Posted by NativeSon on May 16, 2008 at 5:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What else would you expect from the most morally depraved state in the union?

Posted by DanniD on May 16, 2008 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Honestly, who cares if gay couples get married? It in no way shape, or form affects my life, or the lives of my family.

It seems like some many people are way to worried about everyone else except for themselves.

Posted by ColdBeer on May 16, 2008 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I go back and forth on how I feel about this, but one thing for sure DanniD, it affects everyone in the United States. The reason they want "legal" marriages is the tax breaks they would receive. More tax breaks means less money for the government. Personally I could care less what gay people do... as long as I am not forced to be exposed to their lifestyle. Just as a gay man claims to be born gay, I claim to be born a heterosexual. I cannot help the fact that I find the gay lifestyle sickening. I was born this way. Do want you want, but I don't want to see it, be around it or hear about it if it involves two men being intimate.

Posted by Charles_Town on May 16, 2008 at 7:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Another example of the moral erosion of the Christian family values on which this great country was founded.

Posted by griff895 on May 16, 2008 at 7:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is California like a breakfast cereal? When you take out the fruits and nuts, all you have left are flakes!

Posted by Riptide on May 16, 2008 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You straight people need to get a life and disregard your concepts of morality. What 2 people do in the privacy of their home is none of your business. Gay people are people too. They have every right (probably more) to enjoy the benefits of marriage and a family. With all the kids that needs a loving family in this world there is nothing wrong with 2 mommies or 2 daddies. As long as these kids gets love in their life, then it doesn’t matter. The supreme court knows what’s best for us.

Posted by desspec on May 16, 2008 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What's bad in all this is that we again, in effect, have the Courts writing law ....

Posted by 5thGenerationLocal on May 16, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No Riptide, you have it all wrong. Gay people don't just do that gay stuff in the privacy of their own home. They flaunt their gayness all over downtown Charleston, play grabass with God knows how many partners, and spread diseases amongst themselves. Like rats if you will. Gay is not the way. It is wrong, morally and ethically, and should not be allowed.
And gays choose to be gay. You are not born gay. I am not a religious man, but I do know that 1 man and 1 woman make a real couple in the eyes of the general public. I will never recognize 2 guys or 2 girls in "love" as normal or acceptable. My kids will not be allowed to think it is acceptable. I do not hate, but I definitely do not like.

Posted by icbmman on May 16, 2008 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Riptide, your last statement: "The supreme court knows what’s best for us" shows that you have an unbelievable misunderstanding of this nation, the people in it, and how it's supposed to work. A f***ing supreme court's job is to interpret law; instead, it literally is sending EDICTS that go against the will of the people. Desspec summarized it beautifully in his/her post.

Regardless of your moral or religious stance, marriage has been recognized SINCE MAN HAS BEEN ON THIS EARTH as a union between one man and one woman in hundreds of different nations and cultures. Here's hoping that the upcoming referendum will preserve this tradition in this country. It should, considering that an overwhelming majority of people are against gay marriage.

Posted by DanniD on May 16, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

5thGenerationLocal- Gays are not the only ones who "grabass with God knows how many partners and spread diseases amongst themselves" There are plenty of straight men AND women going around doing the same thing all over the place. This is not something specific to just gays.

ColdBeer- you say you do not want to hear about two men being intimate...what about two women being intimate?

Posted by LowcountryMoose on May 16, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In this modern age of man-on-man-ifest destiny, I, propose to Senator Lindsay Graham:

"Go West young man."

Posted by abitskeptical on May 16, 2008 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Riptide-PLEASE explain your reasoning that homosexual people "probably have MORE of a right" (than heterosexuals, I'm guessing you mean)"to enjoy the benefits of marriage and a family".

I'm not hopeful that your answer will make any sense but I'm willing to read it.

Posted by 5thGenerationLocal on May 16, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DanniD, I do know this. It wasn't straight men in Atlanta that got this whole AIDS pendemic started back in the 80's. It was the gays doing blow and the nasty.

Posted by Riptide on May 16, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

icb...

I hate to disagree with you, but who are you to judge? The judges are the ones that sit on the supreme court not you or the people of this country. Do you think a bunch of hicks like you are going to determine the standards of behavior in our society. I think not. We have elites in this country that will make that determination. If 2 mommies or 2 daddies is what is best for a child’s interest, then who are you to judge?

Is there any liberals on this forum that will come to my defense?

Posted by Riptide on May 16, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

abit...

When I say they have more rights, it’s like looking at a score card. People are placed in compartments. On any given day some people will have more rights than others. Are you following me? Today it may be women’s right, tomorrow it may be gay rights and next week it may be Mexicans. We need to celebrate the differences not what we have in common.

Posted by 5thGenerationLocal on May 16, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You will not get any defense here Rip. 2 daddies or 2 mommies is not the answer. Why would we want to let the gays infect society by adopting an innocent bystander, who was born straight, in thinking that gayness is welcome. That is wrong. I would think that a child brought up in a gay home would realize at some point that the parents are fruitpies and crazy and would cut them off. Now the gays are heartbroken and out a whole bunch of money.

I think being gay is some new Hollywood fad and will soon pass. You didn't hear of a lot of gayness back in the 50's and 60's. Now it has infested the airwaves and TV.

