Liberal tough guy Capehart needs to take it down a notch. His strongarm tactics won’t work here.

“When Barack Obama was campaigning for president in 2008, he declared that marriage is between a man and a woman. For the most part, his position was treated as a nonissue.

President Obama, by contrast, gets a pass because everyone understands—nudge nudge, wink wink—that he’s not telling the truth. The press understands that this is just one of those things a Democratic candidate has to say so he doesn’t rile up the great unwashed.
It’s arguably the most glaring double standard in American life today.

It helps explain why candidates with social views that are fairly conventional among ordinary Americans—the citizens of 31 states including California have rejected same-sex marriage when put to a vote—find themselves depicted as extreme.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204909104577235471075318762.html

Chris Christie wants Obama to show some courage?    It’s Christie who is hiding behind the “referendum”.    

Christie 1

Capehart 0

Are you blind? Did you even read the last paragraph?

It was cowardly.

Khris Krispy Kreme is not helping himself pandering to the lowest common denominator of American society. Capehart tooks his lunch, and that is not a good thing to do. Beware, Mr. Capehart!

Please. At least Christie is saying what he believes. Obama does whatever offends the fewest people or just avoids tough decisions altogether. Furthermore, a lot of people don’t see gay marriage as strictly a civil rights issue at this point, so until that is the case, Christie is smart not to get caught up in semantics.

Why would Christie turn into a Jersey Shore cast member.

What is “that minority”?
Are these politically-correct dupes in Media, Academia and (government-funded!) “Science” saying that personality – ANY personality – is immutable, definitive or pre-ordained in any way?

Au contrare!
A quick read of “It’s A Learning Thing” is needed.

Nice. A vocal member of the left again proud to display his bigotry. Just like Corzine, people on the left can’t compete w/ Christie intellectually, so they target his weight. These same people cry racism toward anyone who opposes the president. True hypocrites. Weightist = racist, especially when the person is trying to lose weight, as Christie has said numerous times.

I love how they all laugh at Capehart’s excuse that Obama’s views are ‘evolving.’

Moving forward, marriage is between a man and a woman. 

 Kinda like “all options are on the table” vis-a-vis Iran.

Yes, he is truly an intellectual giant.

Another ambush interview by MSNBC.  I doubt Christie was that surprised, MSNBC’s charter is to attack conservatives.

 This is the exact position Christie campaigned on, only unlike the Deceiver-In-Chief, Christie meant it!

To bad for Christie the Koch brothers have gotten to him.

Did Scarborough really compare blowing up small children to getting Gay married and say he was framing his question fairly?
As usual Joe came out looking like the biggest ass of this segment, which was no small trick.

Also, Capehart didn’t lay on glove on Christie. The man believes what he believes. Take it or leave it.

 Does Media Matters have a direct feed into Capehart’s headset, or do they just go over the questions he’ll ask during show-prep?

So, you admire the corpulent governor. Good for you. Certainly, you’re right. But, don’t you think we in America are well beyond the time that a morbidly obese man or woman can aspire to higher office? We’ve changed. Girth is no longer a symbol of power and wealth, it is a symbol of slovenliness and slothfulness. I don’t make those rules, but I am subject to them. The governor is as well.

Bullshit Reporting!…Christie totally demolished him, …And this coming from someone who disagrees with the Govenors stand on Gay Marriage. This was embarrasing…to see Capehart stutter repeatedly on Obamas hypocricy on the matter….Uh, Uh, he’s evolving!..And  C.C’s telling Capehart in no uncertain terms…Don’t try to cross examine me, because You will Lose!….On pure debate Capehart was put totally in his place..As an independent and a supporter of Gay Marriage, what I saw was a confident C.C. handle Capehart with ease!

Brutal candor, a foul temper and a smart mouth do play well in Newark, to be sure. Not so much in Peoria, Port Arthur, Portland, I should think.

Yours is the most backward, ignorant and foolish statement I have ever read on this site.

Harold has the most nuanced and appropriate position: SS marriage ought to be socially accepted & legally recognized but Joe is right, the comparison with race civil right is offensive and inappropriate. & Christie has the most principled position. They all win in this segment.

Maybe except Capehart who can’t even bring himself to ridicule the president’s ridiculous stance and has the audacity to compare what Joe listed to the suffering of gays in this day and age

Brick OBAMO has massive difficulty ‘being clear’ on issues while his ‘followers & swallowers’ declare otherwise.

It is quite fun watching the indefensible trying to be defended by these radical Leftist Media Hacks…haughty & elite as they try to be.

I seriously doubt that. In any event, let me ask the question again:
Do you think America, in the second decade of the 21st century, would take a man in the governor’s condition seriously? I don’t think so. Obesity is generally seen as a life-style choice which can be remedied with a bit of self-respect and discipline.

 Then you have not been around here very much.Amazing how many Republican/Tea party folks on here have made snyd comments about how “fat assed”  the first lady of the United states is and not a peep from you.

None of my business but is Capehart gay?

So, what is your feeling on Murdering Ted Kennedy, or Bill Clinton, or Ed Schultz, or Michele Obama, or Michael Moore, or Charlie Rangal, or Al Gore, or Jerrold Nadler, or Barney Frank, or Jack Murtha?  Each one of them, the definition of health. 

I’ll consider your argument if you agree that none of these people have any credibility as well.   

Yeah, and he dodged the question entirely.

Obama’s opinion on same sex marriage has nothing to do with whether or not Christie believes that it is a case of putting civil rights up for a vote.

He could have answered by just saying something like “I don’t believe gay’s right to marry is a civil right”–but he didn’t.  He just deflected the question by bringing up Obama.

 You are right it is none of your business.Why would that matter to you?

 If you can’t take the heat,get out of the kitchen.

Ted Kennedy: lost weight and controlled alcohol intake.
Bill Clinton: lost weight and adopted a healthy life-style.
Ed Schultz: not morbidly obese, but a fat slob I don’t take seriously.
Michelle Obama: active, energetic, good shape.
Michale Moore: obese and a slob I don’t take seriously.
Jerrold Nadler: lost weight and took control of his health.
Barney Frank: a fat slob with a good heart.
Jack Murtha: deceased.

On balance, Khris Krispy Kreme komes out badly.

 Michele Obama is in very good health.Campaigning for the future health of Americas children.

I very much doubt Christie was intimidated by the DNC lemmings.

real royal emperor, your obsession with physical appearance  must mean your heaviest reading material is People magazine.  Your statements regarding Christie’s appearance are what make people outside the U.S. think we are all shallow airheads.  Read a little history(meaning before the advent of TV) and you’ll see that many great leaders (like Winston Churchill) were chosen despite the fact that they didn’t look like Brad Pitt.  You’re embarassing.

 Homosexuality is not a personality trait. 

 Says who?  You?

I have come to believe that Christie is just a big fat ass, that can’t control his eating, but loves the attention…I think he became a spokesperson for Romney so he could get more air time, he doesn’t seem to like Romney very much as a person….And OMG could Mika get anymore screechy and high pitched when Christie is on set?  As much as she raves about weight and eating, how could she not be replused by fat ass Christie?

Really? When did Obama say that he’d block marriage equality? When did he promise to veto same sex marriage legislation that came to his desk? I think we’d all be fascinated to see those links.

You like to sound off on this supposed hypocrisy, but you can’t back up a word of what you’re saying. Put up or STFU.

How the f-ck is asking a governor who’s promised to block marriage equality about his position an “ambush”?

Thank god they didn’t ask him what he reads!

One of the most detestable people around is in this clip and it isn’t Chris Christie, every thinking person knows he is a fat dope, but Harold Ford Jr. is the biggest sellout, Wall Street shill in the media. I don’t say he  is a politician because he is completely unelectable and needs to do himself and the country a favor and just come out of the closet as a Republican.

Go away Harold. Think about it, f’in sellout.

Here is the important different Christie Kreme and Harold Ford Loser, The President may not fully be on board on gay marriage (see he is a Christian), but he doesn’t allow his religious bigotry to dictate how he legislates. The Justice Dept, has said they would not defend DOMA or other laws they feel is discriminatory to homosexuals, but Christie does and will continue to do so.

Nice try, Republidouches

People you don’t mess with:

1. The Zohan
2. Chris Christie

Yes, Christie is a bully, full of bluster.  He never answered the question and turned to President Obama just like a coward would do.  THIS GUY IS ALL TALK…. NO SUBSTANCE.

President Obama has made his position known on several occasions stating that he’s not there yet on gay marriage but supports all the rights of a civil union.  

Christie just vetoed a bill, but did not take a position and will not.  IT’S CALLED STRADDLING THE FENCE TO SAVE YOUR BLUBBER CAUSE YOU WANT TO BE THE VP.

You’re so right.  

I just shiver in disgust when I recall those awful days of enslaved obese people, back when we systematically broke up their families and treated them as the legal equivalent 3/5 of a person.  

Not to mention denying them the right to vote, or to own property or a business!  

And all of those despicable anti-skinny/fat marriage laws that were aimed at preserving the integrity of the skinny among us – so shameful. 

And oh, every Santa Clause impersonator in the country shakes in his boots to remember the days when it was dangerous just for a fat person to walk down a Southern street for fear of being lynched for looking askance at a skinny woman. What horrors we have perpetrated against that most persecuted minority, our fat people!

No, go back and do some research, President Obama’s position is well known….YOU JUST DON’T  KNOW IT!

Obama is lying to the public on the gay marriage issue to get votes.

