eliasasm->Your approval essentially endorses NOM...

True, but endorsing NOM is ethical politics.

By contrast, endorsing juvenile delinquency is unethical.

.... and anti-civil rights....

As noted many times, the majority of high courts to consider the issue since 2003 have rejected a right to same-sex marriage.

I endorse the position of these courts which is ethical, but gay supporters who endorse the juvenile delinquency of that boy do so unethically.

..... and the wrongful imposition of your symbols and religion upon others without their consent.

Voting for moral laws using due process is not wrongful.

However, its quite wrong for an individual to toss unwelcome symbols directly at other individuals despite their non-consent.

Regardless of religious beliefs, marriage integrates the sexes. SSM does not.

Regardless of religious beliefs, marriage provides for responsible procreation. SSM does not.

This core meaning stands across the anthropological and historical records. SSM does not come even close to having this profound significance to civil society.

The imposition of SSM-as-marriage is primarily symbolic. It is meant to symbolize the psuedo-religious belief that same-sex sexual behavior is the moral equivalent of coital relations of husband and wife. It demands a leap of faith because there is no sound argumentation in its favor. Faith in this sort of pro-gay symbolism is as substantive as the glitter the kid threw at people. It amounts to pro-gay bigotry. It would be a wrongful imposition against all of society -- regardless of religious beliefs.

Your approval essentially endorses NOM and anti-civil rights and the wrongful imposition of your symbols and religion upon others without their consent.

Ok what if gay people don't redefine marriage as anything other than between a man and a women?

But instead have a Unity Ceremony that has all the rights and obligations that afforded to married couples? Also, that there be no obligation for any religion to participate in a Unity Ceremony?

And is it only gay marriage that the problem or same sex marriage? Because I was wonder and may some of the lovely people here can answer this, What if to straight people wanted to marry?

Layne->Oh, you go boy!

Your approval essentially endorses juvenile delinquency and the wrongful imposition of your symbols upon others without their consent.

Rev. Chris Glaser [quoted by eliassm] ->Access to public institutions, whether a school or marriage, should be the central issue of the marriage debate....no American citizen has the constitutional right to refuse same-gender couples access to the state institution of marriage.

The public purpose of marriage law is to enforce the moral values of the society regarding the sexual contract between a man and woman.

By default, the gay individual has a right to his own morals, but he does not have a right to impose his morals on society, its laws, or its public institutions.

A society also has the right to protect itself from the morally corrupt views of the gay community at the voting booth.

The kid who threw the glitter is no hero. He acted like a zero. He could do better. The excuse-makers do not encourage better behavior but poor behavior.

The SSM campaign teaches its supporters to drop standards rather than uplift themselves to higher standards of thought, conduct, and expectations for one another.

And nothing about the NOM rhetoric has anything to do with the real issue. Nothing.

Except that the only interest the government has in marriage is uniting children with their parents.

We do not afford minority status for what people like to do. Pulling the race-card in defense of your depravity only serves to prove that you know your proclivity is incapable of standing on its own merits.

Today's president has taken a stand to provide access for a maligned minority to a public institution, only to have clergy stand in the way.

It could be said that religious institutions have a constitutional right to deny membership, ministry, and marriage to anyone they deem unfit. But they do not have a right to impose their beliefs on the United States of America or any particular state of that union.

The claim is made that same-gender marriage is not biblical. Even though I'm a Christian, I do not want to return to biblical times. Slavery is biblical. Polygamy is biblical. Taking an eye for an eye is biblical. The subjugation of women is biblical. Stoning is biblical.

On the other hand, democracy is not biblical. A representative form of government is not biblical. A judiciary independent of a theocracy is not biblical.

For the first thousand years of church history, marriage was not recognized as a specifically Christian institution. During this period, marriages between Christians followed the Roman model that a couple married themselves, though they may have asked a blessing from their parish priest. Even when marriage was recognized as a sacrament in 1215 A.D., canon law followed the custom that the couple married themselves, the one sacrament that did not necessarily require a priest.

The Protestant Reformation, which did not view marriage as a sacrament, called on the developing nation-states of Europe to provide oversight of marriage as an institution. The Enlightenment, with its emphasis on equality, came to full flower in the understanding of marriage as essentially a contract between the marriage partners, documented by Emory law and ethics professor John Witte, Jr., in his book "From Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion, and Law in the Western Tradition."

When African-American slaves were not allowed to marry, they created their own rituals of commitment, such as "jumping the broom." In like manner, same-gender couples have created our own rituals of commitment, sometimes but not always church-related. In essence, we have followed the traditional understanding that marriage partners marry themselves.

