While I would agree that eyes are focused on California…as a resident of CT I can tell you there are a lot of eyes focused here also. Our supreme court just announced their ruling a couple of weeks ago and there is a big push here to vote yes in favor of a constitutional convention to amend the state constitution to prohibit marriage equality.
The fear mongering is going on in CT also….but, it does not seem to be as bad here as in CA.
Peace!

It would be really silly to think someone else’s ability to get married affects your marriage, but that’s a reason often given against homosexual marriage.
It would be really silly to clutter up a state’s constitution with details about who can get married but some people would be happy to do it.
And it would be silly to send your money off to affect another state’s constitution but there are fools.
This is coming. Young people are smarter and more accommodating than older people, generally speaking. Be happy for those who want to get married and can now and get on with life.

I know how I’m voting, one man one woman.

” ‘When same-sex marriage is legal, they (gay marriage supporters) become indescribably intolerant towards anybody who has a different view,’ Garlow said.”
It’s interesting the way intolerant individuals are the first to cry “intolerance” when their views are deemed unacceptable. Karl Popper said it best in The Open Society and It’s Enemies:
“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
http://news.lavenderliberal.com/2008/01/21/the-right-not-to-tolerate-the-intolerant/

Rather disappointed by the whole argument.
My children are being taught by their church and religious subculture that gay marriage is more important than the economy, or helping the poor, or doing ministry work. They are being taught to vote for candidates on the basis of this issue [and abortion] and ignore the rest of the problems with this country.
Gay people want to raise their families in peace. I know many in long-term unions, who are just as stable or moreso than the Christian heterosexual marriages I’ve seen. It’s easy to hold a moral stance on someone until you’re the one being treated as a second-class citizen, and I think it’s inane to treat an entire group of people as second-class citizens and then be shocked when they do become more militant and push back hard against the people oppressing them.
If religious people were being denied basic LTR rights because of their religious beliefs, they’d raise a stink. It’s no different for same-sex couples.
Maybe if we looked for our points of connection instead of our differences, we could actually support positive values in each other? I hate the way that two issues dominate conservative religious thought, an entire group of people is vilified enough that they become the main focus of religious attention, and that many other evils are allowed to predominate within religious walls unchecked that I think are ultimately more destructive.

I agree with the Supreme Court of California; all people are equal in rights under our Constitution, therefore couples of like should have the same right to marry as mixed couples. To say that marriages of men and women to each other are the base of everything in America doesn’t prove out. If all marriages were like my husbands and mine it would be a great argument to stand on, but they aren’t, and truthfully they never have been. It’s not all about babies, it’s about love, companionship, loyalty, union of goals, and all good things to accomplish in life together. To keep loving people from enjoying being a married couple is archaic, unkind, and is against the laws of our country. This is why they will win their rights as American citizens.

Protesting in front of a religious building that believes marriage is being defined as between a man and a woman doesn’t strike me as being ‘tolerant’, which is the message No on Prop 8 claims.
Yes on Prop 8 signs are being stolen (misdemeanor offense), and a man was assaulted when putting a sign up in his yard (criminal offense).
Disagree with those of us who will be voting Yes on Proposition 8, but disagree with us at the voting polls.

I know how I’m voting as well; One Man & One Woman.

Henrietta, WELL SAID!
It still amazes me that some heterosexuals are afraid of same gender folks getting married. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with them, NOTHING. Marriage between heterosexuals isn’t always the ideal it is cracked up to be, it never has been. Marriage shouldn’t be defined by one religion’s “holy book”. That hardly qualifies as a book of equality for all.
No religious leader, rabbi, minister, priest etc. is forced to marry 2 people they feel is wrong, which in some cases would be defined as 2 same gender people. So the heterosexuals who think that same gender marriage is “sinful” won’t have to worry about their places of worship being used for “sinful activity” by a marriage of same gender couples, sad as that is.
This country is supposed to represent equality for all. Putting an amendment to the constitution of any state, defining “marriage” as 1 man & 1 woman, is wrong on all levels.

NPR, of all sources, has a nice writeup/summary of what’s at stake for religion:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191
Don’t tell me not to care.

