Dear, this is a country with a government, not a church service.

And Christ railed against hypocrisy, lies and bigotry -- not sex lives. If you understood that, you'd see how flawed your idea of a "Christian nation" really is.

Read the pledge to the flag. ONE NATION UNDER GOD WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. get ur head out of ur but.

Christ was very clear about 1 woman and 1 man. We are a secular country but don't call yourself a christian if you don't believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ

We need to stop bringing religion into the discussion. Religion has no relevance in the US in matters of politics and policy, and millions of Americans who call themselves Christian embrace policies and agendas that directly contradict Christ's teachings -- and most Christians are entirely comfortable with this. For example, Christ is very clear about our responsibilities to the poor, and America rejects what Christ said. Or you could get into all that stuff about "judge not lest ye be judged...", and loving your neighbor, being peace makers and not aggressors, recognizing that "It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven," and so on. We reject all of this, and since that's the case, I think we lost the right to recite lines of Scripture in support or opposition to any political argument.

Love one another as yourself.

Ever read that?

re: "Christ was very clear about 1 woman and 1 man."

Chapter and verse? Take your time...

Today is George Carlin's 75th birthday and I say R.I.P George... I rest my case...☺

To: Roy T. Harper,

The original Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, who was a Baptist minister. It read: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The words 'under God' were not added until the fourth change to it's composition in, 1954.

not opposed to SSM- agree with President Obama- each state should decided- that said what constitutional "right" has anything to do with SSM?

Nothing innate about learning to want a penis in your mouth or rectum, or to practice hedonistic sex acts with partners of the same gender instead of couples and family building sexual intimacy and legal bonding. LBGT lifestyles are decisions, not state of birth or disability as are the classes of individuals protected under the consitutional based laws and regulatory provisions of the federal government and state governments, Jay.

I'd love to agree with you Keith, but you've been proven wrong by science.

Saying so isn't proving anything, Lefty Loo!

Once you understand that it's not a lifestyle choice but something innate, it's easy to see that GLBT people should have the same rights as everyone else.

Whether sexual orientation is a choice or not is totally irrelevant. People deserve equal rights in any case.

Besides, marriage is a (lifestyle) choice for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. Nobody was born married.

Not born married, but I sure am glad that I was born to a Father and Mother, and not hatched out some cold forbidden womb with sperm introduduced by way of a turkey baster from some phantom doner. The traditional reproduction in a loving sheltered household worked for their parents, worked for me as i have two well adjusted children who have traditionally given me three grandchildren, Dorothea!

Kieth

You could look it up in the AMA journals. It's been several years ago, but was proven to be "born" and not a choice.

Barack Obama followed his political instincts as he has he need to find another major distraction after his short lived "War on Women" fell so dreadfully short of its goal.

For a network that so castigates the Republicans for their political reliance on "social issues" to motivate voter support for their candidates, this adolation of all things Obama and his surrogates speak on which are social interest group hot buttons strikes me as the height of hypocrisy!

How about we get around to dealing with the important issues of the Presidential and Congressional election ahead of us: the sorry state of the economy, a dreadful fiscal situation, pi** poor energy policy, and a faltering defense posture in this troubled world of ours? Comeon people, this issue, gay marriage rights, is dead meat every time it goes before the people at the polls and will not do a thing for anyones economically or security well being!

How can you think the President started this conversation? Conservatives are passing extreme social laws in state legislatures all over the country, when THEY should be focused on jobs, the economy, and health care. But they are too busy exciting their base to do anything substantial. Same thing with the war on women. (Sorry, but that's still alive.) It's simply GOP create-a-crisis to divert everyone's attention from the fact that they have no viable solutions to the economic, housing, and jobs issues.

That's laughable nonsense. You ought to be writing material for stand up comics.

Kieth believes everything the President does is polical and everything the conservatives do is "for the people".

For flip flopping? For revealing his new personal opinion? In the constitutional government we are under regulation of the conditions relating to legal marriage bonds remains at the state level, the federal govenment has to means to affect that.

