Gay marriage: About time or no way?

Today, a same-sex marriage proponent calls gay marriage the new normal. An opponent  says such unions erode the country’s moral fabric.

Let us know what you think with comments below. Moderator Rick Badie leads the discussion.

Lift marriage barrier for same-sex couples

By Matt Hennie

There’s a “new normal” brewing across the country, yet it embraces values that have stood the test of time: equality and freedom.

That “new normal” is what Gallup calls the acceptance of same-sex couples that they find is growing. A recent Gallup poll shows that 54 percent of Americans agree that gay and lesbian relationships are “morally acceptable.” Even more say same-sex couple relationships should be legal.

Package that with the endorsement delivered earlier this month by President Barack Obama and it’s clear the tide is shifting in favor of marriage equality.

Acceptance is coming to Georgia, too, though at a much slower pace. A recent Landmark Communications/Rosetta Stone poll for WSB-TV shows 59 percent of Georgians are opposed to gay marriage, a number that has shrunk since nearly three-quarters of voters in 2004 approved adding a same-sex marriage ban to the state Constitution. It’s still substantial and a sentiment that is shared across the South.

But what the current polls don’t show is that Atlanta is packed with same-sex couples and ranks among the top five in large cities across the U.S. for same-sex households. It’s the same across metro Atlanta and the rest of Georgia. Same-sex couples live in the mountains, along the coast and in the southwest corner of the state, too. And these couples, just like their heterosexual neighbors, are in loving and committed relationships, promising to care for one another for better and for worse.

Unlike their neighbors, though, they can’t share their marriage vows with one another and legally show they cherish their partner in the same way their straight neighbors do. Don’t be lured into embracing the fears manufactured by opponents of same-sex marriage. They want to distract you from the Golden Rule, twist its meaning and convince you that what poll after poll shows — more Americans support same-sex marriage than oppose it — is wrong. It’s not.

Don’t be fooled into thinking that same-sex marriage is about rights or that because I may want to marry my partner some day means your marriage needs to be redefined. Plain and simple, this is about respecting the tradition of marriage, its importance in society and allowing gay couples to join the institution, not change it.

I respect the honor and tradition that comes with marriage; it worked for my parents, and I want the chance to have it work for me.

Gay couples share the ideals that marriage is a heavy responsibility and comes with a lifetime commitment and we want to express that to our partner. Gay marriage is not a game. It’s not a political strategy and it shouldn’t be used as a weapon to beat down the love I have for my partner.

Matt Hennie is founder of Project Q Atlanta, an online media source that reports on gay and lesbian issues in metro Atlanta.

Marriage: One man, one woman

By Ray Newman

After President Barack Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage, I was interviewed by several media outlets. Each interviewer wanted to know my first reaction. I said, “I was not surprised.”
The simple truth is anyone who had been paying attention to the culture and signals from this White House would have known the direction in which it was headed. Vice President Joe Biden had indicated his support for same-sex marriage, saying he had changed his opinion after having watched a sitcom on television. I further stated that I was saddened by the endorsement.
Following the president’s announcement, many people began to second-guess its timing. It would be interesting to know why the Wednesday before the national observance of Mother’s Day would be picked as the day of the president’s endorsement. It is also interesting that following the vote on Tuesday in North Carolina, in support of a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, the next day would be set as the day of the president’s endorsement.
There are now more than 30 states that have passed amendments or initiatives defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Thirteen states, including Georgia, voted in 2004 to add the definition to their constitution.
We come to this issue from several perspectives. First, the historic social issue of marriage. Traditionally, each culture for centuries has accepted marriage as a union between one man and one woman. In fact, the first definition of marriage given in the dictionary is: “The social institution under which a man and woman live as husband and wife by legal or religious commitments.”
We see the Judeo-Christian moral foundation as a major building block of societies and cultures. The Judeo-Christian moral foundation of our nation has served as the major building block of our nation. The marriage ceremony indicates before witnesses that a man and woman are joined in a covenant intimate relationship.
Finally, we look at this issue from a political viewpoint. We are watching as morals are moving away in order to assure rights. We are being told that, politically, we must evolve into an amoral world view in order to assure rights that are granted to certain behaviors.
I am saddened we have come to the place in our nation where cultural changes are now impacting behavior more than the traditional building blocks that have served us well throughout history. I affirm my position in support of the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
The foundation upon which our nation is built must remain strong or we will see the nation fall into ruin.

Ray Newman is executive director of Georgia Citizen Action Project Inc.

NOTE: Comments have been closed.

