RNC chief: Gay marriage will burden small business

Completed red herring as usual. Seriously, all this nonsense does is show how it's exactly the same as heterosexual marriage.

Ahhh, yes, the old fear and greed ploy, a true conservative classic!

It's like how they say, "if gay people can marry, we'll have marriages of convenience!" ... yeah, just like with heterosexual marriages.

I just find it fascinating that the Republican party's entire platform seems to be about defending the interests of "small" business. I think they'd take away our freedom of speech to help small business, and I find it curious that under a two-term Republican president small business suffered while big business is profited.

By Steele's account, and considering his party is traditionally against anti-discriminatory measures, the small-business utopia is to employ gays, lesbians and extreme liberals who do not believe in marriage. I wonder what the social conservatives will say to that.

The party gets what they deserve, though, for picking someone with a broken record in both business and politics, just because of skin color. Hopefully Steele's tenure as RNC chair will make them learn a lesson. You'd think the pin-up experiment would have ended with Palin, but I guess when in a rut, one grasps at straws...

You would think the chief of the RNC would of thought of something more clever to say.

That is the dumbest thing to come out of the GOP this week, and that is a HIGH bar !!

Ice, that reminds me a quote I heard a while back.

There are two things that are infinite, the universe, and human stupiditiy. And I am not so sure about the universe.

Albert Einstein

"Now all of a sudden I've got someone who wasn't a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for,"

All of the sudden, like someone getting married or all of the sudden like having a kid and adding them to the policy.

I think the underlying motive here to to eliminate employer sponsored health care completely. Something that has been supported by Reps and Dem. alike. I think it would cause major increases for people that have it since they would lose group discounts.

This is like the lame argument again marriage equality of "my taxes are now going to be going toward benefits for married gay couples!!!!" as if gays who can't get married aren't paying taxes that are going toward benefits for straight married couples. I believe that's taxation without representation. Wasn't that what the original tea party was all about?

studies show gay marriage is good for the economy.
first they have marriages which are expensive and are supported by many small biz.
relatives fly in and come to teh marriage.. hotels, restaurants etc

less likely to fly in just cause two guys/girls on the couch say they are going to live together forever.

teh CBO says it will add $1billion a year to the economy. warning pdf
(turn off javascript in your pdf reader.. it's just bad news.. not for pdf above, but cause i care about security)

So he is ceding the moral issue. That is good. Now he has a bigger problem by making it about money. Equality is undermined if money is all that keeps one group from personal choices. Though it is a fact that money has always been an issue in Washington (tax category revenue) that is something whispered but too lame to say out loud because it goes so much against what this country stands for. So now the cat is out of the bag openly but in being out, you can't take it back. Money loses and equality wins.

Was I the only one that read that headline, and did the ole' Scooby-Doo head turn and said:

"Eh?"

[[scratches head... and walks away]]

ditto can we get a big ole wtf is he talking about.

now that we have two guys or two gals married we have a bigger burden huh?

can this guy go away with porkalosi

Mav

Just when I think Republican stupidity has reached maximum dumbness, they prove that they can achieve all-time new levels of mental deficiency.

Isn't it the Republicans that push even 18 year olds into marriage as a "tax" write off and talk about all the benefits?

Really this is the stupidest thing I ever heard.... next he will say how the gay women who give birth are over populating the world.

Republicans can reach a broader base by recasting gay marriage as an issue that could dent pocketbooks as small businesses spend more on health care and other benefits, GOP Chairman Michael Steele said Saturday.

So the RNC admits this is not a moral issue, it is a financial issue? This statement by Michael Steele apparently indicates that the RNC does not believe that everyone deserves adequate healthcare coverage and is is alright to discriminate against people based upon sexual orientation because it is popular with their rapidly dwindling support base.

Between Steele, Limbaugh and Cheney they have adequately diminished the view of the Republican Party by 'middle of the road' political viewers over the past two weeks to a point that will take them decades to correct. If these people are the best representatives and spokespersons for the party, some Dale Carnegie seminars are highly recommended.

Everyone needs to realize that elected officials represent all of the people, not just the factions that are vocal but the silent as well. Doing the right thing does not mean it will be popular but it would be the right thing to do.

he's talking about joint health care policies.. but yeah hella weak.
business will make much more money than they will lose.

but clearly the pwnage of this whole thing is the first comment.. it being the first comment shows how easily the gop will get shot down over this.

if gay marriage = more expense and should be banned.,
so does al marriage, gay or not.
really cant have it both ways

hey if yall want to ban all marriage I'll support you.. we just have to be fair.

Is he on crack? Well hell the people over 50 are a bigger burden, they are at a higher risk for high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, back injuries, joint injuries, high cholesterol, etc...

Shoot I will use his argument to say that black people are a burden to small buisness with the sickle cell.

Really is he on crack? Did he just did dis-enfranchise an entire group of people?

@DragonWoman

Isn't it the Republicans that push even 18 year olds into marriage as a "tax" write off and talk about all the benefits?

Indeed; one would think that any tax benefit should be directed towards children, not towards married (but childless) couples. Otherwise it's (a bad form of) social engineering -- which backfires as people rush into marriages out of money, not love.

The tax code is really rather a mess, though. I wonder -- if a married couple were to file taxes separately, which benefits do they miss out on? You would think the mother should still get education credits for the kids, if the same benefits also go out to single parents.

American Spirit,

American Spirit, this token is trying to find a home like the bowl weaver, i wonder if he will last 2 years.

Uhhhh, Jerry......do you mean boll weevil???

No Marriage is necesary to society !!!!

Without marriage we would not have society................ So the established practice of having a spouse and their kids paid for is necessary to all as they are potential future employees to a corporation... In fact if it were not for marriage and the family, where do you suppose gay people come from???

So two gay people getting married is just one more way that Saul Alinsky crowd has come up with to attack those who have a differnet political persuation... As usual it is the LEFT EXPLOITING THE ONES THEY ARE PRETENDING TO HELP!!!

In fact most real world NON CELEBUTARD gay people I know do not even care about this as they see it only for the potential negative that could arise of it when they live in a soceity where all but the most uneducated in the Ghettos and the Backwoods towns accept gay people willingly!

Real world gay peopel are not dumb most are very eduacated and understand the game yet subscribe to left wing politics mainly due to the embrace of the Religous right by Repbulicans

Gay people know that the left uses black people everyday in groups like ACORN and just like they did with Women by concocting the abortion debate....

They knew most women were not for killing babies and the % of women who actually have abortions is even smaller, but what they did know was that Women in the 60's and 70's would attach to the abortion debate as if it were a SYMBOL of FEMMINISM....

Alas for three decades it was.......

The whole time it was all about Marxist left wing policitcs and NOT WOMENS RIGHTS LIKE THEY PRETENDED TO BE!!!!

We saw proof last year as EVERY SINGLE WOMANS GROUP OUT THERE EITHER IGNORED IT OR WAS PART OF THE ATTACK ON SARAH PALIN ...

