Institution of marriage gathers strength in NY
With Friday night’s vote in the New York Senate, the Empire State is set to become the sixth state, in addition to the District of Columbia, in which gay marriage is legal. And because New York will be by far the largest state to take that step, the number of Americans able to marry others of the same gender will effectively double.
This is, of course, the end of Western civilization and of the foundation on which it is built, which is the institution of marriage. Or not.
Kathryn Jean Lopez, writing at the National Review’s “The Corner,” has likened the vote by elected representatives in New York to the brutal repression exercised in North Korea, bizarrely claiming that we Americans are “witnessing tyranny today that is fostered by a false sense of freedom, a tyranny that faux tolerance ferments.”
John Guardiano, writing in the American Spectator, also laments the decline of marriage:
“…. the institution of marriage is [under threat] — so much so that marriage rates in America have plummeted and out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed.
National Review’s Rich Lowry notes, for instance, that the number of Americans in intact first marriages has dropped from 73 percent in the 1970s to as little as 39 percent today, depending on socioeconomic status. And the poorer and less educated you are, the more likely you are to suffer from the political and cultural degradation of marriage.
Just 45 percent of moderately educated, middle-income Americans are in intact first marriages. For the poorest and least-educated Americans, the corresponding figure is 39 percent.”
Personally, I’m a strong believer in marriage, both as a living arrangement for adults and as the best possible setting in which to raise children. (”Best possible,” however, should not be confused with “only;” the unpredictability of human beings and the realities of life do not allow such blanket statements.)
However, I’ve never seen even a vaguely convincing argument that gay marriage has any affect whatsoever on the status of marriage among heterosexual couples.
Guardiano, for example, tries to suggest that gay marriage has “everything” to do with some ill-defined campaign by ill-defined forces to undercut marriage and bring the country down around our ears.
“Sure, this breakdown in the family has occurred independent of the push for ‘marriage equality’,” he writes. “But it is still part and parcel of an overarching effort to undermine and deprecate traditional marriage and the traditional family. It is still part of a broader political and cultural movement to decouple marriage from its principal purpose, which is the care and raising of children.”
What nonsense.
The care and raising of children is certainly “A” purpose of marriage, and is in fact one reason that gay couples seek that right. However, it is not THE purpose of marriage.
The existence of millions of loving couples who are childless either by choice or by nature refute that claim. Marriages of older couples beyond their child-bearing years refute that claim. Guardiano and others who make such an argument actually belittle marriage by stripping it down to a crude, single-purpose functionality — the raising of children — that seeks to deny its deep emotional rewards and challenges.
The suggestion that gay marriage is part of a guerrilla effort to undercut marriage itself is further undercut by hard data. In general, gay marriage has gained a foothold in those states in which marriage is already strongest, and it is rejected in states where marriage is more threatened.
Massachusetts, the first state to make gay marriage legal, has by far the lowest annual divorce rate in the country, at a mere 1.8 percent. New York has an annual divorce rate of 2.5 percent.
Georgia, in contrast, has an annual divorce rate of 3.2 percent.
In fact, the seven jurisdictions in which gay marriage is now legal, including the District of Columbia, have an average annual divorce rate of 2.7 percent. The average annual divorce rate in the 28 states in which recognition of gay marriage is explicitly banned, including Georgia, is 3.9 percent.
For the record, the New York bill contains explicit protections to ensure that religious organizations cannot be forced to recognize gay marriage or be forced to host marriages, receptions or similar ceremonies. While such protections are probably unnecessary, I think they’re also entirely appropriate. The histrionics of Lopez and others about tyranny aside, this is not an attempt to use government to impose something; it is an attempt to convince government to allow all of its citizens, not just some, to share in the benefits, rights and obligations of a critically important human institution.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
834 comments Add your comment
willie lynch
June 27th, 2011
12:04 pm
I’ve met a lot of good people in life. I’ve found out that some of those people I have worked with and lived next door to have been gay. Funny thing though, they didn’t stop being good people.