84 comments Add your comment

Vashtai

May 24th, 2012
11:19 am

The biggest threat to marriage is heterosexual divorce.

michele

May 24th, 2012
11:30 am

we’ve got bigger fish to fry than who loves who. if my gay neighbors get married, my property taxes will not go down here in ATL…my income will not increase, and the sky will not fall.
let’s move on from this issue to something that really affects ALL people’s lives.

Jim Lippard

May 24th, 2012
11:41 am

Ray Newman’s arguments are terrible. He claims, falsely, that “each culture for centuries has accepted marriage as a union between one man and one woman” — this is not even true of the Bible, which endorses plural marriage, concubinage, and even slavery. The “Judeo-Christian foundation” he argues is “a major building block of societies and cultures” (but not of the United States’ system of government!). And he argues that because numerous states have laws banning same-sex marriage, we should keep them–without offering any defense of why. The fact is that those state laws are exactly analogous to past state laws which banned interracial marriage, and Ray Newman’s arguments are exactly analogous to arguments for those laws.

Newman has no ethical or legal basis for his position.

Chuck Ramsey

May 24th, 2012
11:43 am

Did the nation fall into ruin when interracial marriages were allowed? When women were allowed to vote? When gays were allowed to openly serve in the military? When Sunday beer sales were allowed in Atlanta? Since when does assuring equal rights equate to an amoral world view? As a married gay man, I am pleased to see Obama, the NAACP, and the majority of Americans have evolved on this issue. The foundation on which our nation was built is remaining strong.

David in Atlanta

May 24th, 2012
11:51 am

Mr Newman must not support the abolition of slavery since he pins his entire argument on “Judeo-Christian” morality. You don’t need to go back far in history to see Judeo-Christian morals in support of things like segregation, denying the right to vote to women, and slavery. What is and isn’t considered Biblical has changed with each and every generation, Mr Newman’s included.

Unless he’s using a contemporary definition of “Judeo-Christian” that carves out this one narrow topic and ignores history, his entire argument is flawed.

Aquagirl

May 24th, 2012
11:56 am

Can someone get a fainting couch for Mr. Newman?

AdoringFan

May 24th, 2012
11:59 am

“The Judeo-Christian moral foundation of our nation has served as the major building block of our nation. The marriage ceremony indicates before witnesses that a man and woman are joined in a covenant intimate relationship.” –Ray Newman

I agree that the Judeo-Christian morality has had great and often good influence on this wonderful country, but I would offer that the USA’s foundation fortunately includes other principles as well, such as those of the Enlightenment. Left to J-C morals alone, we might still condone slavery, and still deny women the voting franchise. These are just two examples in our history of appeals to the Bible and Judeo-Christian morality to deny rights to other PEOPLE.

What morality is there is denying any two consenting, loving adult PEOPLE, straight or gay, to stand before witnesses and dedicate themselves to live in a “covenant intimate relationship”? In what possible way does that erode a morality which has at its heart to love one’s neightbor as oneself? The fact of my neighbors’ marriage (straight or gay) has never once influenced me or my husband of 25 years to choose evil over good in any situation.

Richard

May 24th, 2012
12:03 pm

Newman makes the classic blunder. Everyone, try this: whenever you write the word “moral,” write the words, “my morals” instead. It will put the proper context on your argument.

AdoringFan

May 24th, 2012
12:16 pm

“We are watching as morals are moving away in order to assure rights. We are being told that, politically, we must evolve into an amoral world view in order to assure rights that are granted to certain behaviors.”—Ray Newman

Happily, our nation is governed not by the Bible, nor a particular group’s interpretation of its morality. Our great nation is governed by The Constitution with its Bill of Rights. The most foundational goal of establishing our governing system was to assure (and insure) the rights of all Americans. Rights are not “granted to certain behaviors,” as claimed by Mr. Newman. Rights are guaranteed to THE PEOPLE.

Pat in GR

May 24th, 2012
12:30 pm

The promotion pieces do the usual, but omit or skirt the obvious…

Gay couples are free to have a ceremony and consider themselves married – right now.
They are free to “openly” live together and have whatever lifestyle suits their fancy.
The key factor is obvious: should those who do not support that lifestyle, due to moral or religious reasons, be FORCED to endorse such models via the strong arm of government – even if it is against the oppositions’ citizen or religious rights?
The answer should always be no.

Dave Muskera

May 24th, 2012
12:41 pm

Another thing that strikes me about this article is the use of the work “unnatural”. Don’t know how that was injected…probably by some editor somewhere…but, it highlights how slinging pejorative terms around intends to influence readers. Think about it….cell phones are unnatural, cars are unnatural, Air conditioning is unnatural. If natural is defined as what exists in nature, then marriage itself of all kinds is “unnatural”.

