Visit Your Local PBS Station PBS Home PBS Home Programs A-Z TV Schedules Watch Video Donate Shop PBS Search PBS
Photo of Bill Moyers Bill Moyers Journal
Bill Moyers Journal
Bill Moyers Journal
Watch & Listen The Blog Archive Transcripts Buy DVDs

« Michael Winship: Two Legal Foes Unite to Fight -- for Same-Sex Marriage | Main | Michael Winship - Campaign 2010: Déjà Vu All Over Again »

Debating Same-Sex Marriage

(Photos by Robin Holland)

This week on the JOURNAL, Bill Moyers spoke with prominent lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies about their legal challenge to California's ban on same-sex marriages. Olson, a conservative, and Boies, a liberal, are best known for facing off before the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore following the disputed 2000 election. Now, they've joined forces to argue that gay and lesbian couples should have the right to marry.

Though a decision of the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in the state for several months in 2008, voters' passage of the ballot initiative Proposition 8 that November - by a margin of 52.3 % to 47.7 % - amended the state constitution to declare that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Proponents of gay marriage have been divided over how to respond to Proposition 8. Some have advocated challenging the ban in federal court as a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law, as Olson and Boies are attempting, but others fear an unfavorable legal precedent if the opposition wins. Instead, they have suggested running ballot initiatives in hope of repealing Proposition 8 by the democratic process and avoiding the risk of losing in federal court.

Ted Olson explained why he took on the case despite many other conservatives' view that it would be judicial activism for a federal court to strike down the California law:

"It's unfortunate that people think of this as something that is a political issue or a conservative or liberal issue. It is a matter of human rights and human decency and liberty. Many conservatives are libertarians, and they think that the government should allow people to live their lives the same way that other people live their lives under the Constitution, and be treated equally without the government deciding who they can live with or who they can be married to... We're not advocating any recognition of a new right. The right to marry is in the Constitution. The Supreme Court's recognized that over and over again. We're talking about whether two individuals should be treated equally, under the equal protection clause of the Constitution... It isn't judicial activism for the Supreme Court to recognize an associational right, a liberty right, and a privacy right for two people who love each other to be married."

David Boies explained why he wants the federal courts to strike down legislation that California citizens democratically enacted via ballot initiative:

"If you didn't tell the majority of voters they were wrong sometimes under the Constitution, you wouldn't need a Constitution. The whole point of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment is to say 'This is democracy, but it's also democracy in which we protect minority rights.' The whole point of a Constitution is to say there are certain things that a majority cannot do, whether it's 52 percent or 62 percent or 72 percent or 82 percent of the people... There are certain rights there are so fundamental that the Constitution guarantees them to every citizen regardless of what a temporary majority may or may not vote for... Nobody's asking to create a new constitutional right here. This is a constitutional right that has already been well recognized by the Supreme Court... What the Constitution says is that every citizen gets equal protection of the laws. It doesn't just say heterosexuals."

In a statement prepared in the run-up to the 2008 vote, supporters of Proposition 8 argued against judicial determination of what constitutes marriage and said the legislation was not about attacking gays and lesbians or denying anyone rights:

"Proposition 8 is about traditional marriage; it is not an attack on gay relationships. Under California law gay and lesbian domestic partnerships are treated equally; they already have the same rights as married couples. Proposition 8 does not change that. What Proposition 8 does is restore the meaning of marriage to what human history has understood it to be and over 61% of California voters approved just a few years ago... It overturns the flawed legal reasoning of four judges in San Francisco who wrongly disregarded the people's vote, and ensures that gay marriage can be legalized only through a vote of the people... Prop. 8 will NOT take away any other rights or benefits of gay couples. Gays and lesbians have the right to live the lifestyle they choose, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else. Proposition 8 respects the rights of gays while still reaffirming traditional marriage."

What do you think?

  • Do you support same-sex marriage? Why or why not?

  • In your view, would it be appropriate for a federal court to strike down a constitutional amendment enacted by a popular vote?


  • TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/1916

    Comments

    I think that we should pull back are troops from the war in Afganistan.

    I am heterosexual. There----I said it and I'm not ashamed!! Oh well! I did not wake up one day and just decide to be heterosexual and nobody told me or influenced me to be anything other than that. I associate with homosexuals and some other people who I'm not sure what their preferences are----but my internal instinct over which I have no control has determined my sexual preference. I don't believe we get to choose-----we are victims of nature which determines blue eyes or green eyes and all other anomolies that occur to the living body. Homosexuality, bi sexuality, and all other sexual variances has been around for a long time and probably since the beginning of life. Heterosexuals invented "marriage" based upon religious influence as a means to glorify and sanction that institution. In reality, however, "marriage" is nothing more than a committment of one person to another to remain monogomous (as possible), to be there for the other person, to love each other and a number of other personal committments. That's a good thing but it doesn't require a formal legal process to do that. The resulting legal process was developed to establish rights under civil process regarding property settlement, child custody, and anything else that could go wrong in a marriage. It has been said that homosexuals who have committed to each other (quasi-commonlaw) already have access to this civil process same as heterosexual married people. IF that is true then we are really only talking about semantics. IF it is not true about access then that should be resolved whereby people in those self committed relationships have the sames access to the process that anyone else does. Everyone should have access to the tools necessary to manage their own personal business as long as it poses no harm to others. Once accomplished it won't matter what we want to call this personal institution (marriage, union, commonlaw, or whatever). The important thing is as long as we do not experience any personal harm or adverse consequences from other's behavior, we should leave each other the hell alone. Incidentally, if you believe in a supreme creator who created everything that is------then you logically have to believe that He created homosexuals and all other variance of preference. You have to ask---if that is so, then why would He create a situation that he would not sanction. NOW if you want to marry your dog----that might require intervention----but that's another controversy.

    Look, I'm a pro-choice progressive too but when i heard Nichols mention slavery in the context of the abortion provisions of the health care bill i almost choked on the irony.
    Abortion opponents see the issue in the same stark terms that abolitionists did in the 19th century.
    How would abolitionists have felt about their tax dollars going to fund the return of runaway slaves post Dredd Scott?
    Their SHOULD be NO federal (taxpayer) funding of abortion on those terms. NONE.

    This article shows the scientific point that I was trying to make from my March 3rd post (it doesn't have any of my religious mumbo jumbo):

    The third sex: The truth about gender ambiguity

    Neither wholly male nor entirely female, there are more than 30,000 'intersexed' individuals living in Britain today. Here, they talk about their lives

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/the-third-sex-the-truth-about-gender-ambiguity-1922816.html

    I was disappointed in this program. The entire discussion consisted of the attorneys who argued the pro gay marriage side of the case. The anti gay marriage side was only presented inasmuch as the pro attorneys talked about it and interpreted it. Surely there could have been someone who was capable of presenting the other side of the issue.

    For thousands of years marriage has always involved males and females, even in cultures in which same sex relationships were permitted in other contexts, and even when marriage took the form of polygamy or polyandry.

    Marriage means opposite sex relationships, and you can no more have a "marriage" with two people of the same sex than you can have a ham and cheese sandwich without the ham.

    One of the few "anti" comments allowed to be presented on the program involved polygamy. And I thought it was quite correct. Once you eliminate the male-female aspect of marriage, there's no justification for retaining the two-person aspect of marriage. The arguments for same-sex marriage work equally well for polygamy and other "poly" relationships. My guess is that marriage as we have known it will be unrecognizable not many years hence, destroyed by radical individualism in which anything goes and community values are irrelevant.

    "Posted by: David C.
    It is a matter of history that once the moral standards of a nation erodes and the family structure losses its cohesion that nation is no longer able to sustain itself."

    That statement in it's self is discriminatory!

    Just like years ago when inter-racial marriages were based on the same premise! Look at it today, are we less of a society because of it.....I say NOT!...Did the world come to an end...NO! Did it change your marriage or relationship with you spouse...? If it did, then your the one with the problem and no one else caused it.

    You have no right to deny another person rights, what these two men are doing I commend them on. Don't judge unless you are willing to be judge, isn't that what the bible says....Oh, I forgot, most bible thumpers tend to overlook those parts!


    Thomas W Fiechtl Jr,
    The truth is that a heter and homo relationship is different and there is no reason to allow the marriage of same sex people. It goes against nature, society and religious principles.
    Why corrupt a perfectly good institution and corrupt the meaning of words. The definition of marriage is the joining of a man and a woman in Holy Matrimony. There is nothing Holy about homosex.
    We have too much divisiveness already.

    To be discriminate means to choose between criterion for the behavior of another more complicated expression. Since the topic of discussion is about same-sex marriage, to discriminate against said relationships would be a willful act of destroying, what should be other's equal rights. The fact of the matter is that truth has become more of an opinion instead of provable discriminant. When speaking of studies by the Gay communities one misrepresents the truth. These studies concerning truth regarding homosexuality are not only from Gay origins, they are done by OT and NT professors. Not only are biblical scholars discovering more mistranslations but this also represents the tradition of Christian thought. One only needs to do a study on Christian thought or Christian theology to learn this truth. There are three kinds of truth; historical, repetitive and revelatory. One can ignore historical truth but that just becomes a denial of truth. One cannot change time. Same-sex marriage is a complicated issue within our society because of this failure to be a discriminant, a discriminant in our belief and in our nationalism. John Sexton said it well, “We have created a society that has, as I say, an allergy to nuance and complexity.” Bill Moyers interview with John Sexton, March 12, 2010.

    Once again: we cannot have a separate term for marriages of same-sex couples because that in itself is discriminatory, as several courts (CA, CT, IA, MA) have already found.
    Posted by: KevinVT

    Posted by David C.
    You are abusing the word discrimination. Without discrimination there would be no way to know the difference between good and bad. Without discrimination people would not know the difference between poison and healthy food.
    We are poisoning our society with bad ideas because of lack of discrimination. Killing millions of innocent people has been and will be due to the lack of discrimination. Starting a war on the bases of lies was a lack of discrimination.
    Destroying the family unit is also a lack of discrimination. There is always the choice between doing what is right and doing what is wrong. Doing what is wrong has become a fine art and has become a form of willful self-destruct. Russian roulette comes to mind.
    It is more than likely your imagined studies were done by the Gay Community. The fact of the matter is that the truth has become irrelevant. The only thing that matters these days is does it feel good.

    DCE: you obviously haven't a clue what you're talking about and are pulling your arguments out of the usual place.

    Same sex families have been raising families for years and will continue to do so. There have been many many studies, none of which suggests that these children are any less well-adjusted than children of straight parents, as much as you would like that to be the case. It simply isn't so.

    That's why every child-welfare and psychological organization in the US supports marriage equality: marriage actually helps the children by creating more stable homes for them.

    Once again: we cannot have a separate term for marriages of same-sex couples because that in itself is discriminatory, as several courts (CA, CT, IA, MA) have already found.

    As if heterosexuals would en masse begin abandoning their families to start a new one with a Gay or Lesbian partner.
    Posted by: BradK

    Posted by: David C.
    It is a matter of history that once the moral standards of a nation erodes and the family structure losses its cohesion that nation is no longer able to sustain itself. When the fragile family structure fails, all of the systemic relationships of society fail. Every society depends on its social systems. They provide structure for the people in the society.
    It is like remove a person’s bone structure and then expecting them to function as usual.
    Right now our nation is floundering because it is not strong enough to do what is necessary for it to survive. Like it or not; allowing moral standards to crumble leads to social disintegration which is detrimental to both heter and homo individuals. The first to suffer are the children because the parents cannot maintain a stable family unit.
    Homosexual families have only one natural parent if that and there is either no female or male role model. Also, there is no sense of security in a homosexual relationship because it is not a natural phenomenon causing stresses that are detrimental to children.
    Marriage that is not between a man and a woman is not a marriage; it is something else and needs to de designated as such to avoid confusion.
    This nation has serious problems that need to be addressed rather than meaningless semantics.
    What needs to be corrected is ignoring what people need to make their life work. Laws should be consistent with people's best interests and people have to be reasonable about what they expect.

    As if heterosexuals would en masse begin abandoning their families to start a new one with a Gay or Lesbian partner.
    Posted by: BradK

    Posted by: David C.
    It is a matter of history that once the moral standards of a nation erodes and the family structure losses its cohesion that nation is no longer able to sustain itself. When the fragile family structure fails, all of the systemic relationships of society fail. Every society depends on its social systems. They provide structure for the people in the society.
    It is like removing a person’s bone structure and then expecting them to function as usual.
    Right now our nation is floundering because it is not strong enough to do what is necessary for it to survive. Like it or not; allowing moral standards to crumble leads to social disintegration which is detrimental to both heter and homo individuals. The first to suffer are the children because the parents cannot maintain a stable family unit.
    Homosexual families have only one natural parent if that and there is either no female or male role model. Also, there is no sense of security in a homosexual relationship because it is not a natural phenomenon causing stresses that are detrimental to children.
    Marriage that is not between a man and a woman is not a marriage; it is something else and needs to de designated as such to avoid confusion.
    This nation has serious problems that need to be addressed rather than meaningless semantics.
    What needs to be corrected is ignoring what people need to make their life work. Laws should be consistent with people's best interests and people have to be reasonable about what they expect.


    @Tom: “I didn't say that the children would be better if raised by Heterosexuals or worse if raised by Gay/Lesbians...I'm saying there is no validity to say the there is no difference. Of course there is difference.”

    The dynamic between any combination of two parents will be unique to that couple, certainly. But this has to do with factors such as personality types, upbringing, education and income levels, cultures, location, etc. While two parents of the same sex might provide a different structure and raise children differently from an opposite sex couple, there is again absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest any one is superior.

    The important consideration – really the only consideration – is that children are brought up in a loving, stable household by parents (or even a parent) that loves and nurtures them. Blocking same-sex marriage does nothing to promote the welfare of anyone’s children.

    This whole line of discussion is, of course, meant to imply that recognizing same-sex couples (who are already raising children) will somehow cause opposite-sex households to crumble. As if heterosexuals would en masse begin abandoning their families to start a new one with a Gay or Lesbian partner.

    Ref: BradK I didn't say that the children would be better if raised by Heterosexuals or worse if raised by Gay/Lesbians...I'm saying there is no validity to say the there is no difference. Of course there is difference. We would have been different individuals if our mothers were different. Every child would have been different if they had been raised in another family Heterosexual or not.

    listening to your program tonight... Most of your views aware that the lobbyist are the controller of the politician. I am angry that all these twist and turn are done yet the winner will be the health insurance companies.... If i had to make a choice i would prefer Obama's version and as with any bill can be modified as time goes on... and hopefully on the side of the working men and women of this country. Dr Marcia Angels might be on the side of scraping this bill, because it might not be strong enought in her option. When you ask her what would she change, i felt that rather than give her option she sided with killing it..... Are we American so blind that what is so important to us should be life and everyone wants a healthy productive life, but without assess to good health care. I am just angry,piss off. That when bush was in power no one made a movement to provide health and now some did its dam if you do and dam if you don't. God bless America,


    John,
    Same song second verse same as the first.
    What you do not recognize is that there has been profound damage to our society that has undermined our moral principles and left the nation in a state of collapse. What should have been an improvement in our society has been twisted into the end of our Democracy, created sociopathic human attitudes, left a lot of people jobless and allowed the looting of our treasury not to mention instilled fear and dread.
    You may be living the American Dream but for many people; it is the AmericanNightmare.

    I posted.
    It was not very long ago that the Religious Right said exactly the same thing about our black citizens.

    You came right back with:
    Most homosexists realize what they are doing is wrong. Some make an issue of it because they have an "axe to grind". They enjoy their trouble making antics.
    D.C. Eddy

    Right out of the Segregation documentaries. Christian Right hatemongering, today it’s our gay citizens. It use to be our black citizens. Before that it was women. Just the same old bible justified hatemongering poison, just replace homosexual with black, Hispanic, women…etc.

    This controversy is very unique.

    There are today literally thousands upon thousands of legally “married” gay couples. Many have moved into states where their marriage is recognized. They can divorce but not remarry. We have had gay “married” couples living in our towns, cities, communities, all over our country for a good many years.

    Yet…where are all the community social/ethical/moral horrors these thousands of gay “married” couples are supposed to cause? Hasn’t there even been one tiny problem? Nope, nothing.

    Each couple got married and then simply returned to their lives.

    The previous sentence answers the question: Is there any “actual” merit to the opposition?


    It was not very long ago that the Religious Right said exactly the same thing about our black citizens.
    Posted by: John

    Posted by: David
    Wrong again John. Most true Christians including myself backed Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who was a Christian clergyman. He was concerned about the welfare of all of our citizen's not just Afro-Americans. You are mixing oranges with rotten apples. There is a big difference between personal freedom and personal sin. Most homosexists realize what they are doing is wrong. Some make an issue of it because they have an "axe to grind". They enjoy their trouble making antics.
    A lot of our problems right now are the result of self-serving agendas. Everyone is suffering because of this fact.
    We need cooperation not obstructionism.

    the debate is about Liberty for All.
    I protect yours and you protect mine, and we never have to fear each other.
    Jesus had no opinions pro or con about homosexuality. If it didn't bother him, why should it bother us? He spent his energies on Love. So should we.

    “Most people do not hate Homosexuals; they just do not want to their family infected by the abomination”.
    Posted By: D.C. Eddy

    It was not very long ago that the Religious Right said exactly the same thing about our black citizens.

    KevinVT

    Sorry, my March 5, 2010 9:57 AM response should have referenced D. C. Eddy


    I fear God. I also sin. I also read the bible and try to make sense of it, despite my limited understanding. No I am not homosexual...
    Posted By: Shane T. Bell

    Posted by David C. Eddy
    On the subject of "making sense" of the Bible. The way I read the Bible is the same way I read a textbook. It provides me the information I need to understand what life is all about and how to deal with life. There are many methods of literature that are incorporated into the Bible. The Bible contains both the specific and general information from commandments to parables.
    Because of the abstract revelations of the Bible; it is not possible to know many things for certain. That is where the Holy Spirit guides us to the truth as it relates to our particular life. If you seek the truth, you will find God. Add an "O" to God and you get the word good.
    Plato's Republic was all about the word "Good".
    It is pitiful that the Republicans have lost their way and are bent on doing what is "bad". Now the Democrats are following the same disastrous path.
    Most people do not hate Homosexuals; they just do not want to their family infected by the abomination.

    Mitch: "Why is it that white men are the only group of citizens who are not afforded special legal protections? Why is law so anti white male? This insidious anti white racism. It is white men who are the victims. We are the true minority."

    That must be why we've never had a white man in Congress or on the Supreme Court or as President! And certainly never on Wall Street or as the CEO of any company. It's so unfair!

    To John:
    "The religious opposition are the same people that supported Segregation, opposed women property rights, opposed birth control pills, opposed Black, Hispanic, and minority voter registration…etc."

    I have two words for you: B.S.

    Actually John is right about that. Before Fallwell got into the gaybashing business, he was into the anti-desegregation business, as were many many fundamentalist churches.
    Mormons? Do we remember their history on blacks? And now who is the main anti-marriage funder in the US? Mormons.

    Why is it that white men are the only group of citizens who are not afforded special legal protections? Why is law so anti white male? Is the legal profession full of sexist racist progressive bigots? Everybody but the white man is included in a group of protected citizens. This insidious anti white racism. It is white men who are the victims. We are the true minority.

    KevinVT

    Reality? Corruption? Sociopathic behavior? The country going to hell in a hand basket?

    Reality is the Industry/Congress market “fixing” that is destroying our competitive free-market system. If you are big enough/have the money you can move to Washington and buy your market. Then it’s bleed, squeeze, profiteer, anything is possible, it’s legal –Congress will see to that, a law here, a rule there.

    Or do you think 70% more for medicine in this country than anywhere else in the world has anything to do with free-market or competition?

    Mortgage Scam? What Scam? Countries bankrupt, billions injured, millions of our citizens suffering, trillions invested turned to ash – absolutely nothing to show for that investment but devastation. Scam? Those that did that have “walked” with their billions. It was legal. I defy you to name one name accused of criminal conduct. None will go to jail. Congress? Phase 2 of the scam, finger pointing. What’s next? It’s in the works and it will be legal.

    Sociopathic behavior? Millions of our citizens live day to day the horror of medical bankruptcy. After the money runs out? Lines? Waiting? Doctor? Medicine to make the pain go away? Only for those that can pay. Suffer or the mercy of death, but do so in some sound proof hole. And yet….none of that happens in any other developed country.

    Gay marriage a problem? Opposition? Drivel. Hate indulgence. Social problems – total fabricated nonsense. If it happens no one will notice. National treasure down another hate mongering rat hole.

    I am not a Republican but I know of God's existence and yes, He is real. If anyone of you would truly seek Him with your heart and come before Him asking to know He exists and His help, He will bestow the Holy Spirit to you and you will experience His awesome joy, presence and love.

    God exists whether you want to believe it or not. And you will truly meet Him when you die. This is as certain as your death. Be prepared, and I hope it is a joyous experience for you.

    Every law in this world is spiritual and everything you do has spiritual ramifications to your inner peace. Every human creature in this world is programmed to seek this inner joy and peace that only the Holy Spirit can give. You heathens have never experienced this and can't understand, but you do understand the empty hole in your heart that thirsts for it. I know this because I was once like you before experiencing the Holy Spirit myself and joy He gave and continues to give me. Yes, morality is the path to being one with God and yes it is a requirement for your inner peace and joy.

    To John:
    "The religious opposition are the same people that supported Segregation, opposed women property rights, opposed birth control pills, opposed Black, Hispanic, and minority voter registration…etc."

    I have two words for you: B.S.

    More Republican hypocrisy.

    Anti-Gay Lawmaker Reportedly at Gay Club Before DUI Arrest

    A California state senator who reportedly has voted against every gay rights measure since he took office eight years ago was charged with driving under the influence on Wednesday, reportedly after leaving a gay nightclub in Sacramento.

    Sen. Roy Ashburn, a Republican from Bakersfield, was spotted driving erratically at about 2 a.m. Wednesday in downtown Sacramento, officials said. He was arrested after taking a sobriety test, and he was taken to Sacramento County Jail, where he was administered a blood-alcohol test prior to being booked and released.

    He was charged with two misdemeanors: driving under the influence and driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 percent or higher.

    Ashburn, a 55-year-old father of four, apologized for his actions.

    "I am deeply sorry for my actions and offer no excuse for my poor judgment," he said in a statement. "I accept complete responsibility for my conduct and am prepared to accept the consequences for what I did. I am also truly sorry for the impact this incident will have on those who support and trust me -- my family, my constituents, my friends, and my colleagues in the Senate."

    He was arrested after leaving Faces, a gay nightclub in midtown Sacramento, according to cbs13.com. A male passenger, who was not identified as a lawmaker, was also in the car but was not detained, the TV station reported.

    A spokesman for Ashburn declined to comment to FoxNews.com regarding the nightclub allegations.

    Ashburn, who served in the state Assembly from 1996 to 2002 before he was elected to the Senate, has voted against every gay rights measure since he became a senator, according to Project Vote Smart, a Web site that tracks voting records.

    FOXNews.com


    Here’s the Republicans' new campaign slogan, "Let's have some fun. This beat is sick. I wanna take a ride on your disco stick." ~Lady GaGa (kinda catchy, hehehe...)

    I fear God. I also sin. I also read the bible and try to make sense of it, despite my limited understanding. No I am not homosexual, but if I were, I can't help but wonder what it would feel like to have over about 100,000,000 people in this country who's their entire belief system tells them to love and show compassion to their fellow brother or sister, but it's you who they hate and there's really nothing you can do about it. That's my response to the religous arguement. Also, I'd rather vote or argue on something involving minimum wage instead of other people's sex habits.

    John,
    It sounds to me like you have lost touch with reality...
    The reality is that this country is going to hell in a hand basket.
    The first ten years of the twenty first century has been one disaster after another and all the result of greed, corruption, immorality and sociopathic behavior.
    You might want to reconsider your false assumption that good comes from evil while you still have time. Everyone wants what they can't have and want to be what they are not. They do not appreciate what is good and right in the sight of God. We are on the path of self-destruct.

    KevinVT, it seems you have difficulty understanding what you read.

    The marriage license is a “contract” that establishes a “legal status”.
    That “legal status” can have nothing to do with religion.
    Religious groups view marriage as “legal status” + religious requirement.
    Same gender couples want access to that “legal status”.
    If they want to establish that “legal status”, so what?
    Are they adult citizens. Do they pay taxes? Do they vote? Do they bleed and die in our wars?

    The religious opposition are the same people that supported Segregation, opposed women property rights, opposed birth control pills, opposed Black, Hispanic, and minority voter registration…etc. Their arguments are variations of the same hate arguments used in the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s. I was there. I heard them then. I’m hearing the same thing now. Yes, I am that old. No, I am not gay nor do I know anyone that is. My age group is a big part of that opposition.

    Something about the absolutes of God.....

    Several of you have acted like teenagers trying to Get their way to go do something that they themselves know they shouldn't.

    You laugh about the Moral Principals of God...

    If we taught our teenagers abstinence, instead of safe sex......There would be NO STD's including aids.....None
    If we woukd stand up like men and be the Fathers we should be....Our daughters would not be all over the internet laced up and naked, and public bathroom magazine in the world.
    If we held our politicians to standards given in the Bible for leaders.......we would not in economic ruin today.
    And if we we men and we Read The Bible, we then know when a Pastor or Clergyman was reading things in the Bible that it dose not sat, and you would know when you are being deceived, if I say something........ I will show you in scripture.
    This has been prophecied, and said He Could have healed Her, but we parked a with at the front door of our and called her a fancy deceptive name, Liberty.........Why couldn't we just fight for God Blessed Nation?

    God knew what we were going to do before we did it regardless of the Gift of free will.
    Free will was just another thing for us to abuse.......Fallen Nature.
    My question is, especially us Gentiles, what did he give us that was so hard to do..........a few moral standards, a couple commandments written in our heart. That is it. yet most of hate Him.......i said Most////Fallen Nature.....Anyway I am done hear, you will have to come to my site if you want to debate this any further with me......Im sure you all be there.LOL
    I will put a post in my forum about this very subject........late tonight.......it really has been an good....i have to say most of you were very civil about this.
    I will pray for you all, nothing Bad just pray like I would for anyone to receive knowledge from the Holy Ghost

    Children are much better off with parents who can enjoy the security of a legal marriage regardless of gender. Can you please enlighten us how exactly denying marriage to two loving and committed adults who are parenting children is in any way beneficial to those children?
    Posted by: BradK

    Posted by: David C.
    It takes a man and a woman to have a marriage. That is the standard everywhere from day one...
    The corruption of the family unit is the beginning of the corruption of a nation.
    Just because you love someone or something is not the prerequisite to a marriage. Marriage as an institution is being attacked from every side. That is why we have so many broken homes and broken lives. Sociopathic and greedy people are becoming the norm instead of compassionate and generous people. Our economics have become dog eat dog and the government no longer serves the people. It all started with the decay of moral principles. Torture and preemptive murder has become acceptable. Maybe you should be thankful you are not being waterboarded to get information of which you have no knowledge.

    Dominick: Please stop with the Biblical passages. The Bible is irrelevant in a a Constitutional case.

    John: You have it exactly backwards. It doesn't really matter to me whether a marriage is Christian or Hindu or Shinto. The only one that really counts is the legal status, since that's the one that would allow, say, a foreign partner to come to the US or for my partner to get my social security benefits.

    You are married ONLY if you have a marriage license, and that comes from the state. You cannot get married without one, no matter what your church says.

    Gays go before the Supreme Court. If Roberts, and Alito can recognize inanimate objects i.e. corporations as people, I dont see why they would not grant the illusion of marriage to gay couples too. The court is corrupt anyway so make the judges a montenary offer.

    Not me Bud
    I don't have a problem with any of those marriages as long as there between a man and a woman.........I got news for ya, Mormons should get Polygamy legalized before same sex marriage, you could at least see an argument for them in the Bible..........I don't have problem with it, I not into it....But i could see their argument

    Gay marriage, government participation:

    Government is involved in marriage in only one way, legal contract. Gay couples want access to that legal contract status. Government involvement in “any” marriage begins and ends with that contract.

    That government contract can have nothing to do with religion. Most of the comments posted here have to do with the Bible. We have Hindu, Navaho, Bantu, Jews, Moslems, Shoshone, Buddhists, Earth Mother, Toa, Shinto….the list goes on and on.

    Keep in mind that no Christian recognizes any Hindu, Navaho, Bantu, Jew, Moslem, Shoshone, Buddhist, Earth Mother, Toa, Shinto…etc couple as married. For a Christian their marriage is “legal status” only and absolutely nothing more.

    Government can be involved with marriage in only one way, legal contract.
    Government involvement with marriage begins and ends with that contract. Same gender couples want access to that legal contract status.

    That “legal status” has nothing to do with what others consider married or not married.

    I checked 7 dif translations of Bibles
    the Word "cleave" was not used in the book of Ruth where it talked about Ruth and Naomi anywhere...............

    Somebody is feeding you people Garbage.............and they can, you know why?
    Because it what you want to hear.......
    deluding the integrity of the Word Of God

    The you need to read the 1 cor all of the 7th chapter, it will tell you the Roll of Husband and the wife..
    and covers conjugal rights.....


    you been watching to much PBS

    Magoo
    Sure Give me the Scripture

    here is the def for cleave
    OT:1692

    OT:1692 qb^D*
    dabaq (daw-bak'); a primitive root; properly, to impinge, i.e. cling or adhere; figuratively, to catch by pursuit:


    KJV - abide fast, cleave (fast together), follow close (hard after), be joined (together), keep (fast), overtake, pursue hard, stick, take.

    This word was used anywhere in the book of Ruth....
    Give me the scripture of where they used it

    hi Dominick V., Interesting, the word in the original language used in the adam and eve account for "cleave" is the same word used to describe the ruth and naomi relationship. The Bible would not have to mention if those two or david and jonathan "laid together" in order for them to be homo relationships. Are there any hetero relationships in the Bible where it is not mentioned of the couple "laying together"? And people can still be homosexual and in a relationship and not have sex for various reasons.

    Sorry Mitch that was Mayorga

    to Mitch
    you want me to re evaluate my relationship with the Father, to consider voting and accepting your perverted right to same sex marriage in USA that founded on Christian moral principles in which the constitution was written?
    I don't think so. LOL

    Matthew 19:3-5
    3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
    4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
    5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
    KJV

    This was written a couple of years before the constitution

    The institution of marriage

    Genesis 2:23-24
    23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
    24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
    KJV

    @”Mitch”: “If homosexuality isn't a choice when do they pursue heterosexuals to try to turn them gay? I thought you believed it wasn't a choice.“

    Can you cite any proof to defend this accusation? Who has ever been ‘recruited’ to be Gay or Lesbian? This hollow trope was the basis for Anita Bryant’s hate campaigns in the 1970’s and is utter nonsense.

    Gays and Lesbians don’t recruit but Christian cults sure do.


    “Hypocrisy. People can and do decide to change their sexual attractions based on stimuli.”

    How many times have you decided to change your sexual orientation? Which gender were you attracted to before and which to now?


    “We are using AIDS to recriminalize homosexuality. We shall get rid or religion. It's terrorism.”

    Are you attempting to make a statement here or just spewing homophobia and fear-mongering?


    “Do you want to hear about queers divorcing? That's in the best interests of children?”

    While divorce is rarely in the best interests of the children, how exactly is it any different for the children of same-sex parents as it would be for opposite-sex ones?

    If homosexuality isn't a choice when do they pursue heterosexuals to try to turn them gay? I thought you believed it wasn't a choice. Hypocrisy. People can and do decide to change their sexual attractions based on stimuli.

    We are using AIDS to recriminalize homosexuality. We shall get rid or religion. It's terrorism. We shall get rid of marriage the cause of divorces. Do you want to hear about queers divorcing? That's in the best interests of children?

    Marriage in the eyes of the law is different than marriage for religious purposes. Signing papers at the Justice of the Peace should be a right for all citizens of this country. Being able to marry in a church should be left up to the individual church to decide. If your only bias against same sex marriage is because of religious reasons than you really need to reevaluate your life. Religion is a set of dogmatic doctrines created thousands of years ago by a primitive society. It has very little to do with modern times. When you have proof otherwise then you can argue this 'fact'.

    Jake
    really, I know all three of these stories very well, NOWHERE does it say these men laid together....Again your reading garbage into the Word of God.
    The Word says it is wrong, and you ARE wrong........
    Gods loves you, and relationship with others men is no different than adultery, again It's between you and God, It is not the Cardinal sin....Don't deceive yourself and say it is not sin.
    And if time were to go here, you would see this legalized, with pot and prostitution......California always Gets their way here in Babylon

    @Tom: “…that there is no difference in the outcome of the children whether they were raised by Gay/Lesbian couples or Heterosexual couples…I do not think that their position is valid and therefore should not be allowed as part of the argument”

    This was one of the many straw man arguments that were addressed during the trial. No testimony was able to show that children raised by same-sex parents were any less happy and healthy than those raised by opposite-sex parents. While the vile lies spread by the likes of Maggie Gallagher and her Stygian ilk try (and spend) endlessly to convince you otherwise, the evidence simply doesn’t exist. Why did all but two of the witnesses for the attempted defense of PropH8 scatter like cockroaches rather than face the light of a trial? They knew their flimsy arguments would never withstand cross examination. The two arrogant fools that tried, Miller and Blankenhorn, were thoroughly eviscerated by David Boies. It’s sad, really, to read through their testimonies. You almost want to feel sorry for them. Almost.

    These sorts of empty “conventional wisdoms” make for great electioneering and church sermons but have absolutely no basis in either reality or the law.