Obama is a liar and the libs defend him.

Wow, you picked up a book, tried to relate its meaning….and the rest is WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY? 

Please, go back to bed.

Ford is a disgrace, sitting there licking Joe’s buns…..pathetic!

 He got elected Governor didn`t he?
You libs just crack me up.

good to know that you dont take fat people serious

Christie 395 and counting

Capehart 141

i love the phrase marriage equality, even though that is not what you are fighting for

 She is.
Much like putting 10lbs of crap in a 5lb bag.

 Yeah….HER children

When is a civil right measured by degrees?  A right is a right either you have them or you dont. Equal mean equal.

That is why Joe has him on.

 Another lib….pissing into the wind and singing……It`s all coming back to me now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo

Stick to praying for El Loco he needs it more then the drivel you put out on TDB!

You left out one of the most entertaining parts, Mr. Crugnale.  The ridicule and howls that Capehart received after quoting the president’s standard answer to Christie’s challenge as to how the president is involved on the subject of gay marriage.

“I’m evolving”, Capehart quoted  (thus proving Gov Christie’s contention that as he faces the camera and declares his position, the president is hiding until when he is safely in his last term).  Even Harold Ford laughed at Capehart’s remark and agreed with the governor about the president’s dodging.

The MOST interesting part of the clip was the area opened up by Harold Ford in comparing the gay marriage to the civil rights struggles of blacks.  Joe asked Ford if he truly felt comfortable with that comparison when blacks  were segregated in the south from white society and churches were set afire and bombed.

The most provocative segment that I’ve seen in awhile on MoJo.  No cant.  No feigned outrage over the subject matter. No cliched pejoratives about the “other side”.

In the midst of all the utter nonsense and sheer partisan posturing that is substituted for political coverage in the media, this was a challenging and commonsensical exchange.

With Alex’s piece on Luntz yesterday, that’s two.  Keep your fingers crossed, we may be on a roll.

Same-sex marriage is a legal question and should be regarded only in the framework of the Constitution when legislation is concerned. The Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause leave no room for any other conclusion than that homosexuals enjoy the very same rights as anyone else. Of course, that is quiet obvious without even considering the Constitution. 

What´s the nonsense about the referendum about? Christie opposes equal rights which are guaranteed under the Constitution.  The constitutional principles of a free society are way more important than religious gibberish, the career tactics of a single politician or something as a referendum. See the court decision about Prop 8.

When the President vetoes such a bill, Christie can start comparing himself to the President. As far as I can see the President has drawn the inevitable conclusions on the legal field though he may be not vocal and aggressive enough about removing the injustice against homosexuals. Yes, he should simply state that he is pro same-sex marriage and I wouldn´t be surprised if he does that in the upcoming elections.

Christy came across badly. He’s only doing the veto thing, and appearing around so much because he wants to establish his social conservative cred for his VP run.

 Do ALL the voices in your head get a chance to vote?

Again, a liberal using hyperbole to try to rally your lemmings to support you, when you completely missed my point. I said weightism = racism, NOT weightism = slavery. There are other forms of racism that didn’t involve slavery. But way to be purposefully obtuse. I’m sure that serves you well.

I know it`s hard for you to get the big picture when you have such a small screen.

You say “When the President vetoes such a bill, Christie can start comparing himself to the President”?

With all due respect, do you know how silly that sounds?

I agree with Christie: “Let’s have the President of the United States show some courage, come on this program, look into the camera like I’m looking into the camera, and state his position”. His “position”, not how he might vote (which Obama does for political expediency only)

Oh yeah, Christie just exudes intellect, puhleaze.  If that is your idea of an intellectual just because he tries to outshout everyone, you are delusional. And yes  I am also a weightist, this man can hardly breath.

Fat people are not healthy, and we don’t elect unhealthy presidents.  Maybe New Jersey doesn’t care. Appearance is secondary.

 You said it was an ‘ambush”  not if Christie was intimidated by the question.

 It was early he hadn’t had his 3 pounds of bacon yet

 Christie is a coward. If he really had any balls he’d sign it into law but he can’t afford to alienate homophobes in the GOP (which is about 98% of the party, if you don’t count all the closet cases)

 Obama is a coward when it comes to gay marriage too. What’s your point?

For all of Christie’s supposed bravery, he’s actually exhibited a huge amount of cowardice on this subject. Same sex marriage supporters were told repeatedly that having marriage rights “imposed” by the courts was unconstitutional and that they had to work through the legislature. Here’s a perfect example of that in action — and now the goal posts have been pushed back even further.

Christie has shown that he’s as big a bullshitter as the rest of them.

The only problem I have with his weight is he may die from it.If you
found him to be a good President would you not worry he would die under
the stress the position surely has? They all age very quickly under the
stress. I agree Christie should be judged by his position on
things not his weight.Just like President Barack Obama should be judged
on his policies not his skin color.

Strong arm tactics against Christie?  Come on Gloveard!  What he did was “one-upped” Chris Christie.  And Christie got flustered.

As for the double standard bullshit, relating to the link you give to an “opinion piece”, maybe
you ought to go back and look at some of “candidate” Bush’s stances and promises.  I don’t recall the press beating him up when he “changed” his mine.   In fact, to the dismay of many on the left, the press was reaping praises and “carrying the water bucket” for the Bush administration.  I remember, “Vanity Fair” having a valiant photo portrait of Bush and Cheney and their national security team on the cover with a glowing article inside.  Alas, the incompetence and disaster of the the Bush administration finally outweighed the rhetoric and the press started doing their job.

But William McGurn’s very biased “opinion” piece is really about Rick Santorum.  Where McGurn is wrong is whereas, candidate Obama played it safe by the statement he made on marriage, Santorum, on the other hand, has made it a feature in his platform.  Just go to his website and see in print his plans for executive actions.

http://www.ricksantorum.com/executive-branch-actions

As for the marriage equality act.  Chris Christie made a bonehead statement at an earlier time before the vote took place where he made the question why the civil rights act couldn’t have been put up for a referendum vote.  Considering the position of the South and the fact that minorities were not allowed to vote in the segregated South… really Christie?  My point is in state like California where I live, where millions of outside money from the Mormon Church supporting the defense of marriage act with misleading ads, as well as, a misleading worded bill if you weren’t paying attention, and a low voter turnout does not make for a referendum.  I would bet if that same vote were held today in California it would be voted down.  More and more Americans are coming around to believe that the Defense of Marriage Act is, indeed, unconstitutional just as they did believing the Civil Rights Act passed by Congress was, indeed, constitutional.

Basically, your opinion which is almost entirely a word for word copy of McGurn’s opinion is just another tired argument that the media isn’t embracing your out-of-touch, theocratic, xenophobic ideology.  Personally, I think they often give it too much credibility.  But you always have Faux News.

personally, I have no problem at all with republicans being obese and living unhealthy lifestyles. EAT MORE BACON, RUSH!

You should read the comment you’re responding to. He stated his position, and he has never stated that it has changed. Those who oppose his stated position but support Obama do so on the basis that they’re sure he doesn’t mean it. But he has not changed it, and he has not said he’s changed it, ever.

 Why don’t you link to it for us? The best you’ll find is that his views are “evolving”.

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/02/07/obamas-position-gay-marriage-still-evolving

Tell us all about his well known position that his press secretary can’t describe.

Christie cravenly tries to appease the christian jihadists and intolerant teabaggers.

Yes, I am saying talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words.

He clearly believes the issue should be put up for a vote. Changing the longstanding definition of a term is not a civil right.

 He is an unrepentant bigot. And a misogynist too, but I digress.

 When what is?

 No one ever treated a slave as 3/5ths of a person. Slaves were treated as property and had no individual rights whatsoever. The only people who wanted to count them at all for the purposes of Congressional apportionment were those who enslaved them and they wanted to count then one for one.

It’s very risky to try and engage in a shouting match with someone who shouted down a heckler. Only cooler heads will prevail. But Christie hit the nail on the head. The evidence speaks for itself. It’s one thing to say that you are against gay marriage and then do things that show otherwise. President Obama is politically ambivalent about the issue.

you are not advocating marriage equality, even though liberals try to frame it that way

 Really?

Then what are they advocating?

Jonathan Capehart: Obama is good because he is black, like me!

Christie has suggested a vote on the subject, but it’s the Democrat lawmakers who refuse to let it go on the ballot. Know why? Because the people NEVER vote it in and the Dems would lose their talking points on the subject. Even in the California vote a while back, the majority opposed it, even if the loudest were in favor. I don’t really care about the subject, but I think the people should decide b/c marriage is a cultural phenomenon anyway. In that sense, I agree with Christie. There should be a vote.

 If you are under 50 years old, Gay marriage will be law before you die.

Sorry, couldn’t make it through your whole post.
I couldn’t stop laughing after 
Capehart and His strongarm tactics.

Capehart – Strongarm

HILARIOUS.

Where in the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, Pablo, is there a “longstanding definition” on the defense of marriage? 

It’s interesting how Chris attempts to modify geography as a matter of self defense on the issue.  Obama is clearly closer to the mapped goal of equality (I would be amazed in there isn’t a plan to scaffold completion of the goal at the end of eight… smaller but firmly entrenched progress in the case of only four) and headed at a designed pace to the goal.  Chris at a great distance has just set the car in idle to prove his wisdom by waving the map and talky quickly about the benefits of his route.  

This guy is bright in a troublesome way.

