August 4th, 2010
05:46 PM ET

Conservatives vow to fight Prop. 8 ruling, citing threat to gay marriage bans nationwide

Within moments of a federal judge striking down California's same-sex marriage ban Wednesday, religious conservatives vowed to fight the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court, saying the decision threatens gay marriage bans nationwide.

"This lawsuit, should it be upheld on appeal and in the Supreme Court, would become the 'Roe v. Wade' of same-sex 'marriage,' " said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, referring to the 1973 decision that legalized abortion.

Perkins and other conservatives said the ruling, which found California's gay marriage ban unconstitutional, would overturn marriage bans adopted by dozens of states if it is upheld.

Perkins told CNN he will work to make the ruling an issue in this fall's midterm elections. "This is the age of the Tea Party, where you have people saying government is not listening," Perkins told CNN. "And here you have a judge saying seven million people (who supported California's Proposition 8 ) don't matter."

Some conservatives began calling for a renewed push to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, an effort that was largely abandoned after it failed during President George W. Bush's administration.

"Many senators who voted against the federal marriage amendment the last time it came up said publicly if a federal court interfered with a state's right to determine this issue, they would then be willing to vote for a federal marriage amendment," said Richard Land, who heads public policy for the Southern Baptist Convention. "Ladies and gentlemen, prepare to vote."

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled Wednesday that California's Proposition 8, which passed via a 2008 ballot initiative, violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. The case is now expected to go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The decision marks the first time a federal judge has ruled that the U.S. Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Though they denounced the decision, conservatives said they anticipated it and had been planning their next legal and political steps for months.

"We have a strong team of attorneys and they knew we were not only arguing this before a single judge, we were planning an argument that would go through the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court and they made decisions based on that," said Ron Prentice, chairman of the executive committee of ProtectMarriage.com, a California-based coalition.

"This is round one of what we knew would be a multi-round battle," Prentice said.

Beyond challenging Wednesday's ruling in court, conservative activists said they will try to hammer home the message that the final Proposition 8 ruling will determine the constitutionality of other state bans on gay marriage.

"A lot of Americans sitting back right now probably don't realize that this case involves more than California," said

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst with CitizenLink, the public policy arm of Focus on the Family. "This case is not about Prop. 8, it's about all 50 states."

A Gallup poll last May found that 44 percent of Americans support legal recognition of same-sex marriage, while 53 percent do not.

Since the late 1990s, 41 states have adopted constitutional amendments or other laws banning gay marriage, according to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: California • Gay marriage • Gay rights • Politics • United States

soundoff (515 Responses)

    Maybe they should vote to ban a made up belief that was formed to have more than one woman.

    August 4, 2010 at 6:39 pm |
  2. Michael

    Gay marriage is not one of the rights I am willing to die for. Ten years of service to my nation has been waisted now because of this. I believe that many years from now, gay marriage will be viewed as one of the key steps in the decline of U.S. supremacy.

    August 4, 2010 at 6:38 pm |
    • STOFHT

      Wow, really? Supremacy of what? Hate?

      August 4, 2010 at 6:40 pm |
    • Dan

      How, may I ask? What is going to happen?
      Enlighten me.

      August 4, 2010 at 6:48 pm |
    • Phil S

      Actually, you served to protect freedom! So this is what you were serving for.

      August 4, 2010 at 6:49 pm |
    • No Hate

      You didn't die for it and there were soldiers that were also upset when blacks were no longer sold as slaves. Times change, our understanding changes, deal with it. The decline of America will have a lot more to do with lack of education than gay marriage.

      August 4, 2010 at 6:50 pm |
    • Dave

      Perhaps some of those years would have been better spent in a course for grammar/spelling? Perhaps our educational decline will be the impetus behind our loss of "Supremacy."

      August 4, 2010 at 6:52 pm |
    • STOFHT

      U served because its a job like everyone else that has joined up since the draft ended! Don;t act like you're the only service member in this country. Most Americans have served in one capaciity or another because there are huge benefits tied to serving now unlike the 68 dollars a month they were getting in Vietnam. If u hate, just hate and leave the service out it!

      August 4, 2010 at 6:55 pm |
    • dylan

      right, THAT'S what will be the downfall of our current "US supremacy" – never mind the completely absurd way our country was being led for the past 8 years prior to this new administration

      August 4, 2010 at 6:57 pm |
    • Mike T

      You served, like I served, to protect each and every CITIZEN of this great country. That means black and white, gay and straight, Democrat and Republican. That is the OATH we took and that is the OATH we signed up to die for if necessary. Sir, don't sully your honor and dignity that you earned as a veteran. You served your county with honor, don't let bigotry or ignorance define the rest of your life. Just some advice from one brother to another.

      August 4, 2010 at 6:57 pm |
    • Support gay marriage

      Actually Mike, I believe that morons like you that procreate and raise little haters will be the decline of the US Supremecy.

      August 4, 2010 at 7:04 pm |
    • Matt

      It's a damn shame we can't arrange a dishonorable discharge for your bigoted ass. You should be embarrassed to even have brought up your service while engaging in hate speech – or do you always wear your dress uniform under your sheet+hood?

      August 4, 2010 at 7:18 pm |
    • toboot

      Ummmm....where have you been Michael? It declined several years ago thanks to the republicans and George bush.

      August 4, 2010 at 8:16 pm |
    • TammyB

      How's that? Decline because homosexuals marry, or decline because of marriage in general? How could two committed people who make the decision to be married be the decline of anything? Just because they happen to be same sex? No one is asking you to die for this right, there's no reason to. But laws must be followed, and the Constitution upheld with no religious sway. They should have the same rights as other couples, period. I still don't see how that could lead to decline of anything besides hatred.

      August 4, 2010 at 8:51 pm |
    • JD

      No offense Michael – it's great that you were in the armed forces, but I could care less if you served or not. That doesn't make your word have any more weight than mine. You may protect us (and that is appreciated), but without John Q Taxpayer, you're fighting with sticks and eating Ramen Noodles. It's a team effort all around. Like I said, nothing personal – thanks for serving, but don't get all high and mighty because you did.

      August 4, 2010 at 10:56 pm |
    • One Whose Name Means Beloved of God

      Many of the men and women you served with can't marry. Because they are gay. How is their service to our country rewarded? With bigotry.

      Your service oath was to the Constitution. The Constitution provides for equal protection under the law. This ruling shows how gays (including your service buddies) are not equally protected. You should WANT to uphold the Constitution and legalize gay marriage.

      August 5, 2010 at 12:31 am |
  3. Jesus

    They took our jobs!!!
    Dey terk ehr jerbs!!!
    Derp deDerp de Derrrr!!!