Posted by Charles_Town on May 16, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Rip... I got news for you ... those judges sitting on that Supreme Court they work for the people of this country. There job is to interpret the law based on precedence balanced with the current situation of the nation and its people, not make the laws. Hard for me to imagine a situation where 2 mommies or 2 daddies is better than a good balance between 1 good mom and 1 good dad. A marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.

Posted by DanniD on May 16, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You did not here about a lot of gayness back in the 50's and 60's because people did not have a lot of tolerance for anything back then. Hell you probably did see a lot of things on tv back then. It is not a Hollywood fad, there are many signifcant people throughout history that were found to be gay, so to to say that it is a fad is wrong.

I do not think people chose to be gay. Who would want to chose to be something were people who constanly bash them, and discriminate against them because of their sexual orientation? I am sure some people are not really gay, and just want to experiment. But, for the people who have felt that they were gay for the whole life, definitley did not chose this lifestyle, it was how they were born.

Posted by chasgirl999 on May 16, 2008 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

teaching your children that being gay is unacceptable is totally backwards. you should love them they way they are regardless of their sexual preference and teach them to love others in the same way. how many children have come out to their parents only to be shunned, become depressed, or even commit suicide? i'd much rather have a gay child than a dead one. you shouldn't procreate if you think otherwise.

i'm sure there are worse things than "being gay" that straight people do every single day. leave them alone and let them live and be happy. who the HECK are you to say what is right and what is wrong? regardless of what people in hollywood are doing, "gayness" has been around and will always be around. and everywhere, not just west or the north. gay people are neighbors, friends, family, co-workers, and most importantly HUMANS. there is no need for hatred.

Posted by DanniD on May 16, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You hit the nail right on the head Chasgirl999

Posted by Larz13 on May 16, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let the record state that is was the CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT and not the US SUPREME COURT that made this decision.

Note that there is a difference.

Funny thing is that CA had a referendum and 70% supported the ban on gay marriage. I would imagine that even a greater percentage would support a ban in SC.

Posted by Riptide on May 16, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Charles_Town...

I got news for you. Those judges overturn a proposition in California on gay marriage. The people’s will or standards of morality must not supersede the will of our judges. They know what is best for us, why do you think they are judges? You’re not paid to make judgment calls, they are.

Posted by CaptKick on May 16, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Someone PLEASE mention what GOD thinks about this subject! All the talk about love people in spite of their faults is part of GOD'S morality for sure - but that doesn't make it right!

After all- whether you like it or not - that is the principle this country was founded on!

Posted by Charles_Town on May 16, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Some of you people ask what rights others have to say what is right and wrong and I stand up and say it is not only my right it is my responsibility to teach my child the difference and what is right and wrong to raise him the best I can. This includes helping them develop a good ethical and moral compass based on common sense, decency and I will say it again Christian values.

And Rip... you are right I am NOT paid to make judgment calls I make them freely and willingly every single day in an effort to live my life the best I can and to raise my child as mentioned above.

Judging between right and wrong and making judgment calls based on that is the primary responsibility of every parent out there.

Posted by icbmman on May 16, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, Riptide, just when I think you can't make a more obtuse comment on this issue, you make another one even more absurd. Elites? ELITES?! Oh, we're the hicks, i.e., serfs, in the feudal system of the US? Since when was that imposed on us by the Constitution?

I suggest that you read the Constitution very carefully to understand what the different branches in government are supposed to do. Their roles are interrelated, but they still are separate. Again, judges are supposed to only interpret the law, the laws are created and passed by the House and Senate...and each state is basically supposed to have a similar setup with the federal government. Yes, as a society (which is supposed to be a moral one, as George Washington once said), we set the standards of behavior of our nation.

Many studies have shown that the best family setup for a child is one woman and one man. Therefore, one can make the argument that "2 mommies or 2 daddies" is NOT in the best interest of the child.

Posted by steve on May 16, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm here Riptide.

"There should be no 2nd class citizens in this country." Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote: "Preserving marriage as an exclusive category, is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples."

Far from evincing judicial activism, the ruling titled simply "In re Marriage Cases" acknowledged both legal and home truths. Tradition often stands as an obstacle to eliminating discriminatory institutions. But the court recognized that rights must supersede customs, that just because marriage traditionally has been defined as a union between a man and a woman, it cannot be denied to same-sex couples by "tradition alone."

To all the people who have problem with their fellow gay and lesbian citizens: You have passed an Amendment in this state creating a new level of 2nd class citizenship. Shame on you.

You are worried about AIDS? Straight senior citizens are one of the highest growing group contracting the disease (thank you Viagra!)

You are afraid of public displays of affection? Who gave you the right to say who can or can not display anything? Just go down to Marion Square and you will see heterosexuality abound. Most gay and lesbians are scared to death of showing affection in public because they could be stoned to death by all the "loving" Christians.

Marriage is in a horrible state not because of gay and lesbian citizens; they can't get married. It's straight, normal, male and females who can get married that have destroyed the "institution."

Finally, as to, "activist judges." When they rule in your favor you love them - when they rule against what your narrow little minds believe they suddenly become activists. Crikie! The majority of Justices on the California Supreme Court were put there by Republicans.

