Gay-marriage debate just a matter of time

NOTE: This post incorporates some material contained in earlier posts. It is published here as the electronic version of my Sunday AJC column.

Back in the mid-’80s, a gay-rights victory was defined as getting government to take the AIDS crisis seriously. Fighting for gay marriage was almost incomprehensible. So it was an important sign of progress when President Obama announced this week that after years of qualms, he too has come to support the right of gay couples to marry.

“When I meet gay and lesbian couples, when I meet same-sex couples, and I see how caring they are, how much love they have in their hearts, how they’re taking care of their kids,” he said in an interview. “When I hear from them the pain they feel that somehow they are still considered less than full citizens when it comes to their legal rights, then for me, I think it just has tipped the scales in that direction.”

The personal evolution that Obama describes is probably common to a lot of people. As long as gay Americans stayed safely in the closet, they could be cast as the unseen and the unknown, whispered about but never acknowledged. But once they began to emerge and identify themselves as who they truly are, many of those fears and whispers melted away through human contact and the instinct for human decency.

In more and more communities, job sites, neighborhoods and families, gay Americans have become just another part of the mix. “That nice gay couple down the street” and “your cousin and her partner” just don’t seem as threatening as they did when gay people were mythological creatures.

In that interview, Obama also made it clear that while his personal position had changed, he fully intends to leave the matter to the states. Politically, it isn’t hard to see why. A day before his comments, voters in North Carolina, an important swing state, had voted by more than 20 percentage points in favor of a ban both on gay marriage and civil unions.

(That margin may itself be a mark of progress, though. Eight years ago, a similar ban passed in Georgia by 50 percentage points).

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, says that while he supports limited legal rights for gay couples, he would not leave the issue to states. Instead, he has pledged to push a constitutional amendment that would strip states of that option. That would be a significant expansion of federal authority, given that marriage has always been a state prerogative.

Ed Gillespie, a senior adviser to the Romney campaign, told the press this week that they intended to campaign on gay marriage. “I think it’s an important issue for people and, you know, it engenders strong feelings on both sides,” Gillespie said. “I think it’s important to be respectful in how we talk about our differences, but the fact is that’s a significant difference in November.”

I’ll be surprised if the Romney camp follows through on that approach. They’ll use the issue quietly in social conservative back-channels, trying to drum up turnout. But in a sign of where we’re headed, they know that raising the issue among voters in general would be dangerous. Polling shows that support for gay marriage is strong and growing among independents.

And while Gillespie quite properly noted that “it’s important to be respectful,” once such issues are raised it’s hard to keep ugly and intolerant things from being said in the passion of a campaign, with so many voices being raised and heard.

Americans may still be split on the issue of gay marriage, but they’re pretty unified against intolerance. And that’s why, in the long run, we all know how this is going to turn out.

– Jay Bookman

UPDATE: Here’s the text of a memo sent out by GOP pollster Jan R. van Lohuizen to Republican politicians and staff, updating them on public opinion and suggesting talking points. It confirms the sense that this may be the last presidential cycle in which this issue will be “in play.”

From: Jan R. van Lohuizen
Date: 05/11/12
Re: Same Sex Marriage

Background: in view of this week’s news on the same sex marriage issue, here is a summary of recent survey findings on same sex marriage:

Support for same sex marriage has been growing and in the last few years support has grown at an accelerated rate with no sign of slowing down. A review of public polling shows that up to 2009 support for gay marriage increased at a rate of 1% a year. Starting in 2010 the change in the level of support accelerated to 5% a year. The most recent public polling shows supporters of gay marriage outnumber opponents by a margin of roughly 10% (for instance: NBC/WSJ poll in February/March: support 49%, oppose 40%).

The increase in support is taking place among all partisan groups. While more Democrats support gay marriage than Republicans, support levels among Republicans are increasing over time. The same is true of age: younger people support same sex marriage more often than older people, but the trends show that all age groups are rethinking their position.

Polling conducted among Republicans show that majorities of Republicans and Republican leaning voters support extending basic legal protections to gays and lesbians. These include majority Republican support for:

Protecting gays and lesbians against being fired for reasons of sexual orientation.
Protections against bullying and harassment
Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
Right to visit partners in hospitals
Protecting partners against loss of home in case of severe medical emergencies or death
Legal protection in some form for gay couples whether it be same sex marriage or domestic partnership (only 29% of Republicans oppose legal recognition in any form).

Recommendation: A statement reflecting recent developments on this issue along the following lines:

“People who believe in equality under the law as a fundamental principle, as I do, will agree that this principle extends to gay and lesbian couples; gay and lesbian couples should not face discrimination and their relationship should be protected under the law. People who disagree on the fundamental nature of marriage can agree, at the same time, that gays and lesbians should receive essential rights and protections such as hospital visitation, adoption rights, and health and death benefits.”

Other thoughts / Q&A:

Follow up to questions about affirmative action:

“This is not about giving anyone extra protections or privileges, this is about making sure that everyone – regardless of sexual orientation – is provided the same protections against discrimination that you and I enjoy.”

Why public attitudes might be changing:

“As more people have become aware of friends and family members who are gay, attitudes have begun to shift at an accelerated pace. This is not about a generational shift in attitudes, this is about people changing their thinking as they recognize their friends and family members who are gay or lesbian.”

Conservative fundamentals:

“As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.”

