‘Of Course I Would’: Marco Rubio Says He Would Attend ‘Gay Wedding’ of Friend, Family Member

Marco_Rubio_by_Gage_SkidmoreIn an interview with an internet publication on Wednesday, Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio stated that while he personally opposes same-sex “marriage,” he would attend the ceremony of a friend or family member if asked.

“If it’s somebody in my life that I care for, of course I would,” he told Fusion’s Jorge Ramos.

Rubio, 43, who identifies as a Roman Catholic, said that he would not want to hurt his loved ones by not attending.

“I’m not going to hurt them simply because I disagree with a choice they’ve made or because I disagree with a decision they’ve made, or whatever it may be,” he explained. “Ultimately, if someone that you care for and is part of your family has decided to move in one direction or another or feels that way because of who they love, you respect that because you love them.”

Rubio compared the matter to his beliefs about divorce, stating that just because he opposes divorce, he would not pull away from someone who did so.

“As I said, I’m a member of the Catholic faith that teaches, for example, that divorce is wrong,” Rubio said. “But if someone gets divorced, I’m not going to stop loving them or having them a part of our lives.”

Rubio also opined that he doesn’t believe that the issue of same-sex “marriage” should be decided by the judicial branch of government, but should rather be handled at a state level.

  • Connect with Christian News

“I would point out that we live in a free society,” Rubio said. “If people want to change the definition of marriage, they should petition their state legislature, and they can have that debate in the political arena. Who I don’t think should be redefining marriage is the court system.”

But others believe that if followers of Christ really love their friends and family, they would not attend the ceremony as it would appear as a gesture of affirmation of their sin, which separates them from God.

“[B]y attending a same-sex wedding, I tacitly endorse this particular union and also endorse the notion that two women (or men) actually can get married,” wrote Lisa Severine Nolland for Christianity Today. “I cannot in good conscience go, because I cannot endorse same-sex marriage.”

“I cannot in good conscience attend a same-sex wedding precisely because I love my gay friends and want their best,” she continued. “I believe all sin damages. My sin damages me as their sin damages them. How can I celebrate what I believe harms them? I would respect their friendship, but would pray they realize that marriage is not what they are after or what they actually want.”

Peter Ould, a former homosexual who now serves as a minister for the Church of England, made similar comments.

“Marriage is a God-given ordinance that speaks to more than just the love between two people. Biblical teaching on marriage shows us that the union of a man and woman is the icon of the union of Christ and His Church,” he said. “The Book of Revelation envisions the great wedding feast at the end of time, the union of the Bridegroom and his bride.”

“So doing marriage incorrectly is an act of idolatry. It’s a rejection of both the ordinance God has given and the meaning of that ordinance,” he continued. “Since the gender of the participants in marriage is important, mixing those sexes up destroys the point marriage was meant to represent. How can a Christian be involved in such a thing?”


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
  • Covered California

    I love how this is such a big story on all the Christian websites. The HORROR of supporting a family member!

    • Rev.

      I love how you trolling Christian websites to know that it’s there….we love the sinner hate the sin..all sin……if I go to a gay “wedding” I might as well go support my gay friend and family members at the gay pride parade……don’t think so..#lastdays .

      • Covered California

        I’m not trolling. Im trying to understand “Christians'” obsession with all things gay. To say that you would support a loved one that is gay does not deserve to be a headline. Would you shun a friend or family member that came out to you?

        • FoJC_Forever

          We aren’t obsessed with it. We are tired of those who are obsessed with it always trying to make others accept it. We must also defend the Truth by telling people they are in sin if they are practicing it.

          • Covered California

            Contact the website since their headlines are usually gay related…

          • FoJC_Forever

            Reporting something doesn’t constitute obsession with the subject matter.

            Homosexuals pushed themselves into the everyday lives of average Americans.

            Homosexuality is a sinful obsession of those who embrace it.

          • Covered California

            I disagree but thankfully this is America. Have a nice day!

          • FoJC_Forever

            You disagree with Truth.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Not true.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “We are tired of those who are obsessed with it always trying to make others accept it.”

            Since no one can be “made” to accept something, what is it that you are really tired of? No longer having the ability to use your religious beliefs as a basis for law? No longer having your religious beliefs given preferential treatment? No longer being able to make the government promote your religious beliefs? No longer being able to limit the way other people live their lives?

            Same-gender marriage is nothing more than the cause de jour. What folks like you are really upset about is that you no longer get to call the shots based on your religious beliefs. In other words, you don’t like having to share and being treated on par with everyone else. Like a petulant child.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Your questions are rhetorical, as well as irrelevant. Homosexuals and their supporters are using US law to make every US citizen accept and participate in their lustful and perverted sinful choices. This is the reality. It isn’t about equality for an oppressed people group.

            Those who support and embrace homosexuality are supporting and embracing Sin. Those who support and embrace Sin also reject the Salvation from Sin, thus are currently in a state of Condemnation. Those whose bodies die in this state of Condemnation will be cast away from the presence of the LORD, Jesus Christ.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “US law to make every US citizen accept and participate in their lustful and perverted sinful choices.”

            What law “makes” every US citizen accept and participate in homosexuality?

            “Those who support and embrace homosexuality are supporting and embracing Sin.”

            You are certainly free to hold to whatever religious beliefs you choose.

            “Those whose bodies die in this state of Condemnation will be cast away from the presence of the LORD, Jesus Christ.”

            Unless you have died and come back, or you are Jesus, you cannot say that with certainty. While it may be your belief, that does not make it definitively true.

            That’s why it’s called “faith” and not “fact”.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Faith is born of Truth, which supersedes, but includes, fact.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            What one views as “Truth” is a function of one’s faith.

      • MisterPine

        I just noticed in your rant that you concluded with “lastdays”, may I ask why? Surely you don’t believe we are living in the last days?

        • The Last Trump

          Surely you’re not foolish enough to think we aren’t?
          Might wanna take a look around. Maybe watch a newscast or two.
          Not pretty. You know, ISIS slaughtering Christians and sweeping across the Middle East, the incredible rise in “Arab Spring” revolutions, the United States and her Muslim leader siding with Iran to acquire nuclear weapons (that Iran has assured the world she WOULD use to wipe Israel off the map), the inevitable world wide financial collapse, etc,etc,etc.
          Nah, WHAT last days!?
          Back to your singular LGBT tunnel vision.
          As long as gays can marry, huh? Who cares about all the rest.

          • Nhdriver

            Don’t forget the Chemtrails…..

          • MisterPine

            Rumpy…of course. I might have guessed.

