 |
|
|
|
 President Barack Obama addressing a gay rights group in 2011.
May 9th, 2012
04:55 PM ET
Obama's gay marriage support riles religious conservatives, but political effects not yet clearBy Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor (CNN) – U.S. President Barack Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage on Wednesday outraged conservative Christian leaders, who vowed to use it as an organizing tool in the 2012 elections, but the move is also activating the liberal base, raising big questions about who gains and loses politically. “It cuts both ways - it activates both Democratic and Republican base voters,” said John Green, an expert on religion and politics at the University of Akron. “The most likely effect is that it makes an already close election even closer.” In an interview with ABC News, Obama said, "At a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married." The announcement puts Obama at odds with presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who opposes same-sex marriage and who voiced that opposition in an interview on Wednesday. CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories "Considering that 10 of the 16 battleground states have marriage amendments that could be overturned by the president's new policy position on marriage, today's announcement almost ensures that marriage will again be a major issue in the presidential election,” said Tony Perkins, president of the the conservative Family Research Council. “The president has provided a clear contrast between him and his challenger, Mitt Romney," Perkins continued. "Romney, who has signed a pledge to support a marriage protection amendment to the U.S. Constitution, may have been handed the key to social conservative support by President Obama." Obama stressed in the interview that his support was personal and that he would leave the issue of marriage to the states. But many conservatives chafed at the idea that the president's personal views would not affect public policy. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, released a statement saying the president's comments were "deeply saddening." Dolan's statement continued, "I pray for the President every day, and will continue to pray that he and his Administration act justly to uphold and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman." Bishop Harry Jackson, the senior pastor of Hope Christian Church outside of Washington, DC, said that "I think the president has been in this place for awhile and that he chose this time because he thought that it might shift the balance of power." Jackson has long campaigned against same-sex marriage. Ralph Reed, a top organizer among religious conservatives, said Obama’s announcement was a “gift to the Romney campaign.” Romney, a Mormon who has evolved to a more conservative position on hot button social issues, has struggled with his party's largely evangelical conservative base in the primaries. But Reed said Obama’s gay marriage support would help Romney in many battleground states. “The Obama campaign doesn’t have to worry about New York and California,” Reed said. “They have to worry about Ohio, Florida and Virginia and I don’t’ see evidence that it’s a winning issue in those states.” Green said that public opinion about gay marriage has been shifting dramatically in recent years, with some polls showing more support than opposition. Green said that in many battlegrounds, including Ohio, it's impossible to nail down current public opinion on same-sex marriage. A Gallup Poll conducted this month found that 50% of American adults support legal recognition of same-sex marriage, while 48% oppose it. Reed noted that same-sex marriage bans have passed in virtually every state they have appeared on the ballot, including in North Carolina on Tuesday. That’s a typically red state that Obama won in 2008 and that is the site of the Democrat's 2012 convention. Many liberal groups were ecstatic over Obama’s support for gay marriage. “Congratulations, Mr. President, for making history today by becoming the first sitting president to explicitly support marriage for same-sex couples,” said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. In his interview with ABC, Obama talked about squaring his decision with his personal religious faith. “We are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others,” Obama said, referencing his wife, Michelle. “But, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule,” he said. “Treat others the way you would want to be treated.” One key Obama constituency that may be angered by his Wednesday announcement is African-Americans, who tend to be more religious than whites. Though they hew heavily Democratic, African-Americans are generally conservative on social issues like gay marriage. - CNN's Eric Marrapodi, Shannon Travis, and Mary Snow contributed to this report. soundoff (2,108 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next »
« Previous entryPortugal cancels holidays after Vatican talks
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
It amuses me how these pseudo-Christians cherry pick the Bible to suit their agenda, ignoring all the other 612 Levitical laws because they think they're pointless or they don't want to follow them.
