But I assume I’m talking to the wall, right? Nobody’s going to actually try and act intelligently, when you can join a crowd that shouts racist epithets at Black passers by, and then Bigot at Mormons. By the way, why haven’t any of you picketed the Muslims? They want to burn you at the stake, never mind keep you from getting married…

Meanwhile, let me explain reality to everyone. Most of Christian American sees gay marriage as a distraction from important issues. There are religious ideologues, sure, but they really represent a tiny fraction of the population, as a whole. *However*, there is a much larger proportion of the population who are essentially apathetic about the issue, but who see protecting their church from the government as essential. Threaten them with the loss of tax exempt status unless the Church advocates something (ANYTHING) and they’ll come out in droves to vote against this in any way conceivable. Try and pass laws to make religious people do something they don’t want to do, and you mobilize your opposition rather better than any religious zealot on the right is capable of. So when the guy who runs eHarmony gets sued for not matching up gay couples (because there are apparently *no* gay dating websites!!!) everyone gets the message: tolerance runs one way, and one way only. Everyone must tolerate gays, and they can’t be expected to tolerate anyone who disagrees, in any measure at all.

You guys keep crowing about the court decisions that have come down in your favor, without looking at a map, and thinking about things demographically a little bit. True, gay marriage has been legalized in six states. There are a few flies in the ointment here, though, and you folks have the incredibly silly habit of doing an end zone dance on the field when you haven’t scored yet. Exactly *two* of the states have legalized gay marriage through a vote of the people or the state legislature. Those are the only states that count, in my mind. I’m a conservative, and any conservative will tell you that judges can be fickle, and endlessly, fiendishly convoluted when it comes to logic, and their interpretation of the Constitution. If they grant you legalized marriage today, in a decade another judge can just as easily revoke it. In the meanwhile, the state legislature or the initiative process can be used to pass Constitutional amendments at the state level, which invalidate the court’s ruling. That’s what happened here in California. Now you need to get either the Federal courts to invalidate the Amendment because it violates the Federal constitution (highly unlikely, overconfident pronouncements from various gay legal scholars notwithstanding) or get another amendment, reversing the first, passed. In all probability, Iowa will pass an amendment in the next year or so striking down the gay marriage ruling there. You’ll all call everyone who voted to strike it down bigots, and voters in Nebraska will watch, decide you’re all a bunch of obnoxious bullies, and vote with their ministers when the issue comes up there.

Thing is, two states, or six, doesn’t solve your problem. A decade ago, I would never have said what I am going to say now. Half a decade ago, when President Bush was running for reelection and energizing his base by proposing the Defense of Marriage Act, I said (and I still think, at the time) that he had no chance of getting it passed, knew it, and was semi-cynically manipulating religious conservatives within his party. If you guys keep calling the Carrie Prejeans of the world bigots, you might wind up driving large numbers of people into the other camp. The result could be the passage of an amendment like the one Bush proposed, which would mean that it wouldn’t matter how many state supreme courts legalize gay marriage: the Constitution trumps state Constitutions where they conflict, and there’s no way to appeal an amendment. The only thing you can do is repeal it with another amendment…which has only really happened once (prohibition). Do you guys really want to go down this road?

“So Stephen, who is to blame for that, Gays?”

Did I at any point say that gays are directly responsible for no-fault divorce? Nope. So why are you responding as though I did? (Ditto your repeated flagellation against religion when I’ve made no religious arguments.)

Your blind conviction that there is no possible argument in opposition to your own views is the very *definition* of “closed-mindedness”.

Which is exactly the point I’ve argued since my first comment.

See, I could go to an anti-gay site and argue *for* gay marriage just as readily as I’ve argued *against* it here. As I’ve said there are arguments on both sides.

However, trying to have the discussion with you, Robert, is like trying to discuss religion with a fire & brimstone Bible-beater. There’s no point, ‘cuz he’s Just Right and I’m Just Wrong and clearly I’m going to Hell because I don’t see the light.

And in that sense, you work *against* your own cause. By jumping up and down and screaming “Bigot!” at anyone who doesn’t “see the light” on gay marriage, you turn *away* those you should be working to convince.

So go ahead with more broad assumptions about what I’m going to do in 20 or 30 years, because *clearly*, in your religion, my arguments can’t possibly be based on anything but blind hatred, right?

…”but I bet a lot of people didn’t foresee the effect that welfare and no-fault divorce would have on marriage either. There’s that silly unintended consequences thing again.”

So Stephen, who is to blame for that, Gays? Adultery, philandering, fathering children in and outside of marriage, sometimes with several different women different women….that’s been going on for millenia and way before marriage equality was a dot on the landscape?

The fact of the matter is, those “silly unintended consequences thing again” are all down to you straights. We didn’t cause divorces and we still don’t, nor did we have any impact on single women getting pregnant, your fellow breeders do that with impunity. So,why don’t you and your ilk address that issue and get it resolved once and for all? The biggest threat to marriage are the very people you accuse, the straights who legislated for no fault divorce and those who engage in it, not us. Skew it whatever way you wish, the argument against same-sex marriage is therefore lost.

