefits for those involved in them as two-person relationships. That's a matter the courts would have to decide, based on expert testimony. But again, it would be a somewhat different argument.

Doug -- FYI that even the Catholic scholars behind the Church's own NAB translation acknowledge that Romans 1 is talking about 1st-century practices like pederasty ... hence the "inflamed with craving" part. And a reminder that the Sodom story involved would-be same-sex gang-rapists. So quite aside from the fact that your religious views are totally irrelevant when it comes to US CIVIL law, a bigger question in my mind is ... how come, when you read passages about lust-crazed pederasts and gang-rapists, do you automatically associate them with ALL homosexuals. It sounds like your views have much more to do with your own personal biases than about anything the Bible might say.

And an FYI that in US civil marriage law, there is no fundamental connection between marriage and procreation.

Can men who have had vasectomies, certain accidents or testicular cancer breed? No. No marriage for them!

Can women who have uterine wall scarring, twisted Fallopian tubes or have needed hysterectomies breed? No! Spinsterhood for you!

Off with their heads should they decide to marry! Off with them!

"you do know the story of sodom and gomorah ...America is next, for putting away [your god's] commandments" - Yep. Poorly written fiction at it's worst. Seems it was also OT. Didn't your godling have a complete change of heart and decide not to punish willy-nilly?

Doug, can a heterosexual couple that is infertile or over 70 years old breed? NO. Does that mean they should be prohibited from getting married?

Whose creator? Your mother and father? I really don't care what they think. I prefer the secular laws of America be grounded in respect far all.

Doug -- if you are not a Christian, and all translations of the Bible are messed up anyway, why do you keep quoting the Bible to prove your point? Just where did you read the "Creators LAW"??

"They are wrong." - No, they are correct.

"Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature." - In your opinion. The same argument was used when the miscegenation laws were coming under fire.

"Two people of the same sex, regardless of race, money, etc. will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility. Same sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile." - So are infertile couples. Your point? Are you trying to imply that sterile men or women should be prohibited from marrying because they cannot have children? What about people who chose to be childless? Should their marriages become null and void?

"It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union." Got it. Women who have had uterine cancer should be tossed on the ash heap by their spouses. Divorced because they are now "naturally" childless. Men who have had testicular cancer should be tossed on the dung heap as they could never give a woman what she really wants.

In civil marriage law in the US, there is no fundamental connection between marriage and procreation. Try again.

Becky - the "new" morality? Seems to me it is far more immoral to betray your spouse in adultery than it is to let gay people "of good will" marry. They can adopt children who are unwanted in a straight marriage. Gay teachers teach children every day and don't turn them gay; straight teachers teach children every day and don't turn them straight. There is no requirement that one have children when one marries, no matter what gender.

Actually, that is exactly what you are saying. Sterility = sterile union. Your words. Your intent.

Marriage is not just about having kids.

Simple questions that no one has ever been able to answer: How would the marriage of two gay men (or lesbians) harm your own marriage? Why should some people not be afforded the same protections under the law which you so jealously guard?

Again, civil marriage is not about procreation. Your point is irrelevant.

Becky, give it up. My husband and I didn't produce children from our marriage - we were too old. One thing to consider - gay couples seldom seek abortions.

You are so right, Carol Lewis, "gay couples seldom seek abortions." But when they do it is very confusing.

If you're suggesting that the government use the word "marriage" for straight couples, and something like "civil unions" for same-gender couples, that doesn't work very well. First, there are legal issues having to do with federal benefits; same-gender couples in states with civil unions are still denied federal benefits ... and that will still be the case when DOMA falls. And sociologically, having parallel sets of laws using different terminology inevitably lead to continuing inequalities, no matter the intent of the laws; see reports from bipartisan Civil Union Review Commissions on the state websites of New Jersey and Vermont ... that found that civil unions fall short and likely cannot be fixed. If you want to use a word other than marriage in civil law, it has to be for everybody. And that seems to be an awfully inefficient, complicated way to go about things when people should just recognize the obvious (and long-standing) reality that civil marriage and religious marriage are two separate and distinct things.

Hi James, as one who has "thrown about 'homophobe'", I want to say this. I'm sick of people who start sentences with "I'm not (racist, anti-gay, miscegenistic, anti-woman) but....." and then go on with some negative aspect of whatever group that they don't like. Perhaps in some instances "homophobic" is too strong as maybe those people don't "fear" gays, but they are anti-gay on some level if they can't see their way clear to treat everyone with respect and dignity and accord them the same rights as others. My son is gay, as I've said before. He is a wonderful, strong, sensitive person who works hard for social justice on all fronts, and I hate that he can't marry the person he loves, period. To me, everything else is just noise.

I agree with your post - I just wanted to explain the use of the term. Thanks.

I don't understand. How does a loving couple wanting to get married threaten "traditional marriage"?

This post is a joke, right?

Somebody give this guy a tinfoil hat!

Doug, in case you didn't know. We live in the United States of America where freedom of religion is enshrined in our constition. Your religous views are irrelevant. If you feel that the government should be issuing religous edicts, perhaps you should move to Iran.

