Idaho Governor Takes Fight to Defend State Marriage Amendment to U.S. Supreme Court

OtterBOISE, Idaho — The governor of Idaho has take the fight to defend his state’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as being solely between a man and a woman to the U.S. Supreme Court.

As previously reported, last May, U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale asserted that the amendment, which was passed in 2006 with 63 percent approval from voters, violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

“This case asks a basic and enduring question about the essence of American government: Whether the will of the majority, based as it often is on sincere beliefs and democratic consensus, may trump the rights of a minority,” Dale wrote. “If every individual enjoys a constitutional right to marry, what is the substance of that right for gay or lesbian individuals who cannot marry their partners of choice?”

She also contended that the religious reasons cited by the state were not sufficient to save the amendment.

“No doubt many faiths around the world and in Idaho have longstanding traditions of man-woman marriage rooted in scripture,” she stated. “But not all religions share the view that opposite-sex marriage is a theological imperative.”

Idaho Governor C.L. Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden then appealed the ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but the court upheld Dale’s ruling and another ruling out of Nevada this past October.

Therefore, Otter and Wasden have decided to appeal the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court, with the assistance of Washington attorney Gene Schaerr.

  • Connect with Christian News

“The time has come for this court to resolve a question of critical importance to the states, their citizens and especially their children: Whether the federal Constitution prohibits a state from maintaining the traditional understanding and definition of marriage as between a man and a woman,” the petition submitted to the court states.

“It is important that at least one of the cases this court considers on the merits be a case in which the traditional definition of marriage has been defended with the most robust defense available,” it continued. “This is that case.”

Wasden also filed a separate petition, noting that the federal courts are now divided on the matter since the 6th Circuit upheld marriage amendments in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee last year.

“The lower federal courts have rendered conflicting decisions whether the Constitution requires states to sanction same-sex marriage,” he wrote. “This conflict has resulted in a Constitution that treats states unequally: It permits some to exercise the power they have always had to define civil marriage, but denies other states that same right.”

As previously reported, officials in Utah, Virginia and Oklahoma submitted appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court last year in an effort to overturn rulings that forced them to either recognize or legalize same-sex “marriages” in their state, but in October, the court announced that it declined to hear the cases. However, it did not rule out agreeing to hear other cases at another time.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

    I have to wonder how much of Idaho residents’ tax money will be squandered on this futile effort.

    • Disqusdmnj

      $400k so far, from what I’ve read. So wasteful.

      • Gary

        Worth every penny.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          How so? What is the benefit to the state in not allowing two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage?

          • Disqusdmnj

            None, it just pleases imaginary deities.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Unfortunate that the live in the US rather than a nation that is governed as a Christian Theocracy. It seems they would be happier in the latter.

          • Disqusdmnj

            I hear Somalia is lovely this time of year!

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Uganda, as well.

          • Gary

            What is the benefit to the state to allow ssm? The harm is that it brings the judgment of God on the state.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            There is not a requirement that the state benefit. Allowing access to a right offered by the state is a given. Restrictions must be justified – not access.

            What is the benefit to the state of providing marriage licenses to opposite gender couples?

            “The harm is that it brings the judgment of God on the state.”

            What proof do you have of this?

            While you are certainly free to believe that, your beliefs regarding the actions of the Biblical god resulting from something being legal are not a reason to disallow it under our constitution.

            It seems you would be happier living in a country that was a Christian Theocracy rather than a Constitutional Republic like the US.

          • Gary

            The US Constitution makes no mention of marriage. The equal protection clause only means that the laws are to apply to everyone equally. You are not asking for that. You are asking that the definition of marriage be changed. There is no constitutional requirement that the legal definition of marriage must be changed from the traditional definition. In other words, the US Constitution provides no basis for what you want.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “The equal protection clause only means that the laws are to apply to everyone equally. ”

            Correct. In the case of marriage, that is two people.

            “You are asking that the definition of marriage be changed.”

            Nope. Marriage is legally defined as two non-closely related consenting adults.

            “In other words, the US Constitution provides no basis for what you want.”

            On that point we disagree. But, again, if you feel that you have insight into why this issue is not one that is applicable to the 14th amendment, I suggest you offer your services to the many efforts that are currently in play regarding this. You obviously have information that has been heretofore not been used, as is clear by the level of conviction you have for your conclusion. No doubt your legal expertise and understanding of constitutional law would be greatly appreciated.

          • Gary

            The qualifications for legal marriage are more than just two non-closely related consenting adults. If your definition was correct, then polygamy would be legal. You want to change the definition of marriage, but with no constitutional justification.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “If your definition was correct, then polygamy would be legal.”

            Polygamy would require more than two.

            “You want to change the definition of marriage, but with no constitutional justification.”

            I offer ample constitutional justification. If the state wishes to place restrictions upon the ability to citizens to access a right offered by the state, those restrictions must be based upon rational, compelling, and legally justifiable reasons. If not, then the citizens who are affected by those restrictions are not being treated equally under the law. That is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

            Regardless of whether you agree or not, that is the constitutional justification for striking down laws which prohibit two citizens of the same gender from entering into civil marriage.

          • Gary

            Everyone has the legal right to get married, but only under certain conditions. Marriage is not an unlimited right. If you can’t qualify, then you cannot get married. Legal marriage has nothing to do with happiness. The state is not obligated to legalize everything that someone claims makes them “happy”.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “but only under certain conditions. Marriage is not an unlimited right. ”

            Agreed.

            “Legal marriage has nothing to do with happiness.”

            If you are married, I would suggest that you not share that sentiment with your wife. Many people do find great happiness in being married.

            “The state is not obligated to legalize everything that someone claims makes them “happy”.”

            Agreed. The state also must justify any restrictions it places on citizens in their pursuit of happiness.

            Again, perhaps you’ll be good enough to complete this sentence:

            “I know that not allowing you to get married keeps you from pursuing your happiness and harms you financially and legally, but it’s reasonable for the state, that you are a citizen of and which is sworn to protect your rights, to do so because……….”

          • Gary

            Because marriage is only one thing: the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, who are qualified to marry each other. Every marriage consists of a husband and a wife. That requires a man and a woman.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Because marriage is only one thing: the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, who are qualified to marry each other. Every marriage consists of a husband and a wife. ”

            In case you haven’t been paying attention, that is no longer the case.

          • Gary

            It is still true that every marriage must have both a husband and a wife. A husband is a man who is married to a woman, and a wife is a woman who is married to a man.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “It is still true that every marriage must have both a husband and a wife. ”

            in 36 states, that is no longer a requirement for civil marriage.

          • Johanna Roberts

            I am happy living in a Constitutional Republic that allows states to make their own determination aside from some judge turning centuries of right into a wrong.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            You do not live in a Constitutional Republic where states are allowed to enforce any law they care to. State laws must not violate the protections provided to citizens under the federal constitution.

            What would be considered right and wrong would depend on one’s perspective.

