Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Archives | Alerts | Electronic edition | Subscribe to the paper
Subscribe to RSS   Add to My Yahoo!

February 10, 2009 10:19 AM

Same-sex marriage back on the ballot?

Inspired by Kristi Burton's success at putting a "fetus is a person" amendment on the state ballot last year, a pair of young people are attempting to get a measure on the 2010 ballot that would legalize same-sex marriage.

Stu Allen, of Lakewood, and a high school friend, Hallie Atencio, of Denver, are the proponents of a ballot measure that would change the state constitution to recognize marriage as a union between two consenting adults.

"I don't think there should be gender-specific laws when it comes to marriage in Colorado - or anywhere," Allen said. "It seems like a civil rights issue."

He said he believes gays should have the same rights he and his girlfriend of seven years, Crystal Russell, would enjoy if they got married.

Allen is scheduled to meet today with the legislative staff for a "review and comment session" on his proposal. That's the second of many steps to get a proposal on the ballot.

If the measure makes it to the 2010 ballot and is approved, depending on the final language, it could override Amendment 43, the successful 2006 initiative that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman in the state constitution.

Voters that same year rejected Referendum I, which would have granted gay and lesbian couples many of the legal rights and responsibilities of married couples, such as the ability to make funeral arrangements for a partner and to inherit a partner's property.



Discussion

  • February 10, 2009

    10:28 AM

    SASQUATCH writes:

    What...more stimulus? Enough is enough!

  • February 10, 2009

    10:40 AM

    Shaggy writes:

    If you fail to force your perversion upon society, try try try try again.

    Sounds like a page out of the amnesty crowd.

  • February 10, 2009

    10:55 AM

    SASQUATCH writes:

    STIMULUS PLAN = HEALTHCARE RATIONING = SENIORS ON BOTTOM OF LADDER:

    BLOOMBERG: Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (pages 511, 518, 540-541)

    What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

    The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

    Elderly Hardest Hit

    Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

    Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

    The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

    Hidden Provisions

    In its current form as just passed, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

    The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

    Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”

    The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product..This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy."

  • February 10, 2009

    11:25 AM

    LetsThink writes:

    This issue should be decided by the Creator of the universe.

    Without God, humans have no basis for determining right from wrong.

  • February 10, 2009

    11:37 AM

    SASQUATCH writes:

    HR-1 STIMULUS: HEALTH CARE RATIONING FOR ELDERLY:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

    OBAMA: Hurry up and die, you are rationed...get out of the way.

    NO HEALTHCARE FOR YOU...THE HEALTHCARE NAZI!

  • February 10, 2009

    11:37 AM

    Matt writes:

    Of course American's don't conciously want their country to turn into another socialist hell hole so the Democrats have to SNEAK in legislation to accomplish that - the latest example is tax cheat Tom Daschle wanting to still have some revelance. Since he's one of the 'good ol boys', he doesn't need to be elected for the Democrats to let him in on writing policy for other the very public who voted him OUT of office. That’s why he was able to get away with putting those burdonsom regulations on the health care system that Sasq noted, which will be funded by more taxes on your existing health care.

    Barry has no qualms helping himself to money that is owned by Americans citizens, and to take it further, that money will be used to fund programs that invade American citizen's privacy by letting government bueracrats track how much and for what reasons you've spent money on health care - and using that info they'll decide if the system should allocate resources to you based on reasons such as your age, the chances of living if you're being treated for a life threatening condion and basically - WHETHER YOU'RE WORTH IT - decided by some pencil pusher in the Obama administration.

  • February 10, 2009

    11:40 AM

    John K. writes:

    Nothing like reading comments from the religious nutjobs or society. Sasquatch, yes, we will keep bringing it back to the ballot until we win, so get used to it. Does this surprise you? You don't know us very well if it does.

  • February 10, 2009

    11:41 AM

    Richard writes:

    Shaggy!!! If you fail to pass legislation to write discrimination into state and federal constitutions...try try try try again.

    Sounds like a page out of the KKK handbook!

    or just any of the bigotted, better than thou...bible pushing...forcing ones religious beliefs on others...judging...shall I go on.

    I say once again.....if you do not like gay marriage or "belive" in it then don't marry a gay person...problem solved. If it does not affect your marrige mind your own friggin business.

  • February 10, 2009

    11:53 AM

    Shaggy writes:

    Richard,
    I totally agree that people should not force their beliefs upon anyone.
    That is exactly why I am against gays trying to force their beliefs upon society.

  • February 10, 2009

    11:56 AM

    Irony Police writes:

    Letsthink, your name and your comment have been flagged by the irony police. Please proceed to your nearest McDonalds to collect your free soda.

  • February 10, 2009

    12:02 PM

    Irony Police writes:

    Letsthink, your name and your comment have been flagged by the irony police. Please proceed to your nearest McDonalds to collect your free soda.

  • February 10, 2009

    12:07 PM

    LetsThink writes:

    Good posts, Shaggy. Thanks.

    Don't let them intimidate you (their only tactic, lacking solid reasoning to justify their proposal).

  • February 10, 2009

    12:17 PM

    Richard writes:

    Irony...ur too funny!

  • February 10, 2009

    12:21 PM

    KW writes:

    As long as they leave this to a state by state decision I'm OK with it. That way the people of each state can choose themselves either recognize same sex marriage, or to constitutionally restrict marriage to one man and one woman.

    How do you think Colorado will vote? I know here in Arizona the constitutional restriction passed very easily.

  • February 10, 2009

    12:29 PM

    Virescentgirl writes:

    Shaggy,

    How is two people in a federally recognized union (i.e. marriage) a force of beliefs on you or anyone else?

  • February 10, 2009

    12:29 PM

    Iceman7 writes:

    John K and Richard,

    So if the majority of people in Colorado reject gay marriage, they are religious nut jobs or read the KKK handbook?

    No, we are neither; we are simply Heterosexuals that beleive that marriage should be between a man and a woman with the primary reason being procreation.

    If you folks want to be homosexuals have at it, but don't try to force your lifestyles on the rest of us.

    Ice

  • February 10, 2009

    12:32 PM

    Virescentgirl writes:

    Shaggy,

    How is two people in a federally recognized union (i.e. marriage) a force of beliefs on you or anyone else?

  • February 10, 2009

    12:33 PM

    jay writes:

    whenever we see this issue come into the public forum i always like to put the discriminator's arguments in the proper context. for instance...those who oppose equal rights for all americans regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation share the same place in history (not to mention the talking points) with those who once opposed interracial marriage:

    "This type of legal marriage must be forbidden, said the Republican senator from Wisconsin, “simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong.”

    "An organization opposed to this type of marriage claimed that legalizing it would result in “a degraded and ignoble population incapable of moral and intellectual development.”"

    “I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose XXXX marriage as ‘prejudiced’ is in itself a prejudice"

    "A U.S. representative from Georgia declared that allowing this type of marriage “necessarily involves (the) degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration.”"

    "“The next step will be (the demand for) a law allowing them, without restraint, to … have free and unrestrained social intercourse with your unmarried sons and daughters. It is bound to come to that. There is no disguising the fact. And the sooner the alarm is given and the people take heed, the better it will be for our civilization.", said a Kentucky Congressman"

    In denying the appeal of this type of couple that had tried unsuccessfully to marry, a Georgia court wrote that such unions are “not only unnatural, but … always productive of deplorable results,” such as increased effeminate behavior in the population. “They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good … (in accordance with) the God of nature.”