Bill, I agree with that. For Obama to say he’s for equality is a bold-faced lie. How can he be if he doesn’t believe in marriage equality for LGBT citizens? Of all people, a lawyer such as Obama knowing that the Warren court declared that “separate is never equal”, now supports segregation which is what civil unions are. Seven countries realized that and six states in the U.S. How much clearer does it get?

What tips the balance agianst us is the fact that both parties are run by bigots like McCain and Obama. Both hinged their campaigns on opposition to SSM to capture and galvanize the bigot vote. In 2000 and 2004 a biogt named Bush won the pandering competition. In 2008 it was a bigot named Obama.

His infamous anti-LGBT slogan ‘gawd’s in the mix’ motivated bigots to vote against us in big numbers in Califrnia, Arizona and Florida.

To claim that we don’t have a chance is just an excuse for inaction.

Amendment 2 in Florida was passed with over sixty percent of the vote, an amendment that forbade the state from recognizing civil unions . Florida must be some far right-wing state, right ?

Bill, thank you. The reason we’re seeing more resistance to SSM is the very success we’re now seeing in six states and its not going to stop as more countries in Europe get on board. They can protest all they want, the tide is turning against bigotry. The more these right wingers and religious cultists spew their hatred, the more alienated the obstuctionist party of NO becomes irrelevant. Let them continue, its only going to alienate the younger generation to support them. Already, they’re at their lowest rate in the popularity polls….21% or less describe themselves as republican, the lowest in over 25 years and declining. They’ll remain in political exile for many years unless they become an all inclusive party and I don’t see that happening. Michael Steele is another form of window dressing, the male version of Palin. He’s going nowhere.

Civil unions and civil partnerships are a second class form of marriage for citizens deemed unworthy of full civil rights by bigots like the Bushes, der Papenfuehrer Ratzi, the Clintons, Dobson and Obama – all members of christer cults.

Only full marriage rights for same sex couples will do. Despite the rearguard defense of apologists for bigotry like Stephen R. the fight for same sex marriage rights is enjoying success after success.

So, what if after twenty, thirty years or more, none of the negative aspects of same-sex marriage have resulted as you predict? What if straight divorce rates decline, what if out of wedlock births, abortions decline? What will be your next m.o. to support discrimination against gay people if all of the predictions have failed? So far, they have in only 8 years. Name me one documented instance of a same-sex civil marriage that has impacted the marriage of any straight in a negative manner? Lets see the evidence in the form of government reports.

If you want to ban divorce, go ahead, the religious cults and bigots who support them will back you up to the hilt as will the republican party and a handful of conservatives in the democratic party. I also have a suggestion when you start to do it, make sure that no divorced person can ever marry again even if they have children and while you’re at it, make absolutely sure that all adulterers and violent spousal abusers are equally banned from divorce. The latter would drastically eliminate the need for battered spouses to seek shelter.

Not really. Social constructs have a lot of momentum. Anyone getting married today grew up with traditional marriage as the standard. Gay marriage, where it exists, is a new thing. I’m talking about the change that will happen as we have generations *born* in a time when it existed and was widely accepted. 18-20 years minimum — probably longer than that.

“If no fault divorce bothers you so much, why aren’t you lobbying to put an end to it?”

It would probably be best if we hadn’t had it in the first place, but Pandora’s box is very difficult to close once it’s opened. I do sort of like the idea of “covenant” marriages though.

…”quit the bullshit” I meant to have said in previous post.

Stephen, this WILL be my LAST response to you. Quite the bullshit please. There has NOT been one reported incident of any negative impact on anyone’s marriage. 8 years or more is long enough to figure that one out. You just don’t want us to have our full equality, you believe in discrimination and that’s your right to believe in it, but the rest of us don’t agree with you.

If no fault divorce bothers you so much, why aren’t you lobbying to put an end to it? Stop scapegoating and blaming others for the breakdown of straight marriage and stop procreating if you can’t afford it or have no idea how to raise a family. Republicans commit adultery, father children with other women, marry several times, commit incest by marrying first and second cousins (Rudy Giuliani is just one example, first wife was his first cousin, he then had several affairs and married two more times); they also divorce and marry over and over hoping to get it right, just like their fellow religious bigots, and I suppose you would eventually blame that on same-sex marriage in other countries and four U.S. states? You’re an idiot, I’m done.

Robert NYC said:
“Its a lame excuse too to say that countries where same-sex marriage is legal haven’t had long to figure out the harmful effects of same-sex marriage. Holland has had it for 8 years or more, I don’t see any negative impact it has had on its society[...].”

Eight years is *nothing* in socio-political terms. It’ll probably be about 40 years before the true implications hit, but by that point they will be irreversible. Specifically, wait until a generation has been born and grown to adulthood without ever having known marriage as an “opposite sex” thing, then wait until *that* generation’s children are of marrying age.

Will it be a disaster? Well, it doesn’t look like it from here, but I bet a lot of people didn’t foresee the effect that welfare and no-fault divorce would have on marriage either. There’s that silly unintended consequences thing again.

