Jonathan Higbee's picture

Kentucky Attorney General Holds Back Tears As He Announces He Won't Defend Marriage Equality Ban

Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway has made our cold, black hearts pulsate with signs of life.

During one of the most important speeches of his career, Conway fought back tears as he confided in constituents that he simply cannot bring himself to support discrimination. “As attorney general of Kentucky, I must draw the line when it comes to discrimination," Conway said during the Wednesday press conference. Conway went on to reveal that he's decided not to defend Kentucky's ban on marriage equality in court. His announcement arrives in the wake of a federal judge's ruling that Kentucky must recognize same sex marriages performed out of state.

Enjoy Conway's full emotional speech below. Oh, and grab a tissue.





I hope that none of the bigoted "Christians" out there who oppose gay marriage or homosexuality in general eat any shellfish... because you know that eating shrimps is WAY worse than being gay right???


You said it perfect!!! Amen!! Just simple and logical and all the people that say that they don't believe in God are just not listening to their hearts! Some time along the way in their lives they got side tracked. Everyone was born with the light of Christ in them. They wouldn't be here on earth if they hadn't followed God's plan to be born. The spirits that chose Satan's plan stayed in the spirit world and didn't get to be born and have a body, those of us here on Earth chose God's plan and that is why we are here.

To Kim, Just agreeing with Jake .It is sad to think that you can say such rude things and live AMONGST us too. Use your brain, love is not the same as sex.

All of you overly opinionated people are soooooooooooo funny to listen to!  How come most of you say that people that write in and give JUST their uneducated opinions are trying to stuff their OWN opinions down your throats?  Nobody is trying to force their religion onto you or any of their other thoughts!  Do they have your arm twisted behind your back?  They are just stating how they feel. Big deal!  Are the ones of you that are so threatened that insecure that you can't just read these thoughts and not get so stressed out?  Maybe some of you need to take a big breath and just relax. Life is just too short to whine and moan and worry.

Yeah, except when people "express" themselves in religious terms, everyone else suffers.  Religion was used to subjugate black persons, women and still GLBT persons.  That's why those "freedom of religious expression" laws are being brought up. (And shot down because they are unconstitutional and completely discriminatory.)  If we didn't worry (It's not whining and moaning to be concerned about a very real threat.), blacks would still be slaves, women would still be subjugated and relegated to breeding and housekeeping.  It's easy to be insecure when you cannot marry because of some religious person decides they are going to force their religious beliefs into law.  It's easy to be insecure when you can't have the benefits and responsibilities of marriage, when you cannot protect your partner by putting them on your benefit package, or being certain they will inherit your joint property that you worked so very hard to build together without being taxed into poverty, or that they will be able to keep the children they raised with you.  When religious persons stop trying to legislate our lives, we'll stop talking about how we feel about that.

People who vehemently hate religion are just as bad as religious zealots who discriminate based on the lines of religion. By calling someone out on the basis of their faith, how are you better than a person who discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation or skin color? It's true that some passages In the bible and other religious texts have been taken out of context, but the primary message of Jesus is to be good to one another.

You are lumping everyone who doesnt believe in a religion as someone who "vehemently hates religion," which is nonsensical and quite a leap to make. I dont believe in god, and feel that those who do are slightly misguided, but I would never even imagine hating someone based on their beliefs. In fact, I celebrate those who believe in religion, because it is their right to do so and I could never imagine bashing someone for their beliefs.

Additionally, comparing someone's sexuality or skin color to a persons choice on religious belief is also not very accurate, and sexuality and skin color are not a choice (Michael Jackson is the sole exception), while following a faith is definitely a choice by the individual.

All that said, your relayed message from Jesus to be good to one another does not fall on deaf ears - if only more people were listening and recognized the value of those words, not as a religious mandate, but as a purpose to live.

sorry but that is not true and not in line with America.  People born with a skin color are just that; skin color does not judge or condemn others, it does not subscribe to ancient books that have extensive rules for ox goring along with the occasional bit of wisdom about how humans should treat one another.  those of us who cherish our secular democracy subscribe to the Enlightenment and the Democratic Experiment of the last 4 centuries, not Bronze Age texts from the fearful, ignorant infancy of our species.  The Constitution is secular and people need to understand the way to keep religion free is to keep it private and out of the town square.  as soon as you start making little rules to allow little bits here and there, you will quickly find yourself having to allow Wahabi preachers in the military.  I don't need to be anonymous, I will proudly sign my name.

I think you're not seeing the finer point here.  Most of us don't hate religion at all.  I was raised in it (actually, I was raised in two separate and distinct religions) and it was certainly a good guideline for ethical behavior. To a point.  It's not religion I dislike, it's the people who think it's okay to discriminate against others by quoting religious text, cherry-picking their own religion to justify that discrimination and calling out others who don't believe the same things as "sinful" instead of simply different, particularly when what they are calling sinful is harmless.  Coexistence is possible, but it takes both sides.

Religion is currently being used in several states to bring up "religious freedom" laws that essentially do nothing but try to justify completely unConstitutional legislation to discriminate against GLBT persons in the arena of businesses open to the public.  50 and 60 years ago, this same justification was made for the Jim Crow laws. Making a cake for a wedding, regardless of who is getting married (I will stipulate consenting adults), is the obligation of a bakery open to the public.  I don't see those same bakers prying into the lives of heterosexual couples to see if they had sex prior to marriage, or if they have been divorced, if one of them is a pedophile (murderer, pimp, thief, etc) or what kind of sex they have behind closed doors. Do you?

I agree that Jesus' most compelling role was to teach kindness, love and compassion.  I don't see a lot of his followers exemplifying those teachings currently.

Not letting those laws pass, fighting against bigotry, fighting for our rights is not hate for religion.  It's love for the freedoms our country has developed.  Marriage is a right.  That was clarified and stated clearly by the SCOTUS.  This right is conferred by birth.  We are BORN into those rights. We did not earn them, they are given to us by virtue of where we are born.

To all those who say "love is love" - what about a child and an adult (as still happens in many countries) or an animal and a human being in love? Given the prevalence of gay people, I do not think that is something that is just not meant "to be". I think it is natural and am all for gay marriage, but I can also understand that people set their limits differently - most in the western world do not believe in child marriage and others do not agree with gay marriages. We do have to think where our lines should be drawn in society. However, No one should enforce their own religious beliefs onto others - or think that others actually give a hoot.

The difference has been determined. Neither a child nor an animal can give consent to a romantic relationship. An adult (regardless of gender) can.

So if a 16 year old falls in love with a 40 year old are u saying the child can't give consent. By all standers the 16 year old I still labeled and defined as a child. 

You very well may be incorrect.  The age of consent is not the same in all states. Some have graduated ages for consent. (Meaning, the age of the younger person and the other person must be within a certain range, which changes for each year closer to 18.)  Some simply have one age of consent, which is most often between the ages of 16 and 18. Some others have a "close-in-age" exception as well, meaning if the ages of the participants are very close together, neither is held as accountable for statutory rape. There are also laws regarding the position of the older person, such as a "person in a position of trust", such as teachers and coaches.