Kamchak
June 27th, 2011
12:05 pm
Political correctness has…
Aaaaannnnnnnnddddd I quit reading.
Left wing management
June 27th, 2011
12:05 pm
Doggone, but did the Code of Hammurabi attempt to intervene in social practice for political-cultural reasons or was it simply the first known case of marriage being codified, i.e. formalized? To my mind, it seems the Julian laws of Augustus in the early Roman Empire marks the first case of a ‘modern’ intervention, i.e. a state intervention as an attempt to effect social policy, improve popular morals, reverse declines in birthrate, etc.
AmVet
June 27th, 2011
12:05 pm
RB, upon further review, I’ll concede one point. Without reading all of your posts on this topic, I may have over-reached with the term equate. However, you made a direct comparison.
And no matter the semantics, that comparison is repulsive. Two are criminal activities and I believe that you’re just pissed that the third isn’t.
Or am I wrong? Do you favor homosexuality being made illegal?
Doggone/GA
June 27th, 2011
12:06 pm
“Political correctness has”
Better to be politically CORRECT, than to allow your religious biases to make you WRONG
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
12:06 pm
“Faux equality is what it is.”
And faux Christianity is what you’re pushing….
icedawg
June 27th, 2011
12:06 pm
The ultimate legitimacy of same-sex unions is not dependent upon human declarations or human laws. They are contrary to natural law. Same-sex unions can produce nothing naturally. Taken to its logical conclusion if same-sex union became an or the accepted norm then the human species would eventually disappear. Same-sex unions are a contradiction.
Fletch
June 27th, 2011
12:07 pm
An abomination – “So now we’re going to legalize and endorse sick behavior that is an abomination.”
I’m with you, what say we meet up at the mall and beat those interaccial couples senless? After all, a white woman with a black man is JUST PLAIN WRONG! (Sarcasm Intended)
Scott
June 27th, 2011
12:07 pm
Who cares about gay marriage? If only the politicians would put forth as much effort into getting outrageous spending under control as they do stupid social issues such as gay marriage and abortion, we would actually have a country in the future to even consider these issues. At least in the case of New York, Cuomo actually has tried to take some action to curb spending, starting with a budget. He is probably one of the only Dems I have a modicum of respect for. However, with role as the head of HUD under Clinton, he is the clown that played a major major role in the financial situation this country is in right now. I wish our federal government could take ownership of spending…..well, dems that is. The Dem led senate hasn’t produced a version of a budget in over 2 years. The dem led House last year didn’t want to publish a budget because they wanted to protect their party. Sad but true.
Doggone/GA
June 27th, 2011
12:07 pm
LWM – judge for yourself: http://www.commonlaw.com/Hammurabi.html
gadem
June 27th, 2011
12:08 pm
Some pedophiles are homosexuals…they molest lil boys…lil boys grow into confused men that want to marry other men because they were molested as lil boys or they end up molesting other lil boys to continue the cycle. Homosexuality is abnormal.
Left wing management
June 27th, 2011
12:08 pm
Woodstock Mike: “What’s Obama’s position on gay marriage?”
It’s ‘evolving’.
Doggone/GA
June 27th, 2011
12:09 pm
“The ultimate legitimacy of same-sex unions is not dependent upon human declarations or human laws”
And that is exactly BACKWARDS. Marriage is a legal contract, and as such is SOLELY dependend on human declarations and laws
Kamchak
June 27th, 2011
12:10 pm
Taken to its logical conclusion if same-sex union became an or the accepted norm then the human species would eventually disappear.
Not intended to be a factual statement.
Fletch
June 27th, 2011
12:10 pm
gadem – “Some pedophiles are homosexuals…they molest lil boys”
Before you bring the Catholic Church into this, I would like further evidence of that statement.
Gale
June 27th, 2011
12:10 pm
::sigh:: Why is it every time Jay has a gay marriage blog, I am too busy to play? All I have to say about the marriage equality is that when I can be married in one state (same sex) and return to GA and still be recognized as married, and when I can file state and federal taxes jointly, I will start to feel equality with straight marriages.
