NOM BLOG

URGENT: Help Stop Dangerous Civil Unions Bill!

 

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Colorado state senator Pat Steadman, author of the senate version of the civil unions bill, has a message for those who disagree with his views of tolerance and equality because they support marriage:

"[G]et thee to a nunnery, and live there. Go live a monastic life, away from modern society, away from people you can't see as equals to yourself'. . . . Go some place and be as judgmental as you like, go inside your church, establish separate water fountains if you like. But don't tell me that your free exercise of religion requires the state of Colorado to establish separate water fountains."

With Colorado's civil unions bill now headed to the Senate, we have one last chance to stop this dangerous measure.

Consider this:

  1. In 2003, California adopted a civil unions law. Two years later, a California state court judge ruled California's marriage law unconstitutional. By 2008, the state Supreme Court echoed that ruling, finding that civil unions undercut any possible justification for laws recognizing marriage only between a husband and wife.

  2. In 2005 Connecticut adopted a civil unions law. Three years later the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that because of civil unions, Connecticut's marriage laws were now unconstitutional.

  3. In New Jersey, a civil unions law was used to deny tax exempt status to religious organizations that refused to allow use of their property for civil union ceremonies.

And the list goes on . . .

Wherever civil unions are adopted, there is immediate pressure to throw out the "discriminatory" civil unions bill in favor of same-sex marriage. Civil unions aren't a compromise . . . they're a Trojan horse that immediately attacks both marriage and religious liberty.

To make matters even worse, for Senator Steadman religious liberty isn't simply a regrettable casualty in the march for same-sex marriage . . . attacking religious liberty is part of the point!

Gay marriage strategists know that people of faith — people like you and me — are one of the biggest obstacles to a state-imposed same-sex marriage regime. And many of them would like nothing better than to muzzle, isolate, and ultimately silence religious believers — using intimidation and ostracism to closet Biblical views about marriage.

We must draw a line in the sand. I know you understand the stakes. Please take action today. Together we can protect marriage in Colorado, but only if you take action right now.

TAKE ACTION

Please help keep up the pressure with a phone call or email to your state representative today.

  1. Click here to look up the phone number for your state representative.

  2. Use this link to send a short email message to your state representative urging him or her to vote to defend religious liberty and defend marriage, our only civil institution that connects children with parents. Marriage and faith matter!

  3. Finally, forward this email to friends and family throughout the state, or use the buttons below to share on Facebook and Twitter. It's going to take thousands of Coloradans like you working together to preserve marriage in Illinois. Help spread the word today!

    Facebook ThisTweet ThisEmail This

Together we can keep up the pressure and save marriage in Colorado! Now is the moment — please join us!

Contributions or gifts to the National Organization for Marriage, a 501(c)(4) organization, are not tax-deductible. The National Organization for Marriage does not accept contributions from business corporations, labor unions, foreign nationals, or federal contractors; however, it may accept contributions from federally registered political action committees. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. No funds will be earmarked or reserved for any political purpose.

This message has been authorized and paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006, Brian Brown, President. This message has not been authorized or approved by any candidate.

54 Comments

  1. zack
    Posted February 22, 2013 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

    I don't have a problem with civil unions...but then you've got these leftwing bigots who ruin any chance ofcompromise they may have had.

  2. zack
    Posted February 22, 2013 at 8:07 pm | Permalink

    The speaker of the assembly-a democrat-was at the forefront of shooting down Jessica's Law in the assembly but civil unions is what's important. I find that deplorable.

  3. zack
    Posted February 22, 2013 at 8:07 pm | Permalink

    The speaker of the assembly-a democrat-was at the forefront of shooting down Jessica's Law in the assembly but civil unions is what's important.

  4. zack
    Posted February 22, 2013 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

    the Assembly Speaker decided not to take up Jessica's Law but they want to consider civil unions. How disgraceful

  5. Posted February 22, 2013 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

    Respectfully:
    It is an error to talk about "people of faith".