Most Christians are not capable of understanding a book like a bible. It is fantasy written by primitives thousands of years ago, and should be taken in the same light as other nonsensical religions. It is FICTION.
yes...the pseudonimity of man- and you, what pseudo do you wear today? Cool word.
OK...let's start to add them all up: contraception; tuition loan interest rate experts believe will average adding $1.93/week in cost of an educationover ten years; gay marriage- what are the issues we are avoiding? This guy has a bag at least as big as Santa. HOHOHO.
Come on culture war election! Nothing makes me laugh more than insane foaming at the mouth Republicans making the stupid Democrats look intellegent. If this is the route they take, the next few months will be comedy gold.
Tammy wrote, "They made the choice to be gay."
Folks like you have posted this thousands and thousands of times. And we have asked you, and those like you (thousands and thousands of times) to post the citations to the peer-reviewed scientific research that shows gays choose to be gay. Not once has a single solitary one of you ever posted a single solitary citation showing gays choose to be gay. Why is that Tammy? You folks keep repeating this, yet you refuse to show why it is true.
So, Tammy? Will you be the one? We'll be waiting. And when you do post your citations, please do it in this form:
The neurodevelopment of human sèxual orientation.
Rahman Q.
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2005;29(7):1057-66. Epub 2005 Apr 25. Review.
Biological and psychosocial determinants of male and female human sèxual orientation.
James WH.
J Biosoc Sci. 2005 Sep;37(5):555-67. Review.
Fraternal birth order and the maternal immune hypothesis of male hômosèxuality.
Blanchard R.
Horm Behav. 2001 Sep;40(2):105-14. Review.
The neurodevelopment of human sèxual orientation.
Rahman Q.
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2005;29(7):1057-66. Epub 2005 Apr 25. Review.
Fluctuating asymmetry, second to fourth finger length ratios and human sèxual orientation.
Rahman Q.
Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2005 May;30(4):382-91. Epub 2005 Jan 13.
The biology of human psychosèxual differentiation.
Gooren L.
Horm Behav. 2006 Nov;50(4):589-601. Epub 2006 Jul 25. Review.
Finger-length ratios and sèxual orientation.
Williams TJ, Pepitone ME, Christensen SE, Cooke BM, Huberman AD, Breedlove NJ, Breedlove TJ, Jordan CL, Breedlove SM.
Nature. 2000 Mar 30;404(6777):455-6.
A biologic perspective on sèxual orientation.
Pillard RC, Bailey JM.
Psychiatr Clin North Am. 1995 Mar;18(1):71-84. Review.
Androgens and sèxual behavior.
Pardridge WM, Gorski RA, Lippe BM, Green R.
Ann Intern Med. 1982 Apr;96(4):488-501. Review.
Hormones and psychosèxual differentiation: implications for the management of intersèxuality, hômosèxuality and transsèxuality.
Meyer-Bahlburg HF.
Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1982 Nov;11(3):681-701.
Sèxual orientation and handedness in men and women: a meta-ànalysis.
Lalumiere ML, Blanchard R, Zucker KJ.
Psychol Bull. 2000 Jul;126(4):575-92.
Quantîtative and theoretical ànalyses of the relation between older brothers and hômosèxuality in men.
Blanchard R.
J Theor Biol. 2004 Sep 21;230(2):173-87.
Linkage between sèxual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females.
Hu S, Pattatucci AM, Patterson C, Li L, Fulker DW, Cherny SS, Kruglyak L, Hamer DH.
Nat Genet. 1995 Nov;11(3):248-56.
Neuroendocrine mechanisms and the aetiology of male and female hômosèxuality.
MacCulloch MJ, Waddington JL.
Br J Psychiatry. 1981 Oct;139:341-5. Review.
Hormones and psychosèxual differentiation.
Giordano G, Giusti M.
Minerva Endocrinol. 1995 Sep;20(3):165-93. Review.
Neuropsychological development of cognitive abilities: a new research strategy and some preliminary evidence for a sèxual orientation model.