    August 4, 2010 at 6:36 pm |
    • JD


      August 4, 2010 at 10:52 pm |
    • Selfish Gene


      August 6, 2010 at 4:03 pm |
  4. Crystal

    "We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, after the biased way he conducted this trial," said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization of Marriage. "With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman."

    The courts in this country were founded to uphold the constitution, not the opinion of voters. The reason our country is a Republic and not a Democracy is because our forefathers realized the "popular vote" is not always the "right" vote. It is why we have an electoral college and voters are not directly responsible for casting the vote that leads to the choosing of the next President or Vice President of the United States. In theory, the Electoral College could oppose the popular vote and vote their conscience if they believe the popular vote was the wrong vote for the whole of the country/state/region. (This is rarely seen because our Senators and Congressmen/women are more focused on remaining in office, which means they are not apt to go against the opinion of their constituents.)

    The constitution guarantees the rights of every individual to practice the religion of their choosing. It is, in fact, a fundamental right of all American people. What it does not guarantee, and outlines quite clearly, is the right for that religion to set legal precedence. In fact, it is that very thing our constitution was made to prevent. When we try to impose our religious views into legal views, we deny the very thing our country was founded on. It is the courts duty to see to it that our religion does not impede upon our laws.

    I wonder what the supporters of Proposition 8 would think if there was suddenly a law imposed which was based on Islamic, Buddhist or Jewish beliefs. I think there are quite a few double standards being set by Prop 8 supporters, and when we let religion dictate our laws, we lose sight of what this great nation was founded on.

    I commend Judge Walker for his decision, a decision which must have been difficult to make due to its controversy, but a decision which is right and just. His decision upholds the very notion stated in the Declaration of Independence, "All people are created equal."

    August 4, 2010 at 6:35 pm |
    • David Johnson

      I totally agree with you, Crystal.

      August 5, 2010 at 10:04 am |
  5. Tom

    Gay people cannot have their own biological children and therefore should not be allowed to marry.

    August 4, 2010 at 6:33 pm |
    • John

      ::sigh:: should sterile men and women not be allowed to marry either?

      August 4, 2010 at 6:46 pm |
    • Dan

      How is that even remotely relevant? Are straight people required to prove that they can reproduce, or that they will reproduce, in order to get married? Is Procreation the ONLY goal of marriage? Is it even a goal, if not a byproduct? Should infertile couples be forced to divorce? Should post-menopausal women be prohibited from marrying?
      I'd keep punching holes, but there's not much left to punch them through.

      August 4, 2010 at 6:46 pm |
      • OneMoreTime

        Don't flatter your self. You haven't made any relevent arguements. Infertile couples don't need the legalities of marriage. They simply could register as domestic partners (and perhaps some contractual arrangements.) Marriage is supposed to keep a man loyal to his wife and childrens. The same goes for the wife.

        August 5, 2010 at 3:26 am |
    • Phil S

      Therefore doesn't come into it – your comment makes no sense at all. Lots of heteros cant have children either (age or medical issues), or don't want them.

      August 4, 2010 at 6:47 pm |
    • Mike T

      Did your mommy tell you that you had to be married to have chidren?

      August 4, 2010 at 6:49 pm |
    • Dan

      Are straight couples required to prove that they can/will procreate before being issued marriage licenses? Are infertile couples forced to divorce? Are post-menopausal women kept from marrying? Procreation is not the ONLY goal of marriage, and in many cases isn't one of the goals at all. Sorry, but your logic only fits to discriminatory purpose. Apply it to hetero couples and you'd have a severe problem on your hands.

      August 4, 2010 at 6:51 pm |
    • David

      So Tom, using your logic couples specifically heterosexual couples where one or both are unable to conceive should be banned from marriage. More to the point, if someone involved in a relationship is steril (again using your logic) it would be illegal for them to marry. There was a guy in Germany in the 1930's that used "logic" similar to yours.

      August 4, 2010 at 6:54 pm |
    • dylan

      that's your criteria for whether people should be allowed to get married? So, if a man and woman go into marriage knowing that they don't want to have children, should that be an automatic ban as well? people amaze me sometimes...

      August 4, 2010 at 6:54 pm |
    • George

      Interesting. So you think that couples that cannot have their own biological children should automatically be divorced? Or those couples who choose not to have children in the first place should be banned from marrying as well?

      August 4, 2010 at 6:55 pm |
    • James

      My sister is unable to have her own biological children..so she should not be married to her husband!

      What a uneducated moron you are!

      August 4, 2010 at 7:01 pm |
    • Jeff

      So by that logic infertile women / sterile men should not be allowed to have heterosexual marriages either, right?

      August 4, 2010 at 7:01 pm |
    • Dino

      Sure, and we should have shotgun weddings for a guy who knocks up a girl kinda like Levi Johnson and Bristol Palin. Now there is true love!!! No wait, didn't they break off their engagement AGAIN??!! Oh well, so much for that!!

      August 4, 2010 at 7:31 pm |
    • BD70

      @ Dan Exactly...so let them marry.

      August 4, 2010 at 7:36 pm |
    • BD70

      So not being able to procreate is an issue? This is about civil rights not procreation.

      August 4, 2010 at 7:38 pm |
    • Brian

      Should straight men and women who are barren, have undergone tubal ligation or vasectomies also be disallowed from marrying?

      August 4, 2010 at 7:53 pm |
    • Sean

      That's the dumbest argument I've ever heard. So weak.

      August 4, 2010 at 7:58 pm |
    • Bette

      Is this a joke? LOL....only the most ignorant stupid person in the world would actually believe this to be true, so I hope you posted this as a joke. Otherwise Im surprised you have even figured out how to use a computer... I am a straight woman who cannot have a child with my husband. Well, guess we never should have gotten married. Idiot....

      August 4, 2010 at 7:59 pm |
    • TammyB

      This is NOT even an argument. There are men and women who cannot have children who marry, men and women who don't want children who marry. Should they also be denied marriage as they can't or won't have children? We have enought people on this earth for NOT every couple to procreate.

      August 4, 2010 at 8:41 pm |
    • Aeria

      Read the judgement. This statement was explicitly refuted in the ruling. Basically, if procreation is a defining part of marriage, then the elderly and sterile should not be allowed to marry either. Since procreation is not mandatory for marriage, this argument is null and void.

      August 4, 2010 at 8:47 pm |
      • Reality

        Again, the murky waters of same s-ex unions vs. the natural marriage act. Unfortunately any discussion of physics and biology is forbidden on this blog by the pru-dish moderators. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will not be so pru-dish.