All I’ve been saying here is we need to be careful about charging ahead with major changes to significant social institutions. Eight years isn’t enough to know.

You seem to assume that this must presuppose certain political views, or some aggressive opposition to those of religious faith. It doesn’t.

Robert NYC:
“By the way, polygamy is permitted in the old and new testaments.”

So???

“[H]ow can you claim to be an atheist one minute and defending the ten commandments (religious commandments) in a public display the next?”

Because there is a difference between believing God does not exist, and being anti-religious. I am the former, but not the latter. I don’t believe in Santa Claus, either, but if it makes the kiddies happy, I’m not *against* believing in Santa Claus.

Specific to public displays:
Modern law has strong roots in Judeo-Christian religion. As such, the Ten Commandments are a part of the historical formation of modern law, **whether or not God exists***. I’m not saying we should all follow the Ten Commandments, but I have no more problem with a public display of them than I would with a display of the Magna Carta.

Overall…
This is probably my last reply as well, so as you say “have a good life.”

My purpose in arguing here was not to convert anyone — I had no illusions of that. I was simply, (as you can see if you look back at my first comment) responding to the pervasive assumption that any person who doesn’t support gay marriage is either *hateful* or simply hasn’t thought about it. Assuming thoughtlessness of your political opponents is the fast track to underestimating them. You are far better off assuming that at least *some* of them are thoughtful, and entirely sincere, and then trying to really understand where they’re coming from. Your goal in the long run is to change people’s minds, and screaming “bigot!” over and over isn’t the way to do that.

Stephen, this will be my last response to you. You seem to come up with an excuse at every provocation to deny same-sex marriage to gay people. You state…”unintended often equals unpredictable”. In this case it means predictable. You know darn well what they are which is why you made that statement to begin with. Its a lame excuse too to say that countries where same-sex marriage is legal haven’t had long to figure out the harmful effects of same-sex marriage. Holland has had it for 8 years or more, I don’t see any negative impact it has had on its society or in any of the remaining 6 countries. Heterosexuals are still getting married there without any repercussions from same-sex couples doing the same. How has it affected anyone’s marriage, where is the evidence and why have there been no government reports?

By the way, polygamy is permitted in the old and new testaments. The bible allows polygamy in the old testament and in the new testament. The old testament has several references including Exodus 21: 10 which allow a man to marry an infinite number of women without any conditions. Similarly there is not a single verse in the new testament prohibiting polygamy.

In Matthew 22: 24-29, the Jews referred to Deuteronomy 25:5 (allowing polygamy) and brought it to the attention of Jesus, he did not condemn or prohibit it. “He who created them from the big womb made the male and the female and said “for this course, a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”. (Matthew 19: 4,5)” is usually quoted to promote monogamy. Some churches and bible scholars have argued that wives in a plural marriage are also “one flesh” with the husband individually. Furthermore, Christ lived 30 years of his life in a society that practised polygamy and never condemned it. Polygamy was actually introduced into the church at the time of Paul to conform to Greco-Roman culture. In that culture, men were monogamous but free to own slaves (girls) and use them for pleasure.

Truly amazing how religious zealots cherry pick some verses and ignore the rest to justify discrimination against an entire group of people, how convenient. They would do well, including atheists, to consult http://www.fallwell.com for a reality check.

You claim you’re an atheist and you state…”I’m not gay (obviously) but honestly, even if I were I doubt I would be fighting for gay marriage. I **am** an atheist, a group that in the USA is probably more widely scorned that homosexuals, yet, like homosexuals, hardly downtrodden. As an atheist, I’m thoroughly disgusted with the Dawkinses of the world, running around trying to rip any mention of religion out of public discourse. (The Ten Commandments, for example, are a strong historical basis for modern law, and there’s nothing wrong with referencing them in that context in a public display.) I believe what I believe, but I don’t insist on everyone else accepting it.”

Stephen, how can you claim to be an atheist one minute and defending the ten commandments (religious commandments) in a public display the next? You claim that atheists are more downtrodden than gays? Please! Since when do straight atheists face discrimination in the workplace, housing, serving openly in the military based on their lack of religious beliefs?

I really don’t think you know what you are, definitely not an atheist. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me. Atheists wouldn’t support religious marriage because of its origins in Judaism, as are all monotheistic faiths, created by men.

I’m done, have a good life.

LMAO! Oh goodness *dabs eyes*…the scientist in you? “But the frosted side…” ha ha ha ha ha ha…make it stop…

Do you know what an appeal to ignorance is? Do you know what decision theory is? Do you know what the word “irrational” means?

http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html

Not sure what you’re saying about arab cultures. Should we emulate them? Considering they have a tendency to stone homosexuals, I’m guessing that’s not what you want.

My point about polygamy was that all of the “consenting adults” arguments for gay marriage can be used to argue for polygamous marriage. And polygamous marriage is an exceptionally bad idea. Opening the door to that is one good example of unintended consequences.

