Just wait until they want to get divorced and can't. That will bring up Maryland's murder rate. Can't divorce them, kill them off. lol lol

really Eddie?

The only thing id say thats overdue is the Fed Govt saying what two consenting adults do between themselves is nobody's business but their own!

YOU SAID IT MACK....THIS COUNTRY IS GOING DOWN THE DRAIN FASTER THAN THE TOILET CAN FLUSH....AND IT SMELLS JUST AS BAD !!!!!

I'm not gay and I support gay marriage.

Same here. Those that aren't going to vote for Obama because of this weren't going to vote for him anyway. He's already abandoned DOMA and ended DADT. What this will do is give the progressive wing of the party a reason to get out and vote for him.

But mostly, it's just the right thing to do.

Oh no! He's going to lose the undecided bigot vote!

Obama just lost african american votes and those of conservative hispanics. Who has he not alienated in his 3 year disaster? He cannot even say that he has a better presidency than Jimmy Carter.

I am bi and I am voting against obama. He waited four years to say this. Oh wait, he said it in 08 now. So he said it once, waited four years, and said it again to get four more years in the whitehouse. He thinks we are a tool. Me and my boyfriend are not voting for him and if you are gay, lesbian or bi and you vote for obama you are voting against your own best interests. :P

Mr Hellman,
We live in a free country and you may vote for whomever you like. But there is no candidate, among those available, with a better record on LGBT issues. We can have a long drawn out conversation on this. But in my opinion, all of the opposition is doing is vocalizing all of their phobias and hateful points of view. You will be on the wrong side of history.

I am sure, after all we are talking about the same Barak Obama who voted against a gay marriage bill when serving as a city councilman in Detroit. YOU sir are on the wrong side of history Mr. Patro, the side characterized by ignorance that masks itself as intelligence. Barak Obama is just trying to use LGBT issues as a crutch to keep his campaign afloat. All he wants are your votes, he will do nothing for you in the end though. I am sad that you are too ignorant to see that and that you have given up your freedom to think for yourself, or for that matter even think.

Are you stupid? Of course its news worthy! You watch the actual news dip, itll be all over.

I assume you are speaking of Obama with the metaphor of etch a sketch. After all, this is the same man whose views on gay marriage mysteriously changed every election year starting as a state legislator, then senator, then president. He went from being for it in 96, to not, to neutral, then for it, then against it.

Actually, one of Romney's own campaign staffers referred to his positions as like and Etch a Stetch.

Obama's position has evolved on this one issue over time to mirror the changing attitudes of Americans.

It is near impossible to find a single issue that Romney hasn't taken mutually exclusive positions on.

Huge difference.

Ryan, you basically admitted the truth. He flipflopped and said what he thought he needed to say to get votes. He is using you. Congrats on being stupid.

Sorry JH, that's not true. We will see the most electoral votes which is not necessarily the same as the majority of the people.

Considering 39% of NORTH CAROLINA actually voted against the ban, I'm actually more optimistic then ever before for how people will feel in November.

I was expecting much, much lower out of that state. Apparently, there are more Northeastern transplants down there then I anticipated.

See, I'm convinced Obama's going to win in November. Not necessarily because of the current Republicans extreme fiscal ideas (some of which I can sorta get behind) but because of the extreme religious social platform that's accompanying it.

As long as it continues to stay this way, I'll never vote for another Republican again.

With all due respect to mister stavely, evolution describes a change in a single direction. How is that possible when one goes for, against, for, against, for. That is not evolution, that is vacillation, and even more disconcerting is that the views changed in conjunction with his election years in offices.

You seem to be pretty hung up on the divorce thing.

Bingo. The question shouldn't be "Should gays be allowed to marry?", it should be "under what authority does the government think it has the right to license marriage in the first place?".

I think for some couples it is that they want that piece of paper that says "your married" but I really think it is more about spousal benefits through work, retirement etc.

as Laurence Vance put it

"Marriage predated the state. It needs no protection, regulation, or monitoring by the state to continue its existence.'

Micheal is right. Nobody follows this logic however for two reasons, stupidity or vindictiveness. But I am glad someone has the right idea.

YES Sometimes I really question what they think is 'noteworthy'....are they actual journalists or just wannabes? and everything takes their words as "Bilble"?..hum...guess not since they seem to heavily promote very Liberal issues...I am finding them to be quite bias with what they post.

scream much? Read the REAL news at all? Idiot.

He certainly is not perfect, but the 2 term idiot before Obama lied to get reelected too. And this country is in the toilet thanks to him.

Sorry, not a civil rights issue, but a cultural one. If it were a civil rights issue, it wouldn't be left to the individual states and it couldn't be taxed ( a license to marry is a tax). The law is seeking to re-define the traditional definition of marriage to include same sex couples, that's a change in culture. I dont know that there is a defined "right" to marry. It's more of a privilege, like driving, with defined parameters and limitations.

Have to disagree on that point, slavery was a culture thing. Women not having voting rights was a culture thing. Took an amendment to the Constitution to get them the right to vote.

it's not his job to create a budget. Everything he's thrown at the house has been shot down, including anything resembling a balanced plan towards budget deficit reduction.