            Just for starters, guess how many people in the past who thought we were living in the end times were right?

            Zero. They’ve been saying it pretty much since the beginning of time.

            Try to imagine how much MORE it would have felt like the “end times” when the Bubonic Plague was going on. And how many hundreds of years ago was THAT? Kind of makes your LGBT-dominated world pale in comparison, doesn’t it? Or is what goes on in the privacy of someone’s bedroom far more alarming to God?

            Just keep your blinders on. The world will continue with or without you.

          • The Last Trump

            Oh, Pinester! You’re lack of Bible knowledge is not surprising. Keep stalking the Christian website though. There may be hope for you yet!
            Couple of “small” matters had to happen 1st before Christ could return, silly. Israel had become a nation again and be surrounded by enemies committed to her destruction, so He could appear, IN ISRAEL, (duh!) to save His people at Armageddon. During a time of high technology, godlessness, sexual immorality, financial collapse, yada, yada, yada.
            So, to review, Israel as a nation is the starting point. Pretty simple stuff really. Do try to keep up. You’re welcome, little Bible challenged buddy.
            Bubonic plague! You crack me up! 🙂

          • MisterPine

            Smug and cocky as always, Rumpy, especially about things you’re utterly ignorant about. No surprises there. Have you checked your fan page lately? You’re becoming quite a star. I think when we add to the list that you think we are currently living in the “end times” you’re going to have them rolling in the aisles.

            So it all comes down to your little fairytale book again. I see. Why, then, all the talk about ISIS, the BS about Obama being Muslim (he’s not), Iran, and all your other paranoid schizophrenic stuff? I mean, if you’re going to make an utterly irresponsible alarmist statement, at least be CONSISTENT with it.

            More grist for the mill then. Keep it coming Rumpster. Hee, hee! You kill me! Too funny! etc. etc.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Then way did the writers of the gospels believe that Christ would return in their lifetimes?

          • Martin Walsh

            Quotes please. It would help in providing a response.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Matt. 10:23; 16:27-28; 24:33-34; Luke 21:22, 28, 31; Rev. 1:3; 22:10

          • Martin Walsh

            Thanks.
            Matt 10:23 – The context of this chapter is judgement on unbelief and in particular the unbelief of the Jews. Christ’s coming is taken to refer to His coming in judgement on the Jews and Jerusalem in AD 70 when the temple was destroyed.
            16:27-28. Vs 27 refers to Christ’s second coming. Vs 28 is interpreted as a reference to His transfiguration the following week, when Peter, James and John beheld His glory.
            24:33-34. The context again is judgement on Jerusalem as well as Christ’s second coming. One view, the one I prefer, is that some of those alive the, this generation, will see the judgement on Jerusalem in AD 70 some 40 years later. Therefore these 2 verses are not directly referring to Christ’s second coming.
            Luke 21:22, 28, 31 – The judgement against Jerusalem and the temple again.
            Rev 1:3, 22:10. Lots of different views on this book. My view, consistent with the above verses is that this book largely addresses the imminent persecution experienced by the church at the time of writing and the judgement against the Jews, Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70.

          • boomer babe

            it also seemed like 1948-1963 was the best 15 years the US had
            after 1963, bible reading was forbidden in school
            which brings us to Deuteronomy 28 of the blessings and curses of a nation who forgets GOD–THE CURSES are right THERE.
            IMO, the US is kind of a ‘mirror’ of ancient ISRAEL…

            complete with Ahab & Jezebel in some ways

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Surely you’re not foolish enough to think we aren’t?”

            Do you have a date in mind? I’d like to plan something. Maybe a nice brunch. I do love brunch!

          • The Last Trump

            Be sure to pack your words.
            Cause you’ll be eating them! 😉

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            I’ll toss some french toast down to you.

          • BobbyHead

            Good take. Yes we are in the last days.

      • weasel1886

        Got any divorced friends?

        • SwickMama

          I have divorced friends but I did not support their divorce, I did not agree with how it came about and I advised against it. I prayed for them while loving them. I have seen those in the process healed and stay together and, sadly I have seen the divorce happen in others. Never did I say great idea let me go with you to sign the papers.

          • JeffreyRO55

            Shouldn’t you shun someone who does something so defiant as to divorce?

          • SwickMama

            Why on earth would I shun anyone? As a Christ follower I would not condone the choice but I would never shun them. We all sin but that is part of being human. It’s seeking God, asking for forgiveness and asking for his help in turning form these behaviors that draws us back to him. The Lord forgives us of our sins and then tells us to go and sin no more. Shun people is not an answer.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “I have divorced friends ”

            Ooooo….SwickMama….don’t let FoJC Forever know. He’d tell you that you are not a “real” Christian if you have friends like that. You, according to him, can be friend-ly toward them – but they should not be your friends….well at least not if you want to be a “real” Christian.

      • weasel1886

        Love the sinner hate the sin is the biggest lie ever. Just read Christian posts! I see pure hatred in them. Calling names, condemning people to hell, etc.

        • FoJC_Forever

          The phrase, “love the sinner, hate the sin”, isn’t in Scripture. However, you are mixing the carnal love of fallen humanity with the Love of God.

          Telling someone they are going to go to Hell if they don’t receive the Salvation offered through Jesus Christ isn’t hate, it’s Love.

          • weasel1886

            You really that calling people “perverts, molesters, etc” is going to have a positive impact on them? You may not do that but many do.
            Is the main reason to be a Christian is so you don’t go to Hell?

          • FoJC_Forever

            I am a Christian because the Holy Spirit is in me doing the Work of Salvation. Christianity isn’t like any other religion. It isn’t something you analyze then choose. If you become a Christian, it is because Jesus baptizes you with His Spirit after you hear His Word on Salvation and accept it.

            Eternal Damnation after Judgement is a part of Truth. Jesus spoke about it several times so as to remind others what happens after the death of the physical body to those who have not been Saved by Him. While it’s not the only part of the Gospel, it’s certainly an important part many have decided to ignore or leave out altogether.

          • weasel1886

            Could you answer the question instead of preaching?

          • FoJC_Forever

            Since the answer doesn’t suit you, you are denigrating “preaching” as not delivering a sufficient answer. Preaching is speaking, thus it is a method of delivering an answer, as well as ideas and instructions.

          • weasel1886

            Is the main reason to be a Christian is so you don’t go to Hell? This a simple yes or no.

          • Tristan A

            Sounds like you are hearing voices. That is a serious psychiatric condition. Think you need some very strong medication, otherwise you might be a serious treath for society!

