Well said.

Our rules are based on the Bible and Christian beliefs. I know you won't believe that, but I can try to convince you. As far as gay people getting married, I believe it is morally wrong.

As for religion in our society, Ever read the Constitution of the State of Illinois? Read it here,check the preamble. http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/conmain.htm

Also read this, all 50 states preambles http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/god-constitutions.htm

The US Constitution only protects us from the federal govt. from forcing a religion on us, but the states were not barred from doing this. As a matter of fact many had a state religion. The 14th amendment incorporated the 1st amendment against the states in Everson v. Board of Education in 1947, thus stopping the states from having an official religion. My only point is that at the time of the founding, the founders wanted religion to be part of govt., just not an official one from the feds, they wanted the states to decide, since there were many different religions and beliefs and if you didn't like it, you could move to another state. Competition among the states, theoretically, back during the time of the founding you could have a Baptist state, a Catholic state or Muslim state. Now it has been turned into Freedom FROM religion, when it is actually Freedom OF religion.

Mike- This country was not based or founded on religion...your right you will not convince me because I have a brain. First of all the preamble of the current IL constitution was written in 1970. This is the same argument with "one nation under god" and "in god we trust". Most of the founders would never had allowed this and it was only later that these things were added by fascist Christians in office.

Jefferson fought very hard to keep religion out of the constitution in Virgina as many were proposing to add in amendments for Catholics and Jews...to keep them from holding office. HE BELIEVED RELIGION WAS A PERSONAL MATTER ( read his writings). Keep in mind many of the founders were deists who did not believe Christ was divine and believed god did not play a direct role in people's lives.

Your other fault is that atheism is considered a theology. Let me ask you a question. Would you have a problem with "one nation under no god"? I have done a lot of reading on this issue but this video link should help you. But I also recommend "Freethinkers" by Susan Jacoby as she backs up all the things she writes and not with just with some sentences taken out of context.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eGDQ_J1ieA

Illinois preamble was written in 1870 and not changed since. In 1970 they kept it as it was written and did not change the preamble. Your other point are untrue and you do not provide any evidence, But as i said you will not change your mind. How do you explain that all 50 states have a preamble recognizing God? And if you did a little research you would find the state religions that were in effect and also that George Washington and the other founders even attended church in the Capital Building because back then it doubled as a church. And here is the Virginia preamble with the date. ""Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI ... Religion, or the Duty which we owe
our Creator can be directed only by Reason ... and that it is the mutual
duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each
other"".

I do like your point about atheism though. It creates a a paradoxical issue. The atheist sue every year to remove nativity scenes on govt property because it is an endorsement of religion, and most win. And if atheism is a theology isn't the govt. endorsing atheism, thus forcing a religion on the people?

Yes..First of all when the government puts "one nation under no god" that would be a endorsement of atheism just as the government is endorsing "believers" by its having "one nation under god". Staying neutral is leaving the issue alone.

Here is the original Illinois constitution (PLEASE READ THE PREAMBLE). http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Illinois_Constitution_of_1818

George Washington rarely went to church and made little mention of it. Understand that I am not saying that the founders were atheist btw. But they did understand that religion was a personal matter and public policy should not be dictated by it.

Thank you!! Very well said!!

Bravo, phxdr! Couldn't have said it better. That first line was powerful.

Michael, Michael, Michael...sigh...you stand firmly with a book written by men, not a god or deity of any kind, thousands of years ago, with countless re-translations and countless applicable texts left out for innumerable reasons. That text also subjugates women as property and often prizes cattle as more important to man. Even the Bible says God essentially needed a 'do-over' when creating women...remember, Lilith got uppity and had to be replaced by Eve...and because Eve was pulled literally from Adam, she was lesser than him. So, by your logic, you would be a GREAT wife to a modern Muslim man. This same book seems to be okay with incest (multiple examples...), revenge, and drinking (what, the water isn't good enough, we must have wine?), among a large number of things that are between curious and illegal.

If we found an encyclopedia from ancient times or the Unabomber's manifesto, or Mein Kampf, or a bunch of other 'grand idea' type books, but it was signed "God", would we subscribe the same reverence to them, simply if we believed them from 'God'?