Slaves were treated as what they were, valued assets. The Asian and African Slavetrade leverage nearly for free the most valuable resource in the world. The people of Asian and Africa. Using the Asians to develop mines and mining technology to raid the Natural Resources of what was to be America, they thirsted for Gold and precious metals with labor that would have otherwise been impossible to attain without significant and unbearable costs. Using the Slave labor they created a farming industry that now serves the entire world as the biggest exporter of grains. They created a rail and road network that modernized America and connected the United States. The people that enslaved them valued them the most, and themselves the least.

gay marriage thats what. but dont use the phrase marriage equality, is it just 2 people that can get married? is it 2 people of legal age that can marry?

It doesn’t make sense to make a civil rights issue a popular vote. The majority will win and the majority is not the one with the complaint.

 With that statement, you are saying that gays are “not equal” and “different”.

Although you cannot compare gay rights to the black issues of the past, imagine if the civil right crusade was ok with the statement

It’s not about marriage equality, it’s about inter-racial marriage.

is marriage a civil right?

Johnathan Capehart’s question if Obama was on Morning Joe.

“Oh Mr President, Oh my Messiah, I am so humbled and greatful to meet you. I can’t wait to have you around for another 4 years no matter what you think of gay marriage.”

I agree, comparing himself with the most important driver is as transparent as it is intelligent.

Man. Jonathan Butthurt.

Capehart asked this lawyer and former prosecutor, the essential legal question, but to show you how good of a lawyer he still is, Christy simply refused to answer that question and went on the offensive. But that is different than being honest and straight forward. Christy looked bad because he ran from the one question that needed to be answered to justify what he did.

He is a very smart dude.  He should get anything he wants within a weakened and fractured Republican party. Everything is in-bounds to his wit.  

Individual rights should not be voted on by the public. Civil rights laws wouldn’t been voted on if iy was on the ballot box. The majority had to be dragged kicking and screaming by the courts for justice to be done. The same goes for equality for gay people.

That’s the smartest thing I’ve ever heard.

Christie, like most right wingers is happy to allow the “tyranny of the majority” in matters of individual rights. He is, like most right wingers, also a foe of the Constitution which guarantees that: “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”

didnt answer the question huh,  but fine…..no you are redefining marriage but you still want tyo limit it to 2 people

Are you denying that gays are targets of violence? If so you are quite wrong and need to do some research before making such ridiculous statements.

No, it’s not a personality trait.  Do you think your attraction to members of the opposite sex is a personality trait?

Christie could have got up and run out of the studio… of wait, no he couldn’t. Roll out of the studio maybe?

Listen I do like some of Christie’s straight talk, but he is no intellectual.  And he is being either a coward, bigot or hypocrite on this issue.  The GOP are great with wraping themselves in the flag and pulling the constitution out of their butt holes — however when it suits their political agenda they seem to forget about the constitution and bill of rights. 

Personally I dont believe that Christie’s cares who marries who — however because this is such a hot issue with the GOP base he has to cave to  being a neanderthal.  If he wasn’t a politician — Christie would give a $%#^

Their is a reason the  SOB Harold ford has been resurrected by voters both demo and RePug, from Tennessee to  New York, He’s a back stabbing lying DINO. He has no future with the Demo party. Of course he thinks that’s because, the Pres. has black listed him.

Don’t forget a visually repulsive appearance to match. Every time I look at him, I can see him laying on a Roman couch while a thin and helpless slave girl is force to feed him grapes.
Yikes!!

The President is consistent with his position — unlike Mittens.  Unfortunate for Christie he has to go out an support a man that is completely unable to tell the truth.  I actually hope Mittens puts Christie on the ticket — it will be great watching Christie try to tap dance around Romeny’s positions.

His weight indicates he is a glutton, a taker, a selfish and greedy man. It does speak to his ‘character’.  If he, personally, has no self control why should he be in position to tell others what is right or wrong?

He is also a state employee. Shouldn’t there be standards for those who are earning a fat paycheck on tax payer dollars?

Couldn’t agree more- we desperately need intelligent, give and take discourse around the issues we’re facing instead of two sides spinning and working backwards from predetermined agendas. I personally like Gov. Christie because he is capable and willing to do it, but there are of course others.

You don’t win an argument by refusing to answer and then saying “well what about that other guy, he also has an opinion not that different from mine”.

Chrissy C is basically saying he cannot defend his stance in any Constitutional way and has to detract and distract by bringing up Obama. He failed.

Another piss and moan by a t-bagger. Such is their brave new world. I guess in your paralleldimension the debacle with the sheriff of Sodom, Paul Babeu was part of a “charter. T-bag/GnOPee, party of personal responsibility my a$$!

Except he’d campaigned on that very position. He kept to his principle on this, and should be commended for his willingness to supersede a legislative oligarchy and bring the decision directly to the people.

The GOP should make this election about fundamental life principles; the politics will generate naturally from there.

And gay like you too.

The point of their discussion: President Obama is against same sex marriage, just like Gov Christie.

I understand what you are saying.I myself would not vote for him . He belongs to the Republican/Tea Party.That being said I will also not judge him on his weight just his policies.Just as President Barack Obama should be judged on his policies not his skin color.

 Teabaggers have a ‘marked propensity’ to inquire about these things. On another thread he will slyly ask for his e-mail address, on another his home phone #. An so on.  It’s called the “Babeu pat-down”.

Sorry, how is he hiding behind a referendum.  HE VETOED THE BILL.  What did you want him to do?  Arrest Ellen Degeneres and Rosie O’Donnell?  

He took a stand, which, to his point, is more than the President has done.  If the President was really against the DOMA, do you think he could have gotten it repealed when his party controlled the House and Senate?  Especially if he truly thought it was unconstitutional.

Capehart turning journalis at WP into buffonery

Many attacks on Christie’s weight by the tolerant left. 

Remember when the left attacked Obama for his smoking?

Me neither.

This has been a running theme of Gloves’. I was responding to his repeated contention that Obama’s position was somehow being treated differently, which was demonstrably false, because Obama has never threatened to veto marriage equality legislation, which Christie has.

The fact is that these two guys hold very different positions. Unfortunately, though, that fact is a bit too complex for simpletons like you and El Glovebo to get.

Bahahaha.
I am honestly so awestruck by your comment, I truly don’t know how to respond.  I can only assume that you put so much faith in our elected representatives that you see them as morally superior to the common man.  In which case…WOW. 

Two people having the right to enter into a marriage contract with the state.

How is this not the same? How is this not equal, genius?

The answer is simple. Marriage is the legal union between a man and a women for the purpose of procreation providing two parents who have joined together to emotionally, and monetarily support the health and well being of the children of that marriage.

OBAMA is Against same sex marriage, he’s said so. What’s so hard for you to understsnd.

We guess you’re saying the same thing about Obama the messiah.

Compared to your skeleton being, it’s better to have SOMETHING to lose than…….

That’s right and they don’t uphold the laws under Holder, forget illegals, forget the lws of the land. Holder’s answer is “It depends on your definition of what a law is”. If I say it’s not a law than it’s not – got that.

Venezuela is breathlessly waiting for your arrival.

 The “veto thing” . . . what the deuce is that?  The Democrats, who control both houses of the NJ Legislature, were the folks who passed the bill and put it on his desk, in spite of the fact that he had stated right up front that he would veto it. 

So what was that . . . the “pass thing?” 

Tell us, did those Democrat legislators pass the bill with no chance of success in order to give him the opportunity to veto the bill, so he could “establish his social conservative cred for his VP run?”

Do you even think about what you write on comment threads?  Or, do you just spew this sort of nonsense because you just can’t help yourself?

Are you denying that white heterosexuals are not being killed on the streets of the nation?
More of them are killed in a given week than all homos killed in a year, unless they kill themselves by not eating nutrious meat.

Because of bias – would one think that’s possible – nah.

He took the heat and turned around and torched his biased behind.

“THEY” get hand outs, texts, e-mails from Brock every morning about their talking points for the day.

Walt . . . you say:

“In fact, to the dismay of many on the left, the press was reaping
praises and ‘carrying the water bucket’ for the Bush administration.”

It really must be so frightening for you to live in such an alternative universe. 

But please try to understand that for the rest of us it is endlessly amusing when you write stuff like that!

Maybe you should give some serious thought to laying off whatever you’ve been smoking . . . at lease a little bit!

We live in a Republic (look it up). We elect people to represent us. If the majority, even by one vote, wins their “wishes” are t be respected by the elected members.

IF it goes to a Referendum, like so many controversial topics in California, one can vote for or agains the Referendum.

BUT, you have to realize, perversion and degeneracy WERE NOT a problem during the days of the Founders, like they are today.  The Founders NEVER DREAMED people would be living the kind of lives they’re living today!

Same place ( I think it’s Amendment to be wished for 100) where it says “Animals have HUMAN rights”.

San Diego case.

Sam,
I would agree Christie is not an “intellectual” in the same vane as liberals use the term, but he has ideas which very few liberals are willing to actually debate.  Read the boards.  There is not one person saying why Christie opinion is wrong.  In fact, Capehart doesn’t even challenge him on his ideas.  All liberals tend to do is throw a label out and call names.  Exactly, as you have done.  The right to marriage is not listed in the Constitution nor Bill of Rights.  It is not a right at all.  It is something you have been told is a right, like free health care and housing.  You are granted the right to pursue these things, not have them provided. That said, my opinion is that the state should only be involved with the business/legal side of a relationship anyway.  Completely divorced (pun intended) from the “marriage” side.  If my wife and I want to get united legally, then we should have to apply to the state, including filing a pre-nup for the dissolution of the union, and pay a fee.  This would not have to be accompanied by a religious service or be blessed by the captain of a cruise ship.    