Unemployment is still high, but the lowest it's been in about two and a half years.

Our troops should have - for the most part - never been sent over there for years to begin with. Yet as Republicans in Congress want to bleed middle to poor America dry, they fight tooth and nail for the ability to maintain a warmongering military year after year. They still don't seem to realize we can't - and should have never been- the world police.
When the US has economic struggles due to being "the world police"(in part) where's the world to come to our aid? yeah, right. Don't hold your breath.

Our economy is going to be in the toilet for a long time. The same mistakes this country made in the late 90's and 2000's were also made in many countries in Europe. This is a global recession (and the most severe since the 1930s) we're in. It's not going anywhere for some time.

This rhetoric about "no budget" has been around for months and repeatedly spewed by those who don't understand the Congressional budget process...and the Repub. Congress knows this...but think we don't. Now that it's budget season, here it is again. True, Senate Dems haven't passed a "budget resolution" which doesn't have the "force of law" and lacks the legislative tool that mandates what the govm't can & cannot spend. (That's what appropriations bills are for). However, The Budget Control Act, the law that resolved the debt limit fight, was passed last August! It has the force of law, was passed by both House & Senate, signed by the President, AND enacted into law. Again, this goes far beyond a "traditional" budget resolution which is NOT signed by the president. The Budget Control Act set discretionary caps fo 10 years; it established a 2 year period to enforce spending levels, and created a reconciliation-like process that considers entitlement and tax reform. When Harry Reid says it is redundant for the Senate to pass a budget, this is why....and Republicans know it!

The country wasn't on its knees when O.... took office.....it was flat on its back. At least now we may be able to kneel on of those knees?
Justice

And no god in the Constitution.

Wow, I didn't realize that we had swapped the First Amendment out and replaced it with a Christian Theocracy. What some people think is the will of one particular God has no place in making the laws of this nation.

At least in my religious belief the Pope has the authority to speak for God! This was vested in him as the successor to St. Peter! BTW do you eat Pork?

Religion and Government marriage are not the same thing. To be honest I do not recognize the authority of the state to sanction any marriage. I simply pay them a tax so I can derive special benefits like a joint tax return!

Amen to that sister! We have strayed so far from our beginning roots in this country. It is scary.

which God would that be exactly?
Cernunnos?, Odin?, Thor?, Anubis?, Osiris?, Lugh?, Zeus?, Poseidon? ....
Oh right, you must be talking about Yahweh, the Intolerent and Fear Mongering God.

If you have to make law that hurts a number of people, just to prove your morals or faith, then you have no true morals or faith to prove.

It's a good thing for us that this God fellow doesn't actually exist. He sounds like a real jerk.

He's so perfect, he created homosexuals. Every man and woman is created in HIS image, right?
If you ever listen to the things that come out of this current Pope's mouth, it's both angering and sad.

AMEN Deneen, We have a loving God and one day, and I believe it will be soon the Bible say's every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that He is Lord.
It's just sad to see this country going so far from God. Obama has done more to divide this country then any man in the Prez. White House that I can ever remember, I guess because he doesn't know how to run it. The only thing this group down there know how to do is spend our money and waste, waste, waste.

Yeah, that's not true. We live in a representative democracy that protects the rights of minorities. You're talking about mob rule, not majority rule.

Sounds to me like you want our 'leader' to have dictatorial powers.
That was the ONLY way Obama would get a truly balanced budget that doesn't destroy the middle class through the House.

I also find it entertaining you call Obama followers 'zombies' when I think it's much easier to prove that Tea Parties are the greater zombies. Incredibly easy.

PS: The government last month ran a surplus of 40 billion. This'll happen when you get your country out of multi-trillion dollar wars you NEVER belonged in.

Right, and how is this relevant to gay marriage?

He's not a leader, but a dictator wannabe. Never has one POTUS used the almighty executive order pen so much as this one.

Here here Mr. Kookyman! Thank you Sir.

its not really a matter of whether god has anything to with it although some people believe that I do not. its a matter of morals which most people dont have anymore. marriage has allows been between a man and a women and now that a SMALL PERCENT want it changed pc dems wanna hop on board to get votes. we have to cater to the few, bs. and now that the slippery slope has started which gay marriage advocates always said would not (they were wrong) we all need to be okay with transgenders/sex changes and act like nothing is morally wrong with it.

Small percent?

Try the majority of Americans:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/support-for-gay-marriage-outweighs-opposition-in-polls/

If we take God out of the marriage issue along with everything else that this country is trying to do, who will you turn to when it all goes to hell in a handbag? Who do you think created you?

I will continue to turn to God, because that is who I choose to worship.

Other people will turn to whatever they happen to believe in, and more power to them.

This country was founded on the freedom of people to choose their religion. I won't force my religion on anyone that doesn't choose to live by it.

Someone should tell Barbara that you can get a civil ceremony where they don't mention God at all.

Let's see, who created you. God! Hmmm, who created him/her?

Amen to that Doug.

I mostly agree with ya Doug.

