16 Comments

1. JR
   Posted June 17, 2012 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

   Again this nonsense about destroying marriage. Everyone believes in marriage as the union of a man and a woman. However we must of course recognize the rights of our gay brothers and sisters. There is no assault on marriage when we treat our gay brothers and sisters with dignity and equality. I believe in marriage. I will defend marriage. I believe in marriage equality.

2. Zack
   Posted June 17, 2012 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

   Jim Demint has a future in politics. I don't believe it ends at the senate.

3. Randy E King
   Posted June 17, 2012 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

   They asked a very good question:

   Which Obama is replaceable; Michelle, or Barack?

4. Davey
   Posted June 18, 2012 at 9:34 am | Permalink

   Grand Rapids, Michigan (CNN) -- I wonder if black people would be still in the fields picking cotton today if the 13th Amendment -- the one abolishing slavery -- was placed on the ballot back in 1865.

   I wonder if Hillary Clinton would be at home baking cookies instead of serving as secretary of state if women's suffrage was put to a vote back in 1919.

   In other words, I wonder just how far along we would be as a society if the oppressive majority held all of the legislative and judicial power over the oppressed minority, essentially yanking the teeth out of Congress and the Supreme Court.

   I'm sure you've heard a lot about the gay agenda, but may not know what's in it. Here's what you do: Download a copy of the United States Constitution, read it. Everything the LGBT community wants is in there.

   Sounds like an oversimplification?

   It's not.

5. Barb Chamberlan
   Posted June 18, 2012 at 11:12 am | Permalink

   Great stuff in this video. Yes, indeed, let's take any random child and let Obama decide which of its parents gets taken away (maybe both). This is what we end up with when we sever the link between marriage and children.

   The opposition cherry-picks which parts of the constitution they like (much like they do with the Bible). 1A really must go.

6. Bruce
   Posted June 18, 2012 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

   Barb Chamberlan:
   "Yes, indeed, let's take any random child and let Obama decide which of its parents gets taken away (maybe both)."

   Why must you continue this ridiculous distortion of reality? Any child who has been adopted, whether by a single person, a heterosexual couple or a same sex couple, became available for adoption for one of several reasons: (1) both parents are dead, (2) both parents have been declared unfit by the state, (3) both parents have willingly surrendered their parental rights.

7. Barb Chamberlan
   Posted June 18, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

   The opposition's argument goes like this: some children lose their parents. Therefore, let's make that the norm. Let's sever the link between children and marriage altogether.

   No, I won't accept that.

8. Bruce
   Posted June 18, 2012 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

   Barb Chamberlan:
   "The opposition's argument goes like this: some children lose their parents. Therefore, let's make that the norm."

   Seems to me that twisting another's words is a lot more difficult when the original words appear in black in white above the twisting. If you think gay people shouldn't be parents, then make that argument, but try using actual facts.

9. Barb Chamberlan
   Posted June 18, 2012 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

   Bruce, if you don't think the public purpose of marriage is to unite children with their mother and father just say so. But don't use the fact that some children lose their parents as an excuse to redefine marriage, thereby severing that link to its public purpose and then pretend that's not what you're doing.

10. Bruce
    Posted June 18, 2012 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

    Again, Barb, you put words in my mouth.

    Regarding yours and NOM's claim that same sex marriage severs the link between marriage and procreation, consider Arizona, which, along with 5 other states, has already "de-coupled" marriage from procreation. These states permit first cousin marriage ONLY when at least one of the participants is either infertile and/or the woman is past child-bearing years. This circumstance doesn't seem to have derailed marriage for the rest of society, and it certainly doesn't appear to be on NOM's radar. So much for the argument that marriage is all about procreation, and that de-coupling it from marriage is somehow a dangerous proposition.

    http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/state-laws-regarding-marriages-between-first-cousi.aspx

11. John Noe
    Posted June 18, 2012 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

    Poster #4 distorts the reality of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Blacks and women are people while homosexuality is a human behavior.
    The Constitution guarentees equality of people under the law, not equality of actions, conduct, or circumstances volunteerily taken by a group.
    Protecting the rights of minorities applies to people and not behavior. There is no Constitutional right to behave in a minority way and then you the minority get to make all of the rules.

12. Randy E King
    Posted June 18, 2012 at 10:29 pm | Permalink

    "Is your wife so unimportant sir that she could simply be replaced by any other male?" He moved to our arena and declared war on our faith.

    "...these two ideologies cannot exist in the same nation at the same time."

    The line has been drawn and war has been declare and against the Christian faith by the Hypocrite-in-chief of the United Staes:

    'Thus far you shall come, but no farther; And here shall your proud waves stop ' Job 38:11

13. GZeus
    Posted June 19, 2012 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    This whole “marriage is about uniting children to their parents” thing is just more NOMsense. My mother is my mother, whether she was married to my father or not. My mother being married to my father did not make her “more” my mother, or a better mother. They married each other, not me. That’s why when couples divorce they tell the kids, we are divorcing each other, not you. This had nothing to do with you; we still love you, etc.

14. Ash
    Posted June 19, 2012 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    GZeus, are you denying that father involvement, on average, is severely compromised when men have children out of wedlock, or experience divorce? You don't believe that marriage is the prime way for men to be connected with their children?

    Do you really believe that the government is involved in marriage so that two adults can get an official stamp saying that they are "united to each other"; or is the concern more so about uniting fathers to mothers, and thus to any children they create?

    I'd agree with you that mothers typically don't have to be united with their children through marriage. But I'd have to be high off of gender neutrality weed to believe that fathers have the same level of connection with their progeny, regardless of the social context in which their children were conceived and birthed.

    Sheesh, without marriage, it takes a lot more effort to even know who the father of a child is.

15. LEO
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    Ash when did men started having children? lol

16. LEO
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 10:53 am | Permalink

    Gzene,

    Procreation is indeed a key component for marriage, it being of opposite sex between 1 man, 1 woman is the concepts foundation. It has been that way before you and I, and everyone else living today. It is not only beneficial for government to support the marriage purpose it is rooted in nature and normality.