Political Punch

Sorry...my computer freaked and double submitted.

Jen,

Go back to the Bible to find true Theocracy and the kind that beccatoo is talking about.

beccatoo: Please refer to your dictionary. Theocracy is not a state where man is ruled by God. It is a state ruled by priests and/or religious hierarchy in the name of a god or god. Please see your map - and locate the middle east specifically IRAN where Theocracy rules or IRAQ were both Theocracy and Dictatorship had the day. You mean to tell me you would like to live in such a society?

Thanks comin out....

As a Christian I don't believe it should be the government's role to decide what we do with our relationships. There are THOUSANDS of marriages out there that are only on paper and are dead relationships. ...and yet there is now law saying "you have to actually love each other to get married". Marriage is ALREADY just a contract as far as the government's concerned.

Legislating morality is bad. No law should tell us what to do with our personal life, personal beliefs or personal property so long as we don't use any of the above to harm others.

Theocracy means man ruled by God. We can only hope for that but unfortunately I do not see that happening.

What about those who are non-christian? What about Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Sieks (sp), etc.? Christians do not have the right to dictate to those who do not live by their code of beliefs on how they should live or not live. Non-Christians should have the same rights as everyone else - but the way this is going, our country is going to end up a Theocracy. AND that means the many ruled by the religious elite. Bleh!!

Those who turn to God through Christ are "engraffed," as the Word says, into the Vine... >>> "graffed"

Waffie

Mr. Incredible said that in his first post.not to minister to the heathen.
Posted by: melbd | May 23, 2008 9:55:06 AM
-------------------------------------
He has made a slight correction.

Waffie

Mr. Incredible said that in his first post.not to minister to the heathen.

^We are commanded by Him to go into all the world, not just the civilized part of it and preach the Gospel. ^

Ok, I got it slightly wrong:

(Gal 1:16) To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen...

Now, I say, "slightly," cuz that says, "preach," not "minister to." "Minister to" would indicate "healing," whereas, "preach," indicates "delivering a lesson."

Let's say, then, that Jesus never healed a heathen, that, like dogs licking up the crumbs that fall to the floor, the heathen may have seen Him preach and heard what he said.

Mr. Incredible...by "House of Israel" are you meaning Jewish? I am not Jewish but a Gentile...does that mean I am not eligible for more than crumbs? I think not. Once a person, Gentile or Jewish, accepts the forgiveness and grace that is offered by Jesus the Son of God's death on the cross for the sins of ALL humanity, they are "grafted" onto the tree. The Bible uses the term "grafting" to represent what takes place. Jesus also says that there is no diference between the Jew and the Greek (Meaning Gentile or non-Jewish) or man and woman. A person is a person to God, you are either saved or not. Heaven is not based on works (Ephesians 2:8-9- For by grace are you saved through faith in that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.)(Romans 6:23- For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our LORD.)

Once God sifts through the saved and unsaved, the unsaved will be condemned to an eternity in Hell. There are multiple references in the Bible to the fact that everyone has the chance to accept God and what He is offering. Even those that have never heard from someone. There are many stories of missionaries going to remote villages and the natives already know the Gospel story they just didn't know the "terms" that Christians have labeled everything.

The only people that will be judged by their works are the saved. God will judge their works, thoughts, and actions to determine the eternal reward. Will you received wood, hay and stubble or gold, silver, and precious jewels? Personally...I'm going fot the jewels and gold and silver. I try to live my life every day with the question, "what would Jesus do?" I am human. I fail. But I serve a loving God who forgives and forgets.

I'm not really sure where this tangent came from but its good an true so I'm leaving it. Maybe someone needs to hear it.

Back to Mr. Incredible...if you have read any of my other posts, you know if my family and friends know my beliefs and what I feel about their lifestyle. I'm not wasting my time re typing something for someone who thinks I'm a dog worthy only of crumbs off the floor.

Dear People Who Say that They are Homosexual, Their Supporters and Activists:

What form is Christian love and compassion supposed to take toward those who claim to be homosexual? Like what is it supposed to look? How would YOU recognize it?

"I'm not sure how you can be right on in all you other points and totally miss this one [that we are to go into all the world and preach]. "

Nobody is saying we shouldn't.

^^Jesus ate with prostitutes and sinners. If that's not ministering, I don't know what is.^^

He came to save the lost of the House of Israel, not heathen. He ministered to the sinners of that House.

^^Jesus stated that he came to "seek and save that which was lost"...that means the "non-Christians" the heathens as you put it.^^

The heathen were not lost. They never were of the House of Israel, and, so, Jesus -- the Shepherd -- never left the other sheep to go out and look for the heathen.

