Gay Killing Shocks Police Chief

I think person who shot the gay is wrong, I also think people bashing mormons should stop. I don't believe the killer was mormon either. I think the 'law writers' need to go back to the books and re-write civil laws are revelant to help everyone - the reason gays are even trying to re-define marriage in the first place. Sort of like abortion. Today world has ways to help women who get pregnant and find suitable parents for the child too if mother is teenager. Abortion came from an era where a lot was wrong with way society managed, punished, what have you. This is 2008, no women is going to jail if she gets pregnant, etc. ....

Gay marriage has nothing to do with civil rights. Equal treatment of a same sex partner as a married spouse is civil rights.

Government is legitimized by the rule of law. Just because homosexuals yell loudly does not make their cause a reason to legislate laws which demean the natural order.

What does the above comment even mean, Jay? It makes no sense.

The tradition of marriage in European cultures as a formal union recognized by the church (and by extension, the state) dates back only two to three hundred years. Before that time, only unions between nobles were recongnized by the church. Commoners could marry simply by declaring that they were married (such "common law"marriages are still legally recognized).

The Roman Empire had a form of marriage, and this was available for same-sex couples. Although same-sex marriages were rare, they were common enough for the Church, when it came to power, to force an Imperial ban on the practice.

So the "traditional" definition of marriage is exclusively a religious tradition, as defined by one particular religion. It is not an unalterable law of nature, but it very clearly IS a violation of the separation of church and state.

This is peripheral to the point at hand, which is that it is repugnant to murder a person on the basis of orientation. But I get terribly weary of people with no grasp of history trying to cite it to justify their own phobias.

In no U.S. state where same-sex marriage has been legalized is there any requirement or serious effort to force churches whose beliefs preclude such unions to perform them, any more than there has been any effort to integrate white-supremicist churches. There are plenty of churches and faiths who are more than happy to perform same-sex unions.

My comment has two parts. The first is that civil rights is about equal treatment for "rights". There is no inherent right in two people of the same sex to be married. If a same sex couple wants to commeorate their relationship in a civil union, that is fine but it not marriage. If they enjoy the same protections and benefits this way, I am for it.

Loud mouth protestors do not make law in this country. The majority of people in California have voted to prohibit gay marriage. That's the end of it. The judiciary has no authority ot overturn the will of the majority of California voters on a referendum like this.

Gay marriage is against the natural order of things in that marriage is between two members of the opposite sexes only. Two sexes having sexual relations is necessary for maintaining the human race. If two people do it differently, that is their perogative, but society does not have to incorporate a celebration of this lifestyle into its laws.

The judiciary has every right to overturn a discriminatory law. It is one of the most important functions of the judicial branch to check the excesses of the legislative (or in this case, the referendum process acting in lieu of the legislature).

The most important function of the state (in some views its ONLY legitimate function) is to protect the rights of the individual -- quite especially when the individual is in the minority.

And as for the natural order, not every member of a species has to breed in order for the species to continue. In a social species in particular, kinship selection gives a competitive advantage to social groups that include members who contribute to the common pool of resources, but who do not have offspring to consume those resources. That may be one reason why homosexual behavior (and even pair bonding) is documented in such a surprisingly wide array of species.

Marriage is a word with a definition, a union between a man and a woman. Period, that is it. If same sex couples want to celebrate their love in the same way as heterosexual couples than do it under the name civil unions. Why is that a problem as long as they have all of the same rights. Churches won't be forced today or tomorrow to perform same sex marriages but in ten years I guarantee they will be. People are always pushing an agenda. It has happened in Sweeden so don't say it won't eventually happen here. I personally don't understand why calling a same sex union marriage is so important to same sex couples. I am open to finding out though, so why doesn't someone explain it, what is wrong with calling it a civil union?

this happened because of everybody shoving the gay agenda down everyones throat........ some people think that being gay is unnatural behavior and you can't change that. More than 70% of americans think being gay is immoral.... oh and by the way I'm a bi-se@#ul so you can't say I have homophobia

For all those who post about the value of Civil Unions...go get one. It won't be recognized for dozens of things married couples get. Just like apartheid and "seperate but equal" it is a system designed to give less... period. I keeping reading about gays 'shoving their lifestyle' down the throats of people (homphobia can be very internalized by bi and even gays). I have a good memory, I clearly remember this arguement about mixed race couples too, showing 'disgusting' affection in public. It was the early 70's when I was a mere child. The more things change...the more bigots stay the same!

