Comments on: National Organization for Marriage Has a Rough Start to 2013

By: wayne

wayne — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:28:48 +0000

Thousands???? I was there and would estimate 350 at most!

By: Aron

Aron — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 14:19:48 +0000

Weelwall, you seem to be forgetting that Lot offered his virgin daughters to be raped. And then later committed incest with them. It wasn’t homosexuality.

And you need serious help. ‘Already the US has the highest incidence of grave natural disasters than any other equal geographical entity.’ You’re a fool!

By: Reynardine

Reynardine — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 13:46:20 +0000

Weedwall: We do think. That’s why we’re dismissing you as both dumb and nuts.

By: weelwall

weelwall — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 08:52:51 +0000

I think U R arguing from two different premises & U will never agree.
The global majority believe they have to follow God’s orders to the best of their abilities. Homosexuality is a great sin for which its public appearance punishment had been meted out before: Sodom & Gomorrah. Since the US majority(58%?) including the President approve of this can anybody put their hand on their heart & say’ it will not happen here?’
Already the US has the highest incidence of grave natural disasters than any other equal geographical entity. THINK!

By: Reynardine

Reynardine — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 22:47:18 +0000

Mike, then marry a person of the opposite sex and go to whatever church you choose as many times a week as you choose. No one’s stopping you.

By: mike

mike — Sat, 30 Mar 2013 18:04:42 +0000

marriage is a sacramental union between 1 man and 1 woman for the procreation of children and the continuation of the human race.It is the fundamental building block of society.There is something VERY WRONG in a world where unnatural and perverted sex acts are applauded as good and wholesome and right,while the word of God,upon which this nation was founded,is called “hate speech”……

By: Sam Molloy

Sam Molloy — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:14:19 +0000

That’s right, Tobias. We want the same things Straight people want. Just nicer things.:)

By: Tobias A. Weissman

Tobias A. Weissman — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:52:58 +0000

I see no difference between heterosexuality and LGBT. Well adjusted persons are all the same. They all love and want to be loved. They all want to aspire in their accepted professions. They all want to be accepted as equal in society. They all want to be viewed as persons equally contributing to society’s needs. SO ON AND SO FORTH. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM IN THE EYES OF GOD?

By: Reynardine

Reynardine — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:40:16 +0000

Sam, common law marriage existed in Florida until 1968 and still existed in Texas in the Seventies, when I lived there (for all I know, it still does). That is why I had to twice divorce a man I had only married once.

By: MM

MM — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:55:52 +0000

“Question: Why is a group that supports traditional marriage addressed here as a HATE GROUP?”

It’s not their support for heterosexual-only marriage (that is what you mean by traditional, right?) that has them labelled a hate group, but their tactics of demonizing gays, promoting misinformation and the like. Try to learn the definition of hate group before making statements like you just did.

By: legalhound

legalhound — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 02:44:38 +0000

While marriage might be state by state, the states still do NOT have the privilege of limiting who can get a license based on orientation. Fundamental rights can never be left to a vote (thank you Justice Black for that little beauty)! That means that Prop 8 dies and so do all of the stupid anti-gay amendments in the other states. DOMA is its own mess. There is a little thing called the Full Faith and Credit clause which means that state must recognize the licenses and papers of the other states. That means driver’s licenses and marriage licenses. The federal government isn’t supposed to have the power to let the states off the hook just because they would rather act like a theocracy. NOM is going to become irrelevant in June when the ruling comes down. It will at least be 5-4, but I am more inclined to believe that it will be a 6-3 declaring both Prop 8 and DOMA unconstitutional. It was 6-3 in both Romer v Evans and Texas v Lawrence so I think we’ll see the same thing with these two based on the same reasoning.

By: RRoberts73

RRoberts73 — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 23:33:33 +0000

Correct if I am wrong, but this is the HATEWATCH blog. Is there some other reason that SPLC would post the story?

By: Sam Molloy

Sam Molloy — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 21:24:28 +0000

RRoberts73, oh, “supporting traditional marriage” sounds so innocent and uplifting. Have you been taking PC lessons from the Lefties? We also support traditional marriage. We just support our inalienable right to it as well. That should not affect you.

By: Seven

Seven — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 15:43:17 +0000

RRoberrts73 The words “hate group” do not appear anywhere in this article.

By: RRoberts73

RRoberts73 — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:04:32 +0000

Question: Why is a group that supports traditional marriage addressed here as a HATE GROUP?

By: Sam Molloy

Sam Molloy — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 20:38:39 +0000

Rey, and anyone else, just do some research. As for Common Law Marriage, it has not been recognized in Kentucky since 1852. The exception is people who move here from States that recognize their Common Law Marriage are considered legally married here as well. ( “Good faith and Credit”)
As with racial Civil Rights, a popular vote will usually continue discrimination and Constitutional Rights for minorities often have to be mandated by the Supreme Court.
I am hoping that the Republican Conservatives drop this plank from their platform, in the interest of Limited Government, before the inevitable swing of public opinion, for economic reasons, puts them back in power.

By: Reynardine

Reynardine — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:47:43 +0000

Sam: marriage licenses, in the modern sense, became common practice on both sides of the Pond in the Nineteenth Century. Mid-Twentieth Century, there were still states where a legally binding marriage could be established by a couple (sui juris and single) moving in together and representing themselves as husband and wife.