        August 5, 2010 at 12:16 am |
      • joe in TN

        How dare you use logic and reason ! You will frighten the sheep. 🙂

        August 5, 2010 at 1:33 am |
    • Mark

      It is grounds for a legal annullment. For you fols that dont know thats religiously legal divorce.

      August 4, 2010 at 9:19 pm |
  6. Dina

    Dear Conservatives,
    I am a straight married woman who lives in Massachusetts. Let Massachusetts be a lesson to you. Do you know what happened after they legalized gay marriage here? Some people got married. Nothing else happened. My marriage did not mean less. The communities did not fall apart. Gay men were not dancing naked on tabletops. Nothing happened. Don't be scared.

    August 4, 2010 at 6:32 pm |
    • freddy

      don't be too sure about that dancing thing – I have hazy memories of dancing while drunk. I don't remember if anyone else was there...

      August 4, 2010 at 7:08 pm |
    • Dino

      Thank you Dina. Same-sex marriage is now legal in about four or five states as well as the District of Columbia (the Nation's Capital). In none of these jurisdictions has the sky apparently fallen. One of those states is Iowa, yes IOWA!!!

      August 4, 2010 at 7:24 pm |
    • JD

      @ Dino....I'm from Iowa...everything here is the same as before. People are just better dressed:)

      August 4, 2010 at 10:51 pm |
    • Jon

      @Dino Yea it hasn't caused anything bad to happen here in Iowa, but just a reminder Iowa is a pretty independent state :p

      August 4, 2010 at 11:41 pm |
  7. bvilleyellowdog

    Fear mongering wingers. The ironic part is one of the lead attorneys against Prop 8 is a "keep the government out of my bedroom" conservative. This is a battle the regressives have lost. It probably will not even go to the Supreme Court . The ruling was decisive on the merits – not based on technicalities.
    Not only have the regressives lost this battle with the courts – but also with thier children. The younger generation is in overwhelming support – just ask your kids.

    August 4, 2010 at 6:32 pm |
    • psandro

      you need to ask the 7 million people who voted yes on prop 8. I guess democracy took a hit today with this ridiculous man who thinks he is god. He threw out the vote of 7 million people. This country is in the throughs of a violent judicial dictatorship. This is why gun sales are at an all time high. I guess the smart people saw this coming.

      August 5, 2010 at 2:16 am |
    • Edward


      If 7 million people voted to take away your right to get guns, and a Judge pointed out that it does not matter if it was 7 million or 10 million that the constituion gives a right that cannot be voted away, would you be mad at the judge or would you consider him a brave sole standing up for the constiution. Have you ever read the constitution. Did you read the Judge's decision. From your posts, one would belive you understand neither. If we are going to resolve these kinds of questions we need people who actually understand the issues. You have demonstrated agressivley you understand nothing. That may be harsh, but I can only judge from two posts on this site. So why not take a walk around the block, think about your position and come back after you have read the decision and try to make meaningful statements. There is a debate going on. Unfortuanatly with all the money the Prop 8 supporters have and with all the people who profess to want to defend Prop 8, they did not show up for this trial. I have only one word for the defense team– pathetic. So if you really want to help out, answer the question that so far escaped the ability of the mormon church, focus on the faminly as well as every other prop 8 supporter to answer. What harm does it do to married people and what rights are lost if gays are allowed to marry. But please come prepared.

      On another note, I assume you may be thinking of the slippery slope argument. I will save you some homework. You may get excited when you notice that so many posts on this site think the decision gives license to all sorts of behaviors. Here is where reading the decision can be of beneft and save you time and ridicule. The judge clearly states there are so many reasons the government can discriminate against groups. What he says is that in this the gay marriage case, no case for discrimination can be made. He goes to lenght at explaining why. Your homework assignment is to read the decision and argue against the well resoned argument of a very good Judge.

      August 5, 2010 at 6:43 pm |
    • Selfish Gene

      Psandro, where to begin.

      "you need to ask the 7 million people who voted yes on prop 8. I guess democracy took a hit today with this ridiculous man who thinks he is god." The votes were unconstitutional. Amendments 1, 10 and 14

      " He threw out the vote of 7 million people. This country is in the throughs of a violent judicial dictatorship." I do not recall the Judge using violence to enforce his ruling upon anyone. Maybe I missed that story.

      "This is why gun sales are at an all time high. I guess the smart people saw this coming."
      Now tell me who the violent one is? Sounds like it is your ilk.

      August 6, 2010 at 4:00 pm |
  8. Jack

    I am a conservative and do not necessarily agree with gay marriage. I am a christian, but understand this, I am not of the religous right!

    I detest the religous right and their treatment of others different than themselves!

    I also think that there should be laws that allow same sex partners to have the same rights they are denied, just non-married couples that are committed to each other.

    This may be somewhat judgemental of the religous right, but I think I at least remember that "he who hath not sinned cast the first stone" and I do remember that compassion is one the key reasons that he give his life for us.

    August 4, 2010 at 6:31 pm |
    • Kevin

      I appreciate seeing that moderate Christians do exist. But I still see a problem with your wanting equal rights for gays but not calling it marriage. That is called separate but equal. We tried that before with black people. It wasn't exactly what I'd call a rousing success.

      August 4, 2010 at 10:55 pm |
  9. Jim

    Marriage is more threatened by the drive-thru divorce services now offered than by gays being allowed to marry. I have been married for 13 years to my first and only wife, and I don't feel threatened by gays being able to marry. Only those people who are insecure in their marriage are threatened by it. I say good for Judge Walker. It's time to stop letting religion drive the politics of this country. That's why we have the separation of church and state.

    August 4, 2010 at 6:30 pm |
  10. Ronnie Harper

    Welcome to the real world, evangelical nut-jobs. You can all suck on this ruling forever. Go ahead and pump millions and millions of dollars of taxpayer money into defending discrimination, I'm sure your constituents and supporters will love that!

    August 4, 2010 at 6:29 pm |
  11. pyalie

    "With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman."

    It should never have been voted on in the first place...since when is the constitutional right to equal protections under the law something that needs to be voted on?

    August 4, 2010 at 6:28 pm |
  12. American

    Could one of these "Conservatives" (remember when that meant – keep the government out of my private life?) please tell me how gay marriage threatens straight marriage?

    August 4, 2010 at 6:28 pm |
    • Scott

      Remember when conservative meant conservative.

      August 4, 2010 at 7:38 pm |
  13. pyalie

    "With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman."

    It should never have been voted on in the first place...since when is the constitution right to equal protections under the law something that needs to be voted on?