    Further, this line of thinking (and I’m being generous here) simply reinforces the circular, bigoted argument that Gays and Lesbians cannot be good parents and therefore should be deprived of access to Civil marriage. Yet while alleged “concern for the children” is always cited, the reality is that same-sex couples have been raising children for a very long time and will continue to do so. Changing Constitutions to deny or remove the protections of civil marriage to these families is done purely out of spite and hatred, not out of any true concern for the welfare of the children. Or anyone for that matter.

    Children are much better off with parents who can enjoy the security of a legal marriage regardless of gender. Can you please enlighten us how exactly denying marriage to two loving and committed adults who are parenting children is in any way beneficial to those children?

    My dispute is not with same-sex marriage, rather it is the position taken by these two lawyers that there is no difference in the outcome of the children whether they were raised by Gay/Lesbian couples or Heterosexual couples. They claim there is evidence to prove this position. So my question to each of them is: "Are you saying that you would have been exactly the same individual today if your mother had been a male? All the cuddling, nurturing, and possibly breast-feeding that you received from your Mother had absolutely no impact in your personality as it exists today.” I do not think that their position is valid and therefore should not be allowed as part of the argument.

    "s" said it right, this was not a "debate" at all, just a one-sided discussion. How disappointing. Bill: did I miss another "debate" with the the opposing view?

    Christian Bible actually says that it's wrong to prevent people from marrying:

    [1 Timothy 4:1-3](1)The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. (2)Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. (3)They forbid people to marry ...

    Ok, one more, off subject, but it's really nice. Read the story on them at kare11.com as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI-l0tK8Ok0&feature=related

    Ah yes, the Sodom and Gomorrah claim against homosexuality. No reference to these cities in the Bible mentions homosxuality as the reason for their destruction. It was not the cause. For example: Ezekiel 16:49-50, "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Nope, no mention of consensual sex in this or in any other verses reagarding S and G.

    This issue is dividing churches as well as our civilization. The history of our country is merely a short blip on the timeline of humanity. Nevertheless I hope we learn from the mistakes of our predecessors. If we are to take a chance on this issue, let us take a chance on love. Love trumps hate in every way.

    I leave now to spread the good news of great joy to all people. Many will not like His message that I help to spread, yet I must help the downtrodden as He did. I wish you peace, Dom, and I pray that we choose to help widen the circle of Christians as Jesus called us to do. Let us reject the temptation to exclude people, unlike those that He rebuked in Luke 11:52.

    Peace and grace to all of you!

    To Jake:
    "Where is the Bible citation that says gay couples shall never be included in marriage?"

    Remember what happen to Sodom and Gomorrah? Sodomy is an abomination to God. Get it?

    Dom, What Paul wrote still applies to us today. That is, we should not worship birds and creeping things and we shouldn't engage in lustful idolatrous sex. That's what he was saying and I fully agree. So no, I am not deceived. Neither the scripture we are discussing nor anything in the Bible forbids consensual homosexual relationships.

    I'll give three examples of what some understand to be homosexual relationships in the Bible, but you'll have to read the whole story. David and Jonathan, 2 Samuel 1:26 "I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women." Ruth and Naomi, Ruth 1:16-17, "But Ruth replied, "Don't urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. 17 Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the LORD deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me."" These verses from Ruth are often used in marriage ceremonies, for heterosexuals, but it was first used to describe the love between Ruth and Naomi. I would also consider the centurion and his servant (or "pais"), Matthew 8:5, as a homosexual relationship. But one has to understand the then common use of the Greek words to see that the centurion was in love with his pais and of course Jesus knew that since He knows all. These understandings are not my own fabrication. Please research them with love in your heart and the truth will set you free.

    Many people won't understand those Biblical relationships to be of a homosexual nature and I can't change your mind by typing this. I've asked this question many times, however, no one can find any verse in the Bible that forbids SSM. The Bible gives examples of marriages that were the custom of the day and will always be the most common, however, it never says that marriage shall never include gay couples. Where is the Bible citation that says gay couples shall never be included in marriage?

    I'll save you some time. It doesn't exist.

    To KevinVT:
    "The Bible is irrelevant."

    P.S. Nobody cares what you think.

    Joan,

    Your theory that the purpose of marriage is for each sex to learn about the other is pure poppycock. Traditional patriarchal anti-feminists of course want to preserve the difference, which for them means male power over women, who are "naturally" subordinate to the male.

    Some gay theorists have argued, on the other hand, that straight couples will have much to learn from same sex married couples, since we can teach THEM something about equality in relationships.

    So that tactic of yours cuts both ways.

    Marriages cannot be called by another name, as courts in CA, CT, and MA have already determined, because the only reason to do so would be to enshrine bias in the law and justify discrimination. Which, no matter how much you gussy up your silly arguments, is what you are trying to do.

    Stick to the singing, dear!

    Mr. Ash,

    So on a Dr. Phil some gay person said he hated straights so much he wanted to attack one? But did he? No.

    You do realize that there are thousands of hate crimes AGAINST gay and lesbian and especially transgender people every year and people are killed. The incidence of anti-straight hate crimes is about .001%, if that. I have heard of not one murder or beating of straight victims by gays.

    I would agree that "Hate language is usually the early warning signal that could lead to hate motivated violence." Your post contains several examples, and I'm not surprised any "complaint" of yours was ignored.

    Hello Bill,
    I'm confused about this issue too. I do understand universally applied individual rights. I do understand that the freedom to create a reality for oneself and benefit from the laws of the land should be universal. My problem is partly linguisitic and cultural, and partly political. The word "marriage" refers contractually to a contract to bind a male and a female together (around one place) so that children and property can be tracked over the generations. Psychologically I suspect, it exists for evolutionary reasons, because it is not natural for the two sexes in nature to live closely together (apart from brief encounters for pleasure and to make babies) In a monogomous marriage the two are obliged to learn about each others' differences and to resolve these differences over a lifetime if the contract is not to break apart. When this first social union contract is wisely and fairly carried out in a larger social group, it creates understandings and conventions in that society that are valuable to it in other areas. There is no other learning ground for these close encounters than that of marriage between two opposite sexes. If nature had created three or more sexes for procreation, perhaps marriage would have required each one of them.
    This doesn't prevent society from offering the same legal benefits to same-sex couples who contract with each other to share a life and a 'Place", but I somehow feel that it would be better to call this by another name. I cannot see that the unique benefits to society of the union of opposite sexes is identical to the benefits in society of the life union of two people of the same sex.
    Marriage is also the first and smallest unit of the wider society and as such, surely it should reflect all of what nature offers - both sexes. (I understand that gender culture and deviations from the average or norm are present here as everywhere.)When there is no accepted "place" for men and women to work out all our opposite sex projections and assumptions, it leaves an opening for the worst kind of projection of our personal darkness onto the sex that doesn't live with us, with whom we have no contract.
    I also feel that the word marriage contains inside it the meaning of the "union of two opposite states in nature or in physical reality. Whether we're talking about the marriage of land and sea, earth and sky, nuts and bolts, tongue and groove boards, the physical situation must refer to two opposite states or it looses its meaning. The marriage of earth and earth, sea and sea or bolt and bolt doesn't compute.
    What I fear is that somehow our society doesn't really believe or even know how to propose politically that there is a vital difference between a man and a woman. We don't dare express this and are loosing the ability to articulate it, and suppose that maybe it was a myth or fairy tale after all.
    All of the above ideas don't need religious references or a God to appeal to. In fact, the use of the idea of a separate God could be a convenient tool to keep us from knowing the other person as intimately and as respectfully as we must.

    Mr. Ash:

    Rants like yours bear an uncanny resemblance to stories about how the Jews are involved in a secret international conspiracy to control the world and its finances. They are calculated to ramp up anti-Semitism, or in this case, homophobia (which you probably claim does not exist, but of which you provide an excellent proof).

    Reverse discrimination? There are legal remedies, if there is an ounce of truth to your claim, which I doubt.

    If homosexuals are so powerful, why do we not have marriage? Why are we not allowed to serve openly in the military? Why can we be fired in many states simply for being gay?

    Absurd.

    Marriage in the USA (among many other countries) is a secular contract. Our constitution guarantees equality under the law (14th Amendment, feel free to read it for yourselves). No compelling legal justification has ever been brought forth to say why two same-sexed individuals aren't worthy of equal protection under the law.

    For those that cite use religious freedom and the first amendment (free speech) to support their views on why same-sexed marriage should be disallowed, just keep in mind that:

    A) There are already (a growing number of) churches out there that have THEIR religious freedoms DENIED because they want to have the right to marry two same-sexed people, but are not allowed to.
    B) The first amendment does not guarantee that people will AGREE with your beliefs. It just gives you the right to state those beliefs, and same-sexed marriage will NOT change this. Nor will it force churches to wed people that don't meet their standards.

    For those that argue that homosexuality is unnatural, it is proven fact that a great many species throughout the animal kingdom exhibit same-sexed attractions. Some of these animals bond for LIFE with partners of the same sex. That makes it as natural as it gets. Statistically, it is indeed a minority that exhibits such attractions, but that doesn't make it unnatural, OR wrong.

    And finally, for those that use their biblical beliefs to back their assertions as to why homosexuality is morally wrong, Jesus himself (for those with a Christian perspective) never once mentioned homosexuality anywhere. If it was going to be a "great evil" of the future, you'd think he would have had a few words to share on the subject. Those that use the Old Testament to fuel their arguments almost always refuse to admit that they ignore the vast majority of the other laws stated in the Old Testament. And the ones that do admit to it are no better than your average cherry-picking hypocrites (at least they're honest hypocrites). Ignoring the bits and pieces of scripture that are 'inconvenient' to follow (like not getting a divorce), while using the 'sins' that most people aren't likely to commit (being homosexual) to demonize others is the height of hypocrisy. Jesus did in fact have something to say about hypocrites. He detests them.

    Regardless of the personal beliefs that each of us might have, none of us really have the right to demand that others MUST live their lives by our personal standards. It's a slap in the face to freedom, and it only serves to breed hostility and resentment. Neither of which are conductive to a productive, well-adjusted society.

    Mr. Bill Moyers, Good Morning.
    I saw your interview with Ted Olson and David Boises and now take a moment to read each and every word, please. Here is something for your academic interest. How about cases of reverse discrimination by homosexuals against heterosexuals? I took up part time accounting work with local county government in Florida. I had perfect test scores and yet I was held down at low paying part time job for three years by majority gay/ lesbian staff and management demanding from women and men in minority like me with traditional family values to show some solidarity to gays and lesbians by wearing certain colors/styles, consuming certain foods on certain days and adopting certain mannerism or risk being treated as pariah. There was open and gross financial mismanagement by homosexuals. Money was openly changing hands and payrolls being padded. I was twice approached by gay/lesbians staff to sign petition for legalizing the gay marriages/unions. I refused to comply with demands like four others. I first emailed in Aug 2004 to management and wrote in dignified manner “people not in compliance with god’s design were discriminating against men and women with traditional family values”. I am not prejudiced against gays and lesbians. Not, at all. I climbed up to Commission in Nov 2006. I met with Commission and County administrator on Nov 27, 2006. I convinced the commission and I was assured it will be investigated. After return from the meeting I had encounters with staff and I was clearly told that “only white and/or homosexuals get promotions here. It does not matter if your scores are 100 out of 100 or high 90’s. Now get the hell out of here.” I was livid and I emailed on Dec 24, 2006 and asked one poignant question “are homosexuals above the law”? “White, more covert than overt homosexuals were discriminating against traditional men and women with family values”. Is Mr. Obama, incidentally The President listening? I waited for too long to report. I had always sensed it but written it in discreet manner earlier. I did not imply all whites were homosexuals. I meant only white and/or homosexuals prevailed there. Commission found evidence and legitimacy in my complaint and promoted me to another division in Jan 2007. In 2008 elections homosexuals forced commission promulgate ordinance barring commission’s intervention ever in administration. I called commission’s aide to remove it from 2008 ballot to register protest and she furiously refused.
    In new division my immediate covert, gay supervisor and a self-proclaimed butch made my life miserable for refusing to comply with their demands & to sign the petition for legalizing gay marriage one more time. They were pressuring me to process the paperwork illegally so they along with their cronies could get their kickbacks from the vendors. Things became worst as I climbed up to highest level in Feb 2009; and emailed the hostilities and theft. Again I waited for too long. Recently while overseas on approved leave; my leave was rescinded and I was declared AWOL and terminated confiscating all my benefits including unemployment and retirements. Again I did not imply all whites were gays and lesbians. Only those who were; prevailed. Management and staff have misconstrued it to galvanize support for them and disdain against me. We all have heard of McCarthyism. Very few attorneys who are willing to fight the rich government are demanding huge retainer which is an issue for me. Can you please help me? I will give all my winnings to any one or cause you support except for job and lost wages. Can you please help me expose this crime and immorality? I will be thankful. Thank you.
    Ps; The County encourages and awards the contracts to minority business owners and vendors. Just a little thought to that money stolen! Is that money ending up in the streets of Afghanistan and Iraq? I have sordid details of depths these homosexuals can sink down to.

    America needs revolution like 1979 in Iran and 1989 in China to save itself. Otherwise these homosexuals like many other problems such as Sarah Palin will wipe America off the map. I am sure Ted’s and David’s latent tendencies are spurring them to fight for gays and lesbians cause. (Every one noticed Ted’s amorous gaze at David during the entire show?). My plausible pursuit of happiness is to debate with Ted, David and Bill Moyers on TV and to get this letter posted on your blog as it is. Can someone let me have that happiness? Now, please read this to see how the homosexuals are above law in certain parts of the country and the crimes they can get away with because they are in majority. In fair democracy unfair majority wins.
    Kindly don’t let this seemingly long letter discourage you from reading each word. Ted Olson has not had the courage to return my email for more than a month. I watched you with Ted Olson & David Boise on Feb 26th, evening at channel 2. Any initial shock and reaction to my anger and resentment that you might have will evaporate when you finish reading this in its entirety.
    It was total shameful that so called prominent lawyers like Ted Olson and David Boises have taken up such a immoral and sinful cause to put it certainly on its way to Supreme Court. What scientific evidence and expert testimonies they were referring to in support of their arguments. Compare it with everyday some pharmaceutical companies being sued for pedaling the dangerous medicine with approval from FDA. If America can allow such spectacle of American immorality for the world to watch; then what gives us the right to dictate Taliban in Afghanistan what they can do or can’t in their country? Why Talibans can’t demand decency and decorum from their women in traditional patriarchal society? We in America stopped demanding that from women here in the name of feminism (thanks to corporate greed; glorified as capitalism) and have seen the consequences of it in terms of all social evils like, high divorce rates, pedophilia, juvenile problems, drug-addiction, homosexuality, low population growth so much so that we have to continuously import people just like commodities from the world; the scales of social justice is already so much tilted in favor of women, gays and children that normal men are at complete disadvantage in American society. That is why we have mail-order brides in US but no mail-order groom shops here. Ever wondered why Iraq war has already outlasted WWII by a year as of March 2010 and in March 2010 Afghanistan war will become the longest American war? Who are fighting for us? Men want to rush home to hot cooked meal with woman waiting at the table.
    My theory is; weak and immature men always turn into gays and women into lesbians, usually more covert than overt, in matriarchal society. Patriarchal societies, as god intended, do not have such problems. We all have little Sherlock and Freud in us. Logically, only weak men could have turned over the reins of family affairs to women that is how and why America became untraditionally matriarchal society. There is enough resistance against gay-marriage in America but for some reasons those resistant people are not united just as much because it is so embarrassing issue for dignified and classy people to unite against and launch an open war. Ted and David talked about not hearing one good reason for opposing gay marriage from people during the trial. I will give you one right off the bat. How a normal man or woman is going to respond to question often asked on any social occasion “are you married”? Followed by whom are you married to? Others have raised scenarios of polygamy, bestiality and many more? If I was invited to debate with Ted and David I assure you I will prove them wrong. I watched and noticed the Ted’s amorous gaze at David. I normally would not notice that but since it was a moment on TV, I was unaware of this show while surfing, I glued myself down to watch it with some unexpected revelations and observations and I got one. I think most will agree that Ted and David are doing it with some agenda, money, 15 minutes fame or whatever else? Do they need more money or fame? Their latent tendencies are spurring them? Sincerely; Mr. Ash ashinwicworld@yahoo.com

    In considering this issue, we should acknowledge the scientific reality that sexual orientation is most often not a choice. [Do heterosexuals recall choosing the sex to which they are attracted?]
    For those who can accept that sociological and biological reality, isn't our society best served by supporting and honoring the union of any two individuals to help create secure and loving families and to achieve their highest potential? Marriage has been traditionally only available to heterosexual couples,not for its inherent "rightness" but because of the religious villification of homosexual sex. We ought not be proud of our history of preventing such unions from happening by demonizing and punishing a naturally-occurring population. Imagine if left-handed people were denied Marriage rights. Should we force everyone to function - however poorly - with their right hands simply because the majority wills it?

    Once again, Dom:

    The Bible is irrelevant.
    The Supreme Court will not decide the case based on the Bible.
    The US is not a Theocracy.

    We have a Constitution.
    If you cite that as often as the Bible (we can just skip over any Biblical reference, they are totally beside the point), we might pay more attention.

    Posted in part by: John
    "National treasure on that. Leave them alone. We have “real” problems." Yes, indeed "we have real problems!"
    Many of the problems are result of the "SPECIAL LAWS" that benefits special interest groups,"either that be by religions, nationalities, political parties, economics, education... etc. LAWS that change the intended principals of the "CONSTITUTION!" It change the direction of country from democracy to...!

    [1 Timothy 4:1-3,NIV](1)The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. (2)Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. (3)They forbid people to marry ...

    Tom
    Really?
    God is the institution of marriage, and no, I won't stop preaching for you.
    Stinging a little?

    1 Timothy 6:20
    20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
    KJV

    See you have been deceived by science
    and gotten away from what the Word actually says

    could we PLEASE move away from the religious issue? if gays were allowed to marry their religious affiliation would be irrelevant. just as it is currently in heterosexual marriage. religious affiliation, with ANY religion, is not required for marriage.

    One More Time:
    Don't get made the messenger because of the message, I have NOT slandered anyone, I do support equal rights, but I do NOT support, prostitution, I do not and will not support Same Sex Marriage.
    your issue is with God, not me.

    Don't get made the messenger because of the message, I have NOT slandered anyone, I do support equal rights, but I do support, prostitution, and do not support, I do not and will not support Same Sex Marriage.
    your issue is with God, not me.

    ps
    Probably won't do well with legalization of the Smoking Dope either.

    Don't get made the messenger because of the message, I have slandered anyone, I do support equal rights, but I do support, prostitution, and do not support, I do not and will not support Same Sex Marriage.
    your issue is with God, not me.

    Asking, "do you support same sex marriage?" is like asking, "do you support equal rights for everyone?"

    correcting my email address for future reference. What a great opportunity to share our thoughts.

    The Apostle Paul presents two covenants and the consequences of both in Romans. First he introduces the letter of the law through the first covenant, which you will notice includes disobedient children. Under Levitical Law disobedient children are to be stoned to death. Jesus apposed Levitical Law when revealing that it is paramount to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”, rather than vengeance and control through demanding an “eye for an eye.” After Paul presents the consequences of the first covenant in Romans he presents the new or second covenant of grace otherwise known as the “good news” or gospel. The commandment now is to love. Love God, love your neighbor and love yourself.
    Under the first covenant we are all condemned to death because none of us can live a sinless life and if we fail at one point of the law we fail at all points of the law. Under the second covenant we are all freed to love by extending to others the grace and forgiveness that is extended to us. The act of pure love is demonstrated through the ultimate sacrifice of God taking the sin of the world upon himself so we can be free to love one another without judgment toward one another.
    Its okay to be gay.

    Great show, it’s good to see such influential people sticking up for a minority (does Olson have a fever :o).

    To me, it seems like Christians are missing the whole point of being a Christian. (Oh sheet, here I go again. I hope I don’t offend anyone — too much.)

    Since The Creator of all creators created science, let’s look at this from a scientific point of view. Some people are born with both male and female reproductive organs, hormones and feelings (I’m not a brainologist, so I don’t know what causes feelings). So since it’s possible for a person to be born with both reproductive organs, then it’s also possible for a person to be born just short of this by having a mixture of both male and female hormones and feelings. What are these people supposed to do? Should they live their lives according to how they feel (feel, feel, feel) or how a bunch of judgmental Christians think they should?

    The Bible, The Koran and The Torah were perfectly written. The Creator of all creators is everything (light, dark; good, evil) and these books represent this with both good and evil verses. To me, these books show us who each of us are. Good people will read their respective book to find something that will allow them to love and help others while an evil person (a judgmental Christian) will find something to justify his or her hatred.

    Besides trying to tell people how they should live their lives, the really sad thing about all this is that these judgmental Christians have been turning gays and lesbians away from The Creator of all creators (which is the path to inner peace, at least for me). I wonder why Christian, Muslim and Jewish extremists can’t see that they are taking the “civil” out of “civilization.”

    Real Christians fix themselves and help others, not the other way around.
    ~ some gal on Maher’s Real Time (I wish I could remember her name)

    Hey Slick
    How is your progress on those National Issues coming along?

    Gay marriage? National controversy? State amendments? Gargantuan legal battles?
    What the heck is going on? Have we lost our minds? Gay marriage a problem? Spending national treasure on that? Are you kidding me?

    We have millions upon millions of our citizens suffering from foreclosure, medical bankruptcy, no health insurance, no jobs, layoffs… the list of horror from “real" problems goes on and on.

    Have we as a people reached a new historical level of stupid? Gay marriage? So what? Social, moral, religious? They are already living together you bunch of morons. Sticking a piece of paper on “that” changes nothing.

    The Supreme Court declares they have the right to marry. What would happen?

    There is not one person reading this that does not know…. Nothing Would Happen. Oh, our municipal clerks would have more forms and lawyers more divorce work. I’ll say it again:

    They are already living together you bunch of imbeciles. Sticking a pick of paper on “that” changes nothing.

    National treasure on that. Leave them alone. We have “real” problems.

    Jake
    Show me one scripture that says or even comes close to God insinuating that that a Same Sex Relationship or Marriage, is either lifted up or at the very least acceptable.........that is referring to a same sex relationship..........im not condemning you....we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God.....but i am by no means going to even for one minute back up on my position in the word of God, when it clearly state that a same sex relationship is wrong?

    I am an awful typist (correction)

    So Jake
    listen to what your saying, your saying that all those letters that Paul wrote only applied to the churches in that day and that it does NOT apply to THE CHURCH today. Right?

    You are deceived Brother.
    You are serving your life style like a Rich Man to Money, like drug addict to Drugs.
    That is exactly what Paul was telling the Church in Romans, Where did I lie all I did was Show you the Scripture.....It says what it says, I didn't write it.

    So Jake
    listen to what your saying, your saying that all those that Paul wrote only applied to the churches and that it does not to THE CHURCH today. Right?
    You are deceived Brother
    you are serving your life style like a Rich Man to Money, like drug addict to Drugs.
    That is exactly what was telling the Church in Romans, Where did I lie all I did was Quote Scripture.....It says what it says, I didn't write it

    Yes, Dom, you will find lots of preachers, teachers and clergy who will tell you those scriptures condemn homosexuality. That is popular belief, but it isn't true. Please stop telling the lie that the Bible condemns homosesuality.

    Acceptance will not come by popular vote, but it will come if we'd all just follow the example set by Jesus himself.

    To those of you who would cite the Bible to condemn SSM, please remember these words. They are directly from Jesus; He who is the example for Christians.

    Luke 11:37-53

    In part, Luke 11:52, "What sorrow awaits you experts in religious law! For you remove the key to knowledge from the people. You don’t enter the Kingdom yourselves, and you prevent others from entering."

    Jake hear me out brother ok,
    you seem to be a smart and intelligent person, I going to speak from my heart for minute.
    If your a Christian and you say you are, and I have no reason to doubt that.
    Either the Word of God is all True, or it is all False, that is for you to decide. If it is false, I got catching up to do with an old life style that eventually would return me to dust....
    But for me, I believe it is true.
    But if it is true, then it is all true, and when I accepted the contract (Our marriage contract with Jesus) to be part of the Bride of Christ (The Church) there was no black magic marker to block the parts of the contract (New Testament) that I didn't like.
    This is the Marriage you need to be concerned about.
    So in your look for acceptance, which is what you are doing, consider this.
    Now I realize you have felt this way all your life, and for somebody and say what you is wrong, can and would horrifying, and it would be wrong.......
    But there is one that we are to be come more like in growth.....and he gave life for us.right..
    He (the word) say it is wrong.
    Is God capable of healing Aids, Cancer, Broken heart, of course.....
    He is most certainly capable of healing you.
    If your a brother, and you delivered from homosexuality, what a witness you would be for Him.......
    But never know unless you desire it, other wise you saying He the Word of God is what?......wrong
    Not the shoes I wanna be caught wearing.
    I'm sure you will find lots of preachers teachers and clergyman, that will tell you those scriptures some how don't mean what they say.....A little sugar coated Gospel.
    Now having had said that....if you want to just stay gay fine....but try to make the world believe the Word is wrong,....meaning if gonna live that way, live that way, but I promise acceptance will not come by a populous vote.
    It will only come through Christ.
    Amen

    Dom, please read the whole text of Romans that you cite. You're right. It is a letter from Paul to churchs in Rome. The idolatrous sexual practices he mentions are being done by the other groups in Rome, not the people he is writing to.

    Dear Coco, thank you for your wise comments. May you have plentiful syrup to cover your pancakes for now and forever!

    http://prop8trialtracker.com/

    Ms Kazoo
    well thats sounds reral flowery.....but here this is what Jesus said:

    Luke 12:51-52
    51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
    52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
    KJV

    I'd like to point out that I have made several comments about my belief that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality any more than it condemns heterosexuality. Neither your nor my religious belief on this issue has any bearing on the subject of civil marriage equality.

    I post on this topic with the hope that a GLBT person will be reading these comments and will realize that the condemning message you've heard your whole life against being GLBT is wrong. Please research the facts of this case. Animosity toward GLBT people in the USA is a result of certain people wanting political power. They saw an opportunity by getting on board with the Republicans with their "values" campaign. The Republicans saw an opportunity to take the religious demographic from the Democrats. Read about Anita Bryant and the "Moral Majority." You'll see how they raised a great deal of money by stigmatizing GLBT people with absolute lies, thereby breaking the Ninth Commandment.

    Please, familiarize yourself with the following sites: http://www.soulforce.org/article/mel-white-sermon-video http://prop8trialtracker.com/ Lots of great information there.

    Being GLBT is not wrong in the Bible nor under the US Constitution.

    Faith then came by hearing the Word...so correction.
    They Letter thumping Believers...........Sorry!
    The letters of the New Test were bound till around 1600

    it's really sad that many people believe the lies that the anti-SSM people (angry team) spread. sexual orientation is not a choice and is definitely not an addiction. gays and lesbians do exist naturally and they deserve every right in this world as much as the hetero people do.

    stop spreading lies and you'll see that a rainbow colored world is a much better place to live in. =)

    Jake my scholar

    you said: Dom, the Romans verses you cite are about people who did not believe in the Bible God, they worshipped birds and creeping things. As a part of thier idolitry, they included sexual acts. So the sexual acts mentioned here were a part of their idolotry and not what we understand today as homosexuality.

    This is incorrect
    Paul had started many churches in Rome, and the Book of Romans is actually a Letter, to the one Churches in Rome............
    These people were born again bible thumping believers.
    sorry Bud

    Very well said KVT
    as long as Jesus is Lord and Savior, other wise your under that law too..........
    But what Paul wrote in Romans being Gentiles applies to you.

    I see deception runs deep here. This only confirms my convictions.........this is truly prophecy before my very eyes........
    this is Romans 1:18 - 28

    "Leviticus 18:22
    22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
    KJV"

    Dominick, dear, but we don't want to lie with a man as with a woman -- I prefer to lie with a man as with a man! Who knows what lying with a man "as with a woman" is, anyway?

    But seriously, surely if you are a Christian you do not adhere to all the Jewish laws, including Kosher laws? Because that's what Leviticus is all about. So it's ritually unclean for Jews. I'm not a Jew, so it doesn't really matter to me.

    Furthermore, NONE of these religious arguments has any bearing on the Constitution or US Laws because we do not live in a theocracy!

    Anna D: "Hetero love is "special", too...even an "ideal"

    Anna, you are a laugh riot!

    Dominick, you realize that the G in that passage you quote refers to "παρα φυσιν" which means it was "against the nature of those particular people" to be gay.

    Just as it would be "against my nature" to suddenly turn straight, it was against theirs to suddenly turn gay.

    παρα φυσιν was never used in Biblical times to refer to some "natural" order for everyone -- "natural law" was invented much much later, I think Aquinas.

    But it's all irrelevant anyway, because the US Constitution does not rely on Biblical interpretations or Biblical law.

    Dom, as I mentioned last night, addiction is not the same as sexuality. What about that explanation of it do you not understand?

    Again, addiction requires that you engage in a substance at least once (in most cases many times) to become addicted. Our sexuality develops before we ever have sex.

    This is not a legitimate comparison to make no matter how many times you or others may try. Sadly, some people will read what you wrote and think, "yes, that makes sense, gays can change." But they don't understand that addiction and sexuality are two totally different things.

    Please, stop spreading this lie.

    Mr Natural, this issue is regarding civil marriage, not holy matrimony. I'm glad you agree that the government should include gay couples in civil marriage.

    Some churches will also include them in holy matrimony, however, it isn't legal without the civil marriage certificate from the state.

    Dom, the Romans verses you cite are about people who did not believe in the Bible God, they worshipped birds and creeping things. As a part of thier idolitry, they included sexual acts. So the sexual acts mentioned here were a part of their idolotry and not what we understand today as homosexuality.

    Furthermore, exchanging what is natural to them in sex would imply that they were heterosexual but in this idol worship ritual they had sex in a way they usually wouldn't.

    The issue we are discussing today is about people who have a natural attraction to members of the same gender.

    In summary, Romans 1:18-27 is about people who worship idols, who are straight, and as a part of the idol worship they have sex with people of the same gender.

    It's well known that there were idolotrous groups in Rome at Paul's time and sexual acts were part of thier rituals.

    All gays sh'd haf th' legal right t'marriage. ah believe thet whole heartedly. ah reckon min are purdy.

    Marriage is the Holy matrimony between a man and a woman as God commands.

    Whether you believe in God or not is your right, however you may be wrong. In fact I know you are wrong, but then again that is your God given right of free will. Everybody has the right to be wrong and not learn from their mistakes.

    So if Gays want a contractual legal paper recognizing their union then so be it. I have no problem with that. Just dont call it Holy matrimony because it is not. I dont want the wrath of God on my shoulders.

    Ed M
    yes you also see that drug addicts, alcoholics, situations can be dealt with badly anywhere, Christian Homes included..............
    so if I discover that I am a alcoholic and and people try to help me, and I kill myself, Its the peoples fault for trying to help me. Ignorance gone to sea and set sail.......
    Denial man...... denial is denial.......
    you cannot get help until you realize that you have a problem..........even if you were born with it, nobody is blamimg anyone.....Like anyone who has a problem, you need to recognize it and deal with it........but nobody is blaming you.......
    I am politically correct...I get it.
    Neither is God

    R. Ackerman wrote, in part, "There are all kinds of legal rights attached to the institution of "marriage" in this country that protect married people and their families."

    AD - And that's where the problem IS - Constitution says that it is NOT from lawyers and law makers that we get the "right" to be HUMAN.

    RA - "There are inheritance rights,"

    AD - Tax laws step on that "right"

    RA - "child custody rights,"

    AD - Another big bowl of crazy with the whole surrogate mother schtick...

    RA - "tax advantages (and disadvantages),"

    AD - "Tax" and "advantage" should not be used in the same sentence :-) Whoever is getting taxed is at a disadvantage FOR someone else's advantage.

    RA - "protections for surviving spouses like Social Security,"

    AD - Place a value on "home maker and child raiser" - it's about 120K - and then pay out the Social Security for so many years of LABOR.

    RA - "being able to be covered under a spouse's health insurance,"

    AD - Uh, I believe 80% of USA people want EVERYONE to be covered. Everyone now is UNDER das boot of "health insurance companies"...

    RA - "being able to visit and sign hospital consents for treatment for a disabled spouse,"

    AD - Living will is best and regular will is also best. That's why it is a "will" because it is the INDIVIDUAL's "will" - what they want and you do it BEFORE the sh-t hits the fan.

    The following link tells the story of a young gay man who grew up in an anti-gay "Christian" household.

    http://ifpeakoilwerenoobject.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-its-like-for-gay-youth-to-live-in.html

    People need to realise that far too many of us LGBT people have committed suicide, got thrown out of their homes, or sent to "Christian" brainwashing camps, all of this while they were still teenagers and while most were still sexually inactive. I was one of the lucky ones who avoided all that. All the efforts to change who and what we are has only led us to grief and has done us great psychological harm.

    @ David C. of Chelsea, Mass.

    "Wow. This video really brought out the crazies.

    "This helps the cause for civil rights, though. Give these psycho religious nutjobs enough rope.....and they certainly oblige by hanging themselves."

    True. And I hope that the amount of rope enough isn't sufficient for them to ban same-sex marriage, criminalise us LGBT people or even exterminate us, let alone destroy the country and bring about the Apocalypse! (Apocalypse = WW3)


    Romans 1:18-27
    18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
    19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
    20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
    22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
    23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
    24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
    25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
    26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

    Right here people

    27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
    KJV

    I suppose this is tlking about Jail rape too? LOL

    So Vegas has legalized prostitution, is that morally right to?

    to quote Denny Cochran: 'The majority of voters in California exercised their authority in banning the right to same-sex marriage. Who/What do you think grants rights?"

    In this country we have always maintained that certain rights are "self-evident," and we have a belief that "all men are created equal." We also have a Constitution. Who "grants" you YOUR rights, your neighbors, or the Constitution of the United States?

