Tide swells on behalf of gay marriage
The Vermont Legislature, by a vote of 100-49, today overrode the veto of its governor and legalized gay marriage in that state.
The vote comes less than a week after the Iowa Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling that the Iowa Constitution protects the right of gay couples to wed.
“We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective,” the Iowa justices ruled. “The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification.”
The tide is building. It will reach different places at different times, but it is happening far more quickly than even many advocates of gay marriage would have hoped. And 20 years from now, more than a few politicians will have a hard time explaining why they once tried to prevent such an obvious step toward justice.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2009 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
225 comments Add your comment
I Report/ You Whine
April 7th, 2009
5:58 pm
There is no better subject than this one to turn voters against democrats, most Americans are not sexual degenerates, nor do they want their children exposed to other people’s perversions.
Go for it.
jon
April 7th, 2009
5:59 pm
I have solutions to most of the world’s problems but this is one of the easy ones.
The government should get out of the marriage business all together. No legal penalties or priviledges should be attached to an agreement between consenting adults of any gender. Any two persons that want to “get married” can go to a church and say vows and be married in the eyes of their religion and if they are of legal age to execute a contract, they can draw up a simple contract between them to decide things like survivorship benefits, shared property, whatever. Govenment can just get out of the way and let people live their lives as they see fit with the exception of overseeing the civil courts when disputes would be settled, i.e. the contracts enforced. And the thumpers can leave the judgement of the sanctity of the institution to the all-knowing.
Mrs. Godzilla
April 7th, 2009
6:19 pm
FABULOUS!
rcs
April 7th, 2009
6:21 pm
“And 20 years from now, more than a few politicians will have a hard time explaining why they once tried to prevent such an obvious step toward justice.”
Maybe because the majority of their constituents are against it?
Even California voters voted it down – twice.
Midori
April 7th, 2009
6:22 pm
let me echo Mrs G:
FABULOUSLY FABULOUS!!!
Andy,
you know all about degenerates, don’t you?
I know scores of gays, and each and every one of them has more class and political savvy than you ever will.
Plus, they don’t go around calling people stupid names when they can’t form a intelligent thought. Not that they have problems forming intelligent thoughts.
@@
April 7th, 2009
6:23 pm
I absolutely agree with jon on this one. It’s happening right now in many states.
If the far-left wants to continue pushing this issue as “same sex” marriage, they’ll lose the support of many who would otherwise, offer no resistance.
I thought compromise was supposed to rule this new Hope&Change era.
Midori
April 7th, 2009
6:25 pm
This is just another blow to the GOP’s arsenal of wedge issues.
Drip,
Drip,
Drip.
You guys are running out of distractions.
FAST.
Americans by and large are decent people, who want to see others treated decently as well.
Midori
April 7th, 2009
6:38 pm
Mrs. G,
have you checked out the Ed Show on MSNBC?
If you haven’t you should — Big Ed is pretty good.
Very pro union; pro worker, anti lunatic conservative — all with a big, booming voice.
Steve
April 7th, 2009
6:39 pm
The tide is swelling for gay marriage? How do you justify that statement? Because one of America’s most liberal Democratic states which already had civil unions voted to legalize gay marriage and because a court packed with judicial tyrants rejected the law of the state and Democrats are trying to block the people from being able to vote on the issue? As usual the liberals are claiming far more victory than they really have!
DB, Gwinnettian
April 7th, 2009
6:41 pm
jon @5.59, while that sounds fine in theory (and I’ve leaned that way myself sometimes when considering how best to handle this issue), I believe the practical problem with it is that the term “marriage” and “spouse” and such is enmeshed in so much of our legal code that it’d be a major league PitA to retrofit it.
@@
April 7th, 2009
6:44 pm
Did the Vermont voters ever pass a law similar to Jessica or Megan’s Law? The laws that would protect children from child molesters? I’m not inferring that gay people are pedophiles, it’ll just help me gain insight into Vermont voters’ priorities.
Another question. Hasn’t Vermont enjoyed civil unions for going on nine years now?
Pushing the envelope…give an inch, they’ll demand a mile.
DigDug
April 7th, 2009
6:48 pm
@Steve, because 1) this was only the 7th veto override in VTs history, and the latest one in over 20 years, and 2) the author of the IA opinion is not a ‘judicial tyrant’ but rather a republican judge appointed by a conservative republican.
Your side is losing. State by state (in BOTH courts AND now LEGISLATURE!). Tick tick tick. Gay marriage is coming – whether you like it or not
Ta-ta.
jon
April 7th, 2009
6:51 pm
“”I believe the practical problem with it is that the term “marriage” and “spouse” and such is enmeshed in so much of our legal code that it’d be a major league PitA to retrofit it.”