This is why so many people 'lose faith' or simply leave organized religion...belief in a vindictive or overly judgmental god, especially one that created all men in his image...who created gay people then? Jesus' effeminate alter ego, Emmanuel? The archangel Gabriel on the 'seventh day' while God was off resting? Did God create them then think, nah, same gender Love...that's SOooo gay, man...At least with aliens, you can figure that they just really don't care that much and are letting us decide for ourselves. All powerful, all knowing God that let's people hurt each other without interfering on the behalf of the underdog in the name of justice? THAT 'God' you can keep to yourself, and we can all pray that THAT 'God' finds less followers with each new sunrise.
Thank Gaea...

I was in a heated argument just this morning with one of my co-workers about this. I kept asking him why gays/lesbians shouldn't marry. His answer every time was "they just shouldn't". People can bring religion into it, people can bring politics into it, but when it comes down to it, everything is opinionated. I get people to hate me simply because I support the LGBT community. Personally, I am straight, so the reason for supporting the community is based simply on what I believe. I asked a co-worker why people get married. His response? "to have children". If that was the reason people get married you'd see a LOT less marriages. I know plenty of people who never had children but wanted to get married. Why? They love each other. Whether you are straight, gay, bi, whatever, you should have the same rights. Just a century ago women had barely any rights in this country simply because we are women. So it's ok to degrade and call someone names just because they are gay? This country has equality for sexes, race, etc. so why not sexual orientation? Be proud of who you are, not ashamed. As for other issues in this country, they are all important. However, this movement for equality amongst the LGBT community is getting closer to a solution, and I hope for all of those that are gay, lesbian, bi and transexual that they get treated with the same fairness of everyone else in this country as they should. "They just shouldn't have equality" isn't a good enough reason.

EP- And that is a important point. What some are advocating is tyranny of the majority. The fact is that minority rights should never be subject to the majority vote because the minority will ALWAYS lose.

Sin is in the eye of the beholder. Example with Hinduism in which many branches of it are vegetarian. Is it your belief that if enough Hindu's move into Oak Forest that they get a law passed to make it illegal to have meat in your house? See where I am going? It is so easy to not respect other people's point of view and trample on their freedom and liberty.

If it was stated that marriage will be redfined for everyone from now on and you can ONLY marry someone of the same sex I would be with you on your fight for this. But that is not what is being stated is it? When you stand back and look at this issue what you have are people who can not respect other people who are different and who can not mind their own business.

Exactly, I agree with you Sara!
One day our children will look back upon us regarding this issues, the way that we look back at our ancestors who were so ignorant to keep blacks and women from having any rights.
People are born either gay, straight, or bi... I cannot believe in 2012 there are still such arrogant ignorant morons who think that their god and their beliefs should rule over all. Anyone who thinks that way, needs to move to the middle east, where religion does govern the law. Here, in this country we have freedom of and from eligion.
Love is Love, and evryone deserves the right to marry their partner. Why would anyone gay want to get married in a church that publicly promotes the hatred of them?!-- duhh, so legalize it for in every way, except for in those crazy churches that spread hatred instead of their god's love. Simple as pie.
People need to spend a lil more time loving and learning, and far less time judging and hating!!!

"Marriage is a LEGAL agreement not a RELIGIOUS one" is not exactly true, Sara. Marriage existed long before governments did. It's not contractual, it's always been a covenantal thing: between God and two people. To say that GOVERNMENT is the only one that can define marriage or frame its meaning is a dangerous precedent to believe. Imagine the effect if only government gets to decide what's true.

That said, marriage hasn't just been traditionally defined by Americans as between a man and a woman. It's historic--both "religiously" as well as governmentally across the globe and through time. Marriage is of God's making--not government's. He defines it. So, no one can re-define it. In this current debate, we have parties saying, "We want marriage for ourselves, too. We want it re-defined." It's similar to a person of Muslim faith saying, "I want Christmas to be a Muslim tradition, too. We want to re-fashion it, however, in a Muslim meaning." Christmas is a Christian experience; thus, trying to re-define it, eliminates its meaning. In this way, to attempt to re-define marriage eliminates its meaning.

