What Would Jesus Say About Adam and Steve?

Jesus and gay marriageThere’s something about gays that bothers a lot of conservatives.  They may deny it but that something is that they’re gay.  And we can thank the Bible for that.

I thought about this after the recent Supreme Court decisions on gay marriage, which, you may have noted, did not go over well with many conservatives.

Let’s first acknowledge that reasonable people may disagree on gay marriage.  So supporters of same sex marriage need to be careful not to throw the word “bigot” around too loosely. After all, if opponents of gay marriage are automatically bigots then President Obama was a bigot.  Remember, he was against same sex marriage until he was for it.  And the same goes for Bill Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law — a law that effectively deemed the only marriage recognized by the federal government is between a man and a woman.

But let’s get back to my conservative friends, many of whom say the real debate is not about gay marriage so much as it is about states’ rights.  They don’t want to federal government deciding matters that should be left to the people in the states. I’m all for states’ rights, but not in all cases.  We didn’t let the states of the Deep South decide if blacks should be able to vote.  States can decide how much sales tax they can levy.  They can’t decide who can sit at the lunch counter and who can’t based on skin color.  Nothing is exactly the same as race in America, but to me, civil rights for gays is in the same ballpark as civil rights for blacks.

Another argument I’ve heard over and over again since the Supreme Court decisions is that gays should not be allowed to marry because the main purpose of marriage is pro-creation.  Frankly, I can’t understand how anyone with a modicum of intelligence can make this argument.  Have they thought about the heterosexual couples who are allowed to marry even though they don’t want to have children?  Have they thought about the young couples who are unable to have kids?  How about older men and women who want to marry but can no longer have children? Should we also put all of them into a special group that is not allowed to marry?

Then there’s the slippery slope argument.  If we allow gay marriage, this argument goes, then we’ll have to accept all sorts of other marriages.  What if Lenny wants to marry a goat?  All I can say is I’ll worry about that later.

Perhaps conservatives should consider the conservative argument for same sex marriage.  Yes, one exists.  Aren’t conservatives always telling us they favor commitment over random hook-ups? So let gays marry and be committed to each other.  Conservatives tell us they like personal responsibility.  So let gays marry and be responsible for each other, especially in times of need.  Let’s say a gay man is sick and the hospital costs are mounting.  Who do conservatives want to pay the bill – the marriage partner or the federal government, which they usually despise?

But for most conservative opponents of gay marriage these arguments don’t amount to much; they’re all distractions.  Because whether they acknowledge it or not, they’re against gay marriage for just one reason:  religion.

The Bible tells them that homosexuality is wrong and that’s enough for the true believers.  But no one is suggesting that the church perform, or in any way accept, gay marriage.  Why not let the state recognize same-sex marriage and let the church do whatever it wants?

Or better yet, why not drastically change the way we all look at marriage.  Let the government acknowledge only civil unions, for gays and straight couples.  And let the church or the synagogue or the mosque sanction only the kind of marriage they want.  If a particular religion believes homosexuality is a sin, that religion should not sanction homosexual marriage.  Pretty simple.

But religious conservatives will never accept this, because to them marriage is a holy sacrament and homosexuality is an abomination.  The two can never co-exist.  God, they believe, would never approve of any plan that puts gays and straights on the same legal footing.

There’s a lot of good to be said about religion.  People of faith do a lot of good things for poor people and others who need help.  But I’m afraid religion can also make people closed-minded; it can keep them locked in their old ways as the world around them moves forward.  It can make them forget that it was Jesus who aligned himself with those society shunned?  It was Jesus who was on the side of the “outcast.”  I wonder how Jesus would feel about a marriage between Adam and Steve.

The polls show that more and more younger people are accepting gay marriage and also rejecting religion (for many reasons besides same-sex marriage).  The Church knows this but won’t compromise on its principles.  Neither will the supporters of same-sex marriage.

On this issue, religious conservatives are on the wrong side of a very powerful force.  They are on the wrong side of history.  The French writer Victor Hugo said it best:  “All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come.”

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • Louise Atwood

    “God will surly punish us for allowing gay marriage!” Cry the Christians. Then Astronomers respond “Looks like another meteor hit Russia”- Wonder what they did to piss god off because it’s certainly not because they gave LGBT people equality.

  • Matt Davis

    You’ve just contradicted yourself. First you complain about too many unloved kids, then you say this means sex that doesn’t produce kids is immoral. This is pure nonsense.

    Two consenting adults who have sex but not children don’t cost you a penny or affect you in any way. There’s no way you can justify calling it immoral from a secular point of view. Really? Comparing harmless recreational sex to thievery?

    • Brian Fr Langley

      Unhappily harmless recreational sex leads to babies. Babies that are increasingly aborted by their mothers and abandoned by their (I was just having recreational sex) fathers. Since the single best indicator of poverty is a single parent family (some 76% of single mothers live in poverty) it cost us a lot more than a “penny”. Welfare, healthcare, myriad social programs, and worst of all, incarceration costs. (Children born to single mothers have far higher incarceration rates) Stats also show girls raised without fathers get pregnant at much younger ages, thus repeating the cycle. “Doesn’t cost a penny” Really?

      • Matt Davis

        You completely missed my point. I meant recreational sex with protection, or gay sex. Any sex that doesn’t result in children because it either can’t or because the couple are sensible about things. This can’t be immoral because it definitely doesn’t affect others.

        It’s a contradiction because you said sex that CAN’T produce kids and conflated that with unwanted children. I’m referring to your statement about sex outside a procreational union, including homosexuality. This cannot possibly result in kids, so the entire argument makes no sense.

        • Brian Fr Langley

          You’re obviously what’s called a “little picture” thinker. In the big picture a society that does not eschew sexual promiscuity, is a society that will overflow with abandoned children. The proof is easy to come by. Today nearly 50% of all American children are abandoned by their fathers. It has climbed precipitously now for some 50 years. A society proscribes illicit sex, for the same reason they may have mandatory seat belt laws, or mandatory motorcycle helmet laws, or like liberals desire gun control. While true, most motorcycle riders don’t cost the healthcare system billions of dollars in head injuries, the few that do, have caused most jurisdictions to mandate them.

  • Matt Davis

    Hate is taught, not natural. Most kids who’ve never seen a gay couple will understand it straight away and have no problem with it. How can you be so certain that a couple you’ve never met destroys children’s lives? I hope you manage to overcome this irrational hate.

  • Dave Rea

    You say “religious conservatives are on the wrong side of a very powerful force”. What force do you consider to be more powerful than God and His Word?

  • Bruce P. Majors

    Lots of the kids gays are raising were “manufactured” by heterosexual couples in Guam, Russia, China or the US and would be in orphanages for life or would starve to death if we left it up to the heterosexuals who claim to be Christians.

  • Bruce P. Majors

    So when the New Testament refers to sin it means Christians are bound by all 613 laws, including dietary laws, the ancient Jews were bound by. I think nonsense like this is why that guy is angry. People get fatigued responding to slack jawed idiots.

  • Bruce P. Majors

    Funny I went to college with a bunch of kids who were mainly Jewish and we all read and discussed the New Testament in a humanities class. And the injunctions against homosexuality are only in the Old Testament, the Hebrew bible, which Bernie may have read more closely than you ever have.

  • Bruce P. Majors

    It sure ain’t

  • Bruce P. Majors

    Perhaps most children are quicker on the uptake than you are?

  • Bruce P. Majors

    Impressive how you know what other people feel.

  • rumbelle

    I’d like to say my personal belief is that marriage is not about love between people. It’s about a man and a woman coming together under God and committing to each other and God. Also, about having children and raising them together, then teaching them the ways of God. Love just helps the process. Gays and Lesbians just can’t do this. I have nothing personal against them, but I also believe that Homosexuality is a sin and just like every other sin you can know its wrong and repent.

    • Bruce P. Majors

      And that’s why you should be free to go to a church that believes that and even free to only bake cakes for those types of weddings. And if you try to make your religious beliefs law and say other churches will not have their sacraments recognized by the law while yours will be you are establishing a church and violating the First Amendment.

    • Anthony

      The point that most resonated with me from this well written article, was that Civil Unions should be allowed under law, regardless of religious recognition of any type. As a Catholic heterosexual, I see this as both logical and ethical, as this is a legal question not a religious one.
      Rumbelle, how do you answer Mr Goldbergs argument that anyone who can not (or does not wish to) procreate may still legally marry under law?
      As for Jenn, you mask your hate in religious guises. You are both ignorant and offensive.

  • rumbelle

    Matthew 8:5-13

    New International Version (NIV)

    The Faith of the Centurion

    5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6 “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.”

    7 Jesus said to him, “Shall I come and heal him?”

    8 The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”

    10 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

    13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that moment.

  • gman213

    Jesus would….gee my son, that is an exit door why would you enter?

  • Guido Viviani

    Most demographic studies show; committed homosexuals at less than 1% of our total population. This isn’t about their rights, anymore than removing the Ten Commandments from a court house is about atheists’ rights, it’s about deteriorating the moral fabric of the Christian community.

    The media doesn’t dislike Tim Tebow, they hate what he represents.

    • brickman

      A 47.1 career completion percentage.

  • Cecil

    What would Jesusvsy – it has already said all that Christians need to hear: Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty arguments, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the disobedient. So do not be associated with them. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light. Ephesians chapter 4 & 5.

    So do not be associated with them – Christian choice. Enough said.

    Robert Williams

  • Julie

    What would Jesus say about Adam and Steve? He would probably say that the way people are condoning being gay, is that “they” don’t believe in Jesus, the Bible, or anything having to do with God, and so they are doing nothing wrong. As we near the end of all of this havoc on earth, I don’t feel sorry for myself, I truly feel sorry for the people who reject Jesus, who commit crimes, who think we will always have tomorrow…..I pray every day that the ones who have not seen the light, do so before it is too late.

    Julie

  • Evan Hamilton

    Yes, assume that, because Bernie is Jewish, he hasn’t read your holy book. Even though most of the prohibitions on homosexuality are in the Old Testament, which IS the holy book of his religion.

    • Bruce P. Majors

      This is apparently a dialogue of really illiterate self described Christians who don’t know their own scriptures.

  • Evan Hamilton

    Tell me, Jenn, what right do you have to tell me or anyone else that there is no love between me and my partner? Do you know us? No, you don’t. And you don’t care to get to know people like us, because you’ve already made up your mind about homosexuals. Before you make broad generalizations about a group of people, get to know them first. Maybe then, you’ll see that we’re humans just like you.

  • Forgiven Sinner

    Jesus loves people, but he hates sin, and the Bible plainly states homosexuality is sin. It also states that adultery, murder, theft, hate, lying, drunkenness, envy, dishonoring parents, idolatry, taking God’s name in vain, selfishness, jealousy, gossip, and on and on, is sin. Therefore, we are all sinners…and if Jesus hung out with humans, he hung out with sinners. The Bible also calls sinners to turn from their sin and ask God to forgive them, which he loves to do. God’s people, those who have received forgiveness, are commanded to help others turn away from sin and toward God, so they might be saved. And it doesn’t help at all when the government approves of and promotes more sin, a la homosexuality, abortion, sloth, hate, dissention, lying, and on and on. Finally, God created the world and all that is in it. It is beautiful, with evidence of divine creation everywhere. All of the problems in the world were caused by man, God’s crowning creation, because man wanted live without God, and most of humanity continues on without God. Read about all of it, in the Bible:)

    • Bruce P. Majors

      Actually only the old law forbids homosexuality to its adherents.

    • Matt Davis

      What about all the horrible things in the world? The parasitic worm that can only live in another creature’s eye. Volcanoes and tidal waves, earthquakes and plagues. Did your wonderful god create all these too?

      • Nanny

        God made everything perfect. It is sin that brought about the imperfection that is now in the world. He will cleanse the whole universe of sin (coming soon), and restore perfection to His universe.

        God is slow to anger but very quick to forgive any who repents. May you come to know His compassionate love for you.

        • Matt Davis

          I’m sorry, but “there’s no evidence for my existence, but if you don’t worship me anyway, even if you’re a very good person, you’re gonna fry forever” is not compassionate. It’s also not true. May you come to break free from the brainwashing and indoctrination soon.

          Any god that would create a hell and send good people there for using the brain he gave them rather than blindly accept hearsay as evidence of his existence is a tyrant and unworthy of worship. I’ve heard all the excuses but that’s all it is.

  • phreedm

    What would Jesus say? He’s already said it. Love your neighbor as yourself…and do not judge. There was a time in every Christian’s life when they were blind and could not see. Let us remember the Mercy and Grace that allowed us to see the Truth that set us free and shower each individual as a creation of God with that same Mercy and Grace. Then the world will know Who we belong to, and thirst for that kind of Love.

    • Guido Viviani

      Sounds like selective salvation. You can find a scripture to justify most of what you want, if you twist it enough. But, the bible is a collection of teachings to live by and a very specific requirement for salvation and nowhere does it justify or accept homosexual behavior.
      It doesn’t mean we love or help them any less. You hate what one does, not the person.

  • plsilverman

    now THAT is a step in the right direction!

  • Maroon

    I am really surprised at your comments about gay marriage. Some gay couples go to church so they must believe the Bible. Being gay is definitely condemned in the Bible. If anyone is a true Christian, he has to be opposed to gay marriage. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah ?? It was wrong then, and it is still wrong !! Ir is a sexual preference not a civil right. Gays have the same rights as the rest of us. They just want to change laws to cater to them and make them normal and they aren’t. They need to learn that the majority rules in our democracy not a minority !! I am tired of them trying to impose their evil lifestyle on the rest of us. They need to leave the U S if they don’t like our laws. I suggest that they go to Iran and other Arab countries where they kill gays !!

    • GailWehling

      AMEN—-I agree with you 100%. I believe the bible is the inspired word of God. Because of that I can’t not support gay marriage. God gave us “Freewill”. We can choose this day, whom we will serve. As for me, I will serve God!”

      • Matt Davis

        You can’t ban something in a pluralistic society simply because a religion disapproves of it. That would be establishing a religion and it would lead to theocracy. Any religion is free to do what it wants, but secular civil marriage is completely separate from religion.

    • Berkeley Transplant in AVL

      Your thoughts are despicable

      What kind of person(god help you) would spew such hatred

    • rumbelle

      True Christians should not hate gays. We should treat them as brothers and sisters. We should hate the sin in them as we hate the sin in us. When we do this it is easier to show them a loving and concerned God, and turn them from evil with repentance.

    • Bruce P. Majors

      Sodom and Gomorrah were cities where visitors were raped, in radical violation of the ancient world’s ethics of treating travelers respectfully.

    • Matt Davis

      Are they forcing you to be gay or have a gay marriage? Leave them alone. You really can’t see things from their point of view, can you? All they want is to not be spat upon and discriminated against. Majorities voting away the rights of a minority is disgusting. They don’t choose to be gay; they genuinely aren’t attracted to the opposite sex so just let them be.

  • delble

    “an idea whose time has come” metaphor is not the same as an idea that millions of people feel is an abomination being crammed down their throats. Gay marriage is a sexual preference, not a civil right and is in no way related to the civil rights movement of the ’60’s. Jesus would have marched in Selma, AL. While he would not condemn homosexuals, I don’t believe he would not have sanctioned their actions. I can’t see Jesus in a gay pride parade, however, he would have helped them. And what about the majority of Californians who VOTED not to have gay marriage. . twice? In a country whose founders wanted it ruled by the people, for the people, etc., the Supreme Court slammed the door on that idea.

    • rumbelle

      I believe Jesus would preach to them about the error of their ways during, before and after the Gay Parade, personally.

    • Matt Davis

      The majority voting against allowing a minority to do something that won’t affect them. Minority civil rights should never be put up to a vote. Look at history and what happened to other groups.

      When women got the vote, they didn’t redefine voting.

  • T N Tran

    The US President wishes the country and the whole world to be empty without any inhabitant exist on our planet, or rather turn our planet into “The Lonely Planet”, as we all agrees “Children Are The Future of Out Planet” and should not be punished just because of one selfish individuals pleasure, Obama has destroyed the “True” value of “Marriage Between Man and Woman”, I wonder why he bothered got married in the first place…..

    • plsilverman

      now, now, Mr. Obama Despiser….if Romney he would have had the same freaking mess to deal with. and he would have done exactly the same thing.

  • potemkin_village_usa

    Jesus would say, ‘leave it up to the states!.

  • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

    The law forbidding mixing different types of fibers; the law saying your cheeseburger and your ham sandwich are sins….

  • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

    If I go to a church that calls civil unions marriages, why does your government get to label it an inferior church, in violation of the establishment clause?

    • jq2intx

      I wonder what Government you are talking about, since this government and others have said that Christianity is to be removed from the public square. I don’t really care what church you go to, nor would I necessarily call it inferior. I might disagree with its tenets, and I would not attend its worship, but there is supposed to be freedom of religion in this country. Unless of course you actually follow the Holy Scriptures.

  • arkady967

    Interesting discussion (audio) on the nature of marriage -and the state’s interest in such matters: http://whatismarriagebook.com/

  • Bloviating Ignoramus

    How free? Free to pursue life liberty and happiness as the Declaration Of Independence states. As a secular society we are free to accept or reject anything in the Bible or any other religious text. And we have evolved to the point where we no longer view homosexuality as contagious, we no longer fear that a gay teacher will transmit gayness to children, and we reject ostracism of gays as persecution and institutionalized hatred. Spare me your sanctimonious televangelism bro. Just come out and say what you really want to say. That you hate homosexuals, and persecuting and tormenting them brightens up your empty life.

    • dave davies

      Mr. B. I.G., The gay lifestyle has never been acceptable. I don’t hate them personally. The lifestyle they are caught up in is what I feel is damaging to society. Just the idea of people becoming accepting of it is troubling. A downward spiral from what America has stood for. This is not racism, because they are not a race. It is not an unreasonable rejection because of the color of someone’s skin. It is a lifestyle, that however you are drawn to it, is wrong. There are many things that are socially unacceptable. Everyone knows that walking around unclothed is unacceptable. You may say you are hurting no one, but you will be rejected at the least if you do it. I am trying to use reasoning without the Bible, since you are somewhat biased against it. Christians aren’t a race, so I can’t claim racism. Perhaps you don’t actually hate us, but feel our lifestyle is damaging to the morals of America.