Doggone/GA
June 27th, 2011
12:10 pm
“Some pedophiles are homosexuals”
And the majority remaining are heterosexuals and molest little girls.
Pedophelia has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the perpetrator, and you make a false equivelence when you put them together.
Joe Mama
June 27th, 2011
12:11 pm
“No doubt this country has gone into the moral sewer when we ignore the laws of nature and also the laws of God. Political correctness has ruined this once great nation.”
I’m sorry; sharia law is not allowed. Please try elsewhere.
Doggone/GA
June 27th, 2011
12:11 pm
“Taken to its logical conclusion if same-sex union became an or the accepted norm then the human species would eventually disappear”
ALL homosexuals have heterosexual parents
josef
June 27th, 2011
12:12 pm
WOODSTOCK
“What’s Obama’s position on gay marriage?”
Which day of the week and who is he talking to? Is it a fundraiser or a get out the vote rally?
Dave R.
June 27th, 2011
12:13 pm
“The ultimate legitimacy of same-sex unions is not dependent upon human declarations or human laws. They are contrary to natural law.”
Except that same sex unions occur in nature.
Thus, your concluding statement is, of course, wrong.
Aquagirl
June 27th, 2011
12:13 pm
No doubt this country has gone into the moral sewer when we ignore the laws of nature and also the laws of God.
Talk to RB, maybe there’s room in his end-times bunker. Y’all can hide down there from the ravishing hordes of homosexuals whilst showering together to save resources.
Dave R.
June 27th, 2011
12:15 pm
“It’s ‘evolving’.”
Unlike certain bloggers. (if you know what I mean?)
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
12:16 pm
icedawg,
“Same-sex unions can produce nothing naturally.”
So the couples who cannot or do not conceive children should be denied marriage as well.
“Taken to its logical conclusion if same-sex union became an or the accepted norm then the human species would eventually disappear.”
Something tells me this is not a logical conclusion and the human species is in no threat from annihilation due to marriage equality.
RB from Gwinnett
June 27th, 2011
12:17 pm
“Political correctness has…
Aaaaannnnnnnnddddd I quit reading.”
Of course you did. You “tolerant” liberals don’t want to hear any dissenting opinions. It’s your way or none at all.
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
12:18 pm
gadem,
“Some pedophiles are homosexuals”
And the rest are heterosexual…what is your point?
Siege
June 27th, 2011
12:18 pm
icegawg – Are you saying that when same-sex marriage becomes the norm that heterosexual couples will no longer be capable of producing children? Or are you under the impression that same-sex marriage will then be mandatory for all couples, resulting in the sudden lack of children?
Paulo977
June 27th, 2011
12:20 pm
Johnjon
“Some people have even commented that they don’t know many straight couples that have been together as long as my partner and I”
You just nailed it …
The bard, long ago, of course in his inimitable way described what “marriage” was all about
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/sonnets/116.html
WOODSTOCK MIKE
June 27th, 2011
12:20 pm
Is someone born gay or is it a developed behavior? And if it’s developed what types of experiences cause someone to be gay?
And why is it so fun to watch 2 hot chicks making out?
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
12:21 pm
WOODSTOCK MIKE,
“Is someone born gay or is it a developed behavior?”
What difference does is make either way?
“And why is it so fun to watch 2 hot chicks making out?”
And that is your opinion…
josef
June 27th, 2011
12:22 pm
PAULO
Yep. I used to like to throw out our 35+ year “forsaking all others” relationship…got put in my place the other day when a couple together for 61 years was being interviewed! Wow!
Normal
June 27th, 2011
12:22 pm
gadem = 19th century homo sapien…
Dave R.
June 27th, 2011
12:22 pm
Now, while I’ve enjoyed teaming with the libs this morning on the side of equality, there is such a thing as too much of a good thing.