^^ We are commanded by Him to go into all the world, not just the civilized part of it and preach the Gospel.^^

This is true, but we are not to concentrate on other than the lost sheep of the House of Israel.

However, if the crumbs of the children's Bread -- the Gospel -- fall to the floor, the dogs are allowed to lick them up. We are not to give what is holy to the dogs.

^^ We are also commanded to love others as we love ourself.^^

Is THAT the worldly version of "love," or the scriptural version?

Biblical "love" is "unselfish concern for the Salvation of others, as much concern for their Salvation as you have for your own." It has nothing to do with worldly "love," rather giving others what they need for life; after all, Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after Righteousness.

^^I love my family member and friends that are homosexual but that does not mean that I endorse that lifestyle.^^

So, what, according to the Word of God, are you doing to let them know that God condemns homosexuality, that they are as sheep with no shepherd?

Posted by: beccatoo | May 23, 2008 9:23:54 AM

My opinion has not changed and I feel very strongly that this remains wrong. James...you are in a homosexual relationship because that is your desire. Deep inside...you know this is morally wrong. My desire might be to introduce several women into my marriage but I will not do so because I know this is morally wrong. I respect my wife, my life, and my fundamental belief of what is right and what is wrong. Your views are wrong my friend...everything in the bible and in nature says so. Man was not made to be with man and woman was not made to be with woman. As much as you don't want to...you need to live a moral life. I think you know what is morally appropriate and what is not.

I'm still shocked that our society has allowed this to become a debate. It should not even be considered.

Mr. Inredible...I believe with almost everything you said except this, "I am to love my brother, not heathen. Jesus didn't minister to heathen. Neither do I." Jesus ate with prostitutes and sinners. If that's not ministering, I don't know what is. Jesus stated that he came to "seek and save that which was lost"...that means the "non-Christians" the heathens as you put it. We are commanded by Him to go into all the world, not just the civilized part of it and preach the Gospel. I'm not sure how you can be right on in all you other points and totally miss this one. We are also commanded to love others as we love ourself. "hate the sin but love the sinner" as the popular adage does. I love my family member and friends that are homosexual but that does not mean that I endorse that lifestyle.

Dear People Who Say that They are Homosexual, Their Supporters and Activists:

What form is Christian love and compassion supposed to take toward those who claim to be homosexual? Like what is it supposed to look? How would YOU recognize it?
Posted by: Paula Abdrool | May 23, 2008 9:01:07 AM
--------------------------------------

That's the central question, isn't it.

Scoffers claim to know what Christian "love" and "compassion" are supposed to be. How could they??? They reject the very Person Who brought "love" and "compassion"!!! So, how would THEY know???

Those who claim to be homosexual say that they were created homosexual.

Jefferson said that the Right to life begins at our being created.

Those who claim to be homosexual are at odds with the pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong-choice people who say that the Right to life begins at birth, thus trying to justify abortion.

Does THAT mean that everybody is created at birth???? That can't be cuz, clearly, something was created before that.

So, which is it??

How are men who say they are homosexual being treated differently than men who are heterosexual? Are both not allowed to marry women???

How are women who say that they are homosexual treated differently than women who are heterosexual? Are both not allowed to marry men???

Are not both men who say they are homosexual and those who are heterosexual prohibited from marrying a member of the same sex???

Are not both women who say they are homosexual and those who are heterosexual prohibited from marrying a member of the same sex???

This is equal protection.

--Marriage predates Christianity by thousands... and probably tens of thousands of years.--

Yes, it started when God joined a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife.

==If my neighbor is gay and wants to live as a married couple, how does that affect MY life? IT DOESN'T!==

That's cuz you agree with it and don't care about the rest of the country.

We, though, know that it will cnage this society, this culture and this country, and we are citizens, and, so, we are involved.

==...why would I care how other people choose to live and love?==

Cuz you oughta be concerned about the direction of this society, this culture and this country.

== In a Christian sense, then let GOD be judge of the lives of others.==

He has already judged, and He has condemned what we now call "homosexuality" as an "abomination." We merely report that fact.

^^ Why do I have to be involved?^^

You don't. Let us do all the work. You just sit there.

^^ I am not God!^^

We can only thank Him for that!

^^ Only God can judge the heart of man.^^

He already has, saying that the heart of Man is wicked. I believe Him. So, we report what He says.

^^ In fact, doesn't the Bible say no man can know the heart of another?^^

We CAN know cuz God tells us.

^^ Isn't loving and devotion, true Christian virtues?^^

Love and devotion to whom?