Don't worry y'all what happens in California stays in California. If you are uncomfortable with gay and lesbians in your midsts then provide them, and their families, the funds to leave.

Posted by icbmman on May 16, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Riptide, it is apparent that you are willing to sell your freedom and become a serf for the kings in black robes. You sound more like a Marxist with each statement you make, at least on this issue.

CaptKick, I'm not even going to delve into the moral, Godly implications with this ruling or gay marriage primarily because it is used quite often as a red herring in the debate. As a Christian, I'm outraged by this decision, but gay marriage involves a tradition which has transcended other religions, cultures, and nations since the beginning of time. If we focus on that aspect, I think the ramifications of this decision can be seen in a much larger context.

Posted by ColdBeer on May 16, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DanniD, this is going to sound totally screwed up and I'll be the FIRST to admit it:

I cannot bash someone for liking something that I like. I will not put down anyone for finding women sexy when I myself find them sexy. As I mentioned, my feelings are not based on any religious beliefs or Politically Correct BS. My feelings are based on the way I FEEL... the way I was BORN. Yes, the “almost” double standard is screwed up, but I cannot explain why I feel the way I feel beyond saying that I was born this way. I find two men being intimate together, under ANY circumstances, to be disgusting. I do not feel that same disgust about two women being intimate together. Now... having said that, with the exception of what we see coming out of movies and magazines, I have never met a gay woman in real life that I though was sexually attractive, so I'd not be interested in seeing them with anyone anyway. In my immature days I used to think that gay people only "turned gay" because they couldn't get laid any other way. That feeling was based on the overwhelming percentage of gay women that are just butt ugly. I still have not yet a gay woman that I find attractive. That's OK though, I doubt they find me attractive either.

If you read my first comment carefully, you'll see that I am NOT bashing the gay culture. I just have no interest in being around gay men or gay women. I have no ill will against them, I just don't want that lifestyle to be part of my life.

One funny incident last year on the lake…

I was waiting to take my boat off of the water. On the ramp was a pontoon boat with about 6 obviously gay women on board. It took them literally 45 minutes to get their boat on the trailer and out of the way. My wife backed our truck down and we had our boat loaded and out of the way in about 2 minutes. Having had a few beers, I did make a not so nice comment to the “ladies” as we drove by them. I said, sarcastically, “Nice job getting your boat out of the water in under an hour…. That’s why god created Man.”

I don’t know why I said that. I don’t even believe in god. It was just mean… but I still chuckle at the look on their faces. :)

Posted by chasgirl999 on May 16, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

principles on which this country was founded? benjamin franklin, james madison, john adams, thomas jefferson, thomas paine to name a few "founders." research their religious beliefs and see what you find.

Posted by icbmman on May 16, 2008 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Chasgirl999, they were mostly Deists, not atheists, if that was what you were implying. Oh yeah, BTW, the man who was regarded as the father of our country, George Washington, was......a Christian.

Posted by Riptide on May 16, 2008 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Icb...

We’re not concern with studies or results. It’s our good intentions that matters.

As for our constitution it has outlived it’s usefulness. Besides it was created by a bunch of white guys stuck in the 18th century and a lot has changed since then. We are in a global economy with international interests involved.

Posted by jk_newhard on May 16, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So, simply because a lot of people disagree with it, the courts should stay out of it and "let the people decide"? Should we have done the same with Brown v Board of Education? Loving v Virginia?

You have a right to preach that being homosexual is wrong, you have a right to teach your kids your version of morality, your Church has a right to decide whom to marry. All the gay people are trying to do is to have the same civil rights as the straight people.

Posted by jk_newhard on May 16, 2008 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What is a "gay lifestyle"? I know several gay couples who have been in stable, monogamous relations (ie. married) longer than my husband and I (nearly 14 years). I have more in common with them than I do with a single person my age.

Posted by chasgirl999 on May 16, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

oh was he? you may want to reseach that further. just because someone goes to church does not make them christian or religious. his religious belifs are still somewhat of a myth today. john adams has also been considered as the "father of our country."

anyways, all history aside, to quote a "religious" man: "We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another.” - jonathan swift.

Posted by icbmman on May 16, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My word, Riptide, you surely cannot be serious. I would almost think your comments were satire because they are so ridiculous. Good intentions matter, not facts?!?!? "Our constitution has outlived it’s usefulness" ?!?!?!?!?! Holy cow.

May I recommend moving to a country more suitable for your choosing..........like Cuba?

Posted by Rebel_Yell on May 16, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One can't force pieces to fit a puzzle and claim it was put together correctly. What's next -- man and boy marriages; a man and a dog? I'm sure there's some medicine that can straighten these people out.

Posted by Riptide on May 16, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

icb...

So what’s wrong with Cuba? Do you have something against poor people. Fidel has made Cuba a worker’s paradise. He has gotten rid of individualism and wealth. Everyone there has a government job and works for the good of the people.

Posted by icbmman on May 16, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry, chasgirl999, I have done some research. Yes, he was baptized in the Church of England. Of course, if you continue to believe revisionist historians, you will see some debate on his beliefs, but he has many quotes that recite the necessities of prayer, faith, and morality. Now we're starting to see the integrity of the nation deteriorate, as the nation dabbles in moral depravity. It's almost prophetic.