“If marriage is also about procreation and the reason that most people oppose same-sex marriage, then they must also ban straight childless couples, those who refuse to procreate and those who can’t.”

Or those may just be arguments for banning abortion.

Not sure why you’re going on about religion, since I’ve made virtually no mention of it. It seems you’re responding to previous arguments you’ve heard, but not ones I made. Regarding “civil unions” vs. “marriage” — the distinction is, in the long run, negligible. It’s semantics. When I talk about “marriage” I am referring to the deeply established social institution, not the religios ceremony.

“In-vitro fertilization and surrogate mothers[...]. I suppose you would call these methods of conceiving aberrant or abnormal?”

They certainly don’t exist in nature, so I would unhesitatingly call them “unnatural”. Again, does that mean “bad”? No.

“So your statement that gays can’t procreate, is not altogether true.”

When a (biological) male is impregnated by sperm from another male, you let me know.

Sorry couldn’t resist. Snark aside….

I think that mankind in modern day has become rather hubristic in assuming that nature doesn’t know what it’s doing, and can be perfected and improved by man. As though we, in a few short years, can best the evolutionary process of millions of years.

As I said, I’m kind of on the fence. The libertarian in me says “Hey, go for it. Mazel Tov.” But the scientist in me says that we should be very careful upsetting a social fabric that has carried us for tens of millennia. Yes that means not everybody gets what they would like.

What *will* the unintended consequences be? I don’t know. unintended often equals unpredictable. They are rarely instantaneous, and frequently unanticipated. I’ve suggested a few already. Those countries you mentioned haven’t had gay marriage for terribly long; so as examples, they are limited. I guess we’ll all know in about 50 years.

I’m not gay (obviously) but honestly, even if I were I doubt I would be fighting for gay marriage. I **am** an atheist, a group that in the USA is probably more widely scorned that homosexuals, yet, like homosexuals, hardly downtrodden. As an atheist, I’m thoroughly disgusted with the Dawkinses of the world, running around trying to rip any mention of religion out of public discourse. (The Ten Commandments, for example, are a strong historical basis for modern law, and there’s nothing wrong with referencing them in that context in a public display.) I believe what I believe, but I don’t insist on everyone else accepting it.

“If, however, you look at marriage as a *social contract*, a lot changes. Marriage is a lot about maintaining the social fabric, and forming familial bonds, and yes, procreation.”

“The law of unintended consequences will almost *certainly* rear its head as gay marriage spreads.”

So are you implying that same-sex civil marriage would impact the social fabric, in what way? Can you point to any unintended consequences thus far as well as documented evidence to support that claim in Holland, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Canada, South Africa, the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa?

There exist thousands of gay parents, many of whom have been married to opposite sex partners, including gay and bisexual widows and widowers who maintain and continue to maintain strong familial, loving bonds with their children. Familial bonding is most definitely not exclusive to heterosexuals.

My error.

Stephen, actually polygamy is practiced and legal in islamic culture so you can’t paint marriage with the same brush.

If marriage is also about procreation and the reason that most people oppose same-sex marriage, then they must also ban straight childless couples, those who refuse to procreate and those who can’t. Marriage is primarily about love, first and foremost, procreation is a choice and NOT a requirement nor is it a mandate of CIVIL marriage, nor is there any mention of religion in a civil wedding ceremony. One’s religious convictions and beliefs have absolutely no place in denying civil marriage to same sex couples. States issue marriage licenses, not religious denominations. If someone wants a religious marriage ceremony, let their churches, synagogues and mosques issue them. How would they like it if people opposed religious marriages and tried to get a ballot initiative to ban them? They would be making the same argument that civil marriage supporters have no right imposing their will on religion.

In-vitro fertilization and surrogate mothers are alternatives for hundreds of thousands of opposite sex and same-sex couples in the western hemisphere and probably elsewhere. So your statement that gays can’t procreate, is not altogether true. I suppose you would call these methods of conceiving aberrant or abnormal?

Robert — I can’t seem to find that sentence in my copy of the Constitution. Could you please be more specific?

First off, as I said, I’m on the fence. I think that at the least we as a society should be very careful about upturning centuries-old social structure. The law of unintended consequences will almost *certainly* rear its head as gay marriage spreads. Traditional marriage has been under attack for decades in this country. Among urban blacks it is almost completely destroyed, and the problems that community struggles with every day are, I believe, strongly related to that change. I think “no fault divorce” is also a part of this problem — it undermines the seriousness of marriage, encouraging people to enter into it without thinking it through. Result: Lots of single-parent children, which study after study has shown to contribute to drug use and other problems.

Secondly — and this one will no doubt have you howling — there is no argument for gay marriage I have ever heard that does not also apply to polygamy, polyamory, or, for that matter, some guy wanting to “marry” his favorite car. If you look at marriage as simply a contract between two people, then you are right — there is no difference if they are both male, or whatever.

If, however, you look at marriage as a *social contract*, a lot changes. Marriage is a lot about maintaining the social fabric, and forming familial bonds, and yes, procreation.

