I wish I got FBN just to watch this show.

Judge Napolitano has several books out, all worthy of reading. Excellent debate.

So Huck and Barry are on the same page on gay marriage , until after the election next year , when Ol’ Bar will finish evolving and come out in favor of it .

For the truly, truly ignorant amongst us (yes, I mean you lunatic-left d-crat socialists): the president, even the most extremist, radical, anti-American, leftist excuse for one, isn’t the final arbiter on what law is Constitutional. That’s the primary job of the judiciary.

“You Lie!” failure to enforce DOMA is simply another of his lawless actions, for which the US Constitution sets forth a solution:

IMPEACH “YOU LIE!” HUSSEIN !!!!

Speaker of the House Boehner must convene a special panel to begin IMPEACHMENT hearings for the high crimes and misdemeanors of hussein in relation to the illegal sestak and romanoff job offers, CRONY CAPITALISM with GE, Goldman Sachs, GM and others, blatant extortion of money from a company (BP), intentional failure to protect our borders, willfully ignoring the legal rulings of the courts (that’s the THIRD BRANCH of the federal government, Sen. “Like all lunatic-lefties, I know nothing about the Constitution” Shumer), funneling massive amounts of taxpayer money to unions that then illegally kick-back money to the d-crat socialists, intentional failure to enforce immigration laws and the intimidation of any state or law enforcement agency that does try to enforce them, DOJ acceptance and encouragement of Blank Panther voter intimidation, outrageous race-base law enforcement by the DOJ and his many, many other offenses against America and the US Constitution.

The only thing that Gov. Huckabee’s arguments expose is the thinness of the case against same-sex marriage. And that is precisely why Prop 8 was struck down in the District Court — Equal Protection analysis doesn’t allow this sort of unfounded speculation (e.g. 2/3 of American children currently living in poverty would no longer live in poverty if both parents were around) and resort to syllogisms (marriage is between a man and a woman; this is not a man and a woman; therefore, this is not marriage).

What Huckabee fails to grasp is that “Marriage is between a man and a woman” is not the answer… it’s the legal question: “Is marriage limited to one man and one woman?” Proponents of Prop 8, DOMA, and the like, bear the burden of demonstrating that it does not run afoul of the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses under the 14th Amendment. Because sexual orientation is not (yet) recognized as a protected class, proponents need only survive rational basis. THAT’S the issue that was presented to the court in Perry, and that’s the issue that will continue to be litigated. Is there a rational basis for limiting marriage to one man and one woman? In other words, is there evidence to support the claim that some harm to children/heterosexuals/society flows from permitting same-sex marriage?If yes, it survives; if no, it fails.

And when you get into court without the requisite data/findings to support your claims (not to mention a scientific outlook which concludes that the Earth is 6,000 years old, Huckabee), you lose.

Finally, I’m curious if any commenters are able to figure out the logic of this statement, because I’m unable to figure it out:

“Huckabee does, to his credit, manage to find a libertarian argument for the government being involved in heterosexual marriage, though: deadbeat dads are costing the nation millions in government subsidies. This was one point the Judge could get behind.”

Oh, and TeaPartyPatriot? Read more Michelle Malkin….. no, seriously.

“Huckabee does, to his credit, manage to find a libertarian argument for the government being involved in heterosexual marriage, though: deadbeat dads are costing the nation millions in government subsidies. This was one point the Judge could get behind.”

Interestingly, though, that point also supports the side of gay marriage. After all, if too much money is being spent supporting single mothers, then either a) gay marriage would help by helping support a union that might help get a parent off the government teat with the help of a supporting partner… how would the gender of that partner matter in the least? or b) if we accept the point that gay couples wouldn’t have children, then what does the issue of single parents have to do with it at all?

On another note, if a court finds that a law that Congress passed is unconstitutional, is it really an impeachable offense on the part of the President not to keep fighting it in every single possible way, possibly wasting how many millions in taxpayer dollars? (I thought the conservatives didn’t want that.)

Sorry Mike, ancient civilizations in history did have recognized same sex unions, Rome, China, and other parts of Europe.

And as far as natural law goes, homosexuality occurs in nature. Just because it’s a smaller % of the population doesn’t make it unnatural. And Mike, you don’t really know what God thinks, you have an opinion. Not that long ago Christians supported slavery and thought that God did as well. Later they opposed interracial marriage and quoted the Bible to do so. Now those views look backward and wrong. Mankind and society does get to grow and learn and let go of out bad judgments.

Is civil union going to be the new fall back position so people can feel less mean and still hang on to this issue?
Spend the money to cerate new laws and create this thing called civil union , that gives couples all the same rights the marriage laws already in place do, but changes the superficial label to the union so we can still think ours is better than yours. That seems childish and goofy and sad that people need to falsely assert their moral superiority by denying fellow citizens their equality.

Does the label on someone else’s union have any real effect on how good yours is or isn’t?

pshap said:
And when you get into court without the requisite data/findings to support your claims (not to mention a scientific outlook which concludes that the Earth is 6,000 years old, Huckabee), you lose.

Exactly. All the phony research that tried to show some negative consequence has been shot down. There simply is no rational or reasonable argument left to deny equal rights to gays so they can marry the person they love.

“It just doesn’t seem right to me” doesn’t cut it. You don’t get to deny rights to someone based on an opinion or a feeling , even if it’s held by the majority.

Sidebar said:
if we accept the point that gay couples wouldn’t have children, then what does the issue of single parents have to do with it at all?

SS couples can and do have children. Just as couples that can’t conceive for medical reasons do.

But I see your point. Child support and SSM are two separate issues.

On another board I’ve been in long discussions several times with those who think making fathers pay for the children they sire is unfair. It’s ludicrous but that’s their position.

TeaPartyPatriot, it seems you forgot to take your meds this morning. Have your grandchildren take care of that for you.

Why they let you out of the straight-jacket, I’ll never know.

I’ve survived 50+ years!, but my wife has “good taste” – she chose me!

stoogedudes said:
TeaPartyPatriot, it seems you forgot to take your meds this morning. Have your grandchildren take care of that for you.

Why they let you out of the straight-jacket, I’ll never know.

What an overused, tired and worn out insult the whole “meds” thing is. Yes, even by Huckabee

““It’s a contract,” he notes, “an agreement between two people whose hearts have joined together. What business is that of the government?” He further adds that nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given permission to become involved in marriage, making it difficult for him to see how a federal legal definition is constitutional”

I wrote about this before on here, in my opinion, a better solution would be to call all pairings civil unions, and leave marriages between couples and their church/religious/spiritual leader. The government acts as mediator for the *contract* between two persons for the civil unions. Then, couples can take it up with their church/religious leader if they want a God/Spiritually sanctioned marriage.

If you want, have a ceremonial religious wedding (in a church or not), but one that is *recognized by God*. Regardless of what route you go, you are still *married*, it’s just the difference of whether you bring your faith/God into it, or not. If you are gay, and belong to a liberal church, or get married by some internet minister, or whatever, you can have your wedding *ordained* and with your religions blessings, or whatever.