    All people carry some sort of faith, and profes some sort of morality (perhaps feigned), so other people trust them.

    All people have a philosophy, and according to SCOTUS all philosophies fall under the category of religion of sorts. A case in point is Lawrence v. Texas.

    Once we contrast "people of faith" with "people of no faith", we are setting up exactly the dichotomy which gives SSm credence, thought its advocates have no rational arguments of why it should be considered equal to opposite-sex marriage.

    I'm just trying to help. Everyone has some sort of faith, or couldn't make decisions in life. It's possible to talk about people members of religious denominations or official religions in America, but the phrase "people of faith" includes all voters, so it is not selective.

    All adult citizens have a right to vote, and all of them vote according to their type of faith.

    Amen.

  6. Bobby
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 12:07 am | Permalink

    Little Man - There are no "official religions in America". We are all free to practice our own faith without government interference. I am Catholic and I have no problem practicing my faith in this country. I do not wish to impose my faith on anyone else just as much as I do not wish for anyone else to impose their faith on me.

  7. Randy E King
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    Bobby,

    Yet here you are demanding your faith be imposed on everyone; demanding that the government deem your ideology as equal to the Judea, Christian, and Islamic faiths.

    "By their fruits you shall know them"

    You profess to be a Christian yet you champion an ideology that stands in opposition to the faith you claim to hold.

    Your whole argument is based on the Justice Kennedy opinion that personal religious animus is an insufficient reason to deny people their constitutional rights; yet there is no constitutional right to have your depravity deemed moral and acceptable - Kennedy was referring to the right of association.

    If you want to count yourself with the heathen you are free to do so, but the consequences for that choice is yours; not societies.

  8. FemEagle
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 9:46 am | Permalink

    Speaking of Catholics, Bobby, heard the news? Looks like the Pope resigned because of the gays that infiltrated the Church, broke their vows of celibacy and indulged their illicit desires on the Church's dime.

    And some people wonder why the Boy Scouts want to keep the gays out of its organization. Gays are infiltrating previously wholesome institutions and corrupting them. They're corrupting marriage, they've corrupted the Church, and they want to corrupt an organization meant to help young boys become men. (The Girl Scouts are already doomed; it's accepted gays already. God knows what's going on in scout troops as a result, but I'm sure we'll be hearing about it). This plague has to stop. Good people have to shrug off the labels and the guilt trips and take a stand. For our families and our children, we have no choice now. It's all gone too far. We have to use the power of our voices and our votes to stop this gay "marriage" farce. Enough is enough!

  9. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

    Little man wrote: It is an error to talk about "people of faith".

    Yes, good point.

    FemEagle wrote: The Girl Scouts are already doomed; it's accepted gays already.

    The American Heritage Girls have continued the mission of integrity that used to be the Girl Scouts.

  10. John B.
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    A very strong majority of Americans--currently about 2/3 but growing rapidly--believe gay couples deserve legal recognition of their unions; the only real issue is whether to call them "civil unions" or "marriage". Yet once again NOM allies itself with the extremist minority of Americans--about 1/3 and rapidly shrinking--who believe gay couples should have NO legal recognition, rights, or protections for their unions whatsoever.

  11. Priya Lynn
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

    "Gay marriage strategists know that people of faith — people like you and me — are one of the biggest obstacles to a state-imposed same-sex marriage regime. And many of them would like nothing better than to muzzle, isolate, and ultimately silence religious believers — using intimidation and ostracism to closet Biblical views about marriage".

    No one is trying to deny you your right to "biblical" views about marriage, they're just trying to prevent you from forcing others to live according to your religion.

  12. Randy E King
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

    @Priya,

    Yet you see nothing wrong with forcing others to live according to your religion?

    How very hypocritical of you.

    "It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins"
    Benjamin Franklin

  13. zack
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    Man...i keep double posting....im sorry everyone.

