N.C. to add marriage amendment to its constitution
RALEIGH — North Carolina has become the 31st state to add an amendment on marriage to its constitution, with voters banning same-sex marriage and barring legal recognition of unmarried couples by state and local governments.North Carolina is the last state in the South to add such an amendment, and supporters hoped for a resounding victory.Incomplete returns show the amendment up 61.05 percent to 38.95 percent.
Those who consider themselves to be ‘conservative’ yet have managed to convince themselves that this somehow means it is their business to determine the rights of those who fall in love need to think carefully about giving the GOVERNMENT of any state or nation the right to get involved with the relationship between two people.
Nothing could be MORE anti-conservative than expanding the province of govt into marriage.
NOTHING.
It’s none of my goddamn business.
It’s none of your goddamn business.
It is inconceivable to me that the same people who want govt out of free enterprise want the same govt to determine marriage sensibilities, and even if you, born the way you might be are ELIGIBLE for marriage (yes, that IS what they are doing, think about it).
It’s one thing if some religious group decides they won’t countenance gay marriage, but this? North Carolinians with bibles so large you think you have the right to determine that your govt can determine what marriage is … that worm is going to turn on you one fine day. Probably over that bible. You are setting that kind of precedent.
BELIEVE IT.
If gay adults want to get married, it’s got NOTHING to do with me.
OR YOU, MORONS.
The word “MARRIAGE” has no place in ANY constitution.
Nothing is more essential to the right of privacy in your life.
The entire idea is repugnant and disgusting no matter what religious idea you have about homosexuality..this is over the govt being given the right to reach into the innards of your soul and tell you, and millions of others, you can never be married.
That is as personal as the feeling one has about God. Any god. Any religious moral code.
THAT, my friends, is a human right. And THAT is a conservative position.
The govt belongs NOWHERE in the issue.
DISCLOSURE..I am not gay, have been married 36 years and have 3 children.
45 comments:
Nothing could be MORE anti-conservative than expanding the province of govt into marriage?
It is the government that issues the license of marriage!
to the haters. I hope there is something out there that you need and others don't that will be given to everyone just to spite you
if you are gay you don't have to worry about pregnancy within a contract designed for family. it would be unethical to pretend otherwise. NC banned gay marriage? good. it's time for men to stop pretending that marriage isn't something exclusive unique and essential.
O\T - Ok, here is a simply amazing video of an Einstein-like genius who somehow gets a thousand Russian girls to let him casually touch their boobies as part of a street promo to try to help Putin get re-elected. (be sure to read the disclaimer and don't try this in your home town, kiddies, unless you get the required permissions from everyone involved)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXOtYPcC4tQ
Noah, good comments.
Epa, you sound like an utter loon when you fly off into these rants. Marriage is a unique institution and has always been only between one man and one woman. Society's descent can, in part, be traced back to the 50s and 60s when we devalued marriage by (a) saying that sexuality need not be confined to marriage and (b) the states making divorce easy through no-fault divorce laws.
We do not need to further devalue marriage by redefining the term to include homosexual marriage. What we need is repeal no-fault divorce and start putting marriage, as a life-time commitment between one man and one woman, back on a pedestal.
I generally agree with you, Epa. I don't care if gay people want to marry people of their own sex. I think it is an issue for the Churches, Synagogues, etc. It is private, and it is a decision between people and their God.
But, I also think that children are part of marriage, and the confluence of issues of marriage and children is where the problem lays for me.
I do not think that, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, two mothers, or two fathers, are as good for the development of a child as are a mother and father.
Is adoption also an issue that governments should stay out of? And, if so, does that not mean that children are reduced to a commodity in the eyes of government, and hence, in the eyes of our society?
The problem, as I see it, is that in the states/locales where 'gay marriage' has been approved, the churches/synagogues have been forced to perform the ceremonies, whether they {the various denominations} agree with it or not. Up in New England, a privately-owned venue, utilized as, among other things, an outdoor wedding facility, was badgered into accepting same-sex nuptials.
If the LGBT community wants marriage, let them find those sympathetic to their beliefs to perform such - do NOT force those who do not believe the same to accommodate ..................
Semper Fi'
DM
I believe most people are not against the union (civil) of same sex couples, rather calling it a marriage. Which is where the church should step in and comment that they are against homosexuality and having one of their holy sacraments desecrated. If the muslims were offended there would be no further discussion...
