(RNS) Utah asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 16) to issue an emergency order that would prevent the state from recognizing the marriages of thousands of gay and lesbian Utahns, because the state believes it will ultimately prevail in its fight to revive a ban on such unions.

The Utah Attorney General's Office is requesting the U.S. Supreme Court grant an emergency order that would prevent Utah from recognizing the marriages of thousands of gay and lesbian in the state.

The Utah Attorney General’s Office is requesting the U.S. Supreme Court grant an emergency order that would prevent Utah from recognizing the marriages of thousands of gay and lesbian in the state. Public domain image

If it does, the state wrote, Utah will do “everything possible” to enforce the law. That means effectively nullifying the more than 1,000 unions gay and lesbian Utahns entered into during a 17-day window when such weddings were legal.

Utah’s defense of its right to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman is continuing on two fronts — in the historic Kitchen v. Herbert case that toppled the state’s ban on same-sex unions in December and in a newer suit, Evans v. Utah, in which several gay and lesbian couples have challenged the state to recognize their Utah marriages.

Should married same-sex couples be allowed to apply for spousal benefits before the 10th Circuit has ruled on Utah’s appeal in the Evans case, the state argued, the case itself is moot.

“The district court in this case erred in holding that (same-sex couples) are entitled to an injunction now that directs Utah to recognize (same-sex couples’) interim marriages regardless of this court’s ultimate decision in Kitchen,” wrote Gene C. Schaerr, the state’s hired counsel. “Absent a final decision by an appellate court of last resort declaring Utah’s marriage laws unconstitutional, the democratically produced decisions of Utah’s citizens should not be overturned based on the discretion of a single federal district judge unchecked by subsequent appellate review.”

If the high court declines to intervene, same-sex marriages performed in Utah during the brief window when such unions were legal will be eligible for spousal benefits at 8 a.m. Monday.

The emergency application was filed with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who oversees the federal court circuit of which Utah is a part and who, in January, halted the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Utah after 17 days of marriages.

If Sotomayor refuses to intervene, the state wrote, it will seek relief from the full Supreme Court.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the four plaintiff couples in the Evans case, has said it is also prepared to file a brief to the Supreme Court, urging the nine justices to allow the 10th Circuit’s temporary hold to expire.

(Marissa Lang writes for The Salt Lake Tribune.)

MG END LANG

90 Comments

  1. Whatever the legal outcome of this appeal, this is a single battle in the war between two opposing, incompatible moral views. Many regard same sex-marriage as immoral. Many others regard discrimination against same sex-marriage as immoral. We can’t have both, so who will win? It’s clear that public opinion is swiftly changing to support same sex-marriage, but will religion adapt?

    • “Many regard same sex-marriage as immoral. ”

      But none of them have a rational or secular reason for doing so. Therefore, our laws are not supposed to take such feelings seriously. One’s religious beliefs alone will always be insufficient in of itself to be the basis of laws. Anything else is merely sanctioning sectarian based discrimination.

      If there is no rational or secular interests which are served by such a ban, then it cannot stay on the books.

      Marriage laws are permissive absent rational and secular reasons for a given union. Any kind of bad analogy comparing marriage equality with a number of things which are currently illegal always fail on this point.

      • “If there is no rational or secular interests which are served by such a ban, then it cannot stay on the books.”

        I personally agree with you as do many other Christians. Our fundamentalists are fighting a hopeless rear-guard action to preserve the “integrity” and unchanging nature of their morality. We believe that their views are immoral, and not fit for modern society. They will continue to invoke the absoluteness of morality as defined by their reading of the Bible. Society (and progressive Christianity) will move on and marginalize them, but not without much gnashing of teeth. They will just be left behind and become irrelevant.

        • Jenner: if you claim to be of a specific religious stripe, and change it to accomodate the society around you, you and whatever flavor of religion you claim have made yourselves irrelevant by your own action.

          You look exactly like surrounding society to thr outside observer, and therefore, the force of any message you wish to express in the name of your religion will be lost. It will blend right in with the voices surrounding it. Wiith nothing to distinguish your group you will have no hook to renew your ranks.