            Perhaps you’ll be good enough to complete this sentence:

            “I know that not allowing you to get married keeps you from pursuing your happiness and harms you financially and legally, but its reasonable for the state, that you are a citizen of and which is sworn to protect your rights, to do so because……….”

        • Disqusdmnj

          For you, but it won’t last long.

  • Gary

    Since the marriage law in Idaho applies equally to everyone, there can be no violation of the equal protection clause, as judge dale has claimed. I appreciate the governor and the other public officials efforts to have the supreme court decide this.

    • Disqusdmnj

      It sets up a separate and restricted class of people – those who cannot marry the *one* person they love. That is unconstitutional and violates equal protection.

      • Nick_from_Detroit

        So, Disqusdmnj, a father can marry his adult daughter? And, a mother can marry her adult son? Or, an adult brother can marry his adult sister, or brother? A mother can marry her daughter, a father can marry his son? As long as they “love” each other?

        • Disqusdmnj

          Well *that* would be creepy, and sounds almost biblical, doesn’t it? ; )

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Umm, incest is forbidden in the Bible, Disqusdmnj.
            Now, how about answering my questions?

          • Disqusdmnj

            Same restrictions as hetero marriage, only this time the people have the same parts. What’s the big deal?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            The restrictions of normal marriage is that it between a man and a woman, remember?
            Who are you to set up a separate & restricted class of people?
            Why can’t a father marry his daughter or son, if they’re in love?

          • Disqusdmnj

            They can’t now, right? So who are you to define marriage that excludes two consenting, unrelated adults? Do you also think two people of different races shouldn’t be married? Or is what’s below the belt all that matters?

            Don’t say it’s all about procreation… that’s already a tired, false argument.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Homosexuals couldn’t before, right? That is, before judges started forcing it on the people.
            Marriage has always been between a man and woman. Across history and culture.
            And, under the U.S. Constitution, states have the right to make restrictions on marriages.

            Now, again, why can’t a father marry his daughter or son, if they’re in love?

          • Disqusdmnj

            People forced the restrictions before, and judges are correcting it now. Sometimes the will of the people will correct it. We as a society are saying a father can’t marry a daughter, and we as a society – backed by the Constitution – are saying its OK if two dudes marry. There are societal norms which will always hold true, and there are others we will grow out of. Like slavery.

            And no, marriage has not always been just between a man and a woman. Read your bible.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            I’m sure that I know the Sacred Scriptures better than you.
            The U.S. Constitution says nothing about marriage, at all. It is left to the states to regulate. 31 states banned SS counterfeit “marriage,” remember? Only unelected, tyrannical judges are forcing their views on society.

            Besides, your only criteria was two people in love. Again, why can’t a father marry his daughter or son, if they’re in love?

          • Disqusdmnj

            Ah yes, the tyrannical judge argument. Same with Loving v. Virginia.

            Look, we’re just advanced apes, and sometimes we make mistakes. And sometimes, people don’t want to fix them. Just chalk this up as us correcting mistakes, stepping on a few toes here and there, and everyone waking up to the same boring day ahead of them as before. Only this time, a few consenting, unrelated, same-sex adults will have gotten married over the weekend. Your day, and mine, will go unchanged.

            And, there is not an entire class of people out there who wish to marry their child/parent. And there is not a similar class or people who have that ability elsewhere in the world and have been shown to be just as fruitful in other societies. Personally, I could care less if multiple women want to marry the same man, as long as it doesn’t affect children. And to this day, regardless of what you read on this site, not legitimate study has shown that children in SSM families are any worse off than not. Just stop trying to enforce your religion on everyone else, and your day will be just as boring as it was yesterday. Comforting, isn’t it?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Ah yes, argumentum ad populum. Well, 31 states banned SS counterfeit “marriage.” Why can’t you accept their decisions?
            Why is it okay for you enforce your “religion” on mothers/daughters & fathers/sons who want to get married? No matter how many there are? (Nobody was clamoring for SSM 20 years ago.)
            Admit it, your claim for equal rights is bogus. And, you’re a hypocrite.

          • Disqusdmnj

            Please show me all these parents and children who want to get married.

            I’ll wait.

            Do you also rue the end of slavery and women’s suffrage? Those were pretty popular, too, until wiser heads prevailed.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            So, it’s okay to deny rights to minorities, as long as they’re small enough?

          • Disqusdmnj

            Good heavens, Nick. Are you incapable of distinguishing the difference between to consenting adults, and incest? We know what causes harm to people, and we know what doesn’t. There are norms that keep society functioning, and those we later determine aren’t necessary and never were.

            Can’t you just admit that this isn’t a philosophical debate for you, and that you just don’t want two people with the same parts getting married, because of what your religious beliefs tell you?

            And yes, my “atheist” beliefs tell me that when some consenting adults l gain rights that others already have, society is better off. I’ll answer that one for you. Your welcome.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Translation: Your beliefs are arbitrary and hypocritical.
            You can’t defend them based on a claim of equal rights.
            Why can’t a mother and her adult daughter both consent?

            You’re wrong, we used to know what causes harm and what doesn’t. We now live in an age that calls good evil, and evil good.
            Thanks, in large measure, to atheists.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Again with changing the subject. You know you have no rational argument against gay marriage, don’t you?

          • Disqusdmnj

            Oh, Nick… You make me laugh! Sociological studies and results be damned!

            Don’t worry, society will just have to move forward – harmlessly – without you. Because only us 1-2% atheists are what’re behind all this. WE ARE SO POWERFUL! Where’s your god now? Doesn’t he get all floody when he’s angry? Seems clear and dry out there to me.

            And if it’s so important to you and your god, just stay silent and let us make our hell-bound mistakes!

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Why do you support the denial of constitutional rights to a father who wants to marry his daughter or son, if they’re in love?

          • Disqusdmnj

            So… boring… Will you please just get to asking about a man marrying his dog soon? That’s usually where the counter argument goes.

            Also, because at this time, we collectively agree that this is not an ideal relationship that should be condoned by society or government; that there are proven instances where it is a genetic mistake for procreation; because there are certain societal norms that we will continue to hold to; and because it is not a group that has been fighting for the laws to allow.

            But by all means, keep asking the question.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            So, you finally admit that all claims by SSM supporters that this is about the fundamental “right” of two people in love to marry are completely bogus?
            And, that your reasons to allow it are arbitrary?

          • Disqusdmnj

            I don’t see how the stipulation that two SS people be unrelated is arbitrary. Carry on.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Well, 31 states banned SS counterfeit “marriage”

            Yes, they did. How is that relevant to the legal question?

            “Why can’t you accept their decisions?”

            Because the decision harms certain citizens. It is reasonable that the citizens who are harmed by a restriction on their rights to challenge that restriction in court.

            For example, let’s say that the state of Utah holds a vote that restricts marriage to only Mormons. The measure passes by a majority of those who voted. As a result, only Mormons are allowed to enter into civil marriage. Should residents of Utah that are not Mormon simply “accept” that outcome, and not challenge its constitutionality in court?

