Judge Legalizes Polygamy, Citing Gay Marriage As Precedent

In a game-changer for the legal fight over same-sex marriage that gives credence to opponents’ ‘slippery slope’ arguments, a federal judge has now ruled that the legal reasoning for same-sex marriage means that laws against polygamy are likewise unconstitutional.” – Ken Klukowski

You know when something is glaringly obvious, but no one sees it? After reading this article by Ken Klukowski, it’s nice to know that someone outside of my immediate family understands the concept of a slippery slope. The slippery slope argument has been dismissed by many as a fallacious style of argumentation, but there are many instances where it proves to be true. For instance, marriage.

For thousands of years, marriage has been defined. That’s it. There has been one definition for marriage for so long that changing it seemed ludicrous. But along came the activists—mostly comprised of Democrats who couldn’t care less about marriage, or gays, but rather desire votes. These activists changed the way marriage is defined–at least in several states. They continue to push for the advancement of gay marriage in all 50 states.

This push by the activists brought some to argue that by opening marriage up to more than just one man and one woman, there could be potential for a flood of further revisions. Every single Liberal then unanimously yelled, “You’re crazy! That’s apples and oranges!”—their favorite phrase when they have nothing legitimate to say.

Let’s discuss these apples and oranges, shall we? How could any sane person believe that following the legalization of gay marriage, the trail would end? That suddenly, after gay marriage was legal, everyone would be happy, and the world would be made of marshmallows? That not a single person—let alone a probable coalition of many—would demand something more? No sane person believes that, only Liberals do.

If you are ever in doubt as to whether or not an issue is part of a slippery slope, simply ask yourself one question: If this, then why not that? If your answer to that question is based in the  subjectivity of society’s self-devised morality, then it’s probably a slippery slope issue.

Without a standard for morality—such as a scripture of some sort (hint)—issues of morality are ambiguous and, moreover, in a constant state of fluctuation. That moving, living morality fluctuates depending on the feelings and wants of its given society. When moral standards are based solely on personal feelings, there will eventually arise a need for consensus. Because 300 million people have many feelings, consensus takes time. As we know, however, time is a moral decay. Once enough time has passed, and enough people flow to one side of an issue, a consensus is formed, leading to new developments. This is how subjective morality works, and it’s why the slippery slope argument validates itself over time.

The legalization of polygamy is the next step following gay marriage. Regardless of your feelings about that, logic tells us it is true. It seems like apples and oranges may not be so different after all.







Comments

comments

Posted in Email Featured, Homosexuality, LIberalism, Marriage Tagged with: ,
  • buckman21

    This is exactly what I have been saying to some of our liberal commentaters here. Where would you stand if things like this started to happen (the slippery slope)? What’s to stop marrying a dog, a car, an 11 yr old boy? “Oh you’re just absurd!” they say. Here’s a perfect example of what is starting to happen, and with gay marriage as a precedent example no less by a federal judge! If liberals (especially you bob) see this real life and potentially other examples as bad, then you have no right to criticize us for not wanting gay marriage in the first place.

    • Mr Bob

      You religious kooks made the same argument against interracial marriage. None of your predictions came true. Pedophilia and bestiality didn’t become legal and it never will…unless the perverts in your religion get what they want! HA!

      • buckman21

        I never said pedophilia and bestiality became legal. I said potential. This real life example of legalization is the perfect point in which the pre-ridiculous becomes reality. So you aren’t even responding to my post, just side stepping and denying

        • Myrtle Linder

          Never answer the posts of fools, might make you look like one, just because you are talking to one. I avoid Booby like the poison that he is. He will twist what you say wrong side out.

        • Skepticles

          He probably is pre-occupied taping up his Guy Fawlkes mask because it is so worn-out with use when he blogs.

      • Mr Bob

        Look, I have a clone!

      • georgemachock

        That’s where u’r wrong. Look at Rome and the Romans. Study u’r history.

        • ErSwnn

          But Rome and Romans still exist….so apparently their particular lifestyles didn’t wiipe them out. But then again, were the options used by the ancient Romans widespread or contained within a segment of the population? From the “history” you aluude to having knowledge of you’d know only the ruling class engaged in such behaviors and it was illegal for the working classes.

          But then yet again, that has nothing to do with the present debate now does it? You just want the lives of others to reflect your own. If theocracy is your thing talk to the Taliban…they get it, you guys will get along great.

        • georgemachock

          Understand and appreciate your input. My concern is not the Christian values but, even if the upper society had the benefit in Rome, in the US at least now, any law or change in law would apply to all.

        • PALADIN

          Sodom and Gomorrah no longer exist

        • Skepticles

          But its egocentric immorality endures. Sustained I imagine by selfish human nature.

        • PALADIN

          Absolutely correct. Human nature without God continues to fertilize the weeds.

      • Centurian2010

        That’s rich considering It just did happen. The door is now open.

      • MamaJ

        With people like you and your way of thinking anything is a possibility.

      • kap2002

        Stop making yourself look even dumber than you are already.

      • Bomber7090

        A man marrying a woman of another race never implied any movement away from a moral society. Incidentally, “religious kooks” were not those that created laws against interracial marriage. Racists, like many democratic politicians in the South – including Al Gore’s father – created those laws.

        • Mr Bob

          It was conservative Christians in the south that fought interracial marriage

        • Skepticles

          Liberal southerners forced slavery into the Constitution. So? Lets try coherant conceptual connections please.

        • MamaJ

          You are a very misinformed person. Look up the history of the Democrats and their fight against civil rights.

      • Joel Karner

        By you insulting us who hold to biblical morality you set yourself up for the same standard. Kindly watch how you address those with whom you disagree.

        • Joel Karner

          …furthermore, none of us were there when interracial marriage was being debated.

        • Skepticles

          Acually, I was born just as the interracial ban was being phased out of California. Previous to that, my mother carried me in a trip back east to D.C. where she said she saw a number of segregated restrooms and restaurants. The topic was just too contraversial for the late fifties to be adressed on television. Movies on the other hand……(“South Pacific” for example).

      • Skepticles

        Bob you Boob! Sexual slavery, polygamy, and homosexuality are consentingly described in the Koran, for starters. Along with rivers of honey, young boys (plural) are mentioned as just one of the party favors waiting for devout men in the Garden of Allah. You think they will be there to pitch the old baseball around?

    • ErSwnn

      Why not marry your dog or car? Seriously, discuss the problem here. Just don’t go off on some religious tangent, our country is not defined by religion or theocracy. Some wack job wants to marry Fido, so what? Except….can Fido consent?

      11 year old boy? Does the law allow this boy the legal status of adult? If not then there is your answer. He is not old enough to understand therefore cannot consent.

      Just why are you so afraid of a couple of guys getting married? Does this somehow effect you? Is your own self view so feeble John&John cause you self doubt? Again, leave religion out of it…it has no place in the COTUS. Answer me from a constitutional aspect….that is where our laws come from.

      • buckman21

        You obviously missed the point. The slippery slope argument is the point. Where do you draw the line? The definition of marriage has obviously been changed to accommodate a gay couple. What’s it to stop changing to accommodate a man and boy, man and dog, etc? You aren’t following the discussion very well. Doesn’t matter about consent. If the definition is changed, that’s out the window.

        And btw, I didn’t mention religion, at all. I simply pointed out that liberals have this defense of “Oh it’s just absurd to suggest that!” when it’s already starting, and this news and article proves that point. Where does it stop at?

        • Mr Bob

          Efforts to legalize same-sex marriage, however, simply aim to provide same-sex couples with equal access to marriage laws – there is no intention to change the fundamental definition of marriage as the legal union between two adult human beings who have no direct biological connection with each other of the 15 countries and 16 states that have legalized same-sex marriage, none of them has subsequently legalized marriage involving animals, children, siblings, or groups of people.

        • buckman21

          If that is the only reason, legislation should have been passed to just gice civil unions the same rights and benefits of marriage laws. Then both parties are happy. Although I doubt that, since some gays like to stick there business in Christians faces to rub there ways in it forcefully

        • Mr Bob

          this “separate but equal” approach doesn’t work. Various countries and American states which initially permitted “civil unions” for same-sex couples have subsequently enacted marriage equality legislation. These jurisdictions have pursued such changes because civil union legislation, no matter how valiant the effort, is not able to provide the same rights and benefits as legal marriage. In essence, having a two-class system continues to maintain the erroneous notion that one group (straight people) is more superior to another group (LGBT people).

        • RevG

          I don’t care what you say BobEeeee.
          God Created Adam and Eve to procreate, NOT Adam and Steve to pack fudge.

        • Skepticles

          Unless wearing a sign that declares sexual inclination, homosexuals have no claim to subjective second class status imposed by society. They are simply sexually dysfunctional by the biological standard of our hetreosexual species, and therefore not entitled to the benefits afforded to heterosexual couples by society.

        • kristine

          let me give you this oxymoron- two celibates get joined in marriage so they can be afforded rights and benefits of those who fall under the marriage act laws and bylaws…. or better still.. the state or the federal government do not recognize any marriages whatsoever. it is a covenant between a man , a woman and God, Almighty…and God Almighty does not equate to the government.

        • raynbene

          Why can’t you libs be honest with us ? The whole idea is to redefine marriage ! And the slippery slope is very slippery –

          http://joemiller.us/2013/12/yale-university-beyond-human-personhood-symposium-christian-worldview-abominable/

        • Mr Bob

          marriage laws in the U.S. and in countries across the globe have been modified repeatedly in response to evolving cultural norms. There was a time when women were the legal property of their husbands. There was a time when a man and a woman of different races couldn’t marry each other. Removing discrimination from the institution of marriage does not redefine “marriage” it simply makes the institution more accessible and reflects the evolution of society.

        • PALADIN

          Yes and every time society has evolved in that manner, THAT SOCIETY HAS DOWNGRADED. For example, can we say Rome?….just for starters.

        • Mr Bob

          So when we “redefined” marriage to include interracial marriage in your bigoted mind that was downgrading society?

        • RevG

          In a word BobEeeeeeeee YES

        • Skepticles

          It would be the hieght of arrogance to believe that the human species, which breeds other species for aesthetics or intended purpose, would NOT do the same to itself.
          However, interracial heterosexuals DO breed offspring naturally. Homosexuals by biological definition, cannot. Your point in comparison is….?

        • ErSwnn

          So marriage is for procreation alone? That defines marriage? My sister just remarried last year at age 64, to an older gentleman. No kids in that one. They must be wrong. My brother, no kids, great wife. The bastard is living a sinner’s life I suppose.

          Only on religious grounds is marriage about children. For legal purposes the reasoning is very different. Since we live in a constitutional republic and not a theocratic governance marriage is based on a legal defination, not a religious tenet.

          As a personal choice, your marriage can be about whatever YOU choose it to be. As a legal condition the meaning must be much broader so as to fit within the confines of the Constitution. The Bill of Right gives us freedom of religion. It has been determined by the SCOTUS that we also have freedom from religion. As intended by the framers back in 1787.

          So many consider themselves conservatives yet insist on defining legal terms and laws based on religion. It’s one thing to use religion as a personal guidance system. another to force it on everyone else. Sort of like Obamacare. And just as unconstitutional.

        • Skepticles

          Marrige is a social institution with legalized class entitlements. Sex is a biological process. Family raisng is a social process which I doubt you will assert homosexuality has been really about. Or will you try?
          Acually, the homosexual agenda is about gaining inclusion by obliterating the social institution of marriage, and negate the government endorsement of it through preferrential class treatment, if they cannot enjoy it themselves.

        • kristine

          a lot of US people are products of interracial marriage. My Great-Grandparents were Native American and Anglo- Saxon. No matter if your skin color is dark or light, if you trace back far enough, you’ll find no purity. Skin color is irrelevant…. and we don’t live in the past,.. only the present and future.

        • ErSwnn

          And at one time color DID matter. But we progressed past that, for the most part anyway. Sure, we live only in the present. But we learn from the past and use that to rectify the future. As race didn’t lead to the destruction of marriage or civilization, neither will gay marriage. All gay marriage will do at the worst is cause more divorce.

          For those so concerned with “family values” I can only wonder how weak your own abilities to raise kids must be. If a gay couple is enough to disrupt your lessons, examples, beliefs and strengths….God help those poor kids. (No Kristine, this is not directed at you, just a thought I wanted to get out. And, thank you for the civil discourse, many others are not so willing to listen as well as speak.)

        • PALADIN

          The discussion I thought was on homosexuality. I’m sorry. It looks like I won’t be responding to you anymore, either. I don’t respond to people that just want to argue. Say what you will and I hope you spend much of YOUR time doing it.

        • ErSwnn

          Rome? You mean that place that all the tourists go? It has a big airport and everything. Has something happened to it…is it gone??

          Society has downgraded? Yeah, we shoulda kept that slavery thing going. And my wife, she’d have been a valuble piece of property too. And those damn NFL people, always messing with pigskin on the Sabbath. I say bring back bloodletting and child brides. I take it you agree?

        • PALADIN

          I’m sorry. I don’t get into unproductive arguments by responding to useless statements that have NO CONNECTION with the point of discussion. So, say what you will and I hope you spend much of YOUR time doing it, because I won’t be wasting MY time.

        • kristine

          you have a perverted and bigoted view of Christianity… trenches, you’ve dealt with none who have been lifted from these, through the power of His blood. At the foot of the cross is level ground. You judge all Christians by the actions of some,,,, and do you know how very,very few white people were actually slaveholders ? Yet you would judge all white people on the basis of those few, That is called prejudice.

        • ErSwnn

          You’re having a very hard time of staying focused here aren’t you? This topic has you so bound up your almost speaking in tongues.

          You are responding to my response to Paladin. He/she made a comment on Rome…I countered that. Jesus Christ lady, read the posts before you sound like an idiot.

          You’ll note I complimented you earlier for being civil. Well you lost that respect just now when you spoke like a fool who failed to read and comprehend a simple idea. But yeah, lets go with this direction of yours. Big freakin’ whoop, only a few white people owned slaves. Boy, THAT sure makes that peculiar institution a whole lot more palatable.

          Trenches…………um, yeah as a matter of fact I have helped a few out. But I did so without anyone’s blood. Explain to me, how does blood help anyone out of a trench anyway? You need someone else to tell you what is the right thing to do? It takes a book (Bible) to tell you right from wrong? Seriously, you’re that weak of soul only the Bible can tell you when your right and when your wrong? How sad.

        • Skepticles

          “Removing discrimination from the institution of marriage does not redefine “marriage” it simply makes the institution more accessible and reflects the evolution of society.”
          Well anarchist Mr. Bob, that depends upon what the reasons for marriage are. Simply stating as a universal platitude,”Its all good”, does not make it so.

        • frank907

          Short answer: Liberals can’t be honest because they have no honor.

        • ErSwnn

          At the same time so many “conservatives” are ignoring the fact we are a constitutional republic and not a theocracy. The Bill of Rights was expressedly written to disallow religion based laws. As a conservative YOU should know this. But instead you opt to forgo this reality. Conservative? No, your not. You don’t even know what it means.

        • buckman21

          You are either not religious at all, a luke warm Christian who doesn’t take their faith seriously, or more of a libertarian rather than a conservative. There is nothing wrong with bringing your faith into what you believe is best for the country. Nothing wrong with being religious and being conservative at the same time. And if you are a conservative, call yourself Christian, but don’t act upon what your faith dictates, then you are not being a Christian.

        • ErSwnn

          Door #1 Buckman, not religious at all. And libertarian is a classification I can live with. It surely describes the intent of the COTUS.

          Your correct, there is nothing wrong with bringing your faith into governance. So long as that only entails using faith to bring honesty, trustworthiness and dedication to the table. Bringing along a one-sided view of how government should dictate law is another issue.

          A religion based law is unconstitutional, there is no way around that fact. And that is ALL I’m saying. You, me, nobody, has any right to force a law based on a religious belief……why is that so hard to accept? Sure, bring the tenets which cause you to be honest to the discussion, but leave the rest at home, it has no place in our government.

        • buckman21

          You can say that fine. But under God and in God we trust are used for a reason. I hear the argumemntent that the founders were theists. But many of the laws have very simalr jeudeo christian principles. It is in my belief, mainly for moral reasons, religion should play a role in shaping the laws of the country. Just as they were centuries ago

        • DMJo

          So many “liberals” are ignoring the fact that we are a constitutional republic instead of a democracy, oligarchy or a dictatorship.

        • ErSwnn

          The slippery slope. So you want laws based on your religious views. That slope produced sheria law and the Taliban. Yeah, let’s go there.

        • buckman21

          Yes, I do want our laws based on religious views, but not dicatated by them. I don’t want the government forcing us to go to church or read the Bible, but I do want moral descisions made.

        • ErSwnn

          Basing laws on religion is simply illegal. It’s that simple. It’s right there in the Constitution.

          You want “moral decisions made”. Who’s morality? Yours? Charlie Manson’s? Both would be moral decisions. We have the COTUS which is the guiding force to laws. It purposely excluded religion as a venue for laws. It’s the document we use to our consent to being governed. Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion.

          Somewhere it has to be agreed that only one force can drive laws. It was agreed 236 years ago to accept the COTUS as that force. Any deviation from it weakens all of it. As I said before, the slippery slope produced sheria law and the taliban.

        • buckman21

          We may share most of the same politcal views. But you and I will both have to r ealze that there are those in the same party that have different religoous views. And Chrisianity is not about happy go lucky feel good. And I’m sorry you feel that’s how it should be. And unfortunatley many christians are like that. But true christianity is not like that. We involve it in everything. Including fundementals in laws

        • Watchmanonwall

          same sex “marriage” in and of itself, by definition ALREADY changed the fundamental definition.
          If that law can be changed by society than all other laws can be changed even ones you think will not. As the judge as just proven and defeated your stupid point.

        • Mr Bob

          1st of all, you low information voters don’t even understand what the ruling was even about.

        • Skepticles

          Since you resort to the low expressway Mr. Bob, my poop still smells better than your.

        • 1bob

          Well, it’s about time….all these transformations are done step by step…be patient, and you will be able to marry your dog…if love is the only criteria.

        • raynbene
        • 1bob

          Time to shed our clothes, go around sniffing each other and peeing on any handy tree (hey, i have 60 oak trees on the property). What are they looking for?? Justification for their hidden agendas??

        • RevG

          BobEeeee will marry his mother.

        • 1bob

          No can do…sister already married her.

        • Guest

          cee….

        • Mary

          It took a long time for them to get marriage changed for them, someday other things as ridiculous as same sex marriage could be made lawful. I never thought that same sex marriage would happen, not in a million years. God is still in control and has been very patient with the sinful nature of people. His patience will wear out one day and He will put an end to all this.

        • Mr Bob

          Christian bigots like you couldn’t imagine that interracial marriages would ever become legal either.

        • RevG

          Go back to playing with your Ken Doll Bob.