    A ban on this type of marriage is not discriminatory, reasoned a Republican congressman from Illinois, because it “applies equally to men and women.”

    Attorneys for the state of Tennessee argued that such unions should be illegal because they are “distasteful to our people and unfit to produce the human race.” The state Supreme Court agreed, declaring these types of marriages would be “a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us.”

    Lawyers for California insisted that a ban on this type of marriage is necessary to prevent “traditional marriage from being contaminated by the recognition of relationships that are physically and mentally inferior,” and entered into by “the dregs of society.”

    “The law concerning marriages is to be construed and understood in relation to those persons only to whom that law relates,” thundered a Virginia judge in response to a challenge to that state’s non-recognition of these types of unions. “And not,” he continued, “to a class of persons clearly not within the idea of the legislature when contemplating the subject of marriage.”

    you are the company you keep, no?

  • February 10, 2009

    12:48 PM

    jay writes:

    kw, by your logic, states would be able to decide whether or not they wanted to allow interracial marriage as well as gay marriage.

    sounds like dumb, doesn't it.

  • February 10, 2009

    1:06 PM

    Iceman7 writes:

    Jay,

    Once again your minute reasoning is flawed.

    How do you make the leap from Homosexuality to inter racial marriage as forms of discrmination is idiotic. As far as I know there are no state bans on inter racial marriage. If there are which states have them?

    Put up or keep idiocies to yourself.

    You need to present better discussion points other than discrimination to have any crediability.

    Ice

  • February 10, 2009

    1:08 PM

    KW writes:

    jay - Maybe you should see about getting appointed to the SCOTUS if you feel so strongly that Arizona's decision, and about 30 other states along with them (including CA) is unconstitutional. Because the laws have already been challenged and they are still standing. SCOTUS has zero plans of taking any more looks into the matter and has chosen to leave to each individual state, as it should be.

    So you know what my little friend, I guess you're just going to have to sit back and deal with that now aren't you?

    Good luck. Try not to gnash your teeth too much.

  • February 10, 2009

    1:13 PM

    Shaggy writes:

    jay is stuck on stupid again!

    Quit trying to force the rest of us to except your perverted lifestyle.

    Amendment 43 of the state constitution defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

    Deal with it!!!

  • February 10, 2009

    1:22 PM

    jay writes:

    lol...anything of substance or are you extremists just here to troll?

    ice, it should be easy to clear up your confusion by having you answer one simple question...that is if you have the intellectual honesty to do so.

    do you understand that homosexuality is no more of a "choice" than skin color?

  • February 10, 2009

    1:24 PM

    me2 writes:

    If we keep chipping at the social resistance to people in love being able to marry, with conditions, blah blah, age, mental status, we will win in time.

    Oppressed people always win in the end because every day someone is born gay, but no one is born anti-gay.

  • February 10, 2009

    1:25 PM

    Ben writes:

    All this is another attempt to devalue marriage and families. Then the state can raise your children. Communism and Marxism revisited. Our families, our children and their children don't deserve this nonsense. Let's all get together and defeat this garbage again. It's un-American.

  • February 10, 2009

    1:30 PM

    KW writes:

    And jay, the blacks who fought hard for civil rights in this country are taking offense to the claim that this supposed discrimination on gay marriage is the same as the blatant discrimination they fought so hard to overcome.

    You really ought to ask their permission before you go trying to horn in on their hard earned march.

  • February 10, 2009

    1:33 PM

    jay writes:

    "All this is another attempt to devalue marriage and families....Communism and Marxism revisited"

    the tinfoil brigade is in the house.

  • February 10, 2009

    1:50 PM

    Truth writes:

    gays are retards. No special rights.

  • February 10, 2009

    1:52 PM

    Shaggy writes:

    "do you understand that homosexuality is no more of a "choice" than skin color?"

    Do have any scientific proof of this jay or are you just spewing left wing talking points again?

    Did know that preforming the act with a memeber of the same sex is a "choice"?

  • February 10, 2009

    2:15 PM

    JW writes:

    Whats the deal with being gay being a choice or not? What does it matter?

    Religion is obviously a choice.
    Owning property is a choice.
    Owning a gun is a choice.

    You getting the idea here? Whether or not its a choice to be gay doesnt matter in regards to whether or not they should have the right to marry who they want.


    And you people spend too much time worrying about what gays are doing to be 100% straight.
    Go get your "widestance" on and maybe you'll mellow the F out.

  • February 10, 2009

    2:23 PM

    Ben writes:

    Gays not being allowed to "marry" is also a choice. The choice of the majority since the dawn of man. Why gay "marriage" necessary? It's not. Not by a long shot.

  • February 10, 2009

    2:25 PM

    JAT writes:

    "It is not the purpose of government, nor of the Constitution, to make things "sacred." Those who believe that marriage is sacred usually choose to be married in a religious ceremony. Gay couples may or may not be making a religious or moral statement; though most Christian denominations do no recognize such commitment, some do. Regardless, Gay couples simply wish to be legally bound to each other by law. We wish to have all the same privileges of any lifelong couple.

    If the government still considers "marriage" to be a religious designation rather than a legal one, it has no business making any laws concerning that institution. If, as confirmed by its actions, the government believes "marriage" to be a legal contract, it has no business denying that contract to any two people, no matter what their gender might be."
    -Chuck Anziulewicz

  • February 10, 2009

    2:28 PM

    JAT writes:

    "It is not the purpose of government, nor of the Constitution, to make things "sacred." Those who believe that marriage is sacred usually choose to be married in a religious ceremony. Gay couples may or may not be making a religious or moral statement; though most Christian denominations do no recognize such commitment, some do. Regardless, Gay couples simply wish to be legally bound to each other by law. We wish to have all the same privileges of any lifelong couple.

    If the government still considers "marriage" to be a religious designation rather than a legal one, it has no business making any laws concerning that institution. If, as confirmed by its actions, the government believes "marriage" to be a legal contract, it has no business denying that contract to any two people, no matter what their gender might be."

  • February 10, 2009

    2:39 PM

    Shaggy writes:

    "Whats the deal with being gay being a choice or not? What does it matter?

    Religion is obviously a choice.
    Owning property is a choice.
    Owning a gun is a choice."

    None of these are perversions.
    Not to mention against the law.
    Getting the point yet?

  • February 10, 2009

    3:15 PM

    Kathy writes:

    JW - Very well said!

  • February 10, 2009

    3:33 PM

    JW writes:

    Shaggy, youve been arguing FOREVER that being gay is a choice, and therefore not a right. Im just putting that BS argument to rest.

    You can stop using it now.


    As for thinking being gay is a perversion...I dont see why you should get to tell me what is or isnt a pereversion. You think what you want, Ill think what I want, and we can just leave the legal system out of it. That would be FREEDOM.

    But youre not into freedom. Youre into worrying about gays. And fantasizing about lording it over gays. And ordering little gay boys around. Telling them what they can and cant do. "Thats right little gay boy, you cant get married but you can lick Shaggy's boot!"

    Youre just a big closet Homo.

    BTW, stimulus bill passed, chump.

  • February 10, 2009

    4:10 PM

    Shaggy writes:

    "I dont see why you should get to tell me what is or isnt a pereversion."

    It isn't the fact that being gay is a perversion but acting out on it is.
    Acting out on it is a CHOICE. Chump!

