Well they are considering it civil rights. So Americans of color who took on Bull Connor and the other Democrats (Al Gore Sr.) who tried to smash down civil rights should look upon this "travesty"of justice as equal to the suffrage of the black community who absolutely could not hide the fact they were black, and thus targeted for lynching and discrimination. The comparison does not apply.

If you want all the same rights then compel the American voters with your arguments, (which has been mostly unsuccessful so far) and gain their vote on the ballot. Do not pretend your lifestyle is in the mainstream, it is not. It is around 2-3% of the US population. Ron Paul has a larger base. But if I judge by all the whining and crap on TV I would think it is 40%. Convince the voters that these changes make sense and would actually help.

How about existing. We still treat LGBT people as social pariahs.

Ed, that is a social thing, and has nothing to do with the law, definition of marriage, or anything else.

Employment Non-Discrimination Act (2009 feature): Employment discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers is pervasive and harmful. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) offers Congress the opportunity to ensure workplace equality by protecting LGBT workers from employment discrimination. ENDA is pending federal legislation that would ban employment discrimination based on an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity. See http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/lgbt-basic-rights-and-liberties

2009? In other words, Obama, Pelosi, and Reed were wasting valuable time on this while the economy was going to hell in a handbasket. It seems like they forgot their promises on more important issues that they promised to work on, like Medicare, Social Security, and immigration.

That was just mean...hilarious...but mean

Oh yes they can have babies. I have friends that are a gay couple and they have a baby.

SS, let's be realistic, you know that your friends needed a third party to have their baby. Last I knew, two men or two women cannot create life on their own accord without intervention. Let's be reasonable here.

Not mean very true!!!

Agreed, totally could of done without the political spin.

Whether they had a third party or not the fact still remains.....they have a baby. I'm not being controversial, I commented on an opinion just like everyone else has. Thank you.

It would be appropriate to bring "God's definition of marriage" into a discussion about laws if we lived in a theocracy. But, we live in a democracy, with separation of church and state written into our country's constitution. So, "God's definition of marriage" has no place in our country's laws.

"Amen", Abby.

Just for the record, God's definitions were made up by men thousands of years ago, edited and translated over and over throughout the ages creating many, often-contradictory, changes to those definitions.

I agree wholeheartedly Mary Cantell

Abby we live in a republic!

Once again, "God" is invoked as an excuse for discrimination and hatred. So very sad.

and may i ask where i can get a few slaves, as sanctioned in the bible Lev. 25:44. and then of course, what do you think a good price for my daughter would be - cause in the bible it states I can sell her, Exodus 21:7. Now this is a biggie, I am not allowed contact with a woman when she is, well, how do i put this delicately, having her menstral cycle, as told by Lev 15:19-24. And one last thing - there are so many that have to work on the sabbath, as required by thier employers, but in the bible thats a big no no - Exodus 35:2 . how do we put all those people to death.
You are aware that the bible was written by men in a time when they knew nothing. If your gonna start with God says this and God says that - please make sure that your not eating shrimp or wearing something made of cotton and elastic, cause its against Gods word. Dont pick and choose from the bible unless your living your life exactly as it is in the bible.

1 John 4:16
New International Version (NIV)
16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

Obama only wanted the votes he don't like gays...... Hell he doesn't like anybody but himself!!! Most Commies are like that...

TJ Because we believe it is wrong. We believe that abortion is the unecessary killing of babies. We believe that in millions of years of evolution that a man and a woman making babies is the right way. Homosexuality was an anomaly, and is still.

That said, we have made our argument to the voters, and in most cases have won the vote with significant majorities. That will change, it always does, But without convincing a majority of the people you will never securely enjoy these privileges. We are not racist, hate mongering homophobes. We simply do not see a middle ground on this issue. Your "cult" insult aside, hearts can change, convince me.

The real issue is denying people legal rights, if you want to go to church and listen to sermons about love and forgiveness and then condemn people, go for it. It's ironic that Jesus would spend time with lepers, prostitutes and outcasts, but I guess you think if he came back to earth he wouldn't accept gay people. Way to completely miss the message!

Why should gay marriage be legal? Here's the Supreme Court's ruling on interracial marriage, just replace "race" with "sexual preference". It is the exact same argument.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Isn't it equally as disgusting to have the LGBT community shove their beliefs down everyone's else's throats, too? If it's so normal, why is this such an issue?

The difference is that they are being denied a fundamental legal right. If someone is not interested in hearing about religious or LGBT views, you can ignore it. But there is no way to ignore their partner being denied medical coverage because their marriage isn't legally recognized. I think the KKK is disgusting, but I respect that because of freedom of speech, they have a right to profess their belief. You may think gay marriage is disgusting, you cannot deny them legal rights because you disagree with them. Unless you don't believe in the Bill of Rights?

IT IS NOT A CHRISTIAN BELIEF IT IS WHAT GOD SAYS!!! IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM TAKE IT UP WITH GOD!!!