Sanders G, Ross-Field L.
Int J Neurosci. 1987 Sep;36(1-2):1-16. Review.
Fraternal birth order and the maternal immune hypothesis of male hômosèxuality.
Blanchard R.
Horm Behav. 2001 Sep;40(2):105-14. Review.
Sèx steroids and human behavior: prenatal androgen exposure and sèx-typical play behavior in children.
Hines M.
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003 Dec;1007:272-82. Review.
Androgens and sèxuality.
Hutchinson KA.
Am J Med. 1995 Jan 16;98(1A):111S-115S. Review.
Biological and psychosocial determinants of male and female human sèxual orientation.
James WH.
J Biosoc Sci. 2005 Sep;37(5):555-67. Review.
Neurobiology and sèxual orientation: current relationships.
Friedman RC, Downey J.
J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1993 Spring;5(2):131-53. Review.
Genetic and environmental influences on sèxual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample.
Bailey JM, Dunne MP, Martin NG.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000 Mar;78(3):524-36.
Don't bother wonk, you have to remember that her kind don't believe in science. Or facts. Or anything that their particular brand of pie eyed loons don't have shoveled down their throats by their cadillac driving preachers. The only thing they understand is force, and until they are forced to back off of the glbt community, they'll keep it up. So make sure you hit that ballot box in November, it's going to be a rough one.
Wow...get out much. Gay is a choice. Then again, there may be no such things as choice so I repeat what I must say...Being Gay is a choice. Now, since you finished that project, please research all findings contrary to the ones you posted becasue they are what you already believe and have a good argument with yourself.
Ooh, look another one!
"Wow...get out much. Gay is a choice. Then again, there may be no such things as choice so I repeat what I must say...Being Gay is a choice. Now, since you finished that project, please research all findings contrary to the ones you posted becasue they are what you already believe and have a good argument with yourself."
If being gay is a choice, explain why ho..mo..se..xu..al..ity is rampant in the animal kingdom. Are they making that choice consciously?
Igor – I just gave you 22 citations to actual peer-reviewed scientific research showing the multivariate biological nature of sèxual orientation.
I also asked for Tammy, or any of you fundiots, to post the citations to peer-reviewed scientific research supporting your contention that gays choose to be gay (and thus by corollary, that we straights choose to be straight).
I couldn't help but notice that you, like every fundiot before you, has refused to do so. I wonder why?
"Gay is a choice."
Being gay is not a choice. I hate to burst any bubbles, but science, in fact, is actually not in dispute on this matter.
All major medical professional organizations concur that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed, from gay to straight or otherwise. The American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and European Psychological, Psychiatric, and Medical Associations all agree with this, as does the World Health Organization and the medical organizations of Japan, China, and most recently, Thailand. Furthermore, attempts to change one's sexual orientation can be psychologically damaging, and cause great inner turmoil and depression, especially for Christian gays and lesbians.
Reparative therapy, also called conversion therapy or reorientation therapy, "counsels" LGBT persons to pray fervently and study Bible verses, often utilizing 12-step techniques that are used to treat sexual addictions or trauma. Such Christian councilors are pathologizing homosexuality, which is not a pathology but is a sexual orientation. Psychologically, that's very dangerous territory to tread on. All of the above-mentioned medical professional organizations, in addition to the American and European Counseling Associations, stand strongly opposed to any form of reparative therapy.
In my home country, Norway, reparative therapy is officially considered to be ethical malpractice. But there are many countries that do not regulate the practice, and many others that remain largely silent and even passively supportive of it (such as the Philippines). Groups that operate such "therapy" in the Philippines are the Evangelical Bagong Pag-asa, and the Catholic Courage Philippines.
The scientific evidence of the innateness of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism is overwhelming, and more peer-reviewed studies which bolster this fact are being added all the time. Science has long regarded sexual orientation – and that's all sexual orientations, including heterosexuality – as a phenotype. Simply put, a phenotype is an observable set of properties that varies among individuals and is deeply rooted in biology. For the scientific community, the role of genetics in sexuality is about as "disputable" as the role of evolution in biology.