^^ And isn't hatred and prejudice an anathema in the eyes of God?^^

Depends.

I am to love my brother, not heathen. Jesus didn't minister to heathen. Neither do I.

God hates evil and evildoers. So do I. He is prejudiced against evil. So am I.

^^ Could anyone be called Christian, who keep people apart...^^

Depends.

Jesus came to separate the goats from the sheep. He said that He brought a division.

^^...undermine the genuine affections and happiness of others?^^

Depends.

Are Christians to encourage any ol' feelings of others, even ungodly??

^^ I am heterosexual and Christian. I think God is calling upon us to put aside the old laws and allow the love of Christ to fulfill the new law.^^

He is, but too many ignore that call and, thus, are under the Law, not Grace.

^^ I do not think actively subverting love, in whatever form it takes, is a Christian act.^^

Which "love" are you talking about?? Worldly love, or biblical love, cuz they are different.

^^ We accept people for their strengths and weaknesses and allow God to judge their hearts.^^

Not scriptural.

What business is it of anyone to pass judgement on other people's relationships? Why does it provoke such huge feelings? If my neighbor is gay and wants to live as a married couple, how does that affect MY life? IT DOESN'T! If my neighbor gets health insurance from his work for his partner by virtue of marriage, does that affect MY insurance? NO! If my neighbor dies and leaves his house to his loving partner after years of partnership, does that affect MY house? NO! So why would I care how other people choose to live and love? In a Christian sense, then let GOD be judge of the lives of others. Why do I have to be involved? I am not God! Only God can judge the heart of man. In fact, doesn't the Bible say no man can know the heart of another? I have read the Bible speaking out against homosexuality. I have also read in the same passages, the Bible speaking out in equal measure that a disobedient son should be put to death, gossips should be exluded from the community of believers, no man shall lay with a woman mensruating, etc....These admonitions are equally strong. Isn't loving and devotion, true Christian virtues? And isn't hatred and prejudice an anathema in the eyes of God? Could anyone be called Christian, who keep people apart; divide communities with empassioned, enflamed feelings of hatred; encourage fear and prejudice; and finally undermine the genuine affections and happiness of others? I am heterosexual and Christian. I think God is calling upon us to put aside the old laws and allow the love of Christ to fulfill the new law. I do not think actively subverting love, in whatever form it takes, is a Christian act. We accept people for their strengths and weaknesses and allow God to judge their hearts. Somehow Í think that God will judge acts of hatred as the more unforgivable sin.

Voting is a right, marriage is not. The government grants marriage recognition, like all privileges, if it deems it beneficial to the general welfare. I believe it should be left to the states to decide. That way, we can see whether it works in some states before possibly jeapardizing our culture with an untested idea (in America at least.)

BTW, if you realy love someone, you don't need a license from the government to prove it.

I can see both sides to this issue. Bottom line for me is that I believe everyone should have the same rights but why does it have to be called marriage? I see no problem with leaving that term for heterosexuals since that is the way it has always been. If homosexuals want to make a commitment and receive all the same legal rights, why can't they come up with their own name for their union. Marriage is way overrated anyways and the divorce rate is higher than ever, and as a fellow human, I think everyone should think twice about it.

It doesn't matter what people believe or do not believe. There is a God and he distroyed Sodem and Gomorrah because of sexual sins and it rained fire from the sky. I respect what is right and I believe we will see God's wrath if we continue to be ungodly. I can't sit back and be passive as long as I live in this country, of the USA. God Bless the USA

MM, I'm not being passive or silent. I am merely saying that being HATEFUL as most are being on here is not the way to go either. I find it ironic how you say "God lovingly warned" when I don't see any loving warnings here. I see hateful accusation from both sides but especially the "Christians".

We are to be an example. The Bible is full of many examples where people are "lovingly warned" but it is loving and then they make their OWN decisions. It is not a secision when they are forced to do something. My family member knows how I feel but also knows I love them. I'm not going to constantly shove my beliefs onto them everytime I see them. That would only result in alienation and would prove nothing but closed mindedness which is exactly what I see here. I'm not saying "embrace all beliefs". Stand firm for what you believe in but don't be a jerk about it. Be loving.

Believe me, I am NOT passive. I do not drink alcohol. Never have, never will by choice. All my friends know that. Most of my friends (non-christians) do drink and at times heavily. They know my beliefs. They drink around me. They don't offer it to me because they respect my beliefs. I told them why I don't drink, once. While they are drinking, I do not "preach" at them what I think about alcohol consumption. I have family that drinks, they know that my family does not. When my sisters and I were younger, they did not drink in front of us out of respect for us and my parents. My parents did not "Bible thump" at them. There is a mutual respect.