Buffy,
I don’t think I’ve ever read anything more intolerant or unAmerican in my life than this statement by Karl Popper–what about free speech and a pluralistic society? Who gets to decide who is intolerant? If someone disagrees with my views or lifestyle choice, they can supress me with violence, merely out of the fear that I may, someday, just possibly become violent? This is the biggest lying piece of garbage I’ve seen in a long, long time. The only statement I agree with is the first sentence: “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.” And that is what has been happening in the states where same-sex marriage is tolerated–you have the examples cited in the article of opression of those who tolerantly decline to photograph someone, or the arresting of a father who is standing up for his parental rights in a simple request that he be notified before his kindergartener is indoctrinated with same-sex marriage propaganda. That is the disappearance of tolerance that Popper should have been concerned about–and it is in large measure why this Proposition should be defeated.

The last sentence should read: “…why this proposition should be passed.

George, if you believe in one of our freedoms, free speech, why do you object to our Constitution’s saying we as Americans are all equal in our rights?

We are equal but I don’t do some things women do and women don’t do some things men do. Couples marry when they man and woman suddenly some folk want to change that standard. People are still equal and free to be a man or a woman and even now to some people that is up for debate. To shove down people’s throats these new thoughts is unfair and has nothing to do with being unequal. I say you are equal as a man and you say you are not a man but a woman trapped in a man’s body. What am I to do with that? It’s nonsense you have a penis. Then someone learns how to cut the penis off and make it resemble a female’s sex organ and expect me to go along with that. Boy oh boy. lol. I still know how I’m voting and I’m sticking to it.

All anyone is asking for is equal rights for all human beings. No one is asking for anyone to agree with the marriage of same gendered folks…..all they are asking for is the right for them to be allowed to do what other human beings…male and female…have done for centuries…live together in love with the blessing of a religious organization, or marry with a justice of the peace, or whatever other person is authorized to marry folks in their community, city, state, etc. It truely has nothing to do with any heterosexual’s life.
How does legal marriage affect you, cknuck? It doesn’t. No one is shoving anything down anyone’s throat, just asking for fairness for all. Legal equality for all. As much as the comparison is not agreed on by some, the giving of equal rights for all colors of human beings, hard fought and won, is simular.

This is not about equal rights. A same-gender union cannot be equal to a marriage between a man and a woman. The natural ability to bear children is not to be ignored. This is the purpose of marriage. Without the bearing and rearing of children, civilization would end.
Government has elevated marriage to a preferred status because it is good for the generations of children raised in homes with a mom AND a dad. It gives instant legal rights to the child to the man and woman who made them. It provides a mother and father to raise and protect the child. The child does best with a legal, biological and social connection to their parents. Government recognizes the harmful affects of motherless and fatherless homes and they are many. From higher crime rates, learning disabilities, mental illness, substance addiction and abuse, poverty and joblessness, these are not conditions that government should promote.
Why elevate to a preferred status as marriage a family condition that will purposely deprive children of their mother or father? Its hard enough on children to suffer divorce and death of parents than to impose upon them the purposeful deprivation of a parent.
I see zero compelling state interest in doing so. In fact, to do so would harm the society and risk public health and safety for generations of children. Use your heads folks, marriage is not about affirming the affections of any two adults, its so much more than that! VOTE YES on PROP 8. Do what is best for the generations of children to come. They have rights too and are entitled to their natural parents.

We should know by now that everything we do on the planet affects all. The design God created is one man one woman; homosexuality was not created by God anymore that the so-called transsexual, transgender or female/male impersonation. If the world can go so far as to redefine marriage to include same sex the why not multiple partners, how can we turn them down or any other interpretation of marriage? The possibilities are wide open now there is no set standard once the original is breached. It does harm society; it does lower standards, opens what is acceptable to new lows and expectations are qualifiers in an already morally challenged society.

sorry should read “expectations are no longer qualifiers.”

Lori,
As a single mother, I am deeply troubled by your take on the plight of children raised by one parent in our society.
First of all, children are a boon to the economy whether they are to a married couple or not. Second, if marriage is for having children then why aren’t you trying to outlaw marriages without children?
As a side note to that, the belief that marriage is for procreation is based in judeo-christian theology and is not applicable in law. If you want to impose your religion on your children, I feel sorry for them but have no control over it, but to attempt to impose your religion on adults is to take away their human rights.
Further, the most recent indepedent studies show that the reason many kids from broken homes suffer is because of the financial status of the parent.
I’m lucky because I have a good job and can afford to send my son to a private school. He has just turned five and is the best reader in his class. He also knows the difference between thinking something and KNOWING something. Personally, I think you could learn something from him.
I believe my child had a better life by me leaving his father. I also believe that the $40,000 I have had to spend to keep him protected through legal bills was a great injustice based on the state of Virginia’s lack of interest in kids from broken homes.
This speaks right to my heart because the same group that succeeded in passing legislation here defining marriage between a man and a woman next set there sights on granting automatic custody to the parent who didn’t leave the marriage in divorce. Thank goodness, they were not as successful.
Children do best with love, support, discipline, attention, and honesty that comes not necessarily from a mother and father, but from a community of trusted people. I grew up in a conservative, two parent family and I didn’t get those things.
Keep your religion away from my child or you best stay away from this mother.