          Its really just the machinations of group dymanics and pshychology rather than a measure of the relative pros/cons of a religion itself.

          • Lles, who the hell do you think you are?

            You have no business telling Jenner or anyone else who is and who isn’t of a given religious group. Nobody died and made you Jesus. It is not up to you to determine whether someone is “really a Christian” or not.

            Your views of what makes up a proper religion is no concern of anyone else. Religious freedom is like that. Your comments amount to nothing but your own personal malicious blather that nobody ever has to take seriously.

          • CarrotCakeMan

            Larry is correct, Lies.

            But, fortunately, the louder you SHRIEK that every American MUST share your peculiar, minority, immoral “beliefs,” the more Americans walk away from religion in general as well as anti-gay sects. Look what’s happening:

            NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The nation’s largest Protestant denomination saw membership decline for the seventh straight year in 2013, according to an annual report released Wednesday.

            The report by the Southern Baptist Convention’s publishing arm, Lifeway Christian Resources, puts total membership in the Nashville-based SBC at 15.7 million. That’s down from 15.9 million in 2012, a decrease of a little less than 1 percent.

            Weekly church attendance decreased more than 2 percent last year, falling to 5.8 million as a weekly average for the year.

            The report also notes a 1.5 percent decrease in the number of baptisms, falling to 310,368. Baptisms are an important measure for the denomination because of its strong commitment to evangelism.

            The convention has been concerned about the membership and baptism trends for several years. After 2012 saw a drop in baptisms of 5.5 percent, a task force was convened to study why. The group of pastors released their report earlier this month and recommendations included praying for a “spiritual awakening in our churches and our nation.”

            http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/05/28/5854811/southern-baptist-membership-declines.html?rh=1

            And:

            http://ncronline.org/node/3090

            “Surprisingly, no one at the national level is keeping precise track of the current number of closings. A spokesperson for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said bishops are not required to report closings. Part of the difficulty in tracking such numbers derives from the fact that diocesan realignments can involve both closings and mergers. In fact, there are more parishes in existence today — 18,479 — than there were in 1965, when there were 17,637. But the current number is down considerably from 1995, when there were 19,331 parishes in existence, a drop of more than 850 over that period, according to figures compiled by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University in Washington.”

          • Lles,

            Who said anything about my Christianity being relevant or renewing our ranks?

            I was raised to believe that homosexuality was immoral and, at that time, there was no hint that same-sex marriage was even a concept to be considered. In modern times some Christians now use this to justify discrimination and bigotry. Like many other Christians, I now regard this as immoral. My views have nothing to do with “accommodating the society around me.” Discrimination and bigotry against gays is just immoral.

            I don’t care about being relevant, expressing myself in the name of my religion or renewing myself. Religious views should not be a determining factor in our public laws. Obviously we will never agree, so we should both just keep our religion to ourselves and maintain separation of church and state. Neither of us is going away anytime soon, so let’s live and let live.

          • Never mind the static, Lies. You’re spot on about irrelevancy–it’s something we’re specifically FORBIDDEN to be concerned about. “If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.” John 15:18.

          • So we are clear, so far there appears to be no compelling argument for a gay marriage ban that can hold up in a court of law.

            Bible quotes and interpretation simply won’t cut it. Establishment Clause and whatnot. Equal protection arguments are already noted in federal court and well developed by now. Justice Kennedy is not going to overrule himself.

            After SCOTUS upheld the rulings on Prop. 8 there really isn’t much new ground to cover on this subject, outside of issues if purely state law (which could guarantee they won’t grant certiorari)

            This makes the Utah state legal counsel either the dumbest anti-gay marriage supporters or the most clever proponents of it.

          • I am a fundamentalist, gay Christian. Here is the problem: straight people read scripture through straight eyes and a long “tradition” which they enshrine as good doctrin. There are now many excellent books dealing with the Bible and homosexuality which address scripture directly and explain our traditional but incorrect interpretations. Before condeming people to hell, it would be beneficial to actually read several of these studies and realize that perhaps our traditional interpretations of scripture are wrong.