I’d guess “direct feed.” No doubt Mika also shares her working copy of the the White House “talking points” with Capehart whenever he’s a guest, before they go on air.

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/did-mika-mouth-white-house-talking-point-about-catholic-hierarchy-being-male

Ironically, liberals tend to avoid the Fox News kitchen like the plague.

Oooh! Brilliant bon mot, Thomas! So clever! So deep!

Oooh! Brilliant bon mot, Thomas! So clever! So deep!

why just two people? does that mean brothers and sisters can marry, aunts and nephews, or do you draw the line and discriminate? 

Just a quick question because I’m curious: when Obama finishes evolving on the issue, where will his butterfly wings sprout?  Between his shoulders?  Out of his ass?  Maybe his ears will simply metamorph?  

Homos? You sound very ignorant with that one little word.

“After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation,
the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a
documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual
orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny.
The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to
legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is
therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has
instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases.”

Is this hard for you to understand?

 Should I judge your opinions on who or what you have sex with?

Dixie, Homosexuality has been around a looooooooooooooong time and is a natural form of human sexuality. Look in a history book. Try taking a look at ancient Greek vases to start.

I bet the Founding Fathers also never dreamed we would have electricity in our homes, cars, computers, or heart transplants either.

As we progress we become better. Unfortunately the right wants to regress and we are not going to let it happen.

 Do you have any idea how many states in this day and age allow 1st cousins to marry.Look into it, you may be surprised .

…and your hetero-marriage should only be legal in the state where you were legally united. Right?

(CAR) sez:

“It doesn’t make sense to make a civil rights issue a popular vote. The
majority will win and the majority is not the one with the complaint.”

Hmmmm . . .

So, please explain the process how we got our First 10 Amendments to our Constitution . . . you know, the ones containing our basic civil rights? It was by amending our Constitution by submitting the issue to the ratification process, in all of the states, no?  Or, explain how the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were adopted, ensuring the guarantee of basic rights for blacks and other minorities following the Civil War? 

Or, how about the 19th Amendment?  Or the 23d or the 24th amendments? 

Or, the 26th amendment, which directly benefited only 18, 19, and 20 year olds?

Obviously I was paying a little more attention than you were back in those days.

And actually I feel pretty good about myself in that alternative universe that I live in.  I can’t imagine the level of ignorance I would have to behold to live in your alternative universe … right wing world… Fox News bubble… whatever you want to call it.  Now that IS a frightening thought. 

As for you being amused at what I write… all the more the fool. 

What do you think evolving means?

I guess it’s better than no screen at all, fella.

Moving forward indeed. You’re losing this battle and you know it. Equality for all!

Everybody lies. Yes including your favourite republican.

Marriage has been redefined many times.

Why thank you for your compliment, I knew yo’d be the one and only to recognize those gifts.

The “all options” line makes me cringe. 

This is why I love Morning Joe. It’s always a civilized discussion among adults,  with a good dose of humor, it’s spontaneous for the most part, and touches all the core socio-political issues of today’s society.

Great segment and thank you James for posting it!

It’s part of HIS SCREEN NAME.

You can certainly ASSUME some things about people. I don’t like little boys as my potential sex partners, for one, so Penn State can hire me without fear.

It is very foolsih to believe that time and change automatically equals progress.  It may, and it may not.  Civilizations rise, and they also decline and fall.  To call it “tyranny” that people believe it is wise to preserve a definition of marriage that crosses all times and all cultures is way over the top.  When you change a definition, you change it for everyone, so everyone has a say.

Gays have every “right” heteros have.  They can marry, just like anyone else.  Marriage is between one man and one woman.  That is what everyone in the US has equal right to.

Your side distorts the truth by claiming gays are lacking some right that others have.

Be honest and say “I want to change the definition of Marriage” instead of hiding behind this “rights” facade.

President Obama does want it both ways. He said in 2008 that he did not support gay marrage. Biden said they did not support it. Now he is “evolving.” He may be for it but he won’t stand up with them becaus he lacks the political courage to do so. It would cost him votes. As long as the MSM and the LGBTQXYZ crowd lets him off the hook he will never publically support them. And as usual Obama is not going to be held accountable by any of these rediculous liberals.

Too bad Wolf, Kraemer Altman, Heyman, Schlosstein, Myers,Leary among others from Wall Street got to Obama with $500,000 each. More to come.

Oooh! Brilliant bon mot, TJ! So clever! So deep!

“natural”?  By definition homosexuality is not natural.  Natural processes are what defines nature, and gay sex is not a natural process. Again, be honest and admit that you want gay sex to be considered “normal” and be unstigmatized…but don’t use “nature” as an argument. 

As for the founding fathers imagining “electricity in our homes” and “cars”…well, you make yourself look foolish with such claims as obviously they did envision such.

Nope, not hard at all.  The President supports the rights of gays to marry but is against gay marriage.

Pretty simple…right?  Christie is the only honest one in this debate.

As stated above, gays have every right heteros have.  Your argument is a straw man.

That’s correct, protection UNDER THE LAW. There is no law in most states for the illicit marriage you espouse – thereby they’e UPHOLDING their laws.

Greggie….mind if I call you greggie…since you call governor Christie “Chris” I figure you wont mind…..Greggie…your comment is incoherrent….and dim….in a not so troublesome way.

“Geography” to describe the “goal of equality”?  Only a university educated leftist could come up with such nonsense

If it was sooooo natural and everyone practiced this form of natural sexuality, the human race would die out.

nice “tolerance” you are showing there bart…..I can only assume you are on the phone asking for “Homer”

The people that call Tea Party supporters teabaggers are usually
the ones that practice the act of teabagging. Isn’t that right Anderson Copper and Burt Morgay.

Well, even if you are right, why not answer the question about putting civil rights up to a vote, instead of, what, going after Obama? Christie did not want to touch the issue. And he looked bad doing it, not thoughtful at all. It is because his argument is weak, and that change the subject and go on the attack thing is an old prosecutor trick used to distract from a weak argument.

You should call me Greg. 

Question for you. Why did Dr. King speak of the mountaintop?  

Christie is so behind on this issue, still, I am sure that the NJ legislature hoped that Christie would change his mind. Indeed, there was a lot of public pressure on Christie to do just that, but he did not back down. OK. And why not? Because he establishes his credibility as a true right wing conservative by doing the Mr. family values thing, and he needs that to be a credible VP selection with Mitt. You say I am wrong on that? That’s cool.

Nobody is being dishonest about changing the definition of marriage to ensure equal rights for everyone. You are saying that everyone has the right to life a heterosexual lifestyle, well thanks for your generosity, but the Constitution happens to be based on other principles.

No I think you are referring to Roger Ailes and Fox News.  Oh I get it, Thomas.  You are buying into the propaganda put forth by Fox News to discredit Media Matters by accusing Media Matters of doing what Roger Ailes and Fox News is doing.  Because Media Matters has been such a big thorn in exposing the lies and propaganda put forth my Fox News and other right wing media outlets.  Not to mention they got a new book out exposing the truth about Roger Ailes and Fox News that is flying of the shelves at Amazon. Well, I guess only fools like you are going to buy that bull shit.  After all, you are easy.  You agreeing with Norbit?  That is all I need to know where your mind is at.

Seems like nature didn´t get your memo about what is natural or not natural. Send it again, maybe this time nature will listen to you. 

Nonsense!  The President has shown hypocrisy and Christie was right to point that out (since Obama’s lack of support for DOMA was the premise of the question)

Gays have very right heteros do.  They can marry anyone of the opposite sex they choose, just as heteros can.  The argument is that they want the right to marry someone of the same sex, a right nobody has.

Are the skulls of leftists so thick that facts cannot penetrate?  Really, this is not rocket science.  Just tell the truth…which is that you want to redefine marriage to place gay relationships on the same moral plane as hetero relationships (something that no law or any amount of namecalling and harrassment will ever accomplish)

Talk is cheap…and you supporters of gay marriage are long on it.  Truth on the other hand is not….Christie has it in vast quantities…you are lacking.

Actually…one of the moste detestable people around is posting comments in this thread….and his name is hugochavezisawesome.

You are a freak of nature…and I don’t mean that in a good way

you mean the way the chicks are repulsed when bhodiedog is around?

List some personality traits, then we can post individuals that are homosexual and lack the traits you have in your imagination.

Which “right” are you referring to?  The “right” to marry?  There is none.  But let’s assume for a minute there is….is anyone denied the “right” to marry?  No (except for underaged persons).

So what’s your point?  Since gays have the exact same “right” everyone else has, what’s the beef?

No, but for the sake of argument we should assume it is.  Everyone has the exact same right to marry

Liberals have a “marked propensity” to assume moral superiority and inject insults into their comments.

your point is?

Evolving means you get a pass from making a decision on a thorny issue.

Well, gee whiz, maybe we should just give in to anyone or group of people who have have a complaint regardless of how others feel about it. Or better yet, let the courts decide. They seem to be deciding everything else against the will of the people these days.

What facts are you imagining?

The only fact I see here is someone getting all worked up about giving homosexual, consenting adults the same rights as heterosexual, consenting adults.

You one of these self hating homosexuals who didn´t have their coming out yet or just blinded by the morals of religion?

Who cares? She needs to just go away and leave the rest of us alone.