Please post a link of a church or synagogue where they were FORCED to perform a gay marriage?
I would be opposed to such a horrendous thing? How can the govt force a rabbi to marry two people? In fact our rabbi refuses to perform a marriage or a bar or bat mitzvah several times a year for personal or religious reasons (as it should be). If a local church or whatever finds itself OFFENDED by gay marriage, they should refuse such actions, but that is NOT the govt.
Marriage is a RELIGIOUS convention of THIS TIME and it is no more unique than a Pharaoh with concubines, 4 wimmin in Pakistan (as recognized by 1.3 Bn folks) etc. Ben Franklin to you.
The govt has no right to tell anyone what to define by their RELIGIOUS light and the govt has no right to PREVENT the union based on the fact that genetically they don't find attraction to the opposite sex.
"What we need is repeal no-fault divorce and start putting marriage, as a life-time commitment between one man and one woman, back on a pedestal." AYFKM? Theocractic absolutism gone wild. You have substituted another moral code for progressivism with the same absolute surety of being right. BASED ON FAITH?
WHOSE?
You cannot enforce BEHAVIOR SUCH AS THIS. You can't even get people to stop taking a drink, you think you can force marriage for life?
Start with ALLOWING people to find the right partner irrespective of any other consideration, and remain faithful.
This is no issue for the govt, but for respective localities IN THEIR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.
If the Baptists, or Sikhs or what nots do not want to recognize, or countenance gay marriage .... fine by me, that's their business.
"Theocratic Absolutism?" Really, Epa. No one can have a serious conversation with a drama queen.
Sorry, it was New Jersey, NOT New England : http://www.redstatereport.com/2012/01/gay-marriage-forced-on-churchs/
Check out the blockquote in the article for other examples ........................
You also might find these interesting : http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo6/6karnick.php
http://catholiclane.com/gay-marriage-coming-after-the-church/
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/02/24/gay-marriage-close-to-legal-in-maryland/
Semper Fi'
DM
@Anonymous, who ever u are, what do you call it when FAITH dictates policy, and policy is the law?
Faith is precisely what our enemies use to justify their actions.
Faith may be used as a GUIDE to individually self regulated behavior, but, no way anyone else's faith should be imposed on me, and no way what I have faith in should be what YOU are compelled to come in line with.
Faith = believe in the suspension of proof.
@ Diamond...thanks for the links.. the NJ case is actually interesting..
1) The church was NOT forced to perform the ceremony
2) The church OWNED the beachfront property where someone else performed the civil union ceremony, but had opened the property to the public in years past, and that denied them the ability to turn the civil union away!
..............................
From a google search....
Under New Jersey law, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association could have kept their camp completely private. They also had the option of opening the camp for public use but protecting it under a state provision that allows religious organizations to exempt themselves from hosting people or events that are at odds with their religious faith. (That’s right, never mentioned by the Republicans who tell this story, there already exists in New Jersey law a “carve out” that would have allowed the camp to legally discriminate against Paster and Bernstein.) But the Camp Meeting Association chose neither of those options.
..................................
This was not a church, but open public grounds the church had failed to protect and keep private.
I am uncomfortable with the IDEA that once you cede rights to the public you cannot go back, but that's NJ and in fact, no Methodist minister was compelled to perform any ceremony.
It's not, IMHO, a good case to use to say churches are being forced to allow gay marriages
..................................
Of the other articles the Karnick articles makes some points... I do NOT feel adoption has the same properties of human rights as does marriage.
As far as private companies being compelled to offer services to gay people thru marriage (insurance was given as an example) we are back to the Rand Paul issue of a private entity being allowed to discriminate arbitrarily. It's a difficult issue. If we allow this we are back to 1953. We make ALL discrimination legal.
Said Drama Queen, "Anonymous, who ever u are, what do you call it when FAITH dictates policy, and policy is the law?"
In the instance of homosexual marriage and the opposition to it, "Faith" is not driving the opposition. Morality is driving it. If it were "faith," as you put it, then opposition would not united across faith boundaries--conservative Jews, Christians, Muslims, and secular conservatives are largely in opposition to gay marriage.
Theocracy is rule by religious authority, not laypersons voting for the society they want.
What is the source of this claimed "MORALITY"?