Um....ok, thanks Doug. I'll do that.

hmm Doug--have to do a big study on that dollar bill thing....please send my all your Luciferian pyramid dollars

Think he's been playing all of his CDs and DVDs backwards...

Exactly. There is an assumption that marriages involve sex, but that ignores the time-tested marriage of convenience and other forms of contracts that for sake of definition are called "marriage".

Interesting diagnoses, Herr Doktor. And you got this from noticing posts on a web site? This will revolutionize our medical speciality!

The advancement of equal rights and social justice for LGBT Virginians will not move as quickly as it should, but sanity and fairness will eventually prevail. The outspokenness of citizens like you and many others on this thread will ultimately make a difference. Those spewing hatred and ignorance will be relegated to the likes of other ignominious groups trying to subvert the principles and ideals of our founding documents.

There are other arguments (not yet used here), usually involving blatant misrepresentations of science. Fortunately, they seem to be coming up less and less in discussions like this. Perhaps the turning point was when Focus on the Family reps made complete idiots of themselves citing parenting studies before Congress that any middle-school student could see were totally irrelevant ... and as Al Franken pointed out, perhaps even a bit contradictory to their views. (Of course, some of the anti-gay legal briefs being file w./ the Supreme Court are doing the same thing.) So yeah ... I've seen that, both here and elsewhere ... the more intelligent SSM opponents seem to be dropping out of online arguments like this, perhaps because it's becoming too obvious that their "rational, fact-based, non-religious" reasons are anything but. That just leaves the kinds of argument you cited. On the whole, I find that to be encouraging.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

"I'm not homophobic, I just intensely dislike homosexuals and think what they're doing is evil and wrong."

Observer -- Merriam-Webster defines homophobia as the "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." If you support discriminatory laws that deny same-gender couples the same legal rights that straight married couples get, you are, by definition, homophobic. If you have an aversion to homosexuality, you are, by definition, homophobic. You qualify on both counts. It is often applied to people like you because, by definition, it is precisely what you are. Rather than objecting to it, you should embrace the term.

Unless you can present RATIONAL reasons why you object to homosexual behavior...and that mean reasons that go beyond "BIBLE!" or "EWWW!"...you are homophobic, by the actual, technical, literal definition of the word.

Hal Mangold, you could wait a little longer before declaring yourself a bully. But it was probably over your head anyway.

So it's bullying to call attention to the fact that you do, in fact, fit the technical and actual dictionary definition of a homophobe? I was bullied fairly extensively as a child, and I seem to remember it involving a lot more agression and a lot less reason.

But I'm sorry, when you are pretty much calling a big bunch of friends of mine who I know to be good, moral, loving human beings perverts and practitioners of deviant behavior, I'm going to be a little strident in defending them.

Observer, you are entitled to your views even if they are homophobic. But don't try to say you are not a homophobe. You are obvioulsy a proud homophobe so you should proudly admit it.

I only dislike anything about homosexual activity. Folks that suffer from homosexual tendencies are to be helped not pitied or hated or given special privileges. Homophiles on the other hand are in need of a good dose of common sense.

It most likely became intertwined with the change from hunter gatherer societies to agrarian societies and the advent of organized religion. Hunter gatherers were too consumed with day to day survival without the level of leisure time to ponder their existence and to create social hierarchies outside of giving power to those best suited to provide food. Agrarian societies gave rise to villages & towns and leisure time since abundant food stores did not pressure people to devote most of their time towards obtaining food. People with leisure time devote energy to create art and culture. This stage in cultural/societal evolution also marks the beginning of writing to keep an accounting of food stores, standing armies (warriors) to protect food stores, leaders (Kings & political class) to command warriors and religion with a hierarchy of priests and priestesses to keep civilian populations in check. Primitive cultural practices among hunter gatherers were passed orally from one generation to the next. With the beginning of writing in agrarian societies, cultural ideals were recorded and their expression was dominated by a cultural elite that could read and write. Power and influence, the same then as today only instead of parchment or clay tablets we have fading print media and a growing electronic media market. Attitudes on sexuality in the ancient world varied as much as in modern times. Whether it is religion or state marriage it is about control and revenue.

Good Lord, no! We don't need the government to add any more forms to the process!

Observer -- people are taking exception to quoting from the Bible, not because they object to Biblical principles (though some undoubtedly do), but because it is totally irrelevant when it comes to civil law in the US .. as per the Establishment Clause of 1st Amendment.

It's called "having a moral compass instilled by loving parents and a most-of-the-time just society". Do you seriously think it;s not possible to be a moral human being without resorting to a book? Because that is UTTER NONSENSE.

I have no objection to quoting from the Bible if it makes sense, but if you start quoting Leviticus at me, well, don't expect me to give your words much weight.

OldDaveNJ, your attempts to divorce Biblical principles from civil law are noted, but irrelevant. Every good principle in civil law existed first in the bible.

Also your attempts to limit the scope of the discussion on this site are noted. Who made you the site modierator? Or are you just trying to marginalize those whose position can only be attacked that way.