Why do liberals and progressives always cite polls and stats to show how much of the population agrees with a favored position of theirs, but discounts it when a majority of people (as in the gay marriage issue) do not agree with them? If a poll showed that a large majority of voters, in say, NJ supported gay marriage, you can bet they would be parading it out there and touting the fact that “most people” believe the way they do. You can’t have it both ways.

You’re not making your argument by trying to slippery slope it. Deal with the question. You said they weren’t equal. I called you out on your BS.

watched it this morning. Capehart is no match for Christie. Gov Christie made him look foolish and Capehart’s argument (in ‘attack mode’) was ineffective.

good (and accurate) assessment. I’m like Christie (and apparently…EVIDENTLY Obama) in favor of civil unions.

I don’t get how someone arguing in favor of gay marriage can’t appreciate Christie’s position in favor of civil unions ALONG WITH his willingness to accept the outcome of a statewide vote on gay marriage should it ‘over rule’ his preference. Isn’t this at the core of a democracy? (geez, better explain that it is for those who can’t figure this simple equation out). What do the Koch, the Smith, the Kennedy or any other sets of brothers have to do with it?

THX. good post.

Hahaha, dont you hate the “university educated leftists”. But you shown them, didn´t ya with your simplemindedness and setting the record straight by telling us every homosexual has equal rights as long as they get into a heterosexual marriage.

Don´t worry, same-sex marriage is coming for the whole country. It´s only a question of time.

probably. It’d be stupid, but probably. Should just make it civil unions but that makes too much sense. Guess ‘mammals marrying mammals’ of all species will apply to those under 25 years old.

THX Good post.

sexuality trait.

I don’t get how someone arguing in favor of gay marriage can’t appreciate Christie’s position in favor of civil unions ALONG WITH his willingness to accept the outcome of a statewide vote on gay marriage should it ‘over rule’ his preference. Isn’t this at the core of a democracy?

actually he empowered his position by aligning it alongside the majority in both the Liberal and Conservative persuasions.

I believe that a significant majority of voters would support a civil union. It’s the ‘who’s the husband who’s the wife marriage’ position people are opposed to cause it’s just stupid.

horsecrap.

Did you see the full interview this a.m? Christie smoked him and the session ended w a deer in the headlights look by Capehart. Capehart truly looked foolish.

actually Christie had already stated his position on civil unions, noted he’d abide by the people’s vote and refused to get ‘suckaaared’.

 . . . because everyone understands—nudge nudge, wink wink—that he’s not telling the truth.

The ‘everyone’ sums up about 2/3 of the posters who come on here to pledge allegiance.

So, in other words, a woman with a barren womb or a man who is unable to conceive can’t get married, since it goes against your definition.

 Christy simply refused to answer that question and went on the offensive.

Are you on drugs?  Christie stated his position.  He vetoed the bill.  Here it is for you, in case it was an honest mistake:

“Here’s the answer to the question,” Christie said. “Let’s have the
President of the United States show some courage, come on this program,
look into the camera like I’m looking into the camera, and state his
position. He won’t because he wants to have it both ways. I’m not
looking to have it both ways. I vetoed the bill. That’s my position.”

 Let’s put your sanity up for a vote. 

Christie is a loser who doesn’t have the balls to run for president.

 Whoosh as he escapes into his cloud of obscurity.  So educate us.  Tell us how their positions are different, apart from Christie being transparent about his. 

 Get ready for four more years of this shit.  Isn’t that a bite?

 She can’t help herself.

 Why don’t you go do the “school thing.”

What about the elderly, are they not allowed to get married.  What if a man has a vasectomy and then his wife dies and he wants to remarry, he can’t?  What about couples who don’t have children, are they in violation of the law?  Did Newt break the law?

Hey, if we’re lucky maybe in the very near future they’ll be spotted in public doing a PDA thing together.  Then we’ll know both the Pres & VP now find it evolved to acceptable.

I don’t blame Obama for avoiding the specifics.  He’ll win handily without them.  Only about a quarter of the voting public actually care about specifics.  Most all the rest just vote for those they like.  This is why the GOP is in such trouble.  Nobody cares about the stewarts of our country’s financial future who want austerity now.  The people in Greece can tell you, austerity sucks.  There are enough voters on the dole now to drive the country into oblivion.  And the libs are happily along for the ride.

In reality it will not matter if the people vote against it.  Liberal activist judges will just say its unconstitutional, as they did in California.  Why put anything on a ballot anymore, judges do whatever they want.  We no longer live in a Democracy.

 If you have written off Republican women as homophobes, I’ll be you almost never get laid, and when you do, she has hair under her armpits.  Remember the GOP motto.  Go Republican.  Get laid.  How else do you explain Newt Gingrich?

 And for the record, I  would have supported the bill becoming law.  I like fat boy, and will probably vote for him if he lives that long. But I think same sex couples should be able to get married and pass on property, etc., just like straight couples.  I must admit, these kind of laws are a great boon to the legal profession.  More clients overnight.  And these issues are already making their way into domestic relations courts anyway.  I remember in law school when I was going through an old digest.  There was an index for “Slavery” decisions back before the civil war.  There will be a lot of new areas of the law developing.

Despite the fact that both gentlemen say that they “personally” oppose same sex marriage…

1. Obama has never vowed to obstruct the process towards its acceptance.

2. Obama has never promised to veto legislation that would make it legal.

3. Obama directed his justice department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act, which, in fact, was just ruled unconstitutional yesterday by a Federal judge. (Do you seriously think that would have happened if Obama had continued the Bush policy??)

4. Obama has left open the door for changing his mind by saying that his views on it are evolving.

Those are four substantive ways in which their positions — and more importantly, their actions — are very different.

And Obama is so thin and sweet.

Interracial dating on ” BlackWhiteFriends,(0M ” is easy to begin with,with free profile placement to get you attracted with meeting and coming across profiles of interracial people .There are hundreds and thousands of members choosing us to forge potential bonds.rterterter

Can you really be so dense?  I’m not saying “everyone has the right to a heterosexual lifestyle”…they have the right to whatever “lifestyle” they want.  Everyone as the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Is this really rocket science to you?  Where is your common sense?

nature got the memo.  It appears that in addition to wishing to redefine marriage you also wish to redefine nature.

Just be honest about it is all I ask

I’ll show you the respect of calling you greg when you start refering to Governor Christie with the same respect…umkay greggie?

As for your question….King was using a biblical reference…the same bible that he believed stated that homosexuality was a sin, and that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Why do you think he spoke of it?

Fact….everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex (with certain age and relationship restrictions)

Do you agree?  If you do then one fact has penetrated, and I will give you credit for one, and we’ll move on to the next fact.

However, based on your inability to discuss facts without ad hominem attacks and sexually and religiously bigoted slurs…I’m guessing there will be no fact #2 provided

WOW!   Not even how i saw this segment i saw Johnathan get his little bow tie handed to him and sent packing.  His inference that the rights of gays and lesbians being infringed is equal to the way  African Americans were treated is laughable and it is apparent that james crugnale is a liberal with some bias and wanted to re write what actually happened and left that out!… Laughable again mediate you are owned by the ex pres of MSNBC you show nothing but NBC ads and then you spend your time putting up biased pieces to promote BHO……….   this one was weaker than a nickle pack of Koo-aide in the ocean ,  no color and no flavor!

And WTF is up with mediate and their obsession with righties getting GRILLED?  Always grilling think you guys would start a show on food network you must have some great BBQ

Last I checked, the courts and appointed judges are right there in your beloved Constitution.  They’ve been part of our system since day one….so cry me a river.

You know it works both ways.

Republicans always cite polls about Obamacare…but are dead silent when it comes to polls that show 75% of voters in favor of a tax increase on the wealthy.

It´s def not rocket science you are using two different names around here for whatever reason. LMAO Ain´t you a clever guy!

Says the the senor too confused to use two different accounts here.

Whatcha ya gonna do? Extinguish the birds and the all the other animals who show homosexual behavior?

Hint, anything what happens in nature is natural.

I know! Thanks!

 Just shut it . Why is your name and number  on every rest stop mensroom wall?

Johnathan wants a little “somethin, somethin” from CC.

Spot on. The Constitution means as much as the Bible to guys like Kevin as long as they can use it to support their immature world views.

Are you kidding?  Christie came off looking like the BIG BULLY he is.  So what if he was a Prosecutor does that make him right on every issue because it comes out of his holy mouth? NO, he definitely dodged Capehart’s question and then proceeded to YELL.  I’m hoping New Jersey gets rid of him in the next election.  You would have thought he would have learned to respect other opinions once in a while.

They cannot get married, that is what this is about. No one has the right to deny gay people from marriage. If your religious beliefs conflict with that then don’t have a gay relationship, but don’t impose your beliefs on someone else. People have the right to live their lives the way they see fit as long it doesn’t infringe on other peoples lives.

The Royal Empress was busy this morning so he was unable to give him the somethin which he usually provides for Jonathan.

 Has the question ever come up, and actually been answered by Obama?

All of Obama’s positions are treated differently. Must we beat that tired old drum again?

 But of course all republican judges are not activist, correct?

Remember when the right attacked debby wasserman schultz for her looks?
Rachel maddow for her sexual preference?
 

 Sounds like you are the dense one.

 kinda stupid
your statement would be correct if Greg called him chrissie.

.the same bible that he believed stated that homosexuality was a sin

This bible?

Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy
gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath
wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing
his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped
them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I
have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it,
and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing
certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt
thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that
wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt
stone them with stones, till they die.