Where is the authority to claim the right to declare homosexuality immoral and therefore ineligible for lifetime legal partnership?
BTW I am a conservative jew, and our board, and one other out of 3 in the town I live in voted UNANIMOUSLY that gay people have the RIGHT to marry.
The last, the orthodox decided not to vote.
UNANIMOUS.
I know you are a Jew. However, your neutrality toward homosexual marriage is not shared by the majority of your conservative brethern. It is not shared by a majority of conservative Christians. It is not shared by a majority of conservative Muslims. It is not shared by a majority of conservative secularists.
Where does "morality" come from? It comes from God, but a populace voting for a moral society does not make its government a theocracy, which is government by a religious authority.
You confuse a society voting for a moral society with a theocracy, which would be like a government ruled by Billy Graham and Shmuley Boteach, simply because they were religious authority figures and not because they were elected by the populace on their merits.
Me thinks you get a bit carried away with yourself.
You are a flat out loon if you think that Egypt post-Mubarrak is a theocracy. It is parliamentary government that has elected non-religious authorities who will enforce Sharia. It is awful, but it is not a theocracy.
"You are a flat out loon if you think that Egypt post-Mubarrak is a theocracy."
The muslim brotherhood will not run a theocracy?
Yes and after the czar was Kerensky, but the finale was quite predictable.
There is NO DIFFERENCE between a society in which the assumed laws of god WHICH PS is FAITH, is ENFORCED by the majority by vote which you claim you want here, and a society run by a small group whose decisions are enforced by their common definition of faith, even when that it extreme.
That is WHY we have a constitution and if you think state interference in marriage is a good thing, you CANNOT call yourself a conservative.
You also make assertions which you seem to accept but are to say the least errors of fact:
Poll: 81% of Jews Back Gay Marriage
By Josh Nathan-Kazis
It isn’t news that American Jews overwhelmingly support legalizing gay marriage. But a new survey out today puts that level of support at 81%, a few notches higher than previous polls.
An older survey conducted last May by the same polling group, the Public Religion Research Institute, pegged American Jewish support for same-sex marriage at 76%.
About half of all Americans support same-sex marriage.
And PEW....
http://www.pewforum.org/Gay-Marriage-and-Homosexuality/Support-For-Same-Sex-Marriage-Edges-Upward.aspx
Read more: http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/154171/poll--of-jews-back-gay-marriage/#ixzz1uQ16CVwm
Thank you btw for distinguishing that this for me is not an issue of support or not... it's not my business.
Or anyone else's.
Do you have a poll showing what self-identified conservative Jews think? Or are you going to duck the issue?
You still are having trouble with the definition of a theocracy.
Hi Epa,
I know you've gotten hit with a lot of arguments and questions here, but you have missed mine, so I will repeat it:
I generally agree with you, Epa. I don't care if gay people want to marry people of their own sex. I think it is an issue for the Churches, Synagogues, etc. It is private, and it is a decision between people and their God.
But, I also think that children are part of marriage, and the confluence of issues of marriage and children is where the problem lays for me.
I do not think that, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, two mothers, or two fathers, are as good for the development of a child as are a mother and father.
Is adoption also an issue that governments should stay out of? And, if so, does that not mean that children are reduced to a commodity in the eyes of government, and hence, in the eyes of our society?
@ pasto...adoption is an entirely different matter.
I can't see anyway for govt to stay out of it. I have no idea what that means for adoption from overseas.
I personally feel (FEELINGS, UH-OH) that based on my own anecdotal observations the chances are greater that a kid will not be as well adjusted, fit in with other kids, if adopted by same sex couple.
Adoption must be about the welfare and life of the child NOT who adopts the child.
@ anon - THEOCRACY according to merriam webster ...government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
Therefore the primary goal enforcement of the sharia, DIVINE GUIDANCE makes any such govt a theocracy. A vote does not negate that.
@anon can you read?
I did give you a link.
In it conservative jews announced their support for gay marriage in 2006. Not even their neutrality.
The RJC LITERALLY takes my position. NEUTRAL.
You make assertions backed by nothing and demand links to disprove your assertions.
LIST YOUR URL'S PLEASE to prove your point
good evening
@ anon - THEOCRACY according to merriam webster ...government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
----------------------
Now, tell us all, because we are in total suspense, which of our elected officials or Egypt's Members of Parliament are "regarded as divinely guided?"