Your views about the ties between the Bible and civil law don't change the fact that the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment precludes basing laws on the religious views of any particular group. If you want to base laws about civil marriage on religious beliefs, whose religious beliefs should be used?? Those of Judeo-Christian faiths that agree with you or those who totally disagree with you?? There is a reason why we have the Establishment Clause. If you want to enact/perpetuate discriminatory laws, you have to be able to justify them using NON-religious arguments. You are free to raise all the theological issues you want ... but they are, again, totally irrelevant to matters of CIVIL marriage law. That is just a fact, based on the US Constitution.

Is this the part where you declare the US to be a "Christian Nation"? I checked my schedule of how these conversations usually go, and seems to be about time for that.

OldDaveNJ, are you arguing that Congress cannot establish a law that is also a tenant of some religion somewhere? If so, there will be few "civil" laws indeed.

Observer -- of course not; dumb comment. But a law ... particularly a discriminatory law ... cannot be based SOLELY on the religious views of a particular group. You have to be able to justify such laws using NON-religious arguments.

Perusal of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom might be beneficial here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom

Especially relevant line: "That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,..."

Observer - a little history. First, in the many times I've read the U S Constitution, I don't see any reference to christianity... do you? The word religion is used only ONCE... can you find it? Many of our forefathers were deists, not christians. They believed in a supreme being, but not in christianity. I would also point out that Thomas Jefferson thought so highly of the bible, that he rewrote it. Anyone can google the "Jefferson Bible." The principles you claim from the bible are basically nothing more than common sense. I'm still waiting to hear some evangelical tell Newt Gingrich, a man who never met an aide he didn't love, that he was going to "burn in hell" for all his adulterous affairs and 2 divorces. Oh wait, he's been saved.. It's called hypocrisy. Christians love to pick and chose what they follow.. Ask Ricky Santorum... But since the bible is a book of fiction, composed of many fairy tales, millions of people don't take it literally. I would also point out that the USA is a SECULAR nation. Maybe you need to understand that many people came here due to Religious Persecution. They understood the idea of Separation of Church and State. It is not illegal for you to practice your religion, but it is incumbent upon you not to force your views upon me. If you don't want to marry a gay person, don't. If you find it abhorrent, that's OK. But it is you who want to treat 2 people of equal stature differently. It's no different than interracial marriage.

Hal Mangold - I bet Observer has never read the VA Statute on Religious Freedom, Thomas Jefferson's second most famous writing. In fact, I bet most people, especially Gov Bob and AG Ken C. But then again what would you expect.

Mike Ritter, if you can't see the difference between homosexual "marriage" and interracial marriage, you have a rather large problem, probably one that is insurmountable. Also, don't impose homosexual "marriage" on communities that would rather not have what many consider something disgusting within their midst. We would appreciate it if you didn't impose your "moral standards" on communities desiring to raise children without that influence. You are free to go elsewhere and leave us and our children alone.

Appeals to the U.S. Constitution or the Virginia Constitution will not help your argument just as appeals to religion will not help mine. My basis for objecting to homosexuality is that it is not necessary and could end tomorrow without any adverse effects. It is an inferior bonding activity with a higher level of violence between participants, among other disadvantages. A bond between men without sexuality is called friendship. It is not necessary to base a relationship on sex, but that is the very definition of homosexual "marriage". So all your arguments about rights, fairness, second class citizens, hurt feelings, etc. simply boil down to legitimizing a very specific form of lust. I won't impose my beliefs on you and you shouldn't be trying to impose your beliefs on communities that don't want it.

Observer -- you happily have demonstrated your complete ignorance over and over again, so that I rather doubt people will even bother responding to you. Same-gender marriage is no more about sexual intercourse than straight marriage is. As for the parallels with interracial marriage ... sexual orientation is no less a choice than race. Wanting to marry somebody of a different race is no LESS a choice than wanting to marry somebody of the same gender ... except that for homosexuals, they are able to enter into healthy, successful marriages ONLY with people of the same gender. If laws against interracial marriage were unconstitutionally discriminatory, laws against same-gender marriage are even more so. The reasons we have civil marriage -- the promotion of stable healthy families -- apply just as strongly to couples headed up by same-gender couples as they do to those headed up by straight couples, and there is no reason to discriminate. That, under the 14th Amendment, makes it very much parallel to interracial marriage.

Observer - your ignorance is only exceeded by your stupidity. Maybe you forgot that we live in the USA, a republic. In the USA, we protect the rights of the minority against the majority. Maybe you flunked American History & Government. It's amazing that you claim I have a problem in distinguishing the difference between marriage equality and interracial marriage. It is you that appears to have a problem. I bet you've never read the Loving case. Maybe do a little research on the original VA trial court judge's opinion, the 4th Circuit Ct's opinion, the the U S Supreme Ct opinion. I base my comments on U S law. All you cite is religious dogma, that has no bearing on civil or criminal law. As for raising children, it is your bigotry that is detrimental to the health and welfare of are children, It's a good thing that the generation of today is repudiating your bigotry. It's also interesting that the area of the US that leads the nation in the sin of divorce is the bible belt..As for going somewhere else? Who are to to tell someone to go live somewhere else? You are no better than the bigot's/raciest's of the 1960's! Your arguments are the same they used. Totally unAmerican.. totally indefensible. It's a good thing you are now in the minority of this country. BTW, if you ever learned to do any real, legitimate research, most pedophiles are heterosexual, and could be living right next to you. Study the Boy Scout files, you might actually learn something.