 So, everyone has the right to a hetero relationship.

what does being a white heterosexual have to do with it?
Do you not care about people of other colors?
and since homosexuals make up a much larger percentage, of course they would be a higher rate.

So Thomas Macso is only concerned about WHITE HETERO MALES.

Well fat = eating too much
Murder = KILLING SOMEONE

 So a barren woman cannot get married?

Obama has never been given an opportunity to legalize same sex marriage while Chris Christie was given an opportunity to stand up for equal marriage rights & he chose to veto it.

I think the metaphor was, if slavery had been put to a referendum after the courts had ruled it unconstitutional, it would have passed overwhelmingly.  And CC would have ignored the SCOTUS ruling, just as Newtie has said he would do to any ruling with which he didn’t agree, makiing him the scofflaw in chief.

Christie is a big bully and Johnathan acted like a woman who had been bitch slapped I thought he was going to cry.  Bet he would not have gotten away with his bullying with Andrew Sullivan

Afford me the same respect you demand and we have no issue. This is America after all.

King spoke of freedom and equality in geographic terms… the most vital framing available to our democracy. King saw justice from the distance and worked into his people the bravery to pursue.

Your reference to bronze age prohibition a reliance on modern spite. Nasty bile will not deliver justice.

nice..

What the media asks a politician  a non-prepared question????? What is happening to the US news media?! Are they finally growing a pair? As for the Governor, you are a public official talking to the media, the media’s job isn’t just to give you a platform to speak your mind, it’s job IS to cross examine you on every issue. It’s a shame most of the mainstream media has forgotten this too.

 Yes because when homosexuality was legalized decades ago, bestiality followed not long after, just like when women were allowed to vote the slippery slope was to allow other mammals to vote…..oh wait none of that happened did it?

You mean Obama the man may have a personal dilemma about an issue but understand that in the USA we have a document called the CONSTITUTION which guarantees rights to all? If that is your point I agree.

Christie has the courage to use people’s lives for his political games and gains.

Nope.  Straight’s marriage will not change one tiny ounce if the right is equally granted to same sex couples. If you rally fear that your marriage is not strong enough to have Adam and Steve exchange vows and enjoy the exact same legal benefits then the problem is in you – not me.

By definition?

Who’s definition?

Homosexuality occurs in nature – deal with it. You know what does not occur in nature? RELIGION and RELIGIOUS persecution of minorities.

My gay self if 1,000,000 times more natural than any and all religious zealots.

Still looking to justify the unjustifiable? Is the marriage between a man and a women. The human condition that lends itself to the procreation, and the proper emotional, and physical well being and rearing of children. Would a barren married woman, along with her husband, be most qualified to rear an adopted child?

Luckily there are plenty of straight out there making new gay babies every day!

Not everyone wants a Bachmann household.

Capehart should have put a box of donuts in front of Christie ….

He would have answered any question he asked ….

What about them? All you described, are of the opposite sex. The natural human condition.
What you are trying to do is justify an unnatural union by citing unions that will not bear children in an attempt to corrupt the basic foundation of marriage.
Maybe you should be asking these people why they need to be married at all? Once the need for a legal contracts Consideration no longer exists, the need for a binding legal marriage ends. A Consideration that cannot exist in a Gay marriage.
People of the same sex can join in a legal civil-contract which nullifies the need for a marriage. Question is, why are not doing that? Could it be their need to be thought of as normal?  

You haven’t been around long, have you? The basic need for a legal marriage is procreation. Remove that, and you remove the legal need for marriage.
How many more corruptions of a basic condition can you come up with to justify an abnormal condition?

You did come up with more justification didn’t you. Dumb but, hey your trying. Seems, your having a hard time understanding the basic premise of marriage. Why is that? Can’t see passed your own prejudice?

Well, this is just plain silly.  If you change what something is by definition, you have changed what it means for the entire culture.  If marriage is the union of the two genders, and you use the force of law to say that it isn’t that, you have changed the culture…for everyone. 

It’s too bad I can’t respond to each of your comments directly, but I’ll do it this way.  I’ll just copy and paste each comment so that I can have a fair response to it.  Again, it’s only fair.

You haven’t been around long, have you? The basic need for a legal
marriage is procreation. Remove that, and you remove the legal need for
marriage.
How many more corruptions of a basic condition can you come up with to justify an abnormal condition?

Um, you haven’t been around long then, have you? (Ooh, an insult answered with another insult).  There is no need to have a legal marriage for procreation.  I don’t know if you know this, but you can procreate without being married.  Marriage is a social contract, that was its basic need.  It was a way for families to share their land, for two fathers to be able to bring together property and land.  It had nothing to do with procreation.  Over the years, this concept of a social contract evolved into being a way to shared ownership between the couple, but that’s a fairly new concept as well since previously, the man owned the wife and marriage helped deal with the concept of ownership and NOT procreation.  As our social beliefs change, so to has the “basic” concept of marriage.  So, as our society evolves, in the next 50 or 60 years, gay marriage will not be an issue and people will sit there in the future and say, “Can you believe people thought that way?”  Much like how we in this time view the Jim Crow laws and segregation of the South in the early half of the 20th century.  To be honest, the world is changing around you and you are terrified.  So, you act out and restrict the rights that you have from a group that is different.  That is a basic, natural human condition that has been around from our tribal days, when the “other’ or “outsider” was considered a threat.  Therefore, it’s not corruption, it’s called evolution, but judging from your stance (and since I’m prejudiced as per your comment later), you probably don’t believe in that either.

 Of course. But you just get Merg glufel urks bifdufel, and crumbs flying everywhere……….
Not good for TV!

If you don’t want a dialectic argument on the subject, just say so. If you want to regurgitate useless socialist propaganda designed to diminish or marginalize the natural human condition in an attempt to qualify your corruption, then your talking to the wrong person.
You want to justify Gay marriage by using the term “evolution”, why, when the term you should be using is “devolution”. Gay marriage is not a step forward, it’s a step into the absurd!

 What about them? All you described, are of the opposite sex. The natural human condition.
What
you are trying to do is justify an unnatural union by citing unions
that will not bear children in an attempt to corrupt the basic
foundation of marriage.
Maybe you should be asking these people why
they need to be married at all? Once the need for a legal contracts
Consideration no longer exists, the need for a binding legal marriage
ends. A Consideration that cannot exist in a Gay marriage.
People of
the same sex can join in a legal civil-contract which nullifies the need
for a marriage. Question is, why are not doing that? Could it be their
need to be thought of as normal?

Well, actually, I gave you examples of people who don’t fit in your legal definition of marriage.  In other words, people who don’t have the right to share an insurance policy, or to file taxes jointly to receive a tax credit or any of the other benefits that a couple share from marriage.  But, it’s okay for these folks to go against your definition because they aren’t gay?  Well, it seems it’s less about procreation and more about not thinking gay people should have the same rights as you. I mean, it even appears that you are okay with civil unions, but you so don’t want gay people to have your rights that you won’t even let them have a word.  It’s semantics, and that’s just mean.  It appears it’s just a word that you’ve heaped all this meaning upon, this idea that it’s about procreation or some other codification.  It means you are accusing me of doing the exact same thing you’re doing…justifying.  Many of the people who agree with you, and there are many, not denying that, are scared that the world wants to change and by God, they are going to do their best to prevent that, even if it means hating and denying fellow human beings rights.  It happened in the 60′s, it’s happening now.  Now, homosexuality does occur in other species.  It’s actually a nice way for nature to deal with population control.  What isn’t a part of nature…marriage.  There are no social contracts given out to other members of the animal kingdom.  In other words, if we are going to do the nature argument, then homosexuality is technically more natural than marriage.

They aren’t doing it so that they can feel normal, they are doing it for the same reason everybody does something in a society, to be a part of the group.  Let me ask you this, say you are only 5 foot 3.  The average height is 5 foot 10 in males.  Now, you want to be a part of this town, but this town says no to you because you are 5 foot 3 and all the high shelves in the town can only be reached by people 5 foot 10 or higher.  Now, that’s a ridiculous argument, and unfair to you.  You didn’t want to be 5 foot 3, but you want to be included in this town who do to the fact that you are different and put together a ridiculous way to justify their prejudice towards you.  To me, that’s the gay marriage argument in a nutshell.

 You did come up with more justification didn’t you. Dumb but, hey your
trying. Seems, your having a hard time understanding the basic premise
of marriage. Why is that? Can’t see passed your own prejudice?

So, I must be doing pretty well with this argument if you’ve decided to start insulting me.  The insult is the best weapon that someone who is losing can use.  But hey, at least your trying.  No, you are not getting the basic premise of procreation.  We don’t get to married to procreate.  There’s no rule that says it can’t happen.  You are the one justifying a pretty hateful stance that you have against fellow human beings.  Now, I’m not going to change your mind, your mind doesn’t want to change and down the road your views will be looked at as ridiculous, but hey, at least you tried to stop the world from changing.  Your own idea about the basic premise of marriage has evolved over the years to what we have today.  Today’s laws about marriage are not the same as they were in England in the 1600′s.  I know, we tend to forget that we are a new country, and haven’t been around long enough, but damn it, our beliefs are timeless and been around for ages (they haven’t).  I wouldn’t call it prejudice on my part, I would call it bias.  I support change, I support evolution, I support a society that does it’s best to not only preserve itself but also to progress.  I think your views go against that…pure and simple.