134 comments Add your comment

barking frog

May 14th, 2012
7:28 am

Hopefully we can quit being
gay or straight, black or
white and just be guys and
gals.

martin the calvinist

May 14th, 2012
7:29 am

This topic shouldn’t be an issue…..

stands for decibels

May 14th, 2012
7:30 am

I’ll be surprised if the Romney camp follows through on that approach.

So will I.

Jay, I may have linked to this in the past, but this piece written back in 1989, is one that turned me around on the issue, and its concluding paragraph bears repeating for those self-identifying conservatives who remain opposed to the legality of same-sex marriage:

If these arguments sound socially conservative, that’s no accident. It’s one of the richest ironies of our society’s blind spot toward gays that essentially conservative social goals should have the appearance of being so radical. But gay marriage is not a radical step. It avoids the mess of domestic partnership; it is humane; it is conservative in the best sense of the word. It’s also about relationships. Given that gay relationships will always exist, what possible social goal is advanced by framing the law to encourage those relationships to be unfaithful, undeveloped, and insecure?

martin the calvinist

May 14th, 2012
7:30 am

that would be pretty nice barking, it really would….

JamVet

May 14th, 2012
7:45 am

Instead, he has pledged to push a constitutional amendment that would strip states of that option. That would be a significant expansion of federal authority, given that marriage has always been a state prerogative.

Imagine that? A BIG government, fake conservative Republican wanting to amass more federal powers to pervert that sacred document.

Americans may still be split on the issue of gay marriage, but they’re pretty unified against intolerance.

Right on. Yet…

29% of Republicans oppose legal recognition in any form.

And when that number drops to 2.9% we will have gotten that much closer in our two century plus struggle to form that more perfect union…

xanadu

May 14th, 2012
7:47 am

I have no tolerance for the intolerent.

ty webb

May 14th, 2012
7:48 am

who knew liberals would be so happy about a President coming out for State’s rights?

JohnnyReb

May 14th, 2012
7:49 am

re,polls – there is reason to question the accuracy of poll data showing increasing support for gay marriage.

Thirty two states have voted against gay marriage. There is theory most of those votes are old, that the increased support is relatively new. Yet, NC just voted in a constitutional amendment.

Polls may be indicators, but they can be manipulated unlike the ballolt box.

HDB

May 14th, 2012
7:52 am

For those who refuse to look at history as an example….gay marriage has existed just as long as heterosexual marriage! Gay marriage was an institution in Ancient Greece and Rome! Gay marriage was outlawed probably during the Protestant Reformation. The notion of monogamy is a more recent occurrance!! In fact, in order for UTAH to become a state, it had to outlaw poligamy…which was a RELIGIOUS point of view in that state!!

To take it further…the government HAS ALREADY re-defined what marriage entails…from the status of monogamy to interracial marriage!! The Supreme Court has already designated marriage as a “fundamental RIGHT”! (Check Loving vs. Virginia) That fundamental right carries with it certain principles that “civil unions” dont carry — like the rights of inheritance, tax benefits, Social Security rights…..

Who has the right to deny a group rights just because of a certain status? Note that it took the COURTS to rule segregation illegal as a violation of Constitutional rights; note that the Constitution states that a marriage recognized in ONE state must be recognized in ALL 50…and there are six states plus the District of Columbus that same-sex marriage is legal….plus by TREATY, a marriage in one country that the US recognizes must be recognized here….including same-sex!! Technically, gay marriage is de facto legal in the US…and these ballot initiatives are creating an ILLEGAL LAW!!

As the old joke says: Gays should be allowed to marry….why can’t they be as miserable as we straights are!!!

Peadawg

May 14th, 2012
7:53 am

“This topic shouldn’t be an issue…..”

Amen. Who gives a sh*t about what someone does in their own bedroom as long as it’s not hurting you. Move on to the real issues like the economy and jobs.

HDB

May 14th, 2012
7:54 am

District of Columbia…that is…..

Normal Free, Plain and Simple

May 14th, 2012
7:56 am

“This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.”

I wonder if this sentiment will “trickle down” to women’s rights?

Joe The Plumber Too

May 14th, 2012
7:56 am

yawn……..yep the libs will latch on to anything this election cycle to take the microscope off off barry and his joke of a presidency and the economy. Remember sheep, America was warned from the start of this experiment that barry was ready to RULE from day one, not lead but rule. Sadly, you hardcore libs had traded enough freedoms in that you were ready to be ruled not led. Those of you celebrating as Newsweek is calling him The First Gay President are too blind to see that he could give a damn less about the gays, illegals, women, like all politicians, his goal is votes….period. Just as is Romney’s and every other suit in Washington. None of them care if you eat tonight, have your house tomorrow or a job next week. As Neil Young once said ” a different lie for every set of eyes”.

stands for decibels

May 14th, 2012
8:00 am

Thirty two states have voted against gay marriage. There is theory most of those votes are old, that the increased support is relatively new. Yet, NC just voted in a constitutional amendment.

Here’s what I thought was a pretty good analysis on why NC voted the way it did, if you’re interested.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-bink/amendment-1-north-carolina_b_1510052.html

here’s the meat of the case Adam Bink makes.

