The National Organization for Marriage hosted its 2013 March for Marriage in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2013.

Facing uphill battle, gay marriage opponents to rally in Washington

The National Organization for Marriage hosted its 2013 March for Marriage in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2013.

The National Organization for Marriage hosted its 2013 March for Marriage in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26.

 This image is available for web and print publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

WASHINGTON (RNS) Facing a string of losses in the courts and in public opinion, supporters of traditional marriage between one man and one woman will rally in the nation's capital next week, with some activists conceding that they face an uphill fight.

Planners of the second annual March for Marriage on Thursday (June 19), led by the National Organization for Marriage, hope to bring thousands of supporters to march from the U.S. Capitol to the Supreme Court.

Speakers include two former Republican presidential candidates, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, as well as San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, the Catholic bishops' point man against same-sex marriage.

Chris Plante, the Rhode Island director for the National Organization for Marriage, said that it’s “become clear that marriage is under attack" -- by "elites," the media and an “out-of-control judiciary.”

Plante said the idea that same-sex marriage is inevitable is a “false narrative.” He pointed to a Politico poll that found 52 percent of respondents oppose gay marriage, but the poll was not national and only surveyed "likely voters ... in places with highly competitive midterm contests.”

A dozen other polls, including polls from Washington Post/ABC News, Public Religion Research Institute and Gallup found that a majority of Americans approve of same-sex marriage. The most recent Gallup figures show support for same-sex marriage at an all-time high, 55 percent.

The Archdiocese of Philadelphia is sending buses of marchers to Washington, and Steve Bozza, director of the archdiocese's office for life and family, admitted his side faces “an uphill battle.” Last month, a federal judge in Pennsylvania struck down the state's ban on gay marriage; Republican Gov. Tom Corbett decided not to challenge the ruling. This year alone, courts in 16 states have struck down gay marriage bans or said same-sex marriages from other states must be recognized.

Bozza said the fight over gay marriage goes beyond legislation or court rulings, and supporters of traditional marriage “need to proclaim the theological reasons.”

“It’s not a matter of just legislation; you have to change hearts,” Bozza said, adding that supporters "need to show strength" and that they're not just a "fringe group of people.”

Gay rights activists say they're not worried that the march will hurt their momentum -- federal and state courts have ruled in favor of gay marriage 20 times since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal ban on same-sex marriage last summer -- but are nonetheless keeping an eye on the other side.

"A march like this is not going to change the national movement," said Sharon Groves, who oversees religious outreach for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay right group. "But it causes real damage to people's lives."

Ross Murray, who runs the religion program for the LGBT advocacy group GLAAD, said the National Organization for Marriage says “extreme things” and is “driven by hostility.”

Murray joined a petition that asks Cordileone to not go to the march; the letter to Cordileone was signed by representatives of more than 80 organizations. “We respect freedom of religion and understand that you oppose civil marriage for same-sex couples. But the actions and rhetoric of NOM, and those of the event's speakers and co-sponsors, fundamentally contradict Christian belief in the fundamental human dignity of all people,” the letter said. “We ask that you will reconsider your participation and join us in seeking to promote reconciliation rather than division and hatred.”

The Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Washington-based Interfaith Alliance, which supports marriage equality for gays and lesbians, said his group will defend the rights of houses of worship to not perform same-sex wedding ceremonies, but he said, “We don’t want that position on marriage to be the only one.”



  1. The picture says it all when it comes to marriage equality opponents.
    A man with an emphatic, irrelevant slogan which is ignorant, moronic and without connection to reality. (“Kids do better with a Mother AND a Father”).

    -The guy holding the sign is advocating that children being raised by gay couples should be with one parent and another adult who can’t legally act as one.
    -Kids do better with two parents, period. The parent’s gender is irrelevant.
    -Gay marriage bans have zero rational relation to procreation or child rearing.
    -Children to gay couples generally do not have an option of parents of two genders (usually adopted, in vitro, or from divorce with straight ex’s)

    Moaning about “elites” and “out of control judiciary” is code for appealing to the ignorant and lacking any rational legal basis.

  2. How would all you straights know if you didn’t grow up gay?

    Presumption goes before the fall!

    You know nothing about being gay, not being a gay child, not growing up gay, and not being a gay adult.

    You ought to be seeking counsel with gays!