    "But youre not into freedom. Youre into worrying about gays. And fantasizing about lording it over gays. And ordering little gay boys around. Telling them what they can and cant do."

    LOL, One must resort to creating a strawman and start making things up when they cannot argue the truth.


  • February 10, 2009

    4:15 PM

    Iceman7 writes:

    "ice, it should be easy to clear up your confusion by having you answer one simple question...that is if you have the intellectual honesty to do so.

    do you understand that homosexuality is no more of a "choice" than skin color?"

    Jay,

    Oncea gain you are doing the usual Hussein move; you are avoiding the question. One more time!

    How do you make the leap from Homosexuality to inter racial marriage as forms of discrmination is idiotic.?

    But for sake of argument lets go back to your question:

    "do you understand that homosexuality is no more of a "choice" than skin color?"

    AS usual you present a general question with no thought or intellect behind it. So, are you stating that all homsexuals have a genetic marker?oSome or a few?

    "In May 2000, the American Psychiatric Association issued a Fact Sheet, “Gay, Lesbian and
    Bisexual Issues,” which includes this statement:
    “Currently, there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality.
    However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological
    etiology for homosexuality.”

    Read the full article

    http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf.

    Is homosexuality a genetic or social lifestyle? The jury is still out. We are here to tell you: don't try to force it onto the rest of us. Amendment 43 is the law.

    A lighter question would be; is Jay an Idiot that keeps getting Debunked over and over again?

    Jay the jury is in.

    Ice


  • February 10, 2009

    4:31 PM

    Iceman7 writes:

    Due to his own self incrimination.
    The verdict for Jay reads "Guilty as charged."


    Ice

  • February 10, 2009

    4:38 PM

    Shaggy writes:

    "BTW, stimulus bill passed, chump."---W

    You can call it whatever you want, I prefer to refer to this scam as the largest theft of future Americans money to grow Government into a socialist dictator.

    But yes, it did pass and when it doesn't work, it will have the Democrats ugly paw prints all over it.
    It has been tried and proven to fail while tax cuts have been tried and proven to work.
    Sooner or later Barry is going to have to own up to it and take some responsibility.
    Blaming Bush is wearing out.

    Why couldn't they just rid it of everything that would not create jobs and everything that won't hit the market this year?
    Most recessions last 5-10 months, this could actually extend the recession as was proven during the great depression.
    Then we will have massive inflation.
    Stupid stupid stupid!!!

  • February 10, 2009

    4:42 PM

    jay writes:

    i'll ask again....once more in the hope that you'll have the intellectual honesty (and courage apparently) to answer it.

    ""do you understand that homosexuality is no more of a "choice" than skin color?""

    yes or no?

    stop running.

    that's one lap.

    how many will you run until you just give us a yes or no answer?

  • February 10, 2009

    4:48 PM

    JW writes:

    "It isn't the fact that being gay is a perversion but acting out on it is.
    Acting out on it is a CHOICE. Chump!"

    Thats what you think. Again I fail to see why I should A) give a crap what you think as I can think for myself and B) why what you think should be used as the basis for everyone's behavior. As Americans, shouldnt we have the freedom to figure this out for ourselves?

    "LOL, One must resort to creating a strawman and start making things up when they cannot argue the truth."


    OY! Im totally impressed! You finally got one right! Now we can start on the finer points:

    First, mine was pretty obviously a joke. Still a strawman though, so feel proud you finally, FINALLY got the concept, but when its used as a joke its not meant to be taken seriously. IE you dont have to defend against it, or even call it out. Its a joke. No one takes it seriously. Calling a strawman out is necessary in actual arguing because the perpetrator (usually YOU) is attempting to use a strawman as a VALID argument.

    However, the fact that you felt the need to defend against something that was so obviously a joke AND a fallacious argument makes me wonder if thou doth protest too much...in leather, with whips and chains and recently graduated high school football players (I would NEVER insinuate that you would do something Illegal! Im sure all your little boys are over 18).
    Do you make them wear your tool belt? Homo? Youre such a dirty little pervert!

    Secondly, if you understand that people resort to strawmen when you cannot argue the truth, why do you do it so often?


    Homo.

  • February 10, 2009

    5:00 PM

    JW writes:

    "We are here to tell you: don't try to force it onto the rest of us. Amendment 43 is the law."

    Right, and the unspoken thing you are "telling" everyone...

    "If you do try to force it on us, make sure you do it fast! And SUDDEN! be FEROCIOUS! Just smack me around a bit first! And call me Sally or Roberta!
    Wait wait wait! Thats SICK! I dont want that! yes I do. NO! I dont! I really really really do...DONT! I mean DONT!"

    Homo.

  • February 10, 2009

    5:20 PM

    KW writes:

    Jeeze jay, Ice very clearly answered your question AND backed it up with a link. Are you really as big of an idiot as the one you play here on the blog?

    But for the sake of humanity, and your safety, I'll give you this piece of advice one more time so you don't run into any trouble next time you're out in public...

    The blacks who fought hard for civil rights in this country are taking offense to the claim that this supposed discrimination on gay marriage is the same as the blatant discrimination they fought so hard to overcome.

    Your repeated attempts to portray being gay as no different than being black does a great disservice to many great people such as Martin Luther King Jr.

    You really ought to ask their permission before you go trying to horn in on their hard earned march, especially when you don't have a civil rights violation to even pretend you're fighting for.

    Besides, you're probably pissing off some gay white people too.

  • February 10, 2009

    6:08 PM

    jay writes:

    until you dispense with the willful ignorance about homosexuality not being any more of a "choice" than skin color, kw/ice, you will continue to have invalid arguments for your bigotry.

    now, kw, many of my friends are black and many of those are veterans.

    any time you want to come down and pretend to know what they think on this issue (because i do) you feel free to let me know when i can call you an ambulance.

    so to recap...those people who now oppose equal rights for homosexuals share a place in history with those who once opposed equal rights for blacks and women.

    again...it's the company you keep.

    any questions about that?

  • February 10, 2009

    6:20 PM

    Iceman7 writes:

    JW

    "Bro" you ain't worth a response...

    Ice

  • February 10, 2009

    6:46 PM

    me2 writes:

    Blacks will come around when enough of them have gay children or grandchildren. Every day some gays are born black or brown or whatever, but no one is born anti-gay.

  • February 10, 2009

    6:48 PM

    me2 writes:

    Blacks will come around when enough of them have gay children or grandchildren. Every day some gays are born black or brown or whatever, but no one is born anti-gay.

  • February 10, 2009

    7:48 PM

    KW writes:

    "many of my friends are black" --jay

    The all to common response in defense of appearing racist.

    jay - You can cling to your beliefs about gay lifestyles... and we may even respect that, but it still doesn't change a thing back here in the land of reality.

    Just remember, the law has already been delegated to each state for the people to vote and decide... so please, try not to gnash those teeth to much. Your excessive fretting about this particular personal defeat is really beginning to worry me about your health.

    We really do care about you... Really!

  • February 10, 2009

    8:01 PM

    JW writes:

    "Bro" you ain't worth a response..."

    LOL. You know, for this to be effective, you need to NOT RESPOND.

    Idiot.

    "The all to common response in defense of appearing racist."

    One of my friends was in Milk. Surprised the crap outa me and my fiance when he went walking through the scene. BTW, hes black and gay.