For me and many of the people who gave money, made phone calls, blogged, traveled to North Carolina to get out the vote, and engaged in other actions (along with organizations like HRC, which invested heavily in both money and staff, and its incoming president, Chad Griffin), this wasn’t just about marriage — and for others, if it wasn’t, then it wasn’t worth spending time on. “Marriage” is the word right now: Winning marriage in more states is sexier than defeating a constitutional amendment banning it in a state where it was already banned. That’s the first thing, and, winnability arguments aside, much of the reason that many people who normally care about gay rights didn’t care about Amendment 1.

The second reason is that much of the media, by and large, focused on this as a “marriage” issue, though many journalists, to their credit, correctly noted that it banned any other form of relationship recognition for people of all genders. The problem was that much of the gay rights movement got it wrong: A tiny percentage of people realize that many same-sex couples in North Carolina already have legal recognition for their relationship, and Amendment 1 just took it away. So many took a quick look at this and either misunderstood or outright ignored what else Amendment 1 does.

Adam

May 14th, 2012
8:02 am

We’re going to look back on this in a few years and wonder why people put up such a fuss – even those of us who are currently putting up a fuss.

Mick

May 14th, 2012
8:02 am

It should always be about the content of a persons character not their sexual preference…

A Reflection

May 14th, 2012
8:02 am

Will we ever live in a world where people will not worry about how others are living their lives? Gay people are everywhere and they are doing their own thing. We all fall short on some things and it is hard to see how anyone can judge the lifestyle of others. The world consists of so many religions, cultures, and standards. It would be nice if we all could just be respectful towards each other!

stands for decibels

May 14th, 2012
8:03 am

Who gives a sh*t about what someone does in their own bedroom

That sounds perfectly reasonable.

But, I really gotta add–it’s *not* merely about what someone does in their own bedroom. It’s about how someone structures their family and their life, and about reasonable expectations of safety and freedom from persecution.

It’s about civil rights, and while some may be uncomfortable fighting for the civil rights of people who aren’t necessarily like them, those are precisely the people that decent folk should always fight for.

Finn McCool (The System Isn't Broken; It's Fixed ~ from an Occupy sign)

May 14th, 2012
8:04 am

Polls are only relevant to observers if their results confirm what they want to hear.

Right, Johnny?

Mick

May 14th, 2012
8:06 am

joe

Good morning…see you are as fiesty as ever…you are correct, I think the who nailed it even better, “meet the new boss, same as the old boss”. Happy plumbing and may the urkle be with you…

RB from Gwinnett

May 14th, 2012
8:07 am

Let’s just go ahead and add this Georgia 400 cluster to the long and growing list of failures by the Department of Transportation. Is there anybody in that department who can think their way out of a wet paper bag?

Skip

May 14th, 2012
8:10 am

Sure am glad that economy thing is taken care of. Now we can focus on the important issues.

Mary Elizabeth

May 14th, 2012
8:10 am

I have observed, over the years, that conservatives have often been the wrong side of history in their views. During the transition from the Jim Crow South to an integrated South, conservatives consistently maintained that the “joining of the races” would be “against nature and against God’s laws.” History has proven those views wrong. Below are a few of my thoughts regarding President Obama’s “evolution” regarding same-sex marriage.
———————————————————————–

In 1996, President Obama said that he favored same-sex marriage on a questionnaire. In 2004, he said that he was in favor of Civil Unions. Now, he has publicly stated that he favors same-sex marriage. It is easy for me to reconcile his seeming differences over time on this issue, without thinking that President Obama has changed his views in a so-called “flip-flop.”

It is my view that President Obama has probably believed in same-sex marriage, as an equal right for all, even before 1996. I have stated that I perceive that the world’s collective consciousness has been moving in a more egalitarian direction. I believe that President Obama has not only seen this ongoing evolution, but that he has believed the world will be better for having moved in that direction. If one believes in the concept of egalitarianism, then one would support the right of same-sex marriage for those born with that sexual orientation.

Then, why in 2004 did President Obama say that he believed in Civil Unions? I think that he is aware that the world’s perceptions evolve, just as Thomas Jefferson was aware that the world’s perceptions evolve, continuously. Jefferson was not a strong proponent for immediately freeing the slaves, in his day, because he felt that the slaves – and that society-at-large – were not prepared for their freedom, pragmatically, nor ready for a quick change from slave to free, psychologically, but Jefferson spoke of the right of slaves to be free and he voiced that, in time – perhaps in 50 years from the time in which he spoke those words in the early 1800s – society-at-large and the slaves, themselves, would be prepared for that greater good of freedom for all. Those were Jefferson’s perceptions.

Likewise, I believe that President Obama has believed in the equal right for same-sex marriage for some time (and even before 1996), but I also believe that he could not speak out publicly as a proponent for same-sex marriage too far ahead of the evolution of society to see with his eyes that same-sex marriage is inherently right, in terms of equality for all. To have spoken of those evolved perceptions too soon would have been political suicide for him because his vision would have been too far in advance of the vision of the American people regarding marriage. Can we really call Obama’s being more measured, in 2004, regarding his publicly stated views on marriage a cynical decision on his part, or was he simply being politically astute and even politically wise? I think the answer is the latter. However, the overriding truth is that, now, society has evolved to the point that a President of the United States can speak out for same-sex marriage without risking his entire political future, and President Obama did speak out, even with some risk still remaining.