So I really doubt your contention that his "civil rights" reputation will equal that of former politicians that worked for women's equality, racial equality, and (although you didn't see fit to include it in your limited viewpoint), the civil rights of the disabled, which were cemented at the Federal level by the passage of The American Disability Act during the admininistration of George H. W. Bush and signed by that President in 1990.

We still don't have equal rights when it comes to something as fundamental as wages, with women being paid roughly only 3/4 of what men are paid for the same/comparable work.

re: "For flip flopping?"

It's not flip-flopping to continue further in the same direction. And your legal arguments miss the point of the president offering Moral Guidance for the nation despite the political risk to himself.

"acknowledging that trickle down economics has been an utter failure"

He actually did that. He called out TDE by name about a month ago.

Here: www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/politics/obama-republicans/index.html

Capatalism isn't a failure. And to take the capital from the capatalists to have federal CZARS spend it instead is not the kind of economic system I want to be living under. Have you seen what GSA and TSA, for example, have been up to lately with your hard earned tax dollars?

Capitalism is a complete failure. If you don't like supporting this country (taxes) leave. I promise you won't be missed.

Sorry Larry Capitalism is an overwhelming success. About 1 out of every hundred people is a millionaire.

From the Wall Street Journal:

"

By Robert Frank

If further proof were needed of the two-speed recovery–the rich and the rest–now comes news that America has a record number of millionaires.

According to the annual World Wealth Report from Merill Lynch and Capgemini, the U.S. had 3.1 million millionaires in 2010, up from 2.86 million in 2009. The latest figure tops the pre-crisis peak of three million.

Merrill and Capgemini define millionaires as individuals with $1 million or more in investible assets, not including primary home, collectibles, consumables and consumer durables.

The wealth held by these millionaires also hit a record. North American millionaires had a combined wealth of $11.6 trillion, up from $10.7 trillion in 2009.

The number of Americans with $30 million is still slightly below the pre-crisis peak. In 2010 there were 40,000 North Americans with $30 million or more, up from 36,000 in 2009.

Why are millionaires doing so much better than everyone else? Financial markets."

here,here Have u notice how repul serve in politics bashing gays an after they leave they come out. Log cabins guys praise the rights but the rights don't speak up for them. Now they r knocking Obama for supporting their life style. Go frig

Gays are the tea party of the democratic party.

Yeah, right! Because wanting EQUAL rights is such an EXTREME position...

So do we rewrite the American Disability Act and other Labor Laws to place gays in a protected class, and make them eligible for affirmative action programs because they choose their lifestyle, Dorothea?

Oh Keith! It's called marriage EQUALITY for a reason. What LGB people want is equal treatment, not special treatment!

Like you, I oppose "affirmative action" for non-disabled minorities, because reverse discrimination is just as wrong as the original discrimination.

However, anti-discrimination laws do NOT make LGB people (or any other minority group) a protected class. Anti-discrimination laws protect ALL people EQUALLY from discrimination based on categories like sexual orientation, gender (indentity), race, age. This means that straight people (like you) benefit from such laws, too. A homophobe is not allowed to reject a gay person for being gay AND a heterophobe is not allowed to reject a straight person for being straight. It works both ways and thus ensures equal treatment of EVERYONE.

Sexual orientation is not a protected class under the laws at present. Sorry to break that to you Dorothea.

Sexual orientation is not a protected class under the laws at present.

Keith, my previous post was about the purpose of anti-discrimination laws in general, not about a specific law in a certain country.

I know that the USA has no federal law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. It's a shame that the USA doesn't even get ENDA passed. This is one of the reasons why the rest of the Western world often refers to the USA as "a very conservative country".

By the way, how do you like my new profile picture? I chose it just for you, so that you'll never mistake me for a libertarian again.