          • FoJC_Forever

            No, not “voices”, as in the brain registering audible sounds that aren’t within the vicinity of the ears, but the Voice of God. God is present. God is real, not a concept or an imagination. God speaks, and His Voice is heard by those who are listening to Him. Those who reject Jesus Christ, the Living Word of God, do not want to hear God’s Voice.

            Those who ignore God are like those who choose to not hear when their spouse, parents, or others are saying. They willfully refuse to listen, thus they don’t hear, even though words are being spoken. Unbelief is deafening.

          • Tristan A

            You sound pretty scary to me though…

          • Earl

            Telling someone they’re going to hell is hate.

          • The Last Trump

            What if they’re going to hell?

          • Earl

            There’s no such thing.

          • The Last Trump

            Oh! Prove it.

          • Earl

            I don’t have to prove that; I have faith. 🙂

          • FoJC_Forever

            No, you are lying. You don’t believe in and follow Jesus Christ, so you can’t have Faith. You can only have Faith from hearing the Word of God and you have chosen to reject Him, thus the measure of Faith given to is dead.

          • Earl

            No, I don’t believe in Jesus Christ. He’s just the resurrected resurrection myth from Ancient Egypt.

            I hold faith in god, not in your religious rhetoric.

          • BobbyHead

            There is a burning hell and we don’t want you to go there.

          • Earl

            Nope. No biblical evidence for that concept. It was borrowed from the ancient Greeks.

            You do want me to go there.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Not true.

          • BobbyHead

            Telling someone that they may go to hell if they continue to live in their sin is love.

          • Brian Bowen

            Who cares what you think, bath-house scumbag? You’re nothing.

          • Earl

            Scratch a fundamentalist, find a hater.

            Jesus would be so proud of your stonethrowing abilities.

            I’m just laughing at you.

          • Tristan A

            If hell is the place where all gay people and other reasonable people go, and heaven where all christian biggots, then i have no wish to go to heaven…. Heaven must be a very hatefull environment.

        • Reason2012

          Not everyone that claims to be a Christian is one – God will weed them out. In the meantime it doesn’t work to reject God in the name of potentially false Christians. It will not excuse anyone’s guilt before God.

          • weasel1886

            I don’t reject God just many of the followers that think they can say and do whatever they want because they have a special power to see in peoples hearts. Which BTW is something God warned against.
            You are correct about people saying they are faithful but really aren’t. The problem is that in many cases people with a disagreement will have the mine set of ” I’m correct so if you disagree with me you aren’t a Christian”
            There are many Christian walks to the ultimate goal.

          • Reason2012

            Correct: only God can judge. But in response to your claim about “love the sinner hate the sin is the biggest lie ever” – it’s not a lie. Jesus commands it and if some start “hating” others over it, He will deal with them. And for some to point out how God will judge what people openly admit they do is not hating them, it’s caring enough for them to risk their hatred and tell them.

          • weasel1886

            So any person in the army that kills someone is murdering? Jesus was very clear on loving your enemy. That would be an open judgement supported by the Bible. Seems that would be pretty hateful to do to someone in the military

          • Reason2012

            You’ve changed the subject.

            About the Army: That’s not an individual saying “I’m going to_kill that other person over there b/c I feel like it” – that’s a justice system in place they are a part of, that’s beyond individuals_kiling b/c they feel like it or out of revenge.

            Romans 13:4 “For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

            Now of course it depends somewhat on those in “charge” of that government and why they’re doing what they do. In the end, I think a person needs to be careful they think their government has justice in mind and not “hate for this race” or “we’re just going to take over the world” and so on.

          • weasel1886

            I agree. My belief is that anytime a leader thinks God is on their side bad things happen. I am very uncomfortable with a mixing of faith and government for political purposes.

          • BobbyHead

            No, narrow is the road to heaven and wide is the he path to hell.

          • weasel1886

            Catholics, Coptics, Baptists, Mormons,etc. Are on the same path

          • JeffreyRo55

            Moron

          • weasel1886

            You give deep thoughful answers

        • BobbyHead

          We hate your homosexual life. God hates the wicked and he’ll send them to hell.

          • weasel1886

            I am not gay and he won’t

      • OldArkie

        I will not support the gay wedding, not the lest bit, & by attending it, that’s supporting sin against our ‘Wonderful God and Savior.’

      • Ambulance Chaser

        Can you please point to me where in the Bible it mentions government/civil marriages? Because I’m pretty sure it doesn’t say anything about gay civil marriage being a sin. Or anything else about them either.

        • FoJC_Forever

          Homosexuality, and anything relating to it, is Sin. Thus, same gender “marriage” is Sin. Sin, or sins, constitutes anything against God’s Will. The legalization of homosexual “marriage” is just one of the many sins being committed by US government entities.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            OK, where does it say that “anything relating to homosexual marriage is sin?”

          • FoJC_Forever

            If you actually wanted to know Truth, if you truly wanted to see Light, you would search the Scriptures and find your answers. If you wanted to know about the sinful nature of homosexuality, you would ask the LORD, then listen to His answer.

            What you actually want to do is argue and debate, without regard to coming to the knowledge of the Truth.

      • BobbyHead

        Good answer Rev.

    • Reason2012

      It’s not supporting a family member to help make sure they’re deceived into ending up in_hell while claiming to care for them. Supporting them would be telling them the truth about such behavior so they have a chance to avoid_hell.

    • BobbyHead

      We honor God first not relative’s gay perverted weddings.

      • Covered California

        Love of the lord Is shining through, brother. I can feel the love

  • UmustBKiddinMe

    Well that does it for his campaign. If he is not willing to deride, debase, and completely disrespect those who do not share his views, then he is not fit to be the Republican presidential nominee!

    • weasel1886

      He also has to hate working people and non millionaires

    • Covered California

      You’re on a losing battle my friend. Considering more than half of Republicans support same sex marriage it’s most likely not going to turn out well for you.

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        I thought the sarcasm was apparent, but given the types of comments one sees on here, I can certainly understand how you might not have recognized it.

    • Covered California

      You’re entitled to your beliefs obviously but the evangelical community should at least face reality.

  • Psk6565

    It is simple:
    1. If it is a matter of people doing what I disagree with, then I am a bigot and filled if hatred if I denounce what they do.
    2. If it is a matter God proclaiming through His Word that men lying with men or women lying with women is breaking His Law and commands His people to cry out for repentance, then it is foolish to care more about their feelings than their eternal soul.