  3. “Kids do best with a mom AND dad.” That’s a slap in the face for people who were raised by dysfunctional parents or a parent. I had a sociopathic mom AND an apathetic dad (yep, just parents in name only). The only lesson I learned from them was what kind of person I didn’t want to become. I am pretty sure I am not the only one who felt that way about their mom or dad or both parents. Does National Organization for Marriage really prefer to see kids raised by two inadequate/dysfunctional/toxic parents as long as one is female and the other male, over kids raised by two loving/responsible/emotionally stable moms or dads? That’s messed up.

  4. Standing true to the Word of God and his perfect plan for sexuality, romance, marriage and family is never easy. Keep up the good fight!

  5. Ask the guy in the photo. Maybe he wants to take him.

    I think I am being misconstrued here. I am just making fun of the sign the guy is holding. If that was not clear by my first post, I apologize.

  6. Even worse they are really saying a child is better off with a single parent or in foster care than with a gay couple raising them.

    Part of this is their willful refusal to acknowledge that there are over a million children already being raised by gay couples. Couples seeking the ability to sanely act as parents, without irrational and unnecessary impediment of law.

  7. So your church doesn’t have to officiate gay weddings. Nobody else has to care. Least of all our legal system.

    Our government is not run by members of clergy. What God’s alleged word is on a subject does not make it the law of the land. Maybe you would be more comfortable in a place where that is true. Like Iran.

  8. The entire tone of this article rings with a spirit of defeat. The fact that media promote homosexuality on a 24/7 basis, yet only a bare majority support gay marriage, is cause for celebration. Even with the constant media barrage, there is still strong resistance.

  9. Sorry Larry, but men and women aren’t interchangable, especially when it comes to raising kids.

    Each gender, male and female together, bring unique, gender-complementary strengths and virtues to the child. This pnenomenon is something unique and vital. Two mommies or two daddies do NOT have anything that can match it. The gay mess does not even come close to it.

    And you don’t even have to be straight to know that this is true. Even the gay men (the honest ones, anyway) know that ths is true.

    “Moms and dads interact differently with their children. To give kids two moms or two dads is to withhold from them someone whom they desperately need and deserve in order to be whole and happy. It is to permanently etch **deprivation** on their hearts.”

    — Doug Mainwaring, “I’m Gay and I Oppose Gay Marriage”, Mar 8, 2013, Public Discourse online.

  10. Been there done that, Gilhcan. Listened to their (the gays’) life stories and counsel. In person, even, one-on-one.

    But unlike you (I suspect), I have also sought counsel with FORMER homosexuals as well, and listened to THEIR life stories too. In person, even.

    And honestly? From listening to both sides, I can say that the gay life stories are full of spiritual defeats, un-healed inner wounds, and full-blown hopelessness for changing. ‘Once gay always gay’ becomes their dungeon, like a slave who can never break his chains.

    In stark contrast, the FORMER or “ex-gay” life stories point to HUGE changes, HUGE deliverance. They tell me of massive spiritual and emotional victory and freedom instead of the former hopelessless. They tell me of HEALING, joy and renewed self-identity. They tell me new or renewed deep connection with an all-loving and all-powerful Jesus Christ, and even a new sexual identity in Christ. No longer trapped and enslaved to “homosexual feelings.”

    Healing. Freedom. Salvation!

    Everybody’s life story is different, and everybody’s story takes a different amount of time, and it makes a real difference whether you can find supportive walk-with-you family, friends, clergy or professional counselors who still believes Jesus and still believes in the Bible. (Do NOT hook up with pro-gay counselors or psychologists, they want you back on the gay Plantation!!)

    BUT THOSE EX-GAY LIFE STORIES ARE REAL. And I’ve seen a few examples. Jesus is real, and what Jesus does in 1 Cor. 6:9-11 is real.

  11. And this is based on what? Absolutely nothing. A crackpot’s opinion.

    Doc, there is already a generation of adults who were raised by gay couples. Couples which faced a helluva lot more legal interference with their daily lives than they would have now. They are a fairly normal bunch by any objective standards. This isn’t theoretical, its actual physical proof of my position.

    There is even scientific evidence you are full of crap

    “parents’ sexual orientation is not a variable that, in itself, predicts their ability to provide a home environment that supports children’s development. ”

    Doug Mainwaring is entitled to his opinion, but he is full of crap. He is the David Cole of the anti-marriage equality set. Someone actively spinning bullcrap against his own interests in order to get attention.

    The argument posed by the argument “children need parents of both genders” is idiotic. Attacking marriage equality has no relation whatsoever upon the gender of a child’s parents. Whichever moron at NOM who thought of that one, should have been fired.