Hey Joellyn, do you happen to have the number for God? Does he have a web site or some sort of mailing address so that I can lodge a formal complaint?

So your magical sky giant told you that gay marriage should be illegal? It sounds really unAmerican to deny people rights because of something that was written in a book in the Stone Age. Unless you don't like freedom, then it makes sense! Is there anything else the sky giant wants us to make illegal? That way you can achieve your goal of making this country more like Iran.

Joellyn: Funny...I never heard God say anything. I take it that what you're talking about it what people wrote in the Bible. Let me repeat that...what PEOPLE wrote in the Bible.

I'm not going to debate Atheism vs. Religion, but to say that something should not be legalized because YOUR specific God "said so" is not a good enough reason for a country that was not founded on nor remains a Theocracy.

Love Depeche Mode

Sorry, I meant to say worth a read.

Many different people believe in your God. Probably sit right in your pew & you don't even know it. SIng in the choir too. Love is the message, not hate, not bigotry. Acceptance. Peace.

Joellyn: To prove that you know positively DIDDLY SQUAT about me, I have plenty of faith. I identify as a Quaker. I attend Quaker meetings. I believe AND respect the religion of others but I do not hold one system of beliefs or one God above all others.

Just because someone does not believe in the same holy book as you does not mean that they support the Devil.

When your time to leave this Earth comes, I hope you make sure to hit the Caps Lock button before you go -- so the next person to use your computer doesn't sound like a raving idiot.

Fire and Brimstone? Please you are using God as a way to discriminate and make people believe they are inferior. Homosexuals are capable of love and everything a heterosexual is, Whether religious or not its no excuse to believe you are better than others. Did you ever hear of the deadly sin Pride. Get over yourself. Whatever or whoever God is I am pretty sure he or she doesn't believe persecuting others is the way to go. No one chooses to be homosexual just like heterosexuals didnt wake up one day and choose. We are born with our sexual orientation!!!!! Get over yourself!!!!!

Joellyn, perhaps you should invest in a new keyboard. The caps lock function doesn't seem to be working properly. Or if your keyboard is working properly, maybe God can teach you some proper typing etiquette.

Joellyn, I applaud your efforts, but the only way to win this battle is to pray that their hearts will be regenerated. Otherwise, they will not hear. It's sad.

Joellyn, I commend your efforts to promote God. Unfortunately, people like us need to realize that without an unrepentent, or regenerated heart, our words fall on deaf ears. Just pray that they come to know the truth. It's sad that people do not see their sin.

MICHAEL HILL READ THE BOOK OF GENESIS !!!

Joellyn Stevens. Oh Genesis the book that says the world was created in 6 days. No mention of dinosaurs or evolution from the apes. That has been proven historically inaccurate so can't one ponder what else is in inaccurate?

A. Turn your caps lock off. B. Your beliefs are Christian beliefs. My God doesn't give a flying f' about who gets married. And he/she/it is not much of a writer. When I go to my place of worship, the outdoors, I'm filled with peace and the belief that we should all love each other. Contrary to what you and so many so many supposed "Christians" are preaching. And thus why I don't consider myself a "Christian" as to not be associated with your brand of bigotry and hatred. Perhaps you need to re-evaluate the lessons of Jesus Christ and learn to separate mans ignorant implementation of Christianity from the actual teachings of the faith. Until then, no, my God is not a Christian God.

THEN ED LOOKS LIKE YOU BELIEVE IN A FALSE GOD, YOU SIMPLETON!!!! Yeah Ed glad you found it laughable....

StGabes, what are the odds that of all the gods that mankind has worshiped as a true gods, that you just happened to be among the ones who actually got it right? Your god is Odin, Zeus, Tezcatlipoca, and the rest. There is no thought more simple than certainty in the unknowable.

You fail logic class. This analogy is too idiotic to even try to refute.

sheep cannot enter or sign a legal contract you santorum loving knuckle dragging dirt eating moron

More likely you CAN'T refute it.... why should gays be the only class of people to get marriage redefined for them? Because you're special?

Invent your own term..... .... whatever you want..... I can think of a few if you need help..... and get all the rights married people get. We don't want to redefine a term thousands of years old for you. That's just the way it is. We'll never see it your way. And we're in the majority.

Last time I checked, marriage was redefined several decades ago, not thousands of years ago. Once again I ask, what is the problem in redefining it? Wait, there is none. It's not affecting you whatsoever. You can maintain your beliefs and they can practice theirs.

Yeah, let's acknowledge every union there can possibly be--man and dog; man and boy; woman and son, and label it all as "MY rights." While we're at it, let's re-write the Bible with an uninspired version, so that we can then please everyone.

@FA Hayek - For or against gay marriage is not the issue. Being *tolerant, loving and accepting* is. How will any of what you mentioned affect you personally? The last one you seem to be stretching it a bit into the realm of ridiculousness actually. Peace.

That's where it's going if we allow this. And in Islam, you can marry 4 wives. With BHO at the helm, that is also where we re going, to sharia law.