      • Bloviating Ignoramus

        I’m not biased at all against the Bible. I have the utmost respect for anyone who worships God, be they Christian or otherwise What I have no respect for is phony made for TV religion, used by right wing con artists as a vehicle to brainwash brain-dead voters into bestowing upon them the power they lust after. True religion is faith, and faith by definition comes from within, and cannot be imposed on others. Democracy and theocracy are mutually exclusive, as we are witnessing in Egypt. Everything you say now about gays was said about blacks just 40 years ago.

        • dave davies

          I still must say there is a huge difference between the racism against blacks, and the rejection of a deviant lifestyle. Gays are no more a race than drug abusers, or child abusers, yet all three of these will claim they have desires that predisposed them to their life choices.

          • Bloviating Ignoramus

            Fair enough. The difference is that gays, like blacks before them, have had to fight an uphill fight for their civil rights. Blacks made great strides in that fight in the ’60’s. Gays are just now making those strides. As are marijuana users who once were regarded as drug abusers. You seem to have a very narrow view of civil rights only applying along racial lines. Open your mind bro.

          • dave davies

            So, we must decide what exactly are the civil rights of people who break the law. Marijuana use has always been illegal until somehow we are now enlightened. You must decide if everything we are now enlightened with should still be illegal.

          • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

            Wrong. Drugs (and for that matter abortion) were legal until the mid 19th century in most states. Many common household remedies had cocaine in them and many household products were made from (now illegal) hemp.

          • Bloviating Ignoramus

            You are penalized for breaking the law, the penalty depending on what law you break. You do not forfeit your civil rights (except possibly the right to vote for felons). Regardless, in this day and age, knowing what we know now, there is no rational legal or moral basis for legal sanctions against gays except for haters to gratify their hatred and brighten up their empty lives.

          • dave davies

            I guess I will say it one last time. I do not hate gays. I think they are wrong, even fighting against God’s laws, but I have no hate for them. Bruce Majors said the new testament has nothing against homosexuality. I would invite him to look at Romans, first chapter verse 24 to the end of the chapter. Life is short, go ahead and roll the dice.

          • Bloviating Ignoramus

            I’ll have to take your word for it. Many right wingers do hate gays and use the Bible as a vehicle to launder their hatred. Others hate the sin and not the sinner. Either way, sin is a religious concept and cannot be used in a secular society as justification to deny civil rights to gays or anyone else.

          • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

            Yes clearly falling in love with someone who happens to be your same gender biologically is almost exactly the same as being addicted to heroin.

          • dave davies

            I am afraid I am trying to make sense to people with an entirely different understanding of morals. Without a belief in God or the Bible, you just make up your own rules and morals as you go. I am once more wasting my time.

  • Violet

    Bernie says – Another argument I’ve heard over and over again since the Supreme Court decisions is that gays should not be allowed to marry because the main purpose of marriage is pro-creation.

    THAT IS NOT A RELIGIOUS REASON!!!

    I think a man and a woman are biologically, psychologically, and
    socially different. Each has a unique and valuable role in raising and teaching
    their child. We should strive for a country where the rights and protection of
    our children and their dignity are our first concern. Even though it isn’t
    always possible and maybe it isn’t even frequent, our goal should be that every
    child is raised by a father and mother. I don’t think we should plan on having fatherless or motherless children intentionally.

    If government is worried about equal right then it should be worried about equal rights of children? Are the children choosing to be either fatherless or motherless the way the gay partners are choosing their spouses?

    • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

      Lesbians can easily have kids without a husband, though they may choose to involve men (brothers, friends, donor daddies) in the child’s life. So are you proposing taking away these children from their biological mothers? Outlawing gay marriage does not produce your desired effect of making sure every child has a mom and dad. Only outlawing lesbians (and other single women and men) from having babies, and forcing them to abort if they get pregnant, will do that.

      And what about all the kids around the world in orphanages or starving on streets. You are saying they are better off there than in a household with two parents. Which outlawing gay marriage also doesn’t ensure. You need to outlaw gay adoption. And also have a law stripping anyone who comes out later in life of any contact with children they have already had.

      • rumbelle

        In a Christian view the high number of orphans is actually due to another sin, having sex before marriage. This causes a child to be aborted by an unready mother (which is wrong) or be born into an unfit home and be put in orphanages or on the streets. So, in the end sin is still the problem.

        • Bruce P. Majors

          That is one Christian’s view then and a silly one. Poverty, death and misery are not created by God, they are part of nature humanity overcomes. Even the parable of the talents teaches that. Before the Industrial Revolution there were probably fewer orphans because over half of all children died before age 5. Whose sin is the cause of the “natural” state of infant mortality rates of over 50%? I can’t wait to hear your theology of women who die in childbirth. Or Christians martyred for being Christians.

    • Kathy

      Take a look on You Tube at Ravi Zacharias answer to acceptance of homosexuality in Christianity….

    • Bruce P. Majors

      Many gays who want to get married want to do it to make it easier to raise the children, adopted or biological, that they are already raising.

      Too many Christians spend too much time going to anti gay parades and posting on blogs, so gays have had to step in an adopt all the orphaned children on earth, as Jesus would have wanted them to do.

      You are welcome. Merry Christmas.

  • Mike M

    Isn’t homosexuality just part of the human condition? Aren’t they really just another minority group? Why does the majority always feel so threatened by minorities? Even other species engage in homosexual behaviors. Can’t a homosexual couple raise a child within a loving environment? If you see a homosexual couple showing affection to each other in public (say hand-holding) why does that make you uncomfortable or angry, but the same activity by a heterosexual couple doesn’t?

    • Violet

      Wishing for a society that supports the idea that every child should be procreated with plan of being raised by it’s own biological parents is not being threatened by minorities, it is being protective of our children. Can a single parent raise a child in a loving environment? Yes, but most people agree that the best environment for the child would be with a mother and father.

      • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

        But your society doesn’t support that. Kids are all over the place with one or no parents or bad parents. Gays, a teeny part of the population, mainly affect this at all by adopting abandoned kids heterosexuals and the church seem to have no time for.

        • rumbelle

          The right thing is something that if everybody did, then the world would be great. So is being Gay or Lesbian fit that description, No. of course True Christians don’t bash gays, but try to help them see the errors. Still its wrong, like all other sins. As in pre-marital sex, divorce, or harming of a child. Aka, the problems you stated above.

          • Bruce P. Majors

            That’s a bromide and you have to be able to think conceptually and rationally to apply it as a rule.

            If the right thing if for everyone to help an orphaned child if they are able to do so without destroying their own life, then the right thing is for gays as well as straights to adopt them. If the right thing is to commit yourself publicly to someone you love and want to share your life with then gays as well as straights should marry.

    • Berkeley Transplant in AVL

      Bravo to your remarks

      I stand with you

      What a contrast to the sick bigoted remarks from the majority of the Christians who spew hatred for others who are”different.from them

      Why do they threaten you?

      If this is what Christians think The US would be a much better place without them

  • AgentofACORN

    Bernie, you are right on the money here. Well done.

    • plsilverman

      shucks, I thought Obama defunded Acorn…..

  • Random_acct

    I’ve lost respect for Bernie.

    A few key points Bernie: most all married folks have children. Check the data on this…so don’t let the exception nullify the rule. Verstehen?

    Second, I’d rather be on the right side of truth than the right side of history.

    Third, everyone has a “religion”. So disregarding the religious beliefs of the three major religions of the world is a bigotry in action.

    • Bruce P. Majors

      The First Amendment prohibits establishing a church, not bigotry. I am free to be “prejudiced” against primitive irrational Christians and Moslems all I want.

  • Bob Hadley

    FYI, a marriage ceremony is not a legal wedding. You’re legally married after getting the required paperwork from the Dept. of Health and a licensed person and the couple being married signs the marriage papers. .The rest is for show and for memories.

    When I got married, the minister gave me the papers. He reminded me to bring them to the wedding, that I wouldn’t be married until they were signed and filed with the Dept. of Health.

    That the way it is in Hawaii. Possibly, it might be a little different in other states. But no one can be forced to perform a marriage ceremony.

  • john Illinois

    What the issue of “gay marriage” is doing is CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF A WORD! Marriage has always meant a man and a woman, as long as history has recognized marriage. “Gay” at one time, meant happy. IT doesn’t mean that anymore. There are people who are trying to change the meaning of “Bright”, too.

    • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

      Wrong. Gay couples, and sometimes their friends and families, have always thought of themselves as married. Sometimes this enters common parlance, as in the 19th century phrase “Boston marriage.” Only government definitions of the word are as you say. Should we start allowing it to define the word “parent” – as someone for instance who sends their kids to government schools?

      • rumbelle

        Wrong, Bruce, Marriage has always been a religious symbol and institution in all parts of the world. It consists of a man and woman. (except in some cultures where its one man and many wives.)

        • Bruce P. Majors

          No there are primitive people who have marriage and don’t have your ideas about religion. And there are people whose ideas about marriage are that it is one man and many women. And some of them say they worship the same deity you do.

  • Violet

    What about the equal protection of children! We protect them by striving to live in a society where it is the goal that children are produced by a loving heterosexual marriage and they will be raised by a father and a mother which each has a unique and valuable role in the child’s life.
    A marriage should be a safe and healthy place where procreation MAY take place (although not required).
    A single person or a homosexual couple is not equal to a heterosexual married couple because they are not able to provide a mother and a father to a child which is the best way to raise a child.
    Since a homosexual couple is not equal to a heterosexual couple they are not being discriminated against, just as we are not discriminating against males by telling them that they can not gestate and nurse a baby.

    • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

      So you will pass a law requiring single people or lesbian couples who become pregnant to abort? And to keep kids in orphanages from being adopted by anything other than a married heterosexual couple, even if no one ever takes them?

      • rumbelle

        Again with the whole abortion, Bruce. No one here is recommending abortion, but you. We suggest that lesbian couples should not GET pregnant and that people that have babies should be married. Of course if a single person does get pregnant the father and mother should take care of the baby together, (hopefully in marriage).

        • Bruce P. Majors

          Why tell a lie? I never advocated abortion. I will pray for you that when you go to Hell for lying you are only raped and dismembered by demons of the opposite sex, and are not forced to eat demonic vagina for all eternity.

  • Mike M

    This issue strikes me as being more about equal protection under the law. Tax and other laws should not discriminate against certain couples or singles for that matter.

  • Violet

    What About the RIGHTS and DIGNITITY of an American Child? The United States government should not say that it is the law of the land that because of respect for their dignity, a homosexual couple has the right to manufacture a human being, just as the government would not say that because of respect for his dignity, a male has the right to gestate and nurse a baby.
    The United States government should for the DIGNITY of every CHILD give them the RIGHT to be raised in a society where we STRIVE to have every child raised by a male father and a female mother.
    The male and female are biologically, psychologically, and socially different
    and therefore each has a different lesson and influence to teach a child. A homosexual couple is not the same as a heterosexual couple because they cannot offer two perspectives to a child. I hope after all their long education and careers that the leaders of the United States don’t forget the basic facts they learned in kindergarten!

    • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

      One can believe that a heterosexual couple are, other things being equal (which they rarely are), the best way to raise a child, and still thinks gays should be free to become pregnant without forced sterilization or compulsory abortion. And that gays and singles should be free to adopt. I will grant you that an adoption agency should be allowed to prioritize placements with a heterosexual couple should one wish to adopt, and to a couple over a single. I will also grant you that gays raising a child should find a friend or brother or sister to be in that child’s life so that it has family of both sexes.

  • seanmom

    “As long as religious people are not required to endorse or personally recognize the relationship as God ordained….”

    In the state of California, the public schools (which the state requires children to go to, unless they have home schools which teach the SAME objectives as the public ones) require the teaching of “gay history” and it is forbidden to disparage homosexuality (and a number of other sexual deviations from the norm.)

    When, exactly, is the line crossed?

  • seanmom

    “Christians have violated the church/state clause..”

    There IS no “church/state clause.” If you have one, please show us!

  • Debdeb

    Ah! The “liberal” tactic.
    [1] Cleverly isolate all opposition into one symbolic group. [religious conservatives]
    [2] Use false and unverified statements to ridicule the one group
    [3] Cleverly ignore the short and long term societal consequences

    Bernie, you are typically better than this. You must be blindly passionate for whatever reason.

    I do not understand why the government is compelled to license sexuality and issue entitlements for licensed sexuality. If there is no longer a motivation to have the unborn connected to their biological roots, then I think the government looks ridiculous licensing sexuality. It is also discriminatory to withhold the same entitlements from those with single status, the unwed, the asexual, sisters/brothers sharing households, roommates, the tag team raising a child, a good friend that lives overseas, etc.

    • plsilverman

      howz about “left wing loons”?

    • Bruce P. Majors

      So you think government subsidies and regulations are required to make parents love their kids and to produce the next generation. I guess you are a big old commie liberal.

  • Brian Fr Langley

    If marriage is now only about love and a commitment to an exclusive sexual union, (rather than a compact to procreate) perhaps, since I love myself and prefer only my own company, I should be allowed to marry my own right hand? Lets get real. The gay marriage issue, is ONLY an issue specifically designed to debase moral conviction as regards sexual behaviours, thus generating massive numbers of (state) dependant (fatherless) children.

    • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

      Is your right hand a sentient being that the law recognizes as being able to enter into a contract? Probably no more your dog or a child or your washing machine.

      Why can’t heterosexuals use logic? Are you just born that way?

      • Brian Fr Langley

        I agree the argument is subtle but NOT illogical. I am a sentient being whose in love, how could you deny me? The point IS sexual unions that produce progeny require monogamous contracts, otherwise the country would be chock full of fatherless children. (oops too late) A contractual monogamous agreement is simply not necessary for merely a sexual union.

        • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

          I haven’t noticed gays or straights waiting for a monogamous contract to have sexual unions. Both seem to want the contract, or marriage, when they are permanently committed and raising children, leaving estates, and making hospital visits.

  • Wheels55

    We wouldn’t be here if there was an Adam and Steve. More like: what would Jesus say about Eli and Mark?

    • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

      So Cain and Abel had children with….? Their sisters? Each other? Their mom?

  • plsilverman

    ya think Sheryl Crow is like really hot?

  • plsilverman

    something tells me hetero couples go IN the OUT door, too. you want a penalty?

  • plsilverman

    you are in a Black and White world, all due respect. You want to deny abortion to a woman who’s Doctor says she is medically unable to deliver? if “sodomy” is the issue..well, tell the hetero couples to cut it out as well. The Supreme Court is in business to judge natural, not supernatural law.

  • plsilverman

    now that we are getting religious…the Old and New Testament(s) contain a lot of guidance we can surely live without. Let’s cut to the chase: all Americans, especially those who fight the wars and pay taxes, should be able to live as they choose, within the law.

  • DOOM161

    The supreme court did not rule in favor of homosexual marriage. The supreme court ruled that we the people could not defend our laws in court. This effectively marks the end of self rule, and that should scare the crap out of everyone. I would have much rather they declared the initiative unconstitutional than render the voter invalid.

    • Wheels55

      It is amazing that we the people have to depend on a hand full of judges to decide what we deserve.
      I just don’t see where the constitution covers this issue. Our founding fathers didn’t think about same-sex marriage. So, government should just stay out of marriage decisions.

      • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

        The Constitution doesn’t cover issues it covers principles. The founding fathers didn’t know about the internet either, but we can’t shoot you for what you post on it because the First Amendment covers it.

    • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

      A popular law in America, even if created by referendum, blessed by the Pope, Ms. Murray O’Hara, the Chief Rabbi, the Southern Baptist Association and the Twelfth Imam, has to be Constitutional and not violate the Bill of Rights. That’s not true in Tehran or Cuba or even Sweden. So there are a lot of places you can go for that.

  • WhiteHunter

    The “pro-gay” lobby often seems to focus on things like financial arrangements and hospital visitation privileges.
    I’ve always believed that one should be able to leave his estate to anyone he chooses to leave it to (with no difference in tax consequences), with or without benefit of clergy, although there’s something to be said for laws making it difficult for a rich old fool to cut off his wife of 57 years without a cent in order to leave his millions to his 23-year-old “exotic dancer” mistress. Children are another matter: The option of disinheriting the spoiled ingrates can be a very persuasive incentive to keep those Christmas visits and birthday cards coming!
    As far as hospital visits go, I’m not sure what the problem is, or is claimed to be. I’ve visited many friends and family members in hospitals over the years, and have never, even once, been asked so much as to show I.D., much less prove a blood or marriage relationship. What seems to be the problem?
    It’s my understanding that the French deal with “marriage” in an interesting way: the couple must be “married” twice: once secularly, by a clerk at the hotel de ville, and then by a clergyman, in a conventional religious ceremony. I assume atheists are excused from Step 2.
    But I worry very much that, given the Government’s growing and alarming intrusion into every aspect of our lives, the day will come when a clergyman who, as a matter of religious doctrine, refuses to perform a “same-sex marriage” may be sued, especially in our litigious age, and his church stripped of, say, its tax exempt status or other privileges in order to coerce him to violate his faith’s teachings.
    Look, for example, at the threats to Catholic adoption agencies that refuse to place children with same-sex couples, and, more recently in the news, the employers and Catholic hospitals punished severely under Obamacare for refusing, as a matter of conscience, to offer contraceptives and perform abortions. So I do think the “slippery slope” argument has some validity, and isn’t, by any means, absurd, paranoid, or unfounded.
    I have a few gay friends; not many, but a few (maybe more of them than I know about!). I’ve never known how to refer to the “partner”–“his husband”? “Her wife”? Usually I side-step the issue by using the person’s name–“Charlie” or “Ann” or whatever. Kind of awkard.
    My considered position is “live and let live–just please don’t shove your preference, or ‘orientation,’ or ‘lifestyle’ in my face: I DON’T want to hear about all those details, any more than I want to hear about the adventures of my ‘straight’ friends.” Is that unreasonable? Does that make me “homophobic”? I don’t think so.