You don’t need a church, or a religious leader to get married – but without all that, aren’t you really performing a civil contract ceremonial service? You should be able to go in, sign your papers/contracts, and then go off and have whatever type of ceremony you want to celebrate that *union*.

As Obama said, “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

So, get religion out of all government sanctioned civil unions, and let people take marriages up with their church or whoever.

tgk said:
What an overused, tired and worn out insult the whole “meds” thing is. Yes, even by Huckabee

Yes, I was a little out of line on this, but TeaPartyPatriot’s rantings is just like all his/her other rantings:psychotic. It’s always “lunatic left d-crat” or whatever. There are good conservative posters on here who can argue coherently, but I’ve never seen a single coherent argument or point that didn’t border on lunacy from TPP. Yes, I regret what I said, but TPP just asks for it.

To talk about Napolitano/Huckabee, this is why I can’t be down on libertarians much. At least they’re consistent with their “keep government out of our lives” beliefs. I admire Judge for bringing his point on this. That said, I like Huckabee personally. He seems like a decent guy who I’d like to think I could get along with, but his views on gay marriage are just something I can’t agree with at all.

sarainitaly said:
““It’s a contract,” he notes, “an agreement between two people whose hearts have joined together. What business is that of the government?” He further adds that nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given permission to become involved in marriage, making it difficult for him to see how a federal legal definition is constitutional” I wrote about this before on here, in my opinion, a better solution would be to call all pairings civil unions, and leave marriages between couples and their church/religious/spiritual leader. The government acts as mediator for the *contract* between two persons for the civil unions. Then, couples can take it up with their church/religious leader if they want a God/Spiritually sanctioned marriage. If you want, have a ceremonial religious wedding (in a church or not), but one that is *recognized by God*. Regardless of what route you go, you are still *married*, it’s just the difference of whether you bring your faith/God into it, or not. If you are gay, and belong to a liberal church, or get married by some internet minister, or whatever, you can have your wedding *ordained* and with your religions blessings, or whatever. You don’t need a church, or a religious leader to get married – but without all that, aren’t you really performing a civil contract ceremonial service? You should be able to go in, sign your papers/contracts, and then go off and have whatever type of ceremony you want to celebrate that *union*. As Obama said, “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.” So, get religion out of all government sanctioned civil unions, and let people take marriages up with their church or whoever.

Sara, I don’t agree with you much on this site, but I very much do on this. Thank you for this post.

I don’t think there should be a federal amendment on banning gay marriage. I think, if you want to go to Vegas and get married and you are gay, there should be nothing to stop you from it. If a church is liberal minded enough that they would accept a gay marriage, then wonderful. I’ve always thought that while I think gay marriage should be legalized, I do not support there being requirements that churches conform to allow gay marriages if they do not recognize them religiously. If a church refuses to recognize gay marriage, that is their right.

sarainitaly said:
So, get religion out of all government sanctioned civil unions, and let people take marriages up with their church or whoever.

That’s what I’ve thought about it as well. The only thing the government does is define the legalities entailed in marriage , not the sanctity of it. If there’s any “holy” in holy matrimony it’s in the hearts of the individuals.

The thing is, all the laws are already in place and IMO it’s silly to spend the money to create all these new laws just to protect someone’s mental image of a particular word. It’s just a word. There’s nothing to protect or lose by allowing others to have equal rights and use the laws already in place.

The problem with civil unions, whether for all or for gays, is that the people who are actively fighting gay marriage are also actively fighting civil unions. Most of the anti-gay marriage amendments that passed in the country forbid the state from recognize gay relationships in any form. They’re not just “defining marriage” but defining a whole class of relationships as invalid. I’ll support civil unions as soon as straights say they are willing to give up being called married.

In Germany, where there is state subsidy of the CHURCH, there is a requirement for a CIVIL CEREMONY for a marriage, and then the couple can be married in a CHURCH ceremony if they choose. Marriage has been for a much longer time, a contractural obligation, rather than a religious event. Recall, men were paid to marry the daughters of some, rulers negotiatiated contracts of marriage to bind the nationalist interests and the tribesmen had one or many wives, before there was monotheism.
Islam respects the followers of Jesus and he is in the Koran. What muslims have difficulty with is that there is only one GOD and for those who would say that Jesus is God is contradictory and blasphemous. And it makes sense, in the TEN commandments, God said: I am the lord thy god, there shall be no gods before me. The point is Islam takes those words literally. To them, the Jesus worshipers are going against the Ten Commandments. Huckabee was shown to lack the knowledge to debate this subject. The Judge was right among the inalienable rights is Persuit of Happiness and for two consenting adults, it is their right to choose their life’s partner.

stoogedudes said:
I think gay marriage should be legalized, I do not support there being requirements that churches conform to allow gay marriages if they do not recognize them religiously. If a church refuses to recognize gay marriage, that is their right.

I agree. I wouldn’t think many people would even want to be married in a church where they weren’t welcome.

This may not relate much, but there was a man here in town who had his gender changed after years of struggling with it. After he became a woman he started going to a particular church that didn’t know his background. He was welcomed as a new member. She began participating in church functions and eventually taught a class. Then someone in the church found out about her past and the church asked her to leave the church. There was a good and somewhat scathing article in a local paper showing a sign outside the church about acceptance.
What struck me about the story was that this wasn’t about sex or homosexuality being considered a sin. It was just that this man had changed his gender and they couldn’t wrap their heads around it , so the good person they saw and welcomed, was rejected.

In a free country, If you’re actions do not hurt anyone, You should be able to do what you want, And that includes same-sex marriage.

Here we have it again….COSMOS DAN , says that same sex marriage has been OK in history.CRAP.
Then says something about same sex in nature.OK. But there are many things wrong with nature ,like two headed creatures and sheep with 6 legs etc etc. Just because nature has it does not mean it is right.It means that nature has flaws as well.What about the creatures that change sex if the other sex is needed?? Does that make sex change right???
Sorry Dan you cannot hold up nature as a sign of right. But same sex sex,has been frowned upon throughout history and it always will be because to most, it is obnoxious and downright filthy.You are not supposed to put something in your mouth thast has been up a bum.It’s dirty. Yukky and gross. If you do it ,you are sick.

captaingrumpy said:
Here we have it again….COSMOS DAN , says that same sex marriage has been OK in history.CRAP

Sorry you don’t like the facts. It is factually wrong to claim that cultures have uniformly rejected SSM.

captaingrumpy said:
Sorry Dan you cannot hold up nature as a sign of right.