You forgot to mention marrying a toast---OH...nope...you got it in there. Your type usually goes right for the "Marry your dog" or "Marry your toaster" argument and I'm very happy to see that you got the Bigotry Memo! Great job! The Homophobia Police won't have to write you a ticket.

@slyfox They are questions and from the comments for or against gay marriage is the issue and it was part of the article. How anything does or does not affect me is not part of the current discussion.

Maria Springer, I'm glad you went straight for the "Obama is a secret muslim" thing. It allows me to filter out the absolute batshxt crazy ones and ignore their completely irrational arguments. I'm still waiting for one of you nutcases to point me to the part of the Koran that says it's ok to be a muslim, yet claim you are a Christian. How exactly does that one work? Pretty sure muhammed wouldn't be down with that.

@ Marc Lombardi What is your problem? I asked questions about marriage and you decide not to answer but go on some rant when you do not know me at all. So much for tolerance.

@FA Hayek
Should laws that prevent people from marrying their brother/sister be abolished? No

What about allowing a person to have multiple spouses? No

Should a person be able to marry an animal or an inanimate object? No

And not a single one of those questions has ANYTHING to do with allowing two men or two women to be joined in marriage.

Here's a question for you: Should we go back to forbidding the marriage between people of different races?

Should you be able to marry an animal or object ? No, because ultimately it is a legal contract between people. Multiple spouses ? It creates legal questions because benefits and rights associated with spouses are geared for two individuals, so within the current framework, that would present challenges. Brother and sister is not considered valid because of the genetic issues with children, but it was practiced for centuries by royalty.

who are you rick santorum? and the brother and sister thing there, first there was adam and eve - and thier children would have had to commit incest to create more - and anyway in some states you can marry your first cousin, doesnt make it right.
multiple spouses, well you might ask romney that one - his religion approved of that for a very long time.
and as for an animal or inaimate object - they have legal rights and can enter into a contract.
you are a moron

@Marc Lombardi The questions I asked do indeed have something to do with whether 2 men or 2 women should be allowed to get married. By your responses of "no" to each question you have showed that you have some definition of marriage and as long as it is falls in your realm than it should be okay - even if you discriminate against others.

My answer to your question "Should we go back to forbidding the marriage between people of different races?" I say no.

@Jefferson I agree that marriage is a legal contract. That being so should the governmnet be involved at all in defining marriage? Should not marriage be a true contract made between consenting adults?

@slyfox you are correct that this is also about tolerance. I asked questions and was not greeted with tolerance from some members of the "tolerant" left.

@michael Your intolerance is showing. I asked questions and you call me a moron without even knowing why I was asking or what my intentions were. No class.

Hayek, in our current system, the Federal Government is the ultimate arbiter (like it or not). I think the biggest concern for same sex couples is benefits, insurance, wills, all the pieces that make up the legal framework of partnership. In a world without the Federal Government, yes it totally makes sense for couples to use independent arbiters. Until then, we are stuck with the current system!

@Jefferson - I realize that. It is another case where we have allowed the Federal gov to grow too large. It can be changed but it will not be easy nor quick.

"Should laws that prevent people from marrying their brother/sister be abolished?"
Yeah, probably, assuming they are both consenting adults. The odds of a harmful recessive trait being passed to their children is far lower than other legally accepted couplings, like parents with Down's Syndrome.

"What about allowing a person to have multiple spouses?"
Sure, if everybody involved is a consenting adult.

"Should a person be able to marry an animal or an inanimate object?"
Of course not - we're only talking about consenting adults.

@Morgan than you for your response.

My own personal opinions:

Should laws that prevent people from marrying their brother/sister be abolished? Honestly, why not? I think there should be genetic counseling required if they want children, though. Really, who out there would want to marry their sibling? I'm sure there is someone, but the number would be so small, why not let them?

What about allowing a person to have multiple spouses? Again, sure, why not? Laws woud need to be written about benefit coverage. People pay extra for extra family members, so I guess if you have multiple spouses you'd have a pretty high premium. Again, most people would not want to share their spouse, but if it works for someone, why not allow it? (assuming they are all consenting adults)

Should a person be able to marry an animal or an inanimate object? No. Animals and objects cannot sign a legal contract. You can love your cat to pieces, but fluffy doesn't have a social security number. I guess that makes me genetically discriminatory, but I am comfortable with that. I woud say you need human DNA to marry another human. But if you want to have your own, non-legal, ceremony, go for it.

FA, look at your scenarios...

Brother/sister is a scientific problem.
Multiple spouses is a secular social reason.
Animals and objects are not people.

Perhaps your point is that gay people are not indeed people. What is the reason to be against gay marriage?

Learn to argue with merit. Thanks for adding nothing to the conversation.

@Azaz I brought more to the discussion than you know. I would like to know where I said anything about gays not being people/human? Where did I state I was against gay marriage?

Your hypothesis is based on no facts. Assuming you are for gay marriage then your responses to my questions show that you have your own definition of marriage which has its limits.

