Tom Toles for May 06, 2012

….and that’s a big mistake they’re making. Like it or not, the Gay people are a huge demographic, and getting larger by the minute.And that’s just one of the “we-don’t-talk-about-them” demographics.

It is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders.

If you think you are a gay republican, think again. You are really a democrat.

To show that it’s the GOP keeping them in there. Any other blockage of the door could be any other opponents: Liberal gays keeping Republican gays in the closet for example.

Oh, I thought it was from a Mastodon.

Because the mule’s ear Obama uses wouldn’t fit.

Lies.

Is that why teen pregnancy is highest in religious/CONservative states?

What’s a rich gay man to do, if you don’t want to part with any of your money, by you want to keep your sexual identity? Go to the Democratic events, but vote Republican? Such a dilemma.

Wow, Ima, I’m impressed. That’s as close to a sensible statement as I’ve ever heard from you. It’s almost true too.

You do realize that would be heresy to the Tea Party dominated Republican Party. Guys like Brian Fischer of the American Family Association consider “homosexual activists” to be the true enemy of the USA (even worse than Muslim extremists or Communists).

Ever notice how often it is the “righties” like Ima whining about divorce, like maybe that authoritarian perspective has impacted their personal lives, with negative results? While we often see jokes about divorce, it does seem to be “conservatives” who tout the “sanctity” of marriage, but have the most divorces.

I confess that to me, “civil union” with totally equal rights and privileges strikes me as the “authority” of the state, and “marriage” belongs more to the “church”. It is to some only an argument of semantics, and to others “rights”, and I respect that, but like many things I respect, i retain my right to differ on the “details”. The “detail” overlooked by most “conservatives” is that life partners ARE partners, and their lives should be full, but the point at which “church” becomes “state” is a part of my concern. It also plays to that “equal” stuff, and that many “religious contracts” are anything BUT “equal” for males and females entering into them. Throw in “same sex” and what happens? Not an answer, just another question.

I understand and agree, however, as I don’t live in the US, I have no say in the matter. I hate the word “gay” and refuse to hide behind a mask. As a homosexual male I am happy with what I am and my other half agrees. I think, though, that a lot of “gay” men (in the UK anyway) want it all their way. Marriage with ALL it’s drawbacks – fine. I wish we could afford it.

“And yes, I’m gay, as if you haven’t figured that out by now!”-—No, I didn’t figure that out. Thanks for coming out.

Marriage is a civil contract between to consenting adults. If a church wants to avoid preforming wedding ceremonies between a same sex couple, make it a requirement they be a member of that specific church and not grant membership to either half of the couple.

We have several others here.

I’m in total agreement. And I’m a straight male, happily married for almost 24 years now. And fortunately I live in Massachusetts where my friends can get married regardless of their gender or that of their spouse-to-be.I did not know one way or the other about your orientation, nor should that be necessary.

MM, married 42 years now, and straight, have made friends over the years who weren’t, which, they always seemed more willing to accept others at face value, without judgements.

My real “freak out” with the ’toon is however, the policy of a certain “other right winger”, who did horrible things behind that blocked door, and I see the same in many today. Though they vociferously deny their very dangerous propensities in public, their private epithets reveal their true feelings.

1. Property rights and inheritance law2. Tax status3. Insurance status4. Power of attorney5. Power of medical attorney6. International immigration rights All these things are associated with marriage automatically. Furthermore, there is plenty of precedent in US law that marriages which take place in one state must be recognized in other states (specifically, this is rooted in the “Full Faith and Credit” clause of the Constitution, “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved and the Effect thereof.”

Art. IV. ’ 1.) And, marriage to a citizen of the US grants certain privileges with regard to application for immigration status, which is mirrored in the law of many other countries. These privileges do not necessarily extend to “civil partnerships” or state-recognized “common law marriages”; legal precedent with these, in many cases, is that the privileges associated with these end at the border of the state which grants them. They also may have no privilege whatsoever in Federal law. These are not religious matters. They are legal and financial. Further, to claim that “marriage”, per se, is really a religious institution ignores what I would have thought is the elephant in the room: that you don’t have to get married in a religious ceremony at all! It’s perfectly possible to get a completely secular civil marriage ceremony, officiated by any of a number of legal authorities (indeed, my sister’s marriage was a purely civil ceremony officiated by a county clerk-appointed official) – and these are legally recognized as marriage everywhere. (Oh, at least as long as they are between a man and a woman, that is. :-/ ) So it is completely untrue to claim that “government has no business involving itself in marriage.” That bird has flown. It’s centuries too late to protest. When gay couples say that they are being deprived of rights by being denied the ability to marry their chosen life partner, they are telling the complete truth, too.

1. Homosexuality is not an absolute barrier to reproduction – first because homosexuals were often pressured into heterosexual marriages by cultural or familial expectation in previous decades and centuries, and second because now there are sperm donors and/or surrogates and/or other arrangements for homosexual couples who want children.

2. Maybe you haven’t noticed all the big church weddings, heterosexual couples kissing, cuddling and otherwise making blatant public displays of affection, but all of culture is pretty much a “straight-rights parade.”

I’m confused by your claim that it is “Dem Libs” dividing people into groups, when it is almost entirely Republican conservatives who are pushing laws to enshrine inequalities for certain groups (that is, legislating that marriage can ONLY be for heterosexuals, and unobtainable for homosexuals). How is that not dividing people into groups?

I agree let them marry I need more domestic relations clients anyway! Gay marriage equals gay divorces and more money for lawyers. =)