Ps. Betcha your church wouldn't dare deny access to a mixed race couple marrying today, where in the old days 'a good old lynchin'waited any black man who even looked at a white woman!

Syracuse Police Chief Gary W. Miguel is a child abuser and gay-basher and beats kids over the head until they are soaked in blood and not breathing. I know because he did it to me back in the 70s. I am not a liar, Gary is. He continues to harass my friends and I am very worried about my family. Gary is very brutal, violent and evil.

Please pray for me.

I can't speak to the "gay agenda". I have a personal agenda, and it's rather straightforward; to seek equal treatment for all people, even people different than myself.

Different groups define marriage in different ways. That's fine. If your denomination doesn't believe a same-sex marriage is a "real" marriage, then the church can choose to enforce that restriction on its members and the members can choose whether to remain with the church or leave.

But no group has the right to say, "Our definition is the only correct definition for everybody. Period". There are churches and states that will happily marry same-sex couples. How you choose to define them is up to you, but they are married in the eyes of the law and of their faith.

Nothing about gay marriage is the slightest threat to straight marriage. The only threat is to the power of one segment of society to enforce their religious beliefs upon those who don't share their particular interpretation of those beliefs.

By the way, the Swedish law in question has a specific exemption that permits individual clergy and churches to refuse to perform same-sex ceremonies. The rumor that the law forces churches to perform such ceremonies appears to have originated with far-right American websites.

The Swedish law has already been tested though, the clergy man in reference was put in prison and letter release. This is people with an agenda trying to force there beliefs on religion. You are right, there are religions that will marry same sex couples, but my point is how long will it last before churches are forced to follow the states definition. If Civil Unions offer less than marriages than lets fix that rather than changing the definition of a word that has existed years. One group doesn't have the right to say that their definition is the only correct one, but one group also doesn't have the right to change that definition, especially when it does affect the lives of so many. People also forget what this does to parents rights. When a parent teaches their child what they believe, marriage is between a man and woman, then the child goes to school and the teacher says "no that's wrong it is between any two consenting adults" that undermines the parents and confuses the child. It should stay the way it is, and more should be done to make sure that Civil Unions offer exactly what marriages offer.

Erin, help me out. I poked around a bit about the Swedish priest being arrested, and I found the allegation repeated by Hasselbeck on The View, but I am unable to find the name of the man who was arrested, a date of arrest, the charge on which he was arrested, or any mention of this in the Swedish or international press. If you could provide some more specific information on this incident, it would help validate the claim.

I don't want to dismiss or belittle the idea of parental rights. You have the right to teach your beliefs to your children. But you can't insulate them from competing ideas. You can, for example, teach them that alcohol and tobacco are a defilement of the temple of the body... but they will see people smoking and drinking and the law will tell them that these activities are permissible. You can teach them that sex is a sacred gift to people within the bounds of holy matrimony, but they will eventually learn that people can and do legally engage in sex outside those bounds.

The best any parent can do is to give their child the tools to make sound moral and ethical decisions, regardless of the religious framework in which you operate. The state cannot enforce one particular religious viewpoint without compromising the very values that make us a free nation.

It's not that activists are trying to change the definition of marriage. It's that the definition has been changing and evolving for hundreds of years and across hundreds of different cultures.

And none of them has a copyright on the word.

Poor Michael, I bet you dont even asscoiate with anyone black or mormon. You like most white gays,probably look down at black people in general.Which is the reason why you're community didnt do a better job expressing you're case to black voters.

You just assumed that we would fall in line, because in you're eyes not being allowed to marry is the same as not being allowed to vote,or being forced into slavery, or being hung from a tree because you spoke to a white woman, or made eye to eye contact with a white man. In your'e eyes its the same as not being allowed to walk thru the front door of a hotel or restaurant, or not being allowed to have a seat at the front of the bus.

Guess what sugar it's not.Instead of saying we must due a better job in reaching out to our non-supporters. You find it okay to just blame blacks or mormoms for the ban passing. Now while I appreciate the new found importance many see in the black vote. We cant take all the credit. The people of californa spoke,which means its back to the drawing board for the gay community. I'm sure one day you'll get everything you want. But like blacks in this country, be willing to spill blood, and bust you tails fighting for it.

Look at the bright side. At least while protesting. You dont have police dogs attacking you and you're children and you're not being sprayed with fire hoses. See the horror's my people went thru in this country paved the way for you're battle.