While Sarah Palin was viciously assaulted from all sides they ignored it and never stood up for here once.... Is Sarah Palin not a woman??? Were those not SEXUALLY BASED ATTACKS BY DEFINITON??? Was Pallin not a successful woman striving to have the power men enjoy?? Could you imagine if this happend to a Democratic Woman...

It would have been the most chaos in the streets since the 68 DNC!!!!

But for some reason they attacked her or ignored the attackers...

WHY?

Answer the LEFT are violent hateful ideologes that expoit minority groups for their own self intersts and when the mission is accomplished they throw em under the bus if there beliefs do not fit the Marxist agenda...

So homosexuals beware as the Marxist Saul Alinskites come out to supposedly help!! You know if push comes to shove a left wing politican will drop you like a hot potato when you become inconvinient to their agenda in the war of public opinion..

Allan,

I assume that your tome is satire, because you can't possibly believe this stuff you wrote. And if you do, you might want to check the battery on your carbon monoxide detector.

This reminds me of all those folks who argued that ending slavery would hurt the nation's economy. "You just cost me money." LOL. These same knuckleheads tried to convince us that they were more christian than everybody else in the game. Give me a break.

So who the hell cares what he has to say? He'll only be forced to apologize for it to Rush Limbaugh.

How about if he just apologizes to the American people, and resigns. At the rate Steele's going, he has offended almost every constituency in the country at this point.

It's like how they say, "if gay people can marry, we'll have marriages of convenience!" ... yeah, just like with heterosexual marriages.

Marriages of convenience are already here, have been for a long, long time. Illegals do it all the time.

Steele said that was just an example of how the party can retool its message to appeal to young voters and minorities without sacrificing core conservative principles

What core principles when you're willing to sink so low? Just when you think that the Republican party can sink no deeper into the cesspool . . .

Well, now I've heard everything. "Hurt small businesses"? ROFL, LMBO

Though I actually I shouldn't be. This is scapegoating the gay marriage issue which I don't happen to be for, but even I can see through this one. Blame gay marriages, and by extension, gays for the bad economy.

Does anyone still see the Republicans as a viable political party that can be trusted with leadership of the country in the short term anymore? This wreaks.

This is almost a lose-lose situation .

Why is it "okay" for the liberals,dems, and gay groups to voice out loud to the world how they feel...but Heaven Forbid anyone and anything says otherwise!?

Give me a break- talk about double standard!

I am for normal, traditional Marriage, wow my 77 year old dad gets chest pains just thinking that back in his days-who would have known that Marriage would have to be"protectd"/Amended to keep it the way he and the majority of the world has always known it!?

He wasn't around when interracial marriage was illegal? I know he's not old enough to remember when marriages were used as a means to exchange property. And what about polygamy? Plenty of places and religions in the world still support that.

No, I think it's just that you choose to make up a definition of marriage that fits within your ideology, and feel that ideology should be able to keep others from being able to marry.

"Were those not SEXUALLY BASED ATTACKS BY DEFINITON???"

No. Not unless attacking Obama or Bush is a sexually based attack. In which case, where there hell were men's rights groups? You must hate men!

Reply to 1.30

Using your logic we should strip women of any rights because more women in the world have no rights than those that do. We can also start killing anyone who is not white and male without regard to law because there was a time when that was the way most people saw things. We should also go back to owning people of color and denying voting rights to any person that does not own land. I feel very sad that your poor grandfather comes close to dying whenever he is forced to respect the rights of another human being. Darn shame he has to go through that. Does this mean I can go back to the restaurants that I have boycotted since the smoking ban since we'll be going back to the good old days with grandpappy. Please can you at least try to come up with logical reasoning when denying rights to others, oh never mind no sense trying to apply logic to a completely illogical problem. Remember you will someday have your rights ar risk and I would bet you won't care if the guy standing next to you to defend that right is gay. I'm not gay, but I've been married twice and I don't see any reason why gay people should be spared that kind of torment if the rest of us have the right to experience it.

Seriously, what else can these fools pull out of their asses? Come on, we know the Right-wing nut jobs are reaching for just about anything these day's, but THIS? I would love to have been sitting in the room when this hair-brained idea got puked out on the table as a possible slam to gay marriage. If nothing else, Steele and his right wing nut jobs are good for a laugh. Only in America do paid politians sit around and waste our money concocting radical nut-job dill-weed screwball far-fetched numb-nut ideas like this. I've got a suggestion, Yo, Repups.... shut up and work on some legislation for getting us out of the hole and getting things back on track.. Since your the party of NO... Just say NO to jacked up @!$%# like this.. Ok? Back to work now or I'll dock your pay for poor performance.

In fact if it were not for marriage and the family, where do you suppose gay people come from???

It's a little-known fact that gays reproduce by sporing.

So two gay people getting married is just one more way that Saul Alinsky crowd has come up with to attack those who have a differnet political persuation

Yep, because every gay marriage needs to be attended by the local chapter of the College Republicans?

Is Sarah Palin not a woman??? Were those not SEXUALLY BASED ATTACKS BY DEFINITON???

I totally agree. This is why every right-wing attack on Pelosi is, by definition, "sexually based."

Steele when he was running in his home state refused to let them put Republican after his name on his flyers. He was ashmed to be a Republican now he is the head of the Republican national committee. Go figure.

This is why every right-wing attack on Pelosi is, by definition, "sexually based."

Good one Huang!

You're right USA4Him, just like the neo-nazis, you can say whatever you want to say, and then we get to respond.

Next week - The National Divorce Initiative

Save small business; get dicorced.

Yea, it's like saying allowing women to vote cost the tax payers more money because there would be more people voting all of a sudden, so women's suffrage was a burden on the country and shouldn't have been allowed. LOL this republican party just gets more and more ridiculous with its arguments.

Notice how Steele does not actually say that gay marraige will hurt small business, but rather says that that "was just an example of how the party can retool its message." Do Republicans actually believe in anything at all? Or is everything just an attempt to spin something into their favor for the next election cycle?

He never actually says HOW gay marraige would hurt small businesses! Let's see... would the local bakery be hurt by baking and selling so many more wedding cakes? Would the local DJ be hurt by playing so many more gigs? Would the local jewelry store be hurt by selling so many more rings? Would the local reception halls be hurt by booking so many more receptions? Would the local wedding planners be hurt by planning so many more weddings? What about the local dress shops and tux shops? The local limo company? The local florist? The local travel agency who books the honeymoons? And then there's all the hotels, car rentals, meals, flights, etc that are included in the honeymoons!

No one in America has any right to tell any consenting adult heterosexual which if any consenting adult heterosexual they may or may not marry. So no one in America should have the power to tell any consenting adult homosexual citizen which if any homosexual consenting adult they may or may not marry.

Whether you support or oppose gay marrige on moral or religious views is your business, but you simply cannot dispute the fact that gay marraige would be a huge boost for our nation's economy, especially at the small business level. It makes dollars and sense.