Why then, is homosexuality not a part of the regular social fabric? Well, it is obviously, in the sense that gay people do *exist*. But it’s not, dare I say, “normal”.

Now of course I have to define “normal”. Homosexuality does exist in nature, obviously. I’m looking at things scientifically — and homosexuality is, in nature, an aberration. Why do I say this? Evolution. Evolution basically has two rules. 1) survive. 2) reproduce. Having a sex drive that attracts you to a partner with whom you can’t possibly reproduce is clearly against evolution. Meaning… it’s not simply another genetic variation; if it were it would have died out before it ever got started. It’s something else.

So fine. Not normal — does that make it bad? Not at all. When I was in high school I knew a girl who had six toes on each foot. Not the vestigial stub kind of thing — she had the entire structure, including a bone in the foot, to support six toes on each foot. I have no doubt she was born that way, but it is not a “normal” human trait. She was an aberration.

It is a societal distortion to try to legally declare it as normal — which is exactly what gay marriage is — a legal declaration — a *societal* declaration — that homosexual coupling is a part of the “default” human condition. There are a lot of other things (beyond toe count) that fit this description as well, but none of those that I can think of have the same kind of political implications.

Imagine a community of six-fingered people demanding that glove makers be legally required to manufacture six-fingered gloves. Yes, they really have six fingers, and yes they really want gloves that fit, but that doesn’t mean their civil rights are violated if Totes only make five-fingered gloves.

A bit more on the “unintended consequences” problem: http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html

That’s a mighty big assumption you’ve made about me there.

Opposing gay marriage does not equal hatred. Again, so long as you can’t see past that false comparison, your outlook is just as brittle and “frozen” as the abortion debate that you so rightly described.

I’m generally pro-life (though again, kind of on the fence) but that doesn’t mean I support bombing abortion clinics. Gay bashing exists, but Proposition 8 ain’t it.

I think you are correct that support for gay marriage is growing. (I’ll get into why I think that is regrettable in a moment….) However, it is for ***exactly that reason*** that the recent political actions of gays is a very bad move — for gays. The venom and McCarthy-ite tactics launched against supporters of Prop 8 in California is going to turn people *against* you. Trying to force change through judicial activism is going to do for this what Roe V Wade did to abortion — make it a bitter political battle that will rage for DECADES. Support is growing as you say. A few more years and you will probably have the changes you want through *legitimate* legislative change.

Regarding the political front and removing the tax-exempt status of religion — go for it. Charities too — nobody should be tax exempt. I’m a FairTax man myself — I don’t think the government should be picking winners and losers AT ALL.

Stephen, can you elaborate on “good solid arguments against gay marriage”? If its the procreation chestnut, then I know where your argument is going. There are many good arguments to challenge that one too. Now that the move towards full civil marriage is well under way, and considering that seven countries and five states, possibly six in the U.S. are now on board….and continuing to grow, I think the argument against same-sex marriage will grow weaker. Religious and civil marriage are two different vehicles. Nobody is forcing any cult to acknowledge or conduct same-sex marriages though the lies and bigotry perpetrated by the far right seem to be the contrary as we witnessed in that hilarious video distributed by the National Movement on Marriage spreading false information about LGBT people. That kind of misinformation will only polarize the far right and the GOP in general if its serious about appealing to younger voters who are already alienated and not in synch with core republican right wing beliefs. How can you support relgious zealots denigrating,spreading lies, fomenting intolerance and hatred towards us, and we’re supposed to say nothing? Whenever we accuse them of hypocrisy, bigotry and hatred, we’re chastized for it while they play the religious victim card claiming persecution. A bit rich coming from religious cults who’ve been persecuting us for millenia in the name of religion. They can’t have it both ways. They should stay out of politics or face a push by us to remove their non-profit tax-exempt status for starters, then they’ll get a taste of what reverse discrimination is all about. Last time I read the constitution, the rights of the minority cannot be overturned by the tyranny of the majority (mob rule) and must be protected.

Overall I thought this was a good post; but there is a strange discordance between the argument that gay marriage supporters should not be demonizing their opponents, and then turning around and basically arguing that anyone who disagrees with you can’t possibly have put any thought into where they stand. That same process is reflected quite a bit in comments.

A smart man once said, “Most social issues are complex. They don’t distill down into easy talking points nor do they have obvious permanent solutions.” (Oh wait. that was you, in this same post!)

You talk about how the abortion debate was “flash frozen” because of the court legislating from the bench, but then you turn around and assume that anyone who opposes gay marriage can’t possibly have given it any thought? Whose opinion is flash-frozen here?

Clearly gay marriage is something you desire, but that doesn’t mean that any opposing opinion is based on hatred or bigotry. There are good solid arguments against gay marriage — some of them quite — dare I say — thoughtful.

Personally I’ve been “on the fence” for quite a while on the gay marriage issue. It is, like abortion, a more complex issue than you make it.