-------
This should be your best answer yet.
Epa,
So, this is exactly where I get stuck. You and I are in an agreement here. The only thing is, as I think of marriage as being about a choice to have children, as much as it is about a commitment to stay together, I have trouble being happy for gay people that, yay, now they can get married.
Good.
Next.
And next is, what is best for children, and for society as a whole:
1) a mommy and a daddy
or
2) two daddies, or two mommies?
1 wins in my book.
But, gay people will not stop at marriage.
Next, we will be called haters for calling into question whether we ought to actually heed natural biological drives.
Once again, I don't really care about gay marriage, homosexuality, or whatever. It does not effect me, and it is not impinging on the free will of any other human.
But the question of child rearing is a societal issue, and it does impinge upon the life of a fellow human being.
The ultimate result of all this homosexual rights GARBAGE will be the destruction of the freedom of religion.
If anyone can't see that then you're not thinking and haven't closely examined the history of the issue.
The homosexual mafia is dead set on destroying all vestiges of true Christianity.
Damn just look at what they do and say. Not every single one of them...DUH, not the overall gist of their culture.
And to those who dissmiss this....YOU SHALL SEE.
I'm late to the party I see but so what.
FWIW I agree with Epa (and pasto) wholeheartedly on this issue.
None of my business, your business or the state's business. And, to my thinking anyway, if you hold that it's a morality issue then it would follow that it is a religious issue (whatever your religion may be) and in such a case the Constitution already has a say about that (First amendment). I don't know what the state constitutions say.
But what the hell do I now. I also think prostitution should be legal. Regulated. Licensed. Etc. But that's another argument we daresn't get into.
Pasto -- maybe you should not think of marriage as being a choice about having children. Plenty of couples get married knwoing they can't (for medical/biological reasons) have children and marry anyway. And many couples make a decision not to have children. Or limit the number of children they have. And that is fine with me. I have no problem with contraception.
WHAT!? someone will no doubt say. NAUGHTY NAUGHTY NAUGHTY.
Contraception -- preventing pregnancy.
Abortion -- ending pregnancy.
Big difference and where I draw the line.
Yeah, I may be Catholic but I never claimed to be a good one.
Anyway, point being that I agree with you (and Epa) that the welfare of the child should come first and that the state needs to have a say in that where adoption is concerned.
So they can call me a hater and I really don't give a flying fuck. They have no idea what hate from me really looks like.
As for cjk's comment about homosexual rights garbage, the way I see it they should have the same rights as anybody else (where their welfare is concerned, not those of a child before we head down that path, or have their rights forced on and impinging upon someone else) no more and no less.
One more thing and then I'll shut up my shuttin' up.
At least in the U.S., legally marriage is a secular institution. It is a contract between two parties (trust me, my wife keeps telling me to read the fine print).
As far as a church goes the wedding ceremony is nothing more than a recognition, a formalization, within that church, of that contract.
You can be married by the state/j.p./whatever and not married in a church and are still considered married by the state.
You cannot be married by a church and not by the state and be considered married by the state. Unless some states are different than Pa.
And that marriage contract by the state merely confers certain legal rights to each spouse. A contract like any other.
What does it matter to you or I if the state says Joe's house and property pass to Bill upon Joe's demise or Jacqueline can visit Beth in the hospital as next of kin? Is it really affecting anyone besides those two?
If your church doesn't want to recognize it so be it. The church is a private party not subject to the terms of that contract. and thus it does not have to grant those persons any privleges such as communion or extreme unction etc.
But the state, in it's efforts to NOT establish/favor one religion or another, cannot do the same.
anon your args are emotionally based and now have devolved into being totally obtuse.
the definition of theocracy says "OR", sir maroon.
I note you have NO URLS to use as the factual basis for your emotionally based opinions.
BYE BYE
@cjk... we don't have to LIKE what a group says, wants or stands for, we are COMPELLED however to TOLERATE them, and not just grant, but DEFEND their rights just as much as we would defend ours.
'If the freedoms of the most obnoxious among us are not protected, then the freedoms of each of us are damaged.' .. that was written to me by the lawyer who defended the Nazi right to march in Skokie in 1968.
At first I was appalled. But he was 100% correct.
We each have our own inner compulsions. Lesbians don't really make any negative impression on me, but gay men have made me extremely uncomfortable. I love the TV show SMASH, but when the guys kiss I yell "LALALALALA" and turn away from the tube.