          • Been there done that, Biker. Every argument for the acceptance of homosexual practice within the church originates with the very weak suppositions, and sometimes outright fabrications, of John Boswell, who spent his life trying to reconcile his homosexuality with Catholicism. Academics didn’t take him seriously and neither did atheists — even gay ones. The only ones who bought his ideas were gay Christians who didn’t (and still don’t) have the scriptural or historical background with which to appraise his claims.

          • CarrotCakeMan

            Thanks for your helpful post, Bikerbudy. The problem with your reasonable suggestion is the anti-gays shrieking how much they hate and fear LGBT Americans here are not Christians, they are “Christianists.” Andrew Sullivan coined that term. Christianism isn’t a religion, it’s a political party that pretends to be “religious” so as to avoid taxation and scrutiny. Christianists are only interested in the parts of the Bible they feel advance their political anti-gay agenda. These Christianists are actively trying to deprive the many Christian churches that want to marry same gender couples of their right to practice their religion fully.

          • CarrotCakeMan

            See, bikerbudy? Another anti-gay is attacking the many Christians who reject the anti-gay agenda.

            Modern Biblical scholars have proven the Bible was intentionally mistranslated relatively recently in order to provide “Biblical cover” for then-rising levels of homophobia. For example, the word “homosexual” didn’t even exist until 1870. Many major Christian and Jewish denominations condemn misusing the hate-based mistranslations to attack their fellow Americans and are marrying same gender American couples now. About 400 years ago, a group of religious authorities (sanctioned by King James I of England), secretly manipulated the English version of the Bible to reflect their own heterosexual attitude; they opposed the King kissing other men in public. But in revised versions, religious authorities re-defined the Greek word “arsenokoites” of 1 Corinthians 6:9. The most accurate translation, abusers of themselves with mankind [KJV], was pretty vague. Nevertheless, they replaced this vague 5-worded text with the not so vague and purposely targeted 1-word text, “homosexual(s).” Either way you cut it, this text does not describe loving, committed same gender couples. This campaign gave those who were looking for a reason to justify their own homophobia a license to openly express their bigotry.

          • Carrot has demonstrated my point for me, Biker. He has cut and pasted this passage countless times here and elsewhere without understanding a word of it. The truth is that “modern biblical scholars” have “proved” nothing of the sort. The only “scholar” who has ever made this claim (and offered no proof of it whatsoever) was John Boswell. There is actually not much doubt about what “arsenokoitai” means. It is made up of two rather straightforward Greek words that literally translate to “man-bedders” and refer back to Leviticus 20:13 where they are found side by side in the Septuagint version.

          • And you responded with the same vague, “scholars agree …” and some pronouncements that no Christian church can really adopt another interpretation except the one you claim (pure ego stroking). Your level of support isn’t any more solid than CCM’s. Its shaky all around.

            What makes your belief any more valid than Jenner’s, CCM’s or Bikerbudy’s? Because you accept some authority figures whose views are congruent with your own. Nothing more. As I said to Lles, nobody died and made you Jesus. You don’t get to determine who is Christian and who isn’t. Your belief is not based on rational proof and evidence. Its based on faith. Like every other Christian.

          • Larry, seriously, you really think there is no way to understand the Bible? Do you also think there is no way to understand the Constitution? Obviously not, since you’re here often enough spouting your own uninformed opinions about its meaning and calling everyone else’s bullcrap. This “your interpretation is no better than anyone else’s” thing that you disrupt discussions with is simply your lazy way of attacking viewpoints you don’t like without having to do any homework.

            Yes, it IS possible to discern the truth about scripture–but it is a matter of investigation, not viewpoint. First, of course, you have to be thoroughly familiar with it all, which is the source of most people’s difficulties with it and always has been. But where there is ambiguity (not that I think there is in this instance, but anyway) one can easily turn to ancient Jewish commentary on the subject which reveals how people close to the time of Christ understood their own scriptures and which would have been Christ’s frame of reference as well unless He said otherwise. Josephus is an invaluable resource here (particularly “Against Apion”) as is Philo. Also the Midrash and the Babylonian Talmud, which had existed orally for centuries but were committed to writing about the same time the gospels were. Every ancient Jewish source available to us confirms that Leviticus 20:13 has always meant exactly what common-sense today tells us it means. As for early Christian views of the same, there is no lack of sources to examine, particularly John Chrysotum, Basil the Great and, Eusebius. There is no indication anywhere that there has been a recent or deliberate “mistranslation” of anything. This is a fabrication of Boswell– the ONE “authority” that these 3 guys accept unconditionally and unquestioningly because his views were “congruent with their own”.