...(And, while I am not of the type who always like to use the Slippery-Slope form of argumentation, I think there is something of value to consider from it, here. What happens when polygamists want to redefine marriage? Or, if a man wants to marry a horse? To say this is a civil rights issue undermines what marriage really is. If it's a civil rights issue, solve it in a civil environment, not by trying to redefine marriage.

Rev. Morlan, people using God and religion as an argument against gay marriage seem to be very possessive of the word "marriage". Are you for or against civil unions?

Michele, I appreciate your wishes to make a distinction with your question about "civil unions." While I don't necessarily agree with the way you framed the question: "people using God and religion as AN ARGUMENT AGAINST gay marriage seem to be very possessive of the word 'marriage.'" It's obvious on this thread--as well as so much dialogue on this issue over the last few days--that no matter what wish one might have to have even-handed a discussion of it, people who care about the Bible's descriptions of life in God's Kingdom seemed be constantly framed as bigots, archaic, pin-heads, so on. Not only is it unfortunate and inaccurate, it's unhealthy and doesn't leave space for the actual discussion. I'm assuming you read my above response about the meaning and author of marriage. So, to answer a part of the question in your question, I'd first ask you: Who owns marriage? Who gets to define it? You know my answer to this, I'd assume, but I think it's a lingering issue for the future of this issue. But, the main part of your question was built on an assumption: "John, since you don't believe in marriage beyond its traditional scope, are civil unions OK?" I think I'd simply respond like I saw Jesus do: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, and unto God the things that are God's." Michele, I don't define every law--whether it's local, statewide, federal, etc. It's a question like, "Jesus, do you agree with the tax rate Caesar is imposing?"

. . . I have a role--which you have correctly identified--as a pastor. I want to be a blessing to the community God has placed me in and to those who desire to circle together as encouragement to live as God wishes. Civil unions are just that: civil and not religious. Laws like these will come and go. I don't invest my energies in debating the tax rate, so to speak. Caesar is doing what he is doing. God is doing what He is doing. I will spend my energies in trying to keep my attentions on what God is trying to do. (That being said, I did comment on this thread, because it's impact and passion is so wide-spread. But, it is because the issue is spreading to a point where Caesar wants to define what is God's.)

John, you have very eloquently not answered my core question. And that's fine. I wouldn't have expected you to contradict your calling. I don't believe the Bible is the actual word of God, but a beautiful collection of stories to use as a guide to life, but not be taken literally. The Bible's authors were only human, subject to the same biases, agendas and other imperfections that people are subject to today. We can't get a news story today without spin. I don't believe the Bible's authors, translators, duplicators were of some greater virtue or perfection than the average person is today. And I say this in direct contradiction of my Christian faith. That being said, it is not my believe that a God of love would limit the commitment to love that is marriage to only those of the opposite sex. I know, procreation and all that (not every hetero couple is able to have children, so are we not worthy of marriage as well?) But if we are all made in His image and He has given us the gift of love, then how do you give the privilege of marriage only to some? Caesar defined marriage centuries ago, whether or not we believe it.

John Morlan - Marriage is NOT religious. Not everyone gets married in a church under their "God's" eye. By that account are you claiming Atheists are not legally married? It's a legal contract. You have a marriage license that is issued by the state not a church.

Religion has NOTHING to do with marriage unless the couple involved wants it there.

I love it when people quote the Bible. You have awesome copying skills, Michael. Here's the thing. The Bible was not written by God. It was written by men. People with agendas are not products of the modern age. They have existed all throughout time. So given that nothing from your quotes is an actual direct quote from God, just an interpretation (by men) of things that men have said and written and translated through the ages (and perhaps added their own words), your quotes do not back your argument. Sorry. The ideas of love and commitment are timeless, and if you believed that God is a God of love, then the question of gay marriage would be a non-issue.

"somebody said from the bible he'd quote. There was dust on the man in the long black coat".......B. Dylan

Again, just words written by mortal men. You're not listening Michael. The bible is just a book. Do you not understand the difference between fiction & non-fiction?
Homosexuality is not a sin. It is as natural as your eye colour, or your height.
If two consenting adults are lucky enough to find each other & fall in love & want to get married, good luck to them, no matter whether they are gay or straight.
I just don't understand why anyone could possibly think otherwise, and still call themselves a decent human being.