Notice how Steele does not actually say that gay marraige will hurt small business, but rather says that that "was just an example of how the party can retool its message."

Steele trots out three historic Republican boogeymen ... gays, health care reform and the poor struggling small business ... and neatly puts them in a box labelled FEAR ME.

No retooling here, its the same tired old crap.

Maybe it's his bringing of "the hook" and "the hip hop"?

Holy cow. Is it a full moon this weekend, or something?

Ahhhh Hewwwwooooo Myhole Steele, I see you bling the hook and the hip hop.

Nah, Spiffie, I think it is a six pack half empty weekend, given Steele's rant, and particularly considering that Rush Limbaugh has the OxyContin market cornered and all the stores have to restock. And now that the sole filly in the Preakness has just won the race against a field of stallions (for those of you who don't follow horse racing, stallion=male, filly=female), I fully expect to hear Steele or some other right-wing lunatic announce that the poor filly is a lesbian and shouldn't have been allowed in the race.

Honestly, what does homosexuality have to do with big business, small business, or micro business?

Brandon, nothing at all, but that doesn't stop Republicans, apparently, from making it THEIR business, and trying to make it the government's business. So much for the GOP's claim to be the small government party.

The facts are clear the progressives are so entrenched in both parties and have moven us so far left that JFK would have been a far right wing loon compard to Bush let alone people like Obama!

moven?

I nominate this for the Right-wing sentance of the week.

No, it's a federal issue too. If you're married, in theory you should be able to file married on federal taxes. Currently this is not the case for same-sex marriage. Either make it the same for everyone or abolish marriage all together.

exactly and the most liberal state in the union voted it down!!!

Bell42 OKAY thhe we have to allow a Father and daughter to get married and joint file if they want to... After all we would not want to keep a consenting adult farmers daughter from marrying daddy would we?

Listen to how crazy this whole thing is...

Marriage was created as a way to populate the earth and grow familes!!!!

Last time I cheked two gay people CAN NOT DO EITHER!!!!

Period end of story... If gay peopel want to joint file and share benifits then they NEED TO LOBBY DC for an alteranative arrangement

END OF STORY!!!!

Calling California the most liberal state in the union displays your ignorance. *Psst* You might want to look on the right side of the map.

People populate the earth whether they're married or not. It's happened since, oh I don't know, the dawn of humanity.

I don't care if fathers and daughters want to get married if they're consenting adults. Is it weird? Yeah. Do I want a relationship like that? Absolutely not. It's a red herring argument against gay marriage. What's funny, though, is that fathers are male and daughters are female. If anything, heterosexual marriage makes the case for allowing heterosexual incest, does it not?

Katie,

What are you talking about? Of course incest is not OK. Aside from the emotional trauma, there are legitimate genetic reasons for not allowing it. You have to be kidding.....

Yes, incest has everything to do with how homosexuals conduct business.

I didn't say that it was okay. I said that I don't care if it's between consenting adults. Consenting adults is the sticking point. Genetic problems obviously can crop up with offspring, but we don't require that other people with known genetic defects refrain from reproduction, so I don't feel there's legal justification for applying it to anyone else.

Do I agree with it? No. Do I feel I somehow can tell two consenting people what they can and cannot do with their bodies? No. Even if I find it wrong.

Katie,

I strongly disagree with you, and have never, ever heard anyone argue in favor of incest before. It's just wrong, wrong, wrong. Period, end of subject.

Allan Nichols, are you nucking futs or what? According to you:

Marriage was created as a way to populate the earth and grow familes!!!!

Last time I cheked two gay people CAN NOT DO EITHER!!!!

Guess what, you lame brain. I am a heterosexual woman and I CHOSE NOT to grow as you put it a famile. My choice. And yes, I AM married. There are a lot of people that choose not to have kids, so according to you, they ought not be able to get married, right? You people that think the only purpose of a woman is to @!$%# out kids make me freakin sick! And I don't give a damn what political party you are. That is just damned disgusting.

Furthermore, why do you feel like it's YOUR business what two adults decide to do with their lives? Are you threatened by two men or two women being in love and deciding they want to spend their lives together? NONE of your business.

Raven, there are those that feel that way about homosexual relationships, and we say it's unjustified.

I don't support incest. I also don't support Christianity (or any religion), conservativism, or heterosexuality. But it doesn't matter what I think beyond where it concerns me, because I don't have the right to instruct others how to live, just as they don't have the right to do it to me.

My point isn't to say, "Oh, yeah, incest is awesome!" It's weird and I think it's @!$%#ed up. But, everyone thinks something is @!$%#ed up at one time or another, and unless there's some sort of legal justification for why you can ban consenting adults from doing what they wish with one another, I don't think any such ban is acceptable.

This extends also to poly relationships (polygamy, polyandry, and just plain ol' polyamory), homosexual relationships, heterosexual relationships, marriages of convenience, non-marrying persons who live together, and pretty much any other thing you can think of that involves only consenting adults.

Katie,

It's a (mostly) free country, so you think think whatever you want, no matter how wrong-headed it is. Just be aware that incest is against the law, and will probably remain so forever, happily.

I know it's against the law, though you apparently didn't read my post.

Give it a rest, KatieAB. You just aren't making any sense. Actually, you are making about as much sense as Michael Steele.

Right, because my argument is that the government doesn't have the authority to ban any relationship between consenting adults. I suppose that's just a bit too much freedom for those who feel it's okay to limit freedoms, as long as their own freedoms are not infringed.

Whether or not people agree with me, I'm consistent in my views.

Yes, you are consistent in your views, Katie, and yes, I did read your post. I just don't think you're making any sense, and your fundamental argument--that the government doesn't have the authority to ban an incestuous relationship between consenting adults--is just flat out wrong. They're called laws, and they ban incest, period. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Are you arguing for anarchy, Katie?

Until just a few years ago, we had laws against homosexual behavior. Many states still do. They were technically invalidated when a case that started in Texas reached the Supreme Court, and the court said the state had no business interfering with the private relationships of consenting adults.

Some of these laws would have even made some heterosexual behavior illegal, primarily centering around oral and anal sex. These are things heterosexual people regularly engage in, but the laws were targeted to homosexual people specifically.

Just because something is against the law doesn't mean the law is right. My point is to illustrate the hypocrisy that it's wrong to discriminate against one group of people, but perfectly acceptable to do so to another group of people, when someone pointed out that incest could potentially be legalized (between consenting adults). I don't think it will happen, but I don't care if it does, because it's not something that concerns me, just like heterosexual marriage doesn't concern me. I never said that incest was something I support, just like I don't support hate speech, but that doesn't mean that I have the right to overrule the rights of another person.

I think anarchy would be great if humans were enlightened enough to handle it. But, since apparently those who fight for freedom still feel it's acceptable to discriminate against others with whom they disagree, I don't think we're to that point yet.