        • Skepticles

          The wonderful irony of anarchy is that once its promoters effect a societal default ‘law of the jungle’, they quickly turn on themselves and begin a self-corrective reduction in numbers. Truly you, Mr. Bob, are a fluke of the Universe.LOL

        • Mary

          I am not a bigot and by the way I have a bi-racial grandson whom I love with all my heart. I just believe God’s word, if that makes me a bigot then so be it.

        • raynbene

          You’re not a bigot ! You just know the difference bertween right and wrong and what marriage is ! !

        • Mary

          Thank you. raynbene.

        • kristine

          Mr. Bob if you would like to see a real bigot , go look in the mirror. True Christians know that skin color is irrelevant. Your comments disclose you. You regard and treat Christians with hatred and intolerance. That is called bigotry, thus you are a bigot with a capital B

        • Skepticles

          “…..none of them has subsequently legalized marriage involving animals, children, siblings, or groups of people.”
          But here in the good old USA, those folks who hold even the most absurd notions, feel emboldened to advocate for Constitutional entitlement to ‘endulge’ without fear of legal prosecution (except for treason or insurrection).

        • ErSwnn

          The stopping point is really obvious. Consent. A child cannot consent. A dog cannot consent. A car cannot consent.

          There is a legal defination to consent. The slippery slope stops there.

          BTW, I am not a liberal. I’m also not a fake conservative who wants governing based on religion. Freedom OF religion is also freedom FROM religion. Laws based on religion is theocracy. As a conservative I want laws based on the constitutional republic that we are.

        • buckman21

          Consent can easily be taken out if the government and society demand so. I don’t want the government interviening in marriage at all, nor do I want the government a theocracy. Thats what seperation of church and state is. The government can’t force a religion on its people, like iran for example. However, I do believe Christian principles should play a role in our laws. Such as upholding traditional marriage (since the gov is already involved due to public demand) and making abortion illegal (different subject, but regardless). It is in my personal opinion that if the gov wasn’t involved in marriage, people in general shouldn’t be in marriage that are unnatural and un tradiational. I bring my faith into EVERY aspect of my life.

      • Bill Hunt

        The line is very easily drawn. The government has NO BUSINESS defining relationships between CONSENTING ADULTS. The slippery slope argument is total BS as is the the statement that “For thousands of years, marriage has been defined [as between a man and a woman].” For thousands of years, polygamy has been part of the definition of marriage including in the Judeo-Christian heritage. Nothing in this or any other ruling would make marrying children or animals legal nor does it establish any precedent that could lead to anything like that. The precedent of gay marriage is correctly used as a precedent here. I find it ironic and disturbing that people who generally support the freedom agenda, complain about government and say (rightly) “Don’t Tread On Me” are so anxious to do some serious treading on basic individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution – specifically free exercise of religion.

        • Bomber7090

          If you want government to stay out of it then there is no need for a marriage license. Government is intended to provide some structure around society. Who says then that molesting those humans under the age of consent is now not appropriate. Polygamy has always been at the very top of the slippery slope – but again government interceded to provide structure. They did so because it can, and does, lead to societal costs.

        • http://fanon.clubpenguinwiki.info/ TurtleShroom

          Congratulations! You have justified incest and sexual orgies and defended them!

        • Skepticles

          “The line is very easily drawn. The government has NO BUSINESS defining relationships between CONSENTING ADULTS.”- Guest
          Actually Guest, perhaps not. With your libertine viewpoint, I ask, why stop at ADULT HUMANS?
          Lassiz Faire morality and situation ethics have their pitfalls. The big one is you really have no way of discerning socially proper fom anti-social improper. And pedophilia WAS socially accepted in private by the ruling aristocracy of classical Greece and the Roman Empire. Read Catulllus’ love poems to and about a young boy he was ‘involved with’. Or perhaps the lesbian poetry of Sappho would thrill you. Your quotation is a cowpie to be cautiously avoided. You personally might be reasonable in your ideas application. The anarchist Mr. Bob, would likely take it to extremes by fornicating on his front lawn in broad daylight claiming justification by property rights.

      • Barbara Anne Bainer

        Certainly. First comes two women or two men. If allowed, the same exact justification says why not two woman and one man? Two men and one woman? A group marriage of indeterminable size?
        And what is to stop it from being marriage with inanimate objects, or animals? The logic and legal thought behind redefining marriage is still consistant. What of the marriage between a man and a ten year old boy? A man and two ten year old girls?
        The answer, ErSwnn, is that nothing is stopping the entire unraveling of the marriage pact into idiocy. If one believes the legal logic behind gay marriage, then the brakes are off. How does this affect society? THAT answer is also glaringly obvious, with a nod to Caligula as simply one example. True, Rome as a global empire collapsed under such societal pressures and Rome is still here – but is here as what? Will the United States also see a societal collapse? If history is to be an example, yes. But collapsed into what? Not into any place I would want to live and attempt to have a family.

      • http://starktruthwv.blog.com Tom Stark

        Behind closed doors John and John can do what they please. Giving sanction to homo-marriage will become an argument that any mention that it is a sin will become an excuse yo persecute those of faith. The two cannot coexist because one is totally incompatible with the other.

        • Mr Bob

          Given that the U.S.A. is a secular nation, religion should play no role in any discussion about civil and societal laws

        • Joel Karner

          Government shall make no law respecting religion NOR PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF. Is this understood?

        • Mr Bob

          TOTALLY!!!! If you think that gives you the right to discriminate against American citizens based upon some religious bigotry you’re sadly mistaken & I would have thought our Supreme court made that VERY clear time & time again

        • http://fanon.clubpenguinwiki.info/ TurtleShroom

          The Constitution covers rights. Butt sex is not a right. Show me where the Constitution justifies “Lawrence v. Texas”. I’m sure you know what that case was about, right Bobby?

        • Bill Hunt

          Show me where in the Constitution it grants the government the power to regulate sexual activity between consenting adults. The justification for Lawrence v. Texas is clear in the 9th Amendment. Try reading the Constitution. I bet you have a Don’t Tread On Me sticker on your car, I have one on my truck. The difference is that my ancestors actually fought under that flag and I know what it really means which includes respecting and protecting the rights of even those with whom we disagree.

        • Skepticles

          Bill Hunt, you might tread more lightly on private acts being confused with public acts. Your suggestion sounds great in theory, but potentially runs afoul of ‘disturbing the peace’ laws. Just because its’ your right’, doesn’t entitle you to individually impose it antagonistically on you neigbors in public.
          If I remember, Madison stated that our system of government could only work if employed by a morally decent people. I’m thinking public advocacy of fudge-packing does not qualify as ‘decent’. Of course I could be wrong. You thoughts?

        • PALADIN

          I would guess that the a in your moniker stands for atheist

        • Skepticles

          Did mommy or daddy ever give you pen money? If so, you should have inspected it closely. “In God we trust ‘ ring a bell? What do you think the President-elect puts his hand on to take the oath of office, a joy buzzer? I could go on-and-on, but why bother schooling you further. Can he be taught?

        • kristine

          when your time draws to a close, where do you go? It’s a fallacy to think you cease to exist just because your not robed in your human body.

        • raynbene

          We already have persecutions of Christians, or those who speak out against the ‘gay’ agenda,which is to reshape the country into their twisted vision of ‘normal’. . .

      • John Karpiscak

        Let’s go to the Constitution, then. There were NO provisions for special protections for the deviants of society. Changing the definitions doesn’t change deviance. A cat is still a cat, even if you call it a dog.

        • Bill Hunt

          No special rights, that is true. However… “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (9th Amendment).

        • Skepticles

          But does that measure, which intends to prevent denial of inheirent rights simply because it isn’t inclusively listed, apply to all actions of human beings? Are all activities undertaken in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness equally valid?
          (the whole idea of anti-social behavior being relative, Mr. Bobs’ wet dream, is at your elbow)

      • Bomber7090

        You obviously have no line – morality is not just confined to the Bible, Koran, or other moral documents. Anything goes – and it could be relationships with children – if we accept a concept that makes no sense – a marriage between two of the same sex then we must accept marriage in other forms that make no sense. It then become lawless – and anarchy is certainly not what was intended by the writers of the Constitution.

        • Mr Bob

          Any statement which portrays the Christian faith
          as having some type of exclusivity to be the sole arbiter on matters of moral integrity and just policy-making are unhelpful and untrue

        • Skepticles

          The USA is founded on those Christian principles, though I am sure it grates you no end.

        • raynbene

          This is the problem – where do YOUR morals come from, and how do you distinguish right and wrong ?
          C’mon ‘Bob’, tell us how you know Christians are wrong about this !

      • raynbene

        You cannot understand that when the Constitution was established, that everyone knew what morals were, and there was no need to redefine marriage, since everyone knew what it was, and still is ?? BTW, what is the foundation of the Constitution ? Judeo-Christian principles, and nothing to do with socialism, communism, progressivism, modernism, liberalism, or anything that modern-day leftists are trying to pretend are ‘todays’ morals’ ! !

        • Mr Bob

          The US is a secular nation & religion should NEVER play ANY role in any discussion about civil and societal laws

        • raynbene

          Sorry, you just want us to believe your perverted vision of what you want the country to be – you are a minority – the vast majority of people have some core beliefs, which do not change with the winds of pop culture – would you use the God-given freedoms we have secured by the Constitution to tear down what it says, or rewrite it ?? The laws in place have a foundation, which is, or should be the bedrock of legal decisions, and judges legislating from the bench is unConstitutional ! This has never been a secular country, but you are free to be an atheist, or whatever you think is hip. . .

        • Mr Bob

          Moron, the Utah judge in this case was a conservative Judge appointed by Dubya. This country is, has always been & will always be a secular nation. You’re free to believe in any fairytale you like but you’re not free to shield your bigotry behind them

        • Skepticles

          “This has never been a secular country, but you are free to be an atheist, or whatever you think is hip. . .”
          Actually, I would be a tad more comfortable is stating that the US has never been JUST a secular country. Rather, secular tolerance is afforded to a point. Example: some religious groups, like the Marialettas, believe in actual ritualistc animal sacifice. But you just try telling the media (or PETA) that your religious freedoms entitle you to vivisect a chicken, goat, or cow, and watch what happens. Or maybe you believe its your right to promote animal blood sports (cock-fighting?). You just try to go public and see what happens. Or maybe you argue that temple prostitution is part of your fervently held belief system (it has been tried here). Let the local LEOs in on it. They will be very interested.

        • PALADIN

          Great. Somebody else that hasn’t studied the Founding Fathers and how this nation was founded. Useless arguing with this kind of people.

        • Mr Bob

          The men responsible for building the foundation of the United States were men of The Enlightenment, not men of Christianity. They were Deists who did not believe the bible was true. They were Freethinkers who relied on their reason, not their fait

        • Skepticles

          In your anachistic dreams. No quarter for that moral relativism crap, pal.

        • Mr Bob

          They didn’t seem to realize that slavery was immoral.

        • Skepticles

          Wrong Mr. Bob. the Northerners sucked up their distaste for slavery to gain consensus (a must-have) for Constitutional ratification, and bought into it because the liberal southerers refused ratification without inclusion of slavery. Yet another group that insisted on having their way regardless of how it effected everyone else.

        • kristine

          Mr. Bob…. here is something you have to put into your mind …blacks held whites as slaves in past history….should whites hate blacks because maybe it was some of their ancstors being held as slaves?

      • 1bob

        hell, the adults don’t understand. I’m suggesting a class in anatomy and biology for some of these people….a disorganized society leads to Rome…sexual gratification is one thing, marriage is quite another….

      • Mary

        There are places in the world where men marry girls, young girls. I feel sorry for little girls who are forced to marry, they have no idea what marriage is.

      • Ethel Winchester

        I didn’t consent, and am getting Obama Care …

      • Skepticles

        OF COURSE FIDO CAN CONSENT! And so can Mr. Ed. Quite a number of zoophilia videos are on the web to show you how it is done. Happy hunting and remember to turn off the mature content screening switch on the browser.
        Of course, I wouldn’t recommend such things, but…….

      • Skepticles

        “Just why are you so afraid of a couple of guys getting married? Does this somehow effect you?”
        The sincerity in the Homosexual marriage idea has nothing to do with family. Quite the opposite, it is the obliteration of the social /political support of the family that homosexuals cannot avail themselves of (tax and legal benefits which sanction and promote heterosexual marriage). So, as a next resort, they would spoil the arrangement so heterosexuals may not enjoy it either.
        Only when everyone is deprived of the advantage of a societally enfranchised, stable family life, will homosexuals feel ‘equal’. It is a corollary of the progressive socialists’ ‘Share the poverty’ philosophy. I call it, ‘Share the alienation’.

      • kristine

        Excuse me, do you even understand what religion is? It is a personal set of beliefs, attitudes and practices…how is it possible to leave that out of anything? Your religion is everything you think , do and say; obliterate that and you are no longer human.

        • ErSwnn

          And there you nailed it right on the head. “………..personal set of beliefs, attitudes and prcatices….” Those assets having nothing to do with defining national laws for all of us. They are personal. If ….for YOU…..marriage is heterosexual, meant for procreation, etc, then fine, so be it for you. But in the larger picture marriage isn’t a religious aspect, it is a legal issue.

          Religion as a personal guide is a fine thing. Using it to find balance, truth, honesty, self-awareness, inclusion……this is commendable. But to insist laws reflect YOUR beliefs segregates those who believe a different set of values. This is exactly why the Bi9ll of Rights gives both freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

          We are not a theocracy, we are a consititutional republic. As such we cannot allow overtly religious tenets to compel law to a religious comformity. In this thread has been mentioned the “slippery slope”. Laws based on religion, that slope led to the Taliban and sheria law.

        • buckman21

          Correct, the Bill of Rights do dicate we allow people to live their lives as they see fit. However, as Christians we try to save as many as we can with us. I’m not saying make the government do it for us. Just the opposite. We personally should show them homosexuality is wrong. And if gays and atheists get to get offended at us, why are we not allowed to get offended at them when they change the law for their own purposes and laugh in our face?

        • kristine

          Agreed, marriage should have nothing to do with our government. It has nothing to do with rules set forth by any governing body and should not benefit anyone to be or not to be ‘married’. This is a religious institution -Holy Matrimony. It has nothing to do with the government. Whoever wants to engage in a commitment ceremony is free to do so. Sex acts with minors should be banned not only in the USA, but all over the world. Marriage should have nothing to do with the government, whatsoever. This world is on a path and we can only control our own meanderings. What is coming to pass is coming to pass

  • gringott

    Exactly right. If you can marry a man if you are a man, or a woman if you are a woman, then why not man woman woman or woman man man etc.

    This is why government should be removed from the business of marriage.

    • TonysTake

      Correct. It’s a State issue to be decided by each individual State.

      • Bill Hunt

        No, the state has no more role in this then the federal government does. This is a matter for individuals alone. The only legitimate role government has in marriage is its role to resolve disputes over terms of a civil contract (which includes the basic requirement of consenting adults), just like any other contract between individuals. Beyond that is it is a matter for the churches to decide for themselves and for the individuals to decide for themselves. If the Catholic church wants to define marriage as one man one woman, that is their right. Just as it is the right of the United Church of Christ to include homosexual marriage in their definition and the Fundamentalist Mormon Church to include polygamy.

        • RightBrained

          I agree, but offer one question; who then determines the limits? If there are no limits, are we ok with people marrying horses, cites, tractors, and buildings?

        • archpope

          Consent. A child, a city, or a horse cannot legally give consent to marry. Although, under current law, a child who is otherwise unable to give consent to any other law can consent to marry, in some states without the parents’ approval. Also, if corporations are “people,” I should be able to marry one. Corporations can give consent.

        • Bill Hunt

          A corporation is a group of one or more consenting adults brought together contractually for a particular purpose. I know many married couples who are incorporated for one reason or another. So yes, you could call your relationship with a corporation a marriage. Certainly wouldn’t be the first person to be married to your job! :)

        • RightBrained

          That is a valid basis, but not free from legal challenge. You see, my sister is mentally challenged, and legally not able to give consent. Would she then never be allowed to marry? Or, if a man marries a woman, then meets another consenting woman and they both wish to marry, but his first wife is not consenting, is that permissible? After all, both parties who wish to wed are consenting. As much as I hate overbearing government, I do see a need for limited government.

        • kristine

          Yea ..one wife can have 6 husbands and those husbands can have other wives who have other husbands who have other wives…can you see all the potential for STDs and what about the kids…think they may get a little confused???

        • Bill Hunt

          Government has a legitimate role as final arbiter of disputes in scenarios such as you present. I am not advocating for anarchy by any means. I am advocating for objective laws that treat everyone the same way and respect the rights of the individual. Unfortunately it appears that many people here are simply incapable of holding a rational discussion on this subject. Many of them seem to feel that “free exercise” of religion applies only to their particular faith.

        • DMJo

          What’s to stop NAMBLA and other perverted organizations from pushing to change (and succeeding) who and what can give consent?

        • ErSwnn

          Parents of children. By using the political system as intended. We will write to our representatives and march on the streets, that is what would stop the scenerio you invision.

        • DMJo

          Maybe we could stop it. Lately, though, Congress, the Courts and the President are ignoring the People.

        • ErSwnn

          Which is probably why it can’t be stopped at this point. In my post I went with my hope we can retrieve our rightful direction as a nation but my more pragmatic side is showing itself in this one.

          I have to consider the other option that brings us back from this brink. Revolution. When we were ignored and our rights abused 237 years ago we beat back the tyrant. That time may be upon us again. Unfortunately it may involve a civil war instead of or in addition to any actions by those of us who can stand no more abuse.

          Yes, we can stop Nambla from causing our children to be lawfully available to them. But can we stop the general demise that we have today? I have my doubts. And I’m not talking about gay rights as a demise…I am referring to rights in general and as equals. There is no need for “gay” rights. There are just “rights”, with no affiliation to adult and consentual actions or mores.

          Let’s pray I’m wrong.

        • DMJo

          It is possible we can stop NAMBLA from causing our children to be lawfully available to them. But, maybe we can’t. With the current lawlessness of the current Fed. Govt. (and some State Govts as well), I am not counting on it.
          I, too, am seeing that we may have no other recourse than to resort to revolution. I am praying hard that we do not have to.

        • kristine

          parents can marry their children, siblings can marry, ….females or males can have as many spouses as they desire……. inbred children .. rampant STDs ..man do I wish Jesus would just hurry-up and come again

        • ErSwnn

          Yeah..and boy is He gonna be pissed when he gets a load of these mega-churches. And intolerance, that one is gonna have smoke coming out of His ears. Some of you are in BIG trouble. Inbred children, are we talking about Cain and Abel’s children again?

        • TonysTake

          Opinions are nice and I’m glad you have one. I use our Nation’s Founding Documents as my guide on such matters and It is very clear that any power not explicitly granted to the federal government belongs to the states or to the people. As the states have all weighed-in and laws were made by our elected representatives, I still contend that the states have the right to define what they consider to be lawful marriage. Right or wrongly, that’s the way it is.