SAWB

May 24th, 2012
12:42 pm

Regardless of your feelings on homosexuality at the end of the day folks should have the freedom to get married. We can debate the morality of these relationships forever, but that is not really the issue. However, we must remember that marriage should not be a license to infringe on another person’s freedom. While Gay Marriage would impute certain legal rights it must not be used to forcible violate the freedom of private individuals.

Eric

May 24th, 2012
12:42 pm

“Plain and simple, this is about respecting the tradition of marriage, its importance in society and allowing gay couples to join the institution, not change it.”

In one sentence, Mr. Hennie sums up the issue well. Opening the doors to gay marriage will harm no one, but conversely, strengthen the institution. Mr. Newman has not demonstrated how our country will “fall into ruin.”

dickelsby

May 24th, 2012
12:43 pm

Way deep down at the core of your cellular structure… you just know that men don’t have husbands and women don’t have wives…..

Chuck Ramsey

May 24th, 2012
12:48 pm

To Pat in GR. Yes the answer is obvious. We have a separation of church and state in this country, and the government does enforce laws involving equality as they should.

Tom B.

May 24th, 2012
12:49 pm

Thankfully I won’t be alive when the next “new normal” of child molestation rolls around. Some “new normals” are not meant to be. Just because the majority doesn’t have a problem with it doesn’t make it right.

Middle Ground

May 24th, 2012
12:50 pm

I think if we could get away from using the word “Marriage” to talk about same-sex unions, we can find some middle ground. I personally believe in the Sacrament of Marriage as the sanctioning by God of one man and one woman. I wouldn’t want my Church to perform this sacrament on a same-sex couple.

I have no problem, however, with each state (this isn’t a federal issue) deciding if they want to allow civil unions of same-sex couples to file joint-tax returns, hospital visitation, and all that stuff, and I would enthusiastically vote to allow that in Georgia (allow the Christian Coalition would never allow that).

All that being said, I still think our society as a whole benefits from children being raised in traditional families and our political, but more importantly our cultural leaders, should espouse and encourage heterosexuals to get married, have kids, and stay married…in that order, and there should be societal benefits to incentivize traditional lifestyles. I think that can be done without infringing upon the civil rights of homosexuals.

David in Houston

May 24th, 2012
12:50 pm

Ray Newman wrote, “There are now more than 30 states that have passed amendments or initiatives defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.”

Whenever I read that statement in print, two things come to mind. Does the author believe that if a majority of people vote for something, that somehow that makes it justified? A majority of people supported slavery at one time, a majority also believed that women shouldn’t have the right to vote, or that blacks should be considered 3/5 of a human being. When has the majority EVER been correct in assessing the civil rights of minorities? Secondly, at one time in our country’s history, 30 states had passed laws banning interracial marriage. Funny how authors like Mr. Newman fail to acknowledge that fact. Just out of curiosity, would Ray still support those bans? A majority of people had voted for them, so those bans should still be respected, right?

As for tradition and dictionary definitions (seriously?), those things change when societies become more enlightened. Traditional is not a rational basis to withhold civil rights from citizens. History has taught us that. A lesson Mr. Newman has failed to learn.

williebkind

May 24th, 2012
12:51 pm

“The Constitution with its Bill of Rights. The most foundational goal of establishing our governing system was to assure (and insure) the rights of all Americans.”

Yes it was but we have many liberals who use a far fetched interpretation of it to permit vile disgusting behavior and some criminal behavior as used under the 14th ammendment. If you use the constitution as written then the right of Americans will be insured as individuals instead for political or social change.

williebkind

May 24th, 2012
1:05 pm

“but, it highlights how slinging pejorative terms around intends to influence readers.”
Nice try but the English language is what it is. It sounds like you are one of those who interpret like they want it to mean instead of what it means. Comparing technology to human behavior is mixing oranges with insanity.

reebok

May 24th, 2012
1:10 pm

The concept of marriage has always evolved. Jacob, father of the 12 tribes of Israel, was married to 2 sisters. David, Israel’s second and greatest king, had something like 70 wives. Paul of Tarsus, the New Testament’s greatest missionary, said it would be best if men & women did not marry at all, but instead devoted themselves to building the church. In modern times, in our own country, up until 1920, women were not equal under the law to men, so marriage was by definition not the institution we know now. In fact, what many people unironically refer to as ‘traditional’ marriage has existed for less than 100 years, and even then, only in a handful of western societies. The insitituion has eveolved, as all things must to survive and stay relevant. In 50 years, people will look back and wonder why a progressive society ever treated gays as second-class citizens.