For anyone who may be interested, here is a post from my blog in which I describe how the world is evolving toward a greater egalitarian consciousness. See link below:

http://maryelizabethsings.wordpress.com/2010/12/26/a-new-year-a-budding-world-consciousness/

Joe The Plumber Too

May 14th, 2012
8:15 am

Good morning Mick, hope it’s a good one for you, and not really fiesty, just sick of the politics from both sides and the misleading lies disguised as ads, and we have just begun on this election cycle. I’m not happy with either choice this time around, although I should be getting used to it as this is the third election in a row that I almost feel that no choice is the right choice. Perhaps I’m just gettin old and cynical at least thats what the Mrs. and the kids accuse me of….:)

jconservative

May 14th, 2012
8:16 am

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This statement from the US Constitution, 14th Amendment, section 1, pretty much sums up the various court cases headed for the Supreme Court.

We either have a nation of laws or we do not. The Constitution is worth the paper it is written on or it is not.

I do not believe the Court wants this case. But there are to many cases pending for the Court to avoid the issue.

When the Framers of the Constitution put in the Bill of Rights it was to protect the minority from the loss of rights by vote of the majority.

The Court will decide.

JohnnyReb

May 14th, 2012
8:17 am

Finn McCool (The System Isn’t Broken; It’s Fixed ~ from an Occupy sign)

May 14th, 2012
8:04 am

Polls are only relevant to observers if their results confirm what they want to hear.

Right, Johnny?
______________________________

There is truth in that, but polls can also sway outcomes. The polling and support of this issue is no different than Obama’s reelection campaign. Many of the same people and organizations that are in the tank for Obama, especially legacy meida, support gay marriage. They ignore the voting booth results and favor the polls because the poll data can be manipulated.

stands for decibels

May 14th, 2012
8:17 am

this Georgia 400 cluster

heh.

I don’t normally condone first-time off-topic postings, but I gotta indulge this one and ask (since I suspect we’re on the same page here, for a change) — so you agree with me that the 3-hour shoulder lanes, with only teensy-tiny cutouts for breakdowns, seem like a really dumb idea?

Is that what you mean by the “400 cluster”, and perchance is “cluster” missing a word that rhymes with “truck”?

kayaker 71

May 14th, 2012
8:19 am

I have to agree with Joe…. “Our First Gay President” could care less about the rights of gay Americans. If he could have, he would have continued to dodge this issue like the plague but Old Joe forced his hand. I really don’t think that Bozo could care less if you marry your pet goat as long as he gets your vote. And do you think that Romney’s religion permits him to view gay marriage as positive? Not on your life. At least Romney is honest on this point. Bozo has said repeatedly during the 2008 campaign that he is not an advocate of gay marriage but when the campaign gets into full swing, he all of a sudden is evolving, then he changes his mind completely. Get that wet finger in the air, Bozo……

Adam

May 14th, 2012
8:20 am

You’re not supposed to be able to vote on minority rights. That’s why they’re called rights.

Mick

May 14th, 2012
8:20 am

Joe, I hear you. I used to watch a lot of political shows, now I don’t watch any, zero, zip, nada and I feel better. I can’t relate to any of the talking heads knocking down 300k or more – that ain’t me! Can’t wait until this election cycle is over too, notice how every election is the most important one ever? They always were that. Don’t watch much tv either, thank god for the internets. Anyways, just keep creating your own world, at least there you are king!!!

Finn McCool (The System Isn't Broken; It's Fixed ~ from an Occupy sign)

May 14th, 2012
8:20 am

Cons need to find smarter people that Scott Walker if they want to win:

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/11/scott_walker%e2%80%99s_politically_suicidal_exchange/

What a doofus.

Paul

May 14th, 2012
8:21 am

Jay – “And while Gillespie quite properly noted that “it’s important to be respectful,” once such issues are raised it’s hard to keep ugly and intolerant things from being said in the passion of a campaign, with so many voices being raised and heard.”

xanadu – “I have no tolerance for the intolerent.”

I wonder how many people read such sentiments and think it refers only to those on the Right. Not showing respect for different opinions and labeling people with an opposing view as hateful or intolerant occurs on both sides of the spectrum, particularly on this issue.

The talking points in italics, including “People who disagree on the fundamental nature of marriage can agree, at the same time, that gays and lesbians should receive essential rights and protections such as hospital visitation, adoption rights, and health and death benefits.””

This is viewed as hateful, intolerant, bigoted and homophobic only by those who want the same noun – marriage – used for everything. IF the Left is really interested in the end game, they’ll demonstrated compromise. If they’re not – they’ll continue with an absolutist position.

Jm

May 14th, 2012
8:22 am

More important news

Debt is bad and Greece may seriously screw up Europe and possibly the US too

The fire begins again

Deficits must stop

Francois Lubbe

May 14th, 2012
8:23 am

JohnnyReb

May 14th, 2012
8:23 am

Slighthly off topic – ABC/George Stepanopoulos has Elliot Spitzer on his Sunday show opinion panel. I did not know much about Sptizer when his prostitution scandel hit the news. However, he demonstrates on the ABC show why it happened and, in short, that he is an idiot of the highest order. He’s also arrogant. Imagine that.

Joseph

May 14th, 2012
8:24 am

Your polling simply makes no sense. Where are these people polled? Homo marriage couldn’t even pass in gay friendly Califronia just a few years ago and was simply demolished in North Carolina just last week. You and the dem party can continue to think Americans are for gay marriage but in ballot elections it has yet to be seen. Simply facts Jay….