  • diamondinruff

    Way to appease everyone Rubio. I’m not going to be voting for you.

    • weasel1886

      So do ask people getting married if they are virgins? Do you call divorced and remarried people adulters? If not you are a hypocrite

      • diamondinruff

        Apples and oranges. We are ALL sinners. adultery is a sin, but it is VERY rare for someone to commit adultery again and again and even rarer for that adulterer to say that theres nothing wrong with it. If that were the case, of course I wouldn’t support a remarriage. However the LGBT community want to force others to say that that lifestyle CHOICE is “normal”, “healthy” and “right”.

        • Covered California

          Really? It’s rare for people to cheat multiple times? What planet are you on?

        • weasel1886

          I bet the vast majority of people have had sex outside marriage and don’t regret it.
          Boys will be boys has always been considered normal

          • Covered California

            Yep, these people are the reason younger generations are fleeing from organized religion in American. The hypocrisy, finger pointing, and self righteousness is incredible.

          • JeffreyRo55

            Loser

          • weasel1886

            I love the way the moral Christians just insult people. Shows how great your faith works

        • UmustBKiddinMe

          “However the LGBT community want to force others to say that that lifestyle CHOICE is “normal”, “healthy” and “right”.”

          And just how is it that a person could be “forced” against their will to say that homosexuality is “normal”, “healthy” and “right”?

          “that lifestyle CHOICE”

          What “lifestyle” are you referring to that is a choice?

      • FoJC_Forever

        Your statement is not Truth. Re-marriage after your spouse’s death and if your spouse has had sex with another is approved by God.

        • weasel1886

          So do they ask those questions?

    • Covered California

      You won’t be voting for anyone… No one will share 100% your same beliefs. But it’s OK, not voting helps us all in the end 😉

  • Frank

    Marco, excellent way to allienate the Christian voters from you.

  • FoJC_Forever

    Typical Catholicism, as with other types of fake Christianity, claims particular doctrinal belief, but doesn’t practice it.

    Claiming to support real marriage – one man and one woman – then supporting anyone, even a family member, in their sin is simple hypocrisy.

    There is a difference in being friend-ly and having friends. A Christian cannot have a homosexual friend. Christians are to be friend-ly, cordial and civil, but we are not to have close associations with those who embrace sin, which is homosexuality in this case.

    • Machiavellian

      Why are Roman Catholics fake Christians?

      • FoJC_Forever

        One only has to know Jesus Christ then look at the doctrinal practices and beliefs of any religion to know the difference between fake and genuine Christianity. I’m referring to any of them, not just the ones being talked about on the news or social circles. I’m not going to address each group you named. Catholicism is the head of the snake of fake Christianity. Avoid the head and you can easily avoid what comes after it.

        Jesus warned us, and reiterated it through the first Apostles, that there would be a large number of people who claim to know Him, but are only those who “work iniquity”. Jesus knows those who are His, and those who are His know Him, not some vain religion passed down through man-made tradition.

    • Covered California

      I wish you were a troll, but I know you’re being serious. Sad.

    • UmustBKiddinMe

      So then you would not attend a wedding if one of the couple had been previously divorced for reasons other than adultery, correct?

      You wouldn’t attend a baby shower for an unwed mother, correct?

      You wouldn’t attend a wedding if it were being held in a non-Christian church, correct?

      You wouldn’t attend a wedding if the couple were engaging in sexual relations prior to marriage, correct?

      You wouldn’t attend a wedding if either of the couple were estranged from their parents, correct?

    • MisterPine

      You know Jesus ate with the lepers, right? How is shunning homosexuals being Christ-like?

      Also, it’s been pointed out to you before that Catholics were among the first Christians, which is a fact and not an opinion, so if your version of Christianity was an offshoot of it (which it was), then Catholicism couldn’t be fake Christianity.

      • FoJC_Forever

        You have no regard for Jesus Christ, the Scriptures or anything else pertaining to God. This pretense about Catholicism is simply an arguing point for you, and has nothing to do with Truth or anything of substance.

        Catholics were not the “first Christians”, because they have never been Christians. Catholicism has always been paganism in the guise of Christianity, and they have done a fairly effective job of convincing most people of their legitimacy.

        Your first statement is a twisted response to what I said. Many unbelievers like yourself, under the leading of the Devil, use the “Jesus ate with sinners” to lure the foolish into destructive relationships. Jesus had meals with other Jews who were not considered to be in obedience to God. He did this to bring them back to God. Jesus did not fellowship with those who called God a liar by twisting the Scriptures.

        • MisterPine

          So I am supposed to ignore history books and even the dictionary when it tells me that Catholics are Christians, in fact the earliest ones, because of some hatred you learned from your fundie pastor?

          Catholics aren’t Christians? Interesting. Then what was the Protestant Reformation all about?

          And guess what? There is no Devil. So he isn’t “leading” me anyplace. I do find that fundies will always invoke Satan when their argument is failing as spectacularly as yours is now. Funny how with normal people I have an argument, but with fundies it’s always because I’ve been deceived by Satan.

    • maildude39

      Does that mean that a “Christian” can only be “friendly” to thier gay sons and daughters? Aren’t we supposed to unconditionally love (and not just be friendly to) our children, no matter what their sexual orientation is?

      • FoJC_Forever

        The references to friend and friendly are in context of a Scripture warning Christians not make the world, and those in it, their friends.

        There is no such thing as “sexual orientation”, as defined by those who want to promote Sin as acceptable to God. Sexual attraction, as designed by God, exists between males and females. This God-designed sexual attraction is to be acted upon only in the context of a marriage between a male and female. All other sexual actions and desires are considered of the Flesh – the fallen, carnal nature of mankind which is present within our bodies.

        • maildude39

          Actually, there is such a thing as sexual orientation. The science of that is very clear.
          If sexual attraction is designed by God, (which I believe it is) then the only attractions that gay people ever have, would also be a gift from God.

          As for my original question–Aren’t we supposed to unconditionally love our children, no mater whether they are gay or straight?

          • FoJC_Forever

            God did not design the lustful attraction which occurs between the same genders. This is a perversion and a fruit of Sin.

            Sure. Rejecting homosexuality is an act of Love. God, who is Love, will not abide Sin in His presence. This is why Jesus Christ gave His life to set us free from Sin. Jesus didn’t give His life so that people could live in Sin. Loving our children is sharing this reality and the promise of Salvation through Jesus Christ.

          • maildude39

            OK. Now you are dancing around my question. Are you saying that parents should reject their gay children out of “an act of love”?