    August 4, 2010 at 6:28 pm |
    • JD

      Well said. Had we allowed states to vote for racial equality I can guarantee many Southern states would not have voted in favor of the equal playing field. People can whine about "big government not listening" and whatnot, but they seem to forget that sometimes what is popular isn't right...and what's right isn't popular. I honestly think our country needs to end all connections with any religious entity. Cut them off from the tax benefits. Let the members pay the alms and whatnot to keep it afloat....if it goes under oh well, faith isn't in a floor plan.

      August 4, 2010 at 10:49 pm |
  14. gary in san diego

    this perfect for the california catholic church --- priests should be allowed to marry each other --- that way the church can remain misogynistic while abolishing celibacy

    August 4, 2010 at 6:26 pm |
    • STOFHT

      Priests aren't attracted to each other its the choir that has aroused their attention!

      August 4, 2010 at 6:51 pm |
    • Jeff

      Gee, what tolerance and love you show in your statement. Considering the fact that 98% of priests don't engage in such activity and considering most of the ones who did were gay priests doing it with teenage boys.........i'm a gay man by the way, so I have no bigotry against gays, just ones who can't keep their *%$& in their pants and people like you who use a few sickos to try and paint everyone as guilty. You're a bigot too. Or are you an enlightened liberal (who only bashes gays behind closed doors like so many of them do).

      August 4, 2010 at 7:08 pm |
  15. markus

    the moment anyone sticks religion into their argument against gay marriage, they automatically lose all basis for the argument.

    they're asking for legal, SECULAR recognition in the eyes of a SECULAR government that is SUPPOSED to be separate from church.

    if they start asking to be recognized in your church, THEN you can start in with your argument. Otherwise it's pointless.

    August 4, 2010 at 6:24 pm |
  16. saboth

    I just don't get these "conservatives". No one is forcing you to marry them in your church or force anything on your religion. Gays merely want the same rights in the eyes of our GOVERNMENT. Why would you care if they can get tax breaks, right to visitation, etc? Stop being bigots. Fine, fine, they won't be married in the eyes of God. They aren't asking for that. We are talking government sanctioned civil unions, not holy matrimony. So, once you toss out the "God Factor", what leg do you have to stand on?

    August 4, 2010 at 6:22 pm |
    • David Johnson


      Dude, there ain't no god. There ain't no leg. It's all just a myth.

      August 4, 2010 at 6:24 pm |
    • SMC

      Why should gay couples get tax breaks??? I'm not even in favor of tax breaks for heterosexual couples. Why should I subsidize married people??? If married couples get divorced, they should be required to pay the federal government back.

      August 4, 2010 at 6:56 pm |
  17. sealchan

    There is text in the New Testament that seems to state that same sex sex is wrong. Many Christians read this as proof that it is wrong. I'm a Christian but I don't think homosexuality is wrong.

    August 4, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
    • CatholicMom

      After reading the following Bible verses I am curious, how do protestant ecclesial communities that use the Bible as their guide and proclaim it the inspired word of God, say they can marry two men or two women? How do they get around these verses? Could someone, please, explain………?
      Matthew 19:5-6
      and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
      So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate."
      Ephesians 5:31-33
      "For this reason a man shall leave (his) father and (his) mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."
      This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church.
      In any case, each one of you should love his wife as himself, and the wife should respect her husband

      August 4, 2010 at 9:17 pm |
    • David Johnson


      God doesn't exist. The bible was written by men.

      August 4, 2010 at 9:40 pm |
    • Bruce H

      I hope that CatholicMom is right with her Bible and doesn't eat shellfish! Leviticus is the older book but ignored by those who claim they believe in the Bible – but not certain passages that would stand in the way of what they want to eat or how they should wear their hair.

      August 4, 2010 at 9:47 pm |
    • ChristianC

      @David Johnson.
      Since you "know" that God doesn't exist, that makes you "god".
      May I suggest you study the entire Bible for a few years before you make such inane comments?

      August 4, 2010 at 11:23 pm |
    • CatholicMom

      Bruce H,
      You are obviously having difficulty understanding what you are reading in the Bible. I suggest you find a Bible Study group and have a great time finding out what these bits and pieces that you are throwing out really mean for you today. Try to keep in mind that the New Testament is hidden in the Old Testament.

      August 4, 2010 at 11:41 pm |
    • Allan

      "Bruce H" Leviticus is from the Old Testament, not the new form which all modern Christianity base their beliefs. It's kind of like arguing that your mom and dad will be angry at you vor violating curfew when your a married 40 year old man.

      August 4, 2010 at 11:45 pm |
    • CatholicMom

      David Johnson,
      I was serious about my post....couldn't you try to be helpful once instead of always being silly?

      August 4, 2010 at 11:46 pm |
    • David Johnson


      You said, "Since you "know" that God doesn't exist, that makes you "god".
      May I suggest you study the entire Bible for a few years before you make such inane comments?

      I have this feeling in my heart. It tells me not to be stupid. What do you have to prove there is a god? What do you read in a book written by men that proves there is a god?

      Since you "know" that God doesn't exist, that makes you "god".
      May I suggest you study the entire Bible for a few years before you make such inane comments?

      August 5, 2010 at 12:01 am |
    • David Johnson


      You said, "Since you "know" that God doesn't exist, that makes you "god".
      May I suggest you study the entire Bible for a few years before you make such inane comments?"

      So, you have studied a book that is fiction and now you willl tell me how you know it is true? Please enlighten me. You are obviously way smarter than I am. Tell me what you have learned. Impress me.

      August 5, 2010 at 12:17 am |
    • Grant

      CatholicMom, like all things in the Bible, they must be examined in a contextual way. When that was written, the societal norm was for men and women to marry, probably because gays were persecuted then, too. But, like all things with the Bible, it should not be taken literally, but rather contextually. To me, the message is simply "the love of two people is stronger than all except God" – however I'm sure you will disagree because your beliefs tell you to, and therefore you will decide to interpret this passage literally. I can't argue with your views, just disagree with them and move on.

      Also, the NT is not hidden in the OT, rather the NT was written to reflect the OT to give people the belief that prophecies were fulfilled. Given that the early Christians were originally Jews, it makes sense for them to try to bring in followers by appealing to the beliefs they already hold.

      August 5, 2010 at 9:12 am |
    • Crystal

      I think the difficulty I've been having in reading these posts is the idea that religion should somehow be responsible for the structure of our laws. This is deeply problematic. I support the beliefs of others and would never belittle or demean someone's religion or their right to their faith in that religion. Our constitution outlines the right to those beliefs. However, it is also quite clear that religion has no bearing on our laws. It was the very reason individuals came and created America!