Mike Ritter, I am sure we are all very impressed with your knowledge of history and the foundational law of this country. However, the Gay Marriage Ban is legislative law which is reserved to the states and the people of this state don't want homosexual "marriage". End of your "legal" arguments.

Who is objecting to Bible principles? What we object to is your determination to ram your views of the bible down other peoples throats. Don't you even get that?

Ridiculous to believe moral conduct comes from the bible. Inquisitions, wars, massacres, witch hunts, bombings...all in the name of the Christian religion. Millions of people dead over adherence to the Bible. How many atheist inquisitions have you heard of? How many atheist inspired wars or purges? How many organized atheist efforts to treat women as second class citizens? Or to deny whole sectors of our population equal treatment under the law?

Morality existed long before Christianity, the basis of moral behavior that any secular governmental structure is based on predates the Bible.

And in case you have not noticed...the only mention of religion in the Constitution prohibits government's involvement in it...

Of course, no one can answer my original question, "to you who object to Bible principles, what is your basis for conduct?" Could it be fringe sexual gratification? Lust? Etc.?

My apologies, Martin Tillett, you went to all that trouble because I didn't make myself clear. Every good principle in US and VIRGINIA law existed first in the Bible.

>Every good principle in US and VIRGINIA law existed first in the Bible

Wrong but completely irrelevant since US and state laws are thankfully based on the Constitution and not theocratic fiction such as the bible or koran.

And of course, OT insider, the U.S. Constitution was created in a vacuum. Any more bright comments?

aab, I suppose in your world, all folks who want to marry animals but can't get a license to do so are "second class citizens". Please be more specific. Buzz phrases usually mean different things to different people and generate more heat than light.

Nice straw-man, bro.

Observer, drop the ridiculous arguments about people marrying animals right now. No one, I repeat no one, has suggested that except YOU when you thought maybe an elderly woman might want to marry her pet poodle. By your own logic, that marriage is for the purpose of procreation, the woman and her poodle would be denied in that they wouldn't have children, or puppies,or whatever. We are talking about the rights of one adult to marry one other adult - not animals, not children, not multiple people. Please make more dignified comments or refrain.

Carol Lewis, to someone who believes marriage is to establish an eternal bond, to bring children into the world and nurture them to be happy adults, homosexual "marriage" is as funny as an old woman wanting to "marry" her pet poodle.

Observer -- again, civil marriage law in the US does not establish a link between marriage and procreation. As for "eternal bonds" and nurturing children, that can be just as much a part of same-gender marriages as straight.

OldDave, sorry but you begged the question. Not going to be any eternal bonds between two "married" fellows. Only in the Bible can "what is bond on earth be bond in heaven" and since you and your ilk think the Bible is a bunch of fairy tales, good luck on achieving an eternal union, buster.

Observer -- you also seem to be totally ignorant of the fact that many people of Judeo-Christian faiths ... who probably know a lot more about the Bible than you do ... have no problem with same-gender relationships. So (1) not everybody who supports SSM is non-Christian (in fact the majority of SSM supporters are Christian), and (2) what the Bible has to say is strictly a matter of your opinion. (Of course, you will probably claim that your understanding of God's Will/Word is perfect and infallible ... a supremely arrogant and self-righteous position that many SSM opponents take.)

Observer, I do believe marriage is to establish an eternal bond and if one has children, to nurture them to be happy adults. I've done that and my happy adult child is gay. As aab has said, you don't have to like him or me but he deserves more respect as a human being than you've offered in your posts. You're talking about my kid and other people's kids and for us it is personal and all you can do is think it is funny? Really?

The idea of two people of the same sex "marrying" becomes funnier the longer you contemplate it.

Good idea, aab. When you can't respond, flag as inappropriate.

If someone needs to marry someone of the same sex to maintain their "human dignity", they've got problems that don't need to be discussed here.

Homosexual "marriage" involves licensing homosexual sex whether or not it is engaged in.

Observer - what planet did you come here from? Uranus? Please explain "homosexual sex?" First, it has nothing to do with marriage equality. But FYI, the Supreme Court has ruled that sodomy is legal between consenting adults. I would also point out that more heterosexual people commit sodomy that homosexuals. Go do your homework... But I reiterate, it has nothing to do with marriage equality, notr does it have anything to do with a marriage license. .

I don't think there should be a line. It's a CONTRACT, for crying out loud, and as long as the parties are consenting adults, so be it. But baby steps. First we have to outvote those who would require everyone live by their interpretation of a book.

Darkseid: There is a line - proponents of gay marriage are only talking about the right of one adult to marry one other adult regardless of gender. Those that want to marry animals or have multiple spouses should get their own Patch thread. Such stupid comments don't belong here.