    • plsilverman

      I’m not comfortable with “gay marriage” (who’s the “Daddy”? should two “gay guys” adopt a male child who accidentally knocks on the bedroom door on Saturday morning?) but calling it “Civil Union” helps me to get adjusted. Since that won’t happen…I say let all Americans have as much Freedom as possible. Especially, those “gays” who fight in Wars and pay heavy taxes.

      • Wheels55

        Lordy, I don’t believe I am saying this: I agree with you plsilverman.

      • John Daly

        Off topic, but would you also then use that same “freedom” argument to get rid of the individual healthcare mandate for Obamacare?

        • Bloviating Ignoramus

          More like off off off topic. This from you who wrote the article whining about how liberals always change the subject

          • John Daly

            Good lord. I wrote “Off topic” to make it clear that I wasn’t trying to hijack or cloud the main topic. But I’m pretty sure you already understood that, huh?

          • Bloviating Ignoramus

            So you made it clear you weren’t hijacking the topic then proceeded to hijack the topic. Ok fair enough let me try that: OFF TOPIC – is that anything like blowing someone away and getting away with it by uttering the magic words “stand your ground”?

          • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

            Nice screen name

        • Bob Hadley

          I might if there were an alternative where I wasn’t forced to pay much for the uninsured using the ERs for primary care and for emergency care.

        • plsilverman

          no…because no one should expect their neighbor to pay for their healthcare, esp. they can afford to pay a premium. did U like paying an extra grand per yr. to cover your neighbor’s freedom? did you like hiow the insurers asserted their own *Freedom* when denying coverage to cancer patients/aids patients because regardless of that person’s willingness to pay for a plan, the insurer was allowed to deny for mercenary reasons?
          I find you injecting AHCA into the discussion very strange. “Off topic”, yes. what’s your point?

    • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

      It is certainly the case that how the government defines marriages would not be such a big deal if we have a simple tax code with low rates for everyone (or no taxes at all and just fees for things like registering contracts and using courts) and a smaller or no welfare state. This Supreme Court case originated because of a death tax, a woman being forced to sell the home she bought with her partner of many decades so she could pay an estate tax, since her spouse could not leave it to her tax free as yours can.

  • Bloviating Ignoramus

    Hey right wing Bible Thumpers! You think it is your mission to punish the gays in this life until God can punish them in the next life? Maybe in your Fascist Fantasyland. But here in the Land Of The Free Home Of The Brave, we do not impose our faith or (lack of same) on others. You want to live in a Fascist Theocracy? Move to Iran.

    • plsilverman

      well stated. R U Big Bill? just wonderin’…………

      • Bloviating Ignoramus

        Big Bill? Who’s that bro?

        • John Daly

          So many jokes that could be made about this exchange.

          • Bloviating Ignoramus

            Let’s hear one

          • Bloviating Ignoramus

            I’m talking to my buddy Phil OK? No one is talking to you. You didn’t even write this article. And here you come breaking balls. Listen if I want doo-doo from you I will squeeze your head

        • plsilverman

          O’Reilly!

          • Bloviating Ignoramus

            Ouch! You sure know how to hurt a guy bro!

  • potvin

    “It can make them forget that it was Jesus who aligned himself with those society shunned?”
    This is always trotted out by people who want to excuse bad behaviour. Jesus did align himself with those in society that were shunned, but he didn’t say continue with what you’re doing, he said repent and you will be forgiven. Sorry Bernie, but you’re out to lunch on this one. As for so-called “gay marriage” being an idea whose time has come? Never.

    • ‘William Joey Bordeleau’

      I think Jesus would advocate love in any of it’s diverse forms.

      • John Daly

        Interesting how someone actually “disliked” this post.

      • arkady967

        Can you show evidence for that is something he said, i.e., do you have a rationale for that idea that would constitute an informed opinion?

        • ‘William Joey Bordeleau’

          Can you show evidence to the contrary? Considering the fact that ‘love’, and ‘respect’ of the ‘Father’ was Jesus’s guiding force, and to share that love, and respect, with others through Him- bridging the gap between God, and Humanity- I’d say that’s a good rationale. I don’t condone, nor do I oppose homosexuality, I simply believe that in most situations love should not be denied- barring situations that involve incest, inappropriate contact with minors, or any situation that is deemed harmful to someone. That being said, what right do I have to tell friends, family, or even perfect strangers, who they can, or cannot love, or that their love is different than the love I feel for my wife? I know what the bible say’s, and I also know that many, if not all books of the bible were scrutinized, and some even omitted, if they did not reflect the personal beliefs of those who compiled the works, of God, and Christ. And like the Constitution of the United States, although fundamentally sound in principle, their interpretations may not withstand the test of time. Yet, unlike the Constitution, the Bible has never been amended.

  • lemonfemale

    Would Jesus call homosexual conduct a sin? If the Bible is correct, yes He would. (I disagree with the Bible, BTW) Though He saved the woman about to be stoned, He did tell her “Go and sin no more.” Would He discriminate? I don’t think so. This is marriage in the secular realm, NOT religious marriage. According to Christian belief, Buddhists have not accepted the sacrifice of Jesus for their sin and are therefore condemned. Gay folk are sinners but not necessarily condemned. So if a Christian can allow Buddhist temples in their community, they can allow gay marriage.
    I would be leery of arguing “the right side of history.” Not unless you are willing to sign on to things like abortion which swept the country culminating in Roe v Wade. Right and wrong are not a popularity contest. Gay marriage is right.

    • burkanuck

      “This is marriage in the secular realm, NOT religious marriage. ”

      Then why has the gay lobby fought so hard to have it called “marriage”? What is wrong with having civil unions that allow all the same rights but simply a different name? THAT would be making a “secular” institution.

      Because that isn’t good enough for the activists, their relationships MUST be called the same thing or they aren’t on par with hetero marriage and THAT is the real agenda here. Normalizing homosexuality is the ONLY goal, it isn’t about “two loving people” being given the same rights as others or civil unions would have been sufficient for them.

      I have no issue with two people, regardless of gender, deciding they love one another and wanting to be together and be allowed to visit one another in the hospital or have the right to inherit, and the vast majority of conservatives who are opposed to same-sex marriage feel the same way so spare us “homophobic, bigot, hater” crap, it is becoming very tedious and tiresome.

      And Jesus condemning behaviour is not the same as Him condemning a person. It makes me sick how people like you try and bring God into the argument, He has made His position clear in Scripture, if you don’t like it TOO BAD.

      All you people who rejoice over this sort of forcing people to accept your views through the courts even when “we the people” have spoken, as with prop. 8, remember one thing: the pendulum never stops in the middle and further you push the more the backlash. That is not something I wish to see but history has demonstrated that it is what will happen…and God help us all when it does.

      • lemonfemale

        You’re making a few assumptions. I’m heterosexually married with six kids for one thing. And I don’t bring the Bible into it except to propose that the ban on homosexuality is a ritual prohibition much like the ban on mixing meat and dairy to an observant Jew or the one on artificial contraception to a Catholic. I say that Christians could deal with gay folk the way they deal with Buddhists.

        Nor do I know how “the vast majority of conservatives” feel about it. One traditionalist leader in my state said he would be OK with civil unions for the reason you have stated. Another says “the one thing about homosexuals is you cannot believe a word they say” which- unless he has changed his mind since he said that- is bigotry (ascribing negative qualities to a person based on membership in a class). Myself I would be OK with civil unions as that phrase would mean “gay marriage” in a decade or so and be no more biased than separate restrooms. (On that, “Use the restroom you have the junk for. The end.”)
        Yes, they want to normalize homosexuality. The days of the Mattachine Society saying that “despite our handicap. homosexuals can nevertheless contribute to society …” are over. Good. Here I think Bernie Goldberg is correct: the people are indeed speaking. For the first time gay marriage has been passed or upheld by referenda and public opinion polls have undergone a dramatic change. We shall see.

        • burkanuck

          “And I don’t bring the Bible into it except to propose that the ban on homosexuality is a ritual prohibition much like the ban on mixing meat and dairy to an observant Jew or the one on artificial contraception to a Catholic.”
          First off, I made no assumptions in regard to you. I know nothing about you, as you know nothing about me. Until now for instance, you had no idea that I have a degree in theology so I have a bit of experience in interpreting Scripture.
          The comment I posted above from you is simply ridiculous. The prohibition against homosexual behaviour (there is a HUGE difference biblically between urge and action) is undeniably and very strongly reasserted in the New Testament and has absolutely NOTHING to do with “ritual prohibition”. That is an idea that has been promulgated by the homosexual lobby and is utterly and completely ludicrous.
          If you want to argue in favour of same-sex marriage, go for it but don’t try and use the Bible to support it, there is absolutely no support for the act of homosexuality in the Bible. Jewish, Christian, Old Testament, New Testament, nowhere. The act is considered a sin in the Bible whether you like it or not and whether you want to believe it or not…period.

          • joer1

            Amen sir … well put.

    • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

      I don’t think the New Testament addresses gays.

  • morefandave

    Good thing God was so unenlightened in the Garden of Eden. If he’d created Adam and Steve, that’s all there would have been. Of course, looking at the mess we’ve made of it all, maybe that wouldn’t have been such a bad thing either.

    • lemonfemale

      Or Adam and Mother Teresa? OF course we would fail if everyone were gay. If everyone were a neurosurgeon, who would grow our food? Please take this as just posing an argument- we can afford to have variations on the original theme.

    • plsilverman

      God made Adam and Eve and Steve..

  • Brian Fr Langley

    Sexual compacts (for community enforceable monogamy) have been around for some 4000 plus years. (Pelican history of the world). This point (also found in all the great world religions) was a way to ensure progeny would be raised by two dedicated (that’s what community enforcement means) parents. If parents are simply running around and fulfilling only their sexual lusts the country would be chock full of abortions, and abandoned children. (oops, see what I mean) On the other hand, what need is their have a societal enforceable compact for gay monogamy????

    • lemonfemale

      To, as he said, have people care for each other in time of need. Also to have the idea of commitment be a normal behavior.

      • seanmom

        Neighbors “care for each other in time of need,” as do strangers, and paid caregivers. Shall we shower federal “caring” benefits upon them, too?

        • lemonfemale

          By “people” I meant couples.

    • Leninsghost

      That’s total tripe. Marriage has, for most of history,
      been all about family alliances, preservation of property and proof of descent – especially in the west. The peasant class throughout Europe did not usually marry in any formal sense at all. as for “ensuring progeny would be raised by two parents’ – well what wishful thinking that is – again for most of history where marriage was the culture – which was in the upper crust (nobility) and the higher merchant class – raising the children was done by nannies – not parents. Good lord – go study the history you are trying to use as an argument. Marriage in the modern era also ensures societal rights and benefits – such thing as spousal privilege, the rights to make decision for the other, tax benefits etc etc . it is obvious discrimination against a group of citizens to deny them the same societal beenfits that all unions receive.

  • medfed1

    .This is the common sense answer.

    . “Or better yet, why not drastically change the way we all look at marriage. Let the government acknowledge only civil unions, for gays and straight couples. and let the church or the synagogue or the mosque sanction only the kind of marriage they want. If a particular religion believes homosexuality is a sin, that religion should not sanction homosexual marriage. Pretty simple..”-

    Much too simple for Legislators who can only think in terms of complicated, thousand page, declarations of their ability to write laws no one reads or understands.

    Civil Unions for everyone is how we protect our Right to Freedom of Religion and insure Separation of Church and State.

    See more at: http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/what-would-jesus-say-about-adam-and-steve/?utm_source=BernardGoldberg.com+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b78e05376f-NEWSLETTER&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c1903183b6-b78e05376f-298434893#sthash.NM7yh8qK.dpuf

  • Richard McClary

    Jesus would not condone a marriage between Adam and Steve. He is the author of the Bible and would not approve of something His Word declares a sin. Jesus would call them to repent of their sin. That is true love.

  • FloridaJim

    This has been a long time goal of the left to destroy America through the culture:

    #26-. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal,
    natural, healthy.” Skousen claimed Communists sought to encourage the
    practice of masturbation.

    From “The Naked Communist” by W. Cleon Skousen.

    • plsilverman

      really? along with Child Labor Laws??

  • Jeff Hamm

    “Let the government acknowledge only civil unions, for gays and straight couples.” I would go one step farther Bernie. How about forcing the government out of marriage and civil unions all together? Is there really a governmental need to license and approve of marriages? Why give “couples” a benefit and not “singles”? Isn’t that a bit discriminatory if I choose to live my life alone?

    • seanmom

      I have a better idea. Limit the government entirely to only what is in the Constitution. No school lunch meddling, no EPA, no Energy Department, no food stamps. And no taxes, unless every citizen is presented with an itemized list of what the government plans to do with them and why, which must fall under one of the charges of government in the Constitution.

      Get the government out of our lives as much as humanly possible.

  • Jan Stewart

    Yes, Jesus wasn’t afraid of us sinners, but He also said, ‘Go, and sin no more.’ I agree with your argument concerning states rights and federal impositions, but isnt this what Thomas Jefferson meant with his division of church and state? And how did the Supreme Court, of all institutions, get so muddied up with this one in the first place?

  • Ed

    What a stupid premise you went off on Bernie… “What would Jesus say”? Read the Bible Pal, he already “spoke” about it. And if you don’t have any interest in the Bible, which you clearly don’t, then please don’t use it once in a while for a cheap hook into your website. If you want to argue the ruse (Yes, the RUSE!) that is the “Gay Marriage” argument, do it without the Bible, it makes you look silly.

  • Thewryobservator

    Actually, Mr. Goldberg, though I think you are in part correct, I’m not sure your analysis is entirely complete. This issue also involves a PC element, and what happens to people in the public square who disagree- like the baker in Colorado who’s fighting a lawsuit that will destroy his buisness, not because two gay men couldn’t get a wedding cake, but because they knew he couldn’t make them one for conscience sake, so they singled him out for political destruction. It’s a common occurance, and as the advocacy represented gains power, it will become more agressive, and more destructive – it doesn not co-exist, because it defines alternative viewpoints as bigotry by default. And there’s more… much, much more. This is not a benign movement. It does not live and let live. Regarding Jesus, Adam and Steve; I think the response would be the same as it was for the woman caught in adultery – “neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more….”

    • seanmom

      Exactly. If a person is doing something destructive, it is not “love” to simply let them do it–and it is especially not love to encourage them to continue. Go, and sin no more.

  • David

    Jesus hung out with the shunned because he was trying to change their lives. The question is not why don’t Christian conservatives change their thinking. They are only aligning themselves with God’s perfect principles. The question is why does Bernie continue to take this unnatural viewpoint? There must be more to it than we know.

  • Keith

    Not sure how Mr. Goldberg’s coming to his conclusions here.

    If homosexual marriage were such a moral issue, then why is it only in the past 7 or so years an issue in the United States, perhaps 15 years in Western Europe?? Why is it suddenly an issue of moral outrage? Were all the great moral thinkers of centuries past on the wrong side of history too Mr. Goldberg?

    Homosexual marriage negates the importance of sexual differences, particularly in child-raising. I speak from personal experience about the deleterious effects of a single-sex environment on children, the details of which are too personal to divulge here. If this were nature’s way, then it would BE that way. It is not. Undoing nature will have unintended consequences. It did on me.

    Homosexual rights and the rights of the religious are incompatible. To the supporters of homosexual marriage this may sound paranoid. But, consider the evidence:

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/07/gay-colorado-couple-sues-bakery-for-allegedly-refusing-them-wedding-cake/

    The above link goes to Fox News’ web site, but for you FOX-ophobes out there, it’s originally from the Associated Press.

    This is one case among many. Some cases are against owners of reception halls, and others are against photographers. So much for the Left and tolerance, eh Bernie? These are the people, after all, whom you are supporting.

    Mr. Goldberg, sometimes going against the tide of everything around you is the right thing to do. Some of the great heroes of history did just that. Ask Galileo. The Italians loved Mussolini, but later learned to despise him. They went with the tide, but later had a serious case of buyer’s remorse. I’m sure at the time, Italy felt it was on the right side of history, too. (And no, I am NOT comparing Fascism to homosexual marriage, although it is a newly-granted right that will increase the power of the state to threaten the 1st amendment to the US constitution.)

    • seanmom

      Justice Scalia posed the right question: When did it BECOME unconstitutional to prohibit gays from marrying? Has it always been unconstitutional? Did something happen to make it unconstitutional? If so, what?

      The answer is, nothing.

      And even the opinion in DOMA doesn’t purport to claim a constitutional right to gay marriage. All it did was affirm the right of the STATES to make the rules for marriage–which the Federal government has no part in.

  • floridahank

    I see at least two problems: First is the psychological problem of watching 2 men kiss when the necessity is coming from 2-3 % of the general population. It’s a psychological/sociological uncommon to the other 90% people (mostly men) as it’s been the accepted method of kissing. And there is an unconscious reaction that something is either distasteful, repugnant and totally unnatural (except when relatives or certain nationalities do this as part of their culture.)
    The other problem is that throughout history, there have not been well-balanced strong social organizations or even national events that fully accepted homosexual behavior as anything near common behavior. Those nations had some sort of accepted behavior that man and woman were considered a truly married couple — even among degenerate kings and queens and the common people. Homosexuals were viewed as behaving in a strange manner and considered a divergent group that was permitted to do their thing but never received a majority of acceptable and generally proper behavior.
    As our majority of citizens began to move away from the fundamental religious institution, they continue to lessen their principles of what marriage, divorce, and separation and remarriage truly means to a progressive, growing morality society has meant in the truest sense of those words.

    • John Daly

      I’m not trying to be insulting, but I have to ask the question… Was that first part of your post (about the kissing) for real, or were you making a joke? It seemed more like a parody of something than an actual concern.