Forgetting your interpretation of the bible for just a moment, is not being towed behind a pickup until more than dead pretty similar? If you are at all inclined to agree, then you should lighten up a bit... if not, we have nothing more to discuss.

to cite one case of violence does not caste the two different american expierences of Gays and Blacks in the same category. Gay people have the option of being percieved has human , there sexuality does not have to be displayed in everyday activity. It is by choice that homosexuals flaunt there sexual preference. One of the prime reasons africans were sought for as slaves, was there readily identifiable black skin. unlike white slaves or american indians they could not easily melt into a population of people and escape there captors. The same concept was in play even after slavery. blacks readily identifiable would be denied social advancement, economic strength and general acclaim for our contributions not just to america's creation but also to the world.

You do know that they used the bible to justify slavery, right?

Also, where in the Bible does JESUS condemn homosexuality?

So, Brent, am I to understand that your solution for the LGBT community is for us to live in hiding?
You do realize that yours is not the only religious belief, right?
Mormonism, a sect of Christianity in most people's eyes, states that black people wear the "mark of Cain," saying that people with darker skin were punished for their sloth in heaven and sent through a wall of fire before birth. The founder stated "The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain, the Church must go to destruction."
Would you want to live in a country where the laws were modelled after that religious teaching? Of course not. Would you want to live under the Muslim Sharia Law? Of course you wouldn't. No one would. That's what is supposed to be great about this country, a country founded by people fleeing religious persecution: you don't have to be affected by what your neighbour believes.
Not everyone in the US is a Christian. In fact, Christians make up about 30% of the world population. Why can't you respect that everyone believes differently, and our differences enrich the world? We need to all be respectful of the belief systems of others, even if we disagree.

I bet all these people who judge have a lot of hip-ups in their life. There is a saying don't let the plp down stairs know what the plp up stairs is doing. hve u notice how some wait til the kids finish school and thin come out. what they say I don't want to live in the closet anymore. For years the have bash the gays.

What is the big deal?! Why is the concept of two people who love each other legitimizing their commitment legally such a hot topic? Marriage is a state right. Plenty of people get married without ever stepping foot in a church. This is not required. What are we talking about here? Obama has dared to express his opinion that people who find themselves in the unfortunate position of being american taxpayers and gay should be allowed to the same state and federally granted rights of all americans. Church and religion don't mix. This is why they are separated. Only idiots mix the two. I would expect any President to recognize the necessity of this separation. To the many millions of Americans who are galvanized in opposition to Obama and his fundamental belief in equality i would implore you to stop breeding. Stop creating second class citizens who have to use the courts to procure what is their birthright. Support no taxation of the wretched homosexuals at the state or federal level to emphasize how our country devalues their contribution to our society.

Marriage isn't a RIGHT, it is a state licensed PRIVALEGE, like having a driver's license or a license to practice medicine, for example.

If gay people had been marrying throughout the Western World's history, it could be argued to be a right perhaps if it was then being denied, but as that isn't the case, it then becomes a separate state's issue as to if they wish to change their separate licensing requirements.

It definitely isn't a federal issue.

People should be happy that the state's prosecutors no longer are prosecuting sodomy laws that are still on the books, and let it go at that is my opinion, and keep their bedroom issues out of the public discussion where they really don't belong.

Hey, Keith. I have a question..
If marriage ISN'T a federal issue.. than why does the GAO identify over 1,047 FEDERAL benefits that only a marriage can provide?

And if marriage isn't a specifically laid out "right," the pursuit of happiness is. And so is the Fourteenth Amendment's call for EQUAL Protection Under the Law. You should take some government courses. I bet you'd really learn a lot. :)

I have, and your arguments don't mean anything if gays just went with nature's program and didn't adopt a counter culture metality and sexuality and than cry "I'm do recognition...I'm due benefits...I'm due RIGHTS!

Would you have your 1,047 Federal Benefits accrue to all the spouses in a polygamist 'marriage' union" Would you have them accrue to 1st Cousins or Brother and Sister who wish to live as 'married' partners? Would you have those rights accrue to the child that weds in some god awful cult cermony to a pedophile?