The sooner we start the sooner we will be done.
Bud Wiser
April 7th, 2009
6:53 pm
Wow, with all that is going on in the world, and in this nation, this is one really relevant topic. Talk about appeasement of the far out left, I give you GAY MARRIAGE! Now isn’t that just going to get the nutz talking…..
More interesting: An Israeli doctor says ‘Medicine in my country is so advanced that we
can take a kidney out of one man, put it in another, and have him looking for work in six weeks.’
A German doctor says ‘That is nothing; we can take a lung out of one person, put it in another, and have him looking for work in four weeks.’
A Russian doctor says ‘In my country, medicine is so advanced that we can take half a heart out of one person, put it in another, and have them both looking for work in two weeks.’
The ILLINOIS doctor, not to be outdone, says ‘You guys are way behind, we recently took a man with no brains out of ILLINOIS , put him in the White House for TWO MONTHS, and now half the WORLD is looking for work.’
AND: I recently asked my friend’s little 5 year old girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, ‘If you were President what would be the first thingyou would do? ‘
She replied, ‘I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people.’ Her parents beamed.
‘Wow…what a worthy goal.’ I told her, ‘ But you don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I’ll pay you $50.
Then I’ll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house. ‘
She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, ‘ Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?
I said, “She sounds like a true Republican to me.”
Her parents still aren’t speaking to me.
Ray
April 7th, 2009
6:54 pm
Butt Pilots of the world unite!!! With Barney Frank as their chief, who would have a problem with consenting adults banding together for equal rights. California, one of the most liberal and eclectic states in the union has twice rejected the idea of same sex unions. Who could imagine a state full of San Francisco Pilots rejecting Harvey Milk’s edict. Nationwide, about 70% of Americans reject the idea of same sex unions. What would that have you believe about what the average American feels about the idea of gay marriage?
DB, Gwinnettian
April 7th, 2009
6:54 pm
“The sooner we start the sooner we will be done.”
Well, you and @@ get right on that, and let us know how it goes…
@@
April 7th, 2009
6:56 pm
From Roe v Wade to destroying, in the most inhumane way, a viable human.
Give them a fetus in its earliest stages of development, they’ll later demand an infant.
Tsk….tsk….tsk
Chris
April 7th, 2009
6:57 pm
Perhaps @@ didn’t get the memo.
Gays and Lesbians are going ahead with the whole gay marriage thing.
It’s not up to you. It never was. Get over it. You lost. And soon every single state in this great nation will follow suit.
Abnd then, @@, you can go cry in your f’ing soup, ya fool.
Chris
April 7th, 2009
6:59 pm
And to another fool, Ray, who so wisely stated: “What would that have you believe about what the average American feels about the idea of gay marriage?”
Isn’t that the whole point, moron?
Let me break it down for you…
Our government is not allowed to treat people differently. They are not allowed to offer you a right that they don’t offer to ALL.
It’s really very basic common sense.
Ain’t it, fool?
Class of '98
April 7th, 2009
7:00 pm
I’m straight. I’m still waiting for someone to tell me ONE SINGLE SOLITARY RIGHT that I have that a homosexual man does not have.
Any takers?
Ray
April 7th, 2009
7:00 pm
Chris,
I doubt that some states will sanction the union of same sex couples. It IS up to us. It always was.
DB, Gwinnettian
April 7th, 2009
7:02 pm
Nationwide, about 70% of Americans reject the idea of same sex unions.
Flat-out horse crap. You add those who favor civil unions and those who favor equal marriage rights and that’s more like 70%. You’re lucky to get a third who continue to say “no legal recognition” for same sex couples these days.
Read the polls and weep.
Bud Wiser
April 7th, 2009
7:03 pm
I know the elction is over and all, and that the left has absolutely nothing to say about this:
A seething federal judge dismissed the corruption conviction of former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens on Tuesday and took the rare and serious step of ordering a criminal investigation into prosecutors who poisoned the case. “In nearly 25 years on the bench, I’ve never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I’ve seen in this case,” U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said.
Just more hope and chains gone very very wrong.
Chris
April 7th, 2009
7:04 pm
Dear Clasof ‘98,
You have the right to marry the person you love. I, until quite recently, did not.
Only an idiot could deny that. Oh, sorry. Forgot where I was for a minute.
You anotha fool, ya fool.
DigDug
April 7th, 2009
7:05 pm
@Ray, and at the time of Loving v. Virginia, about 90% of people disapproved of inter-racial marriage. I mean, can you imagine if we had allowed states to vote on segregation? Oh, that’s right, they did. Brown v. Board of Education, table for one, you may be seated now.