 If you don’t want a dialectic argument on the subject, just say so. If
you want to regurgitate useless socialist propaganda designed to
diminish or marginalize the natural human condition in an attempt to
qualify your corruption, then your talking to the wrong person.
You
want to justify Gay marriage by using the term “evolution”, why, when
the term you should be using is “devolution”. Gay marriage is not a step
forward, it’s a step into the absurd!

Ah, the socialist card.  Here, I’ll break the argument down into simpler terms.  Your argument:  I’m not gay, they can’t have my rights.  My argument:  I’m not gay, they can have my rights.  Has nothing to do with socialism, basic human condition, nor conservatism.  See, I’m making good points that are reasonable arguments, so what do you do:  Call him a socialist.  Yeah, that will get people to not like his ideas.  Wait, my ideas are kind of backwards and he’s poking holes, I’ll just call it the basic human condition, simple, and people, being humans, can get behind that.  It’s a popular tactic (fortunately, I’m capable of being able to see beyond it).  Here, but to help you with how gay marriage can be viewed as more evolution and more beneficial to society.  Um, we’ve got a lot of kids who have been “procreated” outside that basic human condition which is the legal contract of marriage. ( Wow, your argument is that marriage is so we can procreate, but all these people are procreating without getting married, that’s a hole, wait no, not a hole, basic human condition.)  So, here’s a group in our society that wants to get married, wants to form a bond and bring in these children that have no homes or families, that were left without caretakers (the need to be cared for as a child is a basic human condition), here this group wants to form the contracts, the monetary means to take care of this segment of our society that is neglected, children that can grow up to help “procreate” and build our society.  I see this as a huge benefit and step into strengthening are own society.  (And believe me, I have gay couple friends who I would trust to raise my son more than some of my hetero couple friends.  They know who they are.)

(For the record:  I don’t think socialism is the correct answer nor do I think that capitalism is the correct answer.  I think there is a middle ground combining elements from both sides that will help.  Though I do favor capitalism more than socialism.  That’s the American in me.)

Debating civil rights with a Republican is like a member of the KKK getting married to Oprah. It just doesn’t make any sense. Civil Rights are to protect minorities over majorities. That’s how women got the right to vote, gays got the right to marry, blacks got the right to serve in the military, and latinos got the right to work. If left up to the majority – oh what’s the point?? You are the majority. Thank God you talk to other people and tell them how you feel, hiding your discrimination against everyone except yourself would be a tragedy.

So let me get this straight. You want me to give you the origin and history of each of those Amendments to the Constitution, describe who fought for them and how they finally got passed?

Yes, that makes a lot of sense.

This debate is pointless. I am midly against this right. However, to each their own as long as their not hurting anyone physically.

“morally superior to the common man” ? What the heck?

The moment you go off the reservation and say something stupid like that is the moment you don’t care about the debate and just want to waste our time.

This not a “democracy.” It is a representative republic. Also, the courts are part of the checks and balances system that is the very foundation of the Constitution.
The reason for this is that the majority is NOT always correct. Slavery is a perfect example of this. The states that legalized slavery did so “democratically” and with the support of the majority of voters.
The majority of the people in those states believed that slavery was a good thing, and they were wrong!

I can’t stand Mr. Christie!  Who is he to bully anyone he thinks?  This guy needs some learnin’ such as a little bit of humility and ettiquette/manners.  

 Pretty funny to paint Capeheart as some kinda bully toughguy picking on the wilted flower Chris Christie.  Reaching.  Like that guy from Fantastic Four with stretchy skin kinda reaching.

Obama refuses to defend DOMA.  And the Right wing freaks out.  He supported ending DODT (not starting that drive, but ending it).  And the Right wing freaks out.  Now you want to say Obama=Christie?! 

Not even close.  Obama is two for two.  Christie is zero for one.  If you don’t like gay rights, fine, support the fat boy.  But don’t twist and turn things saying the president is the same as him.

I saw this- & it is not surprising that christie became  arrogant-that is what bullies do.  I would like to see him or newt debate Michael Eric Dyson. Dyson
would chew them up & spit them out. 

You gave me what you consider, justification for Gay marriage. Problem is, they don’t work. There is no reason to enter into a marriage if children are not to be the result of that marriage.
If your argument is purely economical, then enter into a binding civil-contract. There is no logical reason for supporting Gay-marriage.

 You gave me what you consider, justification for Gay marriage. Problem
is, they don’t work. There is no reason to enter into a marriage if
children are not to be the result of that marriage.
If your argument
is purely economical, then enter into a binding civil-contract. There
is no logical reason for supporting Gay-marriage.

So what’s the difference between marriage and a binding civil-contract?  If people get the same rights as those who are married, then the only problem is you don’t want it to be called marriage.  And I’m the illogical one here?  No, my argument is this, again in simple terms.  You:  I’m not gay, they shouldn’t have my rights.  Me:  I’m not gay, they can have my rights.  So, let’s remove economics, tradition, socialism, or basic human condition (the need to be loved is also one, but gays probably shouldn’t have the right to love either, am I right?  After all, they are abnormal and not even human).  There’s actually no logical reason to be against it.  You say, marriage means you enter into it to procreate, but people procreate like crazy without it.  So, there’s a hole in your argument.  What about an elderly couple?  Do you want to deny rights to the elderly as well, but yet, you said that you were okay with it because they weren’t gay?  However, there ain’t children going to be involved.  Let’s imagine that God forbid your spouse dies while in your sixties or so, (just a hypothetical) and you meet someone who you love and she wants to get married, are you seriously going to say, “Sorry, we can’t have children, no marriage for you?”  Again, what’s the difference between marriage and civil contract?  And again, how is your argument not “I’m not gay and they can’t have my rights.”

Civil unions and marriage as it’s traditionally viewed:The right to federal benefits. States that allow some type of same-sex union are able to grant only state rights. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and benefits.Portability. Because civil unions are not recognized by all states, such agreements are not always valid when couples cross state lines.Terminology. “Marriage” is a term that conveys societal and cultural meaning, important to both gay rights activists and those who don’t believe gays should marry.

Civil unions and marriage as it’s traditionally viewed:The right to
federal benefits. States that allow some type of same-sex union are able
to grant only state rights. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996
prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and
benefits.Portability. Because civil unions are not recognized by all
states, such agreements are not always valid when couples cross state
lines.Terminology. “Marriage” is a term that conveys societal and
cultural meaning, important to both gay rights activists and those who
don’t believe gays should marry.

Good, so then I’m still correct that the argument still boils down to this:  You: I’m not gay, they can’t have my rights.  Me: I’m not gay, they can have my rights.

Gays have the same civil rights as anybody else. If we are to look at marriage as a civil and religious contract designed for the procreation of our species then, we can readily see that marriage between same-sex couples runs contrary to that end.
What your asking for are special rights for Gays. Gay, or straight, when procreation is not the issue, then a civil-union or some other legal contract should be used.
You readily ignore cultural norms, as though they are of no significance, when in reality, they are the standards a civil society has developed over many years. Cultural norms that best serve that particular society.
As usual, you are wrong in both your assessment of cultural norms, and Civil Rights. We could carry this argument out to it’s repugnant end by opening up examples of just how far this issue can be taken if Gay marriage is recognized. There has to be legal limits or the issue could become absurd in a hurry.   

Gays have the same civil rights as anybody else. If we are to look at
marriage as a civil and religious contract designed for the procreation
of our species then, we can readily see that marriage between same-sex
couples runs contrary to that end.
What your asking for are special
rights for Gays. Gay, or straight, when procreation is not the issue,
then a civil-union or some other legal contract should be used.
You
readily ignore cultural norms, as though they are of no significance,
when in reality, they are the standards a civil society has developed
over many years. Cultural norms that best serve that particular society.

As usual, you are wrong in both your assessment of cultural norms,
and Civil Rights. We could carry this argument out to it’s repugnant end
by opening up examples of just how far this issue can be taken if Gay
marriage is recognized. There has to be legal limits or the issue could
become absurd in a hurry. 

Just so we are straight here. (no pun intended) The elderly cannot get married.  A woman who’s had a hysterectomy cannot get married.  A man who has lost his testicles due to cancer cannot get married.  I’m not ignoring cultural norms, I’m acknowledging that cultural norms change.  After all, if they didn’t, if your brother were to die and you were unmarried, you had to marry his wife.  That’s not a practice common today.  In fact, your parents would choose your wife for you since the idea of dating and romance didn’t come around until the 12th century.  And yes, I understand Civil Rights.  See, here a couple doesn’t get the same rights as my wife and I.  And you called it a religious contract, so technically no marriage should be viewed by the federal government as legal.  But here, are you willing to say unequivocally that no couple is allowed to get married if they are not in it to procreate.  No elderly couples, no barren couples, whether they be straight or gay, because until you can say that then, You: I’m not gay, they can’t have my rights.  Me: I’m not gay, they can have my rights.  Oh, and here’s a cultural norm for you: Marriage isn’t solely about procreation anymore.

Are you purposely missing the point? The whole point of a legal marriage is providing the necessary economic and emotional standard necessary for the rearing of children. Remove that necessary element (children) and you remove the need for marriage. Why the hell would you bother when you can achieve whatever economic condition you want independent of the state being involved?
Marriage isn’t solely about procreation anymore? What condition then requires marriage? Todays culture doesn’t require marriage at all for two people to live together. It’s not about the condition of two people of different sexes living together that is subject to a social norm, it’s two people of the same sex that is in question.