  12. “Been there done that”

    You are ex-gay? Well that explains a lot. 🙂

  13. You forgot the other part of the 1st Amendment. That little chestnut against the “establishment of religion”. Most fundamentalist crackpots ignore that part. You also forgot about that little bit from the 14th amendment about “equal protection under the law”.

    At no point does your view of what God wants ever become justification for laws of our land unless you have a rational and secular purpose behind it.

    You have a right to voice your opinion, but I don’t have to care. Our laws don’t have to take it under consideration either. This is not the first time religious figures have supported measures which fly in the face of constitutional liberties and equal protection under the law. It won’t be the last.

  14. No, I am a heterosexual. I am not, and have not been, a homosexual or any of the LGBT labels.

    (I apologize for not appreciating what appears to be a low sense of humor on your part — and perhaps an even lower reading comprehension score.)

    Gilhcan wrote, “You ought to be be seeking counsel with gays!”

    So I replied, “Been there done that, Gilhcan. Listened to their (the gays’) life stories and counsel. In person, even, one-on-one.”

    The words are clear. I even repeated Gil’s word “counsel” to make it clear what was the referent of the “been there done that” phrase. It should not have been confusing.

  15. So you are calling for a “rational and secular purpose” that would justify opposition to legalizing gay marriage. That’s fine. But that is EXACTLY what Doug Mainwaring specifically offered in his “I’m Gay and I Oppose Gay Marriage” article (quoted earlier here), based on his own personal experience as a father.

    “A rational and secular purpose” is also exactly what McGill University scholars Paul Nathanson (who is gay) and Katherine Young (who is pro-gay) are offering based upon their studies. They, too, speak out against legalizing gay marriage. What is their “rational and secular purpose”? The survival of the society itself:

    “(Heterosexual marriage) provides an ideal scenario for parents and children. Not every individual or individual couple lives up to the ideal, of course, but the ideal remains effective nonetheless — except, of course, in societies that are breaking up.”

    –Young and Nathanson, “Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage” (2003)

  16. No, I am asking you to produce one.

    I know you do not have a rational or secular reason to oppose marriage equality. Therefore, it is not a position which our laws have to take seriously. Its why so many bans are being tossed aside by courts.

    Your quote is hardly rational, your article is hardly secular. Your very non-secular article spends most of its text begging the question and shifting the burdens. Mostly making blanket assumptions, throwing in some religious dogma and making no relation of a gay marriage ban to the alleged reasons given.

    Claiming Mainwaring had such reasons is not the same as actually having any. It was nothing but an appeal to authority on your part. Authority which needs not be taken seriously.

    If you had any such reasons you would have been able to give them in your own words rather than link to articles which really don’t help you. Obviously you could not think of one. Nor will you.

    Frankly if such things really were able to be produced by the likes of you or the NOM numbnuts, there wouldn’t be so many lost lawsuits. Even when given an opportunity to present evidence to support such assertions, they come up empty.

  17. Liz & Larry, there are people who are homeless, forage in the dumpsters, and are happier than some people who live in homes. Does that justify us saying that being homeless is better than or equal to having a home? I think not. Neither does citing painful experiences with parents of opposite gender validate the value of same se parents. Many people eat healthier in prison, but nobody really fights for the right to be incarcerated.

    Do you also support polyamory (group marrriage)? This is the next “human rights” battle. The case for incestuous marriages is now getting bolder. Do you support that too – consenting adults who are harming nobody so its nobody’s busines (they cite “studies” that minimise the risk of biirth defects)? And please do not call this “fear mongering” or a “red herring”. Even a casual research reveals how support for such lifestyles is rapidly increasing.

    If marriage evolves to mean anything in the name of love then it devolves to mean nothing.

  18. I didn’t make that point. I am saying that idiots who use the slogan “a child needs a mother and father” as an argument against marriage equality are really suborning children raised by singe parents, foster care or in a manner which is impeded by unnecessary malicious laws.

    The fact that you are trying to segue into polygamy tells me you have no rational or secular arguments to speak of on the subject and want to hijack the discussion with ignorant bad analogy.

    My attitude towards polygamy is that if people want it bady enough, they can lobby for it and cough up their own drafts for law affected by it. If they can find a sane, just and fair way to do it, go ahead.

    If you wish to discuss polygamy, bring it up on an article about it. Otherwise, you are wasting time, going to be dishonest as hell, and displaying a monumental amount of stupidity masquerading as profundity.

  19. I notice that as a tolerant, progressive person who defends the rights of others you depend heavily on insulting language. Can you try to be polite as you make your points?