KatieAB,

Hang in there girl, you’ve got the right of it, (on this string at least). Consenting adults of sound mind have every right to chose their relationships with the expectation that it will be recognized as legitimate as any other. Raven Watch, you are aware that close family members marring each other has a long history don’t you? Think back on several thousand years of recorded royal lineages, and those where just the ones important enough to be written about. These days with our medical advances that type of union doesn’t have end up with damaged children. Allan, what are you afraid of? Is your “Marriage is only another word for Baby Factory” based on anything that can be read by others?

since there will no longer be marriage there will then no longer be responsibility.

Right, because Britney Spears' shotgun wedding was responsible up the wazoo.

without marriage there is no reason for anyone to remain faithful unless they are stupid enough to want to be.

I feel sad for your (future) spouse. Apparently, in your mind, only morons are romantically faithful. I guess everyone not stupid just inadvertently gets roped into the legal obligation of faithfulness under marriage when they accidentally get married without knowing what they just did.

Listen to how crazy this whole thing is...

Marriage was created as a way to populate the earth and grow familes!!!!

You know, I totally agree. This is why you should join me in campaigning to prohibit sterile/post-menopausal straight people from marrying. After all, they're not going to grow families.

I strongly disagree with you, and have never, ever heard anyone argue in favor of incest before. It's just wrong, wrong, wrong. Period, end of subject.

Translation: "No... because... it's so totally bad!"

Wow. I'm totally convinced.

TheHermit-1075885

Thanks. Apparently some people keep trying to say that I somehow support incest. I do not support it. It exists, it's wrong when it's an adult abusing a child (just like any other child abuse), but if it's between consenting adults it's none of my damn business. They don't get a say in with whom I have sex, and I don't care with whom they have sex.

The entire discussion started because someone said that gay marriage paved the way for incest, and I said that it didn't, because heterosexual marriage paved the way for justifying incestual marriages (since the examples cited were heterosexual).

No problem Katie, even Balsa gets a little help from Tanda now and again. Allan is just loopy but I was a bit surprised by how Raven Watch just couldn’t seem to grasp what you were trying to say. And it's just Hermit to friends.

The Hermit,

If you were surprised, it's because you didn't understand. Of course I grasp what she is trying to say. It's you who can't grasp what I'm trying to say. I just disagree with her that incest of any kind -- even between consenting adults -- is ok. I think that the government has a dog in the fight. Period. It shouldn't be that hard for you to understand that. We....just.....disagree. Simple concept. Capice?

And by the way, when you publish it on Newsvine, it's not just Hermit to friends, it's Hermit to the whole world, which doesn't exactly make you a hermit. But of course, you knew that. Uhhh, right?

I think Hermit was saying to call him "Hermit", rather than the whole name.

And I recognize that you disagree, I just think your disagreement is based on the same types of things that those against gay marriage base their disagreements on. As I said, I don't think it's right, I just don't think I or anyone else has any say in the matter.

Morning Raven,

Sure I capice but I’m having trouble getting past the point that many people are against gay marriages or plural marriages simply because they fell they’re just wrong. Since those two types of unions as well as marriage between family members have been around seen we’ve walked on two legs, (remember the story of the Holy man LOT sleeping with his two daughters?) , then it seems to me we’ve got two choice - everyone of age gets equal protection for their unions or no one does.

Are you close to your 1st cousin? Did you know that at this very time about 20 or so States will let you get hitched to a first cousin? If you ever had the misfortune of seeing anyone from my family you would know that I would never contemplate an inner family marriage, (shudder!), but the thought of someone else doing so doesn’t bother me. Maybe you and I have already meet someone in one. I know I’ve never asked every married couple I’ve known how they meet. Have you?

Hermit :-)

Getting the conversation back on track here this can be summed up in one sentence that has been said already.

THE PRESENT HEAD OF THE RNC AND MOST OF THE PRESENT FOLLOWERS OF THIS MAN ARE ALL DUMBASSES.

Marriage was created as a way to populate the earth and grow familes!!!!

Um...how did the world populate before the instution of marriage?

You really must believe in no sex until marriage.

Jimster,

I think that some of these uhhhhh, complicated concepts are just too much for some people to think through clearly. My guess is that some right-wing conservative will argue that there was a Justice of the Peace to couple Adam and Eve, therefore making things okeydokey in their eyes.

Yes, after all, the earth is ony 6000 years old.

Don't forget walking with the Dino's.... ooohhhh yeah the "Land of the Lost" it's real?

<smirk>

Ok lets just break this silly little notion of fathers marrying daughters and mothers marrying sons? Why would they? They are already related. You get married to become a family not to re-relate yourself to family members.

I have not heard of any parent asking to marry their child, if anyone has a link I would love to see it.

FYI if you are dead set on marrying a family member, its legal to marry your first cousin in California and many other states.

NotSanta,

Which, of course means, by definition, that it's not incest in those states!! I guess that those 'viners who feel that there should be no laws preventing incest feel that Oedipus and his mother set an example that anyone should be able to follow.

I guess that those 'viners who feel that there should be no laws preventing incest feel that Oedipus and his mother set an example that anyone should be able to follow.

Sigh, I hope you realize that "I don't like it" or "it's icky" shouldn't be a metric for making something illegal.

I don't like neo-Nazi rallies. That doesn't mean I think the First Amendment protection of said rallies should be overturned.

Jack,

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, including you. However, I'm not the one who used the words "it's icky"---you are. If you're going to take issue with one of my views, which is your right, then please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't think or say, just so you can take issue with me. It cheapens your argument, and is a cheap shot, to boot.

please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't think or say

You said "It's just wrong, wrong, wrong. Period, end of subject."

That's even more meaningless than "it's just icky," since it means nothing more than "just because." Your reference to Oedipus is what prompted my venturing into "it's icky." Feel free to elucidate any actual reasons you have for outlawing incest, beyond variations on the theme of "just because."

But I didn't say "it's just icky," and I didn't misquote anyone, like you did. Feel free to be honest when you're taking issue with the opinions of others, or to elucidate any actual reasons you have for not doing so, beyond variations on the theme of "it's just easier not to be accurate to score a debater's point."

Not that I want to really insert myself back into a debate that got started because of a misinterpretation of my position, but I'm curious. What exactly is your reasoning, Raven?

Which, of course means, by definition, that it's not incest in those states!! I guess that those 'viners who feel that there should be no laws preventing incest feel that Oedipus and his mother set an example that anyone should be able to follow.

What?

There is empirical evidence, over 250 years, that homosexuality is inherently contradictory to the seamless functioning of the Free Market.

I am just kidding.

The Free Market is indifferent to who spends money to maintain its existence.

The problem is with religious conservatives.

I have to throw in my two cents. Marriage was not created to grow the population of the Earth. It was a way to ensure property and money stayed in families. Women were the property of their fathers, and thus, father chose the groom.

touche'

If that is uneaqual treatment then A BOYFRIEND OR GIRLFRIEND MUST HAVE THE EQUAL RIGHTS!!!

It's not unfair.... Two gay people can not make children nor grow families!!!!