My personal opinion is that even 18 is young for it. The brain of an 18 year old is likely not well developed enough to make a sound decision regarding sex and many other things.

Let'a all just LOVE everyone that is on this earth!! Can love help people feel like they have a reason to be alive?! Yes!  So maybe if all of us say how much we love each other then we can all find Christ's light with in us and change ourselves for the better.

Jake!! Yes, I am so glad that you explained how unnatural it is for two men to have sex!!!  Thank you for being brave enough to put that out there!! You are so right! I loved how you explained the damage it can do to the body! It is perverted and just not right, and yes it is true that there is a lot of mental issues with people who are so screwed up!  Even leaving religion out of it, it is a no brainer to not know that it just isn't the way the body is suppose to work! That was hilarious about the two giraffes!!  It is sad to hear about very nice people who are gay that have actually admitted praying to God to please help them change and be straight, also praying and crying asking why. So we know that the gays that have a chip on their shoulder and like to be in every ones faces and overly show to make a point in public their affections for one another is sad.

You're a moron! 

People expose their ignorance when they judge the world by the length of their nose.

- Michel de Montaigne

To anonymous--the only perversion is your mind. Love is love. Stop judging. How ignorant you sound. It is sad to read your words and think you live amongst us.

Considering what a conservative state Kentucky is, in the conservative south, it took a lot of guts and I am sure, some soul searching as well, to do what this man did. The people of Kentucky should be proud, very proud, that their Attorney General upholds the law and the constitution over politics and personal opinions. If all states had such a person in office, we'd all benefit from their integrity. It's time to stop judging people, pointing fingers and thinking that somehow we're holier than thou because we think our way of life, is the way of life. To the Jake's of the world, who granted you the authority to say what is and what isn't normal? Speak only for yourself Jake, don't allow your foolishness and your misplaced arrogance to allow you to think you speak for anyone other than your own, tiny narrow mind. 

I think you misunderstand the situation in Kentucky.  As the Commonwealth's Attorney General, the position entrusted with upholding and arguing on behalf of Kentucky's laws, Jack Conway has been named a defendant in a lawsuit.  The judge in that lawsuit struck down a Kentucky law.  Even though Conway is Kentucky's Attorney General, he doesn't want to appeal the decision to have the law upheld because he personally believes the law is bad and is against the U.S. Constitution.  The General Assembly of Kentucky has disagreed with those conclusions.   

So, to correct your statement, Conway is deciding not to uphold a (Kentucky) law and to go with his personal opinion.  

The bible is a work of fiction. (period) If you choose to believe it as fact then you must believe it all. You can not pick and choose.
The bible should have nothing to do with the laws of our great nation. If it is then we must take it all in to consideration, and I don't think you want to do that.

Hi Everyone, I have never stopped and taken time to read or interact on these group discussions! Wow, I can't believe how rude and mean you all are to each other!  Most of you change peoples views around and comment on things that they didn't even say!!  Some of you that are such name callers and saying that Christians are so judgmental and all that, what do you think you are all doing? Duh, being just as judgmental!!  Most of you are all a bunch of hot air. There has only been a few intelligent comments!  Just because someone doesn't agree that two men or two women should be mates, it doesn't mean that they don't like them or admirer their devotion or parenting skills. It just means that some people love and respect what the Bible teaches, it doesn't mean that everyone believes in the scriptures. Everyone should respect and love people just like Jesus! But remember Jesus had commandments for us to follow also, it doesn't mean he was being judgmental or not loving everyone!! There are so many people mixed up and confused these days of what is good in the sight of God.  But also not everyone believes in God, so there you go.

I will simply say that there is no commandment to discriminate or hate. And there are those who call themselves Christians who do nothing but judge and hate. 

No commandment to discriminate or hate, but the idea of discrimination and hate is certainly a common theme within the bible...

Really? Where?? 

Everywhere really. It's easier to say everywhere except with the actions of Jesus. But Christians more closely follow the teachings of Paul than Jesus, who never once met Jesus. Jesus never once said that homosexuality is wrong, only Paul (in the NT) said it out of assumptions. Jesus taught for everyone to love each other, whereas Paul is known for denouncing most believers, even the ones who may have actually met and heard Jesus.

maybe lots of us are weary of all the privileges your churches have enjoyed, no exploited, no abused. we have had your god forced upon us for our entire lives and if you are truly made in His image He's a true ass.

Sorry, Mom. I'll try to do better next time.

It is very interesting to me that there is such a big deal being made about GLBT relationships. I believe that it is NOT a choice. I did NOT choose to be heterosexual but that is what I am. Nor did any of my family or friends CHOOSE to be gay. That is what they are.

Two people that love each other and are there for each other is the important thing here. ANY COMMITTED couple should be allowed ALL of the same benefits!

If God made us all and knew us before we were born. Doesn't that mean that he knew if we would be gay, straight, white, black, blond, brunette, etc. He also knew IF we would be born, be aborted, die young, die old, be sick, be healthy, etc.

Why is sexual orientation so important to so many people? What is done by 2 consenting adults in their privacy should NOT be anyone else's decision. That all couples should have the same  rights in every state should be constitutional. NOT based on the "religious beliefs" of those making the laws!

Civil unions aka marriage should be equal for all! NOT subject to discrimination. 

Funny I have lived with, partied with, gone to "Christian" and "other" services with, associated with, worked with, volunteered with many different people that were LGB or T and NOT once did I feel different than I did being in the same places with people that were heterosexual. I base my opinions of individuals on the way the act and treat me, NOT who they choose to have as a partner/mate! Somehow that just seems more "Christian like" to me.

well it took a long time and a lot of reading to finally make it to a comment that makes a good point , is well said and made by someone with a good heart.  Thank you Julie

Well said.

I have nothing but respect for this almost unbearably heartrending delivery by Attorney General Conway.

Looks like westboro are gonna end up with a new sign :/

Big whoop!  Duh.  You gotta support equality and justice.  It's your job!  No - I didn't need a tissue.  And no - I'm not gonna get all whoopie doo excited.  He did his job.  Don't we all expect people to do their jobs?

The point you missed is a politician standing up for what is right for the people. Putting aside personal feelings including the attack from the opposition.

Yes, he did his job, and yes, we expect him to do his job. 

But he also just drew a line in the sand for constituents, and  by necessity alienated a group of people. A group of people that, by the way, he sympathizes with, cares about, and probably agrees  with (to some degree) on the issue of homosexuality. He was raised in a Catholic family. 

So what he has done is publicly announce that despite his personal faith, and at great risk to his inclusion in his sacred community, he refuses to break his vow and WILL do his job. He does so at the risk of his job, at risk of great derision, even at risk of his life. 