    He sees it pretty much the same because he says it feels the same to have someone hate on you for being black as it does to have someone hate on you for being gay. Both make him want to do violence.

  • February 10, 2009

    8:20 PM

    Iceman7 writes:

    KW,

    No need to wonder why Hussein won. All you have to do is gauge the response of these clowns.

    Just like Democrat loons to use another minority for their own exploitation.

    I have always said and will keep saying the US will never fall to an external force. Our biggest threat is internal.

    Ice

  • February 10, 2009

    8:24 PM

    KW writes:

    I would then recommend for him the same as for those like you with BDS... Anger management sessions.

    Violence is just so ugly.

  • February 10, 2009

    8:32 PM

    KW writes:

    "One of my friends was in Milk. Surprised the crap outa me and my fiance when he went walking through the scene. BTW, hes black and gay." --jay

    Sounds like a pretty close friend... except that you didn't even know he was in the very play you were attending. Small world perhaps?

    Maybe you should just stick with the "many of my friends are black" routine. At least that story AND scenario is a bit more plausible.

    At least from you anyways.

  • February 10, 2009

    8:40 PM

    KW writes:

    My apologies JW. I mistakenly gave jay credit for the above quote.

    No hard feelin's.

  • February 10, 2009

    9:29 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    Me2

    Did you ever figure out if "a" was a terrorist and if "b" was not. Did that make "c" half a terrorist?

    Your post make no sense at. What I do get is that you are another one of those Hussein voter..

    Now that makes sense!

    Ice


  • February 11, 2009

    12:51 AM

    Bill Johnson writes:

    US supreme court hasn't weighed in on this issue yet. Wonder why it hasn't gone there yet.

  • February 11, 2009

    6:40 AM

    J Hochy writes:

    Persons suffering from homosexual or lesbian tendencies call others "straight" knowing full well that the opposite of straight is bent or warped. True, homosexuals, like persons suffering from diabetes, alcoholism, obesity, or other genetic malfunctions, have no choice in their urges and, 40 years ago, during the Stonewall riots, they fought to get government out of their bedrooms and we "straights" agreed that if they wished to practice sodomy or other acts in privacy, they should be able to. Now, however, they are trying to legitimize their abnormal tendencies with the help of government. Wrong! The fact remains that the primary purpose of sex is procreation and sodomy, or lesbian acts, are thus abnormal. Most people agree that practicing abnormal acts in private should not come under the scrutiny of government, but trying to force acceptance, through government action, iscompletely unacceptable. This adgenda is called Normaphobia, the fear and/or hatred of normalcy.

  • February 11, 2009

    7:30 AM

    JW writes:

    No worries KW. Though I will say that judging by your response, you have never been the target of either Racism or Bigotry about your chosen lifestyle. That being the case, I wouldnt be so quick to judge the anger those things produce in those who HAVE been the target of Bigotry and Racism. Walk a mile in their shoes first.

    "Most people agree that practicing abnormal acts in private should not come under the scrutiny of government, but trying to force acceptance, through government action, iscompletely unacceptable."

    This argument is so stupid. How are they going to "Force acceptance" from you? Even if the government says they can get married its pretty clear that you arent going to accept them as normal. And who cares? You have a right to believe as you like. It just sucks that you think you have a right to FORCE the rest of us to live by what you think through law. Notice, I didnt say accept, because Ill never accept your kind of shallow, bigoted, fear based thinking. I'll defend your right to be that way though.


    BTW, for all of you who feel that allowing gay marriage will somehow force you to accept them, or make your marriage illigitimate...why dont you feel that has already happened? Gay marriage is legal in two states, and several countries around the world including Canada. Havent you already been forced? Isnt your marriage already illigitimate? Gays are getting married as we speak!

    Or is there some kind of geographical criteria. Like, "As long as it happens 20 miles or more from my house, my marriage is still legitimate!"

    Idiots.

  • February 11, 2009

    8:28 AM

    Ben-minimizing the damage from the gay agenda writes:

    "but no one is born anti-gay." me-2

    Well, sure people are. If make the argument that homosexuality is an innate occurence, it can also be said that so is the aversion to it.

    Next...

  • February 11, 2009

    8:51 AM

    Jeff Bates writes:

    To John K

    Im trying to learn something. what is being denied now that will be overturned by new laws?

    Why is this fight not taken all the way to the supreme court?

  • February 11, 2009

    9:04 AM

    Truth writes:

    "Why is this fight not taken all the way to the supreme court?"

    Perhaps because it will never be taken seriously. Gays are retards and deserve no special rights simply because they have no use for the rights they now have.

  • February 11, 2009

    9:12 AM

    KW writes:

    There have been many cases SCOTUS has declined to weigh in on. Both for gays seeking approval by the SCOTUS as well as people seeking an amendment to restrict marriage to being between one man and one woman.

    Their inaction on the issue leaves the decision not only to each state to decide, but even more importantly, it's left to the voters of each state. As it should be.

  • February 11, 2009

    9:36 AM

    JW writes:

    Social Conservatives; Hypocritically whining about the "nany state" while utilizing the legislative process to limit everyone's behavior via government mandate.

  • February 11, 2009

    9:59 AM

    Jimminy writes:

    Oboy! I was hoping that one of Our Good Friends on the Left would take the bait.My thanks to Richard at 11:41 AM yesterday for suggesting that those opposed to gay marriage should not marry a gay.But he is owed double thanks for mentioning the Ku Klux Klan.
    Now I can suggest that those who are anti-Klan are free to refrain from burning crosses.

  • February 11, 2009

    10:04 AM

    Jimminy writes:

    Oboy! I was hoping that one of Our Good Friends on the Left would take the bait.My thanks to Richard at 11:41 AM yesterday for suggesting that those opposed to gay marriage should not marry a gay.But he is owed double thanks for mentioning the Ku Klux Klan.
    Now I can suggest that those who are anti-Klan are free to refrain from burning crosses.

  • February 11, 2009

    10:18 AM

    Jimminy writes:

    Oboy!! I was hoping one of Our Good Friends ont the Left would take the bait.Richard @ 11:41 yesterday did the honors in suggesting that someone opposing gay marriage is free to refrain from marrying a gay.
    Then he mentioned the Ku Klux Klan,so we now may put forward the proposal that those who oppose the Ku Klux Klan are free to refrain from burning crosses.

  • February 11, 2009

    10:21 AM

    Anonymous writes:

    "Now I can suggest that those who are anti-Klan are free to refrain from burning crosses"

    ?????

  • February 11, 2009

    10:37 AM

    Anon E. Mouse writes:

    Ice Ice Baby writes: "As far as I know there are no state bans on inter racial marriage. If there are which states have them? "

    No, but they WERE...and that's the POINT: Something that was once written into law was found to have been unconstitutional.

    Now, imagine 40 years from now, people looking back and thinking "It's amazing such bigotry existed."

    Kinda like we do now for the old inter-racial marriage 'bans.'

    It's not that big of a leap for an open mind.

    And tell me--what's the bigger threat to your marriage; a gay couple next door, or a fifty-plus percent divorce rate?

  • February 11, 2009

    11:01 AM

    Obama08 writes:

    Let me try this again: my previous post disappeared -- it must have used forbidden words.

    It is every easy to differentiate "natural" from "unnatural."

    Natural: skin color, male, female.

    Natural: male organ interacting with female organ.

    Unnatural: Other

    Why should we have laws protecting unnatural?

    Class dismissed.