Bud Wiser
April 7th, 2009
7:05 pm
Maybe I will change the phrase “hope and change” to “dopes with chains”.
Bosch
April 7th, 2009
7:06 pm
I’ve never seen why this is such a big deal. As I’ve never heard an intelligent explanation from those opposed as to why they are against it.
Ray
April 7th, 2009
7:08 pm
Chris,
You don’t need to break it down for me. I am not a fool nor a moron. I happen to believe that a family survives somewhat better with a male and a female in the mix. Mothers and fathers seem to be the way that things have usually worked best and I think that it will continue to be so. To call me names and be so vindictive in your rhetoric must mean that you just don’t get what the majority of America says about gay and lesbian unions as they relate to raising children and providing an atmosphere of sanity to what a family home is all about. Try to reply to my post instead of being such a jerk. It would do more for your point of view.
DigDug
April 7th, 2009
7:08 pm
@Bud Wiser, actually you’re wrong. It was a DEM AG, Eric Holder, that recommended the case be dismissed, which was agreed by the current administration. It was the Bush DoJ that f-ed up that case, just like everything else they touched (economy, afghan war, Iraq war, banking, mortgages, yada yada yada).
It’s gonna take Obama a while to raise the Titanic that is George ‘nucular strategery’ Bush.
Class of '98
April 7th, 2009
7:09 pm
Chris,
I don’t have any rights you don’t have, no matter how many times you call me a fool.
Deal with it.
DigDug
April 7th, 2009
7:13 pm
@Bosch, that’s because there IS no intelligent explanation. The opponents just beat their (cherry-picked) bible over eveyone elses head. Funny how they haven’t put up legislation to ban Red Lobster patrons from getting married, isn’t it?
Chris
April 7th, 2009
7:14 pm
Keep telling yourself that, Ray. If that brings you some sort of comfort. Keep telling yourself that.
Your lack of embarrasment at believing that you are worthy of rights that others are not only shows that you don’t have the good sense God gave a billy-goat.
Civil Rights matters have always and will always be decided by the courts. People like you guarantee that for eternity.
Heterosexuals spent 50 million ‘protecting’ marriage in California. Yet most of your public schools can’t even afford books for the students. They spent nearly 50 million ‘protecting’ marriage. And yet, our divorce rate, particualrly among the ‘religious’ continues to soar over 50%. They spent nearly 50 million ‘protecting’ marriage. And yet NEVER has ANY initiative been on a ballot restricting the way 50%+ of them abuse and degrade the institution of marriage. They spent nearly 50 million ‘protecting’ marriage. And yet, NO religious group is pouring money into Propositions that would remove rights of Heterosexuals to abuse each other, cheat on each other, marry each other at the Vegas drive-thru for 24 hours before divorcing. So I ask the American Heterosexual this: How do you expect to ‘protect marriage’ against ‘the gays’ when you don’t even protect it from YOURSELVES. The American Heterosexual’s hypocrisy is PALPABLE across this nation.
And Ray, you still a fool, ya fool.
Road Scholar
April 7th, 2009
7:16 pm
Bravo! Midori @6:22.
AmVet
April 7th, 2009
7:17 pm
Ahh, the pious teeth gnashing of the christo-fascists and conserva-losers about those perverted sodomites.
As always, for sheer stupidity there are several challengers here amongst our regular reich-wing brethren, but that first one pretty much sums up the thinking of such bigots and trolls.
Other than not-so-veiled references to the Uppity One, they really have no class of Americans left to demonize or terrorize, so that leaves the gays and lesbians.
But alas, as much as the reactionaries in the dying Republiconned Party hate it, it is 2009 and not 1959.
And seriously, who pray tell, gives a f&ck what these morons think.
Bosch
April 7th, 2009
7:18 pm
DigDug
I feel the problem is that marriage is enmeshed as a religious and legal thing – most people can tell you why they oppose it based on their religious beliefs, but not legally.
Common law marriage is legal, and people can get married without religious representation, or anyone can get ordained on the Internet and perform a religious ceremony of marriage – those are all “legal.”
There are too many legal precedents that have come from the Civil Rights bill such as sexual harassment laws and segregation, it’s hard for opponents of gay marriage to argue this based on laws – so they feel that an actual amendment to the Constitution is the only avenue – which in my opinion, is absurd.
Angie
April 7th, 2009
7:19 pm
Well “Class of ‘98″ if you do very little homework you can find a lot of things “Straights” have the right to but “Gay’s” don’t. If you just want one related to marriage how about the right not to have your spouce testify on the stand against you. If Gays go home to their spouce and talk about anything it can be put on the stand because they have no protections. If you are straight and married you can not be required to testify against your spouce.