      • floridahank

        If you’re aware of human behavior in our society, we can see where 2 men will kiss in appropriate situations (varies in different cultures and conditions), and that’s acceptable to most people, but when you see 2 men kiss passionately, there is a reaction that goes beyond what is normal in our society and culture to that majority of people, especially men. Men are accustomed to kissing women passionately which is acceptable to 100% of society, but there is an unconscious negative reaction when it’s done by 2 men. I haven’t studied the psychological condition that exists when this happens, but to a majority of men it definitely happens. Many things are accepted by men when they do “crazy” things amongst themselves, but passionately kissing is not one of them. This would be an interesting psychological study to conduct. Heterosexual and homosexual behavior requires much more detailed study to understand its dynamics — we cannot simply accept anecdotes from homosexuals — we need definitive scientific/medical unbiased research which we don’t have as yet.

        • John Daly

          I’ll repeat my original question. ;)

    • plsilverman

      men with beards should not kiss in public…especially after eating pizza….although watching a hetero-appearing couple kiss while I wait on line at Subway isn’t much easier on the eyes. (message: no deep kisses or rump-grabs in any public place for any couple of any orientation).

  • J.R.

    Being on the wrong side of history is not necessarily a bad thing. Judge Bork nailed this issue and others in his book Slouching towards Gomorrah.

    • Debdeb

      I watched the entire process of evaluating Judge Bork for the Supreme Court on TV a long time ago when I was homeless with two small children and had time on my hands. He was quite impressive in the hearings but the media never conveyed this. His legacy is the reminder of what can never be replaced.

  • Mike Stokes

    Bernard at first one would think knows what he is talking about, you don’t have to go very far until you realize he is seeing this from a political perspective. His problem is he doesn’t understand real Bible believing Christians. I think he does understand the homosexual point of view, and is articulate in describing it. But the Bible believing Christian knows exactly what they believe. The Bible calls homosexuality an abominable sin, and one of the most intolerable. God”s judgement will fall hard on these impenitent enemies of God.

  • Jairo A Puentes

    The issue is not religion. It is the law and children raised by homosexual couples. The U.S. Constitution rests on a common law foundation and the common law, in turn, rests on a classical natural law foundation. Human laws are valid and equitable only in so far as they correspond with, and enforce or supplement the natural law; they are null and void when they conflict with it. The United States system of equity courts, as distinguished from those engaged in the administration of the common law, are founded on the principle that, when the law of the legislator is not in harmony with the dictates of the natural law, equity (æquitas, epikeia) demands that it be set aside or corrected.
    Gays to get acceptance are now raising children. Who authorized this social experiment? Who authorized depriving adopted children from being raised by a father and a mother? Do this children have rights to be raised under natural law according the original design?
    The harm done to those children from homosexual couples as they grow up without self esteem or shamed for their parents relationship, will become the subject of lawsuits against adoption agencies for their experimentation, the homosexual parents and the state. We just have to wait. Judge Kennedy didn’t assess the potential damage done to some of those children. To believe that 100 per cent of them will not be harmed is not acceptable. They will blame someone for allowing such arrangement against natural law and placement with a mother and a father when they were incapable of making a decision compatible with natural law. This may become a civil rights violation which years from now,when more of these children become adults and see that they were shortchanged by the system eager to please a group in need of acceptance. Homosexuals were the product of a man and a woman and raised by them,however homosexual couples want to deny their adopted children the source and environment of their upbringing of being raised by a father and a mother which is fair and balanced.

    • plsilverman

      I am not in disagreement about Bobby catching his two Daddies doing……but my discomfort does not matter. Bobby’s “two Daddies” pay taxes.

  • nkqx57a

    “All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come.” What idea is that…that homosexuality is a good thing and that everyone should accept it as such? Are you kidding…what good can come from a homosexual act? And calling those acts a marriage is wrong? Always has been and always will be. The legalities are something completely different. The legalities can be resolved and had, by simply signing a legal contract; a marriage license is not needed or required.

    Immoralists are devolving “the laws of nature” and of “nature’s God”, to a time civilization first appeared. It’s rooted in the plague that currently surrounds us…EVIL…an inability to do what is RIGHT vs. an insistence on do what is WRONG; and without a moral compass and commonsense, unable to comprehend the differences between them.

    I don’t need studies to tell me that it’s not who they are, but what they do that is immoral. Learn what HISTORY has to say about the fall of the Roman Empire and the Athenian Republic…One of the many contributing factors that were a catalyst for their downfall; was their civic corruption and decline in morals…Gee, that sounds familiar…Will America survive our civic corruption and decline in morals?

    Sadly…History says NO…only through the grace of GOD can America be saved from itself.

    • plsilverman

      anyone who watches prime time TV for more than 8 minutes can see how our culture has sunk to the near-abyss. we can’t do anything about it other than not watch or boycott the sponsors.
      we also might want to kick back and reflect on the idea that Capitalism is all about persuading us to buy those products. happy feet moving about the Mall.
      So…let’s just chill. We cannot possibly know the mind of God.

  • Ron Fritzemeier

    Bernie blew this one. Most disappointing here is the implication that to believe homosexual behavior is wrong is somehow inextricably linked to being ‘against gay people.’ And especially wrong-headed was in making this implication with Jesus Christ as the purported example. Christ personified “love the sinner but hate the sin.” Those who ‘hate’ homosexuals are wrong, but NOT for calling homosexual behavior what it is, WRONG. As our society actively throws out much, if any, pretense of morality we do so to our own harm. Now THAT is truly sad, and history – and the One Who made time itself – will indeed judge us.

    • dave davies

      Ron, you and nkqx57a have it nailed. We are being led by politically correct, noddle-backed,self-proclaimed intellectuals. Bernie has blown Bible 101 before. His secular outlook isn’t even close. He needs to first understand the difference between Christianity and religion.

      • plsilverman

        I say “the difference between spirituality and religion”… religion is “the God business” and is strictly organized.

    • DesertLady

      Wait! Homosexuality, you say is wrong, but you are not the judge! Fact is there are sexual variations in this world. That is simply fact. You make no accounting for that fact and you provide zero evidence in science or fact that proves it to be “wrong”. You can only say you don’t like it, which actually means nothing. Sorry.

      • Ron Fritzemeier

        D-Lady. Thank you for your reply. If I may reply: First, to call something ‘wrong’ as in right or wrong is a type of judging, and is necessary for a functioning society – else there will be no norms for acceptable behavior. To “judge,” as in “looking down one’s nose at others as being less than yourself,” is inappropriate. I note that homosexual behavior is wrong, but it doesn’t change anyone’s “value” as a fellow human being. Second, regarding “sexual variations” and your reference “lack of science” – I wonder what sexual variations you mean. Do you have a human example in mind, or other species? If the latter, are you arguing that variations in other species must apply to people? That seems a fanciful journey fraught with many strange side-shows, but beside the point. Further, variations in nature do not by themselves disprove “the rule.” Siamese twins exist, but that doesn’t change what we call normal. As for homosexual tendency – you seem to imply there is scientific proof for it to be within the spectrum of human norm. The claims of genetic-based homosexuality are heavily debated, at ‘best.’ Further, evidence of genetics playing a role in other human behavioral tendencies – violence, for instance – does not lead us to declare the resulting behaviors normal or acceptable. We still insist on a standard of behavior. The part of the discussion that gets lost in this “debate,” sadly, is that while God sets the moral standards, He still loves us all – even though we (all) have fallen short of the perfection He requires. In love, God prepared a way for us to be restored to Him, despite our sins – Jesus paid sin’s price for us. God loves the homosexual ever so much, but he doesn’t change the moral standard – for any of us. You are, of course, free to hold your own opinion. I remain concerned that our society makes these kinds of changes in our human-defined “moral standards” to our own great hurt.

        • DesertLady

          Hold the phone if you would, Ron. (Sorry, am traveling and didn’t see your response until now.)

          Conjoined twins is an anomaly but that does not make it ‘wrong’. Homosexuality is an anomaly but that does not make it ‘wrong’. Hermaphrodites exist and they are not ‘wrong’. There are many, many such conditions which are out of a statistical norm, but are not wrong. Downs syndrome, polydactyly, et al.

          The reason homosexuality is within human norm is because it does in fact and has always in recorded history existed.

          Spare me the God and Jesus stuff because for atheists and agnostics, it’s irrelevant. Most of the world’s population has never read the Bible either, so it doesn’t matter what you or I personally believe.

          Having said all that, I do not think there should be no moral standards for society, obviously. I just do not, if we keep to the subject, believe that homosexuality is immoral or wrong. It causes no one any harm, whereas the Ten Commandments and other religions’ expressed moral standards speak specifically to activities that are harmful to others. So, you see the objection is in categorizing natural, occurring within societies everywhere, inclinations or acts as ‘wrong’ when there is nothing agreed upon in the world’s societies collectively to say so and, when only a small number of groups collectively have determined it to be so.

          Likewise, you cannot call Hermaphrodites, Downs Syndrome persons, midgets, or other minority states of human existence wrong. You can do all you want to enforce your moral standards on the groups you reside in who conform to them but you cannot rightly or morally foist them off on everyone else. (Yes, you probably have guessed, I do not believe there is or will ever be one ‘right’ religion.)

          Appreciate the opportunity to better articulate my view which comes from considerable experience in the health/medicine arena, and some knowledge about, but no subscription to, any religious zealotry. I am aware I will have said nothing here to change your view, and since yours is religious based and minority view as well, you won’t be changing mine either. Just please understand, my objection is to the use of a moral judgment where you have no convincing argument to judge something as ‘wrong’.

          • Ron Fritzemeier

            DLady, I did not equate ‘not normal’ with wrong. Your examples, however, of not normal are all physical except for the behavior of homosexuality. A rather large difference. Your definition of wrong also seems rather minimized. I don’t doubt you believe homosexual behavior is not wrong, “because no one is hurt by it,” I just disagree. I also note that the overwhelming part of the world today and through all of history disagrees with your view. And despite your dismissal of God, His ‘vote’ counts for many many people, and I think we’ve already covered that part. Bernie got it wrong. I’m sorry we must disagree here, but I wish you peace and life, and with no intent to annoy you, I wish you might some day believe in the Creator God and His Son, Jesus Christ.

          • DesertLady

            Very simply, at the start, Ron, came in with the word “wrong”: You said: “Those who ‘hate’ homosexuals are wrong, but NOT for calling homosexual behavior what it is, WRONG. ” (That is a copy/paste, not a paraphrase, from you and is clear as day.) If that is not what you meant, please clarify, retract, or whatever.
            Of course I wish you and all my fellow human beings peace and life, and I have no problem disagreeing with the assumption that homosexuality is WRONG as you say.
            Have a great day.

          • DesertLady

            P.S. You also discount that the brain is physical. Are you prepared to prove that one’s sexuality does not at least in part reside there?

            Don’t try to say it has to be visible, physical, three dimensional or below the navel to be the only determiner of sexuality or even gender, and then turn around and say that a compilation of translated stories by numerous authors, none of whom had any science background we know of, told, interpreted, sketched down over hundreds of years from thousands of years ago, and bound in a book called the Bible is THE source reference for your assumptions.

            Again, all you’re doing is restating your belief, and beliefs are not very scientific, are they? Honestly? Nope, they just make the believer feel good.

          • Ron Fritzemeier

            DLady, since you seem to only (mis)read what I wrote to shift the points of the discussion – you were the one that equated “not normal” with wrong, for instance – I don’t think this conversation deserves continuing. BTW, you have not offered a single bit of science for your views, just your own feelings. History and the overwhelming peoples of the world have found homosexual BEHAVIOR to be wrong. I think it is up to those who wish to claim otherwise to come up with the science to back such claims. In a world where right and wrong are driven by the “feelings of the day,” or otherwise subject to variations of arbitrary human viewpoints, I’m not sure that will be such a happy place. As you and I both know, man’s great increase in “scientific knowledge” over the past years, decades, centuries has not moved mankind any closer to utopia; a case for just the opposite is not too hard to make. That is a truly sad, and very sobering, fact of the human condition. If you feel the need to reply, fine – but please don’t take my drop off here as anything more than a desire to not waste more time of you and I “banging our heads on this wall.” Peace to you.

            (Separate from the main debate – as you chose to take your last shot at the Bible, I suspect you have actually considered the mountains of historical evidence for the veracity in that “compilation of stories.” I wish you would; if done without a pre-conceived answer, I think you would shock yourself. Now this would be a conversation worth some more time.)

          • DesertLady

            Clearly you have done the “misreading” here, including trying to change what you yourself wrote which tells me you are too full of yourself and too interested in “being right” instead of just acknowledging the facts I put forth which in the main is that you and the Bible don’t have the authority to judge what is “wrong” as concerns hetero- or homosexuality.

            I have no interest in arguing with you your beliefs as I respect everyone’s right to their own. It is just too bad that it isn’t mutual, but then that is always the case when one runs up against beliefs that go to the extreme of cultism.

            Nothing more need be said here, except to reiterate that homosexuality, no matter what the Bible authors thought or you think, is not “wrong”, it is just different from what you think is right behavior.

            *******
            Disclaimers: I am NOT anti-Bible, atheist, anti-Christian or anti- any other religion, excepting those that have become destructive cults. I am anti-bigotry and undeserved self-righteousness, who in the end because they can’t tolerate being wrong-headed, will cut off their noses to spite their faces. Life’s too short.

            “Peace out,” as they used to say. Be well.

          • DesertLady

            ~ Holly

    • plsilverman

      it’s a tough one…should someone who fights wars and pays taxes be denied the same rights because his/her behavior bothers us?

  • roykelly2

    Mr.Goldberg, it is very simple what Jesus would say,”Go and sin no more”.

    • plsilverman

      it is written that Jesus communicated with a lot of people that we assume he found anti-social. I am not aware he said to anyone, I am here to heal those with Leprosy and homosexuality.

  • Ed

    ”The essence of immorality is the tendency to make an exception of myself.” -Jane Addams

    • plsilverman

      referring to pro or anti “gay marriage”?

  • seanmom

    This isn’t about rights–or equality. It’s about wanting something you can never have. Those who reject God’s definition of marriage want those who embrace it to give in and say they are wrong. They want not tolerance, but acceptance. And that is what they will never have. Biblical Christians, by definition, will never deny God to accept what he calls “abomination.”

  • seanmom

    There is also the condemnation of homosexuals in the Book of Revelation to deal with–written by John the Revelator, but spoken by Christ Himself.

    One cannot love both sin and God, for God is a jealous God, and He will not be second to anyone or anything, It is why we are forbidden to have idols. It is why He sent Abraham and Isaac to the mountain. It is why Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and it is why the Bible ends the way it does.

    A nation blessed by God that rejects him has little time left. It is one thing to simply ignore Him–but we did not do that. We put Him on our money and in our pledge. Tossing Him out is an affirmative rejection, and it has had consequences for those nations who have done it.

  • Dukhooker

    Many comments I’ve read, both here and elsewhere, reveal people’s remarkable ability to rationalize and justify – there’s certainly no shortage of quick thinkers these days. But saying a rock is a bird won’t allow that rock to fly, no matter how well thought out the logic that it can. Likewise, God’s law supercedes man’s and is clearer than anything the most astute mind on Earth can put forth in any argument – and God very clearly states that the punishment for homosexual behavior is death. He has given us free will to do whatever we wish, but He never said we could avoid the consequences of those choices.

  • jarobertson

    Gay marriage itself will not heap ruin upon this nation, but it is another assault on the foundation that this nation was founded. Women were given the vote and the nation survived. Integration in the sixties did not destroy the nation either. Neither woman’s suffrage nor integration brought down the republic. And neither were deemed as an assault on the US constitution either.

    Now gays can marry in some states, and in some states they can not, for now. And this is not deemed as open season on the constitution either. But I see this as an all out attack on a vital instrument that most every American holds dear. The Ten Commandments. ( HONOR THY MOTHER AND FATHER) (DO NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOURS WIFE) When the left can completely disassemble and destroy religion in this country, then we are in trouble.

  • Dukhooker

    Mr. Goldberg shows us that Liberalism is akin to malaria. While at CBS, he felt the wrath of Liberals first hand when he dared to point out the obvious Leftward tilt to the news. Since that eye opener Bernie has wised up quite a bit and often displays a remarkable logic for a recovering L-word, yet like one cured of malaria, he will be subject to recurring flareups for the rest of his days. It’s actually worse than that because the worst thing that can result from malaria is death, whereas Liberalism results in eternal damnation.

    • Brian_Bayless

      You are truly insane.

      • dave davies

        That’s a noodle- backed post. Tell us why we are insane, so we can all have a good laugh.

      • Dukhooker

        Call me what you will – I notice you didn’t say I was wrong.

    • plsilverman

      except for the LIberals who fight the manufactured wars promoted by the Conservatives and pay the taxes promoted by both sides of the aisle.

      • Dukhooker

        Yeah, I forgot about those half-dozen guys – sorry.

        • plsilverman

          really? Did ALEC or the John Birch Society give you that number? :)

  • JesusReturnSoonPlease

    America has become Sodom and Gomorrah. I myself am now in the “let it burn ” cllub. This country is lost forever and I dont really care what happens to this damn country. I really hope the wrath of God comes down on this country. Im a conservative, but Im a Christian and no longeran American, just a Christian. To quote a wacko preacher “God Damn America”. In the long run what country we all lived in wont matter

    • plsilverman

      how about quoting that “wacko” in the full context of his sermon? or should we compare statements by religious wackos who serve both sides of the political aisle?

  • John Daly

    lol @ “that John Daly character”. Believe it or not I’m an actual person.

    >> What does “marriage” mean?

    By whose definition? In the traditional sense? In the religious sense? In the legal (government) sense?

    This is the point I keep making, and it keeps getting discarded. People who are referencing the Bible in their opposition to gay marriage are talking about using “marriage” in the context of a religious belief and applying that belief to the government’s definition of marriage. They’re not the same thing.

    As far as I’m concerned, the LEGAL definition of marriage should essentially be the same thing as a civil union. The government can even change the name of it to a “civil union” for all I care. If people want to be recognized as “married”, they can go through whatever religious ceremony they want to, and live their lives by that code or belief.

    Limiting a civil union to two consenting adults doesn’t discriminate against people based on who they are. It’s a numbers cap, not much different than how the tax dependents/deductions one can take, and how old one has to be before laws apply to them differently.