    Posted in part by: Denny Cochran
    "There are no rights that are not granted by someone or something in authority." "More important than knowing our rights is knowing who or what we recognize as ultimate authority!"
    It better be the "ULTIMATE AUTHORITY" the U.S.A "CONSTITUTION!"
    The RIGHTS are GRANTED by the "CONSTITUTION!"
    The RIGHTS granted by the "CONSTITUTION" are legal "ULTIMATE AUTHORITY"
    rights and not RELIGIOUS, POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, FINANCIAL etc.
    The "PROPOSITION 8" violates and/or suppress "protected CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!"
    If it was intended based on RELIGIOUS, POLITICAL, SOCIAL believe etc. they
    should have first "AMENDED the CONSTITUTION," before they place the "PROPOSITION 8" on the ballot!
    "THE U.S.A. CONSTITUTION" is the "ULTIMATE AUTHORITY" at the mercy
    of the SUPREME COURT and the corrupt JUSTICE SYSTEM!

    Quoting R. Akerman, “The broadcast seems to have missed the point of marriage. It has noting to do with religion, but has to do with basic rights.”

    First, the point of the broadcast was, “ Do you support (the Right to) same-sex marriage? Why or why not?” Rights are granted. There are no rights that are not granted by someone or something in authority. The majority of voters in California exercised their authority in banning the right to same-sex marriage. Who/What do you think grants rights? I mean if you trace rights backward to their ultimate source, to the point where civil and moral order can be maintained, because there is general agreement.

    Second, Religion is any belief system adopted by two or more people. There are a lot of religious belief systems expressed in this thread, including those who believe same-sex marriage should be permitted. Therefore, the discussion is absolutely about religion and which one is chosen and why.

    If one is an atheist and believes that life has no meaning or purpose and ends in death, then the religious expressions in this thread may seem to have little or no consequence beyond this life. If there is, however, one supreme God in authority over us all forever, and if God has some ideas about “marriage,” then everybody in this thread can’t be right in their religious expressions about rights, because the beliefs are so different. More important than knowing our rights is knowing who or what we recognize as ultimate authority.

    The broadcast seems to have missed the point of marriage. It has noting to do with religion, but has to do with basic rights. It's not about "respect" or "recognition." It's not "just a piece of paper" or "just a ceremony" of some kind. If that's all it was, I wouldn't care! There are all kinds of legal rights attached to the institution of "marriage" in this country that protect married people and their families. There are inheritance rights, child custody rights, tax advantages (and disadvantages), protections for surviving spouses like Social Security, being able to be covered under a spouse's health insurance, being able to visit and sign hospital consents for treatment for a disabled spouse, etc., etc. In a country where we give lip service to the principle that "all men are created equal" some people are still denied the rights that others have. How can that be?

    I should know better than to read comments but alas here I am with tears in my eyes because of the blind hatred people have in their hearts.

    I am a Christian and I would like every person reading this to know that God loves all people equally. It is not our job to judge other people.

    Posted by: Suzanne


    You want a REAL tear jerker, go to the posts on "A Single Payer Solution?"

    God keeps waiting for us to love Him back...

    "Religion" lost all its spiritual power when it climbed into bed with POLITICS in the 20th century.

    No one ever stopped anyone in the USA from LIVING what they believe.

    Hebrews 12:1-2
    12 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
    2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
    KJV

    We all got our cross to bear...

    I don't understand -- only major control freaks want to tell other people who they can and can not love. Can you imagine their mentality? No -- that's a good thing. They probably still believe in a punitive God and a God Who Is ONLY LOVE that created a place called hell? Okay, ask yourself, does this make sense? Love is Love. Is it about form or feelings?

    Also Dom, please watch the video at the following link. http://www.soulforce.org/article/mel-white-sermon-video and realize that Jesus really doesn't condemn homosexuls anymore than heterosexuals. It is not a sin as you've been led to believe. Please read beyond the limit of your pastor's understanding. The Truth will set you free!

    I am not asking the world nothing, as history has proved, the world has nothing to give, But the Word says you can overcome all things.
    My name is not Holy Ghost, not for me to condemn, but His.........My Job is to witness and encourage through His word......Gay or Not I preach and teach to you just as any other addict Liar, cheat or murderer...........Most don't want to get their hands dirty............anyone one who wants help to get set free, or at the very try to overcome this...you email me from my site......just click on my name.
    In love
    Dom.
    Later

    Mr Natural, GLBT people have sex with or without marriage. Marriage isn't required for people to have sex.

    Again, this issue is about civil marriage not legal sex.

    Rewritten (sorry)
    Don't try to lighten the sentence here, addiction science says it is a gene, just like yours, I have to be careful of everything I do, I become addicted instantly.......I am married to someone who has this battle, there is many things we have to handle differently, and things I live without, but I love her, and knowing these things, we make it work.
    As addict I will admit, and you must first admit, I may not die drug free, BUT I will die trying ......that's the difference.........Not that God can't or wont you forgive just like he did me, Jesus gave for that very reason........But trying to legalize makes it no less a sin.......
    He knew we would and will fall short.....Just because you get the populous to approve does not make it any less of a sin.....But you already know that

    Dom, again, no matter how easily you may become addicted to something (the gene factor you mention), you will not become a drug addict without first trying the drug.

    A person is gay without EVER having sex or even touching someone of the same gender.

    Addiction is not the same as sexuality. Ask a psychologist if I'm not explaining this right.

    To Jake:

    Sorry I thought gays had sex in marriage? Wow, I guess I was wrong but I think you are minority in that opinion. :)

    Mr Natural,the issue at hand is marriage, not sex. Please understand the difference. One is not required for the other or vice versa.

    Deviant sex, ie anal sex, is an abomination before God. Why can't you gays understand that? I guess if you say it enough we will eventually give in and accept this type of deviant behaviour in a family unit to be blessed by law and God?

    Do you think anal sex is pleasurable? That exit hole is not for forced entry. It is deviant, perverted, and obnoixous.

    God gives us laws to protect us and not to punish us. To find true love and peace of heart, you must obey and follow the commandments of God and the teachings of the Bible. Love is the answer, and not perverted sex.

    Dont try to lighten the sentence here, addiction science is a gene, just like yours, I have everything, I become addicted instantly.......I married to someone who has this battle, there is many things we have to handle differently, and things I live without, but I love her, and knowing these things, we make it work.
    As addict will admit, and you must first admit, I may not die drug free, I will die trying ......that's the difference.........Not that cant or wont you just like he did me........But trying to legalize makes it no less a sin.......Just because approves does not make it any less of a sin.....But you already know that

    Dom, you wouldn't have become a drug addict if you had never tried drugs. Regardless, I'm sorry for your struggle.

    Our sexuality, hetero or home, does not begin by us trying something. I'm sure that most of us realized our sexuality before we ever had our first touch.

    People are *gay* even before they have sex, but you were *not* an addict before trying drugs.

    Thank you Suzanne! That is the true Christian attitude.

    Jesus warned about the devil tempting us to sin. Sin causes division and that's what the devil wants.

    The great sin that we are becoming more and more guilty of is not treating each other the way Jesus treated others. That rule supercedes all other rules. Think about it. If you follow that rule, you won't defame, beat, or kill anyone. All of those things have been done to GLBT people in the name of defending very non-Christian beliefs.

    Please, stop dividing Christians and Americans! Spend your money feeding the hungry and giving shelter to the homeless. That is His example, not excluding His children.

    Suzaane and others
    God loves all his people, at one time I was one of worst drug addicts that walk the streets of Chicago, and again I will not apologize for the Word of God, He loved me, but he did love my lifestyle...........With experience I will say this fight with this life is not easy, just as mine was and is with drugs...Its been years, and all that it took from me, I still about it like some long lost love, so give me garbage about it is not something you can overcome.........it is and you can.

    To BradK and JRC

    Let me guess, raised by wolves...?

    Or did you convince your mothers that because you are "special", you don't need to follow the same rules as everyone else...

    OR...

    THE TRUTH

    the talking points you have don't work in a real conversation with a real person...

    Keep banging your weenies against the NECESSARY brick wall foundation built up by THOUSANDS of years of evolution of MONOGAMOUS marriage that WOMEN negotiated in European cultures - China tends towards monogamy, also.

    Gay men NOT "friends" of women. The respect you show "Israni" and HIS re-written, voices in head, version of "history"

    and no challenge to the fruit loop who believes "god" assasinated Kennedy so that Johnson could be coaxed into Vietnam

    proves that straight men and gay men ALSO have another thing in common...

    besides rudeness indicative of a weak Mom who did not RAISE you to follow the same rules in debate as everyone else...

    you haven't "figured" out women...just trying to figure out what they can do for YOU YOU YOU...

    Seriously, I'm not a legal expert or a Pharisee-level defender of "the gay"

    But even I know that if you created a CORPORATION, you'd get everything you WANT - health care, inheritance control, job security...think about it...

    GAY, Inc.

    Too hard? Want it ready made for you like "Martha Stewart, Inc."? Like monogamous marriage...?

    Waaah boo hoo, me wannna

    CHILDREN LOVE LIVING WITH THEIR BIOLOGICAL MOMMY AND DADDY - WHO ALSO LOVE EACH OTHER.

    Hetero love is "special", too...even an "ideal"...

    Jude, standing ovation to you!!! Seriously, that was wonderful, fabulous even! I applaud your call to civility and reason in this forum.

    This issue is dividing us as a country and it's because we are not relying on the priciples that have gotten us to this stage of our history. We know that we will never all agree on the correct religion or the right way to practice it so we decided not to have a state religion. We also wanted to grant all citizens equal rights regardless of age, race, religion, gender, etc.

    These two principles can coexist as long as my right to equal treatment doesn't impede your right to practice your brand of religion. Our religious practice must not inflict damage on other citizens.

    Together we stand, divided we fall.

    I should know better than to read comments but alas here I am with tears in my eyes because of the blind hatred people have in their hearts.

    I am a Christian and I would like every person reading this to know that God loves all people equally. It is not our job to judge other people.

    http://lgbtlatestscience.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/a-photo-of-your-gay-brain/

    For those of you that claim that being gay is abnormal, a choice, a sickness, you are wrong. Are you scientists? I am. Take a look at this photo of the brains of straight men, gay men, lesbians and straight women. The brains of straight men look the same as lesbians. The brains of gay men look the same as straight women.

    Homosexual behavior occurs in over 450 species. Transgender people? It's not their imagination. 1 in 3000 "boys" that have a Y chromosome are girls anatomically. The development of our genitals occurs before the development of our sexual orientation and gender identity.

    If you aren't a scientist, get some facts before making statements that are not true.

    The bigotry and hatred on this page is repulsive to me. Many of you should be ashamed of the way you speak about real human beings.

    I'm straight, married, and 54 years old. I've had gay friends since high school. I must know 50 gay people in real life. All of them are normal, hard working decent people. Get to know someone who is gay. Educate yourself. There is no slippery slope to pedophilia, bestiality or polygamy. Besides, most people who engage in those are heterosexual.

    Look Dom, we won't agree on the meaning of Scripture and that's fine. That's the point of our priciple of not establishing a state religion. Your church can decide to not marry gay couples and others can decide to include them. Neither your nor my religious belief should have any bearing on our civil laws. That's what this is about, civil laws.

    I will argue just as strongly to maintain religious freedom (for your church and others) as I do for civil marriage equality.

    Wow. This video really brought out the crazies.

    This helps the cause for civil rights, though. Give these psycho religious nutjobs enough rope.....and they certainly oblige by hanging themselves.

    Furthermore, this isn't a prohibition of marriage, just certain sexual acts that are not a result of love.

    What verse in the Bible bans SSM? It doesn't exist so please stop claiming it does.

    You've been told a lie so many times you believe it.

    Yep, Dom, that's about men having sexual power over other men, as they did over women at that time. Notice that doesn't mention women with women. This verse is basically about what we'd consider jail rape. It's not about loving homosexual relationship. To broaden it a bit, rape is not allowed by men on women either. So you see, just another sexual prohibition that applies to both sexual orientations.

    Probably better throw your Bible out
    it's in all of mine

    Leviticus 18:22
    22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
    KJV

    In reality, the Bible never forbids SSM. It never forbids SSM no matter how much some "Christians" want to believe it. You've heard a lie so many times, you've come to believe it as truth. Just like there are prohibitions to certain opposite-gender sexual acts, there are also prohibitions for certain same-gender sexual acts. Everything in the Bible regarding sexual relationships can be applied equally to both OS and SS couples. This goes for both the prohibitions as well as the companionship, commitment and love in a sexual relationship.

    So Bradk
    Why don't you call Sarah Palin and inform her that I am equating her with? So she will know.

    Father
    Right there is the problem, you twist the word to fit what you want, it says what says......
    Nothing out of context, we have become a notions of fallen family values.
    I love US, this is my home, but this country has been in trouble from the day parked and erected a Greek Goddess in our front yard of NY City.
    All laws were and are based from Gods laws...there is no separation of Church and State.
    There is no one person ever came to power unless God allowed it. And includes our socialist President Obama. Not that any of them are better today.

    My husband and I have been together for 27 years now. We were married legally n Canada in 2003 and we are just as married as most other people who are heterosexuals.

    It distresses me to see so many people who confuse the bible with the constitution! We are a nation of laws and we have courts to declare if these laws are constitutional or not. That is the proper place for this debate and it looks as though this topic will be in the Supreme Court in no time (although I still have my fears as long as certain justices ar on the court I do not trust that blind justice will prevail).

    As a clergyman, I am distressed to see the bible being used so freely by people who don't seem to understand it or the process of exegesis (putting the bible in context to who it was written, why it would say what it says and what it is actually talking about in that passage--not just what it says). I believe it shows a great lack of respect of God's Word to use it to beat others up with instead of being used to help others or yourself.

    Whatever happened to "Judge not lest ye be judged also--and by the same measure" and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? These are important biblical principles that seem to be ignored by so many.

    Grace & Peace
    Father Steve

    Third time is a charm, eh Ash?

    Please stop re-posting the same nonsense, it doesn't make it any more credible or tolerable. Think of the children.

    Whoa! Did the crazy bus just let off at the corner?

    @“Mr. Ash Israni”: Please adjust your tinfoil hat, I think it’s obstructing your view of reality. And your view of the ‘enter’ key on your keyboard. Did you really have to post this screed twice thereby lengthening everyone’s pageload times?

    “America needs revolution like 1979 in Iran and 1989 in China to save itself”

    And how did those work out? What was the final body count?

    “…these homosexuals like many other problems such as Sarah Palin will wipe America off the map”

    So now Teh Gheys are in league with Ms. Tea Party America? Has anyone thought to tell her (so she can write in on her hand)? Or is this something along the lines of the enemy of my enemy is…something?

    “Ted Olson has not had the courage to return my email for more than a month”

    You are the only one who finds this strange.

    “Any initial shock and reaction to my anger and resentment that you might have…”

    There, you said the magic words: Anger and Resentment. We appreciate your honesty.

    “If America can allow such spectacle of American immorality for the world to watch; then what gives us the right to dictate Taliban in Afghanistan what they can do or can’t in their country? Why Talibans can’t demand decency and decorum from their women in traditional patriarchal society?”

    I’m not even going to touch this. Where is John Stewart when you need him?

    “…have seen the consequences of it in terms of all social evils like, high divorce rates, pedophilia, juvenile problems, drug-addiction, homosexuality, low population growth so much so that we have to continuously import people just like commodities from the world…”

    So treating our women like equals and not livestock is to blame for pedophilia, juvenile problems, and drugs? Divorce rates of course have nothing to do with men who beat on or cheat on their wives right? And ‘low population growth’? Look around you dude, the country is full of people we can’t feed, house, educate, or employ. Do we really need more?

    Lastly, homosexuality is only evil in your eyes. And that makes it your issue to deal with, not society’s.

    “…that normal men are at complete disadvantage in American society”

    Been watching much Spike TV, I see.

    “Men want to rush home to hot cooked meal with woman waiting at the table.”

    You left out ‘barefoot and pregnant’.

    “weak and immature men always turn into gays and women into lesbians”

    Because it takes strength of character to confront a society where bigots attempt to marginalize, demean, viciously assault, and try to kill you just for being yourself? Got it. Thanks.

    “Patriarchal societies, as god intended, do not have such problems”

    Seriously, where are the Daily Show writers?

    “people not in compliance with god’s design were discriminating against men and women with traditional family values”

    Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you, right?

    The rest just devolves into a self-pitying rant not worthy of even reading, let alone responding to. Seriously dude, get some counseling.

    There is something VERY important left out of the statement prepared in the run-up to the 2008 vote, supporters of Proposition 8.

    This Propositions prevents Gays from enjoying the same state benefits and rights afforded "traditional marriage."

    Example, "traditional married" couples do not have to adopt the other partner's naturally born child to have parental rights.

    "America needs revolution like 1979 in Iran and 1989 in China to save itself. Otherwise these homosexuals like many other problems such as Sarah Palin will wipe America off the map."

    "trying to equate Homosexaul marriage to interracial marriage was very insulting to watch. A sexual perversion can in no way be compared to a racial classification."

    Welcome to the 21st century people. Slavery was abolished. Segregation has been outlawed. Women and Blacks have the right to vote. Women are allowed in the work place. And everyone in these United States of America has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Don't like it? Then leave. There are numerous countries out there where homosexuality is a very serious crime (like all Islamic nations and the UK until 1967).

    Im all for anyone who wants to "make it" in America and work hard..but this Mr. Ash Israni - seems like HE wants to change our laws to suit him....and his "home countires" ways..well TOO BAD....BYE, You can leave anytime...Go back to where you came from, where obviously they Treat women like dogs/slaves/underlings..to be subserviant to men...sounds like from what I read on his long winded (twice commented page) he wants something for nothing......hmmm, lets be a foreigner in his country and see how far we get trying to sue his gov't...isn't that right Mr Mr. Ash Israni ?

    Another One...Hey Mr. Ash Israni ...YOU DON'T LIKE IT HERE...GO HOME, GO BACK TO WHERE YOU CAME FROM! DON'T LET AMERICA'S DOOR HIT YOU ON THE WAY OUT!

    Hey V.Sedemkalaka - First off: You are in America..not your own country...and 2nd, Sodomy os done everyday,day in, day out, 365 DAYS A YR by HETEROSEXUALS TOO...as a matter of fact - LOOK up the Meaning of Sodomy (hint: its NOT just anal sex, educate yourself) ..IF you don't like it here - go back to where you or your anscestors come from...some backwards hateful country most likely...and STUFF your Buy-Bull where the Sun don't shine....AMERICA - WITH LIBERTY & JUSTICE FOR ALL...not just heterosexuals.

    For all you Bible thumpers out there:

    "Christians today do not follow the rules and rituals described in Leviticus. But some ignore its definitions of their own 'uncleanness' while quoting Leviticus to condemn 'homosexuals.' Such abuse of Scripture distorts the Old Testament meaning and denies a New Testament message. 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.' These words occur solely in the Holiness Code of Leviticus, a ritual manual for Israel's priests. Their meaning can only be fully appreciated in the historical and cultural context of the ancient Hebrew people. Israel, in a unique place as the chosen people of one God, was to avoid the practices of other peoples and gods.

    Rituals and rules found in the Old Testament were given to preserve the distinctive characteristics of the religion and culture of Israel. But, as stated in Galatians 3:22-25, Christians are no longer bound by these Jewish laws. By faith we live in Jesus Christ, not in Leviticus. To be sure, ethical concerns apply to all cultures and peoples in every age. Such concerns were ultimately reflected by Jesus Christ, who said nothing about homosexuality, but a great deal about love, justice, mercy and faith."

    (http://soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm)

    Also:

    It's apparent that some people conveniently forgotten that there is something called "separation of church & state" in this country. Your "religious beliefs" have nothing to do with me. Besides, how does me marrying my girlfriend affect you? If you don't want a gay marriage, DON'T GET ONE! Simple as that.

    If they can ban two consenting adults from getting married, I fear what's to come next.

    I don't know what is happening in America, but I do know that America is becoming a sick and perverted country. Homosexual marriage is just plain wrong. The voters in California have already spoken. Why try to force Sodomy upon a majority of people , who have already voted, and said that they do not want homosexuals to be allowed to marry. And to have those two attorneys on your show , trying to equate Homosexaul marriage to interracial marriage was very insultin gto watch. A sexual perversion can in no way be compared to a racial classification.
    Let us move to make homosexuality illegal, and a crime!

    LOOK at how twisted YOU are - did YOU not INTEND to AFFECT me, personally, with your cretinous diatribe?

    No STRAIGHT MAN would ever say this kind of CRAP to a woman who is talking about the HISTORY of monogamous marriage being something WOMEN earned because of what they NEEDED to BE "good mothers".

    You spewed,
    "Anna D dear...what is it you have against MEN and thier "schlongs" as you so eloquently put it? (you've used that word in your comments) Did some man cross you dear? Did some man slap you with his? ..ahh How could I have "hated you" before I read your comment? I don't hate anyone, and you make NO sense, is Mitch your relative? ...and sweetie pie...please oh please....do NOT have Children...seems you could NEVER be capable of giving a child "Unconditional Love"..esp. IF you had a Gay Child....as I stated about Mitch - seek therapy sweetie. How does a Gay person marrying "affect YOU personally"? unless you are Invited to SAID Marriage?

    Posted by: JRC"

    You'll end up in jail sooner than at the altar with your "activism"

    oh wait, THAT "institution" would suit you just fine - "marriage" may not be "official" in jail, but it sure does happen as part of the "culture"...

    No offense taken, mary wacker. It's getting hard to tell the players in here without a program!


    For all you Bible thumpers, please let Betty Bowers enlighten you as to the true meaning of a Bible-based marriage:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

    Kevin wrote, in part, "Probably far fewer men will, since unlike straight men, we can get sex easily if that's all we want."

    So WHY are you hooligans attacking ME...?

    I agreed with his courage to state the OBVIOUS.

    FACTS are FACTS from 1980s NYC medical records...and the question is FAIR, what are YOUR taboos...?

    As for me, I'm going to seek special minority priviledges based on the fact that I like to do it hanging upside down from a chadelier...that's for the lessons, delightful gay boyz, in how VICIOUS and tortured my legal logic needs to become to DESERVE "political correctness" status...i can pour on the syrup along with the best of you...

    Anna D dear...what is it you have against MEN and thier "schlongs" as you so eloquently put it? (you've used that word in your comments) Did some man cross you dear? Did some man slap you with his? ..ahh How could I have "hated you" before I read your comment? I don't hate anyone, and you make NO sense, is Mitch your relative? ...and sweetie pie...please oh please....do NOT have Children...seems you could NEVER be capable of giving a child "Unconditional Love"..esp. IF you had a Gay Child....as I stated about Mitch - seek therapy sweetie. How does a Gay person marrying "affect YOU personally"? unless you are Invited to SAID Marriage?

    hey, sorry to Brad K for mentioning his comment in my comment, it was a typo.

    You make me sick lady!

    Posted by: JRC


    YOU hated me before I opened my mouth to say

    MARRIAGE was just as hard won of a RIGHT FOR WOMEN as "voting" rights were

    and it took CENTURIES for WOMEN to have equal FAMILY POWER through men agreeing to monogamous marriage as the IDEA

    and THAT is why USA is great - not because gay men NEED to "marry" all of a sudden...

    Go create "Gay, INC." and you'll get what you WANT a lot faster than "marrying"...

    It's NOT about men and their schlongs all the time...

    To Brad K and all other people who use the bible for discrimination.....yep the bible says homosexuality is a sin, it also says, in the same place, that touching pig skin is a sin and you should be killed for doing so. It also says you should kill you neighbor if he works on the sabbath, it actually says a bunch of really stupid stuff to keep people in line. get a grip and get your own life and please use your brain to stop spreading hate. What would jesus do. Jesus would not hate, he was about love, not judging. People who hide behind the bible to promote hate disgust me and I find it sad that they are considered to be Christians, it is not christian behavior to hate. It is not a christian behavior to be self rightous, good things to remember perhaps, that is if you believe what jesus taught.

    This Anna D. person, is she any relation to this Mitch guy? Hey Anna hon...Maybe YOU should Read the Writings of Alice Paul (look it Up), the Woman who Fought for YOUR RIGHT to Vote, a woman who was Imprisoned & Force Fed...a woman who Fought against Men,and Clergy to Obtain YOUR RIGHT to VOTE...and hear/read about the arguments USED to prevent women from Voting....the Downfall of American Society, It's Not God's will that Women have a say in Governence, etc etc blah blah....you are the typical,.."I Got my Rights,and Take'm for Granted..now who's Rights Can I trample on"? You make me sick lady!

    "Homosexual sex is an abomination to God."

    So is shellfish. Perhaps we should put that in the Constitution?


    "Love between like sexes is not an abomination, only sex is."

    Thanks for clearing that up. So Gay is OK in a loving, committed relationship so long as it’s not consummated?


    "When is the last time you seen two male horses or any other same sex animals doing the wild thing?"

    Google is your friend:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDO2EWRbcwI
    http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3756523/10311458

    "Marriage encompasses the idea of love and sex together to form a union between two partners."

    And this is exactly what Gay and Lesbian couples have experienced and demonstrated. We are only asking for Civil recognition – equal to yours – so that our families may enjoy the same legal protections and benefits as all families in these United States.

    "The sex part is what people and the Lord has issues with. Sorry but God knows whats best for you to find your inner peace and happiness. Homosexuality is not the path."

    You are certainly welcome to this view, you are simply not welcome to legislate it upon others. Least of all those outside your particular brand of faith. If God really does have an issue with His Gay and Lesbian children (whom He created), then why not leave it up to God to pass judgment and turn the other cheek as Christ commanded?

    Organized religion is nothing more than a middle man between the people and their God.

    Homosexual sex is an abomination to God.

    Love between like sexes is not an abomination, only sex is.

    When is the last time you seen two male horses or any other same sex animals doing the wild thing?

    Marriage encompasses the idea of love and sex together to form a union between two partners. The sex part is what people and the Lord has issues with. Sorry but God knows whats best for you to find your inner peace and happiness. Homosexuality is not the path.

    Thank you, "Anna D", for lowering the bar so. That meandering, bitter diatribe brings to light all of your ignorance and bitterness in one fell swoop – I don’t think you missed a single stereotype. You seem utterly clueless about what transpired during January’s testimony in the Perry V. Schwarzenegger trial, namely that every one of your canards was intelligently and eloquently debunked. Continuing to repeat them regardless reflects only upon you. The trial transcripts are public record, you might consider reading them.

    And really now, who is being glib and regurgitating shallow sound bites here?

    You might also try cleaning your keyboard as the shift key seems be sticking randomly. Thanks.

    1) No one choses to be gay. Scientific studies have reaffirmed this time and time again. They have also reaffirmed that trying to change someone's sexual orientation doesn't work.

    2) Marriage, like it or not, is a civil institution. Get over it.

    Kevin wrote, in part, "Probably far fewer men will, since unlike straight men, we can get sex easily if that's all we want."

    Demographic data was collected back in the 1980s in NYC about number of sexual partners among homosexual men who were being treated for AIDS/HIV. On AVERAGE, they had 1000 different partners a year - that's 3 new ones a day - male fantasy fullfilled, eh?

    Gay men before AIDS/HIV had a "culture" that was uniquely theirs. There was no job discrimination because they "owned" many businesses - mostly concerned with the "arts". So asking what are the "taboos" among gays IS a fair question before "marriage" includes gay men marrying.

    The 1980s decade was NOT that long ago when comparing it to the timeline of how many CENTURIES it took for WOMEN to set up the IDEALS of monogamous "marriage"!

    WOMEN evolved "marriage"! So that means gay men are going to have to 'splain themselves to WOMEN about why all of a sudden, THEY "need" marriage.

    Children were also quite happy in a core unit of "family" where their biological Mom and Dad respected and LOVED each other - yes, the IDEAL did really happen often enough. And the men who were EVOLVED enough to give that kind of "marriage" an honest effort at making it work also have a lot to say about why it made them a BETTER human being - less selfish, a better parent,

    an interesting and complimentary INTELLIGENT adult for a LIFE partner (WOMAN, in case you were wondering) who added a lot to improving LIFE MAINTENANCE FOR THE SPECIES.

    USA would be more like Afghanistan, stuck in the Dark Ages of "religious" cruelty if WOMEN in the USA were not "liberated" to contribute equally to FAMILY POWER.

    Why don't gay men (and women) INCORPORATE themselves?

    One big "Gay Inc." where most of what you WANT in the way of health care, inheritance of wealth,

    and global finds (ie. cute Brazilian gays) getting work permits for living in the USA would all be easier to achieve for yourselves?

    What you are doing now is banging your schlongs against the BRICK WALL of thousands of years of social evolution that finally favored the NEEDS of women so that WOMEN could become great Moms who RAISE their own children with the kid's loving FATHER instead of just giving birth to kids and then being at the mercy of EVERY for-profit "Inc.", up to and including "politicians"?

    Everyone knows that "we're queer and we're here" happens to a certain % of people. Gay men had a unfettered run on the "culture" of NYC before AIDS/HIV crept into their midst.

    Yes, "straight" men do not "naturally" gravitate towards seeking the joys of monogamous "marriage" with the mother of their children

    and between the "sexual revolution" where shamans preached free sex as "love" and gays - like you noted got all the sex they wanted -

    well, THOSE "modern sensibilities" did a LOT more damage to the IDEAL MARRIAGE that WOMEN labored for that did the ORIGINAL "feminism" which was nothing more than women fighting for the MEN to negotiate their way out of a factory slave status that was so numbing to the MEN that they drank too much alcohol...

    You need to EDUCATE yourself more, Kevin, about other lifestyles besides YOURS and what YOU want. The glib gay talking points are INSULTING and everyone is actually starting to become LESS tolerant than they might be otherwise with the TONE of your activism - I dubbed it "spunking hooliganism" -

    because the ECONOMIC times we find ourselves in due to ENDLESS "war" is much more important os a problem to address than is the existence of "homosexuality".

    The whole planet is NOT about YOU YOU YOU and your schlongs.

    Oh, and as for the comparison to "slavery" in USA - the family life of the ex-slaves in the USA has yet to recover from the devastation that slavery inflicted on their culture by NOT PERMITTING "slaves" to form a strong male-female family in which to RAISE their CHILDREN as "FREE people".

    Yup, your glib gay activist talking points are "spunking hooliganism"...up to and including PROOF that what you are still best at is breaking every "taboo" that ever was without realizing what it is you are breaking.

    Grow up.

    Why do schools have to impose this issue on the children? Parents should have the right to block this information. If this is not allowed, then my rights as a parent are violated. School should stop being a playing field for brainwashing our kids on political agendas, school is for non-partial academics.

    "In the 90s my wife was overseas and I too had to give up my carrier and "commute" for six years to see her. The US Embassy in her country rejected her application for a visitor visa several times. I had a green card, so she had to wait for a permanent visa to come over here."

    If you were a US citizen, you would be able to invite not only your wife, but also your fiance to come to the US with you.

    If you were gay and had a male partner there would be no chance of that.

    Furthermore, if you had a male spouse, having married in Spain or the Netherlands, the US Embassy would not ever consider your relationship in terms of granting a visa.

    Now do we see the difference?

    "We need a new, inclusive term to encompass both traditional marriage and same-sex unions"

    We have that: "marriage."
    It's one term.
    Courts in MA, CA, CT, and IA have found that having a separate term embodies discrimination.

    From the CA ruling:
    Furthermore, because of the historic disparagement of gay persons, the retention of a distinction in nomenclature by which the term “marriage” is withheld only from the family relationship of same-sex couples is all the more likely to cause the new parallel institution that has been established for same-sex couples to be considered a mark of second-class citizenship. Finally, in addition to the potential harm flowing from the lesser stature that is likely to be afforded to the family relationships of same-sex couples by designating them domestic partnerships, there exists a substantial risk that a judicial decision upholding the differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples would be understood as validating a more general proposition that our state by now has repudiated: that it is permissible, under the law, for society to treat gay individuals and same-sex couples differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals and opposite-sex couples.

    Anna,

    Come on!
    What you're talking about is some ideal idea of a marriage that straight people do not have to justify at all.

    There ARE green card marriages. There are marriages for all kinds of reasons.
    If Britney can marry for 12 hours in Vegas, where's your idealized vision of marriage?
    Tiger Woods? married.
    Mark Sanford? Married.
    Elliot Spitzer? Married.
    Larry Craig? Married.
    Why is it OK for them to be married, but not for gay people?
    Gay people should have equal rights to get married and cheat as much as straights.

    Of COURSE there will still be divorce, silly! That's what marriage contracts are all about! Now same sex partners will be protected by the divorce laws just like straight ex-spouses are. You have the SAME rights and responsibilities.

    Actually, I think gay people and lesbians have MORE right to marriage, since we've been proving for many years that we can create lasting relationships WITHOUT any of the benefits of legal marriage and all that baggage of tradition.

    Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon were together for 50 years. And you're going to tell me that they still have to "prove" something to you or "evolve"?" Come off your high horse, honey. Just because you're straight doesn't make you any better than us, sorry!

    "Sex is not the same as LOVE."
    Duh! Do you think LGBT people don't know that? Do you think we're ALL going to get married? Probably far fewer men will, since unlike straight men, we can get sex easily if that's all we want. But many of us DO want long term relationships, and the rules should be no different than for straights.

    For all of you state that we LGBT are choosing a lifestyle, do you realize that being hetero-sexual is also a lifestyle. Kudos to Mr. Olson and Mr. Boies, thank you for fighting the good fight.

    Kevin wrote, in part, "Marriage equality for gay men and lesbians does not affect straight people at all. We're not stopping you from getting married, Anna, so please don't interfere in our lives."

    You did not get what I was asking or offering for consideration.

    I can assure you that your glib talking points from the gay activist hand books

    do NOT address the thousands of years of history/evolution of marriage.