I would love to sit and tell you what it is like being gay. Always watching what you say, how you act, even if you are totally out you still have to be carefull. One wrong word you could lose your job. Get beat up, or harrashed. I have no rights. I have to be carefull.
HaHa
April 7th, 2009
7:23 pm
To all bigamists, trigamists, incestualist lovers, beastalitists, and pedophiles…..Rejoice, rejoice, rejoice I tell you!!!…..Our homosexual brethren have given us hope!!!!!
DB, Gwinnettian
April 7th, 2009
7:24 pm
Class @ 7.00, beyond the obvious (that’d be the right to marry) are you somehow unaware of that whole “right to serve in the armed forces” deal, that’s still an issue?
N.J,
April 7th, 2009
7:25 pm
This is totally unlikely to blow up in the faces of Democrats. Especially now that it was not a COURT that made the decision but was in fact a duly elected legislature.
The argument made by the right wing against allowing gays thev right to marriage are all based on a simply falsehood. Marriage is no longer a religious institution (in fact it never has been a religious institution on a world wide basis, or even in the “Christian West”) It has always been a civil institution which was required to follow the legal traditions of the nations it existed in. Unfortunately conservatives have forgotten that unlike nations that existed in the past, America has a unique history in which all laws are supposed to applied to all citizens equally. You cannot create a law which gives rights to one set of citizens that denies access to the rights granted under those laws to another. If you allow one set of people access to a marriage license, you have to allow it to another. You can limit the NUMBER of people who enter into this legal contract, but you cant limit any other aspect of it and still remain constitutional.
This does not interfere with states rights either as in the 1920’s the U.S. government passed harmonization legislation so that one state did not differ in the rights and obligations that marriage conveyed as well as the responsibilities that were involved.
Marriage laws in the United States had little to do with child welfare, another absurd argument made by the right. The primary concern was property and inheritance (probate) law.
Actually its time to return to the intention of the founding fathers and get religion OUT OF GOVERNMENT.
Bosch
April 7th, 2009
7:26 pm
And I agree with Chris – when opponents of gay marriage start crying out against divorce, drive-in marriages, common law marriages, not being able to get married at a courthouse, and having children out of wedlock, then their arguments fall on my deaf ears.
Midori
April 7th, 2009
7:27 pm
Hi, Boschie
Bud Wiser: in your zeal to sling more mud and feces, you obviously missed an earlier conversation about Stephens in which the majority here (which includes “libs”) hailed that decision.
I Report/ You Whine
April 7th, 2009
7:27 pm
Barack Obozo and Hair Plugs Biden will cut taxes for 95% of working families, and provide at least three times as much tax relief for middle class families as John McCain and Sarah Palin.-Oblahma.com
Federal tax on cigarettes increasing 62 cents-USNews
Following 20 years of declining smoking rates in the United States, the percentage of people who smoke has reached a steady plateau of about 25 percent.
Well, that was quick.
Ray
April 7th, 2009
7:28 pm
Chris,
I sometime feel that billygoats have more sense than either of us. They at least choose members of the opposite sex to breed with. Where in the animal kingdom does homosexuality exist except in the adult world of make believe. One of the main reasons for man and woman to exist is procreation. Without that, we as a civilization will wither and die. Most Americans believe this, despite your inflammatory rhetoric and your demented views. I admit, our system of heterosexual marriage is not without it’s warts, but it seems to be the best alternative. Were you raised in a homosexual home? Are you looking to get married in Vermont? Why the roaring commentary about something that most of America does not approve of? I admit that we should be able to do pretty much as we please as long as we don’t abuse the rights of others. But there is a limit. And for that, I am not a fool, anymore than 70% of Americans who just don’t buy it.
Midori
April 7th, 2009
7:28 pm
off topic: a heart warming story.
Good girl, Sophie!!!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article6047557.ece
N.J,
April 7th, 2009
7:29 pm
P.S.
I would say that Vermonts actions are showing up a sort of national rebellion against the role the Religious Right has played in politics over the past 30 years. Most polls show that the religious right, which started coming to power with Reagan is simply dying off and that the generations who will be controlling government and the economy who are now entering their 30’s have far more socially liberal values than their parents generation did. The religious right was a reaction to the counterculture of the 60’s, the current rebellion is one in which the children and grandchildren of those who rebelled against the counterculture are rebelling against the values of the religious right.
DigDug
April 7th, 2009
7:30 pm
@Bosch, I agree. Opponents don’t know or understand the law/constitution (e.g., equal protection clause), so they default to screaming “activist judge.”