            Unless you have an argument to present for why a conclusion is right or wrong, you really have no place in a discussion of the subject.

          • “Larry, seriously, you really think there is no way to understand the Bible?”

            No single way. No single interpretation. No definitive authoritative way. Every sect of every faith claims they have the definitive way of reading their scriptures. None of them carry any weight beyond what you are willing to impute to them. Faith is like that.

            What you call investigation never amounts to anything more than glorified confirmation bias. You pick and choose which versions appeal to you and stand behind it. You are no different from CCM and others. Religious arguments carry no objective weight whatsoever.

            All religious belief is based on faith. Not evidence. Not research, nor “investigation” in any way beyond the personal. Taking what is personally relevant and claiming it as your view of the world around it.

          • “Faith is like that.”

            Except that this is NOT a matter of faith. You can have no faith at all and still conduct a thorough investigation of both the scriptures and the ancient commentary surrounding them and still come up with no support whatsoever for the claims that Boswell and the multitudes who believe him have made.

            “What you call investigation never amounts to anything more than glorified confirmation bias. You pick and choose which versions appeal to you and stand behind it”

            I know it makes you more comfortable to believe that, but as I’ve stated many times, what the Bible says about homosexuality does not appeal to me at all. Ditto for divorce. Ditto for patience and kindness toward enemies, which has been my own particular never-ending personal struggle. But it is what it is, and no amount of sophistry will ever erase it from scripture.

            Again, Larry, this is not your tea party. You have no belief in God nor background in scripture, and no motivation to search the scriptures and discover the heart of God. You have nothing to add to a discussion between christians about the meaning of scripture. So why bother?

          • “You can have no faith at all and still conduct a thorough investigation of both the scriptures and the ancient commentary surrounding them and still come up with no support whatsoever for the claims that Boswell and the multitudes who believe him have made.”

            You can also come to the opposite conclusion and find that it has validity. There is no credible objective evidence to support any given religious belief. It is by its nature the absence of such things. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Faith is the cornerstone of Christian belief.

            Boswell talking about the nature of Christian belief is no more credible than anyone else on the subject. Just because you chose to accept one set of authority over another, doesn’t mean any of it is any more credible that the next.

            “I know it makes you more comfortable to believe that, but as I’ve stated many times, what the Bible says about homosexuality does not appeal to me at all.”

            You would want me to believe that because it would give a patina of deniability to such views. But it simply rings false on all levels. You choose to give such things authority over your life because it serves a personal need. In your case, a need to feel more pious and righteous than others.

            I am not the one saying someone is not a real Christian or that there is no room for interpretation on a given subject. That is all you. No matter how vehemently you can assert that your view is the more correct or godly one, it holds no weight. It has no effect one one’s belief.

            “Again, Larry, this is not your tea party. ”

            My point is, nobody asked you to pour. Its a self service thing. :)

          • “You can also come to the opposite conclusion and find that it has validity.”

            No, you can not.

            “There is no credible objective evidence to support any given religious belief.”

            We are not talking about the credibility of religious belief. We are not talking about BELIEF at all. We are talking about whether the scriptural or historical record show ANY evidence that the biblical references to homosexual practice have been misunderstood or mistranslated. There is none.

            “You choose to give such things authority over your life because it serves a personal need. In your case, a need to feel more pious and righteous than others.”

            Larry, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from telling me what I think and feel. I’ve made more mistakes and committed more sin than I care to remember, and fail in one way or another every day. The whole POINT of Christian faith is that none of us are “pious or righteous.” Hence, yes, a “personal need” — for forgiveness and regeneration, through Christ. You couldn’t have phrased that particular point better, although unwittingly.

            “Its a self service thing.”