WHAT THEY SHOULD DO IS ELIMINATE SPOUSAL BENIFITS...

Heck get rid of the childrens benifits too or else they have to give equal treatment to those with pets!!!!

My Hampster needs a colonoscapy and my dog has kidney stones.... So if they dont pay for it they are discriminating

How is that unequal treatment?????/

They would have to be married first for it to become unequal!!!!

Then you could say it is unfair and the gays have to pay more becasuse they are more vulnerable to disease than heterosexuals!!!!

THAT IS FACT PARTICUALLY IN THE FORM OF MALE HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONS!!!!

So gays NEED TO PAY MORE!!!

Plus they can not have children so they can not contribute to future tax burden through offspring so we should jack their premium up another %200.......

They charge smokers more so gay insurance should cost more as there is higher risk...

Why don't we just triple the tax on alcoholic beverages, and clean up Newsvine as a side-benefit?

Allan, you do realize that many, many, many, married, heterosexual couples either cannot or do not want to have children, right?

Why don't we have a tax on stupid? Allan'll be in the highest bracket.

Allen,

If we were to tax the proportional amount of grey mater that humans conglomerate, you would be in debt for generations to come.

Allan,

As you don't feel the need to provide anything in your posts but rants and baseless accusations, I will provide you with a couple of educational links. It is my devout hope that you can read them through your glass belly-button.

After you view them, you will understand that "marriage" pre-dates the bible and the idea that it was the word of god that we must procreate. It has a long and complicated history. It, unlike many people, has evolved.

Homosexual couples can and do have children. Or not. Just like heterosexual couples. They have jobs and houses and cars, they pay taxes and credit bills and buy groceries. They go to baseball games, cook, wear sweats, sleep and use computers. The bleed, sweat, get cancer and cure cancer. The are doctors, lawyers, garbage men, farmers and politicians. They are people. Get over it.

http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=215875

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Related_concepts

http://indian-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/marriage_in_ancient_india

Neenie.....waaaaaaay to complicated for Allan. I suggest you start with simple, monsyllabic words, and basic primary colors.

Kim-298921

Why don't we have a tax on stupid? Allan'll be in the highest bracket.

Highest bracket, my ass. He could clear up the national debt in 1 year!

Kim,

You're right on this one....thought about that myself....but that assumes that he's employable and capable of earning anything.

I fully support the idea of a tax on stupid. However, given their current demographics, it will fall overwhelmingly on the pathetic remains of the GOP.

Oh well, I guess that's OK.

sshhhh he may catch on sooner or later!

How is that unequal treatment?????/

They would have to be married first for it to become unequal!!!!

I nominate this the the conservative Catch-22 of the week.

Allen you're going to sweep the awards this week.

This week's On The Media has a couple segments about the changing messaging in American politics. Fascinating listen.

Thanks spiffie...I'll check it out...didn't listen to very much public radio last week...probably missed out on lots of other stuff too...

Allan Nichols

Allan... and I really mean this in the most respectful manner... you're incoherent.

Do you really think that you are making any sense?

Allan,

With all due respect, have you considered your rights under the American Disabilities Act?

Methinks that you will qualify in full, and, thanks to Progressive legislation over the years, you will actually receive funding for being mentally retarded.

Brandon,

LOL, but if Allan is true to what I think are his conservative leanings, he will no doubt declare himself ineligible for any benefits available under ADA. To do anything else would be totally hypocritical, and we certainly can't have that, can we?

On a serious note, however, I think the term "retarded" is considered offensive by a lot of people these days, and it's three syllables anyway, so Allan probably won't understand it. There are other choices that may be less offensive.....just a friendly suggestion.

Allen-

Do you have two dimes for a Nichols?

He probably doesn't, and more likely, you'd probably only get your two cents worth, if that, Jimster.

What the hell kinda stimulus pack is that?

Oh yeah, a conservative one.

McCain as well left his first wife for a millionaire blond babe.

I was going to include him too. But since Limbaugh kicked his Mother out of the Republican Party I just didn't have the heart too.

Actually, I think that Limbaugh was married, but I could be wrong. Not as wrong as you are though, about a whole lot of things Allan.

Limbaugh has been married, and divorced, three times. He is presently single.

Limbaugh HAS NEVER BEEN MARRIED you dope!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/5191534/

updated 5:38 p.m. MT, Fri., June 11, 2004

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Conservative radiocommentator Rush Limbaugh announced Friday that he and his wife, Marta, are divorcing.

The Limbaughs “mutually decided to end their marriage of 10 years” and have “separated pending an amicable resolution,” according to a statement released by Limbaugh’s publicist.

It was the third marriage for both Limbaugh, 53, and his 44-year-old wife, who were wed May 27, 1994 at the Virginia home of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas officiated the ceremony. (emphasis added)

-----

Please apologize for being a liar and/or a fool.

I would call you names like you did but I know you are illiterate. So instead of telling you to look it up I do it for you. I did this for you so you won't look stupid next time you post something. I believe that the below information means Limbaugh has been married 3 times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh

Born
January 12, 1951 (1951-01-12) (age 58)
Cape Girardeau, Missouri

Occupation Radio host, political commentator, author, and television personality

Spouse(s)
Roxy Maxine McNeely (1977–1980, div.)
Michelle Sixta (1983–1990, div.)
Marta Fitzgerald (1994–2004, div.)

Allan.

I don't want you to be put off by those who take your statements and prove beyond doubt that they are not based in reality.

I want you to push on, always looking forward, always filling in those tiny gaps in your knowledge with the power of scorn and your imagination.

I suggest this because it's been my experience that certain people simply cannot weather self analysis, the gap between the subjective and objective digestion of that is too great.

You have not stepped off some scary huge cliff Allan and you certainly are not plummeting while screaming incoherant gibberish.

No you are dancing between the lanes on a bridge that starts at the cliff and ends up, well somewhere eventually presumably.

And personally I'm more curious as to where either your deteriorating mind or if not deteriorating then frighteningly retarded will take you as you journey through the world married as it were to a political foundation founded on collective insanity.

Please, please keep posting as I believe the internet cannot have enough damaged pets.

Holy crap, winsomecowboy, remind me to never get on your nerves! LOL

Yes, Nanmac...sheer poetic beauty from winsomecowboy

8.8.....

Damn. That's sexy!

Once you get a little bit of winsome you never go back.

A lil light reading for you Allan

1. Newt Gingrich, married three times. Gingrich campaign worker Anne Manning admitted that she gave Newt oral sex while he was still married to his first wife. Informed one wife he was filing for divorce while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer treatments

2. Mark Foley, Republican Representative, Florida Sixteenth Congressional District. Resigned after trying to solicit sex from male congressional pages via an instant messenger program. The conversations included his asking a sixteen-year-old "stud" whether his penis was erect and requesting that he take out and measure his penis.

3. Larry Craig Republican Senator for Idaho, was arrested on July 11, 2007, by plainclothes police officer investigating complaints of lewd behavior in a Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport airport men's room.