          • FoJC_Forever

            No. I’m not dancing.

            Rejecting behavior which is against God’s Will is not rejecting our children. It is informing them through action and word that God’s Will matters more than their lustful feelings. God’s Will is Love, for God is the embodiment of Love. God will not deviate from Love, and His nature is free of all Sin.

            Many will choose the Destructive Path. If our children decide to follow the Devil in embracing homosexuality, the parents are not loving them if they affirm them as doing God’s Will by choosing to obey the lust they have in their carnal nature. If parents know and love Jesus Christ, they will maintain the sexual standard God has declared as His Will, even though their children have chosen to ignore God.

  • Machiavellian

    I’d attend the wedding of a gay family member. I’d have a gay person as friend. Don’t see anything wrong with that and doesn’t change a bit anything regarding my religious beliefs.

    • Martin Walsh

      I presume that you don’t have an objection then to SSM, based on your beliefs? Because if you do object and yet would attend you are participating in the profanation of the institution of marriage, an institution given by God Himself. Perhaps your beliefs should be examined against the teaching of the Bible.

  • JeffreyRO55

    I think it would be great if religionists could figure out what their bible says and means, and then get back to us. The bible is silent on the topic of same-sex marriage, so it’s not readily apparent that it’s some kind of sin, or any worse than when fornicators and adulterers get married, which christians don’t want banned. Plus some xtian denominations condone same-sex marriage.

    • FoJC_Forever

      The Scriptures are clear about the sin of homosexuality. What’s not clear is your understanding of Scripture.

      • BravesFan

        I think it would be great if anti-religionists would figure out what the Bible says and means. The Bible is pretty clear on how God feels about same-sex marriages. And just because a denomination claims to be CHRISTian, it doesn’t mean they are. Matthew 7:21-23

        • Paul Hiett

          And we wish you’d figure out that this country has peoples of many different faiths, and we don’t all believe in yours.

    • Martin Walsh

      The Bible is crystal clear on matters of sexual relationships. The only legitimate arena for sexual relations is within monogamous heterosexual marriage. All other occasions and expressions of sexual behaviour other than this are immoral and sin. You see, the Bible doesn’t have to explicitly address SSM for us to know precisely how to view it: it is excluded on principle. Unfortunately there are some denominations that endorse SSM but they are almost exclusively liberal in their theology and have erred grievously – they are more concerned with keeping up with the culture than being obedient to God.

  • Earl

    There is no such thing as a ‘former’ homosexual.

    There are such things as former Christians though. And the issue of homosexuality is why I am not a Christian.

    • Reason2012

      So you reject God’s offer of eternal life and would rather end up in_hell because you’d rather promote sinning against Him?

      • Earl

        Eternal life? You’d get bored of the perpetual hymns after the first week, and you want to exist forever?

        No. Eternal life would be hell.

        • FoJC_Forever

          You are blind as to what Eternal Life is like. You assume it’s like the mundane, worldly, broken religion you obviously don’t like. When you’re filled with the Life of God, by the power of His Holy Spirit, you do not become bored with God.

          And, yes, there are people who are former sinners of all kinds, not just former homosexuals. In your rejection of Truth – Jesus Christ – you have blinded yourself to His ability to change people at their core.

          • Earl

            That’s the standard rhetoric. You don’t understand math though. An eternity is longer than you can imagine.

            Existing forever would not be cool.

          • Frank

            Everyone will exist forever. Either with God in Paradise with no sadness, tear and with happiness or without God tormented for all eternity.

          • Earl

            Eternal punishment for a sin of not believing the unbelievable?

            Talk about disproportional punishment. That alone is enough for me to say that the god you claim to worship is intrinsically evil.

            Sorry, I don’t worship evil.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            You do realize, I hope, that just because you have chosen to believe something is true, does not make it necessarily true, right?

            That’s why it’s called “faith” and not “fact”.

    • Martin Walsh

      I suppose you have to say that, denying the testimony of such people, because it contradicts your presuppositions concerning the fixity of sexual orientation etc.

      • Earl

        Because I’ve talked to the members of ‘Homosexuals Anonymous’, as well as ‘Exodus’ and the other groups that ‘change’ you. They’ll all admit that they only can change the outward behaviour, not the inner attraction to their own sex. They’re lying for Jesus. They’re turned against their own natural impulses in order to make you happy.

        In time, that priest will kill himself, or will get caught stuffing his sausage into another man.

        • Martin Walsh

          I would accept that there is a spectrum of experience in dealing with SS attraction. However, I am aware of people whose orientation has completely changed e.g. Rosario Butterfield. So your absolutist assertion is wrong.

          • Earl

            Nope, sorry dear.

            She’s selling her ‘conversion’ story. She’s profiting off of your gullibility. Just like most televangelists do.

            She’s lying for Jesus, and for her pocketbook.

          • Martin Walsh

            Really? Hard proof please. I suspect that this is your prejudice speakING.

          • Earl

            Provide proof that she’s selling her story to religious groups? It’s on her website.

            Oh, there’s also the fact that she doesn’t identify herself as being ‘ex-gay’.

          • Martin Walsh

            You accuse her of lying I.e deliberate untruth, deception and hypocrisy. The fact she has written a book that she sells does not prove the case.

          • Earl

            Actually, she didn’t lie. She claims that she changed her behavior and admits that human sexuality is a spectrum. That is, she’s still a lesbian, but she’s acting straight.

            Others are being deceitful in claiming that she said she’s been ‘cured’ of her sexuality.

    • JeffreyRo55

      Who cares what you are?

      • Earl

        You’ve cared enough to post.

  • Covered California

    Why are none of the Christian sites covering the story about the auto shop owner in Michigan who doesn’t want to serve gay people?

  • Reason2012

    “I’m not going to hurt them simply because I disagree with a choice they’ve made or because I disagree with a decision they’ve made, or whatever it may be,”

    Will it hurt them when they face God to find out the results of willfully living in open sin and refusing to turn away from it and seek God’s forgiveness? It’s hate to make people believe the false claim that God has changes His mind about homosexual behavior and is ok with people perverting marriage that He created to be one man and one woman.

  • Reason2012

    The issue has been falsely phrased as “states have the right to ban same-gender marriage” – this assumes there’s such a thing as “same – gender marriage to begin with”, which there is not.

    The issue is does the state have the right to re-define religious institutions and pass laws to establish this new religious institution, which would in effect be passing laws to establish a new state religion (violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment), which in turn would criminalize Christian belief about marriage (another violation of the First Amendment) – you are fined up to $150,000 if you do not violate YOUR Christian beliefs and use your business to support sinful acts.