Adam

May 14th, 2012
8:25 am

possibly the US too

Been saying that since 2009. Hasn’t happened yet.

barking frog

May 14th, 2012
8:25 am

the idea of “minority”
rights should be abhorrent
to anyone upholding
equality.

Recon 0311 2533

May 14th, 2012
8:26 am

The only polls that reflect true accuracy are the ones where people actually vote.The states that have voted on this issue including the state of California reflect a vote count that has been in disfavor of same sex marriage. Based on that fact it’s hard to believe that a significant majority of the country favors same sex marriage.

Paul

May 14th, 2012
8:27 am

morning, kayaker 71

“And do you think that Romney’s religion permits him to view gay marriage as positive? Not on your life. At least Romney is honest on this point. ”

That misrepresents the situation.

Romney’s made it clear he’s not a spokesman for his church, doesn’t speak for it and refers questioners to church spokespersons.

As far as LDS viewing it as a positive: this from and LDS press release: “the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches. ”

Sounds to me they’re covering all the bases on what protections and responsibilities are entailed in a marriage. Just calling it something else.

Sean Smith

May 14th, 2012
8:27 am

What it really boils dow to on this topic and a bunch of others is:

Dont tell me how to live my life based on your religious beliefs. You live your life the way you want and let me do the same.

This country would be so much better off if more people would just mind their own business.

godless heathen

May 14th, 2012
8:28 am

Just remove all the legal “privileges” and penalties associated with marriage. Get government out of the marriage business all together. Allow any two adults to enter into any legal contract they want to. If they want the blessing of the sky fairy, they can find a church to provide “holy matrimony”.

Jm

May 14th, 2012
8:29 am

Congrats

More gay people can one day get married

But under Obama you can’t get a job and can’t support your family

Adam

May 14th, 2012
8:29 am

I’m with godless heathen on this one. Of course, few who consider themselves “married” will actually go for it, but I still like the concept.

Mick

May 14th, 2012
8:31 am

paul@8:27

Great analysis! Love the way you pick out that point and dissect it, were you good in biology in high school?

barking frog

May 14th, 2012
8:32 am

More than 90% of
Americans are employed.

Mick

May 14th, 2012
8:33 am

**But under Obama you can’t get a job and can’t support your family**

I think you meant to say that under our capitalist system here you can’t get a job. The president, at least constitutionally, is not required to find you a job…

godless heathen

May 14th, 2012
8:33 am

S. Smith: “This country would be so much better off if more people would just mind their own business.”

Ain’t that the truth. My favorite joke:

Little boy sitting on the steps smoking a cigarette. Busy-body lady stops to admonish him.
Lady: “Don’t you know that smoking is bad for you?”
Boy: “Lady, my grandfather lived to be 105.”
Lady: “Oh, and did he smoke?”
Boy: “I don’t know, but he minded his damn business.”

kayaker 71

May 14th, 2012
8:33 am

In one the lead stories on AJC online, it was interesting to observe Reverend Warnock of the Ebenezer Baptist Church tiptoe around this issue. The majority of his sermon was about Mother’s Day but he just could not fail, in the last few minutes of his sermon, to mention this issue. I really do not think that the black community, especially those who go to church, are any more tolerant than they always have been regarding gays and marriage. However, I do not think that it will be an issue in November. Bozo being black is much more important than how he feels about gays and whether or not they are allowed to marry. He would have to commit a sin much worse than this to lose their vote.

Adam

May 14th, 2012
8:33 am

barking frog: ummmm I am not sure that is true. You mean “of working age/ability and a few other stipulations” right?

Paul

May 14th, 2012
8:34 am

Sean Smith

“Dont tell me how to live my life based on your religious beliefs. You live your life the way you want and let me do the same.”

I take it you mean only for stuff like can you shop on Saturday or not, should men and women sit together or be separated on separate sides in a movie theater, can people buy alcohol or not?

Not stuff like not stealing or not killing other people?

Adam

May 14th, 2012
8:34 am

Mick: The president, at least constitutionally, is not required to find you a job…

Guess which side of the political spectrum railed against the government being an employer of last resort. Just GUESS.

Adam

May 14th, 2012
8:35 am

Paul: Not stuff like not stealing or not killing other people?

Not originally religious concepts.

Doggone/GA

May 14th, 2012
8:37 am

“Get government out of the marriage business all together”

Nope, get religion out of marriage first. Marriage is a legal contract, therefore the government is involved whether you like it or not.

Paul

May 14th, 2012
8:38 am

Hiya Mick!

I did okay. Really liked a ‘language and logic’ class. Counted as math credit, believe it or not.

Mostly honed it at work. Keeping on point with macro vs micro issues, focusing on the topic, not getting sidelined or diverted.

Doesn’t always work t0o well in discussing something with a spouse, though….

The Bible and history

May 14th, 2012
8:39 am

The Bible from a historical perspective, includes numerous fields of study, ranging from archeology and astronomy to linguistics and methods of comparative literature. The Bible may provide insight into pursuits, including but not limited to; our understanding of ancient and modern culture, mythology, anthropology and morality. Examining the historical context, importance ascribed to events, and the contrast between the descriptions of these events and historical evidence of their occurrence (or lack thereof) is useful in providing information on topics beyond the simple factual accuracy of the Bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history

Mick

May 14th, 2012
8:40 am

paul

**Doesn’t always work t0o well in discussing something with a spouse, though….88

Truth!