Posted by ColdBeer on May 16, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hmmm... I'm not sure what religion has to do with this conversation. Homosexuality has existed, inside and outside of churches, since the beginning of recorded history. I don't think religion has ever been a deciding factor for a man who takes it up the butt. It may cause him to hide the fact that he takes it up the butt, but he will still take it up the butt just the same.

As far as the article topic goes, gay couples have been and always will be around. When the argument on gay marriage first came out, I was opposed... "marriage" was a "club" that I belonged too and I didn't want gay men in my "club". Now.. I really don't care. It's a term. Yes, I'm married to my wife. I'd love here just the same if we were not "married". I'll spend the rest of my life with her, "married" or not. The word just doesn't carry that much weight with me anymore.

Posted by icbmman on May 16, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Riptide, each time you post, something more idiotic is spewed for me and others to literally be perplexed. Your last post is fraught with non sequitur, and you fail to even notice the contradiction in your praise of Cuba. You mention how it is a worker's paradise and in the same breath note that it is a country of poor people. THERE IS something wrong with that, especially when a two-bit dictator has all the riches while his people scrounge! Freedom of speech is stomped on in Cuba, as well as other freedoms you casually take for granted here. I think you would make a fine addition in their gulags.

Please, if you're being satirical, just say so.

Posted by icbmman on May 16, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ColdBeer,

...and THAT'S the problem. The term of marriage should still carry significant weight for you and others in this nation. And as liberals manipulate, change, and water-down our language, we'll continue to have problems like this.

Like I said, I want to argue for keeping marriage between a man and a woman in the context of what it means for the planet's entire civilization. I'm trying to keep my faith out it. However, as I also said earlier, many gay marriage proponents continue to use it as a red herring.

Posted by Riptide on May 16, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

icbmman...

You got me.

Posted by Riptide on May 16, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

icbmman...

If I have to go behind enemy lines, I need to know how they think. It's like getting hit by a train and every bit of common sense is knock out of you.

Posted by icbmman on May 16, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Riptide...

Damn, dude, you got ME for awhile!

Posted by chasgirl999 on May 16, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

why are you apologizing for doing research? yes, he was baptized. he also has many quotes that regard the church as an overbearing force in society. church and prayer, faith, and morality don't really seem to correlate these days. the deterioration of this nation's integrity has little to none to do with this article or gay people in general. that problem is much bigger than this forum.

Posted by Helane on May 16, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am a Charlestonian, and my partner and I are moms to a wonderful baby whom we worked very hard to have. Because his mothers cannot marry, he will never receive the same legal protections afforded to children of married heterosexual parents, and that is wrong. By not giving my partner and I the same right to marry as any two straight people, the state is taking protections away from our child. Most people don't understand that. When you vote against gay marriage, you're really hurting the children of gay parents. You're certainly not hurting my feelings, I couldn't care less what you think of me. But when you put my child in a vulnerable position should something happen to me (his only legal parent), my claws come out. In this country, people are allowed to have different beliefs and live their lives differently. That's the whole point of The United States.

And remember, we are talking about CIVIL marriage here. NOT religious marriage. The church can and will always be able to decide for itself who can receive the sacrament of RELIGIOUS marriage. But civil marriage is the rights and burdens of marriage prescribed by the STATE. The state cannot deny any two citizens the right to a civil marriage based on religious or moral values. The simple fact is that if the state allows two people to enter into marriage, it must allow ANY two people who want to be married the same right, regardless of the anatomy between their legs. Plain and simple, CIVIL marriage cannot discriminate based on anatomy.

If you don't "believe" in gay marriage, don't marry someone who is gay!

Posted by icbmman on May 16, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll tell you, Riptide, you almost had me fooled. You had me going! Indeed, common sense IS thrown out the window. As a matter of fact, I'm beginning to think it's not "common" anymore.

Chasgirl, I think you have misinterpreted what Washington referred to in regards to the church being overbearing. His own church was overbearing primarily because it was an arm of the government! Government itself was the problem, and the church was perpetuating it.

The gay marriage issue may not be the main catalyst for the deterioration of the nation's integrity...but it is a symptom. Especially when government starts changing core traditions that have lasted for centuries.

Posted by chasgirl999 on May 16, 2008 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

agreed. separation of church and state anyone?

Posted by ColdBeer on May 16, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Helane, I see one problem with your post. You and your partner did not "have" a baby. I don't know the circumstances of how you became a mother, but I do know it takes an egg and sperm. Sperm is not something that either of you can provide. Two gay women can adopt, they can use a sperm bank, a sperm donor, a rigged up strap-on or whatever, but two gay women cannot "have" a baby. It's not physically possible. If everyone in the world believed in gay marriage, it STILL would not be physically possible.

As for your child not having the rights you think it should have; why would you put a child in that situation when you knew that was the outcome before you started down that path? Now you want to blame us? Get your claws out. Who cares? What you did, and now bitching about it, is like having another baby when you are on welfare and then bitching that you can't support it. YOU are responsible for that child's predicament, not us.