Good conversation, people with divergent views can disagree with each other respectfully. Everyone have a wonderful afternoon!

williebkind

May 24th, 2012
1:10 pm

“Whenever I read that statement in print, two things come to mind. Does the author believe that if a majority of people vote for something, that somehow that makes it justified”

I ask you does the minority have the right to change values of the majority? For instance, if you are a non believer and move into a small town of believers, do you have the right to make the entire town change their behavior because it may offend you? This happens a lot in our country and it must stop.

williebkind

May 24th, 2012
1:12 pm

“In 50 years, people will look back and wonder why a progressive society ever treated gays as second-class citizens”

This is another case of a minority group changing the moral system of a majority. I think he is wrong about this. In 50 years, they will say how many christains will we feed to the lions today.

williebkind

May 24th, 2012
1:21 pm

“Traditional is not a rational basis to withhold civil rights from citizens”

What civil rights are being witheld? Homsexuals can be homosexual! The human species will never evolved to become homosexuals. Those who are are aberations! What you and the other homosexuals are demanding is that the whole entire country recognize homosexuality as normal. I am sorry but it is not. To say a homosexual can marry is a misuse of the term marriage because marriage is defined as Man God Woman. That is God created the marriage between man and woman. You may be athiest and do not believe in God that is your right. However the union of two people not sanctioned by God is a union not a marriage. Homosexuals can union all they want. Their rights are not violated so do not violate my rights by forcing minority priviledges of my God given rights. Evolving…now that is a pejorative!

Fred

May 24th, 2012
1:22 pm

Tom B…
Child molestation is and has been here. This is from Parent and Teachers against violence website:
Georgia requires brides and grooms to be at least 16, unless the bride is pregnant, in which case all age requirements are waived. But in Alabama, girls and boys can marry at age 14 as long as their parents agree.
It’s OK for children to get married as long as there opposite sex and their parents agree… That is wrong… Children should NOT be allowed to get married.
To my point… Adults should be allowed to get married, gay… straight or whatever…

Gregory Adamson

May 24th, 2012
1:37 pm

Being gay IS normal. Do you not know how many people around you are gay? If you knew the number, you’de be VERY shocked! Being gay may not be normal in your mind, but being gay is in fact normal. There have been gay people since the beginning of time. Do you know how the term “lesbian” came about? Women who were in love with other women were sent to the island of Lesbos. Look it up.

sam

May 24th, 2012
1:37 pm

I think the American public have been so worn down by the gays’ constant barrage of publicity, parades, whining and moaning about status, and concommitantly, have been inundated in the media by so much political correctness and lack of morals and good taste and good sense as exemplified in most of the so called “reality” shows that Americans are accepting that skanks, sluts, gays and all sorts of other aberrations are simply “normal”. And maybe they are now. Is that a good thing??

Manny

May 24th, 2012
1:39 pm

Enter your comments here

Dave

May 24th, 2012
1:40 pm

“The foundation upon which our nation is built must remain strong or we will see the nation fall into ruin.” Part of the nation’s foundation was slavery. Another part? Women couldn’t vote or own property. Times change. Or, Mr. Newman, are you arguing that the Thirteenth (abolition) and Nineteenth (suffrage) Amendments have led to the ruination of the nation?

SC Guy

May 24th, 2012
1:41 pm

I strongly believe that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. Homosexuals should not be allowed to get married. Absolutely not.

native atlantan

May 24th, 2012
1:42 pm

I can’t even believe ‘Pat in GR’ could write such garbage. No one is asking you to endorse anything. The US is NOT a democracy — the majority does not rule. That’s the beauty of our form of government it ensures the rights granted by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not subverted by the majority. Unfortunately, we now have state leaders who are too spineless to uphold these principles and who allow the majority to exert their preferences via the voting booth.

Jos. A. Mustich, CT USA

May 24th, 2012
1:43 pm

Marriage equality is a civil rights issue. And religions don’t own civil marriage or women’s bodies in American. Case closed.
Cheers, Joe Mustich, CT USA
Justice of the Peace.

jacksmum

May 24th, 2012
1:48 pm

Frankly, we do not need the state to sanction a religious institution (marriage). The state should recognize only civil unions between anyone (male/female, male/male, female/female). This would allow everyone equal opportunity to enter into the union we currently define as marriage. Marriage should be the purvey of the churches. If your church allows you to have a religious ceremony to “bless” or “recognize” your civil union, then get married, if not, either choose not to marry, or choose a different church.