  • February 11, 2009

    11:10 AM

    KW writes:

    "It's not that big of a leap for an open mind."

    You mean a liberal mind. And even then it's still one heck of a stretch to confuse racial heritage with sexual "orientation" or whatever the vogue term is lately.

  • February 11, 2009

    11:20 AM

    Where's the gay DNA? writes:

    Is being gay a choice?

    I'll be pragmatic and answer this question when someone, anyone, can tell me which DNA marker, hormone (excessive of lack of), pattern of nurture, section of the brain (more or less active) is responsible for homosexuality. I don't want any sceintific speculation or probability study. Show me the smoking gun.

    Meanwhile, keep up the strawman argument comparing sexual preference to race & gender. Keep bringing up the comparisons to the kkk and blatant misogyny. It only steels the resolve of the people who, given a chance, would vote against gay marriage.

    One more point, Anne Heche. Wasn't she gay? Ellen Degenerous' partner? Then she wasn't gay. Married some dude, ditched him and got with another dude. And what about women who do a little "experimenting" in college only to later marry and have kids. Sounds kinda like a "choice" to me.

  • February 11, 2009

    11:39 AM

    KW writes:

    Where's - That's a point I've brought up many times here.

    While people can experiment with homosexuality, I have yet to see a black person "experiment" with being white, or vice a versa.

    The two issues are nowhere close to being the same thing.

  • February 11, 2009

    11:45 AM

    Obama08 writes:

    DNA? Who cares?

    I can manipulate DNA to create two-headed cows. Does that make them "nautral"? No.

    DNA doesn't count.

  • February 11, 2009

    11:51 AM

    Where's the DNA? writes:

    KW - not to mention gay people have never had to ride in the back of a bus, told which water fountain to drink from, not been allowed to vote or hold office, etc.

  • February 11, 2009

    11:53 AM

    Ozone writes:

    Couple thoughts:

    If, as many would argue, physical intimacy without the possibility for procreation is unnatural and an aberration, then why not also push for laws to make it illegal for any married couple to use ANY form of birth control?

    Second, who is anyone to claim to know what nature intends or doesn't? Is it not entirely possible that an all powerful force capable of intelligently designing the world and everything in it might also be clever enough to notice that the world is getting more and more populated, and then naturally design in a system whereby a percentage of the population doesn't strive to procreate thereby slowing the trend toward overpopulation?

  • February 11, 2009

    12:05 PM

    KW writes:

    "KW - not to mention gay people have never had to ride in the back of a bus, told which water fountain to drink from, not been allowed to vote or hold office, etc." --where's

    Yes, those would all be some true civil rights violations. Maybe someone should educate them on the huge difference between their desire to redefine "marriage" and the true struggles of the black race in this country.

    When anyone tries to draw the parallel, they do a great disservice to the black community and their triumphs on this quest for equal rights.

  • February 11, 2009

    12:11 PM

    Ozone writes:

    P.S. Sorry for the multiple posts, the submit button on here seems to be acting like it's loading the sits there forever without giving any indication that it's actually doing so. I should have known to check and see if it actually posted before resubmitting to try and get an actual confirmation of a post.

  • February 11, 2009

    12:14 PM

    Iceman7 writes:

    OBAMA08,

    Here is something else that goes with your natural and un-natural.

    A human male and female are the only known mammals that can do the deed face to face. Naturally of course...

    Kinda makes you wonder why? Could it be by design? I beleive so...

    Ice

  • February 11, 2009

    12:35 PM

    JW writes:

    "Meanwhile, keep up the strawman argument comparing sexual preference to race & gender."

    "A human male and female are the only known mammals that can do the deed face to face. Naturally of course..."

    God damn you people are some ignorant slobs. Look up "strawman" and read it untill you UNDERSTAND it. Its not that tough.

    Bonobo Chimps do it face to face, idiot.

    "Yes, those would all be some true civil rights violations. Maybe someone should educate them on the huge difference between their desire to redefine "marriage" and the true struggles of the black race in this country."

    What rights are given though marriage KW? Several. The right to make health determinations for your spouse is a nice example.

    Most of these rights can be dealt with legally, but that puts the burden of legal cost of gay people that people who marry do not face.

    And then there are the federal rights, like extention of SS benefits, which cannot be confered by a lawyer. You will receive your wife's benefits KW, should she die. Gay people cannot get that same treatment.


    Finally, who cares if being gay is a choice or not? Again, you chose what religion to worship. You chose what to say. You chose to own a gun. The fact that it is a choice doesnt mean that we do not hold it as a fundamental right. The constitution is full of amendments that GUARANTEE you get to make the choice YOU want, and government can do NOTHING to stop you.

    Take a damn civics class.

  • February 11, 2009

    12:37 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    You aren't trying to protect 'marriage' from its natural enemy, 'divorce,' but you are trying to protect it from some imagine threat from the gays next door.

    Hypocrisy, thy name is gay-bashing.

  • February 11, 2009

    12:44 PM

    lindsay writes:

    i think that marriage should be based on one man and one womne, this is how God wanted this life to be, if he had wanted man and man and women with women then he would have made this like this in the beginning and not now....

  • February 11, 2009

    12:46 PM

    lindsay writes:

    i think that marriage should be based on one man and one womne, this is how God wanted this life to be, if he had wanted man and man and women with women then he would have made this like this in the beginning and not now....

  • February 11, 2009

    12:46 PM

    lindsay writes:

    i think that marriage should be based on one man and one womne, this is how God wanted this life to be, if he had wanted man and man and women with women then he would have made this like this in the beginning and not now....

  • February 11, 2009

    12:46 PM

    Anon E. Mouse writes:

    Here's another example for you--read about a social experiment with rats and over-crowding: at a certain point, male rats engaged in homosexuality.

    Was it a reaction to overcrowding? An innate attempt to limit population?

    Point is, you can point to the Anne Heches of the world (and those drunk kids who experimented 'once' in college) but voluntarily engaging in a homosexual experience DOESN'T mean that it's ALL a matter of choice.

    Another straw man argument debunked.

  • February 11, 2009

    1:00 PM

    EqualityNow writes:

    Iceman7,

    Two human males can do the deed face to face too, Iceman, and it is completely natural.

    Equality is not a SPECIAL RIGHT!!

  • February 11, 2009

    1:04 PM

    JW writes:

    "I think that marriage should be based on one man and one womne, this is how God wanted this life to be, if he had wanted man and man and women with women then he would have made this like this in the beginning and not now...."


    Good for you Lindsay. I respect your decision to believe that. Dont marry a woman!


    But I dont believe in God, and I dont care if two gay people get married.

    Why should we use what you belive rather than what I believe? Your beliefs are based on your religious beliefs, and it SPECIFICALLY says in the constitution that the government will make no laws respecting an establishment of religion. If we make laws based on your religious beliefs, that is EXACTLY what we will be doing.

    Its unAmerican.

  • February 11, 2009

    1:20 PM

    Ben writes:

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
    Norman Thomas, Co-Founder ACLU

  • February 11, 2009

    1:42 PM

    Jimminy writes:

    Oboy!! I was hoping one of Our Good Friends on the Left would take the bait-and Richard did,at 11:41 AM yesterday.As if on cue,he suggested that anyone opposed to gay marriage was free to refrain from marrying a homosexual.
    He then introduced the Ku Klux Klan into the debate,leaving me free to point out that anyone opposed to the Klan is free to refrain from burning crosses.