My lesbian friend put it best today "I think it's super special that many people think it is perfectly acceptable to vote on if I should be treated like a human being." BTW, she and her wife and very happy together.

Gay Marriage....it's just like your marriage, only gayer.

It had to do with the statements that marriage is a contract as stated by some in this thread, or that it is only a legal agreement, not a religious one. If you are not religious or do not believe in God then it will make no difference to you, but if you are a believer you need to go back to what God and Jesus said. I am pointing out that it is not, it was instituted by God. How can man make change what God created?

I was also pointing out that scripture, which is the Word of God, abhors homosexuality behavior as a sin. But, God still loves the sinner and wants them to turn away from their sin so that they can be in a relationship with God.

Do not get me wrong, I am a sinner just like the rest, I am just pointing out where i think some of you are mistaken or wrong.

You can try to spin it anyway you want, but you can't change the word of God. Jerry you left out "nor sodomites" and "nor boy prostitutes", that is where the translation is to homosexuals.

The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e , boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a common practice in the Greco-Roman world of Jesus. In greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the "cupbearer of the gods", whose latin name was Catamitus. The term translated sodomites would then refer to adult males who indulged in homosexual acts with such boys; See similar condemnations of such practices in Rom 1, 26-27; 1 TM 1, 10.

After reading all these comments, I feel I need to add mine here. In my opinion we were founded on religion or this whole issue wouldn't be an issue now. Anyone would have the right to marry anyone since the beginning. But that is not so. Personally I don't care one way or another. Some of you bring up the 'age of consent.' Why is the Government allowed to set that. Shouldn't that also be something decided by the individuals. Any time the Government gets involved in an issue such as this, it's to divide the country. It's political and designed to get the vote. C'mon now...really? Do you really think Obama would get involved if it wasn't an election year and he's looking for the Gay vote? Not much has been said for his 3 years in office. Now during an election year he had this big Epiphany, and Biden is forced to apologize for stealing his thunder. It's politics folks!

Jesus answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” (Matt. 19:4.)

What did Jesus say about God’s creative work? Did He make Adam and Joseph? Did He create male and male, or did He create male and female? According to this passage, what has been God’s plan for sexual union [one flesh] since the beginning of time? Was His plan for a male partner to be joined to another male partner, or was it for a husband to be united to his wife? According to this passage, is a man to cleave to his male partner, or to his spouse?

It does, actually. Just because YOUR way of life is different from mine (or someone else) gives you NO right to discriminate against me/other people.
Good job on being condescending, too.

Juvenal, incestuous marriages and polygamy last I checked were illegal. That's not the issue.

First, it's hard not to be condescending given the level of discourse (if it can even be called that) in this thread. Even leaving religion aside, the legal, moral and historical issues at play here are very complex. Marriage is something that transcends all of these things; it is not just a legal construct, it is not just a religious institution. It has been the primary basis of procreation and child-rearing for centuries; It is and has been the basic building block of Western society (and most others, throughout time.) I guess anything that 51% of state legislators want to call "marriage" can become marriage, but most of the simplistic arguments here in its favor would apply equally to allowing government sanction of incestuous and polygamous unions too, as long as they are between consenting adults. If you are fine with that, then your arguments are valid. If you are not, you'd better refine your arguments for why some unions can be marriages and others cannot....

Juvenal, to 'refine' the argument...there is this...Bigamy/polygamy is actually already illegal in most states, as is beastiality. (Oddly, marrying a first cousin is NOT in some states...) While marriage has been around since before recognized, organized religion, and pair-bonding since humans walked upright, it is not a religious nor a civil invention. It was just two people who wanted to commit to each other...it really was originally just that, a committment ceremony. Sometimes it wasn't even 'witnessed' by anyone else, just the two people, sometimes not even anywhere special. Sometimes, even now, there is just a 'common law' marriage, with no special ceremony at all. So, technically, in the historical sense, there is no 'right' way or 'special rules' to dictate marriages. Those are all inventions of human society. They were long recognized as a natural right by any consenting adults (with the definition of THAT term changing over the years as well).

