Tom Toles by Tom Toles

Tom Toles

Comments (65) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. jonesb

    jonesb said, over 1 year ago

    This should be left up to the church, not the government, at any level of government. If the government doesn’t want same sex marriage, then you shouldn’t be able to be married by a judge.

  2. Justice22

    Justice22 said, over 1 year ago

    @jonesb

    I hear you saying you are for marriage as defined by a persons religion? Is that in all cases?
    Then If I belong to a splinter groujp of Mormons or other religion believing in plural marriage, that should be alright?

  3. Norman L Jones Sr

    Norman L Jones Sr GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Marriage = 1 Man-1 Woman any other combination = Civil union

  4. masterskrain

    masterskrain GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @jonesb

    “Marriage” is nothing more then a legal contract. It’s primary benefit is for tax purposes, and for legal contracts. That is why a Marriage CAN be preformed by a judge, with NO contact with a “Church” whatsoever.
    The whole argument about Gay Marriage should NOT involve the “Church” in ANY way at all!
    Ever notice that a Minister, or Priest, or whatever says “…By the power vested in me by the state of…I now pronounce you married”?
    It’s NOT “By the power vested in me by some imaginary sky pilot…”
    The legal definition of a “Marriage” should be nothing more, or nothing less then"The legal joining of any two consenting adult Humans"
    Period!

  5. antiquetracman

    antiquetracman GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Masterkrain, ever notice that a minister will say, “What GOD has joined together, let not MAN put asunder”. Ministers were preforming marriages before GOVERNMENT ever got involved and started REGULATING everything. GOD joined the first couple and blessed them. It is people like you who want to corrupt what is bibical based and turn it into some immoral ‘blessed’ and church sanctioned union. If religion is not important, why do perverts so desire it? Civil Unions are enough for homosexuals. Civil Unions do NOT involve the CHURCH in any way and Churches who follow the bible would not perform a marriage between homosexuals.
    The only Imaginary sky pilot is the one in your head. Look around at the world and justify that this is all by accident? It is not and you will meet your Maker in that day of judgment and will answer for your foolishness. Shame on you.

  6. narrowminded

    narrowminded said, over 1 year ago

    Marriage is a covenant ordained by God. That is reality.
    I say, let’s get the Govn. Out if marriage completely.
    In America, under our constitution, we have equal protection under the law. I should have no legal benefits, that others don’t have, just because I’m married.

  7. alff-steinberger

    alff-steinberger said, over 1 year ago

    @masterskrain

    Thank you for this comment – although perhaps it is too rational for “jonesb” , “antiquetracman”, and their ilk. I live in Switzerland, and here, as in much of Europe, the only ceremony which counts is the one performed by the secular official at the Town Hall. Some people wish a religious ceremony in addition, for decoration, so to speak, and so they have a second “wedding” in a church, synagogue, or whatever, sometimes the next day, sometimes weeks or months later, but only the secular Town Hall marriage has legal significance. No one seems to mind this arrrangement.

  8. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, over 1 year ago

    Before 1776, here in Virginia, only baptised persons could own land or be citizens. Today baptism confers no such legal privilege. I am not aware that the institution has suffered in consequence.

    In the marriage debate, there are two institutions conflated: a legally privileged and binding relationship, and a religiously sanctified union. Both are called marriage, and that is the whole problem. Separate the two, and the problem goes away.

    You want marriage left entirely to the churches and temples? Fine! Then marriage will have the same legal status as baptism: none. It will confer no legal privileges or status. The law will recognize only “domestic partnerships” established by legal contract at the courthouse. You can have a marriage AND a partnership or one or the other.

    Or you can accept that the minister of MY church has just as much right to perform a same-sex marriage (which my church happens to approve and yours reject) as your minister has the right to perform a marriage between formerly divorced people, or between people of different races or religions (which your church happens to approve and another reject).