            Then by all means go ahead and participate by presenting some actual positions on the subject, instead of just going around telling everybody (mainly those you don’t like) that their positions don’t matter. That’s nothing but noise-making, and it sounds as silly as if someone were to claim that everyone looks at the Constitution differently and no one’s opinion is any better than anyone else’s so we shouldn’t discuss any of the SCOTUS’s decisions (which would dispose of a great deal of your own pontificating, to be sure.).

          • CarrotCakeMan

            Look, Shawnie, you can shriek, “But you HAVE to share my anti-gay “beliefs” all you like,” but as we can all see, more denominations every year start marrying same gender couples.

          • CarrotCakeMan

            Sad to say, Shawnie, no, I realize I can’t convince you of the facts I post. Psychologists report that the most commonly observed symptom of the mental disorder homophobia is cognitive dissonance, an inability of those so afflicted to accept documentation that contradicts their deep-seated phobia and hatred of LGBT Americans.

          • What doesn’t make a difference in the issue, Carrot, is the existence of apostasy in the church. You talk like the fact that apostasy is widespread somehow makes the apostasy ok or magically supplies the missing scriptural support. It doesn’t. It just makes it widespresd.

      • Rational and secular reasons have already been provided to you, Larry. Some of them even came from gay men who oppose gay marriage. You rejected those reasons anyway, because that’s what you do. The baseless and bankrupt religion of atheism demands such rejection, of course.

        • Bullcrap. Never happened. If you had any, you would rattle them off to show me up.

          They can’t even cough up ones when they are paying expensive lawyers to argue in all levels of state and federal courts.

          Claiming others have them is ridiculous. An admission you can’t think of any yourself. Or worse an admission those reasons those people claim really aren’t rational or secular as claimed.

        • CarrotCakeMan

          Sorry, Doc, the ONE person who CLAIMS he “used to be gay” does not qualify as “gay men who oppose gay marriage.” You’ve got to learn that your shrieking here that someone else is telling a lie you want to promote is no reason for anyone to fall for that lie.

      • Doc,

        This is not about following fashions in secular society. It’s about recognizing a moral mistake and correcting it. My church is doing this. I hope that your’s will eventually also. I doubt whether anyone on this blog has had their mind changed, but I ask you to stop for a moment and consider that you may be fatally wrong. Whatever you personally do or think, acceptance of same-sex marriage is quickly being recognized as the proper morality and discrimination against as immoral. Look into your heart.

        • “…stop for a moment and consider that you may be fatally wrong.”

          True that. So, demonstrate the error. From history and scripture, preferably, not from merely referencing a list of churches who agree with you — and could be fatally wrong as well.

          • You are standing behind your faith to excuse malicious conduct and make attacks on civil liberties. There is your error.

          • I think what Mr. Jenner and I were discussing is whether or not acceptance of homosexual practice within the church can be supported by scripture. Your comment is irrelevant to that. Not to mention hypocritical. Your side is certainly not free of “malicious” behavior. And both sides have civil liberties coming into play here. The question is how to reasonably accommodate them both.

          • This is where fundamentalists go badly wrong and anger the rest of us Christians with their destructive adherence to a rigid interpretation of the Bible.

            Scripture, our Bible, is part of our moral foundation but not all of it. It is the inspired Word of God, but written by man and it is not infallible. It is clear that the passages written about homosexuality were written in another time about a vastly different society. If your rigidity comes only from the few specific words in the Bible on homosexuality and you ignore all the other words calling for compassion then we have a problem. If your moral compass is fixated on these few passages that haven’t been updated since the 1600’s, and you can’t exercise the moral judgement that many of our faith leaders have, then you reinforce the problem. Whether you like it or not, fundamentalist Christianity is on the wrong side of this moral argument.

          • 1. I am not a fundamentalist, Jenner.

            2. The only way that the gentile world that Paul took the gospel to “differed vastly” from ours in this respect is that same-sex practice was even more common-place and accepted than in ours.

            3. The NT was not “updated” in the 1600s and there is no way to update it today. The Koine Greek in which they were written is the same today as it was 2000 years ago.