        • Bill Hunt

          The 14th Amendment extends strictures on Federal powers to the states as well, the 1st Amendment prohibits laws restricting the free exercise of religion, therefore the states do NOT have the power to define marriage.

        • TonysTake

          What about Muslim men then? According to their false prophet, they can marry infant girls and consummate the marriage at age 9. There is a direct conflict between religions as well as different cultures and customs. Who if not the state should regulate this? Catholics have a far different view about divorce than does the Protestants. It is up to the states to establish some form of order to society.

        • Bill Hunt

          Yes, based upon the basic premises that no one has the right to initiate the use of force against another and that contracts (including contracts of marriage) can only exist between consenting adults. Divorce has civil implications as does the dissolution of any contractual agreement and the government has a legitimate role in adjusting those disputes. Similarly government can say that so-called honor killings and beating one’s wife are illegal because they violate that basic principle of individual rights. A consistent philosophy based upon objective principles is the only legitimate way to protect human rights.

        • kristine

          They do that right her in the US ..government sanctioned or not. And not only Muslims; Mormon girls and women are forced into marriage by their false prophets

        • aviationfinance

          There is no place in a Constitutional Republic for Muslim Barbarianism.
          Sharia isa polar opposite to the principles of our Constitution and bill of rights as well as our Christian Faith that Created our laws and our free society.

          The USA is the only free Constitutional Republic of it’s kind, and it has Always been under attack by evil despots, tyrants, dictators, facists, impearlists, Liberals, marxists, communists, Muslims, et al…

          At the moment, it appears that Evil is “Winning” our society over through the “Liiberal digressives”, but the good Christians are not yet defeated.

        • Mr Bob

          It’s Christians that are attacking our constitution!

        • ErSwnn

          Ah,,,,so there should only be freedom if it doesn’t intefer with your version of the world? Nice, real nice.

          By allowing even the repugnant (as many see the gay community…or Muslims in your case) we assure ALL have the right of choosing their lives for themselves.

          We are NOT founded on religious tenets. You mention the Bill of Rights and a free society…..yey you also say “there is no place……….” Which is it? A free socirty or theocratic governance? I know, it’s a big word…go look it up. But as a hint for you….it suits the Taliban very well. How ironic, it suits you too. You seem to want a govenment that dictates law by religion. As does the Taliban. You guys should get together over a few beers, get some strippers, have a cigar and celebrate your rightousness.

        • kristine

          satanists ,.. muslims ,..mormons, ….they all have very different religious practices then Judeo-Christian

        • DMJo

          Neither does the Federal Govt.

        • Patrick Oxford

          In that way of thinking the states have no right to define anything.

        • Mr Bob

          States Rights is an un-American concept. The Constitution was constructed to protect the rights of the individual against the majority. When I hear the phrase “states rights”, I immediately ask myself, “The right to do what?” Usually, the answer is that they want the right to discriminate, the right to repress unpopular lifestyles, the right to assert the dominance of the majority and suppress the minority opinion, and the right to take away the inalienable rights and freedoms of individuals. Beware of state’s rights. It’s the right to hate, and the right to enforce that hatred through legislation. People have rights, not states.

        • Skepticles

          “People have rights, not states.”
          Wrong. The federal Constitution specifically describes that: AMENDMENT 10-“The powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
          Note the order of precedence.
          The problem with anarchists like you, Mr. Bob, is that you rebel, by nature, against even researching information to base your free-for-all presumptions on. You just assume you are correct.

        • ErSwnn

          And the very issue we are discussing is in the Bill of Rights. Most here are opposed to gay marriage and even want it as a Consitutional Amendment. Yet very, very clearly the Bill of Rights expresses freedom of religion. The SCOTUS has ruled several times now that also implies freedom FROM religion. Ergo, the 10th has no teeth in this debate. It is “prohibited by it to the states.”

          Take religion out of this debate….as proscribed by the Bill of Rights. Now………..argue why marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. Historical precedent? Think before you go there, we have hunderds of examples of bad ideas in history. Religion? Oh, yeah…damn Constitution again….sometimes some of us get so stuck we can’t think of anything else. Morality? Ok, who’s morality? Your’s, mine, Ted Bundy’s? Religion….nevermind.

          Seriously, give me an answer that does not include religious tenets. But so long as we’re bringing those up, rectify the NFL and Sundays (pigskin and Sabbath), why there are farmers alive who blantantly grew different crops next to one another (BTW, who came up with that stupid idea anyway……most of us want more than just corn to eat) and please, someone explain to me that if Adam&Eve were first, where did Cain and Abel get wives? All I can come up with is incest with their sisters born later in the story.

          But I am straying, as I am wont to do. So, without using religious beliefs, what is the problem with gay marriage?

        • buckman21

          It is against natural law and what many people think as right. And if we get offended by it, we aren’t allowed to get offended. Yet they can get offended at us. Doesn’t sound fair to me.

        • ErSwnn

          Who said you can’t get offended? And even if they did, how do they back it up? So what if they are offended by you? Everyone throws a hissyfit and gets it out of their systems.

          Natural law? Talk about hard to define. A homosexual will tell you they feel “natural” and I can only take their word for it. But I can say the same God that granted you life granted that gay guy life too. Did God screw up?

          But lets assume this natural law theory. If gays exist, isn’t that natural? Surely you don’t follow the “choice” theory do you? Think about it, why would anyone choose a life that is riddled with controversy, often with strife, sometimes at the cost of families, never without guilt (even if unearned), always with threat (jobs, homes, etc)? Nothing natural about any of those.

          I have a couple of questions for you.

          When did you know you were straight?
          How did you know you were straight?

          After you answer those questions replace straight with gay….the answers are identical.

        • buckman21

          Absolutely it is a choice. 100% behind that. From the time you are able to talk and understand words (2-4 yrs old) you have influence on your life. And that then influences what you mold your behavior into. And that leads to another point. Homosexuality is an identifier as a behavior, not as the individual. The individual is a person. But how they act is who they are. So if they follow a lifestyle and behavior that they choose, that is who they are. I’m not one of those “pray the gay away” or that “God made them that way so they are cursed.” It’s who they are by what they choose to act on. Of course that is their choice for the strife and ridicule that comes with it. You don’t think I’m not ridiculed for my faith and outlook on life? It was a choice for me.

          Natural to me is procreation. No that doesn’t mean marriage is for only those that can give birth and make babies. But it isn’t “natural” for a man to love a man or a male lion to love a male lion. You can say there is love and chemistry and all that behind it. Doesn’t make it what it was intended from the start what it was supposed to be.

          This decision that these individuals make is not moral, and by moral that is another topic. But to answer it for you, read this article pages 10-16. It will show you how morals don’t exist without some form of previous backing other than “evolution of society”. Because man didn’t just wake up one day and decide what was good and evil.

          http://theoutlet.us/AnsweringtheNewAtheism.pdf

        • ErSwnn

          You didn’t answer my questions.

          As an aside, your very good at debating. Thank you for the civility. Agree or disagree with your position, we need more people like you………I’m glad to have you as a fellow citizen.

        • buckman21

          I’d say at the age of 5 to answer both questions. Had my first crush in kindergarden lol. Although the answers still tie to my previous post. I chose to follow that feeling, and have since

        • ErSwnn

          So it wasn’t a conscious choice. Just one day the form and substance of a female inticed you. You didn’t mull over the options…there were no options, you liked girls.

          It works exactly like this for gays. The attractions they feel are the same, but the gender isn’t an opposite.

          Why is this a problem for you? Of course your entitled to your beliefs but others are not bound by your beliefs. It’s that simple. In the end it is simply none of your business. So long as the relationship is consentual between adults and causes no harm it isn’t anyone else’s business. If indeed they are sinning then it’s God’s issue to deal with in His way.

          I hear this excuse of “family values”. All I can wonder is how weak does a parent have to be to be unable to sussinctly counter the multitude of influences which abound among us? Homosexuality is just one of the many issues our kids ARE exposed to. Drugs, music, politics, religion, war, starvation, gluttony, pride, sloth….you know the list. Those aren’t going away. Therefore it is the task of the parents to guide the children past, through or around these issues. But they WILL be exposed to them. How that exposure shapes them is mostly up to the parents. Weak parents, weak children.

          So, you never chose to be straight eh? Then how did you get that way?

        • buckman21

          Nothing anyone tells me will convince me that it is from birth. There is no gay gene. This isn’t science its choice. People become or stop being gay all the time by choice.

          Yes there are factors other than this that are influential. But does that mean MADD is wrong? Protesting in general is wrong? Its my business because the gay community is making it THEIR business. Yet we are the so called bigots

        • ErSwnn

          A gay gene? I’m certainly not suggesting a gay gene. If such a thing existed gays would simply breed out. They won’t be passing the gene along, so they will breed out of the gene pool. Theoretically anyway. Probably too many in the closet to actual lose the genetic path.

          No one can “become or stop” being gay as if there is a switch. Come on Buckman, your a smart guy……you can’t possibly believe that to be true. For the only time in this discussion I’m going to insist you think for yourself rather than have a religious leader do it for you. Your going to have to show me evidence “People become or stop…………by choice.”

          As for gays protesting, others counterprotesting. It’s their right. And I agree with you, they can be a bit absurd, hostile and agressive about it. But hey, think of this. What if no one showed up? They rally and no one from anywhere shows up. No counter protest, no news cameras….nothing. Just some people in the park preaching to themselves. It would work even better against the kkk and other such neanderthal groups. But anyway, if your side ignores them…what can they do? You mention they make it their business. I say “Only if you let them.”

          If I were to condemn you for your views and beliefs you could either debate/defend against my ignorance and malfeasence and get nowhere or……just ignore me and my negativity. Fight a battle you cannot win or use the energy to forward yourself and those around you. Not too hard to pick now is it?

          No worries. I disagree with you but respect your views, particularly since you promote them without resorting to immaturity. Well done sir.

        • buckman21

          We “Only let them” because it is such a deep personal impact so close to home with us Christians. So, kinda hard to just ignore it. As for “letting a religious leader make my decision”, I’ll say this. While real Christians, in a lack of a better word, have the Bible “dictate” their life, I once was not this passionate nor outspoken or believing in my faith. Not until several years ago. However, as an adolescent and even teenager, I never liked going to church, ever. Never studied the Bible, never sung in church, I could care less. And my parents didn’t do any further teaching at home, or from school. But I personally, even at a young age, saw homosexuality disgusting, and wanted to be no where near it. I personally already understood without any outside influence, that it was wrong, and just plain gross (simpler understanding for a kid).

          So while I disagree with you as well, only on a certain specific point, my faith will continue to show which ways I should live and promote my life and thinking.

        • ErSwnn

          Ok, I read the article. It’s a complete scam of anything resembling proof. There is zero scientific evidence, no case study, and no subject interviews. He did however “….interview a former homosexual close friend.” What is that!? And that “friend” didn’t make any claim, the author did. If we’re going to debate this, keep it honest. I realize you didn’t intend a dishonest cite, but the cite is dishonest.

          Why is it hard to walk away from those who seek to debase you? Do you have respect for them? I assume not. So….how can the words of those you cannot respect cause you harm….or any impact at all? Seriously, just walk away. Jesus doesn’t need to be defended, His Word is enough.

          I accept your personal view of homosexuality. It is within your rights as a human being. A natural right we might say. But that gives you no right to deny them their own goal. Marriage. Your seeking to ban marriage between two people who cause you no harm and who never seek to cause harm. A personal and in many cases also religious view cannot be the controling factors of the formulation of law. To do so we become either a despotic or theocratic nation.

          It comes down to “to each their own”. So long as an action does not cause direct harm there should be no problem. Gays might not be so outspoken if others would just leave them alone. Let them be. Teach your children as YOU see fit, let others teach theirs as they see fit.

          You’ll counter with civil union. Nope. They are seeking a marriage based not just on law but on faith….which is what marriage is. A matter of faith. Your particular faith does not have to allow it as protected by the Bill of Rights. Freedom of…and from…religion. But no law can mandate such a marriage as illegal. One church can allow it, another may refuse it. But no law can stop it.

          Wisconsin here, how about you?

        • buckman21

          Arizona. Marriage by many for many years was defined as a holy matrimony between man woman and God. Until government stepped in, and you and I both agree they shouldn’t. So what many want, and Will obviously never happen, is give marriage back to the churches and uniins for all non religious. Government wouldn’t have a role, but only say both marriages and unions have equal benefits under law. Just let us keep our traditions and outside nay sayers don’t screw with it.

        • ErSwnn

          Ok, I see your point and can agree. Marriage as in the traditional definition is based in religion. A boundry no government should step across. But I still feel that if a gay couple wishes to marry, they should be accorded that so long as the church they do so upon allows the marriage. For governmental purposes, a civil union…the same recognition given to a church sanctioned religious union.

          Yep, government surely has stepped well outside it’s constitutional mandate and authority.

        • buckman21

          I know what you want is “you guys go be gay and you guys go be relgious and go your seperate ways”. But since they are being so intrusive insulting and slandering against religion, push back is necessary. We feel very thre atened and more closed in than ever to keep religion away from evetything even without governements involvement. And I’ve had enough

        • buckman21

          Also an article was posted yesterday by the same author aboutchoice and homosexuality

        • ErSwnn

          No matter what the catagory is, there will always be someone who will put you down for it. In your case your faith. Such is life. But truely, wouldn’t you rather people just leave you be to your own life?

          You feel no choice but to put faith in God. Yes, there is another option but for you that would cause a life of frustration, a lack of fullfilment, and a denial of your true nature. Place sexuality in that same equation. Would the option of gay work for you. Of course not. So why would it work for a gay to act straight?

        • buckman21

          No I wouldn’t rather be happy. Just as Christ didn’t call down angels to save him from the cross. I wear my p ersecution as a badge of honor. Homsexuality is wrong and immoral pure ans simple. Nothing will convince me otherwise

        • Mr Bob

          Suppose seeing a dead Jew nailed to a cross offended me? Would I have the right to say that nobody could have an image of that anywhere?

        • ErSwnn

          No, but most of us would look at you as some sort of moron….moreso than we do now.

        • Adam Overman

          Um Buckman pray tell how you are using (abusing) the term natural law? Because there are no natural laws relevant to this discussion.

        • ErSwnn

          It’s a somewhat subjective term. But have no worries, in the conversation between he and I I know what his meaning is…and accept it.

        • Skepticles

          “The SCOTUS has ruled several times now that also implies freedom FROM religion.”
          Remembering the SCOTUS Dred Scott decision, and the recent Stevens’ legislation from the bench in converting the ACA into a tax originating from the Senate, and amending the law after passage to include a states option to decline participation, I no longer conceed coherance to SCOTUS decisions. hey violate the sole document they are formed for and exist to conform existing case law to.

          So, without using religious beliefs, what is the problem with gay marriage?”

          The problem is the intrusion of the State into the societal self-dermination as a pro-active arbiter. Progressives are seeking to use the State as a transformational tool. Demographic change is currently toward a more conservative makeup of the population (lack of finances and a swelling elderly segment). Social progressives are striving to achieve sexual fringe-group sufferage before the window of opportunity closes completely.
          You can argue moral relativism, but if society chooses to reject the unconventional, for you or anyone to argue that our constitutional republic has a duty to impose change in the name of supposed equality IS intellectually dishonest.
          Thats the problem.
          I remind you that Lincoln, the staunch abolitionist, was prepared to wait out the eventual demise of slavery for the sake of the Union, but was provoked to war when the rebellious states sought partition from the Union.
          If there is no true issue against gay marriage, then time would bear it out. What’s the hurry, unless an agenda is harrying you?

        • Bill Hunt

          No M. Skepticles, you are the one who is wrong. The 10th amendment is a statement of POWERS not of rights. The 9th Amendment points out that the people have the rights: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
          construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” No mention of states.

        • Skepticles

          You know, I get carried away with the few attacked rights listed in our Constituion, that I tend to forget that we have what has been accurately called a Constitution of Powers. And to the Consitution’s primary nature, you are quite right.

        • DMJo

          That is wrong. Look into the formation of the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation. The Founders did consider the rights of the States as well as the rights of the individuals when they formed this country.

        • ErSwnn

          Yes they did, very much so. And the Civil War resolved the whole issue in one large, bloody and costly rampage of violence. But the notion of individuals remained. Which is just another reason (the primary being freedom of/from religion) that no law can be passed to ban gay marriage. Such a law is based on religious beliefs but such beliefs are individual, as are non-beliefs.

        • DMJo

          No, the Civil War did NOT resolve the issue of states’ rights. No change to the Constitution was made, and no law in Congress was made to reflect to support your assertion.

        • ErSwnn

          Oh yes, it did. States rights were at the core of the causes leading to the Civil War. Read up past 3rd grade history books. I recommend This Hallowed Ground by Bruce Catton. You’re right, no changes were made…..during the war (besides the 13th). But amendments were added soon after…and lingering questions were answered. Don’t take my word for it, go do a little research, this is not secret information. For heavier reading try American Government (Readings and Cases) by Peter Woll.

          You’re not one of those who thinks slavery was the primary cause are you? If so, you really do ned to take my advice and read up a little more.

        • Skepticles

          Then by following your logic Bill Hunt, can consenting mammals or family members be far behind? After all, if it is consensual, it is self-validating, right? RIGHT???
          If you scoff at ‘consenting mammals’, do a websearch for zoophilia porn (with the safety ‘OFF’). Fido and his human companion will have videos to show you how it happens.
          If you doubt consensual family sex, repeat the process while humming the Dueling Banjos theme of the movie,”Deliverance’.
          Subjective morality has its consequences, Bill..

        • jsmithcsa

          Too late. We already had an English girl marry a porpoise and a Japanese man marry a robot.

        • Skepticles

          I can say I am surprised. Maybe she saw too many “Flipper” reruns?
          The japanese have had an amazing affinity wth mechanical sex toys……..what can I say?

        • ErSwnn

          When have you seen a mammal that can sign the correct forms to confirm consent? And a notary who will validate that signature? Right? RIGHT???

          Your citing a bestiality website as proof that humans might one day be allowed to marry animals? Really. that’s your stance here? You sure you want to run with those sissors?

        • Skepticles

          ErSwmm,I’ve never used written consent to initiate sex. Perhaps you are differant. With the women I have been with, they seemed to know my intentions by my A-C-T-I-O-N-S. A themed websearch ought to lead you to visual proof with an evident display of consensual behavior from mamillian non-humans towards consenting humans. But as far as bestial marriage is concerned, that idea s not a new one. I can recall a late movie with Gene Wilder themed around the difficulties he encountered trying to marry a sheep (not popularly shown for obvious reaons). But as far as my sensibilities are concerned, I don’t promote biologically irrational sexuality. Those that want it do, and will do so with great patience and persistance. My ‘stance’ is less combative and more declarative. Homosexuals, pedophiles, and bestials are amongst us, and seek condonement by society. Currently, hey are encouraged by The political party of the freak show which has control of the White House, and the Senate, with the House of Representatives in disarray.
          The party of the freak show loves to enfranchise social outcasts calling it sufferage. Run with it and cut it any way you will.