I feel the need now to bash liberals about something; global warming, debt and deficit reduction, Hope & Follow ™ – you name it. Just don’t do a Michele Bachmann column, Jay, as I’ll have to keep agreeing with much of what you might say about her.
That woman is bat-sh*t crazy!
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
12:23 pm
WOODSTOCK MIKE,
And why are you so obsessed with people making out?
Joe Mama
June 27th, 2011
12:23 pm
Mike — Turn it around and you’ll see how silly your question is:
Is someone born straight or is it a developed behavior? And if it’s developed what types of experiences cause someone to be straight?
I’m straight and I presume you are, too. Given that, did you *decide* to be straight? Did you have to *learn* to be straight? Or were you just ‘that way’ from the outset? I can’t speak for you, but I’m just plain straight and always was. I didn’t decide or learn to be, I just am.
I suspect you also were always straight, just as gays and lesbians were always as they are.
Kamchak
June 27th, 2011
12:24 pm
Is someone born gay or is it a developed behavior? And if it’s developed what types of experiences cause someone to be gay?
When did you make the conscious decision to be straight? What types of experiences caused you to be straight?
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
12:24 pm
Dave R.,
“That woman is bat-sh*t crazy!”
Crazzzzzzyyyyy eyes: http://www.truthwinsout.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Bachmann.jpg
Aquagirl
June 27th, 2011
12:24 pm
“And why is it so fun to watch 2 hot chicks making out?”
And why is Jay afraid to write about this subject? Liberal frady-cat!
Paulo977
June 27th, 2011
12:25 pm
Doggone
“ALL homosexuals have heterosexual parents”
Of course he never spent any time figuring this out!!!!!!!!!
WOODSTOCK MIKE
June 27th, 2011
12:25 pm
@Joe Mama
If a human is created from sex between a man and woman, wouldn’t that mean that it’s “natural” to be straight?
Mighty Righty
June 27th, 2011
12:25 pm
Doggone/GA
June 27th, 2011
11:57 am
“Well then we’re really in for it, since state intervention goes all the way to emperor Augustus, if not further”
Much, much further! It’s in the Code of Hammurabi, which is a legal document of laws – not a religious one.
The code of Hammurabi “was” a legal document.
There are looney leftists, I am not saying you are one, who favor any freaky behavior so long as it is not between a man and woman santioned by a religon. It’s like anything goes, so long as religon is not involved.
gadem
June 27th, 2011
12:26 pm
I stand corrected DOGGONE/GA
getalife
June 27th, 2011
12:26 pm
I am starting a discrimination movement against cons.
They should not breed or get married because they destroyed our country.
Fair is fair.
Siege
June 27th, 2011
12:28 pm
@ Woodstock Mike
Could it be possible that gay and straight are both natural? Or is there only room for one option?
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
12:28 pm
getalife,
“They should not breed or get married because they destroyed our country.”
“A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism. ” ~ Carl Sagan
stands for decibels
June 27th, 2011
12:29 pm
That woman is bat-sh*t crazy!
well no, she isn’t. Not really. At least one shouldn’t assume so.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
June 27th, 2011
12:29 pm
@getalife
If you can understand and respect someone that chooses to be gay, why can’t you do the same for someone that chooses to be a con??
Kamchak
June 27th, 2011
12:29 pm
If a human is created from sex between a man and woman, wouldn’t that mean that it’s “natural” to be straight?
Uh oh, the jig is up. They’ve figured out that homosexuals are made in the labs with in vitro fertilization.
willie lynch
June 27th, 2011
12:30 pm
WOODSTOCK MIKE
June 27th, 2011
12:25 pm
So all “straight” sex is for procreation?
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
12:31 pm
“And if it’s developed what types of experiences cause someone to be gay? ‘
In the 8th grade…10 minutes at a party alone with Christy McMillian in a closet. After that I came screaming out of it….
stands for decibels
June 27th, 2011
12:32 pm
It’s in the Code of Hammurabi, which is a legal document of laws – not a religious one.