4. Jim West, Spokane Mayor. Supported a bill, which failed, would have barred gays and lesbians from working in schools, day-care centers and some state agencies. Voted to bar the state from distributing pamphlets telling people how to protect themselves from AIDS. Proposed that “any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person” among teens be criminalized. Had a sexual affair with an 18 year old boy.

5. Don Sherwood, Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Eventually admitted to an affair with a woman 30 years younger than him, after she accused him of physical abuse and attempting to choke her.

6. Ted Haggard, was fired as pastor of the New Life Church and resigned from his position as president of the National Association of Evangelicals in November 2006 after a former male prostitute alleged they had a cash-for-sex relationship. The man also said he saw Haggard use methamphetamine. Haggard confessed to undisclosed “sexual immorality” and said he bought meth but didn’t use it

7. Rush Limbaugh, triple-divorcee, 30-pill a day drug addict. In 2006, returning from a trip to the Dominican Republic, Limbaugh was detained by customs agents for several hours after they found a bottle of Viagra prescribed to someone else in his luggage.

8. Strom Thurmond, Republican senator, aged 22, fathered a child on 16-year old African American maid working for his family

9. Bill O'Reilly Right-wing conservative talk show host on Fox News, sued for sexual harassment by his producer.

10. Jimmy Swaggart, televangelist, said during a sermon "I'm trying to find the correct name for it … this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. … I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died." Had an affair with a prostitute. There was a Penthouse found in the room, Larry Flint was gitty as a school girl.

NotSanta,

Excellent, excellent, excellent. Thanks for shedding some much needed "light" on this, though for those with blinders on, it might not sink in.

NotSanta #8.3

What, that's it?

This reads like a really good bedtime story... Is this going to be made into a TV mini-series? [smirk]

Is this going to be made into a TV mini-series

The Goofy, the Bad, and the Ugly.

To quote the great Barny Frank ....

There is no problem with Fanni and Freddi moving forward.....

Now turn around and take that one taxpayers!!!

Allan,

Barney is spelled with an e, and so are Fannie and Freddie. What's your beef against e's?

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

Aha..... I know what Allan's problem is now! He has gone apoplectic over this conversation, flinging his head back and forth, throwing slobber and foam. Poor fool, he probably has problems seeing now due to all the spittle on his monitor.

Well, Phuggy, we sure as H know it isn't brain matter on the monitor.

I think he must be drunk....maybe I'm being too kind.

Well, kindness is a good thing, Nanmac. But it doesn't mean you're wrong.

True.

BTW I loved your reference to checking his carbon monoxide detector. LOL

Thank you! I rather enjoyed that one myself.

Well, Phuggy, we sure as H know it isn't brain matter on the monitor.

I know. What on earth is wrong with this man? I get a mental image of him in front of his computer carrying on like a raging lunatic.

Oh Phuggy. You're being too kind. :-)

You are not discrimnating against anyone as MARRIAGE IS AN INSTITUITON....

Spoke of by the founders and defined as ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!!!!

So then by youre logic no group, insittuion or private club should be able to keep anyone out!!!!!

Neither, unfortunately for us, can Newsvine, Allan.

Marriage was spoken of by the founders?

The word 'marriage' does not appear in the US Constitution. It is certainly not defined there.

Do you try to be this freakishly wrong, or is it just natural to you?

You are not discrimnating against anyone as MARRIAGE IS AN INSTITUITON....

Wait what? That doesn't even make sense? Does that mean Brown v. Board of Education--the case the ended public school discrimination based on race--was wrongly decided because schools are institutions? Or public education is an institution? Absolute nonsense. Access to public institutions is practically a definitional case for equal access and ending discrimination.

You are not discrimnating against anyone as MARRIAGE IS AN INSTITUITON....

You should look into something called systemic discrimination, sometimes called institutional discrimination.

Spoke of by the founders and defined as ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!!!!

It's also defined as a homosexual union between two members of the same sex. You can, of course, make up your own definitions for words if you want... but it makes communication difficult.

I believe I understand what is happening here. I have actually met people who feel so strongly about what they believe, it's inconceivable that anyone whose opinion matters would not think the way that they do, from their religious beliefs to their political leanings. They tend to be less educated and they know it. To compensate for their lack of knowledge, they simply say things with conviction. This is usually enough to convince most of the people they come in contact with in their everyday lives.

Okay, I'm doing this new thing where I'm trying to give peole the benefit of the doubt. Let's see how this goes.

Trying to understand Allan is like trying to have a conversation with Sarah Palin.

You are not discrimnating against anyone as MARRIAGE IS AN INSTITUITON....

Much like the one you're writing from right now.

OK, I have had enough of this crap.

All the little babbling comments from the "Christians" boil down to ONE thing. They are TERRIFIED that if gay marriage becomes law that they will be forced into one. On what other basis can they possibly think that their "beliefs", their definitions of the "institution of marriage", or their "feelings" about the issue are relevant in any way to the simple question of whether or not gays will enjoy equal rights before the law.

To "Christians", I offer the following guidelines in the unlikely event that someone of the same gender should approach you "out of the blue" with a proposal of marriage (or even a DATE for that matter). The appropriate and polite responses are either "yes", or something along the lines of "I am flattered, but no thank you." Note that the person who has asked found you attractive/intelligent enough to make the offer. You damned well SHOULD be flattered.

But, until you are approached, I can't imagine why anyone would be interested in your "beliefs" or your "feelings" on a subject that has NO BEARING on you.

I don't think it's fear of being hit on, I think it's fear of losing the control they've had for years and years.

Katie,

There are two perspectives, at least, to everything. I certainly understand your point, but I happen to think that they've been OUT of control for years and years and years, and still are.

I'm not talking about Republicans. I'm talking about the Christians that continue to assert their religious beliefs as a basis for new laws that punish citizens for doing things with which fundamentalist Christians do not agree. We have "God" inserted into so many things that it's just crazy.

The Christians who spread hatred and bigotry seem to be exempt from judgment and the consequences of their actions because they're in the majority in this country. If they lose that majority status, if they lose their stranglehold on what is considered "normal" in this country, they'll be exposed and vulnerable, and their views will be seen and treated as the bigotry they are.

Katie--perfect--very well said.

iceman6

OK, I have had enough of this crap.

All the little babbling comments from the "Christians" boil down to ONE thing. They are TERRIFIED that if gay marriage becomes law that they will be forced into one.

There is absolutely no way anyone could force me into marriage gay OR straight. Been there, done that and want no part of it again.

I DO consider myself a Christian, and probably a shock to some of you on here; a conservative republican. HOWEVER, I also believe with every fiber of my being that if two people are in love and want to get married, they should be able to do that freely and joyously. If they want children, they should be allowed to adopt by the same rules heterosexuals have to follow.

I do NOT understand what the fuss is about. I don't think there is a gay man that would marry me, or get into a relationship with me. I am not available to any lesbian. It really pisses me off to see such anger, hatred, and just plain misunderstanding from so-called intelligent people towards gays. It makes no sense to me at all. And YES, I do have gay friends all over the place. My main problem comes from having a diminishing tolerance for stupidity, especially when people cling to it like a freaking life raft.