Neither slaves nor gay people have needed religious approval to accomplish marriage, but it has been, ironically, within churches that slave marriages and now same-gender marriages often gained their first recognition, despite outspoken religious opposition, often on the lips of those who wish to impose their religious agenda on a secular society.

Access to public institutions, whether a school or marriage, should be the central issue of the marriage debate. Religious leaders may exercise their constitutional right to refuse access to their religious institutions and benefits, but no American citizen has the constitutional right to refuse same-gender couples access to the state institution of marriage.

Rev. Chris Glaser

Aaron Fisher ->Thats what happens when you vote to take away a persons civil rights.

You do not have a civil right to change the meaning of the word marriage any more than you have a civil right to define the word "girl" to mean male or female.

So now you are admitting that you know you do not have a leg to stand on, or are you now admitting that your assault on marriage is only a residual effect of your true agenda; which is to separate we the people from the source of our freedom?

"If the worst thing that happens to you because of your point of view or your sexuality is that you get hit with some glitter, then consider how fortunate you really are.

I'm not offended by the glitter, I just don't see the purpose of it. I'd be embarrassed if I was that kids father. But there are worst things the social left has undertaken against proponents of Traditional Marriage.

"Gays on the other hand are frequently bashed and killed."

I'm sure there are people who are homosexual that are ostracized and some who are murdered but I don't believe it's for the reasons that you think. Call me ignorant but that's just what I believe and I have my reasons.

Please enlighten me by telling me why the young man in the video threw glitter on supporters of the Minnesota for Marriage campaign, if marriage is not the issue.

No one is redefining your marriage and marriage is not the issue. Who's being fake and making things up here?

I'm not sure what the point is exactly. Probably precisely to make folks overreact in ways that make them seem I dunno, overeactive.

The Marriage Amendment supporters in this video behave with admirable dignity. They don't even object to the glitter thing. They just ask a strange guy showing up throwing things not to approach their kids.

Appreciate all those who support gay marriage who also think this is weird and inappropriate behavior.

Yes he seems like he's a young-un too. But a lot older than the kids he's glittering.

We have bigger problems int he world, obviously

That was a tragic event and my prayers go to the families of those two women. I hope the monster who did it is brought to justice and is executed for taking the lives of two innocent children. But your comment is merely an attempt to distract people.

I can just as easily berate NOM for not reporting on a 9 month old baby boy who was shot and killed in Detroit. That story never recieved national attention(FOX was the only one that talked about it albeit for a few seconds) because black on black crime isn't controversial even if it's the cold blooded murder of an infant. But again, that would be a distraction because it doesn't relate to the issue at hand.

What rights are fake?

Charge him with assault. SSMer have to learn tolerance. People don't deserve to be assaulted in the name of fake rights.

What is THAT child doing at a protest/picket? Oh, cause the parents are dragging the child into a culture war. Responsible parenting there.

Doubtful since the gay haters are standing in the way of civil rights and have not been held accountable.

oh! the humanity!!!!

Not a big fan of glitter sprinkling, myself; it just seems silly after hte first itme it was done. A bigot covered in glitter is just a sparkly bigot. But glittering caused no harm here. And frankly, if the elderly want to get out and wave signs in support of denying other people rights, they should not be immune from nonviolent expressions of disdain for their beliefs merely because of their advanced age or physical infirmities. They have chosen to engage in an activity that is fundamentally disrespectful of other human beings.

“One person throwing an object towards another person might implicate the civil and criminal charges of assault and battery. Though social conservatives often accuse the marriage equality movement of forcing judges to “redefine marriage," thanks to “glitter-bombing”, the marriage equality movement might force criminal law practitioners to redefine the charge of “assault.” “

http://wclcriminallawbrief.blogspot.com/2012/03/is-glitter-bombing-criminal-assault.html

However he may face charges and I for one would not be surprised. He shouldn't have done it. In fact I don't like the whole glitter protest meme. Too invasive even compared to cream pie.

Those of us who won the Prop 8 fight in California saw this and much, much worse.

It is an excellent thing to understand what lies in store for family values should the pseudo-marriage Bolsheviks ever get hold of the marriage laws.

The incredible fascist assault in Canada is simply our future, unless we utterly roll over the pseudo-marriage movement this November.

It's summer why arent they taking them to the pool? On vacation? Somewhere fun.

Kids dont need to be subjected to this.