I am sure he is receiving death threats now, and as someone mentioned before, he probably is a target of the WBC (if he wasn't before, he is also an advocate of women's reproductive rights) - and they are at least annoying, and possibly dangerous. 

It appeared to have been a very personal and difficult struggle for him. 

So either it is the most manipulative (and spectacularly oscar-worthy) launch to a presidential platform I've seen in my lifetime, or it is (in my opinion) a very touching moment in the life of one man, who happens to be in a position of (at least some) power, struggling to do the thing that's right for everyone & not just himself, in a very difficult moral environment. 

I am inclined to believe it is the latter, myself. 

I'm also inclined to believe that politics is full of vipers, that frankly, I DON"T expect to do their job. I expect them to a$$rape the citizens of this country as long as their pockets are getting lined. That's not an American problem, that's a problem of the nature of government throughout the history of (un)civilization. 

In that kind of office environment, either you sell your soul to get ANYTHING good through and try to keep the wolves at bay. OR you join the bandwagon and put on a wolf suit. Either way, politics is soul-shredding. 

If this guy is ACTUALLY like this, it's refreshing to see someone with a friggin' soul left to hang onto in any kind of office. 

I would like to state that not all Christians are as narrow-minded as the more outspoken of us. Please don't lump us altogether, this is very offensive to many of us. That being said, I am inspired by this story. More people should take this stance.

Having spent a few excruciating years as the Jewish family in a hateful, white supremacist, anti semitic type of town, my family calls people Christians (the ones who follow Jesus and love and help all they can) and "Christians" (those who hide behind cherry picked bible quotes to justify their hate and xenophobia). I don't lump you!

I do get it. And I'm glad to hear someone else say it. And I'm probably guilty of being disrespectful myself. I do try to be aware of it when I'm here at places like this. I hope others are as well.

I would like to second the notion that more voices like yours should become's just really hard to get attention when you have a reasonable opinion, and you're not willing to blow other people up over it, or hold nasty rallies at other people's funerals, or distribute lies about any number of other things to further your personal agenda. That doesn't "sell newspapers" or keep people glued to the TV.

However - just for the record - I, for one, really appreciate that you're working on getting your message out AND not doing any of those types of things :-) 

I know that is true, anon, but that means people like you, Christians like you, need to become the more outspoken ones. Only that kind of Christian can protect your religion from being shamed by those that would use your religion to spread hate and fear and actively promote discrimination.

If it's only about love love love...would you just love your child...but never teach him/her right from wrong??? Loving all the time with out teaching the consequences of sin is rediculous...why then  would anyone even need a Savior??? Why would Jesus have to die for our sins if they really weren't a big deal? He told us to judge righteously....excepting everything out there including sinful living is just plain against every principle of the Bible &'s pretty sad when Christians are the ones excepting everything in the world just so they can "get along"...even Jesus' own people hated him in His own town for doing the right thing! The bible teaches in the end days what seems right will be wrong & what is wrong will seem right. People get on your knees & pray...b/c God is going to judge us all...I'm glad I learned a long time ago right from wrong! It's only up to myself to live it .I'm accountable for one else. We are accountable for excepting sin as "natural !" It's wrong...nothing more to say!

The word you are looking for is accepting not excepting.

1) Have your religion to yourself. Not everyone believes in your god, and I should not be forced to serve your master's wishes.

2) You said it yourself: you are accountable for yourself. I am accountable for myself. So why do you care about my sins or my soul? Please don't hide behind the guise of concern for the judgment you believe your god will inflict on me or anyone else. Your bigotry is visible through your pseudo-magnanimity.

That's right righteous soul... You are responsible for yourself. And there is nothing in the good book that tells YOU to judge. Perhaps you should hold your tongue and leave the big decisions to our Savior.

It's a shame you never learned the difference between right and wrong spelling..  Excepting is not the same as Accepting, it actually has the opposite meaning.  So, next time you want to be self-righteous about your personal beliefs, check your grammar, or you'll run the risk of looking as dumb and ignorant as your view of God. 

First, ridiculous*. That's one of my pet peeve misspellings. Also, if you wanna talk scripture, there is a passage in Romans that insists that the faithful follow the law of the land. Currently, the law of this land is that all men are created equal, and have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's cute how you so called moral individuals get to pick and choose which parts of the bible you're going to acknowledge in any given situation. Did you know that eating shellfish is called an abomination in the bible more times that men lying with other men? Why aren't you picketing outside a Red Lobster? 

Jesus said Divorce was adultery but Ii don't see you protestants condemning that.  Or is your view of right and wrong only based on the old Testament and Leviticus.  You must be a orthodox Jew then?  Or Muslim perhaps?  But you can't be, because you just don't even see those folks saying stupid shit like this, even though they are more consistent with strict biblical law than y 'all.  Rank hypocrites all of you!  If Jesus was still in his tomb, he'd be rolling over in it over your antics.

And you're right, many of the religious officials in his time (i.e. the pastors and preachers of today), despised him because he hung out with poor people and sinners and went against the law (letting a adulterer go free?? WTF?).   I hope God's grace uncovers your eyes to see the true Jesus some day.  Till then, keep spouting your holier than thou rhetoric, I'm sure its what you think Jesus would have done.

PS its accepting, not excepting unless you mean the opposite.  Learning English asshole if you want to make a intelligent, cogent argument.  Its not just for English teachers...

You are a hateful bible thumping person! Everybody has the right to be happy and i for one don't believe in your Bible, Jesus or God! In this Country we have separation of church and state and can't make laws on religious believes!!!

And I guess you mean to impose 'your' religion on all of us who don't follow it as well then hmm? I thought your 'God' was the only one supposed to be passing judgment on other people, not you. Nice try but I can see right through your posturing. Stop trying to use your Religion as an excuse to discriminate against and hate things you don't like or don't understand.

You clearly don't know what scripture actually says. Before you accuse people of simply being discriminatory, actually KNOW what the word of God says. You said yourself you THOUGHT my God was the only one to judge. Well... Your right and wrong. It depends on the context of the word judgement. One being to sentence someone. As in sentencing someone to hell. Only God can do that. In another context we are told to judge according to his word! Meaning to use righteous discretion to guide and correct not only yourself, but those who go astray. So, because I'm not sentencing anyone to hell, I'm doing EXACTLY what his word tells me to do when I attempt to share the truth of Gods word with them and point out where they have fallen. And I fully expect other Christians to judge and correct me when I go astray from the scripture.

You are told to discern which people you spend your time with, and what things you should and should not do in your life according to God's law. 

However, the law in question HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SCRIPTURES. It basically says: The state of Kentucky will recognize the contract made between two people who agree to a civil partnership with each other in the eyes of the state so that they can apply for their taxes and insurance in a certain way that provides them some benefits because they are attempting to manage their FINANCES and the BUSINESS side of being an adult together. 

Within the realm of the law it is inconsequential what those two people do in their bedrooms or who they do it with. So long as the put the right numbers on the bill for the insurance co, and send the right amount of their taxes to the IRS when they're supposed to. 