    And on both counts, states do not have any right to do any such thing – we’re protected from such judicial religious tyranny by the Constitution of the United States of America.

    Not to mention that every single man already has the same right as every other man: to marry one woman. And every single woman already has the same right as every single woman: to marry one man. So the claim anyone’s being denied “equal rights” is false.

    Marriage was defined by God at the beginning. Jesus pointed out that marriage is between one man and one woman:

    Matthew 19:4-6 “And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

    Jesus even points out that for the cause of making them male and female, this is why male will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife.

    Mark 10:5-7 “And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. (6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (7) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;”

    Jesus said God made them male and female – not male and male – not female and female.

    Jesus said man shall leave father and mother, not father and father, not mother and mother.

    Jesus said man shall cleave to his wife, not to his husband, not to her wife.

    Not to mention Jesus is God, so the entire Word of God is the Words of Christ. As Jesus is The Word.

    John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God. (3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

    John 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

    The Lord rebukes us for our attempts to destroy what He defined as one man and one woman.

    As if that’s not enough,

    (1) Marriage is a religious institution that has existed since the beginning of time – government never defined it and our government cannot start re-defining it now.

    (2) The government is violating the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America by REDEFINING religious institutions then passing laws to establish this new state religion where anyone who does not adhere to this new state religion by violating their own religious beliefs is condemned as a criminal: sued and fined up to $150,000 dollars.

    (3) Marriage is for the possibility of procreation for the continuance of society. A same-gender marriage is, by design, never capable of such a thing.

    (4) Any pro-creation should be within a marriage – same-gender ‘marriages’ are forced to go outside the ‘marriage” 100% of the time by design.

    (5) Kids have the right to be raised by their biological mother and father – same-gender marriages legally deny them this right 100% of the time, by design.

    (6) Kids have the right to be raised by a mother and a father, not forced into setups that are dysfunctional 100% of the time: two or more fathers and no mother, or two or more mothers and no father. Same-gender marriages legally deny kids this right 100% of the time, by design.

    (7) Every single person alive has one biological mother and one biological father. Nature alone re-iterates what marriage is – that this is what a family is.

    (8) A black man who has no problem baking cakes for white people cannot be forced to bake cakes for the ACT of a “whites are supreme” meeting and so on. LIkewise a Christian who has no problem baking cakes for those who currently profess homosexuality cannot be forced to bake a cake for the ACT of a same-gender wedding.

    • uzza

      1. Don’t type so much.
      2. The state has the right to pass laws for the state; it has nothing to do with religion.
      The church has the right to make rules for the church; it has nothing to do with the law.
      The state can define any term it wants, any way it wants; it has no effect on religion. The same goes for the church; it doesn’t affect the laws.

      We can have this country with a Constitution that guarantees this, or we can have a crappy country like Saudi Arabia. Which one do you want?

      • Reason2012

        Marriage existed before any governments did. So when they start trying to pass laws to redefine what governments never defined to begin with but which God defined, they’re now violating the Constitution and passing laws to establish their own version of a State Religion, then treat those who will not violate any religious belief contrary to it as criminals.

        You want a state religion that criminalizes all other religious beliefs but the one you agree with – that’s Saudi Arabia. The rest of us want the liberty to exercise our religious beliefs and not be criminalized by the government and its state religion.

        • Paul Hiett

          Can you please cite a source for your claim that “marriage existed before any governments did”???

        • uzza

          Ok then, my religious belief is that I should kill christians. So you want me to have the liberty to do that and not be criminalized. Good to know.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Yes. Because killing Christians was around long before governments said it was wrong to do it.

          • Reason2012

            Talking about marriage – not things we have laws against that have nothing to do with religion: killing_others for ANY reason is against the law. The topic of marriage is by definition a religion-only topic.

          • uzza

            We’re talking about beliefs. You have ones that tell you to
            discriminate against your customers, even stone them to death. I have
            one that tells me to slaughter christians. Both of us are forced to
            go against our religious beliefs and obey the law, and it’s a damn
            good thing.

            Just answer this: when you obtain a business license for the purpose of
            serving the general public and then go back on your word, are you
            breaking the 2nd Commandment against swearing false oaths or the 9th
            Commandment, against lying?

          • Reason2012

            No, we’re talking about marriage – and while they have no problem serving those who feel the need to announce they like homosexual behavior, no one can be forced to support a same-gender marriage or polygamous marriage, or adulterous marriage and so on that goes against their beliefs.

          • uzza

            Is a black, person “going against his word” to serve everyone, when he doesn’t serve everyone? No. Yes.
            No one is forcing him to give his word–to the licensing agency of the state–that he will serve everyone, he chose to do that of his own free will. The only question is which commandment he broke.

          • Reason2012

            Is a black, person “going against his word” to serve everyone, including white people but when ANYONE (white or black) comes in to demand a “what blacks want is irrelevant” gathering be catered by him, he declines?
            No.
            So goes it with a Christian who has no problem serving those who profess homosexual behavior to instead be forced by ANYONE to cater a polygamous wedding, an adulterous wedding or a same-gender wedding.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Since civil marriage is not a religious institution, it is not a religion-topic. It is a legal status created by the state. It is completely optional. There is no requirement for a couple to enter into civil marriage. It has nothing to do with religion. If it did, then only people of faith would be allowed to marry.

            Now, if you believe that the state should not be involved in marriage in any way, then that would be a valid point for you to present.

            But to suggest that the civil status of marriage, conferred by the state, is NOT a religion as long as it conforms to your views on marriage, but BECOMES a state religion when it doesn’t, is without sense.

          • Reason2012

            Marriage existed since the beginning – no government defined it and cannot start defining it now. You had civil unions – rejected b/c it was not marriage redefined, which says it all.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Great! So you want gay people to be able to do as they please without interference from those whose religion tells them they’re sinners! Or does the “liberty to exercise our religious beliefs” only apply to people you agree with?

          • Reason2012

            Those who like homosexuality can go up to Christains and say “I believe what you’re doing is wrong” – you have that right. And they have the right to do likewise.

            But when it comes to laws and bullying and forcing, it’s those who like homosexual behavior who seek out Christian businesses try bully them into supporting sinful act and have criminal charges brought up against them if they do not violate their own beliefs on the matter of marriage.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Let’s stay on one topic, shall we? You claim to love freedom, but you don’t want gays to have the freedom to marry? You claim to oppose interference from people whose religion disagrees with them but you want to interfere with gays’ right to marry because your religion says to?