Posted by The_Mouth_of_the_South on May 16, 2008 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is an abomination.
Romans 1:20-32
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Posted by icbmman on May 16, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Helane, your premise that this is all about civil marriage is unfortunately untrue. While gay marriage can currently be refused by churches, churches will be the next target for the aggressive secularists.

Think about it. Do you honestly think activists will not start demanding church acceptance of gay marriage? Civil marriage is the first step to total acceptance. Churches are already being inhibited with their 1st Amendment rights; many churches have already been sued for making "hate speech" since they condemn homosexuality as a sin. I guarantee you that once civil marriages are legitimized, many couples will insist that churches conduct wedding ceremonies and recognize the couples as one union. Governments would penalize churches in several methods: fines, revocation of tax-free (charity) status, and even jail time for the pastor (yes, that may be extreme, but you can't deny the possibility). Maybe even disbandment of the congregation...who knows?

Gay activists will not stop with government-licensed marriage. They can't. Their ultimate goal is silence of dissension, or complete tolerance (pseudo-tolerance).

Posted by steve on May 16, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dang. It sure is easy to beat up a minority in this country.

Marriage is a license given to the public by the government as a recognition of a couple's commitment to one another for life. With that license comes over 1,000 rights, tax benefits and protections.

What's next? If you're gay you can't get a drivers, gun, hunting, fishing license?

We are one nation. Not factions of straight vs gay - or Catholic vs Protestant - or black vs white. The more we allow bigoted rhetoric to tear us apart, as a nation, the weaker we get. Divide and conquer! Well BS! Equal benefits under the law for all American citizens. If you disagree with that concept move to the Middle East where gay and lesbian citizens are hung, tortured or murdered for who they are. Oh wait, Middle Easterners hate all Americans equally - so sez our Chimp of a President.

What a world.

I'd like to see any of you haters take on Helane in public. 10 to 1 she'd kick some butt.

As to the boater vs the drunk lesbians: I've tried to dock my boat only to be held up by a bunch of very drunk bubbas who felt it was their God given right to do as they please, when they please, because they were white men. Funny how you made the comment to them in the safety of your moving car. Why not have confronted them on the boat ramp? Afraid of a bunch of girls?

Posted by SCdeacinNYC on May 16, 2008 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I can't read some of these posts and take most people here seriously. Most of your arguments are based in "religious" beliefs and some insane belief that homosexuality is a disease that is spreading or some sort of group of terrorists that want to take over our country and our world.

I feel like South Carolina is full of paranoid people fearing a dystopia. Espcially icbmann's argument against gay marriage for the betterment and survival of our civilization is hilarious. Hmmmm...Somehow I think there will always be heterosexual people procreating...some who definitely should NOT, by evidence of this board and it's prevalent beliefs. I think we have greater threats to our civilization as we know it than homosexual gettting married and having kids. Get a grip people, this is yet another..."non-issue" that doesn't affect anyone, but just "offends" some. Much like "interracial marriage" did not so many years ago....hopefully our country gets over this soon enough.

Posted by icbmman on May 16, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SCdeacinNYC, you, among a ton of other liberals like Steve need to invest in reading comprehension. I said NOTHING about the betterment and survival of our civilization. I DID say that this decision on marriage affects a tradition and belief that has been embraced by civilization throughout the course of time, and the change to marriage will affect what marriage is in future generations. It warps and distorts what marriage has always been recognized as. Get a clue, please.

Posted by justjerry on May 16, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, I would think that all of the religious folks would want to clean their own homes of child molesting clergy before they throw stones at people who love each other and want to make a life long commitment and have the right to legally do so. To me having two loving parents is alot better than one, no matter what their sexual preference is. As a matter of fact, a friend of mine who grew up with two adoptive dads after a horrible divorce by his biological parents, neither of which were suited to take care of him by themselves, would concur. The only way that a same sex couple getting married can affect your marriage is if it is a crappy one to begin with. Other than that, it does nothing to heterosexual marriage.

Posted by Test2007 on May 16, 2008 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hmm, people on p&c boards against gay marriage. SHOCKING.

Posted by SCdeacinNYC on May 16, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Icbmman you mean what YOU have always recognized marriage as. Marriage is different in EVERY culture. Some of the other earliest people in civilization were polygamous, some didn't marry at all.

It only warps and distorts your "image" of marriage as it's been in your mind...which is between a man in a woman. This isn't a change to marriage...it's an addition to the types of marriages that already exist in America. That is all. Stop making it into a bigger global issue when it is not.

And I'm sorry but calling me a liberal doesn't bother me. I don't care how YOU define my beliefs and try to make it into a dirty word. Grow up, please.

Posted by icbmman on May 16, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeeeeeep, we Christian bigots are so bitter and Bahble-clingin' that we want ouh chillun to be deprahved of a stable family. Yeeeeee Haaaaaawww!

Liberalism really is a disease...people who cling to this ideology can't even correctly interpret what other people write. Pathetic.

Posted by ColdBeer on May 16, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dang, I tell a very funny story and then actually get to use the term "strap-on" in a post and then The_Mouth_of_the_South goes and muddies everything up with religious gibberish.

