Tom Toles by Tom Toles

Tom Toles

Comments (53) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. ConserveGov

    ConserveGov said, over 3 years ago

    Only about 2% of voters even care about pushing for homosexuals to get married and half of those are cartoonists.

  2. sjc14850

    sjc14850 said, over 3 years ago

    @ConserveGov

    Actually, a CNN poll (yes, I know it’s not a scientifically valid one, but it is instructive) just showed that over half of all voters say that a politician’s position on this would affect their votes. And a Washington Post-ABC poll (which is scientifically valid) shows that support for marriage equality has gone up from 41 percent to 58 percent since 2004.

  3. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    @ConserveGov

    Got anything to back up that lie?

    A strong majority of Americans now support same sex marriage. Only one third of Republicans support gay marriage, but that’s up from 10% in 1994 & 19% in 2009.

    The overwhelming majority of voters younger than 30 support same sex marriage, regardless of political affiliation.

  4. Mark

    Mark said, over 3 years ago

    It must be frightening to see ones bigotry become a thing of the past.

  5. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, over 3 years ago

    @Mark

    As long as the separation of the church and state is maintained by the government (state as well as federal) NOT forcing religious organizations to have to sanctify such marriages, then I can see no reason why civil privileges should not be the same for gay civil unions as heterosexual marriages. In fact I do not think that such unions should even be called marriage, as this implies that they are sanctified by churches. If they are called civil unions and are sanctioned by governments to provide civil privileges, then that is fine with this particular Christian.

  6. saywhatwhat

    saywhatwhat said, over 3 years ago

    @Robert Landers

    I was sort of, of the same opinion about the name thing until I realized that “getting married” actually happens when you sign that contract provided by your local State government. What happens in front of the audience is up the the master of ceremonies (church or otherwise) and has no legal impact. So your church can “do it” or not, but deciding what to call it, is not in your hands.

  7. saywhatwhat

    saywhatwhat said, over 3 years ago

    Tom draws a great elephant. (IMHO)

  8. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, over 3 years ago

    @Robert Landers

    Well, my church would be happy to sanctify gay marriages, but we are forbidden by state law from doing so. How would you like to have some of the marriages your church approved denigrated and banned because of the opinions of the prejudices of people outside your religion?

    Civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc., have also been declared invalid in my state by constitutional amendment.

    The only hope my gay friends have of justice in this state is through the action of the big bad federal government, probably in the form of the Supreme Court. Just as it took court action 50 years ago to break my state’s anti-miscegenation laws. I don’t always agree with what my nation does, but I even less often agree with what my state does. So I have little patience with those who would castrate the national government in order to strengthen the state governments.

  9. edinbaltimore

    edinbaltimore GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    Saywhat: My opinion also.Churches, especially conservative ones, cry crocodile tears about “government interference”, yet continue to have their ministers sign off on civil documents for marriage. Let’s call them ALL civil unions, OFFICIALLY, and let churches call it “marriage”!

  10. edinbaltimore

    edinbaltimore GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    BTW: Congrats to Senator Portman. I know this was a hard personal decision. Unfortunately, “gay” is not usually an obviously visible minority.

  11. mikefive

    mikefive said, over 3 years ago

    And I rather imagine judges hate a gay divorce.

  12. mikefive

    mikefive said, over 3 years ago

    “….then it IS a MARRIAGE!!.”

    Please, don’t be so righteous in your posts on homosexual union. After all, for thousands and thousands of years, marriage was defined as the union of a man and a woman. Only recently have attempts been made by the homosexual community to change that definition to include members of the same sex. Displaying belligerence to those who hold to the existing definition is no way to convince them that that definition should be expanded.

  13. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 3 years ago

    Gee, and I thought I lived in the “land of the free”.

    The first amendment says : “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

    Fine so any church can join any two people in “marriage” and the “state” has NO SAY in it. They can also forbid that union and again the “state” has no input.

    The principles those authors of the Constitution espoused are made plain in the document written to King George declaring the independence of the colonies. Remember this? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    So if we still believe in those things then how can you make a law prohibiting anyone from “pursuing happiness” even if that pursuit is alien to YOUR idea of what would bring happiness?

    The obvious fix to me (and it’s just my opinion, one out of hundreds of millions of opinions) is to do away with the so called monetary advantage that a married couple have. It was done tax wise because of the belief that marriage was the foundation of and the stabilizer of the “family unit” the basic building block of a civilization. (marriage = children = population growth = increased tax base). So since that is no longer the popular position get rid of the tax breaks, get rid of the family unit altogether. Treat mom and dad as individuals when going for insurance and medical treatment and so on. You add the wife on your company policy? You increase the co pay by 100%. Same with each baby. NO breaks for ANYONE. Cold isn’t it.

    But if you want to cohabit with a person of the same gender so what? LOTS of people – even in hetero configuration – have a relationship that does NOT include sex. A lasting relationship is not built on a sexual one though it may be a part of it. Same sex couples can and do provide a stable, loving environment for children.

    To me, denying anyone the chance to find happiness is wrong and should not even be a political topic.

  14. lafayetteann

    lafayetteann said, over 3 years ago

    Yes. The Republicans are trying to figure out how to get the votes of their missing demographic groups — without changing a single policy.

  15. The Wolf In Your Midst

    The Wolf In Your Midst said, over 3 years ago

    @ConserveGov

    I for one don’t care about gay marriage. Let ‘em do it! It doesn’t hurt a thing.
    Unfortunately, there’s a small but very vocal group of backwards idiots who scream about “sinners” while waving a book whose rules they break regularly. But it’s okay, they’re dying off at a fairly rapid pace.

  16. Load 15 more comments. | Load the rest (38).