But in the end, it really is only an amendment to the U.S. Consitution that will serve the opponents’ needs, because otherwise that pesky ‘ole full faith and credit clause is going to ruin their day via negation of DOMA. Of course, such an amendment is virtually impossible, so gay marriage is coming to all 50 states whether they like it or not – just ask Justice Scalia
DB, Gwinnettian
April 7th, 2009
7:31 pm
Angie, be nice to our poor homophobes. They know it’s over–they know this time, a year from now, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell will be history, and there’ll likely be comprehensive anti-employment discrimination legislation in the works, and marriage equality will be the law of the land in more states as well.
Far from what was foolishly asserted by Whiner @ 5.58, long term, this is the mother of all loser issues these days for the right wing. The more they push it in hopes of goosing some holdout red state’s turnout, the more the rest of the nation will find it gross, and continue to punish their national candidates as reactionary and out of touch.
I know as a straight guy it’s easy for me to say this, but hang in there. A change is gonna come.
Later, all.
N.J,
April 7th, 2009
7:31 pm
One of the founding fathers of the Religious Right, did an article in Time magazine last year in which he admitted their time was over and that they were not able to meet their goals fast enough to prevent a counter revolution that is occuring in the up and coming generations who are even more liberal than the 60’s generation was.
Mrs. Godzilla
April 7th, 2009
7:32 pm
How about we stop calling it same sex marriage…..everybody knows that after you get married it’s the same sex. Over and over and over.
ba dum dum
DigDug
April 7th, 2009
7:34 pm
@Ray, “Why the roaring commentary about something that most of America does not approve of?”
For the same reason many people ‘roared’ about desegregation and inter-racial marriage, of which a far greater percentage of the population disapproved…so courts had to clunk them over the head with the equal protection clause. Aspirin anyone?
N.J,
April 7th, 2009
7:39 pm
I think the person suggesting that billygoats have more sense than people has not closely watched billygoats.
There is not a creature or species on earth that does not display homosexual behavior and does so regularly. With almost alarming regularity and there are cultures of humans on earth in which homosexual behavior is the norm and where heterosexual relations are only grudgingly engaged in when procreation is necessary to keep the population large enough for the socioeconomic elements of the society to be sustained. These occur largely in areas where land is restricted like islands, but historically the Spartans are a good example of a highly aggressive and warlike society where homosexual behavior was the norm and encouraged as a means of bonding the warrior who would fight harder to protect a partner than merely a comrade in arms. History is full of such examples and some of the most sucessful military states in world history, particularly western history have had a tradition of homosexuality among their warrior classes.
It is quite natural in nature, something that homophobes fail to pay attention to.
Chris
April 7th, 2009
7:39 pm
Oh Ray, you’re so silly!
And apparently ‘Google’ —-> Search field —–> “homosexuality in the animal kingdom” never occured to you, ya fool.
Ray is dumb. And probably thinks Google is part of our solar system or something.
And herein lies my problem, Ray. Idiots like YOU are minding MY business.
Jeez, you’re a fool. DO some research. Homosexuality is found in nearly EVERY species of animal.
I’d stick out my tongue and say I hate you, but, well…
AmVet
April 7th, 2009
7:41 pm
N.J, well said at 7:29.
And there’s the rub for the Immoral Minority of the Falwells, Robertsons, Haggards, et al.
After decades of shiite-ing the bed, they pretty much know they’re toast as a social, cultural and political force in this country, but they ain’t goin’ down quietly.
And I for one happen to enjoy the grand spectacle of their very public death throes.
In fifty years they will be a relevant as Joe McCarthy is today…
Mrs. Godzilla
April 7th, 2009
7:45 pm
Ray
Here’s an interesting piece from the National Geographic on homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
My dogs are multisexual. They’ll hump the ottoman.
Stacey
April 7th, 2009
7:46 pm
It may seem off abit, but since I see here that the majority is in favor of gay marriage having a legal standing.
What are opinions on polygamy and if oppossed to polygamy and in favor of gay marriage, please give reasons.
I feel sexual orientation is a decision we all make be it a conscious decision or not. I honestly feel that all of our sexual preferances are made the same way. Some guys for instance like different aspects of a woman’s body. Some guys like blondes and tohers bruenette for example. Just as some women are attracted to tall men, some short, while others like big men and some like skinny.
I feel either all sexual orientations should be respected or none should.
What say ye all?
rcs
April 7th, 2009
7:46 pm
mrs g @ 7:32
good one!
lwwmm7
April 7th, 2009
7:46 pm
Gay people should absolutely get married, they deserve to be miserable just like the rest of us.
Stacey
April 7th, 2009
7:50 pm
No research or documentaion but have heard from those who would know that dogs hump things to establish superiority
Midori
April 7th, 2009
7:55 pm
Stacey,
that’s quite a leap there.
please explain what polygamy has to do with homosexuality.