    In spite of the fact that I said “polyamory” you said “polygamy” – several times. This suggests you have never heard of the term or know what it means. Unlike your triumphant use of the word I will not say that you are “ignorant”, but would suggest that you do some research. I respect you as a person even though I differ with you.

    Polyamory is where several people of both genders are in a committed, open relationship with each other. They have sex in pairs, as a group or however else they desire. These people are saying that polyamorous love is a superior love to heterosexual or gay love because it transcends insecurity and jealousy and is abundant enough for more than one. They say they were born that way, and feel unfulfilled by loving only one person at a time. They have taken their right to marry to courts in Canada and Brazil. They are gaining support. Showtime runs a series, “Polyamory: Married & Dating”. It is the next “human rights” issue.

    Is there a right or wrong about this, or is it cool if it works for them, a “basic human right”?. Would you call people who oppose polyamory “morons”, “numbnuts” “idiotic” as you have called those who oppose gay marriage throughout your posts here? Do we give them that right?

    The Huffington Post (you know what that is, right?) is pro-gay. In response to its many aricles on gay marriage and polyamory, gay advocates post their opposition to polyamory. How ironic. They fight viciously for their rights, using every hateful invective against those who oppose them, yet they oppose the rights of others to marry as they please.

    I oppose gay marriage on the same grounds that I oppose polyamory. I have a 9 page article with 11 reasons why I oppose gay marraige. Only 2 of the arguments are religious.

    Here is an excerpt: “2010 studies showed that HIV among MSM is out of control…The Lancet, the world’s leading general medical journal and specialty journals in Oncology, Neurology and Infectious Diseases said, ‘In all countries, the one group in which HIV is increasing, regardless of income is men who have sex with men’.

    Researchers from Imperial College and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine did a meta-analysis of 16 studies related to HIV risk during unprotected anal sex. Most of the studies involved gay or bisexual men. (Our friends at NAM recently summarized the findings in detail.) They estimated that HIV transmission risk during a single act of unprotected, receptive anal sex may be 18 times higher than unprotected, receptive vaginal sex. The anus has one layer of cells compared to the many layers in the vagina. The vagina was made for sex, so it lubricates, whereas the anus does not lubricate because it was not made for sex (the intellectuals seem to have forgotten what it was made for). It therefore tears easily, thereby drastically increasing the risk of infection.”

    Smoking until now has been a human right. France was/is/was the smoking capital of the world. However the staggering health care costs and toll on human lives have led to France banning smoking in public places, human rights or not. Even on health grounds alone homosexuality is a threat to civilization. take away expensive medical intervention and the infection and death rates among MSM skyrockets. Homosexuality is unsustainable and self-destructive in nature (without artificial intervention, eg condoms, anti-vectorviral drugs).

    So why don’t we hear the medical profession speaking out? They hide in fear from the “gay-mafia” (Bill Maher’s, the cynical atheist, phrase). The gays have discovered the power of financial terrorism and use it ruthlessly.

    Before you respond, if you do, please research a bit more. Also, please show some “tolerance’ and respect for the views of others. But even if you choose to give weight to your arguments by calling me names and insulting me, I will respond to you as a fellow human being whom I believe is a good person and deserves to be respected.

  20. Diverting a discussion on marriage equality to ask questions on
    ‘poly’ marriages is an overused JAQ’ing off tactic deserving of insults for its dishonesty and irrelevance. Nowhere on earth is both marriage equality and poly marriage legal in the same place. They are opposite poles culturally, politically and legally.

    Your opposition to marriage equality comes down to “gays are icky”. Nothing rationally connected to marriage rights. Just spouting garbage about why gays should be discriminated as a group. Nothing resembling a sane or serious argument.

  21. Sorry, that is not the choice. The question is whether certain things will be lacking in ssm, Chldren will not know how to function in a different sex marriage and will have very tough time figuring it out.

  22. And it is not the first time that people have tried to insist that they could ignore freedom of relgion. Advocating against gay marriage does not violate the establishment clause, so that is bogus. And the 14th amendment does not mean that states have to have gay marriage,

  23. Except you have nothing to relate such an issue to marriage equality. denying the existence of children with gay parents doesn’t make them a theoretical construct. It just means you are not honest enough to support your position with facts. You had 30 years to find problems with gays raising children and you have come up empty. Nothing more than what ifs in light f already haves. So the issue is a non-starter. A dishonest framing.

    The real issue is what rational and secular arguments you have for SSM bans?

    None whatsoever.