I am not encouraging "laying down and playing dead" but state your opinion IN LOVE, move on. Don't attack. I approuch every discussion as if it were with a close friend or family member just so that I make sure I am doing it love not just reacting. We are all human and make mistakes.

Just because I am a Christian, does not mean I am perfect. FAR from it. "There but for the grace of GOd go I". I depend on Him daily to guard my mouth and help me not ruin my testimony by my human, selfish sense of "self" and making myself feeled justified. I'm just saying that BOTH sides need to chill. Respect each other and see how far that goes.

The sad thing to me is that the so called "Christians" are reacting just like those that are self-declared non-Christian or even worse. If you are a true Christian, you are held to a higher standard by the God you claim to serve. Prove it.

What I find most disturbing is the fact that there are many different kinds of people in the United States with many different kinds of religious backgrounds. This is not a religious issue. Not everyone worships the same God nor is everyone Christian.

IF a church does not wish to sanction gay marriage - that is fine, but the government is suppose to be for all people despite religious, economic, racial...etc. differences. So why can't every citizen have the same rights?

It appalls me.

LAW SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON WHAT "GOD" WANTS. WE DON'T ALL BELIEVE IN THE SAME CRUD AS YOU BIBLE THUMPERS OUT THERE. LEAVE YOUR BIBLE AT HOME

This whole arguement is based on Christian philosophy. There is a seperation of church and state. Or should be. Bottom line. Leave your church at home. Don't bring it into law. Unless of course you christians want to be like the taliban............

wow, are there some mean-ass Christians on THIS blog! if legalizing gay marriage meant the immediate dissolution of all straight marriages and a state mandate that all persons, regardless of sexual preference, be forced to marry a person of their own sex, i'd say the opponents have a legitimate beef. that preposterousness aside, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? and don't give me that "abomination" crap from the bible. the real abomination in this case is the smug, pious cruelty of the "Christians" on this blog who would exclude gay people from a fundamental rite of passage in our society. we human beings all love to fear and marginalize the "other," because it makes us feel so superior.

if you still allow yourself to think, despite your deep religiosity, ask yourself: why would a loving God make gay people and then condemn them to hell for following their natural impulses?

if homosexuality is a "choice," as i know many of you fulbright fellows believe, here's another question for you: exactly when did YOU choose to be heterosexual?

i want some answers! or are you too chicken?

beccatoo, love is not passive or silent, but it is active. If someone is in trouble, you do not keep silent and not tell them the error of their ways. Instead, what you do is let them know the consequenses of their actions. God lovingly warned sinful man about His wrath upon those who do not turn from their sins. It is the gospel truth.

why do straight people always say stuff like, bro and sis, daughter and father?? of course i don't think that that should be allowed! what is wrong with gay peopele being allowed to marry? how will allowing gay people lead to those other arrangements? your logic would say that straight marriage lead to gay marriage lead to plural marriage lead to interspecies marriage! it just doesn't make sense! did straight marriage lead to dogs marrying a man??? no, so that argument is just one because you can't think of another reason to deny gay people the right to form contracts with each other that will be recognized federally, and those federal rights are given to gay coupldes just as freely as they are to straight couples! i shouldn't have to carry about 15 documents with me when my partner goes into the hospital to gaurentee me the right to visit him! i shouldn't have to have 15 documents with me when my partner dies and i'm left with a house that i must now pay taxes on in order to keep it because it is considered a gift and there for taxable!! again, has straight marriage lead to a son marrying his mother?? no, so that argument does not make sense! there are fundamental rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that my taxes and my partners taxes payes for! we deserve to form a union, called whatever you want it to be called, with ALL the benefits afforded under this union!! i don't care about the word, domestic partner, civil union, marriage, i just want ALL THE RIGHTS, not some, so that way my relationship is valid under the law and i am not treated as a second class citizen in this society! gay civil unions in NJ have been denied basic insurance because the insurance company said they weren't "married." this is why the word marriage is so important! again, i don't care what you call my union, but damn it i deserve the rights that any straight person is afforded under the marriage laws!!!`

Mccain has it right.
Ellen has it wrong.
Gay people will never be accepted.
That is why the majority of the states dont have a law for same sex marriage.

In the United States, the only thing that really defines when people are married is a piece of paper issued by the state called a "Marriage License" or something similar. In some states there may also be "common law marriages".

The State/government doesn't care if there was any kind of religious ceremony or not. All it cares about is if there is a signed piece of paper that says you're married.