Where exactly do you draw your line in the sand, once you start disrupting thousands of years of tradition and religious beliefs that the good President Obama said he was previously "sensitive" too before he flip flopped on this issue, Cassidy?

I've taken the political science and history and philosophy courses to know that my opinions on these matters is firmly grounded.

How about a satantic cult that wishes to marry a woman to a goat before they have sexual congress to honor their god, the Great Satan? Do we bend over backwards to extend society's recognition to their little strange idiosyncracy???

Would you have your 1,047 Federal Benefits accrue to all the spouses in a polygamist 'marriage' union" Would you have them accrue to 1st Cousins or Brother and Sister who wish to live as 'married' partners? Would you have those rights accrue to the child that weds in some god awful cult cermony to a pedophile? [...] How about a satantic cult that wishes to marry a woman to a goat before they have sexual congress to honor their god, the Great Satan?

Keith, don't you read my responses? I've already explained the difference between consensual acts (monogamous/polygamous marriage between adults) and non-consensual acts (child-paedophile marriage, human-animal marriage) to you. So, why do you repeat the same non-arguments here?

Regarding brother-sister marriage: The legal purpose of marriage is to create kinship. Siblings are kin already. Therefore, brother-sister marriages are superfluous.

Where exactly do you draw your line in the sand, once you start disrupting thousands of years of tradition and religious beliefs

If we rejected any progress because of tradition, then we couldn't have this very discussion on the internet machine now. Everything evolves, whether it's technology or societal values. You can't impede progress. You can try it, but it's a waste of precious time.

Besides, the term "marriage" has already been redefined several times in the USA and elsewhere. Here's a list that I found on the internet regarding marriage in the USA:

Traditional Marriage includes…
1691: Whites only
1724: Blacks with permission of slave owner
1769: The wife is property
1899: Polygamous Monogamous
1900: The wife can own property
1965: Contraception legal
1967: Interracial couples
1975: Wife can have credit in her name
1981: Husband owns all property
1993: Legal marital rape
20??: Same-sex marriage

So, the "disrupting of tradition" has already started hundreds of years ago.

I respect your beliefs, and I believe them to be deeply important to the fabric of this country, but can't you see that there are other belief systems that also are necessary for this country to thrive and be a cultural beacon of hope in the world?
I understand that I cannot ask to be recognized by your church, but please don't make me a second-class citizen because we have different moral teachings. There are a lot of very important government benefits that I cannot have access to because the government doesn't recognize my relationship. I'm not asking that your religion or church accept me or my loved one, just that you recognize that every human should be given the same access and afforded the same opportunities. I fight every day, side-by-side, with the NAACP here in Metro Detroit to help fight racism, and they help fight discrimination of gays right back. We need each other; we are both minorities, and we both understand persecution and prejudice based on our identities.
We have to stand strong for civil rights together and let the country know that the rights of a minority should not be up for majority vote.

"The question should have been, not 'how you feel about same-sex marriage,' but 'Do you believe that a majority, by popular vote, should get to decide the rights of a minority? That's a dangerous precedent because that means that the rights of people are determined by who's in the majority at a particular time."
-Rev. Dr. William Barber, President NAACP, NC Chapter, on NC Amendment 1

@ Lynn21:

I do not hate gays, but my christian believes as define marriage between male and female. [...] I am black and many that go to Church and read their Bibles who are taught marriage between a man and woman will not vote something different at the polls.

I do not hate black people, but my imaginary friend taught me that black people don't deserve equal rights. I will not vote for something different.

How does that sound?

Utterly stupid as most of your uber libertarian comments are, Dorothea!

I concur Lynn. It's a shame, but I no longer have anyone to vote for.

I do not hate black people, but my imaginary friend taught me that black people don't deserve equal rights. How does that sound? - Utterly stupid

Thanks for proving me right, Keith. Saying that you don't hate someone while denying this person equal rights is a total contradiction and doesn't make sense.

I didn't say anything about hating, and I made the distinction between rights and privaleges, if you will recall.