            4. The acknowledgement of the sinfulness of certain behaviors does not preclude compassion. It certainly did not for Jesus. Compassion assumed the penalty that those sins deserved and offered forgiveness and cleansing instead.

            Is this it, or do you have any other arguments for why we as christians should ignore the scriptures on the subject of homosexuality?

          • Shawnie,

            We are not going to be able to come to any agreement on this. Our discussion is a microcosm of the world religious debate and this will rage on for many years over our heads … but I believe that it eventually be resolved in favor of acceptance of same-sex marriage.

            You wrote: “Is this it, or do you have any other arguments for why we as christians should ignore the scriptures on the subject of homosexuality?”

            Our core disagreement comes down to the authority of the Scriptures. My church believes that they are fallible interpretations of God’s Word written by man. If we do not exercise our moral judgement to interpret and correct them, then we are delinquent. In this case, rigid adherence to scripture that is used justify bigotry and discrimination is immoral and sinful.

          • CarrotCakeMan

            What’s your problem, Shawnie? No one is trying to shut down your Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas.

        • I agree that we probably won’t agree. I simply can not reconcile a lackadasical attitude toward scripture and seeking to “correct” it with the unmistakable emphasis that Jesus placed upon it. He began His ministry with scripture, closed it with scripture, upbraided the people for not knowing the scripture, and faulted many a religious leader for setting aside scripture in order to set up man-made tradition instead. At least 25 times throughout the gospels He addressed questions posed to Him with “It is written…” and “Haven’t you read the scriptures?” Our “moral judgment” can only take us so far when we wander from scripture given us to be a light to our path, for “there is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death.” Prov. 14:12.

          Thanks for the civil discussion, anyway.

          • Yes, I appreciate the civil discussion also. That is sadly lacking in most highly-charged on-line debates about moral issues. Thank you.

            But I have to say one last thing about your comment on “a lackadasical attitude toward scripture.” Our approach to scripture is not lackadaisical. It follows deep contemplation of the scripture from the standpoint that the Bible is written by man and is fallible. In other words it is not self-referential and its verses cannot be quoted as self-justification for themselves.

            The verse from Proverbs that you quote, is a great example of this self-justifying thinking. It is our responsibility to be stewards of this text without being blind to its fallacies.

            All the best to you. We might see each other again here on a different matter.

            –Jenner

    • “In every country and in every age, the preacher has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”
      – Thomas Jefferson

  2. Either the state’s counsel are the biggest idiots or the cleverest sneaks on the planet.

    If their goal is to ban gay marriage, then their demand for appellate (and ultimately SCOTUS) review is self-defeating. The legal arguments in favor of them are pretty weak, border on the irrational and have not changed much from state to state. In each instance 14th Amendment equal protection trumped the state’s spurious barely-stated interests. The worst thing the anti-gay marriage people can have is a nationwide ruling on equal protection arguments. This would render every state’s ban on gay marriage null and void.

    If they are actually secretly trying to end such bans nationwide, then appeal is a rather clever way to do it. This way the elected officials act like they are working on behalf of the anti-gay voters and can just blame the justice system for when the efforts inevitably fail.

  3. March 5, 2014
    Larry Brinken, who served 22 years on the San Francisco Human Rights Committee in leadership positions and was the first in the country to use the terminology “domestic partner” in his personal legal filings, was convicted of storing and transmitting child pornography. The images, described by investigators as very disturbing in nature, originated in Australia, and was circulating among a group of men who called themselves “chicken hawks”, due to their proclivity to underage sexual fantasy. Mr. Brinken, once released from prison, will be required to register as a convicted sexual predator for life.

    SFexaminer.

    • Lles, do we have to go into the number of fundamentalist Christians who were caught doing something naughty?

      Of course we have to because you rely entirely on insinuation and character assassination. You have nothing of value to say on the subject.

      • The fundamentalist naughties no doubt exist. But they were not a legally protected species, whose protection was justified entirely on a platform of alternative sexual choices…outside the mainstream ideal.

        Mr. Brinken was.

        • CarrotCakeMan

          What makes you think your revealing your obsession with criminal child pornography will cause others to become infected with the mental disorder, homophobia, Lies?