Confessoressa:
Well said!
Lori:
As has been expressed so well in Confessoressa’s post, I also ask the question, if a male and female marry and choose to have no children, are they breaking the law, religious and the governments? I have known several couples who purposely have no children. That would be— NO. Marriage isn’t just to “procreate”. It is far more than that. Perhaps it might have been originally, but procreation can occur out of the “legal” institution of marriage. So what is the problem with same gender marriages? There isn’t any, and some have chosen to adopt and make familys..with children. That too is no problem. If a child has been given up by a parent or removed from an unsafe environment and put up for adoption, then they deserve a loving, caring and protected environment to live in. What difference does it make if that home is: single parent, same gender parent, or heterosexual parent?
I suppose in a dream world, ideally kids get both parents,M & F, who love and protect (my 2 sisters and I had that) but not all children did in my generation, nor do they now, or will they ever.
Lori, IT IS ABOUT LEGAL RIGHTS!!! How in heck does proposition 8 harm society??? You’re arguments were so not convincing. They were based on your opinion..which is fine, but do not, IMO prove anything “bad” about legalizing same gender marriage.

I cannot speak for Lori but I do agree with most of what she reported. Yes the design for marriage is designed around procreation, no every man and woman does not have to marry for procreation and some may not be able but that does not change the design, how we were made. It is a tactic to justify placing children in homosexual unions based on income and affordability, that is buying people. All of the information has not come back on the affects of a child being raised in a homosexual household, it would be foolish to not expect affects. Yes the heterosexual design by God for marriage is in crisis but to turn to homosexual and to consider it any kind of a remedy is poor medicine. We are all flawed but homosexuality should not be lifted as normal that is not a fact supported by any information and the numbers alone is the biggest indicator that it is not consistent with God’s design and purpose for humans.

“Should this kind of issue be decided by courts or should it be decided by the vote of the people?” asked David Popenoe, co-director of the National Marriage Project”
The “people” can be (and often ARE) very, very wrong on many issues. Just ask any inter-racial couple what they think about putting their rights to a vote.

“I know how I’m voting, one man one woman.”
But ck, you already HAVE that. And allowing gay couples to marry doesn’t take that away from you.
I’m interested why you don’t want to do unto others as YOU would have them do unto YOU, which is, I remind you, “the sum of the laws and the prophets”)?

ck,
Your awkward statement, “Couples marry when they man and woman” is incomplete. Those would be “heterosexual couples” (not all of us ARE, ya know). And nothing forbids them or prevents them from continuing to do just that now that gay cuples can marry too. What IS your fear?

Okay, Robert, I won’t tell you “not to care”, but I WILL tell you that article is so full of hokum that I feel sorry you fell for it.
1. Adopton services – when Catholic adoption services give up all taxpayer-paid (um, that’s US too, I might remind you) funds, THEN they can discriminate all the want to.
2. Housing – who else should be on the list of people that can be refused accommodations? Um, let me guess, inter-racial couples like the Lovings? Let’s not go back there ever again.
3. Parochial schools – again, they are taxpayer funded. Give that up and they can kick any one out they feel like. (Beides, what business are the personal relationships of its students to a school – any type of school – in the first place? And, how did they find out?)
4. Medical services – agin, who else shoud be refused medical services based on their relationships? Give us the COMPLETE lit.
5. Psychological services – so they’re just for betterosexuals now, eh?
6. Civil services – that clerk refused to do his job, so yes, he should have lost his job. Or do you believe that, say, a civil marriage commissioner who happens to be Catholic should be allowed to refuse to marry a divorced person? It’s secular position, after all. If he wanted to impose his religious beliefs on others, he should have become a priest/clergy/pastor/imam/rabbi.
7. Wedding services – not sure how taking pictures (the job of a photographer) is “sanctioning” a ceremony. Perhaps you coul explain that one.
8. Wedding facilities – the location you cite was used for all sorts of non-religious wedding ceremones prior to a – GASP! HORRORS!!! – kweer couple asked for the same services everyone else in town got. Next!
9. Youth groups (scouts) – they got a free ride (well, a $1 per year ride) from the taxpayers until they decided to formalize their discriminatory practices.
Every single ‘argument’ can be so easily debunked (if you bothered to even think about them).