By: concernedcitizen

concernedcitizen — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 00:59:27 +0000

Brown complained to the largely empty room at CPAC: “We are treated as if we are bigots.”

Could it be that you are?

By: concernedcitizen

concernedcitizen — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 00:53:33 +0000

CONTINUED: this is the argument that they should make for bigotry “unnatural.”

” Morse brought up Tyler Clementi as an example of why it is not the best thing for LGBT people to be friends with each other (they may be persuaded to have sex, apparently).”

“They should use this argument for bigots; is not the best thing for BIGOTED people to be friends with each other (they may be persuaded to have sex,”

Every single one of their arguments would be better spent trying to stop hate groups, instead of loving couples trying to get married.

By: concernedcitizen

concernedcitizen — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 00:50:32 +0000

@Reynardine: March 26th post: thank you for sharing that information.

It’s a complete waste of time for these people to fight against same sex marriage. We have bigger problems in this country. A loving adult couple trying to get married should not be a national concern. They are entitled to pursue their dreams here in this free country. And no one has a right to cause them harm or to deny them their civil liberties.

It’s very simple. You don’t have to agree with their lifestyle and partner choices but it’s their life and their choice to make freely.

“anti-LGBT Liberty Counsel says there’s a radical gay agenda out to destroy America, while Matt Barber, also of the Liberty Counsel, calls homosexuality “unnatural.”

THIS IS

By: concernedcitizen

concernedcitizen — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 00:44:10 +0000

Sam: where did you get the historical information to support the reason marriage licenses were introduced?

I would like a reputable reference to support what you stated.

By: concernedcitizen

concernedcitizen — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 00:38:52 +0000

@Steve: you stated

“There is no federal marriage license, hence there is no federal organ in which to exercise any regulation on marriage.”

People are getting married at state level. The federal government is regulating benefits by denying them to married gay and lesbian couples.

Federal law does not recognize same sex unions and that is why they are being denied benefits. Look at the cases involving military veterans and active duty members.

By: Sam Molloy

Sam Molloy — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:10:43 +0000

Rey, my research indicates that the Church controlled marriages in England in 1215, with the Crown issuing waivers, called licenses, in the 1300′s. At first only Massachusetts, that bastion of liberty, required them here, with other states doing the racist thing in the 1800′s. VD tests were added later as a further excuse. Are they going to mandate only HIV+ people can legally marry HIV+ people? As you know, roughly half the states forbade interracial marriage until they could see the handwriting on the wall. About six states held out until Federal intervention. Did they use a color chart like at a paint store, I wonder? The fine in Kentucky was I believe some $3000 in 1932. ( a 1932 Ford cost about $500).

By: Reynardine

Reynardine — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:36:14 +0000

Yet, since marriage is recognized as a civil status by most states, with attendant benefits which are not available to unmarried couples, then, under the equal protection clause, as per Loving v. Virginia, the state cannot deny it to any couple consisting of previously single, sui juris, consenting adults.

Sam, marriage licenses were instituted in Great Britain at the same time as here, and race was not an important issue there. Rather, the applicants were required to swear under oath that they were unmarried and, to the best of their knowledge, free of syphilis, which latter assertion had, in time, to be backed with a negative Wassermann test.

By: Sam Molloy

Sam Molloy — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 20:46:44 +0000

Steve, I agree mostly, as things now exist, except that it should not even be within a State Government’s power to control who lives with who. The idea of Marriage Licenses was dreamed up in the 1840′s to keep Blacks from marrying Whites. If they insist on keeping records and documenting relationships, then, because of the separation of Church and State, Civil Unions, both Gay and Straight, should be the only thing they should even mention. Marriage should be done by Churches if the parties so choose

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:45:13 +0000

First, the issue before the SCOTUS is that of authority. What authority does Congress have to regulate that which has historically been a matter of the states, that of marriage.
There is no federal marriage license, hence there is no federal organ in which to exercise any regulation on marriage.
Marriage does not impact national defense. Marriage does not impact interstate commerce.
Indeed, when the federal government exceeds its authority via legislation on marriage, it interferes with states rights and confuses interstate commerce, as each state must then find regulation that is consistent with the overreach of a pandering Congress.

Meanwhile, we hear the same tired arguments trotted out. Calling homosexuality a disorder, complete with using obsolete ICD codes from the early 1960′s and conveniently ignoring an INTERNATIONAL CODE in a specious claim that some national agenda altered something that is international in source.
We get the religious objection, conveniently forgetting that the very first amendment is a sword that cuts both ways, indeed, rejecting separation of church and state.
Then, we get the really tired denouncement. Something that died with McCarthy’s career, denouncing someone as a communist and linking atheism with communism.
After all, a communist is, by definition an atheist (ignoring the reality of the untruth of that factoid), hence an atheist must be a communist.
By a similar illogic, most rapists are men, therefor, all men are rapists, to use that illogic. Something patently untrue, but to the extremist, an untruth that supports their agenda is truth.

But then, I’ve repeatedly heard how we’re a Christian nation, not a secular one and that the first amendment doesn’t say what it does say. It says something else, if one only could learn Orwellian.