        • ErSwnn

          That was just weird. You’re using a comedy (poor one at that) to prove bestiality exists. Ok then. It also seem that you have a better than average knowledge of how to find bestiality on the internet. Myself, I don’t have a clue and don’t need to see it to understand it exisits. It’s a faith thing I suppose.

          And are you actually saying an animal can give consent?

          “Party of the freak show” You just made that up didn’t you?

          Your A-C-T-I-O-N-S, they must be pretty cool to watch. Slow, tedious to type, lacking sense…… But consent as we are discussing it, within the confines of human interaction, for sexual activities between adults can be implied. For marriage, the law wants signatures and a notary to confirm those signatures. Your sheep, does she sign in cursive or e-signature?

        • Skepticles

          ErSwmm,I’ve never used written consent to initiate sex. Perhaps you are differant. With the women I have been with, they seemed to know my intentions by my A-C-T-I-O-N-S. A themed websearch ought to lead you to visual proof with an evident display of consensual behavior from mamillian non-humans towards consenting humans. But as far as bestial marriage is concerned, that idea s not a new one. I can recall a late movie with Gene Wilder themed around the difficulties he encountered trying to marry a sheep (not popularly shown for obvious reaons). As far as my sensibilities are concerned, I don’t promote biologically irrational sexuality. Those that want it do, and will do so with great patience and persistance. My ‘stance’ is less combative and more declarative. Homosexuals, pedophiles, and bestials are distastefully amongst us, and seek condonement by society. Currently, they are encouraged by The political party of the freak show which has control of the White House, and the Senate, with the House of Representatives in disarray.
          The party of the freak show loves to enfranchise social outcasts calling it sufferage. Run with it and cut it any way you will.
          .

        • Angelgirl54

          The U.S is a Republic based on Christian principles…while your comment may have SOME merit, we as Christians are suppose to run things according to the laws of God as well. Making it easy for people to do these immoral things, makes us, as Christians, just as guilty. We are to occupy until Jesus comes and fight a righteous battle for morals. They have managed to remove the Lord from so much in America already and that is bad enough. Soon, they will be making Christianity illegal. Satan has succeeded in taking over the world just to laugh in God’s face and that’s just not acceptable. For everything God has created, Satan has a counterfeit for. To further allow the downfall of morals will result in 0 respect for anyone, the complete obliteration of the Constitution and a free for all when it comes to families and spouses and there won’t be a darned thing anyone can do about it if they tried!

        • aviationfinance

          Amen…

        • ErSwnn

          Good Lord…read the Constitution. Freedom of religion. Right up front for all to see. As ruled on by the SCOTUS this also implies freedom FROM religion.

          Just because the country was founded by Judeo-Christian faithful doesn’t mean they intended a theocratic government.

          I take it as almost humorous that you say “…….complete obliteration of the Constitution….” Almost because there is an element of fear from that statement. You have no idea of the meaning of the COTUS yet believe it allows for religion to influence the creation of laws. It specifically does not. You really do not understand the COTUS, you just want it to mean what YOU want it to mean.

          It is one thing to use faith and religious tenets to guide your personal life. It is commendable to bring those assets to the table in governance. Honesty, integrity, ethics…..yes, bring those. Leave behind a demand that because you feel one way that we all have to feel that way.

          “….a free for all…………” Is your ability to raise your family so weak, so unstable that two gay guys with wedding rings causes your family to be destroyed? Do the perceived (yes, of course you may perceive it as sin…it is your right) sins of others become the cause of your failure? If so, your children are already doomed.

        • Angelgirl54

          You might THINK I don’t know the Constitution but, it’s your “opinion” and “opinions” are “SUBJECTIVE! If it was IN the Constitution, it wouldn’t have to be “ADDED” or *AMENDED*…WOULD IT?

          Where is common sense? They invited us into their bedrooms when they started whining and complaining and made it a big public issue!

          My family is raised and my grandchildren literally get sick and want to THROW UP when someone talks about the “GAY” lifestyle…(there is nothing “GAY” about it)

          Lastly, we have freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion. I hold NO FEAR! It’s the homosexuals and those who are psychotic, murderous, fairy’s and butch women and apparently YOU who want the Constitution to mean what YOU want it to mean. As I said, if it was IN THE CONSTITUTION…it would not have to be added or amended.

        • ErSwnn

          I see we’re going to have to engage in some educational reviews before we proceed.

          COTUS, Consitution of the United States.

          SCOTUS, Supreme Court of the United States.

          The COTUS is NOT subjective. That would make it one of the most dangerous documents ever written. Are there arguments over exact meanings? Yes, a few. The 2A is a perfect example. But nothing about it is subjective…we just have difference as to the intention. I say it’s to allow the people to defend against a standing army (as evidenced by Federalist Paper #46 AND quotes by those who produced it such as:

          Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

          Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

          Other say the meaning is to arm a militia. And it is. But they don’t take the intent to it’s conclusion as stated by various authorities…such as the very people who wrote it. The people ARE the miltia, a standing army is NOT a militia. It gets even more complicated but by now you either have the general concept or your never going to get it no matter how much I try and teach you the difference between “subjective” and “clueless”.

          See? Nothing “subjective” there, just a matter of some people (such as yourself) having no real education on the concepts, meaning or intentions of such documents as the COTUS. It’s not reality TV, it’s real life, real history, and real important.

          Next up…the SCOTUS has ruled that the Bill of Rights point of freedom of religion also implies freedom FROM religion. I’ll break it down for you. Laws cannot be produced from a religious stance. That would be a theocracy (look it up, I’m done doing the leg work for you). We are a constitutional republic(again, look it up). Not a democracy, not a theocracy. It’s a simple principle but somehow I think the concept will still allude you, you have your head so far up the ass of a preacher you forgot how to think for yourself.

          Really, your grandkids “literally” want throw up at the mention of “gay”? Have you and your children done such a horrible job of preparing them for the world that the mere mention of one of the many manifestations of the human condition cause them this much distress? Note, I did not say if I approve or disapprove of a gay lifestyle….but no one can dispute it is a human condition.

          Or have you and your children indoctrinated them so heavily they can no longer think for themselves? Yeah, that quality should serve them well in life. Confusion, reliance on the opinions of others for their thoughts, guilt over simple sexual realities, the list is endless I suppose. Those poor kids, a life of a sheep, going where their told, doing what their told, never a truely independent thought of their own.

          Or, I have a third theory on this vomiting problem. Their sick of your bullchit and hatred.

        • Hardcore

          What I hear you saying Bill is that I should with my taxes support anyone or anything that anyone wants to get a tax credit for!

        • Bill Hunt

          Absolutely not. I am strong advocate of repeal of the 16th Amendment and switching to the FairTax (www.fairtax.org). I mean it when I say government should not be involved in marriage, it should not be defining it, rewarding it, or penalizing it in any way shape or form.

        • ErSwnn

          Off topic but…….23%? An actuarial (admittedly from the Clinton years) came up with a flat (income) tax of 4% for level funding. Most of us would be happy with 8%.

        • ErSwnn

          Yep, that’s it in a nutshell.

          But you’re leaving out a very important aspect to that. When objecting to paying for someone else’s perogative do you do so on a forum as an anonymous poster or directly to your state and federal legislators?

          We have grown weak, compliant and misguided. We no longer recognize that We The People ARE the power, we merely consent that others may use it via our elections. If the use of your tax dollars has a particularly objectionable goal then bring it up as the system intended….with those you elected to use your power. But keep in mind, we are a constitutional republic. Our laws stem from the COTUS alone. You may object but in the end you may not have a point which is lawfully valid. Such as an objection on religious grounds. You can’t do that…it says so in the Bill of Rights.

          Back in the 80’s I hated my money being spent on sex change operations for incarcerated felons (remember that one?). So I spoke with my Congressman at the time, Claude Pepper. Guess what he voted down? In the 90’s I hated that housing money was being used to provide housing for convicted/active drug addicts. So I spoke with my Congressman at the time, James Greenwood. He agreed with me. Unfortunately Congress disagreed with us…..but that’s how it works. Yet neither time did I use religion as my motivation….that’s not lawful. It’s not lawful on the gay marriage issue either.

          Now, remove religious objections from the matter. The Bill of Rights doesn’t allow this to be determined by religous tenets. Now give me an argument against gay marriage.

    • shannon853

      better yet remove the government as it is so corrupt, I is a small resemblance of what it once was.

    • sbyrstall

      Why not one man and one boy? It’s all “good” now.

      • http://fanon.clubpenguinwiki.info/ TurtleShroom

        From what I’ve seen, liberals want sex to be “the union of consenting adults”. That means polygamy, polyamory, and incest, but I doubt that even secular humanism can justify raping something that can’t consent. That’s why even the Bible made pedophillia and beastiality/goatse a capital crime.

        • Buford

          Never underestimate how low another can go. They will come up with things like non-verbal consent via body language, equating non-objection to consent, deigning some irrelevant word or action to be initiating or provoking the act, or some nonsense you would never imagine. When ego tries to get its way, it can be inventive.

        • ktuncia

          As sick as it may be the question will begin as why can’t an 18 year old “women” marry a 17 year old “boy” or a 16 year old. It’s not so bad the boy is just living the dream of being with an older women. Then it goes on to 18 year old males and 17 year old females and then why not 19 year old females and 17 year old males and then a little ways down the slope the muslim practice of having many wives and men marrying girls younger than teenagers gets introduced and so on. Yes, secular humanism can eventually justify things you would never suspect.

        • WhiteFalcon

          The singular is “woman”, the plural is “women.”

        • ErSwnn

          Can’t find a real point to dispute or counter….gotta go after a simple mistake? Yeah, that sure is brave, intelligent and honest(insert rolling eyes here).

        • kristine

          Suspect or respect

        • ErSwnn

          Used to be right here in the golld old U.S. of A. that a 13 y.o. girl could get married without parental approval. Yep, that slope sure did run out of slip now didn’t it?

        • Wendee Bauer

          According to most leftists/feminists, no girl under the age of 18 can give consent unless the partner in question is another girl; age is irrelevant.

        • ErSwnn

          Where did you come up with that load of hogwash? It isn’t “leftist/feminist”……..it’s law. And to be clear, it isn’t gender specific. An adult female can be charged for sexual activities with a girl under whatever age a particular state has deemed “under age”.

        • Wendee Bauer

          We’ll see.

        • ErSwnn

          We’ll see?? Seriously…we’ll see?? Go take a look at state statutes. There is no “we’ll see”. But there IS law.

          Wendee, get your head out of your cloud. Things are not as you want them to be, and never will be. We govern this country by law, not religious texts. But just for laughs, find me a state statute that allows for girls over 18 to have sex with girls of any age. But I’ll even take a cite that expresses support for such an idea. And no off-the-wall cites, it needs to be a legitimate effort to pass such a law.

        • buckman21

          I think by “We’ll see” she means that it’s become more precedent. University professors are already suggesting pedophilia to be another sexual orientation.

          http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2682310/posts

          http://patdollard.com/2013/07/it-begins-pedophiles-call-for-same-rights-as-homosexuals/

        • ErSwnn

          Then she needs to clarify her remarks or not be taken seriously. And somehow I have my doubts as to her meaning. I take it more as “I have no idea so I’ll throw out a meaningless line that sounds vaguely intelligent.”

          As for the orientation theory. It may be true, it may be an orientation, and in fact sure sounds like one. But with one big caveat. Consent. At present that is the main argument for pedophilia laws. A child cannot consent. Another aspect is parental protection of their children. We do not want our kids engaging in sex, particularly with adults. And so we have made some strict laws pertaining to the protection of our children. There are probably dozens of reasons we protect them but all of them are valid. So the reasons aren’t important right now, other than recognizing we have a right to those reasons. Ergo, pedophlia is illegal. Parental right to protect, childen’s inability to give consent. The “orientation” or whatever label we wish to apply makes no difference. But the law sure does.

        • buckman21

          I don’t deny that pedophilia is illegal, disgusting, and evil. However, if society does continue the way it is, consent may become a thing of the past. Or at least a de-generation of it to remove it completely. Only time can tell I suppose.

        • WhiteFalcon

          That is unless you are a muslim. The koran condones all this activity.

        • RevG

          About the only thing the Koran says they can not do is eat the Sheep or Goat they have sex with, but they can trade it for their neighbors, and eat the one He had sex with.

        • ErSwnn

          Cite that for us please. Show us where in the Koran it says that. Seriously, cite where it says sex with animals is ok.

        • WhiteFalcon

          Correct.

        • ErSwnn

          Prove it. You said it, now prove it. As I’m positive you must be an expert in Islamic tenets I’m sure you can do this without delay.

        • buckman21

          Yes it does but only under certain conditions.

          The animal has to be blessed by a Mufti (مفتي) first.

          The animal also must be Halal (حلا), which means no pigs or dogs, and it has to still be alive.

          Also both the man and the animal need to face Mecca (مكّة المكرمة) for the duration.

          http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Bestiality#Pedophilia_and_Bestiality

        • ErSwnn

          Well swat my hind with a melon rind. I had no idea.

          I’ll concede this point without argument. You have shown yourself honest and trustworthy in this debate/discussion and I have no cause to dispute or challenge you.

          Boy am I glad my dog, cats and chickens aren’t Muslim!

        • Patrick Oxford

          There is a line. One side is normal, and the other is “sick”. They have moved the line. Homosexuality is now on the
          “normal” side of the line. The line moved again “gay Marriage” is now on the normal side of the line. The line will move again. And again. The marriage of two men and one woman. One man, three women and a duck. Who are you to say what is ok? One man and four boys under the age of
          twelve? You see, it is all incremental.

        • ErSwnn

          And there you go, making it overly complex. Now add in the part about “consent”. A duck cannot give consent. A 12 y.o. boy cannot give consent (as described by law). Multiple spouses? Tell me, how could that possibly be any of your business? Tell me how that harms you. Tell me how it would violate your rights.

          Thank God the lines move, otherwise women would be property, football would be illegal, child brides would be in catalogs and anything other than the missionary position would be a crime.

        • DMJo

          Who says that someone wont’ come along and try to change who (or what) can give consent? Once Pandora’s box is opened, anything can happen.

        • sbyrstall

          All liberals need to do is change the “age of concent” to 10 then NAMBLA will be happy.

    • frank907

      Oh goodie!!! When can I marry my dog?????

      • jaxtom

        When it gives “informed consent”…LOL

        • Skepticles

          Pregnant in doggies’ wagging tail is his obvious consent, and intent. Informed enough for you?

        • jaxtom

          “his”….?

        • ErSwnn

          Apparently the dog is gay.

        • jaxtom

          No wonder obozo likes to eat them…bwahahahaha

        • Skepticles

          YUP! The pronoun as used regarding a canine stud.

      • Mr Bob

        Isn’t it bad enough you’re having sex with your dog?

        • Skepticles

          Hows’ your mom, Bob?

        • ErSwnn

          I’m trying to be on your side here but then you keep going off being a douhebag again. Argue with a little decency would ya? You have valid points, quit being stupid and use them.

      • ErSwnn

        As soon as he/she consents, signs the papers and you two lovebirds consumate the union. BTW, there are websites that will pay you if you let them tape the honeymoon. Ask hardcore, he may know where to find them.

    • dondehoff

      That bastardizes both the very meaning of the word “marriage” and the thousands of years it has meant “a man and a wife”. Acknowledging this concept is opening “Pandora’s Box” of untold legal ramifications. and is still other step toward the unchanging, very barbaric, 7th Century Muslim culture and Islam.

  • Mr Bob

    You teabagging bigots will forever be stuck in the STONE AGE!!!

    • buckman21

      So you are for polygamy. How progressive of you

      • Mr Bob

        Someone is pretending to be me!

        • buckman21

          Is this the end of the slope then? Line drawn? I don’t think it is ending with polygamy. But we’ll see

        • TonysTake

          Ya… like Obama The Great’s line in the sand.

        • Sam

          adult-child legalized sex is next, then legalized euthanasia, and no telling what else. People say it won’ t happen but we said that about all the evil stuff that is already happening.

        • Russell

          If someone is pretending to be you I take back my comment…

        • LawtonOkie

          Just think, Bobbie, you’ll be able to marry 5 or 6 more guys and live happily ever after.

    • Russell

      Mr Bob you are clueless and lacking common sense…

    • Centurian2010

      Ah, OK. You do realize that the sins you promote have been here since the dawn of time.

    • snowmaggedoned

      Use this to help you wipe your a$$ and your brown nose……..

      • MamaJ

        Send a supply to Mr. Bob the “anything is okay” guy. I’m sure he voted for him and his ilk. Mr. Bob can wipe his hinny when he get a big case of the hersey squirts and can’t afford to go to the Dr. because of Obamacare.

        • DC/Tex

          zerObama uses his finger and mr bob does the same and they lick their fingers after the job is done. If they happen to be in stalls next to each other they lick each other fingers plus other parts.

    • MamaJ

      And you liberal BIGOTS are living in La La Land.

    • ErSwnn

      I was with you right up until that. Name calling isn’t any better from you than it is from them.

      For the record, not all teabaggers are bigots, just as not all priests are molesters, not all white people belong to the kkk and not all black people are on welfare.

  • Mr Bob

    Mr Camp, cannot you at least be honest? What a Utah Federal Judge (appointed by Dubya) did does not in any way require government to recognize a polygamous marriage. It does not legalize such marriage. It does not force or even allow the state of Utah to issue multiple marriage licenses to a single person, or to extend the benefits of legal marriage to those living in polygamy. It does not alter laws against bigamy that limit a person to one legally recognized marriage at any time.

    Instead, it strikes down one peculiar aspect of Utah law. Under that provision, it is a criminal act for an adult who is legally married to “cohabit” with any other person. In other words, if you decided to separate from your spouse in Utah and live with another person, you are by law a bigamist and could be criminally prosecuted.

  • georgemachock

    Works the same way for beastiality, not in the sense of legalization but, what’s to prevent it when animals are to gain the same rights as humans being proposed by various groups. Sounds farcical but, is it?

    • Bill Hunt

      When we reach the stage where animals can provide informed consent then you will have a point, before then you are simply pouring gasoline on the fire.

      • buckman21

        If the definition of marriage can change from man and woman to man and man, what’s to stop taking out the whole consent clause? The original definitions been destroyed, why not everything?

      • georgemachock

        Understand but, individuals are already trying that tact. Obviously, we have not gotten there and u cannot equate equal rights for gays / lesbians w/ that but, it brings up the question of where do u stop? Gays & Lesbians should all be recognized, I believe where the contention arises is when they equate religious programs or institutions with their rights. They are not the same and it insults religious values. They can have unions, rights and, recognition under law but, they appear to be trying to stick it up religious believers noses and that’s not right either.

    • http://fanon.clubpenguinwiki.info/ TurtleShroom

      The main argument against beatiality/goatse is that an animal cannot consent, and therefore, the animal is being raped. The same argument goes with pedophillia. Both are supposed to be capital crimes.