  24. So you are admitting 2 things.
    1. You have no idea what freedom of religion means
    2. You have no secular justification for your position

    Religious beliefs are not justification for denying equal protection under the law to others. You do not have the right to compel others to act according to your faith. You do not have the right to ignore laws of general application by claiming free exercise of religion. Our government cannot pass laws which lack rational and secular purposes.

  25. Since you do not seem to be aware, your definition of marraige equality is not neccessarily that of others. The following is a definition

    “Full Marriage Equality
    Advocating for the right of consenting adults to share and enjoy love, sex, residence, and marriage without limits on the gender, number, or relation of participants. Full marriage equality is a basic human right.

    I argue for marriage equality. By that I mean that society and all local, state, federal, and international laws, institutions, and programs should recognize any marriage registered by any persons without restrictions on the basis of race, color, creed, ancestry, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

    The global definition of marriage should be as follows: “The uniting of consenting individuals in a witnessed ceremony.”

    We believe everyone has the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adult(s) of their choice, regardless of birth or sexual orientation. ”

    Are these persons morons for this statement because the definition of marriage equality differs from yours?

    Larry said, “Nowhere on earth is both marriage equality and poly marriage legal in the same place. They are opposite poles culturally, politically and legally.”

    Once upon a time, and not too long ago, nowhere on earth was heterosexual marriage and gay marriage legal in the same place. Is it too difficult to see the similarities between gay marriage and polyamory?

    You are too intelligent to read my post and honestly limit your interpretation of my opposition to gay marriage as because it is “icky”. Not “icky”. Icky is getting mud on you, eating earthworms, etc. Homosexuality is inherently unhealthy, threathens health and life 18 times more than heterosexual sex (medical fact, not your opinion or mine).

    A reading of all the posts opposing gay marriage and of yours reveals a stark contrast. Their posts address the issue and are calm and respectful. Yours are loaded with a sense of intellectual superiority, anger, intolerance and scorn. And the gays accuse Christians of being “haters” and intolerance.

    You have yet to provide a substantive response to my points. Calling them “garbage” does not make them so and does not make your thunder yield rain.

  26. Right out of the gate you showed that you are not someone to be taken seriously. I am not going to discuss poly marriage because it is not relevant here. I told you already the very rational, secular and logical precondition necessary to consider it under the law. You ignored it. I have no need to discuss such analogies further. Being the bulk of your argument, it means you have nothing of value.

    Every place on earth with polygamy also makes being a criminal state of being and such places do not have clear rule of law. So obviously it is treated differently. Reality has given you an analogy fail. Changes necessary to allow poly marriage under the law do not exist for SSM. Your unwillingness to address this makes your argument fundamentally flawed and deeply dishonest. A waste of time. What you think is an intelligent argument is not.

    Your opposition to gays is that you consider them a vague health risk (gay men only apparently and kinky hetero couples as well). A perfect example of my previous comment of stupidity masquerading as profundity. Talk of the “gay mafia” strikes me as the kind of wishful conspiratorial thinking of people who demand to be taken seriously, but spout nonsense. Delusional thinking that others are suppressing an idea, rather than the truth of it being so silly it can be dismissed out of hand.

    I am not respectful to people who are dishonest, obviously bigoted and wasting time. I don’t respect your point if view because there is nothing worthy of respect. You start off with overused bad analogy, then go to hysterics which merely try to mask an obvious prejudice. I don’t have to tolerate your intolerance, especially when you want to give it rule of law. Especially when it violates civil liberties of others.

    To paraphrase Judge Jones of Federal Court in PA, although objections to marriage equality exist, they do not rise to the level of reasonable justification necessary to deny equal protection rights to others.

  27. When the gay “marriage movement started the claim was made that such “marriages” would never have any effect on other people’s lives. Unfortunately many people still believe that Big Lie. No sooner than a state (mostly through power corrupted courts) legalizes phony “marriage” than gays run to court to bully people into being involved in their so-called “marriage” ceremonies and start using the schools to propagandize for gay life styles no matter what parents want for their children.

  28. Someone call 911, I think we need a whaaaah-bulance.

    If your side of the argument had any meritorious, rational and secular arguments to make, they would not be so hesitant to appeal these ever growing number of rulings.

    Nobody is being bullied. Churches don’t have to perform ceremonies (thank you for bringing up the most obvious lie). You are not personally affected by it, except the loss of social sanction for bigotry against gays. Boo hoo. It’s not an interest the state has a duty to protect, nor grounds for attacking equal protection status.