I support Obama, but I most definitely don't support O'Malley. I find it amusing to those 'conservatives' who equate the two as 'birds of a feather'. Obama's considering more moderate.

It is also newsworthy for Patch because this topic is amount the most commented on that I have seen (today and when Maryland passed legislation). People are passionate about it…and that is news.

newsworthy? you bet ! down home state issues were it belongs, also is freedom of choice in many ways, States that support it and one's who don't. and freedom to live in the areas that accept it, and don't accept and "King George III' can stay out of our lives.

Amy, I understand where you are coming from, but for those that are still in the process of growing stronger in their own skins, I do think it's necessary for this Equal Rights Bill to be passed, especially in my State of Maryland, I would be so proud :)

It never ceases to amaze me how the left and their sycophants automatically resort to name calling such as hatred or bigotry. There is nothing involved in that concerning a person being for civil unions and all other rights however defining marriage between a man and a woman.

Amy- It is generally those that preach "tolerance" that are the most intolerant of differing opinions.

I can't wrap my head around people being opposed to others having a right to be legally committed to someone, what is it taking away from others? How does it threaten your marriage? Is marriage now this elite club, that others that can be married don't want to let anyone in?

Amy, could you expand on how same sex marriage will effect you personally.....not how you "feel" about it but how it will have a direct positive or negative effect. As far as my tolerance, I think taking the time to respond to you would indicate my level is quite high. There is a way we can all live in this world in a harmonious way, and allowing each other's differences by respecting basic equal rights is a fine place to start.

Amy, if what any of us do in our bedrooms effects ANY aspect of your life that makes you a very sad individual.... And totally narcissistic. Get a life cupcake.

It was easy for Cheney to take a position after he is out of office with no consequence, other than maybe getting the respect of his daughter. Yeah, he had no issue as VP in treating his own daughter as a second class citizen.

Exactly, Bob.

Francine, are you willing to give up the legal benefits you receive being married to a man? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Bob - you are aware you can have legal rights via civil unions correct? Of course you are, but it's somehow more important to shove this into the faces of religious traditionalists. Forgive me if I find it somewhat amusing that a bunch of folks who normally loathe religion suddenly think it's something they need wrap themselves around in order to achieve equality.

this same argument was made when women were given the right to vote. Who's next My cat? It's as ignorant an argument then as it is now.

That's the weirdest part about the gay marriage debate. Right wingers think it's all about them, for some reason. If you're not going to marry someone of the same sex, it's really not going to affect you. Right wingers think more about gay relationships than gay people do.

What are you talking about? A dive? The county was already under water hopefully we can breathe a breath of fresh air now.........!
Justice

Well it's a good thing that God doesn't write the laws of the US!!!

(well it would be good, were that to be true)

Bumper sticker mentality. And there is no place for it in American civil rights. When you get a REAL argument let us know. And btw... Under WHICH God? My church and my Bible talk about adultry being wrong. Married couples don't commit adultry when with each other. So when given the same special right you enjoy as a straight person, that sin is erased.... So again, which God?

Sorry, didn't mean to come across that way. No correlation whatsoever between what god people choose to worship and their sexual orientation. And people should be free to express both.

Really? "Song and dance on the anniversary"? Marking the anniversary the way he did absolutely pales in comparison to "Mission Accomplished" and flying a freaking fighter plane to celebrate the "end" of combat operations?

And it looks like gay marriage may well be in the platform:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/226709-reid-democratic-party-platform-will-include-pro-gay-marriage-plank

Really, Seal Team 6 is responsible for OBS's death and the information gathered from yes, water boarding under the Bush adm lead to the intel that resulted in his death. i guess if you say "ok" when told we know where he is can we get him makes him the hero and it's the only thing he can talk about as an "accomplishment" in his first 4 years it speaks volumes about his EPIC failure as leader of the free world..As far as the aircraft landing, so what? What does that have to do with this?

And I'm sure that if the mission had failed, you would have blamed the Seals too.

And we're only talking about this because you brought it up. There are plenty of other accomplishments that we can talk about, but this isn't the venue to do that.

I brought the aircraft carrier up because it was a much bigger song and dance over a much smaller accomplishment. I'm sure you were railing about it just as much as you're complaining about this non event.

Finally, water boarding had nothing to do with the killing of Bin Laden.

typical deflection ,what accomplishments? unemployment 8. something % ?, stagnant at best economy? you obviously have now idea of what you are talking about there are many articles that point to KSM as a primary source who gave up the name of the courier that they used to track OBL for months leading us to OBL. Don't let the facts get in the way of unabashed love you have for Obama though.

And there are plenty of articles that say that the intel from KSM was produced before he was ever tortured. If you were actually in a position to know, you certainly wouldn't be posting about it on the internet.

As far as accomplishments, the auto industry is still around, thousands of jobs have been added, unemployment is heading in the right direction, the stock market is heading in the right direction, thousands more college students are still on their parents health insurance because of the ACA, I (along with thousands of others) refinanced my house because of HARP 2 (saving hundreds of dollars a month), we're no longer in Iraq, repeal of DADT, and that's with a completely uncooperative legislative branch.

