Speak Out: Obama Backs Same-Sex Marriage

Robert Morris May 12, 2012 at 11:57 am

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?

Locally Involved May 12, 2012 at 02:04 pm

Yes, Robert - I too would like to here from Joe specific examples of how same-sex marriage has destroyed any society. I am a history buff and seriously cannot recall any such events. I will need names of the leaders, years, cities/tribes/whatever so I can read up on such events.
Thanks ahead of time, Joe, for providing such information!

Carol Lewis May 13, 2012 at 12:58 pm

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...

Carol Lewis May 13, 2012 at 01:00 pm

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).

Carol Lewis May 13, 2012 at 01:07 pm

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

Carol Lewis May 13, 2012 at 01:09 pm

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.

Dave May 13, 2012 at 03:02 pm

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.

Joe Brenchick May 13, 2012 at 05:15 pm

Dave – if you have a point, other than gratuitous assertions, please state them. Otherwise, please return to the peanut gallery.

Joe Brenchick May 13, 2012 at 05:27 pm

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?

Joe Brenchick May 13, 2012 at 05:40 pm

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.

Jonathan Erickson May 13, 2012 at 09:18 pm

If tea party orientated means Sarah Palin and her ilk I guess I understand your sweeping assertation. If not please elicidate further with facts of your own.

Locally Involved May 14, 2012 at 02:22 am

Joe - we asked for actual historical facts - not conservative commentary. You can cherry pick and take a position on great civilizations such as Rome, but you fail to provide any actual facts. Just opinion.
You're right (actualy fascist theocractic right from your comments), your opinions will not stifle my position. If you don't like same sex marriage then I suggest you not marry someone of the same sex. But you cannot assert your religious beliefs in a democracy. Science and fact apply to the physical world. Belief/Faith to the spiritual world. Deal with it. We live in the physical world. Again, don't marry someone of the same sex is the only thing I have left to say to you. Good night, sir.

Karen Gautney May 14, 2012 at 09:51 am

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.

Karen Gautney May 14, 2012 at 10:02 am

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)

Karen Gautney May 14, 2012 at 10:12 am

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.

Karen Gautney May 14, 2012 at 10:16 am

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!)

Karen Gautney May 14, 2012 at 10:26 am

The right often argues that society will suffer ill effects from debauchery--whether straight are gay people are the indulgent. What does NOT follow is that same sex, committed relationships is debauchery or leads to it. Think about it. Gay people can eschew committed relationships and have relations with numerous people, just as heterosexual people can, and many do. What we are talking about here is the couples who want to commit to a lifetime of monogamy, family, and all the things conservatives supposedly support. To suggest that marriage between two loving women or two loving men will lead to the downfall of society is preposterous.

Jim Thomas May 15, 2012 at 04:22 pm

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

JamesOnThePotomac May 15, 2012 at 05:48 pm

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.

JamesOnThePotomac May 15, 2012 at 05:58 pm

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?

Karen Gautney May 15, 2012 at 06:33 pm

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.

JamesOnThePotomac May 15, 2012 at 07:06 pm

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.

Jim Thomas May 15, 2012 at 07:38 pm

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

Robert Morris May 15, 2012 at 07:53 pm

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.

JamesOnThePotomac May 15, 2012 at 08:25 pm

Many of you have stated that solution is very simple and it will only take a simple amendment to the US Constitution to fix this Gay Civil Rights issue. The last I checked, an amendment to the United States Constitution must be ratified by 75% of the state legislatures before it can come into effect. Additionally, the last time I checked thirty (30) states already have State Constitution that ban gay marriage.
It looks like you folks have a long way to go. Good luck with that.

JamesOnThePotomac May 15, 2012 at 08:33 pm

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.

Locally Involved May 15, 2012 at 08:43 pm

JOTP: Obviously your argument is premised on your belief (NOT fact) that sexual orientation is a choice. The world must be flat, too. Arguing logic with a man who has abandoned all reason is like administering medicine to a dead man. (think that was Jefferson). Seems to me, it is you that has a long way to go.

Karen Gautney May 15, 2012 at 08:53 pm

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.

Jim Thomas May 15, 2012 at 08:57 pm

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.

T Ailshire May 16, 2012 at 01:18 am

JOTP - at what age did you *choose* to be straight (assuming, of course, that you are)?