    And there STILL are criteria that STOP a marriage

    like fraud (knowing ahead of time you were going to break the promise - ie Green Card, money...)

    and marrying your brother or sister, and, I believe, first cousin (?).

    Marriage is an evolution that men and women created together over a LONG period of time. WOMEN needed marriage. Men STILL don't.

    That's a FACT.

    While I think it is great to hear that men are finally willing to fight as hard as you are, Kevin, to marry SOMEBODY, anybody,

    I still think that a "marriage" between two men or two women is going to BE something completely different than a "marriage" between a man and a woman, right?

    If it wasn't "different" than you'd be marrying a woman :-)

    Moving along, let's imagine that everyone is married to everyone else.

    Betcha divorces will still happen. So no wonder why both of the lawyers on this episode of the journal have nothing against increasing their amount of cases in the future.

    Men have always had to deal with their FEAR of women, basically unable to totally "figure" us out and have complete control.

    Shamans, since the cave, made a list of do's and don't FOR WOMEN. Never for the men.

    This "fight" is between gay men and non-gay men - MOSTLY. And at heart, it's still all about your schlongs and what you want to do with them. That's what gay men and non-gay men have in common - the organization of "religion" and now "law" around what they like to do with their shlong and how little control should they have to exert over it.

    If you don't think that non-gay men have NOT changed their attitudes towards what "marriage" is between a man and a woman from all this fighting about "gay marriage", you are being disingenuous. It most certainly has.

    Non-gay YOUNG men think even less about "marriage" to a woman as a "good" thing now.

    Find a way to get what YOU need as a gay person in the "legal" system.

    That's what I'm suggesting - EVOLVE your own sex+love "legal" standing.

    I have LOVED men and women who were NOT a "spouse".

    We all already have all the freedom we NEED to love one another in as many ways as possible.

    Sex is not the same as LOVE.

    What bothers me when I hear "a man and a woman" is the assumption that the law can define what a man, and what a woman, is. The sports world has been trying to define the line, if any, between man and woman, boy and girl, for nearly a century without success.

    The guests on the program dealing with gay marriage made well-argued points pertaining to the US Constitution. I feel the cart is before the horse on this issue, however, on anthropological grounds.

    It could be argued that dealing with sexuality in all cultures and in all ages has been among the most explosive issues that societies have had to face in order to survive. Social rules have come about to govern sexual behavior, likely due to community-threatening crises. Differing societies over epochal periods have had different rules. For example, with rare exception, incest has been a taboo (perhaps after experiences with genetically malformed babies). Polygamy comes and goes. Acceptable age of marriage has varied in societies. Rape has often been a tool of conquest, war, and punishment. Adultery has usually been condemned, but there are exceptions. Prostitution has been institutionalized in places, condemned elsewhere. Homosexuality, too, has had a degree of varying acceptance or disapproval in differing societies.

    So what is the social good of sexuality in today’s American society? The question isn’t one of saying “anything goes,” since most folks would disapprove of child sex, bestiality, polygamy, nonconsensual sex (rape), or incest. Until recently, interracial sex and homosexual sex were on this list of sexual taboos. One might add adultery and fornication (with a wink) as well. So what is the social good of sexuality in today’s America, and why should some practices remain unsupported, while other practices achieve social approval?

    Related to the above question is that of transition. What is the impact upon the millennia-long thread of our Western Cultural Tradition as sexual mores rapidly change? While the attorneys claim that gay marriage will not affect society, the interconnectedness of value systems belies this. Changes will occur.

    Religious groups in opposition to gay marriage seem to me to be fighting for their survival as identifiable communities. If, as seems likely at some point, gay marriage becomes legalized, opposing religious institutions will be in a tenuous situation as they seek to hold their constituencies to their worldviews as dissenters. To say religion is only a private affair, as the attorneys claim, is disingenuous. Religion is a primary force for worldview formation, and worldviews have political manifestations and ramifications. I do not believe it is religious triumphalism as much as it is a desperate attempt to maintain traditional belief and concurrent identity that is driving religious opposition to gay marriage.

    Finally, it might be fair to consider that the tone of the debate can be shrill and opportunistic on both polarities. Many of the opponents, such as aired on the program, are quick to jump to fear tactic conclusions as to expanded effect of gay marriage, e.g. children will be taught gay lifestyle, polygamy will follow, marriage will be devalued as an institution, etc. On the other hand, some proponents of gay marriage proclaim a strong intolerance for those disagreeing with their agenda, such as petitioning Barack Obama to disinvite Rick Warren as a participant in his inauguration.

    To recap, what are the positive goods our society needs from the gift of sexuality, and what are the negatives our society needs to disavow from the curse of sexuality? Why?

    This program and the comments that I have read remind me of the importance of teaching American government and American history in school.

    Many of the arguments against same-sex marriage that I have read are from a specific religious point of view, favor majority rule, and appear to have no concept of the corrective function of the judicial branch of government.

    I doubt our founders would have been able to predict the current specific topic of marriage rights. However, even it their days the framers were keenly aware of the subject of majority rule vs. minority rights and the threat of government favoring one religious group over another. For these reasons, our government organized ways to protect the rights of minority groups and prevent religious favoritism.

    Marriage aside, I think this legal battle is fascinating evidence of our system of government acting and self-correcting.

    Although, I would add that any men and women who are revulsed by the idea of the natural heterosexual procreation act should not be allowed to adopt or have children by other means.

    To Douglas Miller:

    In the 90s my wife was overseas and I too had to give up my carrier and "commute" for six years to see her. The US Embassy in her country rejected her application for a visitor visa several times. I had a green card, so she had to wait for a permanent visa to come over here.

    Well, who would be interested to talk about stories like mine. Not too many, I guess. Why? Because it is not a hot button topic that someone could make money or political stunt of. Unlike yours.
    Sorry!

    We need a new, inclusive term to encompass both traditional marriage and same-sex unions. Let both sub-categories have the same rights and responsibilities. Just don't pervert the meaning of the term "marriage" as we know it. You cannot make a cat into a dog just by calling it one. We have separate-but-equal public rest rooms for men and women. Is anyone offended by that? So, we should have separate-but-equal distinctions between hetero and same-sex whatever it should be called.

    There are irreconcilable differences between the two sides, which won't be resolved even if the issue gets to the Supreme Court, and I hope it does get there. I can see merit in both sides, so I'd hate to have to decide the case.

    The dire prediction of the slippery slope to marrying a toaster or a horse or your sister is a stupid one. Current law does not allow it; same-sex advocates only want to be covered under the same existing laws, not invent new ones.

    In statistics we use curves to show ranges. A curve of sexual orientation would have small numbers of people on either end with the largest number of people in the middle. So you have a range of orientation, not just this or that. Many people are bisexual. It's possible that a women who has had relations with other women but who married a man falls into this bisexual category. If society tried to pressure me into a sexual relationship with another women, I would not be happy and would chose to be alone rather than bother with it. If one has no inclination towards such a relationship it's not likely to occur. As a young adult my social situation had me around mostly homosexual and bisexual people. I went to gay bars with my friends, parties, and dinners. Never did other people's orientation have an affect on who I was and what I felt. You are either inclined towards it or not, you either have a feeling for intimacy or not. Deciding on a long term intimate relation would be empty if one is not true to oneself.

    "Don't tell that Homosexuality and lesbianism is NOT a choice, I am married to woman who made that choice, she has been a great witness to those who struggle with this."

    I suspect her struggle was being a lesbian and making the choice marry a man.

    "Sorry to break this to anyone but anal sex hurts and is not natural."

    Here we get to the crux of homophobia. It's always about anal sex and always about men.

    Lesbians do not have anal sex (usually).
    Far from all gay men have anal sex.
    Many straight men love anal sex (just ask any woman).

    If you don't like it, don't do it, but don't deny rights based on the possibility that some small percentage of people in same sex couples are going to have anal sex. After Lawrence v Texas (2003) it is legal in all 50 states, so you can't base denying marriage on that anyway.

    "Don't tell that Homosexuality and lesbianism is NOT a choice, I am married to woman who made that choice"

    Dominick, while there are certain women who perceive their sexual orientation as a choice, practically no men do. Men who try to change can sometimes achieve celibacy, but they almost never actually desire women.

    All legitimate psychological organizations have stated that therapy to change sexual orientation is at best worthless and at worst profoundly damaging to those who try it, often leading to suicidal thoughts.

    I hope your wife is one of the few that can successfully change. That is far from the norm.

    "Kevin, "And what, exactly, does the straight community hold out as a "taboo"? Or the white "community.""

    Murder, theft, rape, war for profit (stealing), ethnic cleansing, genocide, and ESPECIALLY WAR for "religious" reasons...just for starters..."

    I think most gay people would sign on to those. Especially we would sign on to "not interfering with the lives of others," because we're so used to having people who think they know better than us how we should conduct our lives do that

    Marriage equality for gay men and lesbians does not affect straight people at all. We're not stopping you from getting married, Anna, so please don't interfere in our lives.

    correction sorry;
    Don't tell that Homosexuality and lesbianism is NOT a choice, I am married to woman who made that choice, she has been a great witness to those who struggle with this.
    But don't you make this about hate, nobody has a bigger heart for rough crowd then I do.

    Should the people of California be able to vote against same sex marriage? Would you have a football game where a NFL team goes up against a Jr. High School team?... NO!
    Sexual minorities are maybe 10% or less of the population. Based upon those statics, the minority side didn't do that bad, but were greatly outnumbered and when dealing with equal rights, there shouldn't be a vote to deny these rights.

    It is not about hate at all,
    it aggravates me to no end the way they are treated in the church world, my sins are no less than theirs, they will be forgiven just I will, if they take it to the altar. But I will not apologize for the Word of God.
    Don't tell that Homosexuality and lesbianism is a choice, I am married to woman who made that choice, she has great witness to those who struggle with this.
    But don't you make this about hate, nobody has a bigger heart for rough crowd then I do.

    Kevin, "And what, exactly, does the straight community hold out as a "taboo"? Or the white "community.""

    Murder, theft, rape, war for profit (stealing), ethnic cleansing, genocide, and ESPECIALLY WAR for "religious" reasons...just for starters...

    "Marriage" is what MEN and WOMEN came up with over thousands of years of negotiating their DIFFERENT BIOLOGICAL and personal needs, and the RAISING of children.

    Marriage, as we know it today, did not come into being until it was PROVEN to the majority of the people that men impregnated women!

    In brief, marriage is an evolution of the relationship between men and women. WOMEN need marriage because of BIOLOGY.

    See where I'm going...? Marriage is what MEN and WOMEN negotiated with EACH OTHER, and we are still working things out :-)

    So there has GOT to be some unique negotiating going on in a man and man sexual lovers relationship, or in woman and woman sexual lovers relationship

    that can't possible be the same kind of "issues" as what happens when a man and woman negotiate their sexual lover relationship!

    So what are the "rules" of relationship engagement among homosexuals?

    WOMEN needed "marriage". Chivalry on the man's part (sense of fairness and nobility of HIS characer) is what finally brought women the best situtation FOR HER - the monogamous "marriage". Children like it, too - having THEIR BIOLOGICAL mommy and daddy love each other. It's still a great IDEAL.

    What I think I hear everyone trying to ask of gays is basically the same thing - tell us what you have EVOLVED FOR YOURSELVES as "law"...what are your taboos, so to speak...?

    It's a fair question.

    Sexual orientation is not a choice.

    Faith is.

    While the former has no impact whatsoever on the latter, the latter causes irreparable harm to the former.

    Hate and intolerance are also choices.

    Misusing the Bible?

    Leviticus 18:22
    22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
    KJV
    As in the day of Sodom and Gomorrah

    Genesis 19:4-5
    4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
    5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
    KJV

    Maybe we can marry angels too?

    Posted in part by: Mitch
    "Gay parents are child abuse ...! Stop acting like this is civil rights...!" "Which lifestyles has been presented as absolute normal?"
    What are the principal "that present your lifestyle as an absolute normal?" Would it be a "lifestyle as an absolute normal" "living and/or slipping in subzero weather in a culvert?"
    Would it be a "lifestyle as an absolute normal" living by a telephone 24hrs. a day 7 days a week, to go to work, to make a living? Would it be a "lifestyle as an absolute normal" traveling 300 to 400 miles, living in a camp cars for two or three weeks to make a living, to support a family?
    Would it be a "lifestyle as an absolute normal," denying 45 millions health insurance?
    Is it a "lifestyle as an absolute normal" looking for food in dumpster?
    "GAY parents are child abuse!" Are they?
    The officers abuse their power "when they use a broom handle...?"
    Was that a civil right...?
    An officer, one more word, and the ticket find will be $20.00!"
    Was that "a civil right" to suspend the "freedom of speech and liberty...!
    "Justice delayed is Justice denied!"

    Kinda hate to break it to you, American Programmer, but not all gay couples practice anal sex,and many straight couples do. Is it possible that you don't know this?!

    Sorry to break this to anyone but anal sex hurts and is not natural.

    I am married and my wife and I do not do anal sex because of the above reason stated.

    Sorry, Tim, but baloney. Firstly, elderly couples have always been able to marry well beyond their child rearing days. There has never been in this country a litmus test for fertility of a couple, though such tests have been available for a good 50 years now. Worse yet, is that you define a family as simply couples who have children. What about all those couples (gay and straight) who have been providing shelter and food for their parents? I've been providing for my parents and my sister since I was 22 years old. Moreover, gay and lesbians have been fostering, adopting and (yes) having their own natural children for ages (often without the assistance of a fertility clinic, by the way).

    Families come in all shapes and sizes, and they have been since the beginning of time. Taking care of the elderly is as important to society as taking care of children, and the state has an interest in this matter as well.

    Narrow definitions never really did apply.

    All of the "intellectual debating" going on here is interesting, to say the least. Ideologues will always be fixated on their particular babbitism...no room at the inn for others' opinions. Too bad because ignorance is curable but stupidity, well, you're stuck with it.

    No historian am I, nonetheless, there are a few posters here...one in particular...who are under informed, ill informed and simply not able to comprehend history at all. Why bother trying to get any point across to someone who knows everything that was, is and will be?

    I will say this;everyone is entitled to HUMAN DIGNITY AND RESPECT.

    Individualism is just not real. I lived on a hill side, unattached to the grid, grew my own food, made my own clothing, educated my children, and tried the "individualist" lifestyle. Every day I was reminded of how interconnected I was with everything and everyone. Not only those living on the earth with me now but those who have lived before. Almost everything I knew that made it possible for me live and survive I learned from someone else. I realized that I'm not just responsible for me or just my children. I have social responsibilities too. We're all very interconnected like our bodies or our solar system. We all are in relation to the other. If we could just see things the way they really are, we would have less suffering in the world. We create our suffering out of ignorance.

    These two lawyers have found common ground with respect to this issue but there were a few aspects of the debate that were missing here.

    When they speak of "conservatives" they need to distinguish between fiscal conservatives who have no interest in legislating morality according to their religious beliefs and social conservatives who do not recognize the separation of Church and State in our democracy.

    Yes there are countless tales of pain and suffering endured by LGBT people, couples or not. But what was not disclosed was the fact that, even LG couples are denied over 1100 Federal benefits and 700 state benefits of marriage. Furthermore, even if Civil Unions were pass, these have been banned from receiving Federal benefits by the Defense of Marriage Act and their state benefits do not continue if they are outside the State.

    On this latter point, even with every possible legal protection affording a gay or lesbian couple, their protection ends at the state line. This was the case when I was denied visitation rights when my partner was rushed to the Emergency Room in Nevada while visiting his parents. Even with every possible Power of Attorney and with better knowledge of his illness, even as his parents screamed for me to be allowed back there, even as I heard him crying my name in pain and suffering, it took over 3 hours before the staff would allow me to see him, where I was able to offer the doctors a much better understanding of his illness.

    Tell me, you religious fanatics, what is Christ-like about that?

    I tend to disagree that opposition is based in morality. I think those who use the Bible to oppose same sex marriage are misusing it. In most other instances these stories are put in their historical context. In many we adjust to what we know now to be true in contrast to what people assumed then to be true. In most of the stories one cannot understand the moral without reading the entire story. If you took quotes from Job in most instances it would contradict the moral of the story. You've got to read the entire thing. You have to be able to think and understanding the translation and the times. Taking a section out of Sodom and Gomorrah doesn't help you understand what is being said. The main point is that nothing angers God more than war. The moral is to not be promiscuous. It blasts opposite relations along with same sex ones in their promiscuity. Same sex relationships were understood differently in that time. They were understood as promiscuous. It's like the world isn't flat anymore and we didn't come from Adam and Eve. Respecting the commitment of these relationships on a social level hinders promiscuity. That's a very moral thing to do.

    Privacy is a fundamental human right and belongs to anyone.
    Marriage, however, is not only private; it has public and legal implications that in the past fifty years, have undergone historically unprecedented change.
    Prior to the 1950, marriage implied children. All social benefits attached to marriage were given for the benefit of children. Common property, inheritance rights, joint social security benefit were bestowed as rewards for baring the economic, social, physical and spiritual costs of raising a child or children. Exceptions occurred but were very rare in recorded history.
    A heterosexual or homosexual couple who establish a relationship and household should not automatically expect the benefits designed to protect the long-term benefit of children. Relationships of two or more working adults living in common have little in common with the demands that children place on relationships committed to their care.
    It is absurd to award those benefits to relationships that provide nothing to society irrespective of sexual orientation of those constituting the relationship. Childless couples truly live far more cheaply than one or perforce that of a couple raising children.
    Tim Kunz

    No marriages for anybody. Equality No tax benefits. No divorce. No religion. Now that is progress. Negative equality is still equality.

    1. Government has no compelling interests to regulate my health. They have no right to impose an arbitrary "healthy" standard on me. They have no right imposing arbitrary body types on me. I own myself not government.

    2. If we continue to cede our freedoms to health nazis we only empower them to force us into government gym memberships. Why should we be forced to waste money on gym profits? Another forced bailout? NO. I am healthy the way I am. I won't allow medical experts to convince me that I am unhealthy according to their arbitrary definitions. I know when I am healthy and unhealthy.

    3. Healthcare is the problem. Just as with sex health must be privatized. I own medical records not medical professionals. I get to decide who I share it with. I pay for my medical bills not society. If I can't afford I don't have it done. It's that simple. This avoid your a burden to society arguments. My health is only important to me.

    4. Don't blame fat people. How do they get fat? They eat. Blame the food manufacturers for making America fat. Vending machine manufacturers. The culture of if it feels good do it. With only poor food choices available we can't be healthy. How are we to exercise if our streets are unsafe and we fear crime?

    Thank you, Tamara, and God Bless!

    I am so sorry to all of the LGBT's who have had to read such horrible comments and words posted on this thread. Just know that those who are attempting to shame you are oppressors! You deserve marriage just as I have marriage. :)

    Lets us look at what we are considering, We say same sex marriage should be a right.

    Now let us look at this from another angle, should we allow to marry animals? This would be infringing on anyone other persons rights, as long animal is treated well.
    See how ridiculous this is?

    Just because these two men are not infringing on any others rights, and they are in consent, does not make this a moral right, It is still a moral wrong.
    Now after saying this, Churches and Christians handle this issue very poorly. Just as sleeping with animal is wrong, so is a man a sleeping with a man.
    This constitute the right to marriage.
    It is a perversion and those Christ can set free, this includes molesters, murderers, rapist and all the other sexual perversions, we need these people in church, non of these are the cardinal sin.
    This was not a well balanced show, an hour to why we should allow this to 60 seconds from the Pastor you showed making His case. My opinion
    Remember what is lightly accepted to today, is widely accepted tomorrow.

    Dominick from
    World School Of Prophecy & News Events

    I am a gay man born into a Christian fundamentalist family. The damage I have experienced from these so called Christians is colossal. Excuse me but I have tried to change I joined Exodus the gay conversion ministry because I wanted to be "Saved" from HELL. I honestly wanted to be pure. Gluttony is a sin. Why is it that we do not hear more sermons about overweight people going to heaven. Unfortunately I believe that I was genetically predetermined to be gay. I believe that the attraction I have to members of my own sex is inherent. Jesus taught that we should love one another, he also spent time with the outcasts of his time. What I believe Christianity is about is summed up in the sermon of the mount. Furthermore the United States is NOT a theocracy and marriage is a civil right!! I believe in the inherent worth and dignity of every person. Can't we just live and let live. Love one another is a commandment.

    BUSH V. GORE has indeed divided our great nation into two camps: those who agree with the court's majority opinion that in this one and only case, the recounts would harm our democracy, and those who believe that in a democracy, every vote should be counted.

    The inmates run the asylum. They force us to cater to their mental illness. Women who think are men. Men who think they are women. They don't have a disability. We don't need to accommodate them. Why are we bothering with appeasing the mental ill? Mental ill ignorance which is dangerous.

    1. I too am revolted by sperm banks. Why do we allow them to overcome biology. Pregnant lesbians are illogical. You can't experience childbirth you are dyke. Bisexual women who are 98% lez perhaps, but there should be no gay adoption. Gay parents are child abuse and not in the best interests of the child.

    2. Stop acting like this is civil rights and progress. When has the promulgation of alternative lifestyles been presented as absolute normal? How is muff diving normal? How is hoping that your daughter is a dyke and unhappiness that she turned out to be a hetero breeder in defiance to your lesbo lifestyle normal? It isn't.

    3. Don't call the end of morality progress. Amorality is criminality not social evolution. Without morality we are all criminals of the State. Do you want to be treated like a criminal? I know I don't. They never disavow NAMBLA and adult dykes raping little girls because they support pedophila. It's true gay want to rape little boys. It's true lesbians want to rape little girls. Women love using sexism to their advantage. That's why I hate them. The rules never apply to them. They are just too good for sexual accountability and they blame others for their actions like little girls stuck at some stage of development like Peter Pan who never want to grow up.

    Thank you for taking time in your programming to address this critical issue in such a thoughtful, well argued manner. You provide hope that civil reason does in fact exist. I wish Mr. Olson and Mr. Boies luck in making a successful arguement: one that will lead the Supreme Court to making a decision that will allow all loving couples to marry, should they choose to do so.

    "In case you hadn't noticed, the laws of our nation are grounded in the Constitution, not the Bible. That's why our officials swear on the Bible to protect the Constitution, and not the other way around."

    KevinVT, You stated it best. "officials swear on the Bible to protect the Constitution." Any reasonable historical read of Constitutional law would show the Constitution to be grounded in and derived from Biblical principles.

    Anna D, are you saying that in order for gay people to be treated equally under the law, they have to get approval from straight people? Do all straight people agree on what is taboo in their "straight society?" I'm not sure if I understand your post.

    "Boies and Olson separated California’s ballot-driven ban on same-sex marriage from divine authority. By doing so, they either deny the divine or elevate the Constitution to divine status."

    In case you hadn't noticed, the laws of our nation are grounded in the Constitution, not the Bible.

    That's why our officials swear on the Bible to protect the Constitution, and not the other way around.

    "I'd certainly like to hear what the homosexual community has evolved in the way of taboos among themselves....? What do you consider stepping over the line amongst yourselves?"

    Did we ask that of black Americans before we granted them equal rights?

    And what, exactly, does the straight community hold out as a "taboo"? Or the white "community."

    Anna D remarks, "I'd certainly like to hear what the homosexual community has evolved in the way of taboos among themselves....? What do you consider stepping over the line amongst yourselves?"

    Well, I am not "homosexual", but from my recent observation of own "heterosexual" male leaders/ politicians high and low, these guys have not exactly been too afraid to break "taboos" sexual or otherwise.

    Using "morality" to deny rights is an old saw Anna. It was used to deny rights to blacks and all other non-white minorities as well as women (remember how how the suffragettes were denounced as "loose" women?).

    This is not a sexual issue or biblical issue or morality issue at all. People are born one way or another. We all should have equal rights under the constitution.

    Indeed, the million year history of humans climb towards "civilization" depended on "laws" to protect the individual.

    For the most part, men and women assembled, coordinated and compromised with each other.

    I don't think that the homosexual community has done this kind of hard work AMONG THEMSELVES, yet, and that is part of their problem. What is taboo in their homosexual social structure? What do they consider stepping over the line (selfishness) by one in their society?

    Maybe the homosexual community could better present their "legal" case to heterosexuals if everyone (gay and straight) knew what is considered taboo and over-the-line in their homosexual society?

    In the meantime, with the REAL issues regarding "law" that we have - corporations as people, recent ruling (United Citizen) regarding the granting of a more powerful "right" to "money" than the individual has with "free speech", and the Patriot Act,

    I guess the social engineers of all the above INJUSTICE

    HAD TO bring out this issue in hopes of trying to find a NEW crack in the social structure that they could exploit to their benefit.

    I'd certainly like to hear what the homosexual community has evolved in the way of taboos among themselves....? What do you consider stepping over the line amongst yourselves?

    This is essentially a debate over morality. Do people who hold certain religious views have the right to impose their morals on society. There are many Christian churches that have opened their doors to gays and lesbians, there is by no means a consensus today concerning homosexuality. As a society, we don't have a consensus about how to react to adultery for example. A good example is Tiger Woods, no one is saying that he should be banned from working as a golfer because of accepting his behavior would have a detrimental impact on society. In the eyes of those who find homosexuality so morally objectionable based on their religious beliefs, don't they find adultery as serious of a sin?

    We live in a society where prostitution is legal in some places. Why aren't those who believe that "sin" is such a threat to the moral fabric of society going after those issues? These efforts to deny homosexuals of equal status is really an attempt to use this issue to galvanize a political base that wants to remain in power. Gays are being used as a scapegoat. We live in a society that prides itself for it's freedom of religion. How about freedom from having others impose their religious beliefs. Do we really believe that the Catholic church for example, if they had political control, wouldn't want to impose their morality based on a belief of having a moral imperative to protect society for God?

    Quoting David Boies, “If you didn’t tell the majority of voters they were wrong sometimes under the Constitution, you wouldn’t need a Constitution.” Using that logic, if you didn’t tell people they were wrong sometimes under the Bible, you wouldn’t need a Bible.

    In defense of same-sex marriage, Boies and Ted Olson spoke frequently of human rights. All rights, human or otherwise, exist as granted by someone or something (government) above themselves with the authority to grant rights. Boies and Olson separated California’s ballot-driven ban on same-sex marriage from divine authority. By doing so, they either deny the divine or elevate the Constitution to divine status. They seem to lack the divine awareness so clearly stated by the writers of the very Constitution they revere. The Constitution-writers did not see their words as supreme authority.

    Boies and Olson spoke of the right to civilly sanctioned same-sex physical satisfaction. The Biblical theological core of traditional marriage was not primarily to provide physical pleasure. It was to promote the righteous self-sacrificing model of God Himself. Self-directed pleasure is fleeting and a poor substitute for God’s highest human aspirations.

    Boies and Olson claimed that those who oppose same-sex marriage failed to show the harm that will result from non-traditional marriage. That logic is akin to a teenager demanding that their parents explain the dangers of failing in school. The teenager cannot see the future, the relevance of algebra and Shakespeare, or the valuable experience of the parents from whom the teenager is attempting to separate.

    I perceive that Boies and Olson may be whistling past the graveyard.

    It is correct that the history of law has been one of an excruciatingly slow crawl towards improved human dignity. And the history of religion has in far too many instances been that of serving as an impediment to the realization of that goal.

    Religion has long been used as a tool to justify some of mankind's most bestial actions towards those most vulnerable to abuse. To quote Mark Twain in describing a US military action in the Philipines which was supported by a large number of clergy: "What a hell of a heaven it will be, when they get all these hypocrites assembled there"

    They can pay taxes, but not be represented. They can get blown up in Iraq, but don't tell. They can contribute to charities and churches but don't tell. Don't take their money for taxes, charities, church and then treat them as not human. LET THEM MARRY. All it is is about the money. If you are married you are entitled to spousal social security, medical insurance, tax benefits, the deceased estate,etc. If they are allowed to marry this will cost the government and capitalist corporation America more money. It is just another form of discrimination. LET THEM MARRY.

    Thanks for another great show. I'm recalling Theo Colburn's book, "Our Stolen Future" and I'm wondering at the same time how influential environmental toxins are in contributing to the sex of the developing fetus. I would like to see you do a show on the scientific basis of entanglement.

    "same-sex marriage should be allowed, as civil-unions, and let individual churches decide about the ceremony or lack of one"

    Fine by me, but only if EVERY marriage is a civil union, not just those between same sex partners. Otherwise it's discrimination.

    Marriage in the US is a civil contract.
    Marriages are not primarily owned by religious institutions.
    You CAN be married without a church.
    You CANNOT be married legally in a church without a license from the state.

    I don't believe Bill Moyers would ever have George Gilder on the show. His views are ignorant babble.
    "It is easy to see how Gilder reaches these conclusions
    about the necessity of the traditional family given his
    preconceptions, but these are based on little truth and some
    are utter falsehoods. The very notion that men are connected
    to their children only through the child's mother is
    ridiculous. The so-called "sexual superiority of women" is
    also a myth. Procreation is impossible without the
    participation of both sexes. This is all too obvious, but
    Gilder overlooks this fact and grants solely to women the
    indisputable claim to the ability to reproduce. Even if they
    do not have children, he says, they are constantly reminded
    that they are the link between this generation and the next. However, men may also be reminded that they too are necessary
    for the survival of the species"
    Reviewed by:
    Chet Lyle
    Illinois State University


    If biology is destiny, as I believe it is, same-sex marriage should be allowed, as civil-unions, and let individual churches decide about the ceremony or lack of one.

    An even larger issue is institutionalized discrimination against gays which is encouraged by many churches. This leads to injustice in employment, housing and civil rights in general.

    If a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional,immoral, unjust and just plain wrong, OF COURSE it should be struck. "The people " and their legislatures and courts have historically often been wrong. The US civil war was fought to preserve slavery only 150 years ago. If the Southern recessionists had won, would we still have black people in chains? If women had not fought for suffrage, would we still not have the right to vote? Now is the time for gays to gain their rights to equality in society. Stupid laws by a deluded majority should be struck down, just as laws denying women's suffrage and allowing slavery were struck down in the past.

    Hey Bill, What Debate?? Lets hear from the other side so theres equal say? As good as your guest lawyers sounded, I'd love to hear from the other side? Good work, Now finnish the job? Thanks

    Do you support same-sex marriage?
    It must be a personal and individual right. It is a personal decision. As long there is no harm done to others, the state, the religion groups, nationalities or majority must not infringe on anyones personal rights, suspend their liberty or to dictate the choice... anyone must make in their life.
    What do you think?
    "This is a constitutional right that has already been well recognized by the Supreme Court... What the Constitution says is that every citizen gets equal protection of the laws."
    The facts are, every citizen "does not get equal protection of the laws"!
    "...interest in seeing the rule of law applied to everybody." The LAWS are not applied equally to everybody! Everyone does not have "immunity and protection of the laws!"
    "we are doing great harm by discriminating against people." Yes, I agree.
    "gives us a chance to explain the damage that's being done by discrimination, and the great burden that would be lifted if we finally stop."
    Yes, indeed explain, as well as the damage being done to "over 45 million with no health insurance, 30 million unemployed, factory-plants being moved to other countries, denied liberty, rights of other political party to participate in the process, distribution of "$700 billions - too big to fail" persons, " confiscation of property, eviction, denied "of rights - paper property people to be secure, failure of the financial system with "190 banks foreclosed" so far, and denied the rights of true democracy to EMPOWER the PEOPLE to "EXPRESS their WILL" on ALL ISSUES!
    In your view, would it be appropriate for a federal court to strike down a constitutional amendment enacted by a popular vote?
    The LAW and/or LAWS should have been decided by the "COURT if it is CONSTITUTIONAL or NOT" at the time it was pass, to give their explanation, reasoning to the public, for accepting or rejecting the law.
    In my view the "JUDICIAL SYTEM is CORRUPT!" The system is "dictatorship!" The courts have been "turning blind eye..."
    "ONE FLOWER does not make a SPRING!"
    SOLUTION, "EMPOWER the PEOPLE", "AMMEND the CONSTITUTION," "REPEAL LAWS" that serve special interest groups, dictators, religions etc!

    The judiciary in Iowa tends to broadly view our state's constitutional basis as being that humans are born entirely free, and that specific behaviors are denied by statute only when it can be demonstrated that damage to others results by the exercise of those behaviors.

    In the Iowa case, all arguments based on religious foundations against granting full legality of same-sex marriage were disallowed and stricken by the court. This is in keeping with both the federal and Iowa state constitutional anti-establishment clauses. Once that was done, the opposition to the action had nothing - zero evidence - on which to found it's claims. Only by an amendment to the state's constitution would this ruling likely be reversed.

    And since the ruling was issued, it has become abundantly apparent that the majority of this state's citizens have no stomach for their elected officials to squander any more time on this childishness.

    Great information about how the Defendant "experts" helped the move toward marriage equality. http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/press-releases/defendant-experts-undercut-prop-8/

    I will try this one more time. I am not saying that allowing same sex marriages will lead to polygamy, polygamy already exists in the American Soutwest. And I'm no more afraid of polygamy than I am of same-sex marriages. What I am saying is that both concepts deserve the same amount of protection under the law.

    @Hodgson:
    "Personally, I would deny adoption to male or female gay couples.
    I would deny surrogate motherhood sperm donations to them all as well."

    Just because!

    I love how people make pronouncements and advocate bigotry like this! At least in this case he's not trying to make up an excuse, like most do, to justify their bigotry.

    To those who say including gay couples in civil marriage would then lead to polygamy. As I understand it, one reason against polygamy is that it would be very difficult to divide property if one of the people in the group wants to get divorced. Another reason is due to the history of exploitation of girls and incest in those relationships.

    I really don't have the answers on this one, but I hope we have a sound legal reason why we limit marriage to two people. One thing I am sure of, however, is that there is no sound legal reason to limit marriage to hetero unions.