On the second point, that there is no conclusion that there is a "gay gene," they are right. No so-called gay gene has been found, and it's highly unlikely that one ever will. This is where conservative Christians and Muslims quickly say "See, I told you so! There's no gay gene, so being gay is a choice!"
Take this interesting paragraph I found on an Evangelical website: "The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual "gene" – meaning it's not likely that homosexuals are 'born that way.'"
But that's not at all what it means, and it seems Evangelicals are plucking out stand-alone phrases from scientific reports and removing them from their context. This is known in academia as the fallacy of suppressed evidence. Interestingly, this is also what they have a habit of doing with verses from the Bible.
This idea of sexuality being a choice is such a bizarre notion to me as a man of science. Many of these reparative "therapists" are basing this concept on a random Bible verse or two. When you hold those up against the mountain of scientific research that has been conducted, peer-reviewed, and then peer-reviewed again, it absolutely holds no water. A person's sexuality – whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual – is a very deep biological piece of who that person is as an individual.
The fact that a so-called "gay gene" has not been discovered does not mean that homosexuality is not genetic in its causation. This is understandably something that can seem a bit strange to those who have not been educated in fields of science and advanced biology, and it is also why people who are not scientists ought not try to explain the processes in simple black-and-white terms. There is no gay gene, but there is also no "height gene" or "skin tone gene" or "left-handed gene." These, like sexuality, have a heritable aspect, but no one dominant gene is responsible for them.
Many genes, working in sync, contribute to the phenotype and therefore do have a role in sexual orientation. In many animal model systems, for example, the precise genes involved in sexual partner selection have been identified, and their neuro-biochemical pathways have been worked out in great detail. A great number of these mechanisms have been preserved evolutionarily in humans, just as they are for every other behavioral trait we know (including heterosexuality).
Furthermore, there are many biologic traits which are not specifically genetic but are biologic nonetheless. These traits are rooted in hormonal influences, contributed especially during the early stages of fetal development. This too is indisputable and based on extensive peer-reviewed research the world over. Such prenatal hormonal influences are not genetic per se, but are inborn, natural, and biologic nevertheless.
Having said that, in the realm of legal rights, partnership rights, and anti-discrimination protections, the gay gene vs. choice debate is actually quite irrelevant. Whether or not something is a choice is not a suitable criterion for whether someone should have equal rights and protections. Religion is indisputably a choice, but that fact is a not a valid argument for discriminating against a particular religion.
The political effects certainly came into focus for me! I will never vote for anyone who supports gay marriage. I voted for Obama, but I feel I was duped!
Why not? A little to tolerant for ya?
Silly bigot, trix are for kids. Bigots don't vote for black presidents, and I call you a liar sir.
So you refuse to vote for anyone who supports the constîtution?
Universal religion defines marriage as merging of two souls, two egos, merging of likes & dislikes of two people, commitment to share in good times and bad . There is no mention of physical wants.
If there is no love, no merging of two souls between a man and a woman, no compromise on likes and dislikes then they may be married in the eyes of Church but they are truly separate. Please think though and you will get the answer.
No it doesnt. The ONLY place in the bible that states that marrirage is between ONE man and ONE woman is in regards to priests marrying.
Read your book and maybe you would know as much about it as an atheist does.
Male and female are 180 degree opposites. Compatibility is a myth! The idea of marriage is two halves of a circle who are opposites and weld them together to make a whole. My wife and I have never agreed on a single thing in 40 years, yet we have a happy and successful marriage. She is good at everything I am not.
In the USA, marriage is a legal contract. To define it using the bible is not allowed under US law (separation clause).
What is wrong with gays being allowed to use a standard legal contract like straights do?