Then it’s a good thing I didn’t do that. What I did was hold up nature to show that the oft repeated argument that homosexuality is unnatural {used in this clip by Rev Huckabee} is total bullshit. It’s actually those who oppose SSM that can’t hold up nature to defend their position. See how that works?

captaingrumpy said:
But same sex sex,has been frowned upon throughout history and it always will be because to most, it is obnoxious and downright filthyYou are not supposed to put something in your mouth thast has been up a bum.It’s dirty. Yukky and gross. If you do it ,you are sick..

In that case there are a whole lot of hetero couples that are sick and filthy.

I think I figured out why you’re so grumpy. Repression does that to a person.

Republicans just want to control your life; they may say less government but they want to be in your business 24/7. Obama just doesn’t want to waste time defending something that is not worth federal government time and money. Just like he is not wasting time and money going after medical marijuana users. Here Huckabee says family is crucial to have a mother and a father but supported the Iraq war that left a lot of families with a single parent.

stoogedudes said:
Sara, I don’t agree with you much on this site, but I very much do on this. Thank you for this post.

I don’t think there should be a federal amendment on banning gay marriage. I think, if you want to go to Vegas and get married and you are gay, there should be nothing to stop you from it. If a church is liberal minded enough that they would accept a gay marriage, then wonderful. I’ve always thought that while I think gay marriage should be legalized, I do not support there being requirements that churches conform to allow gay marriages if they do not recognize them religiously. If a church refuses to recognize gay marriage, that is their right.

I think, and I am guessing, that a lot of people feel that if/when gay marriage become legal, the next step will be to force churches to perform gay marriages, even if they are opposed. which, honestly, i can see happening.

if the government declares gay marriage legal, it’s hard to not then force churches to abide by the law… SO, you do civil unions for all, but you can have any kind of church/religious/spiritual/online ordained marriage ceremony your *church/minister* will perform. but you can’t force churches to perform weddings if they are against it, like the catholic church.

therefore, people can belong to churches that respect their faith/beliefs, and others can do the same in more liberal churches.

And everyone can have a binding legal civil contract between them and their loved one, that recognizes their contract for legal issues – benefits, home ownership, death, children, etc.

Yoda002 said:
Republicans just want to control your life; they may say less government but they want to be in your business 24/7.

I don’t believe that. My sister in law is very liberal, her husband belongs to the Communist party here – they are very liberal. BUT when it comes to gay marriage, she is against it because of her Catholic faith. She doesn’t want her church to change their stance on it. Some people just put their religious beliefs first – it’s not hate, or control. It’s just their faith.

Love when people who are not attorneys weigh in on legal issues. Shows how few people understand even the basics of the constitution and civics.

sarainitaly said:
I don’t believe that. My sister in law is very liberal, her husband belongs to the Communist party here – they are very liberal. BUT when it comes to gay marriage, she is against it because of her Catholic faith. She doesn’t want her church to change their stance on it. Some people just put their religious beliefs first – it’s not hate, or control. It’s just their faith.

He wasn’t just talking about his religious beliefs, but his political views.

sarainitaly said:
I think, and I am guessing, that a lot of people feel that if/when gay marriage become legal, the next step will be to force churches to perform gay marriages, even if they are opposed. which, honestly, i can see happening.

if the government declares gay marriage legal, it’s hard to not then force churches to abide by the law

I don’t see that happening at all. I think the 1st amendment would prevent that. No church is forced to preform any marriage that they object to that I’ve ever heard of. Catholics have very specific beliefs about divorced people marrying and if a particular parish and priest won’t marry a couple I doubt the law can force them too.
There might be a problem if a justice of the peace refused to marry them or some public official tried to deny them a license, but not a church.
I can’t think of any example of where the government has stepped in to force a church to do anything against their beliefs,although I may have missed it. Did the government ever force southern churches to accept black members after civil rights was passed?
I think it would be very rare that a gay couple would even want to be married in a church where they weren’t welcome , although I can imagine a few might try it, but I can’t think of any way a church would ever be forced to preform the ceremony. It’s private property for one thing and preachers don’t need to be licensed by any official agency.

There is a simple solution to this whole mess. The French came up with it after their revolution. People can go to any church they want and have a religious ceremony. If they want to be considered married by the state, they then go to city hall and register their marriage. If they are not religious, registering at city hall is all they have to do. Very simple. Church and State are separate. Both are satisfied with the unions of their members.

Nappy will be the latest added to the RINO list.

sarainitaly said:
Some people just put their religious beliefs first – it’s not hate, or control. It’s just their faith.

That’s part of it. Whenever a church decides to change some point of doctrine some people are very upset because God doesn’t change. I always think “but we do, our understanding does, and is supposed to right?”

I also think it’s just a weird prejudice kept in place by people having a false idea about things. Homosexuality has been shunned and repressed for so long in this society that lots of people just haven’t adjusted to the idea. I don’t understand the aversion that boarders on hate that some people have. If the idea grosses you out, don’t think about it. Nobody is asking you to like it. It’s just an equality, mind your own business kind of thing.

Joseph Glackin said:
There is a simple solution to this whole mess. The French came up with it after their revolution. People can go to any church they want and have a religious ceremony. If they want to be considered married by the state, they then go to city hall and register their marriage. If they are not religious, registering at city hall is all they have to do. Very simple. Church and State are separate. Both are satisfied with the unions of their members.

So they don’t even need a ceremony, they just need to register as a married couple? And does that include SS couples?

sarainitaly said:
I think, and I am guessing, that a lot of people feel that if/when gay marriage become legal, the next step will be to force churches to perform gay marriages, even if they are opposed. which, honestly, i can see happening.

if the government declares gay marriage legal, it’s hard to not then force churches to abide by the law… SO, you do civil unions for all, but you can have any kind of church/religious/spiritual/online ordained marriage ceremony your *church/minister* will perform. but you can’t force churches to perform weddings if they are against it, like the catholic church.

With respect, it’s very important to clarify that churches (and any other religious organizations) WOULD NOT be obligated to perform same-sex marriages. There is no constitutional violation where a church declines to perform a marriage ceremony based on its religious beliefs — in fact, it would be patently unconstitutional to require a church to perform same-sex marriages. Such a requirement would abridge the right to free expression protected by the 1st Amendment.

Here, by contrast, the issue is whether the STATE is permitted to not recognize same-sex marriages. So with respect to DOMA, for example, the alleged harm derives from the federal government’s denial of marriage status, rather than any particular church’s denial of the same.

Unfortunately, this key distinction is often muddled and lost because so much of the case against state recognition of same-sex marriage is rooted in religious belief.

You beat me to it, CosmosDan (@ 7:29 pm). You’re exactly right.

CosmosDan said:
So they don’t even need a ceremony, they just need to register as a married couple? And does that include SS couples?

In1789, it did not include same sex couples. It was designed to remove the power of the Roman Catholic Church that kept members from marrying Huguenots, who were Protestants, or Jews. It defined the separation of church and state, and was cited by Jefferson and Madison as reasons for the 1st Amendment. Unless you think the govt. has the right to oversee your bedroom, there is no reason to eliminate same sex couples. The SCOUS has already rule in Texass that the govt. doesn’t belong there.