      Catholic Mom, I think it is wonderful that you have found a religion you love and embrace. However, I think it is counterintuitive to believe those values should be upheld legally by the state or our nation. Our country is one which is comprised of many people and many religions (or for some, no religion at all) and it is our duty as Americans to understand and support this. It is that very idea that our country was founded on. I wonder how you might feel if you were instructed, by the state, that you must practice the Muslim tradition of praying to Allah at sunrise and sunset. I imagine you, as a Catholic, would be quite offended that your government would be imposing the beliefs of another religion on you. That is what it is like when we try to impose Christian values and teachings into issues where religion has no bearing. Although you are entitled to believe what you choose to believe about marriage based on your religious traditions, and raise your children based on those same values, it is the nation’s obligation to uphold the equality of all religions, all cultures and all men. Not just those of Christians.

      August 5, 2010 at 11:04 am |
    • Douglas

      Well Catholic Mom, based upon your Bible verses, it looks like what you should be outlawing is divorce.

      So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate."
      Ephesians 5:31-33

      August 5, 2010 at 4:39 pm |
    • Selfish Gene

      The Bible is not our law. Regardless of whether you choose to believe it.

      August 6, 2010 at 3:53 pm |
    • JohnR

      People act as if the Bible was written during Christ's life. It wasn't. It wasn't until about 300 years after Christ die that the New Testament books were written. And there were church councils such as the Counil of Nicaea that dictated what was to be dogma. The Bible was written by MEN, not God. Also the King James Version was translated in the 17th century, whaddya wanna bet it's the King's views that color that particular version???

      August 12, 2010 at 4:11 pm |
  18. Geoff

    There is no argument that exists outside of a religious/moral stance that can successfully stand against the sensible/rational arguments in favor of allowing gay marriage. My marriage is not threatened by this development any more than the moon is threatened by it. I remember an America that promoted "be who you are, " and I still believe that we can have that here. So, let's take this to the Supreme Court & let my gay friends marry. Haters can move on, because the past is where you will be buried.

    August 4, 2010 at 6:00 pm |
    • David Johnson

      Well said! Let's tax the churches! Get rid of that 'ol deficit in no time!

      August 4, 2010 at 6:19 pm |
    • Ronnie Harper

      Taxing religion should be the number one priority of all American citizens.

      August 4, 2010 at 6:31 pm |
    • bvilleyellowdog

      Established religion is a criminal enterprise.

      August 4, 2010 at 6:34 pm |
    • Jeff

      How about the arguement of brothers getting married, or Father and son? They are just two consenting adults having intimate relationships. The government should support those marriages as well. Argue against that please.

      August 4, 2010 at 7:00 pm |
    • aha!

      Yes! Special consideration for religions is what gave them their non-profit tax status, so let's get that glaring error fixed!
      Equality under the law means religions should not have this advantage. Separation of church and state is being violated by their non-profit status.

      Don't we need the money? Can't god print more money for them?

      August 4, 2010 at 7:04 pm |
    • Support gay marriage

      Jeff...what an absolutely stupid thing to write. Remember when blacks and whites weren't allowed to marry?? They used that same ridiculous argument.

      August 4, 2010 at 7:08 pm |
    • Dino

      @Jeff, I would be glad to argue your slippery-slope argument of "fathers and sons" getting married or "brothers". How many fathers and sons, or brothers or whatever else have filed litigation to have incestious marriage legalized? Same sex couples have fought in court for the right to marry for FORTY years, the first case filed in Minnesota in 1970. If you know any siblings who want to wed or any parents who want to marry their children, please introduce me to them. I really haven't heard of any.

      August 4, 2010 at 7:15 pm |
    • Mike Ratachic

      Nice post...thank you.

      August 4, 2010 at 9:46 pm |
    • Brian

      Jeff you miss the point completely. The laws surrounding incestuous relationships apply to ALL people – and for good reason. The marriage ban only applies to SOME people – which makes it unfair. The government needs to apply any restrictions put on marriage to all people.

      August 4, 2010 at 10:41 pm |
    • Allan

      Gay people are like anyone else, they love the Constitution as long as it works for them.

      August 4, 2010 at 11:35 pm |
    • steve

      Jeff, with that logic that would mean it's okay to marry your mother or sister. You're one sick puppy.

      August 4, 2010 at 11:39 pm |
    • Allan

      Dear gay community stop using the worn out argument about "You" being like blacks fighting for your civil rights. You are nothing like us, the fight is not even remotely close to what we suffered through. Your fight applies to merely one thing, equal treatment in marriage while ours have been to simply drink from the same fountain as any other person, go to school, buy a house, get our day in court. Many of you were the very one's a couple of decades ago who promoted this type of discrimination.

      August 4, 2010 at 11:39 pm |
    • Grant

      Dear Allan, while the fight may not be comparable in terms of the injustices that black people were subjected to, the basic premise is the same: a group who is staunchly opposed is fighting for their right to equal treatment.

      I'm sure if the fight for black civil rights had not occurred, the gay community would be dealing with a lot of the same things – so thanks to your people for pioneering that.

      August 5, 2010 at 9:05 am |
    • Selfish Gene

      You tax churches and they are allowed representation. Taxing them goes against the very principles of separation of church and state. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the rights of individuals. Don't put it past the Bush 5.

      August 6, 2010 at 3:45 pm |
  19. Max

    Why is this in a section about religion? Gay marriage has nothing to do with religion. Marriage and religion are only marginally connected.

    August 4, 2010 at 5:54 pm |
    • Bob

      Because this is what we call a blue law. The people against gay marriage are of that mindset because of their faith. Not because they can intelligently defend the concept.

      August 4, 2010 at 5:59 pm |
    • H. Nuttsak

      Maybe we're supposed to "believe" that this article belongs here. I, for one, am entirely agnostic about this new belief.

      August 4, 2010 at 6:03 pm |
    • dingoatemybaby

      The only reason for denying gay marriage is strictly the moral/religious views of those seeking to ban it. There is no social or economic reason to do so. People were killed and burned as heretics for suggesting the world wasn't flat and it wasn't the center of the universe. Ideas are just that, ideas. If you don't want a gay marriage, don't have one.

      August 4, 2010 at 6:11 pm |
    • David Johnson

      The religious right and the Mormons are the ones pushing for the ban. I love it when Jesus loses. 🙂

      August 4, 2010 at 6:17 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @H. Nuttsak

      You said, "Maybe we're supposed to "believe" that this article belongs here. I, for one, am entirely agnostic about this new belief."

      I am totally happy! I picture the fundies all sad and stuff. Gives me a warm feeling!