            You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the US operates as a pure democracy. It does not. The US operates as a constitutional republic. As such, a vote of the majority is not sufficient, in and of itself, to validate law.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            They banned SSM in their constitutions, which are legal documents, as is their right.
            There is no right to marriage. It has always had restrictions. In our republic, if you feel aggrieved, you work to change the law through the legislative process.
            I agree that the rights of the individual outweigh the will of the majority. But, again, marriage is not a right.
            And, you don’t think so, either. Since, you would impose your beliefs on fathers and daughters who want marry.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “They banned SSM in their constitutions, which are legal documents, as is their right.”

            Yes, it is their right to put whatever they care to in their constitution. In turn, it is the right of citizens to challenge was is put into a state’s constitution.

            “There is no right to marriage.”

            The SCOTUS disagrees with you. Between your opinion and theirs, theirs is the only one that holds any legal weight.

            “It has always had restrictions.”

            Yes, it has. Something being a right doesn’t mean that it comes without restrictions. There is a right to free speech – that doesn’t mean you can yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater if there is no fire. There is a right to not have your religious expression prohibited. That does mean that you can go out in front of your house at 3 in the morning with a bullhorn and start talking about your faith. All rights have restrictions – that there are restrictions doesn’t mean that something is not a right.

            “In our republic, if you feel aggrieved, you work to change the law through the legislative process.”

            That is certainly one way to go about it. The other way is to challenge a law in court. Do you believe that citizens should NOT be allowed to challenge laws in court if those laws have been put into place by a majority of those who voted?

            “And, you don’t think so, either. Since, you would impose your beliefs on fathers and daughters who want marry.”

            That is incorrect. See above for explanation.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            SCOTUS isn’t infallible (Dred Scott, remember?)
            Time and place & public safety restrictions have no bearing on marriage, which has always been defined as being between men & women.
            Yes, petitioning the court is a right. Banning SSM violated no one’s rights.

            “Father/daughter is problematical from a genetic standpoint.”
            “That is incorrect.”

            Which is it?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “SCOTUS isn’t infallible”

            I never suggested they were. That does not change the reality that their rulings – flawed or not – are the law of the land.

            “Time and place & public safety restrictions have no bearing on marriage”

            Your point was that marriage was not a right because it contained restrictions. I pointed out that all rights have restrictions and the existence of restrictions is not a determining factor in what is a “right” and what is not.

            “Banning SSM violated no one’s rights.”

            Again, the courts disagree. You are, however, most welcome to lend your legal expertise to those who are making their case in court. Obviously you are aware of things they are not.

            “Which is it?”

            My saying that the issue of legalizing marriage between closely related people is problematic does not equate to my saying that it should or should not be legal. I merely acknowledge that the issue contains many considerations, one of which is procreation genetics.

            I am not capable of imposing my beliefs on others. People are free to believe as they care to – i cannot make them believe something.

            So, no, it is not correct that I don’t believe marriage is a right, nor is it correct that I am imposing my beliefs on others.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            “Your point was that marriage was not a right because it contained restrictions.”
            No, it wasn’t. That’s an association fallacy. All beagles are dogs, but not all dogs are beagles.
            I made two declarative statements. Marriage is not a right. Not everything is. And, it’s always had restrictions.
            You are merely pointing out that no right is absolute. Non sequitur.
            Nice try, though.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            You: “There is no right to marriage. It has always had restrictions.”

            If you intended for those statements to be unrelated and stand on their own, then you should have begun the second sentence with something like: “In addition, “. The way you worded it created a relationship between those two things.

            There is a right to marriage, as determined by SCOTUS. While you may not agree with their ruling, it none-the-less is the law of the land.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Thanks for the writing tip. I went to publik skools and was taught English by ex-hippies.
            But, it doesn’t change anything. The fact that marriage is not a right has no bearing on whether it may have restrictions, or not. Pointing out that no right is absolute, therefore, does not follow.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Thanks for the writing tip.”

            You’re welcome.

            “The fact that marriage is not a right”

            The fact is, from a legal standpoint, marriage is a right. if you need further information on this, please see Loving v Virginia.

            “Pointing out that no right is absolute, therefore, does not follow.”

            Again, my pointing that out was based upon your post.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “It is left to the states to regulate. ”

            Correct. State laws, in turn, if found to be violate the rights of citizens under the federal constitution, are invalid.

            “Only unelected, tyrannical judges are forcing their views on society.”

            Actually, 4 states have put same-gender marriage in place through popular vote. Regardless, what does the fact that a member of the judiciary is not elected have to do with anything?

            In what way are their rulings “tyrannical”?

            “forcing their views on society.”

            The majority in society already agree that same-gender civil marriage should be legal. Further, you can’t force your views on anyone. People are free to view things however they care to.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Why can’t a father marry his daughter or son, if they’re in love?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Because the law does not allow it.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            The law didn’t allow SS counterfeit “marriage,” either.
            It doesn’t allow it the 31 states that banned it in their constitutions.
            Again, a very bad argument.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            I wasn’t making an argument. I was providing an answer to your question. Your question was not regarding whether they should be able to marry. You asked me why they can’t – I provided the answer.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            And, now, you are resorting to sophistry. You knew what I meant.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Your lack of clarity is not my issue.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Why didn’t you bring it up before?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Why didn’t I bring up your lack of clarity?

            Because I wasn’t aware of it until you clarified that the original question you asked was not the question you actually sought an answer to.

            I don’t presume to decide what people meant. I respond to what is presented.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Why do you constantly change the subject?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Marriage has always been between a man and woman. Across history and culture.”

            Actually that is not true. For centuries marriage was between one man and many women, and still is so today in some places.

            “And, under the U.S. Constitution, states have the right to make restrictions on marriages.”

            Agreed. However the states do not have the right to enforce unconstitutional restrictions.

            “Now, again, why can’t a father marry his daughter or son, if they’re in love?”

            Because it’s not legal. Father/daughter is problematical from a genetic standpoint. Father/son does not entail those issues. If a challenge is made to the laws restricting marriage between closely related adults, then the state will be required to provide compelling, rational, and legally valid reasons for those restrictions.

            With that said, “what if” is not a valid reason for maintaining a restriction.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Yes, I agree, polygamists have a much better claim to marriage that homosexuals. And, we banned polygamy in this country, didn’t we?
            There is nothing unconstitutional about banning SS counterfeit “marriage.”
            SSM isn’t legal in several states. It wasn’t legal in ANY state 15 years ago. So, not a great argument.
            Also, children aren’t an issue either (birth control, vasectomy).
            So, you’re okay with a father and son getting married?

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Really… If you must change the subject away from gay marriage, it’s obvious that you have no rational legal argument against gay marriage.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “There is nothing unconstitutional about banning SS counterfeit “marriage.””