P.S.– In the French example, a marriage performed in a church was Not considered official until it was registered at city hall. The same thing goes on today in the US. You can get married by an ordained clergy, a JP, a mayor, or some dude in an Elvis outfit in Vegas. When you file your marriage license, you’re married. Adding same sex couples challenges nothing. Simply put, they get all the tax advantages, legal rights, and divorce headaches all the rest of us get. C’mon, everybody, misery loves company.

The Constitution is able to be ammended. Now that the issue of gay marriage is at large, there are reasons beyond religious belief for why defining marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman is an important distinction. I think that most same-sex couples would really not mind such a distinction just so long as they are able to have equal legal rights right across the board. The potential for procreation is a very real situation that should have a special legal recognition for the overall good of the country. Our power to procreate as a commitment has already been watered down to the point where the damage to society is pretty severe. The finest legal minds in the country don’t even seem to be aware that it’s possible for right and wrong to exist anywhere outside a written law. The natural law is real. Surely we can do a better job of threading the needle between personal freedoms and common sense.

pshap said:
You beat me to it, CosmosDan (@ 7:29 pm). You’re exactly right.

Interestingly enough, I looked at some state laws where SSM is legal and they did write in that churches were not obligated to preform the services. I think it was a concession rather than a necessity. Perhaps they were worried about some spiteful revocation of tax exempt status , I don’t know.
I just don’t consider it a serious possibility.

hgarner2000 said:
The Constitution is able to be ammended. Now that the issue of gay marriage is at large, there are reasons beyond religious belief for why defining marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman is an important distinction

No, there really isn’t.

hgarner2000 said:
I think that most same-sex couples would really not mind such a distinction just so long as they are able to have equal legal rights right across the board.

I think that’s an improvement but it’s not a substitute for real equality.

hgarner2000 said:
The potential for procreation is a very real situation that should have a special legal recognition for the overall good of the country. Our power to procreate as a commitment has already been watered down to the point where the damage to society is pretty severe

There is no shred of evidence to support this position. No shred of evidence shows SSM is somehow detrimental to the good of the country. People who can’t or don’t want to have children are allowed to be married with no restrictions. Any issues society has with marriage and the family unit are in no way connected to SSM.

hgarner2000 said:
The natural law is real. Surely we can do a better job of threading the needle between personal freedoms and common sense.

Who gets to declare what the natural law is? The unalienable rights granted by our created were subverted by men who claimed the natural law allowed them to own other men, that women were inferior, and on and on. eventually, through struggle and pain, society was pushed to live up to the natural law of equality for all people and abandon their old false notions and justifications for violating that law.
Nature tells us that homosexuality is a normally occurring part of creation and there is no evidence to suggest SSM would harm society in any way. Procreation is just the opposition grasping at straws to defend an indefensible position. Couples get married all the time that don’t want children or can’t have children. Couples choose adoption or other medical options when they cannot conceive as a couple,and no one objects.

There is no rational fact based argument left to oppose SSM , only the emotional resistance and rationalizations. They cannot last , just as those who stood against equality in the past could not maintain their position because it had no foundation in the natural law.

correction;

unalienable rights granted by our CREATOR, {not created}

Joseph Glackin said:
In1789, it did not include same sex couples. It was designed to remove the power of the Roman Catholic Church that kept members from marrying Huguenots, who were Protestants, or Jews. It defined the separation of church and state, and was cited by Jefferson and Madison as reasons for the 1st Amendment. Unless you think the govt. has the right to oversee your bedroom, there is no reason to eliminate same sex couples. The SCOUS has already rule in Texass that the govt. doesn’t belong there.

Thanks Joseph. That’s good information. I think you’re right, but I suspect that state laws are already to tied up with marriage because of our religious faction.

While social process is involved in sexual expression, it does not determine sexual orientation. To avoid stigma, some become pseudo-heterosexuals. Religiously motivated conversion therapy has never been scientifically documented to change a persons natural underlying sexual orientation. Pseudo-heterosexuality is the objective of such therapies. Many unable to change are significantly depressed and suicidal. “Two of Exodus International’s founders, Michael Bussee and Garry Cooper, fell in love and left the organization in 1979.”

Sexual orientation should not form the basis for discrimination or inequality. It should remind us of God’s variant creation. Could homosexuality be a means of population control as suggested by Carl Jung? The opposition to GLBT persons is contrary to the compassionate and loving teachings of Jesus Christ (Mt 7.1-5).

Christ, not St. Paul, is the Alpha and Omega. He never spoke of homosexuals and called for tolerance in the case of a prostitute. Those who believe that Christ with all knowledge, even of the biological origins of homosexuality, did not include them in those whom we love and respect but so many who are harmed by society’s ignorance.

. Using thousands of subjects, Bell and Weinberg, social psychologists, state “Among both men and women in our study, there is a powerful link between gender nonconformity and the development or homosexuality.” . . . “At the moment, a large body of convincing research appears to suggest a biological foundation for homosexuality.” Same-sexed partnerships are known to exist in higher mammals and in many intelligent species. Over 450 species show same-sexed attraction and some life long bonding.

CosmosDan said:
Joseph Glackin said:
There is a simple solution to this whole mess. The French came up with it after their revolution. People can go to any church they want and have a religious ceremony. If they want to be considered married by the state, they then go to city hall and register their marriage. If they are not religious, registering at city hall is all they have to do. Very simple. Church and State are separate. Both are satisfied with the unions of their members.
So they don’t even need a ceremony, they just need to register as a married couple? And does that include SS couples?

At present, no. There is some question about whether this violates European law, and the French Parliament is reconsidering this.

There does not have to be a ceremony of any sort, but it is generally a bit more than simply registering. It is something akin to drawing up a contract, often with lawyers involved, signing it before a clerk who acts somewhat as a notary.

We’ll all be amazed at how quickly this ceases to be an issue. Our children, thankfully, are far less homophobic than we, much as many of us are far less racist than our parents. Imagine a nation without racism and without homophobia. Well, there’d be no need at all for FOX “News”.

The Real Royal King said:
At present, no. There is some question about whether this violates European law, and the French Parliament is reconsidering this. There does not have to be a ceremony of any sort, but it is generally a bit more than simply registering. It is something akin to drawing up a contract, often with lawyers involved, signing it before a clerk who acts somewhat as a notary.