We in the U.S. based most laws on English common law. Those laws are an amalgamation of Catholic and Protestant beliefs, Viking tradtions, older French laws, Celtic tradtions, etc. (The word “husband” is from the Old Norse husbondi.)

Multiple partnerships were tried every so often, possibly most notably the Oneida community of New York. They never really work out though, when there isn't a sort of cult aspect to them. (Thus the suspicion of Mormons, even by other Christians, especially from the South.)

That's hot.

When will people who have such a personal relationship with Jesus start keeping it personal, and finally stop trying to control other people with their own beliefs????
If you want a religion to govern law, move to the middle east!!!

People that quote this part of the Bible don't understand the Machiavellian nature of the founding of the Christian Church. The Bible--a man made document-- is above all else a propaganda instrument, or perhaps better phrased a public relations document.

Its also intended to recruit new converts.

One way to do this is to position your beliefs as the correct beliefs (duh) but also position your beliefs in opposition to your enemy's beliefs. "I am pro life--my opponent believes in murdering babies!!"

The enemies of the ancient Jews and early Christians were, of course, the Romans. The Roman society, like the Greeks before them, embraced homosexuality as a normal part of society. There were (and are) many societies where homosexuality was common and accepted. The early Christians set their church up in opposition to the Roman society, and therefore rejected homosexuality as something those "other, lesser" people do. They began to discriminate.

That's why when people lean on their bibles for a cogent argument against homosexuality, I feel nothing but sorrow for them. They've fallen victim to a two thousand year old political smear campaign.

What is still Paul? You need to site the passage.

You have to remember Death meant that you could not be with God in heaven. You would die a sinner, God can't be in the presence of sin. death is a metaphor for eternity without God.

Hating mother father and own life means that those things are second to being a disciple of Jesus.

Letter to the Ephesians, you left out verse 21, that calls for both husband and Wife to be subordinate to each other, Read on from verse 21-30 for the full explanation.

People are backwards because they cannot think for themselves and instead rely on ancient texts to tell them what to do. There are so many things that are in the bible that many people do not follow now. For instance, it's OK to hit your wife if she disobeys you.

like!

Not so fast, RevolveR! It does if state marriage laws are found to violate the 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the law. The Jim Crow state law of banning interracial marriage was nullified under the 14th Amendment. I would place a bet that the 28th Amendment to the Constitution would involved not allowing states to deny marriage rights based on gender.

I hope you got that I was quoting the bible to point out all the other things no one follows. Its a pick and choose book. :-)

I got it Jason.

Well said!

Remember when blacks and whites could not marry? That was the law then. It is time to evolve Peter, well at least learn to tolerate and live with it. And if Gays are born that way it is normal. For the life of me, I have never felt anyone was forcing their lifestyle on me. Especially gays.

I have to correct my last comment. I do feel that some people are trying to force their lifestyle on me. The self-righteous Bible thumpers.

Well said Henry

Oh grow up.

What is being forced on you? Get real.

Homosexuals have the same rights as I do - they can marry a person of the opposite sex. They are trying to change what has always been; the definition of marriage. I'd say that is who is being forceful and a bully. Because we stand and say to keep it traditional, we are (haters, homophobic, bigots, insert your favorite insult). Again, you are bullies.
Back in the beginning of this 'movement', all that was being asked for was to share benefits from employers, allowance to see each other in the hospital, and a few other requests. And people, being compassionate and understanding, saw it happen. We've now learned that it was never just about that - that was simply a stepping stone for this battle that we're entrenched in. People feel the sting of being duped and are left with no choice but to push back.

I think that this is a matter of principle. Civil unions are like the "back of the bus" or the "colored" water fountains. After all, isn't is the same water? It's not that there was anything wrong with the water from the "colored" fountain, its that no one wants to be told that they can't drink from the "white" fountain.

Why do you have to be so negative? Do you not want people to be happy? It's really no big deal. Just live and let live. Life is too short.

Very well put! I find it scary that African-Americans for the most part are against gay rights, considering their past history in this country. We're not asking for our "40 acres and a mule or reparations for the sins of our forefathers" we're asking for equal rights that are the fundamentals to our civilization.