            The judiciary, with very few exceptions, disagrees with you. However, if you believe you are correct, I would suggest that you lend your expertise to those who are attempting to justify their bans on same-gender marriage. No doubt they would be grateful for your assistance, since they have done so poorly thus far.

            “SSM isn’t legal in several states. It wasn’t legal in ANY state 15 years ago. So, not a great argument.”

            It is the truth. Regarding the arguments for or against, that is an issue for the state to present should those laws be challenged.

            “So, you’re okay with a father and son getting married?”

            Personally, yes I am. How about you?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            The judiciary is corrupt. Has been for a long time. Or, should we still abide by Dred Scott?

            Well, you are morally depraved. I thought there was no danger of a slippery-slope with SSM? Another lie from it’s supporters.
            Just like, “we won’t force anyone to perform marriage ceremonies.” Or, make them bake cakes.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “The judiciary is corrupt.”

            What proof do you offer of this corruption?

            ‘I thought there was no danger of a slippery-slope with SSM?”

            Laws regarding allowing close blood relatives to marry are independent from allowing two non-closely-related consenting adults of the same gender to marry. Allowing same-gender marriage does not provide a legal basis for allowing marriage between closely related individuals. Therefore, there is no slippery slope.

            “Or, make them bake cakes.”

            Who said that? Anti-discrimination laws are distinct and separate from same-gender marriage laws. For instance, in Oklahoma. Same-gender marriage is legal, but sexuality is not a covered category under anti-discrimination laws. Therefore, a baker in Oklahoma – a state with same-gender marriage – is completely within their legal rights to turn a gay customer away based on their being gay. In similar fashion, where i live in Florida, sexuality IS covered under anti-discrimination laws and has been for quite some time, despite same-gender marriage not being legal (for about another 30 hours).

            “”we won’t force anyone to perform marriage ceremonies.””

            “we” can’t force anyone to do anything, nor can anyone.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            I gave you the proof. Did you miss it?
            Why is it constitutional for you to discriminate against a mother and her adult son who want to get married, if they love each other?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “I gave you the proof. Did you miss it?”

            Perhaps. Where did you provide proof that the judiciary is corrupt?

            “Why is it constitutional for you to discriminate against a mother and her adult son who want to get married,”

            I’m not discriminating against them. I don’t issue marriage licenses. The state does that.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Dred Scott, remember? How about Plessy?
            You don’t support their legal marriage, like you support SSM, so, it’s not a matter of equal rights. Your support for SSM is arbitrary.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            So you are suggesting that the rulings in Dred Scott and Plessy are proof that the entire judiciary is corrupt?

            I neither support not fail to support the marriage of a mother and her adult son. Nor did I say I did not support it, and I would kindly ask that you stop lying about what I said. What I said was that the issue was problematic. I am not well enough versed in the various various ramifications to say whether or not I support such unions.

            “it’s not a matter of equal rights”

            I agree. It is a matter of whether the restrictions on marriage based upon the gender of the two people seeking the license are constitutional.

            “Your support for SSM is arbitrary.”

            No, it is not.

            Tell me, what is your concern regarding two citizens of the same gender entering into civil marriage? Given that not allowing them to harms them financially and legally, what is your justification for this harm?

            Perhaps you’ll be good enough to complete this sentence:

            “I know that not allowing you to get married keeps you from pursuing your happiness and harms you financially and legally, but its reasonable for the state, that you are a citizen of and which is sworn to protect your rights, to do so because……….”

          • Johanna Roberts

            yuck!

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            I certainly never had a desire to marry my father, nor can i imagine that an adult male would…..but to each their own.

          • Gary

            There are some things that should not be legal, and that is one of them.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

          • ELAINE MARZANO

            I knew you had all the answers! I AM GLAD I DID NOT FALL INTO YOUR TRAP!! YOU CAN THINK THE WAY YOU WANT. BUT THE REST OF US HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THE SAME. I AM OPPOSED TO IT. AND THAT IS HOW I FEEL. I DON’T OWE ANYONE AN EXPLANATION BECAUSE OF THE WAY I FEEL.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “I AM GLAD I DID NOT FALL INTO YOUR TRAP!!”

            What trap is that, dear?

            “YOU CAN THINK THE WAY YOU WANT.”

            Thanks.

            “BUT THE REST OF US HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THE SAME.”

            I completely agree.

            “I DON’T OWE ANYONE AN EXPLANATION BECAUSE OF THE WAY I FEEL.”

            You certainly don’t. If you want to hold to opinions that you are unable to explain, that is your right.

      • Gary

        There are limiting qualifications as to who someone can marry that are constitutional. There is no unlimited right to marry whoever you want.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          “There are limiting qualifications as to who someone can marry that are constitutional.”

          Absolutely. Unfortunately for those who share your views, “gender’ is not one.

          • Gary

            Gender can indeed be one. As it has been for well over 200 years of American history. There is no Constitutional reason why ssm must be legal.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Gender can indeed be one. ”

            The judiciary, with few exceptions, disagrees.

            “There is no Constitutional reason why ssm must be legal.”

            Sure there is – the 14th amendment. You may find it beneficial to read some of the rulings. They will help you understand the constitutional issues involved.

          • Gary

            Neither the 14th Amendment, nor any other part of the Constitution requires ssm to be legal. Anyone who says otherwise, even judges, are lying.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Perhaps you should consider offering up your insights to the various legal teams that are fighting this in court. You obviously have insight into the constitution that they lack. I’m sure they would be most appreciative.

          • Gary

            We all read the same constitution. The problem is, the judges don’t care what the constitution says. The judges who are ruling in favor of ssm are claiming the constitution means something other than what it says. They know what they are doing. But their arrogance is such that they think everyone has to obey their rulings.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “The judges who are ruling in favor of ssm are claiming the constitution means something other than what it says.”

            What is it you believe they are claiming the constitution means other than what it says?

            “They know what they are doing.”

            Agreed.

            “But their arrogance is such that they think everyone has to obey their rulings.”

            It’s not a question of arrogance. That is how our system is setup. Their rulings struck down laws. If a law doesn’t exist, there is nothing to obey.

          • Gary

            They are claiming the Constitution requires that ssm be legal. But the Constitution does not say that.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “They are claiming the Constitution requires that ssm be legal. ”

            No, they are ruling that laws prohibiting same-gender marriage are unconstitutional. The result of that is same-gender marriage becomes legal. They are ruling on the constitutionality of the state’s law.

            You seem to be under the mistaken impression that anything that is legal must be specifically stated in the constitution. The constitution doesn’t say that opposite-gender marriage must be legal. Therefore, based upon your logic, a state could pass a law that ONLY same-gender marriage is legal, and opposite-gender couples would have no recourse. That would not be true.

          • Gary

            But the laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman are NOT unconstitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution that proves those laws are unconstitutional.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “But the laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman are NOT unconstitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution that proves those laws are unconstitutional.”