    There is a debate over SSM. This program gave the facts of the case. Since there are no logical reasons to deny SSM, there was no need for a debate on the show. Anyone who would debate Olson or Boies would not bring any ligitimate opposition.

    Seriously, the defense in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger brought two witnesses to support their side and both of them acknowledged that letting same-sex couples marry would be beneficial to the couples and their children. They just happen to disagree with it, and Blankenhorn did not claim to have any scientific data supporting his belief.

    There is no case against SSM.

    Bill, you have done it again. Taking on a difficult subject with class. What I saw in the two lawyers was them trying to convince the World that a saw was the best tool to tighten a bolt and a wrench was the best to cut with. Not one single fact that they put foward had any truth in fact. Change the dictionary for them because homosexuality clearly does not state an act of love, but sex. I could not find homophobic together, but seperately they mean a genus of primate mammals and phobic, an illogical fear. I don't fear primates. I do fear lawyers (and it is not a false fear) that state they are looking to end discrimination with so-called facts that people of the same sex can produce children when the only way is through a man and woman, even if they don't have sex or by cloning, meaning only one parent, not two of the same sex. In reading the comments, I didn't realize the hatred that homosexuals have towards anyone that dissagrees with them even if they have never discriminated against them. When I was young we could have a male room mate, but today two men (not gay) living together could suffer the same discrimination as gays. I guess it was good that someone like me was not at the table with you because every time one of the lawyers spoke, the only word you would hear from me would be.....WHOO!!!!!

    Specifically, George Gilder, the author of Men and Marriage, a book previously titled Sexual Suicide.

    A modest proposal: Invite Sociologist George Gilder to appear exclusively on your show with a top researcher of his own choosing (or even one from Focus on the Family). Then give the two of them the same respect and time to speak that you gave to Olson and Boies.

    Many years ago Eric Fromm wrote: "The power through which one group exploits and keeps down another tends to generate sadism in the controlling group, even though there will be many individual exceptions. Hence sadism will disappear only when exploitative control of any class, sex, or minority group has been done away with. Nevertheless, the establishment of an order based on law and preventing the most arbitrary use of power has been a step in this direction even though this development has recently been arrested in may parts of the world where it once existed and is threatened even in the US in the name of law and order."

    Our constitutional amendments are call "The Bill of Rights".
    They were taken from Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man". It's not meant to be a legal document for restricting behavior. Maybe the majority needs to develop another process for "anti-amendments" called "The Bill that takes away Rights".

    The last time a constitutional amendment was enacted that took rights away from people it was prohibition. The amendment process was instituted to convey rights. To give individuals more freedom not to take it away. That our majority of citizens would use the amendment process to oppress a minority is sad and ignorant, a sorry state of our republic. If the courts were just, they would have to strike such an amendment down. It is clearly unconstitutional.

    I find polygamy an interesting topic but not really relevant to marriage equality. I think what would need to be decided in the case for or against polygamy is whether we are monogamous or polygamous by nature. I married once and he died. I never wanted to marry again. I believe that's because I'm monogamous by nature and mate once for life. Many other people marry many times in their life. I suppose there may be a range of innate drives when it comes to this issue. As far as children and animals or objects are concerned, I believe that a marriage requires consenting adults to have any meaning.

    I'm not a believer in religion but I have read the Bible. In the sections often pointed out against homosexuality, the discussions are about promiscuity in both same sex and opposite sex couples. The Bible then is making a case for same sex marriage in that this commitment would drive people away from promiscuity which is the "evil" the book blasts. In the day the book was written little was known about biodiversity. Most educated people now consider biodiversity a fact; one which can be proven in the natural world. People are born chemical and physical different. There are those born with the sex organs of both male and female and a range of sexual differences from there to an average female and male. Homosexuality while rarer than heterosexuality is still very natural. Encouraging the commitments of marriage and family to all people encourages virtue and the betterment of society.

    In response to the question put by the Bill Moyers Journal site:

    When a constitutional amendment is enacted by popular vote which offers civil protections to tenets and to practitioners of one religious faith over the tenets and practitioners of another religious faith, then the law becomes biased and does not offer all citizens equal standing under the federal constitution.

    The federal courts should therefore intervene, as the federal courts are intended to protect the rights of ALL citizens of all states offered under the federal constitution, and not to protect the definitions and religious standards of one faith to the exclusion of others, even if a single state should vote to do so.

    If the federal courts were not to intervene then we must assume that the court's silence would presume assent to the now current standing of the amended law. If this is then the case, then the federal court must be presumed to be in favor of protecting the definitions tenets and freedoms of one religion over those of another.

    In other words, if an amendment has been made to the constitution of the state of California by popular vote which favors the Christian definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of the definition of marriage by other religions, (i.e. Buddhism which does not have such a restricted definition of marriage within its tenets), and the new law in that state is now used to deny SOME citizens AN EQUAL "CIVIL" right to marriage, then the federal government must intervene to srike down the law.

    If the federal government does not intervene, then we must assume their silence presumes assent to the definition of marriage which is founded in one religious tradition to the exclusion of other religious traditions. The federal courts must therefore be presumed to be biased to civil protections which are based on moral definitions founded in one religion to the exclusion of others.

    If civil protections are offered by the federal government only to those who fulfill definitions (i.e. of marriage) found in one religious tradition to the exclusion of others, then the right to religious freedom for ALL Americans does not truly exist, and the federal courts must then be viewed in bias of one religious tradition. And if this is the case, then it is possible for the federal courts to deny other civil liberties in the future which are grounded in definitions of other kinds which are found singular religious doctrines.

    Health care reform? Who are you kidding? If you really want to sell this, why don't you get the Congressmen from Michigan & Tennessee on board? This would save the car industry more than the bailout gave them, by REDUCING THEIR COSTS. It would save at least 18,000 lives a year. It would reduce malpractise premiums for doctors and hospitals (&, by the way, reduce the attractiveness of suits by "trial lawyers", which should be favored by the GOP, & suits by patient families who can't get answers EXCEPT by suing...) The problem of for-profit hospitals remains, & as long as it exists, you've still got trouble. Not to mention the greed of the drug companies, who are spiking costs by, for instance, trying to gain patent protection over the SHAPE & COLOR of their pills...

    I'm going to make this as straightforward as I can.

    Gays and lesbians do not just have sex, and they do not just have sex and live together. Gay couples fall in love. They build lives together. They raise children together. They grow old together. They do nearly all the same things that married couples do. I can guarantee you, based on what I've seen in the world, and my experiences, that every noble sentiment lucky straight couples have ever had, every form of love, trust, loyalty, and commitment, all these things have also been experienced by gay people in their relationships.

    But gays and lesbians are often not treated well, and their relationships are not given the same respect as those of straight people. And as far as I can tell, there is no chance that they will ever be accorded the dignity and respect they deserve without having marriage. When I talk to my friends who were planning a wedding after 11 years of being "partners", they talk about how they finally were managing to get some acceptance from their families. When Prop 8 happened, they had to indefinitely postpone. They don't want a "sort-of" wedding, or a "wish that amendment hadn't passed" wedding. They want to say, "We aren't just living together, and we don't just have a strange 'arrangement' or 'lifestyle'. We have a real, committed life together as a married couple, just like everyone around us."

    Whatever you may believe religiously, please understand how incredibly important this is to gay people. They don't react differently to this issue than anyone else who was told that their relationship wasn't good enough to be a "real" marriage.

    It's kind of entertaining to imagine what the mood in the conservative "Christian" community might be if magically somehow the population of the entire globe converted to their mythology belief system.

    The whole enterprise might not seem like quite so much fun.... after all, who would they have to look down on then?

    The thought that "One individual marrying another individual would lead to polygamy" truly doesn't make any sense at all. But it's also not the point.The point is if you insist that applying one standard of normality to a social convention is not Constitutional, then another standard of normality (as applied to the same social convention) is equally, Constitutionally dubious.

    Personally I think the position of California steers the correct line
    a) Recognises Marriage as between a man and a woman and that the majority are "blessed" so to speak by some religious body
    b)Therefore gays may and are (constitutionally) entitle to a "civil union" giving them the same legal rights and benefits as Hetrosexual ( married) couples.
    c) Churches or religious bodies may by right recognise Gays civil unions or not.
    d) Considerations beyond that bring in bigotry or scientific advancements which complicate matters.
    Personally, I would deny adoption to male or female gay couples.
    I would deny surrogate motherhood sperm donations to them all as well.
    If a woman now gay ( with a partner) has custody of a child from a previous hetrosexual relationship. That stands with whateve visitation rights the father was given.
    Thosethings above said I agree completely that it is " constitutional issue and interpretation of same" so my suggestion is interpret that in terms of science and technology as it was naturally when drafted over 200 years ago with amendments.
    It should not be left to each state to Interpret the constitution as that means certai religiously dominated states, would put religion and beliefs first in any vote and they would be breaking the constitution by mixing religion and politics.
    Regards,
    Hodgson.

    "Campaigners said that research paid for with taxpayers’ money to pander to same-sex couples only succeeded in marginalising fathers to the detriment of society."

    It so true. Women used child support and other means to deincentivize fatherhood. Also making up false child sexual abuse claims. No man ever wants to be a father because women ruined the family with lesbian politics. The reason we have no father is because women do not want their children to have fathers yet they punish men for not being fathers? They want it both ways with no responsibility on their parts. Women are the scum of the Earth.

    Studies are unconvincing to me. Science is subject to politics as we saw with climate change and the 1973 APA change. Pro lesbian studies conducted on lesbians with biased pro lesbian results? It biased to reinforce sexist beliefs about girls and education.

    That's like using a NRA study to say gun violence is low. They have a vested interest.

    So homosexuals will now determine what normal sexuality is? Why are we at whims of the perverts I ask? The evil judge the good? Everything is dependent on them? Heterosexuality is illegal because gays say so? This is madness! Who cares? Who wants to know what homos think about sex and sexuality? Not me. How can the abnormal set sexual standards for all of us?

    Just something to make Mitch's head explode. The National Academy for Parenting Practitioners revealed the latest research showed that children prospered when raised by two women. The study showed that children brought up by lesbians had higher aspirations to become ­doctors or lawyers and were more confident to fight for social justice. Read more here:

    http://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/140646/Lesbians-are-best-mums-

    The argument that one individual marrying one individual would lead to polygamy makes no sense at all. Pluralistic relationships is an issue of its one and is entirely unrelated to this discussion, except for the fear that people would like to raise.

    Date. Date. Of course we date. What's that. Oh, debate? Hum. Well let's see. I really never thought about that. I allways thought that a good Republican's one desire was to keep the government the hell away from our bloody lives? By the by never write comments while watching Monty Python's . . . OPNYD

    Exactly as Michael Savage of the Savage Nation has said so succinctly they just want ensure that their particular lusts are protected all other lusts they don't personally agree with are deviant to homosexual activists.

    I support gay and lesbian rights to marry -- but if gays and lesbians are entitled to same-sex marriages Mormons (or anyone else) are entitled to plural marriages. What is the argument to be used against plural marriages: gays and lesbian are the good deviants and Mormons are the bad deviants?

    It is too bad that this trial was not televised. Unfortunately, the prop 8 people did not want it to be seen and the 5 conservative christian supreme court judges blocked showing the trial. This country is so ignorant that I wonder if we are capable of advancing. Behind all of this is religion - the biggest cause of war, poverty, and misery in this world.

    Yes, “there goes that Mitch again, protesting ever more loudly with his not so hidden fantasizes of all manner of sexual activities.”

    Schizophrenia beats dining alone.

    Wow! Mitch, please get some medical help. Clearly you have some mental health issues. Please, get help. I'm praying for you.

    This was a great program. It gave the real facts of this issue. For more facts, see the trial reenactment at http://www.marriagetrial.com/ and read the blogs at http://prop8trialtracker.com/category/daily-summary/. I just love the logo for that site. A happy lesbian couple raising two kids. See how similar they are to a hetero couple? This issue is about protecting our rights as US citizens.

    Well Barb, our gov is going far beyond just using its hands on us...


    http://www.doomers.us/forum2/index.php/topic,62964.0.html

    In reality, the Bible never forbids SSM. It never forbids SSM no matter how much some "Christians" want to believe it. You've heard a lie so many times, you've come to believe it as truth. Just like there are prohibitions to certain opposite-gender sexual acts, there are also prohibitions for certain same-gender sexual acts. Everything in the Bible regarding sexual relationships can be applied equally to both OS and SS couples. This goes for both the prohibitions as well as the companionship, commitment and love in a sexual relationship.

    There is no equal protection argument in favor of gay marriage. A man and woman as juxtaposed with two men or two women are representative of totally different and distinct classes POSING DIFFERENT RISKS AND REWARDS FOR SOCIETY..

    For you making anti-SSM religious arguments, our laws are based on the Constitution and as such, you better hope that gay couples are included in civil marriage as a matter of religious freedom. You want your religious freedom to ban gay couples from marrying in your particular house of worship, right? Well, many churches want to include gay couples in their marriage rites, therefore this ban is infringing on their religious freedom. And don't bring up the case about the pavillion in NJ. Anyone who has read the facts* and has a shred of reading comprehension skills will understand that the case was not about a church refusing to perform a SSM. It was about a facility openly rented to the *public* and the church was not being asked to perform the ceremony.

    *as reported by the tabloid worldnetdaily or similar do not count

    There is no compelling state interest to exclude gay couples from civil marriage. Civil marriage is only supported by including gay couples. All reasons that a state grants marriage to straight couples apply equally to gay couples.

    The judiciary speaks for no-one. The judiciary at the appellate level identifies precedent and applies it in a dispassionate manner.

    It is ironic that conservatives, who are usually of the mind 'keep your government hands off of me' are so adamant about having the government in MY bedroom.

    It's also convenient for some to forget the USA is a 3 part governmental system. Thank goodness for the wisdom of those who founded our country - we need a tri-part system for the very reason those who carry such hate are still succeeding at keeping from me rights they take for granted.

    Sometimes we need a judiciary that speaks for the powerless.

    i watched this show with fascination. I thought the two lawyers had some good points. However, they skirted the issue of multiple partner marriages.Anyone who thinks that this is not the next step is nieve.In addition the NMBLA is already pushing for the age of consent to be lowered to 16. I have NEVER
    heard a homosexual person on TV condemn that organization. If the government rules that homosexual marriage is a right then all arms of the government will begin to bring pressure on those who desent from that
    opinion. You can already see that happening in Canada and in some European nations. Those of us who think homosexual actions are extra normal, and publish or broadcast our thoughts will be charged with hate speech. Those religious instituitions that refuse to officiate as agents for the state in witnessing or conducting a marriage will be be fined or lose their tax excempt status. I only have to look at the results of 40 years of no fault divorce to know that a decision in support of homosexual marriage will have far flung and unintended consequences

    We must begin by desexualizing society. We look on history with fondness because it was desexualized. Today's history is embarrassing with politics and sex inextricably linked. I reject the pornographic society which is sexualizing children now. They just made sexting children producing child pornography a hot new trend this no doubt pleased pedophiles. Why must everything be sexualized? Why are ads always using porn to sell their products? It's because they failed to sell their product on it's merits. Kinda like the sweetheart deals with deathcare reform which is just more death and more debt. They actually produced ads trying to sexualize healthcare. Sex does not sell it offends. We need to get5 back to a more serious society like our founders had envisioned. I wonder what would General Washington think of us? What would his reaction be? I imagine anger and disappointment.

    Sorry to break it to you - heterosexual couples also practice oral and anal sex.

    Fecal incontinence is untreatable for the most part. Oral cancers and STDs just contribute to the rising costs of healthcare. This biowarfare and financial terrorism is the result of the gay agenda. The AIDS crisis has never gone away. You want to lower healthcare costs? It begins with doctors not having to waste time on girls who are in the hospital because they choose to have unprotected sex and we all get raped in taxes to pay for her operation. It angers me how selfish this generation of girls is. Promiscuity shortens lifespans. They have no shame either. She in a hospital for sucking dick unprotected sex which she knew was unprotected. It the same with lesbians and gays. They raise the costs of healthcare so what should be done? Perhaps we should stop encouraging open sexuality and pornography in advertisements.

    If your logic only extends to oppressing homosexuals, then it would appear that merely prejudice fuels your line of reasoning, and it may be time to examine the bigotry in your heart.
    MY ONLY LOGIC IS TO SUPPORT THE WILL OF THE VOTERS
    Posted by: irtnog2001


    Posted by DCE2010
    THE WILL OF THE VOTERS WHO ARE MOSTLY HETEROSEXUAL IS THAT THE HOMOSEXUALS GET OUT OF THEIR FACE.

    This Nation was based on moral behavior. Homosex is immoral.
    For the sake of social stability it is necessary to support the family unit.
    Bigotry is just another "threat word" to prevent rational judgment.
    Heterosexuals are just trying to prevent the disintegration of their family through homosexual aggressiveness promoting unacceptable behavior.
    Prejudice is necessary in order to sort out what is right and what is wrong.
    Killing innocent people is wrong. Being kind to others is good. You can be kind to homosexuals but you do not have to agree with their immoral behavior especially when they are promoting it in the public schools.


    1. The State shall recognize no marriages and hence confer no divorces. Child custody shall be privatized with social workers. There shall be no lawyers and courts involved in such personal matters.

    2.Just because we have foolishly "tolerated" evil before does not mean we must forever. Even you advocates admit that society changes. Why must society only change and "progress" in a far left direction? Once we realize the rights for queers is a mistake the State can roll back your civil rights. This isn't a one way street and neither is respect. If you want respect then respect our values and traditions instead of mocking and illegalizing them.

    Homosexuality is a trojan horse for our destruction. Queer marriage is a trojan horse to redefine the family. Redefining the family is a trojan horse for pedophilia, incest, and all other sexual paraphilias being normalized and yes even protected by laws. The extreme becomes the normal. It's a slow process. They get us used to it. Then one day it's completely normal. The term for this is social engineering. Social engineering is not a legitimate government interest. Social engineering is always something to fight against. It takes more than a lifetime to reverse social engineering again.

    "People could marry a: toaster, horse, a thousand women" is an argument without any basis in logic, and it is why Prop 8 never even introduced it as an argument in trial.
    Good grief!
    Posted by: MackMichael

    Posted by: DaveEddy
    Your logic is non- sequitur. It does not have a conclusion.
    My premise is that once you declare a marriage is not between a man and a woman the conclusion is that it can be a marriage between a person and anything or anyone they choose to love. Therefore; if they love their toaster, that is the only requirement for marriage. It follows that they can legally marry their toaster.
    It is becoming popular to corrupt the meaning of words to cause chaos and dissention.
    Maybe you could call homosexual partners Partenerages and give them the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.
    The AMA and the APA are wrong. Most homosexual couples love each other and it is a choice.
    There can be biological and/or chemical reasons for Homosexual behavior but it is rare.
    Most people are by nature Heterosexual. Check the numbers!


    Why isnt Roberts of the Supreme Court working on this? The way Roberts scr*wed the country with the Citizens United vs FEC ruling, you would think he be all over this.

    Whats going on Roberts, no money in this for you?

    If at all possible, try to just be authentic and genuine when stating your position. You don't like homosexuals and you feel it is immoral, fine--then make that statement, and begin to work to re-criminalize it. Think about your position, and decide what should be done with offenders, if it is re-criminalized. Would you require prison? Would you mimic Uganda and recommend death? If you believe that it is immoral, then I'm not certain why your argument stops at marriage. Join the Phelps crowd, and reveal whom you really are.

    If your argument is based on the perfect family ideal, then why are you not demonstrating on streets to eliminate divorce. After all, Jesus never spoke about homosexuality, but he was very condemning of divorce. Why are you not taking to the streets with signs to call for the elimination of divorce?

    If your argument is about procreation, why are you not working to ban contraception? If the purpose of sex is singularly to procreate, why would folks not fight to eliminate their use? If procreating should only occur between on married man and one married woman, why are you not taking to the streets to outlaw premarital sex? Why is adultery not criminalized? Why are folks not defiant about senior citizens being allowed to marry?

    If your main motivation is to insert Levitical into the constitution, then why not all Levitical law? If your goal is to predicate all laws on the Bible,then why would you not insist that all the laws of the Bible are inacted? (By the way, even the Phelp's clan would be punished under such a circumstance, since their women often wear clothes that a man would wear--pants, for instance).

    If your logic only extends to oppressing homosexuals, then it would appear that merely prejudice fuels your line of reasoning, and it may be time to examine the bigotry in your heart.

    MY ONLY LOGIC IS TO SUPPORT THE WILL OF THE VOTERS

    Michael wrote:

    The goal of the anti-gay agenda is to impose their "religious beliefs" on everyone else. They will do this in any way possible, as they have demonstrated in the lies they utilize. To them, the end justifies the means even if sin (lying) is necessary to accomplish this end.

    We can see what the ultimate goal of radical anti-gay activists is by looking at the results of their meddling in Africa. In Malawi, gay people are arrested; in Kenya, gay people are attacked and subjected to death threats from murderous groups of vile, anti-gay thugs; and in Uganda, the government is working to eradicate gay people via legalized murder. (A good tree does not bear bad fruit.)

    If we allow unrepentant homophobes in the US to succeed, Uganda will be just a preview of what's to happen here. Religious tyranny can be a very ugly thing, especially when those driving it deliberately ignore Christ's commandments and elevate their sin of homophobia above God.

    -------------

    What a ridiculous overstatement when we can already see from Hollywood and the media how much power gays and their allies have in our society, and how many billions they have at their disposal. This is the mother of all strawmen -- the people at most risk for discrimination (though saying Uganda would also be a wretched, dishonest overstatement) are average working-class citizens who don't agree with the gay agenda, who once this law is rammed through will be relentless harassed and sued and accused of bigotry for following what their religious beliefs tell them is right. Let's try to have a more honest, less shrill, less manipulative discussion here.

    I use "most" because I wish to acknowledge that there are variations to just about anything. Some folks make blanket statements and generalities about everyone; I simply do not do that. Perhaps, you are someone who paints all of humanity with the same brush.

    Posted by Mica:"As a resident of California, I bore witness to those offensive ad campaigns like the one highlighted in this show, where a little girl comes home from school, and her mother is terrified to learn that her daughter is learning that she can choose to marry a woman or a man could marry a man. I felt absolute outrage at these commercials."

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Why was it offensive Mica? To me it was a frightening harbinger of things to come from a deterioration in societal standards that have served us successfully for millennia.

    Instead of being offended, you should have looked for truth or falseness in it.

    Sure it was not exactly true, as actors were used, but would the portrayal be a likely outcome if homosexual marriage was legitimized? The answer is YES!

    Always remember Mica, there is no such thing as negative or positive attitudes. What is viewed as negative to one person may be viewed as positive to another.

    There are no such things as 'opinionated' - 'provocative' 'controversial' subjects.

    These are only subjective and prejudicial states of mind.

    If one sticks to: true, false or don't know in one's replies they can avoid this trap of injecting personal prejudice into the equation.


    All recent studies and their findings conclude that MOST gay people no more choose their sexual orientation than most heterosexuals.

    SOUNDS IMMUTABLE ALRIGHT

    irtnog2001,

    Only if you don't understand what immutable means or you may not know what a phenotype is. There is not a single gene that identifies any sexual orienation; rather, Science believes it to be a phenotype, an observable set of properties that varies among individuals. Research from many directions leads to a strong conclusion: Human sexual orientation has deep biological roots.the empirical evidence for the role of genetics in human sexual orientation has been quietly but steadily mounting over the last 15 years. Studies of twins -- the mainstay of quantitative human genetics -- have been conducted on large populations in three countries. The results or studies unambiguously demonstrate that heritability plays a major role in sexual orientation and outweighs shared environmental factors such as education or parenting.

    People who wish to persecute or oppress homosexuals like to say that there is no single "gay" gene. They fail to mention that the same is true for height, skin color, handedness, frequency of heart disease and many other traits that have a large inherited component but no dominant gene. In other words, sexual orientation is complex, i.e., many genes contribute to the phenotype.

    All recent studies and their findings conclude that most gay people no more choose their sexual orientation than most heterosexuals.

    Thus, homosexuality is, as the APA just announced only months ago, immutable.

    MackMichael; I think you just contradicted yourself:

    There is no genetic proof of heterosexuality, or any other sexual orientation.


    The other qualification for a minority to achieve suspect classification is immutability. Is homosexuality an immutable trait? Science, the AMA and the APA have all concluded that sexuality is immutable.

    As a resident of California, I bore witness to those offensive ad campaigns like the one highlighted in this show, where a little girl comes home from school, and her mother is terrified to learn that her daughter is learning that she can choose to marry a woman or a man could marry a man. I felt absolute outrage at these commercials. All I could think about was the young person who might be watching that who is starting to recognize that they might be gay and faced with a society that is already ridiculing them, family that may disown them, jobs and community organizations that might not welcome them. Now the community that should be welcoming them into the fold of citizenry- their fellow American citizens- are telling them they will never be able to enjoy the full rights of an American Citizen, because SOME of their neighbors are afraid of the unknown, or their own marriage is on shaky grounds, or that their kids might "catch the gay" No one seemed to care that those commercials were speaking to someone's gay son or daughter, and telling them they will never have the right to a family, that the rest of society will never accept them as a citizen. I know that campaign was speaking to parent's fears, but don't parents also fear that their child will never be accepted as a normal member of society? Where is their outrage? Or do they just keep quiet like me, thinking that people will just assume I must not know what "family" is? The fact that we even have to have this discussion saddens me. Gay and trans-gender people are PEOPLE like the rest of us. My fiance and I are in a heterosexual relationship. We do not feel our marriage is in danger because of any other person's marriage, gay or straight- because we are not gay! We did not choose to be heterosexual, we just are, even though we have gay friends and relatives. I just long for the day those gay friends and relatives had the right to marry like we do.

    "People could marry their toaster?" Oh my. If you wish to provide children with protections, the truth is that homosexual couples already have families, and the kindest thing for society to do is to encourage stability by recognizing their families, and by offering them the very same protections we offer heterosexual couples.

    "People could marry a: toaster, horse, a thousand women" is an argument without any basis in logic, and it is why Prop 8 never even introduced it as an argument in trial.

    Good grief!

    Some clarifications...

    There is no genetic proof of heterosexuality, or any other sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is now broadly considered by science to be a "phenotype," which is the expression of a specific trait, such as stature or blood type, based on genetic and environmental influences. Other examples of traits determined by "phenotypes?" Height, handedness, heart disease, etc; and, like these other traits, sexual orientation of any ilk is not a choice.

    As for procreation being the basis of marriage, that is also untrue. Marriage, in its earliest incarnations, was an exchange of property--women, being considered property. Indeed, there has never been a fertility requirement for couples to marry. Today, the government and the Church recognize marriages between folks who are too old to procreate, between couples who have made the choice to sterilize themselves, and to couples who are naturally barren.

    Marriage is not a privileged like legally being licensed to drive a car. Marriage is a contract, and to dissolve one, a couple must do so through the courts. The US is a democratic republic, not a pure democracy. The rights of minorities are designed to be protected by the judiciary, so that the majority cannot deny basic rights to a minority.

    One argument not covered here, but obviously of great importance is the designation of homosexuals as a suspect class minority, whose rights are in the hands of a hostile majority (it would seem yes, since the majority has voted to decline their right to marry every time it was up for a popular vote). The other qualification for a minority to achieve suspect classification is immutability. Is homosexuality an immutable trait? Science, the AMA and the APA have all concluded that sexuality is immutable. Religion is included in non-discrimination laws, which is far more fluid that sexual orientation, though can be a great struggle. It is only a matter of science and time, before homosexuals are granted a suspect class designation Federally.

    Regarding secular arguments made against Marriage Equality, both Philosophy and Science arrive at hypotheses through research and data that bring them to a conclusion. Folks like Professor George of Princeton begins with a conclusion, then argues backwards in order to make a point that he already has arrived at. So shaky is his argument, that Marriage Equality Opponents did not even give him serious consideration to testify at the Proposition 8 trial.

    (By the way, marriage was not sanctioned by the Church at all until 1239 AD, marriage between men was permissible until the Church felt that eunuchs in the Roman empire had grown too powerful, at in the late 300's, a campaign began to diminish their perceived power. Same sex marriage between men was not outlawed until the middle of 500 AD).

    If at all possible, try to just be authentic and genuine when stating your position. You don't like homosexuals and you feel it is immoral, fine--then make that statement, and begin to work to re-criminalize it. Think about your position, and decide what should be done with offenders, if it is re-criminalized. Would you require prison? Would you mimic Uganda and recommend death? If you believe that it is immoral, then I'm not certain why your argument stops at marriage. Join the Phelps crowd, and reveal whom you really are.

    If your argument is based on the perfect family ideal, then why are you not demonstrating on streets to eliminate divorce. After all, Jesus never spoke about homosexuality, but he was very condemning of divorce. Why are you not taking to the streets with signs to call for the elimination of divorce?

    If your argument is about procreation, why are you not working to ban contraception? If the purpose of sex is singularly to procreate, why would folks not fight to eliminate their use? If procreating should only occur between on married man and one married woman, why are you not taking to the streets to outlaw premarital sex? Why is adultery not criminalized? Why are folks not defiant about senior citizens being allowed to marry?

    If your main motivation is to insert Levitical into the constitution, then why not all Levitical law? If your goal is to predicate all laws on the Bible,then why would you not insist that all the laws of the Bible are inacted? (By the way, even the Phelp's clan would be punished under such a circumstance, since their women often wear clothes that a man would wear--pants, for instance).

    If your logic only extends to oppressing homosexuals, then it would appear that merely prejudice fuels your line of reasoning, and it may be time to examine the bigotry in your heart.


    Do you support same-sex marriage? Why or why not?

    Why would I support the destruction of the family unit? It is the bases of human existence. It is natures way and the societies way of procreation. It is a contract between a man and a woman. People have the right love what ever they want to love but they can not have sex with anyone other than their mate.
    Otherwise; people could marry their toaster or their Children or their Neighbor’s mate or their pet if they "loved" them.
    This would lead to social chaos.

    irtnog2001:

    You said,
    "heterosexual and homosexual couples pose significantly different risks and rewards for society."

    I asked for specific examples. Your only response is,
    "That is for the citizenry and not me or you to decide."

    Obviously, you have no answer to your own statement. You cannot hod up your own argument, because it is false.

    Thanks for proving my point.

    Michael Vilacres, Yes, we each are entitled to our opinion. But the reason we are fighting for same-sex marriage is not to impose our opinion on you or your church, or your friends and co-religionists and their churches, but merely that the federal government and the states treat us equally, without discrimination. I am glad you are rethinking the position you held that homosexuality is a choice. If it were, I most certainly would have chosen NOT to be gay! I even tried to become "ex-gay" through discipleship, prayer and commitment to Jesus in the Boston Church of Christ. Like every other or nearly every other LGBT person who attempted this, my attempt was not sucessful. It is because of this that we look askance when people tell us we have just as much a right to marry someone of the opposite sex as heterosexuals do. Excuse me, but why should I or any other gay man marry a woman whom we cannot love and make a true union with the way a heterosexual man can? In fact, the way we love and make a true union with a man is exactly the same way you or any other heterosexual man can love and unite with a woman. And this is why we are fighting for same-sex civil marriage: to legally marry the one we truly love!

    Furthermore, social practices and US Supreme Court decisions leading up to and subsequent to Loving v Virginia have transformed marriage into a domestic partnership between equals based on love. 87% of women marry for partnership (Dr. Phil Show 2/18/10). The USSC has ruled, time and again, that civil marriage is a basic fundamental right of human beings. Therefore it cannot be a "special" right reserved for straight people; if it is such, we non-straight people will rightfully perceive it as worthless for us, except to gain advantages through sham marriages. Remember, we are asking for governmental recognition of our right to marry each other; the churches, synagogues and mosques can decide on their own whether to bless our lifelong unions or not. Remember, even Jesus himself said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." Civil marriage belongs to the affairs of the state (Caesar) and the right to enter them should belong to to everybody. Religious marriage belongs to the affairs of ecclesiastical institutions (God) and those institutions can exclude us from that until God tells them otherwise.

    I have already explained why the equal protection provisions under the 14th amendment do not apply. Recognition of gay marriage will touch all of our lives gay and not in many profound ways socially, legally and financially many of which are as yet even unrecognized). Are you willing to risk over 2,000 years of the wisdom of human history (I am not talking religion here) on a half baked concept? When the VOTERS of my state adopt gay marriage then I be willing to pay taxes and fight and die for your right to a gay marriage and not before and certainly not if it is only approved by some do good judges with some gay friends. If the shoe was reversed I would be working to get gay marriage VOTED ON AND APPROVED by the electorate of my state not lobbying judges.

    Do the people who make the lame claims against marriage equality actually watch PBS?

    I'm from Vermont, and believe me, we have heard every single possible argument against marriage over the past 15 years. None of the anti-gay arguments holds water before an unbiased court, which is why Boies and Olson can agree. Only if the SCOTUS is even more baldly political than it already seems will they be able to rule against equality.

    There IS no argument against marriage equality.

    I do not approve of Homosexual Marriage. This is my opinion. I have a right to it just as any Gay or Lesbian American has the right to their opinion.
    But that is not their position. No they are saying it is their right as Americans to marry. One of the guests last night quoted the 14th Amendment as the Constitutional basis to allow homosexuals to marry. He brought up a good point.
    A majority of Americans thought that inter racial marriage was wrong or to have Black Americans barred from joining the US Military all thought to be good because it would protect society from social damage. Similar to containing a disease so it won't spread.
    It was once told to me as I watched a TV reality show that was interviewing Homosexuals, a gay young man was asked some people have said that homosexuality is a choice, he said that if it was a choice do you think that I would choose the rejection and pain that I have to live with because of this lifestyle? That makes me think.
    I can not help but feel the way I do just he can not help be the way he is. I do not approve of gay marriage. I can not stop respecting my fellow gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in Christ if I do not approve of their lifestyle. I do not have the answer but I do have a mind. Thank you and may we all listen instead of hurling rocks.

    allenwrench
    Is the definition of marriage to include that it must be based on copulation? Most of your comment seems to indicate that it should. I would submit that if that were so may a marriages would have to end for lack of participation [at least between the married parties].