Steve, as to Helane's ability to "kick butt" that depends on if she's the bitch or the bull. I've seen some bulls I wouldn't want to tangle with. :)

As for the "That's why god made man" comment, I was actually still sitting in my boat, on the trailer, as I passed by them. Afraid of a bunch of girls? That goes back to the comment above :) I already admitted that the comment was in poor taste and mean, you're behind the 8 ball on that one. Sometimes poor taste and meanness can still be somewhat funny though :)
I have no problem with gay marriage. I have no problem with gay women or gay men. I just don’t want to be around them. I don’t want to have to be forced to see, hear or be near something that disgusts me. I feel the same way about beef liver. If a gay person expects me to understand they were “born gay”, certainly they can understand I was “born straight”.

Posted by archdude on May 16, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Satire and sarcasm are apparently lost on many when it comes to this board. Reread some people's postings and you will see what I mean (icbman)

Posted by Helane on May 16, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Several of you seem so bent on bringing religion into this discussion when, in fact, religious mores have no place in civil marriage. However, just for a moment, I'll humor you.

You believe that God has a purpose and a plan for every human being, right? You believe that God knits each soul together and creates children in His image, correct? If God did not intend my child to be born, He would not have brought my partner and I together. We did, in fact, use sperm from a selfless donor who wanted to help us achieve our dream of creating a family. And I can assure you that with the 22+ hours of labor it took, I indeed did HAVE our child. But if my partner and I had never met and fallen in love, committed to spend our lives taking care of one another and nurturing our family, and taken the financial and emotional steps towards creating a child, he would have never been conceived. He would not exist today. Hmmmm. God must have had His hand in the plan.

I will never believe that love is ever wrong. LOVE is never a sin. What little scripture that exists in the Bible is taken out its original social context. If you take those passages literally, I hope you also avoid shellfish, don't lie with your wife when she's menstruating, take several wives and own slaves, etc., as Leviticus directs.

When I meet God and answer for my life, I will accept responsibility for being an educated, loving, warm, and accepting person who lives her life honestly, truthfully, and bravely. I will take full responsibility for playing my part in bringing another precious soul into this world, even knowing the cruelty that exists in the human heart that causes what "ColdBeer" describes as a "predicament" for my child. I will answer to these things in front of my God. But I will not answer to you.

Posted by Riptide on May 16, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Two daddies legally married and recognized by the state. They adopt 2 little boys and since there are no studies to be found on homosexual families, we have no idea what the results would be for these 2 little boys growing up in an environment like this. Don’t worry the judges knows what is best for these little boys.

We already know what happens to little boys growing up with 2 mommies. They’re called momma boys. Gay women are only concern with their own selfishness and have little concern for their children or the consequences of their actions. It's about love.

The people of California voted against gay marriage, are they a bunch of hicks too?

Posted by blah_blah_blah on May 16, 2008 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Gay & Lesbian couples are not entitled to Federal Benefits, only State Benefits. So, stop bitching about YOUR money going to the gay couples in California.

WWJD?
In the Bible, Jesus didn't sit around and point fingers, and condemn people. He accepted the PERSON, he sat down and talked with them, had lunch, shared a house, etc. Please stop using religion to hate, religion accepts everyone. Read the "red-lettered" words in the Bible, that is all that matters.

Posted by DanniD on May 16, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mouth of the south- Here are someother abominations:

"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people." (Leviticus 20:18)

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)

"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)

"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)

"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:12)

Sure is funny how people selectively use the bible, and determine what they want to practice, but chose to not follow other things because it does not suit them. I am sure their are many "christians" out there that eat seafood, and cut their hair and beard! So, I guess that makes you all hypocrites?

Posted by DanniD on May 16, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ColdBeer- I was only teasing....I already knew what you thought....I must admit I too do not want to think about two guys being intimate. But you raised a very valid point. You do want to think about it because of how you feel. Just like gays like members of the same sex because that is how they feel.

Posted by icbmman on May 16, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Archdude, you are another reading comprehension-challenged individual. I suspected satire throughout my posts, but I was unsure. Some of Riptide's postings have great satire, but others were so-so.

Are we to suspect that the majority of what you post is also satire? Nice conversation change, BTW.

Posted by ColdBeer on May 16, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Again, I'm just not sure what religion has to do with this conversation. Am I hearing correctly in that some of you think that since YOU believe in a particular religion, every one else should live by YOUR religious standards? Surely people can't be that silly...

I was trying to decide… would I rather share a house with a gay man or a bible thumper? That is a tough decision. Not one I’d like to have to make. That’s like telling me I MUST vote for either Mrs. Clinton or Obama… a no win situation. Gives me the heevie jeevies.

Posted by steve on May 16, 2008 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ColdBeer: At least a gay man wouldn't have an issue with you drinking a cold beer, or having intercourse outside of marriage and your wardrobe would probably improve + most women dig gay guys because they tend to listen and understand rather then waving their phallus around as a sign of their manhood. So living with a gay guy would increase your chances with the ladies.

Posted by motheroffive on May 16, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I recall when interracial marriage was supposedly against nature, God, the Constitution, society, et al. Many predicted then the demise of the institution of marriage and the moral erosion of civilization.

(And really, let's face it, no one was overly worried about Scots, Swedes, Asians and Irish marrying each other. No, the problem seemed to be blacks and whites only, eh? Hypocrisy...)

Same goes for almost every civil right won over the past three hundred years. Change is slow...