By the way, France does recognize same sex marriages obtained or performed in European countries, like Germany, in which the same are legal.

murphy0071 said:
While social process is involved in sexual expression, it does not determine sexual orientation. To avoid stigma, some become pseudo-heterosexuals. Religiously motivated conversion therapy has never been scientifically documented to change a persons natural underlying sexual orientation. Pseudo-heterosexuality is the objective of such therapies. Many unable to change are significantly depressed and suicidal. “Two of Exodus International’s founders, Michael Bussee and Garry Cooper, fell in love and left the organization in 1979.” Sexual orientation should not form the basis for discrimination or inequality. It should remind us of God’s variant creation. Could homosexuality be a means of population control as suggested by Carl Jung? The opposition to GLBT persons is contrary to the compassionate and loving teachings of Jesus Christ (Mt 7.1-5). Christ, not St. Paul, is the Alpha and Omega. He never spoke of homosexuals and called for tolerance in the case of a prostitute. Those who believe that Christ with all knowledge, even of the biological origins of homosexuality, did not include them in those whom we love and respect but so many who are harmed by society’s ignorance. . Using thousands of subjects, Bell and Weinberg, social psychologists, state “Among both men and women in our study, there is a powerful link between gender nonconformity and the development or homosexuality.” . . . “At the moment, a large body of convincing research appears to suggest a biological foundation for homosexuality.” Same-sexed partnerships are known to exist in higher mammals and in many intelligent species. Over 450 species show same-sexed attraction and some life long bonding.

Thanking you for a most thoughtful, well-constructed post.

Mike Huckabee probably knows very little about the day-to-day realities of the lives of Muslims and I am pretty sure he knows even less about Islamic beliefs. His statement about Muslims and Islam say to most knowledgeable people, that he has not listened very carefully to Muslim voices, spiritual ideas and judgments about Jesus. Had he made a valid attempt to study Islamic beliefs instead of fault finding, he would know that Muslim do not believe that anyone who follows Jesus is an infidel.
Islamophobes examine Muslims, with a good deal of self-confidence, from a far distance, who’ve never taken the opportunity to know any but rely on inarticulate data generated by bigots to come up with various conclusions that are used to justify politically sanctioned discrimination and unfair decisions.
This is becoming more inevitable. Societies need to rely on stereotypes and generalities to organize their malicious understandings and establish policies that infringe on the rights of others .

Generally, controversial statements like Huckabee’s are too cruel, too misconstrued and relentless. Sometimes his kind of ramblings, or shall I say “cash communication” makes it hard to see that these are real people with a sound set of ethics, he is talking about.

I was a Catholic who converted to Islam. I loved Jesus then and I love him now. My belief in one God never commanded me to remove Jesus from the place he holds in my heart. As a Christian and as a Muslim, the message of Jesus has contributed to the wholeness of my spirituality. Islam did it obligate me to condemn another if his or her belief differ from mine.

There are many things one faith community may not know about another, especially when one does not try to understand. In absence of knowledge, we might try to act upon insightful kindness. A man who wants to be president of the United States, president of a democracy, president of a republic which respects religious rights- should know this. God help America if he doesn’t.

Khalilah Sabra
Muslim American Society- Immigrant Justice Center
Raleigh, North Carolina

The Real Royal King said:
By the way, France does recognize same sex marriages obtained or performed in European countries, like Germany, in which the same are legal.

I want to revisit this remark.

We have to remember that Germany is a federal republic, and while all of Germany has a civil partnership act, which stops slightly short of full marriage. Some states have same sex marriage, along the usual Protestant – Catholic fracture in Germany. European countries which recognize full same sex marriage are: the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Portugal and Iceland. The Spanish question is a fascinating one. The vast majority of Spaniards are Catholic, but after going through so much of the 20th century under Franco/Church rule, Spain seems eager to show up the Church.

khalilahsabra said:
There are many things one faith community may not know about another, especially when one does not try to understand. In absence of knowledge, we might try to act upon insightful kindness. A man who wants to be president of the United States, president of a democracy, president of a republic which respects religious rights- should know this. God help America if he doesn’t.

Thank you for that post.

Until churches pay taxes they should refrain from imposing their mythology upon public policy and the making of laws.

pshap said:
With respect, it’s very important to clarify that churches (and any other religious organizations) WOULD NOT be obligated to perform same-sex marriages. There is no constitutional violation where a church declines to perform a marriage ceremony based on its religious beliefs — in fact, it would be patently unconstitutional to require a church to perform same-sex marriages. Such a requirement would abridge the right to free expression protected by the 1st Amendment.

CosmosDan said:
I don’t see that happening at all. I think the 1st amendment would prevent that. No church is forced to preform any marriage that they object to that I’ve ever heard of. Catholics have very specific beliefs about divorced people marrying and if a particular parish and priest won’t marry a couple I doubt the law can force them too.

Good points, and thanks for the info. although, I still believe it wouldn’t stop people from trying, and think that is why some people are concerned.

CosmosDan said:
I can’t think of any example of where the government has stepped in to force a church to do anything against their beliefs,although I may have missed it. Did the government ever force southern churches to accept black members after civil rights was passed?

I was looking last night, and couldn’t find anything about them being forced, but I didn’t spend a lot of time looking.

In Italy we did the same thing that someone described above in France. We signed and registered all the paperwork with the mayor’s office and then had a church ceremony. And my brother, same thing – he was technically married once they signed the papers, sitting in a restaurant in the US, and then had the *wedding* in Africa.

So, I don’t know why the government can’t get out of the *marriage* business all together, and just be the contract holder for all civil unions. That way, couples pay taxes, receive their benefits, have the same rights, etc. No ones religious beliefs are stepped on.

I keep saying the Republicans should get behind gay *marriage*. They say they are the party of family values, and nothing says *family* like people wanting to start a family. They are also against abortion, so they need to support gay couples who want to adopt children. That is family.

It will happen – next year, or in a few years, but it will happen, whether it is civil unions or gay marriage, and I believe they should be on the right side of the issue. But, I think it should be civil unions for all (wrt govt. involvement).

khalilahsabra said:
I was a Catholic who converted to Islam. I loved Jesus then and I love him now. My belief in one God never commanded me to remove Jesus from the place he holds in my heart. As a Christian and as a Muslim, the message of Jesus has contributed to the wholeness of my spirituality. Islam did it obligate me to condemn another if his or her belief differ from mine

do you support gay marriage?

I dont think the argument needs to go any further than our anatomy. If you were born with one the other or both, the argument is clear. A vagina requires a penis, a penis a vagina, science has interjected where it shouldnt have, and is playing God. Those with both, maybe they are an evolved species moving towards being A sexual whereas these comments become moot. If this is what we call civilized society id prefer to go back to the stone age.

How about, the State ( at all levels, UN, USA, CA, LA County, San Francisco ) get out of the business of telling individuals what they, as consenting adults, may or must do to, and with whom they please? And subsidizing some preferred arrangement? I know it’s a radical idea, that the State is not the best agency to figure out what works best for individuals, but all the laws on the books haven’t changed human nature.
Polygamy has been illegal in the USA since its founding, but Warren Jeffs had no problem arranging for children to be imported from Canada for his dirty old men.
The State of Texas did not manage to prevent David Koresh, aka Vernon Howell, from fathering scores of children with his Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists followers, though the USA, under the able leadership of Bill Cilnton and Janet Reno, with supporting actors from the ATF, US Army, and US DoJ (using helicopters and a tank) did manage to kill 76 people, including 20 children, and rid the USA of that particular blot.
I, personally, would be quite happy if the State would butt out of marriage, the real estate market, education, and most other things, and confine itself to defending the USA from force and fraud and building post roads.

sarainitaly said:
Good points, and thanks for the info. although, I still believe it wouldn’t stop people from trying, and think that is why some people are concerned.