Ummm ... Darkseid ... just how would legal recognition of same-gender marriage represent discrimination against bisexual couples?? I hope you're not one of those that think bisexuals are more likely to enter into polygamous relationships than gays or straights. And regarding polygamy ... they can have their day in court, but the issues are quite different. Marriage equality under the 14th Amendment is all about fair and equitable dispensation of civil marriage benefits to US citizens. I'm not sure what that means when you talk about marriages of more than two people. Should ERISA be changed so that when a company grants spousal health benefits they have to grant them to ALL spouses of a polygamous employee?? That wouldn't be very equal. As it is, there is nothing preventing a polygamist from getting married to any one of his/her spouses, getting benefits on a par with any other couple, and living happily with the rest. So it's not even clear they ARE discriminated against under current law, again as far as the benefits and protections are concerned.

Beth Burns said, "One day gay marriage will be allowed everywhere in this country, you can take that to the bank." Don't be so sure, Beth. Look around you. This country is going socialist. The evolution is speeding up. A hallmark of socialism is to promise everything the people want, to gain power. When power is achieved, promises are no longer necessary and the harsh reality of socialism takes over.

Homosexuals don't fare well under socialism. They were gassed under the National Socialist Party and usually simply disappear under modern forms of tyranny.

When the U.S. goes totally socialist, homosexuals not being able to marry in Virginia will be the least of their concerns.

Because I have a feeling I'll find the answer entertaining, I'll ask. Which "National Socialist Party" are you referring to?

@Observer
Sweden is a socialist nation. Sweden legalized same-sex sexual activity in 1944; in that year the age of consent became 18, and has recognized same-sex marriage since 2009.

Observer---Democratic Republic Christian countries don't treat us very well either- Uganda for example. Their Kill the gays, bill funded by American "christians".
Ignorance and intolerance knows no boundries. That is why we have to remember history and not let history repeat itself....and be vocal.

The National Socialist Party that ruled Germany until the end of WWII killed homosexuals for just being homosexual. The natural evolution of socialism is ultimately hard tyranny. It happens when the governed surrender their rights to the government. So one wonders why gays are so pro-Obama. Maybe they think he will "get it [socialism] right" this time.

Study history or repeat it. A gay for Obama is like a chicken for Colonel Sanders.

This is off topic, but you did ask me, Hal Mangold. And before you make the accusation, I certainly don't favor the killing of innocent people.

GODWIN'S LAW! I knew you had it in you, Observer!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Thanks for coming everyone, it's been great. I think we're done here.

Godwin's law pertains to INAPPROPRIATE reference to Nazi's online, Hal Mangold. Best to research something thoroughly before raising your hand.

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

That is Godwin's Law. Thank you for proving it.

Martin Tillet, your observation goes to my point. Until the evolution to socialism is complete, socialists will promise and do anything to gain and stay in power. When conplete control is achieved, the country's consititution and all laws are suspended on pretext and then basic human rights are suspended for the good of the state. I'll bet there is no homosexual "marriage" in North Korea. Their propaganda may proclaim otherwise but until they collapse or are defeated in war, like Germany, we won't have the proof we have about Germany.

@ Observer
My observation does not go to your point at all. You continue to come across a few fries short of a happy meal with your incessant twisting of statements and facts by others on this thread to fit your skewed views. My mother and my in-laws lived in Nazi Germany. Family relations that fled Germany to Sweden in the late 1930's with whom I visit from time to time would disagree that there is any comparison between Nazi Germany and modern Socialist Sweden. Germany today is more in line philosophically with modern Sweden and is very socialist. In 2001 the German Parliament passed legislation recognising same-sex unions. Maybe the experience Germany had in the past is now being mirrored in the US by having narrow minded people such as yourself branding those different from themselves as being a threat to the nation. If you and your ilk were able to wield real power then the US would get to have the 1930's Nazi experience first hand. Find those missing fries from your happy meal and eat them right away. They may help charge up the neurons that have not been firing.

Go ahead Martin. Bury your head in the sand. Make excuses. Give in to normalcy bias. Be the Neville Chamberlain of the homosexual community. You do yourself and your ilk a great disservice.

Observer, for someone who invokes religion, you really want to trample on people's right to excerize their religion, that is for sure!

And what religion would I be trampling on, Chris?

Okay, I'll bite. How am I "trampling on" these religions?

Observer, you really don't get it??? You are taking the position that the government should be able to tell a church who they can and can't marry and you don't see that as a religous freedom problem?

Sounds like you would be alot more confortable living under the Taliban than in the USA.

Chris, so what religion requires their members to enter into homosexual marriages?

Observer, the answer is none. That is the point. You should not be telling people what type or marriage they can enter into. You are the one requiring people to enter into your narrow defination of marriage. I fear that you are just too ignorant to even understand what you are advocating. You can believe anything you want, just don't force your religous views on everyone else. After all, this is the United States of America.

I'm not requiring people to do anything. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. You can rationalize all day that it's unfair, mean, cruel, life threatening, etc. You can invent any argument you want to rail against that fact, but a marriage is still between and man and a woman. Sorry you are unhappy, but that's the way it is.