....we need to go back to basics here. Why IS this an issue? Why does Government need to be involved? Why are there laws written stating who can and can't marry whom? Religions do not write the Laws...Government does. So I need to go back to my earlier question....Why is the Government involved?

He needs to get Romney talking about gay marriage and stop talking about the economy.

Obama is very careful to only make a 'stance' on issues that will further him politically.

exactly....this has been planned politically to take everyone's minds OFF the economy and turn neighbor against neighbor...friend against friend. Obama is not the Christian he claims to be.

We should go back to the founding principles? The Forefathers all had slaves, and no women could vote because they weren't full citizens. Only men were. God created everyone in his likeness and image, right? So who are we to judge God's work?

@mom: I hope you don't have children. God help them if they exist.

I pitty your children, and your own ignorant hateful ways.
When will you realize that not EVERYONE in this country believes as you do. When will you mature and accept that your arrogance in thinking that YOUR way must rule everybody is insane , egotistical, and pure evil. This is what the middle east does, and I'm sue you despise them for making their religion govern the laws... yet you hypocritically think it should be done here, and of course ruled by the religion that YOU personally chose.
The world is a big beautiful place, and I feel bad for people like you who cannot see past what they are blindly told and following.
|It's parents like you that are the reason so many teenage kids are killing themselves because they cannot 'come out' to their parents, because of your insanely hateful and shameful views on life and love.

You know very little yet you shout so much.

Well, everything is all well and good when we can talk about 'those' people, or 'other folks'...what about when it affects US (whoever we may be...)? How strong is a belief when WE are standing in the fire? It is a dodge to stand 'behind' the Bible as the word of God...but we tiny humans; we LIVE HERE, in this world, with these rules, some so arbitrary it is inconprehensible how a rational person could ever justify them...we interact with each other...whether it is because of God, and alien, cosmic dust...whatever...saying "God" told me to in the Bible is a weak way of saying you actually DON'T approve, or that you are scared that God won't let YOU into Heaven for disagreeing...I mean, I just don't see the logic of the stance, one way or the other.
What if it was socially unacceptable to be a narrow-minded anachronism of a time that should never have existed? Would YOU stay in the closet then, or the pantry, since the kitchen is probably where you think all women should still be, barefoot and knocked up with their seventh kid, making a dinner for the MAN to come home and slap you around a bit after he pounds a few whiskeys, right? Yes, mom, let us go BACK to the 'good old days'. In fact, let us go back to the day when you were property, traded for cattle if you were good 'breeding stock'. Those 'colored folks' knew their place, and didn't get uppity...good for you? You couldn't own land, you couldn't vote, you could cook, clean and go to your precious Church. You go first.

d- you think this issue was brought up to turn neighbors and friends against each other? It's bigots showing their true colors and quite frankly are NOT good neighbors or friends if they will cast judgement and NOT respect others as human beings.

Since the dawn of time, homosexuals lived with everyone, got married and lived secret lives with their lovers. People should marry who they want. Period.

Eloquent.

Geoffrey,
Thank you for getting right to the pint and truth of the matter!

Good point.

When right-wingers here want to get more "God" into "Government," they all applaud each other.

Yet these same people object when Iran wants to put more "God" into their "Government."

Hypocritical much?

And look at this way... not many gay and lesbian couples will get "knocked up" and have children that will be draining the system if they do get divorced! Also we won't be tying up the courts with deadbeat dads!!!

Stop watching FauxNews.

After carefully watching the Republican nomination process, I would be careful about using the term flip-flop when referring to Obama's position on this issue. The presumed nominee of the other party once flip-flopped on a local issue on Ohio on the same day he was campaigning. I would be careful about using the term pandering as well. My perception is that pandering usually is reserved for the one who is losing

Marvin, I agree...I find that troubling too. Romney would not have been my first choice. But this question is re: Obama and his turnabout on this issue, "coincidentally" just as Biden spewed yet another gaffe, and the timing is undeniably questionable. If this was his passion, something he campaigned on, why wait until now to address it? He's had 3 years! His polls are not great so the pandering is expected. I also see he's hanging with the filthy rich in Hollywood...I thought people who earned a living were evil!! As for my news, I watch and listen to a variety of programs since they all have their agendas. The reality is somewhere in the middle.