          • Reason2012

            It is on topic -the truth is inconvenient for your narrative, but ignoring it doesn’t make it go away.
            Please show me where YOUR religion is that’s been around for 3500+ years that defines marriage as two men, three men, or whatever, then we can talk about your supposed religious version of marriage.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Now you’re avoiding the issue. What “truth” is inconvenient to me? You hold two contradictory, hypocritical positions and I’m asking you to reconcile them. You either can’t or won’t, because every time I ask you to clarify, you change the subject. Like you did just now.

            So I’ll ask you again. Why do you claim to support freedom but only for certain people?

    • FoJC_Forever

      “The issue is does the state have the right to re-define religious
      institutions and pass laws to establish this new religious institution,
      which would in effect be passing laws to establish a new state religion
      (violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment), which in
      turn would criminalize Christian belief about marriage (another
      violation of the First Amendment) – you are fined up to $150,000 if you
      do not violate YOUR Christian beliefs and use your business to support
      sinful acts.”

      This is one of the most to-the-point descriptors of what is currently taking place that I’ve read to date.

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        Well except that it’s false.

    • Paul Hiett

      So as long as we all follow the Christian laws of the Bible, everything is ok. The second someone proposes something that might upset Christians, regardless if it’s the right thing to do, you folks scream “intolerance!” “Christian hatred!”

      Give it a break. Same-sex marriage does no harm to anyone. And spare me your useless rhetoric about business owners being “forced” to close, or fined for being Christian. They broke the law, nothing more, and must accept the penalties for breaking the law. Being Christian does not give you the right to affect how others live in this country, a country where EVERYONE has the right to live free of the beliefs of others.

      Your religion is not our system of laws. It never has been, and never will be.

      This country supports people of all faiths, cultures, and races, and “white Christians” do not get to rule everyone else.

      • BravesFan

        So as long as we all follow what gay rights leaders want as law, everything is ok. The second someone proposes something that might upset gays, regardless if it’s the right thing to do, you folks scream, “intolerance!” “homophobia!”

        Give it a break. Christianity does no harm to anyone. And spare me your useless rhetoric about “a wedding cake is a human right!” and “everybody hates us because they won’t give us flowers!” Being gay does not give you the right to affect how others live in this country, a country where EVERYONE has the right to live free of the beliefs of others.

        Enforced celebration of homosexuality is not our system of laws. It never has been, and never will be.

        This country supports people of all beliefs and cultures, and “homosexuals” do not get to rule everyone else.

        • UmustBKiddinMe

          “Christianity does no harm to anyone.”

          Agreed. No religion, in and of itself, has the ability to harm. People, however, do have the ability to harm and many do so using their religion as a justification – and most certainly not just Christianity.

          “Being gay does not give you the right to affect how others live in this country”

          How does a person being gay affect how others live in this country?

          “a country where EVERYONE has the right to live free of the beliefs of others.”

          Agreed. Then you support the ability of two citizens of the same gender being allowed to enter into civil marriage, and oppose the efforts of those who wish to make it illegal using the rationale that it violates religious beliefs, correct?

          “Enforced celebration of homosexuality is not our system of laws.”

          Who is suggesting that people be forced to celebrate homosexuality? That would be impossible. People are free to celebrate or not celebrate anything they care to.

          “This country supports people of all beliefs and cultures, and “homosexuals” do not get to rule everyone else.”

          In what way are homosexuals attempting to “rule everyone else”?

          • BravesFan

            I assume you have missed the numerous Christian-owned businesses that have been threatened, shamed, and forced to shut down due to homosexual fury? I’d say they are affecting how those business owners live, wouldn’t you?

            The “SSM” debate. It is tough to me. Civil union is okay, BUT NOBODY should be forced or shamed into accepting it and celebrating it. It is NOT marriage. It should also be decided by a majority vote, not imposed top-down by activist judges. YES, they do exist. It should also be left up to each state. Adoption agencies that are religious-based should not be forced into adopting children into homosexual relationships. Christians also have the right to live free of homosexual beliefs and agenda.

            Again, I refer you to incidents such as the pizza parlor and the RFRA flap in Indiana. Or just try going on FB and announcing that you think homosexuality is a sin and you don’t approve of SSM. How well do you think that would fly with the majority?

            Homosexuals are attempting to rule everyone else – if you can’t see that, you’ve been eaten by the propaganda machine or you’re blind. Open your eyes, look around, and do some reading. I am not trying to be rude here, as you have been polite and I have strived to respond in kind. It took me a little bit to see everything clearly.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “I assume you have missed the numerous Christian-owned businesses that have been threatened, shamed, and forced to shut down due to homosexual fury?”

            I am aware that a very small number of businesses have been held accountable for violating anti-discrimination laws that were put into place by either a vote of the people or their elected representatives. Is that what you referring to?

            “BUT NOBODY should be forced or shamed into accepting it and celebrating it.”

            They aren’t. People are free to accept and/or celebrate whatever they care to and to not accept and/or celebrate whatever they care to. A person cannot be “forced” to accept or celebrate something. Were any of the owners of the business you referenced forced to accept or celebrate homosexuality?

            “It is NOT marriage.”

            It is from a legal standpoint. How you choose to personally view it is, of course, your choice. Which just goes to prove that the legality of same-gender marriage does not force people to accept or celebrate it.

            “It should also be decided by a majority vote”

            So you believe that any law that receives approval by the majority of voters should be left to stand and not be subject to challenge in courts? If so, then you also would believe that the SCOTUS in Loving v Virginia was wrong, yes? Or, as a hypothetical, if they held a vote in Utah and a majority said that only Mormons should be allowed to marry, then people of other faiths should just live with that, because it was decided by the majority, correct?

            Do you believe that citizens should NOT have the right to challenge laws in court and that the judiciary should NOT be empowered to rule on the constitutionality of those laws?

            “Again, I refer you to incidents such as the pizza parlor and the RFRA flap in Indiana.”

            What about them?

            “Homosexuals are attempting to rule everyone else”

            Examples?

            On the other hand, there are so many examples of Christians, throughout the history of our nation “attempting to rule over everyone else”. Just a few examples from our past: No liquor sales on Sunday. Stores not allowed to open on Sunday. Christianity being taught in public schools. Oh, and two citizens of the same gender not being allowed to access the civil right of marriage because it is against biblical beliefs.

            Now, you tell me, exactly who is attempting to “rule everyone else”?