@ FA - I took exception to your third "non human" question. Why would you pose such a question if you were not trying to equate gay marriage with something like inanimate objects?

My comment was directed at this post:
Should laws that prevent people from marrying their brother/sister be abolished?
What about allowing a person to have multiple spouses?
Should a person be able to marry an animal or an inanimate object?

This is a classic "slippery slope" argument. Sibling marriage is illegal for scientific reasons, multiple spouses for secular social reasons. You take your argument a step further and bring in animals and inanimate object -both non-human.

Perhaps you aren't likening gay people to animals and inanimate objects. Nonetheless, to answer your questions directly - there are reasons marriage is not permitted in those situations. However, for gay marriage, there is no reason.

It does not directly affect others that are not engaged in gay marriage. Relax, you will not be kidnapped at night and forced to marry someone of whatever gender you identify with.

So, since the population this impacts is internally impacted, I do not see why the debate is so passionate. Some cite history, other cite religion. History is not always right. Religion is in the eye of the beholder - which needs to be separated from governmental function.

Laws that prevent people from marrying their brothers/sisters are in place to help prevent them from passing on severe genetic defects that can result from inbreeding.

Not angry, mad or whatever just laying out some facts. However I am sick and tired of the bullshit I listed in my comment... and since you're not qualified don't sit there and say something is abusive when in fact it clearly is not. and from your post your comprehension is lacking, you missed the point... I don't throw the word "love" around like a lot of people. Love still has meaning in my eyes. I didn't get married to trap the person, too many people say "I love you" then get married, then divorced... People do not know what the meaning of "LOVE" is...

good point!

Michael,
Jesus LOVES the sinner but He HATES the sin.

So He hates my underwear? Or is it just what my underwear is made of?

Joellyn, that wasn't Jesus, that was Saint Augustine. That concept is nowhere in the Bible.

Hi @StGabes,

Thanks for writing in! I did a little checking, but I can't find any record of a deleted comment that originated with Patch. I can tell you that if enough people flag a particular comment, it is deleted. I hope that helps. Thanks!

Hi @Elizabeth --- Ok thank you!!! So if people do not agree with what I said, and they flag my comment it will be taken down? How many people have to flag it before it's taking down? And what I said was not offensive, well I'm sure someone could find it offensive, because people are so sensitive these days. It saddens me to think people don't want to hear the truth.. And seems now a days as well minority always wins against the majority.... Thank You for your time!!!!

Crestor, why do you hate America? Real Americans understand that people think differently but we respect each others rights. How about this, the church can continue to define marriage as only between men and women, and the State can define it as between consenting adults. See that way, you get to KEEP your precious definition! Then you still go to church and pretend to live in the dark ages and the rest of the world can move on!

Thanks for the laugh on a very difficult and busy day. You're a hoot!

Peace.

The thanks for the laff comment was for CJ who never ceases to amuse.

Crestor, I'm with you. For thousands of years marriage has been between one white man, and one white woman. What's with all these pesky blacks and whites wanting to intermix? You can't cry about your "rights" and force your pro race-mixing agenda on everybody else.

...In case you can't tell, that was sarcasm, you ignorant a-hole.

That's my point Jefferson... you don't have a right to change everything that suits you. Marriage has been around for thousands of years. It has a definition. I like it. So does the MAJORITY of Americans, as evidenced by every election where this item was on the ballot.
Again, never going to get changed. Focus elsewhere.

The majority of people in America also were in favor of segregation. Man, why did they get rid of that! Who care if people are denied basic rights, what's most important is that we make sure what you like is protected! I mean, sure, what you like denies an entire group of people something that is consider a basic right. And really it actually has zero effect on your life, but man, we simply cannot have gay people getting married!

Did you know that HALF of all marriages end in failure?!?!? That might be because of gayness! Oh no wait, they can't get married. I guess all those couples just didn't listen to the Word of God closely enough!

Gay marriage will never be nationally recognized? I can guarantee you that within the next 10 years, it will be. Just you wait.

How do you know the comments were from the LEFT and not the right?? I researched other comments made by the same individuals, found a common theme and made an educated guess.

How do you stick the "tolerant" label on the LEFT? They did that themsleves. Being tolerant is a good thing. The left portrays the right as being intolerant.

Peace be with you.

@FA Hayek - you are right. I was incorrect. Have a peaceful silent night.

Yeah please vote for the mormon cult member lol!!!

Nothing wrong with you being happy. Now go off and define some new term for the union between gay people. Be happy while you do it.

Wouldn't it be a real kick in the pants if they just called it "Real Marriage." I'd be OK with that and laugh my arse off while the conservative right had a mass aneurysm.

hear hear!

Fundies can keep their "marriage". Nobody is arguing that churches have to allow gays to marry. But the fundies won't even concede to allowing even civil unions. They want all the rights and privileges provided to straight couples to only stay only with straight couples, regardless of the mechanism of how a couple may be joined. I could give a flying F' if churches won't let gays marry. Gay folks should be allowed the same benefits a married straight couple has under the law.