Why is allowing same sex partners to have this piece of paper such a big deal? It won't change anything! Case in point:

I've lived in my house for 8 years now. When I moved there the next door neighbors were two women. Nice ladies. Come to find out they are a lesbian couple. Been together for years. Been living in the house together way before I moved to the neighborhood. They've been great neighbors. They often walk in the evenings and hold hands. They share a bedroom. They drive matching cars.

If the state allowed same-sex marriages, it would not change anything to you or me. My neighbors would still take evening strolls holding hands, they would still share a bedroom, and still drive matching cars. It's not like all of the sudden their relationship will take on a crazy new level and they will run wild in the streets!

But to them it would mean a lot. They would be able to have extended health benefits from their company, they would be able to file as "married" on their federal income tax returns, they would be able to sign legal contracts as a married couple.

Let them have the piece of paper!

DrNyman~ Thank you, thank you, thank you. Props to you. I agree with absolutely EVERYTHING you said.

One of my biggest pet peeves is how I am supposed to be tolerant of everyone and everything else but the moment I open my mouth with a differing opinion I am attacked. Freedom of speech goes both ways and I'd appreciate if everyone remembered that.

I believe in Freedom. Every kind of Freedom. And that Freedom for everyone no matter how different our personal beliefs are. The majority of my friends have differing views than I do but we agree to disagree. I don't force my beliefs on them and they don't force theirs on me.

I have a close family member that is gay. Do I love them any less...not at all. Do I, personally, think its wrong...yes. I still love this person and would love them no matter what. That is their decision to live their life how they deem right to them. Its Freedom.

God gave man that Freedom in the beginning of time, who I am to take that away from anyone. I do not judge people for I am commanded "not to judge lest I be judged" and that "he without sin should cast the first stone". As DrNyman stated, I view premarital sex the same way as homosexuality. They are both wrong to me. Wrong is wrong.

I think the accusations on this blog are ridiculous and immature. Everyone's getting thier hackles up and all offended. As the old adage goes, "you win more flies with honey than with vinegar" and that goes for both sides of ANY arguement. I am a Christian, yet most Christians on this blog are a shame to me and I am embarressed of them and their ugly accusations. They need to take a look at themselves and get over their haughtiness. The God I know and the one they claim to serve would be ashamed of their actions.

While I'm up here on my soap box (:-D), on the seperation of church and state issue... everyone needs to go research some history. NOT textbooks but actual records written at the time of the founding of this country. Seperation of church and state was orginally instituted to keep the state from mandating the church's activities NOT the other way around. They WANTED the church involvment in politics but they did not want a repeat of what they fled in England...a government ruled and mandated church. They wanted the freedom to worship God the way they chose not on the whim of some ruler. The way this country is headed now, we are quickly on the way to what the founding fathers wanted to avoid. When kids can't pray in school, when "Merry Christmas" is suddenly wrong and offensive (which is ironic in itself because Happy Holiday is literally Happy Holy Day), when the decision to send our children to public school or educate them at home is taken away...the foundation of this country is at risk. And as someone pointed out earlier in this blog (sorry- I can't remember who) Christians can be hated and discriminated against and its ok but we'd better not think of saying what we think is right and wrong or we are accused of being haters. This all goes back to what I said at the beginning...Freedom of speech goes both ways. Respect cannot be received unless it is given.

To my Christian family out there...be the bigger person...stop pointing the finger first (there are more pointed back at you- I know its cliche but so true)..love all our brothers and sisters as they are and allow them the freedom to make their decisions and live their life the way they chose.

To all those who do not agree with me, please allow me the same freedom I'm allowing you...to live my life as I see fit and not be judged for it. Thank you.

It's painfully obvious what conservatives are attempting to do with these constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.Anyone who grew up in the Civil Rights era knows that a lesson taught is not necessarily a lesson learned, and the children of today will most likely harbor substantially less bigotry towards gay people. These amendments exist solely to tie the hands of future, less-bigoted generations.

If two people for a union, that union is normaly supported by each other. If there are more then that in the union, the state is normally burdened with taking care of the added partners in the family unit. look at the flds church. these straight men have bonded with many women, and the state is caring for the off sprind and the "extras" in these plural marriages. the law should state two people, be they opposite or same sex, are allowed to form a marriage contract for the mutual benefit of each other. also, the argument that if you allowed same sex marriages you have to allow plural marriages just doesn't make sense! gay people aren't asking to marry 6 people! i'm only asking to marry the ONE person that i want to, out of love and respect for each other! i never hear a vaild argument as to why straight people can get married! if we can't get married because we can't have kids, why then are sterile people allowed to marry? why are my great aunt betty and her 82 year old boyfriend allowed to get married when there is no chance of children? that argument is now invalaid, unless you declare that you must have children during a certain period of time in order to continue to be married and enjoy those benefits that one gets when they are married!