  • February 11, 2009

    1:55 PM

    Jimminy writes:

    Oboy!! I was hoping one of Our Good Friends on the Left would take the bait,and Richard did,at 11:41 AM yesterday.As if on cue,he suggested that anyone opposed to gay marriage was free to refrain from marrying a homosexual.
    He then brought the Ku Klux Klan into the debate,reminding us all that anyone opposed to the Klan is free to refrain from burning crosses.

  • February 11, 2009

    2:00 PM

    Jimminy writes:

    Oboy!! I was hoping one of Our Good Friends on the Left would take the bait,and Richard did,at 11:41 AM yesterday.As if on cue,he suggested that anyone opposed to gay marriage was free to refrain from marrying a homosexual.
    He then brought the Ku Klux Klan into the debate,reminding us all that anyone opposed to the Klan is free to refrain from burning crosses.

  • February 11, 2009

    2:03 PM

    Obama08 writes:

    DNA, face-to-face, choice or not: all strawman arguments. None of them matter.

    Any rational person can tell the difference between natural and unnatural. Only idiots deny the difference.

    Idiots: it's your turn to respond, and defend your defense of the unnatural.

  • February 11, 2009

    2:27 PM

    Jimminy writes:

    Oboy!! I was hoping one of Our Good Friends on the Left would take the bait,and Richard did,at 11:41 AM yesterday.As if on cue,he suggested that anyone opposed to gay marriage was free to refrain from marrying a homosexual.
    He then brought the Ku Klux Klan into the debate,reminding us all that anyone opposed to the Klan is free to refrain from burning crosses.

  • February 11, 2009

    2:32 PM

    JW writes:

    "DNA, face-to-face, choice or not: all strawman arguments. None of them matter."

    Go look the strawman fallacy up please. You dont know what it is, obviously.


    "Any rational person can tell the difference between natural and unnatural. Only idiots deny the difference."


    This fallacy is called false choice.

  • February 11, 2009

    2:45 PM

    Obama08 writes:

    DNA, face-to-face, choice or not: all strawman arguments. None of them matter.

    Any rational person can tell the difference between natural and unnatural. Only idiots deny the difference.

    Idiots: it's your turn to respond, and defend your defense of the unnatural.

  • February 11, 2009

    2:47 PM

    Obama08 writes:

    The idiots responded: "False Choice"?

    You calling it so does not make it so.

    Show us how, wise one.

  • February 11, 2009

    3:04 PM

    Ozone writes:

    No, any rational person can tell the difference between opinions and facts. Only idiots believe that their opinion is unquestionably correct.

  • February 11, 2009

    3:06 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    No, any rational person can tell the difference between opinion and fact. And only idiots believe that their opinion is undeniably the only correct one.

  • February 11, 2009

    3:09 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    No, any rational person can tell the difference between opinion and fact. And only idiots believe that their opinion is undeniably the only correct one.

  • February 11, 2009

    3:40 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    Ben:

    "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying the Bible." -- Upton Sinclair.

    There--quote for quote.

  • February 11, 2009

    4:10 PM

    Truth is Stranger than Fiction writes:

    Again the false choice of marriage or nothing. Civil unions confer all the rights homosexuals falsely claim they are denied, but they don't want that convention. They want the normalcy of marriage, a historically religious institution with eons of precedent.

    Some things should not change just because a minority thinks they are due some special right to negate thousands years of tradition.

    Gays need to get the life they have convinced themselves they lack.

  • February 11, 2009

    4:33 PM

    Where's the DNA? writes:

    - "Meanwhile, keep up the strawman argument comparing sexual preference to race & gender."

    - "God damn you people are some ignorant slobs. Look up "strawman" and read it untill you UNDERSTAND it. Its not that tough."

    Fair enough, not a strawman. I'll use Truth's favorite word then. It's a "retarded" argument.
    Human sexual developement & behaviour is such a gray area that science itself doesn't compare it to race and gender. Civics class geeks sure do, to advance opinion instead of fact.

    - "and it SPECIFICALLY says in the constitution that the government will make no laws respecting an establishment of religion. If we make laws based on your religious beliefs, that is EXACTLY what we will be doing."

    First intelligent thing you've said today JW. Government, especially the judicial branch, should stay the hell out of it. Let the voters decide. And they have. Respect it or STFU.

  • February 11, 2009

    4:40 PM

    Iceman7 writes:

    Jw,

    "The constitution is full of amendments that GUARANTEE you get to make the choice YOU want, and government can do NOTHING to stop you."

    The good people of Colorado have chosen: Amendment 43 is the law and our choice... Don't like it leave the state. There you go another choice

    "Bonobo Chimps do it face to face, idiot."

    Factoids:

    There are over 5400 known mammals in the world.
    And you find the one exception. Whoop-i do!

    http://blogs.earthsky.org/dankulpinski/2008/10/10/many-mammals-threatened-by-extinction/

    bonobos are also cannibals:
    http://news.softpedia.com/news/Bonobos-Are-Cannibals-95698.shtml

    Glad to know you associate with these Chimps: Chump!

    Ice

  • February 11, 2009

    4:54 PM

    Ben- Death to ACLU writes:

    Ben:

    "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying the Bible." -- Upton Sinclair.

    There--quote for quote. Anon,

    You are comparing apples to oranges. Was Upton Sinclair the founder of a group that were fascists wrapped in flags carrying a bible? No.

    Norman Thomas is the Founder of the ACLU.

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
    Norman Thomas, Co-Founder ACLU

  • February 11, 2009

    5:36 PM

    JW writes:

    "First intelligent thing you've said today JW. Government, especially the judicial branch, should stay the hell out of it. Let the voters decide. And they have. Respect it or STFU."

    Unfortunately, youre still pimping stupidity. When "people decide" who enforces it bright boy? Government. So, if the constitution says the government CANNOT stop you from doing something, but the "people decide" to enact a law that says you cannot do that thing, what happens?

    This is WHY we have the SCOTUS. We arent a democracy because of....

    "The good people of Colorado have chosen: Amendment 43 is the law and our choice... Don't like it leave the state. There you go another choice"

    The tyranny of the masses.

    "There are over 5400 known mammals in the world.
    And you find the one exception. Whoop-i do!"

    Which makes your incorrect statement correct how?

    "Glad to know you associate with these Chimps: Chump!"

    Wow. That cuts so deep.

    Are you mentally handicapped? I dont want to be picking on an idiot if it isnt your fault.

    If youre just stupid because you havent taken the time to learn...please, continue.

  • February 11, 2009

    6:55 PM

    Jimminy writes:

    Sorry about the multiple posts,folks.I had the same problem as Ozone,except I DID check and they didn't show...Oh well,the point was worth repearting.
    And here's another one for Richard-prior to the War for Southern Independence,Abolitionists were free to refrain from buying Negroes.

  • February 11, 2009

    7:00 PM

    Where's the DNA? writes:

    "When "people decide" who enforces it bright boy? Government. So, if the constitution says the government CANNOT stop you from doing something, but the "people decide" to enact a law that says you cannot do that thing, what happens?"

    A prime example of circular logic and feeble thinking. Which came first, the chicken or the egg. "People decide" a lot of issues and government is forced to carry out those decisions. "The people" have the power JW, or at least that's how it used to be in this country. Before judicial courts decided to interpret the constitution to impose their lack of morality on the people. Let the states vote on abortion. What're you libs afraid of? You talk about the tyranny of the masses, what about the tyranny of the few?
    Activist judges got bitch slapped in California by "the people." Why doesn't SCOTUS just legalise gay marriage and settle it once and for all? Why the footdragging? I think I know your answer and it'll probably involve the messiah.