    Fact of the matter is that you lack any rational or secular argument courts need to take seriously. You keep telling yourself it is corrupt courts that is killing those bans. Maybe you might believe it. Too bad the publicly available records of those cases speak for themselves. Res ipsa loquitor.

  29. OMG! I didn’t read the whole thread but really? Gay’s lives are filled with this and that? Most families have serious, serious core issues that stay swept under the rug. Singling out gays is ludicrous. Yep I come from a “traditional nuclear family” and have had 20 years of therapy to show for it. Male and female role models each play a role. Children need to be surrounded by role models. Verily, it does take a village. And, contrary to uninformed belief, children can get the yin/yang in many gay families and if they can’t they can be surrounded by loving adults to fill the void. That void is going to exist in the home of divorced woman, in a dysfunctional home and can even exist in a seemingly “normal” home – especially if the child is “different”…say gay for instance? It takes a village to raise child and I’ve seen lovely, lovely examples of the village mentality with gay couples. Years ago I was singing at a PRIDE event and there were people picketing and spewing hate. The gay couples were enjoying picnics with their children on a lovely afternoon. Which child is getting their needs met? The one with angry hateful parents teaching intolerance and spending weekends spewing hate or the one with loving parents enjoying a nice weekend together. Sorry, the gays win! The family who loves their children wins. Period. Gender has nothing to do with it. LOVE is everything.

  30. Oh and before anyone misunderstands my single woman comment. Once my mother left my father and I was raised by her, I had an awesome life. She figured out how to teach me what I needed to know through…you guessed it LOVE. I am raising my daughter in a nuclear family. But my husband and I have had years of therapy and work hard to raise our adopted daughter in a space of love. And, we get help from friends and Grandma. It takes a village with nuclear families as well! Society is so busy it takes many to raise a child well.

  31. If Homosexuals had a book
    that said “Stone the Christians to death”

    How long would it take for some Christians to say

    “Hate speech!”

    Religion is an international disaster.

  32. @Phillip,

    Life isn’t easy. Sex comes with risks whether you are gay or straight.
    Welcome to the real world.

    If you start deciding that Gay sex is too dangerous will you admit that kissing is too dangerous also?

    You know that ANY KISSING results in the spread of hundreds of specific infections many which are life-threatening including some of the worst illnesses ever discovered in humanity:
    Streptococcus, Mononucleosis which can lead to blood cancer later in life, Herpes Simplex Virus-1 (HSV-1) which can lead to many cancers, cytomegalovirus (CMV) or the Epstein Barr Virus which is suspected in a variety of disabling neurological diseases including paralysis, Coxsackie virus, is another infectious disease that is spread through open sores in the mouth.

    Want to ban heterosexual kissing while you are at it?

  33. @PHILLIP,

    According to the centers for disease control, KISSING can spread the enough disease to kill thousands people per year.

    Flu kills 35,000 American every year and it can be spread through kissing.
    Flu kills 200,000 people every year around the world.
    Syphilis leads to madness and death and can be spread through kissing.
    Hepatitis B which will destroys the liver kills thousands can also be spread through kissing.

    If you’ll convince Congress to
    I’ll let you ban gay sex.

    Heterosexual Kissing probably kills more people around the world than AIDS.

  34. Some in the church just want the government to do what they cannot do – stop same sex commitments. I am frankly not for “Same Sex Marriage” I am for Civil Unions that give the EXACT same legal rights. The two Republicans looking for mileage so they can run again in 2016 for President know that many in the church do not support their views. They do not want to put it to a vote within the church and have to go through what the Methodist, Episcopal, Presbyterians and other main stream religions have gone through. They know even if they won a majority within their denominations those that descent would be in great numbers. HUCKLE BERRY is always spouting off on television about government involvement in religion except when it goes against his only personal agenda!

  35. Larry: The solution is very clear–be very clear.

  36. So much of this sounds like we know precisely how much genetics, sociology, and psychology play in the development of all variations of sexual orientation. Perhaps we might learn more if we trashed our presumptive prejudice.

    It is certainly not a matter of changing something once it is set–like Michelle Bachmann’s “psychologist” husband and others try to do, especially through religion–and taking money from the federal till to try to do so. It certainly is a matter of humanely accepting all realities.

    One thing is certain, the efforts of “straights” to trash the “gays” they make is the epitome of ignorance and cruelty. It only proves they hate themselves.

  37. Tom Martin: Being for civil unions and against same-sex marriages is an erroneous presumption that marriage is basically a religious action. Some churches add religious observance to marriage because they consider it an action of great importance in life, but that does not eliminate the basic civil status of marriage.