Are we not going to talk about the lady with the iPad?

Seriously, how annoying is that shit

WOW!  I am glad GOD is in control and not me!

Bryce I assume that you read Aramaic and Ancient Greek because that is what the bible was written in. If you are reading the English how can you can properly judge?

I am so glad that someone brought that thought up.  The Bible was written in a language and dialect that no one living today speaks.  Ergo, the person/people that translated that language into English, Greek, Spanish etc.  are relying on what they "think" it says.  This is proven by looking at two different versions of the Bible.  Look at the passage in Leviticus from the Gideon Bible and the same passage in the King James Version of the Bible. Secondarily,You cannot quote Leviticus to justify the supposed sin of Homosexuality.  Paul releases us from the laws of the old testament in Galatians.  

Actually YES I do know the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic. Had to learn it as a religious studies major in college. It's all there. All you have to do is read it. Everyone here is taking their own little verses out of context and making it whatever they want it to be. But it doesn't work that way. You can't take an individual verse. You have to take an entire passage as a whole and break it down to its original meaning and original context. And YES WE are to judge and use wise judgement. The term "judge" that all of these people are using means to cast down a sentence as in sentencing someone to hell. Yet the actual judgement we are commanded to use means to use righteous discretion by way of the holy written word of God to guide and correct not only ourselves, but others who go astray. Don't try to get all smart. You aren't the only person in the workday who knows the original languages of the Bible. In fact I would venture to say there are people out there who have a whole lot more knowledge of it than you. I for one have a masters degree in it. How about you??

It's not the written word of God, you ignoramus. God didn't write the Bible. Men, kings, and women wrote the Bible, all at different times and with different agendas, and all in language's we no longer have a grasp of. The purpose of which was to control man, including a combination of old Gods and beliefs.... like the use of the Sun God to name the supposed Lord's Day....Sunday. You're not the only one who has studied. I for one believe the true man, Jesus, would strike you down for twisting his teachings into something you can use to 'righteously' judge and actively hate the children (all of us sinners) that he loved so much.

Clearly you're fully versed in at least one version of Biblical interpretation and history - Great work! Getting your Master's is hard!! I know from experience. 

I suggest you also further your studies in constitutional law. Particularly the areas having to do with the separation of Church and State. 

If your knowledge of those things was even half as good as your (biased) knowledge of the Bible, you would probably have a much better grasp of the point of this conversation. 

The most interesting thing about religion, in it's MANY forms is ALL religions believe they are breaking down the Bible to it's original meaning AND content.  How exactly do you do that?  Personally, I think if it was that simple, every religion would ultimately end up on the same path.  They would AGREE.  We have at least 100 different kinds of Baptists, tons of Pentecostals, Methodists, Episcopalians, Catholics (they have at least 150 different sects of catholicism,  Presbyterians (about 100 different types of these),  Amish, mennonites, Pietists, Charismatics, Quakers, Latter Day Saints, Mormons, Unitarians -- you get the idea.  So, OBVIOUSLY, breaking down the Bible to it's original meaning and content is not a simple task.  Clearly 100 different sects of Baptists can't even agree, let alone all the others.  Your assertion, Bryce, that ANYONE can accurately interpret the bible, be it in Armenian, Greek, or any of the other 2,000 translations, is nonsense.

Sounds like a waste of your time. You could have given your money to the poor, and then renounced your worldly possessions and traveled the world helping others... just as you are called to walk in Jesus' footsteps...

Instead you pretend to speak dead languages and flash a piece of paper on the internet science and secularism produced for you.

Your welcome, have fun living a lie of your own creation.

I am a Christian, and it makes me sad to think I am lumped together with all other Christians who seem to think it is our job to lay judgment on people here on earth. As far as I remember, God said NOT to judge. God commanded us to LOVE. LOVE our neighbors, not judge them. Leave the judgment to the Lord, and simply love everyone. Feel free to pray for them if you feel you must, to "change" them into what you perceive is a better person. If you are that type of person, I will pray for you to have a more open heart and mind. It is not up to the followers of Christ to judge others, it is up to us to love others as much as we can, serve others as often as we can, and give as much as we can. See with eyes of love =)

I hope we can be lumped into that group of all people who care for our fellow men & women. It' not what others think of us any way.

Thank you Stephanie for being a TRUE CHRISTIAN. I hope other "Christians" will realize that.

Stephanie, you ARE the real thing.  You have in a few sentences outlined everything that is right about the teachings of Jesus Christ and everything that is wrong with the modern-day church. Thank you.

How can you be a TRUE Christian and have such a misunderstanding of the concept of judgment? In fact scripture tells us we ARE supposed to judge. First that we not judge "wrongly," second that we first judge ourselves, and third that we judge righteously according to his WORD, not our feelings, thoughts, ideas, etc. If what YOU are saying is true, it would completely negate the great commission of spreading the gospel to the world. Because we would just love love love, and accept everyone for everything they do, never showing them the light of TRUTH, that by their actions they live in sin uncovered by the blood of Christ. Now, yes we ALL sin and fall short of the glory of God. BUT for those who believe, they are covered by the blood of the lamb and bound by their faith to spread the gospel at all costs, judging righteously so that the TRUTH shall be known among the nations. Now, this doesn't mean we are supposed to hate those people, we are still to love them. But we should love them soooo much that we show them their sin, tell them of the ungodly path they are on, and show them the way to the father and heaven. You talk so much about love, but which shows more love?.... That you just love them enough to not "judge" them and let them live in sin and go to hell?? Or that you love them so much that you do judge their actions against the word of God and show them the way to heaven and eternity with God the father?? Sounds to me like option two is REAL love.


You are so right Bryce!  Thank you for accurately and lovingly representing the truth in the Word.  

As a side note, whenever I see people referring to shellfish and mixed fiber clothing, it just shows how careless their reading of the Bible is!  There are laws given to all people and there are laws given specifically to the people of Israel and some even more specifically people in special roles within Israel (priests, kings etc.).  There is no general command to the whole world to not eat shellfish!  But there are incumbencies of moral laws in all areas - sexuality being one.  

Lastly, as people who believe in the Bible we are people who above all believe in the God who gave us the Bible.  He gave it to us for our GOOD because he LOVES us.  His ways are higher than our ways.  Why have we replaced His word with our own 

I hope you are considering *all* of Scripture and not just those parts that seem to support what you might find uncomfortable.   I'm endlessly amazed at how so many legalistic "christians" feel it is appropriate and godly to only pull out parts of what they *think* is the Law ....and nearly always when sexuality is involved...but other times, they're not at all concerned about what they perceive God's "word" to be.  That in itself is sinful--i.e., claiming to understand God's word about homosexuality but not following the Law to the letter....especially when doing so would cost them something.  Such as following all of the old "Holiness" code and being equally concerned about eating shellfish, wearing mixed fiber clothing, etc.  No...that's "different," in the mind of a legalist, although having that perspective is sort of like announcing to the world, "God...I believe what I think you are saying about homosexuality, but for other parts of the Law...I think you are lying."    Legalists seem, again, magnificently obsessed with genital sexuality.  And worst of all...if they truly believed the gospel...their message, their perspective would be one of compassion rather than judgment.   As an LGBT Christian, I shudder to think of all the obstacles to Christ that legalists and hard-core fundamentalists create.   If you are struggling with reconciling your orientation and sexuality, pay no attention to that far-right crew.  They don't have a clue. 