Joe The Plumber Too

May 14th, 2012
8:40 am

Mick, yesterday as we had three generations of Mom’s at the table, I guess I was able to reflect a little on what is really important. My mother who is a staunch democrat and in her eighties is very proud we have a “black” President and I understand her feelings. She remembers not being allowed in eateries and drinking from the colored fountains. My wife who could care less who is running and even less about who is elected. My oldest daughter who is much like her grandmother and very active in barrys Georgia campaign. Then we have the youngest daughter, a proud black conservative like her father engaged to a young man who happens to be a white liberal. I sat there surrounded by these people I love and realized, it doesn’t get any better than that. Only in America could I have such a diverse group that I am proud to call family. That is what in my opinion the politicians are missing, although to various degrees all of us in my family disagree on many issues, it never comes down to harsh words or choosing sides against each other and my wish would be that Americans could find their way back to believing as Sister Sledge sand ” We Are Family”. End of sermon, I guess I better go “rule” my employees……just kidding.

Brosephus™

May 14th, 2012
8:41 am

I was gonna post comments, but I’ll just co-sign jconservative’s post @ 8:16 with the idea that people are voting to basically pi$$ on the Constitution by denying rights to certain segments of our society. I can’t understand why in the world people are so friggin’ intent on dictating how other people live their lives but get angry as hell when they think others are trying to tell them how to live theirs. So much for small government…
———————————

re,polls – there is reason to question the accuracy of poll data showing increasing support for gay marriage.

Thirty two states have voted against gay marriage. There is theory most of those votes are old, that the increased support is relatively new. Yet, NC just voted in a constitutional amendment.

Look at the voter turn out versus the number of registered voters to see why many of these votes have ended the way they have. Typically, you have voter apathy for those who could care less about same sex marriages going against the concerted efforts of those who wanna stomp the dog sh*t out of the rights of others for the sake of their personal bigotries. At least, that’s my take on things based on the most recent vote. Passing something with low voter turnout does not always indicate that the mass of people agree with the outcome of the vote. It only means that the majority of the people who voted agreed with it.

JamVet

May 14th, 2012
8:42 am

Jm and virtually all those like him who hold unaccountable the people who are not hiring Americans, could go to work right now. And get great benefits.

No excuses, no b*llsh*t.

And they could all have BHO as their “boss”.

http://tinyurl.com/6ztebzc

Mary Elizabeth

May 14th, 2012
8:44 am

Paul, 8:21 am,

“Not showing respect for different opinions and labeling people with an opposing view as hateful or intolerant occurs on both sides of the spectrum, particularly on this issue.”
————————————————————————-

We must not be afraid to see with greater vision. Pursuing a vision that is beyond a present norm is not meant to call others intolerant. It is simply meant to demonstrate that norms and orthodox thinking may evolve over time, just as breaking barriers such as limited travel from horse and buggy to cars, to airplanes, to landing on the moon changes over time. See, below, how Ted Olson, conservative, and David Boies, liberal, agree on the same-sex marriage issue, below. Both were/are willing to break through societal barriers of orthodox thought.
—————————————————————-

“The quest for marriage equality has created some unlikely allies in attorneys Theodore Olson, a conservative, and David Boies, a liberal. Long well-known within the field of law, the two became nationally famous as the opposing counsels in Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court case that halted the Florida recount, and resolved the 2000 Presidential election in favor of George W. Bush.

Now the two lawyers, both veterans of multiple Supreme Court cases, have mounted a well-financed legal challenge to Proposition 8, California’s 2008 ballot initiative that put an end to same-sex marriage in that state. The case could make it as far as the Supreme Court and define the debate on same-sex marriage for years to come.”
—————————————————-

Link to the above quoted paragraphs:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02262010/profile.html

Tundra Dude

May 14th, 2012
8:46 am

Gay-marriage debate just a matter of time

Inquiring Mindz want to know……
Why are so many journalists infatuated with gay issues….???

Paul

May 14th, 2012
8:47 am

Adam

Not speaking of source. Speaking of things members of a religious group accept as religious principles.

Tell an orthodox Jew that the principles outlined in the Ten Commandments were not codified items originally taught by G-d to man or that because they were not originally religious precepts they cannot form the basis of advocating or working against specific laws.

Just pointing out it gets dicey when one hears ‘keep ‘religion’ out of….”

barking frog

May 14th, 2012
8:47 am

Adam
Rights are for everyone
privilieges not so much.

Brosephus™

May 14th, 2012
8:47 am

The only polls that reflect true accuracy are the ones where people actually vote.

That’s not necessarily true either. When you have a 30% turnout for an election and a majority of that 30% decides something, that can not always indicate something that is completely accurate for the entire voting population. It is, however, accurate for the participants of that particular vote.

Mick

May 14th, 2012
8:50 am

joe

That was a pretty uplifting little story! Great way to start off a monday – have a great week…

Mary Elizabeth

May 14th, 2012
8:51 am

barking frog, 7:28

“Hopefully we can quit being
gay or straight, black or
white and just be guys and
gals.”
———————————————————————

How about restating your initial comment like this instead, barking frog?