    As far as I’m concerned, the government shouldn’t be forming laws regarding procreation unless there’s a public safety concern in question, like there is with incest.

    I realize my stance mangles the rest of your questioning, but I want you to understand that I believe you’re conflating two things I believe to be quite different, even if they share the same terminology.

    If the only argument left is, “Well, we’ve always done it this way, so we should keep doing it that way”, that just doesn’t seem to me to be a strong argument.

    • Larry blaspheming liberalism

      I didn’t doubt that you were real — just that you continue (including in these comments) to dodge my questions, especially when *you* keep trying to inject the Bible into an argument that I make *without* the Bible.

      I’ve asked questions that the MSM (and Bernie and you) ignore:

      Why has “marriage” had essentially the same definition across history, cultures, and religions (including atheism, witness Albania)? The commonality is what we see in nature: the pattern of the biological unit of sexual reproduction, which is also the basis of the family.

      When we break “marriage” away from that definition, why do we still have the restrictions as to number and relationship? Your “numbers cap” argument is specious — any number of people can enter into a business partnership. And I’m not the one so narrow-minded as to restrict a “loving, caring, committed relationship” (a frequent term of liberals) to two people, or to require that they be non-related. Those restrictions are still on the books; I ask “Why?” and neither you nor Bernie nor anyone else dares to answer. You only dodge.

      What do we do if the threesome in the Netherlands decides to move here? Do we force someone to be left out? The issue exists, but no one will answer.

      Contrary to your comment, this is not about “laws concerning procreation,” but whether “marriage” has any real meaning. Neither you nor Bernie has ever given me one.

  • Mickey Rayfield

    I love the citations from the bible given that are ‘supposedly’ to prove that Jesus would not discriminate. I really dislike people citing something that they do not understand or willingly misrepresent……..by the way Sir, Christ was against liars. Your attempt to portray Christ as ‘pro gay’ is without merit. How would Christ respond, ‘Go and sin no more’.

  • Jesse Salazar Sr.

    Does anyone remember that song from 60’s titled “In the year 2525 ?” It sure fits the narrative of today.

    • nkqx57a

      Exordium and Terminus…YES…Zager & Evans

      How about “Eve of Destruction”…Barry McGuire

  • Iklwa

    Cute title Bernie but I’m not convinced.

    My mother always told me, “If everyone wanted to jump off a
    cliff, I guess you would go right along too?”

    I can tell you exactly what Jesus would say about Adam and
    Steve. He would tell us to love the sinner and hate the sin.

    He would not punish them but would admonish them to remember
    that God, wile just and loving, has the ultimate say in the salvation of our
    souls and it is only through acknowledging Christ as one’s savior that one
    attains forgiveness and redemption.

    I think an over riding statement that is applicable to all
    sin (and sodomy is a well documented sin) is “…go and sin no more.”

    It is very fashionable these days to quote bits and pieces
    of the Bible to suit someone’s agenda of the day. If one takes the time to
    actually read The Book in its entirety, there is no doubt left as to where the Almighty comes down on the
    subjects of murder, rape, theft, perjury, false witness, adultery, incest,
    bestiality, child abuse, women laying with women and men laying with men.

    Every society that has embraced and/or promoted the decline
    of moral conduct has wound up defeated by barbarians with better moral codes
    and the willingness to fight for them.

    Terms like honor, justice and truth only mean something if
    people are willing to point out the differences between right and wrong.
    Couples who are too old for children or unable to have children can always
    adopt and the resultant family can readily be seen as a family unit. Even a
    five-year-old will ask what’s wrong with Adam and Steve. They haven’t been
    indoctrinated with a dose of PC thinking and are yet wise enough to know that
    at some basic level, it’s just not right.

    It’s just not right from a physiological standpoint.

    It’s just not right from a religious standpoint.

    It’s just not right from a social standpoint.

    I’m waiting now for your companion piece describing to
    Muslims how their religion “can also make
    people closed-minded; it can keep them locked in their old ways as the world
    around them moves forward”

    Oh, and in case you weren’t aware, Lenny and his friends are
    already lining up for legalizing marriages of all types, numbers, sexes, species
    and relative ages.

    You had better start thinking about it now because the
    bridge is pretty close!

  • Bob Hadley

    Saying that redefining marriage to include gay couples allows Lenny to Marry a goat is stupid. A goat can’t say “I do.” DUH!!!! On this one, Bill O’Reilly, a smart and talented and sometimes thoughtful guy, is amazingly daft.

    Similarly, an un-emancipated minor doesn’t have the legal capacity to consent to marriage. Legal and (in the case of a goat) actual consent to marry is a different animal from marriage being available to those with such legal or actual capacity. If there’s a pun I here somewhere, it was intended.

    The only plausible argument is that if gay couples have a constitutional right to have marriage redefined to include them, then why don’t polygamists have a constitutional right to marry? But this question only pertains to the question of gays having a constitutional right to marry. It does NOT pertain to whether gays SHOULD be allowed to marry.

    I’ve evolved on this question. I now think that marriage SHOULD be redefined to allow gay couples to marry. Let the courts decide whether or not gays have a constitutional right to marry.

    • Drew Page

      Why stop there? Why bother to have laws at all? After all, laws are nothing but prohibitions and prohibitions are bound to offend some people and we wouldn’t want to offend anyone, now would we? Why differentiate between adults and minors; they are all people and shouldn’t all people have all the same rights? Some would argue that this is ‘evolution’, others might think it ‘de-evolution’.

      • Bob Hadley

        Apparently, you misread and/or missed my point – again.

        “Why stop there?”

        Why stop where? What are you talking about?

        Some would argue that it’s evolution to argue that we, as a society, shouldn’t protect children against making certain important and possibly hazardous or life-altering decisions until they are further developed??? Who argues that???? Is it fun building strawmen?

        I certainly don’t agree with that and nothing I have said is simpatico with that. In fact, quite the contrary.

        I think gay (adult) couples should have the right to marry because it makes sense: it’s fair and it would serve a useful societal function. This logic gives no justification to the legal differentiation between adults and minors or giving ALL people ALL the SAME rights – whatever that means.

        I don’t know if you caught my distinction between a legislative-given right and a fundamental constitutional right. I currently favor the former (in terms of gay marriage) but am still undecided as to the former.

        May I suggest that you read a post several times before you go off? It would promote constructive dialogue.

        • Bob Hadley

          CORRECTION: I’m still undecided as to the constitutional question regarding gay marriage.

        • DonaldYoungsRevenge

          Bob, will you say that there may be some moral absolutes that we all must attempt to live by? If something like sodomy is “contrary to nature”, contrary in reference to the purpose and design of the organs involved in the act of sodomy, wouldn’t that help you to declare that in this instance sodomy is absolutely an act “contrary to nature” thus wrong? I don’t think you have thought much about this. I do believe that anyone who condemns homosexuality without a reference from the Scriptures is basing his/her feelings about the subject on a gut feeling and can be declared a bigot. Christians are on the right side of this debate.

          • bob hadley

            Yes, I think there are certain absolutes. I do not think that your tortured explanation of homosexuality being wrong is not one of them, however.
            As far as the scriptures, my Dad was a minister and had a congregation for over 30 years. He was a Hebrew scholar and read the Bible in different languages. He was an outspoken advocate for gay right.
            As a young kid, was in Bible study, sang in the church choir (and, yes, I was in an Amen chorus) and was confirmed to my church. If you have an interpretation of the biblical scriptures that I haven’t heard and studied, let me hear it.
            There’s a lot of Christians who disagree with you.

          • DonaldYoungsRevenge

            My comment is a “tortured explanation” only to those who desperately attempt to use the Scriptures or their pastor father’s to take a stand for homosexuality. Using the Bible to support homosexuality if foolish to say the least. I use a sport analogy to prove my point – it would be like asking a basketball ref to officiate a football game with a basketball rule book. That is how absurd your argument is. Only one not familiar with the Scriptures would ever bring the Bible into a court of law in an attempt to prove that the Bible supports homosexuality. Yes, the liberal churches have gone apostate on this particular issue years ago and that is why they are losing their congregations.

          • Bob Hadley

            “Using the Bible to support homosexuality if foolish to say the least.”

            “Only one not familiar with the Scriptures would ever bring the Bible into a court of law in an attempt to prove that the Bible supports homosexuality.”

            “Christians are on the right side of this debate.”

            Huh???? Are you responding to my post or to something else?

            I said nothing about the Bible supporting homosexuality. As to bringing the Bible to court to support homosexuality, did you sprain your arm pulling that one out of your keister?

            My point is that many devout and learned Christians see things differently from you.

            Your original point was that Christians believe as you do about gay marriage. Now, you’re apparently saying that only true Christians – as opposed to apostate Christians – believe as you do, i.e. any Christian who disagrees with you on the gay marriage issue is an apostate.

            You sound so rigid that you’re brittle. Was Jesus brittle?

    • tim ned

      Bob, the gay rights movement has compared this issue to that of the civil rights movement. That being said, and should the federal government affirm that decision, should we support armed enforcement of that right at the state level? and at the church?

      • Bob Hadley

        First, I do not necessarily agree with various parts of the gay rights movement.

        Second, what do you mean by “the federal government”? The Congress and the President? Or do you mean the SCOTUS?

        Anyway, if federal legislation imposes gay marriage (which I assume you mean) on the states AND if the SCOTUS upholds this legislation, then yes I think the legislation should be enforced by whatever means necessary.

        The same if the SCOTUS holds that gay couples have a fundamental right to marry. The decision should be enforced by whatever means necessary.

        But, in any event, churches would not be part of this. I don’t know why you mentioned “the church.”

        If necessary, should we support armed enforcement of heterosexuals to marry? Why would any of this be necessary?

    • Adrien Nash

      It’s not up to the courts to decide the constitutionality of homosexual marriage. It is up to We The People of the United States, -not government. Where and when was an amendment to the Constitution offered that redefines the meaning of what marriage is? Can such an issue be any less fundamental than prohibition, or the right to vote for women, and minorities? Why didn’t Congress just pass a law that made the production and sale of alcohol a crime against the federal government?

      Has anyone even heard of any talk about amending the Constitution? The answer is no, because the 5th Amendment, like most of the Constitution, is now moribund and almost lifeless in practice. We are a nation that has turned our Progressive backs to the Constitution, and elected a charlatan who is constitutionally ineligible to be President since he is only a government policy citizen and not a natural born citizens as required. http://obama–nation. com

      • Bob Hadley

        Read the COTUS. The final decision of constitutionality is to be made by the SCOTUS. You may oppose the SCOTUS’ rulings and speak out against them, but its ruling is the law of the land. For our democratic republic to survive, our founding fathers wisely provided for an independent arbiter to settle federal questions – including interpreting the COTUS.

        Similarly, an umpire may make a bad call (remember the perfect game that was scuttled by a bad call with two outs in the ninth inning?), but nonetheless that call is the official call and we all have to abide by it.

        But it doesn’t appear that the SCOTUS will find that couples have a constitutional right to marry anytime soon.

  • seanmom

    2 points. First, the problem God has with “gay marriage” is the essential “act of marriage,” which he considers an “abomination” when performed by members of the same sex–no matter how happy it makes anybody.

    Second, I have asked non-celibate homosexuals whether, if God Himself appeared before them and directly told them to stop engaging in homosexual behavior, that would be enough to stop them. Invariably, their answer is that God would never do that.

    The fact is, though, that anyone who thinks God would never ask you to give up the thing that you enjoy the most, the thing that you believe makes you human, that which YOU believe to be the core of your very being–anyone who believes God would never do that misunderstands not only sin–but the very nature of God.

    • Bob Hadley

      If God Himself appeared before you and told you to leave your spouse or partner, would you do it? If God Himself appeared before you and told you that Hinduism was the true faith and that you should become a Hindu, what would you do?
      Get my point?

      • seanmom

        Actually, yes. i would. My point is that I have yet to meet a homosexual willing to give up his or her selfish desires, even if God (and the nature of the question is that the person MUST believe it to be God) were to ask. The only right answer to the question is yes, because for God to be God, he must be right in all, regardless of whether we can see it–and regardless of how painful we believe the sacrifice will be.

        The further point, of course, is that it is in fact the very nature of God to require exactly this of all of us–to relinquish all we have, all we think we are, all we deeply love, at His command, and with no further proof or persuasion required.

        That is what it means to know God. And, by the way, He owns history, too. His side is the only side, and sorry but this time Bernie’s not on it.

        • Bob Hadley

          I find it hard to believe that you’d blindly obey if God Himself appeared and told you to disavow your spouse, disown your family and become a cloistered yoga in the Himalayas.

          More likely than not, you’d insist that he wasn’t really God. Talk is chap.

          But, who knows? maybe you would do all this if God Himself appeared and told you to do this. In that case, wouldn’t you want to reevaluate God?

          • seanmom

            In my opinion, a person would have to be insane not to obey God, if they knew they were actually dealing with God. Why would I “re-evauate” God? My inability to understand Him has no effect on His perfection. And if you were face to face with God, it would not be “blind” obedience–it would be fully-informed obedience, and the only rational choice to make.

          • Bob Hadley

            I was referring to your escape clause: “if they knew they were actually dealing with God.”
            You seem to hint at that God Himself would never tell you to disavow your spouse or partner, disown your families and become a cloistered yoga in the Himalayas, although you bristle when your gay friends give you a likewise answer in regards to gay marriage.

          • seanmom

            But that is the same “escape clause” I gave my homosexual discussants. Even IF they knew to the depths of their souls they were dealing with God, they would not obey Him in this.

            When we and God disagree, it is not God who must give in.

          • DonaldYoungsRevenge

            First of all you will not be hearing from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob anytime soon. He left all He needs to say to you in the best selling book in the world for you to read and make judgments based upon its content. There are millions of nut jobs out there who have been listening to voices they swear are from “God” and it sounds like you would go down that road. There are many examples of cultic personalities throughout history who have acted upon what they said “God had spoken to them.”

          • seanmom

            You’re missing the point of the question. It doesn’t matter whether anyone COULD hear from God. The question is, in essence, if YOU believed that God wanted you to stop doing what you are doing, would you? The only sane answer to that is “yes.” But the sinner’s answer is elusive: God wouldn’t ask. That’s not the question. The question is if you KNEW He wanted you to stop, would you.

            And the answer to that, inevitably, is no. It is idolatry, pure and simple. Holding anything dearer than God.

      • DonaldYoungsRevenge

        If “a god” appeared and asked one to respond to those proposals you presented as a Christian you would be required to see how they are aligned with the Scriptures. In this case, that “god” would be the Anti-Christ.

        • Bob Hadley

          In other words, your answer is that God Himself would never ask you to do those things. That’s the same answer that Seanmom’s gay friends gave. :)

          • DonaldYoungsRevenge

            No my answer is, take what you though was from “god” and see how it aligns with Scripture. No I would not go to your pastor father for his opinion but rather straight to the Bible itself. There are many apostate pastors standing in those liberal Christian pulpits that have heard someone other than G-d speaking to them.

          • Bob Hadley

            In other words, any Christian who believe differently from you is an apostate?

            Again, you’re saying the same thing seanmom’s gay friends said to her: God would not say that to me.

            The gay friends said God would not tell them to stop forming same-sex unions and you say that God would not tell you to disavow your spouse or disown your family or to become a yogi in the Himalayas.

      • plsilverman

        God “Himself”? God is Spirit.

  • Nicholas344

    Bernie wrote:

    On this issue, religious conservatives are on the wrong side of a very powerful force. They are on the wrong side of history. The French writer Victor Hugo said it best: “All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come.”

    Unfortunately it seems the idea that has come that it is time for the death of America as a free country. Even though Albert Camus called Simone Weil the “only great mind of our times” you won’t understand why. She wrote:

    “Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace.”

    A free society requires the help of grace to sustain the necessary quality of human perspective for mutual respect essential to sustain freedom. Without it, statist slavery must compensate for the loss of the help of grace.

    You are concerned about being against gay marriage but oblivious of the role traditional marriage serves for America to remain free.

    Traditional marriage is a blend of the male/female principles that both enable the marriage to produce a quality of wholeness and human perspective that brings it closer to its source and inviting grace as well as producing children that are a result of the quality of this blend.

    Traditional marriage is a ritual, an idea necessary to sustain freedom by being part of what connects society to its source: one nation under God. Without a sufficient minority open to the value of connecting with the Source, freedom dies and a form of statist slavery must replace it.

    I’m not against gay marriage. I’m for celebrating the unique function of traditional marriage. It is being forgotten and along with other essential ideas being forgotten, assures the death of America as a free society by denying its source and dooming it to be governed by power and force..

    • Iklwa

      “Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace.”

      Thank you,
      Iklwa

    • Drew Page

      A lot of people at various times in history felt that Nazism, Socialism and Communism were ideas whose time had come. Fortunately, those ideas have come and gone.

      • EddieD_Boston

        Not a good comparison at all Drew. Gay people are born the way they are and can’t change. Nazism was a political movement you could agree or disagree with and even change your mind about. I don’t see how it applies to gay marriage.
        Why can’t gay couples live with the same rights as straight couples? Doesn’t seem right to me. Plus, what harm does it do? The real harm being done in our society is the epidemic of single-motherhood. It’s ruining the public school system. It’s ruining neighborhoods. It’s ruining the lives children (look at the stats). It’s ruining the country. Worse, people who work and raise their kids the right way are bleeping paying for it all while living paycheck to paycheck. Ever see an educated couple with three obese children? Didn’t think so.
        That’s the fight the right should be fighting. Do the math…the obese 19 y/o with the tattoo on her neck has 4 kids and the woman with an MBA has 1 or 2. The country is doomed.

        • seanmom

          Gay people are born the way they are and can’t change.”

          There is absolutely no reliable or validated scientific evidence that this is true. It is simply an article of faith, presented to several generations of young people as true. When, in fact, it is no more than theory.

          • Integrity

            Can we not make the same argument that there is no reliable or validated scientific evidence that God exists? Is not our belief in God based upon faith? You will never convince me that most gay people choose to be that way. It defies logic.