  • February 11, 2009

    7:44 PM

    Iceman7 writes:

    Jw,

    What are we to do with you?

    "A human male and female are the only known mammals that can do the deed face to face. Naturally of course..."

    Did you catch the word Known? What do you think that implies? Is it "think really concentrate now" an absolute statement?

    "There are over 5400 known mammals in the world."

    JW does a google search and finds one exception..

    "Which makes your incorrect statement correct how?"

    Ice 99.98% correct
    JW .02% correct

    Statistically you lose!

    "The tyranny of the masses."

    What the hell another one out of your seat statements....

    You want to have creditability back up what you post. Stop embarrassing Dems...

    What am I saying? sorry JW keep posting.......

    Ice

  • February 11, 2009

    8:13 PM

    LetsThink writes:

    The question (and the only question) is:
    what does the Creator of the universe say about sin?

    Has He left us an accurate instruction manual (Bible)?
    If not, then it would be unfair for Him to send us to hell for sins we didn't know were sins.

    Hope you all think about this. God has given us the answer. He doesn't like sin.

    Now it's our choice whether to defy Him, or not.
    That's the most critical decision we will ever make. And it determines our eternity. And is irreversible. So please make your decision carefully.

  • February 11, 2009

    9:04 PM

    JW writes:

    "A prime example of circular logic and feeble thinking. Which came first, the chicken or the egg"

    No stupid. What happens is that the law gets challenged, the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional, and even though the "people decided" the law is stricken from the books. Again, the founders of this country knew enough about the tyranny of the majority to protect us ALL from it.

    Damn. Take a civics class. You dont even understand the BASICS of your own damn government. Talk about IGNORANT.

    "only known mammals "

    Ice, youre an idiot. You said only and I proved you wrong. PERIOD.

    And Im educated. I didnt need google. Ignorant slob. And Im totally unsurprised that you dont know what the tyranny of the masses was BECAUSE you are so damn ignorant.

    "The question (and the only question) is:
    what does the Creator of the universe say about sin? "

    No one knows for sure, so the answer to that question is relevant only to INDIVIDUALS, and its religious, and therefore has no basis as the format for law.

    "Now it's our choice whether to defy Him, or not.
    That's the most critical decision we will ever make. And it determines our eternity. And is irreversible. So please make your decision carefully."

    Yep. No laws necessary. Everyone makes their own choice. That is freedom baby!

  • February 11, 2009

    9:17 PM

    Obama08 writes:

    Natural = the norm in nature. Not related to anyone's god -- if there even is one. Nature. Even the moron brigade belongs to nature.

    Nature says: human male + human female = continuation of the species. No other combination works. Anything else is an abberation .. which, if it became the norm, would lead to the extinction of the human race. That's not "natural."

    Abberations have no place in nature, except as short-term mutations for the puporses of evolution.

    They have no rights.

    I agree with whoever it was that said: civil unions will work. Marriage is not required to give them each and every legal right enjoyed by those who are married. Civil unions could be constructed to include them all.

    WHY do the gays insist in marriage? WHY is a civil union - again, with each and every legal angle covered - not acceptable? WHY are they hung up on the word marriage, when a reasonable compromise is available?

    WHY? -- I'll tell you. To stick it to the opposition. To wave their deviant behavior in our faces. That's the only reason they won't compromise. You would have to be a moron not to see that.

    OK, morons: your turn again.

  • February 11, 2009

    9:26 PM

    mmmark217 writes:

    For me this is more of a semantical argument than anything else. Fashion a law that allows for Civil Unions between homosexuals, giving them the same rights as married couples and I'll vote for it. Call it a "Marriage" and I won't. Marriage historically since the dawn of time has been between a man and a woman. It should continue to be considered so.

  • February 11, 2009

    10:45 PM

    Tolerance writes:

    On 2/11/09 at 4:10 Truth is Stranger than Fiction talks about gays having civil unions. I want to clarify that not every state allows civil unions and I happen to live in a state that provides no rights to gay couples. I work for the state and I can actually be fired for being gay, as my contract is "at will" and sexual orientation is not a protected class.

    My partner doesn't have a job due to her health issues. So she doesn't have insurance and I can't put her on my insurance, although I do have to pay for her surgeries and doctor visits out of my own pocket (unless indigent care will pay for some, which they sometimes do).

    As for the arguments stating that marriage or sex is mainly about procreation, does this mean that women who have had hysterectomies or have reached menopause cannot get married or have sex? I myself have a child that I had when I was involved with a guy (I wasn't married, though). I guess I'm the gay version of Anne Heche.

    I wasn't experimenting, though. I was trying (desperately, might I add) to make myself straight. I couldn't. I have never loved a guy, but I have loved women. Besides my son, our family also includes a boy that my partner adopted at birth (her biological nephew). Both of our children came before we even knew each other.

    We love each other more than I thought possible and we work hard to be the best parents that we can be.

    I know that there are people who hate gays, as evidenced by this chat, by a gay bashing incident that happened to me as a teenager (we were followed for blocks while they name-called before they threw a glass bottle and brick at us and just nearly hit me in the head as I walked down the street with a friend), and by the comments that people make at school or work. I am not out at work and I am perceived to be a conservative Christian, which I am not. However, I was brought up that way.

    I know that I am not going to change any of your minds. I mean, even my mom believes I am going to hell. I just wanted to share with you that gay marriage is not a threat to "traditional" marriage. It represents love and (for gays) it represents a legal security that we don't currently have. I don't have a lot of security when it comes to being gay. As mentioned above, I can be fired. I also live in the deep south and I do fear for my safety sometimes. We absolutely do not show any sort of affection in stores, but since we live in a small town many people have figured it out. We are oftentimes followed in the store and either stared at or laughed at or people will say things to point out that neither one of us is married. My partner's family has physically assaulted her.

    I know it's not PC to ask for less than equality, but I'm just asking for tolerance. For me, I would like to see civil unions in every state. That would be a good start.

    I'm not asking for anyone's blessing or for anyone to like it. In fact, it doesn't even bother me if you think I'm going to hell. I just want to be left alone to make my short time on earth as happy as I can. I wish all of you could do the same.

  • February 12, 2009

    3:20 AM

    John writes:

    Tolerance

    That goes a long way to helping me understand this issue. I still don't understand what the difference is between gay marriage and civil unions though.


    " I work for the state and I can actually be fired for being gay, as my contract is "at will" and sexual orientation is not a protected class."

    Still wondering why gays donn't take this up with the supreme court. This sounds illegal in many states.

  • February 12, 2009

    7:51 AM

    Ben-Family Man writes:

    There is limit to "tolerance" of anything. Homosexuals "marrying" is where I stop tolerating their agenda.

  • February 12, 2009

    7:56 AM

    John writes:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090212/ap_on_re_us/freedom_to_marry

    It IS starting to go national now. Yes its going to become a national event. Scotus will no longer be able to ignore it

    "NEW YORK – Hundreds of same-sex couples, part of a nationwide protest, are lining up to be turned away by the New York City marriage bureau.

    As they walked away without marriage licenses Thursday, they wore signs saying, "Just Not Married."