This simple separation would allow everyone to be legally bound to another of their choosing, and religiously bound as the individual religious institutions see fit.

SC Guy

May 24th, 2012
1:48 pm

Oh and one other thing. I’ve been reading through the comments and most seem to support gay marriage. That’s pretty hilarious and shows who really seems to read the AJC. A poll conducted in the last week or so found that just 27% of Georgians opposed gay marriage while more than double that amount opposed it!!

Shelle

May 24th, 2012
1:50 pm

I consider myself a liberal and do not agree with same sex married. So stop throwing around the idea that liberals are disgusting and have criminal behaviors. if people choose to marry the same sex that is their choice. You cannot legislate morality. I still believe one man and one woman.

SC Guy

May 24th, 2012
1:50 pm

In correction to my last comment: just 27% of Georgians SUPPORT gay marriage while more than double that OPPOSE gay marriage.

c-bear

May 24th, 2012
1:55 pm

Marriage is a simple tactic to keep people together after they breed. For the offspring’s sake. In front of their god and their friends to promise to stay together or face shane – and fear of religious dogmatic tales. If no kids are planned – no need to get married!

native atlantan

May 24th, 2012
1:58 pm

@SCGuy — Again, it is NOT what the majority wants, it about what is right. I don’t care if you call it marriage, I have no desire to have a church ceremony; however, I would like the ability to legally recognize the relationship I have with a partner of 25 years to afford us the same legal and financial rights afforded to married heterosexual couples. Civil Union — fine with me. Marriage — let the church keep it.

Chuck

May 24th, 2012
1:58 pm

The issue is once again returning to religion. Christians have a right to have a holy matrimony or whatever union they want in their churches. Don’t confuse this with civil or traditional marriages. What we are talking about here is marriage that is recognized by our government. There are rights and responsibilites that come with that piece of paper. Ever try getting survivor social security benefits if your spouse dies and you are gay? How about if you are straight and decided to go with a “separate but equal” civil union? How about in states that don’t even have civil unions much less marriage equality?

c-bear

May 24th, 2012
2:04 pm

Most married people push the one man one woman issue as a way to reinforce their belirf that their partner only does the other. lol. not only does 25% or way more end in divorce… many more are banging many others !!!mm mf fm and even family members and pets!!! what;\’s tour point? aaahhhhh!

c-bear

May 24th, 2012
2:08 pm

sorry about my typing, i’m hanging upside down. but you get my point!

reebok

May 24th, 2012
2:26 pm

It’s not like heterosexuals have done such an awesome job protecting the sanctity of marriage, anyway.

Joseph

May 24th, 2012
2:30 pm

I can’t believe that our once moral society is turning so fast into an immoral one. If someone wants to be gay fine! Just don’t try and throw it down the throat of normal thinking people. Why would society want to promote a lifestyle that could spell death? Homosexuals have a severely high rate of STD’s. Many of which could kill you. Of course this is covered up by the media and the medical profession. I always use this as part of my argument. When two men can produce a baby. I’ll be for gay marriage.

native atlantan

May 24th, 2012
2:34 pm

@Joseph — who said anything about “promoting”? Equality from a legal perspective is the notion being discussed. And, please, I’d love to hear what else “normal thinking people” think about various topics. You don’t have to accept anything, you don’t have to agree with anything, you don’t have to embrace anyone or anything.

Good Lord, the ignorance is thick today.

williebkind

May 24th, 2012
2:35 pm

“Gay marriage is not a game. It’s not a political strategy and it shouldn’t be used as a weapon to beat down the love I have for my partner.”

Oh but I disagree. It is a political strategy by the liberals to hone in on the conservatives. 31 states have defined Marrige. Why do you keep opposing it?

native atlantan

May 24th, 2012
2:36 pm

Civil Unions should be banned for gays and lesbians when divorce is banned for heterosexuals.

williebkind

May 24th, 2012
2:36 pm

“who said anything about “promoting”

As in the constant bombardment in the news by CNN and AJC?

williebkind

May 24th, 2012
2:38 pm

Why do you care about divorce? I thought uniting with your partner was the issue. I bet there are more crimes committed by heterosexuals than homosexuals. Should we ban heterosexuals? That is your logic.

native atlantan

May 24th, 2012
2:41 pm

Again, don’t give a rat’s a$$ about calling it a “marriage” only care about legal equality.

native atlantan

May 24th, 2012
2:44 pm

As some have stated — apparently allowing gays the right to marry is detrimental to the institution of heterosexual marriage. I, along with many others, would argue that divorce is much more of a threat to the institution of heterosexual marriage.

hotdog

May 24th, 2012
2:49 pm

I agree with a few other posters here that the definition of marriage should not be a moral, christian or majority vs. minority debate – it’s purely a legal issue for many couples to share the same advantages regarding insurance, inheritance, survivor’s benefits, tax breaks, etc. as traditional marriages. Most couples (hetero or not) do not need a piece of paper to show their love for one another, but for those that wish to pursue the legal and financial benefits of marriage, why should some be afforded opportunities others are not? That’s the question.

scrappy

May 24th, 2012
2:50 pm

“When two men can produce a baby. I’ll be for gay marriage.”