Someone else in Judeo-Christian theology had trouble with the loving thing. Someone else thought humanity was too flawed to love. Who was that? Larry, Lenny... Oh yeah, Lucifer. I hear he's got a religion, maybe you'd be happier there.

Does part of that judgment you believe you are entitled to allow you to determine who a quote "TRUE Christian" is? I wasn't aware that you had access to the book of life. Fascinating. 

We can show them "the light" as you say, but true judgment doesn't belong to us. I said we are here to love. That doesn't mean to blindly agree with everything everyone does, you have heard of such a thing as "love the sinner, not the sin", haven't you? Loving people doesn't mean loving their sin, but it DOES mean not pushing our nose into what is NOT our business. What happens behind closed doors is not for public knowledge, for any couple. It should not matter if they are gay or straight to us. Yes, it matters to God. Last I knew, none of us are God. We can show them the way, but hate and judgment should not ever enter the equation.

I think Bryce did an excellent job stating his position. But you ended your response once again talking about judgment and hate. That's not where Bryce was coming from. Also, I agree, sexual practices are none of our business, but the gay community MAKES IT our business when they come into the public arena and start changing laws. Don't forget that this is sin. An alcoholic can also get as drunk as they want when in their own home, but if they then try to legislate laws that allow them to be drunk in public, drunk at work, drunk while driving, then other citizens have every right to stand up and say, "hey, that's not right!"

Uhmmm... Jake... Have you ever read the Constitution? Last time I checked there was this crazy thing called the separation of Church and State which meant that religious beliefs have no business dictating laws. Gay marriage being a "sin" is a purely religious thing; ergo, it should not have any place in the body of laws governing our nation. Alcoholism has no religious associations which is why it is okay to have laws dictating when and where it is acceptable. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Oh Katie and Steph. I'm sorry your public education has failed you. It's too bad your version of "separation of church and state" which ISN'T in the constitution by the way, means exactly the opposite of what you think it means. The original pilgrims to America were leaving England because of religious persecution. They wanted the FREEDOM to practice their faith in private AND in public without legal recourse. The King, with a corrupt church in his back pocket, wasn't allowing that. 

Jefferson's idea of a wall of separation, was not to keep religion OUT of the public square, it was to keep government out of faith's domain entirely. In other words, faith can absolutely effect government matters, but the government can't make dictates about faith. 

Now, hundreds of years later, I certainly understand that in a melting pot society, we are a far cry from the Puritan-era mindset. But we were established and always have been a nation of laws, and laws that originally reflected Judeo-Christian values. 

It's absolutely short-sighted and incredibly arrogant to think that we have "evolved" in the last 30 or 40 years, and now need to undo thousands of years of marital tradition. 

I say, let the civil unions be changed to reflect whatever tax breaks homosexuals want to have in their relationships and leave marriage alone. Seems like a win-win. But don't hijack marriage and redefine it to suit your aberrant behavior. What you're really asking society to do is legitimize your behavior, to tell you homosexuality is PERFECTLY NORMAL, which, of course, it isn't.

1. Constitutional law equals BOTH the dictates within the Constitution AS WELL AS precedents and legal decisions regarding whether or not a given law conforms to the rules set forth within the Constitution. 

2. It is you who are mistaken, sir, and I am so very sorry to see such a sharp, agile mind so fooled by religious bias. Jefferson and the founding fathers were intelligent enough to have said "separation" when they meant "separation" and "one-way-road" when they meant that. They were also intelligent enough to understand that while they were Christians escaping religious persecution, they wanted to create a place where people of ANY religion could escape religious persecution at the hands of self-proclaimed, divinely-entitled tyrants. 

A number of the founding fathers even wrote about tolerance and inclusion for those of the Muslim faith back then

3. The situation you describe regarding civil unions is exactly  what is occurring. Thank you so much for your permission. The legal definition of the contract commonly described as "marriage" in lay terminology, is being changed slightly to include homosexual people in the tax, insurance, etc benefits that other couples in this same binding contract enjoy. That is not the scope of your (or anyone's CHURCH). 

This law has NO BEARING on what you or ANYONE thinks or believes about the definition of a "marriage" before the eyes of God - which is what an authority in your (or any) church would be presiding over. Your church authority does not have to perform marriages for same-sex couples. That is not the scope of the GOVERNMENT over your (or anyone's) CHURCH. 

While it is convenient for ordained people to also gain the authority to preside over the civil side of holy unions in a religious place or among a group of religious people, that is not the only "legal" path to what people commonly call "marriage." 

Finally, "normal" is a completely useless statistical term in this particular conversation that you either already DO know better than to use, or you should. "Normal" merely means that a statistical majority of a group exhibits a certain behavior, carries a certain gene, expresses a certain symptom, etc. etc. 

However, by this definition, worldwide, it is "aberrant behavior" to practice Christianity - since less than 32% of the population of the entire world practices it. 

Since people who are attracted to their own gender account for about 20% of the population, it is clear that while not the most common expression of human sexuality, homosexuality is certainly not outside the realm of normal human sexual expression. 

There is also plenty of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom, and many years' worth of documentation about it. 

I am all for religions of all faiths, and certainly this is a freedom set up by the founding fathers as well. I agree. I also agree about the freedom from religious persecution. I completely disagree about your assessment of marriage versus civil unions. The gay community should lobby HARD for equal protections within civil unions. They should not hijack traditional marriage.

And I completely disagree about your assessment of "normal." First of all, the homosexual community always inflates its membership. Back in the 80's, their big claim was 10% of the world was gay. Extensive studies in the 80's showed that number to be about 1%. Now suddenly, 30 years later, your statistic is 20%???  HIGHLY DOUBTFUL. You would be lucky if it was at 5%. Granted, the loudest 5% lobby known to mankind. Secondly, the anus is not, never has been, nor never will be an intended receptacle for the penis. Seamen actually breaks down the protective lining in the anus, as does the thrusting. The sphincter muscle is not designed for that kind of stretching. Prolonged anal sex has proven to cause many heath problems for those that engage in it on a regular basis. You just can't justify such physical damaging action as "normal." It's not immediately a physical issue with women, more of a mental and emotional abnormality. I have never, and I truly mean this, NEVER met a lesbian who wasn't a lesbian for OBVIOUS reasons once I started talking to her. Her daddy or mommy issues were pretty severe, or there was abuse. This is extremely well documented in research, by the way.