I think you’re right. I was looking at some states that allow SSM yesterday and noticed the law with passed with the stipulation that no religious organization could be forced to preform a ceremony that went against their beliefs. If that stipulation gets it done that’s fine by me.

sarainitaly said:
So, I don’t know why the government can’t get out of the *marriage* business all together, and just be the contract holder for all civil unions. That way, couples pay taxes, receive their benefits, have the same rights, etc. No ones religious beliefs are stepped on.

I really don’t know how all the marriage laws read. I think if people looked at it correctly in their minds they would realize that your proposal is essentially how it is already. That’s all the state really does, is define legal parameters of marriage. The state doesn’t define whether it’s holy, or you’re entering into it with the proper frame of mind and heart. You can go to the courthouse and a justice of the peace to be legally married and then have it annulled when you sober up.
It seems odd to me that people are so hung up on the word. It is what it is in your heart, no more no less. , but as you say. It will happen.

I have a dear old friend who is a conservative Christian and we were talking about this. Her sister is gay and we are both divorced. She said her sister has been in a relationship for around 25 years. I pointed out to her that her sister’s relationship had lasted longer than either of our marriages.

Excuse me? Dead beat dads? How about dead beat moms who won’t get off their arse and get a job because the system does not give them any incentive to do so as they get more money via child support and alimony than through a regular job.

It is time that we discuss nationally the sex/gender inequality when it comes to family law. There are a lot of moms out there playing the system and making false and baseless allegations against their former spouses; who are decent, hard working, responsible dads. These allegations almost always go unchecked and are taken at face value. Society has paid dearly for it. It is time to reform family law and introduce gender equality.

CosmosDan said:
I think if people looked at it correctly in their minds they would realize that your proposal is essentially how it is already. That’s all the state really does, is define legal parameters of marriage. The state doesn’t define whether it’s holy, or you’re entering into it with the proper frame of mind and heart.

agreed, which is the argument people opposed to gay marriage, but in favor of civil unions make. but there are some who still want gay marriage, not civil unions. they feel discriminated against because they can’t call themselves married. and they hold different benefits, I believe.

and, those, like obama, who hold religious beliefs that a marriage is between a man and a woman, are opposed to gay *marriage*, I guess, because they really feel it is wrong for God to sanction gay marriage.

I found this on yahoo:

The way I see it, there are two things we call ‘marriage’. The word has two completely separate meanings, two separate functions. And sometimes we confuse these meanings. Sometimes on purpose.

One meaning is a religious sacrament. Two people stand up at the front of a church and a clergyman mumbles some words over them, and then they’re considered to be joined by God, one person in the eyes of God.

The other meaning is a civil partnership. Two people enter into a legal relationship allowing them to co-mingle finances, make certain decisions for one another, own property together, etc.

The religious meaning, churches have a right to decide that without any interference from government. They can marry who they like, exclude who they like, it’s entirely up to them.

But the civil meaning, that’s a right of citizenship, a ‘civil right’. In the US we have only one class of citizenship–every citizen has exactly the same rights and privileges of citizenship. That includes gays. In fact it really has nothing to do with sex at all. It’s just an economic partnership.

And I agree with you about straight marriage – it’s not like people aren’t mucking that up enough, as it is. 50% divorce rate? Britney Spears has been married and divorced how many times, and how quickly?

Perhaps another change would be to keep civil unions fairly easy to get out of, but religious marriages would be much harder to *end*. If people want to *protect* marriage, then let’s *protect* it.

Whatzit_Toya said:
Excuse me? Dead beat dads? How about dead beat moms who won’t get off their arse and get a job because the system does not give them any incentive to do so as they get more money via child support and alimony than through a regular job.

It is time that we discuss nationally the sex/gender inequality when it comes to family law. There are a lot of moms out there playing the system and making false and baseless allegations against their former spouses; who are decent, hard working, responsible dads. These allegations almost always go unchecked and are taken at face value. Society has paid dearly for it. It is time to reform family law and introduce gender equality.

there are certainly those in any group who will take advantage.

i have some friends from high school who are married. he works for UPS. I am not sure what job his wife has, but they were paying $1000 a month for day care. I can’t imagine she was making much more than that…. Sometimes the cost of day care and job related expenses costs more than the jobs some people can get.

Now, in my opinion, one of the major roadblocks in affordable day care are the laws, lawsuits and insurance requirements. Companies can’t set up day cares inside because of the insurance costs, and regulations. Small businesses can’t always afford to pay people who go on maternity leave.

Perhaps instead of paying women to stay home, (who can’t afford day care or don’t work) if would be better to set up community day cares…. get women working, off welfare, create jobs, and change some rules that would make day care affordable. Maybe extend hours at schools, and parents pay the teachers who run the day care? The facility is already there…

http://www.ehow.com/how_7602330_open-daycare-florida.html

I am also a huge believer in a “work for welfare” program.

sarainitaly said:
there are certainly those in any group who will take advantage.

i have some friends from high school who are married. he works for UPS. I am not sure what job his wife has, but they were paying $1000 a month for day care. I can’t imagine she was making much more than that…. Sometimes the cost of day care and job related expenses costs more than the jobs some people can get.

Now, in my opinion, one of the major roadblocks in affordable day care are the laws, lawsuits and insurance requirements. Companies can’t set up day cares inside because of the insurance costs, and regulations. Small businesses can’t always afford to pay people who go on maternity leave.

Perhaps instead of paying women to stay home, (who can’t afford day care or don’t work) if would be better to set up community day cares…. get women working, off welfare, create jobs, and change some rules that would make day care affordable. Maybe extend hours at schools, and parents pay the teachers who run the day care? The facility is already there…

http://www.ehow.com/how_7602330_open-daycare-florida.html

I am also a huge believer in a “work for welfare” program.

I’m with you. The cost of childcare is probably the only legit excuse for staying home. However, if the dad can pay for childcare and work, the mom can go out and find work. But, because the dad has to pay child support and alimony, now neither can afford child care. The law needs to change. I’m up for anything that works. The way the system is currently run, it does not work.

Whatzit_Toya said:
Excuse me? Dead beat dads? How about dead beat moms who won’t get off their arse and get a job because the system does not give them any incentive to do so as they get more money via child support and alimony than through a regular job.

It is time that we discuss nationally the sex/gender inequality when it comes to family law. There are a lot of moms out there playing the system and making false and baseless allegations against their former spouses; who are decent, hard working, responsible dads. These allegations almost always go unchecked and are taken at face value. Society has paid dearly for it. It is time to reform family law and introduce gender equality.