ck,
“People are still equal and free to be a man or a woman”
SO many incomplete sentences you type. What you really mean is, ‘People are still equal (so long as they’re heterosexual) and free to be a heterosexual man or a heterosexual woman.
Face it, some of us just aren’t. And YOU don’t seem to like that fact very much, and seem willing to do all you can to ensure ONLY heterosexual men and women get treated equally before the law. Tat’s not only sad, it’s downright UN-American.
“To shove down people’s throats these new thoughts is unfair”
AW, poor you, eh? Besides, thoughts aren’t ‘shoved down people’s throats’ (i.e. you’re still free to ‘think’ what you want); they’re offered up for people to ponder – with their brains and hearts (not that we’ve seen much evidence you have either, as evidenced by your next, er, ‘sentence’…
“I say you are equal as a man”
You have never, ever ONCE (at least not on any B’net board I’ve ever read) said that I – a GAY man – am in any way equal to you betterosexual men. And, it is demonstrable that under current U.S. laws, I am NOT “equal”.
“and you say you are not a man but a woman trapped in a man’s body.”
HUH??? Now you’ve confused and conflated transexuals with homosexuals. I, for one, have NEVER said ‘I am a man trapped in a woman’s body. How absurd you can be.
“What am I to do with that?”"
Well, for one, you could realize it’s utter nonsense, not to mention irrelevant to the discusion at hand – gays getting married.
“It’s nonsense you have a penis.”
It is NOT “nonsense” that I have a penis. It is a wonderful thing. Is it nonsense that YOU have penis too?

Lo,
“The natural ability to bear children is not to be ignored.”
No one is ignoing it. The trouble with that ‘argument’ is – procreation is not a requirement of marriage. Never has been, either (except for maybe the wives of Henry the 8th ;{O).
And do you also believe that NON-procreative heterosexuals should be denied the right to marry? That’s just nonsense.
“This is the purpose of marriage.”
You better tell that to Prince Charles and Camilla, hon’, ‘cuz no one here believes you. I suppoe you also ‘think’ that no gay person ever had children too?
“Without the bearing and rearing of children, civilization would end.”
Do you actually believe that allowing committed, loving gay couples to marry is gonna stop you hets from breedin’ you asses off? Utterly devoid of validity not to mention reality.
“Why elevate to a preferred status as marriage a family condition that will purposely deprive children of their mother or father?”
I have been legally married for 4 a1/2 years and not a single child has been so ‘deprived’ because of my marriage. Bear much false witness?
“marriage is not about affirming the affections of any two adults”
Better tell that to Britney (55 hours) Spears and, er, what WAS his name, anyway? Or to Darva Conger & Rick Rockwell who turned marriage into a TV game show prize. Or to Mickey Rooney, except in his case he has had 8 wives, (so much for the “two adults” eh?).
Feel free to try again, but bring better arguents. Yours were dismal.

Someone mentioned that parochial schools are tax funded? Since when? The RCC school I taught in certainly wasn’t and isn’t. All it’s money comes from the parents and the diocese. I’m not familiar with any church run school that takes tax money.
Robert: Thanks for the NPR connection.

pentecostal; using the scripture to justify homosexuality is an impossibility, the do unto others scripture you refer to has no homosexual intent, and when talking about marriage the Bible is clear, Jesus is clear one man one woman. Even if marriage is to be made law for homosexuals it still would never be defined in the Bible as holy. I know many homosexuals don’t care and to that I do not argue.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Would you please explain ck why that doesn’t mean exactly what it says? I don’t understand why you think it doesn’t include GLBT. Aren’t GLBT others? Your reasoning always baffles me. Gay people think of their relationships as holy if they are religious people, to say that they don’t care shows you don’t and won’t understand the love between them. The Bible doesn’t have to give a verbatim approval on their marriages. I can think of many Heterosexual marriages that probably haven’t given a holy thought about them, just the gifts, the honeymoon, and who knows what, since many only last through the first 6 months anyway. Would you care to explain to all of us why you think 6 months of rolling in the hay is more holy because they are heterosexuals, and that 60 yrs. of a gay couple is not? The sixty I’m referring to was with “Blackwell and his partner” of sixty yrs. He was in his eighties, so he never had the choice of walking down an aisle. He recently died, in case you are not informed.