But you're right, I don't have any clue what I'm talking about.

you just proved it better than I ever could ! Your right everything is looking up, rainbows, unicorns and skittles................

Wow, with that compelling and well thought out reply, you've completely convinced me of the error of my ways.

Seriously, I never said things were perfect. But they're a hell of a lot better than they were 4 years ago, and Obama's endorsement of same sex marriage is a big part of that.

Wait, so your opinion is that only the people that carried out the actual physical raid are responsible? Why were we after Osama bin Laden then? Leadership either matters or it doesn't.

Its a Civil Rights issue for some people and ts a religious issue for other people.

It's a civil right for everyone.

Some people just try to pretend that it isn't to make themselves feel better about their misguided position.

Where did that rainbow just appear? Oh yes, under mister stavely's fantasy world. Unemployment went down because more people have given up looking for a job. The stimulus bill failed because it was kickback to left wing groups such as unions. Iran is no farther away from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Obama has added more to the national debt in 3 years than all the other presidents combined. He has given up missile defense against russia, and then russia turned around and voted no in every resolution in the un for sanctions against iran. by the way mister stavely, if obama has accomplished so much, why is his approval ratings in the 40s and over 60 percent of americans feel we are on the wrong track? also mister stavely, you mentioned an uncooperative legislation, how do you explain 2 years of supermajority with no budget, no immigration reform, no entitlement reform?

I must have missed the 2 years of supermajority.

We have added jobs to the economy almost every month for the last 3 years.

I very clearly stated in one of my other comments that things aren't perfect, and we're not living in a fantasy world.

But to say that Obama has accomplished nothing merely exposes your crushing ignorance.

No mister stavely, it is your ignorance that is stifling, but somewhat amusing. Obama is the only president in modern history to have lost more jobs than he has gained over his presidency. Yes, jobs are being added, but at the slowest pace of any recession in our history. And yes, that also includes how the department of labor has been inflating the numbers to make it seem as if each month there are less jobs jost. That is a fact, going back to 60 months. If you think that the crushing level of debt that has made the united states dollar go down tremendously is an accomplishment, then you truly are in rainbow land. Did you also miss that a convicted felon almost beat Jimmy Obama in the wv dem primary? By the way mister stavely, you cannot help yourself from sputtering on about majority in the polls approving gay marriage, does this in fact mean that you are for the supreme court striking down the obamacare bill because over 60 percent of americans opposed it?

He accomplished Obamacare. His one shining glory. We'll all be paying for this for the rest of our lives, our children's lives, our grandchildren's lives and so on and so on….

He did.

Boehner and his pals ignored him.

Bottom line, the deems can't pass a budget without the party of "no" onboard. Since that hasn't happened, you're not going to see a budget.

Jimmy Obama, I mean Barack Carter had for 2 years a majority in the house and senate. The republicans could have voted no like they did for obamacare and he could have passed it through the senate via the same nuclear option as he did for obamacare.

Escariot with partial truths again. For the small period of time when the Senate had 60 Democratic votes, the Affordable Health Care Act was passed. As soon as Scott Brown was elected, majority rule was lost to the Republican filibuster. Just the facts. PS, his name is Barack Obama, in case you forgot.

And that's only if you count the Independent Joe Leiberman (McCain's first choice for VP) as a "Democrat".

Or, some of us are capable of contemplating more than one topic at a time.

That's sort of the typical response when you don't have a defensible position on an issue.
1. Claim it's distracting from "real issues".
2. Throw out a bunch of overly vivid descriptions of other problems.
3. Declare victory.

It's a slightly different version of "HAY I CANT ARGUE WITH YOU ON THE INTERNET, IVE GOT A REAL JOB"

Once again, the ignorancy on here is stifling. Mister Amirault, the nuclear option was created to override filibusters concerning the budget. It is not cloture, which requires a supermajority of 60 to stop a filibuster. At any time over the 2 year period the dems could have used the nuclear option to pass a budget and the repubs could not have filibustered it at all. History 101 sir?

Perhaps, but thousands of Americans don't believe in that God.

Thousands of people that do believe in that God have no trouble with same sex marriage.

"Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" has no place in actually governing.

Ryan - God loves everyone - I am not saying He does not - but I believe it is not what He intended - that's all. Just as you have the right to speak your opinion - so do I. I am a Catholic - and proud of it. I love everyone as Jesus taught - but I still think it is not right.

You are perfectly welcome to hold that belief, and express that opinion.

I was raised Catholic and now attend a Presbteryan church.

What you are not welcome to do is use that belief as a basis for making laws that apply to others that hold differing views.

I don't think that there are widely varying opinions on the moral correctness of killing another person.

Outside of that, I'm hard pressed to come up with any other examples of religious principals informing our laws.

Abortion is probably one, but I have the same position on that as I do same sex marriage. Against my moral code (for the most part), but who am I to insist that others live according to my beliefs?

Blue laws are probably another, but I think that they're slowly falling by the wayside (and the faster the better). Businesses should have the right to open and close whenever they please.