If we in NC ever have the chance to vote for gay marriage, my vote will be a resounding YES!

Iceman,

Very well written, compelling, compassionate and spot on. I wonder where all of the other "compassionate conservatives" went?

Thanks. I quoted Iceman on the first couple of sentences.

I have never followed in anyone's footsteps and at my age, I refuse to do it now. It has never made sense to me that someone could be so against wanting to spend the rest of their lives with someone they love. Doesn't matter if they are gay, lesbian, black, white or freaking green and purple polka dotted.

My cousin is directly opposite. She would let her kids or grandchildren DIE instead of receiving a transfusion or an organ from a black or gay person. Hell, I would be glad to have a better life and be grateful to the person that donated. People are hateful and mean and getting worse all the time. Like I said before If I have a chance to vote to let gays marry here in this ass backward state, my vote goes to YES.

To all of you that are gay: Please don't judge ALL us hetero, conservative republican Christians to be stupid like some are. Some of us are indeed compassionate, caring individuals, and I will take a gay neighbor anytime over some hateful individual.

Phuggy,

I DO consider myself a Christian, and probably a shock to some of you on here; a conservative republican. HOWEVER, I also believe with every fiber of my being that if two people are in love and want to get married, they should be able to do that freely and joyously. If they want children, they should be allowed to adopt by the same rules heterosexuals have to follow.

An unexpected and most welcome response to my ugly diatribe. There is hope. You have made my day.

To all of you that are gay: Please don't judge ALL us hetero, conservative republican Christians to be stupid like some are. Some of us are indeed compassionate, caring individuals

Thanks Phuggy. Some of us realize that and I always let my gay brothers and sisters know that too whenever I can.

By the same token, to all the straights out there: Please don't think we are all like Perez Hilton either. Stupid insensitive people come in all stripes, and we have our share too unfortunately.

Thanks for thinking about it. I read something this week about a survey that concluded Massachusetts saw several hundred million dollars come in since they legalized marriage equality. I want to say $700-million, but I'm not sure. I recall, however, that it's money a lot of states would like to get their hands on. I'd rather it were a civil rights matter, if economic is what makes the point, then I'll go with that. I'm 62. I'd just like to propose to my partner of 31 years and be able to give him the follow-through.

Hey pdw M@!$%# made so much money with leagal gay marriage that the STATE IS FREAKING BANKRUPT!!!

Why exactly would healthcare costs be higher with gay marriage? You do realize that, as individuals, gay people can have insurance, are eligible for state-sponsored healthcare where available, and pretty much are just like anyone else? Marriage allows them to share benefits at a lower cost because of family plans.

Allan, you just HAVE to prove that you're an idiot, don't you? Take this statement:

ONE TIME EVENT LIKE A WEDDING WOULD PALE IN COMPARRISON TO A LIFETIME OF HEALTHCARE COSTS!!!

Try paying the health care costs of a child born needing a heart transplant, getting that transplant and living the rest of their lives on anti rejection drugs. Or one born retarded or with some ailment like CP.

You know something. I am just too smart to sit here and deal with you. Consider yourself @!$%# slapped and dismissed!

Allan...

Maybe they're bankrupt, but they're $700,000,000 ahead of where they would have been if they hadn't past marriage equality.

And, having gone through all of the comments, I feel I have a badge of honor having been commented upon by Allan. I mean, his to me was coherency itself compared to some of the others.

What's (sort of) funny about Steele's statement is it assumes that the other spouse in this gay marriage doesn't have health insurance from their employer already.

I would think that not to be the case. Thus incurring no additional expense to the business owner whatsoever.

Yes, this is why his argument is pure illogical idiocy.

But it is comical in a pathetic way...

Well stated! Bravo!

Timba, when I read right-wing conservatives it brought many things to mind. I really thought about this whole thing and how the Rep. are so judgemental and condemning. I did a little poking around and found a few things. The far right is obsessed with the gay marriage subject. What does Cheney think? His daughter is a lesbian, so is he all about infringing on her rights?

How about, Foley, a House Deputy Majority Whip, who had homosexual relationships with children while he was Chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children and one of the foremost opponents of child pornography. House Rep. admitted that knew that Foley was a homosexual and Justin Nelson, a former GOP House staffer who founded the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, says "it was gay Republican staffers and an openly gay member of Congress" who delivered early warnings about Foley's behavior . They protected Foley, the bottom line: the House Republican leaders did not protect the children. They protected one of their own, a known homosexual making overtures to a young boy....

Washington State lawmaker Richard Curtis resigned his office tonight after a man he allegedly paid for sex spoke to the media about the encounter. He said he was being extorted by a man he had sex with in a Spokane hotel room. The other man contends Curtis reneged on a promise to pay $1,000 for sex.”

Or maybe, Wisconsin’s Brown County Republican Party chair Donald Fleischman being charged with performing sexual acts on a boy under 18 faces felony counts of child enticement and exposing himself to a child.

What about Ted Haggard paying male prostitutes for sex and snorting crystal meth. He was once a powerful force in the evangelical movement and he participated in weekly meetings with President George Bush and top advisers where he gave spiritual advice. He taught that homosexuality was an abomination and actively lobbied against gay rights.

Then we see every bodies favorite from the Mpls. St. Paul airport, Larry Craig who twice voted against adding the words “sexual orientation” to the federal hate crimes law. Craig also voted to give states the right to refuse to recognize gay marriage–a right they already had, but the Senator wanted to really, really prove he did not like gay people. But lets not forget he was the Senate Liaison for Mitt Romney’s Presidential Campaign.

How about Good Ol' Bob Allen, a member of the Florida House of Representatives who was also Florida Chairman of John McCain’s Presidential Campaign. (Wow Palin and this guy,McCain really didn't vet his people). Ol' Bob offered an undercover cop $20 to allow Allen to blow him in a men’s room in a public park. After being arrested, Allen tried to explain that he only offered to blow the cop because the cop was a “burly black man” and he “did'nt want to become a statistic.”

A New York Times story by Mark Leibovich confirmed that gay Republicans have occupied "crucial staff positions" in Congress and "have played decisive roles in passing legislation, running campaigns and advancing careers." What is even worse is Allen was one of 21 Florida legislators to sign Gov. Jeb Bush’s friend-of-the-court brief supporting the state’s ban on gays adopting children, and he co-sponsored an unsuccessful bill that would have enhanced penalties for “offenses involving unnatural and lascivious acts” such as indecent exposure.

And finally, Glen Murphy JR., National Chairman of the Young Republicans
Chairman of the Clark County Republican Party. It seems Murphy got a fellow Young Republican drunk and then spent the night at his house. The other young man woke up in the middle of the night to find Murphy giving him mouth-to-penis resuscitation. After this incident, a 1998 sexual battery report came to light in which Murphy was alleged to have done the exact same thing. And as always to make matters even worse, Murphy was a well-paid political consultant for Republican candidates and often advised them to use gay marriage as a wedge issue to paint their opponents as out of touch with traditional values.