          • seanmom

            Then you prove you do not hold your opinion on a rational basis. The claim of being “born that way” is a scientific claim of genetics. Unlike God, science doesn’t ask for obedience or faith in its claims. In fact, it invites testing, dares you to prove it wrong.. That IS science. Yet, when faced with the statement that there is no scientific evidence for the claim you make, you in essence say, “I don’t care.” That is not a sin against God–as much as it is a rejection of science.

          • plsilverman

            how do you test bisexuality? science, yeah,.yeah, yeah….let all Americans enjoy Freedom! (and hopefully straights and gays and semi-straights, etc. can keep their freaking sexuality to themselves).

          • plsilverman

            right. a young guy kisses a pretty girl after their first junior high dance. it’s indescribable bliss! will he say, y’know, just maybe kissing another guy will be even cooler? it works for straights and gays, no?

          • plsilverman

            some “gays” want to change…some do not. some folks have “gay” tendencies. I used to listen to a radio host, a Doctor Dean Adel, back in New York, and he said, brilliantly, that no one is 1000% anything. Should we HALF tolerate bisexuals? sorry about that syntax but it works. :)

        • DonaldYoungsRevenge

          There is not one shred of evidence that declares that sodomites are born that way. If you can make that declaration you are on a slippery slope to every perverse act using the same excuse for responding to that instant gratification button we all possess.

          • plsilverman

            “sodomites”? is male to female s….y better for the world? look, a lot of us are very uncomfortable with this, but it’s here and here to stay. relax. play some Chuck Berry.

        • Adrien Nash

          “The country is doomed” The TSA is proof of that. Any government as stupid as the government policy followed by the TSA will self-destruct. Incompetence and stupidity are not the exception but are the rule. The fiber of the men that created this country is totally lacking in all venues of government, academia, media, science, sociology and politics. We are become not the country of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson but of the O.J. Simpson jury. And their ilk sit on our Supreme Court. The cancer of Progressive Human Secularism is rotting the institutions of the nation, and the population that infests them.

          • plsilverman

            the “ilk” of the OJ jury? they were chosen by the Court. They were overall a very poor example of a jury…BUT apparently they saw a very sloppy prosecution and decided that there was a shadow of a doubt. Some of the comments of the jurors were shocking and the behavior of Clark and Darden and Ito was criminal. But “ilk”….?

          • plsilverman

            I disagree….except for the extremists lurking around the Capitol and the playground they have cared out for themselves…I’m very pleased with a lot of them. there are no slave holders amongst them, by the way.

        • plsilverman

          Nazi reference – do-over OR a D-.

  • Wheels55

    Personally, I don’t care if gays marry or not. I just don’t think government should tell us about marriage. The marriage license is just another tax.
    I say let gays marry … and divorce. Let the joys a legal hassle filter in their lives. Equal rights.
    But if they are happily living together now, so what if they marry? What is the difference to anybody?
    If the USA was a one religion deal, we would be no better off than those knuckleheads in the middle east. So, religion shouldn’t have a say nationwide. In my house and your house – maybe it should.

    • John Daly

      Well said.

  • Bullhead1

    Jesus would say “Go and SIN no more” Yes it is a sin. It is a choice made by people. It won’t be long and Christians will suffer persecution because they believe it is a sin. In fact they already are paying the price in some businesses. Don’t want to photograph a gay marriage? You are fined. Don’t want to bake a gay marriage cake? You are fined. So we will be in jail. Sorry Bernie We do not have a “closed mine”-we are just following th eword of God which HE commands us to do.

  • Ralph Hahn

    Bernie: Good points. Born and raised a Roman Catholic, I’ve grown to know the big difference between people of faith and religious people. But, how can use you use the analogy that nationwide segregation would not have been possible in the Southern states if the individual state(s) voted to keep integration, while the VERY liberal people of California, itself, rejected gay marriage on the ballot?

  • phillipcsmith

    There is something to be said, from a health standpoint, for some type of legalized union between homosexuals. The heterosexual ethic related to marriage was, and still should be, that once marriage is entered into (and even before ideally), the partners should be, as is expected in heterosexual unions, sexually faithful to each other, they should not have any other sexual partners. Are homosexuals willing to be sexually faithful to their partners? Their history in this regard is not promising. I have a real empathy for homosexuals whose sexual urges are not compatible with Judeo-Christian moral laws. How can they gain satisfaction in this area in a way compatible with this set of laws?

    Also, if there is a God, and if his word is found in the Bible, then the prohibition against homosexual behavior is not only the right choice, it is God’s choice. Humans might try to redefine God’s will but this effort is a little like trying to remove the 6th commandment from the ten given to Moses. Man’s actions do not negate God’s will, only make man appear naive and stupid. Thus it is clear that Jesus, who is also the Jehovah of the Old Testament, and who told Adam and all subsequent prophets that marriage is a union between men and women, is not likely to change his omniscient view of things simply to please some of those living on the earth who want to legalize the expression of their sexuality.

    What should be present, however, is a civil, compassionate discussion that will lead to actions that provide long-term happiness to all. I love and have compassion for those with homoerotic attraction feelings. Theirs is a difficult situation in the context of Judeo-Christian morality.

    • chrismalllory

      You can be Christian or Judeo, not both. There is a New Covenant, the old is passed away.

      • seanmom

        Judeo-Christian tradition is a thing. A thing this nation was founded on. Look it up.

      • plsilverman

        really? not really. for the first 300 years or so, Christians were called Jewish Christians. only when the Nicean council came along and drew a line in the sand and reverted back to pre-Christian practices that this divide came about. You say there are no “Messianic” Jews? Jesus Of Nazareth was a Jew…Bar Mitzfa’d at age 12 and then became a Rabbi. YES.

  • EddieD_Boston

    Gay couples should be allowed to marry. There are bigger problems the country is facing right now and this shouldn’t be an issue being fought.

    Also, kinda related. I think it’s wonderful gay couples adopt. A 100% selfless act. Very noble. I have a problem with artificial insemination though. Don’t know why but I do.

    • johnk

      Gay couples have no business adopting. From the day they were born, at times my kids want mom and at times they want dad. Kids WILL NOT develop normally if they don’t have this environment. But that’s OK, because adopting kids isn’t about the kids, it’s about getting a cool new pet.

      • EddieD_Boston

        Totally don’t agree. A kid is better off being raised by people that love him or her and provide a stable, nurturing environment. Foster homes are better than nothing but adoption is better for the kid (in my opinion).

    • seanmom

      I’m not sure why adoption would be a “100% selfless act.” Can’t people adopt to please themselves as much as to rescue a child?

      Also, sometimes this happens: http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/7330467/. Or this: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/gay-conn-couple-accused-rape-face-trial-article-1.1310010

      Adoption certainly can be an expression of selflessness. But it is not incontrovertible evidence of selflessness, no matter who is doing it.

  • http://anziulewicz.livejournal.com PolishBear

    The morality of Gay marriage is comparable to the morality of Straight marriage: It is morally and ethically preferable to encourage people toward monogamy and commitment, rather than relegating them to lives of loneliness and possibly promiscuity. So YES: Supporting marriage equality is the true conservative position.

    Studies have repeatedly shown that the benefits are substantial:
    1: Married couples typically contribute more and take less from society.
    2: Married couples support and care for each other financially, physically and emotionally and often contribute more to the economy and savings.
    3: Individuals who are married are less likely to receive government entitlements.
    4: Individuals who are married statistically consume less health care services, and often give more to churches and charities.
    5: Married couples are better able to provide care and security for children.

    So what sense does it make to exclude law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples from this place at the table? Why is it, for example, that Straight couples are encouraged to date, get engaged, marry and build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing … yet for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me this seems like a very poor value judgment.

    Couples do not need to marry to have children, nor is the ability or even desire to have children a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license. There are also countless Gay individuals and couples who are raising adopting children into healthy, well-adjusted adulthood.

    As Judge Vaughn Walker said in the decision on California’s Prop. 8 Case: “Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.” It was a view shared by the courts in the Golinski case against DOMA, where a Bush appointee in the Northern District of California concurred: “The exclusion of same-sex couples from the federal definition of marriage does nothing to encourage or strengthen opposite-sex marriages.”

  • Pelham123Guy

    It seems to be all in the naming. Vermont’s “civil union”, the first to attempt to reconcile the different perspectives, didn’t satisfy those who to wanted to be married. If “marriage” is the new norm, I’ve heard some churches performing a “covenant” which presumably, will be available only to heterosexual couples.

    Venezuela entertains both a civil (governmental) marriage ceremony and a church ceremony. One usually gets both. Their tradition, seems to be better in that it bifurcates the gov’t role from the faith-based role of marriage.

    If town clerks (and other govt entities only offered civil marriages (licenses), then churches who wanted to perform same-sex marriages could do so and that would be that.

  • Rockwall Tim

    Here’s a guess as to how Jesus would react were he in person today. Given how his Father reacted to the rampant homosexuality in Sodom and Gomorrah, I’m going to surmise that he would go to the nearest gay parade and start turning over vehicles and clearing the street of those making an abomination of the temple of God.

    • chrismalllory

      The streets of American cities are not “the temple of God”.

      • Montana Made

        No- the Human Body is- I don’t think Jesus would destroy the human body- but would advise as He did Mary- “Go, and sin no more.”

  • John Probst

    thanks for the point about procreation, but you and those on both side of the debate miss the main point: ADOPTION: children adopted into gay marriages do not have the civil right to an adult choice about their adoption

  • Gene

    How interesting that this article has on the page an advertisement for Liberty University! LOL

  • christopher mahoney

    The problem is that the right to gay marriage was “discovered” lurking in the 5th Amendment. It’s not in there. DOMA should have been repealed, not declared unconstitutional.

    • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

      It’s in the 10th and the 1st

  • forrest

    Maybe God does not need the approval of gays? Maybe most people dont want gay school teachers telling their young child its OK to be gay? Maybe somebody should say that you cant solve the problems with gay solutions when the problems are politica not gayl? Maybe, just maybe, the reptilian part of the brain should not be any part of any political process? Use the brain for something else that would benefit everybody and not just gays. Maybe we dont want to fight a civil war over states rights on the gay issue? But we might? It happened with slavery. Let us all hope it dont go that far. The gay minority problem is plenty bad enough. Once they get their rights, the pedifiles will want to marry your child and they will claim its just their right too.

    • Bernie

      In my column I said we should be careful not to throw the word “bigot” around too loosely at those who are unhappy with the Supreme Court rulings. But based on your line about pedophiles (which you spelled incorrectly) it’s a safe bet that you are an out and out bigot.

      • forrest

        Thanks Ronny. I consider that a compliment. At least I know Im effective.

  • Tami

    I’m a Christian and a Southerner…that being said. I believe in the sacrament of marriage however, marriage is not a term strictly owned by religion. You go to a State Office to apply for a MARRIAGE license, government documents will ask for your MARITAL status, it is not a requirement to have marriages sanctioned by the church ( those straight marriages performed by Justice of the Peace ) if there are benefits given by the State for being married ( medical advocacy, tax ect ) that should be a right to all citizens. I have not seen anything about the gays demanding the Holy Sacrament of Marriage thru the Church – just the LEGAL right to be married. You cannot accuse the Gays of hijacking the term marriage when the State uses it.

    • John Daly

      Agreed. No one causes a stink about atheists getting married, yet Christian beliefs are an argument used against gays getting married. I don’t get it.

    • John Probst

      you are correct about what you say, but ignore the adoption issue

  • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

    Careful Mr. Goldberg. You aren’t a bad looking gentleman. Some of us non-Democratic gays might get a crush on you. Here is my piece on the topic http://americasfuture.org/doublethink/2013/06/a-guide-to-the-marriage-debate/

  • Larry B

    Bernie, you should be the grand marshall of the next big “pride” parade, here in LA. Your tolerance will be rewarded for all time. BTW, you should know that “civil rights,” as it is applied in this country, is understood by the media, culture and law to be wholly-owned by blacks

    • plsilverman

      but Obama declined on restoring the Fairness Doctrine. what’s left of MSM is owned by billionaire caucasians

  • Seattle Sam

    You don’t find it odd (I find it offensive) that something that has had a very specific definition for thousands of years is turned upside down because a decade or so ago it became fashionable? I fancy myself a “journalist” because I write things like this in response to your writings. I think that makes anyone who writes a sentence seen by others a “journalist”. Yes, let’s pollute that word, too.

    • John Daly

      Do you believe that the government’s definition of marriage and the religious definition of marriage are the same thing? If not, your argument loses. ;)

      • Seattle Sam

        Huh? If you go back thousands of years, you will find that marriage law considered marriage to be between a man and a woman. Plato even wrote that in choosing a wife everyone ought to consult the interests of the state, and not his own pleasure

        • John Daly

          Maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you were referring to the religious definition of marriage. If you’re talking simply about the ‘traditional’ definition of marriage, I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t find a change to that definition, in the context of how the government recognizes it legally, as “offensive”.

          I don’t view simple terminology as a sacred entity. Terminology often changes or extends to include other things.

          • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

            I’m not saying government should define marriage for religions; I’m saying it should not.

          • John Daly

            And I agree with you.

          • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

            It’s a solution that should make many with differing opinions happy. To implement it we need to simplify the tax code and reduce the welfare state though.

        • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

          Plato is too ironical to use as a source in this way. Especially since in the Republic he outlawed marriage for the ruling class and in the Symposium he told a creation story in which gay, lesbian and straight people were all created when original human beings were cut in half.

    • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

      The government doesn’t define the word journalist so why should it define spouse or marriage or any other sacrament? That violates the First Amendment by the way, since it establishes a set of State approved churches that perform the right State approved sacrament. Do you believe the state should define “parent” as someone who sends their kids to state approved schools and wars, and lets their kids teach the family about Obamacare? So that anyone who does not do that it a site or mare, but not a parent?

  • John DuMond

    “On this issue, religious conservatives are on the wrong side of a very powerful force.”

    Actually, they believe they are on the side of God, which would puts them on the side of the most powerful force of all. Your “wrong side of history” argument falls flat when considered in the context of that belief system. If you’re going to analyze a group of people, you need to make an effort to understand where they’re coming from. You’re a smart guy, Bernie, but you seem to have a tough time tamping down your disdain for conservative Christianity.

    By the way, I’m an agnostic, so if I noticed this, it’s glaringly obvious.

  • Skip in VA

    I do not object to “gays” (we used to call them queers here in the South) living together. My objection is their hi-jacking of the word “marriage”. Call it a civil union, a partnering, anything but marriage; that word is reserved in MY dictionary for the union of a man and a woman. Period! As far as gays getting equal rights, I have no problem with that. If they live in America, are American citizens, pay taxes, etc., they should receive all the benefits as the rest of us do.
    Also, I have asked this question before but no one has answered me: what percentage of adults, in America, are actually gay? Could we possibly have the tail wagging the dog here?

    • Larry B

      Paula Dean would really be toast if she ever said “queers” in her past!

      • Skip in VA

        You got that right, good buddy! I feel sorry for Ms. Dean but I think she hurt herself more by going on talk shows. She should have just kept her mouth shut.

        • Larry B

          Maybe she should go on a special “Oprah” and open her veins! Trouble is, they’d still not forgive her!

        • Ed

          She should have grown a spine.

      • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

        But she is being toasted and Baldwin is not.

    • John Daly

      >>Call it a civil union, a partnering, anything but marriage; that word
      is reserved in MY dictionary for the union of a man and a woman.

      So…. If Webster changed its definition, you’d be all for it? ;)

      • Skip in VA

        Mr. Daly, please note I said, “in MY dictionary.” I could care less if Webster changed it’s definition, that’s my definition and I’m sticking by it. Picky, picky.

        • John Daly

          It was an attempt at humor. ;)

          • Ed

            It failed. Seems you gay folks can take some liberties that you dont allow straight people to take.

          • John Daly

            I’m gay? News to me. And what liberties?

          • Ed

            See, i knew you were Gay John, just took a little push for you to admit it (thats the sort of thing YOU do to others). Liberties? Well, thats quite clear, but I’ll play along with you John…YOU can make an attempt at humor, but you wouldnt like it much if somone else did, no you would be all over them for that. OK, there ya go, I played.

          • John Daly

            Haven’t a clue what you just typed there, Ed. I think you’re creating a straw man to argue with. Good luck on that debate! ;)

      • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

        You should be free to use words any way you want to do so, and so should your dictionary and every church. And i should be free to call to women or men who are permanently coupled “married.”. But the law should not be able to do so if it violates the First Amendment.

      • Ed

        Ass.

    • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

      Gays who have plighted their troth have always considered themselves to be married. They just couldn’t use the word openly since they’d be lynched by the same people who wrote laws defining marriage in the legal code.

    • http://anziulewicz.livejournal.com PolishBear

      DEAR SKIP:

      So let’s say the Supreme Court ruled that Straight couples could get “married,” Gay couples could get “civil unions,” but other than the different terminology, both arrangements would have exactly the same legal benefit and protections, at all levels of government, as required under the 14th Amendment. And let’s say the Court also said the “Full Faith & Credit Clause” applied to marriages and civil unions equally and were honored in all 50 states. Would you have a problem with that?

      Remember, there would not be language police roaming around telling Gay couples in civil unions that they could not refer to one another as “married.” For all intents and purposes they WOULD be married, except for a purely legal designation. So ask yourself: Is it really only the word “marriage” that matters to you most?

    • Ed

      Skip, the reason we all or dumbfounded, about this whole Gay Marriage debate, is that it is not about Gay Marriage. If it truly was, then the Gays would be OK with Civil Union carrying all the rights of Married people. What they want, what they really want, is to mainstream their activity and rub fecal matter in the face of the Catholic church. Otherwise, they would accept Civil Union as you stated. Lets see whats next on their agenda, any guesses there is more to come? Oh… and its a great political tool for the Democrats….they both LOVE playing together, and they LOVE when they get Billy O’Reilly and Bernie on their side.. WHOO HOO!

      • John Daly

        Oh, please. All they want is equality.