Perhaps you don't understand the English language. How can you say you are not requiring people to do anything? You are prohibiting gay people from getting married, you are prohibiting churches from marrying gay people. If you want to use the word "require" than you are "requiring gay couples to remain unmarried. You do understand that?!?!

Of course it is largely irrelevant what you think because, in fact, you can't require anyone to do anything. What I should have said is you want the government to require. I don't know about you, but I am uncomfortable with government in every aspect of the people's daily lives. You may be comfortable with that, most people are not. Luckily the government is rejecting your old ideas and is rapidly recognizing gay marriage throughout the country.

Chris, you need to understand that there is a difference between REQUIRING people to do something and NOT ALLOWING people to do something. Is it becoming a little clearer now?

Observer, Do you really think there is a difference between PREVENTING someone from taking advantage of tax breaks and REQUIRING them to pay more in taxes? If so, there is no reason to have a discussion with your because you are operating in another universe or don't understand logic and/or the English language.

Chris Ambrose, ever hear of the marriage penality? Keep trying, but I doubt that you can come up with a valid reason to create a whole new legal class of folks. Homosexual folks are dinks and wouldn't fair well under the tax code as married. Besides it is just to funny to think about two men walking down the aisle together.

You are irrational. You are the one who is proposing a new class of people, don't you see that? All advocates of gay marriage are saying is that their should be equal rights, NOT two classes of people!

I thought you said earlier that you were not a homophobe. Even though it is clear from your previous comments that you are, I guess you wanted to clear up any ambiguity with those comments.

Observer, your comment that you are against gay marriage because "it would be funny to see two men walking down the aisle together" demonstrates your ingorant views. You are just uncomfortable with people who are not like you, in this case you are a homophobe.

No doubt, were we having this discussion 50 years ago you would be saying "it would be funny to see a mixed race couple walking down the aisle together"

Or if we were having this discussion 100 years ago you would be saying "it would be funny to see a woman in line at the polls"

Of if we were having this discussion 150 years ago you would be saying "it would be funny to see a black person actually being paid for their labor"

You are a backward person, always clinging to the past!

Trying to make the homosexual "marrige" a civil rights issue is clever, but insults those that fought for civil rights. If folks who are afflicted with homosexual attractions want to act out their lusts, just be honest and admit to narcissism. Don't try to legatimize your perversions. Just be honest.

OT -

Since you are for gay marriage, are you for three or more consenting adults to marry? Why stop at just man & man or woman & woman or man & woman being allowed to marry?

Having gay relatives & friends myself, I am perfectly fine with gay marriage. What bothers me about it though is that if there are kids involved, children need a mother and father in the home. I heard a prominent psychologist give a talk once on same-sex marriage and she said it right:

"Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father."

Lee - I never said I was for gay marriage (although I am; it seems like a no-brainier). I merely said it was unstoppable. If you look at young people's opinions on this, it is obvious that in a generation it will be completely over and done. It's just a fact that "Observer" and the other neanderthals on here are having trouble accepting.

On the issue of children, I am not going to argue with you - having a loving mom and dad is a great thing (I was and am very lucky to have both). But surely you must know that good families today come in many different forms. I have seen great kids come out of lesbian, gay, and single-parent families. I have also seen many "traditional" families go thru divorce and separation which creates terrible upheaval for their families. The bottom line is that we should promote parents who care deeply about their kids and create an environment for them to thrive and succeed as adults. Their gender and sexual orientation is just not relevant.

Lee, I have to say I don't agree with the view about both a mother and a father being required. That does a disservice not only to many fine gay parents, but also many single parents. There are dads that learn to braid hair and play with Barbies, and moms that help out with Cub Scout troops and go camping. If you want to read about this from someone who grew up with two moms, I suggest that you read the book "My Two Moms" by Zach Wahls. It's really an interesting book, and it's written by someone who actually was raised by two gay parents.

There weren't any computers 500 years ago.

DGorge, just where do you think I'm located. We are having two gay sorcerers for dinner tonight.

Luckily Islamic law, canon law or any other type of religous law is not the law of the land in the United States of America.

A little help here, fellows. The Muslims breed like rabbits and may soon take over America. But you guys are just sitting on your duffs. If all the homosexuals in America would just pop out two future voters per couple, we could save our way of life. Come on. Do two for the team. Please.

Devolved to silly? The thought of two guys getting MARRIED is hilarious.

All pastors, priests, etc. of any religous affiliation, who are currently chaplans in the armed forces are required to perform same sex marriages. Laws unfortunately are often used by politicians too strong-arm dominance of their political views on the weakest. This road will be similar to the governments role in forcing church related hospitals to perform abortions and provide obamacare. Gov't knows no bounds.

Jim Daniels is right. The only side that is trampling on religous freedom are the oponents of gay marriage. There are churches that accept gay marriage, these people are saying that those churches and their members should be blocked from excercizing their religous beliefs by the government. It is appalling.

Who is advocating for polygamy?

Chris Ambrose, someone objecting to legalizing the associating of two men with each other is about as close to "trampling religion" as those same two men being able to procreate with each other. All of your arguments are just rationalizations that fly in the face of sanity. You are exposing yourself as a low level thinker. Your idea of two men "marrying" each other is comical.