      August 4, 2010 at 6:22 pm |
    • Scott H

      Because surprise, surprise, GLBT people have faith as well. They have their own church services they attend, and had their own religious wedding–something that rarely gets media attention and should. When the fight was on in MA, a whole page ad was taken out in the major papers filled with a small print list of religious groups, public figures and churches supporting the ability for same sex couples to wed. As previously mentioned, the most vocal opposition comes from other religious groups. It will be a great day when the other side can finally agree to get along with their neighbors despite the religious differences.

      August 4, 2010 at 6:56 pm |
    • Ruby Gumshoe

      I suppose it's taken a religious turn because of some sanctimonious, bible-thumpin', self-fighteous, hypocritical conservatives not being allowed to impose their beliefs and way of life on all others.

      August 4, 2010 at 8:58 pm |
    • Chris

      Actually Max, marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony, read the bible. A bigger question is "why the government is regulating marriage at all?" The constitution's separation of church and state clause would prohibit them from issuing marriage certificates at all. In a democratic-legal society, the license should only be issued for a civil union-that could cover everyone. Marraige is religious at it's core, and should be left to the churches (Mosques, synagogues, etc).

      August 4, 2010 at 9:05 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Ruby Gumshoe

      Yep, and if you don't want the religious right to rule the country, we had better vote Democrat in November. Please...

      August 4, 2010 at 9:22 pm |
    • Siara

      Because, unfortunately for America, the word marriage is used to define a religious ceremony AND a legal state. LET'S GET OVER THAT. Many words have two meanings. We have no problem understanding meaning from context when it comes to other words. People who pretend to be confused by this are faking confusion as a political strategy to control another segment of the community.

      August 4, 2010 at 9:48 pm |
    • David Johnson


      Gay marriage has everything to do with religion.

      August 4, 2010 at 10:04 pm |
    • Sean

      If churches were given the right to regulate marriage, then would that right extend to regulating the tax benefits that come with it? This connection between a religious institution and a secular state would be too complicated and more importantly, unconstitutional. As it is, marriage is a union issued by the state. The state can not discriminate based on race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

      August 4, 2010 at 11:28 pm |
    • Jonah


      Actually, no. Your made-up fairy tale book doesn't constitute documented history. Even so, your own book of story and myth describes marriage as between a man and as many women as he can afford. It allows for divorce in one chapter, then bans it in another. It punishes women more severely for adultery than men... even in cases of rape. It gives advice on how to sell one's daughter into slavery, commands parents to stone disobedient children, and condones the genocide of unbelievers.

      And you say *gays* are immoral.

      August 5, 2010 at 12:22 am |
  20. Gary

    when the divorce rate amoung us hetero's drops below 50% maybe we have an argument. Gays were born gay its not a choice. let them marry ..

    August 4, 2010 at 5:48 pm |
    • David Johnson

      I totally agree, Gary.

      If I was a fundie, it would be a sad day. Especially for the baby Jesus.

      August 4, 2010 at 6:16 pm |
    • Laura

      I agree. I think someday we will look back at this point in history and see how narrow minded and unaccepting we were, the way we look back at the 60's and see how foolish it was to segregate based on skin color. Gays are humans too, and deserve the same rights as anyone else. And before anyone say they do have the same rights....come on! The right to marry of the opposite sex when that goes against your own person, is absolutly not the same right.

      What scares me the most is that we are trying to legislate morals. That's fine when you are on the same side of the moral fence, but what happens when something gets legislated that affects you?

      August 4, 2010 at 6:25 pm |
    • MiamiMyAmy

      I agree that gays are born that way, and that they should have a legal right to marry. As a Christian, I believe that the behavior is wrong, but that church and state should be seperate.

      August 4, 2010 at 6:37 pm |
    • NoBama

      Serial Killers are born that way. Pedophiles are born that way. Hell even people who smoke have the genetic predisposition to smoke. Guess smokers are born that way too then. Say what ever you want, everything we do in life is a choice.and the argument that it doesn't effect heterosexuals is a crock. The choices we make as a society have lasting effects for generations and effect us all. So let me ask you; if you believe in evolution and that human beings are evolved from apes... how many species of apes are homosexual? For that matter, what species other than man are homosexual? Where is this gay gene Gary?

      August 4, 2010 at 6:39 pm |
    • STOFHT

      It is genetic.

      August 4, 2010 at 6:46 pm |
    • Michelle

      To Miami My Amy – Good for you. Also, I've been married twice, never in a church, and the love that I had for both of my husbands had NOTHING to do with God, Jesus, Allah, or the government. We were committed to each other WAY before we stood before a stranger and signed a legal document. Let people get married, divorced, and raise children if they are capable and willing.

      August 4, 2010 at 7:25 pm |
    • D.P.

      Can't discriminate in a free country!!! Let it happen and leave it to churches to decide, because the church made the term marriage! If you disagree with a church for some reason then you can leave, either agreeing or not agreeing on this you still have no right to tell someone they can't marry if the church allows it!!! THATS TRUE FREEDOM WHERE YOU ALLOW OTHERS THE FREEDOM YOU WON'T TO RECIEVE!!!

      August 4, 2010 at 7:35 pm |
    • Free Will

      Saying a person is born a certain way pertaining to their sexuality oversimplifies the matter. A person is the product of 1.) their genes 2.) their environment and 3.) their ability to make choices according to their free will.

      August 4, 2010 at 7:45 pm |
    • Nate

      Thank you, Gary. Straight to the point.

      August 4, 2010 at 7:45 pm |
    • joey

      Or to put it another way, "bank robbers were born bank robbers its not a choice. let them rob banks .."

      August 4, 2010 at 7:58 pm |
    • Chris

      Marriage is a religious union between a man and a woman. Marriage licenses shouldn't even exist. If gay people want the same legal rights and straight people, that fine, but the word "marriage" is based on a religious ceremony. That should be left to your religion. The state shouldn't regulate a religious act. We need to change our laws to reflect that. All "partnerships" should become civil unions, and if you want to say you are married, do it in a church.

      August 4, 2010 at 8:59 pm |
    • Steve

      Hate is an Addiction – It's about HATE. The far right "Chirstofascists" need someone to demonize. And since they are all done killing people in Iraq, they can focus their hate on gays. They need to Hate, otherwise they would have to look at their own ugly reflection, deal with their fears and failures.
      Hate is a Drug and the Christofascists are addicts. And the American Kleptocracy likes this – it's divide and conquer... a people busy hating each other have no time to notice America is being bled dry.

      August 4, 2010 at 9:03 pm |
    • Jonesey

      All those who think it's a choice is retarded. It's genetic. As though anyone would willing choose to drag themselves through the torment our close-minded intolerant society imposes on them. Regarding marriage.. who gives a crap anyway. It's a crusty old religious process. I'm hetero, and I would NEVER get married using a church as a crutch to make it seem "legitimate." Note to Christians – Check your own closet for skeletons and sin before judging others.