  14. Priya Lynn
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    Randy your claim is absurdly dishonest and you know it. No one on our side is trying to stop you from getting married or forcing you to have a same sex marriage. Gays and lesbians marrying doesn't force anyone to live according to their religion..

    No, it is you who wants to stop people from marrying because your religion says gays should not marry. It is you who is trying to force people to live according to your religion, not us.

    You are free to live your life as you choose, but you are not free to dictate to others how they should live.

    You do not have a right to define marriage for everyone, you only have a right to define it for yourself. If you wish to define your marriage as one man one woman, that is your right but you don't have the right to tell gays and lesbians that they can't define their marriages as "two people".

  15. FemEagle
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    Priya, we the people certainly do have the right to tell gays and lesbians they can't redefine marriage to suit themselves. We've proven that at the ballot box in over 32 states. Marriage belongs to heterosexuals, who invented it; it's a cornerstone of heterosexual culture. What right does another culture have to take something that doesn't belong to it and reshape it, and then scream "bigot" when the culture that's being assaulted protests? How arrogant is that?

  16. Randy E King
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    Everyone on your side is demanding your relationship be declared to be a marriage; which it is incapable of ever being without first declaring beliefs opposed to your bastardization of said word persona-non-grata

    You are being blatantly and unapologetically disingenuous when you claim changing the meaning of marriage will change nothing; you cannot have one without the other.

    You are the ones seeking to re-define marriage for everyone; you are the ones demanding your depravity be declared moral by the laws of nature and natures God for everyone.

    Thank you for allowing me to live my life as I choose; just so long as I do not publicly disagree with this travesty.

    Travesty: a grotesque immitation

  17. Randy E King
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

    The nerve;

    Demanding public acceptance, recognition, and support only to turn around and scream that it is nobody else's business.

    Sociopath: Sociopaths have little regard for the feelings of others and manipulate others in order to get what they desire.

  18. Priya Lynn
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    Wrong Randy. Gays and lesbians only seek to define marriage for themselves, they are happy to let you define your marriage as one man/one woman if you so choose. It is you who is trying to force your definition of marriage on everyone. It is you who is telling other couples they must adhere to your definition of marriage. Gays aren't asking you to adhere to their definition of marriage.

    Gays and lesbians marrying doesn't stop you from believing whatever your little heart desires.

    The essence of morality is "Do whatever you want, but harm no one.". Gays marrying is by definition moral and your attempts to destroy their marriages is by definition immoral.

    Gays marrying changes nothing for anyone but the gays and lesbians that marry. I live in Canada. Just like in the United States the ant-gays screamed it would be the end of society of gays were allowed to marry. Now gays have been marrying for many years and life for the anti-gays goes on as it always has. They live, they love, they enter into their one man/one woman marriages and continue to rant about how disgusting and immoral gays are and how their marriages aren't real. Everyone is happy in Canada after gay marriage was legalized, the sky didn't fall- it'll be the same way in your country.

    You have the right to define marriage for yourself, you don't have the right to define it for everyone.

  19. Priya Lynn
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

    Randy, a sociopath is a person who tries to dictate to others who they can and cannot marry - that's you. Gays aren't telling you who you can or cannot marry. Gays support your freedom to live as you choose, for the sake of the trivial thrill you get thinking gays can't marry you seek to deny them the same freedom you have.

  20. Randy E King
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

    Priya,

    No one is dictating to you who you can and cannot marry. You are demanding for yourself the right to declare any relationship you choose to be a marriage.

    You are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex of your choosing who is not a blood relative, under-aged, or already married just like everybody else.

    Sexual depravity does not turn you into a species of man unto yourself. If you truly believed your depravity were acceptable you would not be insisting words be bastardized just so you can feel better about the choices you made.

    I happen to be older then bastardized forms of the words you use to justify your depravity; these words hold no power over me so go sell crazy somewhere else.

    http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

  21. P. Edward Murray
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

    A sitting Federal Judge and the current Speaker John Boehner have both said that it will come down to this:

    Homosexuals will need to prove that they need "special protections"

    Let's see....