And the Old Testament tell's us of God bringing his burning wrath to the City of Sodom as one of two decadent societies needing extinction. does it not? Wonderful thing the Bible, you can find what ever you want in their if you're willing to look!

Who exactly were the Soddomites? And don't you believe the laws still on the books in most states that penalize the act of sodomy were based on the riligious heritage. And those laws are still enforced when it come to prosecuting non consensual gay sexual assault, including, but not limited to paedophlic consensual acts of perversity.

President Obama has always supported equal rights for LGBT Americans; his answer was always that giving the title of marriage to relationships instead of calling them "civil unions" was something that he was thinking about deeply. Since he has been in office, he has said that he was working on his opinions about the issue.
And this is the final result. He made his conclusion. That isn't spinelessness; it's growth. He came to a personal belief that jived with the policies he was already supporting and signing into law.

Wanted his cake and to eat it too, if you ask me about his previous public statements. I became clear to him that Wall Street wasn't coughing up the nearly 500 million this year to get him half way to his 1 billion dollar campaign accounts, so he bit the bullet early and went after the Entertainment Industies gay sympathetic big rollers.

Typical Obama political judgement there, and if he can get some much needed distraction out the issue from the nagging problems of the economy, high unemployment and higher unemployment, fiscal ruin, a failed energy policy, flagging defense posture, and a soon next month to implode Health Care signature legislation of his early years, why all the better! Cynical, hmmm? But so Obama!

Leave Arizona

He says he supports gay marriage but thinks that the decision should be made by the states. In other words, He is unwilling to do anything for my rights and is willing to sit back and watch the descrimination.

I totally agree with you!

Move to Massachusetts, but be ready to pay the taxes as the Dems have been in power there. You get what you pay for, revdaddy!

be ready to pay the taxes as the Dems have been in power there. You get what you pay for

Keith, equal rights are invaluable ;-)

Keith

I moved OUT of Ma to Nevada 15 years ago. There's nothing better than a Red state.

It's political calculation, not courage.

Now that is one of the first wise things I've seen you post Dorothea, good on you!

Now that is one of the first wise things I've seen you post Dorothea, good on you!

Well, right-wingers and left-wingers occasionally agree on something, just usually for totally different reasons.

Viva the differance!

I'm beginning to understand you better, Dorothea...you show promise. A sense of humor helps things get along, imo.

I'm beginning to understand you better, Dorothea

Does that mean you start converting to a left-winger? Then I would have achieved my goal.

A sense of humor helps things get along, imo.

No idea why you think that I was joking. Don't you know that Germans have no humour? Anyway, it is indeed the case that right-wingers and left-wingers sometimes have the same position, just for completely different reasons. Example: Both the centre-right Christian Democrats and the left-libertarian Pirate Party oppose same-sex marriage. The Christian Democrats are against it because they don't want same-sex couples to have equal rights. The Pirates, however, are against it because they want to abolish marriage entirely. Another example: Lefties negatively criticise Israel because they can't stand its right-wing politics, whereas right-wing extremists bash Israel because they can't stand its Jewish citizens. You see that the reasons for a position are just as crucial as the position itself.

What I find disappointing about US politics is that Dems and Repubs very rarely "dare" to adopt the same position. If one party is in favour of something, then the other party decides to be against it, on principle, regardless of what is actually good for the country. Take, for example, the Bin Laden murder. If Bush had ordered it, Dems would have been outraged. But as Obama did it, Dems suddenly find murder great. The same applies to Repubs in reverse. Another example are Voter ID laws. Repubs are in favour of them. That's why Dems demonise them. However, Voter ID laws are absolutely necessary to prevent voter fraud. How can a Western country allow voting without ID? Scandalous! Of course, Repubs only support such laws because they want to keep poor people and minorities from voting. Nevertheless, I wish the Dems would "dare" to endorse Voter ID laws as well, just for the RIGHT reason. The Dems could propose that ID cards are issued to poor people for free, so that they can vote without an additional financial burden.