Remember too the code of Humunah.
josef
June 27th, 2011
12:32 pm
When did I “decide” to be gay? Oh, I’d say it was when I was 12 in a hayloft after a day horseback riding with the neighbor boy JV…Yowsuh, I says to myself, that’s it! No further questions…
Jefferson
June 27th, 2011
12:32 pm
Its mostly about money, some hate to see benifits paid to anyone that ain’t like them.
getalife
June 27th, 2011
12:32 pm
I do understand Mike and treat all the people the same but since you cons think you are better than others, I think it is only fair to share some karma with you.
You know you will be the minority one day so I am getting you prepared for your karma.
No voting for cons.
Aquagirl
June 27th, 2011
12:34 pm
“If a human is created from sex between a man and woman, wouldn’t that mean that it’s “natural” to be straight?”
If the only reason you have sex is to have children, you’re doing it wrong.
Condolences to the missus Woodstock, if there is one. And if there is, she may not hang around too long.
Left wing management
June 27th, 2011
12:34 pm
Joe Mama: “If a human is created from sex between a man and woman, wouldn’t that mean that it’s “natural” to be straight”
Not in the least. That’s taking a biological concept — reproduction — and extending it to a completely separate domain — social norms.
Besides, sexual reproduction is not even the only type of reproduction known in the natural world. So there goes any claim that it somehow represents THE one and only, divinely-ordained means of reproduction.
josef
June 27th, 2011
12:35 pm
jewcowboy
City mouse, country mouse, eh?
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
12:35 pm
getalife,
“You know you will be the minority one day so I am getting you prepared for your karma.”
Yep…time and mathematics are not on their side…
http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-gay-marriage-acceptance-poll,0,2149322.story
Dave R.
June 27th, 2011
12:36 pm
You should have waited jewcowboy. I had Christy in the 12th grade and I’m straight!
AmVet
June 27th, 2011
12:36 pm
I am against discrimination towards heterosexuals.
Why should gays be the only ones to live a happy life, legally free of a nagging spouse? (grin)
Joe Mama
June 27th, 2011
12:36 pm
Mike — “If a human is created from sex between a man and woman, wouldn’t that mean that it’s “natural” to be straight?”
If a child is concieved as a result of violent rape, wouldn’t that mean that it’s “natural” for the child to become a violent criminal?
WOODSTOCK MIKE
June 27th, 2011
12:37 pm
@Aquagirl
Mrs. Woodstock gets plenty of Mr. Woodstock…
josef
June 27th, 2011
12:38 pm
Well, if gay marriage is all about sexual activity, would somebody please tell Unmentionable. I’m tired of hearing about that d*mned credit card statement!
getalife
June 27th, 2011
12:38 pm
What comes around goes around.
No to con marriage.
Karma.
Really
June 27th, 2011
12:39 pm
WOODSTOCK MIKE
June 27th, 2011
11:59 am
What’s Obama’s position on gay marriage?
I would say face down!
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
12:39 pm
Dave R.,
“I had Christy in the 12th grade and I’m straight!”
I had Mike “Meat” Carroll, defensive lineman on our football team, in 12th grade…and I’m more than happy with how things turned out
josef
June 27th, 2011
12:39 pm
WOODSTOCK
And once a month is plenty! I’ll tell Unmentionable…
WOODSTOCK MIKE
June 27th, 2011
12:40 pm
Do you mean that someone is born a criminal?? So do you believe someone becomes gay, they aren’t born that way?? Am I following you?? So you say that “gay” is a learned behaviour, correct?
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
12:42 pm
WOODSTOCK MIKE,
“So you say that “gay” is a learned behaviour, correct?”
Who cares if it is or it isn’t?
RB from Gwinnett
June 27th, 2011
12:42 pm
Amvet, no, I don’t think marriage laws should be changed to accomdate same sex marriages. I really don’t care what people do in their own bedrooms, but I do care what they do openly in public and I don’t think it’s right.
And to be accurate, I never equated what homosexuals do to what pedophiles do. It’s all the closed minded liberals here who have done that. My single point was that if you make the claim homosexuals were born that way, you must make the same argument for pedophiles. Nothing more implied.