    Their actions are a protect again court and voter decisions restricting legal matrimony to opposite-sex couples.

    Activists geared up for rallies at marriage bureaus or county clerks' offices in communities large and small — including Arkansas, California, Florida, Kentucky and Nevada."

  • February 12, 2009

    9:57 AM

    freemarketworks writes:

    Where do we draw the line? Is it at two gay cousins? Is it at two gay brothers? Is it at two lesbian sisters? Is it a woman and her pets? Perhaps, two widowed siblings seeking the perks of marriage in a platonic relationship? Why stop at two? Why not groups of 3 or more?

    Marriage is an institution facilitating the union of a man and a woman, established and supported to provide the backbone of America, people. In my mind, wasting time and tax money to dilute this institution and re-define marriage as nothing more than the union of two people is wrong and destructive. This is simply a non-negotiable value of mine and I’ll back anyone who seeks to defeat these queer initiatives, aimed at destroying our country from within.

    With that said, I don’t have a problem with two individuals or groups of individuals entering into mutually agreeable contracts. Likewise, if a company wants to offer benefits to all couples or groups of these people, I say it’s their choice. On the same note, I don’t have a problem with government agencies extending employee benefits to same-sex-couples; it’s fair. However, I draw the line at re-defining and diluting the vital institution of marriage.

  • February 12, 2009

    10:59 AM

    DNA, the stupid gene? writes:

    "No stupid. What happens is that the law gets challenged, the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional, and even though the "people decided" the law is stricken from the books. Again, the founders of this country knew enough about the tyranny of the majority to protect us ALL from it."

    Every time you post, JW, you just sound more like a buffoon than before. I see your taking on comers and failing miserably at it. If there's a stupid gene, you got it in spades.

    I understand the constitution and the bill of rights. Tell me where the founders gave the legal right of same sex marriage. Put up or shut up mushbrain. Oh, and no "the pursuit of happiness" to cover every interpretation under your whacked point of view. While your at it, explain the founders views on abortion. Can't wait to hear it. No circular logic either, moron.

  • February 12, 2009

    2:26 PM

    Bill writes:

    Question for all you "Gay is a choice"
    advocates.

    if this is a choice. Why isn't there books about this?

    ie. How to be Gay in 30 days
    Do it yourself gayness
    home depot become gay on a budget.

    hmmm?

  • February 12, 2009

    2:55 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    Bill it doesn't matter if it is genetic or selected, acting out on the perversion is a choice.

  • February 12, 2009

    3:55 PM

    JW writes:

    "I understand the constitution and the bill of rights. "

    Then why didnt you say so? Seems to me you were confused.

    "Tell me where the founders gave the legal right of same sex marriage."

    Ohhh. So you DONT understand how this process works. Well, thats too bad.

    "Oh, and no "the pursuit of happiness" to cover every interpretation under your whacked point of view. "

    Funny, thats in the declaration of independence, but it has been used once by the SCOTUS. Guess what for?

    "While your at it, explain the founders views on abortion. Can't wait to hear it. No circular logic either, moron. "

    Yea, again, I thought you said you understood how that worked?

    Here, Ill give you a hand. The right to publish Hustler (or any other porno) isnt in the Constitution in those words, but its still a right that was upheld by the SCOTUS. Why is that? Look up Larry Flint to start.

    Ignorant jackass.

  • February 12, 2009

    4:19 PM

    Obama08 writes:

    Willful ignorance of the obvious difference between what is natural and what is perversion -- and which rights need to be protected and which don't -- THAT'S what will qualify you as a moron.

    One last time -- what is the problem with fully-legal domestic partnership/civil unions?????

    Why rub people's faces in requiring "marriage"???

    No answer, right?

    OK, morons -- you get the last word.

  • February 12, 2009

    6:43 PM

    Larry writes:

    Willful ignorance of the obvious difference between what is natural and what is perversion

    One mans natural is another mans perversion


    One last time -- what is the problem with fully-legal domestic partnership/civil unions

    dont know the difference either

    Why rub people's faces in requiring "marriage"???

    don't know either. But it makes wingers pissed.
    Thats good enough reason. Everything they believe in is wrong.

  • February 12, 2009

    7:49 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    "I'm educated"

    -JW

    Crazy folk don't know they are crazy.

  • February 12, 2009

    9:47 PM

    Jimminy writes:

    Well,considering that monogamous male-female pair-bonding is an extremely successful evolutionary strategy for protection and nurturing of the young that has existed for millions of years,one shouldn't be surprised that as societies evolved,there would be put forward all manner of social devices to legitimize and encourage heterosexual monogamous pair-bonded behavior.Among those devices would be societal approval as manifested in our time by tax breaks and other freebies for the married,all in the service of helping them do the best possible parenting.
    So here we have the gays,who in our time have shriekingly and unendingly advocated the killing of the unborn,and bastardy,which short of murder is the cruelest thing you can do to a child.And now,having spent decades trashing marriage and enabling a Holocaust against children,they want the benefits of a behavior they've done their utmost to destroy.

  • February 12, 2009

    10:07 PM

    Ozone writes:

    Question primarily for the folks on the against side but who would be OK with civil unions. Would it be acceptable that the government should only issue one or the other? What I mean by this is that if civil unions are OK for gay couples, could it not be considered reasonable that the government ONLY issue civil unions to any couple, regardless of sexual orientation? Thereby not redefining marriage (albeit removing marriage from governments jurisdiction), which seems to be one of the main arguments against. While still allowing for the equality the gay community seeks as far as legal rights for a partnership which is the main argument for.

  • February 13, 2009

    9:31 AM

    Anon-1 writes:

    "One mans natural is another mans perversion"

    NO, one man's "natural" can be EVERYONE ELSE'S perversion. Then, it's WRONG.

    Unless you belong to NAMBLA; then you're thinking is perverted to begin with.

  • February 13, 2009

    10:36 AM

    Jimminy writes:

    Ozone-
    In a word,no. As I've mentioned here and in many other discussions,the chief beneficiary of marriage is children.The well-being of children always varies positively with the strength of the committment of their biological parents to each other.That the parents also benefit from societal emoluments to the married is only tangentially relevant.
    Absent unusual circumstances,heterosexual intercourse can be reliably expected to result in pregnancy.Absent induced or(much more rarely)spontaneous abortion,pregnancy results in the live birth of a healthy child.
    Since there is no human reproductive tissue whatever at either end of the digestive tract,no act of homosexual intercourse has ever resulted in pregnancy.That pleasure can be obtained from
    the sexual use of both ends of the digestive tract
    is hardly justification for government to subsidize it.This really is one situation that is "all about the children".It can be said of(and to) the gay community "You no play-a da game,you no make-a da rules".
    As with most issues about which people feel strongly,there's a political component....
    My experience over four decades as a caseworker in public social services includes having observed that the proportion of gays in that field is far greater than the proportion of gays in the general public.I also saw countless instances of gay hatred of children,as manifested by gays' fanatical advocacy of both unmarried parenthood and abortion as well as by gays' sneering contempt for anyone who said anything positive about marriage or letting inconvenient fetuses be born.
    I would suggest most strongly that any discussion of "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" is the appeasement of a group as malign as the one upon which we planned to use the atom bomb,as well as the group upon which we did.

Join the discussion

Required
Required (Will not be published or sold)

Talk to me

Featured today

Today's poll

Search this blog

Recent posts

Chat transcripts

Caption this!