Thank you for your comment. I speculate that the timing of his, for lack of better words, "coming out" on this issue at this time may have been quickened by Biden's comments, or the NC election on Tuesday. I would not 100% agree with those that call this "politically motivated." although in one sense everything any sitting president does is politically motivated. If you are old enough to remember, LBJ signed the civil rights bill, and it cost him the election. When Obama took office, there was a lot of stuff on the table. The economy was going down the toilet. It is recovering, maybe not as quickly as we like, but it did take us more than three years to get into that mess. He had two wars thrown at him. One is done, and a plan has been made for the other. He also got bin Laden in the process. (Gutsy, solid leadership there!) Those were some mighty pressing issues. He did get rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell, which did show where his sympathies were on the issue. So the timing may be strange, but I am not concerned about it. But I don't believe he flip-flopped on the issue itself, just changed on the timing. Anyway, at least we were able to dialogue about this matter. This is the first time I ever got into one of these conversations, and it appears to deteriorating into arguments, not dialogue, sometimes downright nasty. On that matter, I will probably not join in on any future conversations like these, ... too much time. But thank you for your comments.

Just remember when Obama was 18 and 19 ,he stated in his own biography,that he started skipping school drinking heavily and taking drugs, no one is perfect in their youth. Being a libertarian i could care less what adults want to do in their own lives. All I want is less taxation!!!

I love how you generalize with progressives and conservatives. They are not all the same. I know many gay conservatives and some progressives that are opposed to gay marriage. That thought pattern is out of touch. We all can think for ourselves and vote for ourselves. For now, anyway!

Attitudes such as those in your link frequently fluctuated according to the whims of the leaders of various Christian doctrines. Same-sex marriage is un-Christian until some leader decides it isn't, and vice versa.

@ whatever: Do you live as a gay man or a lesbian? No one is asking for "special laws" we are asking for equality. Was freeing an enslaved group of people or allowing women to vote "a special law"? Political agenda? Huh?! Are human/equal rights a political agenda?

what radical political agenda? The right for blacks to share the same water fountain as whites? How will gays getting married affect anyone? If you believe gay marriage is wrong and they'll go to hell, then believe whatever the hell you want. To all who are quoting St. Paul, realize he never knew Jesus. Treat others as you would have them treat you, if we say can't get married, why can we? Why can't straight people have civil unions, as well? Did Jesus have a "thing" for Lazarus as he's the only person Jesus rose from the dead? [sorry for the possible blasphemy]

You realize, of course, that you've made the case that being FOR same-sex marriage is what you do when you WANT votes. Which means, in theory, any person against it must be in the minority. It's a great day for American when coming out for marriage equality is pandering for votes.

This comment is your way of coming out as a moron.

because it's a slippery slope. once we allow gay marriage it'll open the door on man-animal marriage, for instance. Doesn't the bible say though shall not covet thy neighbor's ass?

People can obviously believe whatever they want, but I guess I'm just advocating AGAINST people believing/interpreting, etc. FOR a God that punishes those in Love with others that just so happen to be of the same gender. Love, and the figurative human heart associated with it, are not gender based, but affection, emotion, caring-based.

Actually, on the topic of historical accuracy, the more one looks at history, across the spectrum of human being's sociological growth and maturation, from various civilizations, the same patterns repeat many times. Different versions of the same basic stories or events with mostly just the names and places changed to keep them local and therefor more relevant. A Great Flood in Ancient Greece...for example, predating the Noah flood.
Even better, what was once polytheism becomes monothesim relatively easily...instead a 'main' deity (Zeus, Jupiter, for example) with 'lesser' gods or goddesses becomes a single 'GOD' with lots of angels, archangels, saints, etc. Also keep in mind that Zeus and his colleagues replaced the Titans, and they beat out their own parents...was that just different watches or shifts or the aliens who were our caretakers? Was it simply our society having a new way of thinking? Anthropologically, there are many questions, with a variety of answers possibile, unless you just refuse to allow for common sense and fairness...based on what some fantastical work of fiction says? You can pick ANY encyclopedia entry over a paragraph, and if I'm allowed to change five words, you would get a totally different reading on what that entry was going to mean.
To portray the Bible as some unbroachable historical document is so bizarre...The long dead telling the blissfully blind in tales about things that happened centuries to millenia before their existed...