“using the scripture to justify homosexuality is an impossibility”
No one here is even TRYING to “justify” homosexuality, ck. There’s nothing to “justify”. We simply ARE. We exist, even tough you do not seem to like it. The law says that ALL citizens are to be treated equally before the law, (even the non-your-type-of-Christian ones) even though you don’t seem to like THAT, either.
“the do unto others scripture you refer to has no homosexual intent”
What, homosexuals aren’t even “others” now? What are we – non-existant in your world? Talk about delusional. True Christians treat ALL others as they would be treated themselves. In fact, this isn’t even a merely Christian concept – the Golden Rule is THE central tenet of the word’s 13 major religions.
“and when talking about marriage the Bible is clear”
It really doesn’t matter if “the Bible is clear” on this or not, ck. Not all citizens are Christians. Heck, not all citizens are religulous. And you forget about that list (growing ever longer) of religions that DO bless our relationships. You have yet to explain why on earth YOUR religious tenets should trump mine (I was married in MY Church, remember?), others’, or no one’s. ‘Samatta? You can’t, can you?
And, if it were “clear”, this conversation wouldn’t even be happenng. Besides, the issue is civil marriage, not religulous marriage.
“Jesus is clear one man one woman.”
Talk about dissembling. The passage you constantly refer to is the response Jesus gave to the question of whether or not divorce was permitted, not the gender of the married couple. Bear false witnesss much? And, once again, in this debate, it really doesn’t matter what Jesus said or didn’t say. Try to understand that.
“Even if marriage is to be made law for homosexuals”
Um, wrong tense. AGAIN! It already IS.
“it still would never be defined in the Bible as holy.”
Says you, but you are still not only wrong, your answer is also (and still) irrelevant to civil marrige. Many people are not interested in religulous (aka ‘holy’) marriages – certainly not your idea of them, anyway. They want equality before the law and that simply means civil marriage – for ALL citizens
“I know many homosexuals don’t care and to that I do not argue.”
But of course you argue – every post you have ever typed is to state that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. Whether or not people actually care to GET married is pretty much irrelvant. WE are discussing those that DO want the right to marry the person of their mutual choosing. Do try to keep to topic.

If I did unto others it certainly wouldn’t homosexually slick but no cigar. When the Bible says do unto others it is referring to a set of standards that don’t include homosexuality that part is very clear.
There many things that just “are” but that is no basis for what is right. If we counted the things that just are many would be included that we couldn’t even mention here. I challenge either of you to show me in the Bible where homosexual marriage is holy or even is an option. It is very clear in the Bible concerning homosexuality it cannot be twisted.

Quote: If I did unto others it certainly wouldn’t homosexuality slick but no cigar.
Sorry, what did you mean to say?
When the Bible says do unto others it is referring to a set of standards that don’t include homosexuality that part is very clear.
It is only clear to you ck. And you are the one that has to meet God someday. So believe what you want.

ck:
“If I did unto others it certainly wouldn’t homosexually slick but no cigar.”
I have no idea what this ‘sentence’ means.
“When the Bible says do unto others it is referring to a set of standards that don’t include homosexuality that part is very clear.”
It means treat others the way you would want to be treated yourself. This includes do not slander or belittle others (unless, of course, you want to be slandered and beittled yourself). Other people can’r (to use your word) “homosexuality” you.
“There many things that just “are” but that is no basis for what is right. If we counted the things that just are many would be included that we couldn’t even mention here. I challenge either of you to show me in the Bible where homosexual marriage is holy or even is an option. It is very clear in the Bible concerning homosexuality it cannot be twisted.”
Again, ck, you miss/ignore the point, which is: that is all very irrelevant. What is or is not “in the Bible” is not germaine to people’s rights and freedoms in America today. Example: the Bible is very clear that victims of incest should be put to death. That is not how we “treat” such people today, despite ‘what the Bible says’.
Get it yet? (Another hint: It’s called freedom of and FROM religion. IOW, we don’t HAVE to show you where “in the Bible” gay marriage is oris not considered “holy”. Not all Americans consider the Bible to be a holy book. For many, it is not the basis of their faith. Nor are they even required to BE people of – ANY – faith.)

“Not all Americans consider the Bible to be a holy book. For many, it is not the basis of their faith. Nor are they required to BE people of-ANY-faith). recovering ex-Pentecostal
Well said, and indeed very true. The Bible is by no means the end all authority on ANYTHING.