Can you think of any other examples where the beliefs of some people of a particular faith have been enshrined into law and applied to everyone regardless of their religious beliefs?

He was never getting rid of Biden. That's just a right-wing fantasy.

Whatcha know, Joe? I guess he knows plenty. Love the comment Kevin. Joe did us all a big favor.

Donna - not correct. God loves everyone - He does. Straight, Bi, Gay - but I don't think it is what He intended. That's all. And Christians exist all over the world.

DS - not correct. God isn't real.

Able Baker -

I was with you until this.

You're welcome to believe that God doesn't exist. All I ask for is the same courtesy in return.

Donna B, if this is a civil rights issue, please explain to me why there is nowhere on this earth that marriage is not between a man and a woman. Middle East? no Asia? no Antarctica? no Europe? no Carribean? no Australia? no. Nice try though. Keep looking at yourself in the mirror and click your heels three times while repeating out loud that gay marriage is a civil rights issue.

South Africa, Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Portugal and Iceland may disagree with you on that one. (and those are only the ones that recognize same sex marriage - there's an even bigger list once you rope in civil unions)

That said, thats not the definition of civil rights, either. Civil Rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.

As long as we use marriage to define things like health benefits, taxes and the like, the ability to marry the spouse of your choice certainly qualifies as participating in the civil and political life of the state.

Donna B
Because the Word of God the Bible say's its wrong. God loves everyone He just doesn't like the sin. God sent His Son Jesus into the world to die for our sin He who knew no sin. Jesus did not come to earth to condemn the world but that the world through Him might be saved. We have come a long way from God's plan for our lives. Non of us are perfect But rest assured God is Love. read the Bible for yourself and ask God what is right if you will listen He will tell you.Just believe. God is Love.

That's because it seems only Catholics and other Christian sects (Baptists, etc) can't seem to get past the fact that marriage (the word) doesn't belong to them exclusively.

No one has EVER asked any religion to accept, within their Church, gay marriage.

That would be the exact opposite of what we today, where religious folk seem to think their beliefs should be applied to government even though they repress others.

Gays only want the right to legally marry in the eyes of the country. They don't want to force your respective Pastor to marry them because the State says so.

If you want to know why Catholics get targeted, it's because they are largely myopic. It's fine to believe what you will- I was raised a Catholic but obviously no longer practice out of disagreement with the Vatican on numerous issues.

Christianity, all throughout history, has been the cause of so much bloodshed. So much for peace and love of your fellow humans.
Standard stuff for this species. Every generation a new group of people fight and eventually get the rights they were born with. This generation will be the LGBT community. The train's coming, and it won't be stopped.

Both sides need to cool it and just respect the other!

Really Tim? The train is comprised of 32 states that have expressly written into law the banning of such marriage. Get over it. In a democracy a minority will not write the laws for the majority. Go move to another country if you want gay marriage. Speaking of bloodshed Tim, i cannot help but notice that you are not criticizing Islam and the middle east for their same views on gay marriage. Why is that Tim? Do we not have muslim citizens in the usa?

Nobody is saying that, DS.

In the event that this comes to a referendum in the fall, how will you vote?

Should have been more clear - nobody is saying that Christians have never done anything positive. My church does a heck of a lot of great things for the community. I'm sure that yours does the same.

That said, Christians have done a heck of a lot of terrible things in history as well, and if we're being completely honest, you have to accept the bad with the good.

Opposing same sex marriage is one of those bad things. I completely respect your right to feel that SSM is a bad thing. I completely respect your right to be a member of a church that will not recognize or perform same sex marriages.

All I ask is that you not impose those beliefs on others, and let them live their lives according to their own moral compass.

It is a no-brainer. Vote no on the referendum, just like the majority of states in this country.

Once again, in response to mister stavely. Every culture at one time or another on this planet has conquered and enslaved others. From the Incans to the Native American Tribes that raided and took slaves. So you can argue that any human being's history includes doing terrible things. Difference is that James Madison and the founding fathers wrote a constitution that prevent factions and minorities from legislating their minority views and beliefs upon the majorities. That is the issue in this case. Marriage has been between man and woman from the dawn of time. It is a minority that wants to change that definition and its legal implications. There is a reason mister stavely why 32 states have passed legislation to prevent this rendering of the time honored definiton moot.

Marriage is NOT about breeding. We humans can breed with out being married. This isnt a nature issue it is a legal/law issue.

This whole issue is more of a legal issue than a religious issue. We in this country are free to practice whatever religion we choose. If one wants to get married in their religious venue then they can, even without a law. The gay marriage issue is making the union valid in a legal sense. Doing this gives those unions legal weight and a slew of all kinds of benefits/rights.

If left alone...which I would recommend, in time there will be fewer and fewer same sex marriage issues to deal with. The same sex would not allow for breeding.... in time the breed will lessen naturally and become a non issue...think about it... adoption would not add additional gay or lesbian human beings to the population. Just let nature take it's course...I would encourage same sex marriage for this reason alone..

You do realize that about 99% of gay people are born to straight parents?