    Gays have been winning elections individually and statewide on changing the definition of marriage.

    That is called "POWER"

    Gays also have MONEY and JOBS.

    I'm sorry BUT you , as a group, have done SO WELL that you don't need any protection.

    THE UNEMPLOYED DO!

  22. Priya Lynn
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

    Randy you are obviously not an honest person. YOU just tried to dictate to gays who they can and cannot marry. You JUST said so -"You are free to marry anyone of the OPPOSITE SEX of your choosing who is not a blood relative, under-aged, or already married just like everybody else."

    THAT is dictating to someone who they may or may not marry. You are trying to tell Tom he can marry Jane but he can't marry Joe - you are a wannabe DICTATOR.

    That is no different than christians in a muslim country being told they have equality. Everyone is free to be Islamic and no one has the right to be be christian - christians and muslims have equal rights.

    Obviously, that argument AND yours are nonsense and you know it just as well as I do but you're too dishonest to admit it.

    I have not bastardized any words, it is you who is bastardizing words. The only time sex is depraved is when it harms others. Consentual same sex sex between adults is by definition moral, your attempts to destroy gay marriages is by definition immoral.

  23. Priya Lynn
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

    Edward said "Homosexuals will need to prove that they need "special protections"".

    Nonsense.. Gays aren't asking for "special protections", they're asking for the same rights everyone else has. The foundation of justice is "innocent until proven guilty". The American constitution grants rights to everyone as a matter of course, no one is required to prove they deserve a right before they are given it. If anti-gays want to deny gays the same rights everyone else has its up to them to prove there is justification to do so - there is not now, has never been, and never will be justification for denying gays the same rights everyone else has.

  24. Randy E King
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

    Depraved: marked by corruption or evil; especially : perverted

    Pervert: a unusual or abnormal sexual act that is habitual.

    I did not set the guidelines for marriages; these were established thousands of years ago.

    The word "Gay" that you bastardize was used exclusively as an adjective in reference to sexual promiscuity up until the mid 1970's when it was first used as a noun in reference to men who like to rub against other men.

    Up until 1997 the definition of the word marriage was rooted to the joining of opposites.

    As an engineer I know that in order to marry two parts one part MUST have a male connector and the other part MUST have a female connector. In order to connect two parts with similar surfaces you must bond said parts by their pre-defined faying surfaces, but we know this bond is incapable of ever becoming a marriage - the joining of opposites.

    You hind behind words that do not mean what you think they mean.

  25. Priya Lynn
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    Edward said "Gays also have MONEY and JOBS".

    That is a false stereotype. The truth is:

    "LGBT Americans Tend to Have Lower Levels of Education and Income

    Gallup's analysis shows that identification as LGBT is highest among Americans with the lowest levels of education -- contrary to what other, more limited, studies have shown."

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/158066/special-report-adults-identify-lgbt.aspx

  26. Randy E King
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

    http://www.prudential.com/.../Prudential_LGBT_Financial_Experience.pdf

  27. Randy E King
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

    The above link is filtered, but do a search for prudential LGBT financial and it will get you there as well.

    Who are you trying to convince with your lies Priya?

  28. Priya Lynn
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

    I'd like to continue this discussion with you Randy but my comments are being blocked.

  29. Priya Lynn
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

    The word marriage is commonly used to refer to the joining of two things. In the car industry the joining of a car body and engine is referred to as the marriage.

    Obviously the joining of a same sex couple is a great deal more like the joining of an opposite sex couple than the joining of a car body and engine, or pole and socket is so the term marriage is appropriate.

    Dictionaries now commonly define marriage as "the union of two people". The meaning of words change over time with usage and it is now common around the world for gays to marry so marriage is the correct description of the union of two people.

  30. Priya Lynn
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

    To most people marriage is about love, committment, and mutual support. So sad that for you marriage is reduced to the mechanics of genitals and love committment, and support are distant secondary concerns, if concerns at all. What a shallow, depraved view of marriage you have.