Philly J, I am straight, and I agree with you. I am just wondering if you think that all consenting adults, no matter the relationship or quantity of partners, be allowed to be married as well.

Hey Philly James, I agree with you, but your argument still does not state why those another sects of people should not be aloud to get marry too.

Your argument is the same argument they used against interracial marriages! Where does it end!! People against gay marriage will use any and everything to say this is why gay people can't get married!! Give me a break! Look what straight people have done with marriage! There are those that want plural marriages, where does it end!! Gay people want to get married, better watch out for the dog! I'm not asking to marry four people or the family dog! I'm not asking for a child to marry!! I'm asking that me and the person that I love, be allowed to form a union, based upon a mutual respect and love for each other, to better the other and to care for the other person! Wow, that kinda sounds just like why straight people get married! Notice I didn't say I want to marry my boyfriend, his friend and my neighbors dog! GET OVER YOURSELF! We want to marry because we want to be afforded rights over and for the other person that any other word does not allow us to have! Damn, don't you people get it! I'm not asking for you or your church to say it's okay! I could care less if you don't like it! But damn it, I want, we want, to be treated as first class citizens, instead of back of the bus abnormals! Remember this: If it wasn't for a hetrosexual, there wouldn't be any homosexuals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I enjoy watching Ellen's show, but I must disagree with her on one point. It is true that marriage is a legal issue, but in this country, the ceremony and connotations of marriage are deeply rooted in religion. We are all aware I am sure of the Bible's view on homosexuality. However, I don't recall ever reading in the Bible that blacks and women should not have the right to vote. These are two very different issues, and since in Biblical times most rulers were Kings and therefore voting rights were not the issue that they are in modern times, you can hardly compare the two subjects. During the last election, Kerry and Bush held almost identical views on the subject of civil unions for gays. The only difference I ever heard was that Bush wanted a constitutional amendment, and Kerry thought it should be handled on a state government level. However, at the polling place where I voted, area churches bussed in hundreds of voters who readily told everyone that their pastors had sent them to vote for Bush to keep gays from having the right to marry if Kerry was elected. Every Republican candidate in NC ran on the platform that they believed marriage was between one man and one woman. Kerry did not even carry our state, and his vp candidate was our US Senator (Edwards). I fully believe that Bush won the 2004 election more so on the gay marriage issue than on the "swiftboats", or any other issue that it was credited to. We have barely heard the words gay marriage since, but with the GE five months away, the CA Supreme Court may have handed McCain a gift wrapped package last week with their ruling. It remains to be seen if any attitudes have changed in four years.

If a man can marry another man and a woman can marry another woman, then why can't a man have two wives or a woman two husbands. What right then would we have to tell them how to live their life. If a man wants to marry his 18 year old daughter and she him, or a brother and sister marry, what right we will have to tell them that it's wrong. Somewhere there has to be commonsense rules in order for a society to function like it's got a common sense.

ALL religions are the root of ALL evil!

Your religious ceremony of marriage is not legal only the CIVL piece of paper
means it's a marriage! Only then is IT legal. Insurance companies and the gov do not give a hoot about religion, only premiums and taxes. The almighty buck!

My partner and I are celebrating our 11th anniversary today. We have a daughter who is 4yo and are waiting on the adoption of an infant. I would like to be able to get married, but I am glad to see that things have improved. Ten years ago when Ellen first came out, her show was soon cancelled. Now - the fact that she is on during prime time afternoons is wonderful to me. Also - the fact that McCain was on is a miracle. Slow but sure (not too slow I hope).

Gadfry... Why can't policy change in all 50 states? Nothing is impossible. Also, your idea of a more equitable solution, is NOT equitable because it's offensive to religion followers. The only equitable way to work this out is for change to be made to our laws to make civil unions synonomous with marriage legally.

I wish I could continue this fun discussion but I have to go. However before I do, the matter of civil unions is for the states to decide, but the reason why marriage has certain benefits ascribed to it is precisely because it benefits society at large. Families form and build up society by properly nurturing children to be responsible contributing members. It is not because two heterosexual people emotionally love one another. Nor is it because two heterosexuals procreate. If that were all that it is then gays would have a solid foundation to build and forward their arguement. It is because loving families are the bedrock for a solid value based society. Good families require shared responsibility and effort. Families require self-sacrifice, structure, and resources beyond those of non-families. They require a belief system with values and loving authority that seeks the best interests of all of the members. They do not exist just because someone procreates. They exist BECAUSE two people LOVE! True love is self-giving and seeks the good of the other. It is not centered on self-gratification. If people do not truly love then they cannot build a solid family. One begets the other. Bye

Truth, I totally agree. The word is extremely important. Civil unions should have the same rights as marriages, but it's offensive to me to call them marriages when they indeed are NOT. The term same-sex-marriage shouldn't exist because it's not a marriage. It's a union of 2 people in a civil capacity, but should be recognized by our policy makers!