So, infertile hetero couples should also be banned from marriage. Perhaps that will be the next ‘constitutional amendment’ this state will pass.

Vashtai

May 24th, 2012
2:52 pm

SCOTUS will decide this basic right of humans in favor of gay people in the next couple of years. Fair is fair.

Then we move to the next item on The Gay Agenda: Removing tax free status from all those churches that practice politics. Once again, fair is fair.

Dave

May 24th, 2012
2:52 pm

Ban divorce!

native atlantan

May 24th, 2012
2:54 pm

@hotdog — well done …

DeborahinAthens

May 24th, 2012
2:55 pm

Ray Newman, our nation was NOT founded on one man, one woman marriage, you narrow minded creep. Our nation was founded on the right of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Marriage, contrary to what Right Wing religious fundamentalists keep puking up, is an artificial social construct created, not because God came down from a mountain and told the Jews they needed to get married, but because, as human beings stopped being roving, nomadic tribes of hunter-gatherers and settled on land, there had to be a way to determined how that land passed to the next generation. If marriage were a normal state for humans, we would not have so many spouses that cheat! What I love about you guys is that you keep bringing this issue back to your religious beliefs. The irony, is that the blowhards that screech the loudest about the sanctity of marriage are usually the ones that screw around on their spouses. And before you Nasty Normans start spewing your bile, I am a heterosexual who has been married to the same man for 41 years. My sister and her partner have been in a relationship for 22 years and have two amazing, intelligent, wonderful kids. One Just graduated. She is in the Honor Society. The younger son has scored one of the highest grades on the SAT while freshman in HS, and helps out with various charities in town. These are good, caring people that deserve to be married with all the legal benefits. Remember the real reason for our country’s founding– life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Newman, you make me want to vomit.

williebkind

May 24th, 2012
2:56 pm

hotdog

May 24th, 2012
2:49 pm
I agree with your point but why not change the law to accept unions with those benefits instead of changing the definition of marriage. Do you know that enough states have constitutional laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman? Do you know that is enough to change the constitution of the United States. Do the homosexuals really want to go that far? Also, those who say they are heterosexual and are for gay marriage are homosexuals tool. It is like the old maxim, “It does not matter if you pitch or catch, it is still the same game”.

williebkind

May 24th, 2012
2:57 pm

“Ray Newman, our nation was NOT founded on one man, one woman marriage, you narrow minded creep”

Yes it was!

scrappy

May 24th, 2012
2:57 pm

“31 states have defined Marrige. Why do you keep opposing it?”

Just because 31 states have defined something does not make it correct, or legal, nor does it make it right.

Sorry to the older folks posting, but you might as well give up, in another 10-20 years when you are no longer voting, these ‘amendments’ (if they are still on the books) will just be voted out by the newer generations that already agree there is nothing wrong with allowing same sex marriages.

williebkind

May 24th, 2012
2:58 pm

“Homosexuality is a reproductive birth defect”

Now I have never thought of that! It is something that needs further investigation.

DeborahinAthens

May 24th, 2012
2:59 pm

Com9600, you are a sick, sick POS. Let’s hope you don’t find a poor, ignorant woman stupid enough to marry you and procreate.

be u

May 24th, 2012
2:59 pm

The majority cannot and should not make decisions on the rights of the minority. Period. Those of you who think that you know what is right for our country should seriously look in the mirror, I am sure that you do not have a perfect life, perfect family and follow the bible without indiscretions. But the whole thing about marriage equality and those who oppose it is ignorant. You cannot use the argument of procreation. Gays and Lesbians CAN procreate, if they choose to do so and many have. If marriage is based on that alone then it doesn’t hold water. My grandmother could not procreate after her 6th, 7th and 8th marriage. But she was allowed to get married. Society doesn’t promote lifestyles. Being gay is not a lifestyle choice any more than being straight. This is just a wimpy, whiny, and ignorant stance. If you want to start quoting a scripture in the bible about homosexuals, then first read your bible. The scripture that is used to condemn gays is in Leviticus. But have you read some of the other scriptures that are never mentioned or even thought of as something that society should uphold? Try:
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her … and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel’s father shall say … these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. … But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother … Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city … And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. … And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones…. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-56

These are just a few. You cannot pick and choose your bible versus as to the ones you will uphold as it fits in your life and then throw out the ones you don’t like. This is taking the rights of your brothers, sisters, sons, daughters and family members and denying them the opportunity for love and family as you automatically take for granted. No ONE has the right. We do not have only one religion, give it up and do what is right for once.

williebkind

May 24th, 2012
3:02 pm

“Just because 31 states have defined something does not make it correct, or legal, nor does it make it right.”

