Comments (76) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   dtroutma said, about 1 year 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.
2. 

   none.of.the.above said, about 1 year ago

   Well, that’s one opinion. Since when did reality become a matter of majority vote?
3. 

   win said, about 1 year ago

   sorry, no generation gaps for homophobia
4. 

   Doughfoot said, about 1 year ago

   @none.of.the.above

   Reality is not a matter of majority vote, but the law is. And laws that privilege one class of people and penalize another for no better reason than the majority don’t like the sort of life partners the minority choose …
5. 

   motivemagus said, about 1 year 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.
6. 

   Bruce4671 said, about 1 year ago

   @motivemagus

   and you too Doughfoot:
   
   SO by your own words I get the idea that (and I know this is not the subject but still) both of you are against affirmative action.
   
   DF said "laws that privilege one class of people and penalize another " and while you did not complete the thought the implication is that you think such laws “discriminate” and I agree.
   
   MM said: "all I can say is that the Confederate Constitution enshrined discrimination, ".
   And while I do not know much about the Confederate Constitution, Section 9 concerning slavery supports your opinion and again I can agree.
   
   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?
   
   Can they be names beneficiary on any document? yes. Can they be given “custodial” rights by power of attorney? Yes. Children? Men, use a surrogate. Women? Use artificial insemination. what exactly is the problem? A WORD?
   
   But personally, I don’t give a rat’s patootee what you do, who you sleep with or how many – just don’t scare the horses.
7. 

   Christopher Shea said, about 1 year ago

   @Bruce4671

   Why should gay people have to jump through multiple hoops to get these rights and privileges instead of getting them all at once?
8. 

   Nantucket19 said, about 1 year ago

   @Bruce4671

   The words ARE important otherwise those that are proposing these words would not bring them up. Here is a solution: let’s call ALL of them civil unions and let the religious do a separate ‘marriage’ that has ZERO legal standing.
   And affirmative action is needed for as long as white males can get into schools etc. based on being the sons of ‘important’ white males.
9. 

   cdward said, about 1 year ago

   @Nantucket19

   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.
10. 

    ReFlex-76 said, about 1 year ago

    To state the obvious: there is no such thing as a coherent argument against gay marriage.
11. 

    Jase99 said, about 1 year ago

    @Bruce4671

    “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? "
    
    Why is it so important for some people to prevent another group of people the same rights they take for granted?
12. 

    TheTrustedMechanic said, about 1 year ago

    Wow, such thoughtful and articualte comments, bravo! Thank you guys, it was very refreshing to read. The suggestion of the civil service to be leagally joined in union and the voluntary religious ceremony is what I’ve been advocating for a long time.
    .
    But as for the affirmative action argument, discrimination by any form is still discrimination. And affirmative action, the act of giving preference to members of a selected group based on historical underrepresentment within a body is by definition discrimination. But because it benefits a selected class it is tolerated, so long as that selected class is popular, powerful or charitable. To claim that all those who are admitted or hired under AA are deserving is ludicrous. Just as saying that without AA only the undeserving are refused. It has been demosntrated that discrimination is rampant and better qualified, harder working people are refused, that is true. It has also been demonstrated that because of AA underqualified, undeserving people have been admitted or hired, blocking the opportunities for hard-working, more deserving applicants simply because the favored applicant was a member of a favored “minority.” When you can separate that discrepancy then, and only then will Affirmative Action be credible.
13. 

    Bruce4671 said, about 1 year ago

    @Jase99

    i don’t have a clue Jase.
    
    Nantucket: yep, I agree and have said that before. The “religious” ceremony has no “legal” standing anyway.
    
    Christopher: They should NOT have to BUT if you can’t get what you want one way are you just going to give up?
    
    So keep plugging guys and gals. Just like Toles says. Ten years from now no one will care.
14. 

    GreggW said, about 1 year ago

    I have one. Why is it that bigots (like you) can’t spell properly (vide Tea Party protest signs)?
15. 

    Heavy B said, about 1 year 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?
16. Load 15 more comments. | Load the rest (61).