is your marriage in trouble julie? i'm very sorry to hear that.

GLBT'ers and their ilk do not care about any of those things Julie, they care about using sexual preference as a reason to alter, disrupt, change and gnerally make their heterophobic attitudes mainstream. They use political thuggery to attempt to make others that don't buy into their BS and the Oblamea administration simply uses them as well as any other groups they can to facilitate the fraud of this President's agenda.

Donkey, you seem frightened, although in spite of your loaded language I don't know what you are scared of. I assure you, the only thing "GLBT'ers" want to change is the way we are treated. We just want the same rights and privileges that everyone else has. Many straight people aren't scared of that, because it doesn't require much change at all for them.

How does one person's religious beliefs impact another person's marriage? Those who don't believe same-sex marriages are proper need not enter one. I see no bullying in affirming equal rights for everyone.

To be honest, I really don't understand why people get so exercised about this issue either way. If Sue and Judy want to get married in Virginia, they can hire a hall and have a wedding. No one will arrest them. If they do a little simple paperwork (appropriate wills, medical power of attorney, etc---legal papers that are easier and cheaper to complete than an application for a marriage license--they can have all the legal rights that a married couple has. In fact, they will be better off than a married couple in many ways: Their tax burden will probably be lower. If they want to divorce, they can do so more easily and more cheaply.

Can somebody tell me what rights exactly that Judy and Sue are being denied?

Likewise, I don't get why opponants get worked up about this. How does what happens in Judy and Sue's house affect Bill and Jane's marriage? It doesn't.

Frankly, I think this whole issue is a distraction from more serious issues. When the government goes broke and the Social Security checks start bouncing, nobody is going to give a damn whether or not Judy and Sue have a piece of paper from the Commonweath that "recognizes their love."

Jeffrey, many gay and lesbian couples are "married" already, in almost every sense of the word. Some have had ceremonies as you described, and others enact their marriage as they take care of each other for decades--cohabiting, financially interdependent, co-owning property, committed to each other's welfare, and in some cases raising children. The thing that's missing is the over 1,000 benefits offered by the government to Chuck and Diane, but not Sue and Judy. Those benefits have been chronicled in a number of articles and presentations, along with the financial costs. It is true that for some, it's more cost effective to stay unmarried (many older heterosexual couples make that choice), but for couples who are together for most of their lives, there is a significant financial cost to the inability to marry. The New York Times is but one news organization to address this. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your-money/03money.html?pagewanted=all). You may also be interested in the Tax Policy Center podcast on this issue. (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/events/events_121709.cfm)

The issue is not always based on the rights associated with the same sex married couples. In many cases, it the right of others who do not support or believe in same sex marriages being forced by either state or federal law to accommodate same sex married couple . For example: If an "Innkeeper" has an issue (e.g. moral, religious, or cultural) with same sex married couples staying at the Inn; does the "Innkeeper" have the right to turn away sex married couple just because the "Innkeeper" doesn't approve of same sex married couples? It is an issue. And please don't bring "racial discrimination" into this. That's an entirely different issue. Do you see the problem now? To me gay marriage is a choice, not a Constitutional unalienable right.

JOTP, we all see what your problem is. Thank you for clarifying. The next few years will be very difficult for you.

Excuse me! Just where is it you live that you are not aware of Christmas celebrations, pageants, concerts, services, etc. I'm a Christian and my the time December 26th rolls around I am sick of it all!

Denigrate?? It's more of a general annoyance that a lot of Christians in this country claim to have the one true religion, everyone else is wrong, and the laws of the country should follow that particular dogma. The issue, as I see it, is the blatent hypocrisy. Gay marriage is bad because the bible says so (Lev. 18:22) but it's OK to eat lobster (Lev 11:10) or get a haircut (Lev 19:27). Maybe if Christains put more emphasis on Lev 19:33 the world would be a better place.

Comment makes no sense. Go study the history of America and its founding fathers. Religion, belief in God, etc., had a definite part in shaping this great country. The original laws had their origin somewhere . . . do you think everything came from Greece?

This is to "Let's See": I don't know why you reference Greece unless it's because it's the birthplace of Democracy. The founding fathers were not Christian, they were Diests. They had no use for organized religion, but, did believe that there was a God who put everything in motion and who does not get involved otherwise. They truly were smart men.