            Again, in response to your statement: “a country where EVERYONE has the right to live free of the beliefs of others.”, Then you support the ability of two citizens of the same gender being allowed to enter into civil marriage, and oppose the efforts of those who wish to make it illegal using the rationale that it violates religious beliefs, correct?

          • BravesFan

            I will not be changing your mind and you will not be changing mine. I have better things to do than trade comments with you. Enjoy your Sunday.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            I understand. It has been my experience that when people come to the realization that their arguments do not stand up well under scrutiny, they prefer to not continue the discussion.

            I at least hope that you will give consideration to the points I presented. I certainly respect your views regarding same-gender marriage, but this is a legal issue that involves the rights of citizens. As in many such instances, we have to accept that there may be things that are legal that we do not personally agree with or think are right. But the minute we attempt to infringe upon the freedom of others based solely upon personal beliefs is the minute we put our own freedoms at risk.

            Inherent in the freedom we each enjoy, is the responsibility to provide it to others – even those with whom we disagree.

          • BravesFan

            Actually, I prefer not to cast pearls before swine. I’m not concerned with my arguments not standing up to scrutiny, I just prefer not to waste my time arguing with someone who has such a fundamentally different worldview and no inclination to seriously consider anything else. I actually used to believe differently, so I have considered your views.

            Church was lovely this morning. See you around.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “no inclination to seriously consider anything else.”

            That’s simply not true. I am always open to other views. Those views, in turn, should be able to stand up to critical review if they are to have validity, as I expect my views to be able to hold up under critical review.

            I acknowledged your right to view marriage as you desire. I told you that I respect your beliefs regarding marriage. In response, you refer to me as “swine”. That phrase refers to sharing biblical beliefs. That was not part of our discussion. It appears that you are acting out on your frustration of being unable to answer questions about your positions and arguments. That’s unfortunate.

            I’m glad you enjoyed church today.

          • Paul Hiett

            Majority vote, eh? How’d that work for blacks? For women? You only support the “majority vote” since the majority in this country are Christians. At least be honest with yourself about it.

        • Tristan A

          Wrong, christianity hurts lots of people, in history and in current day. The church is responsible for more murders and deaths than hitler, stalin or mao. Start with the crusades, remember the burning of scientists, atheists, protestants and lots of others on the stake, remember the millions killed in south america by the conqustadors sent by the church, remember the actively condoning of the holocoust, remember the people that died because of hiv and aids because the church forbids condoms, the active support of christians to kill homosexuals in uganda, the condoning of bullying of young gays at schools.
          The dark ages are over, thanks god. Religion and state are a very bad combination and results in barbarism.

    • Tristan A

      Rubbish, you basically say that if you are not religious you can not marry.

      History has proven that religions and other believe systems mixing up with government and law results in barbarism. I only need to refer to the burning of people at the stake by the church, the pogroms on jews by christians, the condoning/support of the witchhunt on gays in uganda, nazism, communism, etc.

      It is for this reason that we have declared universal human rights to protect people against the whims of religions and other believe systems. Those universal declared human rights protect your religious freedoms, and they protect my right on family life with my partner of choice, protects me against discrimination and against invasion of my privacy.

      You can have your religion, but you are not allowed to deny me my family life, you can not discriminate me nor deny my right to privacy. In doing so you infring on my human rights, which the world has concluded, sets us on the historical path of barbarism.

      • Reason2012

        I never said you have to believe anything to be married – every person can marry one person of the opposite gender no matter their beliefs.

        If you admit religion mixing with government is bad, then you agree the government should doubly violate the Constitution to pass laws to establish their own state religion, then criminalize all those who will not violate THEIR beliefs on the matter.

        If you wish to stop discrimination, start with your discrimination against those who refuse to violate their religious beliefs to bow down and adhere to the new State religion.

        • Covered California

          You got your blinders on, bro.

        • Tristan A

          You defined marriage as a religious institution…
          It is a universial declared human right to have a family life with the partner of your choice. That is not a belief, but a human right. You can have your religion as long as you dont infring on my human rights. The government is the party that is tasked with the protection of everybody’s human rights. That is not a state religion, that is a civilized society. Your rights are not infringed if a gay couple gets married, however you infring on their human rights if you deny them the family life with the partner OF THEIR CHOICE.

    • weasel1886

      Jesus also said divorce was a sin but I don’t see any Christians out there protesting to stop that! You failed to mention that in your speel. What hypocrisy!
      I wish you people would just admit YOU HATE PEOPLE DIFFERENT THAN YOU . Yes you hate and have an evil way of expressing your faith

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

    I don’t get it. What on Earth is it about law-abiding, taxpaying adult Gay couples getting married that terrifies so many people? These are couples who are in love, who have made a commitment to one another’s happiness and well-being. These are couples who in most cases already share a life together. Unless the Constitution (especially the 14th Amendment) applies only to people who are Straight (i.e. heterosexual), I can see no justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits and opportunities that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

    What are people so fearful of? The marriage equality movement was never some sinister effort to make homosexuality compulsory for everyone. It won’t cause otherwise Straight people to marry other persons of the same sex. It will not require anyone to attend weddings for Gay couples. Conversely, denying Gay people the right to marry is not going to make Gay people turn Straight!

    Is not love and commitment far more preferable to loneliness and promiscuity? I thought getting married was far preferable to just shacking up together. Why does the joy of Gay couples getting married make so many people angry?

    • UmustBKiddinMe

      “What on Earth is it about law-abiding, taxpaying adult Gay couples getting married that terrifies so many people? ”

      I’m not sure “terror” is there right word – but definitely upset. Why? Because some people are having a hard time dealing with not getting their way based upon their religious belief. For nearly two centuries, Christians were able to dictate to the general population the limitations on how they lived and were able to utilize the government to spread their religious views. Those abilities have been eroding over the past 50 years.

      Now, the Christian faith is no longer given preference and is no longer a sole determining factor in our laws. They aren’t upset about same-gender marriage – that is just the cause de jour. They are upset about losing power. They are upset that the government is no longer promoting their religious views. They are upset that they can no longer dictate limitations on how others live their lives.

      In other words, they are upset that they have to share. Just like a petulant child.

      • weasel1886

        Dead on

    • Weasel1886

      Fatty queen

  • UmustBKiddinMe

    Knowing Rubio, he’d probably attend a birthday party for a child born out of wedlock.

    Liberal!

    • weasel1886

      Yeah those kids should have been aborted

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        You are certainly entitled to your view on that, but I do not agree.

  • BarkingDawg

    I thought that Marco was supposed to say how he would never knowingly associate with any gay people.