If we make a U.S. constitution law to define marriage, it will solve the problem. You are hoping it will happen like abortion and become law by judges–which is not constitutional.

williebkind

May 24th, 2012
3:07 pm

“The majority cannot and should not make decisions on the rights of the minority. Period”

Liberals do it all the time…have you forgotten. Oh and read this!

The Old Testament clearly condemns male homosexuality along with adultery, bestiality, incest and any sex outside the covenant of marriage. The New Testament does not lessen this concern but amplifies it.
The New Testament condemns both male and female homosexual behavior. The Apostle Paul, for example, points specifically to homosexuality as evidence of human sinfulness. His point is not merely that homosexuals are sinners but that all humanity has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Some people then ask, “What about slavery and polygamy?” In the first place, the New Testament never commands slavery, and it prizes freedom and human dignity. For this reason, the abolitionist movement was largely led by Christians, armed with Christian conviction.
The Old Testament did allow for polygamy, though it normalizes heterosexual monogamy. In the New Testament, Jesus made clear that marriage was always meant to be one man and one woman.
“Have you not read that He who created them made them male and female?” Jesus asked in Matthew. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” For this reason, Christians have opposed polygamy on biblical grounds.
Why are Christians so concerned with homosexuality? In the first place, that question is answered by the simple fact that it is the most pressing moral question of our times. Christians must be concerned about adultery, pornography, injustice, dishonesty and everything the Bible names as sin. But when the phone rings with a call from a reporter these days, the question I am asked is never adultery or pornography. It is about homosexuality
Christians who are seriously committed to the authority of the Bible have no choice but to affirm all that the Bible teaches, including its condemnation of homosexuality. At the same time, our confidence is that God condemns those things that will bring his human creatures harm and commands those things that will lead to true human happiness and flourishing.
In other words, we understand that the Bible condemns all forms of sin because our Creator knows what is best for us. The Bible names sins specifically so that each of us will recognize our own sinfulness and look to Christ for salvation and the forgiveness of our sins.

be u

May 24th, 2012
3:09 pm

Please, somebody explain how two men or two women getting married is going to affect any straight couples marriage? How? Seriously people, don’t be so ignorant.

native atlantan

May 24th, 2012
3:09 pm

You can define marriage any way you would like…..we are only asking for the same legal rights. Is that so wrong?

native atlantan

May 24th, 2012
3:11 pm

Oh boy….apparently the Bible trumps all legal rights.

jconservative

May 24th, 2012
3:12 pm

From the 14th Amendment:

“No State shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The several federal court cases now on the way to the Supreme Court are all based on this clause in the Constitution.

mambo

May 24th, 2012
3:14 pm

Homosexuality ain’t normal. It’s abnormal whether it is learned or in the DNA. What’s the next thing that liberals are ok with, marrying your dog or cat?

williebkind

May 24th, 2012
3:17 pm

More info:

1 Timothy 1:8-11 (NASB): But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

native atlantan

May 24th, 2012
3:21 pm

Again, the Bible appears to trump the Constitution and Bill of Rights…..

Walter

May 24th, 2012
3:22 pm

“I am saddened we have come to the place in our nation where cultural changes are now impacting behavior more than the traditional building blocks that have served us well throughout history.” Our culture is not changing our behavior. There are no more gay people today than there were 50 years ago. The difference is society’s realization that they are normal people that have the same rights as “straight” people. Our culture is progressing as it gains knowledge, it’s not making people gay, that’s absurd! Our culture is always evolving as it gains knowledge – look at how society has changed it’s view of women’s rights or women in the work place. The culture didn’t force women to vote or start working. People made those changes and society wised up and realized women should probably have the same rights as men.

williebkind

May 24th, 2012
3:23 pm

And again:

Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus, which form part of the Holiness code, contain the following verses:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.[3](Leviticus 18:22 KJV)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.[4](Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

“ Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, arsenokoitēs, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)[28] ”

The word arsenokoitēs (ἀρσενοκοίτης) has challenged scholars for centuries, and has been variously rendered as “abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV), “sodomites” (YLT), or “men who practice homosexuality.” Greek ἄῤῥην / ἄρσην [arrhēn / arsēn means "male", and κοίτην [koitēn] “bed,” with a sexual connotation”:[28] Paul’s use of the word in 1 Corinthians is the earliest example of the term; its only other use is in a similar list of wrongdoers given (probably by the same author) in 1 Timothy 1:9–10:

“ Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, arsenokoitēs, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. (1 Timothy 1:8–10)

I think that is enough unless you have a conviction other than the forefathers of this country.