Could it be he realizes his chances for reelection are in jeopardy, and he is reaching to the gay community to secure their votes?

Right on

Very serious. Homosexuality and gay marriage is not a civil rights issue even though the LGBT tries to make it one. Show me the passage or clause in the US Constitution where homosexuality is stated to be an unalienable right endowed to us by our Creator under the guise of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (Here’s a hint, try the 14th Amendment “Equal Protection Rights”)Homosexuality, polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia are all individual choices not civil rights. You may want to draw the line at homosexuality and others may chose alternative lines of acceptability, but wherever one draws the line, it's still not a civil rights issue, ts a matter of individual choice.

James, some of the greatest living civil rights leaders disagree with you, including John Lewis, Julian Bond, and Jesse Jackson. As far as the Constitution, we've corrected a number of problems in that document as we've grown as a country. The founders may not have expressly granted rights to gay people, but it also failed to give rights to blacks and women. Finally, your comparison of homosexuality (which is a relationship between two consenting adults) with sex acts using a child or animal that cannot consent is not only ignorant, it's mean spirited.

1. Jesse Jackson is as big a bigot as you will find in America. "If it aint black, send it back!" is his mantra, most recently witnessed by him and Al Sharpton calling for immediate prosecution of Zimmerman.
2. Our Constitution is a living document, which means we can change it to suit the needs of the people. Amendments can be rewritten or recinded, or new ones added. Note: These Amendments are NOT corrections.
3. And my final point, and last entry on this argument is that as the world evolves, so do our requirements. Women were not allowed to vote originally because of their jobs staying home to cook, clean and raise the (many) children they bore. They had no reason to go to town to learn of what is happening politically, so they were deemed too ignorant to vote. School teachers were not allowed to marry, and I'm not sure exactly why that was part of our laws. Eventually, we will succumb to the gays and they will have equal rights and be able to marry. Although I do not agree with homosexuality (for me, it is a disgusting thought), I do think, as US citizens, they should be allowed to have the same freedoms and benefits as straight people. But back to the original issue, I believe Obama is using the issue solely for the benefit of his campaign. Otherwise, he could not care less about the subject or he would be doing more to facilitate change.

Good luck with that. Unfortunately, I feel President Obama really doesn't care about gay rights and is only using this issue as a self promoting political tactic to aid in his reelection bid. What do you think? Is he speaking from the heart?

Romney's father, George, was born in a polygamist commune but his father and mother were in a monogamist relationship. Just to add to this Obama's father was a polygamist. But in the end I do not see what this has to do with the issue at hand.

Good point, well made, Charles.

Well said! I'm with you, Charles!

Thank you Charles! I get so tired of those who co-opt the term Christian as if it were a monolithic group. For all the back and forth of what is and isn't in the Bible, Jesus taught one thing: Love thy neighbor: thy gay neighbor, thy Muslim neighbor, thy black neighbor, thy white neighbor, thy disabled neighbor, thy Hispanic neighbor... thy neighbor who ever he or she may be. That's all we need to know. I work with gay kids for whom this stand by the president affirms that they are worth-while and equal. What a gift! I'm proud of my president for taking a stand. As for being against it before he was for it, he said all along he was evolving. I also work with parents and families of lesbians and gays and acceptance is a journey, not an event.

Thank you Charles and Carol for your thoughtful and reasoned responses.

Really? Surely you know that this immature nastiness makes both you and your position much less appealing. I'm not surprised by your choice to remain anonymous.

Makes good sense but you probably should put Tranny boy at the top of the ticket otherwise you'll be discriminating against a gay person.

Seriously? We can have this conversation without the snarky comments from you and Half Honkey.

Marriage is generally a state issue. However, congress passed the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which is now federal law. It allows states to ignore the full faith and credit mandate of the Constitution when it comes to same sex marriage. I would like to see DOMA repealed.

Also, there is precedent for federal intervention regarding marriage when state laws about marriage is believed to violate the US constitution. That happened in Loving v. Virginia when the Supreme Court said states cannot ban interracial marriage. I believe that, in time, state constitutions banning same sex marriages will be similarly struck down.