I have several homosexual couples/friends who are absolutely devoted to each other, and have been together longer than most straight people I know.
Midori
April 7th, 2009
7:56 pm
I might add, Stacey, that polygamy is nothing more than another device men use to control and abuse women.
DigDug
April 7th, 2009
7:57 pm
@Stacey – the basic point is that heterosexuals are currently allowed to marry the one adult they love, in any state. In contrast, homosexuals can marry (or will be able to marry) the one adult they love in only 4 states. Thus, in 46 states, two-person marriage law is not applied equally to homosexuals and to heterosexuals.
By contrast, in NO state is a heterosexual allowed to marry more than one adult. The same is true of homosexuals. Therefore, the ban against polygamy is applied equally to the two groups, i.e., heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Soon to be mentioned, I am sure, is the ‘ole “well then I should be able to marry my dog” argument brought up by gay marriage opponents. Like above, currently no one can marry their dog, in any state. But, *if* there were laws permitting heterosexuals to marry a dog (or a tree, or their car, or any of the other things angry heteros bring up), then if applied equally under the consitution, then homosexuals should also be allowed to marry their car, or dog, or tree, etc.
The only people who bring up polygamy scare tactics are angry heterosexuals, even though no one has proposed it and surely no such law would pass legislatures. But if for some odd reason it did, then it should not be restricted to heterosexuals (i.e., applied unequally) like two-person marriage has been until very recently.
Angie
April 7th, 2009
7:59 pm
If I got married to the woman I love how would it affect the straight people?
We currently live a very ordanary life. We get up go to work, come home cook dinner, watch tv, go to bed and do it again. Weekends we work around the house or run errans.
I would love to have the right to be on her insurance, file joint taxes, not worry about “what if something happens or one of us”, not worry about if I could make dicisions on her behalf, visit her in the hospital, would love to know I don’t have to move or lose the house if something happened to her.
OK I can go on and on but you get the idea. So how does giving me the right to marry affect straight people?
@@
April 7th, 2009
8:06 pm
Chris:
Your 6:57 was totally uncalled for. Where is this tolerance you, yourself, demand?
I can count 9 people I know — some acquaintances, some friends — who are gay. 7 guys, 2 females. 4 of the guys are in monogamous relationships. That’s 2 and 2, not all four together. The 2 women are in a monogamous relationship with children from previous heterosexual relationships.
When I find myself at a social gathering, the conversation will sometimes veer off into politics. I’m not shy, I ask where they stand on same-sex marriage. None of them see it as a necessity. I remember asking one of the guys “Why?” His response was “I live my life as I please. There’s no room in my life for hysterics.”
Civil Unions — it’s a good thing.
Now go peddle your outrage elsewhere, dude/dudette. I’m not buyin’ it.
HaHa
April 7th, 2009
8:09 pm
As a devoted polygamist, I DEMAND my right to marry my 18 b!tches. My sexual behavior is no buisness of the state. My practices are no more deviant than my neighbors Bob and (K)Neal.
It is my God (oops, I mean, atheist) given right and I demand to be recognized and given EQUAL treatment and privileges under the law. My fight is no less noble than the struggles of MLK, Mandela, Ghandi, and Liberace the Pianist.
We polygamists will overcome, we will overcome!!! Free at last, free at last, thank God (oops, again) almighty, FREE AT LAST!!!!
Mrs. Godzilla
April 7th, 2009
8:12 pm
Stacey
Your question about homosexuality and polygamy is a good one.
I just can’t answer it.
It’s still practiced around the world and has been since biblical times. I’m not crazy about it. Too harem-ish for me.
Will allowing our gay brothers and sisters to marry be the top of that proverbial slippery slope to Jack and Kathy and Susie and Patti and Vikki all the way to the bottom – Jack and “Fluffy” Smith in the honeymoon suite at the Holiday Inn? Nope, I don’t think so.
Chris
April 7th, 2009
8:21 pm
Dear @@,
I don’t expect or demand your stinking ‘tolerance’ buddy. You kid yourself if you believe that. Tolerate THIS, you punk.
The sooner you and yours get over your misguided notion that Gays & Lesbians are looking for your approval, the sooner you will be able to heal yourselves from your devistating ‘loss’ of marriage.
Also, I am not outraged, bro. We WON! I think maybe YOU feel a little outrage. Go ahead. Cry a little. It’s OK. It don’t make you gay or nuthin.’
Ya fool.
getalife
April 7th, 2009
8:22 pm
So?
Well, if you believe in freedom, this sux:
“New and worse secrecy and immunity claims from the Obama DOJ”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html
Chris
April 7th, 2009
8:23 pm
HaHa = anything BUT.