Posted by Girleygirl on May 16, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lol@ Allwoman I feel the same way....

Posted by icbmman on May 16, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I like how Helane places a huge red herring into this debate, interjecting a huge theological concept such as God's plan as an attempt to legitimize her relationship and legitimize the CA Supreme Court decision.

Helane, I'm happy that you are satisfied in your relationship with your partner and your son. However, let me try to answer your question in the simplest way possible--I mean, we could write for HOURS on s subject like this: God does not condone sin, but he can use the consequences of it for His purposes and plan. Just because you found each other and fell in love doesn't mean that it's right. I don't claim to know what the Lord's plan is in your situation, but God can use anything for His purpose.

You may scoff at that very simple explanation, you may not believe it, but frankly, I don't care. It is what it is.

Posted by icbmman on May 16, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As I said earlier in this thread, the religious argument would get thrown in as a red herring. Ugh. I need a drink...

Posted by ColdBeer on May 16, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's five o'clock somewhere...

Posted by Test2007 on May 16, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you don't like seeing it, don't look. Let me tell you what I don't like seeing:

1. ANYONE's butt crack
2. Thongs - They are UNDERGARMENTS. It should not be visible.
3. ALL PDAs
4. Kids making out in the movie theater.
5. Grown folks each with one hand in the other's pocket.
6. Really big folks with less than half of their body's covered.
7. Charleston in the summertime when folks of ALL ages think its ok to walk in a store with just a bathing suit.
8. Muffin tops
9. A not so fit belly poking out under a short top

I have so much more. I think all falls under disgusting personally. Oh and please would everyone stop thinking that all gay people (male or female) want you. Good God. Conceited much?

Posted by icbmman on May 16, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pour me something tall and strong,
Make it a Hurricane before I go insane...

Posted by Test2007 on May 16, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Allwoman,

No stick up my butt just commenting that your sentiment is close to a lot of others i have seen that involve "I'm ok as long as they don't come on to me". I am sorry but I've honestly never seen a woman hit on another woman unless she was a lesbian (this excludes drunk college girls apparently). Same for guys. Not to say it doesn't happen but probably not that much UNLESS you are at a gay club or gay cruise. You may want to check to see if your cruise was one like that. The idea that they are all lurking somewhere ready to jump our bones is ridiculous. Please, we probably don't fit their standards anyway. But let me see... being hit on by a lesbian or by big guy with alcohol on his breath while he is trying to grab my behind.

Yeah...choices.

Posted by Helane on May 16, 2008 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

icbmman, the point is, it doesn't matter what I believe or what you believe. Everyone in this country is entitled to believe whatever they want. But they're also entitled to the same legal rights and protections, regardless of their physical anatomy.

And your tired old argument that marriage should be reserved for only a man and woman just because it has been that way since the beginning of time does not make it right. Just because something is the way it has always been doesn't make it right. (And anyway, you're wrong. Marriage has also religiously, Biblically been defined in polygamous terms since the beginning of time.)

Posted by ColdBeer on May 16, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok, I'm beginning to see the problem here. test2007 doesn't even like thongs??? It's not possible to make a person happy about anything if you can't even make them happy with a thong :)

Test2007, I noticed that camel toes were not on your list of "disgusting". Care to expound?

:)

Posted by ColdBeer on May 16, 2008 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

On a lighter note, I got to use the terms flabbergasted, up the butt, strap on, dingle berries and heevie jeevies all in one day on the P&C website :)

Posted by icbmman on May 16, 2008 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Scriptural souce, Helane? Sheesh, I knew this was going to happen, but I'll bite anyway. Polygamy was and still is a part of culture in the Middle East, but it is nowhere indicated as the definition of marriage in the Bible. This is another red herring in your argument. Besides, the relationship is still between man and woman, who are capable of naturally procreating. There is, however, clear Scriptural passages that outline homosexuality as a sin in both Old and New Testament, but let's not even go there. I sin myself, and the only redemption I have is through the saving grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. But that is all I have to say about that; let's stick with the issue at hand.

The majority of society in this country has determined what is acceptable as a marriage standard. However, gay activists have implemented tyrannical rule by the minority, and the majority of people are being forced to accept it. Period. This, by Constitutional standards, is unacceptable. You want the same rights that are naturally endowed by one man and one woman, and that is physically impossible. As far as my tired old argument with civilization: it may be an old argument, but it's still a fact that you cannot deny. Whether it's between one man and one woman or one man and 20 women, it is a natural relationship that allows for procreation and continuance of the family line.

Changing the dynamics of that relationship does not enhance a society; it breaks down. It also alters what marriage really is, causing more confusion for future generations. Think about that...and not just about yourself.

Posted by Helane on May 16, 2008 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have news for you: There are plenty of other ways to procreate and carry on the "family line" than the traditional man/woman way. And there always will be. Marriage creates a family, and families come in all sizes, colors, shapes, and genders. You may have religious beliefs that define your concept of marriage, but your religious beliefs cannot define marriage for everyone. As long as marriage confers rights and protections in this country, it must be offered to any two people. You base your entire argument on the Bible and seem to miss the point that I have tried to stress: we are talking about the CIVIL definition of marriage. Marriage in the eyes of the state has nothing to do with religion. It is a license, a DOCUMENT, that gives two people certain rights and privileges. And as a matter of equality, those rights and privileges must be afforded ANY two people who desire to enter into the relationship. You and I will never agree on the religious definition of marriage, but that's neither here nor there. Just because something isn't right for you doesn't mean that your way is the only way.