To follow up that thought...if I may...If ANY Christian, anywhere, EVER wonders why they aren't beloved or accepted by other religions or their followers...remember that. YOU decided that billions of people on this planet should be condemned because they don't bow to your particular cult. Neither they, nor you are willing to compromise, and the result is we get holy wars...millions dying for supremacy of any one particular god. A god that EVERY religion claims is a symbol of Love. Nice...but...ironic...and moronic.

I love this comment, very well said Dave. The problem with this issue is those opposing it really don't have great support behind their reasoning.

Side note, I saw a saying once that went like this: "Don't blame the gays, blame the straight people that created them" I'm not gay but I do have gay friends and are so supportive of this whole movement.

Well, the economy is getting better, but far too slowly for any of our liking. The president SHOULD have made that a priority ahead of healthcare, though I suspect he could not have imagined the DEMOCRATS would be the people not passing his bills faster...Congress just sucks. The government spends too much, but it spends too much across the board, including on defense, thought that should be a little better with one war ending and the other winding down a little bit.
Health care...now that one is tricky, because the saviings part, the part that the health insurance industry demonizes because they won't make gobs and gobs of money anymore (just regular gobs), THAT part IS still coming, you're right. It is also the same part that conservatives bemoan as 'scaring business because they don't know what will happen, and businesses NEED certainty'. Actually, they do know what will haappen, and they have certainty; because it is a law. Any uncertainty comes from the partisan U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the health insurance industry TELLING everybody they can that the law will never take effect.
Having said that, I TOTALLY think the president waited on this issue until now to get votes and raise money. I think he felt this way for a long time, but sandbagged until now, coming up to the election.
Having said THAT, I think EVERY president (and candidate for office) does the exact same thing, all the time, every election. ANYBODY acting like this is the first time is silly.

.....well said pro streeter! Exactly the point I tried to make earlier. The country is in a financial mess, and all Obama has to talk about is the Gay marriage issue? Really? Anything to take our minds off what's really going on.
Who cares who marries who? It's the economy people. I'm having a hard time just putting food on the table....I have not seen it this bad in my lifetime and I'm over 50!!!!!!!

I really wish everyone who's against gay marriage and spewing bigoted comments would post under their real names. But they can't. Cause then every one would know. It's easier to spew hatred without anyone knowing who you are, isn't it?

Well said, Kathie. :)

There is so much more important right now. While unemployment rate may not be as high as 2 years ago, I know friends of mine that took months just to find a minimum wage job. It also seems crime is getting worse and worse. I think this world is slowly and continually falling apart and needs changes. Yet there are 167 comments on hear about tons of people crying about this subject, something as silly as this. Marriage is very important, yes, but people are entitled to who they want to love and what they want to believe in.

I really liked Ron Paul's way of thinking. I support freedom to do what we want, to an extent of course. Anything that leads to crime should stay illegal. But marriage... how will 2 men or 2 women getting married cause crime or chaos to this country? It's just silly.

The only real problem I have with your post, d, is that the religious people WANT to make their views/beliefs the LAW. You are right, goveernments make laws. Too many people are using their religious view to make laws that take away the rights of Americans. They suppose that they are 'right' because THEIR god said so...except that god and government, church and state, are supposed to be separate in this country. We aren't a Muslim country, where the clerics are in charge, yet that is what the religious zealots here want, even as they demonize those countries for doing exactly what they are trying to do here.

I suspect it is for those who are against 'facts' or don't like answers that dispute their own opinion.
Everyone else seems pretty happy in general, and quite pleased in particular. I'm honest about my thoughts and opinions, I'm not a radical to either side of the political spectrum.
Curious why the personal attack, mr lahey (if that is your real name). What ruffled your feathers there, old chap?

pcss...HUH? Explain, please. The first part...we know what the second part means.