          Anti-gays are becoming increasingly shrill as they see defeat after defeat after defeat for their anti-gay agenda. Anti-gays drag in any unrelated “factoid” in their desperation to try to demean, demonize and dehumanize LGBT Americans. Fortunately, we know this habit anti-gays have of screaming hate speech more loudly every day is having the opposite effect from what anti-gays want:

          “[A] record-high 59 percent say they support same-sex marriage, while 34 percent are opposed, the widest margin tracked in Post-ABC polling. Support for same-sex marriage has changed more rapidly than almost any social issue in the past decade. In a Post-ABC poll in March 2004, 38 percent said same-sex marriage should be legal, while 59 percent said it should not, the same percentage now in favor of allowing gays to marry. Nearly eight in 10 say that gays can parent as well as straight people, up from just below six in 10 in a 1996 Newsweek survey. Sixty-one percent support allowing gays to adopt a child, up from 49 percent in 2006 and 29 percent in a 1992 poll by Time magazine and CNN. More than twice as many people consider being gay as “just the way they are,” rather than something they chose.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/support-for-same-sex-marriage-hits-new-high-half-say-constitution-guarantees-right/2014/03/04/f737e87e-a3e5-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

          • Shall I tell you what your usage of media soundbite worthy “buzzwords” was on that one?

            Truely outstanding. And any religion who changes themselves to accomodate the infotainment noise of the world around them ceases to be what they were before. They become something new, and more or less relevant depending upon the personal belief system of the membership you ask. But the point is they changed. And if they changed to make themselves indistinguishable from the surrounding society, then they cannot be “a light unto the world”.

            That’s whats sad about all the churches I’m sure you cited adopting the gay agenda. They don’t look any different than the ones who surround them.

          • CarrotCakeMan

            At least Lies got the point that his telling us about his obsession with child pornography is a loser. However, his routine attacks on the majority of Christian and Jewish denominations that reject his faked out Bible and his anti-gay agenda won’t cause these righteous Americans to back down and adopt the “beliefs” of Lies’ Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas. I’m sure even Lies knows how many Christian denominations have come out in favor of marriage equality just since Memorial Day of this year.

        • ” But they were not a legally protected species”

          Fundies are not a discriminated group either. Never have been. They do however engage in martyrbaiting. Every time fundies cross legal, moral and ethical lines and get spanked for it, they whine like little babies. They seem to think no rules apply to them and their faith gives them license to attack anyone they please.

          So all you have is insinuation. Good to know. No need to take you seriously.

          • CarrotCakeMan

            “they whine like little babies.”

            Correct, and then they WHINE that their intended LGBT victims are “the real bullies.” That has earned anti-gays the position Sarah Palin once held as The National Laughingstock.

          • If you don’t take me seriously, then prove it. Don’t respond. I’ve asked you once. And honestlt would prefer using valuable response space for someone less…godless.

          • CarrotCakeMan

            Yes, Lies, I’m sure you would prefer if no one would ever debunk your many routine anti-gay lies. I’m sure you would prefer that Americans fall for those lies instead of laughing at them.

            But if you don’t want me to laugh at you, your sole option is to drop those lies and hate speech and propaganda and personal attacks for which you are known.

          • CarrotCakeMan

            We know why anti-gays avoid facts. Psychologists report that the most commonly observed symptom of the mental disorder homophobia is cognitive dissonance, an inability of those so afflicted to accept documentation that contradicts their deep-seated phobia and hatred of LGBT Americans.

          • CarrotCakeMan

            I hope you stop waiting one day soon, Frank, and seek help for your cognitive dissonance.

      • Didnt you know?

        Most Australian men are gay. Land down under really means, land of you know what. Men at Work, were really working down under if you know what I mean.

        Why do you think they call each other Bruce?

        Australia produces such strapping guys like High Jackman, Mel Gibson, Russell Crowe, Steve Irwin, and Guy Pearce!