      Liberals don’t want pedophillia, but they do want mass Roman-style orgies of men and women rolling in their filth and bodily fluids.

      • Mr Bob

        So, now you want to outlaw orgies??? Do you Christian fascists even understand the concept of freedom?

  • olddawg1

    It will be interesting to see how this affects income tax rates. Will someone with 10 wives be taxed at a much lower rate than someone with “only” one wife? If so, the dems will be losing sleep over this one.

  • mike slaney

    Pandora’s Box has been opened and the scorpions are coming out and the strange thing about it all they will turn on the ones who opened it, without remedy.

  • astrojohn

    Well, that was fast…

  • servant1jkb

    Well of course this Judge did!
    I wonder if any of them know that they ALSO shall be JUDGED, by a Higher Authority?
    I find it sickening, that the Libs are soooo deaed set against guns, because guns can kill, while they fight tooth and nail to expand abortions on demand!
    HI guess it must be because nobody but the abortionists see the dead baby, but the Lame Left Media shows us bodies on the street or better yet in schools right?
    One reason Social Security is broke, are the 50, million abortions who are missing from the role of gainfully employed thus contributing to it!
    http://www.longlifechoices.blogspot.com

    • Sam

      I made a comment similar to your one about 50 million citizens missing and boy, did the death wishers come out of the wood work to defend abortion! I got called all kinds of names. The legalize euthanasia crowd is just as bad. Avi Lipkin talked about how the American population is 300 million while Europe’s is 550 million. The powers to be don’t like these odds so they want to open the Canadian and Mexican borders. People are so ignorant and brainwashed that they actually believe that abortion, gay marriage, polygamy, and euthanasia are progressive behaviors! They are in fact, barbaric behaviors. It is a real crying shame when people forget how to recognize evil.

  • ErSwnn

    “For thousands of years, marriage has been defined. That’s it. There has been one definition for marriage for so long that changing it seemed ludicrous”
    Read more at http://lastresistance.com/4048/judge-legalizes-polygamy-citing-gay-marriage-precedent/#sd37BUccut2VIkBf.99

    The same is true of the flat eath belief. Yet it wasn’t ludicrious to change it once we had time to think it over.

    I’m continually astonished at so-called conservatives who fight against gay marriage. Your not conservatives, your religious zealots. Your wanting to make law through a theocratic mandate rather than from the framework of the Constitution you claim to hold so conservatively sacred. True conservatism is an adherance to the COTUS, not the Bible. It is one thing to base your morals on your religious beliefs, quite another to want to force them down anyone else’s throats.

    Then you want to base a marriage law on “family values”. Have you done such a poor job of raising your kids that a couple of homosexuals outweights your teachings, guidance and examples? Those poor kids.

    Hey, remember those lines about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? (I know, not in the COTUS) So what of those American values? And please, show me where in the COTUS is even a mention of marriage. But I can point out a reference to sexual orientation.

    A true conservative doesn’t try to control others, we try to control our government. It’s not our job to tell others how to live. But it is their job to live with themselves.

    • buckman21

      So, because science proved the earth isn’t flat, we should toss marriage out altogether? Just change the definition to accommodate a 1-2% minority? Why couldn’t they just change the laws of civil unions and give them the same financial benefits as a marriage, but let everyone else keep the definition of marriage that has long been upheld until now? Screw your statistics of divorce and what not, that is no where near the point. There is more infidelity in gay couples by ratio than married couples.

      • Sam

        I’m with you. I believe that a normal marriage between a man and a woman are what makes a country strong and prosperous. Immorality and poverty go hand in hand but people don’t want to believe it.

    • Liberty1776

      The COTUS is based upon God and Bible, not like today where no one gives a shit about God or Bible, back then it was all God and Bible, if it was like today back then we would never had had the Constitution or declaration of Independence. God and Country,Constitution, Independence, Liberty, Freedom ALL because of God……………….goes to show some people just jabber off at the mouth before they know what they are talking about.

    • buckman21

      Oh, and it’s you’re, not your.

    • NymRod

      Do the world a favor, grow another brain cell and double your IQ.

    • Sam

      Here is some really bad stuff that shows why we should not give in to the perverts. Warning, this is very graphic and may make you puke. It is hard to believe that we have dropped so low in our society as to find this stuff acceptable. Check it out if you want.
      http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/part_1_full/

    • Gregs Kniftes

      Actually you’re wrong about the flat earth thing. The statue of Farnese Atlas from 2nd century Rome shows atlas with a round earth on his shoulders. It’s a replica of a GreeK atlas which is from the even older Hellenistic period which also had a round earth on his shoulders. This is the problem with teaching evolution to kids. They are taught that ancient man must have been stupid. But they weren’t. God created them with intelligence. But that doesn’t jive with evolution, so they falsely tried to dumb down ancient people.

      As God is the Creator of the universe and Mankind, why do people insist on not obeying his law as set in scripture? When people sin against God they bring judgement on the entire nation, and it will only get worse.

  • TonysTake

    You know… I have always had this thing for a tree in my front yard.

    • VicR63

      I saw where some woman in (I think France) married a bridge! Pastor, white dress and all. I just don’t think the government gave her a marriage licence.

  • Mark Tallman

    This was so predictable! What is next, adults marrying children? How about a person marring their dog? Where does this stop? This is exactly why things in this world MUST be black and white, not gray and everything open to interpretation.

    • Sam

      The lamda people are already trying to legalize sex between an adult and child. The minority mob is going to pull us on into hell.

    • Bill Hunt

      This is absurd. The line is very easily and rationally drawn. The government has no business interfering in any way with contractual relationships between CONSENTING ADULTS. This eliminates children and animals. Pretty simple. As I said above, It is highly disappointing that people who ostensibly support freedom and proclaim “Don’t Tread On Me” are so quick to impose their own beliefs on others.

      • buckman21

        So, why change the definition of marriage? If it’s already changed, why not take away consent? Or, you could have just given the civil unions all the marriage benefits that come with it, legal and financial, rather than overhauling the age old term of marriage.

        • Bill Hunt

          Government should not be involved in defining marriage in any way. That includes dictating who can or cannot marry. The really critical challenge we need to watch for is when government begins to dictate what marriages a church MUST support, just as they are now dictating that private businesses MUST sell wedding cakes for gay marriages. THAT is where we need to be fighting. We need to be consistent in support of individual rights across the board.

        • buckman21

          I do agree to most of that, however, I’d like to still add that marriage has been long defined before government stepped in. So, they shouldn’t now, and therefore, no marriage for gays, and let them have civil unions instead.

        • Bill Hunt

          Marriage has been defined, even in the Judeo-Christian culture, to include polygamy. I would argue that the government has no business setting the definition of marriage. If the Catholic church (for example) wishes to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman, that is fine. If the United Church of Christ wishes to perform and recognize same sex marriages as well as heterosexual couples but not polygamist marriages, that is fine. But neither has the right to impose that definition on the other.

        • Mr Bob

          History reveals that marriage laws in the U.S. and in countries across the globe have been modified repeatedly in response to evolving cultural norms. There was a time when women were the legal property of their husbands. There was a time when a man and a woman of different races couldn’t marry each other. There was even a time when not one country in the world had legalized same-sex marriage! Removing discrimination from the institution of marriage does not redefine “marriage” – it simply makes the institution more accessible and reflects the evolution of society.

        • buckman21

          There, you just admitted again about the evolution of society. Obviously things in the past were absurd today, as you pointed out. Interracial marriage, women as property, etc. So, then that means potentially marriage can be between man and animal, objects, and such. You can’t deny that possibility. And if you always support the evolution of society, that makes you approve of such things in the future should they come to pass. Which makes you absurd. And if you don’t, that makes you a hypocrite since it all leads back to the same unnatural sense of homosexual marriage.

      • Sam

        If that is true, then where do we draw the line? The radical left doesn’t believe in lines.

      • Buzz75

        So would freedom include a bakers right to refuse baking a cake for two gay men or a photographer from shooting wedding pics for two lesbians? So the beliefs of the gay people ARE imposed on others.

        • Bill Hunt

          Absolutely… and THAT is the slippery slope we must defend against. The issue here is individual rights. Once you concede that the government has the power to prevent consenting adults from formalizing their relationship in anyway you want, you are ALSO conceding that the government has the power to FORCE its view of right and wrong on everyone. Freedom must be recognized and respected. Those who seek to use the government prevent consenting adults from marrying have absolutely no moral right to object when the government uses its power to force them to do business against their religious faith. A morally consistent view recognizes the full rights of all parties and would neither force the baker to sell the wedding cake, nor would prevent the couple from being married as they choose.

  • mbm

    We saw it coming………Next? Man marries dog? Beastiality? Threesome?

    • NymRod

      Pedophilia by lowering the age of consent lower over time.
      Incestual marriage where one could marry his 3rd wife’s 10 year old daughter or son for that matter. Or your wife’s 5th husband could marry your 9 year old daughter.

      This huge can of worms should have never been opened with gay marriage.
      It’s all downhill from here.

      • Sam

        God left us a book on how to live in this world and get the most out of it. You are right. We are allowing things to get complicated and messy just to appease the perverts. There is a moral high road but seems more and more prefer to live in the ditches.

        • Mr Bob

          Which book would that be? The book of Mormon? The Koran? The bible? The torah? the Vedas? or a different book(s) that some kooks think is the word of god?

        • Sam

          The Bible:
          Basic
          Instruction
          Before
          Leaving
          Earth
          The koran commands its’ followers to kill infidels. Therefore, allah is satan because satan is the one who wants to destroy all God’s creatures.

  • Pat A

    Was anyone stupid enough to expect a different outcome once gay marriage was legalized? Why is it that the government is involved anyway?

  • DOOM161

    This shouldn’t surprise anyone.

  • USMC 64-68

    This judge has no business ruling on this. This is what liberals/progressives have wanted for 100 years – legislation by the judiciary. It is the path to tyranny and moral decay.

    It aids them in their agenda to subvert America by the destruction of our culture and rule of law.

    • Liberty1776

      Tyranny is already here and rooted! Thats why this is happening, the only way out?……………………….Well you know……….

      • USMC 64-68

        I agree. It is here and it grows every day Dear Leader and the marxist democrats are in power.

      • Bill Hunt

        I agree tyranny is already here, but how ironic is it that someone who identifies as Liberty1776 is apparently seeking to use the government to impose beliefs upon others? This is a long overdue ruling against laws that CLEARLY violate the 1st Amendment’s free exercise clause.

        • buckman21

          so is stepping on religious freedom laws. While I don’t agree that the government has a business in marriage, homosexuals can have their civil unions. If they wanted the benefits with it, financial, property and such, then laws should have been passed to make it so for unions to have the same benefits as marriage.

        • Mr Bob

          History has demonstrated that this “separate but equal” approach doesn’t work. Various countries and American states which initially permitted “civil unions” for same-sex couples have subsequently enacted marriage equality legislation. These jurisdictions have pursued such changes because civil union legislation, no matter how valiant the effort, is not able to provide the same rights and benefits as legal marriage. In essence, having a two-class system continues to maintain the erroneous notion that one group (straight people) is more superior to another group (LGBT people).

        • Bill Hunt

          Separate but equal is that it? That is effectively the same as saying marriage is okay for white people but not for blacks (or vice versa if you prefer). Freedom is freedom or it is not. It can’t only apply to you.

        • buckman21

          You aren’t born gay, you are born black. That analogy doesn’t apply

        • Bill Hunt

          Ridiculous. That statement is unbelievably ignorant. People no more choose to be gay than they choose to be tall. Many gay people DO choose to hide their identity because of bigots who claim that it is a choice. By what right do you impose your views on someone else. The hypocrisy is unbelievable. I stand second to no one on my opposition to Obama and the growth of our government, but here we are, on a website ostensibly protesting government overreach and supporting freedom, and most people here are saying they want government to impose their particular view on everyone else. What a bunch of hypocrites!

        • buckman21

          You aren’t religious at all and that is where we differ

        • Bill Hunt

          You have no knowledge of my religious beliefs and they are irrelevant to this discussion as I would never attempt to impose them upon you. Unfortunately you do not seem to have equivalent respect for others. You want to impose your religious views on others by force, you choose to use the government as the means of imposing that force. Would you be so accepting if a majority in this country decided to impose Sharia law by force? The initiation of the use of force against another is immoral.

        • buckman21

          If you are religious, that would mean you have the views you have because you believe you know the truth and what is right. If you believe something is right, it’s right for everyone . Or at least that’s the logical way to view it. Also, I don’t believe govt. should be involved in marriage, so we agree there. My “religious” beliefs (I used quotes because I’m not religious – I’m a Christ follower) dictate everything I say and do.

        • buckman21

          our country isn’t a theocracy but I tie my faith with every aspect of my life including how our country should be run in my opinion. you might not approve but being a lukewarm Christian and not making decisions on my faith isn’t how I fly

        • Bill Hunt

          I encourage and support you following your faith. I join you (I presume) in opposing the government forcing businesses to act in ways that violate their religious beliefs (such as requiring a baker to provide a cake for a gay wedding). I encourage you to evangelize and work to convince others to join you in your beliefs. However, I will fight to death to keep you from using the government to impose your beliefs upon me or anyone else. The Constitution was written to prevent you from doing that. It was written to prevent tyranny of the majority. This is why this nation is not now, never has been, and God willing never will be, a democracy.

        • buckman21

          you misinterpret me I do not wish the government to impose a religion on us just because I do not approve gay marriage whatsoever that does not mean I want to become 100 percent Christian. that is simply what I wish our society to embrace rather than hinder

        • Bill Hunt

          Please correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that you are arguing that the government should maintain the prohibition any marriage other than the “traditional” definition… this does not seem to be embracing but rather hindering.

        • buckman21

          No, the government shouldn’t intervene period. However people in general shouldnt marry except for the traditonal method in general. It was society that stepped in and wanted government to say what marriage should and shouldn’t be. Therefore, marriage should be back to what it once was. A union between man and woman in a relgious sense. I say religious since there are different relgions out there that marry

        • kristine

          Do people choose to be pedophiles? Do people choose to be bisexual? Do people chose to be celibate? Unless you are homosexual, how do you know? And what gives you a right to speak for all homosexuals?

        • Liberty1776

          How so, why the hell are you talking about Twisted Sister?

        • Bill Hunt

          Polygamy is practiced by several major religions, therefore laws banning polygamy clearly violate the 1st Amendment. Pretty simple.

        • Liberty1776

          Oh its pretty simple huh, i guess if you says so then it must be, Bill Hunt its a waste of time arguing with those who refuse to see the whole picture so you have your polygamy and enjoy

        • Bill Hunt

          Which part of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” do you have trouble understanding? This is even more clear than the 2nd Amendment which has the unfortunate phrasing that some try to use to block “shall not be Infringed”. The hypocrisy of those who proclaim to champion liberty while seeking government imposition of their beliefs upon others is extremely disappointing. No one has the right to initiate the use of force against another. That includes forcing someone not to do something they would normally do absent that force. No one has the right to dictate what form of contractual relationship consenting adults may form among themselves. Similarly no one has a right to dictate who you must or must not do business with (the orders mandating that a baker sell a wedding cake to a gay couple against his wishes is equally as offensive as laws banning gay marriage).

        • Liberty1776

          Like I said have fun with your polygamy, and gay marriages, not so sure why you got a hair across your ass but it is funny

        • Liberty1776

          Blah blah blah blah I know all that, but sometimes there are just moral things that should and should not be done, the forefathers didnt think a butt reaming flaming homo would want to marry another, and more than one wife is adultery no matter what, anyway i tire of your blather

        • Bill Hunt

          I respect your opinion that there are moral things that should or should not be done, I agree. I also agree that you should follow your morals. Just don’t seek to impose them upon others under the banner of Liberty.

        • Liberty1776

          Liberty is from God we are born Free under God, God is the one whom gives us our freedom and Liberties from birth, however God does not agree with polygamy,

          Mark 10:6-8:”But from the
          beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this
          reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his
          wife, ‘and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer
          two, but one flesh.

          Homosexuality God does not permit;

          God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural
          relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned
          natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one
          another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in
          themselves the due penalty for their perversion (Rom 1:26-27).

          So if the country was founded UNDER GOD then morals and unsaid rules exsist.

        • Bill Hunt

          Says the God you believe in according the version of the man-written Bible you choose to accept. The founders were not of one mind on religion and they built a very clear protection against faith being imposed by government on anyone. The radical aetheists in this country seek to remove religion from the public square, this was not the wish of the founders, but at the same time, they made it clear that government could not dictate religious thought in any way.

        • Liberty1776

          lol there is only one God heathen

        • Liberty1776

          Should I be able to marry a cat or dog, maybe a horse and have sex with it legally?

        • Mr Bob

          God does not permit adultery, non virgin brides, divorce, people working on sunday , )

        • Mr Bob

          The country was not founded under god

        • David Stovall

          Whoa now. Polygamy pretty universal in the bible, including concubines.

        • David Stovall

          That is just way too logical and simple. We will never fall for it.

    • Mr Bob

      Dipshit, this was a conservative judge appointed by Dubua

      • USMC 64-68

        Look turd, so was John Roberts and he sold out his oath and America to side with the marxist subversive Dear Leader and democrat traitors.

        The standard for evaluating judges’ actions is the Constitution, not who appointed them.

        Your ignorance shows that you must have been indoctrinated at a marxist university.

  • Vigilant2

    Next comes species rights and preferences …

  • Ralloh

    This was a no brainer. Looking at the lefts argument of, “How can we deny two people who love each other from being married”, can easily be changed to, “How can we deny three or more people who love each other from being married”? Them saying it’s not the same is silly. Why isn’t it the same? Because, they say, marriage is between two people. We said marriage is between a man and a woman and they said that is just not right and silly. So why are several people getting married any different from two people getting married?

    It’s just more of the twisted thinking of liberals brought about by that genetic brain defect.

    • YarpWar

      Yeah, we remember the quote that went around the world “Marry who you love!” (that just sounds so right, so altruistic and fair, how can you disagree?). There are worldwide reports for several years now of humans marrying objects (bridges, pillows, machines) and humans marrying animals (goats, donkeys, dogs, snake, etc), so glad you brought that up.

  • rchguns

    A few years ago at a convention of psychologists and psychotherapists they had a topic for discussion on homosexuality and were was going in society.

    Their conclusion was about what you would expect until I got deeper into it.

    First of all they predicted that homosexuality would become more or less socially acceptable and not as something abnormal.

    Then they predicted that same-sex marriage would be the next logical step and once society was forced to accept that is where things went downhill rapidly.

    The next topic that they predicted would go mainstream is polygamy because it’s always been around in reality easier for society to accept.

    The next topic they brought up was pedophilia, adults abusing children, they predicted it would follow the same course as homosexuality.

    The next topic they mentioned would be animal sex and from that point on morality would no longer have any bearing on society.

    • Sam

      Society is becoming more depraved every day. I have seen some things lately that shocked me and I didn’t think I could be shocked. Our morals are sinking deeper every day.