As to the original question, I believe Obama's statement will provide a rallying cry for the extreme right. However, moderates are long since past getting whipped up about "gay marriage," so I don't think undecided voters will run from him because of this. On the other hand, it will please and excite the voters on the left. In the end, their engagement and money will swing this to Obama's advantage.

Dave, I disagree. WE THE PEOPLE have a ballot box, and can vote for 3rd-party candidates.

This is the first year I've believed the LIbertarians are running at least a minimally qualified candidate. Since I won't vote for four more years of Obama, and his opponent is no better, I'll have to hope the independents don't hold their nose and vote for one of the two.

Dave --- time to come home to the Republican Party. Obama is out to once again dupe the same old group of union goons, student stooges, and far left loons. When the economic news is poor you can bet he will shift attention to another topic.

This is NOT a two party country! We can and should have more parties on the ballot.

Why shouldn't he listen to his kids? Our children have much to teach us. Obama's evolution has followed the same path as those of us who have gay children. Coming to acceptance is more often a journey, not an event. Actually there are times when I believe the under 18 crowd would do a better job of running the country than the just-say-no congress.

It depends where and who was in charge. Under Henry VIII, homosexuals were executed.

Miss Gail, I could repeat the old joke about the Catholic Church being against gay marriage because the priests are jealous, but of course that would be inappropriate and rude. This comment won't even get past the moderators.

Yours, & c.,

E. Warfield

It may be trivial to you, but discrimination is not at all trivial to those who are discriminated against. I'm grateful that many people make it their business to work for equality for all, even if they already have the privileges not extended to others.

Rod, what are you talking about? I don't know what God "did to" people like me. I do know what the government has done. (And I'm glad to witness that changing!)

Thank you, M! Bishop Tutu said I cannot for the life of me understand why God would punish someone for being gay...or black...or a woman.. etc. As for the Bible, Jesus said Love Thy Neighbor. There was no asterisk exempting gays...

Keep trying, JH. You and Mitt Romney's boy, Eric Fehrnstrom are both obsessed with trans women. Best that you stay anonymous. http://www.advocate.com/politics/politicians/2012/05/12/top-romney-aid-outed-trans-political-opponent

So, will you acknowledge that the same type of contract deserves the same consideration, all around? Why should anyone "settle" for less?

They want all the rights and protections of marriage, want to call it marriage and they will be subject to all the pitfalls, of course! Dolly Parton said it years ago: why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us (married folk).

Joe, your analogy seems irrelevant. If there was such a time, we could see if there was a detrimental effect on that society and act accordingly. Are you aware of any such place at some time in history that you can state the effects?

If anything, Joe has always been consistent in his comments in Patch. They have always been Tea-Party-oriented and totally unsubstantiated by facts. Keep up the good work, Joe.

Some would argue that the fall of Rome and Greece was due to many factors which included a bloated central power, corrupt public officials and a society that encouraged promiscuous behavior, all in the name of self gratification.

Is history doomed to repeat itself?

M-Squared: Where shall we start?
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/public_interest/detail/the-liberal-case-against-gay-marriage
http://nosamesexmarriage.com/marriage/tenarguments.php
http://vienna.patch.com/articles/speak-out-obama-backs-same-sex-marriage-6633664a#comments
http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/the-cultural-argument-against-gay-marriage
While this might not stifle your position, it certainly shows that many do support mine.

How about one man and six women or one woman four men along with a Great Dane. I guess the real question is how far do you want to take this civil rights issue.

I do know one thing though. One cannot select their gender or race at birth, but they can choose their sexual orientation and I believe each individual America has the right to either accept or reject homosexuality.

James, we disagree that sexual orientation is a choice. But even if it is, we tolerate and even celebrate choices others make. Religion, for example. Everyone is allowed to choose their religion and our government does not hold one religion above another. At least it's not supposed to.

As far as your orgy and man-on-dog question, I am puzzled about the fascination gay rights opponents have with these things. I'll leave it to you to contemplate why your mind goes there, but I assure you that gay people in general do not share the obsession. The multiple partner sex with dog thing may be on someone's agenda, but don't project it onto the gays.

Wrong, JOTP. No amendment needed, because the constitution does not say marriage is one man and one woman so no amendment needed. Remember how state laws against interracial marriage were overturned? That is the solution. It looks like you have a long way to go.