MM, The 99% thing is hogwash...if you debate my thoughts about how nature will tend to these conditions naturally, at least provide accurate stats...don't make crap up make it seem like you know what you are talking about....People that post without real names tend to do this all the time...it actually takes away from your stance...

Actually, my own views were changed by discussions such as these.

The realization that it was possible to live my life the way God intends me to, without imposing that belief on others was an important realization.

That's why I asked DS above how (s)he plans on voting if this comes up this fall. I think that it's an important distinction to make that voting to allow other people to live their lives according to their own beliefs can be separated from the moral code that you choose for yourself.

Ryan, I am encouraged to hear your views have changed and hope there are more like you. (and I observed some very rational and fact based comments form you). Unfortunately, I have also seen some hate and ignorance cast on this board by a few and concluded that small minds of some will stay closed.

Thanks, Bob.

There are closed minds on both sides of the issue, unfortunately.

Why people can't just let others believe as they choose, without trying to force them into something that they don't is beyond me.

Ancient Greece and Roman civilization ...there now you have two.

Just because most countries have denied a civil right throughout history does not mean that the right does not exist. It just highlights the need for change. Do you believe this great country should be a follower instead of a leader?

The Netherlands
Year Legalized: 2001

Belgium
Year Legalized: 2003

Spain
Year Legalized: 2005

Canada
Year Legalized: 2005

South Africa
Year Legalized: 2006

Norway
Year Legalized: 2009

Sweden
Year Legalized: 2009

Portugal
Year Legalized: 2010

Iceland
Year Legalized: 2010

Argentina
Year Legalized: 2010

Escariot. Your logic has holes. For almost all of recorded human history slavery was both legal and available. For almost all of recorded human history women had next to zero equal rights. So this is your argument? Thus we should have slaves and women no rights?

Thanks, DS - that's a very well thought out position, and I hope that you find yourself able to vote in favor of everyone getting to make their own decisions that impact their own lives.

We have devolved to same sex marriage issues for a reason...It's the beginning of a correction being put into place naturally...I'm all for it...let er rip..!

Mark Patro... the information that you have provided is made up...not true. I'm all for you guys getting together though...can't happen fast enough...

Buck, the information in my list is absolutely true. If you take time to look it up you will see that each is a fact.

Mark, Typically, when human beings post stats regarding matters of such impotence they share the links or source from which their data was derived.
Posters that don't provide verification of claims tend to spout anything to support their perceived stance. I believe that this is what you have done here...prove me wrong, and then perhaps respond to my take on SSM.

It was not majority factions that were present after the constituion was formed. The biggest threat to the new republic was not Great Britain, it was from withing. Maybe you should take some history classes at Towson. The staggered terms of the presidency, house of represenatives, senate, equal branches of government, and winner takes all representation was written to preven drastic changes to the republic by minority factions. That is why the green or libertarian party gets no vote in congress if they do not win a majority vote in the elections. The entire constiution and its framework prevents radical and drastic change yet allows for majorities to come together on consensus issues such as the patriot act following 9/11 or the civil rights act.

Adam is referring to the "tyranny of the majority" which states: "The phrase used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, envisions a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression, comparable to that of tyrants and despots. In many discussions, the purportedly oppressed minority is either a socially advantaged ethnic group, or a socially disadvantaged ethnic group.

Limits on the decisions that can be made by majorities, as through supermajority rules, constitutional limits on the powers of a legislative body, or the introduction of a Bill of Rights, have been used to counter the perceived problem. A separation of powers has also been implemented to limit the force of the majority in a single legislative chamber. "

This is why so many are against the idea of a minority group's rights being voted on by the majority. Also this is why the courts will end up being the ones have a final say on the matter.

this just in: If you don't believe gays have a right to legally marry and have the same rights - again legally - as hetero married couples, then you are a bigot.

It's not even a question. It's not debatable.

This has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with individuals secular rights.
You can disagree and not approve with the lifestyle based on religious beliefs, and that's perfectly fine. I won't sit here and try and convince religious folks to accept it within the context of their faith. That's not fair.

There's nothing wrong with religion, until it starts dictating public policy. Just like I wouldn't want public policy decisions to compromise Church employees or unfairly oppress any religious group of people.

Exactly. You can disagree with a liberal all you want with no problems.

Holding racist, sexist or bigoted views make you a racist/sexist/bigot.

The Obama administration has not done any such thing. What you hear and what you are regurgitating here are lies coming from the Vatican. They can not convince American Catholics they are right about the marriage issues so they are resorting to the "endangerment of religious expression" argument. religious philosophy from the pulpet is one things and it is entirely a different thing from the legislature. If their philosophy is so good for us, more of us would be buying into it. But the reverse seems to be true. Disenfranchised Catholics are leaving their church in droves as they should. There are good people in that church but the hierarchy is passe.

Exactly.

Universities and Hospitals aren't churches. Universities and Hospitals, regardless of who is in charge, shouldn't impose their religious views on their employees.

Not sure why that is a difficult concept.

Indeed, and the Republicans have to record worth running on.

All you have it to talk trash on President Obama.