David in Houston

May 24th, 2012
3:39 pm

williebkind wrote: “I ask you does the minority have the right to change values of the majority? For instance, if you are a non believer and move into a small town of believers, do you have the right to make the entire town change their behavior because it may offend you?”

Values are not civil rights; and whose values are your referring to? Yours? Your neighbors? The Muslim couple that lives down the street? How exactly does the civil marriage of a gay couple (that you don’t even know) change the behavior of an entire town? The town won’t be allowed to foster hatred and bigotry at gay people anymore? Is that your problem? Marriage equality has been legal in Massachusetts for over 8 YEARS. The “behavior” of straight people is exactly the same: straight men are marrying straight women, and sometimes they have children together. Same-sex marriage doesn’t change any of that.

hotdog

May 24th, 2012
3:40 pm

williebkind:
Yes, I’m well aware of the state laws and how they define marriage within their juisdictions, but as you said, each state has made an effort to amend their constitutions accordingly. That means another effort can also reverse it. And just because I’m a married heterosexual male doesn’t mean I don’t recognize inequality when I see it. Just like being white doesn’t automatically make me opposed to civil rights. Having an open mind is a choice, not a birth defect.

If applying all legal and financial benefits to civil unions makes them equal to marriage in the eyes of the law, why distinguish them? Why have two sets of laws to govern the same thing? Wouldn’t that just create more confusion and public debt accommodating the needs and requirements of additional laws, amendments, balloting, promotions and legal actions?

David in Houston

May 24th, 2012
3:44 pm

williebkind: Quoting the Bible is pointless. Non-religious straight couples are permitted to marry in our country… or did you not know that? No one has EVER been required to be religious in order to get married. So all your Bible quotes are meaningless. Did you also know that the United States is NOT a Christian theocracy? If you did know that, then why are using your chosen religion to dictate civil laws in our country? If a Muslim were to preach the Koran as the basis for our laws, you would be up in arms about it.

williebkind

May 24th, 2012
3:46 pm

“society’s realization that they are normal people that have the same rights as “straight” people.”

And there lies the problem “normal people”.

williebkind

May 24th, 2012
3:48 pm

David in Houston

May 24th, 2012
3:44 pm
Way to walk in the middle of a conversation David in Houston. My reply was from someone who was using the bible contexts.

Steven

May 24th, 2012
3:51 pm

@williebekind….Thank you for the scriptural references.

Our culture in the USA is being lead by a minority unnatural affection. It is just plain NASTY for sexes to be attracted to each/other or the same sex. We kick a dog off our leg when he humps on it. You certainly don’t see with consistency the homosexual attraction in the animal kingdom. When Gay couples want to have aq baby, they have to submit to the Glory of God by uing the opposite for their seed. I’m soooooooooooooooooo happy that I get it!

williebkind

May 24th, 2012
3:54 pm

David in Houston

May 24th, 2012
3:39 pm
Where in the constitution does it talk about sex? The bill of rights?

Jack

May 24th, 2012
3:57 pm

Marriage between a man and another man ain’t right. I don’t need a Constitution nor a Bible to tell me that.

Don Abernethy

May 24th, 2012
4:05 pm

READ THE BIBLE. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN. MOST ALL OF THE PEOPLE PUSHING FOR GAY RIGHTS ARE NOT BORN AGAIN CHRISTIANS. THEY MAY THINK THEY ARE CHRISTIANS BUT THE BIBLE SAYS THEY ARE NOT AND THEY CAN NOT TWIST THE BIBLE TO MAKE IT CONFORM TO THEIR VIEWS.

[...] President Obama …Poll: Majority of black Marylanders back same-sex marriageWashington BladeGay marriage: About time or unnatural?Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)Obama cannot be a Christian and support same-sex marriageThe [...]

[...] President Obama …Poll: Majority of black Marylanders back same-sex marriageWashington BladeGay marriage: About time or unnatural?Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)Obama cannot be a Christian and support same-sex marriageThe [...]