Any statistics on what you think constitutes a lot? I agree there are women who play the system , but the realities of biology dictate that there cannot be gender equality. If men don’t want to pay then they shouldn’t play, or they should be much more cautious in their approach. It won’t be perfectly equitable no matter what we do.

sarainitaly said:
and, those, like obama, who hold religious beliefs that a marriage is between a man and a woman, are opposed to gay *marriage*, I guess, because they really feel it is wrong for God to sanction gay marriage.

yep, I just wish they’d realize, like your excellent find explains , that God isn’t sanctioning gay marriage, the state is merely extended equal rights.

sarainitaly said:
Perhaps another change would be to keep civil unions fairly easy to get out of, but religious marriages would be much harder to *end*. If people want to *protect* marriage, then let’s *protect* it.

I think statistically the divorce rate among believers, those who attend church regularly, is as high or higher than non believers and those who don’t attend church. They haven’t really done a great job of protecting the traditional family.

sarainitaly said:
Perhaps instead of paying women to stay home, (who can’t afford day care or don’t work) if would be better to set up community day cares…. get women working, off welfare, create jobs, and change some rules that would make day care affordable. Maybe extend hours at schools, and parents pay the teachers who run the day care? The facility is already there…

http://www.ehow.com/how_7602330_open-daycare-florida.html

I am also a huge believer in a “work for welfare” program.

I support work for welfare as well. When my kids were growing up we had a saying “Sometimes you have to love someone enough to kick em in the ass” about tough love, discipline and consequences. I think the same about adults. Whenever you make it too easy for adults there are those who will slide into behaving irresponsibly. There has to be consequences and motivation to balance the helping hand.

It”s good that my daughter and her SO have good jobs because child care for them is outrageous. One flaw I noticed many years ago that when a single Mom found a job, often not paying great, the sate took away much more assistance than her job paid, so they foolishly created a situation where it was better to stay home rather than motivate women to work.
I often wondered if the state couldn’t create and train women to do daycare as a part of welfare, so that other welfare Moms could be required to work. I’m fairly sure there are a lot of basic jobs that people could do for a city or state to help the budget. rather than pay an employee $15 an hour to paint a public building get people on the welfare roles to do it with just a supervisor/ teacher on the payroll. The 1st thing that would happen is that a whole lot of people who have income would drop off welfare rather than do those tasks.
One problem is liability and our sue happy legal system.

Whatzit_Toya said:
I’m with you. The cost of childcare is probably the only legit excuse for staying home. However, if the dad can pay for childcare and work, the mom can go out and find work. But, because the dad has to pay child support and alimony, now neither can afford child care. The law needs to change. I’m up for anything that works. The way the system is currently run, it does not work.

A lot of Dad’s don’t pay alimony, because they were never married to the woman who they had a child with. There is a reasonable formula for child support based on the Dad’s income. The woman can use that for child care if she has a job that pays enough to make it worth it.
I agree that there needs to be some child care outlets for women and some work requirements for those receiving welfare. Maybe even some educational options if they are meeting certain requirements.

CosmosDan said:
Whenever you make it too easy for adults there are those who will slide into behaving irresponsibly. There has to be consequences and motivation to balance the helping hand……One problem is liability and our sue happy legal system.

i am so down with you on your comments. and you are right about this – sue happy society. ticks me off.
the streets, taggings, garden areas, public areas, bus stops, etc. could all be so clean and cared for if we had work for welfare. but you’re right…it is the sue happy system that prevents it.

and i have so often thought that if in inner cities five – 10 women got together, and paid one or two to *babysit* the rest could go get jobs. Then the one or two who cared for the kids could be paid what the other women could afford. They would all have work, and the kids could be watched. But there are so many regulations, and fees, etc.

I just saw this on HotAir… OK, this seems like another reason to move to the civil unions for all thing I was talking about:

President Obama has declared the federal ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. But Natalie Neutsch says what no one wants to talk about: a lot of gays just find gay marriage weird.

But it’s not just me. For all the effort we’ve put into fighting for the right to do it, the dirty little secret is that many gays are simply not sure about same-sex marriage. Of course we believe in equality. But when it comes to marriage, our personal relationship with the idea is tenuous. Growing up in a society where most of the marriages around me failed bitterly or were one of multiple (because the only thing better than one “special day” is five), I’m turned off by the whole idea.

Dan Dinero, a PhD-candidate from New York City, has a partner who is a non-U.S. citizen. “The main thing for me is finding a way for Diego to live in the U.S. with me,” he says. “I don’t think we should have to get married to do that. And that is the problem with gay marriage: it forces queers to fit into a very straight-centered way of life in order to access basic rights.”

The religious implications of marriage are one of the deterring issues for Meredith Cummings, a graduate student in environmental studies who has been in a domestic partnership for two years. “It really gets to me when gay couples try to have a traditional wedding, especially in a religion that doesn’t support homosexuality,” she says.

There’s the unsettling possibility that we’ve spent the past couple of decades fighting to fit into an institution that doesn’t necessarily fit us.

But there’s a subtler, even more insidious anxiety lurking beneath the surface of our gay-marriage win. It’s the unsettling possibility that we’ve spent the past couple of decades fighting to fit into an institution that doesn’t necessarily fit us. I wouldn’t be surprised to see someone wince if I referred to my partner as my wife. And I might wince a bit myself. We’ve been so focused on getting marriage “equality” that we’ve hardly stopped to think about how we’d feel about actually being married.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-02-26/gays-who-dont-want-gay-marriage/

It seems it really boils down to *legal rights* wrt property, healthcare, time of death, those kinds of things. Like your relative who has been with their partner for 25 years. They need to be able to have certain legal rights wrt property….

The judge talked of the Constitution and the contract of marriage that government has created, marriage existed long before government and is part of the natural law that this country was founded on that is only now being rediscovered after many generations of progressives trying to obliterate it from our history and heritage.

I have heard homosexual activists in their own words say that it’s not about love, wedding cakes and ceremonies but that it was actually about the benefits bestowed by government to married people, those benefits were put in place to help families a man and a woman in matrimony having children, this was the reason for them. Not so two dudes who self identify their lives by something that they do with their body parts and lust after people of the same gender, it is not an identity this is part of the Dr. Alfred Kinsey fraud, it is a lie that society has bought into. If you really want to uncover the scam read Marshall Kirk’s book “After the Ball” it outlines the homosexual lobbies sophisticated psychological techniques of propaganda utilizing (desensitization), (jamming) and (conversion) to deceive society without ever having to demonstrate facts, logic or reason, read the book! Find out how good people throughout society have been duped into helping people destroy their bodies and souls, not unlike giving an alcoholic a bottle of Jack Daniels and a set of car keys, enabling people in self-destructive behavior is the equivalent.