Exactly. If the issue is the "rights" that married people get, fine... you get those rights for a civil union. Marriage stays as it is. And it will... the Constitution will never be amended for gay marriage. Jerks like Obama will just use it to get your vote, meanwhile knowing it's a states rights issue.

Wow Crestor, did you just finish law school! You are a fountain of legal prowess! OHHHH wait,I just remembered, civil unions and their legal ramifications vary from state to state and often don't grant the same rights as marriages. WHOOPS!

Ed Roper, you are crazy! It sounds like you are saying if they passed a Federal law that made civil unions and marriage have the same legal framework, people could call it whatever they want and it wouldn't make a difference! Because that way people wouldn't be discriminated against depending on what State they live in, much like every other law on the books concerning equal rights. I think like a hundred years ago in the South black and white children were treated differently in terms of what schools they had attend, but then some stuff happened and then everyone could go to the same school. Looking back that just seems like another world!

Did you just arrive from the future man?!?! That kind of thinking is from outer space!

How true.

First of all, Mr. Koenig, the story is clearly marked "opinion." We have opinion pieces on both sides of the page. Always have. The right side is for bloggers, which aren't necessarily opinion pieces either. Secondly, Mr. Shanker was elected as an alternate delegate to the Democratic National Convention by Democratic voters in the 15th Congressional District. That doesn't really make him an elected public official.

Daryl - this is a Patch wide problem. Blogs/opinion pieces often look like news articles on Patch. This lack of clarity is a disservice for you and the other hard working Patch editors by undermining your integrity. I constantly see comments like "what do you expect, it's Patch".

Check for yourself - the font at the top of the article is nothing special and does not stand out in anyway.

Does anyone know why Christopher Robin talks to his teddy bear, and other made up fairytail stories that don't matter or have bearing on reality.... ?

Same sex marriage is legal in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden. You should write them a letter to let them know their countries will be destroyed ANY MINUTE by fire and brimstone from a magical sky giant!

Hey does that mean the Catholic Church will also be destroyed by fire and brimstone because of all the priests that committed pedophila and the higher ups who knew and allowed it? BOY, wouldn't THAT be ironic!

Joellyn.........is this the same god who gave people " free will".......than flooded the earth because he didn't like the choices people were making, Free Will, than destroyed 2 cities and it's inhabitants? Free Will, than changed all the languages because people were building a tower to the heavens? The same god who would like you to " dash the heads of the infants against the rocks" to atone for the sins of the fathers?....Yet again, you bible thumpers LOVE to quote the old testament fire and brimstone god when it suits YOUR OWN agenda.

Tim, I did some searching on the "Internet" and found this:

According to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) which advocates for equal rights for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people, in 34 states, it is completely legal to fire someone from their job based on sexual orientation; in 44 states, it is legal to fire a transgender person. And with regard to marriage, only one state, Massachusetts, has granted marriage licenses to same-sex couples. 45 of the 50 states have laws either explicitly defining marriage as between a man and a woman or refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states. And, as many gay rights advocates have argued, civil unions are no substitute for the protections that straight couples get when they marry. A report from the federal government’s General Accounting Office lists more than 1,138 legal and financial protections granted to opposite-sex couples but denied to same-sex couples.

It's really cool how you can find information on this thing!

Thank you TJ!! I was about to pluck my eyeballs out reading the ridiculous conversation that has erupted, just looking to see if the answer still needed to be added.

Tim, If you have any further questions, here is a very thorough article that you may find helpful:
http://padiversity.org/CU.html

Employment Non-Discrimination Act (2009 feature): Employment discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers is pervasive and harmful. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) offers Congress the opportunity to ensure workplace equality by protecting LGBT workers from employment discrimination. ENDA is pending federal legislation that would ban employment discrimination based on an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity.

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/lgbt-basic-rights-and-liberties

It's also completely legal to fire somebody because they are straight....

This is a civil rights issue, a Constitutional law issue. What does jesus have to do with it?

WWJD? I think he'd stay out of it.

People who are wishing for any reason whatsoever that "this whole earth is going to be destroyed", aren't painting a picture that most of us want to be a part of. You just might find yourself gaining your own lousy wish and vision for the earth, while those that hoped to preserve and save our precious earth might just get their wish. I'd be very careful what you wish for. Wishing for and counting on destruction, no matter what the reason, just might prove to be very foolhardy. We choose our destiny. Pick one worth living for. You might be glad you hoped for more than destruction for our "whole earth".

In all seriousness, if this is an actual concern of yours, may I suggest reading up a little on paranoid schizophrenia. A normally sweet and reasonable friend of mine had an experience with that and he reported feeling the certainty that God was going to destroy the world with fire because of sin. It turns out to be a pretty common symptom, along with a pervasive fear of government surveillance (he had that, too).

Either way, living with the fear of fiery destruction and eternal suffering unless you jump through certain ancient moral hoops is a terrible way to live the one life you are actually living now.

Brilliant idea! I think I will do the same! Just wish there was one a little closer to me.