________________________________________
Personally I dont care if you marry or not. Marriage is seen as this so called sacred bond, yet we have shows like the Bachelor on TV. So it's not as sacred as it once was. I also dont think you will ever get the majority of this countries citizens to accept gay marriage.

I really believe it would be much easier to just work on fixing what's wrong with civil unions.

To know the bitter taste of oppression, and then to deny aid to those still laboring under it, is a profound act of moral cowardice.

Erin....In no way would legalizing same-sex marriage force the Mormon church, or any church for that matter, to marry same-sex couples. Churches would still have the right to refuse to perform any marriage they didn't feel went along with their religious beliefs or the rules for their individual church/synagogue/temple/mosque/house of worship. It amazes me that the Mormon Church can even stand and make any argument about marriage when you look at their history of polygamy (which I do realize is now forbidden but the history is still there) and the fact that you have to be a member of the Mormon Church just to even *attend* a Mormon wedding. It's inconceivable to me that a parent or a family member of a bride or groom isn't allowed to see their loved one get married if they aren't LDS, but I digress. Churches already can refuse to marry couples if they aren't members of that individual church or one half of the couple is of a different faith or even if the couple refuses to attend pre-marital counseling. No one who is a supporter of same-sex marriages is out to take away a church's right to allow or deny a marriage within that church. The whole fight for same-sex marriage is to grant to gay and lesbian couples the same CIVIL rights that are granted to heterosexual couples as soon as they are declared man and wife. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with religion and it's not right for any church to try and deny civil rights to any group.

As for all of those people who say they don't mind "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" it's just the idea of calling it a "marriage" they have an issue with, I have news or you. Every same-sex couple I have ever known who has had a commitment ceremony or entered into an official civil union/domestic partnership refers to that union/partnership as a "marriage" and their partner as their "spouse." Disagreeing with the definition of "marriage" is not and will not stop same-sex couples from considering their relationship to be a marriage. Legalizing same-sex marriage does not take away your right to believe that it's wrong or goes against your religion, you totally still and always will have that right. But same-sex couples should also have the right to have their committed, monogamous relationships recognized on a civil level.

I still have heard no answer as to why the word marriage is so important to same sex couples. I know that people don't think churches will be forced to perform same sex marriages but it will happen within a few decades. Like it has been pointed out people keep trying to change things. Kate, you are right I do have an issue with calling it marriage, I don't deny that. I don't care what the couples themselves call it, I care about what the government calls it.

Yukon Sam, you are right there isn't anything to back that up other than what Hasselback said. However the left party in Sweden does want to force pastors to marry same sex couples, saying that it is discrimination not to. How long will it take,after legalizing marriage in the US, for this kind of argument to come up. Don't tell me it won't. Would you support that kind of a law and take away someone's religious freedoms to believe what they want?

Oh, here is the website where that issue is discussed. http://www.thelocal.se/15612/20081111/

To "My Grandfather Bled For His Rights"...

Since you seem to think all white gays and lesbians look down on anyone black, I'd like to point something out to you. I have seen many more inter-racial couples (one member black, one member white) in the gay community than I ever have in the straight community. It seems to me that a person's value based on their race means so much more to the straights than the gays. The gays and lesbians I know could care less whether or not someone is black, white, brown or green with orange polka dots. They see the person, not the color.

It's ironic to me that you seem to think that gays just thought the black voters would "fall in line" and support same sex marriage when in the Presidential election, 61% of Obama supporters were white (I can't find an exact percentage of number of gays voting for him, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and say it's a pretty high percentage). If we in the white community hadn't looked past the color of his skin (and I'm very glad we've finally reached the day when that has happened), we'd be reading newstories about the appointments to President-Elect McCain's administration. If Obama had lost the election, can you honestly say that there wouldn't be a significant portion of the black community blaming whites for not voting for him? How is it possible that one community who has fought so long and so hard for equal and civil rights can sit by and watch another community continue to be treated like second class citizens?

As for your statement, "You dont have police dogs attacking you and you're {sic} children and you're not being sprayed with fire hoses," can I just direct your attention to the raids of the Stonewall Inn in June of 1969, not to mention the countless raids of gay bars across the nation for years prior to that? Why were these places raided? Simply because the patrons were gay. Sure, other reasons were given (i.e. noise violations, alcohol violations, etc) but that was simply a smokescreen. To insinuate that gays and lesbians haven't had to fight for acceptance and rights is not only ignorant but flat out wrong.