  31. Priya Lynn
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

    Randy, I didn't make up that statement, those are the statistics provided by Gallyup polls. They are based on 120,000 interviews and are far more authoritive than the limited information you have.

  32. Randy E King
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

    Equating opposites with likes is tyranny; not justice.

    Love is neither quantifiable, measurable, or verifiable. much like the bastardized word "Gay" it is only known by being declared.

    We the people have no interest in who or what you may or may not love, but we do have a vested interest in proceeding generations that can only spring forth in the union of one man and one woman.

    Your argument strains credulity beyond its breaking point.

  33. Priya Lynn
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

    "Equating opposites with likes is tyranny; not justice".

    Right, that's why everyone knows men and women don't deserve the same rights [/joke].

    Everyone is different Randy, but we all deserve the same rights.

    We are also the people Randy, its not just you and yours and the majority of Americans now support marriage equality.

    The gay couple down the street getting married in no way interferes with the union of any man and woman springing forth proceeding generations.

    But we all know your claim to be concerned about marriage for the sake of children is fake. Up to 1/3 of gay couples have children and if you really cared about children you'd want the children of gay couples to have the rights and protections that married parents bring. The creation of a baby is but a trivial part of creating a society, the real job is done in the rearing of children and virtually every study shows the childen of gays and lesbians do just as well, if not better than the children of heterosexuals.

    Now please don't try to deceive people by referring to studies that compare single parents to married heterosexual parents as the anti-gays always do when they misleadingly claim "Decades of social science research show children do best with a mom and a dad." Such studies don't compare same sex parents to heterosexual parents.

  34. Randy E King
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

    For you the miracle of life is a "trivial part of creating a society" but even SCOTUS recognized it as necessary for "our very existence and survival."

    By your own admittance you value your depravity over life itself.

  35. Priya Lynn
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

    "By your own admittance you value your depravity over life itself.".

    I never said any such thing. You can't win an argument honestly so you have to lie.

    Any reckless pair of heterosexuals can create a pregnancy Randy. It takes responsible, dedicated and concerned adults to be parents. Creating a pregnancy is the fun and easy part. What seperates good from bad is the many difficult and demanding years of parenting.

    A very large percentage of the children of heterosexuals are accidental, unplanned, and unwanted. Gay couples are often adopting the offspring of irresponsible and incapable heterosexuals. Gay couples frequently adopt disabled or problem children from orphanages that heterosexuals turned up their noses at. Gay couples don't have children by accident, They plan for them, they want them, and they are prepared for them. That's why their children often do better than the children of heterosexuals.

    If you honestly cared about children you'd be demanding gays and lesbians have the right to marry. But that's not what its about for you. For you its about your need to feel there is someone you're better than. Its very sad and incredibly selfish.

  36. Randy E King
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

    Wait; did you just write that you did not write what you just wrote?

  37. Priya Lynn
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

    Randy, the only depravity here is you trying to prevent and destroy the marriages of same sex couples. You're putting your depravity ahead of the well-being of children.

  38. Randy E King
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

    Which serves to prove that you will have to change the meaning of every word just to lend an appearance of acceptability to your depravity.

  39. Randy E King
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

    http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

    Noted trait is accusing their victims of the crimes they themselves commit. In addition to their principle goal of creating willing victims who affirm the appropriateness of the crimes perpetrated against them.

  40. Priya Lynn
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 10:01 pm | Permalink

    I didn't change the meaning of anything, I used your meaning:

    Depraved: marked by corruption or evil.

    Evil is the harming of others. Same sex sex between consenting adults harms no one and is by definition not depraved. Your attempts to prevent and destroy same sex marriages harms innocent people, your actions are by defintion depraved. You are putting your depravity ahead of the well-being of children.

  41. Priya Lynn
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 10:06 pm | Permalink

    A sociopath is a person who is unconcerned with the well-being of others and seeks to benefit by exploiting others regardless of how much he harms those people.