    Mitch
    The Constitution contains no fundamental right to any kind of sexual intercourse. But you are right; Gay marriage at this time is “illegitimate” in most states. We hope to change that very soon. It seems that you have no respect or desire for marriage. There are still some of us who respect the institution and are happy to be married.

    DG
    For some of us this issue permeates all aspects of their lives on a daily basis. It affects us politically, economically, socially and yes even spiritually.

    Doris Langridge
    The definition of legal definition of marriage is what DOMA says it is until it is repealed.
    I suggest it is time to stop trying the change the meaning of words in the Constitution. I am a citizen of the United States of America and am due equal rights under the law. You might want to look up the pursuit of happiness.

    irtnog2001
    1. What is the valid societal reason to deny consenting adults to marry whomever they want?
    2. 2. The equal protections clause comes in when my marriage is not given the same legal standing as your marriage. I have been married for almost a year and because I live in Indiana my marriage is not recognized.

    Sheral J
    What is taking God so long to destroy the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, Norway, Sweden, South Africa or for that matter New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont? Maybe HE has decided and this is why they exist and prosper today.

    cheri closs
    Weather or not you think I am “normal” should have noting to do with my rights as a citizen of the United States.

    RE Mant
    The SCOTUS interprets what our Constitution means and what rights it endows and it decided that marriage in fact is an individual right protected be the Constitution. There is no such thing as the “religious institution” of marriage. Only marriages recognized by THE STATE are legal. The bill of rights was added to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

    Um, Mitch, I think you're protesting a little too loudly. Or as the bard said, me thinks thou doth protest too much. Have you checked your own sexual desires lately?

    You rail against public sexuality. So should I hold heterosexuals to the same standard? No kissing, hugging, hand-holding in public?

    You argue (well, to call your rants arguments is a little extreme) that if gays can marry, what'll be next, legalizing pedophilia and allowing adults to marry children? Well, I ask you, if men are allowed to marry women, will that lead to men wanting to marry little girls? It's exactly the same line of reasoning that you employ.

    Not to mention that all of your assertions assume that being gay is bad and a disease, and therefore can be equated with other immoral behaviors. You will never be convinced otherwise, but the debate is long over on whether homosexuality is a disease - it is not.

    And oh by the way, all of you please give up on the choice arguments. Being gay is not a choice, not a lifestyle. It is simply who we are.

    bob in seattle

    Please explain, in detail. I, for one, would like to know exactly how my marriage would pose "significantly different risks and rewards for society."

    That is for the citizenry and not me or you to decide.

    When gay marriage is adopted by the people and the legislatures that represent them I WILL EMBRACE IT.

    Its not religion my friend its BIOLOGY!

    irtnog2001 writes,
    "heterosexual and homosexual couples pose significantly different risks and rewards for society."

    Please explain, in detail. I, for one, would like to know exactly how my marriage would pose "significantly different risks and rewards for society."

    And if "procreation" enters your argument at any time, you've already lost, as that argument has been invalidated by the courts time and again.

    As for your statement, "The legislature sets public policy not the courts," well, this is not a "public policy" issue, it is a constitutional, civil rights issue.

    When those of Christian belief usually begin to quote Biblical scripture to defend their stance on Gay Marriage they fundamentally miss the point.

    The constitution was not created to defend and uphold only Christian dogma. Therefore, using the Bible to defend one's position on Gay Marriage is moot. Even Benjamin Franklin walked in the streets of funeral processions of members of all faiths to make the statement that he upheld the right to religious freedom and that all people had merit in American society regardless of what they believed. He supported the equal rights of ALL Americans, not just those who agreed with him on religious grounds.

    We are a nation of ALL religions; America is not solely a Christian nation. And the constitution is there to protect us from becoming a nation that is ruled by one view of morality.

    When the courts of this land deny citizens equal rights that are of a CIVIL nature by using singular views on morality that are slanted toward one faith over another, by attempting to protect singular personal views of a RELIGIOUS nature, they then slur the line of the separation of church and state that is inherently protected in the constitution.

    At whose personal disposal is the constitution when the courts choose to use it to protect one religion's view of morality over another in such a case as proposition 8 or the Defense of Marriage Act?

    The goal of the anti-gay agenda is to impose their "religious beliefs" on everyone else. They will do this in any way possible, as they have demonstrated in the lies they utilize. To them, the end justifies the means even if sin (lying) is necessary to accomplish this end.

    We can see what the ultimate goal of radical anti-gay activists is by looking at the results of their meddling in Africa. In Malawi, gay people are arrested; in Kenya, gay people are attacked and subjected to death threats from murderous groups of vile, anti-gay thugs; and in Uganda, the government is working to eradicate gay people via legalized murder. (A good tree does not bear bad fruit.)

    If we allow unrepentant homophobes in the US to succeed, Uganda will be just a preview of what's to happen here. Religious tyranny can be a very ugly thing, especially when those driving it deliberately ignore Christ's commandments and elevate their sin of homophobia above God.

    As an attorney I am shocked that two lawyers of this reputation would miss or obscure the real legal issues. The legislature sets public policy not the courts. If you feel sorry gays cannot marry that is your right but it is a policy issue not a legal one. There is no equal protection argument here because heterosexual and homosexual couples pose significantly different risks and rewards for society. If the policy of society and the elected officials is opposed to same sex marriage so be it.

    GAY PEOPLE ARE BEINGS WITH BRAIN DEFECTS. BANNING GAY MARRIAGE WOULD BE LIKE BANNING MARRIAGE FOR DISABLED PEOPLE. HOWEVER, IT SHOULDN'T BE ILLEGAL FOR ME TO MARRY MY SEXY GOLDFISH EITHER. THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE IS THE REAL PROBLEM. MARRIAGE IS PRIMITIVE AND FOR PEOPLE WHO DRANK THE COOL-AID.

    GAY PEOPLE ARE BEINGS WITH BRAIN DEFECTS. IT WHAT BE LIKE BANNING MARRIAGE FOR DISABLED PEOPLE TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO MARRY. HOWEVER, IT SHOULDN'T BE ILLEGAL FOR ME TO MARRY MY SEXY GOLDFISH EITHER. THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE IS THE REAL PROBLEM. MARRIAGE IS PRIMITIVE AND FOR PEOPLE WHO DRANK THE COOL-AID.

    I really enjoyed this show last night. I followed the trial and related news at http://prop8trialtracker.com/category/daily-summary/ I'm glad they showed the marriagetrial.com site on this report and I hope more people will learn of these sites to get the facts of this case.

    I will never understand people who consider themselves to be following in the path of Christ, who meanwhile vent their hatred upon people they refuse to understand, tolerate, or accept.

    Bigotry is eroding Christianity's beauty.

    How would straight folks feel if the government dictated who they could or couldn't marry? Oh, wait that already happened in this country when inter-racial marriages were against the law. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. Keep the government and your bigotry out of my bedroom.

    Posted by: Sumsanity "If the judge decides in favor of Prop 8 and the majority of Californian and United States voters I will be shocked and pleased. I've already posted my argument for the logic of my point of view which you either ignored or have not read. Typical of libs.
    As for my personal attack on all lawyers it was a bonus and well deserved."

    ----------------------------------------------------------

    Well, this issue stems on personal prejudices. The truth is that which does not charge...human values and laws always change.

    If a judge is a closet homosexual or in sympathy with homosexuals or is in a homosexual district that will vote for him or her or just doesn't care...they will go with legitimizing homosexuality.

    If the judge is on the other side of the fence, they will not.

    But decisions such as this should not be about prejudices, personal likes dislikes. What should be the ONLY concern is what is best for a flourishing, healthy society.

    Either the homosexuality is good, natural, healthy, normal behavior that should be promoted and built up in society or it is not...that is the bottom line.

    Posted by: Sumsanity "Ms. Badesh,Sexual orientation was never addressed in the Loving vs. Virginia case. It was about interacial marriage not homosexual unions. You'll stick with whoever agrees with you regardless of the validity of their argument.
    Wht do I care? Personally I don’t relish the idea of two bearded men engaged in a sloppy goodbye kiss on their front porch or at the bus stop in view of my children. Do I want a homosexual telling my pre-pubescent child sodomy is natural and normal? No I do not. Do I want homosexuals to be able to adopt children and raise them to accept homosexuality as normal? You are darn right I do not."

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    You brought up some good examples that can come about by legitimizing homosexual behavior as normal. I wont go as far as the adoption issue, for many hetero couples have child sex abuse in their marriage. But the rest are all valid points of concern.

    The example of interracial marriage on the show was an issue of race and not gender. Interracial couples fit into the definition of marriage, race does not come into the issue.

    Some subjects from earlier posts.

    1) Canada encouraging homosexual marriage and an influx of more homosexual couples.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

    http://takebackcanada.com/family.html

    2) A poster speculated that an increase in homosexuals may be due to nature trying to control an overgrown population.

    http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv219/keepitlow456/popchart.gif

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_malthus
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity

    Now, animals masturbate and some animals also partake in homosexual behavior.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

    So part of almost every species is gay or bisexual.

    When a species starts to self-destruct, as humans are doing, more gays may appear to help the process along We can say we as a species are in self destruction mode. The rest of the theory....just don't know?

    http://dieoff.org/

    I smell a "modern sensibility" remake of the classic movie "White Christmas" in the works :-)

    What's wrong with "free advertizing"...?

    Imagine how Bing, out of the closet, would have really wanted to sing:

    "We'll follow the old man wherever he wants to go
    Long as he wants to go opposite to the foe

    We'll stay with the old man wherever he wants to stay
    Long as he stays away from the battle's fray

    Because we love him, we love him
    Especially when he keeps us on the ball

    And we'll tell the kiddies we answered duty's call
    With the grandest son of a soldier of them all"

    If the judge decides in favor of Prop 8 and the majority of Californian and United States voters I will be shocked and pleased. I've already posted my argument for the logic of my point of view which you either ignored or have not read. Typical of libs.
    As for my personal attack on all lawyers it was a bonus and well deserved.

    Let me touch a little more on this subject of 'declining of standards' as I wrote to Lauren.

    It is getting harder to feed oneself these days if one is looking for basic untreated natural foods. Here is a rundown on grass fed beef for those that may not know.

    The beef and poultry are force fed unnatural diets high on genetically modified corn. (proudly advertised as an 'all-vegetarian diet' on the packaging.) The all grain diet, coupled with growth hormones make the cattle outgrow grass fed cattle more than two to one.

    The animals are packed like sushi into confined animal feeding operations and wade though oceans of their own manure. This close quarter confinement and loss of roaming ability also makes the cattle put on weight much faster than grass fed cattle.

    The unnatural diet raises hell with their digestion and they have to be given loads of antibiotics to not die. Their digestive tracts culture drug resistant e.coli thanks to the antibiotics and it gets into / onto the meat when they are slaughtered.

    As a bonus, a lot the good omega 3 fatty acids have been taken out of grain fed cattle's meat as well as cows milk, cheese, yogurt, butter etc, since they are not fed their natural diet of grass.

    Pick up a half gal of organic milk that advertises omega 3. It most likely will be fortified with algae oil. What is left in grain fed meat is an imbalance of too much omega 6 fat that fuels our heart disease problems in the US and not enough omega 3.

    The grain fed meat has to be radiated to kill the e.coli but the manure is still high in e.coli and gets into our other food products such as vegetables / spinach / almonds / apple juice etc. These have to be radiated / pasteurized / steam heated / chlorine bathed to try and kill the e.coli as well.

    But the antibiotics still make their way into our diet through eating the grain fed meat, drinking the milk, eating the cheese, yogurt, butter. As well as our water supply from people taking the antibiotics as medicine and eating the tainted meat. As humans excrete waste it gets into the water and we drink or bath in it and absorb it up...what a mess!

    Sumsanity:

    It never ceases to amaze me that the moment people who disagree with marriage equality know they can't win their argument on the merits or on logic, they resort to ad hominen, personal attacks.

    You just attacked every homosexual person and couple, and all lawyers in America. By my guess, that's over 10% of the population.

    What other segments of the population would you like to publicly attack? Are there other minorities whose thoughts, feeling, behaviors, beliefs, actions, differ from yours and you'd like to restrict? Or abolish?

    How about doctors? Plumbers? Jews? Blacks?

    Because that's what you did. You decided you didn't like a group of people - actually, two groups - and decided they are, in your words, "cretins," and "disgusting, belly crawling, vermin."

    And those are your words for lawyers. I have to assume you words for gays and lesbians would be even worse and PBS would be forced to delete them.

    The fact of the matter, also, is that it doesn't matter what sexual orientation the judge is. It is just as easy to claim that a heterosexual judge would be prejudiced in this case as a homosexual judge. The fact that you think that a homosexual judge cannot make a rational decision displays your prejudice.

    And what will you do if the judge sides with the pro-Prop 8 people?

    Will you come up with some other prejudiced "reason" for that?

    You have no logical or even moral argument, certainly no legal one. All you have is your hatred and prejudice.

    The people of America have seen past that. They believe in an America that values its citizens, that values the Constitution, that values justice and equality.

    I'm sad you do not.

    By the way Ms. Badesh. 31 states disagree with you and Bill Moyers. That's hardly 'the people of America and the courts' agreeing. But take heart, the homosexual judge in San Francisco will strike down the will of the people, again and we will continue to let these cretins on Bill Moyer’s Journal collect fat fees from David Geffen. Lawyers; they would defend Adolph Hitler if the price was right. Disgusting, belly crawling, vermin, the lot of them.

    I thought this was a good interview Bill. You asked them tough questions and allowed them to state their case.

    I suggest that you give your viewers and listeners the chance to hear a non-strawman version of the other side of the argument now. Liberals typically think that anyone who argues against gay marriage can only be doing so out of ignorance and prejudice. That is simply not true. I recommend inviting Robert P. George from Princeton onto the program. He was recently the subject of an article in the New York Times Magazine, "The Conservative-Christian Big Thinker". He lays out a very rational case for defending traditional marriage. If you can't get Professor George you ought to at least invite the attorneys who were arguing against Olson and Boies in the California case.

    As Americans are deciding where they stand on this issue they deserve to hear the best arguments for and against.

    One last point, as I wade though the comments it is clear to me quite a few of the anti-equality folks didn't even watch the show. To those of you posting negative, hateful comments: Watch the show with an open mind; and think of your family, friends and neighbours who may be gay.

    Ms. Badesh,
    Sexual orientation was never addressed in the Loving vs. Virginia case. It was about interacial marriage not homosexual unions. You'll stick with whoever agrees with you regardless of the validity of their argument.
    Wht do I care? Personally I don’t relish the idea of two bearded men engaged in a sloppy goodbye kiss on their front porch or at the bus stop in view of my children. Do I want a homosexual telling my pre-pubescent child sodomy is natural and normal? No I do not. Do I want homosexuals to be able to adopt children and raise them to accept homosexuality as normal? You are darn right I do not.

    This is not a religious issue. You bible thumpers are hurting the cause of Prop 8 so would you please shut the hell up? We live in a secular society ruled by laws, not the Bible, Koran or Torah. That being said restricting marriage to heterosexuals clearly delineates the qualifications for marriage. Homosexuals wish to add only themselves in qualifications for marriage. That restriction of marriage to just heterosexuals and homosexuals is by their logic and Mr. Moyers' guests’ logic discriminatory. You can either have qualifications or remove them entirely. You can't include only homosexuals or you are discriminating against all other 'certain sexual orientations'. Therefore their argument of discrimination is false.

    To allenwrench - I could not agree more wholeheartedly.... my posts are intended as thinly veiled sarcasm.

    @Mitch
    Damn son you are a hoot!
    Somebody must have had their wheaties/whiskey last night.
    A couple questions:
    1. Do you really think that heterosexuals making out in public should be a crime? seems a little extreme, how about holding hands?
    2.How is "liberalism a mental disease? I consider myself a conservative but I find many of my liberal friends and family more reasonable than the prevalent conservative voices in the media.
    3. How exactly has Obama fundmentally transformed society? i think i missed that.
    4. What's the connection between gay marriage and affirmative action? They seem like completely seperate issues to me.
    5. Why should anyone care what your definition of pornography is? Should we get rid interracial representations because some people are stuck in Jim Crow days? Should we make news anchors wear shawls to appease a small traditionalist muslim population? If there's no genitals don't complain, pharmaceutical ads are the most pornographic of all?
    6. Don't you think its kind of funnny that you complain extensively about profanity and then use the word "shit" in your own post?
    7. Don't you think its kind of funny that you repeatedly call yourself an Atheist, and then in another post give the unconditional identity, that Atheism IS Statism? Which is something you clearly oppose.
    8. Don't you think its kind of funny that YOU accuse liberals of "destroying civility"?
    9. Do you ever wonder if it just you thats losing the cultural war?
    10. Don't you think you could afford to be little more nuanced in your manner of thinking?
    11. You really don't get out much do?

    Finally, I do agree on at least one important point, politically correctness is a burden on our own consciousness and on our society. We should be willing to call a horse a horse, accept our own ownership of langauge, and endorse a ethic in which, if you are offended, it is generally viewed that you not the offender needs to change.

    That said, You my friend are a f*ing retard. Its not what you say, its how you say it. Learn to make arguements, and stop making slurs in subsitute for one (it might help if you quit reading Rand,as slurs seems to be the best she ever mustered).
    Seriously, stop embrassing yourself and the rest of us.

    "You know what I hate about your critics, they always criticize what you say without giving you credit for how loudly and vehemently you say it."

    Another excellent interview by Bill Moyers. He didn't shy away from asking the hard questions, especially the point about Scalia and his opinion on Lawrence v Texas. I also liked the dissection of the ridiculous arguments against marriage equality. In this day and age it is amazing to me that people listen to this kind of tripe. The good thing about bring this case to court, is that in court you must present facts and prove them. Outrageous, emotional rantings don't carry any weight. This is indeed an extremely important civil rights case and is by and large not given the coverage it deserves. If people are fair and read the facts with an open mind, they will come to the conclusion this is discrimination and it is wrong. Bravo to Boies and Olsen for their participation in this historic case.

    To "Sumsanity"
    Actually, you're wrong. Marriage IS a right. It is a civil right, and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it is a civil right. Way back in 1967, in Loving v. Virginia. In its decision, the court wrote:
    "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival..."

    That you disagree is your right. But you are wrong, and the people of America and the courts agree.

    Additionally, why do you care? How does same-sex marriage affect you? What difference does it make to you if two people get married? Are you concerned with the marital status of all your friends and neighbors?

    This is not an issue that is open for a public vote. Marriage is a civil right. The courts have said so time and again. Civil rights are "unalienable," and not to be voted upon.

    It's unfortunate you disagree. But those are the facts.

    Dear Bill,
    Shouldn't sexual activity preferences be a private affair? I think sexual relations should go back in the closset, and please close the door too. Its against the law to have sex in public, yet here we are fighting to make our sex public.
    I'm not really interested in how others make love, are you?

    =
    MJA

    Stupid Idiots Club they must be in!

    The world is brought to its knees by this on going Financial Crisis & 'their' concern is why a legal contract can't be CALLED marriage?

    Bush gives Greenspan the highest civilian Medal-that preverts honor, the Presidency, the American Govt.!

    So, what is next? A medal of Pervision maybe-homosexual doesn't make biological sence. The science doesn't work--but that doesn't seem to slow down the liberal lunies.

    What a waste of energy! If girls want to live with girls (or whatever) so what---just as long as they do NOT recruit from our ranks of children, & don't 'tell'. That may work for my political view, but, that is it.

    Go back into the closet & leave me alone--gee, until I was in the service I thought it was just something you said like your mother wears combat boots--whatever that meant.
    "They" were in the service, but 'they' did stick together.

    Billy Bob Florida

    PS Obama said my primary vote could NOT count & McCain is NOT revelant--sounds like The President of NO!

    Posted by: Mike "You know... as much as I love the passage in Leviticus allegedly condemning homosexuality - which I'm told must be interpreted literally and formulated into public policy - I really think the following is one of my favorites from that venerable "Book Of Laws and Codes".

    Leviticus 25:44-46 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."

    So... I'll assume that the next time I'm in the market for slaves they should be Canadian, Mexican or other foreign nationals and/or their children. And shouldn't this directive be codified somewhere in our statutes?"

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Well, religions is all man made BS anyway Mike. So, religion does not come into the equation for me with not supporting promoting homosexual marriage.

    Sure humans need gods. Since we have the brains we do it makes it tough to go through life without some heavenly hope when we die. I was trying to get that point across to my old Mom the other day when she asked me to pray for her. Told her that praying does no good. She said she couldn't get though life without her Jesus.

    Religions offer s asset of prepackaged morals. And the most that society can hope for is these morals have been packaged in proper fashion to not harm society.

    A proper atheist does not believe in gods or anything supernatural and unproven. No karma, no soul, no nothing they can't get a grip on, feel, see, touch or taste.

    If we look at what was written about Yahweh, we can determine it does not add up and Yahweh is a myth and Jesus too. And even if Yahweh was for real - who would want to worship such a hateful and evil god as that?

    But we humans do not know everything under the sun. We may have a soul or some other supernatural aspect we know nothing about. There may be some aspect of intelligent design. Aliens may have dropped of a pair of us eons ago and it all blossomed from there...who knows?

    There is also that burning question of why humans are so different from all other species? Sure we can pin it on evo, but what singled our species out for it? That is why I am an agnostic...just don't have the answers to all the questions.

    But there is no proof for any of these theories, other than wishful thinking / speculation. And if push comes to shove...I side with the atheists for being right.

    When it comes to faith...faith must always be based on the fact of a 'first see-er' or 'first contact' that is telling the truth.

    We do not come up with ideas to base faith on all on our own. All religious faith is based on someone else's reports. If this persons report is based on lies, than the faith must evaporate.

    The major religions of the world are mainly based on one person's report of contact with a deity. Yet all their story's conflict and contradict?

    Jews...Moses...

    Went up the mountain and is popularly thought to have come down with 10 commandments. Wrong...try 613 commandments. God communicated extensively with the Hebrews on an almost daily basis is seems. Yahweh directed them specifically with how to design and build things, how to worship him through burnt offerings and penance and who to murder. God instructed them to discriminate against the handicapped. God was very detailed with his directions about unclean women during menses and how the Hebrews should keep their slaves. And of course, the constant orders to kill, kill, kill...from killing one's children to killing homosexuals to killing the parents of young virgins so the religious devotees could round up a harem of sex slaves. (see end of post for quotes.)

    Christians...Paul...

    Here is the thing about Jesus. Throughout history NO ONE that ever wrote about Jesus ever met Jesus. Jesus started with Paul's visualization or dream of Jesus decades after Jesus' life and death and it all mushroomed from there. EVERYONE that wrote about Jesus did so conveniently decades after his supposed life and death. Most Christians think the gospels were written by the disciples or men that met Jesus...FALSE! Jesus born of December 25? FALSE! Just a fantasy they Christians came up with in the 4th century to steal the solstice holiday away from the pagans. Trinity? Just more man-made spin that they voted on 'to approve' what god meant at the First Council of Nicaea in the 3rd century. Imagine that...man voting on approving god...what utter bullshit. In later centuries things got even worse...selling indulgences so you were guaranteed of going to heaven!

    link: (removed due to censorship guidelines)

    Muslims...Mohammed...

    Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet, but not god. And for those that do not know, Allah is the same god as Yahweh or 'god the father' of the Christians. Islam believes the Jews had an earlier, imperfect version in the Torah. The Koran is corrected, and ONLY perfect word of god. It must be all true...after all, god told Mohammed so.

    Mormons...Joseph Smith...

    Angel Moroni gave Joseph Smith magic glasses that allowed him to translate golden plates that proved Jesus visited North America to share his gospel with the Indians. Smith also believed that the 'Garden of Eden' was in Missouri....'nuff said.

    Buddhists...Siddhartha Gautama...

    A reformed Hindu ascetic. Siddhartha gave up on the belief in 'self' in favor of 'no-self'. Unfortunately this no-self must come back to suffer samara until no-self can get to Buddhists heaven of Nirvana. Buddha also gave up beliefs in all the crazy gods of the Hindus. But the latter day Buddhists couldn't resist adding the freaky gods right back in. And the Pure Land Buddhists even made Buddha a god that had the power to whisk them off to Nirvana once they died. But human ego's being what they are, the Purelanders were split into 2 factions - the 'self powered' and 'other powered' schools. It seems no one can settle the dispute between them...should they chant the name of Buddha one time to be saved ('self powered') or do they have to chant the name of Buddha incessantly day and night to be lucky enough to catch Buddha's attention with their last breath! ('other powered')

    Voodoo from Haiti

    Although about 80% of Haiti identifies themselves as Christian, they have an underlying belief in voodoo. Voodoo has too many magik beliefs to cover here. But the main belief is this. When a person dies they disappear underwater for a year and a day. Then they come back to life for 8 times as a man and 8 times as a woman before perfecting themselves enough to become one with their god.

    Mankind is predisposed to create gods...148 pages of them. Roughly 5756 gods!

    godfinder org

    The majority of people run their life by 'wishful thinking' and delusions. One poll said 98% of the people believe in a god, a human soul, karma or an afterlife. Yet there has never been a shred of proof to support any of these theories.

    You see, many people do with religion and their religious fixations the same as the compulsive gambler does with their fantasy.

    Excerpt From: Gamblers Anonymous pamphlet

    "The dream world of a compulsive gambler." A lot of time is spent creating images of great and wonderful things they are going to do as soon as they make "the big win."... No one can convince them that their great schemes will not come true. They believe they will, for without this dream world, life for them would not be tolerable.

    See:

    http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=133.0


    I'll leave you with some of Yahweh's / Allah's / God the Father's loving word...

    Eat your son's and daughters: I will see to it that your enemies lay siege to the city until all the food is gone. Then those trapped inside will have to eat their own sons and daughters and friends. They will be driven to utter despair.' (Jeremiah 19:6-9 NLT)

    God kills 185,000: The angel of the Lord went forth and struck down one hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp. Early the next morning they were there, all the corpses of the dead. (Isaiah 37:36 NAB)

    God holds a grudge: They may try to rebuild, but I will demolish them again! Their country will be known as 'The Land of Wickedness,' and their people will be called 'The People with Whom the LORD Is Forever Angry.' (Malachi 1:2-4 NLT)

    Gods unquenchable anger: So the Sovereign LORD says: "I will pour out my terrible fury on this place. Its people, animals, trees, and crops will be consumed by the unquenchable fire of my anger." (Jeremiah 7:20 NLT)

    Mass killings: They will bury so many bodies in Topheth that there won't be room for all the graves. The corpses of my people will be food for the vultures and wild animals, and no one will be left to scare them away. I will put an end to the happy singing and laughter in the streets of Jerusalem. The joyful voices of bridegrooms and brides will no longer be heard in the towns of Judah. The land will lie in complete desolation. (Jeremiah 7:32-34 NLT)

    Makes a joke out of killing: A third of your people will die in the city from famine and disease. A third of them will be slaughtered by the enemy outside the city walls. And I will scatter a third to the winds and chase them with my sword. Then at last my anger will be spent, and I will be satisfied. And when my fury against them has subsided, all Israel will know that I, the LORD, have spoken to them in my jealous anger. "So I will turn you into a ruin, a mockery in the eyes of the surrounding nations and to everyone who travels by. You will become an object of mockery and taunting and horror. You will be a warning to all the nations around you. They will see what happens when the LORD turns against a nation in furious rebuke. I, the LORD, have spoken! (Ezekiel 5:11-15)

    Carry away people with fish hooks: "Behold, the days are coming upon you When they will take you away with meat hooks, And the last of you with fish hooks. "You will go out {through} breaches {in the walls,} Each one straight before her, And you will be cast to Harmon," declares the LORD. (Amos 4:1-3 NAS)

    Slavery OK: "When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." Exodus 21:20-21 NAB

    Discrimination: No child of an incestuous union may be admitted into the community of the Lord, nor any descendent of his even to the tenth generation. (Deuteronomy 23:3 NAB

    No handicapped allowed: No one whose testicles have been crushed or whose penis has been cut off may be admitted into the community of the Lord. (Deuteronomy 23:2 NAB)

    Kill your sons: "Suppose a man has a stubborn, rebellious son who will not obey his father or mother, even though they discipline him. Then all the men of the town must stone him to death. In this way, you will cleanse this evil from among you, and all Israel will hear about it and be afraid." (Deuteronomy 21:18-21 NLT)

    Eat your son's and daughters 2: He brought down upon us evils so great that there has not been done anywhere under heaven what has been done in Jerusalem, as was written in the law of Moses: that one after another of us should eat the flesh of his son or of his daughter. (Baruch 2:1-4 NAB)

    Kill Homosexuals: "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
    (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

    Slavery is OK: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

    Kill them all...except the virgins: Now kill all the men, boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves. (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

    Have you ever asked yourself how god could have been so vocal giving the Jews 613 commandments, almost talking with them daily ... and now no one hears a peep from god?

    613 commandments
    link: (removed due to censorship guidelines)

    ...anyway, it is all in the bible...read it!
    link: (removed due to censorship guidelines)

    To those who make religious arguments against homosexuality and homosexual equality and marriage, I would say that our country and its laws are wisely dictated by the Constitution, not the Bible and the Bible represents only one set of beliefs while our Constitution necessarily allows for many.

    To those who say, "if we legalize gay marriage, why not legalize pedophilia; what's the difference?!" I would ask, keeping in mind that most pedophiles are heterosexual: has the fact that heterosexual marriage is legal made legalizing pedophilia any more likely? It is a red herring.

    Finally, thanks to retired U.S. Army officer John for posting his own experiences as a heterosexual working with homosexual persons in the military, below. That's the kind of real, practical information and insights that make sense in this discussion as contrasted with the religion- or values-based arguments.

    Oh yeah, things here in Iowa have gone to hell on a high-speed rail since our state's Supreme Court issued their ruling on this issue last year.

    "Gay Lifestyle" recruiting bake sales in every elementary school... copies of the "Gay Agenda" littering our roadways... and on and on and on.

    What a nightmare it has been -

    Marriage is not a right; it is an institution you may partake in if you meet certain qualifications. Heterosexuals seek to keep them as they have always been and should remain. Homosexual liberals seek to remove them entirely by describing this institution as a right. This creates a slippery slope of moral decay down which homosexuals do not care if civilization tumbles. Liberals like Bill Moyer’s and the one sided view he presented further cement my view that removing all qualifications for marriage is not 'progressive' by any stretch of the imagination, but fundamentally destructive to one of the pillars of civilization. Attorneys and courts be damned. Homosexuals should not be allowed to get a marriage license any more than 12 year olds should be allowed to get a drivers' license.

    Well, things have been busy here since I first posted a couple of things about 1:00 last night.... and a quick reading of some of the comments have added a new urgency and gravity to my prayer - "Jesus, I beseech thee, deliver me from the Christians"

    P.S. - The Paul of the New Testament who is credited with defining homosexuality as immoral is the same one who never personally knew Jesus during his lifetime, right?

    Dear Bill,

    "Love and marriage go together like a horse and carraige" until the horse runs off and the wheels fall off and the attorneys divide up the broken wreck.

    I think love should be Just Free.

    =
    MJA

    Lauren posted the question how does homosexual marriage hurt...

    Lauren, it hurts society because it promotes wrongness and encourages a declining of standards that our societies throughout history and nature itself has built on.

    Few of us are saying not to respect the rights homosexuals. Most people against homosexual marriage just don't want to promote it as normal...cause it is not.

    Let me give you an example of a declining in standards.

    Have you ever notched that when you buy peach in the store all the fuzz is gone? Besides that, they very, very seldom have fragrance and seem to always rot before they ripen?

    Well, that is an example of declining of standards. It is happening throughput our entire food supply as well as most other areas of life.

    To promote homosexuals as a wonderful and normal lifestyle, just as it would be to make drugs legal so people can be doped up 24 /7...is not a helathy way to build a world.

    Sure societies can do as they please, but seldom in America do we ever hear what is good for building society on. We only hear about how much money and profit can be made.

    Until this definition is changed...

    "Marriage is a religious or civil ceremony between two people of the opposite sex that become husband and wife."

    Then no one can claim that homosexuals are discriminated against by not being allowed to marry. By the very definition of marriage , homosexuals are excluded from the marriage equation.

    Now, if the world wishes to start calling apples...oranges and beef...chickens, then things may be different for the homosexuals.

    I think that the level of anger in the anti-gay comments here is an indication that even those opposed to equality and marriage regarding gays sense the movement of society in favor of those things and sense the futility of their arguments, which for the most part are very weak.

    To the atheist who says he cannot tolerate homosexuality, I would suggest that while he may not want to accept certain values for himself, he must accept the fact that they exist for others, who have as much a right to their values as he has to his.

    To "Mitch," who seems to believe that discrimination is OK if it's based on "a choice," I repeat: Would it be OK to prohibit Christians from marrying because their religion is a choice? Abbreviating anyone's rights for any reason is unconstitutional, as will be illustrated in this gay marriage case.

    Many persons on the pro-gay agenda, including commenters here, make the mistake of trying to distort the Bible to justify homosexuality. The Bible is perfectly clear in both the Old Testament and New that homosexuality is forbidden in Judaism and Christianity (which is a sect of Judaism). To argue otherwise is specious. It was Paul who explained that homosexuality is indeed natural, since it was God who made homosexuals to be as they are (Romans 1:26-28). If you don't like Judaic Law, choose another religion and move on. It is impossible to please all the dictates of all the religions of the world, and none will change for your benefit alone. The simple fact is that the government has nothing to do with the kingdom of God. Homosexuals should be afforded all the rights of all other citizens in secular society.

