We are called to have a higher moral principle than the non-intervention of force. You and I are going to agree on 85%+ of issues, especially where government and taxes are concerned. In some very few instances though, nature, religion, or simply an urge to do good rise up and give us the opportunity to lessen a little bit of chaos.

The gay movement, history apparently beyond its cognizance, couldn’t let the frog warm up before it boiled. It asked for everything all at once. It couldn’t let Separate but Equal happen first. It couldn’t let society naturally change, and so it demanded that the courts write law. It has influence in many school districts, the media, and major denominations of the Church. It is probably going to get its way eventually. Unfortunately it has revealed just how radical it really is, even compared to today’s eroded societal norms. It can’t even handle leaving the traditional definition of marriage alone. Who is really the imposer here?

It’s a WORD. You may attach special meaning to it, but are Muslims, Hindus, or even atheists that live in a monogamous, heterosexual, union not “married”? What about those people who only get hitched by a justice of the peace and not a pastor?

Again, I don’t see how what anyone calls what is essentially a marriage what it is affects anyone else in the slightest. At best it’s semantics, and at worst it is an ugly form of bigotry.

I couldn’t agree with you more. I think civil unions are reasonable, just don’t call it marriage. My wife’s brother is gay, and while I don’t especially aprove of his lifestyle, I’m happy for him that he is in a committed loving relationship, and I think it’s a crime that he and his partner can’t share benefits or take part in each othere’s healthcare decision making processes in the event of a medical emergency, even though thats what they’ve requested. I’m worried that inn the event of some healthcare emergency, my inlaws would be called on to do it, and they wouldn’t even concider his wishes, or recognize his partner. By the way, how many PDU’s or CEU’s does Ohio require? I’m a partner in a small CE Firm in Missouri, and I’m always curious to know what other states require.

Eric Ramer

Before you throw the “it’s like racial” thing around, maybe talk to the folks you are supposedly helping.

Secondly, if this was put on the ballot as just couples getting property rights or visitation rights, most would have voted “yes”. But when liberal white fools try to tell a community (that is already suffering from family destruction on an amazing level) that all of this is the same, it doesn’t work.

A few years ago, I went to a “triad” neo-pagan wedding. Is that the next level? Or does the number stay two as the limit?

–LuLu, who is in the San Francisco arts community, doesn’t flinch when she sees “gays” at all, and plans on documenting the attack this weekend on the Mormon church in my town that I know is being planned.

Inability to distinguish abrogated Mosaic law, the desire to make people more “Christian” by first forcing the law on them, and the lack of recognition that we cannot keep God’s law perfectly would disqualify many Christians from this responsibility. There is a world of difference between the enforceable “he slept with the secretary” and the ratcheting up of adultery in Matthew 5.

Denying Biblical revelation in discourse, though, is a lack of willingness to use the true tools we are given. Do embryos only get rights at the point we can save them from the womb, or can we use Psalm 51:5 in a majority of Jews and Christians and call the matter good?

Replace “gay” with “inter-racial” and I’m not so sure you’d argue against it quite as adamantly. It’s the same thing.

Now, you’ve mentioned this twice, and I let the first time on your LiveJournal pass. It really sounds like you’re calling me a racist, and I don’t see anything I’ve written which would lead you to that. Both natural revelation and Biblical revelation don’t seem to prohibit marriages of people from different races. If it was good enough for Moses…

So, you’re saying you’re all for the union of church and state, so long as that religion is Christianity? Which particular sect? The founders would disagree.

At the present, I feel that if the state can’t get marriage right, then it should get rid of the marriage business altogether. Filling out two 1040s instead of one might be a pain, but it’s better than the state lying about who is married and who isn’t.

Ok then, since you are arguing for a libertarian point of view, and have also denoted the futility of libertarian policies, if the government is not going to renounce this power, then isn’t it an injustice to essential enshrine inequality in the government?

Replace “gay” with “inter-racial” and I’m not so sure you’d argue against it quite as adamantly. It’s the same thing.