Right on! Escariot, you forgot a couple remember the hundreds of thousands dollars for those trips, the vacation Mrs. O and her friends and family took, the fly over New York City. What a waist of our money. I guess they want to make sure theres nothing left for the next Pres. Fast and Furious is number one who is going to pay for this mans life, his blood is on all those that were involved in this mess. It just get worse and worse.

After reading some pretty logical input from you in the past Bill, this one surprises me. First, I'd argue that two people, of any gender, bring unique and complimentary qualities to a relationship. Second, I'd offer that we are not exempt from children of opposite gender parents who become a drain on society. I'd also say that we have some successful citizens where were children of divorce and single mothers.

I will say one thing for same sex parents, and that is that many want and plan for children, and are parents of the accidental or unwanted children that can be neglected.

@ Bill--Yes men and women are different, in a gay or lesbian relationshp there are differences between the two partners. Both bring different things to the relationship. IF for a moment you think of the two folks n a relationship as individuals who compliment each other the gender oriented aspect of the relationship becomes obviously less inportant to the decription of how the "couple" is definded. Without calling you a name, so please don't take it that way, your explanation s based on sexist thought. As a gay man a woman will never "compliment" my relationship as one would compliment yours. You are seeng relationshps through a myopic lense. There is more than one way to look at any issue. As a gay man I can appricate how you look at your relationshp, but please respect that Your scenario will not work for everyone. Many Lesbans couples have raised chldren to become very well aclimated adults.

Bob & Brandon, Yes, I see how my wording was inappropriate. For that I apologize. I said "with gay couples, we lose this [unique] quality" May I more appropriately say it like this: A gay couple brings less uniqueness to a marriage. Since men and women are more unique than those from the same gender, married or not.

Bob, I never said "we are exempt from children of opposite gender parents who become a drain on society"

Brandon, I don't understand why you would call my comment sexist: "Discrimination on the basis of sex, esp the oppression of women by men."

It is our constitutional right to mock the president. A cartoon of george washington riding an ass was published in an american paper.

It is a civic responsibility to always question authority...not doing so on a regular basis leads to the kind of messes we are dealing with today. Apathy breeds trouble for all..

David:

Democrats had the Presidency, the House and the Senate by a wide majority for two years. They had ample time to make changes they deemed necessary. Yet, they decided to make that 2 year window a one issue proposition that may or may not be law after The Supreme Court decides. Interesting, the show that I saw on NBC (David Gregory) the conservative guest actually commented that they spent 8 minutes of the air time discussing gay marriage and Obama's position and Romney's position and would much rather discuss the economy and how to get people working.

I guess in that case, the conservatives would be dodging the gay marriage issue. You can only respond to questions that those in the shows want to pose.

I would expect gay marriage to be shot down in Maryland by the voters, but it really is a non issue to 99% of the voters. Interesting, blacks will turn out 95% for Obama, but 55% to 60% against gay marriage. I guess the blacks are bigots also.

This comes from someone who will vote against gay marriage, but really could care less what people do in their homes.

"Democrats had the Presidency, the House and the Senate by a wide majority for two years."

Not really, this has already been covered. You can get to 60 in the Senate for a few weeks if you count Leiberman (I-CT, McCain's first choice as VP) as a Democrat.

The Democrats in no way had a free hand to do much of anything.

The money that JP Morgan lost was not public taxpayer money, nor was it money invested by its customers. It was a private loss of funds that Morgan invested unwisely. But since you mentioned it David, why do you not criticize Obama for having zero indictments concerning the housing fiasco? My bad, you do not realize that people in his own justice department with the responsibility for prosecuting those crimes came from the same sector that has those "crooks" as clients. Kind of hypocritical, as you used in your above statement.

GO DAVID!
Justice

David; The biggest crooks of all are the politicians that put the laws in place that are responsible for the housing market crash. Just ask any realtor.

you mean like you are chanting the rush limbaugh/foxtv mantra? There would be political fallout to implement either the nuclear option or the reconciliation when there is not some mutual agreement. The goal may be to get the work done without always using a mechanism in the way the Repubs seem to use the filibuster.

Ryan what would you call the first two years of Oblablah's administration? I call it a majority in Congress that gave him the ability to ram every priority of his down the throats of the American people without any brakes being applied. That's why I hope his coming out of the closet on the gay marriage issue will bring the black vote in the favor of Republicans for a change.

The Senate doesn't need the 'nuclear option'…the POTUS has his magic executive order pen.

Yes really, you give all those examples as if the Repubs have never done any back room deal. This is what earmarks are all about. I don't see Repubs doing anything about eliminating earmarks like McCain campaigned on 4 years ago. And as far as obstructing justice goes Repubs have blocked almost every single judicial appointment the president has made. And as far as amnesia, Bush policies have driven this economy so far in the red its has become a gargantuan task to make progress, especially since the Repubs say NO to every possible solution. I'm not having amnesia about anything to do with guns, I have never mentioned guns on this blog.

Escariot is confused, and seems to fall into the popular fallacy that anyone that points out the utterly retarded stuff that the Republicans do must automatically support everything done by a person with a "D" after their name.