    The law as it stands forbids my church to perform some marriages which our faith allows. Would you accept a law that restricted your church in that way?

    This is simple justice: either “marriage” has to give up all it’s legal privileges, or the term has to embrace all domestic unions, including those my church would honor.

  9. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, over 1 year ago

    Before 1776, here in Virginia, only baptised persons could own land or be citizens. Today baptism confers no such legal privilege. I am not aware that the institution has suffered in consequence.

    In the marriage debate, there are two institutions conflated: a legally privileged and binding relationship, and a religiously sanctified union. Both are called marriage, and that is the whole problem. Separate the two, and the problem goes away.

    You want marriage left entirely to the churches and temples? Fine! Then marriage will have the same legal status as baptism: none. It will confer no legal privileges or status. The law will recognize only “domestic partnerships” established by legal contract at the courthouse. You can have a marriage AND a partnership or one or the other.

    Or you can accept that the minister of MY church has just as much right to perform a same-sex marriage (which my church happens to approve and yours reject) as your minister has the right to perform a marriage between formerly divorced people, or between people of different races or religions (which your church happens to approve and another reject).

    The law as it stands forbids my church to perform some marriages which our faith allows. Would you accept a law that restricted your church in that way?

    This is simple justice: either “marriage” has to give up all it’s legal privileges, or the term has to embrace all domestic unions, including those my church would honor.

  10. masterskrain

    masterskrain GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @antiquetracman

    I believe in a “Overriding Power”, but if you want to call it “God”, or “Allah”, or “Physics”, or whatever is up to you.
    What I DO NOT believe in is “Religion”!
    Religions were created solely by men to use as a justification for the oppression of others!
    “If you don’t believe EXACTLY what WE believe, and follow EXACTLY the same rituals as we do, that gives us the right to oppress you, imprison you, Torture you, declare war on you, and KILL you!”
    Nowadays “Religion” is used as a method of stealing as much money from as many scared, confused, fearful, and elderly people as possible without going to jail!
    Arthur C. Clarke made a very convincing case that anyone who believe in “Religion” is clinically insane!
    “Look at it from the point of view of a race that is concerned only with FACTS. The population of the planet has divided itself into hundreds or thousands of small cults, each one with their own point of view of how the world was created, and how to live in it. Even where those beliefs overlap by 99%, that 1% difference is enough for people to kill each other!”

  11. Christopher Shea

    Christopher Shea said, over 1 year ago

    @narrowminded

    If we get the government out of marriage, will churches take over the work and expense of maintaining marriage records? Will issues of property ownership, inheritance, and child custody be decided by bishops instead of courts?

  12. D-squared

    D-squared said, over 1 year ago

    @jonesb

    Marriage is a SOCIAL contract and not the purview
    of the church. Thus: “by the power vested in me by the state of ___________…”

  13. mikefive

    mikefive said, over 1 year ago

    @masterskrain

    “The legal definition of a “Marriage” should be nothing more, or nothing less then”The legal joining of any two consenting adult Humans""

    The definition of marriage has been that of the joining of a man and a woman for thousands of years. The adamancy of the homosexual community and their supporters to redefine marriage is counterproductive to their cause. Although “civil union” may not express the deep affection between the parties of a homosexual couple that marriage does between the parties of a heterosexual couple, I have found few that object to “civil union” whereas many object to “marriage”. It seems counterproductive for the homosexual community’s desire for acceptance by the heterosexual community to continue its obstinance in trying to redefine marriage. It only helps to perpetuate the status quo.

  14. ODon

    ODon said, over 1 year ago

    masterskrain and Doughfoot please keep up the needed civil dialogue.
    antiquetracman note that some of your comments show a lack of most would call good christian spirit. Not being a good christian I call your statement evil minded.

  15. masterskrain

    masterskrain GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @Ms. Ima

    Scalia, or Lindsey Graham writing your scripts now??

  16. Load 15 more comments. | Load the rest (50).