And a real kick in the teeth is conservatives groups allege gay GOP members are really network of undercover liberals.

Thank you Timba for inspiring me to sit here for 15 min and do some research that really shows the outright hypocrisy and hate of the GOP and their own members. I would like to add that I really do think it is a shame that if these men truly are gay, I think it's a shame that they can not be GOP member and express their true sexuality because of the "conservative agenda" the GOP has.

So only certain Christians can decide what "marriage" means? You do realize there are other Christian churches that are more than happy to bless gay marriages, right?

Gay marriage does not exist in a religious sense.

Of course you understand that marriage existed prior to religion co-opting it, yes? When something exists prior to an unrelated entity moving in and trying to take it over, that means it is independent of that entity and does not require it. Many people get married in this country without even once involving religion.

You do realize there are other Christian churches that are more than happy to bless gay marriages, right?

The United Church of Christ, for one.

Gay marriage is NOT a religious issue. All marriages (at least in Arizona) are civil marriages, licensed by the state. It makes no difference whether they are performed by a judge or priest, they are the same marriage, a civil marriage.

It isn't a religious issue until a gay couple shows up at the door of their church, marriage license in hand. At that point, we will learn a great deal about their priest and the congregation from their reactions. Saying you are against gay marriage on religious grounds is just another way of saying you are a bigot.

The religious right picks and chooses which parts of the Bible they want to apply. And they choose based on which outsider group they would like to hate next. First, they emphasized slavery in the Bible when they wanted to hate black people. Now, they emphasize the parts condemning homosexuality so they can hate gay people.

They are completely and utterly disingenuous. They don't mean a word of it. They don't give a damn what the Bible says. They just want to use it as an instrument of hate.

The Bible says eating shellfish is an abomination. Yet there are no Red Lobster Amendments. The Bible says you shall not wear two different types of cloths at the same time. Yet there are no Propositions against cotton and wool combos.

The Bible says you should leave your family and join Jesus Christ. The religious right pretends that Jesus was about family values. He wanted you to abandon your family. Read the Bible.

The religious right pretends that the Bible says marriage is between one man and one woman. But that is a bald faced lie. Have any of these people ever read the Bible? The Bible is full of men taking on second wives, servants, prostitutes and concubines. And all the while, God heartily approves. How many wives did King David have? Eight? Twelve? Let alone his possibly gay lover, Jonathan.

There will always be those who point to the constitution and cry "freedom of religion!" then turn around and pull out their bibles to justify infringing on the rights of others.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ"

--Gandhi

Gay marriage does not exist in a religious sense.

Actually, gay marriage exists in the religions of certain Native American tribes. I hope you're not so thick as to think that your personal brand of Christianity is humanity's sole religion.

That is one man, one woman. End of that story.

Dang. Now that you've personally put your foot down, I guess I'm totally convinced.

However, that said; the state does all kinds of goofy things in the name of fair play.

The Old Testament certainly made no direct admonishments of slavery or polygamy. I guess abolition was just another goofy state thing, eh?

I too have studied and learned and this is my unbiased opinion.

"Unbiased opinion" does not exist in reality.

God has His equals in government, it seems.

Actually, seeing as how we're not a theocracy, the Constitution legally trumps God absolutely in every sense.

Now we have President Obama there to protect us and cover us with benefits. What a good little mother.

Yes, because Obama invented the concept of gov't social services. You keep thinking that.

P.S. - Jesus was a socialist. How 'bout them apples?

P.S. - Jesus was a socialist. How 'bout them apples?

Not just a socialist. He was a hippy socialist.

Jesus was also anti-capitalist.

judi fermanich:

Gay marriage does not exist in a religious sense. That is one man, one woman.

There are more religions than just your own. Some of them, even some Christian denominations, allow gay marriages. So your statement that gay marriage does not exist in a religious sense is simply wrong. It may not exist in your particular denomination of Christianity, but it does exist.

Now I reject gay marriage because two of the same cannot be married. They can be joined in a civil ceremony that allows them same benefits as heteo married couples.

There is a civil ceremony that provides marriage benefits. It is actually the same civil ceremony that provides marriage benefits to heterosexual couples. It is called civil marriage. Sometimes this civil ceremony takes part in conjunction with a religious ceremony, but it is the civil ceremony that is binding under the law. That is why the person performing the marriage always states "by the power vested in me by the state of <fill in the blank>" during the ceremony, even in otherwise religious ceremonies. This is also why couples can go to a courthouse to get married, rather than to a church.

Sounds like a good argument for universal single-payer healthcare. Let small businesses get out of the business of providing health insurance to their employees!

Well said, scare them into doing something stupid, again.

Or maybe we should let them have children out of wedlock in order for companies to save a dime? But wait.... if they did that, what would the Catholic Church say about that practice?!

He probably wouldn't get invited to Notre Dame to give the commencement address.

liveforpeace wrote:

Is it just me, or are the republicans oddly silent on this one? I didn't see anyone defending Steele.

So far, few if any have chimed in on the board. It may be that they find the argument absurd enough not to be taken seriously the same way the rest of us do. Then again, there's very little love for Steele around the boards to begin with.

Steele said he used the argument weeks ago while chatting on a flight with a college student who described herself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal on issues like gay marriage.

But, you'll notice that the article, and Steele himself, never mentions whether or not this argument was successful or what the student's response was. I would venture to say that this particular attempt at GOP conversion was not successful-- since the argument wouldn't, in my opinion, convince my first-grader nephew, either...

Giving it a different name, like "civil union" is no better than segregation. It's like putting a label on them, like a brand.

Or employing the separate drinking fountain strategy again. There's a reason such a thing was eliminated for blacks. Separate is never equal.

Precisely one of the reasons why religions need to be banned by the government.

Employment discrimination based on sexual orientation is only illegal in some areas, not all.

Employment discrimination based on sexual orientation is only illegal in some areas, not all.

Perhaps, but if you do it because you believe that the candidate will never be married, for whatever reason, that's a different kind of discrimination.

Oooh, good point! Creative, too!

If you get right down to it, discrimination against people on the
basis of sexual orientation discriminates on the basis of gender as
well. Look at it carefully:

• Employee John, a male, loves Tina, a female.
• Employee Jane, a female, loves Paul, a male.
• Employee Paulette, a female, loves Andrea, a female.
• Employee Patrick, a male, loves Ryan, a male.

The hypothetical business owner would not care about the first two
employees. Yet the hypothetical business owner would care about the
second two employees, who engage in the exact same actions as the
first two, on the basis of the employee's gender.

You can view discriminatory marriage laws in a like manner:

• A man can legally marry a woman.
• A woman can legally marry a man.
• A man cannot legally marry a man.
• A woman cannot legally marry a woman.

How about "avowed Republicans"? Sounds even better.