    Your program this week with the discussion by lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies about their challenge to California’s ban on same-sex marriages offered a succinct and compelling case.

    I am a retired U.S. Army officer who served more than 20 years in the Military Police Corps, followed by 17 more years in law enforcement at the state and county level. I am a happily married heterosexual with enough common sense to know that discrimination against a class of people is fundamentally wrong.

    Once, when I was serving as a battalion XO, I learned that one of my subordinate company commanders was a homosexual man. Many suspected this, but I knew it to be so because he told me (and the battalion commander). This was before the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and we agonized about what to do about it. We decided to do nothing. Doing so certainly harmed me, "the old man" (Bn Commander), and the captain, by forcing us to make difficult moral decisions that violated policy and risked our careers. Fortunately, no one else ever knew. Despite the rumors that abounded, the captain was easily the most capable of our four company-level commanders and a fine officer in every respect. I am confident that we did the right thing.

    Lesbians and gays should be able to marry the person they love, serve in the military of their nation if otherwise qualified, and live lives free of harassment and discrimination.

    I hope the legal challenge brought by Mr. Olsen and Mr. Boies makes its way to the Supreme Court and that they prevail.

    Kudos to PBS, Bill Moyers and his staff for bringing thought provoking and timely issues to the table.

    Mitch’s words, a very fantastical banquet, just so many strange dishes; the study of a man in chaos in search of frenzy.

    Where were these guys when the Bush administration trashed the Constitution and abrogated citizens rights? What about wireless wiretaps, domestic spying, forcible kidnapping, medieval torture, and assassinations? What about the military draft and "stop loss" which are involuntary servitude? What about illicit invasions of foreign nations and violating treaties that are the "supreme law of the land" according to the Constitution? What these egotistical guys are arguing is that collective social conscience has nothing to do with the law. The founding fathers, who authored the Constitution that they hold so dear, believed in slavery. The supremes are all political appointees. So, in the final analysis, we are to be ruled by the most clever debaters. It was Jefferson who said that for one generation to establish a government to be imposed upon a future generation is tyranny. We have the right to have the society and government we choose.

    The fundamental issue here is one group of fundamentalists, the gay lobby, seeking revenge on the Christian fundamentalists who have been so hostile to them for so long. Both sides are closed-minded and offensive, and it's the same hostility, the same hatred, the same desire to eliminate diversity and force everyone to believe in the same ideology. The fact is that there will always be division over this issue because it comes down to fundamental religious beliefs, and it is not the place for government to take sides or endorse one viewpoint or another. It should be civil unions for EVERY COUPLE, and people can decide whether they and their churches/communities want to call it marriage or not. But it is not moral to use the force of the federal government to force your term and belief down the throats of others who object.

    Redefinition of the family. So now we can expect to see ads for nontraditional families in media? Why is this not confined strictly to gay media and not mainstream media so normal heterosexuals do have to be offended by it? I don't want to see lesbian family ads at the mall. I don't want to be visually assaulted in public by Heather has two mommies. I rarely go out in public though. However just those few time I do venture out and see such radical changes I get upset. It's like oh shit I am in an area that must be arbitrary demographically lesbian or gay or whatever because I have to see such filth in public. I ask where is the decency in public.

    Don't get me started on the profanity it's f this f that which disgusting sexual slang. For example Valentine's Day they call Vagina Day. See? Vulgarity. Mocking our culture.

    Politically correct means taking one thing and calling it another for example it's not a crime it's poverty. Woe to those who would call evil good. It calls the perpetrator the "victim". It sides with the criminal not the innocent. It calls terrorists enemy combatants to be tried in civil courts. Get the picture? It penalizes navy seals for doing their jobs.

    Freud was a drunk womanizer with an obsession with sex.

    I watched the program last evening on homosexual marriage. I got up this morning to view the comments. I was hoping for respectful dialogue. I thought an intelligent program would bring intelligent people together that might disagree but could do so in a way that promoted respect of shared ideas.
    I was wrong.
    Just as with any debate of Gay marriage the opponents speak with bigotry, christian values that are hate filled and come from fear.
    The proponents of gay marriage speak of legal rights, family struggles and love.
    I live in Vermont, we have gay marriage (without recognition of federal rights) and the sky has not fallen. The same arguments based on fear were used here.
    I ask the following questions, how does not allowing gay marriage prevent homosexuals from teaching in schools? They are doing that now.
    How does not having gay marriage stop homosexual families from forming, having children and living together? It doesn't those families are formed everywhere in every state. Those families survive the hardships of relationships without legal protections. How does giving homosexuals marriage make them more dangerous? Homosexuals are everywhere, in churches, schools, hospitals on the street corners.
    Not giving marriage benefits does not change the society we live in, where homosexuals exist. Gay marriage rights will not change any part of our society except to give equal rights to a group of people that are denied rights.
    Simply, anti gay marriage people are afraid of homosexuals.
    I don't blame those that are afraid, they were taught to be so by others also afraid. Laws should not be made from fear and ignorance.
    How does denying marriage from homosexuals protect children? Homosexuals will continue to live among us.
    Not one argument opposing gay marriage has swayed me to believe it is wrong and inherently evil.
    In the end history will show anti gay marriage folks were on the wrong side. I believe Gay marriage is going to move forward no matter how long it takes. If not now, someday.
    Please thank the two lawyers for speaking on this issue in a way that asks us to use logic. Thank them for reminding us that this is a civil rights issue.
    I appreciate your thought provoking program.

    “I am dumbfounded at the level of animus toward gays expressed on this blog.”
    Posted by: Lewis | February 27, 2010 12:19 AM

    But not unexpected, alas!

    Mitch’s words are a very fantastical banquet, just so many strange dishes.

    Gandhi once said, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” It is easy to see why.

    We respect people's individual religious convictions. They're entitled to those convictions under that same Constitution that protects the free exercise of religion. No one is saying that the Southern Baptist Church or the Catholic Church or any other Church ought to marry people who they don't want to marry. However, the First Amendment, in the anti-establishment clause part of that Amendment, says that they cannot impose those religious beliefs on other people. No religious group, no matter how numerous, should be able to pass a law that says the state will only sanction marriages that we religiously approve of. That's the separation between church and state that our Constitution has always guaranteed. We cannot discriminate against certain people based on their sexual orientation. That is simply an American constitutional civil right.

    Fundamental questions:

    If you believe in the sanctity of marriage, if you believe in family values. Why in the world would you want to exclude a whole class of citizens from that?

    What harm to the institution of heterosexual marriage would occur if gays and lesbians were allowed to marry?"

    Paul Newman said it best, “I'm a supporter of gay rights. And not a closet supporter either. From the time I was a kid, I have never been able to understand attacks upon the gay community. There are so many qualities that make up a human being... by the time I get through with all the things that I really admire about people, what they do with their private parts is probably so low on the list that it is irrelevant.”

    Well some of the comments are based on stereotypes of gays. Also the gay community is it's worst enemy exposing to the public their worst, destructive side as freedom of speech, making the Hetero public think all gays are the same.

    1, Most gays are not athiests, as is evident from gay churches and ministers.

    2. Most gays do not want to have sex in public and expose themselves sexually, or to be promiscuous. That is why they want to be committed to a relationship, publically.

    3. The concept of gay gene, I ask those who do not believe in it, answer the question of what to do with the hermaphrodites we do not talk about? Born with both sexes equally developed. Where do you put them? there are 1 in 1500 births in that catagory, so why not understand that everything sexually from that catagory to purely heterosexual births exist. Homosexuality is just birth with gender brain differences from straight people.
    4. There are many books on Amazon that address Biological Diversity in the animal kingdom, and all aspects that humans go through are prevelant in the animal kingdom, including transgender (natural) change of gender. Homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom. Some variations even in the plant kingdom..Those that do not know about this can continue, as they did in the past, and attempt to kill those that say the earth is still flat if they want, but smart people will realize that truth is more important than false beliefs, in religion or science. Cultural maturity evolves with knowledge, not adhering to traditional beliefs in false concepts. Break traditions if they are based on ignorance. Women voting did not destroy society no matter how men tried to tell us it would.
    5.The gays in the military? Well do a search, and locate where the gay bars are in the world...near military installations. As most military people experienced many gay medics gave their lives for heterosexual brothers in combat.
    6 Gays have always been prevelant in education, medecine, science, religion, and all areas of life..lots of gay mechanics, soldiers, truck drivers, etc..all are not dancers, hairdressers and dress designers. All are not nelley men or butch women, and many nelley men and butch women are straight.Thus the diversity of gender in humans.
    7. Politically correctness, and hiding peoples gender preference results in promiscuity and the procreation of more gays, because it forces them to try to be normal (hetero) to not be criticized or abused. If they could be accepted with a same sex partner, they would not be promiscuous any more than heterosexuals are.
    8. The fallace of Gays molesting, or recruiting straight people is a cop out, so we do not have to address the fact that 1 of 4 women are sexually abused by straight men in our siciety. Rape is rape gay or straight not to be tolarated. Sexual abuse is not to be tollerated straight or gay. The concept of (do not worry about the sliver in your brothers eye until you pull the log out of your own) applies here. As long as we focus on the statistically few sicidents of the gays we do not have to worry about the volume of straight abuses.
    9.Straght Christian men seem to be so concerned about watching two men kissing each other yet Judas Kissed Christ, which was a common tradition then for men to kiss each other. Yet in sports patting a guy
    in tights,on the butt is acceptable. Is it not taboo to see a man pat a woman on the butt in public ???
    10. Even Freud identified the difference between gender identities a long time ago, and may have not had all the answers, but in some cases he developed the vocabulary to now identify some of the truth we need to get back to and grow up our society, religion, science and get over the crap called politically correct...nothing is correct that is untrue. You can not sit on the word chair. The words can have many meanings and still be used to convey a concept properly. Lose the words does not lose the truth behind the words.

    11. If we are using the Bible? there was no word for homosexuality in Greek or Hebrew or Aramic. The 4 or 5 that are translated to use against the gays are addressing straights taking advantatge of same sex strangers, which was a tradition of the times to insult their enemies, etc..but why do the fundamentalists concentrate so hard on those few misinterpreted comments and not on the 360 references to how heterosexuals should act with their mates.????
    12. The Christian element seems to think that gay marriage will end up leading to poligamy? Well the old testament it was the norm to have more than one wife so whats up with that?
    13. You know men decided what to include in the Bible, and they left out most of the great contributions women made to that period of history, it was not just homosexuality and transgenders that were left out. How many references were ther to those born with both sex organs fully developed??? so we need to start filling in the blanks with truth and stop blanking out the Word of God that exists in nature itself..the earth is only flat to those that do not go beyond the flat land. Yes their world is flat, but do not make the rest of us that go beyond the flat land and see the round earth reality, get killed off as they did in the dark ages!
    14. I am not good at writing so hope those that read this will see the logic and not concentrate on the inability to write correctly or spell words right. It does not mean I can not think. There are many great mechanics that can not read. We all have our areas of expertise.

    What we really need is, to define marriage. Marriage is not a right, it's a legal binding. That's why it's a contract - it can be canceled, or declared null and void and so on. The intent for this contract is to bind two people, father and mother, to be responsible for the offspring they procreated. Boies is incorrect that it is not about procreation. It is all about procreation. It has nothing to do with love, attraction and what not - not every married couple is a happy couple. Those are personal emotional states.

    Millions of heterosexuals, even those who are constrained by law for being under-aged, possess those emotional states for each other and yet do not require marriage to practice their freedom. Similarly, homosexuals are practicing their own lifestyle. What one is doing in one's bedroom is nobody-else's business.

    Discrimination is wrong, whether it's based on race, gender, or sexual preference, or whatever else. None of us has the right to judge others' right to do something - barring harm to others caused by their action, of course.

    There is no need to complicate the already cumbersome legal framework. Simplify. All that is needed is the basic freedom to live as one wishes to live in a peaceful manner. The employer shouldn't be able to dictate if one smokes or not, sleeps with opposite gender or not. Just get your work done to get paid.

    So, the fight should be about discrimination, not marriage. Getting the right to marriage does not address the real issues, such as, acceptance by society, discrimination at work and so on. Those issues will always be there, until people are educated, about how everyone is entitled to basic human rights. The attention needs to be focused on, why the institution of marriage exists, in the first place.

    Why marriage then? The first thing that comes to mind is perhaps some sort of financial gain through taxation status. Other than that, there is no need for marriage. Basic freedom is all that is needed.

    "You're out of control. Using insulting, paranoid terminology only highlights the absurdity of thought processes. Get some sleep"

    Final post. Insulting? It's called Free Speech Mr. FCC. I know hate speech laws exist to enforce political correctness. Back we go to not being able to criticize the king.

    Paranoid? No we are losing liberty to government. When we enforce hate speech we murder truth and reality. I am an Ayn Rand objectivist. We must not chill speech or have science that is untrue and politically motivated. Just as with climate change homosexuality is not genetic. There is no gay gene. The science does not exist. You rail against religion only to accept homosexuality being genetic based on nothing more than faith.

    Dissent is unamerican? Dissent makes us Americans. To say that civil discourse only occurs when somebody agrees with your far left views is laughable. You think you are so right but never acknowledge the truth of the opposing side.

    This is not about civil rights. It about the queer community mocking our culture and our traditions. I am not religious, but the manner in which they attack religion is dismissive, disrespectful, and uncivil. Atheism cares not for civil rights anyway. Atheism is Statism. The government is god. The absolute power of the State is worshiped and we are all serfs.

    There is no compelling reason to change a working military policy. "diversity" is not a compelling reason. The military does not benefit from such affirmative action. Remember the merit system before the special interest lobbyists. Civil rights has too far.

    Why can't gays be closeted? Why must they have a public sexuality to advertise what kinds of perverse sex acts they love and who they take to bed? Why must States recognize any marriage?

    Using sex ed and other classes to recruit future homosexuals is abhorrent. Gays should not be given access to molest children with their ideas. Hello they are sex perverts.

    Public sex and sexuality are criminal offenses and offend the public. Why call attention to irrelevant factors? Why still identify by race, gender, homo, etc . . . We must have something in common to unite as a people. A common enemy.

    In closing just because society accepts this vile behavior does not mean I must. I will not. We lost the culture war. I just like watching the world burn as we destroy ourselves. We have been weakened within morally, spiritually, and physically.How dare you impose your progressivist will and agenda when the people have voted no numerous times. You don't know better than us. Doing this will cause more problems then it is worth. Sex and politics will always now be inextricably linked. What a pornographic landfill we've become. For shame. It's lamentable. What would George Washington think of gay marriage and gays in his military? Detestable. Change and dispair our country's beyond repair. I have not a care. It's not fair, but neither is corporate welfare.

    The United States Constitution must apply unconditionally to all Americans. These rights must never require the approval, acceptance, agreement, tolerance, understanding or respect or votes of homo-obsessed heterosupremacist tyrannical theocRATS who believe that their sun revolves around the flat earth bronze age slave-owner manual bible gives them the authority to deny the 1138 federal and state equal marriage rights to the millions of Americans they don't look like, love like, or believe like. That's why the courts must protect minorities from the tyranny of bigots, like some of the heterosupremacists(even the self-proclaimed athiests whose delusions about where they put their penis makes them superior) posting here. Just because you enjoy having sex with people of opposite gender does not give you the right to deny any other taxpaying consenting unrelated adult American couples equal marriage rights.

    Courts have ruled for 40 years that religious wedding ceremonies confer no marriage rights to any couples. These courts ruled that only the state-issued marriage license, signed, witnessed and filed by the couple give them property rights, allows them to make medical decisions about their families, and protects the rights of their children. These rights of life, liberty and property do not belong only to heterosexuals but belong to all Americans.

    Mitch,

    You're out of control. Using insulting, paranoid terminology only highlights the absurdity of thought processes. Get some sleep.

    Why should gays force their atheist sex pervert progressive religion us? Why must they force their homosexual religion on society in which offending the public morals with public sex and public sexuality is their sacrament?

    I want to contribute to this conversation but don't know where to begin - so much blind hatred and refusal to accept that ours is a civil government and not a theocracy and even the biblical arguments here make no sense: Jesus, the Word Of God, in the Christian view, never bothered to utter a word about same-sex love and attraction, Sodom and Gomorrah was about the outrage of men threatening to rape other men in order to humiliate them and had nothing to do with sexual orientation (a whole village where all the men were gay?), polygamy and sleeping with one's brother's wife,if yours was barren,was the norm among ancient Hebrews, Paul, far from considering marriage "sacred" regarded it as a distant second best to celibacy for the otherwise hopelessly promiscuous and the New Testament also urges those who would follow Jesus to abandon their families. Then there's David whom God loved above all men and whose love of a man surpassed that of women. None of this should matter but, practically, it does; the Enlightenment ideal of separation of church and state as enshrined in our Constitution by the Founding Fathers just isn't that popular these days. If the state is going to have the power to deny certain citizens the right to participate in vital and governmentally controlled institutions, like marriage, it must be able to prove that the denial of that participation serves an overriding good. Forget studies. The proof is in the pudding. None, absolutely none, of conservatives' predictions regarding gay marriage have come to pass in the state of Massachusetts in the nearly six years that it has been lawful there. Nor have they come to pass in other countries like Canada. Anyway, as a young gay person twenty years ago I dropped out of college in total despair at the growing realization that I was gay. I spent many nights wandering alone begging God to make me straight. That's the consequence of growing up surrounded by anti-gay bigotry. All you smug moralists on the right can thank God you never experienced it. You've probably heard the saying that government is the omnipresent teacher. Well, it's past time that American government, by treating gay citizens unequally, stopped sending the message that gay people deserve what I went through. Did anyone reading this choose their sexual orientation?

    Ageism again. Of course the youth are going to favor homosexuality. Doesn't it bother you that these pedophile grown up gays say that "gay children exist"? Baby dykes? They should not be able to be around children or to even be parents. They probably show them porn and molest them gay. With 40 years of feminist indoctrination in the schools beginning with sexual harassment which was designed to attack heterosexual desires and make heterosexual desires abnormal though force of law is it any wonder with all this gay education that they are brainwashed into the gay cause. We can see this but the brainwashed cannot. It's social engineering. Social engineering is not a legitimate government function. We must not conduct danger social experiments on our military who is tasked with out national defense.

    I find it supremely ironic (and sad) that a number of commentators tie gay and lesbian couples, married or just living devoted lives together, to the stake and torch them -- in The United States of America! That's the nation that, with courage, demanded SEPARATION of church and state while singing hymns of praise to the fact that ALL are created equal and, therefore, enjoy equal rights. And that's the nation which, in 2010, has spent many billions and sacrificing many thousands of younger men and women battling the drug-funded theocrats in the Middle East who don't know the meaning or the logic radiating from a DEBATE. I am so glad my partner and I were raised by two couples who rejected the irrational notion that a court can "legislate morality." Our parents did not preach it, but the Moyers program reminded us of that famous woman whose terror led Christ to shout, "Ye who are without sin, let him cast the first stone!" If that fails to convince some in this blog with heavy rocks (or bullets) ready for legal intimacy for same- sex marriages (and rights), then face one of our favorites from Scripture: JUDGE NOT LEST YE ALSO BE JUDGED! We can spot logic and decency wherever and in whoever cultivates it. Right, Bill?

    Race is genetic. Sexuality is a behavior and a choice. Courts should require them to prove their homosexuality, but since that becomes arbitrarily subjective because anybody can just claim they are gay it opens up blackmail and frivolous lawsuit claims. Also how can they sue over something private that nobody else knew because it was not their business to know it as they were not lovers?

    "The two lawyers you had on your show could probably argue that a nudist couple has the right to walk into any restaurant and be served."

    Ah but public sex and public sexuality are illegal. Nobody wants to see nude fat people. It's offensive. The same way it's offensive to see public displays of affection. The same way it is to hear about homosexuality from queers who are out. It's all public indecency to me. I should be free from hearing sexual profanity profanity in public. That is okay in private but not public. Making out and publicly advertising sexuality in public should be crimes. I don't want to see vulgar nudity in gay and lesbian ads in public. Also the children don't want to be visually assaulted in public. No gay and lesbian billboards with nudity of any kind.

    Mitch - sorry - meant "when you" in the first sentence.

    Mitch - So my "culture", where I refuse to accept that my bi-racial are discrimated against,should give-way to your own personal notions of what's right. My kids should not be able to sue you if you are demonstrably a bigot?

    Jus what limitations to the equal-rights provisions are your proposing?

    Again, Mr. Moyers, I just LOVE your program and your style: your elegance, your gentle demeanor, your class, your southern hospitality, your grace, yet all the while your brave and pervasive pushing of the envelope reaches through to delve into the depths of all!!!

    I loved tonight's piece! I was wondering exactly "what about a civil union?" at exactly about the time when you uttered that very question. I did not like their answer. Since this debate boils down to civil rights, why can't the fed. courts issue a sweeping constitional ammendment that would give civil unions the SAME civil rights as a married couple. To me, LBGY couples NEED to have the exact same rights as married couples!!! I do believe that a civil union is not exactly the same as a marriage in that a LBGY couple cannot naturally reproduce and therefore, they should have a different name since they have inherent biological differences and thus inherent specific civil ramifications different from those of a straight couple.

    The fed. does often strike down a constit. ammendment enacted by a pop. vote. Roe vs. Wade (in that certain states have voted upon a reversal but can't exercise it), Gore vs. Bush, aren't those similar examples??? Is it right?? I would say that if there is reasonable evidence that the outcome would produce results which adhere most closely to the tenets of our civil bill of rights and our present constit.'l ammendments (like the 13th-16th), then yes. In this case, the precedence that the Sup. court has used in defining marriage, along with our individual civil rights; yes, the sup. court has the right to overturn the ammend.s enacted by pop. vote.

    I failed to comment on last week's show!! I just LOVED that one too and may order that one!! It was soooo powerful, so well produced, convincing, soooo real, so emblematic of our current gov't and industry sleep-over issues, so scary and seemingly out of the normal citizen's control. Is a revolution the only answer to our crazy world????

    How many more months are you going to be airing your show???? I am gravely concerned about your departure, about the future of t.v. w/o you, about the future of our country w/o your voice on t.v.; we NEED voices of reason, of analysis, of questioning authority, of searching for the undocumented truths, we NEED YOUR VOICE!!! PLEASE STAY!!!!!!!!!

    THANK YOU SOOOOOO MUCH FOR BEING WHAT YOU ARE, FOR DOING WHAT YOU DO, WE ARE ALL RICHER FOR IT!!! PLEASE CONTINUE!!!!

    Sincerely always,

    a completely devoted fan,

    Emilia

    The Canadian experience on this issue.

    It has been more than 30 years ago that, upon repatriation of our Constitution from Britain and the creation of the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms that this issue (among others) was brought to the fore, most famously when our Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau forcefully stated “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.” There followed a succession of laws and court decisions that initially comprised a patchwork of legislation advancing the rights of minorities, including homosexuals. Between 2001 and 2005, virtually all provinces and territories had legislation or legal precedents upholding marriages for same-sex couples. The last hold-out was that most “American” of provinces, Alberta, which eventually acceded to the constitutional imperative.

    Then in July 2005, the matter was settled nation-wide with the passing of the Civil Marriage Act, which granted same-sex marriages all the rights and responsibilities of marriage generally, the exception being that objecting religious denominations could refuse to conduct religious marriage ceremonies (which accounts for the term “Civil” in the law).

    In recent years this has had an additional benefit for Canada; generally, the admission of immigrants has been closely tied to a points system that favors people who have some savings, demonstrated skills and education and generally a good profile for being self-supporting and showing potential to contribute to Canadian society. This has resulted in a “brain drain” of educated and accomplished gays and lesbians who have brought their skills and pro-social abilities to Canada. Meanwhile, there have been no indicators that same-sex families are the source of any kind of social problem, particularly regarding the raising and well-being of their children. Overall, the full recognition of same-sex marriages can be shown to have strengthened the Canadian social fabric. It has also raised the collective self-esteem of Canadians as a tolerant and forward-looking people who support the democratic principles of the Open Society.

    THE SCHOOLS SHOULD NOT BE TEACHING kids anything about who can marry or not! Shouldn't the schools be teaching more math and less morality? Morality is the parents job.

    MOREOVER, why the (bleep) is the government wasting time crucifying Toyota, having proceedings on gay marriage, and arguing over health care WHILE AMERICAN MANUFACTURING is dying and
    the entire legislative system is a world class joke? Wake up, America (that includes me).

    Keep fighting the good fight, Bill Moyers.

    We had better get a grip on these morons in government while we still have a Constitution.

    The Bill of Rights are only words put together for the purpose of defining rights we are born with and should be guaranteed. Just WORDS with great meaning.
    The two lawyers you had on your show could probably argue that a nudist couple has the right to walk into any restraunt and be served.
    The Bill of Rights increases our awareness of being born free through words put together to have meaning and absolutes. These freedoms we are born with from beginning of mankind; languauge (being able to speak), written word, thought and tradition. Not written into the Bill of Rights is lifestyles, and like a nudist, I believe as many do, gays and lesbian behavior is a lifestyle. We should not be protecting all lifestyles under the premise that we live under a Bill of Rights. We should protect, not reclassify, not redefine or change the meaning of some words: A husband is a man. A wife is a women. The act of mating or reporduction happens between a man and a women. A man and women calling themselves husban and wife are cosidered a married couple in the meaning of the words and laws written for this understanding. I still believe lesbians and gay lifestyles are un-natural and should never be in the catagory of a marriage.

    The Supreme Court needs to setup a test to narrow what is considered "equal protection". It's too broad and too vague. Equal protection is used with every frivolous discrimination lawsuit these days. We need legal reforms to make it harder to sue. People can't just cry discrimination or we have anarchy and our laws are meaningless. Discrimination does not mean they are "victims" who get to impose the culture and beliefs on others. Your rights stop where mine begin. Law cannot be used to enforce a far left liberal ideology. You can't refuse to hire Republicans either.

    If we concern ourselves with the Constitution's equal protections clauses, where is the foundational to declare homosexuals as less than those eligible for Constitutional protections?

    http://marriagetrial.com/ is extremely one sided. They only show the defendants. I want to see the prosecutor who stands up for American values.

    If gays win the right to marry we should put an end to the failed institution. Marriage for nobody is just as equal isn't it? No States have to recognize it and no divorces which is a plus. Big tent? America is not a circus? This isn't a joke. If they get marriage or before they gain marriage let's get rid of this failing institution.

    BTW civil rights were forced on us by progressives who thought the American people were too stupid to be trusted with governing themselves. I see civil rights as fascist. Some are treated and protected far better than others. Differences weaken us. There is no benefit to diversity for employers. I despise the EEOC and the ACLU.

    Wike,

    They attack our culture. They force homosexual indoctrination on our children in public schools. Many parents are opting for private school or even homeschooling. They demand "tolerance". Since when does "equality" require public sexuality? Public sexuality is public meaning the public can criminalize it and find it offensive. Sex is private. They want government to enforce affirmative action for public employers and establish arbitrary "diversity quotas" with arbitrary "diversity boards" to help companies avoid being sued for discrimination. In short why does their decision have to affect everybody else? It should be private and kept to themselves. They can be gay without being open. Why can't they be closeted? They should be closeted. There exists no fundamental constitutional right to a public sexuality.

    I would encourage readers to go to http://marriagetrial.com/ or look up the available trial transcripts - they provide a wealth of detail and insight.

    Of all the rights afforded man, marriage - the formation of family - is the most foundational. In the United States, the family unit is the most basic structure of government. Taxes, inheritance, insurance benefits, dependency status, right of medical proxy, rights of citizenship, contract law and more are interpreted through and informed by the bond of marriage. This is not trivial or irrelevant: marriage is a foundation through which the majority of our civil rights flow.

    In colonial times only land-owners could vote and it was assumed the father of the family voted on behalf of his wife and dependent offspring. This has not been the case for some time.

    The institute of marriage has changed dramatically over the years. Women at one time were required to renounce citizenship if they married a foreigner. Asian railway workers in California were once denied the right to marry. Divorce once required onerous legal challenges which have evolved to no-fault divorce, pre-nuptial agreements and a plethora of legal alternatives... the tradition of marriage is a tradition of change.

    The Perry case (CA prop 8) presents a veritable avalanche of testimony speaking to the damage and injury caused by willfully and knowingly objectifying an entire class of people - people who have caused no harm, sought no controversy - and voting... VOTING... on whether or not you approve of their most personal affairs.

    Shame. SHAME!

    Same sex marriage is going to happen. Read the transcripts: hatred has no case. No compelling argument from the supporters of prop 8 could be made. This is America - discrimination has no legs to stand on, at least not in court.

    A point that I'd like to make which David Boies came close to making but which I have never seen discussed ANYWHERE is this:

    When laws are passed in America which protect the views of only ONE religious group, or of ONE religious idea, i.e. the Defense of Marriage Act, or Proposition 8, which stand to protect the views primarily of a Christian ideal of marriage, is this not a denial of the constitutional right of All Americans to live their own religious ideals with the EQUAL right to the pursuit of happiness? Shall courts decide that one religious viewpoint takes precedence over another when it comes to the right to marry? Whose view of God is right when it comes to the pursuit of happiness via the right to marry? Shall the views of the Christian majority take precedence over the views of practitioners of other major world religions in America when it comes to marriage? There ARE other major world religions, i.e. Buddhism, and practitioners of them in America- which do not have such limited views of marriage such as proposition 8 intends to promote over others. Shall the courts decide that one religion's view of marriage is better than, more valid than, or worth more protection under the law than another's when it comes to a CIVIL right to be married in this country? If so, then what has happened to the constitutional protection of the right to practice freely the religion of one's choice with equal protection under the law? And if so, also, where is the separation of Church and State as provided in the constitution?

    And why has NO ONE ever brought up this point before?

    Anyway, I am grateful to finally see a sane program on this issue. Thank you Bill Moyers. These are obviously two very thoughtful men who have the true civil rights of ALL Americans at heart. I wish them every hope and every prayer in the fight for gay marriage rights.

    Without pissing people off…I used to think that you could make strong arguments against homosexuality. You could argue ethical reasons (but it overflowed with hypocrisy,) religious (but started to get ridiculous when you would have to really reach to make your case, “Jebediah said unto thee, that fruits be-ith strange and bad…“ SEE THAT, I TOLD YOU!) and scientifically (which actually held the most water; the need to procreate.) But, when the scientific argument was bypassed by an end-around (pun intended) in 1978 with the birth of the first test tube baby, the fundamental need for heterosexuality ended. Emotional attachment is what should ever matter in a relationship. Sex is a different thing. I believe that we are all A-sexual. Given the right situation, we are all apt to have sex with anyone or anything. The most macho guys sentenced to 20 years in prison could have a “connection” one night and the most flamingly gay guy on a deserted island for 15 years with Beyonce will speaking in baritone by the time the rescue boat picks them up. Homosexuality MAY have been a natural way our species controlled over-population. Whatever the case, it really does come down to how we treat each other. Are we all equal?

    Would someone PLEASE desribe the process of a straight marriage being ruined by the "gay couple down the street" and please include a real life example so we can all understand better

    Few realize how much harm is being done to gay men who find a lover in another country as I did. I had a lover in a different country for over 5 years. My career was here in the USA, but my love was in Asia. There was NOTHING I could do to get him here. I tried! My only option, if I were to be with him, was to return to Asia. The stress of going back and forth between countries, finances and uncertainty eventually tore us apart.

    A straight man from the USA can marry any woman from any country and bring her to live here.

    Had that been the case for us, we would still be together, my career would be more solid and I would enjoy the love of my life.

    I am atheist and reject homosexuality being forced on us. You don't need to be religious to oppose homosexuality. I oppose it sociologically and legally. I don't need to "tolerate" the intolerable. I will give up my values in the face of adversity to appease any enemy. Neville Chamberlain tried that with Hitler and it didn't get Hitler to love him. Homosexuals are not "tolerant" of heterosexuals. They expose heterophobia. They cite bias homosexual studies conduct by pro homosexual organizations. They shout down speakers like Ryan Sorba with a mob mentality. They are violent. They have raised an entire brainwashed generation of children through gay parenting and homosexual "tolerance" in the schools to be queer activists to shout down speakers. They have raised their queer children to be anarchist criminals with no respect for the law or law enforcement officials. They had no discipline and know nothing of responsibility because they are "victims". The children are the future and what a violent future it is. What is with the ageism too? They hate older people and actually say to their faces I wish you would die or that's just old white men. The youth think they are so superior. Oh how they must "tolerate" the older bigots? They are domestic terrorists who hate America and want to "fundamentally transform society". Obama has done that. A pedophile "safe" school czar Kevin Jennings was appointed as well as numerous other communists and homosexual radicals. We must not "tolerate" our destruction. No border security so illegals can further attack our borders, language, and culture. The culture war is over. We lost. America's funeral will occur with our next terrorists attack possibly after homosexuals destroy the national defenses of our military from the inside. Political correctness allowed Nidal Hassan at Fort Hood to shoot American soldiers what kind of terrorists are we letting in with homosexual activists? Really giving domestic America hating terrorist the weapons of war? Gee how could that possibly fail?

    An outstanding program.It is such a relief to see a rational discussion of the issues.I have never been able to understand what all the fear and hysteria are about on the part of my fellow heterosexuals.To me, the most important thing said tonight was that the courts are there to protect the rights of the minorities, that is how this country works.We have short-term memory if we think all the civil rights decisions of the fifties and sixties were supported by the majority when they were made.Yes, the courts should rule on this issue, and they should rule for equal right to marriage for all citizens.

    Whew... I'm glad that's been straightened out for me!

    It's just that I was a little concerned that somehow through the multiple Biblical translations over the many centuries, some human may have misinterpreted or mistakenly inserted something into Scripture. But now I see my course of action is clear!