      August 4, 2010 at 9:11 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Free Will

      If god is all knowing, there is no freewill. Everything is predestined. I know, fundies hate that. But its true! Cheers!

      August 4, 2010 at 9:17 pm |
    • Regertz

      Lord, please make people who know nothing about genetics stop using it to condemn groups they don't like. Look, there is no one gay gene or gay 'mutation", a slew of genes may play a role, along with hormonal exposure in the uterus, though no mechanism of sexual orientation determination is established as yet...There is no intelligence gene...Racial variation is genetically minimal and has nothing to do with intelligence...We are basically one people, originating from Africa, with some minor variations...There is no welfare or poverty gene, though chemical addictions do seem to have a genetic component.

      While some people are bisexual and heterosexuals can experience attraction to the same sex in situations, being gay is not a lifestyle choice, cured by will-power.

      How's about remembering the words of that nice Jewish boy and stop casting the first stone? While we're at it, when are you going to give up everything to the poor? But then, since they don't really care for his message, maybe some should join Beck in a Church Without Christ where hatred and piling of weatlh and power are extolled and compassion is sneered at.

      August 4, 2010 at 9:24 pm |
    • Regertz

      Bank robbers? I love it. But I think I can safely say that the gay folks I know and love would slap an extra ten years on any gay person who claimed her or his orientation caused he or her to rob and steal.

      August 4, 2010 at 9:30 pm |
    • Siara

      I agree. From a legal take: strict enforcement of civil rights is good. From a selfish take: solid committed households are the basis of a strong community & people function better when they're happy. Why do conservatives care what other legally consenting adults do in bed? Why are they even interested?

      August 4, 2010 at 9:43 pm |
    • JD

      @ Nobama There have been plenty of humans throughout history that have been homosexual. It has been documented clear back in both Egyptian and Roman Times (Before your Bible). Last I checked, we're still here. The only sad thing is that they can't breed but idiots like you can....

      August 4, 2010 at 10:40 pm |
    • stan t

      nobama – are you serious? MOST species in the animal kingdom exhibit homosexual behavior. if your argument is that homosexuality is outside of nature then you have not the first clue of what nature is.

      secondly, i agree. it's a choice. at least the marriage bit. in a FREE country we are allowed to make choices of our own free will, unless the government has a good reason to step in and say no. murder is bad because it ends another's right to life. public smoking is bad because it putts others at risk for second hand smoke exposure. but how is gay marriage bad? if you think that what one couple does in their marriage somehow dillutes what you have with your spouse, then i would suggest if you truely want to 'defend' marriage you would outlaw divorce, not gay marriage.

      August 4, 2010 at 11:03 pm |
    • Allan

      It is an exciting day. The way has been opened for we who believe in polygamist marriage to also apply for equal treatment under the law. For too long laws have kept up from marrying the people we love most, expect a challege soon from our side.

      August 4, 2010 at 11:24 pm |
    • Chuck

      To all those that think they shouldn't get married do you also think blacks shouldn't shouldn't marry whites or for that matter shouldn't marry anyone other then the same color of their skin? It's 2010 its sad to think that we still live in a time when others think it's ok to discriminate another group of "HUMAN BEINGS".

      For all those that bring up religion, I am married and I'm not religious so does that mean me and every other person like my wife and I shouldn't be married?

      August 4, 2010 at 11:33 pm |
    • Logical

      It doesn't matter if people were born that way, if it is in their genes, a product of their environment, or whatever else. The point is that it does exist and that it doesn't infringe on anybody else's liberties, so really, who cares? Let them do what they want, be who they are, and marry whoever they love.

      August 4, 2010 at 11:50 pm |
    • Jeff

      Hey Nobama, you sarcastically asked people who understand evolution (ie. reality) which ape species engage in homosexuality, and which other animal species do? The answer will shock you right out of your ignorance. Look it up. I dare you. Homosexual behavior is documented in hundreds of species, including the great apes. One of our closest relatives, the bonobo, is very well known for homosexual behavior. They're downright kinky! Go to Wikipedia and search for "homosexuality in animals" for a brief intro, then you can continue reading from other sources, if you'd like. What do you think of that?

      August 5, 2010 at 12:02 am |
    • Frank Burke

      Republican Jesus must be rolling over in his grave about this.

      August 5, 2010 at 12:15 am |
    • Jordan

      I never decided I liked women....I never decided I liked blondes....or big breasts....I also never decided cheese burgers tasted good to me, or that I like Rock better than Country. Now that being said i can decide to ignore all of these things and do something else, but it doesn't change who I am.

      Gay people do make the choice to ACT gay in the choice of who they take as a partner. However they do not make the choice of being gay.

      August 5, 2010 at 12:16 am |
    • Johan


      Being gay is not a crime. Robbing a bank is. See the difference?

      August 5, 2010 at 12:17 am |
    • Dylan from Pennsylvania

      As a straight and married man, I've heard lots of arguments. The best one thus far is that a gay couple has every right to be just as miserable as a straight, married couple.

      Last time I checked, we have this thing called separation of church and state. It could be argued the moral values as presented by an organized religion and it's followers have no place in governance.

      What gives us the right to deny two people the right to live together, joined by a legal contract that provides certain benefits. Equal protection under the law is well... Again, last I checked that was the law of the land, and we are a country formed by the rule of law, and not the moral agenda of a single group.

      August 5, 2010 at 12:18 am |
    • John Smith

      1)Marriage is a definition based on a legalized long term relationship used to establish civil and legal rights between 2 individuals in a committed relationship.
      2)USA was founded on the principals of separation of church and state – ie laws and religion – for freedom of religion for pursuit of happiness without inflicting on our colleagues.
      3)By allowing,bigoted,people from Utah and other bible thumping parts of the country determine the freedoms of everybody in our great country we are reverting back to the Inquisition when the church controlled massive parts of the world through money, fear, military power at the cost of individual freedom.
      4)If marriage is defined as relationship between a man and a woman – is this based on DNA code of XY with XX, or is this based on outside physical appearance of a man or a woman.

      If a woman looses her breast due to breast cancer is she no longer a woman and therefore can not stay married to her current husband.

      If an individual is born with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome to be genitically XY – or a man,but has developed breasts and a blind end vagina without a uterus due to only have their body respond to female sex hormones. Is this person a man or a woman, and who are they allowed to marry?