  • kapockz

    The question arises as to the status of bigamy laws under this new ruling? Bigamists usually marry their next wives unbeknownst to their other wives. Does this ruling apply only where the polygamous marriage occurs at one ceremony or to consecutive marriages? In a divorce of a single ceremony polygamy, are all of the spouses divorced or only specified ones? Polygamy offers divorce and family court lawyers a fertile field of cases and potential income. In cases of child neglect,
    for instance, which spouse is responsible?

  • Wayne

    When man makes the laws, the laws can change at any time to conform with the whims of the man making the laws.

  • Bill Hunt

    Bill Hunt

    ErSwnn

    8 minutes ago

    The line is very easily drawn. The government has NO BUSINESS defining relationships between CONSENTING ADULTS. The slippery slope argument is total BS as is the the statement that “For thousands of years, marriage has been defined [as between a
    man and a woman].” For thousands of years, polygamy has been part of the definition of marriage including in the Judeo-Christian heritage. Nothing in this or any other ruling would make marrying children or animals legal nor does it establish any precedent that could lead to anything like that. The precedent of gay marriage is correctly used as a precedent here. I find it ironic and disturbing that people who generally support the freedom agenda, complain about government and say (rightly) “Don’t Tread On Me” are so anxious to do some serious treading on basic individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution – specifically free exercise of religion.

    • buckman21

      So, why change the definition of marriage? If it’s already changed, why not take away consent? Or, you could have just given the civil unions all the marriage benefits that come with it, legal and financial, rather than overhauling the age old term of marriage. Seems fair to me.

      • Bill Hunt

        As I stated elsewhere, the government has no business defining marriage in any way shape or form, so that question is moot. Historically there are many definitions of marriage so to imply there is only one is simply inaccurate and foolish. Consent is a standard part of all contract law and the only involvement government should have in marriage is its civil aspect as a contract between individuals.

        • buckman21

          You didn’t answer why couldn’t civil unions just have the same laws and benefits of regular marriage?

        • Bill Hunt

          Answered that elsewhere, basically you are arguing for separate but equal. Why not say blacks can marry but whites can only have civil unions? Anyone who argues that you are not born gay has ZERO understanding of basic facts of psychology and humanity. Being gay is NOT a choice.

        • buckman21

          Yes it is. Plenty of people become and stop being gay. Homosexuality is a lifestyle. It is ones responsibilty to not act upon it

    • DC/Tex

      Homosexuals WERE NOT BORN THAT WAY, they CHOOSE their UNNATURAL lifestyle, so, homosexuality does not qualify as a civil rights discrimination issue.
      Homosexuals had equal rights and now they have special rights and want more. Every special right awarded to homosexuals infringe on our rights. No one is treading on homosexual rights!

  • bowtonoone2

    Just another nail in America’s corrupt coffin!

  • tpr1951

    I’m dead set against same sex marriage but, if I was a judge, I’d have a hard time denying a Muslim man three wives if gay marriage is legal. At least there is some historical tradition for polygamy. It’s more natural than same sex marriage, though still against the will of our Creator. When you open Pandora’s Box, all the demons from hell tend to break loose.

  • benfaust

    Marriage to only one person is discrimination against bisexuals and people with “really big hearts.” Then there is discrimination against pedophiles who are in mutually consensual, “loving” relationships with underaged lovers. And since equality applies to people of all persuasions, don’t forget the lady who’s deeply in love with her golden retriever. Anyone who thinks that’s ridiculous is simply choosing to be blind because the truth doesn’t “feel” right to them. And if people reject the truth, God will turn them over to the deluded mind of their choice.

    • David Stovall

      I agree. It would also be discrimination to prevent golden receivers from getting a surgeons license to operate on liberals brains. And be sure that Weimaraners are included. I like Weimaraners (But not like Weimarphiles.)

  • NymRod

    I’ll just marry the Taj Mahal then sue it for half it’s worth after the divorce.

  • pete1589

    And satan laughs at us all.

    • DC/Tex

      Yep, the ol’ devil is alive and well!

  • David Stovall

    The definition of marriage, is a critical contract involving property, children, inheritance, and much more. . Law requires discipline to respect and enforce, such as the border, elections, birthrights, etc. Democrats hate discipline and tradition.

  • James Curran

    And once again, you’ve completely misinterpreted that ruling.

    A plural marriage is no more legal now that it was before.
    And the judge did not cite gay marriage laws in the decision.

    The originally law said that a household where one couple was legally married, and other people where living there as if they were married was illegal.

    The decision say that such a living arrangement is now allowable. However, it does NOT mean the other people in the household are legally married to anyone. They continue to have NO legal marriage rights (inheritance etc).

    The decision cites sodomy laws (laws against gay sex, not gay marriage) in his decision, basing it on the premise that what consenting adults to in their own homes is their business (which you are supposed to agree with)

    • buckman21

      After i did research, you are right. It was more about polyamourous sex acts. However, that doesn’t mean this slope won’t continue to slide.

    • David Stovall

      They call these extra wives concubines. We should have concubine ceremonies and legal status. Makes a lot more sense than same sex marriage. To me.

  • nicholauss

    IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE THAT DID’NT KNOW THIS WAS THE NEXT STEP ???
    I SINCERELY DOUBT IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    “NUFFSAID”

  • DrRGP

    Legal experts often remind us that It’s not generally about legalizing some behaviour per se, but about decriminalizing it. In the Western world, that is, laws are not so much written as to describe what is permitted as they are to written to describe what is not permitted.

    Polygamy (inclusive of both polygyny and polyandry), for example, won’t likely be listed in law codes as something that is permitted, but it will be removed from law codes as something that is prohibited.

    Now that marriage no longer means what it has always meant in history (viz., at least one member of each sex is involved in the institution), anything is possible. Sociologically speak, the concept of homosexual marriage (each person in the marriage is of same sex) is far, far more radical, even revolutionary, than either polygyny or polyandry, which both go back as far in time as there are dependable records of human societies.

  • bpolhemus

    This article is misleading. The judge didn’t legalize polygamy, he said that the portion of the Utah state law that equated bigamy with living with someone other than your wife was not constitutional. Basically that would state that anyone who has separated from his wife, for example, and cohabits with another woman during the period of the separation, is a “bigamist.”

    The remainder of the law was unaffected. You can’t legally marry more than one person.

    Bad enough when the Left lies, but I like it even less when our side can’t get its facts straight. It’s all “agenda.” Truth should be the aim instead.

  • nannymm

    The judge did no such thing. His ruling clearly states there can only be one LEGAL marriage license issued; thus only two people can be legally married.
    What thhe just struck down waas a provision of Utah’s anti-poligamy law law prohibited thhe legally married couple from cohabiting with other individuals with whom they had a “marriage like” relationship.
    In other words, thhe judge saiid it is none of the state’s business who thhe legally married couple chooses to live with. Seems to me that you should support that. The government has no damned business telling us who may live with us. Talk about big and intrusive government!
    So to be clear. The judge was very definitive in his ruling. Poligamy remains illegal in the state of Utah. A man (or woman) may only be LEGALLY issued ONE MARRIAGE LICENSE. (unless of course he or she gets legally divorced in which case he or she can get a new license tto marry.)

  • smartgranny55

    No surprise there. It’s what conservatives have been saying for years, and liberals denying it just as long.

  • Frank Nance

    It was just a matter of time before something like this opened up since Obama opened the flood gates for all the closet people. Now sit back and watch the fireworks display on the comment and blog sites. Oh lord gay Obama, along your toilet trained administration just look at what you’ve done to this once great nation. Even thou most already knew Obama’s agenda was to destroy American’s values and principal’s. How is that working out for him? Talk about a legacy in the process.

  • Samuel Clemens

    Marriage is not man’s law but God’s law, Jesus Christ established “one man, one woman for life” thus established the family, the cornerstone for all civilization to come. Islam did not like this law so Mohammad reversed it. Once gay marriages become law, this opens the door to polygamy. The same argument that holds for gays, holds for polygamists.
    My position is nothing but a fool would want more than one wife. Can a woman have multiple husbands?

    • Reasonable_Practical

      Jesus said absolutely nothing about polygamy, which was common in the holy land at that time.

  • Bomber7090

    Next down on the slippery slope is marrying your horse – that is correct – if it is legal to marry someone who cannot produce offspring or it is legal to marry multiple “partners” then it should be legal to marry your horse or pet. Actually, polygamy makes a lot more sense than same sex “marriage” and it has societal roots. Now it could be said that animals cannot consent but it is known how loyal a horse or a dog is to “man”. Also, humans have been known to will their remaining wealth to animals. After that maybe someone can marry a doorknob or a “dilxx”. Why not – they deliver satisfaction – and that is all that seems to matter to the hedonists that have moved us to this slippery slope. Maybe it is time for another Soddom and Gomorrah – destroy the capitals of this self gratifying hedonism. I might suggest San Francisco and New York City of the People’s Republics of California and New York respectively.

  • drofelkcahs

    I didn’t think it would take this long to get around to polygamy. They (not I) are legalizing every form of non-standard sexuality. This same perversion of logic could also be applied to bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, and anything else the mind can conjure up. Maybe, when the courts decide that it’s OK to kill people if that’s how we get our rocks off, the Russians will already have taken over the country, and we won’t have to worry anymore. They know how to handle perverts, if nothing else.

  • Gregs Kniftes

    I hope some anti gay marriage advocates will read and do this.
    It dates back a few hundred years. When a woman
    was caught in the act of adultery, she would be forced by the court to wear a
    “scarlet letter A” on her shirt for the rest of her life for the grave sin she
    committed of adultery. In this age gay’s want the right to marry. I simply
    disagree with this and stand for traditional marriage. Simply disagreeing with
    this I am seen by many as a HATE FILLED HOMOPHOBE, which I am not. By much of
    what I see in the media, gay’s and gay supporters would have me ware the scarlet
    letter “H” as a symbol of having committing the grave sin of Homophobia. They
    think it to be a thing of great shame, however I wear it with pride, as I am
    making a stand for the biblical definition of marriage. That’s not something one
    should try to alter.

    I’m actually trying to popularise this in a few other ways. Many people I know
    wouldn’t have a big problem wearing their scarlet letter in public as a way of
    standing for Christian family values. I just cut an “H” out of some red
    Christmas ribbon and pin it to my shirt. The more we do this I believe we will
    start to see a great division in our societies. As gay’s become familiar with
    this I hope we will start to see how many of us there are and how few of them
    there are

    • satin85718

      Does this make those “others” heterophobia?

  • kap2002

    I am going to marry my pets so they can get health care.

  • YarpWar

    Thanks, Frank Camp, for this article. Appreciate all y’all do to bring logic, sanity, and
    FACTS to the whomever cares to pay attention.

  • Tim Smith

    You can not give one group equality without giving it to all.

  • cdl123

    The ruling did not exactly legalize Polygamy. In fact it is still ‘not’ legal to be ‘married’ to more than one woman or men or both. What the ruling did was allow ‘cohabitation’ with multiple individuals without legal recriminations. These people can cohabitate without the fear of police or social workers coming to haul their children away. That is about it. It opens the door for ‘social’ acceptance of these alternative life styles, in a nutshell.

    • satin85718

      The show “Sister Wives” shows nothing ever done to these folks who have called themselves a family. Disgusting!!!!! Kids are brother and sister, cousins, aunts, and uncles at the same time. Why was this on TV except to promote such a thing.

      • cdl123

        I don’t agree with the life style at all. Just defining what the ruling did. The ruling was the result of legal action against this group, who had in fact left the state of Utah to avoid the physical ramifications of their situation since their show brought to light their life style. Apparently, Nevada does not care at all.

  • satin85718

    This ought to be interesting in a divorce court where they have been married for many years. Ladies will be sharing their beds with someone other than their “only” husband. Looks like the TV show “Sister Wives” will be ok. I never watched that show but heard about some of the problems from this situation. He divorces one wife and has to share the booty with all the others and same for her. This ought to get really interesting.

  • sovereigntyofone

    Okay, let me see if I understand this. Based on ” gay ” marriages/rights as a precedent, polygamy is now legal.
    So, if my wife wants a ” pinch hitter ” when I am to worn out or tired, she can say ” Dear, lets get another husband “.
    Or if my wife just doesn’t have the ” pazaz she had 30 years ago ” I can say ” Dear, lets get another wife “.
    When this crazy merry go round stops, who knows what the laws will be pertaining to ” marriage “.
    We may see pedophiles lined up at the court house wanting to marry children.
    My lord, what has become of this nation?
    Just my 2 cents worth.

    • MontanaMade

      you are exactly right! That’s the “slippery slope” argument in a nutshell. And the what if? That’s where the polygamy groups, the Man-Love group (adult/child “relationships”); the bestiality groups, and so on step in… They WILL step up and challenge the norm- because we have “evolved” and become more civilized by accepting gay marriage as the new norm, and will strike when the iron is hot. We have bended to their will and because of it, we are a weaker society. 40 years ago gay marriage would have never been dreamed of, let alone made legal! But today- look around- we have it everywhere, and it’s considered normal. This is where it will head- those are the next logical steps, in my humble opinion.

      The end is near, but not nearly close enough to cleanse this world. The Islamic extremists want to exterminate us- but really, all they have to do is wait and let us destroy ourselves from within…

      • Joel

        I saw this coming 40 years ago. You didn’t? I’ve always known gay marriage would be legal. How could it not be? Churches have been performing gay marriages (commitment ceremonies) for longer than that. Coincidentally it was about 40 years ago that I noticed the religious nutjobs infiltrating the Republican party. Back then I was laughing at them. I thought there was no way they could do it but they did and they destroyed it.

    • Michael Ritter

      You got it wrong as most here did. The conservative judge did not rule that bigamy is legal, just the opposite. What he did rule is that cohabiting between consenting adults was legal

      • Mr Bob

        The irony is that people on this site think everyone else is a “low information” voter & they have NO IDEA what this ruling even said!

    • Joel

      It’s not my fault that you can’t satisfy your wife.

  • craig

    This is such good news to me and Maggie …we have been hoping for something like this for such a long time ..cause we know what might be next …now I know what some of you might think ..but we do love each other …..now.. I’m going to go out in the pasture and bring her in the barn and look into her big brown eyes and scratch her back and give her the good news…OUR DAY IS COMING !!

    • Michael Ritter

      Old Maggie can’t enter into a contract which is all marriage is

  • Al Bortz

    This nation is going to , no it is hell, we have all died and gone to hell and it is called America.

    • Michael Ritter

      No one is stopping you from leaving

  • mattzweck

    just what for them to meet god on judgement day.

  • chief1937

    God only knows what is coming next. Could cause a problem for IRS in someone listing two or better wives. Guess animals will be next as morality is a thing of the past.Just wonder where this madness will end. Wonder if two cats can qualify one for earned income credit?

  • raynbene

    And there were those who said there will likely be people who want to marry their pets next – but THAT can’t happen, right ??? We know where to ‘draw the line’, right ?? Check this story –

    http://joemiller.us/2013/12/yale-university-beyond-human-personhood-symposium-christian-worldview-abominable/

  • http://fanon.clubpenguinwiki.info/ TurtleShroom

    I’ve been saying this argument for years. Liberals want to dissolve all of sex into the “union of consenting adults”. THAT is why it’s called “marriage equality”. In other words, their goal is to make all sex between consenting adults legal. No perversion is off limits, including polygamy, polamory, and worst of all, incest. Forget the kids, by the way. The parents’ fetish trumps the need for a mother and a father!

    • Michael Ritter

      The ruling came from a conservative judge..

      • Mr Bob

        Appointed by Dubya!

  • http://fanon.clubpenguinwiki.info/ TurtleShroom

    Truth be told, I’ve never understood why polygamy was wrong. Father Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Kings Solomon and David, and even the Apsotles had many wives. The comamnds of the Bible on polygamy are that a man can take a number of wives, provided that he can provide for them nd does not mistreat them. However, for a man to serve in the Church, they must either be celibate or married “to one wife”.

    • WISHFORLIBERTY

      From the new testament in the Bible ; Hebrews 8:6-13 “But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also the Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah- “not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. “None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. “For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away”.

    • Samuel Clemens

      How about a rich woman?. She can afford many husbands. Gay marriages has open a can of worms, or as the legal community says, “A slippery Slope”.

  • old_salty_dawg99

    This now then Pedophile Marriages next. I knew the STUPIDTY of allowing even one state to let gays marry would lead to this very ULTRA IGNORANCE but they did it any way so just be warned little kids will be forced into marriages here as they are overseas just wait. They now have not only the Gay argument but the Polygamy marriage argument as well. Just wait soon only death will be a bar to people or even things from marrying and even that might not be a bar.

    • Michael Ritter

      Your ignorance is appalling. Maybe you should read the opinion of this republican judge. He did not eliminate bigamy, nor did the ruling allow for under aged marriage

  • WISHFORLIBERTY

    When government began to dictate morality the door was flung wide open. I espouse the teaching of Rome circa 735ad as a very plain established example of current America.
    As far as MOST human beings guide, the government has no business AT ALL in our bedrooms. There in is the Death of liberty to gain ” SOCIAL JUSTICE ” via ritualistic paganism within hostile weaponized “human rights”.

  • afanaglenn

    That was just a crutch. The real reason combines fags with muslims, Islam permitting polygamy. Everyone saw this coming what with Obama controlling the courts. This is a criminal government, an anti-constitution anti-Christian government that has ruled by threats. Obbama has to go for the welfare of the nation, Our country is becoming unrecognizable from its past.

    • Michael Ritter

      Your ignorance is only magnified by your stupidity. First, the writer did not understand the ruling. The fact is, it really had nothing to do with gay marriage. As for the judge. He went to BYU and got his law degree from U of Utah. He’s a republican. I bet you didn’t read the opinion, nor do I believe you understand the case. But then if you did, it would be surprising.

  • kenhowes

    The next group to be heard from will be bisexuals arguing that it discriminates against them because they love a woman and a man. Then come suits about the “right” of “young adults” (13-17) to marry, and of “lovers of young adults” to have sex with “young adults.” Then come brothers and sisters–and brothers and brothers, and sisters and sisters. Somewhere in all this, marriage simply disappears as a legal category. And they will win at every juncture, whether or not most people support them. The line of reasoning that supports all this is embraced by large majorities in the legal community, the social work community, the psychology community, and the teachers’ unions, or at least of the activists within those groups.

    • Michael Ritter

      Absurdity must rule in your house. First you mention 13-17 year olds. Their are a few states that actually allow it with parental approval. As for the ridiculous comments about young kids and the rest defies logic. What is apparent is that you didn’t bother to read the judges opinion. Nor do you actually understand the case..

      • kenhowes

        Absurdity? You mean like when your lot mocked those in the late 1960’s who said that the push on birth control was just a prelude to abortion? “Paranoia”, the liberals called it. No one was pushing for abortion, they said, and we were “unbalanced” to think that abortion was on the agenda. Five years later, it was “the law of the land” and sacrosanct. Not only are the slippery slopes real, your sort skis down them right after denying they exist.