As if that god is any less made up. What sheer force of delusion must it take to maintain a worldview of such absolute certainty. Do you think followers of other faiths are any less convinced of their god than you are of yours?

Jim L. It really doesn't matter what you believe concerning SIN. God's word calls homosexuality a sin. Read the book of Romans. We are to judge based on TRUTH.

Andrew Wilt Jesus said " Wide is the road that leads to destruction and narrow is the way that leads to life and there will be few who find it" You have confirmed this with your ignorant statement.

Joellyn, there is great irony in you calling someone ignorant, as it has been my experience that most Christians who share your same views have been nothing short of ignorant, narrowminded, intolerant, and extremely counter-intuitive to the teaching of Jesus, especially the ones about love, peace, and compassion for others.

Joellyn Stevens - I am always amused by the smugness of some very religious persons. Always an answer for everything. Such deep faith and unwillingness to question anything. Perfect followers. I especially like the "God will provide" attitude. Good luck to you.

Mr. Koenig, I've been editing Bethlehem Patch for 2 years. We've been running opinion columns on the left side of the page since day 1. I can't speak for Upper Dublin. Nonetheless, the column is clearly marked opinion. If you can read, you should know what it is.

Hey Walter! Hope you are having a good Friday. One question I have has actually come up before in this conversation. Do you think people of different races should be able to marry? Because at one time, they couldn't! Then as a society we came to terms with the fact that it was INCREDIBLY discriminatory to have that rule, so we got rid of it. At the time, some people thought they were "polluting" the sanctity of marriage, but now we realize that people of all races can suffer the ole' ball and chain together! Har har har. Am I right or WHAT?

So the reality is that preventing people from enjoying the same legal rights and benefits that are conveyed the married couples is just not a fair shake. Just in case you think they do have the same rights, like Crestor does, check out this factoid:

A report from the federal government’s General Accounting Office lists more than 1,138 legal and financial protections granted to opposite-sex couples but denied to same-sex couples.

I'm sure as a red blooded, patriotic American, you would agree that is just unAmerican! I knew you'd agree Walt, you seem like a practical kind of guy.

The ACLU believes that LGBT people, like everyone else, should have the freedom to build the kinds of personal, intimate relationships most meaningful to them without risking that their families will be disregarded or harmed by the state. Our goal is to obtain full recognition of same-sex relationships through marriage, in every state and at the federal level. In some states, the ACLU works for domestic partnership protections as a first step towards the full recognition and complete protections offered only by marriage.

LGBT older adults face multiple legal and financial challenges, compounded by a lifetime of discrimination and the consequences of living within a system where major laws and safety net programs fail to protect and support LGBT elders.
For example, same-sex couples are denied the spouse-related FMLA benefits under the Defense of Marriage Act, and many LGBT individuals struggle financially and with various forms of job-related discrimination, which makes it difficult to take unpaid leave in order to care for an ill family member or a new child. Additionally, upon the death of a partner, LGBT people are often denied making end-of-life decisions about last rites, funerals, disposition of remains and inheritance. Similarly, LGBT older adults are often denied pension plan options that provide financial protections for a surviving partner—even though LGBT employees earn their pensions through the same hard work and financial contributions as their heterosexual counterparts. Different treatment under the law can cost an LGBT person who's inheriting a tax-qualified retirement plan from a loved one thousands of dollars per year in retirement income. sageusa.org

Not true, Joellyn, I have read every single solitary word of the Bible. The Bible is not God. It is subject to error just like another other human endeavor, even those inspired by God. You would do well to consider what words betray love that are contained in the Bible. God gave you a brain and a heart to be used. Begin to sort yourself what sounds like it is not love. Love does not call on the entire earth to be destroyed even if it parades around as if it is love.

BELIEVE it or not, but many people do NOT believe in god, or care about religous doctrine.

Ed did in fact answer your question by posing an equally ridiculous question. Both the bible and Winne the Pooh are fantasy stories meant to convey moral ideas. Since the Bible stories were written in the Stone Age and agricultural was rising in importance over the nomadic way of life, relationships that don't produce children were not optimal. So you have a story that paints those relationships in a bad light.

Fast forward to the present day, 4000 years later, and there are almost 7 billion people on the planet. Clearly we are not in danger of running out of people, so if we understand the context of the moral question, we can see producing offspring is not as critical as it used to be. Hence, the Sodom and Gormorrah tale is not longer morally relevant.

However, I doubt you understood any of that because you are a robot and are incapable of independent thought.

I think you're late to your klan meeting, you ignorant POS.

You're never going to be able to get married.... never. Sorry. It's just a fact.

Work on some sort of civil union. And yes, everywhere this comes up on a ballot, over 50% of the people are ignorant POS's and Klan members. Sucks to be you.

No one says you can't love who you want. You just can't get married unless you are a man who loves a woman or a woman who loves a man. Other unions can have other names. It's really simple. You don't get to redefine a term that has been in use for thousands of years because you say so.