Lastly, I've seen others on this blog up the ante with how rampant homosexuality is in the animal kingdom. Really??? Next time you see two giraffes doing each other in the but, snap a photo for me.

No, you aren't. You are for your religion. That's abundantly clear when you try to exert your religious belief on secular law.  Marriage is a secular right administered by the states. It does not require religion at all. Period. None. Zilch, nada. As for "traditional" marriage, that is an inaccurate term. "Traditional" marriage is VERY different from the marriage of today. Today's concept of a romantic union is NOT what "traditional" marriage was. We know this. There is no hijacking going on here. That's your opinion. Giving a secular, civil right to all who deserve it by virtue of birth (that's all it is, you see. You didn't EARN your right to marriage any more than anyone else did. You were born in a country that GAVE that right to you.)  is simply mending a Constitutional issue.

How about your "hijacking" of the term "normal." Normal means "common", not "correct".   Quite frankly, if you're going to try to condemn GLBT persons for anal sex, you might want to try condemning the millions of heterosexuals (male and female) who engage in it first.  Stop trying to justify your "ick" factor regarding anal sex by saying it's not designed that way. I guarantee you, hets do it too and have no issue with it. In fact, EVERYTHING GLBT persons do in the bedroom, hets do as well.  It's none of your business who does what, nor can you justify denying civil rights to GLBT persons because you don't agree with their sexual practices, no matter what health concerns (please, sex is messy and dangerous no matter WHO is doing what if you don't take precautions or have care when you engage in it.) you believe come along with it. Just because your so-called experience with lesbians doesn't lend you insight doesn't mean there isn't any.  Saying there are "obvious reasons" is just ignorant and biased. Have you met every lesbian? No? Then you don't know jack. As to the "research" you cite, it's already been debunked. Here's how:  The very conservative estimate is that 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men are sexually abused before the age of 18.  (one thing to note is that there is also a large percentage of abuse victims that NEVER report the abuse, so those numbers are likely low.)   There is NO causal relationship between sexual abuse and a change in sexuality.  NONE. If there were, there would EASILY be a HUGE jump in the numbers of GLBT persons in our population. There isn't. It has remained essentially consistent.  When you look at that "research", you need to pay careful attention to the methodology of the reporting, the recruiting for the study, the method of categorization, the methods of comparison and the method for drawing conclusions.

If you want pictures of male giraffes mating, google it. You'll find it. In fact, if you google homosexuality(and bisexuality) in animals, you'll find numerous examples of observed research, including lifelong pair-bonding. Penguins, giraffes, leopard seals, many different birds, elephants, many more examples would you like?

You are incorrect.  Coming into the public arena and changing laws doesn't make it your business if your issue is with religion.  They are fighting for HUMAN RIGHTS.  Nobody gives a damn about your religion.  That is why there is a separation of church and state.  If laws were supposed to be reflective of religion, gay marriage wouldn't be the only thing that was banned.  You made alcohol into an argument.  It is legal to purchase and consume alcohol, but illegal to be drunk in public.  With that logic, it should be legal for homosexuals to get married but illegal for them to have sex in public.  I'm cool with that, as should everyone else.  Really, though, this shouldn't even be an argument.  Period.  Religion has NO PLACE in our government.  

Reminder--The straight community legislates their public sexuality through 'titty bars' and porno theaters and brothels and divorce. They've been publicly displaying this sexual morality for many, many years. 

Excellent comment.  Says it all!!  Thanks

Thank you for this post. I wish more of my fellow Christians loved as Christ loved. God bless you!

Silly cunt with the IPAD in the right corner,..gahh!

Seriously? Sure it is annoying, but who are you trying to impress talking like that? I find it particularly ironic and disappointing to see this comment on an article about stopping discrimination. 

Isn't there supposed to be seperation of Church and State?  That is all I hear from those that are against gay marriage.  It's in the bible.  I do not see that as the seperation at all.  And those that say gay marriage will lessen their marriage, that statement makes me think that you have more problems in your marriage than you care to admit and want to blame others.  Do I care what you do behind closed doors?  NO.  Why should you care what anyone else does, as long as it is not hurting you, or anyone else.  The challenges to this is going to go on for years and will cost the taxpayers lots of money.  Isn't there more important things to spend that money on?  Like our schools, jobs, helping those less fortunate?  I guess not.  Sad state we live in now days.  

Equal rights, not special rights. 

How are equal rights the same as special rights?  The right to marry (and, since SCOTUS deemed marriage a "fundamental right" in Loving v. Virginia, it IS a civil right.)....Hmmm, sounds like equality to me.  The right to be judged on one's skillset and abilities instead of sexuality (which has ZERO to do with ability)? Hmm, yep, equality again.  The right to not be personally or physically harmed because someone targeted a person specifically because of perceived or actual sexuality?  Yep, we're back to equality. The right to the same employment, financial, housing and family benefits as everyone else? Ditto, equality.  The right not to be discriminated against in the public business arena? EQUALITY.   The only people demanding special rights are the ones who state they must be allowed to discriminate in the public arena against GLBT persons because of their "religious" beliefs. Sorry, that didn't hold up to legal scrutiny when it came to segregation and anti-miscegenation laws either.  Yeah, they did the same "religious" belief BS too, stating it was their religious right to deny service, deny access, persecute and discriminate against persons of other races.  They don't like that ugly fact being publicized, do they?  Makes them look ignorant and backwards.  Kind of like they do now.

Okay, Phoenix--back up cowboy. Your SCOTUS decision is the most recent. Wasn't that way for centuries. And hey, when your a leftist liberal stacking the Supreme Court deck and then we stop with our checks and balances and actually let the courts legislate from the bench--then yeah, you get your little SCOTUS fiasco. Makes no difference what this anti-religious court presses into law. If they're on the wrong side of truth, they're still wrong. Furthermore, you swallowed the left rhetoric pill that has made you believe anti gay marriage laws or rights of conscious laws means all the myriad examples you gave in your post about equality. There is nothing proposed or on the books that says anything about refusing homosexuals work, service, basic needs, literally ANYTHING in life that another person  deserves--EXCEPT--recognized, legal marriage. It's all about, and always has been about--MARRIAGE. So stop conflating the argument with all this extra-discriminatory language and assumptions that aren't even part of the argument. Most states already give what homosexuals want in relationship through civil unions. They've already even the playing field!! So why does this continue to be an issue???  Because the far left and the militant homosexual agenda is about tearing down any semblance of moral law, tearing down specifically Christianity. It's part of a religious war, and it's arguments like yours, repeated ad nauseam in every type of media, by every leftist politician, that gets the rest of the brain dead in America following like sheep, before they even stop to think and ask themselves, "will any of this have consequences." So...thanks for parroting your favorite shepherds. That's certainly your right. I just follow and listen to a different Shepherd. I find he's pretty trustworthy too--knows a lot more than mankind--you know---since he's the Creator of the Universe and all that is in it.