    You are unconcerned with the well-being of gays and lesbians and seek to harm them by preventing and destroying their marriages for the trivial gain of feeling you are superior to them.

    Gays and lesbians support and defend your right to marry the consenting partner of your own choosing. I and gays and lesbians are concerned for your well-being, we don't seek any gain at your expense.

    It is you who is the sociopath, not I.

  42. Randy E King
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 10:22 pm | Permalink

    "A sociopath is a person who is unconcerned with the well-being of others and seeks to benefit by exploiting others regardless of how much he harms those people."

    And in this case you seek to exploit other peoples children.

    Not to mention your insistence on referencing perverts as though they are a species of man unto themselves. Even you know your proclivity is indefensible on its own merits.

  43. Priya Lynn
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 10:57 pm | Permalink

    "And in this case you seek to exploit other peoples children. ".

    That's an outrageous lie. You sir, have no morals whatsoever. You obviously seek to promote violence against innocent people by falsely claiming they seek to harm children. You are a psychopath.

    "Even you know your proclivity is indefensible on its own merits".

    You are delusional. It is perfectly moral to do whatever a person wants as long as they are not harming others. Gayness harms no one and is by definition perfectly moral. You seek to destroy gay relationships and foster violence against gays by telling outrageous lies about them, your behavior is by definition immoral. It is your proclivities that are indefensible.

    See how twisted by hate your mind has become?

    In your bizarre world those who harm no one are depraved, evil and should be deprived of fundamental human rights..

    And you who seeks to deny them the same rights you have and promote violence against them insanely claim you are the victim when innocent people seek those rights and object to slander.. You seek to harm innocent people and in your twisted mind your actions are good and moral

    Your "noted trait is accusing their victims of the crimes they themselves commit. In addition to their principle goal of creating willing victims who affirm the appropriateness of the crimes perpetrated against them."

    You call good evil and evil good. It is you, a psychopath, who is tragically bastardizing the meaning of words.

  44. Chairm
    Posted February 24, 2013 at 12:12 am | Permalink

    Priya Lynn, your stated standards kock the legs out from under your gay emphasis. Your comment contradict themselves.

    For instance, on morality, you'd dictate to others. Your moralism has no sound argumentation. Your reasoning is superficial and self-refuting.

    Your comments invite dissection.

    Do you expressly invite others to test of your comments in the way that you have posed here to contend against our defense of marriage (the union of husband and wife) or are you here to just make noise instead? Will you subject your comments to your own stated standards or will you rely on double-standards?

    Where you have erred, will you correct yourself? Before proceeding further, you have the opportunity to self-correct. Review your comments.

  45. zack
    Posted February 24, 2013 at 2:26 am | Permalink

    @Priya

    "It is perfectly moral to do whatever a person wants as long as they are not harming others."

    That's a rather broad brush there. Moral standards induce order, lack of morals lead to chaos. It is why several nations in Western Europe are on track to being Muslim Majority countries in the next 30-40 years. Arguing from a relativist standpoint does not give one the moral high ground. You fail to acknowledge the human condition. Morals seek to keep this fatal flaw in man in check.

    " Gayness harms no one and is by definition perfectly moral."

    I would suspect at the individual level between the two people engaging in it, you are correct. However in the grand scheme of things, where ever people seek to maintain the traditional definition of Marriage, people have been punished.

  46. zack
    Posted February 24, 2013 at 2:27 am | Permalink

    typo: fatal flaw of man*

  47. Posted February 24, 2013 at 5:35 am | Permalink

    Bobbie. There ARE official religions in the USA. Just ask the IRS.

    Sometime, maybe explain to me how you can say: "I am Catholic and I have no problem practicing my faith in this country."

    but:

    The Pope (head of the R. Catholic church) doesn't see SSm as marriage.

    So, how can you practice your faith, when the Pope is implying you are not?

    I would be interested in your answer, out of curiosity. Thanks.