    David Boies contends that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution. A close reading of the Constitution will reveal that nowhere does it address marriage, much less homosexuality. The Constitution was born out of the framers' knowledge of English common law and the natural law. Those wise men presumed that society would continue into the future as it had over the past millenia--with weddings of males and females to form families for the dual purposes of generation and for the stabalization of society.

    The argument of advocates of homosexual marriages that their goal of equality of rights is analogous to those of African-Americans and women is sspecious. Those long-denied civil rights were rights which are NATURAL to ALL persons. Religious beliefs aside, the proposition that homosexual couplings are normal human behavior is demonstrbly fallacious. History shows us that almost all human sexual relationships have been between a man and a woman.
    No reasonable person can deny the natural, physiologically-complementary differences between the sexes. Same-sex unions, incapable of natural copulation and the possibility of generation are, by that fact, ABNORMAL.
    Further, if marriage for homosexuals is acknowledged as a civil right, then by what twist of reasoning should not polygamy, polyandry or pederasty also be condoned? Or why shouldn't SEVERAL men marry each other--or groups of women--or consenting fathers andsons or mothers and daughters? Why should THOSE kinds of "committed relationships" be prohibited?

    Undoubtedly, most same-sex couples are good people, but the fact remains that their lifestyles are not in accord with nature and no ammount of rationalization can change that. Certainly we should all be sensitive to human differences and endorse reasonable laws which respect the dignity of every individual, but we should not overreact to the political agendas of a small group of activists who have rationalized their aberrant lifestyles and would impose universal acceptance of practices which could threaten the very stability of society. It's a very slippery slope from homosexuality to moral degradation. Persons who have same-sex attractions have the right to live as they wish; they no NOT have the right to redefine conventional, NATURAL marriage.

    Will Christians please realize that not everyone believes in the Bible- or in Jesus or God.

    So your "rules" that come from a book which was published by the Roman Empire and its cronies at the time to capture the single deity trend is nice and interesting and all- but not everyone buys it.

    So keep your versus to yourself, out of my life, go sing in a choir or something, but mind your own business and let other people find happiness and love however it pleases them.

    I hope all your kids turn out to be gay/lesbians so you will one day know the truth about sexuality and the fact that we are just glorified animals acting like we give a shit.

    LOL!

    The burning question in my mind that the guests needed to be asked about was:

    "What did their reasoning about the constitutionality of banning gay marriage tell us about the constitutionality of the military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy and the resulting banning of military service by outed gays?" Don't gays have a right to serve in the military?

    If Boies and Olson prevail on this case at the Supreme Court level, then it would seem potentially easy to challenge and overturn this shameful military policy.

    And:Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. .........This was God's specific word to his people about how they should deal with their lineage as such. You can apply old Testament theology as strictly as you can, yet miss the record of the time.

    You know... as much as I love the passage in Leviticus allegedly condemning homosexuality - which I'm told must be interpreted literally and formulated into public policy - I really think the following is one of my favorites from that venerable "Book Of Laws and Codes".

    Leviticus 25:44-46 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."

    So... I'll assume that the next time I'm in the market for slaves they should be Canadian, Mexican or other foreign nationals and/or their children. And shouldn't this directive be codified somewhere in our statutes?

    No animosity to any group of people, but interest in how the issues get mixed up, especially when it's a sore topic for so many. Once again we all have to separate emotion from what the questions are at hand. This said, the Bill Moyers Journal was very interesting and brought many underlying issues to the table. We struggle to deal with who we are as well as who the next person is.

    There is a reason why God said that homosexuality is an abomination. California thinks that it rules the world, but God will strike down Boies and Olson for defending this demonic behavior. California is the modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. Bill Moyers definitely likes to push liberal ideology on us. I thank God for marriage between a man and a woman. GO PROP 8!!!

    No one is denying homosexuals the right to marry. They have exactly the same right to marry as anyone else. They can marry as soon as they can find a person of the opposite sex who agrees to marry them.
    There is no doubt that homosexuals should have the same rights as the heterosexual population. They have the right to form a consensual, legally-recognized union with a person of the same sex with all the rights of the marriage partnership. But it isn't marriage. IT IS AS YET UNNAMED.
    For thousands of years, the word "marriage" has meant the union of a man and a woman. For most of us, that is what it will always mean. It is a value-laden word for most of us, because it describes the most important relationship in most of our lives.
    My suggestion for the homosexual community is that they get busy and decide what to call their form of union. For them to claim that a homosexual union is the same as a heterosexual union, is as wrong as for me, a female, to claim that I am a man. What is the significance of the term "wo-man" anyway ? Don't I have two arms and legs, like a man? One nose, two eyes and ears, one stomach, two lungs, etc., etc? You catch my drift. In other words, there is a lot of similarity. The point is that there is a crucial difference. The English language describes differences. And nuances of difference.
    At the moment I'm reading a novel set in the 1920s where the word "gay" is used to denote light-heartedness, happiness. Now it has been absconded by the homosexual community and means "homosexual". We've lost the word "gay" is its original meaning, and I resent that. I suggest it is time to stop trying the change the meaning of words in the English language, and come up with a term that denotes this new form of union. Stop trying to create this huge public fight when there doesn't need to be one.

    No one is denying homosexuals the right to marry. They have exactly the same right to marry as anyone else. They can marry as soon as they can find a person of the opposite sex who agrees to marry them.
    There is no doubt that homosexuals should have the same rights as the heterosexual population. They have the right to form a consensual, legally-recognized union with a person of the same sex with all the rights of the marriage partnership. But it isn't marriage. IT IS AS YET UNNAMED.
    For thousands of years, the word "marriage" has meant the union of a man and a woman. For most of us, that is what it will always mean. It is a value-laden word for most of us, because it describes the most important relationship in most of our lives.
    My suggestion for the homosexual community is that they get busy and decide what to call their form of union. For them to claim that a homosexual union is the same as a heterosexual union, is as wrong as for me, a female, to claim that I am a man. What is the significance of the term "wo-man" anyway ? Don't I have two arms and legs, like a man? One nose, two eyes and ears, one stomach, two lungs, etc., etc? You catch my drift. In other words, there is a lot of similarity. The point is that there is a crucial difference. The English language describes differences. And nuances of difference.
    At the moment I'm reading a novel set in the 1920s where the word "gay" is used to denote light-heartedness, happiness. Now it has been absconded by the homosexual community and means "homosexual". We've lost the word "gay" is its original meaning, and I resent that. I suggest it is time to stop trying the change the meaning of words in the English language, and come up with a term that denotes this new form of union. Stop trying to create this huge public fight when there doesn't need to be one.

    Biology 101: the parts don't fit!

    I am dumbfounded at the level of animus toward gays expressed on this blog. What are these people doing watching Bill Moyers Journal in the first place? It must be very frustrating to them having to watch one solid hour of calm, rational, reasoned discussion of the major issues of the day with a strong liberal slant. Wouldn't they be happier with The McLaughlin Group?

    Another problem. Marraige is called sacred. Clergy acts as agent of state with authority to sign marraige licenses. Legislature should draw up a standard contract that spells out legal commitments of one person to another that any two persons may sign before a notary. The contract becomes their marraige license and confers the privileges of marraige. Then, if they desire a sacred marraige, they may go before whomever is willing to perform a sacred marraige that is recognized by the church of their choice, or they may choose to have a common law marraige.

    Correction:
    I don't see anything wrong with homosexuality, as long as it involves mutual attraction.

    I don't see anything wrong with heterosexuality, as long as it involves mutual attraction.

    But what is marriage?
    If it is about sex, legal and financial rights and responsibilities, then, I guess, the same sex couples may be called married.
    But if this is about natural reproduction and all what it involves, well, good luck with homosexual marriages then.

    Adopting a child by heterosexual married couple does not imply an enormous social, emotional and psychological burden that this child will carry throughout his or her life, which is the opposite if a child is adopted by homosexual couple.

    Marriage produces natural mother and father who play different emotional, physical, etc. roles for children in a family. But a one-parent (for whatever reason) family does not imply marriage, does it? The same goes for a "one-sex-parents" family.

    In the end, this is a very personal matter. Politicians just love to bring up the topic, because it is a great way to divert people's attention from the real issues, especially during the elections. I was somewhat surprised to watch it here.

    2nd class, perhaps the churches that appear to be correct and up to date are really off the mark. Just because a single church or group of churches seems to make a decision on this does not mean they are correct or Christian simply due to the fact they call themselves a church. If I or anyone else calls themselves a name affiliated with a certain bunch, many people have their own connotation of the name. You have to have a single standard from which to draw the perfect information about how one should be, do, act etc. This must continue into your own understanding of who you are, not based on what the world tells you. So, the question remains, what is the real need to define something about a single group such as those who prefer any/particular sexual orientation, other than to get it out for review? Why is there not also a great push for (fill in the blank) any other id such as this?
    I have friends, co-workers and aquaintences that choose things for their lives that I do not choose. I do not condemn them for this, but I do not have to treat them a certain way because of a legal statute, good or bad. The question of how anyone feels about another's choice is no-where in this topic. We have to separate these things.

    "It doesn't matter whether it's a choice or genetic. Gays should be allowed to marry either way."

    Actually it does. One would be discrimination. One would be shoving a far leftist ideology down American's throats.Either way? No, because see one way is illegitimate. Why do gays want to mock heterosexual marriage and the family anyway? Why must you have the State recognize it? I thought liberals believed they didn't need a piece of paper or a government to tell them who to love. What gays should be doing is moving the privatization of marriage movement forward because then divorce becomes irrelevant. What's more is it tells lawyers that our private lives are well just that private. My personal relationships are personal why involve government and lawyers into my personal affairs? It's a more liberating position too.

    Where is this right to marriage in the Constitution? Marriage is not a legitimate government function. We are not a religious nation. Why do we still cling to marriage?

    As for liberal elitism.You do not know what is best. You do not override the will of the American people. They voted no. Progressives are sore losers. We don't want it. Americans are not stupid to be trusted to govern themselves. Let's not bail out another failing institution. For once let's just allow it to fail.

    Our God of this universe says NO! The Supreme Court is not God. You have to not believe in God to rationalize and justify your beliefs. I believe you are hurting these poor souls by giving them what they want. The consequences are damaging and I hate to see what may happen to all of us should it go through.

    The Constitution contains no fundamental right to sodomy.

    Today it's homosexuals. Tomorrow it's pedophiles claiming "discrimination" based on their particular lusts. What separates one lust from another? I mean if homosexuality is legal why not pedophilia? They ignored the harm homosexual activists do to children by telling them in the schools they might be gay or gay history which glamorizes perverts. He's not a peeping tom or a pedophile he's a civil rights leader. It would funny if it weren't so serious. They have killed civility. Bad behavior,i.e. lack of disipline is encouraged. What was once extreme has now become normalized thanks to gays terrorizing and mocking the APA in 1973 and yet they made the mistake of appeasing them. Liberalism is a mental disorder. Public sexuality to advertise the superiority of homosexuality in the military now? Public sex is a crime public sexuality must there be too. Sex is private not public. Why we be liable for discrimination based on something that is private and that we shouldn't even know ion the first place. Don't kid yourself discrimination based on sexual orientation is impossible unless they disclose it.

    To those who say that gays should be prohibited from marrying because being gay is a choice: it doesn't matter whether it's a choice or genetic. Gays should be allowed to marry either way. Should Christians be prohibited from marrying because their religion is a choice? Denying marriage to any class of people is unconstitutional for ANY reason.

    I agree with the dissent in Lawrence v. Texas. Homosexuality unlike race is a choice and a behavior. This is not about civil rights but about mocking the heteropatriarchy. They never addressed having government not regulate personal relationships. Marriage is a flawed outdated religious institution. In the best interests of children why don't we just privatize marriage and get rid of divorce? The danger to children is public schools encouraging children to join the homosexual cause and be gay. Forcing gay propaganda on children has nothing to do with freedom. Enforcing a radical left wing agenda on America is not freedom. Race arguments are invalid. We don't choose our race.

    There was NO DEBATE!!! Bill Moyer didn't get the pro traditional marriage side's argument!!! His show is always one sided!! He has had many shows that were one sided!!! If gay marriage becomes law, what will stop people from marrying three or four people at once, or marrying minors, or animals. They say churches won't be required to marry homosexual people but these same people know that once gay marriage is law that the gay activists will want to go further and require that churches marry them because it will be called discriminating against them. It will DESTROY the fabric of our society!!!!

    There are 36,000 sects of Christianity. Many of them are conservative and fundamentalist. Some of them are liberal. Those that are liberal are already marrying lesbians and gays. If this "sanctity of marriage" schtick is really about God and faith, what about the covenants made before God in those liberal churches? Is the government, who shouldn't be in the religious business anyway, going to put itself in between the religious rights of one over another?

    If same-sex marriage is legalized and gay couples are given their due recognition by the State, will that take away the religious rights of the conservative churches? Absolutely not. But by banning the marriages performed in liberal churches, the government preferences one religion over another.

    The government should even the playing field for all adult couples who wish to be recognized in a court of law equally. Currently, if an orthodox Jew and a Roman Catholic want to marry, the goverrnment will not stand in the way, despite the fact that neither religious group would marry that couple.

    Religious conservatives have failed their own communities, which are rife with abuse - sexual, spiritual, and physical. The personal and family lives of gays and lesbians is a convenient scapegoat, to deflect attention from those conservatives who have done more to harm the family and marriage than any same-sex couple could ever wish to do.

    After all is said and done, same-sex marriage is about civil rights and opposition to those civil rights is sadly what defines the self-proclaimed Christianity of these social conservatives.

    There was NO DEBATE!!! Bill Moyer didn't get the pro traditional marriage side's argument!!! His show is always one sided!! He has had many shows that were one sided!!! If gay marriage becomes law, what will stop people from marrying three or four people at once, or marrying minors, or animals. They say churches won't be required to marry homosexual people but these same people know that once gay marriage is law that the gay activists will want to go further and require that churches marry them because it will be called discriminating against them. It will DESTROY the fabric of our society!!!!

    The question is not treating each other as equal, but whether to legally name a particular group of people. Too many of us get our emotions in the front when we should ask what the real questions are.

    Marriage is not religious. No religion can give out a marriage license. It is a legal contract between two people that comes with over 1138 Federal Rights. No one is harmed by gay people getting married. Being gay is not a choice and it IS natural. I'm a molecular biologist and I keep up with this area of research. It is so sad to see the bigotry and out right hatred by some on this page. Be careful who you hate. It could be someone you love.

    And from a linguistic perspective...traditionally marriage is used to define a union between a man and woman. But we also now marry flavors, colors, ideas together. THe only reason marriage came to be the union between man and woman was because at that time, the word was created to express the union between a man and a woman because the union of a man and a man or woman and a woman did not take place. It is a result of the time frame that marriage described man and woman together because that is what was happening and they made a word for it. It is just as possible that if there were same sex unions at the time, that marriage would have meant same sex and heterosexuals would be the outcast forced to call themselves opposite-sex unions instead of marriage because they didn't happen to be the prevalent occurances. Kind of how actors were called actors because they were men and men only. Then when women came along they were still actors, until the word actress began to be used more frequently and then was finally a norm in the lexicon.

    I will part with a great line from Shakespeare..: "Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediment..."

    18 years ago I moved to MN to follow my then lover/partner of 5 yrs. We checked out several apts we thought we'd like to live in. My partner signed the lease for a 2 bedroom apt since he had a good job. I was there when he signed the lease. Three weeks later (after I quit my job and move to MN - with no job 'cuz we were able to live on the income of my 'spouse's' income - just like many couples do) I went to the lease office to add my name to the mail box. I was told I couldn't add my name 'cuz I was not on the lease..... So, I lied and said the value of my savings/stocks was 'quite adequate' and the leasing company added me to the lease (I presume they pulled a credit report and I had a good file.).
    WHY can't a loving person follow another loving partner?
    Later we learned that when we travel we should have both a 'Legal Power of Attorney' AND a legal 'Medical Power of Attorney' with us (practically at all times) so in the rare event when we are travelling (on vacation/business trips) should one get into an accident; the other has the legal right to not only visit in the Emergency Room of the hurt partner; the 'healthy one' has the full legal rights to make medical decisions for the partner who may be in the emergency room; AND offer care and love!
    Some may say; well this doesn’t happen..... It just takes ONE time, and one backward State, to ruin a couple’s vacation/trip/life.
    Lastly; currently, what are most Americans afraid of to allow 2 loving, committed people to enjoy the same legal rights that the majority of Americans enjoy? All people are to be treated equally under the Constitution, right? Several decades back, blacks couldn't marry whites. We need to move on, allow loving dedicated, committed people to marry.
    The pending Case before the California; hopefully before the US Appellate court; and eventually the Supreme Court, will recognize that allowing loving couples to marry is healthy, loving, and by allowing such does NOT require churches (houses of worship) to marry a couple they don't believe should marry.
    FINALLY, gayness is NOT contagious. Even Governor Ron Regan said CA cannot pass a law to prohibit homosexuals to openly teach in school. In his words "this is not right."
    We must recognize that for the last 54 yrs the US has been a pluralistic society.
    One does not choose their sexual identity/preference. It IS natural. Gayness cannot be caught.
    Let's treat all Americans equally !!
    ~ Greg Davidson

    18 years ago I moved to MN to follow my then lover/partner of 5 yrs. We checked out several apts we thought we'd like to live in. My partner signed the lease for a 2 bedroom apt since he had a good job. I was there when he signed the lease. Three weeks later (after I quit my job and move to MN - with no job 'cuz we were able to live on the income of my 'spouse's' income - just like many couples do) I went to the lease office to add my name to the mail box. I was told I couldn't add my name 'cuz I was not on the lease..... So, I lied and said the value of my savings/stocks was 'quite adequate' and the leasing company added me to the lease (I presume they pulled a credit report and I had a good file.).
    WHY can't a loving person follow another loving partner?
    Later we learned that when we travel we should have both a 'Legal Power of Attorney' AND a legal 'Medical Power of Attorney' with us (practically at all times) so in the rare event when we are travelling (on vacation/business trips) should one get into an accident; the other has the legal right to not only visit in the Emergency Room of the hurt partner; the 'healthy one' has the full legal rights to make medical decisions for the partner who may be in the emergency room; AND offer care and love!
    Some may say; well this doesn’t happen..... It just takes ONE time, and one backward State, to ruin a couple’s vacation/trip/life.
    Lastly; currently, what are most Americans afraid of to allow 2 loving, committed people to enjoy the same legal rights that the majority of Americans enjoy? All people are to be treated equally under the Constitution, right? Several decades back, blacks couldn't marry whites. We need to move on, allow loving dedicated, committed people to marry.
    The pending Case before the California; hopefully before the US Appellate court; and eventually the Supreme Court, will recognize that allowing loving couples to marry is healthy, loving, and by allowing such does NOT require churches (houses of worship) to marry a couple they don't believe should marry.
    FINALLY, gayness is NOT contagious. Even Governor Ron Regan said CA cannot pass a law to prohibit homosexuals to openly teach in school. In his words "this is not right."
    We must recognize that for the last 54 yrs the US has been a pluralistic society.
    One does not choose their sexual identity/preference. It IS natural. Gayness cannot be caught.
    Let's treat all Americans equally !!
    ~ Greg Davidson

    I was hoping that one of your guests would get into the fact that, no matter your religious views, marriage in this country is a LEGAL estate. Heterosexuals may choose to participate in the legal estate of marriage, enjoying the legal standing and rights of this institution, regardless of race, creed, color, disability, national origin, sanity or any other discernible standing as a human being, as long as you are a man and a woman, not otherwise related to one another. Despite the rantings and ravings of previous posters to the contrary, the right of certain Americans to marry has been held by our courts as a basic right and liberty for as long as there have been courts in this nation, to my knowledge. The institution of marriage creates a legal family, with all of the rights and privileges that inure to members of a family... including but not limited to the ability to cover family members on health and other insurance policies, rights of inheritance, direction of medical care for incapacitated members of the family, certain tax advantages (and/or disadvantages), anon. As was pointed out in the program, the opposition to and horror over the fact that the courts might allow interracial marriage is pretty much the same opposition and horror we see over this issue. It seems to me that there is very little difference between these two classes of Americans, and it should be equally illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual preference as it was to discriminate against Americans, based on their race, creed, color, national origin, disability and gender.

    "Debating Same-Sex Marriage"

    Where's the debate?

    Dear Mr. Moyers,

    Why are we even debating this topic?

    I am a divorced, 60 year old FEMALE. Many, many, many years ago (when my daughters were minors), had anything ever happened to me or their father, there were only two individuals we would have wanted to take our place -- my cousin and his partner.

    Not my parents. Not my spouse's parents. No Aunts. No Uncles.

    No one other than my cousin and his partner. Why?

    Because we knew then that this couple would/could raise our daughters in a loving, no-stings-attached environment; there was no guarantee with any other family members. Period.

    It is repulsive to me that this issue is still an issue. If Fundamentalists are against same-sex marriage, it is their right. On the other hand, it is not their right to dictate what I should believe or how I should live my life.

    This discussion, these choices, are nobody's business but the individuals involved. In my mind, those living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, nor should they come to sweep my doorstep before they sweep their own.

    Thank you.

    I support same-sex marriage. As one of my favorite professors said, Is having a same sex marriage couple living next door to me supposed to truly affect my life in some way? Is it going to make me wanna switch sides? Go find a girlfriend instead of a boyfriend? We heterosexuals have screwed up the traditional marriage enough all on our own..if they want to give it a shot why not? Maybe they'll even do it better...who knows. It seems such a trivial thing for people to care about. When there is no love left in the world and no one wants to marry anyone anymore then we should worry. But if people just want to love each other and be able to build lives together and get the tax breaks and the rights to property/belongings too, why not?

    Marriage is a religious or civil ceremony between two people of the opposite sex that become **man and wife.**

    correction...should read husband and wife

    Great show. Two excellent attorneys. You had your work cut out Mr. Moyers.

    I guess the first thing on the agenda is to change the definition of marriage in the dictionary...

    ..."Marriage is a religious or civil ceremony between two people of the opposite sex that become man and wife."

    Going back to biblical times, Yahweh didn't think so highly of homosexuals.

    "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
    (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

    But, the bible was not written by god, it was written by man. So few take this seriously, well, maybe the hard-core Islam devotees do.

    It will be interesting to see how this turns out in court. My own slant is this. Give gays equal rights, let them have a legal union...but it is not a marriage between husband and wife no matter how it is sliced and diced.

    Morality and discrimination due to sexual orientation was bought up in the show.

    Morality is varied by custom and prejudices, so morals always change. Same as with man made law.

    Used to be some states allowed 13 year olds to get married. Other states said no. So in one state you were OK with legal teen sex, go over state lines and you were a pedophile.

    So we need to look at some higher sources than manmade law to get at the bottom of this.

    If we look to natural law...homosexuality is wrong.

    If we look to universality...homosexuality is wrong. (Would we do well as a species if the entirety of it was heterosexual or homosexual?)

    If we look at the flourishing of specials doctrine...homosexuality is wrong. Without getting graphic about gay sex, natural law decreed how we should have sex. Now some of us may not fit that decree, so we make allowance for them in society but to promote homosexuals as natural as apple pie is to go against nature itself.

    Do you support same-sex marriage? Why or why not?

    I support it because looking back on society, you find that one segment of society, using religious or ethnic beliefs, always puts down another segment of society because they are different. Whether it is being a women, having long hair, being black, being fat, smoking, being bald, being a republican, being old or even disabled, there will always be people who discriminate against some other group. These people just cannot recognize that the problem is with themselves and their own myopic attitudes. You really have to pity them for clinging to outdated concepts.


    In your view, would it be appropriate for a federal court to strike down a constitutional amendment enacted by a popular vote?

    Of course, as long as you can trust the court to rule on law instead of what is religiously, ethnically or nationalistically popular. Unfortunately, the court system is becoming corrupt and the majority, which is not always right, can easily influence the members of the court.

    If the majority was always right, then the world would still be flat, the world would be at the centre of the universe and we would still be worshipping the ancient gods of Olympus. Thank goodness for the minorities who tell us that the majority is wrong. Some day, another Galileo will tell us that there isn't just one uni-verse, but a multitude of uni-verses. Now, which god that created each uni-verse will these people believe in? We really need to become better educated if there is any hope of evolving and living together on this planet as a civilized society.


    Really, don't homosexuals have the same right to marriage as a heterosexual? Anyone, no matter their sexual preference has the exact same right to marry, it just has to be to one of the opposite sex.
    It seems to me that all partnerships that want to be recognized as legal should be civil unions. Leave marriage to the religious groups. Then, any couple could choose which religion to have their union recognized.

    How about just creating a gay marriage marriage other than what is stated in the bible or the constitution of the US...Call it whatever and allow whatever they are asking but why must it be called marriage....Can a dog be a cat? an Orange an apple. Will a pedophile get to marry the child or the father marry the child or A man marry his ass or goat? Isn't there a line to be drawn or limit not to be crossed? If I want to go and use the bathroom and I am male....can I go into the women's room? NO! They created what they call a family room and there you choose and risk going into possibly being offended, exploited or exposed to whatever or whomever individual that enters. Just let them sexual deviants, queers..faggots...homosexuals..gays...H words screw themselves into oblivion and leave us straights alone..Annex the country or create a new society do it and shut up...Let whomever stand before God, Buddha, Ala or other Deity and let them stand alone for whatever sins committed. And if my God has his way I wont have to associate with the perverted reprobates that clearly can't conceive a child from a mans ass! I do believe Men should love their fellow man but that is a figurative statement...or is it? PS. Is there any country other than the UN UNITED STATES that allows these sinners to marry...Is there? Oh and yes....I am not politically correct but rather in my world...I'm just correct..So you fags don't bother trying to change my mind...Just pass go and straight to Hell; Capice.

    Boies and Olson base their argument on the law. However, I suspect that the justices ruling on the "marriage" cases involving interacial marriage,etc. and all the state laws governing marriage assumed the definition of marriage as found in legal as well as well as standard dictionaries: the union between a man and a woman.
    If there is any right granted to heterosexual couples in marriage that is not granted to homosexual couples in civil unions, that inequality needs to be remedied by changing our law not our language.

    It is long over due allowing the "marriage" of gays and lesbians.For years they have taught our children,taken care of us in the hospitals,done our hair. They pay the same taxes we do, they contribute to our communities and states,like we do,they participate in the same events we do,and being they can not reproduce together,they adopt and take great care of the children that our stright couples have,(alot being single parents)and no longer want or can care for.They have families,they have family pets,they take vacations, and do exactly what most people do. They love the same and as deep as anyone else does. They protect and honor their families like most people do,so yes,they should be allowed to marry and have the same equal rights as anyone else,that shouldn't even be debatable,they are human beings,and more then that,they are Americans!

    Same-sex couples can call themselves married and many do. Heterosexual couples that are not "legally" married can call themselves married and many do. There are countless same-sex couples that call themselves married and are viewed as married by their families and their friends.

    I think these gentlemen need to retake constitutional law. The US Constitution says nothing at all about marriage. It is not a right. It is not an entitlement. It is not free association. It is not free speech. It is a religious institution assumed in the Reformation by some governments. The US Constitution has nothing to do with it, except to say precisely in the 1st Amendment's religious establishment clause that it doesn't. Secondly, this nation is not a nation of laws. The common law has no standing. We are not ruled by courts and lawyers. The British nation is a nation of laws in that sense, but the US is not. Nor are any of the US states. They are polities ruled by fundamental laws: their constitutions. Third, a right is not an entitlement. You cannot use the Bill of Rights to legislate entitlements. The Bill of Rights was added precisely to preclude such an attempt and the 14th Amendment does nothing to change this. Last, any so-called psychological or sociological evidence is irrelevant and immaterial. What the Supreme Court should do is to remove any reference to marriage in Federal law. I don't think they will, but I'm sure this doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting through.

    Remember the golden rule? Do nothing to others you would not want done to you? Would you like it if heterosexuals were refused marriage's legal rights to inheritance etc?
    Why is the secular state government even involved in defining "marriage"? Why can't we adopt the system from Europe? Everyone goes to city hall for a civil marriage that affects civil status regarding taxes, inheritance etc. and then you go to the church of your choice if you want a religious union. You can have a civil union and/or a religious union. Separation of church and state is maintained and religious groups maintain their independence and right to define religious "marriage" however they want. The government has no such right to restrict individual choices.

    Great conversation on an important issue that gets to the heart of our constitutional freedoms. The First Amendment gives us freedom of religion and freedom from religion--that is, freedom from restrictions imposed by some on others based on religious belief. Locally, where I live in NW Florida, there is a prayer in schools issue that so many folks only see as a freedom of religion issue--how have we missed out on teaching people the other part of the First Amendment? Thanks for illuminating this complex issue.

    Great conversation on an important issue that gets to the heart of our constitutional freedoms. The First Amendment gives us freedom of religion and freedom from religion--that is, freedom from restrictions imposed by some on others based on religious belief. Locally, where I live in NW Florida, there is a prayer in schools issue that so many folks only see as a freedom of religion issue--how have we missed out on teaching people the other part of the First Amendment? Thanks for illuminating this complex issue.

    While this was an interesting discussion it should not have been titled "Debating Same-Sex Marriage" because there was no debate - just a friendly interview of one perspective.

    This is absurd. I cannot believe I am listening to this on my public television. For a minority of people that are choosing a certain lifestyle which the majority of the land does not agree with and does not want to be a part of, for them to want the same rights as man and women who biologically can have children together where same sex people cannot biologically have children together, want basically an abnormal relationship to be considered normal is absurd. It is wrong pure and simple. From a Christian perspective, our duty and job as an individual is to love that person or persons even though they are doing or living a lifestyle of wrong, but to show them with our own lives, how wonderful the world God has made for us can be if we "choose" HIM! And to pray. That is what being a Christian is about. Telling as many people about Jesus as possible. Jesus loves all us sinners, as sinners we acknowledge our sin and ask for forgiveness and "choose " to try to do right. This is the struggle of man for the more important issue which is eternal life not the temporal life we think so much of here. Please please stop denegrating our lives that God made for us. If you want to be special, remember, you will be "special" and looked on that way, live in a commune as the nudist do, live your way way from others so as not to inflict your desires on God's land , this land. And please do not equate this with the race issue. We all, black or white or whatever have to live by the same rules. Abnormal love and sexual desires are things to help a person through, not to agree with and abide by and just say it's ok. It's not. There are many helping caring people to help individual's with those desires. This is where we should be directing folks.

    It is issues like this that are making rubble of our nation. A paradox. I find gay and lesbian orientations to be conflicting outside of the natural physical order of nature. Apoint made in your program about the right of religious freedom could be applied to this issue as well. I believe it states that the government shall not make a law establishing a state religion or prohibiting excercising the freedom of expression thereof:(in paraphrase) so maybe the gays and lesbians need to establish themselves as their own religion and quit trying to impose on others that somehow seem to be imposing on them and quit tying up taxpayer dollars and resources that could be put to better use. I do not accept their lifestyle as normal or appropriate.

    Bill, civil unions do not grant people the same rights as married people. People in civil unions do not have the right to each others social security funds, healthcare decisions, and retirement funds without expensive legal documents. We need to allow the LGBT citizens the equal rights that others enjoy.

    Remember Sodom & Gohmorrah? What did GOD decide there? They were destroyed!

    Keep church and state separate: Civil union for all. It is unconstitutional for marriage, a religious institution, to be recognized by the state. All people who wish to partner and create families, should seek civil unions.

    Keep church and state separate: Civil union for all. It is unconstitutional for marriage, a religious institution, to be recognized by the state. All people who wish to partner and create families, should seek civil unions.

    This is a joke. We have had marriage laws on the books for since the founding of our country for valid societal reasons. There is no equal protection of laws argument in favor of gay marriage. A man and woman as juxtaposed with two men or two women are representative of totally different and distinct classes.

    Two questions: What is special about the number two if marriage is intra-gender other than 1) adding to the mockery aspect of true marriage, or 2) not wishing to jump to polygamy of mixed genders too soon in the realm of public opinion? I propose that marriage of three of the same gender is inherently better than between two. My other question: what in the Constitution precludes marriage between a ten year old and an octogenarian? Imagine the possibilities in avoiding inheritance taxes! Please reply using only the Constitution in attempting to answer these questions.

    I AM QUEER. I AM HERE. I'LL BE DAMNED IF I AM GOING BACK.

    I meant " the State shouldn't attempt to block or deny rights to those people."

    I do not have a problem with same-sex marriage and I don't think it's a religious or governmental issue. Hetero- and Homo-sexual alliances between individuals are much older than codified legal systems and the State shouldn't attempt to block or provide rights to those people. The issue is not black and white, as opponents seem to think: What if I were a man who wanted to marry a true hermaphrodite who looked masculine but was capable of bearing children. Would that be a same-sex marriage? Plus, we can't argue that marriage needs to be between men and women because the point is to bear children: What about marriage between men and women who are past the age of bearing? Should that be illegal?

    Post a comment

    THE MOYERS BLOG is our forum for viewers' comments intended for discussing and debating ideas and issues raised on BILL MOYERS JOURNAL. THE MOYERS BLOG invites you to share your thoughts. We are committed to keeping an open discussion; in order to preserve a civil, respectful dialogue, our editors reserve the right to remove or alter any comments that we find unacceptable, for any reason. For more information, please click here.

    THE MOYERS BLOG
    A Companion Blog to Bill Moyers Journal

    Your Comments

    Podcasts

    THE JOURNAL offers a free podcast and vodcast of all weekly episodes. (help)

    Click to subscribe in iTunes

    Subscribe with another reader

    Get the vodcast (help)

    For Educators    About the Series    Bill Moyers on PBS   

    © Public Affairs Television 2008    Privacy Policy    DVD/VHS    Terms of Use    FAQ