Corporal
April 7th, 2009
8:23 pm
To Chris:
You don’t have the right to marry a man and neither does “class of ‘98″, so as he said, he doesn’t have any more rights than you do.
This is just another “degree” turned up on the old “Frog in the Kettle” as we slide toward Sodom and Gomorrah.
Once this is all completed (and it will be) I want to marry two women and also have my girlfriend that I support on my insurance and as a dependant on my tax return. I you say I can’t do that, I want you to explain the “morality” (remember – we don’t legislate morality) behind your decision.
Corporal
April 7th, 2009
8:24 pm
Excuse me: “if” you say I can’t do that ………
I Report/ You Whine
April 7th, 2009
8:26 pm
The liberals will one day want a “right” for incest.
DigDug
April 7th, 2009
8:31 pm
@I Report, we will only ask for that right if radical bible-beating republicans get it, since you all seem to think about it so much.
Midori
April 7th, 2009
8:31 pm
Andy,
we choose to pass in the incest department, as your ilk appears to have cornered the market on it.
HaHa
April 7th, 2009
8:32 pm
You tell’em Corporal, after we polygamists win our fight, I want my 18 b!itches on my 1040 as deductions along with my 54 children. My God! Could you imagine how much $$ I’ll get from Obama with all those “earned income tax credits”.
My b!tches can feed me grapes and I’ll be rolling in bling!!—-what a country!!! BTW, Bob and (K)Neel: dudes, can you at least close the blinds. I can’t stand my toddlers watching that deviant behavior….
Chris
April 7th, 2009
8:33 pm
HaHa is about as funny as Corporal.
Chris
April 7th, 2009
8:34 pm
Corporal,
I could care less if you marry your f’ing MOTHER, my man. It’s NONE OF MY BUSINESS.
Get it?
Thought not.
Please go.
DigDug
April 7th, 2009
8:35 pm
Well they’re angry, they lost HUGE this week!
Midori
April 7th, 2009
8:36 pm
Chris,
it appears that someone in Corporal’s and HaHa’s family has been practicing incest.
Chris
April 7th, 2009
8:37 pm
Indeed. PERVERTS!
@@
April 7th, 2009
8:37 pm
It succeeded in Iowa but only in response to a lawsuit filed by six gay individuals. I’m sure it had something to do with the fact that there are no restrictions on residency there. Because of that, the couples can now go forth, outside Iowa, and multiply if you will. Needless to say, Iowans had no say…..BUT?
Public opinion is a different matter. A February 2008 Iowa Poll conducted by The Des Moines Register showed that most Iowans believed marriage involves one man and one woman. However, the poll also showed that a majority of Iowa adults supported civil unions that would grant benefits to gay couples similar to those offered to married heterosexuals.
Subversive tactics won’t play well in the end. All take! No give…
Again Chris?
I don’t expect or demand your stinking ‘tolerance’ buddy. You kid yourself if you believe that. Tolerate THIS, you punk.
Also, I am not outraged, bro.
Are you sure about that dude/dudette? Chris is a gender neutral name, so I have no way of knowing. Just wanna cover all bases.
HaHa
April 7th, 2009
8:41 pm
This is so much fun!…. nothing like getting hormonal homosexual jocks and garters into a wad.
BTW, Chris: are you implying the my neighbors Bob and (K)Neel are perverts???? OMG!!! but you’re one of them…..
DigDug
April 7th, 2009
8:41 pm
@@ and what was the public view on desgregation and inter-racial marriage? So obviously you think those (activist bench-legislating) courts were wrong too.
DigDug
April 7th, 2009
8:44 pm
HaHa, this IS fun! It has been a great week! Iowa (unanimous decision written by republican)! Vermont (legislature enacted law, only the 7th override in state history)! DC (unanimous vote by elected officials)!
It’s even more fun than it was watching the radical right take a massive ‘thumpin in November, HOOT!
Angie
April 7th, 2009
8:45 pm
Civil Unions only give some rights but are not the same rights as marriage. It is a way of tying to shutup the marriage rights issue by thinking we are so stupid. Do they think we would not look up what rights civil unions really give? It is still missing the rights why we want full marriage.
Civil Unions do not equial Marriage. If it did why wouldn’t they just call it marriage? Why have a name for it?
Chris
April 7th, 2009
8:45 pm
@@,
Yes. I am sure I am not outraged. I’m just enjoying watching you freaks squirm a little.
Fun, huh.
HaHa
April 7th, 2009
8:46 pm
BTW Corporal, why don’t you go. After all Chris did say “please” (with that sweet “homosessual” lisp.