Hopefully we can quit being
gay or straight, black or
white, or guys and
gals, and just be human beings.”
———————————————————————

godless heathen

May 14th, 2012
8:53 am

“Nope, get religion out of marriage first. Marriage is a legal contract, therefore the government is involved whether you like it or not.”

The government is deciding which contracts are legal. The only involvement government should have is in the enforcement of the contract. I know it’s hard for libs to fathom, but we have rights and government restricts rights. IF DG and GH want to enter into a contract about survivorship, insurance benefits, etc, only government prevents us from doing that as “a marriage”, so government is all into the marriage business, when it should not be. A religious contract has no meaning except in a going to hell sense.

Paul

May 14th, 2012
8:54 am

Good Morning, Mary Elizabeth.

And a belated Happy Mother’s Day to you!

Nice quotes. They do illustrate one can disagree without being disagreeable.

Tundra Dude

“Why are so many journalists infatuated with gay issues….???”

I never knew ‘infatuated’ meant ‘report stuff that’s of interest to a great many people, as evidenced by states voting on constitutional amendments.’

Tundra Dude

May 14th, 2012
8:55 am

like all politicians, his goal is votes….period.

Great timing by BO….
He just picked up a cool $15 million in contributions from Gaytown…
(Hollywood)

barking frog

May 14th, 2012
8:55 am

Marriage is a licensed
priviliege that can be
legally denied.

jm

May 14th, 2012
8:58 am

oops

The giant $2 billion trading loss at JPMorgan Chase highlights a central problem in President Barack Obama’s case for a second term: Four years after the financial crisis nearly brought the nation to its knees, very little appears to have changed.

No high-profile bank executives are in jail. Special multi-agency task forces to go after financial fraud and mortgage market abuses appeared in State of the Union addresses, only to issue a few news releases and mostly vanish from public view.

And now one of the largest banks in the United States, headed by a Democrat and operating with government guarantees, has turned in the kind of headline-grabbing, casino-style style loss that drives voters crazy and that Obama’s financial reform bill was supposed to stop.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76259.html#ixzz1uqf5z8Ku

Doggone/GA

May 14th, 2012
8:58 am

“The government is deciding which contracts are legal. The only involvement government should have is in the enforcement of the contract”

The government protects the legally codified rights and responsibilities of the marriage contract. It is RELIGION that has muscled it’s way into what if primarily a legal issue.

Normal Free, Plain and Simple

May 14th, 2012
8:58 am

There isn’t a thing here that I could say that hasn’t been said. I will merely reiterate that I support equal rights for ALL human beings. It is the moral thing to do. Having said that, see y’all next post.

JohnnyReb

May 14th, 2012
8:58 am

Mary Elizabeth

May 14th, 2012
8:51 am

barking frog, 7:28

“Hopefully we can quit being
gay or straight, black or
white and just be guys and
gals.”
———————————————————————

How about restating your initial comment like this instead, barking frog?

Hopefully we can quit being
gay or straight, black or
white, or guys and
gals, and just be human beings.”

__________________

Mary Elizabeth, bless your little bleeding heart. Don’t you think we can be descent human beings and still be our unique selves? I’m sure in your mind if we all looked alike and think alike those thoughts would be ultra liberal. I’m not sure what color you would have us be. Probably a nice shade of light brown? No thanks on either.

Moderate Line

May 14th, 2012
8:59 am

As someone who is an avid reader I find the left for gay marriage to be somewhat ironic. In the last 100 years the entire concept of marriage has been turned on it’s head. Now we have over 50% of children are born to single mothers where as 50 years ago that would be rare.

When 50% of marriages failand of the 50% that do not fail what percentage of those people are actually happy. It seems odd to me that gay people even want to be married.

barking frog

May 14th, 2012
9:00 am

Mary Elizabeth
No problem. you
can be my personal
editor but you endorse
baby steps for those in
authority.

Jm

May 14th, 2012
9:02 am

Freedom without prosperity’s as bad as prosperity without freedom

Romney baby

St Simons - codewords are the new black

May 14th, 2012
9:02 am

oh please please please Republicans
make this election about bibles, bedrooms, & broomsticks
please do that

Brosephus™

May 14th, 2012
9:04 am

Moderate Line

Ever stop to think that allowing same sex marriages would potentially have a net benefit on the current state of marriage statistics?

Mary Elizabeth

May 14th, 2012
9:05 am

Paul, 8:54 am

“Good Morning, Mary Elizabeth.
And a belated Happy Mother’s Day to you!
Nice quotes. They do illustrate one can disagree without being disagreeable.”
———————————————————

Good morning to you, too, Paul. Oh, if we could only value this, once again, in America: “one can disagree without being disagreeable.” So true and so wise.

And, thanks for the belated Happy Mother’s Day wish. Of all of life’s gifts, being a mother – or being a father – has to be the most endearing.

kayaker 71

May 14th, 2012
9:05 am

Moderate Line 8:59,

I tend to agree with you. Why ruin a good thing?

Doggone/GA

May 14th, 2012
9:05 am

” It seems odd to me that gay people even want to be married.”

I think for a lot of gay people the issue is more legal than anything else. When Josef shows up, ask him how many hoops he and his partner had to jump through to protect their property, their rights as regards each other, and the legal protections for their family. All of which they would have had automatically if they could JUST have gotten married.