            The judiciary disagrees with you. Again, if you are so certain that you have a legally valid case for why laws restricting marriage based upon gender are constitutional, I suggest you offer your services to the various legal teams that are fighting to preserve such laws. They would, no doubt, be grateful for your expertise, as they have been unsuccessful in proving your point.

          • Gary

            The courts are wrong.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Based on?

          • Gary

            Based on the US Constitution.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            What portion of the constitution says that the courts are wrong? What is your educational background regarding constitutional law that allows you to feel so certain that “the courts are wrong”?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “They are claiming the Constitution requires that ssm be legal. ”

            No, they are claiming that laws which forbid same-gender marriage violate the 14th amendment.

            “But the Constitution does not say that.”

            Agreed. Just as it does not say that opposite-gender civil marriage must be legal.

          • Gary

            But laws that limit marriage to a man and a woman DO NOT violate the 14th Amendment, as long as they apply to everyone. If they only applied to homosexuals, then they would violate the 14th Amendment.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Since marriage involves two people, therefore, the couple must be treated equally under the law, or there is a potential violation of the 14th amendment. The next question is whether the state is able to show that the restriction it has in place is based upon rational, compelling, and legally valid reasons. If not, then the restriction violates the 14th amendment.

            The legal argument you present is similar to the one put forth in Loving v Virginia – since no whites can marry blacks, and no blacks can marry whites – then there is no violation of the constitutional. SCOTUS did not agree.

        • Disqusdmnj

          And all that’s needed is one less restriction.

          • Gary

            But there does not have to be one less restriction in order to comply with the US Constitution.

          • Disqusdmnj

            There does to extend equal protection under the law. The consideration is only between two consenting, unrelated adults. Why is this so wrong to you?

            I’ll make it easy… this is what will happen when the remaining states pass marriage equality:

            (Get it?)

          • Gary

            Same-sex marriage is immoral. Homosexuality is immoral. Immorality brings the judgment of God on the immoral.
            As far as the US Constitution goes, as long as a law applies to everyone equally, there is no violation of equal protection. Having the laws apply to everyone equally is what equal protection means.

          • Disqusdmnj

            Ah yes, that didn’t take long, did it? Religion before American laws. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it hinders. We’ll get past it soon enough, and there will be marriage equality. And you’ll be fine!

          • Gary

            Christians are never going to accept ssm. Never. Even if it becomes legal, we will never accept it as being legal, or legitimate in any way.

          • Disqusdmnj

            That’s fine, no one’s asking you to. Sure, there will be some bumps in the laws governing public use and companies, but they’ll get sorted out over time. And some churches are already embracing SSM, so we got that going for us. Besides, Orthodox Jews will never accept eating shellfish or cheeseburgers… you don’t see them trying to outlaw either, do you?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            That’s certainly your choice. Is that not good enough for you? is it not enough that you can choose to accept or not accept whatever you care to? Is your faith so fragile that you need to codify in law, at the expense of others, your beliefs?

      • Johanna Roberts

        BAH HUMBUG! The same-gender people set up the distinction. the “one’ person they love is a farce.

        • Disqusdmnj

          You should tell that to every gay person you know. I’m sure they’d love to hear that type of compassion.

    • SFBruce

      By that logic, laws which forbid inter-racial marriages should be constitutional, and the Supreme Court decision (Loving v. Virginia) which ruled them unconstitutional in 1967 was wrongly decided.

      • Gary

        Yes, it was wrongly decided.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          How was it “wrongly declined”?

      • Nick_from_Detroit

        By SS counterfeit “marriage” supporter’s logic, laws that forbid incestuous “marriages” and polygamy should by unconstitutional, correct?

        • dark477

          If they can present a compelling reason that those laws are unconstitutional.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Please, define “compelling,” Dark477?

          • dark477

            I’m not the one advocating for for incest and polygamist marriages.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Why aren’t you? Are you a hypocrite?

          • dark477

            No I just don’t care. I can support gay marriage but not say incest marriage.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            No, you can’t, Dark477. And remain intellectually honest, that is.

          • dark477

            Yeah I can and frankly it doesn’t matter that you think of me.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Who are you, Dark477, to make them second-class citizens? Who are you refuse them the so-called “right” to marriage?

          • dark477

            They’re free to make their argument in court same as anyone. Who knows maybe they’ll win.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Cop out. Why can’t a father marry his son or daughter, if they’re in love?

          • dark477

            If you think they should make an argument and present it in court.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            I don’t. Those who advocate for SS counterfeit marriage, if they are to remain intellectually honest, must also support incestuous “marriage” and polygamy.
            Otherwise, your claims that it is about equal rights are bogus. And, your rationale is completely arbitrary.
            Which makes you a hypocrite.

          • dark477

            I can live with that.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Well, at least your finally being honest, Dark477. In fact, you’re the first I’ve encountered. Congratulations.
            How does it feel living by situational ethics?

          • dark477

            It’s not honesty I just don’t care what you think, if you think I’m a hypocrite find but I don’t and that’s what matters to me.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            You are a hypocrite, Dark477, because you’ve offered no evidence to the contrary. You haven’t even attempted a defense of your position, really.

          • dark477

            Defend what exactly? You’re the one seems to think I have to support incest.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Defend your support for SS counterfeit “marriage” and your denial of equal marriage “rights” for polygamists and mothers & daughters.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Yeah, that’s what I thought. Typical.

        • SFBruce

          No. I’m not an expert in genetics, but when people who are closely related bear children, the chances of undesirable characteristics being passed down are increased. The way polygamy is practiced today puts women and children at risk, so it’s something I can’t personally condone. That said, I’m sure marriage will continue to change, as it has since it’s inception.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            SFBruce,
            There are also negative consequences of SSM. And, children aren’t a factor in the case of mother/daughter & father/son “marriage,” are they?
            Negative consequences are not the criteria, though. Supporters of SS counterfeit “marriage” only require consenting adults who are in love.
            Who are you to deny these other groups the so-called “right to marriage”?

          • Tedlick Badkey

            List these “negative consequences”. I’m betting a court would them as personal opinion without basis.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            They are contrary to the natural law, they don’t produce children (the family being the elemental foundation of society), they tend to be more abusive, they pervert the marital act.

            The criteria, for SSM supporters, is two people in love. Why, then, can’t a father marry his daughter or son, if they’re in love?

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Ah… See, plastic is against natural law, no? And procreation? No legal requirement for it in any marriage law. The concept was openly mocked in open court in Windsor. Neither argument has any legal basis and has repeatedly lost. I’m not playing your incest game. If you don’t know why it’s illegel, that’s on you.

            I couldn’t care less.

            The rest? Baseless opinion that would never stand in court.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            “See, plastic is against natural law, no?”
            Thus, proving that you have no idea what constitutes natural law.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Satire eludes you, I see… However, your obsession with incest and polygamy are just as relevant.

          • Spoob

            So by that logic we should also deny impotent couples the right to marry since they cannot produce children? What about the elderly?