        Yes, there are jerks among the gay community who love ‘sticking it’ to the religious institutions who they believe are responsible for the discrimination against them over the years, but gay marriage isn’t a strategy for revenge.

        Again, legal (government-regulated) marriage isn’t the same as the religious institution of marriage. Gay people just want their unions to be recognized with the same legitimacy as traditional marriages.

        There’s no hidden agenda, and there’s no ‘gay marriage agenda’. It’s about wanting to be recognized as equals.

        • Adrien Nash

          Yes. That is how it starts, but that is not where it ends because most homosexuals are not in a monogamous relationship with marriage as the goal. So what they want it the legitimization of their homosexual lifestyle and it’s acceptance and protection enshrined in law in the face of wide-spread rejection by heterosexual society. They do not want to remain in the shadows. They crave the freedom to be openly expressive of their homosexual attraction, which most heterosexuals react to with innate revulsion.

          • John Daly

            << because most homosexuals are not in a monogamous relationship with marriage as the goal.

            Not that I think that matters either way, but do you have any stats to support that statement?

            And I agree that they want acceptance (why wouldn't they?), but disagree that they face wide-spread rejection by the heterosexual society. Have you seen the polls lately?

    • seanmom

      Approximately 4% is the highest number actually derived from demographic data. The mythical “10%” comes from very early research by Alfred Kinsey, who procured his data primarily from pedophiles in men’s prisons. Most Americans wildly overestimate the population figure as between 20 and 25 percent, most likely because media images vastly overrepresent homosexual characters in movies and on television, from which a disturbing portion of Americans get their notions of the world in general.

  • Stephanie S

    Very simple. Ban “legal” marriage. If two people whether gay or straight want to declare themselves “married” and/or have a friend or minister perform a ceremony and throw a party and call it a “wedding”, fine. But get the govt. out of it–no special benefits for being married. These benefits were set up to encourage the formation of families with children. Times have changed. It amounts to discrimination against single people at this point–and yes, I think that is a coming civil rights issue. If you are going to keep a government-sanctioned system, then for those who choose not to marry or can’t find someone to marry (isn’t that absurd–to grant a privilege to those who are lucky enough to find a life partner?), let them declare themselves married to their cat or roommate or favorite chair and get the benefits, whether they are for medical insurance or taxes. Child support and child custody are completely different issues and could still be handled through the courts.

    • John Probst

      As a life-long single, i applaud you comment; and if i marry my dogs and cats i can get vet bills paid by ObaMaoCare!

      • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

        Gay marriage, especially if one thinks it is an issue of freedom to contract, assumes that both parties to a contract, are legally considered able to be a party to a contract. Typically pets, livestock and children are not allowed to sign contracts. Just FYi if you’ve gone deranged.

        • John Probst

          Adopting CHILDREN without their adult consent goes against what you are saying so who is deranged?? And Arabs and indians etc. still have arranged marriages with no real consent/contract

          • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

            Children are not adults and adoption is not currently a contract between children and their adoptive parents. It probably would be good to give children and women giving children up for adoption more say in where they are placed, but that is not related.

  • Chief Mojo

    Wow. I finally disagree with Bernie on something. Didja ever hear of the phrase “defining deviancy down?” Or how about “Just because something’s popular doesn’t make it right?” I’m actually kinda shocked at how quickly so-called conservatives, Bernie included, caved on this issue.

    • John Daly

      Caved, or just reached a conclusion that differs from yours? Just because something’s popular doesn’t make it wrong, either. ;)

      • Larry B

        John, you need to get a job righting for the homosexual-loving “Los Angeles Times;” you’d be among friends there.

        • John Daly

          Or I could just write for the people I want to write for, and continue to speak my honest mind.

          Have you read any of my columns, Larry? Because if you did, you’d recognize that they would HATE me at the Los Angeles Times. ;)

          • Larry B

            Yes, I’ve read your columns, but no more! I just unsubscribed from Bernie’s newsletter, and I encourage others to do the same. Regarding the Times, I could imagine them writing a “strange new respect” piece about you two.

          • John Daly

            That there is a pretty telling response, my friend.

            You support the site when the people here write columns that you agree with (and still do probably 90% of the time), but when they disagree with you on a specific issue, you pull that support and call on others to do the same.

            It’s a free country. Do as you must… But that seems to me to be a real shame.

          • Larry B

            No, I’m not your “friend,” in the Senator McCain sense, and there are certain issues that I just can’t tolerate and this is one of them. I bet even you hold such feelings too, about other issues.

      • Ed

        ”The essence of immorality is the tendency to make an exception of myself.” -Jane Addams

    • forrest

      I agree with the chief. Hitler and the Nazis were popular in germany at one time too but look where popular got them.

  • Ditters

    Bernie Goldberg “master of the straw man”…completely 180 degrees wrong once again. No, Bernie the only reason isn’t religion; its reason itself.

    The reason that governments get involved in the whole marriage thing (and have done so for thousands of years) is because people with common sense recognized that marriage–the primordial institution of one man and one woman by which human life is brought into this world–is the foundation of any flourishing society. Traditional marriage is good for society. Even people living in the Amazon jungle with no connection to the outside world understand that.

    Gay marriage on the other hand is the personal romance of two people whose union is contrary to nature and reason. You don’t get more illogical than sodomy. People can do whatever they want in the privacy of their bedroom, but why should the government and community as a whole support it? What does it bring to the table? Why should society as a whole give gay couples a pat on the back and social security benefits for mutually masturbating under the sheets? State endorsed and subsidized mutual masturbation and sodomy: that’s what gay marriage is. And now, when their sexual actions don’t produce children due to the horrible unfair mechanism known as biology, we are expected to supply the children too because its not fair that this guy wasn’t born with a uterus in his colon.

    Furthermore, what does a public endorsement gay unions do to the public’s understanding of marriage (especially among our youth) which is already horribly disfigured? It basically says “anything goes”. Romance and the satisfaction of whatever disordered desires you have are all that matter. Next on the menu: polygamy and incest. Now the son, father, and grandmother should all be able to marry because “hey they are all consenting adults and they are in love”. Justice Kennedy and the rest of our unelected black robed dictators made it clear that the elected federal officials, for the purpose of federal benefits, aren’t permitted to define what marriage is or isn’t because if they do then you are nothing but a “bigot”.

    People laugh at those of us who talk about the collapse of western civilization. The effects of gay marriage won’t be seen right away, but eventually it will manifest itself as a complete corruption of the understanding of the much abused institution of marriage and human sexuality itself. The result: screwed up children who become criminals and pscychos because of the lunacy they were forced to grow up in. But yeah lets just redefine an institution as old as recorded history, part of human nature itself, simply because “we know better.”

    More than the cause of the collapse of western civilization (which is undoubtedly already underway), the endorsement of gay marriage is more like a symptom–a sign that a population have lost all common sense and has already been on the path destruction for a long time.

    • Ed

      Awesome Post!!!. If Bernie isn’t turned 180 degrees by this, then he is protecting a close family member (or friend) who is Gay, and asking us to change ourselves to benefit his Gay family member (There’s that smell again- the stench of hypocrisy). This is really all that needs to be said. Thank you.

      • John Daly

        Ed, is your argument really that someone can’t support gay marriage without someone close to them being gay? Really? I have to wonder if that argument was thrown around a lot before interracial marriage was legalized.

        • Ed

          No John, I think there are ignorant people that dont know any homosexuals, that just dont care about much of anything at all , and just want “everyone to just get a long”. BUT!, everyone I know that is FOR changing the definition of marriage, has a child or a fiend that is Gay. Even conservative friends. You can look to Congress and see that is rampant there as well. So, i think I can generalize here and feel comfortable.

          • John Daly

            Well, Ed… You’ve just met one of those people you don’t claim exists: Me.

            I can assure you that I’m not ‘ignorant’ and that there are plenty of things that I care about. Just read my columns here.

            I look at every issue and listen to the opposing arguments, before forming my own conclusions. I support gay marriage because the arguments against it (again, the ‘legal’ definition of marriage, not the the ‘spiritual’ one) just aren’t compelling. I mean… it’s not even close.

            Humor me, if you will, and read a column I wrote on this topic a while back where I distinguish between the government’s definition and the religious definition, and tell me if you think I’m wrong:

            http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/the-sense-in-being-a-conservative-supporter-of-gay-marriage/

          • Ed

            John, you’re a filthy liar. Nothing worse than a liar. You like to parse other peoples words and take them to extreme definitions while you dont like when otehrs do it to you. You are filth and no John, no matter how much you beg, I wont read your columns, like you beg everyone to do, by going around trying to tell everyone on every post …. Ooooh! i write a column! come and read my column!, here is a link to ME! and MY writings!…….Good Lord…. you cant suck enough

          • John Daly

            A filthy liar! lol. Easy Tiger. I was just interested in your take on a column I wrote that covered some parts of this debate that weren’t covered in Bernie’s column. I brought it up, and provided you with a link. I didn’t realize that equated to “begging” you or anyone else to read it.

            Oh, and you finished that post off with another “rant”, just to let you know… Reminiscent of Chris Farley from Saturday Night Live in the early 1990s.

        • Ed

          yes John….yes…. thats my ENTIRE argument. Idiot.

          • John Daly

            Take it easy, little fella. I never said it was your ENTIRE argument… just the argument you made in the post I responded to.

            Don’t get all fussy simply because you were proven wrong.

          • Ed

            BS John. and you know it, F. U.

          • John Daly

            Now Ed… Let’s try and keep some composure here. There are a number of people making good, thoughtful arguments on both sides of the issue. No need to get all hot and bothered.

      • Bernie

        No one in my family is black but I support civil rights for black people. Your argument isn’t serious.

        • John Daly

          Wait a minute… You weren’t serious when you told O’Reilly you were related to Whoopi Goldberg??? ;) Loved watching Bill’s face on that one.

          • Ed

            John, trying to publicly slip your tongue in Bernie’s butt? you’re pathetic.

          • John Daly

            Ahhh Ed…. Is this what you’re really going to resort to? I know you’re having hard time in this debate, but let’s keep it clean. K? No need to get all worked up over a moment of levity.

        • Ed

          Bernie, you like to quote people, and try and come off as being erudite, so I have one for you (and Ill post this up top after)…

          ”The essence of immorality is the tendency to make an exception of myself.” -Jane Addams

          I have a coworker who is Muslim and one of the best guys in the world, he wouldn’t hurt a fly. Therefore, we should all rethink our views on Muslims….right?. Bernie you are a hypocrite, like every other famous person and or politician that when finding out they have a gay son or daughter, suddenly changes their conservative stance. And BTW- Comparing Gay Marriage to the Civil rights movement..wow.. thats GOT to piss off the Black people. That’s just stupid.

    • forrest

      A lot of what you said is true ditters but I sometimes think this gay thing is all about charging bucks for all those gay marriages. Plus other retirement bendfits and such that a married couple might share. It brings on a new industry for the legal profession that can pad their pockets as well. Divorce is profitable for Legal professionals you know. It is big bussiness now-a-days.

      • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

        That it will be abused and exploited, like everything else, is true but not salient.

  • John Daly

    I brought this point up in a previous column, but I think it’s worth bringing it up again. Being a Christian myself, I’ve looked into this with some interest. As large as the Bible is, homosexuality is described specifically as a sin in it TWICE. Other sins – ones that each and every one of us commit literally all the time – are mentioned all throughout the bible. A perfect example is ‘jealousy’ – a sin so notable that it even makes up 2 of 10 Commandments.

    Do we not let jealous people marry each other in this country? Of course we do. So I just can’t figure out how Christians can point to the Bible as a justification to discriminate against gays and marriage, but not when it comes to any other sins and marriage.

    • Lucky girl

      Twice isn’t enough? That logic doesn’t follow..How many times do you have be told something is wrong?

      • John Daly

        You missed my point.

        Jealousy is just as much of a sin, according to the Bible, as homosexuality. Yet no one is saying that jealous people shouldn’t get married. No one is saying that people who disobey their parents shouldn’t get married. No one is saying that those who use God’s name in vein shouldn’t get married. No one is saying that people who don’t even believe in God shouldn’t get married.

        But with homosexuals, a lot of people are saying they shouldn’t be able to get married because homosexuality is a sin.

        How does that make any sense at all?

        • Montana Made

          John-

          God also says that the sinner is to rid themselves of the sin and live a better life. In cases of jealousy, disobedience or lying- it can be done. In the case of being gay- the argument is they cannot change- therefore this issue is NOT that simple.

          • John Daly

            But if those who sin choose not to rid themselves of those sins of jealousy, disobedience, or lying, should the state then null and void their marriage? Because there’s no way that’s ever going to happen.

            Marriage in the legal sense is not the same as marriage in the religious sense. I don’t even want the government involved in preserving the sanctity of marriage. Why can’t they simply approach legal marriage as a civil union?

        • seanmom

          It is a sin for the society to bless that which God calls an abomination. If the law has no moral foundation, it has no force; no one can fairly be asked to obey it.

          However, the other point in response to yours is that there are no legislators or judges seeking to use envy as the basis for marriage. It’s amusing that anyone–especially the Supreme Court–should imagine that the state has any interest whatsoever in recognizing any relationship based solely on the idea that the persons involved romantically “love” each other. Romantic “love” is not an interest of the state. Marriage has never been valued by society because of its promulgation of romantic “love.” Rather, it has been of use to the state to protect women, legitimize children, and civilize men.

          As a matter of fact, the romantic love that everyone wants to celebrate has been one of the reasons the state has always been careful to restrict minors from running off to get married, as young people are particularly susceptible to confusing romantic love–or even lust–with the responsible decision to raise a family and build the culture.

  • Scott D

    I find your argument lacking for several reasons the first being who instituted marriage to begin with, how marriage became to be a government function and was taken out of the churches hands, rights guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are specified as God-given, which God declared homosexuality an abomination, the SCOTUS ruling make any laws against any type of love or lust arbitrary in that it is a “RIGHT” to love whoever you want and marry them. This leaves child brides, rape, bestiality, and any type perversion as LOVE that the SCOTUS has just ruled the government has no right to regulate or specify the difference of legal and illegal. These laws may stand for the present, but it is just a matter of time, until the Bestiality Rights groups form or the Pedophile for Adults is really LOVE groups form and demand their rights also. SCOTUS did no more than remove a standard of morals centuries old and replace them with a standard that cannot judge the ultimate moral right of anything and we become a society that has rejected the ultimate moral standards and have no right to judge the moral standards of any other country even if Hitler were to reappear, we have no standing to call the holocaust wrong because it is their moral standard and their right. Dig deeper than your superficial desires to claim understanding and realize where we are actually headed..

    • Montana Made

      Sodom & Gomorrah come to mind…

      • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/ BruceMajors4DC

        First of all you are referring to Judaism in the years BC. Second many think the crime there was the universally condemned crime in the ancient world of preying on vulnerable travellers by attempting to rape or steal from them.

        • seanmom

          Actually, “many” is in reality a very small number–and no serious Biblical scholar believes that.

  • http://karlq.spaces.live.com Karl Quick

    Bernie, you are missing a serious alternative in which lies the solution. It is rooted in the history of the 1st Amendment. Jefferson argued brilliantly for a legal system free of doctrine, buy fully rooted in equal, natural rights. Review the history and you will see that when the Bill of Rights was being debated, many if not most state constitutions included a “state church” as in English law, or special privileges for certain denominations. Jefferson argued it was not the place of government to enter debates on doctrine, and further, the government entanglement with religion was damaging to both institutions, infringing upon freedom of thought, belief, speech and voluntary association.

    Oh, how I wish we had taken the next step and also denied government authority over marriage!

    More practically today, the majority of needy children are born out of wedlock, and there are many couples that constitute traditional families without the “blessing” of either church or government. Marriage “law” today consists os a set of (now) poorly-aimed benefits that help divorce lawyers more than anyone else. REAL marriage, love and life-long commitment, is harmed by government entanglement!

    This is the perspective of a 66-year-old conservative Catholic married 40 years to the Protestant lady I love. We sing in each others choirs while enjoying our 4 adopted children and 5 grandchildren!

    Conclusion: strike all marriage law as an unconstitutional infringement upon religious and personal freedom; strike all marriage benefits as unfair to single people; support children by health and education vouchers, allowing diversity in healthcare and education, including services from charitable and religious groups.

    • Montana Made

      Except that Marriage is the Sacrament of God between a Man & a Woman steeped in scripture & tradition. Marriage came from God and ONLY God- it never came from the Government. It was co-opted by the Federal Government to appease the non-believers, and the Church was taken out (and I use the term “Church” to mean religion) for the most part.

      But this argument is a slippery slope issue: what’s next? The list could be endless- and that, more that religion, is the issue: Where does is end? This could get very ugly before it ends.

      Your last paragraph is a little troubling. You are advocating for the Government to take care of everyone- a little too Socialistic for me…

      • http://karlq.spaces.live.com Karl Quick

        No, the federal government should return charity, education, healthcare, welfare, marriage, etc to the broader community of churches, civic groups, non-profits, charities, etc. Not in any way socialist to restrict government to enforcing our natural equal rights without reference to morality or any religion.
        A murderer or thief or political thug is guilty of violating my right to life, property, or liberty! …we need not argue the morality or humanity of their crime under our LAWS, though we as citizens should be perfectly free to argue those issues independent of the legal prosecution and punishment of the offender. …this is the essence of freedom of thought and belief! …our laws should always be enforced by reference to our equal an inalienable NATURAL rights.
        Nature does not give us a right to prosperity, though it gives us the right to life and the opportunity to be prosperous.

        • Montana Made

          If to the people or the Church- then yes, I agree. If it’s just another Government run program- then count me out!

      • seanmom

        It ends with the French Revolution, with a Prostitute upon the throne (so to speak), the Declaration of the Year One, and a bloody mess as man reverts to himself without the grace or fear of God.