    Marriage is a civil action that includes legal protections for both partners in the marriage and any children that may result from the union.

    Church ministers are merely given permission to act as state agents in presiding at marriages to eliminate duplication of the marriage in civil and church actions. As such, church ministers are no different by state law than justices of the peace or any other civil agents states authorize to preside at marriages.

    U.S. movie queen Grace Kelly and Prince Rainier of Monaco were required by Monaco’s laws to go through a civil marriage before their church service to make the marriage legal. Former president Bill Clinton presided at the wedding of Congressman Anthony Weiner whose wife worked for Clinton’s wife Hillary.

    Marriage in the U.S. as in most western countries, is a civil, legal arrangement. Religious ceremonies may be substituted for secular actions only by state authorization. State permission through their counties is the usual course. Report of religious marriages must be made to counties by the minister authorized by the state to preside. That, in effect, makes church marriages in the states of this country both civil and religious.

    Civil unions do not afford all the legal advantages of marriage. Hence, it is plainly prejudicial that same-sex couples cannot marry and thereby lose some of the rights that opposite-sex couples receive in marriage.

  38. Your error is in the presumption that civil unions “give the EXACT same legal rights” as marriage. The difference in afforded rights is precisely why there are civil unions in some states and also marriage. They are not the same. Civil unions do not afford any of the federal protections and exemptions afforded to state marriages.

  39. This is a direct excerpt from CDC (Centres for Disease Control & Prevention).

    “Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young gay and bisexual men (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all gay and bisexual men. At the end of 2010, an estimated 489,121 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay and bisexual men, or gay and bisexual men who also inject drugs.

    Sexual risk behaviors account for most HIV infections in gay and bisexual men. Most gay and bisexual men acquire HIV through anal sex, which is the riskiest type of sex for getting or transmitting HIV. For sexually active gay and bisexual men, the most effective ways to prevent transmitting or becoming infected with HIV are to be on antiretroviral medications (to either treat or prevent infection) and to correctly use a condom every time for anal or vaginal sex. Gay men are at increased risk for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), like syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia,”

    Later down someone posted about the dangers of kissing, trying to equate it with the dangers of gay sex. Let’s believe it was a comedy attempt. The cold medical facts make such a comparison laughable and, in light of the plight of countless victims, tragic.

    Increased awareness is making cigarette smoking uncool. From being the hip thing it has become a vortex of lawsuits, advertisement bans, warning labels, shock health ads, etc. Yet at the same time it is “tolerant”, “supportive”, “loving” to promote and defend a lifestyle that is inherently unhealthy. To read the CDC statements about HIV among MSM and call it a “vague health risk” is frightening.

    Throughout your posts you’ve requested “a rational or secular reason to oppose marriage equality”. Health and life endangerment are “rational” and “secular”. I suppose the CDC is “bigoted”, driven by a “conspiracy” to portray gay sex in a negative light. Wouldn’t be surprising if the LGBT demand that the CDC alter its reports under the threat of financial terrorism.

    Why does mother nature (not God) so ruthlessly punish such a lifestyle? And it is not just with HIV. If it so natural and harmless, then why is the only hope of survival found in artificial means such as condoms and antiretroviral medications?

    The media celebrates every outer. The president sends personal congratulations. And there is no mention in the slightest that this lifestyle is by far – 18 times – the most dangerous of all sexual lifestyles. So lets congratulate the teen who comes out as a cigarette smoker. CNN owes him prime time, Oprah a reality show and Obama a trip to the White House.

    Is it possible to oppose somthing without being a “hater”? Can you as a parent totally oppose your young teen coming in at 2:00am and still be lovingly sacrificing your all for that child? Or does she now have the impregnable right to call you a “hater”? Is it possible for you to totally oppose your best friend cheating on his wife who has left her country and opportunities to marry him and still be a friend of your friend, still love him? Or does your mere opposition give him the right to call you a “hater”?

    No Christian should ever show hate or unkindness to those who support abortion, gay marriage, sex surrogacy, etc. We are called to love, and every Christian who has demonstrated hate needs to ask forgivenes. But love does not mean acceptance of belief or behaviour? And opposing such a belief or behaviour does not mean hate.

  40. @Philip,

    “Yours are loaded with a sense of intellectual superiority, anger, intolerance and scorn.”

    Because your PROFOUND MISTAKE is to think being gay is a choice.