You are the one doing the rationalization. You can ratioanlize it anyway you want, but as long as you take the position that the government should be able to dictate to individuals and churches their religous beliefs that is a major affront to religous freedom and seperation of church and state.

I am not sure why you stay in this country if you feel that way. I think you would be much more comfortable living under the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Chris Ambrose, funny you should mention the Taliban, they you would sniff you out in a minute. Homophiles are hunted there.

Can't think of a rational argument for saying homosexual "marriage" is a religious issue. Before homosexual "marriage" can become a religious issue, homosexuality would have to gain biblical approval. Right now homosexuality is an abomination per the Bible. If man wants to invent an ideology that embraces homosexual behavior, whatever it is, it won't be a religion.

The only observation one can make about Observer is that he is very unstable. He says gay marraige is not a religious issue, but the says it would need "biblical approval" for it to be one. Putting aside the glaring contradiction, one has to ask what does "biblical approval" have to with something being a religous issue? The Bible is not recongnized by all religions anyway.

Oh, I forgot about Observer's contempt for religous freedom. He believes the government should adopt HIS religion as official and impose it on everyone else.
Furthermore, some Christian Churches recognize gay marriage, so it has "biblical approval" in the eyes of some churches already. So he wants the government to impose a subset of Christianity on all people in the country. Let me guess Observer, you are a branch Davidian?

. Right now homosexuality is an abomination per the Bible. If man wants to invent an ideology that embraces homosexual behavior, whatever it is, it won't be a religion.

Chris Ambrose, let me see if I can help you out. Homosexual "marriage" is not a religious issue because homosexual ACTIVITY is proscribed by a bona fided religion. That is good enough for the adherents who voted in the majority to sustain marriage as only between a man and a woman in Virginia. And that is all that matters. Sorry, you are on the losing side. Does that make you a loser?

No, I am not a loser. The loser is the person who can't stand that he was born in a country that tolerates religous freedom - that would be you!

Nope.

So you also believe marriage of post-menopausal women should be illegal? How about women who have had a hysterectomy ? Illegal? What about vets who have been injured in combat and can no longer conceive? Illegal for them too?

So you think making gay marriage illegal will cause a sudden stampe of previously heterosexual men and women to turn gay? Otherwise how is making gay marriage legal going to cause there to be more homosexuals?

Oy!

So if gay marriage was legal, there'd be no more straight people to procreate? : D All the straight people would turn gay? That would be the only path to "self-extermination of the human species."

Or is it that gay marriage remains illegal, the unmarried gays will procreate?

As to the "simple fact" that it is a violation to nature and evolution, that is your belief. A belief is not a fact.

Um, I think that our world could certainly do with a lot less procreating. Seems to me that if we continue the way we have, we're going to procreate ourselves right out of space and resources! Try another reason. This one just doesn't fly!

Gay people constitute about 10% of the population. Allowing them to marry hardly threatens the preservation of the human race. Plenty of straight people marry who cannot have children or simply choose not to. So what? When I got my marriage license I wasn't asked if I intended to have children.

How in the world would gay marriage result in the self-extermination of the human species? Boy, it seems that some people on this forum are looking for the idiot of the year award.

By the way, Oh Yeah, it is heterosexuals who give birth to homosexuals. And even without benefit of marriage, homosexuals are not procreating so what difference will marriage make?

Carol Lewis, when was the last time you heard an expectent mother say, "Yes, Jim and I are having a little homosexual."?

jParker...because they are hung up on Gays....not the word marriage.
I've been reading the tread for days--what I've taken from the above--those that don't want to include gays in the institution of marriage are scared of gay people. A bunch of different reasons are thrown out there--religion, saving society, saving children,saving gays from themselves and the "ick" factor .
I don't find myself or my fellow gay men and women scary. I've never been told I'm scary by people that know I'm gay. I am just your average American woman with an average American life.
The more straight people meet gay people, they will realize we are just people-period.

Thats right aab. This has nothing to do with marriage, it has to do with being homophobic. It is unrelated to religion also for the reason jparker points out. The crazy part is that you have some people who claim to be religous on here, who should be the strongest advocates of religous freedom, calling on the government to impose their religious views on other people and churches that don't share them!

I don't think most people in this discussion would agree that state sanctioned marriage is archaic. But it is only archaic in the context of a definition of marriage as an institution that raised children. This is an obsolete definition. Marriage is an old social institution that has evolved and has very different meanings and functions in today's world. It determines, visitation right, tax deductions, survivors benefits, etc, etc. Because of all those state benefits and economic ramifications, marriage discrimination becomes and equal protection issue from a legal perspective. So, if you are advocating the abolishion of state sponsored marriage that has all kinds of economic ramifications that need to be considered.

Viva la difference. Without little girls, what would little boys do? --Maurice Chervalier

WTF does that have to do with Jen's post?

Your worn-out, neanderthal posts are getting tiresome. Crawl back under your rock and leave us alone.

Jen and I are talking songs, OT insider.

And just what do you have against Neanderthals? For all you know homosexuality is what did them in. Pehaps their government won't give them a tax break.