Ok Bob, so sexual perversion is the domain of gay people? Hmmmm, now let me think. Oh….there was an article in the local newspaper today regarding two Ozarks churches in southwest Missouri that have been accused of ceremonially abusing girls, preparing them for “service to God” by molesting them; the area in question has one of the state’s highest rates of reported child abuse and has had other high-profile abuse cases.

Three years later, only one of the cases has completely unraveled; the accused individual remains charged, free on bail pending trial. All six defendants involved in the case are related by blood or MARRIAGE, pleaded not guilty. Hearing after hearing was held and many of the 100 or more church members moved away.

These charges surfaced in 2006 when young women from Grand Valleny Independent Baptist Church North told authorities that they had been sexually abused since the 1970s.

Raymond Lambert, 54, pastor of the Grand Valley church was charged with molesting two girls with the help of his WIFE, Patty, over a period of 10 years. The girls were told that their bodies were being prepared “for service to God”. Another defendant, also 54 and his brother 56 and his wife were accused of HELPING Lambert abuse a girl.

Lambert’s uncle, George Otis Johnston and pastor of Grand Valley church in the next county was accused of telling a parishioner he “was ordained by God to fulfill her needs as a woman” and “if she would have sexual intercourse with him that she would remain a virgin and remain pure”. The girl told authorities she refused intercourse but continued to be molested.

So much for their anti same-sex marriage argument.

So Bob, that’s one of a myriad example of what breeders like you do and I suppose its ok with you because involves heteros and I supposed that’s not a perversion either.

What about your straight prostitutes,the breeders who patronize them, sex trafficking of Asian women to the U.S. and elsewhere for purposes of prostitution; all the straight men who cheat on their wives and in some cases fathering children with them; what about that? So much for the sanctity of marriage argument. Are you also aware that rape is overhwelmingly a straight perversion, just look up the statistics on sex crimes?

You need to look in the mirror a bit more before you start denigrating us and making derogatory comments. Get your own house in order first, you hypocrite. While am at it, what brings a so called “straight” (assuming you really are one) to a gay blogsite? Isn’t that sort of perverted or are you trying to tell us something else? Seems pretty clear to me and others here, you idiot.

You do know the word ‘homophobe’ is a paradox, right? We aren’t scared of people like you that perform homosexual acts on each other. ‘Phobia’? Do you honestly think anyone’s scared of those that practice homosexuality?

We’re simply repulsed. We’re not scared, we’re disgusted. We’re revolted. We find what you do disgusting, morally reprehensible.

Stop acting like what you choose to do with your bodies makes you special, or that it represents some special ‘essence’.

You’re just like the rest of us – the difference is you’ve descended into sexual perversion. It’s not like the civil rights movement, where people were dealing with a factor they literally couldn’t choose….um, SKIN COLOR???

And yet instead we hear this garbage about how this is ‘who you are’, it’s ‘not a choice’, you deserve ‘rights’, blah blah blah.

Surprisingly, people actually wish to give your bizarre behavior some type of legal recognition. So they say, “Ok, you want ‘rights’? A civil union would give you every single right.”

And yet civil unions are denied. MARRIAGE is what is wanted.

What does this tell us? You want the word. You want the name. What you want is moral condoning of your behavior. You know in your hearts that what you are doing is wrong, and yet you want the blessing of the state to rid your conscience of that guilt.

Don’t think for one minute you’re fooling us with your propaganda, your focus-group phrases, or your ‘jamming’ techniques – it’s always been about moral conditioning. You know that what you are doing with your bodies is a sexual perversion, heck some of you might have even convinced yourself it’s not wrong, and you are turning to the American people, needily wanting their approval, needily wanting them to tell you that what you’re doing is not wrong.

Give me a fucking break.

As for sodomy laws, they are of course reprehensible. It’s my understanding that they’re all gone now; if any aren’t gone they should go immediately. My understanding however is that for a considerable while now, they’ve basically been used as a threat: no one actually got arrested, it was just threatened. Regardless, such things should go, of course.

Besides, you’re still not understanding my point. The constitution has been studied for 220 years now. If you guys suddenly manage to get the Supreme Court to reinterpret *existing* constitutional law to protect yourselves as a minority, no one who doesn’t agree with you 100% will take you, or the court, in the least seriously. It looks like you’re trying to do an end run around the Democratic process, and say to the voters “You voted against us, but your voice is meaningless because we have the courts on our side.” Sort of like the little punk kid who throws rocks at the bigger kid, and when the big guy comes over to beat him up in retaliation, well the little guy has an older brother who protects his brat sibling. The one thing I think you guys have done well is the vote in Vermont, where you won in the legislature, and when the Governor’s veto was overridden, said Governor (a Republican) essentially said everyone needs to get over it and get on with other business. Court decisions, in the court of public opinion, solve nothing; if anything, they’re again counterproductive.

And you didn’t address my principle point, or one of them, which is that calling opponents the B-word, the c-word, or whatever, even vile homophobes or whatever, is just bad for your image, and doesn’t really do anything to them. Newsweek this week essentially congratulated her and called Hilton an idiot. You think that does you or the cause of gay marriage any good?