If you marriage is going to be destroyed by gays getting married, I suggest you get a divorce now as that is really messed up logic.
The Bible is clearly in favor of polygamy.
It is also cool to sell your daughter into slavery but not your son.
The hypocrites pick and choose which parts of the Bible they like to justify their opinions.
Go ahead and live you life by the moral standards of ignorant desert-dwellers from a couple thousand years ago but I choose enlightenment.
@SouthernCelt
"Is it just that you don't believe in the existence of Hell, or you think changing the text won't send you there?"
Which translation are you looking at? That is just ONE problem with the bible. It has been changed so many times over the years for political reasons that YOU have no idea what the original said. Not that we know who wrote it anyway.
That was from the New International Version 1984 by the way. Check it out if you dont believe me.
And no, I dont believe in heII, heaven, gods, or devils either.
I for one am happy. Even if I dissagreed with Obama on everything else (I'm about 50/50), it is genuinely comforting to see a Presidential candidate take a risky political position because he feels it is right, and because it IS the correct position, that is best in keeping with our Nation's founding principles of personal liberty and freedom.
If this is how you feel then how do you feel about him saying he is ok with it when He was an Illinois rep and then when he ran for pres he didn't, and now he does. That just sounds like flip flopping to me. How will he feel about it tomorrow? I would think his character is what we should be looking at, not just this one issue.
Obama did not evolved. He flat out lied to the American public to get elected in 2008. And now that he has shown his true stripe, he is not really a Christian, never has been and never will be. He just revealed himself for what he really is, what he really was and may God rest his soul. What a political jerk.
I am dissapointed in the habit that all candidates for office fall into of either publicly moderating or accentuating their beliefs depending if they're campaining in party or in general. It dissapoints me that people don't just say what they think, from the begginning to the end. I am pained by the fact that people run their campaigns based "what it take to get elected" instead of what they actually think is best fo rthe office. these are public elections, not beauty pagents. That being said, He is up for election again, and just as important (maybe) is IN office now, and has publicly stated his support. You have to go looking to find the supporting comment he made in the past, this one is out in the open.
So yes, the political wavering is frustrating, but I woudl still say I'm cautiously optimistic.
Gay marriage makes sense from a legal standpoint. It clears up ambiguity that is created by these types of relationships. If gay marriage were legally defined, it would help clear up legal status, save money in the courts, and not harm any other kind of marriage (really, do you think two gays getting married will destroy your own marriage? If so, get a divorce and shut your pie hole)
ONLY FOR THE NEWCOMERS:
Obama says that he and his wife are practicing Christians. Not so fast!!
Obama "mouths" that he is Christian i.e. believes in gay Gabriel and war-mongering Michael the Archangel and Satan. BO's support of abortion/choice however vitiates has Christianity as he is the leader of the Immoral Majority who are now the largest voting bloc in the country. Immoral Majority you ask??
The 78 million voting "mothers and fathers" of aborted womb babies !!! (2012 -1973 Rowe vs. Wade = 39.
39 x 2 million = 78 million. Abortion rate in the USA as per the CDC is one million/yr.
And the presidential popular vote in 2008? 69,456,897 for pro-abortion/choice BO, 59,934,814 for "pro-life" JM. The population of the Immoral Majority in 2008? ~ 70 million !!!!!!
The real "Obamacare" i.e. getting re-elected on the backs of 39 million aborted womb babies by using the votes of the 78 million voters involved in said abortions.
And the irony:
IF THE PILL AND MALE CONDOMS WERE USED PROPERLY, ABORTION WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE AND OBAMA WOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT.
Random thoughts from the Christian wrong?
Keep in mind that Mormonism was founded on Communism and mix that in.
Abortion has nothing to do with the issues, as it is just a GOP talking point in order to get votes. The GOP KNOWS that abortion will not be made illegal as most Americans see a need for it, and this county is not run by the largest minority (Christian Extremists) , but rather a voting majority.
