Tom Toles for May 09, 2012

  1. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  about 12 years ago

    Unfortunately, still not likely, but yes, what goes along with the fear of “gaydom”, (fear of EVERYTHING) it IS time to say “hurry up” however.

     •  Reply
  2. Jay big contrast
    none.of.the.above  about 12 years ago

    Well, that’s one opinion. Since when did reality become a matter of majority vote?

     •  Reply
  3. Clouseau
    el8  about 12 years ago

    sorry, no generation gaps for homophobia

     •  Reply
  4. John adams1
    Motivemagus  about 12 years ago

    Sadly, Amendment One passed in North Carolina — all I can say is that the Confederate Constitution enshrined discrimination, too. This, too, will pass.And remember, as Wedgewood Baptist Church in Charlotte posted on their sign: Discrimination is a sin.

     •  Reply
  5. B3b2b771 4dd5 4067 bfef 5ade241cb8c2
    cdward  about 12 years ago

    As a Christian pastor, I’m all for that solution. That’s the German method – couples must marry legally at the town hall and then – only if they feel so moved – receive sacrament of Holy Matrimony. I do so very much dislike being an agent of the state. Besides, the state has no non-religious reason for not allowing two consenting adults to marry, regardless of gender. The ONLY reason for not allowing same-sex marriage is religious, and that would of course be unconstitutional.

     •  Reply
  6. Comics pearlsbeforeswine ratangry
    Heavy B  about 12 years ago

    Question: You ever read the constitution? There are a number of ammendments that can be used to justify same sex marriage. Can you name one to justify banning it?

     •  Reply
  7. Missing large
    kamwick  about 12 years ago

    “But once again I ask you, why is it so important for a “gay” union to be recorded as “marriage” when you can use the law to bestow all the rights and privilege to your partner that you want? "

    Because its still different, and as proven in N. Carolina, even civil unions might not be recognized.

    The only thing that would be truly equal would be for the state to get out of the “marriage” business altogether and simply perform civil unions for all couples. “Marriages” could be performed by whatever institution is willing, but it wouldn’t be “official”.

    But, since the current situation means that the state IS involved in the marriage business, it should be open to all, in all states. The current situation remains discriminatory, and as such, unconstitutional.

     •  Reply
  8. Nebulous100
    Nebulous Premium Member about 12 years ago

    If you don’t want same sex marriages, don’t enter into one.

     •  Reply
  9. Klinger1
    walruscarver2000  about 12 years ago

    See if you can follow this. Jews believe eating pork is a sin. So they don’t eat pork. I’m not Jewish. I eat pork. I am NOT sinning. If you believe homosexuality is a sin…don’t do it. Let others decide for themselves. At the end of the day, the only real sin is doing what you truly believe is wrong. Or would you condemn someone who didn’t know any better???

     •  Reply
  10. Missing large
    hippogriff  about 12 years ago

    They are not dying off. Leaders of the homophobe faction in the “United” Methodist Church were dying off and Christian charity might well have prevailed at this quadrenium’s General Conference, so they let in a bunch of previously independent denominations from Africa, Philippines, and other homophobic lands to keep bigotry staining the church.

     •  Reply
  11. Openlyblack3
    jsw748  about 12 years ago

    “Don’t make the mistake of thinking that you have to agree with people and their beliefs to defend them from injustice.”

    Bryant H. McGill

     •  Reply
  12. Jock
    Godfreydaniel  about 12 years ago

    Even Pat Buchanan recently said that he thinks gay marriage will eventually be legal in all 50 states…eventually……

     •  Reply
  13. Missing large
    PocketNaomi  about 12 years ago

    Bruce: Actually, according to the details of Amendment One, in North Carolina they can’t have the rights you enumerated anymore. That’s what the change was. Most people who voted for it don’t know that, and think that it only prevents marriage, but not civil unions or other forms of achieving the same legal rights. They’re wrong, and the bigots who forced the law through deliberately fooled them, knowing they couldn’t get it passed if people knew what it really did. What it really does is so extreme that it will remove protection against domestic violence for people even in heterosexual relationships if they don’t have a marriage licence. This is insane. Someone who’s been beaten up has been beaten up, whether they were married or not.

     •  Reply
  14. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  about 12 years ago

    Sorry, I’m not afraid of “gays” “lesbians” “Transgender”(argue THAT one isn’t biological!). However, as most of the “homosexual” friends or folks I’ve known have been MUCH more “accepting” of others than the homophobic. I MIGHT have some reticence toward further offending a pissed off Amazon or Spartan, with weapons.

    Anyone ever wonder why THE number ONE reason to fear nuclear weapons, is because RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS have, and may additionally, control them??

     •  Reply
  15. Target
    OnTarget  about 12 years ago

    Your right Obama has tried to force catholics to perform abortions in their hospitals and the Catholic Church stated they will close those hosptials. Oh wait that is bigotry. Am I now part of that ilk.

     •  Reply
  16. Missing large
    ARodney  about 12 years ago

    I’d love to see an amendment proposed to ban the ability of Catholics or Mormons to get married. You know, just so they can feel what it’s like to have an important part of their lives put up to a popularity contest. There’s such a thing as Civil Rights. And civil rights should not be put up for votes in popularity contests. They’re protected from bigots — even when the bigots are in the majority — by the constitution.

     •  Reply
  17. Missing large
    Odon Premium Member about 12 years ago

    “… because Christians have no right to change the word of God, even if they want to.”

    I am confused, so who did write the various versions of Gods “word” and are you referring to all of his(?) words or selected readings?
     •  Reply
  18. And you wonder why
    Kylop  about 12 years ago

    “… And this does mean civil war because Christians have no right to change the word of God, even if they want to."So when you read the bible – what language is it in? Hebrew?

     •  Reply
  19. Jollyroger
    pirate227  about 12 years ago

    I spent 11 years in NC, I don’t miss it at all.

     •  Reply
  20. Klinger1
    walruscarver2000  about 12 years ago

    Same one that gave itto you.

     •  Reply
  21. Jay big contrast
    none.of.the.above  about 12 years ago

    1. There is nothing about a same-sex relationship that qualifies as marriage. If you want to legitimize your lifestyle choice, use a word that describes it rather than appropriating an unsuitable one. 2. There is nothing particularly bigoted about non-agreement with same-sex relationships. Just because you don’t agree doesn’t make it bigoted. 3. Perhaps in 10 years the majority will see nothing wrong with this sort of “marriage”, but I suspect that in 100 years that will hardly be the case.

     •  Reply
  22. Comics pearlsbeforeswine ratangry
    Heavy B  about 12 years ago

    Re-read my previous posts, troll.

     •  Reply
  23. Froggy ico
    lbatik  about 12 years ago

    More than 64% of the states at one point voted for miscegenation laws. It is now generally regarded as an advance of human rights that these were overruled and rescinded. So, your point?

     •  Reply
  24. Missing large
    Humor-us  almost 12 years ago

    Wrong, there is a coherent argument against gay marriage. Read the Bible, in Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination”. There is your coherent argument against gay marriage from the Word of God in black and white..

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Tom Toles