  48. Posted February 24, 2013 at 5:36 am | Permalink

    How did Priya and Randy get into a quick and numerous give and take? Never seen it, here!

    Must be a weekend. . .

    Wow!

  49. Mikhail
    Posted February 24, 2013 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    zack, in private it doesnt hurt anyone, but what of those half nude homosexuals practicing BDSM in the streets of San Fran on "Folsom Street Fair Day"? Their lifestyle is not just a private thing to them, they want to impose it upon everyone in society

  50. zack
    Posted February 24, 2013 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    @Mikhail

    I am not arguing for the promotion of the lifestyle. What I was saying is that if it is just done between the two people then it isn't hurting anyone. This is where the left(and even libertarians) fall flat when they spout the whole "you can't legislate morality" diatribe. Their ideologies fail to account for the human condition. Liberalism seeks to control or even correct it or-in most cases-permit it, Libertarianism lets it run amok, but Conservatism tames it.

  51. Tim
    Posted February 24, 2013 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    Laws, by their very nature, are discriminatory, favoring one thing over all others. However, laws must be based on facts whenever possible. Adults are the same in all areas except one - reproduction. In this aspect they are complimentary. It is this difference that makes the man-woman relationship special. This male-female difference is based on science and nature. Two sexes, two people in marriage. One male, one female. Society has no interest in regulating friendships, which is what SSM really is. It does however, have a vested interest in relationships that produce children and in the differences that a man and woman can bring to such a relationship. As such, it seeks to regulate them and provide incentives for males and females to enter into marriage.

    SSM and traditional marriage cannot exist side by side. It the definiton is changed, then it will not longer be traditional marriage. As far as SSm not harming anyone, I do suggest Priya google some of the articles many of us have done which show that, once the definition of marriage has changed, those who hold to the traditional view are fined, fired, threatened and prosecuted by the government and the HRC. THAT is how it affects my marriage. It I can't work or am penalized for my beliefs, it affects me personally, and society as a whole.

  52. Posted February 24, 2013 at 10:10 pm | Permalink

    Good way of putting it in a nutshell, Tim. Thanks a lot. (will save it).

  53. Posted February 25, 2013 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    "Gayness harms no one and is by definition perfectly moral. You seek to destroy gay relationships and foster violence against gays by telling outrageous lies about them, your behavior is by definition immoral. It is your proclivities that are indefensible."

    approximately 40% of LGBT intimate interactions have inter-personal violence. This means there are literally millions of violent, disgusting LGBT individuals running about society, hurting other LGBT individuals (aggressions, beatings, sexual assault, etc.).

    This LGBT majority believes, like you, that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. The number of heterosexuals that beat LGBT adults is very small, in fact, it's comparatively tiny (a few thousands).

    So the people not only fostering the violence, but largely practicing it, are people with your "homosexuality is normal" views. Needless to say, given how corrupt liberals are, the majority of these LGBT individuals are never brought to justice and have total impunity.

    And that's not counting all the disgusting LGBT individuals that sexually harass, demean, and assault children and heterosexual adults.

    Having a corrupt "homosexuality is normal and harmless" ideology is very destructive, and it does great harm is society, starting with the denial of all the violence and harm that LGBT individuals and their supporters do, and ending with the actual violence itself.

  54. Chairm
    Posted February 25, 2013 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    Where government (the juducuary is a branch of government) obscures the core meaning of marriage, it gets in the way and harms society.

    There is no justification for the abolition of the bride-plus-groom legal requirement. The gay emphasis is no justification for the imposition of the SSM idea. The asserted supremacy of gay identity politics is as harmful as the long-repudiated assertion of the supremacy of white racist identity politics. The SSM side insists that gay is a race-like identity group and so it concedes it is making a racist-like assertion of supremacy over marriage and much else.

    There is harm but the hardline SSM advocate would claim such harms as somehow positive benefits to society. That is also a huge concession for they knowingly advocate the social cost that they expect society to pay.