But that doesn't mean I won't defend their human right to get married even if I don't want to be exposed to it's minutiae.
I get your worry, but no one said this all would be worry free.
Toleration does not mean holding hands and walking off into the sunset.
Said drama queen as he beat his chest, "anon your args are emotionally based and now have devolved into being totally obtuse.
the definition of theocracy says "OR", sir maroon."
I know the definition said "OR." The problem for you is that neither definition fits America or the current form of government in Egypt. Or, will you tell me how America is led by "immediate divine guidance?"
I like that you think my arguments are "emotionally based." I am just asking you to support your contention that votes against gay marriage mean that America is akin to a theocracy. I think it is you who are flying off the handle and getting his feelings hurt.
I think what you are trying to say, Anonymous, is that, just because an electorate votes based upon their religious beliefs does not make the government they elect a Theocracy.
According to you, it is a Democracy, because it is Democratically elected.
But, that's not "Democracy" as we know it in the United States. It may be the strict definition of Democracy, but it is not a Democratic Republic with human rights protected by a Constitution.
The strict sense of "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."
To get to the question I think is implicit in your main point:
Can a Democratic Republic elect a Theocracy?
I don't believe it could.
It would be interesting to see what Epa has to say about that.
Pastorius, I suppose that a Democratic Republic could elect a theocracy in theory. All the electorate would have to do is decide en masse to elect religious authorities to govern according to divine mandate. I think that Egypt will eventually become a theocracy. Indeed, I would not be surprised to see a rebirth of the Caliphate in my lifetime. But, Egypt is not there yet.
What I am saying is that the American electorate voting its conscience and voting in line with religious and/or moral convictions is a far cry from having a Democratic Republic operate as theocracy.
Religion and Morality are indispensable to our form of government. That sentiment was shared by Washington, Madison, Adams, Franklin and other Founding Fathers. They were not setting up a theocracy and were not theocrats, but they did understand that Biblical morality would support, and not compromise, our form of governance.
Anonymous,
You write: What I am saying is that the American electorate voting its conscience and voting in line with religious and/or moral convictions is a far cry from having a Democratic Republic operate as theocracy.
I respond: I agree.
However, I do not think a Democratic Republic can elect a Theocracy. Because it violates what we here in America call "First Amendment Rights" which would be part of any Democratic Republic with Human Right protected by a Constitution.
Like I said, I'd like to hear what Epa would have to say about that.
Furthermore, to your point, everyone casts there vote at least in part informed by their own personal morality.
I'm just thinking this through more.
It seems to me the points Epa is making, which I tend to agree with, leave open the possibility that Polygamy (as observed in Islam and Mormonism) would increase. If the government ceased all laws regarding marriage, I believe that would have the effect of tacitly approving of Polygamy.
If justice in the nation = Sharia that = theocracy BY DEFINITION. Govt by divine guidance.
Why do you think Islam doesn't exist without it's three schools of jurisprudence?
Very soon now Egypt will complete it's election cycle.
Their VERY representative government will have about 70% MB and salafist majority in the legislature, and if the new prez is not in line with that I will be truly shocked.
They will govern via sharia.
THE END. DIVINE AUTHORED GOVT.
A representative one.
I still see NOT ONE LINK FROM YOU ANON TO PROVE ANY ASSERTION YOU HAVE MADE ABOUT WHO SUPPORTS WHAT
Please don't bother responding to me unless you are prepared to post your polls proving your assertions about what people support.
If the US governs itself via the ENFORCEMENT of the moral authority of God (whose, by the way?), please compare and contrast how that is theoretically different from the authority claimed by the Muslim Brotherhood?
To me the entire constitution is there prevent any such usurpation for any such reason. Religion, so called moral authority, executive usurpation, military ascendance etc. All centralized power authorization. It's all the same. The constitution is there to PREVENT THE GOV TAKING MORE AND MORE POWER, no matter how well intentioned.
"The Conservative looks upon politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of the social order."
Anyone want to argue marriage does not add stability to the society?
Guess who said that? The same guy who said every good Christian should line up to kick Falwell in the ass. The same guy who wanted gays in the military.
Unless I am mistaken the old testament calls for the death of homosexuals ... who picks what is moral?
