I agree. It’s an emotional issue designed to take people’s attention away for the economic crisis and failings of the Obama administration.
Every day...I hear gay this, gay that....They’re one big pain. Their agenda is to make us all pro-gay or go to jail.
You know America is in deep Kimchi when the #1 issue is “gay marriage”. Geeesh. We’ve got too many morons living in this country. No wonder the country is in the toilet.
The long time problem with politicians is that when they are trying to get elected, they claim to have values and beliefs that their voters support.
Then after they get elected, they abandon their pre-election values and beliefs and adopt those of the other side.
Referring to Republicans of course.
The Democrats stay true to their hard core socialist/fascist beliefs.
“Gay marriage is rubbed in the public’s face, like every other part of the gay agenda, but the real practical impact of gay marriage is zilch.”
The ‘gay marriage’ fight is about using the power of the state to punish those who will never buy into ‘gay marriage’ or whatever other impossibility the state decides to call marriage at the time. Who you can hire, who you can do business with, what insurance you have to provide. Not zilch, in my opinion.
If you would have told someone 30 years ago about ‘gay marriage’ being accepted in 9 states in 2012 they would have thought you were nutso. I think it is reasonable to at least speculate that in 30 years from now, the state may be punishing those faiths who will not accept ‘gay marriage’ by fines, loss of tax exempt status, whatever. After all, ‘gay marriage’ is being framed as a civil right.
Freegards
I disagree with the author.
Once gay “marriage” is an accepted norm, the next step is to go after the remaining churches that refuse to perform gay “marriages”
Almost every major societal problem today can be traced back to government intrusion, manipulation and clumsy attempts to control and mold our thought and behavior.
Big Government means big problems cause by government.
Interesting timing.
I wonder why she didn't come out for gay marriage when she was visiting Mohammed Morsi in Egypt back when she was Secretary of State.
OK, so the supreme court says yes and I hope that is just for CA and not a blanket across the land for every state like abortion? Then what will they want?
Do you think they are going to stop there? What do they really want?
Namely, bisexual marriage. After all, who are we to say that a man who loves a man who also loves woman should not allowed to marry.
Am not buying it. My theory is this issue and many others are agenda driven. There are lies and liars, and then there are statistics and lies. I vote with we are being lied to.
And government has restricted our Right of free speech and our right of free association by making it a hate crime to point out the perverts for what they are.
Geez! It's become a topsy-turvy world.
Hillary Clinton came out yesterday as a supporter of gay marriage.
Didn’t Bill Clinton say that Hillary went down on more women than he did?.
beware of the SMALL ARMS TREATY
The fundamental issue with regard to "gay marriage" is not whether a person should be allowed to say he's "married" to whomever or whatever he wants, but whether such an individual can use the power of the state to compel every person, business, or institution that recognizes any marriage to recognize his "marriage".
The fundamental argument to be made against gay marriage is that it is fundamentally not about what gay people do in the privacy of their own home, but rather the extent to which gay people can force others to acknowledge their union. If the issue were really about things like tax status, inheritance, etc. then civil unions should be just fine; it's unclear that the state shouldn't recognize unions of couples who are ineligible to marry. Indeed, I would posit civil unions should be available for people like siblings who could not marry without committing incest, but who may have good reasons for forming joint households (e.g. if two siblings are widowed, both have kids, and circumstances are such that it would make sense for them to establish a common household, a civil union would seem a logical way to clearly establish property interests, rights of survivorship, guardianship, etc.)
Historically, the concept that a woman should form a nominally-exclusive lifetime mating relationship with one man is probably the closest thing to a universal behavior. Different societies have varied and do vary considerably in the means by which a pairing is established, the means by which it might be revoked, the extent to which an established pairing compels a man to mate exclusively with one woman, the extent to which adultery is tolerated or punished, etc. but almost every society that exists or has ever existed, has grown to non-trivial size, and has lasted for more than a couple generations, has recognized some form of pairing that comprises exactly one male and at least one female. Mathematically, a "gay marriage" cannot have exactly one male. As such, it represents a relationship which is very different from the universal behavior which has been observed from time immemorial.