    I am against AMPUTEES for the same reason you are against GAYS.
    I have empathy for them since their permanent condition may be a burden for them.

    You however are a HATER because you think Gays are different from AMPUTEES – you think these things are choices!

    Amputees have no choice – they don’t have a leg or arm and they can’t do a damn thing about it.

    Homosexuality is not a choice. Your nonsense about AIDS is a moot point – not because AIDS isn’t a problem but because AIDS is irrelevant to the question!

    So yes. Your argument is garbage.

  41. Hey Phil, consensual sodomy is not a criminal act and not grounds for denial of civil liberties (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003). So you can take your cut and paste and shove it in an orifice discussed within it. Obviously if it was an argument to be taken seriously, it would be brought up in the 20 or so cases the marriage equality opponents lost.

    It was something which sounded intelligent in your head (and used by people with your POV) but it was far from that.

    “Why does mother nature (not God) so ruthlessly punish such a lifestyle?”

    And there goes any hope of pretending you have a rational or secular motive.

    “Is it possible to oppose somthing without being a “hater”? ”

    When it comes to civil liberties and the opposition lacks rational and secular purposes or motives, then the answer is NO.

    “No Christian should ever show hate or unkindness to those who support abortion, gay marriage, sex surrogacy, etc.”

    But they do. Just like they do the same for gay people, atheists, anyone who is not a fundamentalist, and those of other faiths. What Christians are not supposed to do and what they do on a regular basis are two very different things.

  42. Separate but equal. Where have we heard that before?

    That would have been a possible compromise, if the anti-gay crowd didn’t fight against those tooth and nail as well. Now that they are losing the big fight in the courts, there is no point in meeting them half-way. Why take a half-measure when the full thing is within reach?

    Gihlcan already mentioned the fact that they are not the same as marriage in any legal sense. The rights of civil unions vary wildly between states and countries. Marriage rights are pretty well established as are the interstate/international rules in their acceptance.

    Besides, there has been no proper legal argument made for justifying bans on marriage equality. Its one thing when it isn’t something adopted by a legislature, its another thing to foreclose the possibility.

    Marriage equality opponents shot themselves in the foot with their efforts to institute bans in various states. By having bans, they gave the court system the opportunity to enact what legislatures did not. Had they not let their spite and prejudice take hold, they would have been able to keep marriage equality out simply by inaction and lack of majority support at state levels.

  43. I totally disagree with your points but I refuse to call them “garbage”. That is small-mindedness. Your previous comment was in total opposition to my stance but you simply addressed the issue and avoided venom. I was impressed. However, like Larry, you now display the very attitude you attribute to “haters”. Read all that I have written and all that Larry has and ask, “Who shows the hate?”. Is this a sample of the LGBT crowd? Both of you in your impressive reign as sovereign intellectuals decide what is a sound argument and what is “garbage”. Another word for that is arrogance. I can discuss with anyone who disagrees with me and even tells me that my arguments are weak (their opinion, for I would see strengths and weaknesses in theirs as well. There is a lot of superficiality in Larry’s points, but I would not call them “garbage”). However, for persons who cannot discuss without being insultive, verbally abusive and rude I have better things to do with my time. So long, gentlemen.

  44. @Philip,

    My tone is wrong. I apologize.
    If I could edit my comment I would tone it down.
    I don’t think your argument makes sense
    But you are correct that I was out of line.

  45. I have no problems calling your position garbage. If you feel offended, I don’t care. Yes, I use harsh language. We are all adults here. You can handle it.

    Philip, I don’t see a single point you made which was honest, in good faith or even remotely rational. It gives the appearance of a putting on an act. It bespeaks of a person who has prejudiced motives but lacks the honesty to state such things outright. It happens often enough with certain subjects.

    Even worse is the martyrbaiting. Pretending that you are subject to some kind of censorship and suppression. There is nothing more ridiculous that the response of “you are the real haters” when the person is advocating legalized discrimination. Again, it shows an inherent dishonesty and unwillingness to own up to their own position.

    Not once have you provided anything resembling a rational or secular argument relating to the topic (although you claim you have them). From the get-go you sought to divert the discussion with overused dishonestly bad analogy designed never to actually address the subject. Given such an obvious intention, there is nothing to respect here.

    Yes I am a big jerk and proud of it. I will gladly insult anyone who tries to attack civil liberties on the basis of prejudiced motives. Anyone who can’t give a secular and rational reason to justify laws they want enforced, insults us all. I think anyone who can consider civil liberties in a dispassionate detached manner doesn’t really understand their importance.

Leave a Comment