            “Tend to be more abusive” – I’m just going to flat out call BS on that one, unless you can provide proof. “Pervert the marital act” how?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            That was just one example. Although children are the primary reason for, and product of, marriage; they are not the only criteria for matrimony. Infertility doesn’t invalidate a marriage.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Although children are the primary reason for, and product of, marriage”

            Children are a product of sexual relations, not marriage. Given that, children are NOT the primary reason for civil marriage. The primary, and in fact only, reason for civil marriage is to establish legal standing for the couple.

            “they are not the only criteria for matrimony.”

            They are not a criteria at all. There is no criteria that people who marry have children.

            “They are contrary to the natural law” – while that may be your belief, it is not a “negative consequence”, as it is not a consequence. It is a statement of your opinion regarding same-gender marriage.

            “they tend to be more abusive”

            Please point to any study which shows that there is a greater level of abuse among same-sex married couples.

            Studies have documented that there is a greater level of abuse for couples in which one of the persons is an alcoholic. Should we then ban alcoholics from entering into civil marriage? There is also documented higher levels of abuse in families living in poverty. Should we establish a minimum income level for marriage?

            “they pervert the marital act”

            That is your opinion about it. That is not a consequence of it.

            So, one by one, we see that the “consequences” (read: attempted justifications for denying) you said existed are false.

      • Neiman

        I get sick of people raising the race issue, that is an immutable human characteristic, homosexual conduct is a lifestyle choice, they cannot be comparable.

        • SFBruce

          I get sick of people insisting that homosexuality is a “lifestyle choice,” when no reputable scientific source agrees. And yes, I know that sexual orientation isn’t completely determined by genetics, but that does not mean sexual orientation is chosen. When did you decide to become heterosexual?

          • Neiman

            While I do not agree with liberal, politically correct scientific dogma on this issue; no matter the underlying cause of homosexuality, homosexual conduct is always a choice. While I am not directly comparing them, generally speaking it is just like alcoholism, drug addiction, pornography or any of several sexual deviations, acting on improper, destructive impulses is always a choice.

          • SFBruce

            You dislike it when LGBT people suggest there are similarities between our marginalization and that of African-Americans, but you have no problem comparing homosexuality with alcoholism and drug addiction, at the same time you claim not to be making the comparison. There’s at least one glaring difference between the two: alcoholism and drug addiction necessarily and objectively impair the ability of the person with those afflictions to function and contribute to society. Being gay does not.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “homosexual conduct is always a choice.”

            All conduct is a choice. How is that relevant?

            “acting on improper, destructive impulses is always a choice.”

            What would be considered “improper, destructive” would vary based upon one’s belief system. In the US, our laws are not determine based upon what you believe to be “improper, destructive” behavior.

            “While I am not directly comparing them, generally speaking it is just like alcoholism, drug addiction”

            No, it is not “just like alcoholism, drug addiction”. They are completely different.

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      Since the Supreme Court has ruled that inherent in the right of marriage is the right to marry the qualifying consenting adult of one’s choosing, there is indeed a violation of the equal protection clause.

      • Gary

        The key word there is “qualifying”. The states may put restrictions on who can marry.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          Absolutely the state can put qualifications on the receipt of a marriage license, just as it can with all licenses issued by the state. Citizens, in turn, can challenge the constitutionality of those restrictions. If challenged, the state must provide rational, compelling, and legally valid reasons for the restriction. In the case of restrictions based upon gender, the state has been unsuccessful in providing compelling, rational, and legally valid reasons.

          Because restricting access harms those who are restricted, the state does not have the power to restrict access to a license offered by the state without providing compelling reasons for doing so.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          What is your legal basis? If said basis is sound, why isn’t it working for your side in court? As I told you on that Christian Post… You have no rational legal basis.

          • Neiman

            States Rights!

          • dark477

            Wasn’t there a war over that?

          • Gary

            For well over 200 years, man/woman marriage only was considered perfectly constitutional. It is only those who want a different arrangement who now say heterosexual only marriage is unconstitutional. In other words, the proponents of ssm, are lying about the US Constitution.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “For well over 200 years, man/woman marriage only was considered perfectly constitutional.”

            That a law was not previously challenged in court does not mean that it was constitutional. It merely means that the issue did not come before the court.

            Prior to some states passing laws specifically defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, the laws of the state did not spell out that marriage was only between a man and a woman.

            “In other words, the proponents of ssm, are lying about the US Constitution.”

            That is an illogical conclusion.

          • Gary

            I have never heard of any state issuing a marriage license to two men, or two women, prior to ssm becoming legal either by legislative action, or court action.
            There is no Constitutional requirement for ssm. The Constitution does not address marriage. And it is a misapplication of the 14th amendment to claim that it requires ssm to be legal.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “I have never heard of any state issuing a marriage license to two men, or two women, prior to ssm becoming legal either by legislative action, or court action. ”

            You are not well informed. Of the last four votes taken in states, three passed in favor of same-gender marriage.

            “There is no Constitutional requirement for ssm.”

            Agreed. Just as there is no constitutional requirement for opposite-gedner marriage.

            “and it is a misapplication of the 14th amendment to claim that it requires ssm to be legal.”

            The judiciary disagrees with you. But, as I’ve stated before, if you believe you have a strong legal case for why the 14th amendment is not relevant to laws which forbid same-gender marriage, then by all means present them to the legal teams that are working on this. They would, no doubt, be appreciative of your legal insights.

  • Bill

    If the Supreme (or any other) Court ruled that up is down, anyone who actually believes their edict would be as retarded as them. If they rule that someone other than one man and one woman can get married, you are retarded for believing them or participating in any such thing. Why would it matter what the Supreme Court says on this issue? We should all just ignore dingbat judges and their preposterous rulings.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Then ignore it. It will have an effect on no one.

  • Neiman

    The states alone have the power and right to establish minimum requirements for things like driver’s licenses, hunting licenses, contractors licenses and marriage licenses, it is not under the authority or power of the federal government.

    This Governor is one of the last lines of defense for state rights and while one hates to think of the costs to the taxpayers, if they are mostly in his support, it is essential that they defy the federal government.

  • The Last Trump

    Oh, oh. Somebody brave enough to stand up in support for traditional marriage. Here come the “tolerant” to crucify him. Shameful.

    • Spoob

      Brave enough to try to invalidate the marriages of other people? How is this brave?

    • James Grimes

      The Useless will be all over him.

      • ELAINE MARZANO

        james you really are a butt pain.

    • ELAINE MARZANO

      I hope not . We Americans are not true to the rules and regulations that we held as something that needed to stay the way it was. Look what has happened already because some one said ok lets let them change things. I think we have let so much slide by us already we are going to have a world filled with people that no one can control. Then what? And don’t hand me this is a free world. I think not. I wish it still was!!

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        “We Americans are not true to the rules and regulations that we held as something that needed to stay the way it was.”

        Why did they “need” to stay the way they were?

        “Look what has happened already because some one said ok lets let them change things.”