H22 thank you for recognizing my misprint sorry I don’t remember what exactly I intended to say but it did have to do with the scripture do unto others has nothing to so with homosexuality I don’t have any clue where the slick came from that’s not something I would say.

The Bible is by no means an authority to you pagan but for many it is so that is not a correct statement, it makes it sound as you perceive yourself as an authority.

“I don’t remember what exactly I intended to say”
Then let me refresh your memory. You meant – as usual – to say gay citizens are not worthy of equal treatment before the law because your interpretation of your holy book makes you feel you are somehow more worthy of justice, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You meant to say that you are free to ignore the central tenet of the Christian faith – treting others as YOU would be treated. No matter how you type it,ck, yout message is always the same.
“I don’t have any clue”
Well, th much is true.
“where the slick came from that’s not something I would say.”
Laff.
“The Bible is by no means an authority to you pagan but for many it is so that is not a correct statement”
Once again, ck, if America truly does believe in freedom of religon, it doesn’t MATTER what the Bible says. It doesn’t MATTER if it’s the authority – for YOU (and IF it is, then go live by it, including the do unto others part) – WE are discussing secular laws that govern ALL people, even God’s gay and lesbian children.

cknuck, I’m the first person to know that I’m not an “authority”,and yes for many the Bible is the “end all book” for their life guide. However there are also many, many religions out there, and those who find a religion totally not relivant to their lives, that have no use for the Bible as that total guide for their lives. How many Muslims read the Bible to guide them, or Buddhists, or Hindu’s, or Pagans, or….I could go on and on. So to base the reason to not allow homosexuals the same rights under the law to be in marriages, on one religion’s holy book is, IMO not a reason at all.
Who cares what religion or god the “founding fathers and founding mothers” believed in? They were the ones that said “all men (of course) were created EQUAL, and that includes GLTB. At least to me it does. So to add an amendment to a state constitution to force the word “marriage” to mean one male and one female is ridiculous. Why restrict it to only opposite gender marriages? The government is not,or shouldn’t be defining marriage. It is not a religious body. And there is no law that says a particular religious body has to “marry” someone. My son just got married (to a woman) with a justice of the peace presiding. He is, however, in the eyes of the law “married”. It isn’t a “civil union”, which some states insist on calling a marriage of same gender people, who in some cases have a justice of the peace or a judge marry them. Makes no sense.

anonymous when you speak for “me” and claim I don’t have a “clue” and then speak for all America concerning the Bible, this type of behavior shows a pattern. Who cares? take a survey you might be surprised. I find no profit in any other discussions than discussions on facts, I try to leave my emotions for other activities.

ck,
It was you that typed the words “I don’t have a clue”; I just copied and pasted them.
Likewise, I do not presume to “speak for all America concerning the Bible”. You, however, do. Repeatedly, as if ALL America were Christian, and as if AL America accepts 1. that the Bible is a “holy” book, and 2. that that particular book should govern ALL Americans, especially those that do not follow it. (Speaking of ‘behaviour patterns’!)
This is what I call delusion.
What kind of “survey” should I take? And would the results of said survey override the U.S. Constitution and its guarantees of equal treatment before the law and of freedom of religion?
“I find no profit in any other discussions than discussions on facts”
Odd, then, that you continually revert to quoting the Bible as your reference point on equality rights – as if it were relevant to secular laws governing all citizens of EVERY – and NO – faith.
A few “facts” from you would actually be refreshing.

You mean facts not pertaining to our country’s Christian heritage
You mean facts not pertaining to Biblical truths
You mean fact not pertaining to nonproductivity of homosexuality
You mean facts not pertaining to God’s design for marriage
You mean facts not pertaining to if you change marriage for one group you have to change it for all special interest groups.
You mean facts not pertaining to the fact there is no homosexual gene
You mean facts not pertaining to the fact people who claim kids are born homosexual have no concrete proof of such statements

When I read some of these comments it leads me to believe that these folks have no or little understanding to the purpose of life. There is NO discrimination in marriage being defined as ONE man and ONE woman. If folks feel insulted…good, the guilty take the truth to be hard. Hopefully they will change someday. I seriously feel for these folks. I hope someday they will look and the mirror and ask themselves…who am I and what is the purpose to life. If they can’t answer it then I hope they make the effort to find out!

Make your life easier get the mortgage loans and all you require.