Are you purposely missing the point? The whole point of a legal marriage is providing the necessary economic and emotional standard necessary for the rearing of children. Remove that necessary element (children) and you remove the need for marriage. Why the hell would you bother when you can achieve whatever economic condition you want independent of the state being involved? 
Marriage isn’t solely about procreation anymore? What condition then requires marriage? Todays culture doesn’t require marriage at all for two people to live together. It’s not about the condition of two people of different sexes living together that is subject to a social norm, it’s two people of the same sex that is in question.
And you are definitely missing my point since it paints you as intolerant and a bigot.  So, let’s examine what you write here (notice that you changed the word from procreate to rear now, so finally you get that you can procreate without getting married.)

“The whole point of a legal marriage is providing the necessary economic and emotional standard necessary for the rearing of children.”

Well, then if that’s the case, gay people can certainly marry and create the necessary economic and emotional standard needed to rear a child.  They don’t procreate them, but they can adopt them, and procreation does not lead to proper rearing of a child, so in that case, gay marriage hits the exact stand you are looking for.  But they are gay and they don’t deserve the same rights that you do.

“Remove that necessary element (children) and you remove the need for marriage.”

So, then, instead of going around in circles, say The Elderly cannot get married legally.  Women with hysterectomies cannot get married legally.  Men unable to conceive due to loss of testicles from cancer cannot get married legally.  It’s not hard, say it.  That way you don’t look like a bigot. Heterosexual couples have to live by the same rules that you dictated as homosexual couples.  If not, you’re a bigot, pure and simple.

“Marriage isn’t solely about procreation anymore? What condition then requires marriage?”

The main reason my wife and I got married was so that I could have her health insurance.  I’m a freelancer, so I don’t get health care provided for me, it was cheaper and more beneficial for us to get married.  Also, we share tax returns and that helps us out as well.  Yes, we did procreate, but we didn’t get married so that we could have children, we did it for the benefits that the government is nice enough to provide for us.  We love each other dearly, and my wedding was a wondrous occasion where I could show friends and family how much I love this woman.  So, there’s also that. All things that people enjoy, with or without kids.  You do know what love is, right?  I mean, you may not show love or compassion for gay people, but I’m sure you still do it for others.

So, there you go, either say “The elderly, barren, or people who cannot conceive cannot legally get married.”  Or say, “I don’t think gay people deserve the same rights as me.”  Because, if you don’t say the former, the latter is how you are viewed and so far, you are justifying your bigoted stance a lot more than I’m justifying gay marriage. No basic human condition, no basic premise of marriage, no social norms or any other BS you are choosing to hide your hatred for a group of people behind.  Grow a pair and just say it.

Once again you are wrong. Two people of the same sex do not fulfill the emotional well being of a child. On it’s face, that suggestion is laughable.
I know your looking to justify your own position and hey, if it works for you, go for it. But, don’t try to tell me that something is culturally normal when anyone of reasonable intelligence knows it’s not. You may make up any justification you want to satisfy your position but that does not make them valid. Marriage is between a man and a women for the expressed purpose of bearing and raising children. Any other argument is bogus.  

 Once again you are wrong. Two people of the same sex do not fulfill the
emotional well being of a child. On it’s face, that suggestion is
laughable.
I know your looking to justify your own position and hey,
if it works for you, go for it. But, don’t try to tell me that
something is culturally normal when anyone of reasonable intelligence
knows it’s not. You may make up any justification you want to satisfy
your position but that does not make them valid. Marriage is between a
man and a women for the expressed purpose of bearing and raising
children. Any other argument is bogus. 

Now, we’re getting somewhere, I almost have you saying you hate gay people.  It must be hate to write something so malicious about people that despite loving and caring for a child and providing the necessary economic support, in your eyes that’s just laughable.  I mean that’s hatred.  Your saying that a child that’s beaten regularly by a cruel father while a mother with low self esteem helplessly watches is better off than with two parents who love that child.  And it just boils down to hatred.  I’m not justifying anything, I’ve consistently put holes in your arguments (Marriage is for procreation -  You don’t have to be married to procreate, does that mean the elderly and the barren shouldn’t get married.  Why else would you get married but to procreate – Um, health insurance, tax credits, love, etc.  Marriage serves the purpose of providing emotional and monetary support to raise a child – a gay couple can provide that.  No, gay couples can’t provide emotional support – Prove it, find numbers where there are more emotional wrecks coming out of gay marriages than straight marriages.  I’m a product of a broken marriage, would’ve loved to have had emotional support from any parents, gay or straight.)  The thing is it bugs you that you can’t say I hate gay people.  You want to say it, come on.  You want to slap my smug face and scream it at the top of your lungs.  You can’t stand that you aren’t allowed to say it, that you have to hide behind this marriage BS.  Look, say it.  You hate them.  I’ll let you, it will make you feel better to come out of this horrible mask. You’re words have become more hateful every comment, and it’s culminating with the malicious words you just wrote.  Now, say it.  No one else is reading this thread anymore, so the only one to read it will be me.  Then, you can breathe easier, no more hiding.  No more saying, you’re justifying gay marriage every time I shoot a hole in your argument.  No more “the basic premise of marriage is procreation.”  Come on, I’ll give it to you.  In other comments, I won’t scream “This guy hates gay people, he said so in our gay marriage debate.” (I especially won’t say it if we aren’t debating gay marriage).  Or say the elderly, the barren, or anyone not looking to marry to procreate cannot legally marry.  That way, your definition doesn’t exempt anyone.  You won’t.  Because I know you want to say I hate gay people.

Remove homophobia from the equation and you have no argument. I have Gay relatives, and I love them. So much for homophobia. By the way, they agree with my assessment.
This is a mater of cultural norms and common sense. You can spin this issue anyway you want but, the wants of a minuscule number of any society can not dominate. As long as their civil rights, under the law, are not being violated they have no argument.
As I have said, Gays are asking for special rights above and beyond those already established. This cannot be tolerated.  

Remove homophobia from the equation and you have no argument. I have Gay
relatives, and I love them. So much for homophobia. By the way, they
agree with my assessment.
This is a mater of cultural norms and
common sense. You can spin this issue anyway you want but, the wants of a
minuscule number of any society can not dominate. As long as their
civil rights, under the law, are not being violated they have no
argument.
As I have said, Gays are asking for special rights above and beyond those already established. This cannot be tolerated. 

Well, first, I do have an argument, I have laid it out pretty plainly within this debate.  I’ve also repeated them for you in the last post I did, since you seem to forget that I do have an argument, and then I keep adding more to how yours is shaky.  Anyway, second, homophobia is not hatred of gay people.  It’s fear of gay people, fear of what they are going to do or whatever it is that would cause a person to be fearful of gay people.  No, I said you hate them.  And now, you are hiding your hate behind your “gay relatives,” wow, that’s rough.  (Of course the “I love my gay relatives” is pretty close to “Hey, some of my best friends are black” argument.)  It’s nice and vague, but if we want to get personal, I’ll get specific.

This is a pretty painful story that is going on in my wife’s family right now, and I hate to have to bring it up, but it’s to help illustrate the difference between love and hate.  My wife’s uncle’s partner (they are not married nor have a civil union since the state they live in doesn’t allow those) passed away last month after a long bout with cancer.  They were together for 15 years, and shared a house (in the partner’s name) for five years.  Imagine my uncle’s surprise that he’s now in a legal battle to keep the house they shared.  That’s right, they couldn’t have it in both names, and the family of his partner would like it.  They didn’t ostracize him, but they weren’t cordial and didn’t visit him too much, especially during the more painful bouts.  Now, my wife’s uncle has to deal with losing the man he’s loved for 15 years on top of having to fight to keep the place that they built together.  A fight that would not happen if I were to pass away.  My wife gets the house.  No real battle there, it’s in both out names.  And my marriage protects that.  So, would asking to be allowed to be married to his partner asking for special treatment when I can get it no questions asked.  You can tolerate that?  I feel sorry for your gay relatives because they don’t realize how much you hate them or they won’t speak out against it.  This is no longer an argument about cultural norms (which I’ve shown do change over the years) or common sense, this just love and hate.  I don’t mean to change the parameters of the argument, but each of your comments get more filled with hate for these people as we go.  You show zero compassion for these people you “love.”  Now, they want what you have, and YOU CAN’T TOLERATE THAT!  Wow, if you were screaming that out at my family gatherings, I would probably have to slink into a corner and not disagree you as well.

Dude, stop hiding.  Just say it.  Get it over with.  It’s got to be killing you that you have to hide behind this BS, behind an argument based on “a basic premise” established lots of centuries ago, or stagnant cultural norms that you know are BS.  I know you won’t, you never will.  Because hating gay people go against the cultural norm.  At least, you’re consistent.

You do have an argument but, it falls short on all levels. Here we have a president who’s looking a $5.00 a gallon gas emergency, nearly $16-Trillion deficit, a rogue Nation on the verge of having a nuclear weapon, massive unemployment, massive mortgage foreclosures, a border so porous it’s a wonder terrorists haven’t hit us already, and this idiot-president of yours is worried about Gay marriage?! And there you set, defending the indefensible!
Maybe you should give some thought to your argument.

I truthfully believe that same  sex MARRIAGE is coming, a fact that I dont necessarily agree with, but
like the President, my views on this isssue are evolving as well. I am African-American, and grew up during the civil Rights days(which are still going on, by the way). Just like some Whites out there cannot wrap their brains around a Black man in the White House and the emergence of minorities
in positions of power in our country,those times have come, too. No more turning back now.