Well, if you wanna go back centuries, how about we talk about how marriage wasn't a religious sacrament at ALL. It was a LEGAL (for the time period), civil agreement meant to confer property (including young girls as property), make financial agreements and to bring tribes together.    The SCOTUS has been stacked to either side many times, so that's just bogus, "conservative" whining because you aren't getting the ability to discriminate legally anymore.  What you're not understanding is that marriage is just the piece that brings it all together. When you can no longer deny a minority their rights, you can no longer stack that deck in your (unequal) favor.  Interracial marriage was just a cap on the whole of the civil rights movement.  Have you been fired for being het or xstian?  Have you/your spouse been denied health benefits because you were het? Have you been physically attacked because you're het? Were you EVER denied housing because you're het?  Not likely. But I know a significant number of people who were fired, denied housing, denied marriage, denied the ability to protect themselves and denied health care because of being GLBT.

Marriage confers financial and property rights, medical benefits (in most cases), protection for their families, etc.  This isn't just about marriage, however.  When marriage is given to ALL equally, the rest of the discriminatory BS will continue to fall like dominoes as well.  Why do you think these morons are desperately scrambling to enact "religious protection" (read: legislated bigotry) laws that they KNOW are patently unconstitutional?

There is a difference between "moral" law and civil law. This is something you could REALLY benefit from here:  "Moral" law is NOT absolute, nor is is applicable to those who do NOT believe in your religion. CIVIL law IS applicable to all and to do so justly, MUST be entrenched in equality. Xstianity is just one of thousands of belief systems and it is not just to give it any supremacy over any other in the public realm. What you do in your own  home (provided you don't harm someone else through it.  I mean, you realize xstians used to sacrifice children, right?) is mostly your own business. What you do in the public aspect of society affects the whole. That means your rights end at the tip of your nose. When it begins to affect someone else, particularly a minority, whether by orientation, race, religion, gender, etc. is when you don't get to do whatever you want.

As to your completely fallacious statement that " Most states already give what homosexuals want in relationship through civil unions,"  I can assure you, you are incorrect. It does NOT give the same rights, responsibilities or benefits as civil marriage. THAT is what GLBT couples want, exactly what they are due.

Christians tried to use their religion against black persons, using just about the same, exact arguments you're trying to put forth as some sort of truth. (It's not, it's just your opinion.)  You lost that BS argument too.  You don't want your beliefs torn down? Stop using it to tear down others.

Christians never sacrificed their children. Have no idea where that came from. Again, if civil unions AREN'T giving tax breaks, and other statuses to homosexuals, then they should. That doesn't bother me. Just don't hijack the institution of marriage and try to legitimize aberrant sexual behavior. What the LGBT community desperately wants is for everyone else to recognize that their sexual practices and behaviors are perfectly normal. But they're not. 

There may be a thousand different religions out there Phoenix, but I guarrantee you, Christianity stands alone as the only uniquely true. Which means, morals DO have absolutes. It doesn't matter if you believe it or not. You don't have to believe 2 + 2 is four. You can NOT believe that with all your heart; it doesn't stop it from being true. Most people can sincerely believe in something all they want, to the "bottom of their hearts" and if it's false, all they are is sincerely wrong. 

I am keeping this argument to MARRIAGE. Gays and lesbians shouldn't be denied housing, jobs, protection, etc. But Christian businesses that participate in marriage activities should also be protected to NOT participate. That is their right. Period. 

As to your point about marriage and women as property, etc. Guess what--that was OUTSIDE the realm of Judaism and Christianity. Those were the unbelieving pagan nations that USED marriage that way. You know who was the ultimate emancipator of women? Christ. Do you know what organized religion did more for blacks and more for women? Christianity. Sorry to break it to you, Phoenix, but with out Jesus and without Christianity, most of the freedoms and the moral truths that exist in our world today, wouldn't even be here. 

Sorry, but those are the facts.

You're incorrect.  You obviously haven't even read your bible.  Try again, then try to tell me xstians didn't sacrifice their children. Heck, just google it. The examples are there.

There is no "hijacking" here. That's what you willingly choose not to understand. Marriage for GLBT persons has existed in the past and the current definition of marriage is VERY new, relatively speaking.  Even in your bible, men took many wives, women were essentially property and concubines were not at all unusual.  Marriage was not about romance or love at ALL. Marriage was a legal arrangement, EVEN when it came about in the bible.  The idea of marriage PREDATES xstianity.  My own culture included GLBT marriage, BEFORE xstians came along.

Xstianity has proven to be no more or no less true than any other religion. That it's your religion is fine, but that doesn't make it applicable to anyone, except you or others that believe in it and then, it's only applicable in the private arena. Morality is relative, not absolute, or ALL religions would be exactly the same.  There are hundreds of sects of xstianity....even YOU guys can't agree on what you believe.   You have no right to try to force your beliefs on anyone.  That's a fact.

Sexual orientation, whether it's homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality is not "aberrant". That's your opinion, not a fact.  Let me reiterate: Your opinions are NOT fact.  You are also misusing the term "normal".  Normal simply means common. It does NOT mean "correct".

Your word salad about belief has only one glimmer of truth:  Just because YOU believe something to be true, does not mean it is.  "Belief" and "truth" are often mutually exclusive concepts when we talk about religion.  Science disagrees with you regarding sexuality.

Ok, let's talk about marriage in the realm of xstian businesses.  When interracial marriage was being prevented by anti-miscegenation laws, xstians put forth the same argument against serving interracial couples as they do now to GLBT couples.  (They did the same thing for black persons in general, but we're staying with the concept of marriage at the moment.)  The xstians lost that argument because they were in a business open to the PUBLIC, which means they are subject to the SECULAR laws, NOT religious laws. If they want to abide by religious tenets of their faith, then they should not open businesses open to the public. You are not permitted to discriminate if you operate a business open to the public, as it should be.

How about a little honesty from you? Xstians have tried to swing their religion around like a bat to try to justify their discriminatory practices throughout history.  This is the reason much of the xstian church is morphing towards spirituality than dogmatic readings of the bible. Even Pope Francis has stated it is not his job to judge, particularly on this topic.   Your credibility is certainly not higher than the Pope's, unless you think you're better than the Pope.  Do you?  If you do, I think you might want to read the bible's passages on humility.