It doesn't matter if the origination of such a legal system is by vote, coup or military fiat, or the good intention of the 'moral', the trail ends in one place.
The USA is already allowing executive orders to replace binding legislative law. We already turned a blind eye to the rights of the the MILLIONS of bondholders of GM and Chrysler.
The federal govt should butt out of this issue.
Morals is a very slippery slope. We start with the 10 commandments .. that's hard enough these days, and then we end up telling people because of SOMETHING in their genetic composition they can't get married?
How do you draw a line for the govt arrogation of power?
You will end up with a society that is divided over REJECTION of the commandments, and those whose self righteous moralism sees those who question the root of that authority as evil.
SOUND FAMILIAR?
It just REALLY IRKS me that those who want to name themselves to be conservative are in fact masquerading, and are just another kind of authoritarian system promulgators. They are just comfortable with some other list of definitions they have which to them means 'goodness'.
SAYS WHO? Ultimately there can be but one answer to that question, and THAT friends is the problem.
@cjk ..."People are not born homosexual any more than they are born alcoholics, adulterers, or thieves."
That is factually incorrect.
Genetics cannot FULLY explain homosexuality as studies of twins have shown, but it is THE largest factor. Next is unique circumstances of upbringing (and there is the adoption issue).
There are a lot of genetic studies on this in families. Animal studies using genetic manipulation tend to indicate it controls sex choice.
What kind of gay people are somehow assaulting you and your children? What are they doing?
Are we talking exposure on TV? or literally in your face?
Some people are PROFESSIONALLY homosexual ..it defines who they are and what they think say and do. These people are obnoxious and disgusting, but there are plenty of such heterosexuals as well.
Nancy Pelosi.
Debbi Wasserman Schultz
Paris Hilton
I would think that trio is as much a threat to your way of life, no?
Tell me again, where is the divine guidance that you believe makes America a theocracy.
Sharia is not yet the law of the land in Egpyt, but the framework is in place. Moreover, Sharia can govern a nation and the nation not be a theocracy. See: Saudi Arabia. It is a monarchy that is ruled by Sharia, but its head is not a religious authority and does not rule by divine guidance.
Your knowledge of Sharia could use some help. There are more than three madthab/schools of thought, among them: Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali, Ithna-Ashari, Shafi, Ibadi.
LINKS ANON?
WHERE ARE YOUR LINKS?
“It’s time America realized that there was no gay exemption in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence” — Barry Goldwater
Where did I say america is a theocracy?
I say that IF the idea of morality as defined by what SOME PEOPLE think of as being authored by god becomes the way we govern, we have one.
KSA is not a theocracy because they have a royal family?
You are missing half the definition dude.
Anywhere there is sharia as the guiding rule of law, THERE is theocracy.
There are ONLY 3 main schools of jurisprudence in Islam. Others are offshoots, according to the muslims in the persian gulf I have been speaking to nearly EVERY DAY from 9/13/01 to sometime last year
"There are ONLY 3 main schools of jurisprudence in Islam. Others are offshoots, according to the muslims in the persian gulf I have been speaking to nearly EVERY DAY from 9/13/01 to sometime last year."
Maybe you need new sources. The Amman Message disagrees with your current sources; and the Amman Message is a publication issued by some of the top Sharia scholars in the world. But, perhaps the unnamed sources of a hysteric count more than today's top Sharia scholars.
I find it amusing that you have the chutzpah to comment on unnamed sources after the assertions you have ridiculously made and failed to back up.
The people I have conversed with in Oman, Yemen, KSA, and Iran seem to have been very correct about what to expect all along, I think I'll go with them rather than someone who may be a poodle of the Hashemites.
I am done commenting on this issue
They are as genetically inclined to homosexuality as anyone else may be to adultery, alcoholism, or thievery.
How are they in my face? That's actually laughable.
Boyscouts, teachers, churches, parades (check out the Folsum Street Parade photos), renting, leasing just to start.
Really; arguing this point is like arguing the detriments of Mohammedanism to people who are blind to it.
Go ahead and dismiss me, but just as those who shoo off Islamophobia so also is homophobia, both stupid inane words IMO.
Nobody has ever forced your churches to marry someone that they didn't see appropriate! Nor would those getting married want to go somewhere that they aren't welcome. This is just another stupid ass excuse to not may gay couples. Have some common sense.
Post a Comment