Shame on the judge, doesn’t he know that our founding principles of law (including the Constitution) is based on natural law and the law of nature? Blackstone used to be required reading in law school and this country’s founders knew these principles well and incorporated them into our laws. Government does not have the jurisdiction or authority to redefine the institution of marriage and in so trying they are reduced a paper marriages license to the equivalent of paper that comes on a roll in your bathroom. Because Pandora’s box will be opened and any manner of sinful perversion will utilize the same psychological (After the Ball) model that homosexual activists employed with such success that even the taboo of pedophilia will gradually gain acceptance, you don’t think so? That’s what they said 25 years ago about two guys being able to obtain marriage licenses, in the destruction of the institution of marriage what no-fault divorce started same-sex marriage will finish, no good can ever come of it!

“Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. This law of nature, being coveal with mankind, and dictated by God Himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries at all times. No human laws are of any validity if they are contrary to this.”
Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law

PC Kryptonite:

It’s always something, isn’t it? Always some nefarious agenda? To paraphrase your reasoning: “The public was not gradually persuaded — they were subjected to psychological propaganda!”

Here’s what always baffles me:

You suggest that the U.S. needs to revitalize the principles on which the Founders built our nation. I suspect we would agree that, as a general matter, chief among these principles are the rights of self-government and free speech/expression. We rightly pride ourselves on fostering a marketplace of ideas. However, where popular opinion has shifted to reflect more support/acceptance of the rights of gay citizens…. this, you contend, must be the result of a manipulation of that marketplace (i.e. psychological propaganda)! How else to explain it?

In my opinion, a more sensible and realistic explanation is as follows: the number of people in America who feel a particular way about a particular issue is larger now than it was in the past.

Thinking about this objectively (that is, without regard to gay marriage, etc.), isn’t that a much more logical proposition?

“None of that has anything to do with the same-sex couple down the block…” says the judge.

Exactly. Deadbeat dads and single parents? This is the stupidest argument I’ve heard yet against the reasonableness of allowing gay marriage.You know what? Go look to same-sex couples with adopted children. I’d be shocked if one found that those children end up costing society anything in the sense Huckabee is talking about. I’d even be willing to bet you’d more likely find those children very well cared for financially and otherwise.

Furthermore, if conservatives like Huckabee want to “defend” marriage by saying that the government has a need to deal with dysfunctional families and maintaining the best social societies, then how on earth does that not open the doors to other arguments of the same agenda?

I’m talking, for instance, about making sure those families have access to affordable health care, affordable education, and can go to bed at night confident that their child is less likely to get shot in the street by another gun-wielding teen on the following day.

Every single one of those issues, better attended, would go a lot further in guaranteeing a better home life to more American children than trying to keep gay couples from marrying. Likewise, how socially disruptive is it to send a child of 18 off to fight a pointless war? Yet we do it and embrace the idea as patriotic.

Whatzit_Toya said:
Excuse me? Dead beat dads? How about dead beat moms who won’t get off their arse and get a job because the system does not give them any incentive to do so as they get more money via child support and alimony than through a regular job.

It is time that we discuss nationally the sex/gender inequality when it comes to family law. There are a lot of moms out there playing the system and making false and baseless allegations against their former spouses; who are decent, hard working, responsible dads. These allegations almost always go unchecked and are taken at face value. Society has paid dearly for it. It is time to reform family law and introduce gender equality.

There is a time limit for how long you can receive TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). Similarly, you also have to demonstrate some effort to work….this is what welfare reform in the 90s was all about.

It just seems like some on the right are still clinging to their “welfare queen” image from the 80s.

The image of deadbeat single parents that Huckabee uses is so tangential.

Your average gay couple tends to have a higher income and a higher educational level than the population as a whole.

So, if anything, gay people would be LESS likely to be “deadbeat” parents.

PC Kryptonite said:
marriage existed long before government and is part of the natural law that this country was founded on that is only now being rediscovered after many generations of progressives trying to obliterate it from our history and heritage.

No matter how many times this “natural law” argument is repeated, no matter how strongly you believe it to be true, it just isn’t. Progressives have not tried to obliterate marriage. Societies change and evolve through cycles of evaluation, regression, and progress, despite the efforts of those who find change and growth so frightening.

PC Kryptonite said:
. Because Pandora’s box will be opened and any manner of sinful perversion will utilize the same psychological (After the Ball) model that homosexual activists employed with such success that even the taboo of pedophilia will gradually gain acceptance, you don’t think so?

Do you realize these same arguments were used to oppose interracial marriage decades ago? They were wrong then and you are wrong now. Interracial marriage became legal in 1967 and society has not crumbled in the years since. If anything harms society it is the unreasoning fear and intolerance that divide us as a people.
I’ll point out that Focus on the Family, who loudly accused “After the Ball” of being some guide for the corrupt gay agenda, was recently put on a list of hate groups specifically because of their attitudes toward gays.

PC Kryptonite said:
“Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. This law of nature, being coveal with mankind, and dictated by God Himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries at all times. No human laws are of any validity if they are contrary to this.”
Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law

As I said in an earlier post, who gets to declare what this natural law is? If you look at our nations history you’ll see we struggled since out founding to live up to the unalienable rights listed in our Declaration of Independence. We failed to live up to the natural law of equality and allowed men to own other men. We oppressed the rights of women, and other groups. Through struggle and pain these groups fought to gain the equality granted to them by the natural law. If anything, natural law supports SSM. Homosexuality is something that occurs naturally in in creation and in nature. It is mankind and misplaced religious tradition that has suppressed it down through the centuries.
Would you say red hair was unnatural simply because it was a much smaller portion of the population? Green eyes? Of course not.

Here is the long and short.

Just because you have a right, doesn’t make it right.

I do not want marriage redefined. The unintended consequences are too great. By saying you should be able to marry the one you love could and will extend well beyond our imagination. I do not want to ban anyone from anything, I just want everyone to have the same rights as everyone else, not special rights.

dmathews said:
I do not want marriage redefined. The unintended consequences are too great. By saying you should be able to marry the one you love could and will extend well beyond our imagination.

That sounds a little paranoid to me. We are talking about consenting adults here, not kids, and animals.

dmathews said:
I do not want to ban anyone from anything, I just want everyone to have the same rights as everyone else, not special rights.

This contradicts itself. It’s not a special right, it’s the same right. equality.

sarainitaly said:
There’s the unsettling possibility that we’ve spent the past couple of decades fighting to fit into an institution that doesn’t necessarily fit us.

That’s pretty interesting. I think the institution of marriage itself is losing some of it’s credibility and attraction for everyone. Again, the commitment in your heart is what counts. That either grows stronger, or fades in time.

I think our romantic ideal of a lifetime commitment is not right for everyone.

Once again I agree with the Judge. The government has no right to tell a free and independent person(s) who they can or can’t marry. This also goes for polygamy.

Interesting, since it is well known in Bergen County, NJ where Napalitano was a judge. that he is gay. I heard that he regularly hit up on his male clerks.