Of course Aquagirl will do all she can to make that mean something else because she hates everybody who disagrees with her…
Doggone/GA
June 27th, 2011
12:42 pm
“Who cares if it is or it isn’t?”
Exactly!
getalife
June 27th, 2011
12:43 pm
“Mrs. Woodstock gets plenty of Mr. Woodstock…”
She told me you had a tooth pick.
Mel
June 27th, 2011
12:43 pm
His argument is so completely ridiculous. If gays couldn’t marry previously, then how is it that they had any affect on the degradation of marriage as an institution? Aren’t the straights doing enough to screw it up?
I’m straight. I’m married. I’m childless by choice. Marriage is not a religious issue. If it were, atheists would not be allowed to marry. It’s a legal issue. For me, it was about having someone else legally responsible for me and vice versa.
And my marriage isn’t affected by what someone else does. If it were, I’d have deeper issues to address.
Aquagirl
June 27th, 2011
12:43 pm
Well Mike, if you’re not one of those “full quiver” folks and are doing more than the, ahem, basic requirements for reproduction, then you are officially unnatural. You’re one of the perverts and never knew it. Why, it’s almost like it’s natural for you! Imagine that.
Kamchak
June 27th, 2011
12:43 pm
So you say that “gay” is a learned behaviour, correct?
No.
Another episode of one word answers to a simple(ton’s) question.
Common Cents
June 27th, 2011
12:43 pm
If the law of the land didn’t supersede the morals of the Church, Mormons would take multiple spouses and satan worshippers would be slaughtering sheep in the town square at midnight.
I wonder how the Christians would react if Mitt Romney had 7 lovely wives, each legally wed.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
June 27th, 2011
12:43 pm
@jewcowboy
Good point, I guess I don’t care…
Mighty Righty
June 27th, 2011
12:44 pm
Left wing management
June 27th, 2011
12:34 pm
Just a thought: Is a species that cannot reproduce a weakness in Darwin’s theory?
Chris Matthews
June 27th, 2011
12:44 pm
Before 1994, homosexuality was described as a mental illnes by the medical profession! Nothing has changed but political correctness which is bringing the American society to lower depths!
Doggone/GA
June 27th, 2011
12:45 pm
“My single point was that if you make the claim homosexuals were born that way, you must make the same argument for pedophiles. Nothing more implied”
You can deny it all you want…you ARE conflating them one to the other.
“but I do care what they do openly in public and I don’t think it’s right. ”
In that case, then, you should be pushing for laws to make ALL public displays of affection illegal. ALL of them. Yours, mine, homosexuals, heterosexuals – EVERYONE’S
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
12:45 pm
RB from Gwinnett,
“I really don’t care what people do in their own bedrooms, but I do care what they do openly in public and I don’t think it’s right. ”
You mean like mowing their laws, raising children and going to church…those things people do in public?
Dave R.
June 27th, 2011
12:45 pm
First this sentence:
“I don’t think marriage laws should be changed to accomdate same sex marriages.”
Followed immediately by this sentence, immediately negating the first sentence:
“I really don’t care what people do in their own bedrooms, but I do care what they do openly in public and I don’t think it’s right.”
And you wonder why the right is so logically and morally bereft on this issue?
WOODSTOCK MIKE
June 27th, 2011
12:46 pm
@getalife
Come on, you know that cons are bigger, right??
Joe Mama
June 27th, 2011
12:46 pm
Mike — “Do you mean that someone is born a criminal??”
Nope. I was illustrating how ridiculous your earlier question was. Merely being conceived via heterosexual intercourse isn’t any more likely to assure you turn out straight than being conceived via violent rape is likely to make you turn out a violent criminal. You’re conflating your parents’ sexual activities with the child’s social proclivities.
“So do you believe someone becomes gay, they aren’t born that way??”
Nope. I thought I made that clear.
“Am I following you??”
You are not. I am lampooning your ridiculous questions by turning them on their heads and posting them back at you.
