Still I forsee a day in which even Mass outlaws most gay marriages.

http://www.narth.com/docs/increasing.html

Bart Allen was murdered simply because he did wanted to give-up homosexuality.

Wouldn’t Bart’s story make for a better folk legend?

Bart wanted to choose life

are you saying those americans that don’t conform to your narrow view of what constitutes an american.

here’s a non 21st century point of view. the founding fathers declared the separation of church and state to avoid religious persecution so that people could believe in whatever religion they so choose. therefore the state could not embrace a singular religion.

i’m not the one interpreting. i take the constitution for the words on the page. your views are the ones supposing beliefs of the founding fathers and it is selective, thomas jefferson once said the clergy should fear him.

your point of view is simply not constitutionally sound. why can’t you respect the beliefs of people that don’t think like you by keeping the government out of it. you can still believe whatever you want as can your american neighbors who may not have a common language or religion with you.

i keep citing the constitution, you keep citing religious interpretations of the constitution and “the christian tradition of the united states.” which arguments do you suppose holds more weight?

the proof is in the document. READ THE CONSTITUTION.

Can bit back this statement of opinion up with anything of substance?

The Christian heritage is in the U.S. Constitution. You’re 21st century view of the document doesn’t determine what it meant. The writers of the Constitution didn’t intend to keep God out of the public square.

There is no state religion, there is no state language. welcome to the united states. maybe you should read up a little bit on our constitution and our forefathers they were very smart men and not all of them (payne, jefferson) were friendly towards the church. read about it.

What do you suggest will keep the “united” in United States without a common language or a common faith. Do you think the two-letter postal code will make the citizens want to give-up their loyalty, treasure, or lives to keep the country together?

i respect your right to believe what you want to believe, but i don’t support people installing their religious beliefs into law in our government that has a clear separation between church and state.

bit will respect the views that make the country worth preserving.

Psalms says righteousness exalts a nation.

(Just put it in the context of a governor selling a Senate seat.)

Hi bit:
So where is the part that says it they can’t or any part that says man and woman can? I am a little concerned bit. Are you okay? This is really weak. I would not have expected such an obvious slip…

Marriage is, and will continue to be, a relationship between a man and a woman.

its not that it says they can, its that it doesn’t say they can’t and grants equal protection of rights to all citizens. thus they have the same right as anyone to get married.

i do respect the christian heritage… i personally think the state should stay out of marriage and you can see my post at #12.

we can have a christian heritage and still have respect for the fact that we have a separation of church and state. thus if you cannot make an argument without deriving the support for said argument without citing the bible and religious texts alone. you are not respecting what are forefathers wrote in the basic text that runs our government.

are you saying the christian heritage actually trumps what the founding fathers wrote in the constitution, because it sure sounds like it.

There is no state religion, there is no state language. welcome to the united states. maybe you should read up a little bit on our constitution and our forefathers they were very smart men and not all of them (payne, jefferson) were friendly towards the church. read about it.

i respect your right to believe what you want to believe, but i don’t support people installing their religious beliefs into law in our government that has a clear separation between church and state.

drew my man….
when will you realize that your religious arguments against homosexuals being allowed to marry have no ground.
separation of church and state is clearly stated in the constitution. if you can find some constitutional evidence to support your case then fine. There isn’t however constitutional support for denying people rights based on their sexual orientation.
if you insist on letting your religion be the only thing that guides your politics then you are doing a disservice to your country by ignoring the constitution. be more then just your religion and have some respect for the constitution that has framed the society you seem to care about.
i’m not going to address your opinions on the matter, i disagree with you whole heatedly but its your right to believe those things. Turn to the constitution for your answers on government. not your religion. please have respect for the separation of church and state.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:54 pm

Actually the Constitution of the United States doesn’t mention the “separation of church of state” at all. The First Amendment states that the Federal Government was not going to have a state church, the way many of the colonies had, and that people could worship however they chose.