That about covers it.

Yes, stop feeding the troll. He derives satisfaction here he can't find elsewhere knowing that people read and respond to this diatribe of hate he bases on so called biblical principles derived from a bronze age nomadic tribe. No furthur need to state the obvious concerning the lack of tolerance supporting his hatred of humans different from himself.

Good idea, let the troll have its way. Not going to happen, "you people" have no self control.

Only thousands of interpretations? What are you a conservative?

Carol Lewis continued.....

4) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
Dear Observer: Canadians can’t make good Mexican food and have a very low resale value.

5) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
Dear Observer: Only if you fill out DOJ Form 3288-K in triplicate and get Eric Holder to authorize the sale of an assault rifle. However, if your neighbor comes at you with a meat cleaver before Mr. Holder acts, you are authorized to club him to death with your gay partner.

6) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
Dear Observer: Homosexuality is only a class 9 abomination. Besides, since when does homosexuality make you sick? After all, you eat shellfish, don't you.

Very good point, Natassia Smith.

What a novel idea, Mike Ritter. Let's not derive our moral compass from "religion" , let's do polls.

As for government benefits for married couples. Those benefits were instituted when marriage meant a union between a man and a woman. Such a union results in benefits accruing to society and is, therefore, encouraged by the government.

A homosexual union doesn't not accrue similar benefits to society and does not warrent government benefits.

What benefits does society get from hetoralsexual marriage versus gay marriage? Let me guess: Children. In case you were not aware, Children are not a product of marriage. A couple gets Children through, Adoption, In Vitro fertilization, or sex. These are all independent of marriage and all of those routes are available to gay couples. True for the third route, it would require one member of the couple to have sex out of wedlock, but that is something a lot of hetoresexual conservatives can relate to themselves.

In fact, it could easily be argued that since, gay couples are more likely to adopt children then straight couples, they provide a much greater benefit to society.

You need to find a better excuse to justify your discriminatory anti-gay agenda Obsever!

Sure the government can do just about anything, but why provide governmental incentive, which has a cost, without a corresponding societal benefit. Especially when many citizens can point to valid objections for government involvement.

Mike Ritter, it is verying interesting to watch someone attempting to frame my argument for me. However, your paragraph is obviously canned. It appears to be a regurgitation of all the lame responses used in the past.

The First Amendment is Passe???!!!???

Boy will you be disapointed when the Supreme Court overturns DOMA in the next year.

Chris Ambrose, it would be better to address what is said rather than making things up like Mike Ritter and others who can't make the connection between THE point and a manufactured counterpoint.

FredTalk wasn't a big enough forum for you to espouse your bigotry-trolling, Clovis?

Your grammar mistakes are telling -- as are your choice phrases.

Well said.

Sandra, your red herrings are noted. Length of time together, church ceremony, legal standing with their children (children ????), medical rights (????).

We also notice that you started out saying tax benefits are off point and then you end up making them one of your points.

We now understand why this all makes little sense to you. Eh, Chris.

Observer, where did you get your law degree? From a school advertising on the back page of a comic book? When talking about estate and joint property rights, I'm not even addressing tax benefits. For one thing, it is my understanding that when one of a married couple dies without a will, the estate passes automatically to the surviving spouse. In addition, when talking about real estate, the surviving spouse inherits jointly owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship. These are not necessarily tax benefits - they give the surviving spouse rights to ownership and inheritance of an estate. Yes, there are tax benefits tied in, but I bet that most gay couples would just like to have acknowledged that they have actual rights to things that most hetero married couples take for granted. Plus, this may come as a surprise to you, but in this enlightened day and age, some gay couples do have children. And yes, those parents would like to have the same rights to joint custody and care of their children that hetero parents have. You are welcome to state your own views (misguided as I think they are), but please don't put words in my mouth. There is more to marriage than tax benefits (and why do you feel you have to keep harping on that?). This is a question of basic legal rights, which is why it is unfair to prevent access to marriage for gay couples.

I am willing to bet he is a creationist. He is just depressed that he was not born in the 19th century. If he had to be born in the 20th century, he is disapointed that it was not in Iran.

Mike Ritter, everything isn't about YOU. My response concerned Sandra's post not YOU. Sandra said tax benefits were off point, then later in her post referenced tax benefits (estate and joint property "rights") that gay couples don't have.

But don't worry, Mike, I will continue to work with you to overcome this reading/comprehension deficit you seem to be suffering from.

Chris Ambrose, look again. We are the majority of voters in Fairfax County. We take a lot of abuse from homophiles, but they are a pretty intolerate bunch and we are use to it.

Hmm... that's funny, the last time I checked, the stats on the majority of voters seem to be in favor of gay marriage. Seems to me Observer is living in his own dream world. Or maybe he's counting all of his multiple personalities.

Sandra, votes trump "stats" every time.

Observer sure is living in a dream world (a nightmare if you are one of the people he wants discriminated against). Observer probably does not even know that almost 10 years ago when gay marriage was put up for a vote, it was supported decisively in Fairfax county, by a double digit margin, and that was nearly 10 years ago.