St Simons - codewords are the new black

May 14th, 2012
9:06 am

this just in –
Republicans have proposed another tax cut for the rich
as a compromise on this issue.

JohnnyReb

May 14th, 2012
9:07 am

St Simons – codewords are the new black

May 14th, 2012
9:02 am

oh please please please Republicans
make this election about bibles, bedrooms, & broomsticks
please do that
_________________________

I suggest you direct your pleas to the Obama machine. Barry can’t run on his record, so we have the social issues being pushed. Basically, anthing to direct attention away from Obama’s failures.

This will backfire. You don’t have 32 states who voted against gay marriage miracously change their mind and put someone in office that will push gay marriage and choose SCTOUS seats that will decide in that favor.

TGT

May 14th, 2012
9:07 am

You libs still can’t nail down how you would (eventually) discriminate and define marriage. Are you going to leave the “rights” of the polygamists out of your definition? And if you insist on the “any two consenting adults” premise, what if two couples wanted to marry so that one could provide health insurance to the other? Also, if you believe that anything between “consenting adults” is okay, then I assume you are for legalized prostitution across the U.S.?

And if you’re a same-sex marriage supporter and you celebrated Mother’s Day yesterday, why? As I noted: Isn’t Mother’s Day “homophobic?” After all, who says that a child needs a mother? What about all those children being raised in same-sex homes with two “fathers?” Won’t they experience psychological harm with all of the attention given to Mother’s Day? What about activities at school and church that are done in support of mothers? Should young children be subjected to such “propaganda?”

Welcome to the world from a liberal point of view.

Make no mistake about it:

YOU CANNOT REDEFINE MARRIAGE WITHOUT SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES!!!

This debate will not end with same-sex “marriage.” (As if most homosexuals are interested in a traditional marriage anyway!)

RB from Gwinnett

May 14th, 2012
9:07 am

Stands, yes, the “truck” was missing from my comment. It was probably stuck in traffic.

I actually like the concept of opening up that lane, but to have to merge back in at the exits kills the plan. And there isn’t the first sign out there telling anybody anything. It needs to start up at windward and go all the way down as long as the lane is there.

Thomas Heyward Jr

May 14th, 2012
9:07 am

It is quite refreshing to see Obama channeling Lester Maddox concerning state’s rights.
I guess Obama will admit that Maddox was right all along.
.
Too bad that obama is a habitual lier.

Question for Tundra

May 14th, 2012
9:08 am

Tundra says,
Great timing by BO….
He just picked up a cool $15 million in contributions from Gaytown…
(Hollywood)

What if Mitt Romney says that he thought of it first?

Tundra Dude

May 14th, 2012
9:08 am

Ever stop to think that allowing same sex marriages would potentially have a net benefit on the current state of marriage statistics?

Is that a good thing….??
My sis sez a professor once made the statement:
Marriage *causes* mental illness.

iggy

May 14th, 2012
9:08 am

Support for homo-rights has now peaked. The public is sick and tired of this garbage for a group of mentally ill patients. Obama has sealed his fate.

Romney wins 2012!!

Put that in your gayPipe and smoke it, Bookman.

Mary Elizabeth

May 14th, 2012
9:08 am

barking frog, 9:00 am

“Mary Elizabeth
No problem. you
can be my personal
editor but you endorse
baby steps for those in
authority.”
———————————————————

You don’t need an editor, barking frog. You do just fine on your own. Just a little tweaking, here and there. Me endorse baby steps? Never! :-)

Doggone/GA

May 14th, 2012
9:09 am

“You libs still can’t nail down how you would (eventually) discriminate and define marriage”

Actually? We did. If you weren’t paying attention, that’s not our problem

kayaker 71

May 14th, 2012
9:10 am

Doggone, 9:05,

Ask many of the 50% that didn’t make in a marriage how many hoops they have to jump through to protect their assets. It is a mixed blessing, my friend.

Paul

May 14th, 2012
9:10 am

Mary Elizabeth

Trying to understand why the other person believes as they do – what’s the basis for the belief, have they considered certain factors, what are the life experiences – rather than treating each interaction as a chance to score debate points and put down the other while building oneself up – goes a long way towards that ‘disagree without being disagreeable’ idea.

barking frog

May 14th, 2012
9:12 am

Romney’s admiration for
finding the lost child in
his commercial has
somewhat modified since
it’s rumored he held her
down, cut her hair, and
hauled her home on top
of his car.

The Thin Guy

May 14th, 2012
9:13 am

When is ØDumbø going to come out of the closet and marry his teleprompter? The way to work this farce is for a man and woman to marry and then one transgenders itself. Marry a goldfish. I couldn’t care less. But please draw the curtains around the aquarium before consummating the relationship. Get here November.

Brosephus™

May 14th, 2012
9:14 am

Is that a good thing….??

I was asking you, as you seem fixiated on the statistics behind marriage. As for me personally, I could care less what two people got married as long as they both consented and were of age to consent. What someone else chooses as the way to lead their life has no bearing on my life and/or salvation.

Christian Beliefs

May 14th, 2012
9:16 am

According to Christian beliefs, what is the difference between a big sin and a little sin?

kayaker 71

May 14th, 2012
9:16 am

The Thin Guy, 9:13,

Rush suggested the other day that Bozo should marry himself. Being an avowed narcissist and deeply in love with himself, that should work out pretty well. But then who gets the Portugese water dog?