Matt:

You got one thing right about McCain on Ellen: he was sheepish. Sheepish because he knows this issue is a loser for him and his bankrupt party.

Equating sexual discrimination to race and gender as the latter two pertain to voting rights is a perfectly adequate and relevant argument to make. ALL forms of discrimination, when they show up in our laws, are antithetical to our nation's founding principles. Slowly, and with no small amount of trouble along the way, we have eliminated the backwards thinking of bigotry from our laws and folkways. This is just the latest phase, and it's high time for it.

Marriage, as a concept and a practical means of addressing status, cannot be rooted out of the legal system and changed in all 50 states. It's not possible. So, the more equitable, sensible solution is to do what California and Massachusetts have done -- and let it take hold across the country. Only in this way can a married couple, regardless of whether they're straight or gay, attain the rights held by the majority. Only in this way will they be legally recognized.

This is not "giving away" anything -- it won't change life for you or me in the slightest. It will, however, separate those of us who cherish freedom from those who only pretend to do so.

Matt - you bring up some interesting points. I have some questions:
1. Protecting the sanctity of marriage through important restrictions is entirely consistent with every other democratic institution we hold dear.
Q: How so? How does this affect you?
2. Additionally, it is faulty reasoning to equate sexual orientation with other categories of civil rights (i.e., gender and race) to justify an argument for gay marriage.
Q: Again, how so? Is not gender, race, etc. a classification that has brought reprecussions in the real world - to every day living?
3. This is a temping argument and is easily advanced in popular discourse, but it has been shown to be false in every credible investigation
Q: Didn't we learn from science, ie "credible investigation" that dinosaurs were descendents from crocodiles/alligators, no birds, not amphibiens, no birds. . . yeah, the Shroud of
Turin is authentic b/c of carbon dating, no it isn't, yes, it is.......

To some it may not matter what the rules are here on earth...but once you hit eternity...what will the answer be?

Matt - Homosexuality is not a choice, no more than race or gender is. It's something you're born with. Science may not have proven it yet, but it certainly rings true. It's something in the way they are wired. You can't help who you're attracted to, including people of the same gender.

Jim, I totallly agree with your point of view! Now will you tell that to the insurance industry that has said that civil unions are not marriage, therefor they can deny insurance to the "un-married" partner of many people in NJ! this is why the word is important! Just because you are civil-unionized, does not give the social security benefits that you have earned to your partner, because according to the US gov't, it's not the same as being married! maybe if all the laws were ammedned to state what you said, and these laws were equal, gay people wouldn't be so militant about why we want to get married! i want death right, hospital rights, visitation rights, tax rights, and many others that are gratned once a person becomes married!! this is why the word is important!!!

Naturefreak: Sorry but being commonly found in nature is not the same as being natural. There are many things in the world that are common but that are unnatural. Being natural means that the purpose can be found in natures laws. If you look at a man and a woman you can see how their parts compliment and provide for procreation through conjugal love. You can see in the woman how her body was created to develop and provide for the child from conception through infancy. You can see in the man the capacity to protect and provide for the woman and child. In a m-m or f-f relationship there is NO complimentarity and the natural law and purpose for human reproductive organs is instead frustrated and fails in its purpose. If as most people today profess Darwin's theory were to hold true and survival of the fittest were the rule. Homosexuals would simply die out for lack of procreative ability. However, since homosexuality is instead a distortion of the "natural" sexual tendancy to procreate people can find many reasons to support their beliefs that have no basis in reason or nature. If you want to justify gay marriage it will have to be done outside of the arguement that it is natural.

This argument isn't about how you love someone, it's simply that a religion sactioned joining of 2 people is called a marriage and a sanctioned joining of 2 people by the government should be called a civil union, AT ALL TIMES. Gay or not. This means a town hall wedding (even between man & woman) should be considered a civil union because it isn't performed as a religious sacrament.