        What has happened as a result of allowing same-gender marriage, Elaine?

        • ELAINE MARZANO

          I am sure you now the answer to that question so why ask me.!!

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “I am sure you now the answer to that question so why ask me.!!”

            No, Elaine, I don’t. I don’t think that the rules and regulations regarding marriage “need” to stay the same. You said that they did. I was curious as to why you believe they “need” to stay the way they were. I certainly don’t know the answer to that question, as you made the statement, which is why I asked you.

            The only thing that I know that has happened as a result of allowing same-gender marriage is that same-gender couples are now allowed to get married. Is that what you were referring to? I didn’t know what you meant by “Look what has happened already”, so I asked if you would explain.

          • ELAINE MARZANO

            You know what bothers me the most is the fact that no one talks about the kids in these marriages. most are adopted. It is not the normal lifestyle for them. some can adapt and some can’t. I am sure it is confusing for them. Now we know that homosexuality is not a normal way of life. Why you ask? because it was not on the good list from God. Unless you don’t care what God said. I believe I do. todays world is a strange one. Personally, I think the only reason they are asking for recognition is it is beneficial to them. Health care is one. we pay enough for everyone and now we are paying for them. Yet if we have a single child in the family they have to pay for their own health care. And they do. That is as far as I will go tonight.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “You know what bothers me the most is the fact that no one talks about the kids in these marriages. most are adopted.”

            Actually, children are a frequent topic, both among lay people as well as in the numerous court proceedings that have taken place on this issue.

            It is important to note, however, that gay people raising children, and the legality of same-gender marriage, are two different topics. It is not as if, because same-gender marriage is legal, that gay couples will now be able to raise children when they weren’t able to before.

            Gay couples – regardless of marriage laws – are allowed to raise children. There have been a variety of studies done, and none has shown that children raised in a loving, supportive household with two parents of the same gender, have any measurably different outcomes than children raised in a love, supportive household with two parents of opposite gender.

            I think it is confusing only to the extent that it is not explained. It has been my experience that the most important thing to children is that they loved, safe, and supported.

            So allowing or not allowing same-gender marriage does impact the number of children being raised by two parents of the same-gender. What it does do in this regard, however, is providing legal standing for the couple, which, if they are raising children, provides greater stability to the household and creates defined legal and parental rights. So, for instance, a couple is raising a child, but the couple is not married. Therefore, only one parent is listed as the child’s legal parent. The legal parent and the child get into a car accident. The other parent has no legal authority to approve treatment for the child. If the legal parent dies, the surviving parent has no legal right to continue raising the child.

            So while same-gender marriage does not affect the number of children being raised by two parents of the same gender, it does provide for that household to be more secure from a legal and parental responsibility standpoint, which benefits the child. So, in essence, allowing same-gender marriage is in the best interests of a child who is being raised by two parents of the same gender.

            Homosexuality is not a normal way of life for the simple fact that it is not normal. Just as being green-eyed or left-handed is not “normal”.

            While I respect that you believe that the Bible is the definitive word of God, your belief is based on faith – not fact. It may be that God believes homosexuality is on the “bad list” – but it may be that he doesn’t. Unless one is God, one cannot say for certain. That’s why it’s called “faith” and not “fact”.

            “Personally, I think the only reason they are asking for recognition is it is beneficial to them.”

            i agree. It is beneficial to ANY couple to get legally married. If it weren’t, no couple would bother. The reason that opposite-gender couples enter into civil marriage is because it is beneficial to them. There is no requirement that a couple be legally married. They are free to have a religious ceremony and call it a day. They choose to enter into civil marriage because it creates a legal status for the couple that benefits them.

            How does a same-gender couple getting married require you to pay for their health care?

            Sleep well, Ms. Marzano

          • ELAINE MARZANO

            Thank you , but not quite ready. let me clarify that, my son and his wife and 2 year old granddaughter , and her 4 year old brother are visiting from S.C. I swear they never sleep. I spend every waking minute with her singing Farmer in the Del, jingle bells and a,b,c he has my floor that I haven’t seen for almost a week due to the fact the army has landed by plane , tanks, submarines and probably 300 soldiers some sitting some laying down some crawling . MY god they are everywhere. I will miss them when they leave. Well I feel better. hope I did not bore you. You were at the wrong place at he wrong time.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Oh my! You poor thing! Family is wonderful, but my they can tax our patience. I’m sure you’ve loved having them – but you will no doubt exhale at least a little sigh of relief when the army retreats. Hang in there!

            PS: You can certainly expect to be finding AWOL soldiers for the next two months in cushions, under sofas, and perhaps in potted plants. Hopefully, they will make you smile.

          • ELAINE MARZANO

            Thank you. oh yes Mia has lost Minnie Mouse’s dog about 5 times . She also has a habit of hiding things under the beds, under the carpet. I am always refereeing their fights. She will wack him on what ever body part is close to her. then he yells and she cries and my daughter in law hollers but we pay no attention to her. I am surprised I haven’t taken any short trips. There are so many toys all over the house in every room my daughter came over the other day and she was horrified. She said mom you better watch where you are walking. boy she got real nervous. I told her I would not be tripping so either play with your niece or go home. I know what you mean about the AWOL soldiers oh yeah I forgot the lego building blocks. It is a wonder my tree is still up. ok I think they are all sleeping so I can go to bed now. I will check my bed before I get in it. Good night.

          • ELAINE MARZANO

            listen, I personally do not care what they do as long as it doesn’t interfere with my life. That doesn’t mean I like the idea or want any part of it or think it is right. you have all I will say on this subject.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            I appreciate your stance. I wish there were more who shared your views. Unfortunately, some people are not content to believe as they like and conduct their personal lives in accordance with those beliefs. Rather, they want to codify into law – which affects all people – their beliefs and to, in the process, harm others in process.

            I applaud you for not being one of those people.

      • Disqusdmnj

        “OK, let’s change some things… How about we abolish slavery?”

        That probably worked out pretty well for a few people, I’d say.

    • James Grimes

      I am sure that there are enough decent people in Idaho who support their Governor.

  • James Grimes

    Disgusting practice and supporters. God instituted marriage as between one man and one woman. Anything else is a disgrace to decent people.

    • Disqusdmnj

      IIRC, he also instituted marriages between a man and multiple wives, or concubines, or his dead brother’s betrothed.

      Oh, and people were being “married” long before this god of yours was written down in some ancient books.

      Oh, and what you define as “marriage” is a ceremony, performed in a church. “Marriage” is a state and federal documentation of a relationship between two people. No one needs a church to be legally married in this country.

      • James Grimes

        Really?

        • Disqusdmnj

          Truly!

      • Gary

        Adam, the first man, was the first man to be married. His wife’s name was Eve. So you are wrong about history, as you are wrong about morality. God invented marriage, and defined it as the union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

        • Disqusdmnj

          Wow, there isn’t one correct statement in there whatsoever. Impressive!