  • rgcomega

    Very thoughtful article. Personally, I find homosexuality offensive, but that’s me. I cannot ignore that it exists, but I also wish it were kept private. I don’t dance down the street in a parade wearing a tutu pronouncing proudly to the world I’m a heterosexual, so how about if we just keep our sexual preferences in the bedroom where they belong. Having said that, why would homosexuality be a lightning rod for denying equality, and that’s how I view the main issue for Gays…they simply seek equal and fair treatment under the law. Where I become perplexed is not in the principle, but in the politics, because I fail to understand why the only solution to the issue is to destroy the sanctity of marriage, millennia of tradition between a man and woman. Why do Gays have to be “married.” They don’t – if the argument is that marriage will achieve equivalent legal status and standing of married couples, all we need do instead is change necessary state and/or federal laws to allow and accommodate civil unions that grant such privilege. Give those who have religious beliefs and love tradition their own respect and loaf of bread, they will join in your cause freely. But when you try to destroy their ways to further your own, that’s why we have such discord and contention on the issue. And this distraction for each side on this issue, and others, is created solely by political morons on the left who view such causes as an opportunity to further their doctrine – destroy religion, centuries of customs and beliefs, do away with individual freedoms create discord, and their most favorite thing in the world, to call those who oppose their mantra bigots and racists.

  • rbblum

    Due to the issue having been publicly raised/addressed of a ‘marriage’ being other than between a man and a woman, the future issue will be to accept a man having more than one wife . . . as allowed by the Islam faith (Sharia law) . . . or once considered in the Mormon religion (polygamy).

    All in due time. For better or worse.

    • seanmom

      There is certainly a longer historical presence and and far more worldwide support for polygamy than for homosexual marriage. And an exponentially larger number of people worldwide who are polygamous than are homosexual.

  • Ed

    OMG!, Bernie, the stench of hypocrisy is in the air! do you have a close family member that is homosexual? because EVERY one i know that is on the side of changing the text book definition of marriage, after all these thousands of years, wants to do it because of their own person connections to homosexuals. Which speaks VOLUMES about them!!. #1- there is almost ALWAYS a hidden agenda in things like this, and this one is that Homosexuals want nothing more than to rub feces in the face of Christianity. Otherwise, “Civil Union” (combined with all the so-called “rights” of a married couple), would be acceptable and its not, for them. Instead, we get people like YOU Bernie, that have no interest in Christ, and as I said before, clearly have a Homosexual close to you, telling all of us Conservatives how we feel, which is completely wrong. The Fed/State should have NO BUSINESS in Marriage in the 1st place, that word should be stricken from ALL government documents. 2nd- LEAVE THE CATHOLICS ALONE!. If you want to pick on a religion, try picking on the Muslims, and see how well they wield a steak knife! Chin up my Man!. But you wont do that Bernie, because you have NO BALLS. I am SO tired of Gays and Blacks CRYING over EVERYTHING!, stop “Parading” around with your genitals hanging out, because im NOT joining your “club” & go get a job, stop blaming ME for all of YOUR shortcomings…. I have enough of my own to deal with and i don’t blame anyone else. Good Day Sir.

    • John Daly

      Can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I support gay marriage and have no family or close friends that are gay (to my knowledge anyway). Why does that matter? As for the rest of your incoherent rant… I think you might want to check your meds, man.

      • Ed

        I never said it mattered John, what I suggested was, that its a common hypocritical occurrence. VERY common. As I said- EVERY person I know that is Pro “Homosexual Marriage” has a close family member that is Gay. I stand by it, and I have seen enough of it to be able to make that generalization. Just because YOU claim to not fit into my generalization…well…Who The F cares? (BTW, I like how when you disagree with my statements about blacks & Gays, you call it a rant… LOVE that tactic!)

        • John Daly

          Again, today you’ve met someone who doesn’t fit your profile.

          And Ed, your post WAS a rant. There have been a lot people on this site who’ve been disagreeing with me without ranting. You just aren’t one of them. Deal with it.

          • Ed

            John, your brain isnt as big as you imagine it. youre not that good. YOUR posts are rants, there ya go, down to your sophomoric level now. Get over yourself.

          • John Daly

            Oh boy.

    • http://karlq.spaces.live.com Karl Quick

      Who ever gave the government authority to change the text book definition of marriage? Can they edit the Bible and Koran too?
      No… Government only can change who gets government benefits. If gays think the sum total of “marriage” is sharing benefits and divorce, they are sadly mistaken. Too bad they were not better educated!

  • David Planchon

    Since I am an Old Testament guy myself, what does the Talmud have to say about homosexuallity.?

    • seanmom

      Nothing good. The homosexual act (mishkav zakhar) is entirely forbidden–and, of course, in Leviticus punished by death.It does not appear to have been clarified in the Talmud as to why (there are theories), as a command of God, it stands even without explanation.

  • molledar

    I love you, Bernie, but you lost me in this particular article. We’ve totally forgotten as a society what “marriage” is. No, not the idealized, wishy-washy, sentimental, kumbaya definition, but the one which societies all over the world of different languages, customs and beliefs have held true to for thousands of years: The union of a man and woman due to their biological compatibility for the advancement of the family unit AND involving mutual love and sacrifice. Period. Not “either/or, or “optional”, but BOTH.

    I find it incredibly ironic how conservatives get unfairly raked over the coals for by “progressives” for being “anti-science” but in this case it’s the traditional marriage folks who remember their biology class back in middle school. Men and women have different parts for a reason…and marriage is the key vehicle by which society has acknowledged that basic purpose and understandably has protected and sacramentalized it.

    Also ironic is that it’s the pro-same-sex marriage folks who love to bring up religion to make their argument, just as is done in this post. The bottom line is that the traditional marriage argument can and is made without bringing up religion even once. How else then can marriage between a man and a woman transcend all societies, religions and creeds? Perhaps pro-same-sex marriage folks think they are being smart by throwing religion back in the faces of the “holier-than-thou” conservatives, but don’t realize they’re defeating their own argument by doing so.

    Finally, a point which has already been made in previous comments…let’s not for a second think that government will be satisfied to stop at OKing same-sex marriage as a basic, fundamental civil right and let churches do their own thing. We are indeed going down a slippery slope and it’s incredibly naive to think that churches will be able to get away with denying same-sex marriages for long, not if we believe as Bernie does that this is a “very powerful force”.

  • Melanie M

    Now that the Supreme Court has ruled against DOMA and Prop 8, maybe the MSM will stop ramming this gay agenda down our throats? I am willing to bet it won’t stop here.

    • http://karlq.spaces.live.com Karl Quick

      If straight marriage created a ‘privileged class’ unfairly favored by government, does not gay AND straight marriage bias against the class of single adults? …if strict equality of access to government benefits is the end-all, what comes next is a series of roll-backs of privilege. Why should a home builder benefit from mortgage deductions but a car builder must suffer under the yoke of non-deductible loan rates? ;-)
      Note: a common thread of last week’s SCOTUS rulings was equality. If equality of treatment under the law is followed strictly, how can we not be required to have flat income tax rates? …the nanny state unwinds!

      • seanmom

        Ah, but there is a compelling state interest in discriminating against single people, because we want fewer of them. We especially want them not to have children. Indeed, it could be very well argued that a very large chunk of our economic problems stem from the social mistake we made in trying to equalize single mothers with nuclear families, by treating them the same (or better) in the tax code and removing the natural consequences of bad social choices.

        Single people do not procreate in a secure fashion. They should not be rewarded for that.

    • seanmom

      SCOTUS did not rule against Proposition 8. It ruled that–since the cowards running the state of California were unwilling to defend their own law–there is no one with the right to carry the case to the Court. And, therefore, the Court cannot decide the case at all. Since they repeatedly insisted in the DOMA opinion that the state–not the Federal government–has the right to define marriage, it is very likely a state that IS willing to defend its marriage-defending efforts might find a different outcome.

      In the meantime, the voters need to go out and put in a Senate and House that will pass a Constitutional Amendment to protect the interests of upwards of 70% of the voters in 38 states. And we don’t even need the president to sign it.

  • Alan

    The church needs to compromise on its principles? Is that what you are saying? Compromising on the word of God and cherry picking laws or commandments we want to follow because man believes they know better or “times have changed” is why the world is heading toward destruction. Very scary

    • http://karlq.spaces.live.com Karl Quick

      Church/state separation demands that government get out of the marriage business on both the benefits and restrictions side, returning marriage to voluntary institutions like churches.
      Looking at our society, one quickly concludes that most young people already consider marriage voluntary, as did Adam and Eve!

      • seanmom

        Adam and Eve had an arranged marriage. Neither of them volunteered.

  • Dave

    I fundamentally agree with Bernie on this one, but there are unfortunately some troubling aspects to this whole conversation, and more importantly where it takes us. I believe that everyone has the right to happiness, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. If gays want to commit to each other, and want the same rights as married heterosexuals, and even want to call it “marriage” I can live with that. Unfortunately, what comes with that is the erosion of some pretty important fundamental values. The whole idea of a traditional marriage with a father and mother raising children is so passe, and to praise the value of the traditional family is “homophobic”.
    Secondly, the indoctrination of young, impressionable children by those pushing a LGBT agenda is not something I am comfortable with at all. Instead of teaching kids math and science, we need to teach how great it is to have two Daddies? It’s already happening, and the Supreme Court rulings will only further this.

    You opinion on that aspect of it, Bernie?

  • Julie Atkinson

    I, too, worry about what kind of precedent the right for homosexuals to marry opens up. I dare say it will not be long before we have protesters demanding the right to marry children, or have several spouses.

    I realize that gay people (and many others) think the “gay” right is a “civil” right similar to equal rights for women and for racial minorities. However, many conservatives (myself included) feel that being gay is a choice. Being born a female, or black, is not. Hence, one should not clump “gay rights” in with civil rights. Subsequently, the argument that states cannot dictate the right for gays to marry does not hold water, as it is not a civil rights issue. It’s a personal choice issue, along the lines of abortion and tax laws, which states should absolutely mandate.

    However, if states wish to pass legislation verifying civil unions as legally binding, I’ve no problem with that. Render unto Caesar, and all that. I don’t believe in abortion, but it’s legal in my state. Would I have one? No. I don’t believe in gay civil unions, but if they become legal in my state, so be it. If my church decides to perform “gay marriage” ceremonies, I can find another church.

    Yes, it really is that simple. The Bible is a simple book, absolute and true. it is us humans that screw it all up, paraphrase it, quotet the parts we want and ignore the parts we don’t.

  • ML NJ

    Maybe the something is that they’re different in what some consider a weird way. Consider what the “tolerant” crowd probably thinks about gun club members.

  • Montana Made

    Bernie- an most parts I would agree with you- I don’t really care if they marry or not- whatever.

    But it’s not enough for this crowd to just get this passed- they will now go after all states rights- and the biggie: The Church!

    Yes- they have come out and said as much- they want the Church to recognize them- and will not stop until they get it- and you know what? It will get ugly.

    But what really bothers me is this- you said that Conservatives will not compromise their principles based on religion. That is true- because God has said as much! We cannot give- it is against God and His teachings- period!!

    People of faith cannot give into the latest trends or fashion. God is now as He was then. And it doesn’t change- ever.

    Please stop demanding or asking the faithful to change- they will not because the law does not change- God does not change and His word does not change.

    God has NEVER been on the wrong side of history- nor will He ever be…

    • http://karlq.spaces.live.com Karl Quick

      People of faith, and I am one, never have to surrender their conscience to government approval. The 1st Amendment assures this. Government can regulate who gets access to tax breaks and other benefits, but benefits do not define REAL marriage.

      • Montana Made

        AMEN Brother- but that is exactly what society at large is demanding people of faith do- and yes, I am one too. We are to give up our “out-dated ideals and notions of God, His laws and His tender mercies”.

        I said in a meeting about 5-6 years ago now that at some point in the very near future- we, as Christians, were going to have to stand up and first: decide & define who we are, and 2nd- defend it!

        We’re there sooner than I thought…

        • seanmom

          The Bible tells us the people of God will be persecuted and forced to choose. With so many simply giving in at the first sign of disapproval by the secular society, I wonder how many will have the courage to stand when the choice is recant or die!

      • seanmom

        The First Amendment merely instructs the government not to violate our God-given rights. But when the government has tossed out God and simply decides to violate our rights with impunity, it is supposed to be respect for the Constitution that prevents the powerful from trampling it. Unfortunately, we seem past the time when our leaders had that respect.

  • joer1

    We need to put on our …”it is, what it is” hat and move on. ALL this is distraction – one of many being floated around now to take everyone’s eye off the ball. The constant LYING and deceptions coming from OBAMA. The foreign policy failures the unlimited scandals, the inability to manage the economy, the energy failures and the decline of the U.S. at home and abroad. Pretty huge deal … let the Gays marry themselves. & keep our eyes on the ball !

  • gdavis34

    Bernie, You are right on target.

  • CherDash

    Bernie, I agree with a lot of what you said. But I vehemently disagree with your view that government can be trusted not to force churches to perform marriage ceremonies. We have seen the war on religion that Obama’s been waging. You are being very naive there.

    • http://anziulewicz.livejournal.com PolishBear

      DEAR CHERDASH:

      Muslim and Atheist and Jewish couples are allowed to get married, and churches have never been forced to provide weddings for them. Nothing is going to change when Gay couples apply for marriage licenses. And anyway, why would any Gay couple want to be in hostile territory on the happiest day of their lives?

      • Ed

        PolishBear…. who is gay that is close to you? your Son? Daughter? can you tell the truth? Maybe you are Gay? just wondering. Not that it matters, I’m just trying to figure out why everyone I know that is Pro Gay Marriage, has a close friend or family member who is gay. it is extremely rare that someone that has no interest in this feels strongly one way or the other. So I ask you.

        ”The essence of immorality is the tendency to make an exception of myself.” -Jane Addams

        • sinz54

          I have no personal interest in this, and I’m in favor of SSM.

          Simply because I have no interest in sitting in judgment on an entire class of people and telling them they’re morally inferior. Especially since I’m no angel myself.

          • John Daly

            The theory in itself is silly to begin with. I don’t doubt that people with family members or friends that are gay are probably easier to sell the idea of gay marriage to than others, but like you and me, one can take a step back, look at the issue as an outsider, and conclude that the idea has merit. Good post, sinz54.

  • Bob

    Think of the happiness of the divorce lawyers.

  • http://blog.cyberquill.com/ Cyberquill

    Hard to say how Jesus would feel about gay marriage and homosexuality in general. After all, He never disclosed His own sexual orientation.

    • joer1

      I haven’t discussed mine … have you discussed yours? I have never heard a more absurd comment. Have you stopped beating your wife?

      • http://blog.cyberquill.com/ Cyberquill

        No and no.

  • ksp48

    I too agree with you. Having said that, I’m pretty certain that in the next 10 years or so we will see the start of a serious movement for polygamous and other forms of “unions”. I too think that gays should have the same marriage rights as straights, but i can’t shake the worry (dread) that this is only another step in a breakdown that has led to an America that is not better off.

  • Ed I

    One issue with the Supreme Court on gay marriage I have was it threw out a duly passed (twice) voter initiative. Throwing out DOMA is one thing since it was a federal law, throwing out a democratically pass constitutional amendment is something else entirely. Yet this Supreme Court and Supreme Courts since WWII have often stepped far beyond their Constitutional authority. It was intended that Congress or we the people would be the check on the court’s power but we have failed as a people to ensure that they or any branch does not exceed its authority delineated in the U.S. Constitution.

    • seanmom

      The Court did not “throw out” the California law. It simply ruled that there was no one with legal standing to bring the suit, because the state refused to defend itself. In other words, any group pf random citizens does not have standing to pursue a claim that belong to the state. Were a state that wanted to defend itself to arrive on the Court’s doorstep, there would at least be a ruling.

      The Court in the Prop8 case did not in fact “overstep its bounds.” Rather, in refusing TO overstep, it was forced to leave things as the lower courts left it.

  • Allan

    I am very dissapointed in Mr. Goldberg’s perspective and the weak argument he lays out. Since I don’t have time to address all of them at the moment, I will comment on the last paragraph. Yes, evil has always been a powerful force and religious people have always been on the wrong side of evil. Regarding the “wrong side of history,” I don’t get it. For thousands of years “history” has rejected the homosexual argument. For about ten years SOME have moved toward favoring it. How does that make the argument for “the wrong side of history.” Has “history” been on the wrong side of “history” for milleniums?

  • Curt Parker

    Basically, Bernie is saying that whatever laws the society wants, they should get. You know, kind of like the National Socialists in Germany. Heil Hitler! Question for our liberal friends: What are the boundaries of sexuality… and who determines those boundaries? If your answer is man and not God, you’ve just opened Pandora’s Box. Good luck with that.

    • sinz54

      The boundaries of sexuality are mutual consent by adult human beings.

      That excludes rape (not consensual), bestiality (not human beings and hence can’t give informed consent), and Sarek-Amanda (not human).

      • Curt Parker

        Does the number of adults matter? Can society change the definition of “adult” to, say, age 12? Morality starts with the boundaries God established in His Word. Human beings are by their very nature depraved and will invariably seek self-gratification no matter the consequences.

        • John Daly

          >>Does the number of adults matter?

          Yes. Capping the number at two doesn’t discriminate against people based on who they are.

          >> Can society change the definition of “adult” to, say, age 12?

          How is gay marriage a prelude to changing the age of consent?

          >> Morality starts with the boundaries God established in His Word.

          Yet, nearly all of us (and we’re all sinners) are allowed to legally marry one day.

          >> Human beings are by their very nature depraved and will invariably seek self-gratification no matter the consequences.

          I know. I’ve seen MSNBC. ;)

  • Johnconrad

    Bernie,

    I think we could all live with the idea of a Civil Union for everyone with different faiths deciding who is “married” and who isn’t.

    If conservatives were smart, that would have been their initial offer – fair and reasonable. It would have reduced the grousing to the guys on the other side (for once).

    • CherDash

      I think you are right in your first sentence. But you are sadly mistaken in your last sentence. They will never be satisfied.

  • Bruce A.

    Everybody deserves the right to be miserable. Let everyone marry.

  • Spacelibrarian Excel

    I agree with your article. To me, it is a “conservative” to celebrate any union between consenting and mentally sane adults based on love and commitment. A relationship based on compassion is a good one irregardless of the gender.