Hmmm. Where does Christ say anything negative about gays? Which passage? What deeds did Christ do to show he disapproved of gay marriage? What passage? Read your New Testament....Christ was about love and kindness, not hating and denial. People who criticize gay people are really not Christians and create problems for the true followers of Christ.
JOHN TRAVOLTA IS INNOCENT!! He is not raping hundreds of men like the LDS and Vatican lawyer have said! The court system pockets are PADDED WITH MORMON DOLLARS!! They are trying to ruin John Travolta as a scape goat! Vote against the lawyers and Mormon church!!
Please don't comment using gibberish under several names. We know it is you as nobody else sounds so messed up.
Truth, you have just prooved that meth addiction is a serious problem in America..
Actually the headline and story should be: Biden, foolish as a fox snares himself a chicken. LOL
What about people who are not religious who are just sick and tired of a guy who plays both sides of an issue- Let's use a religious term just for the fun of it- 'issue purgatory'. Play both sides so it can be argued no matter how it goes until someone snares you in a trap. Biden is no fool, even though people like to paint him as one, and that fool set a trap that forced this president to move one way or the other. Wonderful headline but this guy riles me and there ain't no church that can call me a member.
It's a pretty lame country when a "major issue" is marriage! LOL!
Good luck, usa!
It's only major to the media outlets, the people of the USA could care less
Global and Local economy will be the driver behind this election, all of this non-sense is just smoke screen to change the subject from failed policies on both isles and politics as usual for the US Government
We manufacture anything we can to stay off the real issues. I wonder why? LOL
what doesn't rile religious conservatives??? If jesus himself appeared on earth, they would condemn him for long hair, or being unshaven. why is America being held hostage to an outdated set of fantasy beliefs? Have not progressed as humans at all in the last 2000+ years?????
I agree. I like the modern day fantasies we hold and will pass down for other generatiosn to scoff at- that's the evolutionary process Bird.
I stopped going to church forever in 1992. When the pastor of the church that my wife and I were married decided to allow
a clearly deranged woman to stand up in front of the group and say that GOD HATES F-. My kids were in the group she had
with her. That kind of hatred can't be abolished, but it at least needs to be recognized for what it is. Hatred. In a place of
"christian love". I left in the middle of her speech and never looked back and, in fact, neither have my kids.
To jjc9999: Why were you going to church? For the indisyncrasies of man or to get closer to God? Many people have many viewpoints of a God- mine are pretty personal and some could call me an atheist but we just use different names. Some use the word 'science'. Symbols...so flexible. Anyway, my Father-in-law once cautioned me to separate the world of man from my belief if God. He would not understad how another person could shake ones beliefe in God unless the belief was actually mistakenly placed in man. Good luck with that. Don;t let one womans language or a person who allows it determine how you believe this world was created and why. Then again, you do not have to believe but let that be your choice- not someone elses. Good luck.
IGOR
Truth is, I went because my wife's father was a bishop at this particular babtist church. Created no small amount of discussion, but I think everyone that knows me knows I don't really fall for the nonsense, in particular, the hate filled
nonsense. ( I'm 60 yrs old, just to make it clear that no-one makes my decisions but me ) I know beyond a shadow
of doubt that ALL organized churches should be taxed, at minimum, like corporations. Starting with Baptists and Mormon.
Just because people like you call yourself progressive does not mean you have progress American. You were commies in the 20's. That fell to the wayside and you began to call yourself socialists in the 50's. Alast, that too fell out of vogue and you begin to call yourself liberals. When that label began to stink, you began to call yourself progressives. The point is, you liberal loons have been still the past 100 years, simply changing your name does not make and has never made any progress in the USA. Eat that fool.
HWB
If you're brave, stupid comments are directed at me, feel free to reply with some contact info, so that we can discuss this face to face.