          • Gary

            Everything I said was absolutely true. Get an education.

          • Disqusdmnj

            I did. One of them Ivy League ones. You know, one based on science and fact and peer review, and things that get corrected once proven to be no longer valid. One that knows evolution is a fact and there was no Adam and Eve. One that outgrew fairy tales long, long ago.

            One based in reality… you should try it some time!

          • Gary

            Your “education” actually made you dumber. That’s what happens when you learn lies. God (the God you don’t believe in) has damned you. And your “Ivy League education” is useless in fixing that problem.

          • Disqusdmnj

            Oh, Gary, you are a hoot! Seriously, you should hit the comedy circuit. Funny how these “lies” just keep getting proven over and over… and over again. But then again, “proof” is just another lie to you, right? Because it isn’t in the old book, right?

            And oh noes, I’m damned by the god who loves me so much! Whatever shall I do? Shall I live my life as a successful family and business man, as I have for the last two decades or so? Will I suffer being financially well off, as I am now? Boy, I sure hope not!

            Or is it that secret punishment that condemns me, the one that no one can ever really be sure will happen, because it takes place *after* we die? Horrors! How will I know that is my fate? Sure seems like it’s going to take an awful lot of good living before I get to know if that eternally empty threat is true or not. Maybe it’d be easier if he just smote me now (or is it smited?), preferably in front of family and friends, so that they know what happened to me for my wicked beliefs in stuff like facts and reality. Oh, and equality, since you so assuredly believes He hates that, too… although, if he’s all powerful, he sure seems to let an awful lot of gay marriage slip through the cracks these days. Makes you wonder why he doesn’t just stop it all right now, like a petulant child, doesn’t it? Or do you not have to wonder about things, since they were all laid out for you in that dusty book of stories?

            I guess I’ll just have to spend my forever days in the fiery place then, with all those professors and scientists and edumacated people who taught all those lies. Lies, I say! Oooh, I hope I get to meet Alan Turing, the guy who made computers possible… you know, that thing you’re reading and writing on now? He was gay. Curses!

            Seems like I’ll enjoy their company more, anyway. Wave to me! ; )

          • Gary

            God will administer justice to you in time. And you will not enjoy it. Most people go to Hell when they die, according to the Bible, so there will be lots of people there when you arrive. But since it is dark in Hell, you won’t be able to see any of them. And since all of you will be in agony, there won’t be any enjoying anyone’s company. Any enjoyment you may experience will have to come before you die.

          • Disqusdmnj

            Well, that – unsurprisingly – makes no sense… what about all the fire? Science and reality tell us fire gives off both heat AND light. But we don’t believe in science and reality, do we? So in that respect, I can see why you’d believe that. Without light, it sure sounds like I’ll be bumping into a lot of things trying to find my way around. An eternity of stumped toes – the horror! But who knows, maybe they have lines these days, like TSA security. I hope my Global Entry pass gets honored so I don’t have to wait in those long lines. They’re such a pain, aren’t they?

            Tell you what, since I’m such a swell guy, I’ll do you a solid and let you know when I get there. Then you’ll finally know if you and the old books were right!

          • Gary

            You won’t be letting anyone know anything. I already know the Bible is right.

          • Disqusdmnj

            My stars, Gary. It’s like you practically relish the “fact” that so many of us will take the down elevator when we shed the mortal coil. How utterly Christian of you!

            Also, dirt-boy and rib-girl is true, and how we all came to be? Ha! You make me laugh. How I’ll miss you when you’re gone.

          • Gary

            People who go to Hell choose to go.

          • Disqusdmnj

            Well, unlike you, I *choose* to believe in science and reality, since they are based in fact, not fiction. So sorry, no hell for me!

            I’ll still wave to you, though.

          • Gary

            You don’t have to believe Hell is real in order to go there. The more you deny its reality, the more likely you are to end up there.

          • Disqusdmnj

            And just because *you* believe in hell, or gods, or devils, or angels, or demons, or Tinkerbell, doesn’t mean they actually exist.

          • Gary

            My believing it does not make it real. God is either real, or not, regardless of what anyone believes. But, I believe there is ample evidence to prove God exists.

          • Disqusdmnj

            And I disagree, which is why I’m an atheist. Or at least agnostic, with a bent of not seeing how anything supernatural could actually exist.

            See, normal, human conversation, and I appreciate that you were bold enough to admit why you believe, and that you could even be wrong. Heck, so could I. But I’d never want to believe in something that says, if you don’t believe and love back – regardless of how good a person you are while living – that you’ll spend an eternity in pain. That’s just horrible, you have to admit.

            Be well.

  • Edith Wherton

    The pendulum will swing back to the right again . it always does . this liberal moment is a flash in the pan . before some one tells me to moveinto a more enlightened era…..this is not condemnation of gay marriage its just a statement of fact. The results may not seem pretty to those who are gay but the straight people who support gay marriage now will not care. Gay marriages are just the latest fad. The LGBT movement is on its own. The libs will toss it aside for the next cause just as they always do. At least the right wing is not hypocritical. Its time to take back the rainbow before people ( children) get hurt.

    • Disqusdmnj

      Not hypocritical, ha! Tell that to Newt Gingrich’s multiple ex-wives!

    • dark477

      Just like it swung back for every other social change such as slavery, women voting and segregation.

      • Edith Wherton

        Nope not the same thing .none of them involved what others have always deemed to be perversion. Enough people recognised that slaves and women are people. Sadly no one seems to care about slavery if its not in the states BTW. But the LGBT movement includes sexual perversion in the opinion of most people. You can live in proximity but just put a gay hand on a straight guys butt and the truth will come out about how tolerant they really are. Hopefully its just truth and not a handful of teeth. Not saying its right. Just saying its true.

        • dark477

          You need to broaden your circle if that’s the type of attitude you experience.

  • thoughtsfromflorida

    Good luck with that, Gov. Waste of time and money.

    • Gary

      Given the corrupt nature of the courts, it may prove to be futile. But resisting homosexuals is the right thing to do.

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        “But resisting homosexuals is the right thing to do.”

        Then resist away, Gary. (by the way – just because same-gender marriage is legal, doesn’t mean that you have to marry someone of the same gender – so there’s really nothing for you to personally resist)

        • Gary

          I need to resist evil. And homosexuality and ssm are evil.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            If homosexuality is something that you have to resist, then you should, Gary. Or, you could stop resisting and just accept your homosexuality.

          • Gary

            I am not homosexual. When I said I need to resist it, I meant resist it in the culture. Homosexuality used to be widely regarded as shameful. It still should be.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion and to resist whatever you care to.

            It would certainly seem that, as a Christian, there are other issues that, focusing on, would be more in line with fulfilling the mandates of your faith – homelessness, poverty, hunger, divorce, cohabiting, out-of-wedlock birth – but if you think opposing the allowing of two citizens of the same-gender to enter into a legal status with the state, is the best way to fulfill your Christian mission, then go right ahead.