DebbieDoRight
April 7th, 2009
8:46 pm
There is no better subject than this one to turn voters against democrats, most Americans are not sexual degenerates, nor do they want their children exposed to other people’s perversions.
I hope you’re not calling homosexuals “degenerates”. Compared to some republicans, (Foley, Craig, et al.); most gays are positively “straight laced”.
From Roe v Wade to destroying, in the most inhumane way, a viable human.
Roe vs. Wade should’ve passed. The loud mouthed Phyllis Schafley killed it with her lies and smear campaigns.
I’m straight. I’m still waiting for someone to tell me ONE SINGLE SOLITARY RIGHT that I have that a homosexual man does not have.
The right to marry the person you love.
About polygamy…….to me it’s more of the man who gets the benefits than the woman. Forget polygamy, lets advocate polyandry. It’s time we girls got the benefits from marriage!!
Corporal
April 7th, 2009
8:47 pm
To Chris:
“Cursing = the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcibly”.
Would you like to “debate” a point. If not, we are done.
To All:
HEADLINE: “Groups Spar Over Massachusetts Transgender ‘Bathroom Bill’ …”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513100,00.html
And yet another degree turned up on the “Frog in the Kettle”.
@@
April 7th, 2009
8:47 pm
DigDug:
I don’t view same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue. Actually, I’ve talked with many African Americans are insulted by the comparison.
~~~~~~~~~OO~~~~~~~~
It hasn’t gone unnoticed that Chris and Midori are having a gay old time with this topic.
If I did emoticons, you’d see one laughing uncontrollably.
Chris
April 7th, 2009
8:48 pm
Dear HaHa,
Yes, Bob and(K)Neel are perverts. Big, sick, gay perverts.
P.S. – Your wonderfully witty and clever way of spelling (K)Neel is, well, why you’ll never be a comedian, now ain’t it HaHa.
Ya fool.
Now you may go.
Chris
April 7th, 2009
8:49 pm
@@,
Go ahead. Laugh. It’s good for you.
Ya fool.
I Report/ You Whine
April 7th, 2009
8:50 pm
The liberals will one day want a “right” for bestiality.
ew
HaHa
April 7th, 2009
8:52 pm
DigDug, you’re so right, this IS fun, let’s keep it going:
Let’s pass a new law making the Gay Olympics the new U.S. National pasttime. My favorite event: the limp-wristed javelin throw by LaMar (remember the movie “Revenge of the Nerds”…..Dude! an American Classic!)
@@
April 7th, 2009
8:53 pm
Of course, it could just be the sex-talk in general. Midori enthusiastically rises to the occasion whenever it “comes up”. I don’t think she gets out much.
DigDug
April 7th, 2009
8:53 pm
@@ “I don’t view same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue. Actually, I’ve talked with many African Americans are insulted by the comparison.”
Well, fortunately the courts do see it as a civil rights issue. And recall, many whites were “insulted” that blacks viewed anti-miscegenation laws, and drinking fountains, and buses, as civil rights issues.
Corporal
April 7th, 2009
8:54 pm
Jay:
See below. I am asking that Chris be banned for awhile until he can be civil:
Chris
April 7th, 2009
8:50 pm
Dear Corporal,
F U
Love,
Chris
HaHa
April 7th, 2009
8:56 pm
Aw c’mon Chris, don’t be mad. We’re just having fun. You’re such a party pooper. Don’t be such a petulant, emotional, erractic homosexual driven by uncontrollable pheromones. It’s very unbecoming of you. You give your kind a bad name dude(or at least I think it’s dude)…..
Corporal
April 7th, 2009
8:57 pm
HEADLINE: “North Korean Media: Kim Jong-Il Sobbed During Rocket Launch …”
I guess he was frightened about what Obama might do ?
DigDug
April 7th, 2009
8:59 pm
@HaHa, ok, and since we believe in equality, we will have events for the hetero guys as well, for instance, the obese beer-belly 5-foot sprint. I’ve actually seen some of you straight dudes lurch for bags of beef jerky, so I know you’d compete well!
In the meantime, us limp wrists will be planning weddings in a state near you!
Ray
April 7th, 2009
8:59 pm
Hey Chris,
Been to a Catholic church lately? All of those good, well meaning clergy who just could not wait to mount the back side of the least suspecting little boy. And this nothing compared to what it must have been in the Reformation when the Cardinals and Bishops were above the law. Can you imagine how many little boys were abused beyond measure by these “well meaning” men of God? Great example of choice, wouldn’t you say. It has almost broken the financial back of the Church as we know it and they didn’t uncover nearly what should have been exposed. But it is free choice, wouldn’t you say? They are making the Butt Pilots look pretty bad. And who is the fool here, my friend?