Third, one fellow challenged my assertion that no one has the right to get married with a slew of legal decisions that invalidated laws prohibiting such things as interracial marriage. Unfortunately for him, there are Constitutional amendments requiring equal treatment for members of various racial groups; to my knowledge there isn’t similar protection in the Constitution or its amendments for you guys. Much of the gay community, when confronted with such a statement, essentially say, “Yes, but there *should* be such protections, so let’s act like they’re there, and make arguments based on them.” Unfortunately, this only rarely works in the courts, and even then the decisions get overturned on appeal. Ditto the argument that saying that every man has the right to marry a woman is similar to allowing everyone, Christian or not, to attend a Christian church. The Bill of Rights specifically protects Freedom of Religion (it’s the first thing in the first amendment), while there’s no such protection for gays. Sorry, maybe you could make an argument that such protections *should* be there, but they aren’t.

Incorrect.

This is the text of the 14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It is the interpretation of the courts that tells us what constitutes “due process” and “equal protection.” Despite the laguage, “separate but equal” was the law of the land for about a century after the passage of the 14th. Laws discriminating on the basis of gender were only invalidated beginning in the 1970s, when gender was subject to intermediate scrutiny.

You contradict yourself. You’re dismissive of sodomy laws (the historic club used to harass and discriminate against gay men in particular), but these were only struck down in 2003, on the basis of the 14th amendment (due process) and laws discriminating against gays were struck down in 1996 (Romer; equal protection).

So which is it? Does the 14th amendment protect “any person” or not? The language is pretty clear to me.

“Privileges are such things as marriage and voting.

As for Amendment 2, I seriously doubt that anyone would have ever denied a gay person the right to vote, and had the denial upheld by a court; but it’s a moot point since the courts overturned that part of the amendment anyway. You’re making my point for me: no gay person in the country has his right to vote denied because of his sexual orientation.”

On the one hand you’re saying that voting is a privilege, on the other, a right. Which is it, pal? You contradict yourself.

Good point, but you’ve basically used semantics to make it sound like I’m contradicting myself, when I’m not. Voting is a privilege. If you go and exercise that privilege, you have a right to be treated the same as anyone else. I believe, and so far no one’s contradicted me, that no one is denied their franchise (note how I avoided using the word “right” this time) because of gender orientation. How would this work, anyway? Would the person at the polling booth exclude those he *thought* looked gay? Sounds pretty unlikely, and frankly paranoid to me.

@Robert, NYC: This DavidN is no different than a pro-segregation American circa 1962. His time in history is almost over and he knows it so all he can do is have his day in the sun of discrimination where he will try to be as bigoted as possible and spout propaganda he does not even believe to attempt to hurt people. He is a guy who 30 years from now will be lying to his grandchildren or great grand children about how he fully supported gay marriage. Just like a lot of pro-segregation people now lie and rewrite their own personal histories out of shame.

Ah, where to begin. In the first place, I always *have* supported the extension of the privilege of marriage to gay people. Voted with you guys when the state voted on it back in…whenever it was, ’02 or ’03, and voted against Prop. 8. I am not a bigot (which leads me into the denial thing that I mentioned before) and frankly the discussion here is getting repulsive. I don’t have children, won’t have grandchildren (unless something drastic happens) and frankly wouldn’t lie to them if the circumstances come up. In no way am I a segregationist, and frankly I’m appalled by your accusations.

I’m trying, admittedly poorly since no one apparently is listening to me, to get you folks to see how you should proceed, so that you can legally get married when you wish to. Screaming epithets at your opponents, telling them their grandchildren will be ashamed of them, etc., is juvenile, obnoxious, and frankly counterproductive. You’re doing yourself considerable harm speaking like that; every time you do so, you push the prospect of legalized gay marriage further away. Keep it up, and eventually a Federal Constitutional Amendment will emerge, and then you’ll have nothing left to appeal.

“Privileges are such things as marriage and voting.

As for Amendment 2, I seriously doubt that anyone would have ever denied a gay person the right to vote, and had the denial upheld by a court; but it’s a moot point since the courts overturned that part of the amendment anyway. You’re making my point for me: no gay person in the country has his right to vote denied because of his sexual orientation.”

On the one hand you’re saying that voting is a privilege, on the other, a right. Which is it, pal? You contradict yourself.

You conveniently wiggle out of the procreation defining marriage mantra that right wingers use to deny marriage equality for same-sex couples. It is the mantra of the Grand Obstructionist Party. You’ll not wear us down with your arguments. We see through you. Change is coming whether you like it or not and we see through the desperation that drives you to post on a gay blogsite, frequently. Why don’t you spend more time among the straight anti same sex marriage haters instead, you have far more in common with them.

Folks, I wouldn’t mind betting that some of them are paid shills from the ex-gay ministries and other right wing cults with the tacit support of the GOP.

First, I never said anything about marriage being restricted to one man and one woman for the reason of procreation. My wife and I married late enough in life that we never planned to have children, and things went according to plan. I have no problem with people getting married not planning to procreate. Two of my uncles got married under such circumstances, and both were pretty religious. No one said anything about either marriage. The issue isn’t whether a couple can procreate (in my mind anyway) it’s whether they have a right or a privilege.