Rather than defend the indefensible, the only thing left to do is attack the other "team".

Sad, really.

Although I'd love some details on the "backroom deals" surrounding the passage of the Affordable Care Act. I would assume that he's talking about the "Cornhusker Kickback", which was stripped out of the ACA by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, passed one week later (and yes, the "Reconciliation" in the title means that budget reconciliation had to be used to get the law thorough the Senate - I'll hold my breath waiting for Escariot to acknowledge the fact that the Democrats used reconciliation to pass something that he agrees with).

actually for the most part clintons policies caused the recession and caused the banking problems not bush! I dont think anyone is saying republicans are without fault but obama supporters do not look at all the things he does wrong or they make excuses! the only thing obama has done lately is buy the votes of unions, students, gays and create a false war on women his slogan should be divide and conquer.

Getting rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell was not buying votes from LGBT voters, it was moving civil rights forward. Saying the he believes in Marriage Equality for all couples is another step forward in civil rights and a step away from "I can get married because I fit one criteria and you cannot because you do not pass the discrimination test." Women should have the right to choose what they want to do with the health issues that affect their own bodies. You see this as pandering but more than 50% of the voters in this country do now see it that way. You are minimizing reality when you talk about buying votes. All he has done is draw a very clear line between for those of either side of these lines.

vw, serious? Clinton left Bush with a balanced budget.

It's all a matter of nature correcting it's own mistakes....let everyone marry anyone..no strings attached....they can't reproduce, so it's just a matter of time for this natural correction to tend to itself. Blue face talk about it is pointless...

You keep saying that Buck, and keep getting told that it isn't true. Where do you think all the homosexuals born today come from? Why do you think that it isn't "corrected itself" in the thousands of years before now?

Ryan, I believe that the statements that I make hold as much water as any other viewed on this particular blog....that being said, no one knows the end result of a portion of the human being population make a vow not to breed naturally with their chosen partner...sure, adoption works for maybe one generation....but that's it.
If same sex marriage commitment occurs naturally, then it's meant to be...however, I believe that this process is a means to an end eventually...think about it...

But that's not really what we're talking about here....

Where exactly do you think that homosexuals come from now?

How will allowing them to marry change that?

Your theory only holds water if homosexuality is an inherited trait. Since it doesn't, you're making no sense.

Ryan, Are you implying that it is a learned condition...? Pretty sure it's in the genes..

Yes, and those genes come from heterosexual parents.

Again, how will allowing homosexuals to marry change anything? Will straight parents suddenly stop having gay kids? I don't think so.

It never would have made it to Clinton's desk had not the Republican-majority House and Republican-majority Senate passed it.

It isn't solely Bush's fault, but to say that he bears none of the blame is to ignore 8 years of failed economic policy.

Ahhhh..... That would only be 4 more years. Not good to argue politics and get your numbers wrong.....

Hey, easy with the name calling. That only applies if you consider the last 3.5 years as "failed". Given the direction of the economy, I'm not so sure that's a valid assumption.

That's a somewhat random set of criteria, and a completely ridiculous expectation that expects economic policies to work immediately.

Look at the economy in January 2009 and today. We're in markedly better shape than we were 3+years ago.

Doesn't sound like failure to me.

I actually did mention the history of mankind and slavery in response to Paul Amirault, and that is throughout manking there is a history of slavery. From the Aztecs to the Mayans, the Romans to the Chinese, to the tribes of Africa to the tribes of north america. All of these cultures took and kept slaves in their wars and conquering territory. Therefore sir, almost every country, including ours has a history of slavery. In response to you, Obama made the political miscalculation of the century in his stimulus bill. Read the stimulus bill, please sir. If you do, you realize that is was not a stimulus bill at all, but a kickback to all the special interests that got Obama elected. From the unions that cannot support their pensions and healthcare to the pet projects of dems, he wasted a chance to kickstart the economy. You also do not mention the 53 billion given to gm BEFORE they filed bankruptcy and got a bailout that went to the autoworkers unions. You do not mention that the department of energy gave loans to companys that were denied under the previous president, and look at how bankrupt they are now. You do not mention that 80 percent of those loans went to his campaign bundlers. Fast and furious, gsa, solyndra, the failed stimulus bill, this president will be removed shortly. Never in our nation's history has a president been more corrupt or pandered to special interests more than this clown.

President Bush secured for gm bridge loans. It was the Obama administration that laid down 50 billion in the bankruptcy restructuring. Out of the result the Obama administration violated federal law in the chapter 11 filings by giving the greatest dollar amount of the debt to the united auto workers union, and not the secured creditors of the company as per chapter 11 law. So please explain mister stavely how this happened in 2009 with the 50 billion and the preferential treatment to the unions how bush is involved. 50 billion to the uaw. Pander much stavely?

Actually he did get Bush to approve that. May as well for once credit Bush with something he actually did…or blame him... whichever word you prefer. But it is a fact he did it because Obama wanted him to.

I don't know about saving the institution...but completely agree about the religious crackpots portion of it, they've done a great job of both devaluing marriage while oppressing others at the same time.