        • kenhowes

          I made the mistake once of thinking that cases meant only what they said, of not understanding that everything furthers an agenda. I actually thought Griswold was a good decision. There was nothing in Griswold that would lead directly to Roe–but that was exactly where it was heading.

  • Jeffrey Liggens

    Let’s get something straight; no one culture “defines marriage” for all other cultures on the face of the earth. It never has. Secondly, “moral law” is also subject to culture. One might think they can find something to be universally moral, yet there will always be people who do not agree with certain “moral assertions” about just about anything. In terms of polygamy being the next step after same-sex marriage is concerned, polygamy has been legal somewhere on the face of the earth at all times. One can make the argument that polygamy is no one’s business but the parties involved. From a political standpoint, the problem here is more one of economics than anything else. If you embrace the teachings of the Bible (like I do), then like gay marriage, polygamy is not only a no no, but abominable sin. This is the religious argument as well as my faith. But from the political side, its more an economic argument over public resources than anything else.

  • Michael Ritter

    You must have flunked reading comprehension. Or did you not read the decision? The judge did not rule on polygamy. Bigamy is still illegal. What his ruling stated was there was no difference between someone living with someone else without being married. Utah had the most restrictive law in the US. Of course in a free society, one where so many here like to profess they believe in, there is no reason not to allow polygamy.

    • Mr Bob

      It is a victory not for polygamy but privacy in America.

  • monacall

    And pediophilia. Marrying children to older people. Whose to say that is wrong? They’ve opened up Pandora’s box.

    • Sunshine Kid

      It is wrong, not to mention bestiality, but you are dead correct about Pandora’s box. That is also on the horizon.

  • Wendee Bauer

    Oh come on. I think polygamy is a great idea, especially in this economy.

  • Sunshine Kid

    This article has brought out the closet dwellers big time! Reading the comments is like an express train to insanity!

  • David Asher

    I’m no biblical scholar, but isn’t polygamy endorsed by the very “scripture” the author refers to? Esau, Jacob, Gideon, King Solomon, among others all had multiple wives.

    • Mr Bob

      Yep as well as slavery, murder, kidnapping, and rape.

      • Joel

        And incest and pedophilia.

  • PALADIN

    Next it will be legal to marry the family pet………..Think I’m joking?

  • jminDallas

    I don’t think it is the governments business.

  • Joel

    What judge legalized polygamy? The author just made that up. So if the headline is a lie, why would anyone read further? These clowns like Camp continue to make up these stories because they reason that Republicans are stupid. And they are probably right because Republicans continue to not only read these stories but to believe these stories. Gay marriage in all fifty states is a done deal. I’ve known that for forty years. My church has been marrying gay people for longer than that. It’s here. It’s growing and it’s not going away. It’s what most Americans want. Continuing to fight these fringe element battles that they cannot possibly win is what has the Republican party in such disarray. It’s why they lose elections. And ‘m not sure it is any of my business if the guy next door has five wives or marries his dog. I’d be concerned if his dog (or wives) were leaving little boom-booms in my front yard I suppose.

    • Mr Bob

      Its no use trying to get through to these teabaggers. There immune from reason and facts and history.

      • MyronJPoltroonian

        “My Dear Horatio” [“Scumbag” implied], The term of dis-endearment used by so many of the oh so tolerant progressives – “Tea bag, Teabaggers, Baggers”, et cetera, is defined as: “An act of oral gratification performed on the male testicles”. How sweet of them to try and lump us in with Barney Frank and Bill Clinton’s girlfriends. And they wonder why we seem just a tad less than civil towards them. I do wonder, what would Freud say? Eh? My little baguette? [No offense to the Culinary, or Hospitality Industries expressed nor implied.]

  • popham

    Gay marriage>polygamy? OMG my fellow Americans, this is just more proof positive that
    the world, especially here in the U.S., is completely upside down.
    Good luck, America.

  • Joel

    Why do Christians want to marry their relatives and farm animals? They seem to be obsessed with the prospect. It’s all they talk about.

    • Mr Bob

      Those conservative Christians in the south have been having sex with them for hundreds of years so naturally they are obsessed with marrying them!

  • Valor

    Anyone that couldn’t see this coming is either an idiot or a liberal Demorat.

    • jocasseejo

      You repeated yourself!!

  • Mr Bob

    I know you low information dimwits aren’t very bright & are thrilled over the prospect of marrying you relatives and/or farm animals but the reality of this conservative Utah judge (appointed by Dubya) ruling was it strikes down one peculiar aspect of Utah law. Under that provision, it is a criminal act for an adult who is legally married to “cohabit” with any other person. In other words, if you decided to separate from your spouse in Utah and live with another person, you are by law a bigamist and could be criminally prosecuted.

  • misschinagirl

    Actually, polygamy is not part of the “slippery slope”. It has FAR more validity both historically and religiously than does same-sex marriage.

  • byronmullet

    Since when, do a few uncivilized, make the rules for the rest of civilization to live by? Same sex rights and laws protecting the same, are political bible and Constitution bonfires. It is legal bible and Constitution burning, religious rights destroying and conscience suppression. It erases the bibles time honored and proven role of defining normal, moral and sane. Same sex marriage laws, institutionalize moral insanity. They in effect, replace liberty with slavery, love with abomination, freedom is changed into the license to sin, vice into virtue and perversions into acceptable behaviors. This president, has in effect, crowned himself with a toothy grin, God and dictator, “fundamentally changing” America into a totalitarian police state and mocking God and us at the same time. I predict, he will fall on and by the same evil slippery slope he has created. Galatians 6:7
    Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.

  • usmc1063

    As we speak Satin is in his glory for it is his design and temptation of man that has dominated. Marriage was a sacred union of one man and one woman. Now a single jurist has decided that wasn’t good enough for their taste. One single jurist to control the lives of millions that fear actions like this. One single jurist has decided that the perverse desires of a few out weigh the reasoning God and the of the many who follow his message. This not the America that I love and knew.

    • pete1589

      Satin? Since when has a fabric been a temptation? Don’t you mean satan?

      • MyronJPoltroonian

        ROFL!

      • usmc1063

        Ouch a mortal wound.

  • 2War Abn Vet

    So, who among us didn’t see this coming? Next comes zoophilia, and you can marry your pet goat; followed by marriage to inanimate objects like your kitchen table. Never underestimate the depths of depravity “modern thinking” will call normal.

  • Clint

    My wife just informed me that she is overruling this judge. Selfishly, I am going to agree with my wife. ;<)

    • MyronJPoltroonian

      Since when is it selfish to commit an act of self preservation? LOL!!!

  • pete1589

    Since when does the judiciary MAKE LAW? Their job is to interpret the law and this judge clearly can’t read the fundamental Judeo-Christian ethics inlaid to the laws which formed this nation. Poor man, and I guess what terrors await him after death? I’ve met the demon who plagued me all my life while praying the Rosary one night in NYC. In short, I immediately erupted from a prone on my back position when God revealed him to me, in a ballistic arc through the air landing on my knees at the end of the bed, convulsing in tremors and sweating like a supersaturated sponge, begging God . And that was for only a 2 second introduction to the reptilian, murderously furious, simultaneously thermonuclear hot and liquid nitrogen cold hissing of that voice into my left ear, so enraged was he that I had discovered the prime weapon against him, the Holy Rosary. Do likewise. Pray to the Blessed Virgin whose fiat obedience to God’s request of Her gave us Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour.

  • Dodged5

    As I told one activist trying to promote same sex marraige, ‘You may win the argument to make homosexual marraige legal in this state but no matter how much you argue, complain, lobby, picket or march in parades, you will never, ever, have a moral marraige.’ The same goes for poligamy, adult and minor, human and beast, etc. which are the next on the agenda for that slippery slope.

  • v steve

    Most government and government elected people have lost their relationship with God.

  • Skepticles

    Nighty night folks. It’s been fun.

  • Yeshuafriend

    The following prophesy is soon to come to past.
    “But you are those who forsake the LORD, Who forget My holy mountain, Who prepare a table for Gad, And who furnish a drink offering for Meni. (a god of destiny). Therefore I will number you for the sword, And you shall all bow down to the slaughter; Because, when I called, you did not answer; When I spoke, you did not hear, But did evil before My eyes, And chose that in which I do not delight.” Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: “Behold, My servants shall eat, But you shall be hungry; Behold, My servants shall drink, But you shall be thirsty; Behold, My servants shall rejoice, But you shall be ashamed; Behold, My servants shall sing for joy of heart, But you shall cry for sorrow of heart, And wail for grief of spirit. (Isa 65:11-14 NKJV). Shalom!

  • Paul Brown

    Now we know this country is gone for good, and never to return to what it once was anymore. Next we’ll be saying that faggots can have ten spouses living together. What the hell did we do to this once great country when we put a corrupt communist muslim puke like this murdering pig in office, he hates white people and marriage anyway because he is a faggot pig. How do you trust a fag? You DON’T!!!!!!!

  • unbridled

    I remember back when gays were happy to “JUST FIT IN”. That was what they said was “ALL THEY WANTED”. They just wanted to be accepted for who and what they were. Yeah, sure they did!
    Watch this can of worms pop open. The problem is that the political class in DC is loaded with fags and lesbos. Now, they know that they are sitting on top of that can of worms that they created.
    Lets see how they spin this one. They’ll probably drop it on the IRS claiming that one spouse is all you can claim on your 1040 form so polygamy in amerika is unconstipated. Yeah, I know! I spelled it that way on porpoise.
    We got on this train at San Francisco. Next stop Sodem and Gomorrah. Hey pelosi, we’re waiting for some of your brilliant insight on this can of worms that you helped to open. What? Cat got your tongue? Well, soon you’ll be able to marry the little bastard, whore!
    Boy, am I losing respect for my country. Third world, here we come….

  • tom nogaro

    now my pet monkey want six wives, says the judge gives him that right. i’m gonna turn him into monkey stew instead, and buy a gay rabbit community organizer to organize all my female left-winged parrots. they keep such a sloppy cage, say they can’t both work their careers and keep house, need a maid.

  • kristine

    what they are calling marriage is a satanic (government) contract. Holy Matrimony is entered into between one man, one woman and God, Himself ..all the rest is the attempt of the devil to duplicate – because he has no power to create. It was already foretold to what extent this would go…Pandoras’ Box, or should we say the devils’ box. We need to explain to our children that people follow different gods. .these people try to tell us they are all the same god , but they are not….we have to open His Word and teach our children what He says about all issues of our lives. The Government does not have the final say concerning our moral issues ..God does.

  • Craig L. Foster

    Camp wrote, “For thousands of years, marriage has been defined. That’s it. There has been one definition for marriage for so long that changing it seemed ludicrous.”

    If Camp is referring to gay marriage, he is correct. If he is referring to polygamy, more correctly, polygyny. He is far from correct. In differing times and places throughout this world polygyny has been practiced for thousands of years.

    In fact, even western Europe had polygyny. Charlemagne had between six and nine wives. There are other examples of polygyny at least being accepted in parts of western Europe until the early-to-mid Middle Ages. There were even some Reformation and Enlightenment writers who argued the benefits of polygamy.

    In our efforts to defend marriage between a man and a woman, let us not be too broad in our statements and generalizations.

    For
    thousands of years, marriage has been defined. That’s it. There has
    been one definition for marriage for so long that changing it seemed
    ludicrous.
    Read more at http://lastresistance.com/4048/judge-legalizes-polygamy-citing-gay-marriage-precedent/#pMlkAGWeemm2U0YU.99
    For
    thousands of years, marriage has been defined. That’s it. There has
    been one definition for marriage for so long that changing it seemed
    ludicrous.
    Read more at http://lastresistance.com/4048/judge-legalizes-polygamy-citing-gay-marriage-precedent/#pMlkAGWeemm2U0YU.99

  • lara

    om what I read he did not legalize pologamy but said that you cant say who can live with who….Legally you should not be able to say how many woman or men can live in one house..He did not legalize multiple marriage..They lost that part of the suit…

  • dondehoff

    Polygamy compounds the “population problem”. Already the UN is looking at ways to slow down population growth in the world. Also, in China and some other areas, there is a shortage of women (due to that country’s past birth control dictates)—and male Muslims are permitted, by their Holy Book, to be angry if their wife gives birth to a female child (notwithstanding the fact that the male chromosome, alone dictates the female sex of the child). I suspect polygamy will add to the population problem, as women, by their very nature will want to be “equal” in a marriage with several wives and have their “share” of the family children. Also, there surely will be internal feuding between wives when select ones get to stay home (in the bedroom) and the others must go out and work to help provide for the large families. Then, there is also the issue; does the female get to have multiple husbands?, or do we just call them the “W” word?—-at least out in the single word, they could get “paid” for their services.

  • KnightDWF

    You know, if you go on the Scriptures, there is nothing in the Bible that says a man CAN’T marry more than one woman (of you study the matter honestly). When a man marries more than one woman the women aren’t marrying each other, they are each individually marrying the man! Polygyny has been an ancient practice in many societies around the world, and even practiced in the times of when the Holy Scriptures were penned. The only thing that makes or breaks a polygynist home is how strong and active of a father is in running the home. Sadly, most men don’t fall into that role.

  • NotRightNotLeft

    Why does it matter to any if someone wants to enter into a polygamist marriage? As long as everyone involved is an adult and free to do as they wish, who cares?

  • PaulNSH

    The judge didn’t legalize polygamy. He just struck down the law that made cohabitation illegal.

    • Scott

      The article didn’t state that it did, only the title. I guess this shows who read the article before posting.

  • Tbear

    I guess I can now marry my dog!!!!

  • SoConsSuck

    Polygamy should be legal on its own merits, not because of some “slippery slope”. At the very least, it should have been legal on religious freedom grounds when the original Mormon church endorsed it. The author is flat out lying when he says that there has only been one definition of marriage for thousands of years. The history of polygamy goes back at least as far as that of monogamy, and there are plenty of countries where it is still legal. Granted, most of those today are Muslim countries. But polygamy is practiced quite often in the Bible. Abraham had 3 wives, Jacob 4, and Gideon “many” (Judges 8:30), just to give a few examples. I would say that polygamy stands on much firmer historical and biblical ground than does gay marriage.

    Someone below said that “…government should be removed from the business of marriage.” I couldn’t agree more. Let the various churches, temples, and mosques define marriage as they see fit. The only business government has in the matter pertains to tax, inheritance, and other spousal benefits. The government should extend those benefits to all adults who are married according to their own beliefs and living as a family. You as an individual have every right to tell anyone who will listen why “non-traditional” marriage is wrong, but in a country that truly practices religious freedom, the government has no authority to enforce any definition of marriage practiced by consenting adults.

    Just because YOU find a particular behavior repulsive doesn’t give you the right to use the force of law to prohibit others from practicing said behavior. Personally, I have all I can do to handle a monogamous relationship. I can’t imagine trying to keep 2 (or more) women satisfied. But if my neighbor want to give it a shot, more power to him!

    • Tiffany Rutledge

      I totally agree with you. I mean the way I see it what does it hurt if I want to marry legally my 3 husbands and them their other spouses. Just because I am poly doesn’t mean you have to be. Polygny goes back further than monogamy. At one time in human history we were matriarchal and women had multiple partners and all the men had a vested interest in the children.

  • Howdy Doody Conservative

    THE “ALTERNATIVE” LIFESTYLE: Homo “couple” sexually torture 9Yr old son for child porn.
    Two Alabama men have been charged with imprisoning and filming their sexual abuse of a minor for use in child pornography made with the son of one of the accused.

    Domestic partners Charles Dunnavant and Carl Herold face a litany of charges ranging from sexual torture and sodomy to exposing a person to an STD and child pornography production.
    Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2013/12/alternative-lifestyle-homosexual-couple-sexually-torture-9yr-old-son-child-porn/#ksKcfXH1KmojTPel.99
    Remember this is what mrBlob trained with during his OWS internship…..

  • Adam Overman

    Really this is kind of hilarious in a sad and pathetic kind of way. how completely arrogant do you have to be to go shoving your nose in other peoples private affairs? if a pair or group of people finds it necessary to combine forces in order to face the world as a team why should that matter to YOU? how does it HARM YOU for there to be a team who feels emotionally, spiritually, and financially linked.

    • Scott

      Harm is an interesting term to use. In our society, we support families with Social Security, survivor benefits and other forms of financial aid. We will be paying for “other peoples private affairs.” The Supreme Court ruling which overturned DOMA centered around financial benefits.

      Cohabitation is already legal.

      They want more than to be left alone. They want financial support.

      • Adam Overman

        Scott your argument falls apart when you consider that all of those financial support systems can also be used by individuals. So if they are likely to be on the systems what dies it really matter. If the most damaging thing that you can come up with is that then you ate really grasping for straws over a non issue.

        • Scott

          Your opinion is only an opinion.

          Mine is backed by people willing to take the issue all the way to the Supreme Court for a “non issue.”

          How many non issues are the Supreme’s willing to hear?

  • Howdy Doody Conservative

    Next thing they will be doing is forcing you to LIKE FRUITCAKE!!!

    “fruitcakes” are the holiday desserts Americans love to hate. But this year fruitcakes are finding an unlikely ally standing up for them. And if you don’t stand up with them too, watch out, you may be a “hater,” a homophobe, a child serial killer … or worst of all: a bully!

    Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2013/12/

  • bull57

    This was predicted and it will come to pass. It even seems the laws of nature don’t even apply when the progressives get ahold of it! It is time to take our country back and rid our country and society from these vermin progressive! Soon, very soon the cleansing will begin!!!

  • pete1589

    Exorcism Against Satan and the
    Rebellious Angels

    PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF HIS HOLINESS,
    Pope LEO XIII, May 18th 1890 (translation)

    *The Holy Father exhorts priests to
    make use of this exorcism as often as possible.

    It is therefore worthy of propagation. The faithful also may say it as any
    approved prayer.

    (Note: where the symbol (†) is
    found, in the prayer of exorcism, the sign of the cross is to be made.)

    In the Name of The Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

    PRAYER TO SAINT MICHAEL, THE ARCHANGEL

    In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
    Ghost, Amen.

    Let God arise and let His enemies be scattered: and let them
    that hate Him flee from before His Face!

    As smoke vanisheth, so let them vanish away: as wax melteth
    before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the Presence of God (Ps 67:1-2).
    Judge Thou, O’ Lord, them that wrong me: overthrow them that fight against me.

    Let them be confounded and ashamed that seek after my soul.
    Let them be turned back and be confounded that devise evil against me. Let them
    become as dust before the wind: and let the Angel of the Lord straighten them.
    Let their way become dark and slippery: and let the Angel of the Lord pursue
    them.

    For without cause they have hidden their net for me unto
    destruction: without cause they have upbraided my soul.

    Let the snare which he knoweth not, come upon him: and let
    the net which he hath hidden, catch him: and into that very snare let him fall.
    But my soul shall rejoice in the Lord, and shall be delighted in His Salvation
    (Ps 34:1, 4-9).

    Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy
    Ghost, as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end,
    Amen.

    O’ Most Glorious Prince of the Heavenly Armies, St. Michael
    the Archangel, defend us in the battle and in our wrestling against
    principalities and powers against the rulers of the world of this darkness,
    against the spirits of wickedness in the high places (Ephes 6:12). Come to the
    aid of men, whom God created incorruptible, and to the Image of His own
    Likeness He made him (Wis 2:23); and from the tyranny of the devil He bought
    him at a great price (Cor 7:23).

    Fight the battles of the Lord today with the Army of the
    Blessed Angels, as once thou didst fight against lucifer, the leader of pride,
    and his apostate angels; and they prevailed not: neither was their place found
    anymore in Heaven. But that great dragon was cast out, the old serpent, who is
    called the devil and satan, who seduceth the whole world. And he was cast unto
    the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him (Apoc 12:8-9).

    Behold, the ancient enemy and murderer strongly raises his
    head! Transformed into an angel of light, with the entire horde of wicked
    spirits he goes about everywhere and takes possession of the earth, so that
    therein he may blot out the Name of God and of His Christ and steal away,
    afflict and ruin into everlasting destruction the souls destined for a Crown of
    Eternal Glory. On men depraved in mind and corrupt in heart the wicked dragon
    pours out like a most foul river, the poison of his villany, a spirit of lying,
    impiety and blasphemy; and the deadly breath of lust and of all iniquities and
    vices. Her most crafty enemies have engulfed the Church, the Spouse of the
    Immaculate Lamb, with sorrows, they have drenched her with wormwood; on all her
    desirable things they have laid their wicked hands.

    Where the See of the Blessed Peter and the Chair of Truth
    have been set up for the light of the gentiles, there they have placed the
    throne of the abomination of their wickedness, so that, the Pastor having been
    struck, they may also be able to scatter the flock. Therefore, O’ thou
    unconquerable Leader, be present with the people of God and against the
    spiritual wickedness which are bursting in upon them; and bring them the
    victory.

    The Holy Church venerates thee as its Guardian and Patron;
    and it glories in the fact that thou art its Defender against the wicked powers
    of earth and hell. To thee the Lord has assigned the souls of the redeemed to
    be placed in Heavenly bliss. Beseech the God of Peace to crush satan under our
    feet, that he may no more be able to hold men captive and to harm the Church.
    Offer our prayers in the sight of the Most High, so that the mercies of the
    Lord may quickly come to our aid, that thou mayest seize the dragon, the
    ancient serpent, who is the devil and satan and that having bound him, thou
    mayest cast him into the bottomless pit, so that he may no more seduce the
    nations (Apoc 20:3).

    Hence confiding in thy protection and guardianship, by the
    sacred authority of our ministry, we confidently and securely begin the task in
    the Name of Jesus Christ our God and Lord, of driving away the attacks of
    diabolical deceit.

    Behold the Cross of the Lord, flee
    away ye hostile forces.

    All: The lion of the tribe of Juda, the root
    of David hath conquered

    May Thy mercy, O’ Lord, be upon us.

    All: Since we have hoped in Thee.

    O’ Lord, hear my prayer.

    All: And let my cry come unto Thee.

    The Lord be with you,

    All: And with thy spirit.

    LET US PRAY:

    O’ God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ, we invoke Thy
    Holy Name, and we humbly implore Thy mercy, that by the intercession of the
    Mother of God Mary Immaculate Ever Virgin, of Blessed Michael the Archangel, of
    Blessed Joseph the Spouse of the same Blessed Virgin, of the Blessed Apostles
    Peter and Paul and of all the Saints, Thou wouldst deign to afford us help
    against satan and all the other unclean spirits and against whatever wanders
    throughout the world to do harm to the human race and to ruin souls, through
    the same Christ Our Lord, Amen.

    We exorcize thee, O’ every unclean spirit, satanic power,
    infernal invader, wicked legion, assembly and sect; in the Name and by the
    power of Our Lord Jesus Christ (+); may thou be snatched away and driven from
    the Church of God and from the souls made to the Image and Likeness of God and
    redeemed by the Precious Blood of the Divine Lamb (+). Most cunning serpent,
    thou shalt no more dare to deceive the human race, persecute the Church,
    torment God’s elect and sift them as wheat (+). The Most High God commands thee
    (+). He with whom in your great insolence, thou still claimest to be equal; He
    who wants all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth (1 Tim
    2:4).

    God the Father commands thee (+), God the Son commands thee
    (+), God the Holy Ghost commands thee (+). The Majesty of Christ, the Eternal
    Word of God made flesh, commands thee (+); He Who to save our race outdone
    through thy envy, “humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death”
    (Phil 2:8). He who has built His Church on the firm rock and declared that the
    gates of hell shall never prevail against Her, because He will dwell with Her
    “all days even to the end of the world” (Mat 28:20). The Sacred Sign
    of the Cross commands thee (+), as does also the power of the Mysteries of the
    Christian Faith (+), the Glorious Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, commands thee
    (+); She who by Her humility and from the first moment of Her Immaculate
    Conception, crushed thy proud head. The faith of the Holy Apostles Peter and
    Paul and of the other Apostles command thee (+). The Blood of the Martyrs and
    the pious intercession of all the Saints command thee (+).

    Thus, cursed dragon and thee diabolical legion, we adjure
    thee by the Living God (+), by the True God (+), by the Holy God (+), by the
    God “who so loved the world that He gave up His Only Son, that every soul
    believing in Him might not perish but have life everlasting” (John
    17:1-3); stop deceiving human creatures and pouring out to them the poison of
    eternal damnation; stop harming the Church and ensnaring her liberty. Begone,
    satan, inventor and master of all deceit, enemy of man’s salvation. Give place
    to Christ in whom thou hast found none of your works; give place to the One,
    Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church acquired by Christ at the price of His
    Blood. Stoop beneath the powerful Hand of God; tremble and flee when we invoke
    the Holy and terrible Name of Jesus, this Name which cause hell to tremble,
    this Name to which the Virtues, Powers and Dominations of Heaven are humbly
    submissive, this Name which the Cherubim and Seraphim praise unceasingly
    repeating: Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord, the God of Armies!

    O’ Lord, hear my prayer,

    All: And let my cry come unto Thee

    May the Lord be with thee,

    All: And with thy spirit.

    LET US PRAY:

    God of Heaven, God of Earth, God of Angels, God of
    Archangels, God of Patriarchs, God of Prophets, God of Apostles, God of
    Martyrs, God of Confessors, God of Virgins, God Who has power to give life after
    death and rest after work, because there is no other God than Thee and there
    can be no other, for Thou art the Creator of all things, visible and invisible,
    of whose Reign there shall be no end. We humbly prostrate ourselves before Thy
    Glorious Majesty and we beseech Thee to deliver us by Thy Power from all the
    tyranny of the infernal spirits, from their snares, their lies and their
    furious wickedness; deign, O’ Lord, to grant us Thy powerful protection and to
    keep us safe and sound. We beseech Thee through Jesus Christ Our Lord, Amen.

    From the snares of the devil,

    All: Deliver us O’ Lord.

    Grant that Thy Church may serve Thee
    in secure liberty,

    All: We beseech Thee, hear us.

    Deign to crush down the enemies of
    the Holy Church,

    All: We beseech Thee, hear us.

    (Holy Water is sprinkled in the
    place where he may be)

    St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in the day of battle;
    be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke
    him, we humbly pray and do thou, O’ Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the Power
    of God, cast into hell satan and all the other evil spirits, who prowl
    throughout the world, seeking the ruin of souls, Amen.

    Most Sacred Heart of Jesus,

    Most Sacred Heart of Jesus,

    Most Sacred Heart of Jesus,

    Have mercy on us.

  • pete1589

    A
    former friend of mine, a concert pianist, had occasion to play for 5 US
    presidents and 3 Popes during his career, amongst thousands of other places.
    After playing for Pope Paul VI in 1968, he was instructed to go to the city of
    Pietrelcina and play for the stigmatist, Padre Pio. Padre Pio heard him play
    and also heard his confession. One of the more remarkable things about the
    Padre was that he had the supernatural ability to read hearts. In other words,
    he knew your sins before you even confessed them. He told my friend to go back
    to NYC and find his son. This disturbed my friend because he is a practicing
    homosexual and he couldn’t figure out how he had ever conceived a son.

    When he returned and investigated, he discovered that
    when he had passed out drunk at a party, one of the women had jumped in bed
    with him and became pregnant. When he went to find his son, he discovered the
    kid had become a priest.

    The reason I make note of this is because I came across
    another statement by Padre Pio, contained in the following quotation:

    “The fact is that there is a war raging right this
    very moment. It’s far bloodier than any war in history. The enemy, ruthless
    beyond imagining, and it’s led by a commander more skillful than Caesar, Attila
    the Hun and Patton put together. We are standing in the midst of the
    battlefield, and the stakes are high—because the fight is over your immortal
    soul. The enemy is Satan and his legion of demons, numbering in the millions,
    maybe even billions (Padre Pio once said that there are so many demons in the
    world that, if they were given physical bodies, they would block out the entire
    sun!); and these demons will stop at nothing, nothing, in order to drag us down
    to hell, or better in order to get us to throw ourselves into hell.”

    To underscore what is behind the earthly upheavals we
    are experiencing in an ever increasing tempo, the website olrl.org has a
    fascinating story about a young Catholic woman who had an atheist friend in
    Germany in the mid-1930’s. She attempted to guide her, but was met with
    stringent resistance.

    One day she was killed in an auto accident. The
    Catholic woman went to confession and Mass and began to pray for her friend.
    Her friend appeared to her, engulfed in the flames of Hell. She was compelled
    by God to tell her friend about her circumstances. One of the comments she made
    was “I hate the devil too. And yet I am pleased about him, because he
    tries to ruin all of you; he and his satellites, the fallen with him at the
    beginning of time. There are millions of them. They roam around the earth, as
    thick as a swarm of flies, and you do not even notice it. It is not reserved to
    us damned to tempt you; but to the fallen spirits. In truth every time they
    drag down here to hell a human soul their own torture is increased. But what
    does one not do for hatred?”

    Millions of them. Believe me? I doubt it, but what can
    convince media saturated worldlings, after all? Isn’t it a medieval notion,
    unworthy of our consideration?

    http://www.olrl.org/doctrine/cry.shtml

    Not
    to a woman named Gloria Polo, who was struck by lightning, died and almost went
    to Hell. She stated:

    The worst of all the
    sins I committed was the sin of abortion.
    And I used to say that I had never killed anyone. When I killed my baby through abortion, our
    Lord showed me how there was a huge, gigantic, stadium filled with demons. There were so many demons. It looked as though the demons were attending
    a World Cup game but with many, many, many more demons in attendance enjoying
    the human sacrifice, that happens every time there is an abortion. They enjoy that so much. Imagine, how can it be that a mother to whom
    God has given the gift of giving life chooses to kill her own baby, a mother
    who against wind and fire protects her own child and that same mother kills her
    baby through abortion. I feel a lot of
    pain when, in my country, I see commercials on TV that tell us to enjoy safe
    sex by using a condom. Well, with two
    condoms and everything else, I ended up pregnant. Through the waves of communication and all of
    his strategies, the devil has led humanity to kill their own children. Why do you think that is? That is because that is the worst sin of all. When we kill a baby, what are we doing in
    reality? Are we offering that baby up to
    God? God is love.

    Every time, there is an abortion, the blood shed by that baby is like a key
    that Satan turns and the Lord showed me something that looked like seals on the
    ground and every time there is an abortion, those seals open up and millions of
    spirits get released onto earth from the pit of hell, spirits such as: the
    spirit of homosexuality, the spirit of lust, the spirit of satanic worship, the
    spirit of atheism, spirits of suicide, of abortion, spirits of everything that
    we are seeing nowadays. Haven’t you
    noticed how human beings are becoming less and less Christian?

    All those spirits … pray
    the Litany of the Guardian Angel, pray the Chaplet of St. Michael and above
    all, pray the Holy Rosary!

  • Howdy Doody Conservative

    ObamaCare Drag Show Aims to Heel

    It looks like the President really is skirting the issues with ObamaCare. Thanks to a new partnership with a Louisiana drag queen show, the administration thinks it’s finally be tapping into a market it needs to boost enrollment numbers. With the help of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a troupe of transvestites called Wednesday Night Tea has started promoting Health Care. gov as part of its act. (If the law lacked legitimacy before, wait until a cast of cross-dressing men get through with it!)

    http://www.frc.org/washingtonu

  • Betsyleebig

    Why not? Freedom to choose is you want one spouse or two or three.

  • Randolph

    Reading these comments makes me realize there is great confusion developing. Even those who would consider themselves as not confused (and I’m sure that includes just about everyone), the whole bunch (meaning the entire country – not just this blog) is approaching a high level of confusion. Why? It seems to me that the big problem has nothing to do with government, though government is made up of people that seem to me to be quite confused.

    The problem is confusion of religion with God. Anytime God is mentioned someone wants to leave “religion” out of it – meaning “don’t bring God into the issue, because people see “God” as meaning “Christian religion.” However, God is not religion of any kind. If God is religion, then God is no longer valid in the argument. Yet, when we all stand before Him at the impending and inescapable judgement day, He suddenly will be very, very valid! God is not religion! The Bible never indicates that He ever intended to start a religion. Religion is man made. God is not man made, but He is Reality. He is life.

    You take God out of the picture and refer to each others’ religion, you are bound to come up with great confusion. Without God, there is not standard for anything (not just marriage). There are thieves (or burgulars) which claim this is just their nature – their way of life! Mind you, you could get into legalizing robbery, because it’s the person’s life style – it’s natural for him. Then the next step is murdering people. Yes! There are people who believe that killing people to make the nation or world a better place is okay! Hey! No standard, anarchy in morals is sure to happen! The only true standard cannot be “every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” Nor can it be government at any level (federal, state, county, …. family….individual…), because in a “free society” everyone has a right for his own opinion, right?

    However, God is the standard by which God will judge us all (whether Christian or otherwise – no exceptions here). And judge He will! I’m not talking Christian here, though I am a Christian (not as in “religion”, but as in “reality”), I’m talking reality! There’s no need for crying “hate” or “discrimination” or the like, because none of those are involved here. I’m only talking REALITY!

    Enough said.

  • Jeffied

    One thing we all need to recognize is that for liberals, nothing is ever for the reasons they claim. Gay marriage has never been about “rights” it is ONLY about de-legitimizing traditional family and marriage. Ask yourself — how is it that the exact group who preaches how important gay marriage is at the same time preaches that marriage is irrelevant. They tell the 20 somethings they don’t need to get married and that its an old fashion institution that should be rejected? And that if you have been “trapped” in marriage that divorce is the simple step to your liberation. The answer as stated above is that they must do everything possible to undermine families so that government becomes the fundamental “saving” institution for society and not the family and certainly not religion. After all family, religion, and tradition are oppressive. Just look at how they are trying to keep these poor gay people from getting married. How evil!. As soon as they can legalize gay marriage, then of course polygamy is next, and then marrying robots, animals, siblings and children. And then they will have fully accomplished their next goal which is to show how marriage and family are meaningless and irrelevant.

    And that will take them to their next goal which is to show how benevolent liberals are because after all it was the evil, selfish old fashioned “family” and religious zealots that wanted to keep these “rights” away from gays and polygamists. Therefore you must reject the family and religion and put your trust and allegiance in the government and liberals because look at how they are the ones preserving “rights.” Rest assured that as soon as they have succeeded in completely destroying marriage and family and converting many many more of the ill-informed to the ranks of the liberal brain dead non-thinkers, they will completely abandon gay marriage because marriage will be irrelevant. The only institution left to believe in will be the government. They will convince millions that unalienable rights come from government not God. And be sure to vote for democrats because they made this all possible. If you’re a democrat and don’t see this as true then you are also a fool.

  • Tiffany Rutledge

    I think that it does set the precedent for polygamy and I hope it does become legal. Then my popsicle could have the same rights as so called normal marrisge

    • Jeffied

      Tiffany, Its not about rights and its not about religion… and it never has been for either side of the argument.. get at clue, you and the rest of your liberal nonthinking friends. Its about marriage and family. Go ahead and have any type of relationship you want and worship whatever you’d like and have relationships with 15 men and women at the same time. But just don’t call it marriage. The definition of that word is already taken. And don’t think for a second that there aren’t consequences to your decisions and to society when you decide to worship government and pretend to call it something else.

      • Tiffany Rutledge

        Marriage is the bonding of two souls. No one ever said that those two souls couldn’t be bonded to other souls. ..each relationship is sacred. It is marriage..my partners are individuals not a collective whole.

        • Scott

          Anyone can bond with anything. The issue of marriage is not about bonding alone. It sanctions a traditional family. Your family will never achieve long-term harmony. Your collection of souls is a hollow example of what God intended to take place. Society will suffer like the children have suffered under the false belief that single mothers are just as good at raising children as biological parents are.

  • Tiffany Rutledge

    Religion has no place in the running of a country. Why should I be subjected to your religious laws? I am Wiccan and MY faith says “an it harm none do as ye will” having 3 husbands hurts no one. “All acts of love and pleasure are Her rituals” “all acts of courage and self sacrifice are His rituals”

    • Scott

      What country has been run by Wicca. What standards can we expect?

      If religion has no place, then why do you talk of the faith of Wicca and expect to establish Wiccan theology on us?

      A lie is a lie no matter how well intentioned.

      • Tiffany Rutledge

        I nvr said it should be run by Wicca. It should be run by NO RELIGION. In this country it is all about freedom so why not let EVERYONE be free. By the people FOR the people. .not for the Christians! Diversity is what makes this country great. I was just showing that by my Faith there is nothing offensive about these things you Christians so despise. Why should we be banned from doing as we believe for you?

        • Scott

          Your religious values says what you believe and what you want the country to follow and be forced to follow.

          A lie is a lie no matter how ill informed.

  • Rockstar

    The next step will be to legalize marriage between human and animal.

    • mike lopez

      that exists,because many persons adopt dogs and other animals

      • Rockstar

        Adoption is not the same as legally being married to an animal.
        I think you missed my point.

  • Paul454

    “And meanwhile, back in Sodom, NH, the newly proposed anal sex contest has now been instituted in the elementary school, endorsed by the local Democrat organization promoting custody of children being transferred to the State whenever a parent or guardian tries to implement Biblical morality in the child’s development. In other news, bestiality is making a come-back in Gomorrah, CA, the act now re-classified “as a legitimate love act promoting diversity” according to a recent federal ruling following the “sexual deviants are people too” case, where $8,000,000 was awarded to a would-be rapist who was beaten senseless by a defensive father after illegally entering the home of a teenage girl to rape her. Oh this just in, a federal judge was beaten to a pulp outside his courtroom today by an unknown assailant wearing an Obama mask.” Do you think it’s now time to change course? Evil will never be satisfied until it takes over everything! Take back America those who are called by His Name!!! Take it back now!!!