Gays will never be able to get married. If you want all the same rights that are afforded by a marriage, come up with a new term... like sodomarriage or something.

Agreed. No many people really want to keep them from having rights. But many people don't want a thousands of year old term, and a term that is fundamental to their religion, redefined.

Gays... is it about rights, or just getting your way and making EVERYBODY change their definition of marriage to appease you? If it's the former, I and many other will support you. If it's the later, I and the majority won't support you.

So, figure out what you want and let us know. You're never getting marriage on a federal level no matter what, so use your head and go for civil unions..... and civil unions can apply to people in many other relationships where they want to share assets and have other legal protections.

Crestor you need to retake the bar exam, because your legal acumen is kind of lacking! I'll say it again, maybe it will sink in:

Civil unions and marriages do not convey the same rights, it varies widely from State to State. If civil unions were elevated to the same level as marriages across the board, in terms of what rights they convey, then you wouldn't need two different words! That's why getting a civil union is different! You act as if they could just get civil unions and it would be the same thing and they are just being "rude" by demanding the word marriage be "redefined". Nothing could demonstrate your complete lack of understanding more! This is what it means to defeat your own argument, which is also kind of funny because you keep saying it as it repeating it will make it true. Boy, you have got some egg on your face! Do you love omelets? You have enough eggs to make a really good one! Har har har.

Read that over a couple times and then maybe take a relaxing break, you can only fit in so much thinking on any given day!

Tom Jeff.... I understand that, you dolt. I said gays should concentrate on defining something new that has all the LEGAL rights of marriage, but is called something else. Get it??? Huh???

Black kids and white kids should drink out of different fountains, because we can't just have one fountain everyone shares. We have to have two separate fountains that are clearly labeled Black Only and White Only so everyone feels really super comfortable when they are forcing discrimination on a group of people. I mean, god forbid they get the idea that they are the same as us!

The Dixiecrats called, they want their ideas back! You have to patent those puppies before someone snatches them up, and then you'll be telling your friends, "No, I thought of it first!", and they're all like, "No way dude!". Man, they'll never believe you then!

The ACLU works to ensure that LGBT people have equal opportunity to participate fully in civil society. No LGBT person should experience discrimination in employment, housing, or in businesses and public places, or the suppression of their free expression or privacy rights. The ACLU seeks new laws against discrimination in states and at the federal level, and resists all attempts to weaken the impact of existing nondiscrimination laws. With the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” our current federal priority is passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Actually I know Jesus really well, because as he taught us, the Kingdom of Heaven lives within us. It gives me a bit of a giggle, because you insist that the only way to the Father is through his Son. That's kind of a literal interpretation! Many theologists would agree that what Jesus was trying to convey was that by understanding his message, we can find peace, love and understanding in our hearts, and thus reach "the Kingdom of Heaven", which is our own self-actualization of the idea.

Your interpretation is that unless you follow Jesus, you will go to Hell. Ironic, because I think if Jesus came back to earth, he would acknowledge that Buddha, Mohammad and other holy men were speaking about a very similar message, and that there are many ways to reach the Kingdom of Heaven. The methodology is what's important, not adhering to literal, dogmatic and blind faith.

Boy I think Jesus would get a good laugh out of this conversation! He would say, "wow how could someone take my message of love and understanding and then threaten people with pain and suffering unless they adhere to one strict path! I would never say that! It's almost like people just follow a routine without ever really understanding the underlying message". Then I would laugh and maybe we'd share a couple glasses of wine and watch a sunset.

TJ sums it up pretty damn well here...

Pretty sure my judgement day will involve St. Peter looking over some forms, stamping a couple papers, and then putting me on the shuttle to the Ethereal Processing Center.

OR maybe when you die you just go to sleep forever and that's it. Doesn't that sound scary? Not really! It's just the nature of life. I realized you are frightened that your life won't mean anything and are desperately clinging to something that uses ancient fantasies to make sense of the world and our inevitable death. In the modern era there is also another reaction, nihilism, which says "there really is no point at all". Boy those guys aren't probably fun at parties! Maybe somewhere in-between is an cosmological viewpoint that helps grounds us in the wheel of life and helps us understand the deep mysteries that challenge us during our existence.

Another way to look at it is to scream at people in all caps and threaten them with imaginary punishments. In my experience, that is REALLY effective on children! But as we learned in 1 Corinthians 13:11, "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me"

You should try reading the Bible, some of the stories aren't too bad!

I wonder what happens to all the people who lived before Christ? I guess they'll just burn in hell because they didn't know Jesus would happen in the future. Too bad for them, there is only way, perfect way to reach Heaven.

Joellyn I will pray for you, but know that God forgives his children for their mistakes. You have wandered from the path of the Lord, but like the Prodigal Son, he will accept you back when the scales fall from your eyes like Saul. You are probably not familiar with these stories, and therefore cannot know the glory, the truth and the love of Christ in your life. It is almost like you are a caveman who could not know the Truth of our Lord, and must burn in a lake of fire for all eternity for your lack of knowledge.