Second, everyone seems to have missed that I said that I would like to extend this privilege to gay couples. I just don’t think it’s a right; I also think that the gay community focusing on extending their rights induces “rights fatigue” among the rest of the population, which has heard endlessly about how everyone has the right to do pretty much everything.

Third, one fellow challenged my assertion that no one has the right to get married with a slew of legal decisions that invalidated laws prohibiting such things as interracial marriage. Unfortunately for him, there are Constitutional amendments requiring equal treatment for members of various racial groups; to my knowledge there isn’t similar protection in the Constitution or its amendments for you guys. Much of the gay community, when confronted with such a statement, essentially say, “Yes, but there *should* be such protections, so let’s act like they’re there, and make arguments based on them.” Unfortunately, this only rarely works in the courts, and even then the decisions get overturned on appeal. Ditto the argument that saying that every man has the right to marry a woman is similar to allowing everyone, Christian or not, to attend a Christian church. The Bill of Rights specifically protects Freedom of Religion (it’s the first thing in the first amendment), while there’s no such protection for gays. Sorry, maybe you could make an argument that such protections *should* be there, but they aren’t.

Fourth, no one addressed my fundamental assertion on this issue, that marriage isn’t a right, it’s a privilege. A citizen’s interactions with his/her government tend to fall into three categories: rights, privileges, and duties. In the modern age, people have tended to conflate the latter two into the first, with (to my mind and that of many conservatives) disastrous results. Rights include things like speech, the press, and assembly. Essentially, the government is prohibited from doing anything other than regulating these activities for the purpose of public safety (You can’t have a thousand people freely assemble in your living room). Privileges are such things as marriage and voting. If you move from one residence to another, and don’t re-register to vote, you lose the privilege of voting. Ex-convicts can lose the right permanently, but of course they still have the right to freedom of speech, for instance, and can go to any church they wish. Duties are things such as jury service, military service, etc. No one has the right to serve in the military, for instance. A blind person can say anything they wish, but no one’s going to give them a fighter plane to fly. Marriage is a privilege, with some equal protection rights attached, sure, but still a privilege.

Lastly, the issue of whether one form of discrimination (against blacks, women, Jews, whatever) is worse than another (against gays, for instance). This is difficult, because you almost inevitably start out comparing the proverbial apples with oranges. Having said that, the one fellow asserted that discrimination against gays was bad because of the following list:

-Rejected by their own family members
-Subject to “conversion therapy” to change their sexual orientation
-Committed in psychiatric institutions as “sex offenders”
-Criminal laws targeting sex between members of the same race, with penalties up to and including death

I think we can dismiss the last two items: we’re talking about U.S. laws here, and in my understanding all laws prohibiting gay sex have been invalidated here. In Iran, sure, but there religious discrimination is rampant, so is gender discrimination, and a host of other things. We’re talking about U.S. laws. As to the others, I don’t see how we’re going to legislate family dynamics or dysfunction. If your family has rejected you for being gay, I am sorry for it; I would speak to them if the issue came up and I thought it appropriate; but no one can make your family accept you, and frankly such things aren’t restricted to gays. My mother never really understands me, and I’m heterosexual. The “conversion therapy” point is interesting, but unless there’s a place in the states where such things are done compulsorily, I think we can reject it too. If someone wants to voluntarily enter a program, to cure themselves of anything (being gay, smoking, whatever) it’s their business, and none of mine, or frankly anyone else’s. My point is that when the Gay Pride parade marches through a city near you, Bull Connor and his deputies with the dogs, fire hoses, and nightsticks are nowhere to be found. Gay people are discriminated against, sure…but such discrimination is done in a more subtle, and less violent fashion, for the most part. It happens in the open, sometimes, and when it does I’m all for confronting those who discriminate; but that doesn’t make this the sixties, with freedom rides and attack dogs.

As for Amendment 2, I seriously doubt that anyone would have ever denied a gay person the right to vote, and had the denial upheld by a court; but it’s a moot point since the courts overturned that part of the amendment anyway. You’re making my point for me: no gay person in the country has his right to vote denied because of his sexual orientation. Period.

Lastly, I’m not entirely sure whether I’ve been included in the “closeted ex-gay” category or not, but frankly I find that whole argument/accusation incredibly lame. If that’s the best you can do, you need to go to debate school or something. A Larry Craig-like denial just makes the person accused look silly. It’s the functional equivalent of the old question “When did you stop beating your wife?” Clever underhanded tactic, but meaningless if we’re trying to get anywhere in such a discussion.

Seven western countries, and now four states allowing same-sex marriage seems pretty clear to me where its heading. The trend will continue probably in Western Europe at a faster pace than in the U.S. The U.S. won’t be able to hold out because there are economic reasons that will also play an important role especially in the areas of multinational corporations that hire gay married people from countries that allow marriage equality. There will eventually have to be reciprocity with the U.S. if it wants to compete in a global economy.