Xstianity did little for women, blacks or any other minority (including other religions) they've attempted to oppress first. Jesus himself certainly had an enlightened attitude, but his followers? Not so much.  How about the Crusades? Nothing but a poorly executed land grab attempt.  The Inquisition?  That gave the church the ability to declare heresy (where it wasn't), murder said heretics and steal their land and property, thus increasing the church's wealth and status substantially.  How about the Salem Witch Trials? Women were the majority of accused victims there. What about numerous accounts of exploitation by missionaries "in the name of god"?  Or anti-Semitism led by the church? Anti-miscegenation laws were LED through the legislature by xstians.   Slavery was advocated by the bible and xstians glommed onto this in the south.  Suffrage was opposed by MANY xstians and they used the bible to attempt to explain a "woman's place."  Women and very young girls were GIVEN to older men without choice in the bible. This happens over and over again in our history and you're trying to do it again here by attempting to legitimize your bigotry by claiming marriage as a solely religious sacrament when it clearly is not.  Atheists can marry.  No god required. Mixed races can marry, mixed religions can marry, etc.  Therefore, your religion is NOT a requirement or necessity for marriage.

THOSE are the facts.

All these religious arguments. There are a lot of people who need to actually read the Constitution. Legal marriage is not the same thing as religious marriage. No one is arguing that a church should be forced to marry gays. 

I'll say it again: Religious marriage is not the same thing as legal marriage. Homosexuals are only trying to get equal access to the legal marriage, and the ensuing benefits (tax breaks, insurance, visitation rights in hospitals, etc). 

In other words, if your argument against gay marriage involves the Bible, or God or Christianity, then your argument is automatically invalid. Read the Constitution.

No they are trying to redefine marriage. They are trying to legally normalize their behavior. It would be the ultimate moral coup, to have on the books, a law that says, "look, this sexual thing I do that goes completely against nature and completely against God's design, is heretofore considered perfectly normal." THAT'S what they want. They have most of the tax breaks and everything else through civil unions. If that's not enough or if that's not equal, then they should fight to get the civil union perks up to the level of the marriage perks. I would be completely fine with that. But let's please stop this nonsense about trying to legislate deviant morality. And stop splitting hairs about religious versus legal marriage. It's an institution that was created by God. It started out connected to God's design for mankind. But it's so intrinsic and natural to life, that you don't even need to know God, to understand the compelling desire to be married. It's incredibly instinctual and natural. It's also excellent for society. Healthy marriages help a society thrive. For MILLENNIA marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between a man and a woman.  And you're saying we've had it all wrong and it's in the last 20 to 30 years that we now need to change all the rules? Progress??? Or maybe the most glaring and arrogant move in the face of historical tradition??

"Marriage is an institution that was created by God".  Yeah, if you mean the Babylonian God or any number of other gods before Judaism and Monotheism came along, as marriage long precedes both of those institutions.  Maybe your Christian God coopted it but he didnt invent it, thats for sure.   And you frown on Muslims because they sometimes practice polygamy, yet that was the definition that almost all the Old testament fathers observed.  And by the way, I seem to remember Jesus banning divorce in his version of marriage pretty clearly in almost every book of the new testament.  Paul finds some exceptions but they are still pretty narrow and not what most protestants observe.  So which version of marriage is the one God invented again?  The Hebrew version with polygamy and divorce included or the Jesus one with it considered adultery?  How convenient that you ignore the teachings of Jesus on marriage because it might affect your life and limit your choices, but yet seek to enforce select passages from Leviticus because you dont like it.  Atleast Catholics aren't hypocrites on this matter.  Im sure youll have some justification for it, some passage that make you feel better about your bigotry but its just an excuse to have the Bible mean what you want it to, not what it says.  

Tony, stop drinking. NOW. You're not making any sense whatsoever. Biblical belief in marriage starts with Genesis. And if Genesis introduces us to the first man and woman, that God joins together in marriage, then guess what. Marriage under God came first FROM God. No co-opting, as you suggest. Also, Judaism is very pro-marriage, but Moses ALLOWED for a certificate of divorce because he knew how hard the hearts were of mankind. Jesus says this much in Matthew. God HATES divorce, but humans are humans and sin abounds. Divorce is never the will of God. Adultery is never the will of God. We are always supposed to keep "the marriage bed pure." So, to answer your question about the version of marriage God invented--it's pretty straight forward--but listen, I'll say it REALLY SIMPLE for you, because I want to make sure even your inebriation won't get in the way of you getting this. God invented a marriage contract between one man and one woman that was never to be defiled by adultery and never to be ended by divorce. All of mankind is held to this standard. Quite a few don't, because man is fallen and fallible. Homosexuality, is SO FAR OUT OF BOUNDS of what marriage is intended to be--it's not even worth gathering the tome of evidence in the Bible against it. 

But back to my original point. Homosexuals should not co-opt marriage, just fight to get the same tax breaks etc, under civil unions. I think that's extremely reconciliatory for abnormal, aberrant behavior. 

I agree with this, my only issue then is why wasn't it enough to make EVERYONE'S (same-sex or not) "marriage" a CIVIL UNION? EVERYONE would legally be on the same plane with the same rights we all legally deserve. And it would allow the religious sector to still do their thing without using a term they deem sacred. Both sides win, yet no one wants to play it this way. If it were TRULY, 100% about having the same legal rights, this would work, but it isn't. I am Catholic and I don't have an issue with a homosexual couple getting the same legal/civil rights as I do in my heterosexual marriage. Legally we all have a civil union - what you do in your Church is up to you and none of my business.

The real difference here is that we do NOT all have a civil union (that's a specific title).  There are Civil Unions, Marriage (civil) and Holy Matrimony.  Civil Unions are UNEQUAL pacifications put forth by people who think they are Super Special and don't want to share the actual, legal and EQUAL terminology of Marriage.  Marriage is the ONLY status of these that confers the full governmental benefits, state and federal, to a couple.  Holy matrimony is the spiritual blessing conferred by the church, which has NO legal standing unless it is in conjunction with Marriage (civil).  One must be civilly married (I'm not sure how the whole "common law spouse" stuff works in different states) to have the full governmental benefits. This includes inheritance rights, rights to joint property, taxes, hospital visitation rights, etc.

What it seems to come down to is that those who believe GLBT persons shouldn't have the same civil right to Marriage simply aren't good at playing in the common sandbox together.

Like I said, then they can fight to get the civil union perks up the the level of the marriage perks. Fine with me. Just leave the institution of marriage alone.

The "institution of marriage" was actually NOT a religious sacrament at the beginning. It was a property arrangement, mutual protection (for tribes) arrangement.   Young girls were essentially sold, sans any choice of their own, to wealthier, older men in most cases.  Is that the grand institution to which you are referring? Holy matrimony IS a religious sacrament, marriage is not.

Civil marriage is already set up. Why try to create a second term for the exact same thing? That's stupid, wasteful and nothing more than the same "separate but equal" crap that didn't fly in the 50's and 60's.

He's right. Marriage as defined by government is a tax filing status. Marriage as defined by an insurance carrier is a benefit status. Marriage as defined by church is a sacrament. They all share the same name, but they are clearly different. A law passed can uhh impact the tax filing status marriage and the insurance benefit status marriage. It can do nothing for the sacrament marriage. A law based upon the first two definitions of marriage can only cause a financial disincentive to those not fitting the definition under law and that could, very readily be I tattered under law as descrimination.


Add new comment