      August 5, 2010 at 1:09 am |
    • charlesnalaska

      Gary, why do you think devorce rates have FELL below the 50% rate? (which I don't know for sure but it's your statistic).
      Is it because as a society we have put great value on marriage and families? Or could it be because a couple buddies Ummmm *&^& each other now makes a marriage? It is even starting to be accepted and trendy to have a couple girls hanging on a guy in advertisements. Poligamy will be next. Then what about pedophilia. They are people to right? Just misunderstood.

      Look, most coservatives could care less who is gay. But they AREN'T a FAMILY just because they want to play house.

      Conservatives will win. Just watch what happens next. In November the conservatives will sweep in like you have never seen before. Then in 2012 the racist socialist will be shown the door. Then guess what? Time the change the constitution to describe marriage as between a woman and a man (This is such a no brainer it even sounds funny writing it).

      After that you can appoint all the gay judges you like and it won't help. Checkmate. It is hate, it is common sense.

      Also, Gary, why do you think devorce rates have FELL below the 50% rate? (which I don't know for sure but it's your statistic).
      Is it because as a society we have put great value on marriage and families? Or could it be because a couple buddies Ummmm *&^& each other now makes a marriage? It is even starting to be accepted and trendy to have a couple girls hanging on a guy in advertisements. Poligamy will be next. Then what about pedophilia. They are people to right? Just misunderstood.

      Look, most coservatives could care less who is gay. But they AREN'T a FAMILY just because they want to play house.

      Conservatives will win. Just watch what happens next. In November the conservatives will sweep in like you have never seen before. Then, in 2012, the racist socialist occupying the White House will be shown the door. We might even get lucky and they won't rob the place blind on the way out like the Clintons did.

      Then guess what? Time the change the constitution to describe marriage as between a man and a woman. Sounds silly even having to do that. Notice how Al Qaeda, Mexican mafia, and illegal aliens are always on the same side of any issue as the democrats. That should be a wake up call to you liberals to re-examine your positions on things.

      August 5, 2010 at 2:46 am |
    • Todd

      prove it...show me the scientific evidence for the Gay gene,i think your lying or ignorant

      August 5, 2010 at 3:44 am |
    • QBert

      You all should realize that this ultimately comes down to one thing, taxation. It does not matter whether you agree with marriage of homo/heterosexual couples by virtue of religious doctrine or not, marriage has and always will be within the purview of civil jurisdiction and therefore is not subject to a moral code. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with same-sex marriage from a religious context, however, from a civil perspective it is the right of government to seek taxation of marriage as it is a form of co-habitation. The only reason marriage exists is because governments created it as a taxable license, not because we didn't choose to co-habitate before. Why should I care how another "couple" chooses to grow or destroy their lives. I do see one solution to this that might be amiable to both sides; civil marriage/union is absolute as any other civil right and civil officiates are subject as civil servants to uphold that, however a religious marriage is not subject to the same on the grounds that religions are legal "societies" and that membership rights are subject to doctrines of the faith and therefore not subject to civic dictation (think Henry VIII). In short, let them have civil marriages/unions that are subject to the same laws, but for religious marriages/unions, that is subject to the acceptability of each religion and can not be compeled otherwise or it could be construed as a taxation of religion, which they are protected against by law. So see, the institution of marriage is now safe, and I'm a married, hetero, white, relgious male. Now polygamy is not protected by this for exactly the same reason; there is no way currently in our tax code to tax such a co-habitation and therefore cannot be licensed, and if it cannot be licensed without taxation, it is not subject to being compatible with any particular religion, even Islam. This comes from one tenant of faith that most religious people or institutions forget, yet it is found and compeled upon them in virtually every religion, "you shall be subject to the laws of the land in which you reside"; this is whether it is controlled by democracy, communism, fascism, theocracy, etc...

      August 5, 2010 at 4:10 am |
    • David Johnson



      You said, "Being gay is not a crime. Robbing a bank is. See the difference?"

      If the religious right had their way, being gay would be a crime.

      August 5, 2010 at 10:08 am |
    • David Johnson


      You said, "I think someday we will look back at this point in history and see how narrow minded and unaccepting we were, the way we look back at the 60's and see how foolish it was to segregate based on skin color."

      Actually Rand Paul, the Tea Party Grand Wizard, would like to hold discussions on civil rights. He believes private business should be able to refuse service to non-whites. Vote for the Dems in November if you care about civil rights.

      August 5, 2010 at 11:30 am |
    • Aly


      Ignoring your generally misguided logic, I want to address your implication that other species don't exhibit homosexual behavior in case anyone reading believed it. All great apes and numerous primates have been observed exhibiting same-sex relations. The species genetically closest to us, the bonobos, show the highest know incidence of homosexual behavior in the animal observations. Hmosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, and this includes not just sex but also pair-bonding (mates). So yes, homosexuality is part of the animal kingdom; if you don't believe in evolution then the conclusion must be that God just makes a certain proportion of all His creatures queer. Have a nice day 🙂

      August 5, 2010 at 12:52 pm |
    • Douglas

      Anyone who says it's a choice is basically saying that they themselves could just as easily be gay and in a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex but they just choose not to be. It's obviously not a choice. You know whether you're attracted to men or women. You don't sit down, think about it and then decide whether to be gay or straight. I suppose many who think it is a choice could truly be gay and have just decided to pretend they're not.

      August 5, 2010 at 4:29 pm |
    • David Johnson


      Source: Wikipedia

      Homosexual behavior is found amongst social birds and mammals, particularly the sea mammals and the primates.[3] Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species and the motivations for and implications of their behaviors have yet to be fully understood. Bagemihl's research shows that homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.

      August 5, 2010 at 5:33 pm |
    • mmpdx

      Nobama, you're comparing gay people to serial killers and pedophiles? That's your justification for denying them the same rights as you? No, not a stretch at all.

      August 12, 2010 at 3:02 pm |
    • Jessica

      To NoBama – we didn't evolve from Apes. If you actually learn the science of evolution you'd know that. In any case, there are examples of homosexual behavior in nature. Read about Bonobos for one. What you think is natural or good or a choice doesn't matter. Discrimination is wrong, even (perhaps especially) when being done by the majority. Marriage is a civil contract that conveys certain monetary and legal rights to those who participate in it. Those rights should not be denied based on the sex of the partners.

      August 12, 2010 at 3:06 pm |
    • JohnR

      On behalf of my husband and I, who married during the 'legal window' in California, and who have been together for 18 years, thanks for your clarity and common sense.

      August 12, 2010 at 4:06 pm |
    • Lee

      thank you..........thank you;

      August 13, 2010 at 12:19 am |
    • MO


      So, I guess the 1500 documented species with homosexual, bisexual and transexual tendencies (including primates) as listed in many texts and collected into Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl don't count?

      August 13, 2010 at 5:21 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.