“So you say that “gay” is a learned behaviour, correct?”
I say no such thing. I quite clearly said earlier that I was born straight, that I expect you were, and that gays and lesbians were born as they are, as well.
You’re asking ridiculous questions, so I’m revising and reposting them to show you how ridiculous they are. But I’m answering you, so hopefully you’ll take my answers as serious.
AmVet
June 27th, 2011
12:46 pm
RB, OK.
I’m no behavioral psychologist, but I really doubt that sexual criminals – of any predilection – were born that way, any more than arsonists or bank robbers were born that way…
Dee
June 27th, 2011
12:46 pm
NASTY>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
getalife
June 27th, 2011
12:46 pm
It does not effect you in any way me generation cons.
Nothing will happen to you so why do you care?
Doggone/GA
June 27th, 2011
12:48 pm
“Just a thought: Is a species that cannot reproduce a weakness in Darwin’s theory?”
There’s a difference between a SPECIES that can’t reproduce, and the members OF a species that can’t reproduce.
jewcowboy
June 27th, 2011
12:49 pm
Mighty Righty,
“Is a species that cannot reproduce a weakness in Darwin’s theory?”
Looking at how straight people breed like rabbits, I don’t think that’s an issue for the human species.
getalife
June 27th, 2011
12:49 pm
“Come on, you know that cons are bigger, right??”
Bigger bigots, yes.
What does this issue have to do with you?
Nothin.
Common Cents
June 27th, 2011
12:50 pm
I guess the fear from the right is the same fear they harbor about the legalization of pot: once it’s made the law of the land, EVERYONE will feel encouraged to try it out.
WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?
saywhat?
June 27th, 2011
12:50 pm
If the right is worried about higher diverce rates among the poor and lower economic classes, maybe they could put their money where their mouths are, and pressure corporations and business to pay wages that keep up with productivity gains, instead of trying to ban gay marriage.
getalife
June 27th, 2011
12:52 pm
Why do cons care what Americans do in their bedrooms?
Are they curious or pervs?
Government should not tell us what to do with our junk.
Way too involved in our private lives.
Something the cons say they are against.
RB from Gwinnett
June 27th, 2011
12:54 pm
“You can deny it all you want…you ARE conflating them one to the other.”
You WANTING me to do that and me doing that are two different things. I didn’t do that, don’t think they’re the same thing, and no amount of you trying to put words in my mouth will work. Read what I wrote and keep your add-on opionions to yourself.
Adam
June 27th, 2011
12:54 pm
saywhat? and pressure corporations and business to pay wages that keep up with productivity gains
You are downright anti-business, sir! (that is to say, you don’t support the CEO pocketing all the profits. YOU SOCIALIST).
Get Real
June 27th, 2011
12:55 pm
I have never really understood the intense debate over this “issue”; if a gay couple wants to officially get married…have at it. It does not affect me directly one way or the other and there are way too many other issues that require our immediate focus…..
jconservative
June 27th, 2011
12:56 pm
” …the institution of marriage is [under threat] — so much so that marriage rates in America have plummeted and out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed.”
John Guardiano needs to see Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s 1965 study in which he points to the growing problem of out-of-wedlock births. This was decades before the rise of the “same sex marriage” movement.
The sad truth is that the institution of marriage is being destroyed by heterosexual marriage and this has been going on for many decades.
Mama and I? Forty-one plus years.
Dave R.
June 27th, 2011
12:57 pm
“Why do cons care what Americans do in their bedrooms?
Are they curious or pervs?”
Same perversion you libs have with my wallet. This cuts both ways.
Doggone/GA
June 27th, 2011
12:57 pm
“I have never really understood the intense debate over this “issue”; ”
It’s all those religious people who can’t stay out of someone else’s bedroom that are the problem. The rest of us already know it’s a non-issue.
Jefferson
June 27th, 2011
12:57 pm
You know people should mind their own business but some think the world is according to them so they think (wrongly) everything is their business.