I think McCanin missed a great opportunity to articulate an alternative position to the popular culture audience of Ellen's TV. Rather than sheepishly acknowledging their "respectful differences" and simply wishing her "every happiness," McCain could have used this opportunity to cordially and respectfully rebut the reasons Ellen gave in support of her marriage. She reasoned from the examples of black and women voters. Two responses come to mind: (1) Even though we correctly allow blacks and women to vote, we still have restrictions against voting. Felons can't vote, minors can't vote, non-citizens can't vote, people can't vote twice, etc. So even though the right to vote is afforded to all races, genders, etc., we still protect the sanctity of voting by having certain restrictions against things that would undermined the important institution of voting. (2) Ellen's reasoning assumes that sexual orientation is equivalent to things like race and gender, which are genetic. This is a temping argument and is easily advanced in popular discourse, but it has been shown to be false in every credible investigation (most notably at Northwestern University and their study of twins..identical twins with identical genetics, yet one is gay and one is not). This is not to say at all that sexual orientation is simply a "choice." The best thinkers on the subject are coalescing around the idea that sexual orientation is a complicated make up of hormones, genetic dispositions, and environmental factors (i.e., family upbringing). Whatever the situation, it certainly is NOT the case that sexual orientation can casually be compared to gender and race.

So I think McCain missed an opportunity to bring some important ideas into the public sphere...ideas that are not adequately articulated or represented when this topic is discussed. Protecting the sanctity of marriage through important restrictions is entirely consistent with every other democratic institution we hold dear. Additionally, it is faulty reasoning to equate sexual orientation with other categories of civil rights (i.e., gender and race) to justify an argument for gay marriage.

We have all kinds of other restrictions on marriage (you can't marry your brother or sister, you can't marry more than one person, you can't marry an animal, etc.) and it is important that we protect this foundational institution that is the bedrock of our democracy and Western Civilization.

ps- to a previous poster...where in the world does the "good book" say "women were to be at home, pregnant?"

Tom, thanks for making my point. Marriage is a sacrament. The government should not call a union between 2 persons performed outside of religion a marriage.

Thank Lauie!!

I suggest everyone read Eric Zorn's blog about this:

In short, the government would only recognize civil unions (for heteros as well as gays) and the various religious bodies would be the ones to recognize the 'sacrament of marriage', each according to their views.

Why? Because sacraments belong to religion, not government.

I use to think that this was totally a state issue, but isn't marriage a civil right? Doesn't marriage fall under those "certain unalienable rights?" I think the supreme court will need to make that crystal clear, eventually.

I'm sorry if this offends but the truth must be told:

The concept that gay love is the same as heterosexual love is a falacy. The love between a man and woman is different because it alone has the capacity to be fulfilled in the creation of a new life that joins the man and woman together completely. A NEW LIFE that is the bonding at the most basic level from conception is the ultimate purpose of love. The man gives himself to the woman and the woman to the man and out of their love a new creation that has their DNA their eyes and ears and looks and heredity and manerism etc. is created. This new life is the foundation and basic element of society. We as a society work and build and provide for the youth who are the very future of humanity. The nuclear family is the forming ground and the common unity of humanity. ALL people have a common need for love and belonging. The FAMILY is the perfect place for the understanding and nurturing of love to begin, grow, and develop. Children should gain a knowledge of love from their parents and siblings. Without this foundation society is a selfish mess. Children in foster homes do not flourish in the ways children of a loving marriage do. Their are exceptions to every rule but if we destroy marriage for the purpose of making gays feel better then we have lost sight of the most basic element of society and of humanity. Gay love is a counterfeit to the real lifegiving and socially beneficial love of a man and a woman. The two are NOT the same. Sorry but the truth is what it is regardless of what you want it to be. Period.

i have to leave now
what i would like to see is everyone realizing the immature children we are.
just go back and read as much as you can that has been posted on this matter.
i think you will get the picture. no one is really better than the other

James -
Your God. I believe in your God - full of love and acceptance and comfort. You are a brave man and I think your man (sorry if I missed his name) is a lucky man, indeed, to have you. Your love is evident in your every post. THAT, in my opinion, is the true message from God. That, is what fulfills the heart and soul. Love.

The seperation of church and state was two-fold, It prohibits the government from forcing any single religion as the right one, then it prohibits any
religion from controlling the government, Our forefathers came from a land where there was 1 right religion imposed by that government and that religion ruled the government.

AppeaseThis - Where in the Constitution does it say Separation of Church and State??

bwwlove - McCain does not believe in same sex marriage, that was what the argument was about

Ken - M-M or F-F can not be your parents, that is an impossibilty. Marriage should on be between two people who unless a medical illness can naturally have a baby! that means Male and Female only.

By the way they will start trying to sue churches who refuse to marry them if it is allowed by law!!