The phrase “wall of separation” from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist has been used in three SCOTUS decisions, most recently in 1947 and the only time in the twentieth century. It is this 1947 decision that seems to have influenced the nation to remove God from the public square.

bit would like to see your constitutional evidence that the U.S. Constitution was intended to support, allow, or endore immorality, especially licentiousness.

. There isn’t however constitutional support for denying people rights based on their sexual orientation.

Where in the U.S. Constitution is the suggestion that two same-same gender persons could enter into a relationship called a marriage, so called.

Marriage is, and will continue to be, a relationship between a man and a woman.

if you insist on letting your religion be the only thing that guides your politics then you are doing a disservice to your country by ignoring the constitution. be more then just your religion and have some respect for the constitution that has framed the society you seem to care about.

Have some respect for the heritage of the nation. Without the influence of Christianity and the Bible there would not be the United States that we know. You can decide whether or not the nation is worth preserving without the continuing influence of Christianity and the Bible.

when will you realize that your religious arguments against homosexuals being allowed to marry have no ground.

separation of church and state is clearly stated in the constitution. if you can find some constitutional evidence to support your case then fine. There isn’t however constitutional support for denying people rights based on their sexual orientation.

if you insist on letting your religion be the only thing that guides your politics then you are doing a disservice to your country by ignoring the constitution. be more then just your religion and have some respect for the constitution that has framed the society you seem to care about.

i’m not going to address your opinions on the matter, i disagree with you whole heatedly but its your right to believe those things. Turn to the constitution for your answers on government. not your religion. please have respect for the separation of church and state.

Jesus said in Matthew 19 and also Mark 10 4″Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” Until this time poligamy and divorce were fairly commonplace for the wealthy. Monogamous marriage was first commanded by Jesus. You can’t find any earlier text that commands monogamous marriage. Interestingly, progressive societies from that time made laws stating exactly that, a man and a woman may marry as long as they aren’t siblings or first cousins. Homosexuality was never legally sanctioned in progressive societies. It’s only become chic recently to write laws allowing gays to marry.

As far as incest and homosexuality being the same, no they aren’t. At least one has the natural use of the reproductive organs in play, both are wrong.

I am a bible thumping southern democrat who is to the right of you. I draw inspiration from Truman, JFK and Reagan. Don’t try to diminish the ugliness the destruction of the family has brought to our country. Gays marrying continues to weaken the strength of the family in America. You don’t care about the family, maybe yours sucked, but it is the best hope of a civilized, progressive people, not a quaint notion of a bygone era.

I don’t believe that Obama or Hillary genuinely oppose gay marriage. I think they realise that no presidential candidate who supports gay marriage will ever win Ohio, Florida or states in the Midwest and so just say they oppose gay marriage to stay competitive.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:19 am

EXACTLY.

Nice cop out ElBruce.

No, I take your point, it’s just that exceptions occur do to situational factors. One given state might run a better short-term campaign for instance. Things would be much simpler if we could completely rely on predictions based on a few votes and then relative demographics for the rest.

Still, the California Prop8 vote pretty much lays down the political reality that the cause of equal rights has to face right now. That doesn’t mean it’s insoluble, just that a new approach may be necessary.

.

republicans hate facts Says:

I think you’re such a zealot you don’t care about progressive issues anymore as long as you get to worship at your cult.

I think you’re a twelve-foot-tall talking eggplant. There, am I doing your version of “dialogue” right?

.

Democrat Soldier Says:

So, MA, VT and CT are all more liberal than California?

I’d say so. California actually has a fairly conflicted voting demographic. It’s blue enough that the wingnuts don’t even try it, but it’s not the rich, deep cerulean of those three states.

.

CitizenGeek Says:

I don’t believe that Obama or Hillary genuinely oppose gay marriage.

I hope that’s the case, but as we’ve learned from the wingnuts, mixing up hopes with beliefs leads to madness. Until I hear otherwise, I remain sadly disappointed with both of them.