Posted by Helane on May 16, 2008 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One final thought for icbmman:

You say: "The majority of society in this country has determined what is acceptable as a marriage standard."

Sure, and in the 1960s, the majority of society in this country was in FAVOR OF BLACK/WHITE SEGREGATION. The majority doesn't always get things right.

Posted by ColdBeer on May 16, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"must" is a strong, and in this case, an inaccurate word Helane.

Posted by icbmman on May 16, 2008 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Helane, you are 5 for 5 on red herring arguments. It's incredible.

You, just like most of the liberals on this site, have incredibly SUBSTANDARD reading comprehension skills. And like most liberals, you have an uncanny ability to twist and manipulate EVERYTHING I said. In NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM did I base my arguments on the Bible. I merely mentioned what the Bible states because YOU chose to interject it into the conversation. I HAVE been talking about CIVIL marriage. Procreation and family line continuance aren't just Biblically based...these are concepts that even exist in Darwinism.

I'm so sick of this moral relativism BS. If there really is no true right or wrong, why even make laws? It has nothing to do with what I see as a moral choice; it has EVERYTHING to do with what has been recognized as a foundational fabric of society in general. If you change marriage as it is recognized, other practitioners of alternative lifestyles will want the same "rights and protections" that you so vehemently crave. Many of you scoff and debunk at the notion, but that just indicates that you have a tremendous lack of foresight, imagination, and intuitiveness. If marriage is just a "right" or "document" for "ANY" two consenting people, then a father could marry his daughter, right? How about a father marrying his 15-year-old daughter? How about his son? How about his dog? Yeah, it sounds outlandish, but saying that these examples are impossible is foolish.

One more statement and I'm through with this debate. This is the bottomline reason for why these activists want to change marriage: they don't give a s--t about how their actions will affect others in future generations. They only care about their own little world, and the rest of the demographic that they identify with. Proceeding with this current behavior and activism is purely selfish, because no one even contemplates the consequences of these actions that are taking place in society now. They only see their wants and desires, no matter how much it infringes on others and no matter what future damage will occur to our nation and our society.

Posted by steve on May 16, 2008 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

icbmman hit the nail on the head with: "They only see their wants and desires, no matter how much it infringes on others and no matter what future damage will occur to our nation and our society." I will twist that back: In his narrow little conservative knuckle dragging view of his world proves in the statement above. He is very worried about family marrying family and all kinds of kinky combinations that would make the Marquis de Sade green with envy. He hates activists. He would have sided with the British when they invaded Charleston and would most likely own some slaves if he could. For the love of God icbmman stop worrying about what goes on below other people's belly buttons, we've got bigger problems to deal with in our country. Oh wait, we live in South Carolina not the United States of America.

Posted by lillycollette on May 16, 2008 at 6:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's the case cite so you can read what they based their decision on:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/doc...
In The Sup. Ct. of California, Filed 5/15/08
In re MARRIAGE CASES.
[Six consolidated appeals.]
S147999
Ct.App. 1/3 Nos. A110449, A110450, A110451, A110463,
A110651, A110652
San Francisco County
JCCP No. 4365

Posted by dwfrance on May 16, 2008 at 9:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

COLD BEER YOU GO!TO THE TWO "mommies" HAVING THAT BABY...POOR BABY HAS NO CHOICE IN THE LIFE STYLE IT'S ABOUT TO LIVE

Posted by Helane on May 17, 2008 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, the "lifestyle" our child is about to live is really something you need to worry about. The best private school, two parents who cherish him and can afford every luxury in the world for him, extended family on both sides who adore him, a new sibling on the way, and educated parents who will lead him to understand what is really important in this world.

Posted by motheroffive on May 19, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Your child is indeed blessed, Helane.

Posted by ColdBeer on May 19, 2008 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

At no point did I say that Helane could not properly raise a child. I don't know her at all, so I can't be a judge of that. The point I made was that it is simply physically impossible for two women to "have" a child. A man's sperm HAS to be involved somewhere. I wasn't questioning anyone's parenting abilities.

I will say thought that I think private schools can hurt a childs ability to adjust to the public world after school is complete. There are a lot of things going on in public schools that suck, but the exposure can make a child well prepared for all of the things that suck in an adult world.

Posted by icbmman on May 20, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Steve, this has nothing to do with "worrying about what goes on under people's belly buttons", and that kind of obtuse comment only further clouds the main issue. Also, your comparison of me to the Loyalists of the Revolution and slaveowners is absolutely disingenuous and a non sequitur.

It is, of course, obvious that you have no intelligent retort to the truth. Helane, while I disagree with her choices, has presented far more intelligent responses despite her preference for red herrings.

I'll say this...I think it would be beneficial of government to stay out of marriage, i.e., no need for marriage licenses. Granted, other reforms would have to take place, like reforming the tax system, but leaving marriages strictly under churches' responsibility would simplify things and stop the activism to change marriage as it is currently defined.