        I mean really, have you seen the Mad Max series? So many shoulder pads, so much leather. Or Gallipoli? Total sausagefest of a film.
        —-

        I am only kidding. If there are any Australians reading this please know, I am joking and bear no ill will or malice to your country. You are a nation of wonderful human beings and I am not trying to cast aspersions on your people…….please don’t hurt me :)

  4. 10 reasons why same-sex “marriage” is not marriage.
    http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/homosexuality/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.html

    As logical as 2 + 2 = 4.

    • John,

      Either you are a troll or you just posted the same tired old hate purporting to come from some student organization. Please move along. You’re soiling the good Christians among us with the hate of the fundamentalists.

      • Dear Frank, That is a long scholarly article that was turned into a 150 page book. Why don’t you summarize it for us and contribute something to this debate, rather than just spouting internet links? Add some value, ok?

          • Typical lazy internet troll

            Contribute something yourself, or don’t waste our time citing articles that everyone has already read. Frank –> you are no value added, just arrogant ignorance.

          • Dear no-value-added-Frank: Continuing the tradition, I see? Fingers tired after your one line essay? – LOL

            Lay off the drive-bys and contribute something useful. Tell us what you want to say about the Girgis book, or take your lazy trolling and be gone.

          • In other words, you can’t think of one either. You googled a book, which you obviously did not read, and only think it might have something of value.

            But in all likelihood the arguments are spurious, dishonestly treat gay marriage in the hypothetical, and make up nonsense terms and rely on thinly veiled bigotry.

            Plus anything referenced by you, Frank, is going to be stupid.

          • CarrotCakeMan

            It’s so much easier for Frank to take potshots at everyone who won’t help him attack LGBT Americans.

          • Frank, give me your rational and secular argument against gay marriage. If you can’t give me one, in your own words, then go way and let the adults have their discussion.

            We both know that won’t happen. There isn’t one.

          • CarrotCakeMan

            Anti-gays routinely stoop to posting personal attacks when we ask them to be rational.

          • When no-value-added-Frank brought up Girgis, I thought we’d have some interesting conversation, but I guess that’s too hard, huh?

            Girgis gained some attention when the book was first published for two reasons, 1) the institutions of the authors, Princeton, Notre-Dame and 2) the fact that their arguments didn’t nullify themselves immediately by appealing to religious authority or spouting Bible verses. It looks good with a coat of intellectual paint over the top.

            But check a little more closely and the paint fades. You’ll find that he is associated with the Witherspoon Institute — Wikipedia: “The Witherspoon Institute is a conservative think tank in Princeton, New Jersey. The group is opposed to same-sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research, and abortion.”

            Read it (original pdf paper is free, the book is not) and you see the same tired arguments, you know: “for the good of the children, religious freedom, etc., but with the religious authority removed. That’s as it should be, but without the circular appeal to religion, the whole thing falls apart and makes makes less sense than the purely religious arguments.

            Now if Frankie argued this in front of the court, we’d be done and could put this nonsense to bed, but the homophobes have some clever people and we’re still in for a fight.

            So what do you say Frankie? Last chance to redeem yourself and say something useful. Or is anything more than those strenuous one-line essays just too much?

          • Interesting thing about the “better for the children argument” besides the fact it is full of crap, is that a major study showed children to gay couples were happier and better off than those of straight couples.
            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/07/07/major-study-shows-kids-of-same-sex-parents-are-happier-and-healthier/

            A lot of it had to do with the facts that 1) children to gay couples are more likely to be “planned” with large devotions of time and resources and 2) less pressure of parents to fall into traditional gender roles.

            I suspect the similar results probably exist with families where children are adopted for the same reasons as #1.

            Meanwhile, unfortunately for bible thumpers there is no evidence showing the benefits to lots of unplanned children, abstinence or forcing women to bear unwanted children by operation of law.

  5. Am Rose mark from Canada If you want to adopt a child you don’t need to stress your self,l was married for good 6years l don’t have a child and doctor told me that there is noting l can do about it,my friend now told me how she adopt a child through this St JOHN ORPHANAGE HOME is the best adoption center they can help you to adopt your child with out stress,if you are interesting in adopting a child just email them now on:stjoneorphanagehome@yahoo.com or call us on:+234 7067607073 for more information.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments with many links may be automatically held for moderation.