CHIPNDALE please do not confuse me with POISON DARKNESS WESTBORO BAPTISTS CHURCH HIGH PRIEST OF DAGON FRED PHELPS i am against these sinful wicked no loved for god holy spirit vipers!!! in austin texas usa WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH secret temple erected upon druid stones from old world CARVED BY DEMONS LORD OF BABYLON used in sodomite orgies by HIGH PRIEST OF DAGON FRED PHELPS NO LOVE FOR GOD HOLY SPIRIT WORST NEST OF EVIL
Wow, could some body get Jesus in here to call out this guy's demon!
There goes the election. Proof that the Democratic party is for elitists and the workingman
You do realize that you effectively just said that the Democratic party is for EVERYONE – blue or white collar.
There goes the election??!?!!? You're just spouting what you want to be true; if it was, the reaction would have been much different
You must not understand how "proof" works, if you think Obama's decision says anything "elitist" or "working man.". Also, how is it even possible to be both for the elitist and working man?. Isn't that pretty much everyone?
Yeah, that was throwing me a bit too. I'm thinking there might have been sarcasm intended. Was it sarcasm Dan?
my mistake i meant the elitists and NOT the workingman
@Dan,
That clarifies the statement, but I still don't understand it. I don't see how expressing a desire to have things be equal for all people makes you elitist. Much the opposite actually.
Wow, all the atheists are really religious after all !! The pray the Presbyterian prayer: PLEASE make us right, because we are so determined. No matter how determined you are, you have over assumed and misjudged. Rant all you want now, President Obama has just lost this year's election.
I think you'll find that it's more than just atheists who support gay marriage.
You don't have to reject God to support equality.
Marriage is a legal contract. Period. I don't care if you are 'married' in a church, on a beach, or in a barn. If the papers aren't filed with the state – you are not legally married. So if churches don't want to 'marry' gay people – so be it. But to deny gay folks the right of a legal contract between them, and the benefits thereof, is base discrimination and a denial of civil rights.
Well said!
I wholeheartedly agree. Lets please separate religion from contract law. Let the churches 'marry' eople. Let EVERYBODY receive a civil union contract and be done with this. Right now I consider I have been married in a church and my wife and I have a civil union contract. Any two people shopuld be allowed to enter into such a contract. Marriage...take that up with your church and if they do not agree- become an Episcopalian.
WATCH AND LEARN!!!!
The LDS church has once again involved itself in trying to destroy gay celebrities by shining a negative light on them. The LDS church has a hidden agenda around the globe and has been using gay celebrities as scape goats for their agendas!!
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/05/09/john-travolta-sexual-assault-lawyer-more-accusers-receipts-proof/?intcmp=features
First Freddie Mercury, then Michael Jackson. Now they're after John Travolta and have paid people to accuse him of raping all of them!! How could he do over 100 men without anyone knowing and all the sudden there's over 100 men claiming this? The LDS church is an evil organization!!!! Howisi John RAPING HUNDREDS IF THOUSANDS OF MEN WITHOUT NOTICE? Open your eyes friends!! GOD BLESS!!
John Tavolta is absolutely innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Travolta gay? Everyone knows he's a man's man.
It's obviously Nicholas Cage wearing Travolta's face.
How on earth is this connected with the LDS Church troll? I suppose you would also like the church to stop rolling out hundreds of millions of dollars in food, clothing, disaster services and cash to victims around the world and and just go away? Hate mongerer.
The Truth: You, sir, are a moron.
@David in FL
Between 1984 and 2006, the LDS spent $750 Million in international charity.
In 1/4 of that time frame, they spent $3 BILLION on a mall in SLC.
What does that say about their priorities?
And remember: "if a dest.itute family is faced with the decision of paying their ti.thing or eating, they should pay their t.ithing." (Lynn Robbins, General Conference, April 2005).
Paying the Church so you can keep your Temple Recommendation and learn the secret handshakes stolen from the Masons, secret new name, and special sealings is more important than food, shelter and clothing for your family.