Well, you know what they say, "Ignorantia juris non excusat"!! That's Latin, if you were a true believer you would know that though.

Jesus is a lot smarter than people give him credit. He's able to tell the honest soul from the wretched. Jesus isn't so insecure that he requires everyone to call his name out loud so long as there is love in the heart. The Jesus I know would rather have us be loving people to ourselves and others, doing what we do out of a personal desire and commitment to the good of the world, than to go around shouting Jesus at the top of our lungs and judging others for what we believe they lack. A relationship with Jesus is so personal that generalizations and accusations from others fall short of making a connection to the truth.

Marriage has been... for THOUSANDS of years.... a union between a man and woman. That's a good enough reason to not change it.

Recent Gallop poll (go to their website and look) shows that 3.4% of people identify as LGBT. We have to change a thousands of year old definition because of 3.4%?

No. Just define a new type of union for gays, that has all the same rights.

That's why. See... no bible mentioned.

The majority of people want it this way. This is way every times a state... even a liberal state... puts this to the people in an election, gay marriage loses.

Gays will never get a nationally recognized right to marry. Never. Accept it, and move toward a new term to cover whatever it is you want.....

Slavery has been... for THOUSANDS of years.... a common practice in many societies. That's a good enough reason to not change it.

Applied in different ways, your rationale is FLAWLESS! Things have been the same for thousands of years, they will never change, so why bother! Women voting and owning property, slavery, child labor, man why did people even ATTEMPT to try and change those things?

If a union was created that was the same as marriage, then what's the difference? None! It's purely semantics! But you're right, let's make everyone is SUPER comfortable while they are enforcing discrimination on people. I mean, we wouldn't want them to have acknowledge the fact they are bigots! Boy, wouldn't THAT be embarrassing for everyone!

Crestor.that makes up 9 million Americans. And of course those are just the ones who feel comfortable enough to admit to any poll takers they are part of the LGBT community.For " thousands of years" as you put it...we've also had a slave trade, forced marriages, absolutely NO inter-racial marriages, much less marrying someone NOT of your religious order or class. Your argument of " it's been this way for a long time, so that's how it has to be" is idiocy. Only 8.4 percent of marriages in the US are inter racial. FAR from a majority.Should we name them something differently also?. Your quote" gay will never get a nationally recognized right to marry" is interesting......You use the term " right to marry" like it is part of any civil right given to any American. Your argument of " just make it the exact same thing as marriage, but call it something different, than it will pass" SHOWS the the general public doesn't care one bit about same sex marriage becoming law so why should just the term " marriage" be so offensive?

You forget your history. Both were republics where the people flourished free from government intervention until the people allowed the government to become a democracy, which of course led to Oligarcy and the demise of those great cultures. Sound familiar? It is exactly what is occurring before our eyes to our Republic. That was the destructive force. Just like us today. Vote anything but repub or demo to help stop this crazy machine.

Except the Patch is mostly liberal views.....

Because conservatives are busy working...

Organized religion has not thrown it's hat in. INDIVIDUALS, who may or may not be influenced by their beliefs have thrown their hat in. People are influenced by many things in their life... you can't separate a person from the many things they have experienced.

And again... come up with another name for it. Marriage is taken. Has been for 5000+ years.

Sorry, but that's my opinion, and the opinion of the majority of Americans. Since this is about personal opinion, anyones opinion is "debate worthy". I realize as a liberal, you only find people who agree with you to have debate worthy opinions.

Again, rage all you want. It's never going to happen. Never.

Ever.

Crestor, I'm certain that many people, just like you, said " rage all you want, it's NEVER going to happen" when some black girl tried to sit in the front of the bus. It is actually going to " happen".Any thinking person already knows that. Interesting that your " all for same sex marriage" as long as we don't call it " marriage".Will calling it Marriage somehow decrease the value of your own marriage?, Will it somehow cause a skyrocket in divorces amongst hetero couples? Will some Sky Deity suddenly flood the earth?.yes, it is " your opinion, yet you base your opinion on nothing more than " it's always been this way".....Thats not actually an opinion, thats just a sheep following the same path day after day because it is used to it.. As for being " liberal"? I'm a die hard republican and lifetime NRA member but I still believe that equality is just that....Equality .....If your opinion, and " the majority of Americans" is " they can get married as long as they don't use the term Marriage" than that is simple bigotry. Reserving the term " Marriage" for heterosexual couples only? Explain how that is not bigotry and please try to explain so using someting more than " thats how it's always been"......

This court is foolish. All they need to do is look up "marriage" in Webster's Collegiate dictionary. Besides "the state of being married", there is "the mutual relationship between a husband and wife", and "the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family". Seems simple enough to me.

Oh god.now we're back to " but it says so in this book..........."

Careless, thats really no better than the people that say " But god defines marriage as.....'.The first recorded use of the word " Marriage" was in France in the 1290's. Of course a dictionary will define a word as it is used at the present time. I can look into dictionaries that were printed in the 1800's and find words that would NEVER be used in modern times nor would their definitions.